Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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, Buidhe and Hog Farm—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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 may be 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 ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. 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, etcEdit

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


South Asian river dolphinEdit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

South Asian river dolphins aren't as well known or as studied as their Amazonian brethren but they are fascinating and unique in their own right. I've compiled the most important information on these rare animals from the best sources. Have at it! LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Platanista_gangetica_noaa.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Delphinapterus_leucas_NOAA.jpg
  • File:South_Asian_river_dolphin_size_comparison.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this illustration? Ditto File:Vaquita_swimming_through_the_void._(Phocoena_Sinus).png, File:Ankylorhiza.jpg
  • File:Pontoporia_blainvillei.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Kogia_sima_(transparent_background).png: what is meant by "museum model" here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Next DayEdit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... David Bowie's 25th and penultimate studio album The Next Day. An album that brought its creator back into the spotlight after almost 10 years of media silence (well sorta) and one that, even with its flaws, proved he still had things to say. To this day it is one of my favorites of his and, while I and many others will always favor Blackstar over it, it's easy to say The Next Day is one of his better works. Having expanded it many months ago, I came back to it in preparation for its 10th anniversary in March and, with the much-helpful prose suggestions given by Coeil here, I believe it is fully ready for the star. I'm looking forward to hearing any comments and concerns. Cheers – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Might a non-free sound sample be justified?
  • File:David Bowie (135687113).jpeg is missing alt text
  • Oops, fixed
  • File:David_Bowie_(135687113).jpeg: not seeing that licensing at the given source?
  • File:Tony_Visconti.jpg is quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Swapped it out with another one. The original was literally the only photo of him on WP for quite a while so that's why I only had that available. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Might a non-free sound sample be justified? If so, then which tracks? Otherwise, a no-samples option shall remain, especially to me, but seems that the option may not be viable to certain editors. What do we expect readers to learn about the whole album by reading the whole article? If I wanna hear samples of the album's tracklist, I'd go to a music website (or music store). Can the whole album's music and lyrics be well understood without samples in the article? George Ho (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
You know what? Never mind. If Ceoil likes to upload tracks or approves someone else's in the article, then I won't interfere further. I just now withdrew my FFD nominations on a few of his uploads earlier. George Ho (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC); expanded, 04:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Er. Ceoil didn't make the suggestion, I did. I'd suggest you take whatever issues you're having with Ceoil elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
To note, issue with George and myself resolved amicably on his talk; apologies zmbro and Nikki, carry on. Ceoil (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa ClausEdit

Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the most famous editorials of all time, I think this article is comprehensive and otherwise meets the FA criteria. A nice Christmastime theme, if nothing else. Apologies for rusty-ness after a long break from FAC. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:FrancisPharcellusChurch.jpg: where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Virginia_O'Hanlon_(ca._1895).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The Church image published in 1868 or earlier as [1] Eddie891 Talk Work 14:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • That appears to be an album from a private collection - unless there were copies distributed it isn't considered publication per the US definition. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria would Template:PD-US-unpublished therefore apply? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Depends - what is the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


  • "which appeared in The Sun" - I would say "New York newspaper The Sun", as when I read this my immediate reaction was that it meant The Sun
  • Image caption gives the paper's title as the New York Sun but everywhere else it is just The Sun
  • "Church's authorship was not disclosed until his 1906 death" => "Church's authorship was not disclosed until after his 1906 death" unless it was disclosed at literally the moment of his death, which seems unlikely
  • In the Church section, just link his name in the first sentence rather than using an unnecessary "main article" template
  • "Church had returned to The Sun to work part-time in 1874 and after The Galaxy merged with The Atlantic Monthly in 1878 he joined the paper's staff full-time as an editor and writer." - which paper's staff? You just mentioned three, so this is very confusing wording
  • "the letter was sent sent shortly" - duplicate word
  • "Church was not disclosed as the editorial's author until he died in 1906" - as above
  • "Campbell argued in 2006 that Church might not not have welcomed" - another duplicate word
  • "its content was have been" - doesn't make sense
  • "Beach also wrote that paper's should not" => "Beach also wrote that papers should not"
  • "the 1975 Emmy Award for outstanding children special" - guessing this should be "the 1975 Emmy Award for outstanding children's special"
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, @ChrisTheDude, I think I've addressed all of the above (instituted all those suggestions). Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

23 Wall StreetEdit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, which served as the headquarters of J.P. Morgan & Co. from 1914 to 1988. Though only four stories tall, the "House of Morgan" has been described in The New York Times as one of "the big little buildings of Wall Street". 23 Wall Street's marble and masonry facade still bears scars from the 1920 Wall Street bombing, just one of several indications of the building's long history. In recent years, 23 Wall Street has sat largely empty, despite several plans for its redevelopment. Nonetheless, its architecture is widely admired, to the extent that it was one of the first buildings to be designated as official New York City landmarks in 1965.

This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by JBchrch, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit last year from Twofingered Typist, who is unfortunately no longer with us, but whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. This is the second FAC for this article; the previous nomination failed because it didn't receive enough reviews. Hopefully, that won't be the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from ErnestKrauseEdit

Place holder for upcoming comments. That holiday season image in panoramic format at the start of the article looks like it might catch the eye of many readers. If others look at that panoramic image at the start of this article then holiday season wishes to them. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

One short comment to start things moving forward is in the '21st Century' section when you state: '...because Sonangol would not guarantee Pa would receive none of the money'. The wording 'not guarantee...none of the money' might look better as 'not guarantee...any of the money'? More later. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically this is correct, but I've reworded this. After Sam Pa was arrested, Jack Terzi wanted to buy the building but didn't want Pa to see any of the money. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Lead sectionEdit

Should mention why and when the main office was moved, when the new building and location were established.

Actually, the company had occupied the Drexel Building on the same site. J. P. Morgan & Co. just wanted to develop a new structure to replace the old one (it didn't merge with Chase Bank until much later, if that is what you're concerned about). Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm thinking of the move in 1985 to 60 Wall Street being added to the lead section; when 23 Wall Street is no longer the main location for Morgan. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Architecture and facadeEdit

Is that 34 feet for the building facade of the entrance, or the actual measurement of the curb space occupied by the corner?

It is for the building facade. I've clarified this now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Features and upper storyEdit

The upper stories were occupied by the bank officers including Morgan, but how much time did Morgan spend there, and where was Morgan spending most of his office time? Its stated that he spent a great time of time at the Art Museum in NYC in the last decade of his life; where did he spend most of his 'office' time in the last decade of his life?

Good question. I have to look into this (and also the meetings that you mention below). Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Let me know if this information turns up. The Chernow biography on Morgan might be useful on these points. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

History and anecdote are likely mixed in the story of how Morgan and other financiers saved the USA from default and bankruptcy at some point during desperate economic transitions. Did any of there meeting take place at this location? Is there anything resembling a list of the most important 'historical' meetings which took place at this address, or in Morgan's office?


The Paul Strand image is very well known; its worth making it appear in larger than regular format if all the copyrights are ok for using this image.

The larger image looks good here. Its a stand out image. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me know when you are ready for more notes for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Those were nice edits over night and I've added some optional references to look at further above. Moving my comments to now Support this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Support per my detailed comments at the last FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I Get ItEdit

Nominator(s): NØ 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Adele's song "Can I Get It". Several years after the chart-conquering success of "Send My Love (To Your New Lover)", Adele and producers Max Martin and Shellback connected again to create the most "pop" moment on her album 30. Despite the odd decision of not choosing it as a single, it performed like one and reached the top 40 in all major markets. With its moans and pop-rock influences, it certainly sticks out on the otherwise depressing album. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

Everything is appropriate with File:Adele for Vogue in 2021.png, which is understandable since this image was used for previous FACs. This passes my image review. I do have a quick question. Is there a reason why an audio sample is not used in the article? I could see an argument being made for illustrating the genre or the whistle hook. I completely understand if you have already decided against an audio sample, but I wanted to check with you. I may not have time in the immediate future to do a full prose review, but I will see what I can do. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the somewhat late reply. I totally agree with your idea about the audio sample and I have added it now. I always look forward to a prose review from you but do not feel pressured to do one if you do not have the time.--NØ 03:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
No need to apologize. That's the beauty of FACs. You do not have to respond immediately and can take a few days if necessary. Thank you for addressing my question about the audio sample. I think it adds to the article. I might not have time to do a prose review as I will be focused on something off-Wiki for the upcoming weeks, but I will try to make time if the FAC is still active when I am free. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Black Cat (US magazine)Edit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about an unusual and somewhat influential fiction magazine started at the end of the 19th century. It published many writers who later became famous -- Henry Miller's first sale was to The Black Cat, and it saved Jack London's career by buying a story from him just as he was about to give up writing. The covers were the work of the publisher's wife, Nelly Littlehale Umbstaetter, who went on to have a minor career as an artist. It published science fiction and fantasy, but also just about every other kind of fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732)Edit

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Sir Thomas Hardy, a distinctly unimpressive but surprisingly successful Royal Navy officer. While commanding a ship during the War of the Spanish Succession his chaplain discovered the location of a Spanish treasure fleet, resulting in the Battle of Vigo Bay and a knighthood for Hardy. Further commands and promotion followed for him, but in return all Hardy provided for the navy was a tendency to fail to find and engage the enemy. He would go on to be court martialled once for this but continued to be employed, until in 1716 his illustrious career was terminated possibly because he was a Jacobite. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "Promoted to post-captain in 1693" - is there a link for that rank/term? (both in lead and body)
  • It is already linked in both places as "captain", so to avoid confusion I've removed the "post-" in the latter mentions too.
  • "chasing him until dusk when he returned to shepherding the convoy" - change to "chasing him until dusk before returning to shepherding the convoy" to make it 100% clear who it was that returned
  • Done.
  • "was further investigated by a panel from the Admiralty, and committees of the Houses of Commons and Lords." - don't think that comma is needed
  • Removed.
  • "Rooke's fleet arrived on 12 August" - are we still talking about 1702?
  • Yes.
  • "under Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell" - that's a fabulous name. Just saying :-)
  • Indeed! His end was just as spectacular...
  • "Sir John Leake, who Hardy frequently served under" => "Sir John Leake, whom Hardy frequently served under"
  • Done.
  • Notes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13 are not complete sentences so don't need full stops
  • Removed.

Sumitro DjojohadikusumoEdit

Nominator(s): Juxlos (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about an Indonesian economist/politician/rebel/oligarch/aristocrat/statesman, depending on when and who you ask (well except "economist", everyone agrees on that), who formed Indonesia's economic policies from 1950 to 1957 and 1968 to the 1980s and arguably to this day. Previous FAC failed due to general lack of interest (helps that Indonesian history isn't exactly common knowledge). Juxlos (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding a legend to the map caption, since the inbuilt one is unreadable at that size
  • File:Suharto,_Irian_Barat_dari_Masa_ke_Masa,_Preface_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Addressed. Is the "legend" sufficient? Juxlos (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Not quite: what represents the operations? The dashed lines, the arrows, both, something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The black arrows. Added. Juxlos (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ArsonalEdit

  • This article could benefit from a thorough edit to comply with MOS:COMMA and MOS:DASHES.
  • Lead section mentions that Sumitro is Javanese, yet this fact and his family background are not mentioned or referenced anywhere in the article.
  • Added (and source)
  • "During his studies, he joined an Indonesian students' organization there which aimed to promote Indonesian arts and culture." The use of "there" is ambiguous, since the Netherlands, France, and Spain have been mentioned by this point in the paragraph, and may not be necessary.
  • Removed
  • "During the political wrangling and coup attempt that followed, the group was first relocated to Yogyakarta, and was brought to Sukarno while their kidnappers presented demands to Sukarno to remove Sjahrir and appoint a new cabinet. Due to a botched attempt to kidnap another minister, Amir Sjarifuddin, however, Sudarsono's soldiers failed to show up to Sukarno's palace. Sukarno refused the demands, Sudarsono was arrested, and Sjahrir along with his group were released." The first sentence reads awkwardly and may benefit from a rewrite to only mention Sukarno once. The information in the first sentence also conflicts with the second because it says that the hostages were brought to Sukarno, then they actually were not.
  • Better now?
  • "Sumitro was charged with bypassing it and on one occasion American cargo ship SS Martin Behrman carrying cargo from the Indonesian-controlled city of Cirebon was seized by Dutch marines. This is a run-on sentence.
  • Separated
  • "[...] Sumitro gave a press conference which was prominently featured in American media - The New York Times, for example, published in its entirety a memorandum [...]" Is there a reason these two sentences are not separated by a full stop?
  • The reason being my tendency to overuse commas and dashes. Changed
  • Please verify whether the debt figures specified by Kahin is using Netherlands Indies gulden rather than Dutch guilder. At first glance, I don't think Kahin clarifies this, though in my experience the Indies version of the currency is the one usually used in the context of colonial period.
  • "Sumitro also opposed deferring the Western New Guinea issue, but was again overridden by Hatta." This sentence may benefit from explaining what the "issue" actually is.
  • Done
  • A significant portion of the section titled "Minister of Industry" is dedicated to Sumitro's activities after he left the Natsir cabinet and his minister post. Perhaps the section should be titled differently.
  • Added the "UI" - any suggestions? It does still feel a little off.
  • Huh, in my defense, that article was created like last month.
  • "He was president commissioner of Astra in 1992, when the group faced a takeover, and Sumitro resigned in December that year." Who was attempting takeover?
  • Expanded the sentence
  • "[...] Sumitro still held considerable influence in policymaking circles due to many of his former pupils holding government positions during the 1980s, and his continued teaching at Universitas Indonesia." University of Indonesia is used throughout, but this sentence uses Universitas Indonesia.
  • Fixed
  • "Despite his previous Keynesian policies of extensive state involvement [...]" The characterization of his economic policies as Keynesian comes very late in the article, well after the sections about his ministerial career. Can this idea be introduced earlier?
  • "[...] he continued to play a role in Golkar party politics [...]" Using "continued" implies he was already involved in Golkar. When did he start his involvement? (I presume since the start of the New Order's three-party system, but this needs further information about the extent of his party involvement.)
  • The Legacy section seems underdeveloped, especially since there is often curiosity and interest among Indonesians as to why he joined PRRI. Social Science and Power in Indonesia (Irwan in Hadiz & Dhakidae 2005), for example states that Sumitro "did so in the name of capitalism". The book also expands upon idea that, despite training neo-liberal economists at UI, his policies were far from liberal. Recognition of Belligerency and the Law of Armed Conflict (McLaughlin 2020) dives into a 1959 treatise by Sumitro explaining his views on the doctrine on recognition of belligerency in the context of international law and how this relates to PRRI. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhodesia Information CentreEdit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The Rhodesia Information Centre was the unofficial, and illegal, embassy the Rhodesian government maintained in Australia from 1966 to 1980. As the Australian government did not recognise Rhodesia's independence it had almost no contact with Australian officials. Instead, it spread propaganda trying to win Australians over to the white minority regime in Rhodesia and helped businesses evade the trade sanctions against the country. The Rhodesian Information Centre survived multiple attempts by the Australian government to close it, including one which led to a High Court case in 1973 and another which caused a backbench revolt in 1977, and was finally shut down by the Zimbabwean government in 1980. As a result, while this is a slightly obscure topic, the article covers a lively period in Australian foreign relations and provides insights into Australian attitudes towards white minority rule in Africa during this period.

This is my first non-military history FAC. I developed the article as a lockdown project after becoming interested in the topic after the Bradley v Commonwealth article appeared as a DYK in August 2021. The article passed a GA nomination in September that year. It's since been considerably expanded. I'd like to acknowledge the historian Matthew Jordan who, during the period last year before libraries reopened, kindly sent me a copy of his impressive volume of official documents and analysis concerning the Australian government's approach to Rhodesia. Thank you in advance to reviewers for your consideration of this nomination and comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Rhodesia_Information_Centre_in_December_1972_-_fair_use_claimed.jpg: the tag currently in use is for cases where the illustration is of the newspaper article/issue - that's not the case here. Suggest using a different tag.
  • File:Zimbabwe_Australia_Locator.png is tagged as lacking description, and is missing a source for the base image. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I've added a description, but can't find the base image: I suspect I'll end up recreating this. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
      • I've just replaced the map. @Nikkimaria: thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I have previously made 2 edits to this page on sourcing and linking. But I was not involved with the addition of information. From what I see, it does meet the FA criteria. It includes all the information that one would expect to see in a chronological order. Sourcing is good and links all go to the correct destinations as far as I could find. Well done on a well written article @Nick-D:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Support from a455bcd9

Interesting article, I didn't know anything about this subject: thanks and congrats! A few comments:

  • "UDI" is neither defined nor linked when first mentioned
    • It's linked at the first mention, and I've just added the acronym. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it "UDI" or "the UDI". And actually, should it be used at all, especially in titles?
    • Sources generally use 'UDI', and it's the common term for Rhodesia's period of independence and is almost universally used in sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "No country ever formally recognised Rhodesia as an independent state" but "Only South Africa and Portugal were willing to enter into formal diplomatic relations with the country.": I don't understand
    • I've adjusted the wording here to focus on issues within the scope of the article (e.g. the status of Rhodesia's diplomats). While South Africa and Portugal didn't formally recognise Rhodesia's independence, they treated it as an independent state and provided essential support. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Enforcement of trade sanctions was also uneven, and was undertaken through regulations rather than legislation.": what does this mean? What does it make a difference if trade sanctions are enforced through regulations rather than legislation?
    • Regulations are open to interpretation and can be easily changed by officials or ministers. Legislation provides stronger enforcement, as it clarifies things and can't be easily changed. I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "the quantity of Australian goods exported to Rhodesia increased between 1965 and 1973": by how much? what kind of goods were exported?
    • The source doesn't say, but that seems outside the article's scope. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "T.A. Cresswell-George": do we have his full name?
    • Afraid not. The source and media coverage of him in the NLA's Trove service consistently call him 'T.A. Cresswell-George'. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Rhodesian Ministry of Information" and "Rhodesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs": should we link the whole express or only the last terms?
    • I think only the last terms. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Rhodesia-Australia Associations": plural or singular? (singular in Rhodesia-Australia Association)
  • Sekai Holland: should we introduce her by adding "human rights activist"?
    • She was an activist for majority rule really. I've tweaked the text. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Croatian independence campaigner": more context, at least in a footnote, would be appreciated. For instance: "Back then, the Socialist Republic of Croatia was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
    • That seems outside this article's scope. The fact that there was a campaign for Croatia's independence should explain to readers that it wasn't independent at the time. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    I'm a reader and it wasn't clear for me. That's why I suggested a footnote. At the very least, I would change "Croatian independence" to "Croatian independence". A455bcd9 (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    Link added Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "majority rule": not defined, not linked. What does it mean? Isn't "democracy" better?
    • As noted in the article, Rhodesia was ruled by the small white minority. The campaign during the 1960s and 1970s was to establish majority rule so the black minority could have say and a chance to run the country. Unfortunately, neither side was really all that interested in genuine democracy. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    "the black minority" => majority? OK but the term "majority rule" should be linked or defined somewhere. Same for Minority rule. These terms are very specific (example of a definition). A455bcd9 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    Links added as suggested. I've also added some extra material on this issue to provide context - this also helps explain why Rhodesia was controversial. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Rhodesian Security Forces" (2x) or "Rhodesian security forces" (1x)?
    • The former: fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A455bcd9 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'm happy to support. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Roanoke Island, North Carolina, half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... Another of the commemorative half dollars of the classic era, with a subject that would have been familiar if you had gone to school when I did, but probably isn't much taught today, the colony of Roanoke Island, and the birth of Virginia Dare. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "The coin commemorated the 350th anniversary of the Roanoke Colony, depicts Sir Walter Raleigh on one side, and Eleanor Dare on the other, holding her child, Virginia Dare, the first child of English descent born in an English colony in the Americas." => "The coin commemorated the 350th anniversary of the Roanoke Colony, depicting Sir Walter Raleigh on one side and Eleanor Dare on the other, holding her child, Virginia Dare, the first child of English descent born in an English colony in the Americas."
  • "The ships explored along the Atlantic coast and Roanoke Island, in what is today North Carolina" - wl NC
  • "although there has been much speculation that they perished on the island or at sea, or assimilated into a nearby Native American tribe" => "although there has been much speculation that they perished on the island or at sea, or were assimilated into a nearby Native American tribe"
I think this would be OK either way but I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "The initial models differed from the adopted coins in numbers details" - should this say "a number of details".....?
  • "Vermeule described the reverse, "the frozen....." - feels like there's at least one word missing here. Maybe "Vermeule wrote of the reverse, "the frozen"
Done slightly differently.
  • "urged collectors not to pay from two to three dollars" - "urged collectors not to pay more than two dollars".....?
The source describes the coins as selling from two to three dollars, and I'd rather keep that as is.
  • "$.2.50 in 1950" - there's a stray decimal point before the 2 there
  • Think that's all I got..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've either gotten or commented on everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Punic WarsEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Having taken the articles on all four constituent wars to FA, I am pleased to present the over-arching Punic Wars for your consideration. 118 years of bitter enmity between Carthage and Rome boiled down to 7,200 words. I took this article through GAN in September 2020 and have been tinkering with it since. I have recently been able to give it the time it deserves in an attempt to get it up to FAC quality and take on board comments from the FACs of its four "sub-articles". I look forward to your thoughts, comments and opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling this article would show up here eventually :) (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Placeholder from AirshipEdit

Will return shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC) As always, I emphasise that these are suggestions.

  • Preliminary comment: why not have a four paragraph lead, with the opening paragraph for introduction? As of now, the lead rather lacks any context for the general reader, and almost seems to eschew the larger article subject (the Punic Wars as a whole) in favour of details of each indivudual conflict. At least, to me it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks: On first reading that sounds reasonable - I wasn't over happy with the lead myself, but couldn't see what to do with it. I'll come up with a suggestion and post it here. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up pretty much all the maps, and ensuring a legend is visible
  • File:Domain_changes_during_the_Punic_Wars.gif: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Iberia_211-210BC-it_(cropped).png
  • File:Bronze_statue_of_a_Hellenistic_prince,_1st_half_of_2nd_century_BC,_found_on_the_Quirinal_in_Rome,_Palazzo_Massimo_alle_Terme,_Rome_(31479801364).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Just a few things,

  • "this was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved.[88][89][90] " It might be useful to give the number.
I have added a note.
  • "in what is now Piedmont, Cisalpine Gaul " I don't doubt that it's Piedmont but is it still Cisalpine Gaul?
Very tactful. Whoops. Corrected.
  • " Fabius became consul in 215 BC and was reappointed in 214 BC.[193]" Reappointed or reelected?
Reelected. In the sixth source I consulted! Some very dodgy political machinations, but they were technically elections. Duly amended and cited.
  • "frequently with success.[201][113]" Do you mean to have these out of numerical order?
No. I simply attach no importance to the number order of cites. Suspecting that you do, I have swapped them.
  • Claudius Nero is linked on the second use. Ditto Pyrenees.
Good spot. Both fixed.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that Wehwalt. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by a455bcd9Edit

A few comments on the lead (merely questions or suggestions, not demands):

  • "between Rome": should we use "the Roman Republic" in the first mention?
  • "in Sicily" (first mention): replace by "the Mediterranean island of Sicily" (second mention). It also helps explain "the island" at the end of the sentence.
  • "as a result of" => "due to"?
  • "Rome's expansionary attitude": add link to Roman expansion in Italy
  • "Carthage's proprietary approach": what does this mean?
  • "a strong army": add link to Roman army?
  • "on the Mediterranean island of Sicily" => "in Sicily" (also WP:DUPLINK)
  • "in North Africa": based on the GIF I think that "along the North African coast" would be more accurate. Or even "in Tunisia" or "along the Tunisian coast"?
  • "on both sides": add comma after?
  • "By the terms of the peace treaty": add comma after? and link to Treaty of Lutatius?
  • "Sicily was annexed as a Roman province": link to Sicilia (Roman province) instead?
  • "a major but eventually unsuccessful": remove "eventually"?
  • "within the Carthaginian Empire": only use of the term "Carthaginian Empire", to keep or replace by "Carthage"?
  • "witnessed Hannibal's crossing of the Alps": add "Carthaginian general" before Hannibal?
  • "in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), on Sicily, on Sardinia and in North Africa": why not "in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa"? Also: where in North Africa? I assume mostly in present-day Tunisia and Algeria based on the GIF?
  • "Carthaginian homeland in Africa": what was this homeland? where was it? probably worth mentioning before when Carthage is introduced? Something like: "At the start of the war, Carthage was the dominant power of the western Mediterranean, with an extensive maritime empire centred around the city of Carthage in present-day [or modern? not a big fan of "what is now"] Tunisia." or "centred around the city of Carthage, near modern Tunis on the North African coast"
  • "A treaty was agreed in 201 BC" => "A treaty was agreed upon in 201 BC" + do we have an article for this treaty?
  • "overseas territories": what were these territories?
  • "some of its African ones": which ones?
  • "its armed forces": add link to Military of Carthage?
  • "Carthage ceased to be a military threat": add "For Rome,"?
  • "in what is now Tunisia": not necessary if mentioned earlier (would make more sense)
  • "The previously ": useless clutter?
  • "the Roman province of Africa" => "the Roman province of Africa"?
  • "The ruins of the city" => "Carthage's ruins"?
  • "16 kilometres (10 mi)": why use miles in this article without any ties to the US? Also: do we need that level of precision in the lead? The distance between Carthage and Tunis seems like a detail in the grand scheme of things and the history of the Punic wars. "near" or "east of" is probably enough.

A455bcd9 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by UnlimitedleadEdit

Hi, @Gog the Mild: nice to meet you again! I'm somewhat caught up with other Wikipedia business right now, so I'll slowly add more comments over time. Upon my first read, I've located some possible punctuation errors. I have listed some below, but I'd suggest consulting someone more knowledgeable in that field than I am. Other than that, I'm very happy with how the article is right now. None of the comments below are mandatory, but it would be nice if they were dealt with.

  • Perhaps the infobox could benefit from some images in the "Belligerents" section. See Anglo-Zanzibar War for an example of what I'm referring to. This is purely cosmetic, so it's alright if you disagree.
  • "...with an extensive maritime empire; while Rome was a rapidly expanding power in Italy...": What conjunction is the semicolon standing in for? If there is none, I think a comma would be more appropriate.
  • "It lasted 23 years, until 241 BC, when after immense materiel and human losses on both sides the Carthaginians were defeated.": "Where" is being used as a conjunction in this case, which makes "after immense materiel and human losses on both sides" an introductory prepositional phrase, so there should be a comma following it (since it is a lengthy phrase).
  • "A treaty was agreed in 201 BC which stripped Carthage of its overseas territories...": There should be a comma before "which", since "which" opens a dependent clause.
  • "Carthage ceased to be a military threat." => "Following this, Carthage ceased to be a military threat." (or some other variation on "following this"; the sentence sounds awkward and should be connected to the previous sentences somehow)
  • Consider introducing Craige Champion like how you did with "The modern historian Andrew Curry".
  • "...the consensus is to accept his account largely at face value...the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value...": Repetition, please rephrase.
  • "...the account of the Roman historian Livy, who relied heavily on Polybius...Livy relied heavily on Polybius...": More repetition.
  • "According to the classicist Richard Miles, Rome's expansionary attitude after southern Italy came under its control combined with Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily to cause the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design.": I cannot comprehend the latter half of this sentence. Perhaps it is an issue on my part, though. A rephrasing couldn't hurt.
  • "The region provided several types of fighter...": Is fighter supposed to be plural, or is that a special military word?
  • "On occasion some of the infantry would wear captured Roman armour, especially among Hannibal's troops.": I think the article would benefit from introducing Hannibal in some way, even if it's as simple as saying "the general Hannibal's troops".
  • "As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels and so slower and less manoeuvrable." => As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels; thus they were slower and less manoeuvrable.
  • Could more be said about the usage and effectiveness of the corvus before the Romans stopped using it?
  • "...the battle of Cape Ecnomus off the south coast of Sicily." => ...the battle of Cape Ecnomus off the southern coast of Sicily.
  • "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, adding 220 new ships and captured Panormus (modern Palermo) in 254 BC.": There should be a comma after "ships".
  • "...Hannibal defeated a force of local Gauls which sought to bar his way.": Would "who" be more appropriate here, instead of "which"?

I'd say I'm done with comments now. The rest of the article looks great, but there are several minor issues (punctuation, grammar, etc.), all of which I will not be listing here because that would take an eternity. I'll be happy to support once this article receives a throrough copyedit. @Gog the Mild: Awesome job on this article, and on the Punic War articles in general! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary comment by BorsokaEdit

After quickly comming through the first section ("Primary sources"), my impression is that the article needs a thorough copyedit. The short section contains unnecessary repetitions, and also sentences that (at least seemingly) contradict each other. Examples include:

  • "Modern historians consider Polybius to have treated the relatives of Scipio Aemilianus, his patron and friend, unduly favourably but the consensus is to accept his account largely at face value. The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as being "fairly reliable"; Craige Champion describes him as "a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian". The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value."
  • "The account of the Roman historian Livy, who relied heavily on Polybius, is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant. Livy relied heavily on Polybius..."
  • "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral between Carthaginian and Roman points of view. ... Livy ... was also openly pro-Roman." Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by CPAEdit

Will do a review when all these reviews above me are finished. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 8Edit

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 14:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

After a failed initial nomination, in which only an image review was completed (and no further comments), I am renominating this with the hope that it receives additional attention. Highway 8 was one of the first two provincial highways in Ontario, and connected Niagara Falls with Lake Huron. It was initially a combination of a native trail along the Niagara Escarpment and a settlement road from Lake Ontario to the shores of Lake Huron, since upgraded over the past two centuries. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaignEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign. It is the second half of of what was once one article on the logistical support of the American armies between September and December 1944, but the article was split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TAOTEdit

I remember reviewing this last time it came here. Happy to see it back, and I'm hoping we reach a consensus to promote. Comments will come shortly; this is a long article, so I will go section by section. I do have an active FAC as well if you wish to return the favor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "Ardennes Offensive" should be capitalized, yes?
    Uggh. Don't get me started. Per MOS:MILTERMS, Words such as campaign, offensive, siege, action, pocket, etc., are typically not frequently capitalized in sources, so are lowercase in Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    I only brought this up because Battle of the Bulge has "Offensive" capitalized. If MOS says it should be lowercase, then it's fine as is in this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The subsequent advance to the German border stretched the American logistical system to breaking point Suggest "to its breaking point".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The Allies should be linked in the first mention, not in the second paragraph.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Additional port capacity was obtained through the development of the ports of Rouen and Le Havre in September and October, I assume this is meant to mean the first was in September and the second in October? If so, suggest "September and October, respectively".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
More later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


  • This is nitpicking (and the article is very well written, so most of my comments will be nitpicking), but in the first sentence, do those emdashes eliminate the need for a DATECOMMA?
    The military date format eliminates it. Parenthetical commas are only required with the mdy date format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This stretched the logistical system to breaking point. Same comment as I made regarding the lead section.
    Changed too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Between 25 August and 12 September, the Allied armies advanced from the D plus 90 phase line, the position the Operation Overlord plan expected to be reached 90 days after D-Day, to the D plus 350 one I didn't understand this on first reading, due to "D plus 350 one". Wasn't sure if this meant D plus 351, or was a typo. Suggest instead saying "D plus 350 line" or something similar to eliminate confusion.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Rather, the problem was the inability to deliver fuel and supplies. Suggest "deliver fuel and supplies to the front lines" or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • there was a shortage of suitable vehicles can you name any examples here (I found 6-ton 6×6 truck in a navbox, for instance) of suitable long-haul vehicles that were in short supply? You name the deuce and a half truck later, which is helpful, and I think examples of what wasn't available would be similarly helpful.
    See American logistics in the Northern France campaign#Motor transport for the details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • If six to eight weeks could be gained, then bad weather would set in, further restricting the Allies' mobility, air operations and logistical support. This is referring to the onset of winter, right? Suggest making that more explicit.
    Autumn rains and storms. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Will continue in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


  • They were operated by the 16th Major Port, which was relieved by the 5th Major Port in September. This is referring to military units? It wasn't clear to me at first. I see there's a bit of explanation later in this section (such as IDing the commanding officer); it might be prudent to move that to the first mention so the reader understands the 16th Major Port is referring to a military logistics unit.
  • suggest linking Harbourmaster.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • In general, what variant of English are you using for this article? I ask because I see both American/Canadian terminology ("railroad car)" and European/Australian terminology ("marshalling yard").
    US military English. Checked this usage against the sources, and "marshalling yard" is what the US military historian uses. Looked at the manual on Joint Logistics and it says "marshalling yard" is the correct term on p. H-2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    Huh. That's peculiar; in normal American English, using "marshalling yard" is never done, that's a distinctly British English term. But if that's the correct term in US military English, you are in the right to use such terminology. Thanks for checking. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • In October 1945, it was turned over to the French. Might be worth noting this was after the conclusion of the war.
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The Seine ports had figured prominently in the Overlord plan, but for the supply of the 21st Army Group. Not sure the "but" is necessary here. Suggest simply "The Seine ports had figured prominently in the Overload plan for the supply of the 21st Army Group".
    Added "not the American forces". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Link Hydrostatic pressure.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Piling can be linked to Pile (type of foundation).
    Linked to timber pilings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The photo in the Rouen section is interesting, but I don't see how it relates directly to the prose there.
    Logistical unit based in Rouen. Made this explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It was situated on the Scheldt River some 55 miles (89 km) inland, but unlike other ports on tidal estuaries, it could receive deep draft vessels on all tides, with a minimum depth at the quays of 27 feet (8.2 m), and the river was still 500 yards (460 m) wide at this point, which gave even the largest vessels ample room to maneuver. This is quite a long sentence, recommend splitting into two sentences.
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Some ports mention when they were returned to French/Belgian control, and others do not. Recommend making this consistent across all ports.
    If it is not mentioned, then they weren't handed back during the World War II period. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
More to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


  • Although the Red Ball Express was the first and most famous express highway delivery route, it was by no means the only one. The first of these was the Red Lion, which ran from 16 September to 12 October, and hauled 18,000 long tons (18,000 t) of supplies from Bayeux to Brussels. You say the Red Ball Express was first here, but immediately contradict that in the following sentence.
    Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


  • These were manufactured at Differdange in Luxembourg, and after it was liberated it began producing steel beams for the Allies. When did the liberation occur? Recommend adding this to the article.
    On 9 September 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Consider linking "Truck to train transfer" to Transloading.
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Over 57,000 railroad cars of various types, including boxcars, flatcars, refrigerator cars and tanker cars were shipped to the continent. Link tank car.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem was that the armies liked to keep a certain amount of supplies on wheels, using railroad cars as warehouses on wheels The use of "on wheels" twice in a row is a bit awkward. I recommend "using railroad cars as mobile warehouses" instead.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The vital railway bridge over the Meuse at Namur was struck by a German air raid that set off Allied demolition charges. When did this happen?
    On 24 December 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


  • Consider a comma after "November" in In November 3,227 long tons (3,279 t) were dispatched by air,
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Inland waterways


  • "commincations" is a typo.
    Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Overall, well written article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy to support on prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "From September onwards, an increasing volume of supplies came directly from the United States in Liberty ships that were stowed to make optimal use of cargo space." You have in this sentence "an increasing volume of supplies", that takes a singular verb, and "Liberty ships", that takes a plural noun. You say "were stowed", so I'm forced to assume the Liberty ships were stowed, not the volume of supplies. Yet that seems odd.
    Trying to say too much in the one sentence. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "quayside". "Dockside" seems more American. Not also that this link goes to a waterfront area in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
    Changed to "dockside" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The ending of the lede doesn't sound like an ending, but seems to leave off.
    Added another paragraph
  • "albeit on reduced scales" This is a bit unclear whether the units were pared down or their rations and supplies were.
    Added "of rations and supplies". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "The German strategy was to conduct a fighting withdrawal to the Siegfried Line (which they called the Westwall) while holding and demolishing the ports and harbors. These would be held as long as possible." Probably these could be combined into one sentence (beginning after the parenthetical) " ... while holding the ports and harbors for as long as possible, and demolishing them".
    That will work. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "But the only deep-water port in Allied hands-on 25 August was Cherbourg.[32]" unclear why the dash between hands and on
    Hyphenated by Iazyges (talk) [2] Possibly caused by an error in a script. Removed hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "engineer supplies" Engineering supplies?
    Um sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You use this phrase multiple times.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "as they were being lured away to work on the higher-priority amphibious cargo ships and Boeing B-29 Superfortress programs." Lured? By what incentive? It makes it sound like they were choosing to work on the higher-priority projects, something which may be beyond what ordinary workers would be expected to do. Were there greater incentives such a spay or benefits for the higher priority projects.
    Yes, they were offered better pay and conditions. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Naval harbormaster would take the Army's preferences ... office of the Naval Harbor Master" which?
    Gone with "harbor master"; this seems to be the official military spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "439,660 long tons (446,720 t) of Army cargo discharged at Cherbourg by 13 September, just 38.4 percent was unloaded at quayside berths or over LST ramps; the rest was unloaded by DUKWs and lighters.[60]" This sentence should probably start with "Of".
    Um, it does? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "bogged vehicles" To me, as an American, "bogged-down" seems more natural.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "and he devolved the necessary authority" Hm. Similar issue. Maybe "devolved" could be "delegated"?
    I think "devolved" is more correct, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "pontons" Again, EngVar (multiple usages). I usually hear pontoons, i.e., the pontoon bridges they have near Seattle. Unless military usage is different.
    Yes. Military usage is different here. For some reason the US military uses "ponton". In Australia we would say "pontoon". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Phoenix breakwaters salvaged from the Mulberry harbour" You linked the mulberry, though it was a while ago. And should it be "harbor"?
    Unlinked and changed to "harbor" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "noted that the entrances Antwerp and Rotterdam could be blocked and mined" Missing word. Also "but 85,000 long tons (86,000 t) accumulated first two weeks of the port's operation."
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "but only 1,358 2-8-0s and 362 0-6-0s were on hand by the end of June.[113]" 1944?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I know logistics isn't everyone's cup of tea, and reviews are greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Eric Harrison (RAAF officer)Edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm new at this so go easy... ;-) Okay, Eric Harrison was, along with Henry Petre, one of the founders of the original Central Flying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Petre, he remained a part of Australian military aviation after World War I, and so was the first man to be known as the "Father of the RAAF", a title more commonly bestowed in later times on one of their students, Richard Williams. So Harrison is, as described by an RAAF officer in 1999, something of an "unsung hero" now, but I hope worthy of your attention... FTR, this has long been an A-Class article at MilHist but I never got round back then to adding some new references and sending to FAC as I did with Petre's article -- better late than never...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "Harrison was promoted honorary captain" => "Harrison was promoted to honorary captain".....?
  • "Promoted group captain on 1 January 1935" -> "Promoted to group captain on 1 January 1935"....?
    • This is common militarese but happy to alter -- nothing incorrect about "promoted to".
  • "metrological testing" - is this a typo for meteorological? If not is there an appropriate link, because I personally don't know what metrological means?
    • Tks, yes it deserves a link.
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Tks Chris, changes made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Done.
  • File:Douglas_DC2_Kyeema_1937_(nla.obj-144682466-1).jpg: the NLA indicates that Crome was the collector of these images rather than the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I think it started out as one photographer's work then expanded to include others'.

Tks Nikki, let me know if all good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

Recusing to review. I will make minor copy edits as I go. Shout if I mess anything up.

  • "his post of Director of Aeronautical Inspection". Why the upper case initial lettrs?
    • The ADB uses lower case but the majority of other sources cap the first letters of Commonwealth titles.
  • "Gaining employment as an instructor for Bristol, he taught flying on behalf of the company in Spain and Italy, as well as in Halberstadt, Germany, where he became aware first-hand of that country's militarism; some of the students he trained and examined later served as pilots in the Luftstreitkräfte during World War I." A pretty chunky sentence.
    • Won't disagree but hoped the semi-colon gave pause for breath -- if you're really keen to split it I'm happy to have a go though.
  • "gaining his commission": is there any suitable link for "commission"?
  • You consistently don't put 'the' before CFS (with the exception of "maintaining the CFS's complement"), is there a reason? Also lead "the Central Flying School"; captions "Eric Harrison at Central Flying School", "in a B.E.2 at Central Flying School".
    • CFS is consistently referred to in sources without the definite article, and in fact that exception you note should be altered accordingly.
  • "30 feet (9.1 m)". I suspect 9.1 m may be false precision.
    • I agree, forgot the template had a rounding parameter -- actioned.
  • "when he was posted to Britain ... at the end of World War I". A picky point, but it seems he was posted before the war's end.
    • Well I felt we're only talking a few weeks' difference and by the time he started his work in Britain the war had probably ended -- I could make "towards the end" if you feel strongly about it.
I do. At the point he was posted the war had not ended and I am not sure that it was expected to. Or rephrase to something like "when he was posted to Britain" → 'when he took up a post in Britain' perhaps?
  • The chronology jumps around a little disconcertingly. In one paragraph it goes from 1921 to 1938 and back to 1931; understandably given the context. But the next paragraph starts in 1935, before progressing to 1937. Separately, is there nothing to report from between 1921 and 1931?
    • I think this impression was caused by a typo in the first para of that section, giving his appointment as Director of Aeronautical Inspection as being 1938 instead of 1928 -- actioned.
Ah, yes, indeed.
  • "Federal government's". Is it usual t have an upper-case F and a lower-case g?
    • Again some sources cap both words, some just the first, and some none. We could hedge our bets in this case and make "Australian government" -- actioned.
  • One daughter is mentioned. Was she his only child?
    • No other children mention in sources.
Then perhaps 'Their daughter and only child, Greta ...'?
  • "just as the war had ended". Perhaps something a little more encyclopedic? 'three days after the end of the war' or similar maybe?
    • I kinda like the slightly imprecise wording, given the end of fighting and the official surrender of Japan were a few days apart -- WDYT?
I don't object to the imprecision, but to the casualness of "just". Eg, I am happy with 'On 5 September 1945, as the war ended'; or 'On 5 September 1945, at the end of the war'; etc.

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Tks for reviewing, Gog -- replies above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Second round replies above, tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Supporting, but note the two remaining instances of "the Central Flying School". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Tks Gog. Actually you've made me re-check more sources -- seems that in its early years it was generally referred to as the Central Flying School, but in its later incarnation (WWII and after) the the was generally dropped; in either case the abbreviation is generally just CFS without the. So I've altered the captions that had "Central Flying School" alone accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

Hi Ian, welcome to FAC. I hope this will be the first of many nominations! ;) You haven't left a lot of nits for me to pick.

  • with the minister's daughter Ruby as passenger should probably have commas either side of Ruby to make her a subclause
  • AAIC inquiries were generally held in camera In camera should probably be italicised as a Latin term.

That's it. I'll support now as I feel it meets the criteria even with those two minor imperfections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Harry, that's done -- for good measure I've also made Greta a subclause in Their daughter and only child Greta joined the WAAAF... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pickersgill-CunliffeEdit

  • Would be interesting to know what planes Harrison was taught in/instructed others in, if that were possible?
    • Re-checking sources, it looks like the only planes used for instruction are those already mentioned in the article, i.e. Boxkite, Deperdussins, B.E.2s and, later, Farman.
  • "In December 1911" no real need to repeat the year here
    • I think it's worthwhile using precise dates at the beginning of new paragraphs.
  • Was Harrison also made a lieutenant?
    • I felt that was implied by mentioning his commission soon after Petre's (as a lieutenant) but I've spelt it out now.
  • "the Army's proposed Central Flying School" is it right to call it the army when this wasn't actually the name of the organisation?
    • Fair enough -- tweaked.
  • Link Brigadier
    • I prefer not to link ranks for wiki-notables to avoid a sea of blue. The standard I try to maintain is linking on first use a rank if the holder isn't linked, and not linking rank on first use when the holder is notable.
  • Move the captain link to first mention
    • As above.
  • What does "solo standard" mean? First solo flight?
    • Yes, linked.
  • Link honorary rank. Why exactly was it an honorary rank? Harrison was a full-time serving member of the Australian Armed Forces, so why didn't he just get a substantive, acting, or brevet promotion?
    • Actioned -- as to why honorary instead of something else, that's not explained in any source I've seen.
  • Link temporary rank
    • It's the same link as for substantive, which I already linked because in my experience it's the more unusual term for the uninitiated, but actioned anyway.
  • "former commanding officer of Nos. 2 and 4 Squadrons." you don't seem to have mentioned No. 2 Squadron before, is there a link?
    • Yes -- actioned.
  • "On 12 March 1928 he became Director of Aeronautical Inspection" is this a RAAF role or AAIC role?
    • The former -- actioned.
  • Suggest splitting out the links for 1937 Airlines of Australia Stinson crash and Stinson Model A
    • Again the sea-of-blue rationale, and in this case I think the key thing is the crash rather than the aircraft type.
  • "He was a member of the court of inquiry..." it isn't made clear that this is 1938, not 1937
    • Tks -- actioned.
  • Link Air Vice-Marshal
    • Sea-of-blue rationale.
  • Is "safety inspector" the best term for Harrison's position? Before this it's only been described as air accident investigation or aeronautical inspection
    • I think "safety" is always part of inspection and accident investigation but took it out anyway.
  • "In July 1940" don't need to repeat the year, assuming the previous "12 April" was also 1940
    • Actioned.
  • "Eric Harrison received no decorations" no need for a repetition of his forename
    • Actioned.
  • Link Air Marshal
    • Heh, I can't plead sea of blue here but OTOH we've established Williams' notability so I felt we could do without it if we accept the rationale for not including the other ones I've noted.
  • Could add Brighton to his place of death in the infobox
    • Could, I just felt since it's a suburb of Melbourne the latter would mean more to the reader.

That's all I have, most of it very minor! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Tks for your comments, PC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy with your rationale when arguing against my comments. Support. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Lead says he died of heart disease, body of cerebrovascular disease - which is correct?
  • FN45 is a dead link
  • Odgers: Worldcat suggests a longer publisher name - can you verify? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Tks Nikki, those should all be actioned one way or another now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Columbia disasterEdit

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. The article's GA review was just completed. The 20th anniversary is February 1, 2023, and it has been my goal to get it to FA-status before then. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7Edit

I reviewed this article at GA, and believe that it meets Featured Article standard. It seems like only yesterday

Image review - pass

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  • It's unclear to me why File:ColumbiaFLIR2003.png is a US government image given the Commons page states it was created by two Dutch pilots flying a helicopter. The source (a YouTube video uploaded by a non-official account) also doesn't provide any evidence to confirm these details, or alternate details. Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about this one. I'll remove it for the time being. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

I remember this clearly. I was at school. :(

I remember it as well! One crazy thought to me is that back then the Challenger disaster seemed far away (I wasn't even born yet), and now the time since the Columbia disaster until now is longer than the time between the two disasters. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Is there a more illustrative image we could use for the infobox?
    What type of picture are you thinking? Unfortunately, I'm not able to find a free image of the iconic shot of debris burning in the atmosphere. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
    Chiming in here while perusing. Might File:ColumbiaFLIR2003.png be a good option? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure of the permissions for that photo; the page itself says its in the public domain, but considering that it was recorded by Dutch aircrew I don't think it qualifies as work of the US Government. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I think your approach to the lead for the Challenger disaster is better than trying to shoehorn the title into the opening sentence.
    Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • and deploy commercial,[2]: III–66  military,[2]: III–68  and scientific payloads.[2]: III–148 Are the payloads directly relevant? And if so can we consolidate the footnotes to avoid clutter?
    I consolidated the refs. I don't think the payloads are directly relevant, but they do provide context on the Space Shuttle and why a large spaceplane was used. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • the sensor's data was recorded to an internal recorder Recorded to a recorder?
    Changed to "data was recorded to internal storage" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • aileron trim changed from the predicted values from the increasing drag caused by the damagebecause of the increasing drag?
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • as well as still in the stowed positionor in the stowed position?
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The orbiter began to yaw to the left I've watched enough Air Crash Investigation to know what yaw is but it might benefit from an explanatory gloss
    I added that the orbiter was turning to the left and put "yaw" in parenthesis. Does that work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • but this was not noticed by the crew or mission control Can we use active voice?
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Columbia's flight data recorder was found near Hemphill, It would be useful to know how far away this is from other locations mentioned. I'm aware that Texas is enormous but we don't have a god idea at this point in the article of how widely the debris was spread.
    Added the distance from Nacogdoches. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • To address the problem of foam loss for the second "Return to Flight" mission Lose the scare quotes (you don't use them for the first RTF mission)
    Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Is there any cultural impact to mention? Books, films, documentaries, etc? This was the news event of the year and would have been one of the defining events of the decade were it not for 9/11 and its effects. It's one of those events that people remember where they were when they heard the news.
    Added mentions of books and movies. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What was the long-term impact on NASA besides the cancellation of the Space Shuttle programme? Did the disaster prompt a culture change? Has there been a deliberate move away from manned spaceflight or is that a coincidence?
    I have not seen any sources that state the reason for the long break in crewed NASA spaceflights was the Columbia disaster. Seeing as the Constellation program was started in 2005, it's not like NASA was stopping its crewed efforts in the wake of the disaster. Regarding other NASA changes, I think I detailed the new precautions that were taken (rescue flights, ISS lifeboat, tank redesigns) and the cancellation of the program; is there anything else you're looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Think I addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • " After completing STS-107," Does the mission end at some point before touchdown?
  • Not sure what I was thinking. Changed to "During the STS-107 mission". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "nearly catastrophic" maybe "near-catastrophic"
  • " It flew for the first time in April 1981" I might say "It flew in space for the first time" to let out the ALT.
  • "which provided protection for temperatures below 650 °C (1,200 °F). " Maybe "at" for "for"?
  • "The ET consisted of a larger tank for liquid hydrogen (LH2), stored at −253 °C (−423 °F) and a smaller tank for liquid oxygen (LOX)," You don't need to say both larger and smaller. All you are doing is establishing relative size. I'd delete "larger".
  • "but it was stated that the ET was safe to fly.[5]: 125 " Does the source say who concluded this?
  • Changed to "but the Program Requirements Control Board decided that the ET was safe to fly". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "At the time, the mission or ground crew did not notice the debris strike." I would move "at the time" to the end of the sentence.
  • "she had asked about the imaging requirement from a flight director but not the Debris Assessment Team" This is a little fuzzy what requirement? This is obviously a crucial event.
  • I expanded this to explain who Ham consulted with and the basis of her decision; hope it makes it more clear. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "was concerned with the potential delays that may be caused by a foam loss event." Suggest you don't need both "potential" and "may", consider ..."was concerned with the potential delays from a foam loss event."
  • "flight director Steve Stich sent an e-mail to Husband and McCool to tell them about the foam strike and inform them there was no cause for concern about damage to the TPS, as foam strikes has occurred on previous flights.[5]: 159 " has should be had.
  • "Soon after it entered California airspace, the orbiter shed several pieces of debris, which were observed on the ground as sudden increases in brightness of the air around the orbiter." I'd change "which were" to "events"
  • Perhaps more could be said about what took place in Mission Control after contact was lost. The time the vehicle was expected to land would be useful as well.
  • There's not much more about what happened in Mission Control; they tried to reestablish communication until they learned that the orbiter broke up. I added KSC information, including the expected landing time. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "The crew remains were transported for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Dover Air Force Base." I would say "to" rather than "for".
  • "worms" It would be good idea to say what they were doing there, what sort of experiment. Weren't there other animals? You mention that they would have been euthanized under the rescue procedure the review board discussed.
  • I expanded on the experiment. Regarding the other animals, there were other small animals (bees, silkworms, fish) on board for different experiments. I don't think that needs to be mentioned in this article as I'm not seeing any post-disaster information about them. Does that work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "the KSC" I think I'd get rid of the "the" (you do this at least twice). Similar "the JSC".
  • "NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe convened the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) " Is "convened" the best word? It wasn't meeting until some hours later.
  • I changed it to "called to convene" to make it more evident that it wasn't an immediate process. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • You use "argued" twice with respect to the board's conclusions. I'd sooner see "found" or "concluded". The board wasn't getting into a debate.
  • "As a result of the foam loss, NASA grounded the Space Shuttle fleet.[34][43]" This, I assume, refers to the 2005 mission on Discovery and not the loss of Challenger. If so, I'd add "again" to the end.
  • "from its scheduled launch of July 1" no year is mentioned in this paragraph.
  • On the two subsequent missions, I think it would be useful to mention what vehicle would have been used had serious damage to the shuttle been discovered on orbit.
  • I would suggest deleting any of the musical tributes that can't be supported by secondary sources as trivial.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Think I addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from KusmaEdit

Great idea to try to get this ready in time for the anniversary. I'll review this more thoroughly later in the week, but I have one question that has been bugging me in the past and that I would like to see answered in the article: Why did the foam strike had such a high relative velocity? It took me embarrassingly long to figure out that this was due to drag in the still quite relevant air pressure at about 20km (essentially the foam slows down very quickly and is struck by the accelerating orbiter). In vacuum, this would have been far less of a problem. After I figured this out, I thought of looking into the sources, and pages 60 and 61 of the CAIB report explain the physics of the collision, so this can be included without OR. —Kusma (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: I added a sentence in about this. Thanks for doing the bulk of work in finding the correct source, including page number, when suggesting I add information in! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't find much to complain, but here is one comment: The sentence "When Columbia reentered the atmosphere of Earth, the damage allowed hot atmospheric gases to penetrate the heat shield and destroy the internal wing structure, which caused the orbiter to become unstable and break apart." in the lead does not seem to be repeated in the article, where the melting of the internal wing structure is only hinted at in the "Recovery of debris" section. Could you expand on this in the "Cause of the accident" section, perhaps? (Compare the "physical cause" paragraph in the p. 9 Executive summary of the CAIB report). —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: I added a sentence for it; please let me know if you want me to add any more information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
That's fine now. One more thing I'd like you to consider is whether the jargon headings "STS-114" and "STS-121" can be made more accessible to non-experts ("First Return to Space mission (STS-114)" etc.?) —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I changed the headers to that format. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Support, good work. —Kusma (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Marina Bay MRT stationEdit

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is actually an old GA of mine, promoted back in 2020. Now, with the opening of the Thomson East Coast line, I've greatly expanded the article particularly information on train services and the artworks in the station.

Cheers to the new triple-line interchange station on the Singapore MRT network! ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SteelkampEdit

  • Does Gammon refer to Gammon Construction? If so, I think it should be linked. Steelkamp (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The body should stand on its own. That means that:
    • "The station opened on 4 November 1989 and was the southern terminus of the North South line until the NSL extension to Marina South Pier station opened in 2014." should be changed to "The station opened on 4 November 1989 and was the southern terminus of the North South line (NSL) until the NSL extension to Marina South Pier station opened in 2014." Note that Marina South Pier MRT station is linked as well. Steelkamp (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    • "An extension of the CCL to this station was first announced in April 2007." should be changed to "An extension of the Circle line (CCL) to this station was first announced in April 2007." Steelkamp (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • East Coast Parkway is only mentioned once, so the acronym should be removed. Steelkamp (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Did all of the above as requested ZKang123 (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "The station became an interchange station with the CCL upon the completion of the two-station branch extension to this station from Promenade station in January 2012." This can be changed to "The station became an interchange station with the CCL upon the completion of the two-station branch extension from Promenade station in January 2012." Steelkamp (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The Thomson-East Coast Line section confuses me. Is the Thomson–East Coast line the same thing as the Thomson line? This sentence doesn't really make sense then: "On 15 August 2014, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced that Marina Bay station would be part of the proposed Thomson–East Coast line (TEL)." Steelkamp (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Why is this sentence future tense: "The station will be constructed as part of Phase 3, consisting of 13 stations between the Stevens and Gardens by the Bay stations." Hasn't this already happened? Steelkamp (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed future tense. Changed to "was".
    Well, the TEL was actually planned as two different lines: Thomson Line and East Region Line. Before LTA merged these two projects. ZKang123 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Well in that case, this sentence should be reworded: "On 15 August 2014, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced that Marina Bay station would be part of the proposed Thomson–East Coast line (TEL)." I suggest explicitly mentioning the merge of these two projects. Never mind, you reworded that whilst I was writing this. Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Hope you like this edit. Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What does "link way and mined tunnels" mean? Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Does CD need to be in brackets when that abbreviation is not used again? Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Should slab link to concrete slab? Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What does "earth-backed, air-backed and airtight walls and slabs" mean? Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "There are also provisions for a future underground pedestrian network, to be converted from a temporary maintenance facility near the station, as well as connections to future developments.[61][59] The tracks leading to the defunct facility were removed in June 2021." Could be reworded. Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Rectified much of the above.
    "earth-backed, air-backed and airtight walls and slabs" - I thought it should be obvious enough, basically being reinforced materials. ZKang123 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "The main challenges of the construction include" => "The main challenges of the construction included"
  • " one of the four stations that participated in Exercise Northstar V" - appreciate there's a link, but it wouldn't hurt to clarify what this was eg " one of the four stations that participated in Exercise Northstar V, a large-scale emergency preparedness exercise"
  • "Contract 886 for the construction of cut and cover tunnels at Marina Bay Area" - previously you wrote "cut-and-cover" with hyphens
  • "This is due to the layers of weak and strong old alluvium" - is there a wikilink for alluvium?
  • "the piles supporting the NSL tunnels have to be" => "the piles supporting the NSL tunnels had to be"
  • "As announced during a visit by Transport Minister S. Iswaran" - don't think you need to give his job title twice in two consecutive sentences. Just using his surname the second time will suffice
  • "6:25 am on Sundays and Public holidays" - no reason for capital P (in two places)
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Rectified above problems. ZKang123 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Anna Lee FisherEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Balon Greyjoy (talk)

This article is about Anna Fisher, one of the first six women selected to be astronauts by NASA in 1978. During her long and distinguished career at NASA, she was involved with the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station and the Orion spacecraft. This article is the fifth in the series about the first six women astronauts, following Sally Ride, Judith Resnik, Kathryn Sullivan and Rhea Seddon. Unlike those astronauts, Fisher has no biography, so its writing was more difficult. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

Not sure why this doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. Let's fix that.

  • one of the astronauts supported vehicle integrated testing and payload testing at Kennedy Space Center. looks like a copy-editing error. One of the astronauts who supported?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • She was a CAPCOM from January 2011 to August 2013 that's the first mention of CAPCOM; the acronym needs a gloss.
    Glossed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Her mother Elfriede had been born in Germany in 1918 but had emigratedwas born and lose the second had.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • when she was sixteen years old
  • The two had returned to the United States lose the had again
    Lost. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • When she was in high school she did volunteer work at → volunteered at?
    Um okay. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • published three article in the Inorganic Chemistry needs a copy edit
    Already done - see the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • But she saw others who had earned PhDs after six years of work but still could not find jobs, and decided to pursue medicine instead. Two "but"s in close proximity; you can probably just lose the first one.
    Changed second "but" to "yet" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • At the time, medicine was considered a "non-traditional" career for women Is that a quote or are those scare quotes?
    A quote. "As a woman in two non-traditional women's jobs". Had to look up the article on scare quotes. Things were different in Australia, where my own university graduated its first women doctors in 1891. While women were a minority of students, nearly half studied medicine. [3] While writing about the Great War period, I found that British women were surprised that that Australia had women doctors, and even more so that they were allowed to vote in the 1916 election. So although supported by the source, I didn't want to state it in Wikipedia's voice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • the son of a United States Air Force colonel Sea of blue and neither link is directly relevant to the subject; perhaps lose the link to the USAF?
    Changed "colonel" to "officer" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • At lunch one day he informed Bill, who was now her fiancée Whose fiancée?
    Already corrected spelling - see talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • They had three weeks to assemble the required documents So they both applied? This isn't clear from the preceding text.
    Yes. Added that both of them applied. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • She attended meetings of the astronauts' spouses Who did?
    She did. I didn't want to say "Fisher" here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Abbey decided that the five MDs of the 1978 and 1980 1978 and 1980 ... what? Also, no spaces with an emdash
    Added "astronaut selections". Removed space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Fisher became pregnant while working as a Cape Crusader Can we reword this slightly so it doesn't sound like it happened during her NASA work?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • with pilot David M. Walker and mission specialists Fisher, Gardner and Joseph P. Allen Not a good use of "with" anyway but the sentence as-structured suggests that the latter two were jointly commanding.
    Re-structured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Fisher wanted to perform Capsule communicator (CAPCOM) Is capsule a proper noun here?
    Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • they had gone ahead and launched the second one "gone ahead and" adds words but not meaning
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • if they could retrieve one satellites, and a miracle if they could retrieve two Another gremlin. One satellite or one of the satellites?
    Removed the "s". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Dale Gardner had a son a few months older than Kristin, all the others had older children That's a comma splice
    Added conjunction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • so her daughter would know what her mother was like if Maybe shorten to just "in case"?
    Changed "if" to "in case" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • on November 8, 1984, on what was Discovery's second mission Trim "what was"; more words for no added meaning again
    Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "by extraordinary exertions have contributed to the preservation of property from perils of all kind." MOS:LQ and you need a ref after a quote.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • It was to be commanded by Michael L. Coats, with John E. Blaha Same issue as above
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Subsequently, the date slipped and the crew "Subsequently" has many of the same issues as "however" in implying connections that may not exist. In this case, you lose nothing by culling it.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • she advised an aspiring astronaut to "study Russian" I don't think the quote marks are really necessary
    Removed quotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • she was involved in the development of the Flight instruments display I doubt flight is a proper noun
    De-capitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Can we think of a better title for the last prose section than "in popular culture"? These sections tend to become laundry lists of every mention of the subject. And on that note, I'm not sure all those appearances are notable enough to mention, but are there sources to support an overarching sentence about her public profile or appearances, so at least the list has context?
    Changed to "public appearances". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What was it about the "iconic photo" that was so attractive? And how was it used to promote the bands?
    I'll see if I can find something. Don't hold your breath. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Note 4 contains an inline external link, which is almost always a no-no.
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

—There are other places the prose could be tightened but the FA criteria don't demand perfection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back Harry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to participate. Two things immediately come to my mind: (1) The sentence "Anna was interviewed by Connie Chung, and that night Bill took Anna and Resnik, who had also been selected, out to dinner to celebrate". Now "Connie Chung" links to a journalist, but that article doesn't mention any position ever held at NASA. Is this the same Connie Chung? If yes, NASA needs to be mentioned, if no, then a disambiguation link like Connie Chung (NASA) might be necessary. (2) Anna Lee Fisher's mother was born in Hof, Bavaria, Germany, and grew up in Munich; also Anna Lee Fisher is fluent in German. (My source is that I met a German autograph collector at a fair once who showed me a personalised autograph he had obtained from Dr Fisher as a child which was accompanied by a short letter from her in German). Might or might not be useful in the article.ViennaUK (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • The Connie Chung link is fine - the journalist is the one who interviewed Fisher on TV. She never worked for NASA.
  • Yes, Fisher speaks German fluently. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment, not a full review, but I'm concerned that the 'iconic photo' section and its associated notes feels to me like OR. What secondary sources describe it as 'iconic'? FN 67 seems to only cite that the image was posted on ffffound, not any of the other preceding content. Why are these selected uses of the image encyclopedically relevant? Note three feels like speculation, particularly the sentence "It is possible Bryson photographed Fisher on multiple occasions, but that has yet to verified." How do we know that the blogspot post is accurate and was actually posted by Bryson's son? Why are Bryson's speculations posted on social media encyclopedically relevant in Note 4? What cites that " The only publicly available archive of Bryson's work is at The Briscoe Center for American History at The University of Texas."? What cites that " became massively popular on the internet"? Etc. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "metallocarboranes,[7]" (both lead and body) Can we have links?
  • "published three articles in the Inorganic Chemistry." I'd get rid of the "the"
  • "Sims was invited to come to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in to Houston," probably the last "to" is not needed
  • "On one weekend day each month, she worked in the emergency room at Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital or Tampa General Hospital in Florida or to keep her medical skills well-honed.[26] " Similarly the last "or".
  • "Fisher was based at the White Sands Test Facility." It might be worth mentioning this was an alternate landing site.
  • "It would open it like an umbrella, and take hold of the satellite." The second "it" seems surplus.
  • "Fisher would also assist the Hauck and Walker as the mission's flight engineer (MS2)." Similarly the first "the"
  • There's probably not much you can do about this, but our article says shear wind is a phenomenon of the lower atmosphere and you're talking about the upper atmosphere.
  • "This was the first time that a Space Shuttle had deployed a satellite a night." some error near the end
  • "Post-Challenger" can we italicize Challenger?
  • "Red Book magazine" Redbook, surely. And the magazine and TV program titles in this paragraph take italics.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Matangi (album)Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thought I would give people a break from endless articles on Gillingham F.C. :-) Back in 2013 I successfully nominated this article for GA but I'm not sure why I never brought it to FAC as I had done with the artist's previous studio albums. So, nine years later, here it finally is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

Comments to come soon FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: hope you are well, just wondering if you still hoped to take a look at this article....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I was waiting for Your Power to finish their review before I start mine.
  • Be consistent with the Oxford comma. Places like "Hit-Boy, Doc McKinney, Danja, Surkin and The Partysquad" use it while others like "Bring the Noize", "Come Walk with Me", and "Y.A.L.A." don't.
  • "reportedly featured input from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - reportedly indicates an expression of doubt when M.I.A. herself confirmed it. I see no reason that the artist herself would lie about something like this.
  • "The album received highly positive reviews from critics, many of whom cited it as a return to form" - whose return to form?
  • "She made a decision to" -> "She decided to"
  • However, she said it does not have "a tranquil flute massage sound." Full stop after the quotation mark after MOS:LQ.
  • "Despite an initial mixed review, Pitchfork ranked the album at number 46" - although the review and the ranking are both from Pitchfork, they came from different critics so I would leave the "mixed" part out. FrB.TG (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: - all done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Image and media review (pass)Edit

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I still wanted to help in some way. My comments on the images and audio sample are below:

  • File:MIA Matangi Cover.png has a clear purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text.
  • For File:Matangi.jpg, I would alter the caption to avoid starting with "The artist" as I find that phrasing to be awkward. Shortening the image caption may also help prevent it from cutting across section headings. I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to this image as well. Everything looks appropriate for the image on the Wikimedia Commons end.
  • File:Bad Girls - MIA.ogg needs a stronger justification for inclusion. It is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum and to the best of my understanding, audio samples should only be used in an album article if they are somehow representative of the album as a whole and illustrate something the prose cannot alone (like critics saying a certain song represents a genre, production choice, etc. throughout the entire album). This audio sample is more focused on the individual song rather than the album.
  • Do you think the article would benefit from including an image of M.I.A., preferably from around the album's release?
  • This is not related to the image or audio sample, but I was surprised that the article does not a legacy or impact section (á la 1989). Was there any kind of retrospective articles or analysis of this album?

I hope that this review was helpful. Apologies for not being able to do a full prose review. To summarize my comments above, I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to both images, revise the Matangi image caption, and either remove or provide a different rationale for the audio sample. The last two bullet points are clarification questions. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - thanks for your comments. I'll address the first three in due course but re: the last one, I couldn't find anything of note. The album was not a major success (only one week in the UK albums chart), is not one that has been a major influence on any other artists as far as I can see, did not boost M.I.A. to greater success like that Taylor Swift album did for her (her career was already on a downward trajectory, TBH), and has not really been written about in any significant way since its initial period of release. Her first album was featured in a book published years later called something like "Albums You Must Hear Before You Die" but nobody really looks at this one in the same way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I was surprised because I remember "Bad Girls" just being everywhere at the time, but this is probably a case of me confusing that with the album having a greater sense of importance. If anything, that song may have a more long-lasting legacy than the album. I appreciate that you took the time to answer this question. Your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
All other points now addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. File:M.I.A. - Festival Primavera Fauna 2013.jpg checks out to me. I would recommend archiving the source link and adding an author link to user's main Flickr account, but neither of these points are requirements. If you ever want to add an audio sample to the article, please let me know. I have briefly scanned through the article, and the Jim Carroll review would provide a solid justification for "Bad Girls" as an example of the album's "hard-bodied pop tracks" or the Alexis Petridis review identifies "Bring the Noize" as representative of the album. Either way, this passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from NØEdit

  • M.I.A. is addressed as a recording artist here, as a rapper and hip hop artist on previous album articles, and as a "rapper and singer" on her biography. I was curious which one you think is the most appropriate one and it should probably be consistent.
  • "Matangi did, however, top the US Dance/Electronic Albums chart" - I've been advised against the usage of "however" on some nominations
  • "The song "Y.A.L.A.", ..., was seen as a response to the slogan ..." - Was this the perception of critics? This could be more clearly stated
  • "Matangi was originally teased when M.I.A. posted a photo of herself in the studio in November 2011, on TwitPic" => "M.I.A. originally teased Matangi by posting a photo of herself in the studio on TwitPic in November 2011"
  • "Internationally, Matangi attained moderate impact on the charts, reaching number 47" - The middle part probably constitutes original research unless directly stated by a secondary source and should be removed. Which would leave this as "Internationally, Matangi reached number 47 ..."
Glad to see you take on something music related! That's all from me :-)--NØ 17:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: - all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- NØ 08:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


Hi Chris! With all the help you've extended in my previous two FACs I find it fair that I finally review one of yours :-) I have one up right now if you're interested!

  • Maaaany sources here need archive links. Some like the WaPo source and the RS source are dead.
    • I've replaced all the dead links. I'll keep trying to run the bot to archive the ones which aren't dead, but I don't believe this is a requirement for FAC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Some OR concerns:
    • "M.I.A. Blasts Oprah..." does not explicitly say Maya tanked commercially compared to her previous albums. All we get is "M.I.A.'s new album /\/\ /\ Y /\ drops from No. 9 to No. 34 in its second week on the Billboard 200, selling 11,000 copies, according to Nielsen Soundscan (down 61%)."
    • The three sources cited before that do say that Maya received mixed-negative reviews as the current article implies, but none of them say that her albums before that received critical acclaim.
      • Sources replaced
  • The critical reception section could use work.
    • Too many quotations for comfort.
    • WP:RECEPTION try to consolidate similar comments from varying reviews instead of paraphrasing every review you used. In other words, summarize the reviews as a whole and not the reviews individually. For example, write "Gavin Haynes of NME and Alexis Petridis of The Guardian praised the album for its nonconformity to the characteristics of mainstream music" instead of paraphrasing whatever specific comments they made.
  • "Following this, the artist [M.I.A.]... The rapper [M.I.A.] has been..." -> let me preface this comment by saying that this is completely optional and you don't really have to implement it since a lot of it has to do with stylistic preference. I'm not a fan of WP:ELEVAR such as this one; this writing style is more for the realm of magazines and newspapers than encyclopedias. Either we use her name or her pronouns.
  • "experienced a period during which she struggled to find motivation to make music" this is a lot of words to simply say "Following this, M.I.A. struggled to find motivation for new music." Verbosity is a recurring aspect of this article - "originally teased", "the first by M.I.A.", "She eventually found initial inspiration".
  • "allegedly featured input... M.I.A. contended... who purportedly..." this is pretty strong and aggressive wording, portraying the claim that Assange helped M.I.A. with the album as something outrageous. Is there any reason why we should doubt whatever M.I.A. is saying about her own album's recording? Can't we simply say "M.I.A. said" ?
  • Pretty sure "western" and "eastern" have to be capitalized
  • What makes Metro an ok source to use here?
  • Some points on comprehensiveness:
    • Can we clarify in the prose (or in a footnote, if you wish) why M.I.A. and Diplo were in dispute? This seems like an interesting thing that begs to be explained.
    • For an album inspired heavily by Hinduism I expected to see which songs tackle the relevant themes. Which songs deal with karma, for example? Which songs incorporate the om chant? Are there any other themes explored on this album?
  • "noted for" see MOS:SAID
  • The last sentence of "Promotion" is way
    @ChrisTheDude, whoops my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say that there are a couple unwieldy sentences in that article, such as that one. I see that you have already split the sentence I mentioned, which is a good start. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
    📝 "Don't get complacent..."
    10:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 has "NME" in publisher but all other NME sources put it in work
  • "Stereogum writer" stereogum should be italicised

My primary concerns have to do with sourcing and the professional tone of the prose. I have not done a full spot check of the article references, but if anyone deems it necessary then by all means. Currently, I do not feel confident to offer my support - I am leaning oppose. Sincerely hope this gets addressed promptly - I may do a proper, full review of the article once these initial concerns are struck. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
08:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "Despite the positive critical reception and its inclusion in several year-end lists, its first-week sales were significantly lower than those of M.I.A.'s previous album, and its chart peak was lower in all major markets" see the OR concern above. Even if this were verified, commercial success and critical success are not mutually inclusive (look at whatever Drake is doing) so there is no need to contrast the two information.
  • Adding to comprehensiveness concerns:
    • I read in passing somewhere that M.I.A. infuses a lot of her music with political commentary. Can we clarify this context in the background so the last sentence of the "Recording" section does not seem random?
    • I read the Fader interview a bit and it tells me that M.I.A. was inspired by stories of female spirituality in particular while making the album. The article needs to elaborate on which songs tackle these themes in the "Music and lyrics" section. I can see that there are lots of tracks that have not been discussed here - maybe those are the songs that employ such themes?
    • "it was eventually pushed back by M.I.A.'s label, which claimed the record was 'too positive'." What is this supposed to mean? I'd elaborate or remove it altogether.
  • The phrase "music and lyrics" is synonymous with "composition" so rename "Composition and recording" to "background and recording"
  • Mentioning that Diplo provided no contributions to the album whilst failing to mention the album's many contributors which are listed in the lead feels off
  • This article is about Matangi. It is out of place to mention that "Bad Girls" first appeared in a mixtape before this album and that that version sounded different.
  • "which led M.I.A., whose real name is Mathangi [sic] Arulpragasam, to choose the latter as the album's official name." Three things
    • Why is there a [sic] there?
      • It was meant to reflect the fact that her name is not spelt exactly the same as the album title, but I guess it's no big deal so I removed it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    • M.I.A. picking the album's title should be in "background and recording", not "release and artwork" IMO.
    • The cited Fact source does not explicitly state that M.I.A. chose Matangi as the title because it matches her real name. Other sources say she does, however, so replace the Fact one.
  • I have done copyediting (diff) on the article to address sentence length, verbose wording, active voice, and flow and cohesion of paragraphs. I added some information I found from the currently cited sources as well. Please feel free to make further amendments to these edits or revert some of them if you find them unhelpful.

My stance on the article's readiness for the bronze star remains, although I am glad to see swift progress. :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
12:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Your Power: just as an update, I believe the only things outstanding are adding some more about lyrical themes and sorting out the archive links. I tried running the IABot to archive the existing sources but it didn't do anything, don't know if I am doing something wrong......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: it tends to do that for me as well. Unfortunately it seems that someone would have to do the archiving manually. Anyways, I have done another round of copyediting+addition of new content in light of the recent additions you made to the article. As always feel free to revert ones with which you disagree. With that, some more comments - I am really sorry that my review has dragged this far!
  • "Her fans gave her two ideas" the tweet by itself seems to indicate it's the other direction?
  • I doubt PopCrush is a high-quality source to use here, which means that the bit about the "car imagery" (which that source supports) can be cut
  • The "Reviewing the album track by track..." line is barely understandable and IMO does not add anything of value to the article.
  • Re. third paragraph of reception section: again, the use of "noted" here is discouraged. Also I have difficulty tracking what that sentence is supposed to mean.
That should be all, hopefully   Appreciate all the effort undertaken to tidy up this article. A bit of a tangent, but I've seen a lot of memes with the caption "live fast die young bad girls do it well" within the past two years, and it only occurred to me where that line came from after reading this article. Huh. The more you know. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
All of those last few points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@Your Power: I think I have addressed every point above to the best of my ability, would you be able to re-visit.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ChrisTheDude - you really worked your butt off with this article, wow! You deserve your 10s - the article has improved significantly compared to when I first arrived here! The only thing holding back a support from me is this bit from the lead: " 'Bad Girls' ... became one of M.I.A.'s most successful singles." That requires explicit attribution somewhere in the prose and I just don't see it. As much as I want to see the archived versions of the source links, I understand that it is beyond the scope of my intended prose review; thus it won't really stop me from supporting once the last concern is addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@Your Power: - I just deleted that claim as upon reflection I think it was questionable (it was only her fourth biggest hit in the UK, for example) and re-worked the sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that last pressing concern has been addressed! After a lot of reading and commenting I am confident to say I can now support this article based on the prose quality and comprehensiveness. Nice work! Hope to see you work on more music articles soon; love to see you branching out into new topics.   ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
07:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Your Power: thanks for your support. Just to note, while I haven't done much related to music here at FAC, over at FLC I have successfully promoted over 80 music-related lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
DAMN. When I tell you my jaw dropped upon seeing that number... I see notifs about your FLs passing in places like the WP:SIGNPOST, but I was not aware you've been doing that for a while. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
07:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Spotchecks not done

  • "Matangi's first-week sales were significantly lower than those of M.I.A.'s previous album, and its chart peak was lower in all major markets." - source?
    • Removed the bit about sales, the other bit is (now) sourced in the commercial performance section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • FN1 is missing author. Ditto FN19, check throughout
    • Fixed 1, 19 and one other. Didn't find any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Missing FN69, 71 - please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • What makes The Fader a high-quality reliable source? Metro? 7digital? AnyDecentMusic?
    • Removed/replaced all these sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • FNs30 and 46 appear to be the same source
  • FN63: author name doesn't match source. Ditto 54, check throughout
    • Fixed those, didn't find any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Check formatting of nested quote marks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: - unsure what the last point means, please could you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
      • When a title contains quotation marks (eg FN35), you end up getting a string of double-quotes. These should instead be nested per WP:QWQ. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • FN49 is now broken
  • FN16 has doubled |title=. Ditto FN44, check throughout.
  • AllMusic is sometimes italicized, sometimes not.

- Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: - phew, all done now (I think!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Still missing author for Fn67 - in cases like this it's reasonable to just list the author for the specific entry, although if you'd prefer all of them that's fine too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Japanese fire-bellied newtEdit

Nominator(s): An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a species of newt endemic to Japan. It is found throughout much of the archipelago, in a wide range of habitats. It is rated as near-threatened, and its population is at risk of capture for the pet trade and human development. This is my first FAC nomination, so please forgive my inexperience. This was previously successfully nominated for GA status, and both before and during the review, I went to great lengths to include as much relevant information and context as possible. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Just flagging up that as a first-time nomination this will need a spot check for source to text fidelity. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Is it better now? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Brehms_Tierleben._Allgemeine_kunde_des_Tierreichs_(1911)_(20226567219).jpg: is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The uploader states that it is public domain, but not on what grounds. What would your suggestion be? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The artist's name (Josef Fleischmann) can be seen in the lower right, and he appeared to have died in 1925[4], making this public domain, as he died more than 70 years ago and it was published in Europe. So you should add the same tag as here:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Can't see a saved edit, so added[6] it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I could've sworn it saved. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Henni147Edit

This is my first FAC review for an article in the biology category, so it's a bit of uncharged territory for me, but I'd like to leave some comments. As a non-specialist, I can attest that the article is reader-friendly and easy to understand.

Extended content
  • Structure: It might be smart to make the headings and section order uniform with this article about the Alpine newt, which already has featured status. This would improve the layout consistency across Wikipedia.
That's something I would normally wholeheartedly support, but I think they are already quite similar, and making them more similar might break up the article more than necessary. As for the heading names, throughout animal articles in general, "Lifecycle and behaviour" is much less standard than "Behavior and ecology", same goes for "Captivity" vs "In captivity" and "Threats and conservation" vs "Conservation". If anything, the other article should be changed. Still, I rearranged the lead to resemble that of the other article more.
  • Bundling of sub-sections: This is rather a matter of taste, but I prefer to merge sub-sections that consist of only one short paragraph to one proper section. This reduces the amount of empty space around the text, which is crucial for print versions of the article.
Yes, that was brought up during the GA review. I've trimmed it even further, so hopefully that's good enough (let me know if you would recommend even more).
  • Abbreviations: In scientific and encyclopedic articles, it is generally discouraged to use abbreviations at the beginning of a sentence like "C." at the beginning of the section "Evolution and hybridization". If possible, I recommend to rephrase those sentences a bit. Also, according to MOS:1STOCC, special terms should be introduced in the full version at their first occurrence like "DVM". Better write here: Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Lianne McLeod described them as "low-maintenance", noting that captive newts enjoy bloodworms, ...
I changed it as you suggested for both instances, so it should be okay.
  • Linking: According to MOS:OVERLINK, common words like "forest" or "Japan" shouldn't be linked. However, I would place a link to the article habitat in the lead, which is a biological term and may not be known by casual readers. Also, try to avoid side-by-side links like "newt endemic" in the first sentence of the lead.
I removed links from some simple words, and added one to habitat. I also removed the link to newt, since rewording to keep it and the nearby link separate would have looked strange.
  • Images: All images need alternative texts for the accessbility with screenreaders. If the caption sufficiently describes the image, add |alt=refer to caption. Also, change the parameter image: to File: and remove fixed image sizes like the "250px" from the following image:
    [[image:Cynops pyrrhogaster (under s4).jpg|thumb|right|250px|Japanese fire-belled newt on its back, with the bright red ventral region clearly visible]]
Done (all of the current captions should work as alt text, so I used them.)
  • Referencing: Online sources should be archived with the Wayback Machine or a comparable service. I can help with that if needed. Otherwise, the use of inline citations and sourcing looks good. According to Earwig's copyvio detector, there is no serious copy-violation of text (3.8% similarity at max). I yet have to take a closer look at the citation of print sources.
I thought IABot could do that automatically, but it hasn't been working for me. I may require assistance. It might've been because I was shy of my thousandth edit, which I just achieved. It worked now.

That's it from me at first look. I may give a more detailed feedback about single sections and citations later, but this will take a bit more time. Overall, the article looks promising and I think that with some adjustments it has the potential to be promoted for FAC. Good job. Henni147 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Henni147 thank you very much. I've replied to all your comments. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you very much for your detailed comments and quick adjustments! The article structure looks much better already, and if you say that these headings are more the standard, then I fully support to keep them as they are. I will take a closer look at the changes later. Henni147 (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Finally found the time to take a second look at the prose text. Here are some comments:

  • Lead
    • "Eggs are laid separately, hatching after about 3 weeks." → Change "3" to "three". According to MOS:NUMERAL, integers smaller than nine should be spelled out in prose text.
    • "Cynops pyrrhogaster diverged from its close relative, C. ensicauda, about 13.75 million years ago" → If C. ensicauda is the only close relative of C. pyrrhogaster in existence, the commas have to stay. Otherwise they must be removed here (which is probably the case).
  • Ethymology and taxonomy
    • "Pyrrhogaster is derived from Greek, purrhos for fire and gastēr for belly." → Use the "literal translation"-template here with ({{lit|fire}}) instead of "for fire" and ({{lit|belly}}) instead of "for belly".
    • Punctuation: "Studies examining morphological and geographic variation had recognized six races: Tohoku, Kanto, Atsumi, intermediate, Sasayama, and Hiroshima. However modern molecular analysis [...]"
    • "At that time, the land that would become the Japanese islandsconnected to the mainland at that timelikely had a subtropical climate" → remove duplicate "at that time" and the spacing around em-dashes, see MOS:DASH.
    • Change the abbreviation "MYA" to "Mya" and link to myr at its first occurrence.
    • Use the piped link [[Chūgoku region|Chugoku]] instead of [[Chūgoku]].
  • Description
    • "The vomeropalatine teeth (a group of teeth in the upper back of the mouth) are arranged in two series." → Turn brackets into commas and link "vomeropalatine teeth" to Palatine bone.
  • Distribution and habitat
    • Change "Ryuku Islands" to "Ryukyu Islands" and remove the link. It's linked in the ethymology section already.
    • "Jima" is the Japanese term for "island". So in this case, you either say "on the island of Hachijō" or simply "on Hachijō-jima". Using both terms in the same sentence is redundant.
    • De-link "United States", "states", and "Florida", which are all commonly known places.
    • Use the piped links [[Tōhoku region|Tohoku]], [[Chūbu region|Chubu]], and [[Kansai region|Kansai]] (instead of "Kinki").
    • De-link "Chugoku", which is already linked in a previous section.
    • Change "30 m (98 ft) to 2,020 m (6,630 ft)" to "30 to 2,020 m (98 to 6,630 ft)" to match the formatting in the previous section. It is not wrong per se, but it should be consistent across the article.
  • Reproduction and life cycle
    • De-link "ponds", "streams", and "Japanese", which are common terms.
    • Highlight 'sodefrin' and 'imorin', either in single quotation marks or italic font. I'm not sure which one the convention for biological terms is.
    • Use (from the Japanese term {{transl|ja|sodefuri}}, {{lit|soliciting}})<ref>...</ref>, which renders as "(from the Japanese term sodefuri, lit.'soliciting')[21]".
    • Use (from the Japanese term {{transl|ja|imo}}, {{lit|beloved woman}}, and ''rin'' from ''sodefrin''), which renders as "(from the Japanese term imo, lit.'beloved woman', and rin from sodefrin)".
    • Remove hyphens from "one-by-one".
    • "The young hatch from their eggs after about 3 weeks, as swimming" → replace "3" by "three, see comment above. I also think that the comma is superflous here.
  • Diet
    • Link "tadpoles" at their first mentioning in the section. De-link "Tokyo", which is a commonly known place.
    • Remove hyphens from "year-to-year".
    • Try to remove the nestled brackets in this section. Brackets should be used as sparely in the main prose as possible.
    I trimmed the brackets down, including all of the nestled ones, although I think a few are needed here to stop it from becoming a jumbled mess.
  • Predators
    • Remove the links from "bird" and "snake" here, and link from "avian" to Bird instead, which is less commonly known among casual readers.
    • "[...], newts from Fukue Island tend to perform tail-wagging displays (which bring a predator's attention to their replaceable tail rather than their more valuable head), [...]" → Turn brackets into commas here. See comment above.
  • Toxin
    • "Experiments have found the toxin is almost entirely derived from the newt's diet." → Change marked text to "shown, the". Scientists can find something by conducting experiments, but not the experiments as such. Anthropomorphisms should be avoided in scientific or encyclopedic articles.
    I did this but left out the comma, as it doesn't appear necessary.
  • Conservation
    • The first paragraph is currently a plain series of short main clauses. It may improve the reading flow of this paragaph if one or two of these main clauses were merged and turned into sub-clauses.
    Since the start of this review, I've been instructed to break up the article as little as possible, and these were originally separate subsections. I'm afraid I've run into conflicting recommendations.
    • If possible, try to rephrase the sentence to avoid the side-by-side links in "single-celled eukaryote".
    • Punctuation: "A variety, believed to be found exclusively on the Atsumi Peninsula, was thought to have become extinct in the 1960s. However, [...]"
  • Research
    • Maybe link "gastrointestinal contractions" to Gastrointestinal physiology#Motility. As a non-biologist, I have a rough image what this is, but it's probably better to have a proper explanation link for this.
    • "(The discovery of the latter was the first time pancreatic motilin had been observed. The organ also produces insulin.)" → If this information is relevant enough for the main prose, then remove the brackets here. If not, move this sentence to the footnotes. See comment above.
    • "The existence of pancreatic motilin also indicated an additional, unknown, function." → That last comma should be skipped here.
  • In captivity
    • "C. pyrrhogaster can be kept in captivity." → I recommend to use "Cynops" instead of "C." here. Sentences, especially new sections, should not start with an abbreviation.

That's it at second read. When the issues are fixed, I am happy to give an FAC support for this article. Well done. Henni147 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Henni147, these are great comments. I worked in almost all of them as you suggested, although I commented on a few that I was unsure of. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

Recusing to review. I will make copy edits as I go. If you are unhappy with any, could you discuss them here? Thanks.

  • "They are 8 to 15 cm (3.1 to 5.9 in) long." Perhaps 'Adults are ...'?
Could I bring your attention to "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages" followed by the reasons why at the top of the FAC main page. Just indent your response and the reviewer will pick it up. Thanks. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for enlightening me. I fixed it. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "They readily consumed TTX-laced bloodworms when offered, not showing any symptoms after ingesting the poison". is it known if they were subsequently found to contain tetrodotoxin?
I'm a little confused. Could you rephrase?
It seems that it has been established that newts who did not consume TTX contained little or none of it. You report that this experiment establishes that they will consume TTX and not show ill effects. Does the TTX then stay in their system? The point being that this would be a strong indicator that the hypothesis that TTX in the newts all comes from diet is correct.
I added not only that, but further details on the results of the experiment that should bring everything together,
  • "especially the major ones". Er, what does "especially" actually mean in this context?
As opposed to Japan's smaller islands, some of which they are not present on. Could you suggest a reword?
'including all of the major ones'.
That doesn't completely work, as they are absent from Hokkaido (which may or may not be part of Mainland Japan depending on how it's defined), so I removed it entirely in favor of specific islands (Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu). I also tweaked a similar statement in the body.
  • "and potentially the eggs of their own species." Why "potentially"? This is not used in the main article.
I didn't want to give it undue weight by implying that it was a particularly major food source (as it might appear that way due to how the lead is worded). However, I suppose there's no real alternative to your suggestion for consistency's sake, so I did it.
  • "before splitting into four distinct varieties throughout its range". Do you mean that? Or does each variety occupy a different range?
I mean that the range of the species can be divided into the ranges of four groups that all belong to that species. I don't particularly see a need to change this one, as the MOS usually allows mildly vague wording in the lead, which can then be fully explained in the body.
There is a difference between vague and misleading. How would you feel about 'before splitting into four distinct varieties each with a mostly separate range' or similar?
That's a very good suggestion. I used that.
  • "although officially, all four varieties compose a single species." Perhaps 'Although all four are considered to compose a single species"?
The study was not entirely clear, but it suggested that the clades may be different species, even though they are taxonomically recognized as being a single one. I reworded it to be less ambiguous while still keeping the original message.
  • "Currently, their population on a decline". Missing word(s)
'Currently, their population is on a decline' perhaps. A verb is always useful ;-) .
Ohhhh, I did not notice the word you were talking about at first. Thanks, I fixed it.
  • "may in fact belong to a different genus." Do we need "in fact"? I mean, might a reader otherwise suppose it wasn't a fact?
  • "recognizes sixteen total synonyms for Cynops pyrrhogaster." Delete "total".
  • Could "clade" be linked at first mention.
  • "As time progressed". Consider → 'Later'.
I don't want to suggest they all split at once, which the word "later" seems to do. Any possible alternatives?
Ah. Point taken. Let me think on. If I don't get back to you, leave it as it is.
  • "The northern diverged first, at around 9.68 million years ago, then the central (around 8.23 MYA), then finally the southern and western (around 4.05 MYA)". Why are the last two dates in brackets and the first not?
Removed from all.
  • "to form a hybrid zone". Perhaps a very brief explanation of what this is? (Per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
  • "and requires immediate protection". Non-NPOV value judgement. Consider rephrasing.
  • Section headers: consider deleting "and hybridization" and "Atsumi-Chita variant".
I was hesitant, but it actually looks quite nice. Done.
  • "Smaller juveniles have ..." All of them, or just those from the smaller islands.
The linked source happens to be about a small island population, but its observations appear to apply to all populations. I moved several things around for better clarity.
  • Why is "ventral region" defined inline at the second mention, rather than the first.
  • "vomeropalatine". Needs defining or explaining.
It's a rather odd term that I can't find a good definition for, but it should be better now.
  • "A smooth ridge runs from their nape to their tail. It is 8 to 15 cm (3.1 to 5.9 in) long." In the lead you state that this is the total body length, not the length of the ridge. Is the range given for the napes of females or all specimens? If it is for adults, this needs stating.
I think there was some confusion here, but I've fixed it in the article.
  • "Its range has a small amount of overlap". Does "Its" refer to the northern or the central clade?
  • "forests, grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, lakes, marshes, and cultivated environments." The Wikilinks seem a little random. Are you assuming that a reader will not understand what a marsh is, but will be familiar with a grassland?
Would you prefer I eliminate the current ones or add more?
I am a fan of WP:OVERLINK. And suspect that most readers can work out what "marshes" etc are.
  • Gray, 1850; add the oclc. (3183646) And if this is a book, the title should be in title case.
  • Boie, 1827; ditto. (727216017)
  • References: if works are in foreign languages, these should be specified.
Tschudi appeared to be the only instance of an unspecified foreign language work, so I corrected that.
  • Tschudi: oclc. (964903266)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, excellent suggestions. I have implemented all except a few I would like your recommendation on. I will get to your newer set soon. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "fertilized one-by-one via the spermatophores they carry." Suggest "via" → 'from'.
  • "in a full breeding season." Suggest deleting "full".
  • "or they will drown". Suggest deleting "will".
  • "In captive settings, they are known to readily eat mosquito larvae, brine shrimp, earthworms, and each other." Why is this under "life cycle" and not "Diet"?
  • "changes in the small animals around the ponds that they dwell in." Around the ponds, or in them?
The source actually says "in and around", I just noticed. Fixed it.
  • "with one example of a potential serpentine predator being Gloydius blomhoffii." I don't see what this random-looking piece of information adds.
  • Link both adaptation and adapted.

A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear :) I think I've gotten everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Mochida, 2009: all caps titles are not retained when used on Wikipedia.
  • A stunning debut at FAC. More than happy to support. The first of many nominations I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support and encouragement. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from VanamondeEdit

Looking forward to reading this. I will make some minor copyedits along the way, please feel free to contest them. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  • this source, which you cite, has if I'm not mistaken a more complete phylogeny of the near relatives. Among other things, it shows the non-monophyly of the genus. I suggest using it instead, unless you have a strong reason for using the 2001 study?
  • Independent of the above, I think the caption should include the source.
  • The same source mentions the extreme genetic divergence within the taxon; they stop short of calling them separate species, but this may be worth discussing anyway.
Added a brief mention.
  • The same source also mentions that the islands were likely not isolated from the mainland during the probable spread; suggest including this.
Mentioned it.
  • Suggest moving the fragment about threat status from taxonomy to conservation.
  • It occurs to me that the infobox image is a lot less clear than some of the others; suggest swapping and/or cropping + scaling up.
An attempt was made, and it looks marginally better, but that's about as good as I can get it.
  • "was thought to be extinct, however it was later revealed" some vagueness here; who thought it extinct, when was it determined to be the same as a different group, and how?
The source doesn't mention exactly who first thought it was extinct, but I added everything else.
  • It is common to report SVL in reptiles, in addition to or in place of full body length, is it not? It would be nice to have if available.
I found some interesting information on that, which I included.
  • "It has the northernmost range of any Cynops species" This is probably okay, but given the non-monophyly of the genus, begs the question if this is still true for the clade including all members.
According to the source, the other species are all found in either southern China or the Ryukyu Islands, so it would be true for all members. I added this.
  • Section on reproduction has some information on size that may be better placed in the description.
It's a passing mention that is now included in the description anyway thanks to my other changes. Since the information around it is about maturation, which is relevant to life cycle, I think it's best to keep it.
  • Fascinating information on antipredator behavior. If showing the belly is not viable on the mainland, what do they do instead?
Unfortunately, the source doesn't really say. The best I can find is this sentence: " This fatal mistake was often observed in laboratory trials; newts that reacted to a mammalian predator with the immobile display lost the opportunity to escape and were killed". This would suggest that escaping is the usual alternative, but it doesn't mention them actually doing so.
  • "preventing predation by both birds and mammals" that isn't accurate, is it. Toxins don't prevent predation, they make predation harmful, discouraging it over longer timescales.
  • The "research" section strikes me as somewhat haphazard at the moment. I suggest 1) opening with the paragraph about them as model organisms, and 2) including in each paragraph the significance of that particular research (for instance, why are they a model organism? to study regeneration, presumably, but you never know).
Implemented, although you should probably take a look to make sure it's as you envisioned.
  • I suggest, though this isn't needed, that "in captivity" and "research" be combined; elements of the former topic are already included in the latter, and they are both short. You could call it "interaction with humans" or similar, and there is ample precedent for such sections in FAs.
That is a very good idea. I did so.

That's it for me for this round. This is an admirable effort, and I expect to support eventually. I do wonder if the source material has been mined completely; see comments above, this source, and these, which I just found. Many of the scholarly articles are admittedly dense, and if they're only using the newt as a model organism their utility here is likely to be limited; but I suggest examining the heavyweight studies once again. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Replied to all comments. I will look into adding extra sources if you can think of any important information that's missing. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, but I've requested a cladogram be made for the first point, which I'm waiting on currently. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Source spotcheck by LittleJerryEdit

I looked through a few sources and they support the text. But I made a few changes in regards to paraphasing. Remember to as use little of the same words as the sources as you can, but I'll leave it for others to comment on. LittleJerry (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Andrew D.Edit

  • "The species was first described by German zoologist Heinrich Boie in 1826 as Molga pyrrhogaster,[note 1] based on specimens brought from Japan to Europe." This seems too Eurocentric as I suppose that the Japanese had previously described and recognised the species in their scholarship. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, today's taxonomic system was developed by the Europeans, not the Japanese, so the first valid description would be Boie's. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps say scientifically described. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that would probably make it easier to understand for readers unfamiliar with taxonomy. I have changed the wording. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & BoltsEdit

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you get when you throw a niche-but-beloved late '90s franchise, cars, Legos, and infuriated fanboys into a blender? You get Rare's misguided masterpiece, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This honest-to-God attempt to innovate in a genre that'd stagnated outside of Mario ultimately did more to kill the series it was attempting to resurrect than it did to, well, resurrect it, but it's seen a bit of a renaissance in recent years thanks to its inclusion in Rare Replay. Nowadays, you're more likely to hear about how it was unfairly maligned and innovative, offering a massive amount of constructive freedom a full three years before Minecraft's proper release.

This article has been a GA for several years, but I recently gave it a major overhaul as part of a personal project I've started and I believe it's the most comprehensive resource for the game on the internet. I hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from DecafPotatoEdit

  • Hello. I am not able to perform the FA review, but St Mary's Street, Tenby - - 873512.jpg and File:Saint-Malo remparts 001.JPG are missing alt text. Otherwise, it looks good, and good luck with the FA! DecafPotato (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
DecafPotato, there is alt text for those images already present. Not sure why it isn't showing up in the toolbox? EDIT: fixed it, just had to separate the two alts. JOEBRO64 01:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I went to try splitting the alt text, and you already did it. Nice. The issue might be something to do with the multiple image template? Idk. DecafPotato (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Additional comment/nitpick: Is it possible that refs 16 and 17 (the ones in the "Plot" section) could include the direct quote? It could be more clear than just "ending cutscene" or "Spiral Mountain". DecafPotato (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    I personally don't think that's necessary. All that's really important is where the event takes place in the game, IMO. JOEBRO64 16:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed JOEBRO64 14:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The FURs for File:Banjo-Kazooie_Nuts_and_Bolts_gameplay.jpg and File:Banjo-Kazooie,_Nuts_%26_Bolts_gameplay_2.jpg are largely identical - if multiple non-free screenshots are to be included, each needs a stronger justification
    • Done. JOEBRO64 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Grant_Kirkhope.png: is there no non-filtered image available? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, no—that's the only free-use picture of Kirkhope available. JOEBRO64 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: responded above, thank you for the image review! JOEBRO64 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from SnowFireEdit

This is not a full review and I don't intend it to become one... but as a passerby comment... I'm skeptical of the way the article currently presents the critical reassessment as if it was more broadly-supported than it really seems to be. I would tentatively suggest either rephrasing such claims to be more along the lines of "Critical reappraisals from Journalist X, Y, and Z" think Nuts & Bolts was actually awesome, rather than suggesting that this opinion was uncontroversially shared. That or finding stronger sources suggesting that such a positive reappraisement really is more widespread than I get the impression from the linked sources. For example, the 2020 XBox magazine retrospective calls it "daring, divisive" in its subheader, suggesting that the division hasn't gone away, along with "often seen as the black sheep of the franchise," suggesting that not everyone is as positive as Mayles. The Polygon list on Rare Replay in 2015 does indeed rank Nuts & Bolts highly, yes, but still behind the original Banjo-Kazooie, which weakens the case for other lines like "Retrospective reviewers have reappraised it as the best Banjo-Kazooie game". Put another way, for other series with even more reviews, it's comparatively easy to find some journalist, somewhere, saying that any given Final Fantasy or Halo or Zelda game is the best one. But we shouldn't claim that each game in these other series is considered the best one in the series in each one's own individual game article by citing the journalists who liked This Specific Version the most. It's fine to say "Journalists X and Y call it the best game in the series;" saying that "reviewers" in general have reappraised it as such probably requires a stronger analysis (whether via having a long footnote detailing critical opinions, or via an outright meta-source RS that analyzes the matter).

On a more minor note, I think you linked the wrong reference in "Influence" - you've referenced the contemporary GamesRadar+ 2008 review, which certainly does not talk about alleged influence on 2015 games! (Going to presume it was really the "misunderstood gem" GamesRadar article.)

Finally, and this is very much a personal preference item - I know editors who swear by the reverse - but I'm not a huge fan of talking about publications rather than game journalists. This can make sense for publications with very strong editorial views that overwhelm the individual author (e.g. Nintendo Power) but this isn't true for most publications - Kotaku is not a hive mind, etc. I'd be more inclined to credit journalists rather than publications for opinions, or both if you don't mind being wordy. But this is optional. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi SnowFire, I did a good amount of work on the lede and retrospective assessments subsection to address this. Let me know what you think.
Thanks for catching that GamesRadar+ ref error—I've fixed it.
As for publications vs. journalists: I see where you're coming from. It's my personal preference to use publication names over journalists (unless the journalist is notable on Wikipedia, like Jim Sterling or Jason Schreier) because journalists are usually speaking on behalf of their publications in reviews and retrospectives, unless otherwise noted. I also think it's a little easier for readers to follow with publication names rather than people's names. I can still take a stab at using journalist names if you'd like. JOEBRO64 00:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I believe it is an improvement to stick with "Some" before "retrospective reviewers". I consider my concern met on this, for the closer.
On attributing journalists vs. magazines - like I said, I consider this a stylistic concern up to you, so more of an "FYI" thing. I'll defer to your knowledge on this, but the one case where I'd definitely recommend citing journalists rather than publications unconditionally is if a single publication has published notably inconsistent reviews (unsure if that's true of any of the currently cited sources on Nuts & Bolts). For one famous example, IGN graded God Hand a 3/10, "Awful" in 2006 and also published a retrospective review saying that it was AMAZING in all capital letters in 2019. That wasn't a case of some combined entity called "IGN" having muddled thoughts, but rather just the journalist who wrote the original review having a different take from a separate journalist writing a decade later, and so attributing the specific journalist rather than IGN would be important in such a case of contrasting reviews. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by David FuchsEdit

Review will be forthcoming this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Your PowerEdit

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Try not to abuse your power / I know we didn't choose to change / You might not wanna lose your power / but power isn't pain."

Content warning - this article is about a song dealing with abuse of all kinds. Most importantly, sexual abuse - there is a focus on older men who sexually exploit young women. The lyrics are simple, yet its power lies in its message's simplicity. It's very political (many critics drew connections to #MeToo), but it's also personal (it references Eilish's own experiences with abuse as a child), highlighting the universality of power imbalances. It was considered one of the best songs of 2021, as well as one of Eilish's best songs. Read the article and you will see why!

Now for the meta-commentary - this is the third Billie Eilish-related article I have taken to FAC and fourth overall! This song also is where I got my username, and is one of my favourite songs by her. "Your Power" holds a special place in my heart, and to see its article grow so much has been extremely cool :D Can't wait for what you think. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Media review by Sammi BrieEdit

There are four freely licensed images, all with CC licenses or cropped from CC licenses, and album art with an NFUR. All images have adequate alt text. There is also a 15-second song sample with NFUR.

This article passes on media review. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt review on the audio + photos, @Sammi Brie :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
12:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

  • "In it, she sings alone" - in it doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
    • How so? "it" refers to the video, i.e. "in the video". Nothing seems off about it.
  • Finneas is over-linked in the infobox. I suppose it might have been done intentionally because it does not match his real (full) name in the songwriting credits.
    • You would be correct in that assumption
  • "Eilish revealed" - I suggest not using words like reveal as it has an unencyclopedic, suspense-dissolving effect.
    • Changed wording
  • "Set for release 3 months later, on July 30" -> "Released (three months later) on July 30". Three months later in parenthesis because I think you could even leave that part out but it's optional.
    • Removed "July 30" instead of "three months later" to avoid overwhelming readers with specific dates. I kept "set for release" because it maintains the section's chronology better than saying "released on July 30" - we'd be jumping to April 27 then weeeeeks later to July 30 then baaaack again to April 28 in that case. By saying "set for release" we can just easily gloss over that future date, which is better because the album's actual release is irrelevant for this article about a song.
  • "She talked to the interviewer, Laura Snapes, about how her life had greatly changed since she was a child, the negative aspects of fame, and her struggles with self-acceptance." This reads rather awkwardly because three things are listed; the first one contains a verb but the rest don't ("talked about how her life changed..., the negative aspects...").
    • The list has been modified to fix the parallelism
  • Music and lyrics section lists the song as a folk ballad but the infobox only folk. I suggest specifying it in the infobox.
    • "Ballad" is not a genre, which is why the infobox says only folk.
  • "stripped-back" is rather informal. If it was used like that in the source(s), I suggest using it in quotes.
    • Changed wording
  • "Other critics compared it to songs by the band America[34] or singer Phoebe Bridgers" - why not and instead of or?
    • Fair enough, that's better
  • "She sings about being gaslit" - gaslighting is colloquial.
    • Removed the word

More soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this FAC, @FrB.TG! Glad to come across you in enwiki again. And congrats on getting Alejandro (song) promoted - seems like getting Fame Monster song articles the bronze star has become your long-term project in the encyclopedia? If so, I wish you well in the endeavour   ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Although that is was the plan, I'm not sure how much longer I can keep up. For one thing, I don't have some of the resources to access restricted sources that I once had. For another, I don't have that much time for such an ambitious endeavor. -FrB
  • "Your Power" has received accolades for its lyricism. I would get rid of the has as it's unlikely the song will win any more awards at this point.
    • Extremely good point.
  • She urged viewers to "protect our young women at all costs", and she reminded them
    • Removed
  • "Worldwide, it sold about 8,600 digital copies and was streamed about 64.2 million times." It's not clear if this is first-week sales or overall sales (which I doubt).
    • Considering the presence of "during its opening week" I assumed that folks would get that the entire paragraph was about first-week stats. Though thanks for pointing out this ambiguity. Hopefully that part is clearer.
  • "22.2 million", "9.6 million", "4,500 digital"... - WP:NBSP
    • Added the template
  • "It also entered the top 10 in Australia"
    • I'd prefer keeping the word so that the paragraph's transition from the song's UK chart performance to the song's AU chart performance does not come abruptly.
  • "Like with the music video, she performed the song in the middle of a desert." Was it actually in the middle of a desert or rather a stage that was designed to look like one?
    • The sources say, plainly, that it was in a desert, so I'm confident that they filmed in an actual desert. From watching the video, I don't notice anything in the background that suggests a backdrop.
  • "The venue where the video took place was the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles" -> "The video took place at the venue Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles"
  • " selected to convey the intimate, Old Hollywood aesthetic that she envisioned" - redundant FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Addressed both, having trimmed the sentence for concision.

I believe all of your comments above have been addressed, @FrB.TG. Feel free to read through the article again if you remain unsure of your final stance. Thank you once again for the helpful comments! ^^; ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
10:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Support good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "At the age of 18, Billie Eilish won five awards at the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards held in 2020. These include Album of the Year for her debut studio album, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019)" => "At the age of 18, Billie Eilish won five awards at the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards held in 2020, including Album of the Year for her debut studio album, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019)" (just reads a bit more tightly)
    • Not done; there are 4 almost evenly-spaced commas, and while the sentence does read more tightly, it also feels more unwieldy and hard to read.
  • "Eilish disclosed she would begin" => "Eilish disclosed that she would begin"
  • "Eilish announced the album's title" => "Eilish announced that the album's title"
    • Not done for both. The following sentences read okay without the additional word.
  • "Set for release 3 months later" => "Set for release three months later"
    • Right, mos:num. done
  • "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's instruments" - the credits also mention bass, synths and percussions, so the guitars aren't the only instruments and therefore this should probably be "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's main instruments" or "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's primary instruments"
    • Done - that was an astute catch!
  • "On the singles chart by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" => "On the singles chart published by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)"
    • Definitely reads better this way
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert and/or complain if I screw anything up.

  • I tweaked a sentence in the lead, but checking the information in the body that supported it I think being cited as 80th best song of the year is hardly an accolade. I doubt I could name as many as 80 songs from most years, and my 80th favourite song of any given year is probably a song I don't like very much. I think I would cut this sort of thing from the lead unless it's a bit more flattering than 80th.
    • Sorry, but I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. Lots of songs from lots of varying artists and genres come out every year - as such, general music magazines with a large editorial team like Billboard will be covering a lot of ground when it comes to what their staff like. It's a different paradigm from an individual person's rankings (such as your personal ranking), who can only process so many releases. Other reliable publications like the NPR, the LA Times, The Fader, and Pitchfork have done top 100s as well. - Elias
      • Yes, it's certainly not a bad thing to be in those lists, and absolutely it can be mentioned in the article. I'm only saying that putting that in the lead isn't really giving the reader an accurate sense of how the song is received. If the song failed to make a top-ten list somewhere, would you bother to mention that? The other change I made that see you've put back in is "publications like"; can we find another way to put this? Perhaps "such as" instead of "like"? "Like" implies the other publications are of similar status (high quality, national distribution, high readership. The Guardian list had it at 7th of 20 which is good enough to mention. How about "Named the 7th best song of 2021 by The Guardian, the song also appeared on several top 50 and top 100 lists from other publications"? That last is in case you feel it is necessary to mention those lower rankings -- i.e. if we make it clearer the praise is a bit less it isn't misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
        • Oh! You were referring to which rankings were eye-catching enough to be mentioned in the lead. In that case, I more or less see where you're coming from. I will be changing it to "Named one of the best songs of 2021 in Variety and The Guardian" once I get back into my main account at home. Three things: 1) Willman of Variety ranks "Your Power" higher than the list by Billboard, so it seems more appropriate to mention there; 2) I replaced "by" with the preposition "in" - saying "named ... by Variety" feels off because only one critic curated that list; and 3) I re-removed "publications like" to keep things concise and because six lists feels too little a number to warrant a "such as". BTW, I don't deem it necessary to mention the lower rankings since the second paragraph is big enough as it is. - Elias
  • "She debuted the first live rendition": "debuted" is redundant with "first".
    • Used more concise, less confusing wording - Elias
  • I wouldn't bother to link "verses" (in the lead) and "lyrics" would be a bit more natural in any case.
    • Changed
  • "She prefaced...that": "preface" isn't a verb of speech, so you can't use it to report speech in this way. It has to take an object, which is the thing that is being prefaced by something -- e.g. "she prefaced her comments with an introduction".
  • "Its lyrical themes discuss...": a theme doesn't discuss anything; lyrics can discuss things.
  • "struggles that young women face...such as misogyny, power imbalance, and emotional abuse": those things aren't struggles, they're difficulties, or dangers. They can be struggled with.
    • Reworded the relevant parts for all three comments
  • "...revealing its track list and release date. Set for release three months later, it contains...": a bit repetitive re the release date, and any reason not to give the exact date here? And why switch to present tense for "contains"?
    • Re. not listing the exact release date, see above. Also, "contains" is in present tense because saying "the album contained 'Your Power' as a track" implies that the song used to be in the album but was somehow taken off. In other words, "Your Power" will always and forever be a track from the album, so we use present tense. - Elias
      • You make good points, but I think omitting the date feels odd and there might be a way around that be combining the two sentences, which might also let us avoid the tense issue. How about "On April 27, 2021, Eilish announced the album's title was Happier Than Ever, with the release scheduled for XXX XX and "Your Power" as the twelfth song on the track list."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
        • Your suggestion reads a little weirdly IMO (e.g. how can an album title be released?), and to put it short I can't think of a way to combine the two in a way that doesn't come across as clunky. Instead of combining stuff, how about I remove mentions of the release date altogether? "On April 27, 2021, Eilish announced the album's title was Happier Than Ever, and she revealed 'Your Power' as the twelfth song on the track list" hits three birds with one stone. It addresses 1) your concerns about the tense change (which IMO is too nitpicky because I think tense changes for a single sentence in a paragraph are okay under certain circumstances), 2) your comment about the repetition, and 3) my opinion that the album's release date is not relevant for this article about the song. - Elias
  • "teased the visuals": I'm sure this is standard usage in some media, but it's a bit journalese -- can we expand it a little?
    • I have a hard time figuring out what you mean when you say "expand it"; I would appreciate suggestions on how to change it
      • I think it means that she released one or images revealing some part of the visual presentation of the album. I'm suggesting a change because this use of "tease" has not yet made it into most dictionaries, though no doubt it will -- it's a modern usage. E.g. see or; neither includes this meaning. Some readers won't understand this usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
        • I see - I do understand your point that "teased" may sound a little too unencyclopedic in the context of a song. Changed to "previewed"
  • "It is the third single": again why the switch back to present tense -- we were in past tense for the previous sentence? And it sounds a bit odd to say it was the third single, since it was the first one after the announcement. It might read a bit more naturally to say that two previous singles had been included on the track list for the newly announced album.
    • This switch in tense, although somewhat jarring I agree, is necessary. You cannot use past tense to describe facts that will always be true no matter the time frame, as I said above. Don't Smile at Me will always be Billie's debut EP. 1989 was Taylor's fifth studio album the day it was announced, the day it was released, and of course the day you are reading this. - Elias
    • Re. calling it the "third single", when you have multiple music publications 1 2 3 4 calling it the third single (with more calling "My Future" the first instead 1 2 3), you might as well go with this choice especially since it has way simpler wording. Plus, it's not like singles being released to promote an album before that album is announced is an unheard-of thing - "Me!" was released before Lover was announced, for example. - Elias
      Well, you agree the tense change is a little jarring, right? Technically correct statements can still read oddly, and rephrasing so that the problem goes away can make prose read more smoothly. Yes, it's the third single from the album, no question about it. I'm not going to press this point -- you clearly think carefully about your prose and I don't want to spend too much time on stylistic nuances that are deliberate choices on your part, so I'll strike this and another suggestion above where we're having a similar conversation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Eilish called it one of her favorite songs she had written to date": could shorten this to "Eilish said it was one of her favorite songs" -- "called" seems unnecessary variation, and the rest is surely understood by the reader.
    • I'd prefer we keep the current wording there because by removing those parts, we lose the sense that Eilish is clearly referring to the favorite songs she made. When someone reads about X singer's favorite song, their first thought is not "ooh what's the song they had the most fun making?" - for all we know X singer could have a favorite song (by anyone) that isn't by them. So saying it's one of her favorite songs, no other clarifications attached, can be misleading. We also lose the sense that an artist can continue making new bodies of music and find their new favorite creation in the process. - Elias
      • Yes, fair comment that one wants to make it completely clear she's talking about her own work -- because of the context of the paragraph I thought it was obvious but perhaps you're right that it's safer to be explicit about it. But "to date" is unnecessary; we don't expect her to say her favourite song is one she'll write next year. I still don't like "called it", either. Can we structure the sentence so that a single verb of speech handles both halves, making it possible to just use "said" or "saying"? E.g. "...Eilish said it was one of her favorites among her own songs, and that its candid and personal lyrics..."? Not saying that particular phrasing is the way to go, just that we could splice the halves that way. Having a second verb of speech in the middle slows the sentence down a bit. This is probably another stylistic disagreement, though, so it's fine if you don't want to change it. Though I really think "to date" should go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
        • It is probably for the best to remove "to date" given its redundancy. And ftr I do like your suggestion - I'd just remove the comma before "and" per this essay on comma usage. Somewhat tangential, but I re-split the "this is about..." quotation into another sentence - to connect the two in a single sentence implies that the quotation directly demonstrates what is being described in the former half of the sentence. And that quotation does not exactly communicate that she felt vulnerable about the song or that she called it one of her favorite songs she wrote. - Elias
  • Not crazy about "mentioning how its candid..." -- "that" would be better than "how": "how" implies we'll be told the manner in which it made her feel vulnerable, which is not the case. And "mentioning" again seems unnecessary variation -- "said" would work. "Said" is almost invisible and rarely needs to be varied.
    • Agreed with you that "that" is better than "how". Although I won't change "mentioning" to "said" because you already suggested we substitute it for a previous word in the sentence :") - Elias
      • Well, you haven't changed *anything* to "said" yet! But I would argue two uses of "said" in consecutive sentences in just as invisible as one. It absolutely disappears for a reader, which is what you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
        • Oh, I haven't... yeah, you're right! brainz too fried lately   - Elias
  • 'She continued: "This is...' I think you could cut "She continued" and just use the colon to connect to the previous sentence.
  • I don't think "worldwide attention" is fully supported by the citations. Yes, she broke a record for Instagram likes, and I'm sure they came from everywhere but North Korea, but a reader isn't going to interpret "worldwide attention" that way. In fact why are the first two sentences in that article relevant to an article about the song?
    • After further thought I realize that yep, that detail is absolutely not relevant. Removed
      • I was also thinking that we didn't need to mention the interview at all but I was wrong -- the interview is the source for the quote so it's reasonable to mention it. But I think we could cut the interviewer's name; the reader gets nothing from it, since the lack of a link tells me Snape is not notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
        • You're right. Any chance to cut down on words is a chance I'd take. Her name has been axed   - Elias
          • Looking at this again, "talked to the interviewer" is redundant with "gave an interview"; can we rephrase to eliminate one or the other? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
            • Trimmed - Elias

More later, or possibly tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

All pending comments above have corresponding replies now. - Elias, 14:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've responded or struck above; I'll wait to post more till we've settled a couple more of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
And the replies have their own replies now! The replies are making friends! :D - Elias, 05:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Arbitrary breakEdit


  • "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's primary instruments": suggest "Acoustic guitars are the song's primary instruments".
    • Done - Elias
  • "Critics observed a difference between its acoustic sound and the sound of Eilish's older works": suggest "Critics observed a difference between its acoustic sound and that of Eilish's earlier works".
    • Changed "older" to "earlier" to make it seem more natural, though I kept "the sound of Eilish's..." because "its acoustic sound and that of..." implies "the acoustic sound of Eilish's earlier works". Which is not the point being communicated by the source - Elias
      • So the earlier work was not acoustic? It's a bit surprising to have four citations just to say this is an acoustic song and her previous work was not acoustic. Perhaps multiple critics pointed this out, but it's such a straightforward observation I don't think it's necessary to reinforce it with the extra citations; and in fact I don't think you need "critics observed", if I'm not misunderstanding. The previous sentence mentions the acoustic guitars, and something like "Acoustic guitars are the song's primary instruments -- a contrast with Eilish's earlier work" might suffice. Or "...with the electronic sound [or whatever is correct] of Eilish's earlier work". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes - while this is not the first time Eilish did a song backed predominantly by acoustic guitar (Party Favor (song) and I Love You (Billie Eilish song) come to mind), she did release "Your Power" at a time when most of the music she had put out thus far was electronic pop/goth pop/avant garde pop/whatever pop. Her breakout studio album was pretty much this. - Elias
        • And yeah, you are right that something like "this sounds different from her previous work" is an analysis uncontroversial enough to not warrant "critics observed" followed by a bunch of citations. I removed those bits and merged them with the previous paragraph - Elias
  • "contrasted the production to what he described": should be "contrasted with"; "contrast to" is only used when "contrast" is a noun, e.g. "in contrast to her earlier work".
  • "sonic influences": this is a modern journalistic usage and I would suggest avoiding it in favour of something like "musical influences". It sounds very odd to someone not used to reading music websites.
    • Good points. Reworded for both - Elias
  • Unlink verses and chorus.
    • Unlinked - I probably overestimated how technical-sounding these terms are in the context of a song article. - Elias
  • "With a duration of around four minutes,[49] the video": suggest "The four-minute video".
    • Trimmed although with a different approach in mind. - Elias
  • "Meredith B. Kile‍ of Entertainment Tonight interpreted the scene as a metaphor for how authority can feel constricting": I don't think we need Kile's name, and I think a couple of words could be cut. How about"The Entertainment Tonight reviewer interpreted the scene as a metaphor for the constricting nature of authority"?
    • That flows better than the sentence I had in mind! By the way, the source reads "perhaps a metaphor for the suffocating power of the song's subject" - she was not making a sweeping assessment about the nature of authority in general. "the constricting nature of mishandled authority" would be a fairer summary of her point. - Elias
      I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Becky Zhang of Los Angeles magazine drew a connection between the music video for "Your Power" and the one for Britney Spears's "I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman" (2002). In terms of visuals, she compared the two on the basis of their sepia color schemes, their panoramic cinematography, and their performers' being alone throughout the video." Here I think it's worth keeping Zhang's name, since we need to mention here again later in the paragraph. However I'm not clear what it means to say "she compared the two" -- did she point out correspondences or similarities? And I think this can be compressed a bit. How about "Becky Zhang of Los Angeles magazine commented on similarities between the music videos for "Your Power" and for Britney Spears's "I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman" (2002), including their sepia color schemes and panoramic cinematography, and their performers' being alone throughout the video."
    • The paragraph has been condensed and clarified to address this comment - Elias
      • I slightly reverted my edit that incorporated this suggestion - "including" here implies that the three similarities listed are three out of many, many, more. However, really, those are the only three points of comparison she made in the source. - Elias
  • "Other critics opined that the lyricism in "Your Power" was a testament to Eilish's songwriting skills": does this mean more than "Other critics praised Eilish's songwriting"? This phrasing takes "lyricism", which is praise, as a given; if we want to say that the song is lyrical, we should make it clearer that it's the opinion of these critics. And "opine" is said-bookism. If we want to keep "lyricism", how about "Other critics praised Eilish's songwriting for its lyricism"? You have this combined with another critic's comment at the moment, so maybe "Other critics praised the lyricism of Eilish's songwriting, which Jason Lipshutz of Billboard thought was...".
    • The point of that sentence was to show some critics thought "Your Power" showcased Eilish's songwriting talent (" though her life may be very different now, Eilish's talent for the alchemical process of making deeply personal matters into profound and empathetic music remains as strong as ever, if not more so. That skill was already present in ... 'Your Power' ") - not merely a praise of the songwriting in "Your Power" by itself. Whereas the latter opinion states that Eilish wrote a good song, the former opinion establishes Eilish as someone with a pattern of making songs with good lyrics. - Elias
      • I see -- that's the intent of "testament", then; fair enough. I still would like to change "opine", if we can. Can we make it "praised" instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
        • changed to "found" - Elias

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Another arbitrary breakEdit

Incidentally, I see you've been converting my colon indents to asterisks -- can I ask why? I only noticed because I almost never use asterisks to indent except at the first level. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I do this because as someone who gets overwhelmed easily with long walls of text I thought this was a good way to keep track of which pending replies I've already addressed, without having to strike them - which I believe is reservef for when the reviewer feels like the replies are no longer a concern. - Elias
Fine with me if you want to keep on doing it, but I wouldn't be surprised if you run into editors who don't like you changing their indents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


  • "Some music journalists also favored how "Your Power" portrayed abuse as...": to favour something is to prefer it, so I don't think this says what's intended.
    • Changed to "appreciated" - Elias
  • "They applauded the songwriting for mixing Eilish's personal life with political commentary about the different ways abuse of power is perpetuated everywhere, such as how prominent figures in the music industry still hold a high degree of influence despite receiving numerous allegations of workplace harassment." I think there are some opportunities to improve this sentence.
    • They're applauding the lyrics, not the songwriting, surely? Or at least they're applauding the song, not the writing of it, if the lyrics are not the only focus of their comments?
      • I meant to say that they liked Eilish's approach to writing the lyrics - to combine her own experiences with the experiences of others while writing "Your Power". Though I do agree "praised the lyrics" would sound more natural - I reworded the previous sentence to "appreciated how Eilish portrayed abuse" to preserve the meaning I wanted to convey - Elias
    • And "different" doesn't really work with "everywhere"; the point is either that the abuse of power is perpetuated everywhere, or that it can be perpetuated in different ways, but both together makes less sense. An "and" might fix it (I haven't read the sources so don't know if this can be supported): "...commentary about the different ways abuse of power is perpetuated, and the ubiquity of the abuses" -- again I'm not suggesting this particular wording, just giving a possible structure.
      • Rewrote to reflect the sources more precisely and address the clunky wording. - Elias
    • If you keep the second half of the sentence, I would cut "receiving"; it's an anodyne verb for such an serious point.
      • Excellent point. Cut - Elias
    • Everything after "such as" is not in the lyrics, which is a problem because the first half of the sentence implies the point can be drawn from the lyrics. The only thing in the lyrics that seems to speak directly to this is the word "contract", but that could just as well refer to the film industry, and even that's not very direct. Perhaps this is the reviewer's commentary, or something from an interview with Eilish? If so we should make it clearer where this interpretation is coming from.
      • Changed to "political references" - "Will you only feel bad if it turns out that they kill your contract" is the most politically charged line there (notwithstanding the fact that by its very nature the lyrics have prevailing political undertones), and I agree that it's not in-depth and explicit enough that "commentary" does not feel right to describe it. - Elias
  • "Several of them analyzed the song within the context of #MeToo": I think we could shorten this to something like "Several journalists cited #MeToo" or "made reference to #MeToo". But this also feels like exactly the same point made in the previous sentence. Can these two sentences be connected more directly?
    • It's not the exact same point - #MeToo pertains to sexual abuse by powerful men, whereas the previous sentence deals with general abuse of power within the larger context of society. The cited Vulture source brings up verbally abused politician aides for example. So connecting these two sentences cannot be done, and I want to keep complex, lengthy sentences to a minimum considering this section already has loads of them - Elias
    • I would also prefer keeping it as "placed the song within the context of #MeToo" because the intended effect here is that "according to journalists, Eilish is directly contributing to the ongoing discourse around #MeToo through 'Your Power' ". We somewhat lose this sense when we simply say "cited #MeToo" or "referenced #MeToo" - it implies that all the reviewers merely namedropped the movement without further insight or analysis. A line like "Your Power captures the zeitgeist of the #MeToo era — not so much championing so-called 'cancel culture' as the growing climate of consequence" is more than just referencing it! - Elias
  • "felt like its" is a bit colloquial. I think "Many reviewers felt the simple musical style..." would suffice.
  • "...and soft vocals successfully emphasized the emotional impact that she sought to convey with her lyrics": suggest "effectively" rather than "successfully".
    • Changed wording for both - Elias
  • "contrasting it with the perceived harsh and uncomfortable nature of the songwriting": why "perceived"? Shorthand for "what they perceived as"? I don't think that's a useful way to compress it, if so. And again I don't think you mean the songwriting; you mean the song, or perhaps the lyrics.
    • Rewritten for clarity - Elias
  • 'Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen of The Sydney Morning Herald analyzed why she found this difference in tone effective: "The clever trick employed here is that the delivery of these cutting sentiments often sounds sweet, which makes them feel somehow even more acidic."' I think this could be shortened -- we don't need to both explain what she said and then quote what she said. How about 'For Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen of The Sydney Morning Herald, the "clever trick" that made the difference in tone effective was that "the delivery of these cutting sentiments often sounds sweet, which makes them feel somehow even more acidic."
    • That seems good enough. Done - Elias
  • "Publications have regarded" seems an odd way to say it. Would it be more natural to say '"Your Power" has been included by many publications in lists of Eilish's best songs"?
    • That's too wordy and I don't exactly agree it sounds less clunky than the current wording. - Elias
  • "It was placed in the top 5 of listicles by Uproxx (4) and Rolling Stone (3), published in 2021 and 2022 respectively". I think I'd avoid using "listicle", but if you decide to keep it I'd link it. Suggest "It was listed as the fourth best of her songs by Uproxx in 2021, and the third best by Rolling Stone the following year" to avoid the need to use those parentheses; I think this version also makes the connection to the previous sentence clearer. And if we could join this to the next sentence we could simplify some more: how about "It was listed as the fourth best of her songs by Uproxx in 2021, and the third best by Rolling Stone the following year, while Consequence, NME, and MTV Australia all ranked it as one of her top 15 songs."?
    • Rewrote the Uproxx/RS sentence - parentheses should be removed, and it is also now active voice to make it read less oddly. - Elias
  • "In addition, several publications...": suggest cutting "In addition"; the sentence makes the difference clear.
    • It's not about whether it helps clarify the difference so much as it's about serving as a transition word to avoid an abrupt speed bump in the paragraph flow. - Elias
  • '"Your Power" received accolades for its lyricism': you cite awards, but "lyricism" is a particular quality -- intense or beautiful expressiveness. As far as I can see those citations don't really support the use of the word.
    • Changed to "lyrical themes" - Elias
  • "The song received another nomination at the 2021 VMAs, specifically for Best Direction." Suggest "The song was also nominated for Best Direction at the 2021 VMAs".
    • I'd prefer not to change it so that it flows more smoothly with the preceding sentences and to avoid making the next sentence have the exact same sentence structure. - Elias
      • Can we combine the sentences somehow to allow us to avoid the duplicate structure? It's awfully wordy to say "she got another nomination, and specifically it was". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Should be rewritten now - Elias
  • "In the process, "Your Power" debuted and peaked at number 6 on the Billboard Global 200": can we do without "In the process"? And how about joining this with the next sentence: '"Your Power" debuted and peaked at number 6 on the Billboard Global 200, giving Eilish her second top 10 in the two charts after "Therefore I Am", which peaked on both charts at number 2'.
    • "In the process" is there to directly connect the sentences beside it - the amount of streams and digital sales was responsible for its debut. If we remove it, it would become ambiguous when "Your Power" debuted/peaked on the Global 200 - was it during its opening week? Was it way later? - Elias
      • How about '"Your Power" debuted and peaked that week at number 6...'? "In the process" seems oddly technical in tone to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Since the technical tone seems to be the issue here and not the existence of a transition word itself, I swapped "in the process" out with "consequently". I hope this is satisfactory. - Elias
  • '"Your Power" received 2.1 million streams from UK listeners...': active voice seems smoother to me: 'UK listeners streamed "Your Power" 2.1 million times...'.
    • Done - Elias
  • "Upon the week's conclusion": suggest "At the end of the week".
    • Changed to "by the end of the week" - Elias
  • 'It also entered the top 10 in Australia, her twelfth song to do so. On the singles chart published by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), "Your Power" debuted at its peak position of number 9.' A bit repetitive; can we combine these sentences?
    • I was a bit stumped on how to address this but I hope the newly combined sentence does the job well enough. - Elias
  • "had garnered over 150 million streams": "garner" is another word that would be a said-bookism if it were a synonym for said; it only gets used this way in music journalism. Suggest "had been streamed over 150 million times worldwide".
    • Done - Elias
  • The long list of countries in which the song reached the top ten is tedious to read and repeats information in the table further down the article. If a handful of these are particularly noticeable, I would suggest mentioning them and dropping the others as not worth the repetition.
    • I want to keep every country namedropped there if that's okay with you. The main theme in that section is "Your Power" reached top 10 in a whole bunch of places worldwide - something mentioned in the lead - proving that it was indeed a commercially successful single as the section's thesis statement says. That in mind, mentioning only the US, UK, and Australia feels like a cop-out and focuses unduly on one part of the world. However, I removed the chart positions because they're not as widely covered in media as the US, UK, Australia, and Global 200 ones, and because as you said it makes the sentence more tedious to read and repeats information in the table below. - Elias
      • I think I can live with that if you really want to keep it. As a reader, though, I would prefer to see something like "It eventually topped the national singles chart of Lithuania[93] and reached the top 10 of over a dozen other countries around the world", with the chart giving the details. I think a reader would understand more quickly that this is an impressive achievement. And I'd suggest changing "As time passed" -- the point being made is the end state, not the process of time passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
        • I have relegated the list into a footnote, readding the peak positions for clarity. Huh. Honestly, the paragraph does read way more smoothly this way. - Elias
  • "Accompanying her was her brother Finneas O'Connell, who played the acoustic guitar and provided additional vocals." Suggest "Her brother Finneas O'Connell accompanied her on acoustic guitar and provided additional vocals".
    • Done - Elias
  • The image file for the hotel hallway image doesn't say it's in the Biltmore Hotel; do we know that's the case? And was it this particular hallway?
    • It's obviously unlikely it was that particular hallway: the photo is there to illustrate how the Biltmore Hotel looks from the inside, not to point out the exact location of filming. And given that the person who took the photo added "Category:Millenium Biltmore Hotel" to the file page, I am pretty confident that it is indeed the Biltmore Hotel. - Elias
  • "was deliberate with choosing the color palettes for the set design": I think this would have to be "deliberate in her choice of", but what does "deliberate" add for the reader? If we say she "chose", we've said it was deliberate. And how does this connect to her synaesthesia? I can imagine that her colour choices had synaesthetic implications but I don't think we can leave that completely to the reader to figure out.
    • You figured out what it meant! Yes, the sentence should have been more direct with the relevance of her synesthesia here. This has been addressed - Elias
  • "juxtaposed against": "juxtaposed" already implies "against"; suggest "juxtaposed with". Actually this might be a BrEng vs. AmEng usage, so ignore me if you want on this one -- I think "juxtaposed with" is right on both sides of the pond, but "against" might be AmEng only.
    • I'm keeping the wording. - Elias
  • "Eilish, who used the song as the tour's midpoint interlude": I think you mean it was the midpoint interlude for the concerts on the tour, not for the tour. If that's not right I don't know what you mean.
    • You're right - that makes more sense. - Elias
  • "in defiance of the overturning of Roe v. Wade": perhaps "in protest against" instead of "in defiance of"? She's not really defying it, is she?
    • Changed the wording, which should make it consistent with how the lead describes this - Elias

That's it for a first pass. Sorry about the slow progress of the review; I'm a bit less busy now so should be able to follow up more quickly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie - no worries about the pacing   These comments have been extremely helpful so far, and it makes me grateful you were provide such thorough justifications for your comments. I'm also glad we were able to see eye-to-eye on some comments I chose not to implement. I have replied to every single point raised above. Take your time with the next passes; hope you have a nice weekend! - Elias, 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The MTV award is titled differently in the lead vs the body - which is correct?
    • Went with "Video for Good" in the lead to match the body - Elias
  • FN5: author name spelling doesn't match source
    • Fixed - Elias
  • Why is the Indie88 ranking significant enough to warrant mention?
    • Well, don't really have a good answer for that, other than "this seems like an RS (radio station) so let's include it" ... replaced with a source from Stuff, which is the largest news website in NZ and lists the song in a higher ranking (-ish) - Elias
  • Be consistent in whether radio stations are italicized or not
    • KIIS-FM is now italicized - Elias
  • FN72 is missing authors
    • Added - Elias
  • FN129 is incomplete.
    • Incomplete in what sense? - Elias
      • Now FN131. Incomplete in that a web source should have at least one of |work= or |publisher=, and this has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
        • |publisher= parameter has been added. Let me know how the source review stands now. - Elias

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. Responses to everything above. - Elias, 23:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Corp NaomhEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Highly ornate and visually appealing (although badly damaged) 9th or 10th century bell shrine that was heavily rebuilt in the 15th century for the better. Originally commissioned as a reliquary container for the hand-bell relic of a, by then, long dead Irish saint (whose identity is now lost), it is now considered a high point of medieval Irish metalwork.

Much appreciation to Sailko for the images –the object is not normally on display for some odd reason, probably conservation as there is plenty scholarship. Part of a series on Insular art; feedback/insight/criticism gratefully welcome. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "It was likely was held" - stray word in there
  • "Although recognised as the object as a reliquary" - should this be "Although recognising the object as a reliquary"
  • "The shrine consists of a sheet and cast metal mounds" - should "mould" be singular?
Changed this to "mounts" Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "It is hollow, and made from a bronze casts" - should "cast" be singular?
  • "the back of his heads protrudes" - he has multiple heads?
  • "He wears a full-length and according to Bourke, "wing-like" tunic or cloak" => "He wears a full-length and, according to Bourke, "wing-like" tunic or cloak"
  • "described these designs and their "equal-rayed limbs" as an examples" - design example should presumably be singular?
  • Wikilink Book of Kells
  • "the rider's hands are placed inside their cloaks" - if you are referring to multiple riders then the apostrophe should be after the s
  • "dramatically curls-up at the back" - no need for that hyphen
  • "Two oversized birds perch on the horse's heads" - again, if you are talking about multiple horses then the apostrophe is in the wrong place
  • "Like the rider's cloaks, the bird's wings" - same here (both cases)
  • "In the panel, the animal's hindlegs" - same again
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Chris, resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    • There's been a lot of subsequent work so I think I'll have to do a whole fresh review, but one thing that jumps out at a first glance is "It contains a series of much tinner confronted animals" - is that meant to say "thinner"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
      • yes, thinner. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

Recusing to review. Placeholder - please ping me once the above has been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  • "likely belonging to an early Irish saint." Could we change the US English "likely" to the Irish English 'probably'. Similarly with "It was likely held by hereditary keepers".
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Sections from its original phase include the cross on the reverse and the ornate semi-circular cap on the top". I have reread this several times and have no idea what it means. What does it mean?
    "phase" means build period. I've tweaked a bit to make this clearer, but do need a clearer definition. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Some indication in the lead of the size of the object would be helpful.
    Now added. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "after the dissolution of Tristernagh Abbey". Is it known when this happened?
    Clarified.. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Treasury room". Either upper case R or lower case t.
    It's The Treasury according to the NMI website, although the capital "The" looks weird to me. Thinking.
That's ok, cus the MoS suggests that "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".
I ended up removing the claim, remembering that it wasn't there on last visit...the (underfunded) NMI website is notoriously poor and out of date. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this Gog, given your current limited wiki time. 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Co. Westmeath". Abbreviations should be given in full at first mention.
    dabed. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "It was first mentioned and described in Henry Piers, Chorographical Description of the County of Westmeath." Should "Piers" have a possessive?
    Yes. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "it was found to contain a block of wood substituting a saint's hand-bell." I am puzzled; how was it know that a block of wood was meant to represent a hand bell? I mean, it was just a piece of wood.
    The metalwork's shape made it obvious that it was a bell shrine. Presumably the wood was placed so as it wouldn't collapse. Need to review the sources to cite this. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "it is generally accepted that the 15th century additions". This is the first mention of 15th century additions, so they need introducing properly.
  • The quote starting "laced...of brass, and..." is 62 words long. The MoS suggests "Format a long quote (more than about forty words ...) as a block quotation, indented on both sides."
    Has been paraphrased Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    I think will chop this down and move parts to other sections. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "RIA". Abbreviations should be given in full at first mention.
    done. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "the 600-900AD period". En dash, not a hyphen, and a space before AD.
  • OK. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "the large central figure of Jesus on the cross. At 23 cm (9.1 in) high, it is around the size of a pocket bible". What is size of the bible. At the moment you have this as the figure of Jesus. If you mean the shrine then "it is" → 'the shrine is'.
    Now linked to pocket gospel book, which gives a clearer indication. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "produced between 600 and 900 AD with iron coated with bronze". Perhaps "with" → 'of'?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "It consists of a sheet and cast metal mounds". What are "mounds"? What is the "sheet" made of?
  • Monds = protrusions, the sheets now clarified as bronze. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "are from the 9th or 10th century phase." Consider deleting "phase". If not, what is it/does it mean?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "frontside" isn't a word. You probably mean 'front side'.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "and is composed from". Possibly "from" → 'of'? I don't think something can be "composed from".
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Is there such a thing as "full profile"? I understood there to be either profile or full face. Happy to be corrected.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "beard and whiskers." What whiskers are there which are not part of the beard?
  • Removed whickers, but the point was the fine detail on such a small figure. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Raised bands divide the robe". Just a suggestion → 'Raised diagonal bands divide the robe'.
  • "Patrick's Cross". Why the italics?
  • Removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "and designed in the so-called "Kells style" attached to a number of riding figures in earlier or contemporary". 1. I am not sure about "designed", perhaps 'shown'? 2. "attached"? Maybe something like 'also seen in'?
  • "has a long and thick mane, has a downwards looking head and eyes, and long and wide tail." Delete the second "has".
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "The hind legs are positioned low underneath their body". "their" → 'its'.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Optional: "Keeping within this tradition" → 'In keeping with this tradition'.
  • "below the horse's knees rather than above the horse's shoulders." "above the horse's shoulders" → 'above its shoulders.'.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "the birds represent the martyrdom of the cleric". Which cleric?
  • The one they are facing, as in the section above. Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Similar figures in the Book of Kells miniatures ... have short fringes and sometimes a bald crown." But the second illustration from the Book of Kells immediately below shows a rider with a full head of hair which curls up at the back.
  • Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The titles of works all seem to be in title case except for Johnson, 2005.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Working through these, most done. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "The bronze figure of Jesus and the silver cross were both added in the 15th century but are now badly damaged, as are large portions of the cross". "as are large portions of the cross" ? This is already covered by "are now badly damaged".
  • Removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "a deeper cut protrusion". To protrude is "To extend from, above or beyond a surface or boundary; to bulge outward; to stick out." So how can one have a deeper protrusion?
    Incision. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "lining the length of the shire". What's a "shire"?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "placing its creation to 1493". Is there a grammar hiccup here?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "a fact used to date the additions to the Corp Naomh's main panel. "Perhaps how this was done could be explained, if only in a footnote?
  • Spelling fixed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "a grid of interlinked cast openwork, equal sized, crosses." I think there should be a comma after "cast" and a hyphen after "equal".
  • Yes, rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "its upper side panels" → 'its upper-side panels'?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "which holds the crosses." the crosses? Have these already been introduced?
  • Removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "amongst other contemporary Irish metal relic containers." Does this mean that the Soiscél Molaisse and the Shrine of Miosach are both examples of contemporary Irish metal relic containers, or that they are both examples of contemporary Irish metal relic containers with similar crosses?
    The latter, as indicated by The crosses are similar to those on the...". Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • " The plate dates to roughly the same period as the first phase". I think that you need to define and explain somewhere what the "phases" are.
  • "polaire" should use a lang template.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "An undated portable leather case". Does "portable" add anything?
  • it idicates that the case was used for carrying from place to place, but guess that's implied so removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Does "sewing" really need linking?
  • Suppose not; delinked. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "The flap has rows of stitch holes heavier than". How can a hole be heavier than something?
  • Rephrased to indicate that the holes are larger, ie they once contained heavier thread. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

And that's it for a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  • "It was probably held by hereditary keepers after the dissolution of Tristernagh Abbey" is in the lead, but I struggle to find it in the main article.
  • "The metalwork's shape made it obvious that it was a bell shrine. Presumably the wood was placed so as it wouldn't collapse. Need to review the sources to cite this". Any joy?

Looking really good. IMHO. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Almost there; there is the block quote to also sort out. Been a very rewarding review! Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought you found my reviews intimidating? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe your not as dastardly as everybody says ;) Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
As update, just the block quote and hereditary keepers claim left. Ceoil (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Gog, apologies for delay; all resolved now if you can take another (hopefully final) look. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Gerda's comments and supportEdit

Thank you for another fine piece from Irish cultural heritage! I'd make small changes myself but was offline on a plane when I wrote it, and - on vacation - can't check again.


  • "to enclose a now lost c. 600 to 900 AD hand-bell, likely belonging to an early Irish saint" - can we get the time for the bell to later?
    Reworded this so the dates are not interrupting the flow so much. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • link saint, or Irish saints if there is something?
    went with List of saints of Ireland which appropriately says “The vast majority of these saints lived during the 4th–10th centuries” Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • extra "was" in third para
    Done Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


  • avoid extra lines for references?
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


  • I recommend to move the bell image altogether from that section. It sandwiches text, displaces the following header, and the text has no bell yet. The pic could go to Function" (or to the bottom after leather case where there's white space)
    moved Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


  • no comma after Bourke, or a comma before "according"
    Done Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


  • near-mirrored?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • any link to Kells or Kell style?
  • Linked Abbey of Kells Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "curls up"?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Confronted animals

  • with a link to embossed we don't need the longish explanation in brackets
    snippedCeoil (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

All these are just minor points. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

all great suggestions for improvement, will add tomorrow. ps, have great holiday! Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thank you for action and wishes, - Sunday was another great day, singing with a friend in her church choir in historic Katonah, then hike in Manitoga with other friends, pics to come
support article --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

  • Consistent alt text would be good. The infobox image has alt text in Italian, not ideal.
that’s the file name, but agree. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Done, but with articles on specific artworks or objects, alt is less useful as the image caption would cover it anyway. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Main images of the corp naomh and other National Museum of Ireland images look to be OK by Irish freedom of panorama law.
  • Book of Kells images: why are these PD in the US? According to Book of Kells, some if not most of the images were published in Ireland early enough to be PD in the US in 1996, but when were these two published?
    Have replaced with PD-old-100-1923, which have used on recommendation on FACs on illuminated manuscripts. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I guess the issue here is whether the book was "published" before 1927. The British Library says there is technically copyright on illuminated manuscripts they own if they have never been published ([7]). The copyright notice from Trinity at [8] is a bit confusing, stating "Rights statement: Copyright The Board of Trinity College Dublin. Images are available for single-use academic application only. Publication, transmission or display is prohibited without formal written approval of the Library of Trinity College, Dublin." followed by "Copyright status: Public domain" which we might take as saying the images are PD, but Trinity claims the rights for the specific reproductions on their webpage? The bad news is that the images are sourced to exactly this digital reproduction... on the other hand, the existence of a 1951 facsimile edition mentioned at Book of Kells should mean the images from that edition are all PD in the US, as they should have become PD where they were published and then in 1996 in the US. Does image copyright also give you a headache? —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Does image copyright also give you a headache. I need a sit down and smelling salts. Will fix the captions for now, but will be a day or two before I get to look at the licensing. But nice to have a friendly and helpful img reviewer, so thanks :) Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • While we're here, the captions still need a tiny bit of work. One of the horsemen is actually on (double check "on" versus "in", currently inconsistent in the caption) folio 89 (recto), not 58. You can find the whole book at [9] (your images are from image 513=255 verso and 180=89 recto). —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    Confirmed from the tcd website and done. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Corp Naomh Reverse Margaret Stokes.jpg: doesn't look like a drawing, and the source doesn't mention Margaret Stokes?
yeah, will remove and see if I can get a free one. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Why do we need the catalogue number for the leather case in the caption?
removed. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that's all. —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kusma; getting to the publication of the Book of Kells Images just now, in case you think have forgotten. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ceoil, I think the 1951 publication in Switzerland (even if black and white [10]) should be enough to make the Kells images PD long enough before 1996 for them to be OK. It is debatable whether the copyright tag for the images is OK; perhaps something like {{PD-Art-two|1=PD-100|2=PD-1996}} is better. Thank you for the alt tags and other changes. —Kusma (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Kusma, have switched the tag for both colour imgs to {{PD-Art-two|1=PD-100|2=PD-1996}} as first preference; I think using B+W reproductions for imgs from the BOK is near sacrilege given the colorisation is kind of the whole point as to whey the book is so well know. If have to go down the FU route, second choice is to use just one image, butr that would be a bummer, and take from the ed value of the article. Anyway, thanks again for all the feedback. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, reduced to just one book of kells img. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think a fair use defence is needed for either of the images. With the new tags, the images are fine and this image review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Great! Finally, I can start to rebuild my life and sleep easy at night :) Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

  • Can we have a plain-text pronunciation guide in the lead?
  • the then-owner of the land on which the You don't need "then" for the same reasons we don't use "the late" (for example)
  • However, when finally opened it was found to contain a block of wood No need for the "however".
  • described as "a certain gentleman, a great zealot of the romish church". You need a reference straight after a direct quote. And should Romish Church be a proper noun?
  • "laced...of brass, and...studded Ellipses should be spaced per MOS:ELLIPSIS
  • The large diagonal cross on the case's front is consists of two overlapping leather straps sewn onto the case. Stray word?

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Harry, all done except trying to figure out how to add a plain-text pronunciation. Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Harry, have made a stab at phonetic pronunciation based on how I would pronounce it, but Irish lang dialects widely vary by region, on spelling, vocabulary and especially accent (and of course the sources don't cover this). Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Further commentsEdit

  • "became signina of clerical office" - never seen the word "signina" before. If it's not a typo, is there an appropriate link?
  • THat's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    Many thanks for the ces and cmts. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Dark KnightEdit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about The Dark Knight, the 2008 superhero film that redefined the genre, broke bunches of records, and established Heath Ledger as one of the greatest comic character incarnations of all time! Based on all the learning and feedback from previous FACs, this is one of my most recent projects and, I think, the greatest culmination of everything I've learned here so far. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

TDK is for me simply the greatest superhero film of all time, and I very much look forward to learning more things about it. Comments to come soon. FrB.TG (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi FrB.TG, just a friendly reminder :) Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 13:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I'll get to it by the end of this week at the latest. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The lead writes about the interest surrounding the casting and performance of Ledger before the film's release in great details after which the box office performance and the critical reception are mentioned. I was wondering if the critical reception part could be moved directly to the part after "from the press and public regarding his performance". This way, the reader immediately gets their answer on how Ledger's performance (and the film) was actually received.
  • "organizations from the police, Batman, and the Joker. The Joker" - it does not read particularly well to finish a sentence with "the Joker" and start the next with "the Joker".
  • "Gordon sacrifices himself to save the mayor" - maybe it's just me but "sacrifices himself" implies that he dies in the process of saving the mayor. If I remember correctly, he fakes his death at this point, but the plot mentions it later when he is revealed to be alive. IMO it has a suspense-dissolving effect and somewhat violates the neutrality policy.
  • "The Dark Knight's cast includes Eric Roberts, Michael Jai White, and Ritchie Coster as crime bosses Sal Maroni, Gambol, and the Chechen" - a respectively is needed at the end.
  • "The first scene to be filmed was the bank heist"
  • Perhaps link "extras" to Extra (acting) for those who might not be familiar with the concept?
  • "Christopher only used computer-generated imaging (CGI)" - abbreviation unneeded if it's not used anywhere else.

Down to the end of Production section. Not much to complain so far except for some minuscule queries. FrB.TG (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Done! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "reviewers appreciated his charismatic Dent portrayal" - this subjective claim is made in Wikipedia voice. It should be something along the lines of "..praised his Dent portrayal as charismatic".
  • "Ledger won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, making him only the second performer to win an award posthumously" - who was the first?
  • According to professor Martin Fradley, among others, Batman and Gordon's "noble lie" is a cynical endorsement of deception and totalitarianism - which lie concerning Gordon are we talking about here? The paragraph previously talks about the lies told by Batman and Alfred, but not that by Gordon. Does it refer to Gordon supporting Batman in his lie?

This is it. Excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks FrB.TG Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. Remarkable work - thank you for improving the article of this masterpiece film. FrB.TG (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64Edit

Possibly my favorite film of all time so I can't miss the opportunity to review this. Should come within the next few days JOEBRO64 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a great article, so I don't really have much to say. But here's what I do!

  • My only real problem is that the critical response section feels a bit summary-ish. I think it'd be useful to provide more examples of how critics felt about the "complex moral tale about the effects of vigilantism and terrorism on contemporary society", for instance.
  • In the accolades and awards section, it's probably worth noting that the increased Best Picture limit became known as "the Dark Knight rule". [11]
  • In the post-release section, I think the other media stuff would fall under marketing, no? It feels a little weird to put promotional materials like this in a separate section under post-release, especially when most of the things discussed came out before the film itself was out!
  • Thinking about it, I don't think the subheading title "lasting reception" in the legacy section makes much sense. Reception is how something is received when it arrives; you can't keep being received over and over again forever, especially not by the same people. I think something like "retrospective assessments" would make more sense.
  • It's not necessary—I think the article is perfectly comprehensive without it—but Glen Weldon's book The Caped Crusade: Batman and the Rise of Nerd Culture has some commentary on The Dark Knight that could be useful, mainly how it was received within the Batman fandom. I have the book but won't have access to it until the 23rd, so I can send you the relevant pages (it's only like, seven pages, from what I remember) when possible, if you're interested.

And that's all I've got to say, really great article that absolutely does this film justice. Nice work JOEBRO64 15:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah Crit reception sections are not the easiest, some reviewers want it tight, others want more detail. I've expanded on it a little with what I could find, the reviews just tended to mention the themes exist but rarely discussed them in detail, although I think I've found some decent comments, if few.
This is a tough one as I'm not fond of the idea of labelling a roller coaster, a novel, or a DVD movie as marketing. It's certainly tie-in material that helps promote things but I get the Post-release label isn't necessarily appropriate. I've changed the header name although I'm not 100% on it, but i'm open to suggestions.
Sure I can take a look at it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the changes, so declaring a support. I'll email you the Caped Crusade pages as soon as I get the chance. JOEBRO64 14:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Support from VamiEdit

Ooh. I've been wondering when this film would get its bronze star. I look forward to reviewing the article within a few days. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, here we go! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Reviewed version. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • #Plot at least inconsistently refers to the Joker as "the Joker" or just "Joker". I would advise using the former uniformly.
  • Why is the Gotham City Police Department linked in #Cast but not #Plot?
  • They wanted to explore the theme of escalation and the idea Batman's extraordinary efforts to combat common crimes would lead to an opposing escalation by criminals [...] I recommend "the idea that Batman's extraordinary efforts" here.
  • Nolan said the title refers to Dent as equally as Batman. [...] Nolan found writing the Joker [...] did not influence the main narrative but Nolan believed [..] Which Nolan? The last brother named was Johnathon.
  • #Box office twice says that The Dark Knight was "the highest-grossing film of 2008".
  • [...] praise with the caveat his death made the role [...] Recommend "caveat that his death made the role [...]".
  • Once Dent experiences a significant traumatic experience [...] Suggest revision to eliminate the second "experience" here.
  • The citation templates in References [81] and [331] should have a |ref=none applied to them; they are throwing errors for not being directly referenced. Likewise the items in #Further reading.
Hi Vami_IV, thanks for reviewing. I've done all of these. The "highest-grossing film of 2008" is meant to relate to in the U.S. and then worldwide, so I've clarified that. I was a bit confused on how to deal with both Nolans so I tried just referring to Christopher as Nolan and Jonathan only ever as Jonathan. I've switched it to Christopher when he is named in the same section, but is that the appropriate way to deal with it? It's not a situation I've come across before. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Refer to WP:SAMESURNAME: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity." –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I forgot about the Gotham City Police department link, I didn't put it in the plot because there didn't seem to be a natural place to name drop it, and I didn't want to hide the link under "police". Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMSEdit

You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan", and it looks like one of those plans is making this the best it can be, so count me in! From a glance, one thing that stuck out to me like is how it feels repetitive to use images of Heath Ledger in consecutive sections, but of course I'll at some point take the time to look deeper. Expect more comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

OK now here we go!

  • The use of "several" from "several posthumous awards" is an understatement.
  • To not even list Ledger's BAFTA or Golden Globe in the lead is a glaring omission among his accolades. Solely listing his Academy Award not only feels incomplete but sadly perpetuates a systemic bias I've noticed among Wikipedia articles where mentions of Oscars often get prioritized above all other awards. Let's not make this feel so Oscar-centric.
  • Starting all except one sentence from the plot section's second paragraph with "the" is overly monotonous. A way to reduce this problem would be not having that word attached to every instance of "Joker"; just having that upon his first mention is enough.
  • Under the "Development" subsection of "Production", the use of "realizing" from "realizing the Joker in Begins's grounded, realistic style" reads awkwardly. Maybe go with "using", "utilizing", or "implementing" instead.
  • Beginning almost every sentence from the second paragraph of "Writing" with "Goyer" feels repetitive.
  • Don't insert POV descriptions like "iconic" as you did with "the threat of iconic villains" or "tragic hero" (the latter implies something is inherently sad and that's not a stance we should be writing out).
  • Rather than "significant" for "significant character development", I'd recommend you use "major" or perhaps "drastic".
  • Literally each sentence from the last paragraph of "Writing" starts with "the", and that's overkill.
  • From "Casting", the use of "a high- and low-pitch" feels like it's missing a "pitch" after the "high" part.
  • A slight correction I'd like to make is that Aaron Eckhart was focusing most on RFK Jr. among the Kennedys, not that guy's namesake father.
  • More neutrality issues with "tragedy" from "serving as a further tragedy to fuel Wayne's character".
  • For the first sentence of "Pre-production", you've misused a semi-colon following "parts of Yorkshire", and I'd elaborate on what the "several cities in the U.S" were.
  • You can probably guess what's wrong with the fourth paragraph of "Filming in Chicago"
  • There's something weird with File:The Dark Knight - Why So Serious.ogg where it's shown as being 31 seconds long on this page and one part of the audio file itself (exceeding the maximum length of 30 seconds that WP:SAMPLE permits) while another says 30 in total. Not sure what the true duration is here, but I don't see how it benefits the page per the 8th criterion of WP:NFCC.

I'll finish this up later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the Kennedy Jr thing has to be a misquote either by the person taking the notes/writing the article or a mistake on Eckhart's part. I initially thought this but it's Senior who actually dealt with organized crime, the son just peddles vaccine conspiracies and has no links to fighting organized crime.
The use of "iconic", "tragedy", etc, I've only used that when its in the source so it's not a personal insert. Let me know if that makes a difference.
I think the music adds context since that particular track has a lot of discussion about it in that section, both in its construction and meaning.
Some responses, I've implemented the rest. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


Image review

  • File:The_Dark_Knight_(2008_film)_ARG_Example.jpeg needs a more expansive FUR, particularly purpose of use
  • File:Graffiti_in_Shoreditch,_London_-_Syd,_Why_so_serious%3F_(13785515385).jpg: what's the copyright status of the artwork pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Done Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Boring Lava FieldEdit

Nominator(s): ceranthor 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Taking the FAC plunge for the first time in 3 years by my measure. This is part of a series of articles I've been working on over the past decade off-and-on related to the Cascades Volcanoes. I recognize it still needs alt text and I'm hoping to get to that ASAP, but I think this is otherwise more or less ready to become an FA. Looking forward to comments to improve it further! ceranthor 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


  • "moderate climate with wide temperature variations " sounds like a contradiction.
    Changed to "subject to Portland's moderate climate with variable temperatures and mild precipitation." I just went by what the source said. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • " mark notable tributaries " is weird prose.
    Changed to "tributaries for the Columbia River include the Washougal and Sandy Rivers." ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Larch Mountain-Oregon from Washough-Washington.JPG wants a better source.
    Struggling to find a USGS source. Might email the author and see if she has any idea if they were from USGS or the source is incorrect. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    Sadly, it looks like Lyn Topinka recently passed away, so I went ahead and replaced the image. ceranthor 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • File:JuandeFucasubduction.jpg and File:Bobs mountain.jpg sources are broken.
    Source found for JuandeFuca. Working on Bobs mountain.
    Replaced the Bobs Mountain image. ceranthor 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I see no ALT text.
    Will get to that ASAP. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    Added. ceranthor 14:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That's it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Replied to some, working on others. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Believe everything is now resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Looked at the rest of the prose, it seems OK. No obvious omissions in the article, either. Structure, stability, length, media are fine. Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback and help! ceranthor 13:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility reviewEdit

The tables are missing captions, col scopes, and row scopes per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I believe I have fixed the issue. Thank you, ceranthor 20:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from FredddieEdit

This is my first foray into reviewing an article about geology, so hopefully my comments will benefit readers who also don't know a lot about geology.

  • Geography
    • I know when you say elevation, you mean above mean sea level, would a wikilink help?
      • Added a link to elevation. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Ecology
    • "...and flooding has gotten worse over time.[28]" Has worsened?
      • Changed as suggested. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Is it common to list every sensitive species? The first time I looked it over, I thought the language suggested that it wasn't an exhaustive list, but it read like one.
      • It's what I've done for other volcano FAs. It's hard to find reliable sources describing the wildlife exhaustively, so it's a compromise that I've found works in previous FAs. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
      That's fair enough. I've been told recently that personal and project standards don't matter, only policies matter, so it's good to see that they do in fact matter. –Fredddie 23:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • History
    • Right away you say indigenous twice in a row, I would replace one of them. Your choice.
      • Changed as suggested. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Metric isn't my forte, but shouldn't acres convert to hectares? You'd get 22.63 acres (9.16 ha).
      • Changed to hectares. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
    • 50,000,000 US gallons to 50 million US gallons (190×10^6 L)?
      • To clarify, are you suggesting changing the scientific notation? ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
      More suggesting 50 million instead of 50,000,000 for readability. I suppose 50 million US gallons (190 million L) works. This is not make-or-break. –Fredddie 23:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
        • @Fredddie: I think I fixed it. Let me know if it needs a little tweaking. Thanks for your helpful comments! ceranthor 14:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oregon and Washington vents
    • Why are Mount Scott and Brunner Hill the only ones to have notes in their respective tables?
      • Those are the only ones that I thought merited having notes. Would it be better to just add footnotes to those two and remove the column? Open to suggestions. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
    That might be better. Some IP might come along and fill up those empty cells with trivia. –Fredddie 23:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's it from me. –Fredddie 05:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Implemented changes and responded to a few. Thanks for your helpful feedback! ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the updates, so I will support. –Fredddie 04:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the support! ceranthor 00:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

You could write a good April Fool's blurb with a name like that!

  • They are located in the western portion of the U. S. state of Oregon. We've established the country in the lead but it's reasonable to assume most people know that Oregon is a state so maybe lose that bit to improve flow?
  • at Larch Mountain,[15] with most vents reaching an elevation of 660 to 980 feet (200 to 300 m) don't use ", with" like that to join two independent facts. You could split the sentence or use a semicolon.
  • Can we split the geology section up a bit more? There are seven paragraphs, some of them quite chunky, before the first subheading, which makes it look a bit daunting.
  • encompass a wide area, with Boring Lava deposits averaging As above
  • (located 20.5 metres (0.0205 km) northeast of Portland I suspect that was supposed to be miles!
  • Recent research suggests that eruptive activity at the Boring Lava Field began How recent? I wouldn't normally question relative times in an article like this, but the 1990s are mentioned earlier in the paragraph, which is relatively recent by some standards.
  • extending to its current expansive state about 1 million years ago MOS:NUMERAL isn't entirely clear on this but I'd suggest either "one million" or "1,000,000" to avoid juxtaposition with figures in surrounding sentences.

That's it. Nothing too concerning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for your helpful comments. Working on the geology section. I think everything else is fixed. As a reply to the recent research comment, the paper I cite was from 2009, so maybe you suggest replacing with "more recent", or do you think it's fine as is? ceranthor 17:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Added two more subheadings. Since Jo-Jo Eumerus has also written a lot of volcano FAs, I'm curious to get their feedback on the subheaders as well. ceranthor 17:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I think subheadings are useful in general for breaking up blocks of prose. But you've addressed all my nitpicks. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not picky on the subheaders, they seem OK although you may want to keep the ecology, history and recreation subheaders together. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your feedback, and thank you HJ for your support. ceranthor 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Image reviewEdit
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Boring_lava_allen_map.png: I'm a bit confused by the sourcing here - the original work appears to be from a state rather than federal government body, correct? Also see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I removed the fixed px size, but wouldn't it make more sense to expand the map pixel size since it's not readable at the default? As for that map, the original source is [12], so I believe the map was created using the information from the Ore Bin article to which that url currently redirects. I'm not sure I follow the last bit; I didn't make the map myself, and the author is deceased now. Are you suggesting that we should replace that map? ceranthor 02:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
You can scale the map (or any of the images) using |upright=.
So the issue with the licensing is this: the current tagging is based on the image being a US federal government work. However, that source indicates that it is derived from a US state government work (Volcanoes of the Portland Area, Oregon). If the image was, or was a derivative of, a state work, the given tag doesn't apply. So there are three options: determine that it is in fact a original federal work, not a derivative; determine that there is some other reason that the image is PD, and update the tagging to reflect that; or remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I've looked up the original map and the image here is not a derivative work. It's pretty clear the uploader used a different underlying map and different icons than the one displayed by the Oregon agency, even if the information is sourced from the Oregon map. I've pinged them here, we probably need some kind of uploader licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The map was made by Lyn Topinka for the USGS, then, so it should be ok then I think, right? She recently passed away otherwise I'd be happy to reach out to her to clarify the situation. ceranthor 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Yep, if it's not a derivative work as the source suggested then that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks, I think I've implemented your suggestions then! ceranthor 18:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Balon GreyjoyEdit

  • "The area typically does not experience frost, with more than 200 frost-free days annually." This seems a little confusing, as it reads like Portland still has frost for roughly half the year.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of history about Portland (first 2 paragraphs in the section) that doesn't seem to relate to the Boring Lava Field. I don't think it needs to be included unless trade/business related things happen because of the Boring Lava Field.
I think it provides important context. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "it marks the deepest train station" Wouldn't it just be easier to say that "it is the deepest..." Same for "Gresham marks one of just a few places..."
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "The migration rate for volcanism within the field is an average of 0.37 inches (9.3 mm) ± 0.063 inches (1.6 mm) per year relative to the motion of crustal blocks in the region,[53] using the last 2.7 million years as a starting reference point." It's not really clear what this means. My understanding is that the location of the volcanic activity is changing relative to the location on the plate, but this seems like a pretty small change considering that the volcanism is not centered in a single location. Additionally, there should be an explanation for why this is happening.
The explanation is in the prior sentence, which states, "The uneven distribution of vents within this forearc suggests a local zone of crustal expansion, indicative of northward movement and clockwise rotation of a tectonic microplate that leads to gradual northwest-trending propagation for the field over time." The sentence you highlighted just provides the rate of migration relative to the baseline crustal block motion.
  • I would either explain high-K/low-K, or simplify it with something like potassium-rich.I would also state why it's significant (such as showing that there is lava that is similar to other Cascade lava and lava that is different). A reader not familiar with igneous rocks won't understand the significance of how much sodium and potassium is in these rocks.
I added a footnote to explain the terminology, and I believe the two following sentences explain the significance. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "that the calc-alkaline sources are more refractory." There should be an explanation on what refractory means.
I added a footnote. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "producing steep head scarps with heights of 66 feet (20 m)" 66 feet seems too exact for a large-scale geologic boundary; is that the tallest recorded, the average, or a ballpark figure?
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Some of the Boring Lava vents are known to cut off hydrogeologic units in the surrounding area" Can't this just read "vents cut off hydrogeologic..."
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • There are very exact distances (20.5 miles) for a summit crater and Bobs Hill and Battleground Lake. I'm assuming both of those large features are bigger than a tenth of a mile, so I think these should lose some significant figures.
The distances are taken directly from the sources, so not sure losing sigfigs will help. I think they're actually relatively loose approximations of distance from Portland, which is the most obvious landmark from the area. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Recent research suggests that eruptive activity" Rather than say recent, maybe say what research conducted was (e.g. the type of radiogenic dating used)
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • There are four uses of the Evarts et al 2009 p.257 reference in a row in the second paragraph of eruptive history. That can be combined.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "geographically, younger vents and associated deposits lie in the northern portion of the field" Remove "geographically", as the sentence already mentions geographic references.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove "according to the USGS", as that is a major geological organization. I would just cite their page.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "magma at Battle Ground Lake in Washington" Shouldn't this be "lava at Battle Ground Lake"
Source says magma - I believe it's underground so therefore magma. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it "Battle Ground Lake" or "Battleground Lake"? Both are used in this article.
The former; now fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "to form the eponymous maar volcano" I'm assuming there is a Maar Volcano there that all other maar features are named after? Shouldn't this be capitalized for the proper noun?
No, the eponymous maar volcano refers to the maar at Battle Ground Lake. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Nonetheless, according to the USGS," I would remove this. "Nonetheless" is a bit of a weasel word and the this makes it seem like the low probability of an eruption is a USGS opinion, not a scientific conclusion.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Is the probability of any future eruption low, or just one in the near future? The article makes it seem like future eruptions are low, but then says they're likely to occur every 15,000 years.
I'm not sure how to phrase this differently. The source states "Since activity started 2.6 million years ago, it is rare that 50,000 years passed without an eruption. However, all existing Boring Volcanic centers are extinct and the probability of an eruption in the Portland/Vancouver metro area is very low." So I think all future eruptions are low, but historically they had been occurring at a frequency such that 50,000 years passing is unusual. Does that help clarify at all? ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I would remove the recreation section; it reads a bit like an advertisement (albeit for a free place) when it includes potential activities and hours of operation. Since this article is about the lava field itself, and not a state park, I don't think it needs to be here.
As above re the history section, I think the recreation provides important context, and presumably the article should act as a resource for human activity in the area as well. I did some copyediting to tone down some of the language re advertisement, though I think offers is fine to use since the only alternative I can think of is "has." I cut out the quote as it did seem a bit crufty/advertisement-y, is it better now? ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! Excited to see a lava field article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: I've fixed most of your comments and replied to a few others. Thank you for your helpful feedback! ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Northolt siegeEdit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a hostage situation in London (safely inside the M25, Tim!) in 1985, mostly remembered today as the first time a police officer from a dedicated armed unit shot a suspect. Up until that point, most suspects cornered by armed police either surrendered or shot themselves. It marked a turning point from the Dixon of Dock Green image of an entirely unarmed police force (which was always a myth) towards the use of more professional teams of specialist armed officers to deal with armed criminality. I started this article last summer and have recently come back to it and expanded it. Pleasingly, all the books I needed for this were already on my shelf. I'm hoping a friend will be able to get to Northolt when the weather allows to take photos of the location as it today just so the reader has something to look at, as all photos of the siege appear to be held by agencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review. The given image is appropriately licensed and I note your comment about getting a picture of the site, but are there any images that would be valuable to include under a fair-use claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, as far as I can tell there's essentially multiple versions of one still photograph from the incident and it's owned by Getty, meaning the policy hurdles to overcome are higher. It would have to be the subject of commentary in the article, which at the moment it isn't. In previous cases (like the Chandler's Ford shooting or the Iranian Embassy siege) there has been an image which itself has attracted attention. I could shoehorn in a sentence to the effect of "this photo exists" if you feel that would be useful and in keeping with the spirit of the policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think just 'this photo exists' would work, but what about photos of the individuals involved? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

:Hi Harry and Nikki, how are we going resolving this (or is it already)...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'm not sure it can be resolved. Chris (Thryduulf) has very kindly ventured over to Northolt to get pictures of the building the incident took place in. All photos of the incident are held by agencies so can't be used unless they're the subject of commentary in the article but there's no commentary in the sources about individual images (see Chandler's Ford shooting) for an example of a fair use image that is actually the subject of commentary) and none of the people involved are public figures so I don't think there's much hope of any more-relevant illustrations. That's mostly why I included the external link to the Thames News clip. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so it sounds like there are no issues with images currently in the article -- ever the pragmatist, that was the main thing I wanted to check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisEdit

  • "Instead, she went to a neighbouring fat" - amusing typo there :-)
  • "taking the sister and both daughters hostage" - both daughters? Only one has been mentioned up to this point.....?
  • "Walker ventured away from the flat door" - I presume this means he went outside? The current wording is ambiguous as it could mean that he retreated further into the flat
  • "but was not allowed to enter the Jacqueline's flat" - stray "the"
  • "Walker eventually released his daughter" - given the previous sentence, could you clarify that he didn't release her out of the window?
  • "He peered into the window of neighbouring flat" => "He peered into the window of a neighbouring flat"
  • That's what I got. An interesting read - I was a teenager when this happened but don't recall it at all. Maybe I was too busy with my Christmas presents to watch the news...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Chris, thanks very much for having a look and for spotting my typos! Believe I've addressed everything but please let me know if there's anything else that needs fixing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by AnarchyteEdit

  • I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment but here are some passing comments. I think "D11 was established following the shooting deaths of three police officers in 1966" should be before or incorporated into the "For pre-planned or protracted operations" sentence. It seems slightly out of place at the moment, and I think giving the backstory first would improve the flow. Also, should "it was professionalising and developing its capabilities" be "it professionalised and developed its capabilities"? This uses less words. I'd also like to see the definition of "D11" explored slightly, at least in the lede. I don't live in England so I'm not familiar with their naming protocols, and going from "the Met's firearm wing" to "D11" is not intuitive. If this is still open in a couple weeks and you're strapped for reviewers, feel free to give me a ping and I'll take a better look. Anarchyte (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Anarchyte, thanks for the feedback! I've reworded the background a little bit. D11 is a fairly arbitrary designation; most central departments of the Metropolitan Police have one and they tend to change with force restructures every few years (D11 became PT17, then SO19, and so on). It doesn't mean much but it gives an opportunity to vary the prose a little. If you have time to do a full review, I'd appreciate it but I understand IRL constraints all too well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • For the first bit of Siege, it is ambiguous who "her" is when two women have been mentioned. I assume it's Marlene, but I don't want to change it myself just in case.
  • "Armed with a large kitchen knife, he took Jacqueline, her daughter, and his own daughter hostage" -- who is "her daughter". Is that Jacqueline's daughter?
  • What happened to the other child in Rescue?

Anarchyte (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, Anarchyte! I'm afraid I reverted you slightly on "professionalising and developing"; in 1985 they were in the middle of a process of maturing, as exemplified by the fact that this was the first time they shot anyone. Alas, progress was mostly reactionary, but I'm trying to document some of the incidents that prompted change. The other child was released before the rescue, as covered in the "siege" section. Believe I've addressed everything else, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the other changes. How does "continued professionalising..." sound? Anarchyte (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Anarchyte To me at least, it begs the question "continued from what?" as this is the first mention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Anarchyte ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'll have another read over within the next few days and then I'll vote. Anarchyte (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "One author of a history of the unit felt" - missing a word somewhere? Isn't clear.
  • Do we know Marlene's surname?
  • "Guided by commentary from an observer" - is this an uninvolved observer, or a police officer etc?
  • The redirection link Anthony Long (police officer) seems out of place. It doesn't talk about the officer in that much detail, so it's a bit of a surprise. If you think it's relevant, perhaps a short statement in parentheses about Azelle Rodney (and then link through that name instead) would be better.

Once these are resolved I'll be happy to support. Anarchyte (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Fixed the first and third. The second, I tend not name non-notable individuals who get caught up in notable incidents though no fault of their own, and the last, Long needs his own article really; he's undoubtedly notable, having been involved in another notable shooting besides Walker and Rodney and written a book about his experiences. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ThryduulfEdit

I have now uploaded three photographs of the location that can be added to the article if desired.

Although not mentioned directly in the text, the news report linked in the article showed the flat in question to be on the top floor and to the right of the staircase. The doors, windows and balcony railings have been replaced but it otherwise seems little changed externally. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple footnotes state "Smith (2011)" but the bibliography references no such publication - there are works by Stephen Smith dated 2013 and 2019, and one by Maurice Punch dated 2011. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Chris, thank you for the photos! I've inserted two of them into the article. And thank you for pointing out the referencing error, I've fixed that now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The picture captions use only "Poynter Court" (the building name), the map and lead section of the article just use "Gallery Gardens" (the street name). To improve the context I suggest adjusting the first picture caption to "Poynter Court, in Gallery Gardens, ..." and expanding the map caption to note that "Poynter Court is the building oriented east-west at the south end of the street" (not necessarily those exact words).
  • Walker was presumed to be dead but regained consciousness a few minutes later, when he was arrested, 29 hours after barricading himself in the flat. I found this sentence awkward and had to read it a couple of times. I think rewording it to "Walker was presumed to be dead but was arrested when he regained consciousness a few minutes later, 29 hours after..." would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Chris, both good points and I've addressed both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
    I have no further suggestions, so support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator commentEdit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from CeranthorEdit

  • Lead seems a bit long for such a short article
    • I always struggle with leads! It's difficult to decide what information to cull. See what you think now.
  • "The Northolt siege was a hostage situation which developed in Northolt, West London, England, on 25 December 1985 and resulted in the shooting of Errol Walker, the first shooting by an officer from the Metropolitan Police's dedicated Firearms Wing (D11)." - might suggest splitting into two sentences? Seems a bit long for the lead
    • Done.
  • "One officer found Walker lying on a sofa, holding the knife to the child, and fired three shots. Walker was knocked unconscious but both he and the girl survived." - I notice you don't state explicitly that he was hit; might also briefly mention where if you think that's relevant
    • I've made it explicit; the location (or at least what was hit vs what was aimed for) might be a little too complex for the lead.
  • I do think it's a little shady that his wife is not named in the lead. Minor change, but an important one I think
    • She wasn't directly involved; in fact, now I've culled the lead, she's not mentioned at all.
  • "Walker continued to commit crimes, now including armed robberies." - I'd replace now here, since I think it reads as "currently" and that's not what you're actually trying to say --> what about expanding to armed robberies or something like that but more concise?
    • Done.
  • "Walker visited Marlene and the four-year-old child multiple times over several weeks but was not allowed to enter Jacqueline's flat.[6][7]" - because of a restraining order or equivalent, or just bc the sister did not allow it?
    • The latter. Restraining orders weren't really a thing in the 80s and domestic violence wasn't taken very seriously by the police (victims were usually given tea and sympathy then advised to pursue a civil claim against their assailants; thankfully things are better today).

This is an engaging, well-written article. I intend to support once these comments are addressed. ceranthor 18:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor, thank you very much for the review; I'm glad you found the article engaging. I hope I've addressed everything to your satisfaction but let me know if there's anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Support. My only remaining suggestion would be to remove the second sentence in the lead since you state near the end of the lead that "although the Firearms Wing had existed for almost 20 years, Northolt marked the first time one of its officers had opened fire, and the first use of stun grenades by British police." Nice work here. ceranthor 15:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the support and for the suggestion. I think I prefer it the way it is because that's the main reason this incident is notable; had the shooting been done by local officers or by D11/its successors in a later era, I doubt it would have attracted as much attention, at least from academics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

James MadisonEdit

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) and User:mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth president of the USA James Madison. It is co-nominated along with Mikeblas following a successful GAN for the article and peer reviews and pre-FAC reviews from several Wikipedia editors. The editors who assisted with the peer reviews included Kavyansh.Singh, HogFarm, Vanamonde93, Nick-D and several other editors who appear on the Talk page of the article. The article has been updated to include more recent biographers of Madison such as Noah Feldman and others from the past five years. The nominators would like to bring the article to the peer review level needed for FAC promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


Support on prose, structure, and length. I went over the article in considerable detail prior to FAC, and all the concerns I raised have been addressed. I did not have the time or ability to examine the sources in detail, but brief searches did not reveal any obvious omissions, and the spotchecks I carried out (of online sources only, so insufficient I imagine for the purposes of FAC) revealed nothing of concern. ErnestKrause, I suggest pinging or messaging the other folks who have already reviewed this, if you haven't already done so. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetleEdit

First sectionEdit
  • Montpelier is linked twice towards the end of the body text, this is unnecessary.
  • Despite the maneuverings of Clinton and the Federalists, Madison won re-election, though by the narrowest margin of any election since that of 1800. Narrowest popular vote margin, or narrowest electoral college margin?
  • Change wording to "narrowest margin" in the popular vote as supported by the electoral vote. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly sure what is going on with the mix of citation styles. Most of the books and journal articles appear to be using harvard style (good), but some of the web/online news articles are reference in harvard style (like the Indian Country Today article) and some are not. One method for citing these kinds of sources should be uniformly used unless there is a good reason not to.
  • Mikeblas Could you look at this comment for the source review and at the next one on the refs also. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the web references. Unfortunately, I don't have replacements or contexts for the other reference problems, so I can't fix those. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What is exactly going on in ref 60? This scheme of division, discussing Papers No. 2 through No. 14 as dealing with the utility of the UNION, is adapted from Charles K. Kesler's introduction to The Federalist Papers What scheme of division, and why is union in all caps?
  • That was left over from previous version of the biography. Deleted now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 119 ("Explore History At Our House". doesn't appear to be properly linked and doesn't support the preceding text.
  • Replace old citation with three new citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 232 ("The Health of James Madison". doesn't appear to have some of the classic hallmarks of reliability. The "About us" page is totally blank and the website doesn't appear to have been updated since mid-2021. I would think that better sources on Madison's health would exist. This suggests that the author, Rudolph Marx, is actually long dead, and published a series of medical histories of the presidents of the US a long time ago. Could we not source this directly to the book from which this excerpt might have come? Indy beetle (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • After looking up some books, "health" appears to be used by multiple science books in press at this time including Application of Nanotechnology in Food Science here: [13]. It looks like these citations check out correctly. Thanks to Indy for the comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    • If possible, we should try and nail down the original source. Seems like a copyright violating link, and of the books that use it only one seems to be a solid medical work.
  • Both you and Nickimaria have commented on this and I'm thinking its best to archive it at this time. Maybe his diminutive physical stature doesn't need this type of emphasis. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • and a 5,000 acres (2,000 ha) plantation, Madison's father was the largest landowner in Piedmont Reference 4 does not support this statement, which one does? Also "Piedmont" is somewhat misleading; it should probably be the Virginia Piedmont.
  • Going with the Virginia Piedmont. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The claim about the plantation size and Madison's father being the largest landowner is still unsupported.
  • Change wording to "among the largest" from "the largest" and add citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Second sectionEdit
  • In the "Ratification of the Constitution" section, it sort just jumps into the middle of the Constitutional Convention without giving an intro. A sentence or two explaining when and why the convention was called and that Madison was sent (by the Virginia legislature, I presume?) would be nice for clarity.
  • Changed the wording to reflect that the Virginia plan took place before the ratification debates were called for. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Madison himself favored a single executive Is this a reference to Unitary executive theory? If so, a Wikilink might be in order.
  • Adding it to text; it was Fed. No. 51. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The articles were also published in book form and became a virtual debater's handbook for the supporters of the Constitution in the ratifying conventions "virtual debater's handbook" seems like editorializing. If the source is making the factual claim that other Federalists read and used these essays to promote their view, I think there should be a more plain way of reflecting this.
  • Going with more plain version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • He states that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their corrupting effect. -> "because no single faction can become a tyrannical majority" or something to that effect which specifies that the inter-competition of the factions will keep them weak enough to be manageable and not a threat to liberty. Without such clarification, this text might not make sense to someone who hasn't read Federalist 10 four times (thank you my high school and college).
  • Add clause about countering majoritarianism. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Somewhere within the body text of the "Ratification of the Constitution" section, the U.S. Constitution should be wikilinked.
  • Though Henry gave several persuasive speeches arguing against ratification, Madison's expertise on the subject he had long argued for allowed him to respond with rational arguments to Patrick Henry's emotional appeals. I think this should be revised to introduce Henry's name in full the first time he is mentioned, and that he was the Governor of Virginia. I also think it's rather uncharitable to describe Henry's appeals as "emotional" without specifying anything further about his opposition. Did he think the U.S. Constitution was a threat to personal liberty? Even if he was mostly appealing to emotion, I would think there was some substance to his arguments.
  • The debate with Anti-Federalist was extensive; I'll adjust the wording to avoid emotionalism being attached. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Have the sources not pointed to the significance of Madison's proposed "federal negative" to limit the power of the states? See introduction to the topic here, if you are unfamiliar. This idea of his cropped up during the constitutional convention, though this article doesn't really address his concerns about state power until the "Bill of Rights" section. This source suggests that Madison thought the biggest problem the Constitutional Convention need to deal with was governmental abuses in the states, and the failure of the convention to approve of his suggested negative power led him to consider the actual convention to be partially a failure. This seems rather significant. EDIT: I see this is alluded to in the "Political and religious views" section, but I still think this warrants mention up above.
  • Madison did defend veto rights entrusted to the centralized executive against the Antifederalists; I'll add something here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • After 1790, the Washington administration became polarized into two main factions. One faction, led by Jefferson and Madison, broadly represented Southern interests and sought close relations with France which became the Democratic-Republican Party opposition to Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton. I think this should be split into two sentences, it's very long.
  • Madison and the Democratic-Republican Party fought back against Hamilton's attempt to expand the power of the Federal Government with the formation of a national bank. Therefore, they opposed Hamilton's plan for the formation of a national bank and Madison argued that under the Constitution, Congress did not have the power to create such an institution. I think there are some redundancies here that could be addressed by revision - "formation of a national bank" is said twice back to back, and this reads as "Madison & friends opposed the national bank, therefore they opposed the national bank."
  • Those opposed to Hamilton's economic policies, including many former Anti-Federalists, coalesced into the Democratic–Republican Party So when did the Democratic-Republican Party come about? This being treated like a second introduction. I'm fine with this being made the first mention of the party, since it's well-paired with the introduction of the formal Federalist Party, but in that case the other two mentions of the party earlier in this section should be removed.
  • Changed wording and linking on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Third sectionEdit
  • Because the Constitution requires presidential electors to vote for at least one individual from outside their home state, electors from Virginia would not have been able to vote for both Washington and Jefferson. This is only in the footnote, but is this restriction on who the electors can vote for still in place? If not, "requires" should be changed to past tense.
  • Past tense.
  • When Britain and France went to war in 1793, the U.S. was caught in the middle. This is rather vague, if we mean to say that both belligerents were pressuring the US to take sides this should be made explicit.
  • Indicating that USA needed to decide which side to support. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The infobox states the exact dates and specific Congressional districts that Madison served in, but this is not supported in the body text of the article. All claims in the infobox need to be able to be supported by sourced body text, such as the specific dates for which he served in certain offices.
  • Infobox details four public offices and gives the dates of service for each; am I missing one of them? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think you got my meaning. For example, what are the sources which support the claim that Madison served as Secretary of State from May 2, 1801 to March 3, 1809? Featured Articles can't have unsourced info in the infobox. It might seem tedious, but the best way to resolve the fact that these are currently unsourced dates would be to add to the article where relevant "Madison was sworn in as secretary of state on May 2, 1801.[ref]" and then "He left office on March 3, 1809.[ref]" Alternatively, I think one can directly add citations inside the infobox, but it's kind of messy and defeats the purpose of the infobox, which is supposed to help neatly summarize info from the body.
  • I've now added all the cites in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, questions about his infertility have come into question in recent years, following a popular 2007 article in The Washington Post, in which an African-American named Bettye Kearse claimed to be a descendant of Madison and a slave named Coreen. Was there ever any follow through on this, was a DNA link conclusively established? Also, this is sourced only to two WashPost articles, and to use the WashPost as a source to claim one of its own articles was popular and "raised questions" (by who, historians?) borders on WP:OR. Do we have another mainstream media outlet or perhaps an academic article from a historian which highlights the significance of the WashPost article in breaking this story?
  • The story was somewhat isolated in the press; there appears to be a tabloid type of interest about the private lives of famous politicians which is unavoidable in the press. Are you suggesting trimming or deleting? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I've removed "popular" from the description of the WashPost article, since I don't think we should be trusting sources to self-describe themselves that way. But other than that I think it will be ok.
  • Both Madison and Jefferson, as leaders of the Democratic–Republican party, expressed the belief that natural rights were non-negotiable even during a time of war. Madison believed that the Alien and Sedition acts formed a dangerous precedent, by giving the government the power to look past the natural rights of its people in the name of national security. This claim is sourced to three things: a Wikisource portal page, the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 via Wikisource, and a 2004 Time magazine article. Of these, only the Time article is really appropriate to cite. Citing the Wikisource portal doesn't really make any sense runs afoul of the spirit of WP:CIRC, and citing the copy of the Virginia Resolutions directly as a WP:PRIMARY source runs afoul of WP:OR. The Time article broadly supports the claim that Madison opposed the Sedition Acts, but mostly focuses on Jefferson's views even if it implies that Madison was generally in agreement with him. Do we not have other secondary sources which discuss Madison's opposition to the Sedition acts and his views on the necessity of upholding natural rights in spite of war time concerns?
  • Madison as an ally of Jefferson is significant to the article throughout; for example, Madison does break with Washington before completing his term of office with Washington. If you would like to press either the Jefferson side or the Madison side of human rights, then I could look at this closer. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Madison hastened the decline of the Federalists by adopting several programs he had previously opposed. By coopting some of the Federalists ideas?
  • One of the most prominent was his reversal on Hamilton's national bank, which Madison eventually adopts. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I think the text would flow better if it specified that he was adopting some of their programs which he had opposed.
  • Emphasis added that it was originally 'their' programs. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Re the Postwar period section, it might be worth mentioning that the constitutional amendment to enable internal improvements was ultimately not passed (and apparently was not needed, which begs the question why Madison thought one was necessary, since the enumerated powers allow Congress to build roads, and he himself was citing the General Welfare Clause).
  • Eisenhower is also cited for his major expansion of the USA interstate highway system, usually to his credit. Madison may have been riding the wave of anti-Federalist sentiment by proposing an amendment that his supporters wanted to see, even if not eventually passed. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Aside from aging paranoia and mental deterioration, is there any specific reasons why Madison was so concerned about being "understood by his fellow citizens" and editing his own letters to make himself more favorable? Adams' quote about him having " "acquired more glory, and established more union, than all his three predecessors" makes it seem like he left office as a relatively well-respected statesman, so his worries about public perception and legacy seem odd.
  • It is a peculiarity of his personality, and this reference is not embellished in the text. If he was a perfectionist, then I'm not sure this personality trait has been explored in the academic literature to any great extent. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Madison believed that slaves were human property, while he opposed slavery intellectually. I'm not sure what exactly this is trying to say. Did he concede that slavery was morally wrong but never did anything about it because he liked the free labor, in essence?
  • Madison's ambiguities about being born into wealth are a topic of on-going discussion among biographers; Noah Feldman points out, for example, Madison's reticence to hold his slaves culpable for moral or legal lapses when accused by other plantation owners, usually siding with his slaves. This narrative has been repeated for each of Washington, Jefferson and Madison; there continues to be no excuse for the injustice of slavery until it is repaired by Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sounds like Jefferson. The main thing I'm confused by though is Madison believed that slaves were human property. Definitionaly, a slave is human property. What is there to believe? That's the part I don't understand.
  • He acquiesced to the view that former slaves were unlikely to successfully integrate. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see why footnote H (Various ranking by historians, associations and political scientists tend to assess Madison...) is a footnote.
  • Some peer review comments were that it might be distracting when viewed in detail; open to suggestions for retaining or deleting? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I think there needs to be someway to balance it with the opening of the second paragraph in that section. The footnote makes it seem that historians generally respect his presidency, while the second paragraph makes the opposite seem true. Hiding all the praise in a footnote but putting the criticism on full display seems off-balance. Perhaps we don't need Woods whole view placed into the body text, but this line— Various ranking by historians, associations and political scientists tend to assess Madison as an above-average president and have ranked Madison as highly as the twelfth best president— seems important to incorporate into the main text.
  • Going with your version of this adjustment. Adjusting and adding various rankings by historians. Adjust footnote to keep cited historian comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The "Popular culture" section as currently constituted seems like trivial recentism. I don't think one is necessary for this to be an FA, but if we are going to include one, I would think it should extend beyond the fact that he's a side character in a 2013 Broadway musical (surely he's been portrayed in movies and novels too, no?). -Indy beetle (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • See Ceranthor comments below who stated more was needed on his Legacy; there is also a 1940s Hollywood movie about him called Magnificent Doll. Any thoughts about adding it? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes that would be good to add. Having Hamilton as the sole work of mention just seems WP:UNDUE, so other things will bring balance.

Indy beetle: Those edit comments should be up to date now. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose by Display name 99Edit

  • Oppose- Despite being semi-retired as a result of a recent controversy, I agreed upon being pinged to look at the article ahead of its nomination. My comments can be found here. Getting as far as the "American Revolution and Articles of Confederation" section, I identified several problems with the article. The citation style is all over the place, the chronology jumps around a lot, seemingly important things are alluded to without any explanation, and stuff is talked about for several sentences without it being clear whether Madison had any involvement in it. ErnestKrause, for whatever reason, mostly appeared to be stalling instead of attempting to address my points. Thus, I quit. A brief scan of some of the article now does not show any improvement. I therefore do not believe that this is a suitable featured article candidate. Display name 99 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    This is a somewhat disingenuous comment. You disengaged from the talk page discussion, and cannot fault ErnestKrause for not following through when he was clearly trying to do so. Also, he did action very many of your comments. Your views on length are also, as I've explained elsewhere, out of step with the typical expectations here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    Note: while I was asked by the nom to look here, I had this page watchlisted already. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    If you can explain what you specifically mean by "the citation style is all over the place", I can have a look. For now, though, I just don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, I'm not going to be offering this page much more support because it's just not fun to participate in this kind of bickering and hair-splitting. I understand there's a quality bar to meet, but the nature of these conversations doesn't seem productive or kind, and I'm just not interested in that. Sorry for that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, ErnestKrause, whether deliberately or not, failed to act on the majority of my requested changes while not providing a reason for doing so. His responses often seemed confused and frequently did not address the points that I was trying to make. Either he did not understand what I was telling him or he did and chose to stall and act befuddled for some unknown reason. At one point, he claimed that he believed that he had addressed all of my concerns even though he had not even responded to two points that I made regarding the citations. I disengaged after not getting a further response to some of my posts and after he asked me to do the citation work for him, when I had already tried to indicate that all I wanted to do was look at the article and offer comments without getting involved in editing. Even putting the length issue aside, I still do not think that this article merits featured article status. As I said on the talk page, I understand that my views on length of articles are contrary to those of some other editors, which is why I did not bring them up here. Your decision to do so is a useless distraction.
Mikeblas, the issue with citations seems to have improved (although there is still a maintenance tag on reference 234 that needs to be fixed), but at the time of my writing, some citations were not in Harvard style while others were, and Feldman's name was not linked under "Works Cited." I had mentioned these concerns on the article's talk page but they were not addressed at the time of nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Ref 234 (originally 232) is being discussed above. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment to coordinators @Ian Rose and Gog the Mild: The does not appear to be the correct forum for User:Display Name 99 to continue making disruptive edits and personal attacks for which he is currently page blocked at Andrew Jackson. User:Ceranthor has commented that I should bring this to the attention of the FAC page coordinators. I'm discovering in some detail now that User:Display apparently has a history of making personal attacks against other editors while editing FA-articles such as Andrew Jackson for which he has been page blocked by El C. He apparently continues to be upset about the page block against him and has now adopted such an aggressive editing approach that he has driven away the co-nominator Mikebas from continuing to try to move this James Madison nomination forward, as Mike has indicated above concerning User:Display's "bickering and hairsplitting". I'm requesting that User:Display's comments above on this FAC page be moved to his Talk page where he can continue his "bickering and hairsplitting" with anyone who wants to discuss it with him. The FAC page does not seem the proper forum for him to continue to vent his personal attacks against me and other editors as he has done here and on Vanamonde93's Talk page. I'm requesting one of the coordinators to remove all of his comments here at FAC and move them to User:Display's Talk page where he can say whatever he wants, without making personal attacks on the FAC review page which seems like the wrong forum for his editing. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, I don't see any personal attacks. I was asked to look at the article, which I did. I suggested several changes, but for whatever reason you did not implement the majority of them, which is why I left. Without those recommended changes being instituted, I felt that the nomination was premature. The coordinators can look at my comments on the Madison talk page and track the progress of the article and from that determine how to take into account my Oppose vote.
The main idea that you need to understand is that opposition to nomination and criticism of content do not constitute personal attacks. Removing my comments from this page rather than looking at my suggested changes on the Madison talk page again and attempting to implement them does not give you the moral high ground. I think I'm reminded now of why I stopped editing. Display name 99 (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Request for comment from coordinators Ian Rose or Gog the Mild: The type personal attacks by User:Display for which he has been page blocked on two pages by El C and Girth Summit are continuing both here on this FAC page and on the Talk page for Vanamonde93. On Vanamonde93's Talk page he falsely accuses me of dishonesty here [14] and here on the FAC page he accuses me of some form of negligence falsely stating above that I "failed to act". As Vanamode93 has told him, and repeated to him, that he is being disingenuous in his accusations and that I am the editor who spent several days responding to a large number of his edit requests on the Madison Talk page made by him. He then abruptly disavowed the edits made after Vanamonde and myself spent a great deal of time trying to explain to him that the new FAC guidelines are calling for shorter length FAC articles, which appeared to displease him further. Mikeblas from sys ops has also pointed to his 'bickering and hairsplitting'. Since User:Display name 99 appears not to get it, and not understand why he was page blocked at Andrew Jackson for personal attacks, he appears to wish to continue such personal attacks on this FAC page. I'm requesting some comment from the FAC page coordinators since I was told by User:Cerantor that this type of notification of coordinators at FAC is appropriate. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
For clarity, I have never blocked Display name 99. I did decline an unblock request he posted, but I did that because I believed he had transgressed an editing restriction at the page he was blocked from, not for making personal attacks. DN99 is TBanned from post-1992 American politics - if anyone thinks he has transgressed that restriction in this discussion, I can take a look. Girth Summit (blether) 18:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
You and Vanamode93 did not spend "a great deal of time" arguing with me about article length guidelines. I mentioned that I felt that the Madison article was too short at the start of my comments with the clear caveat that I knew that many editors disagreed with me on the subject of article length. When both of you pushed back on me, I disengaged and did not insist on the point any further. Anyone can look at the Madison talk page and see that this version of events is correct and yours is not. Instead of understanding that the reason for my opposition to nomination is because you nominated without implementing most of my suggested changes, you're now hyperventilating and throwing around baseless accusations of misconduct. That sort of thing has worked for other editors at getting me in trouble in the past. Maybe it'll work for you here too, and if it does, I'm too far alienated from this community to care much anymore. But it's still strikingly immature. Display name 99 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator requestEdit

  • Hi ErnestKrause and apologies for the delayed response. I see no personal attacks on this page. Display name 99 has opposed, as is their prerogative, with an explanation. I see no reason, as things stand, to move their comments. Display name 99, your points have been noted and I think that it would be helpful to the process if you now stood back and left your oppose and its supporting comments to speak for themselves. ErnestKrause, it would be appreciated if you could avoid any further comments on this page regarding Display name 99 or any edits they have made either here or elsewhere. Your and other editors' comments above have served to put the comments in context. The coordinators are quite capable of assessing reviewer comments against the FAC criteria and assigning them appropriate weight. Indeed, it is what we get the big bucks for. And I am sure that both have better things to do than further explain here positions which seem quite clear to me. Thanks to both of you for this. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit clash. Display name 99, I would be grateful if, in spite of my request above, you could see your way clear to striking the last two words of your last edit. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, thank you for your comments here. I have no desire to add anything else to this page. As to your last request, I respectfully decline. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from CeranthorEdit

  • "23 million acres of land" - would provide conversion to hectares
Early lifeEdit
  • "March 16, 1751 (March 5, 1750, Old Style)," - does the alternative add anything? I've honestly never heard of the old style and not sure the average reader has either, so if you disagree and want to keep could you briefly justify its use here?
  • This is a question of how his age is recorded in historical journals and diaries; Madison's year of birth is 1751 New Style but 1750 Old Style. This is because Old Style New Year's Day was March 25. Since Madison was born earlier in the year than March 25, it's necessary to subtract one from the year when converting his date of birth from New Style to Old Style. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "prominent planter and tobacco merchant.[3] His father was a tobacco planter" - might as well link to tobacco article at tobacco merchant rather than tobacco planter
  • Change linking to your version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "His father was a tobacco planter who grew up at a plantation," - isn't it grew up "on" a plantation?
  • "His father was a tobacco planter who grew up at a plantation, then called Mount Pleasant, which he had inherited upon reaching adulthood" - IMO not necessary to say then called Mount Pleasant, would just say Mount Pleasant as I presume it will be mentioned later under the new name
  • Would like to hear your suggestion for this. This is actually the only place Mount Pleasant is mentioned, since previous peer review editors thought the extra Montpelier discussion should be removed. If it looks extraneous, I could remove it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Of the surviving siblings, three brothers, Francis, Ambrose, and William, and three sisters, Nelly, Sarah, and Frances, it was Ambrose who would eventually help to manage Montpelier for both his father and older brother until his own death in 1793.[7]" - The sibling names aren't really necessary here and are actually a bit distracting from the sentence as they have nothing to do with the second clause really. It took me reading the sentence two times to make sure I understood, and that's something I think should be avoided in FAs unless re-reading is necessary due to technical language
  • I'll try new wording and maybe parenthesis might be useful; open to your suggestions on whether to drop the names of siblings. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Madison began to study law books in 1773, asking his friend William Bradford" - no need to repeat the first name
  • No duplicate of first name needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Upon reaching adulthood, Madison was only 5 ft 4 in (1.63 m) tall and never weighing more than 100 lb (45 kg), he was the country's most diminutive president.[20] " - run-on sentence
  • "Madison suffered from episodes of mental exhaustion and illness with associated nervousness, and was often sidelined after periods of stress" - I'd try to avoid using sidelining since I think it's a bit of an idiom and vague; are you trying to say he was forced to stay at home? or that he couldn't work? Not totally sure what the last bit means
  • He would take a few days off to revive sometimes; adding into the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "However, Madison was physically able and usually in good physical health throughout his long life until his very last years.[21]" - I think this is a wordy sentence... what about "However, Madison enjoyed good physical health until his final years" or something more concise along those lines
American RevolutionEdit
  • "Both in the United States and in Canada, the new Anglican churches developed novel models of self-government, collective decision-making, and self-supported financing; that would be consistent with separation of religious and secular identities.[24]" - Is this sentence trying to argue that the new models were the churches' way to separate religion/secular life? If so, I think it could be rewritten to make it seem like the Church actively did this, as right now it's very passive
  • Should be more actively present. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "n 1774, Madison took a seat on the local Committee of Safety after returning to Montpelier, a pro-revolution group that oversaw the local Patriot militia." - the way this is written, it sounds like Montpelier is the pro-revolution group. I'd move "after returning to Montpelier" to the front of the sentence or after in 1774
  • "he was not a signatory of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." - It's fine to include the full formal name, but then you should provide it at the first mention because this is confusing as is
  • Stick with Articles of Confederation as unambiguous for this biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "as an advocate of westward expansion, he insisted that the new nation had to insure its right to navigation" - insure or ensure?

Comments so far. Sorry for some delay! Will keep adding more as I get further along. ceranthor 16:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  • "Throughout the 1780s, Madison became increasingly worried about the disunity of the states and the weakness of the central government after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783.[42]" - I'd suggest cutting the date of the end of the war, redundant
  • "Madison was also concerned about the inability of Congress to capably conduct foreign policy" - conduct and policy don't go together, do you mean diplomacy perhaps? or capably create?
  • Congress passes legislation which regulates the conduct of foreign policy. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "He disdained a proposal by John Jay" - Nothing technically wrong with using disdain here but I think it's a bit flowery and there are more commonplace verbs you could use instead
  • Changing wording to simple opposition. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "establishes a system of checks and balances that ensure that no one institution would become too powerful.[61]" - as written, the noun is system, so should be "ensures"
  • "New York ratified the Constitution the following month and Washington won the country's first presidential election.[67]" - I think this is an abrupt transition; maybe some additional info should be added
  • Overly abrupt; adding transitional phrases. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

More to come later. ceranthor 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  • "Of the twelve amendments formally proposed by Congress to the states, ten amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791, becoming known as the Bill of Rights.[86][e]" - the way this is written is confusing, although I understand the purpose is to refer to the final version. I think maybe the last bit is what throws me off since you've been using Bill of Rights throughout the paragraph - can you add something to clarify that the ten amendments were ratified and this text became the final Bill of Rights?
  • Its 10 Amendments that make it to the end. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "In an essay published in the new newspaper in September 1792," - no need to repeat that it's new, can just say the newspaper or the National Gazette
  • "Nonetheless, his fertility has come into question in recent years, following a popular 2007 article in The Washington Post, in which an African-American named Bettye Kearse claimed to be a descendant of Madison and a slave named Coreen.[111][112]" - wouldn't that mean his infertility has come into question?
  • Let's try infertility. Somehow most of the people who go to Fertility MDs have problems with infertility. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "In 1799, Madison won election to the Virginia legislature" - re-election, right?
  • He was elected a delegate from Virginia for the convention, elected to the Congress during Washington's term, and then elected to the Virginia legislature when Adams took office. It looks like his first term in the Virginia legislature. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Secretary of StateEdit
  • secretary of state is capitalized earlier in the article, so should be consistent
  • The Wikipedia rule appears to be that as a title of a particular individual its in caps, and as a description of a political office its in lower case. If these are reversed anywhere then let me know. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Despite lacking foreign policy experience, his political colleague Madison was appointed as the secretary of state by Jefferson" - poorly written, passive voice sentence. Also, this article is about Madison, not Jefferson! Needs complete revision to something like "Madison was appointed [...] despite lacking foreign policy experience"
  • "Madison, an introspective individual, enjoyed a strong relationship with his wife[108] and relied deeply on her in dealing with the social pressures " - this is out of place here, and might be better suited to the marriage subsection
  • Dolly is the prototype of the modern version of the first lady as a genuine support for her husband in office. I'll try to adjust the wording on this, though she is important to Madison's success in his offices of state. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Though the Federalists were rapidly fading away at the national level, " - were the Federalists fading or their power? Seems like a key distinction
  • It should be Federalist political power. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall simultaneously ruled that Madison had unjustly refused to deliver federal commissions to individuals who had been appointed to federal positions by President Adams but who had not yet taken office, but that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the case" - the double "but" reads awkwardly - last clause should be rephrased or moved within the sentence
  • Marbury v Madison is already linked in this sentence and I'm shortening the wording here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Of his six siblings who lived to adulthood, Ambrose helped manage Montpelier for both his father and older brother until his own death in 1793.[7]" - the "of his six" and Ambrose don't fit grammatically
  • Clarify through parenthetical clause that he was a younger sibling. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Madison believed that economic pressure could force the British to end their seizure of American shipping" - weirds strangely, I think maybe need another word after shipping or could replace with "shipped goods" or something along those lines
  • "Unlike Jefferson, who enjoyed relatively unified support, Madison faced political opposition from Monroe and Clinton." - within his party, correct? I think that's worth noting
  • They were previously political allies. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Madison immediately faced opposition to his planned nomination of Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin as secretary of state" - but why? That's critical to include
  • Monroe and Clinton became opponents of Madison. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "His initiatives were opposed by strict constructionists such as John Randolph, who stated that Madison's proposals "out-Hamiltons Alexander Hamilton".[205]" - need to explain what constructionists means
  • Clairfying Madison's original anti-Hamilton position of strict construction, to his later pro-Hamilton position supporting a National Bank. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "n 1809 Harrison began to push for a treaty to open more land for white American settlement" - at this point, we only know Harrison as a general, so why is he the one pushing for this rather than politicians?
  • Harrison's transitory roles as governor and as general need special attention here, and his relation to Jackson should be clarified. I've redone the chronology of the section somewhat and shortened some of the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • " The Miami, Wea, and Kickapoo were "vehemently" opposed" - quote is unnecessary here
  • "The treaty began with "James Madison, President of the United States," on the first sentence of the first paragraph.[214] " - this seems crufty
  • "Tensions continued to mount between the United States and Tecumseh over the 1809 Treaty of Fort Wayne, which ultimately led to Tecumseh's alliance with the British and the Battle of Tippecanoe, on November 7, 1811, in the Northwest Territory.[220][221]" - this seems to be repeating info from the prior paragraph, although I think it makes more sense to fully go into detail about the war here rather than briefly mention in the first paragraph
  • It is a little tricky to cover the transition from Harrison to Jackson in dealing with the Indians under Madison. I've shifted those two paragraphs around in this section to keep the material together and shortened some of the wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "As an example, he edited a letter written to Jefferson criticizing Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette—Madison not only inked out original passages, but in other correspondence he even forged Jefferson's handwriting.[232]" - don't think the emdash is really needed; just make it a semicolon or two sentences
Political and religious views and LegacyEdit
  • I would argue that the legacy section could be a bit longer? Not sure what else to add, but haven't there been some depictions in media/fictional works worth mentioning?
  • Added a short popular culture section adapted from the Hamilton musical article. Does it look ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I do have some concerns that the prose is not at FA standard throughout the entire article. Given the length of the article, I recognize that's a challenge, but I do want to express that concern now that I've finished reading through. ceranthor 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to get to do more before the holiday week-end coming up. Regarding the quality of the prose, there have been many different editors for this article over the past 10 years that maybe you would like to go ahead and tighten the narrative in certain places, or to list the parts that you would like looked at. Vanamonde had many useful suggestions along these lines on the article's Talk page which might make interesting reading for you to glance at. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
That looks like all the edits for now. Looking forward to your next set of edit comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Ceranthor Forgot to add ping. Are there more edit comments to assist to move the article forward? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause: I can make more suggestions. To clarify, are you saying that Vanamonde provided more suggestions which have not yet been implemented? ceranthor 15:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Ceranthor: All of Vanamonde's edits were added; her comments on the Madison Talk page were on the new approach to FAC (in 2021-2022) emphasizing brevity in style and for adjusting to shorter article length guidelines were well summarized by her. Ready for further edit comments you might have for this biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Additional commentsEdit
  • "Madison did not attend the College of William and Mary, where the lowland Williamsburg climate—thought to be more likely to harbor infectious disease—might have strained his sensibilities concerning his own health." - would add a citation directly after this as it seems like it could be a fairly contentious claim
  • Gutzman covers this on page 2 of his book. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "The colonists formed three prominent factions: Loyalists, who continued to back King George III of the United Kingdom, a significant neutral faction without firm commitments to either Loyalists or Patriots, and the Patriots, whom Madison joined, under the leadership of the Continental Congress. Madison believed that Parliament had overstepped its bounds by attempting to tax the American colonies, and he sympathized with those who resisted British rule.[26] " - should use semicolons between the three groups for this list
  • "Historically, ongoing debate and eventual legislation was passed in the British Parliament (subsequently called the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786) to allow bishops to be consecrated for an American church outside of allegiance to the British Crown" - this sentence doesn't make sense grammatically - is something missing perhaps before "ongoing debate"?
  • Move main clause to start of sentence on consecration debates. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Historically, ongoing debate and eventual legislation was passed in the British Parliament (subsequently called the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786) to allow bishops to be consecrated for an American church outside of allegiance to the British Crown (since no dioceses had ever been established in the former American colonies).[27]" - two parenthetical notes in one sentence is clunky
  • Remove the second parenthetical as overly detailed for an article on Madison. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "At the Virginia constitutional convention, he convinced delegates to alter the Virginia Declaration of Rights to provide for "equal entitlement", rather than mere "tolerance", in the exercise of religion.[32] With the enactment of the Virginia constitution, Madison became part of the Virginia House of Delegates, and he was subsequently elected to the Virginia governor's Council of State,[33] where he became a close ally of Governor Thomas Jefferson.[34] On July 4, 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence was formally printed, declaring the 13 American states an independent nation.[35][36]" - dates/years would be very helpful to organize this paragraph
  • The draft of the Virginia rights was May 20, 1776 now added to text. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Madison participated in the debates concerning the Articles of Confederation in November of 1777, " - elsewhere you've used "Month Year", so I would pick one style and stick to it throughout the article
  • "Madison participated in the debates concerning the Articles of Confederation in November of 1777, contributing to the discussion of religious freedom affecting the drafting of the Articles, but he was not a signatory of the Articles of Confederation." - the last bit seems awfully unnecessarily formal; why not just say "but he did not sign the Articles"?
  • "Madison had proposed liberalizing the article on religious freedom, but the larger Virginia Convention stripped the proposed constitution of the more radical language." - Can you add a bit more detail on how?
  • The language of 'tolerance' was the preferred form of argument at that time rather than discussion 'free expression of religion' in those terms. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "While a member of Congress, Madison was an ardent supporter of a close alliance between the United States and France; and, as an advocate of westward expansion, he insisted that the new nation had to ensure its right to navigation on the Mississippi River and control of all lands east of it in the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War.[41] " - split into two sentences

More comments to come ceranthor 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Should be up to date. Ready for added edit comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    I will do my best to post remaining comments today. Thanks for your patience! ceranthor 15:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "He came to believe that the United States could improve upon past republican experiments by its size; with so many distinct interests competing against each other, Madison hoped to minimize the abuses of majority rule.[52]" - "by its size" I assume means that the US would be larger, but I feel like this is not sufficiently clear as written, maybe cut into two sentences so you can add a bit more around the size bit?
  • "Additionally, navigation rights to the Mississippi River highly concerned Madison. He opposed the proposal by John Jay that the United States concede claims to the river for 25 years, and, according to historian John Ketchum, Madison's desire to fight the proposal was a major motivation in his to return to Congress in 1787.[53]" - I don't think we get sufficient detail here to understand why the navigation rights were concerning
  • "Madison himself favored a strong single executive as he described in Federalist No. 51.[58]" - was this after, though? If so, you should clarify "later described"
  • "Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy.[63]" - I'd clarify by whom
  • "Hamilton's plan favored Northern speculators and was disadvantageous to states, such as Virginia, that had already paid off most of their debt; and Madison emerged as one of the principal Congressional opponents of the plan.[80]" - cut the "and" in "and Madison"
  • "Madison married Dolley Payne Todd, a 26-year-old widow of John Todd," - should be "the" not "a" 26-year-old widow
  • "She became a renowned figure in Washington, D.C., and excelled at hosting dinners and other important political occasions.[112] Dolley subsequently helped to establish the modern image of the first lady of the United States as an individual who has a leading role in the social affairs of the nation.[113]" - I'd switch the "She" for the first sentence with "Dolley" in the second sentence, since the pronoun is established only in the second sentence
  • "Jefferson's doctrine of nullification was widely rejected, and the incident damaged the Democratic–Republican Party as attention was shifted from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the unpopular nullification doctrine.[126]" - what became of interposition though? Kind of left without explanation here
  • "In 1799, Madison won election to the Virginia legislature" - "won election" while fine, is odd - why not "was elected?"
  • " With the Federalists badly divided between supporters of Hamilton and Adams" - not sure what "badly divided" means? Unevenly?
  • "While attaining the position of secretary of state and throughout his life, Madison maintained a close relationship with his father, James Sr., who died in 1801. At age 50, Madison inherited the large plantation of Montpelier and other possessions, including his father's numerous slaves.[137] Of his six siblings who lived to adulthood, Ambrose (one of the younger siblings) helped manage Montpelier for both his father and older brother until his own death in 1793.[11]" - this part is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph and flows awkwardly as a result. Why not merge this into a short paragraph with the bit about relying on his wife for support?
  • "Jefferson took office and was sympathetic to the westward expansion of Americans who had settled as far west as the Mississippi River; this was supported by the regional demographics of American land in the far west which remained sparse" - Frankly this sentence is a bit hard to understand. How can demographics remain sparse? How do the demographics support the idea that he was sympathetic to them?
  • "Jefferson promoted such western expansion and hoped to acquire the Spanish territory of Louisiana, which was located to the west of the Mississippi River for expansionist purposes." - rephrase as "Louisiana, west of the Mississippi River, for expansionist purposes" to cut verbiage
  • " In 1802, Jefferson and Madison sent Monroe to France to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans," - why Monroe though? Did he hold a formal position?
  • "along with ambassador Livingston, negotiated the Louisiana Purchase," - Ambassador to France?
  • " Being overconfident, Madison ordered a three front invasion of Canada" - three-front meaning?
  • "and disgruntled New Englanders who wanted almost anyone over Madison" - tone here seems a bit informal and out-of-place
  • "Madison selected Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts as his running mate.[184]" - shouldn't there be slightly more mention of Gerry as his VP? Also a bit lost if Gerry was VP because he got the second most votes or if the system had changed by that time?
  • "however, the British burned Washington and other buildings.[194][195]" - This sentence doesn't make sense as is; washington was a city, what do you mean by other buildings?
  • "Madison learned that his negotiators had negotiated the Treaty of Ghent which ended the war. " - negotiators had negotiated - can be phrased more eloquently. also, any notable names?
  • "The postwar period of Madison's second term saw the transition into the "Era of Good Feelings"," - including roughly the years would be helpful for context
  • "Madison hastened the decline of the Federalists by adopting several programs he had previously opposed.[208]" - I think these programs are mentioned in the next paragraph, and so this sentence should start the next paragraph if that's true
  • "the American Indian tribes were compensated $5,200 ($109,122 in 2020) in goods and $500 in cash, with $250 in annual payments," - should provide conversions for all the cash amounts
  • "who in his view were "irresistibly attracted by that complete liberty, that freedom from bonds, obligations, duties, that absence of care and anxiety which characterize the savage state"." - need a citation after direct quote
  • "Madison's Secretary of War William Crawford advocated for the government to encourage intermarriages between Native Americans and whites as a way of assimilating the former. " - since this didn't happen at that time, you should probably clarify that briefly
  • "In 1826, after the death of Jefferson, Madison was appointed as the second rector of the university. He retained the position as college chancellor for ten years until his death in 1836.[citation needed]" - this needs to be corrected immediately
  • "Other examples include Madison, Wisconsin and Madison County, Alabama[282][283] which were both named for Madison, as were Madison Square Garden, James Madison University, and the USS James Madison.[284][285][286][287]" - tweak to "Other memorials include"
  • Won't make a recommendation either way, but my understanding is that Native American has mostly fallen out of favor and many people now prefer the term American Indian - don't think you need to change it here, but it might be an issue raised in the future.

I think these are the last of my comments prose-wise. Thanks for your patience! ceranthor 19:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by EpicgeniusEdit

I will leave some comments later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Lake Street Transfer stationEdit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous FAC of this article failed due to sourcing issues; it appears that, while certainly adequate for DYKs and GAs, should not form the basis of an FA, something I can completely understand and appreciate. While I couldn't completely eradicate its use in this article (as I said I wouldn't be able to at the close of the first FAC), I got it down for use as a supplemental "commentary" source that I think it is suited for. More importantly, I turned towards seven book sources that were varied and ranged in time from 1895 to 2007, and was able to add some more and more detailed information on this old early-20th century double-decked rapid transit station. I'll ping @Steelkamp, Dudley Miles, Your Power, Lost on Belmont, Kew Gardens 613, and ZKang123: from the first FAC; this should also be of interest To editors Cards84664 and TheCatalyst31:.

For those not at the first FAC, this was a double-decker transit station on the Chicago "L" from 1913 to 1951. Both lines had been constructed in the 1890s, but didn't merge operations until 1913 or constructed the transfer until then. The upper station's line was replaced by a subway in 1951, which took it closer to downtown. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot to mention, but as in all of my FACs, please feel free to make minor tweaks and adjustments to the article yourself rather than bring them up in the course of your review. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by TAOTEdit

Hi, I'll be doing a prose review. I have an FAC up myself if you're interested in reviewing, but it's optional.


  • The Lake Street Transfer was a rapid transit transfer station This is nitpicking, but should it be The Lake Street Transfer, or just Lake Street Transfer? Also, should we use the full "Lake Street Transfer station" name in the first sentence?
    • Station nomenclature was rather fluid on the Chicago "L" in the first half of the 20th century (see Congress Terminal for another example); the 1916 Chicago Tribune referred to it as the Lake street transfer point (capitalization and "the" original), and the paper referred to it again as the Lake street transfer station (ditto) in 1935. For its part, the CTA itself referred to it also as the Lake Street transfer station in a 1951 retrospective (all of these sources are cited in the article, btw). I don't feel like having a whole footnote and nomenclature would be helpful, but I've put "Lake Street Transfer station" in bold for now in respect of its contemporaneous usage, even if modern Chicago doesn't use "station" at the end of its station names. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It might be a good idea to link transfer station via a pipe to Interchange station. You and I know what it means, but someone not familiar with trains may not. If you do this, I'd also move the rapid transit link elsewhere to avoid SEAOFBLUE issues.
  • Nitpicking again, but It existed from 1913 to 1951, when it was rendered obsolete by the construction of the Dearborn Street subway. isn't strictly correct, because the station existed until its demolition later in the 1950s. It would be correct to say it was open during those dates.
  • The site of the station later served as the junction of the Paulina Connector to the Lake Street Elevated shouldn't this be "the junction of the Paulina Connector and the Lake Street Elevated"?
  • I suggest putting all the details on station layout into a distinct paragraph. I'd personally make the first paragraph discuss the station's opening, closing, and location. Second and third paragraphs the same as they are now, and a fourth paragraph discussing the station layout. This would roughly mirror the sections in the body.

Images and infobox

  • I recommend making the caption for the map more concise.
    • I tried to an extent; an earlier commenter suggested putting the information in the map itself, but I don't want to limit access to the visually impaired (even if they don't use maps like the sighted do). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
More comments will come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wood Station

Lake station

  • No comments here.

Transfer station

  • The Logan Square branch would not begin skip-stop until the opening of the Dearborn Street subway and the closing of the transfer in 1951. This kind of jumps ahead of the next section, where the Dearborn Street subway is introduced to the reader with appropriate background and context. I suggest changing this to simply say that the station never had skip-stop service. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I decided against this, since I think the greater specficity is both more directly supported by sources and adds more nuance to the article; and the "jumping around" issue is mitigated by the lead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Dearborn Street subway

  • It's not clear to me from the prose when exactly the station closed. I had to check the infobox and then reread to see it was on the exact date the subway opened. I recommend making this clearer.
    • I rearranged sentences to make the link stronger and thus make the closure clearer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggest linking Interlocking.
  • The Paulina Connector – both the original Metropolitan tracks and the newer Washington Junction – remained standing for non-revenue service. Suggest "remained operational" or "remained in operation".

Station details

Operations and connections

  • Smoking was banned by the city across the "L" and in streetcars in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak Is this referring to the Spanish flu pandemic? I suspect it is. If so, that can be linked.
    • I also strongly suspect so, but Moffat never explicitly says as much. I can maybe look at contemporary newspapers to see. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
      • If Moffat doesn't explicitly make the connection, we can't either. If you can find newspapers that make the connection, then that would be great, but it's not a big concern for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Starting in 1922, fares were usually marketed in packs of three ride for 25 cents, Shouldn't this be "three rides"?
    • Yes; again, feel free to correct lint/typos yourself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I'm so used to the idea of "reviewers shouldn't make any edits to the article" that I forgot you said to make minor changes myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • That's all I have for now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. I'm not doing a source review, but looking at the source that was questioned, I do see a bibliography indicating sources used by the website. I don't think it's an ideal source, because we don't have citations in the specific article indicating where the author obtained the information from. That said, it's not something I would personally oppose over, as most of the article stands on its own without citing this source exclusively. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


  • Lake Street Transfer was double-decked, with the Metropolitan's tracks and station being located immediately above the Lake Street's tracks and station clunky use of "with" to connect two facts. You could just lose the "with" and the "being" to improve flow and make the sentence grammatical.

Other than that, support on prose. I don't know enough about the subject matter to offer an opinion on sourcing and comprehensiveness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by a455bcd9Edit

What's the reliable source of the map? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I have added sources. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. Does the first source cover both "The Lake Street Elevated" and "The Metropolitan Elevated's trackage prior to 1951"? And the second one both "The Loop" and "The Dearborn Street subway and Congress Line"? It would be good to add sources to the file description on Commons as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    I've moved the first source for better coverage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • For the Transfer station map, even as a person with normal vision I'm finding it hard to distinguish the Logan Square and Loop markers. Can this be improved wrt MOS:COLOUR?
    • I have reverted the edit to the original SVG, which I think is also better to show the new routing that replaced the old one.
  • File:Lake_Street_Transfer_station_postcard.png: where is the date information coming from? The description is vaguer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Garfield does not provide any dates for the postcard, nor does it appear in Moffat, so a precise date is unknown. The dress of the passengers suggests that it is from the 1910s, as does the lack of grid coordinates on the platform signage, but I have removed the date. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Tahmasp IEdit

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

My second attempt in nominating this article which is about Tahmasp I, the second (and my favourite) Safavid Shah of Iran. The article has been through two copy edits already and I believe both images and sources are fine as well. Pinging @Johnbod: who was one of the reviewers of the first nomination. I sincerely ask them to review this again, if they are not busy that is. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Just flagging up that as a first-time nomination this will need a spot check for source to text fidelity. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7Edit

Disclaimer: I'm only getting started with FA reviewing so please let me know if my comments missed the mark.
  • The article oscillates between American and British English (like center vs centre). I would default to American English unless there is a significant relation to Britain.
I personally prefer to write in British English, so I'll be changing American to British if that's no matter. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    • favoured -> favored
    • sheikh -> sheik
    • afterwards -> afterward
    • centre -> center
    • behaviours -> behaviors
    • rumours -> rumors
    • favour -> favor
    • favourable -> favorable
    • favours -> favors
    • travelled -> traveled
    • honoured -> honored
    • favourite -> favorite
    • travelling -> traveling
    • patronised -> patronized
    • characterised -> characterized
    • characterisation -> characterization
  • "Tahmasp was a patron of the arts, building a royal house of arts for painters, calligraphers and poets, and was an accomplished painter himself." The two "and"s following each other sound a little strange to my ears. What about splitting it into two sentences: "Tahmasp was a patron of the arts and was an accomplished painter himself. He built a royal house of arts for painters, calligraphers and poets."?
  • "Sh'ia" Should the apostroph be after the "i" or should it be removed? Some later passages use the spelling "Shia".
To be honest both variations are correct.
  • earwig shows a copyvio with [15] concerning the passage "The reigns of Esmāʿil I and his son Ṭahmāsb I (r. 1524-76) are considered the most brilliant period in the history of the Azeri Turkish language and literature at this stage of its development."
Amended it
  • The passage "For their part the Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbalā, and Naǰaf. The treaty enabled the Ottomans to devote themselves to the western front and internal problems. Iran was able to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from war. The peace was kept by both sides until the death of Shah Ṭahmāsb (984/1576), when the ensuing troubles in Iran encouraged the Ottomans to occupy those regions of the Caucasus claimed by both countries." contains various close paraphrases from [16]. For safety, it might be good to reformulate them a little more.
I only see two sentence resembling the passage, "The Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbala, and Najaf." and "Moreover, this treaty enabled Iran to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from the war." And yet, I don't think they are quite alike with the linked article.
  • "seyyid": is the spelling "sayyid" more common?
Both are seemed to be used commonly
  • "... a storm erupted, with wind and rain and lightning.": remove one "and" and add an Oxford comma: "... a storm erupted, with wind, rain, and lightning."
  • "Rumlu proposed a triumvirate to the two leaders which were accepted,...": "was" instead of "were"
  • "Rumlu was blamed for the raids, and was executed by Tahmasp." no comma after "raids"
  • "He appointed his brother, Bahram Mirza, governor of Khorasan and Ghazi Khan Takkalu as Bahram's tutor." I think the commas should be like this: "He appointed his brother Bahram Mirza, governor of Khorasan and Ghazi Khan Takkalu, as Bahram's tutor."
  • "The first Ottoman invasion may have been the greatest crisis of Tahmasp's reign, since the Shamlu tribe ": no comma before "since"
  • "Alqas fled to the Crimea with his remaining forces and took refuge with Suleiman, promised to restore Sunni Islam in Iran and encouraged him to lead another campaign against Tahmasp.": It might be better to split it up into two sentences: "Alqas fled to the Crimea with his remaining forces and took refuge with Suleiman. He promised to restore Sunni Islam in Iran and encouraged him to lead another campaign against Tahmasp." It's not clear to me who promised and who encoured whom, so maybe better repeat the name to make this clear.
Amended it; Alqas promises Suleiman.
  • "The long campaign focused on looting as they plundered Hamadan, Qom and Kashan before...": Oxford comma after "Qom"
  • "These terms, in circumstances favourable to the Safavids, were evidence of the frustration felt by the Suleiman the Magnificent...": no "the" before "Suleiman"
  • " One year before the Peace of Amasya in 1554, Tahmasp led his last military campaign to into the Caucasus.": remove "to" before "into"
  • "Moving into a city which with an ancient route through Khorasan linked the realm,...": there is something wrong with this clause. What about "Moving into a city that linked the realm to Khorasan through an ancient route,..."? Maybe additionally drop the "through an ancient route"\
Done, though I'm afraid I have to keep the ancient route part
  • "as distant provinces such as Shirvan, Georgia and Gilan were brought into the Safavid fold. ": Oxford comma after Georgia
  • "He sent copies of Quran as gifts to the Ottoman Empire; overall, during his reign, eighteen copies of Quran were " in both cases: "copies of the Quran"
  • "A panel of calligraphic manuscript..." add "a" before calligraphic
  • "his daughters were instructed in administration, art and scholarship": Oxford comma after "art"
  • "..and instead of facing the Ottomans directly in the battlefield,..": comma after "and"
  • "and also establishing a public image which was not maintained by his successors": "that" instead of "which"
  • "despite his greed, piety led him to forgo of taxes of about 30,000 tomans": no "of" after "forgo"
I hope these comments were helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response.
  • Concerning the similar phrases: The sentences in our article are "The Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbala, and Najaf." and "Moreover, this treaty enabled Iran to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from the war." while the sentences from the source are "For their part the Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbalā, and Naǰaf." and "Iran was able to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from war.". I'm not sure whether this falls under WP:PARAPHRASE. How about "The Ottomans allowed Iranian pilgrims to travel freely to Mecca, Medina, Karbala, and Najaf" and "Through this treaty, Iran had time to increase its forces and resources as its western provinces had the opportunity to recuperate from the war."
  • I think the English variant doesn't matter for this article as long as it is consistent. For British English, the following should be changed:
    • centered -> centred
    • center -> centre
    • worshiping -> worshipping
    • behavior -> behaviour
    • centers -> centres
    • acknowledgment -> acknowledgement
All done
  • "Alqas fled to the Crimea with his remaining": no "the" before Crimea
Some of these links are names that are repeated in a list and I would like to keep it that way because I think things in lists should always be linked. Your thought? Other than that, other links were delinked.
Phlsph7 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the details on the repeated wikilinks. MOS:REPEATLINK has some information. Personally, I include more links at times if I have the impression that there is a good reason to believe that it would be helpful to the reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I went and delinked some of the repeated links, are they balanced now?
Amir Ghandi (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I would remove the following links: to Bahram Mirza and Isfahan in the regency section and to Khorasan in the early life section. Otherwise the links looks fine to me. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
A few more things that caught my eye in relation to MOS:WTW:
  • "The great poet, Fuzuli,...": great
Changed it with 'renowned'
  • "Tahmasp's most celebrated contribution...": most celebrated
Changed it with 'preeminent' and 'acclaimed'
  • "A remarkable and successful act...": remarkable
Deleted 'remarkable'
  • "Tahmasp held firmly to the extremist Shi’i belief in the imminent coming of the Mahdi": I don't know enough about Shia beliefs to assess whether the "extremist" is appropriate here. A weaker alternative would be "controversial". Should "Shi’i" be "Shia" to be consistent with the spelling elsewhere?
Replaced extremist with controversial and changed Shi'i to Shia
  • "...has been described as a lustful miser and a religious bigot.": "has been described as" is listed as one of the weasel phrases. Maybe "lustful miser" and "religious bigot" should be in quotes to make it clear to the reader that these expressions are taken directly from the source.
Done. Should I change the weasel phrase too?
Phlsph7 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
How about mentioning the scholar(s) who use these words: 'Tahmasp I made little impression on Western historians, who often compared him with his father. For example, scholars ... and ... describe him as a "lustful miser" and a "religious bigot"'. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Done, though I couldn't find the name of the authors but expand upon the statement. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I had a look at the source: it confirms the claim but, unfortunately, it doesn't go into specifics who described him this way. It contains the term "miser" but not "lustful miser". So I propose we remove the term "lustful". Your newly added phrases are again very close to WP:PARAPHRASE so I suggest either removing them or reformulating them, for example, by using synonyms and by changing the sentence structure. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted 'lustful' and changed the phrases 18:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Like this it works fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Phlsph7 and Amir Ghandi: How is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    I raised some points about close paraphrases and the prose and they have all been addressed. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the article's topic to be in a position to give a general endorsement. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from ConstantineEdit

Will have a look over the following days. Constantine 10:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Did some copyedits for prose; feel free to revert.
  • He soon faced a longstanding war I think you mean long-lasting?
Amended it
  • The Ottomans, under Suleiman the Magnificent, tried to put their favoured candidates given that the Ottomans were just as absolute a monarchy, perhaps 'The Ottoman sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent...' and perhaps 'rival candidates' instead of 'favoured candidates', as the Ottomans just backed whomever opposed Tahmasp?
Amended it
  • sovereignty over Baghdad actually over most of Iraq, of which Baghdad was merely a part
  • Tahmasp still negotiated alliances perhaps add that these were directed against his Ottoman rivals? And it would also make sense, given the emphasis on his Shi'a faith, to also add that the Ottomans were equally fervently Sunni?
Done, though I think the Ottoman part is excessively detailed for the lead section, after all, it's not a necessary detail.
  • provide a gloss for 'tariqa', 'ulama', 'seyyid', 'mujtahid', 'vakil', and ensure that all non-English terms are denoted as transliterations by use of the {{transl|fa|}} or {{transl|ar|}} templates.
All done (vakil is the shorter version of the title vakil-e nafs-e nafs-e homayoun, which is already explained.)
Fixed the use of the templates, they are meant for the non-English terms, not the glosses. Please use the templates throughout the article, though. Constantine 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarify the connection between Ismail I and Shaykh Junayd and Shaykh Haydar
  • Make sure that terms are linked the first time they are introduced in the main text (e.g. Qizilbash)
  • Clarify the ethnic origin of the Qizilbash tribes
  • I suggest providing regnal dates for all rulers (use the {{reign}} template)

Will do the remaining sections later. Constantine 07:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Early life, Regency
  • he was heaped with utmost joy and happiness I don't think 'heaped' is the correct verb here
It's the verb used by the source, I don't know what I could use as a replacement
If it is a quote, then please denote it as a quote. Otherwise find a way to describe it without WP:Close paraphrasing the source. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in spelling 'Shia' or 'Shi'a' or 'Shiite', 'ulama' or 'olama', etc. And please use the transliteration template for all non-English technical terms, not just in this section, but throughout.
Should I repeat the transilation for the words that were already transilated? (Like ulama which is already explained in the Background section.)
I think there is a misunderstanding here: a gloss, i.e. a translation, is what should be provided at the first mention of a foreign term. A transliteration (not a translation) is what the foreign term is, as you do not use the Persian or Arabic letters here. E.g. 'olama\ulema' is a transliteration and should be always enclosed in the transliteration template. There are many terms, e.g. ''tufangchiyan'', where this is still not done. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I would also recommend glossing amir al-umara as 'commander-in-chief' because that it what it means. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Now all done
In the process of doing
Still a lot of MOS:DUPLINKs. I recommend installing and using the User:Evad37/duplinks-alt tool. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I think I've cleared all the duplinks
  • a series of battles in northwest Iran battles between whom? for what cause?
The three of the tribes: Ostajlu, Takkalu and Rumlu
  • this event is dubbed "the Takkalu pestilence" which even exactly? the rule of Chuha Sultan, or his death?
His downfall and the massacre of his tribe (In early 1530, the Herat governor, Hossein Khan Shamlu, and his men killed Chuha and executed every Takkalu in the retinue of the shah in the royal camp)
Hmmm, but I don't understand how the massacre of the Takkalu is a pestilence; I can understand if Chuha's regime is dubbed 'the Takkalu pestilence' by his opponents, justifying their violent purge, but the event itself? Are you sure of this reference? Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The source definitely meant the Takkalu purge. This is the passage from the source: 'Shah Ṭahmāsp symbolically disentangled himself from this political debacle by ordering the wholesale execution of those Takkalu tribesmen in attendance, and the event was dubbed “the Takkalu pestilence” (āfat-e Takkalu) in contemporaneous Persian chronicles and later scholarship.' I think its the usage of the word. Other sources like Savory 2007 use the term 'Takkalu disaster'.
  • Aggressive court behaviour what is that? Do you mean 'overbearing' or something like that?
I don't know; I only wrote what the source said.
Never mind; found information on what 'aggressive court begaviour' meant and added them to the article.
  • may have considered a strong Safavid empire a threat why 'may'? It stands to reason that another major empire on his eastern border is a threat. I would also recommend adding here why it was a threat: not just as a rival imperial power, but an ideological rival as well.
Well, the source does not seem to be so sure about assuming what Suleiman position about the Safavids was; although it has included a reason to why he would think them as a threat: a danger to Suleiman's ambitious plans in the west and the northwest of his realm. (Included the reason in the article by the way)
  • Olama Beg was one of many Takkalu members who, after Chuha's death, took refuge in the Ottoman Empire. The flight of the Takkalu should be mentioned above, when Chuha' downfall is told.
  • may have been the greatest crisis of Tahmasp's reign since the Shamlu tribe unsuccessfully tried to poison him 'since' here is probably meant as 'as', or rather, 'as indicated by the fact', right? But the argument needs some elaboration: why is the poison attempt an indication that the Ottoman invasion was the greatest crisis? As you write, the Shamlu had enough reason to try and get rid of Tahmasp since he removed Hossein Khan from power.
Alright, so this one needed some rewording. It wasn't 'may have been' but rather, 'caused'.
  • "In Jumada II 961/May 1554 he left his winter camp in Aleppo for Amid and advanced as far as the Armenian territory of Qarabagh in the southern bend of the Araxes." why is this footnote needed? The text pretty much says the same thing already.
Not my doing to be honest. A user (allegedly Azerbaijani) claimed that the source of this sentence did not use the word 'Armenian Qarabagh' and another user proved him otherwise by adding this footnote.
I would recommend removing it. The modern Armenian-Azeri dispute over Karabagh is not relevant. It is not for this article to prove to whom the territory belonged. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • indicating a significantly larger Safavid army compared to?
The two former wars
...indicating a significantly larger Safavid army than what their number was before. -> "...indicating a Safavid army that had grown much larger than it was in the previous wars' or similar. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • against the divided state's many kings hmm, is it not rather that there were several Georgian states at the time, each with its own king?
Indeed; amended it
Georgian divided states is again problematic; 'divided' is a reference to the previous unitary Georgian realm, and thus is editorializing. Would you call the German states of 1800 'divided German states'? So just 'the Georgian states' or 'the Georgian kingdoms'. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • he brought 30,000 Georgians to Iran. One of those prisoners was Luarsab's mother, Nestan Darejan, who committed suicide as she was captured. the wording implies that Nestan Darejan committed suicide right after her capture, so how was she brought to Iran?
Reworded it
  • The conversation of these Georgian Princes I think you mean 'conversion'? Otherwise I don't know what is meant here.
Typo; amended it
  • A reminder to gloss and italicize (use the template) terms like 'gholam' and 'qurchi'.
  • The fact that Ismail Mirza was imprisoned comes as a complete surprise to the reader. Why and when was he imprisoned?
Added a footnote explaining it
Looks good, but are you sure that 'immured' is correct? Immurement usually results in death pretty quickly, and Ismail was alive for years. Constantine 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Replaced immured with 'imprisoned'

Will do the remainder later today. Constantine 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  • The Safavid military evolved during Tahmasp's reign, particularly gunners (tupchiyan) and musketeers (tufangchiyan) If you mean that the latter were introduced for the first time by Tahmasp, say it.
Reworded that sentence; their actually were developed by Ismail I during his last years
  • The incorporation of Gilan is alluded to, but nowhere mentioned above.
I don't know where else should I mention it. Moreover, the incorporation of Shirvan is also only mentioned, so us there any special reason that Gilan should be discussed in a broader sense?
Well you write distant provinces such as Shirvan, Georgia, and Gilan were brought into the Safavid fold.. Georgia gets its own section, and Shirvan is at least alluded to as part of Alqas Mirza's revolt. But Gilan is only mentioned in the context of the Ottomans' trying to secure support there. Constantine 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Added a sentence regarding the incorporation of Gilan
  • Tahmasp's reign saw the Shia conversion of whom?
I meant to say that he continued the Shia conversion.
Again though, of whom? Of Iran, I assume? Write it out. Constantine 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Tahmasp has been called the greatest Safavid patron. by whom?
Douglas Streusand calls him the greatest Safavid patron. Moreover, in my research, I stumbled upon two books by James Elkins and Stuart Cary Welch, who both are art historians, who call Tahmasp 'a prominent' and 'the great patron of arts' respectively.
  • Such traits indeed would throw a murky light on Tahmasp as a person and as a ruler, however, his personality would appear in a more favourable light ... this is editorializing. If it is not your opinion, attribute or quote it.
  • It is also an achievement in itself ditto.
  • Standardize whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Eh... I've consider doing this and attempted many times. But its just such a tedious task and I don't know what will it accomplish.
Not a problem for me personally, but it is considered desirable to have a common formatting of such for FA candidates. I've certainly been asked this often enough. Constantine 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Cplakidas, I added the hyphenated ISBNs to the sources that had one, for others, I just failed to find a hyphenated of their ISBNs
  • Add OCLC for Hinz
  • Why are Dickson 1958 and Aldous 2021 not used in the article? They both seem relevant to important aspects of Tahmasp's reign.
I don't have access to Aldous 2021 and Dickson 1958 is just a really old source, though very informative about the early years of Tahmasp's reign
@Amir Ghandi: here you go. I also have institutional access to a variety of similar sources. If you need anything, ping me. Constantine 21:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@Cplakidas Thanks; but I can't see anything except for a line saying 'the link is deleted by the owner' Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@Amir Ghandi: Odd. Try with this one. Constantine 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, it worked; I'll be incorporating the new information in the following days. Amir Ghandi (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. Overall the article appears comprehensive, well-referenced, and easy to follow (although I am somewhat knowledgeable on the period and topic). Will do another pass when my points above are addressed. Constantine 14:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cplakidas, I've addressed all your points. Amir Ghandi (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Amir Ghandi, have all of Constantine's points been addressed? If so, could you ping them and let them know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Gog the Mild Not all yet. I'll ping them once I did the remaining. Amir Ghandi (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple of outstanding issues (not stricken through) above, plus some additional comments, mostly to new additions/changes:

  • His patronage of arts had a large part in marking the Safavid empire an imperial entity of any significant I guess there are typos here for 'His patronage of arts had a large part in making the Safavid empire an imperial entity of any significance'? But I find this statement dubious; 'of any significance' according to whom? An empire of this size would have been 'significant' even if its ruler had been an utter philistine.
I decided to change that sentence, any thoughts about the new one?
  • German historian, Hans Robert Roemer argues that although such traits would throw a murky light on Tahmasp as a person and as a ruler, however, his personality would appear in a more favourable light when, despite his greed, piety led him to forgo taxes of about 30,000 tomans because collecting them would offend the religious law. Please break up this sentence.
Amended that sentence entirely.

Otherwise it looks good to me, and I enjoyed reading the article. I will be happy to support once the remaining issues are taken care of. Constantine 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cplakidas All remaining points are addressed. Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@Amir Ghandi: Changes look good. Last remaining issues: refs #56 and #59 need correct dates. But I am happy to support at this point. Constantine 17:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • @Nikkimaria: I believe that the photographer of File:Tahmasp, Humayun Meeting.jpg needs to release the image on a GFDL or similar license for us to legitimately use it, am I right?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    No - under US law reproduction of a 2D work, unlike a 3D work, does not garner a new copyright. However, the description does need to be updated to reflect that and provide evidence for the tagging used. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification. Updating the description along the lines that Nikkimaria suggested is on you, Amir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Sturmvogel 66 and @Nikkimaria Is there a template for a reproduction of a 2D work that I could add? Because I don't know any way else to provide evidence. Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Look at the templates used in the other 2D images for ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    The tagging now in place indicates that the work is in the public domain because the author died over 100 years ago and the work was published before 1927. However, the description states that the uploader is the creator and the date is given as 2012. This description needs to be changed to identify the long-dead author and the much earlier publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)