Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of 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, etc[edit]

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.


270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a former skyscraper in New York City, known for its main tenants: the chemical company Union Carbide, and the financial firm Manufacturers Hanover (now JPMorgan Chase). It was never the tallest or most famous, but it became the tallest building to be demolished by its owners in 2019. Aside from that, it was once the world's tallest building that was mainly designed by a woman. The tower may not have looked unusual, but it was built above the tracks leading into Grand Central Terminal, requiring some interesting modifications to its structure.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by Mike Christie, for which I am very grateful. I now think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game[edit]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After surprising many by simply being competitive the year prior, the football team from tiny Centre College returned to Boston for a rematch with football giants Harvard in October 1921. Led by star quarterback Bo McMillin, the "Praying Colonels" shocked the sports world by winning 6–0, a victory considered by many to be one of the greatest in college football history. After the game, a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by the organic compound "C6H0", giving the game a name that has stuck to this day. This article was super fun to rewrite and I look forward to any and all comments it receives. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Wikilink "rushed" and "touchdown" in the lead
  • Wikilink American football on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink Harvard on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink shutout on first use
  • Wikilink rushing and passing on first uses in body
  • "Centre was [singular] praised for its [singular] resiliency and for their [plural] unwillingness" - some grammatical disagreement here
  • "also an umpire for the National League" => "also an umpire for baseball's National League" for clarity
  • Link all the positions in the sentence starting "The starting offensive line" and the ones thereafter. I personally don't have a clue what any of them mean so links would be beneficial
  • What are a "varsity squad" and a "freshmen team"? Are there suitable links?
  • Daily Messenger image caption does not need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence
  • "and all around Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula"," - I think "and Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula", all around" would read more elegantly
    • the intended meaning was "students painted the formula all around Danville", not "Danville students" - never occurred to me that this was a confusing way to word that. Fixed so it's clear what I'm trying to say here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A third game had been proposed" - a third game between Harvard and Centre? The sentence isn't completely clear
  • That's what I got Great work! I know basically nothing about American football and I was able to follow the article well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the time and comments as always Chris! Everything above has been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shigi Qutuqu[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compared to his contemporaries in the early Mongol Empire, Shigi Qutuqu stands out perhaps most for his lack of military ability—he was in command during the most serious reverse of the early Mongol conquests. Nevertheless, he had a long and productive career, serving in numerous judicial and administrative roles in China and surviving the power struggles of the 1240s and 50s until his death at 80+. The latest in my production line on Mongolian history, this article was reviewed for GA by Aza24 in June 2023; if successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • Is there no good image of the subject that could be included?
  • File:Siège_de_Beijing_(1213-1214).jpeg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tufted jay[edit]

Nominator(s): grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tufted jay is an member of the crow family and is endemic to a small region of the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico. It has been of particular interest to some in regards to its origin due to it's limited range and distance from other members of its genus. There is limited literature on it, but I have made the best use of what is available. grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


First comments now, more later.

  • was first described by Robert Thomas Moore in 1935 based on a type locality – Descriptions are based on type specimens, not localities
    • Fixed
  • Moore gave them – you switch from singular to plural here. Also elsewhere in the article.
    • Switched all to singular (I think)
  • binomial name – since we are writing for a general readership (and especially with birds, we want that as many folks as possible can appreciate them, right?), we should avoid technical terms whenever possible. Here, you could use "scientific name" instead, and link that to Binomial nomenclature.
    • Fixed
  • Cyanocorax dickeyi, with the species name being in honour of – The species name is the whole binomen. What you mean is the specific name.
    • Fixed
  • The tufted jay is monotypic. – Again, avoid technical terms; just write that no subspecies are recognized.
    • Fixed
  • For the first paragraph of "Taxonomy and systematics", the first description has some interesting details that could be added; e.g. that this species was not encountered in extensive collection efforts not far away, demonstrating its limited range. Maybe such info would make the article a bit more interesting to read, instead of just listing the standard information point by point. But this is just an idea, it is up to you.
    • I like it! I tried adding it in, I'm not convinced I worded it well so if you have suggestions on rewording I'm happy to hear.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jays' range.[1] In 1944, it was proposed that they were most closely related to the white-tailed jay – this is saying that other members were most closely related to the white-tailed jay, which does not make sense.
    • Fixed, called out tufted jay
  • Several theories were proposed for why this was, – "hypotheses", not "theories"? Also, "why this was" is very unspecific; why what was, exactly?
    • Changed, and swapped it to "for why this relation might exist despite the geographical separation"
  • link cladogram
    • Done
  • The IUCN page has much more details on threats that could be added (click there on "threats in detail")
    • Expanded
  • State the size (length, weight); you say "medium sized bird" but that is relative.
    • Added
  • It seems that the article could be even more comprehensive; for example, I see several aspects in the Birds of the World page that are not mentioned here (e.g., flight; that the young are fed cooperatively; how long do the juveniles remain in the group, and more). I would suggest to have another close look at the sources to improve coverage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've done another pass. I'll admit this is a bit of a blind spot for me—I'm realizing I tend to lean too much into a summary and miss out on details, so if there's anything obviously missing please let me know! Also, I'm not sure where to put flight without it standing out odd, any suggestions? grungaloo (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Maybe an introductory paragraph in Behaviour and ecology? That's usually what I've done so far and I think it works okay. AryKun (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • also known as the painted jay – information does not appear in the cited source?
    • Added source to Haemig who uses that name. It's the Spanish translation of the name "Urraca Pinta".
  • The tufted jay, also known as the painted jay – according to Avibase [1], there is another synonym (Dickey's Jay). No need to bold any of them in the lead imo.
    • Added and de-bolded
  • based on a type specimen from Mexico – the wording is still not good. A type specimen was not found somewhere, it was selected when erecting the species. Actually, the description used 7 specimens?
    • Tried a rewrite, let me know what you think
  • A more commonly held theory – hypothesis
    • Change, dropped "more commonly" too.
  • was relict of a common ancestor – What does "relict" mean here precisely? Is the tufted jay identical with this ancestral taxon?
    • Rewrote, it's presumed to have descended from a common ancestor so not identical.
  • A more commonly held theory was – With past tense, you are implying that this (and the other) hypothesis is now outdated, but you do not state what the current hypothesis is.
    • I've changed these tenses. There's no meta-discussion I could find on which is right, so presumably they're all still open. No source seems to expressly deny any other too. The closest is Haemig who introduced the pre-Columbian trade theory, but even that doesn't go as far as to outright deny the others.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jay's range – This does not seem to be the case. What about the Purplish-backed jay, for example?
    • I've changed this to reference Amadon, who specifies that the tufted and white-tailed jay are 3000 miles apart. The other cite was from Haemig who was comparing it to the northern-most range of "South American" cyanocoraxes, which I think confused things.
  • caption: A juvenile tufted jay with a smaller crest and lacking the white spot above the eye. – But the shown bird has a small white spot above the eye?
    • Yeah on second look I can't explain that, and I'm not convinced it's a juvenile. I've replaced the image with another available one from Flickr that shows and adult. I also found an image of a flock of them and added it to the socialization section.
  • The inside of their beak is flesh-coloured, but this fades after a few months. – I don't understand this. You mean the color when looking into their open mouth? Fading to what color? A few months after what? After hatching?
    • Crossin says "the basal portions of the mandibles are flesh color", I've tried to make it more clear in the article what it refers to without using that technical language. I also added the timing and what it fades to.
  • This call can be heard when feeding, by nesting females – This literally means "Nesting females can hear the call", which makes no sense.
    • Rewrote, hopefully clearer
  • endemic – link
    • Added
  • In the breeding season, they can be found in ravines and nearer water sources. – "near water sources"?
    • Changed
  • During the breeding season, flocks will work cooperatively to feed the nesting female. – Does this mean there is only one breeding female per flock? (the nesting female seems to imply that).
    • Added a line to clarify this, but yes there's a single breeding pair per flock.
  • The tufted jay is possibly descended from a population of white-tailed jays which were brought Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies. – I think that, this hypothesis as you describe it cannot be true, alone for the reason that speciation does not work that fast. Are you possibly misreading the source?
  • If you are looking for modern discussions on the old hypothesis, it might be worth a try to 1) search for the article that proposed the hypothesis in Google Scholar, 2) click on "cited by", 3) and see through the list of papers cites (and possibly discusses) it. This way, the book "Avian invasions" turned up, which briefly describes Haemig's hypothesis and suggested that a genetic analysis would prove or disprove him. We now have this analysis (your cladogram). So I think the most sensible way to do it would be to present these different hypotheses in a historical context, making clear that they were based on the assumption that the tufted and the white-tailed were closely related, which is now questioned by the genetic analyses (I mean, give the genetic analysis more room, it is the by far most solid evidence available to date; but I wouldn't go as far as to state that the old hypothesis is now disproved, for this we would need another source that makes this interpretation).
  • a study of the morphological characteristics of the tufted jay and white-tailed jay demonstrated – "demonstrated" is a bit strong a word, no? "Suggested" would be more suitable; you cannot have certainty with morphological characters.
  • I am still not quite through, but we have to sort out the taxonomy section first, as I am not convinced here yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've done a rewrite of this section based on your three suggestions above. I've also rewritten a portion of the lead to better reflect this. Let me know what you think! grungaloo (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thanks. But I think there is a mistake. You write In 1979, Paul Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay had been brought to Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies, and that the tufted jay was derived from that population, although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years. – This suggests that Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay and the tufted jay are sister species. However, he did not say this as far as I can see. Instead, he seems to be of the opinion that the white-tailed and the tufted are the same species (even though he is not sure whether they can still interbreed or not). The book "avian invasions" also states that Haemig (1979) proposes that these two are actually the same species. In this light, your addition although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years does not make sense; if we assume that they are the same species, it is not problematic at all. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I've reworded it to call out the same-species theory. I was using the BotW source which doesn't say that expressly. grungaloo (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I wanted to check your source "Bonaccorso et al. (2010), p. 27." to understand this a bit better, but that source does not have a page 27? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Fixed grungaloo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Wow, this must be the first time in years we have a constant stream of bird FACs! Marking my spot until Jens' review is done so I don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • White-tailed jay is WP:duplinked (not counting the cladigram).


  • The article heavily cites a 1965 master's thesis by Richard Crossin. Theses are not considered as reliable sources. The cites should be replaced by peer reviewed articles.
One possible source is the Birds of the World which is available from the Internet Archive (registration required) here:

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WP:Reliable sources, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. According to Google Scholar, this thesis has been cited 44 times, including by major bird resources such as handbooks. Given how narrow this topic is, I would argue this counts as "significant scholarly influence" (in fact, it seems to be the most cited publication that is specifically dealing with this species). Another point to consider is whether or not the cited information is uncontroversial; mere observations (for which this source seems to be used for) are generally uncontroversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was basically my reasoning (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Crossin is the go-to for any detailed description on this bird. Other sources also cite Crossin quite a bit, including Birds of the World. My usage of it mostly reflects what other sources were already citing to it, but I used Crossin in these cases so I could pull more detail. Excising Crossin would be possible, but the article would lose some detail. If that's what's needed though I'll give it a go! grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Also known as the painted jay and Dickey's jay. Painted jay and Dickey's jay should probably be bold in introduction per WP:BOLDTITLE since they are alternative names for this bird. Other than that I don't see any issues. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006[edit]

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a legal opinion of the Illinois Attorney General concerning the state's public records law. In the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer, several officers discussed the incident through their private email accounts, and CNN asked for copies of those emails. The police department denied that request, prompting the Attorney General to issue a binding ruling that required their disclosure. The opinion came several years after City of Champaign v. Madigan (recently promoted to FA), an Illinois appellate court case that addressed a similar issue involving elected officials sending private communications during a city council meeting. Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk, Gog the Mild, Elli, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and ZKang123: Thank you for your participation at the previous FAC for City of Champaign v. Madigan. Since this article covers similar subject matter and uses many of the same sources, I invite you to participate in this FAC as well. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see the relevance of the photo of the cop checking his phone. Note WP:IMAGERELEVANCE: 'Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding'. I don't see how a cop on a phone is particularly relevant to a FOIR regarding emails, so how does it aid our understanding of the topic, which is primarily a legal judgment? I think this falls into the 'decorative' department. Is there a shortage of images? I see the article on the original murder is also pretty sparse, unfortunately. ——Serial 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your comment. I don't think this photo is purely decorative because it illustrates a widespread phenomenon of public employees using their personal devices while carrying out their official duties. See also City of Champaign v. Madigan and Illinois Freedom of Information Act#Records on private electronic devices, where we show a photo of Mayor Rahm Emanuel using his cell phone, even though that specific phone call was unlikely to be the subject of any relevant FOIA requests.
    Indeed, there is a shortage of images relating to the murder of Laquan McDonald. But this article is notable not just for its relevance to the murder, but also for its significance as a legal opinion and its effects on the boundaries between personal and work lives. So the images don't have to be directly relevant to Laquan McDonald. Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk - Source review

Happy to review! Also, are you aware that you're eligible for another Four Awards for City of Champaign? Anyway, the review:

Thanks for the reminder! I've just nominated Champaign for the Four Award. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no concerns about the prose, so I'll do a source review

  • Ref 5 is missing a website/publisher
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 7 is missing volume/issue parameters
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Put dead in ref 14's active parameter
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also ref 14: looking at the archive url, Associated Press isn't the author, it's the wire agency. There's a separate parameter for that, the author parameter should be empty
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is the Illinois Policy Institute reliable? Not sure what the standards are regarding think tank sources
    The Illinois Policy Institute leans conservative, but such a source is permitted under WP:PARTISAN so long as it's reliable for the context in which it is used. In this case, the Illinois Policy Institute is merely recounting arguments made by CPD and the decision of the Attorney General, and this reporting is easily verifiable by reading the opinion itself. If you'd like, I can add a citation to the opinion (as the primary source) to go alongside the secondary source citation. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's all good here, thanks for clarifying MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Ref 1: I don't see anything here about "Preliminary reports by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) suggested that McDonald was behaving erratically, and that the shooting was justifiable, leading to Van Dyke not being charged at the time." though this is a long article and I may have missed something
    Ah, good catch. Long ago, I copied and paraphrased text from Murder of Laquan McDonald without checking source-to-text integrity. I've revised that sentence now. Edge3 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 2: all three uses good
  • Ref 5: good
  • Ref 10: good
  • Ref 14: all three uses good
  • Ref 17: good

Edge3, all done- great work on this and on getting the last article promoted! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support and pass source review- wonderful job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Claiming a spot here to do a review later (sometime this week hopefully). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change UK[edit]

Nominator(s): Lankyant (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a break away centrist political party in the UK which had a lot of hype to begin with but soon disbanded. Article meets the FAC criteria Lankyant (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • What's the benefit of so many slightly different logo images?
  • Don't use fixed px size

Daniel Case[edit]

Printing out a hard copy to take a look at and lightly copyedit if needed ... Will be back in a few days or so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After tackling a Filipino actor BLP, back again with another musician bio. This time, I decided to start working on a band, instead of the usual solo artist BLP. Ben&Ben started as a duo formed by twin brothers Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. They later expanded into a nine-member ensemble and have released an extended play and two studio albums. Their music is known for its anthemic quality and emotional engagement that appeals to a wide range of audiences. Their songs have been featured in films, television shows, and soon on theater. Regarded as prolific songwriters, they are also the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time on Spotify. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I will hopefully get time to look at this in the next couple of days....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "percussions" should be "percussion"
  • In the lead you have both "Ben&Ben are" and "Ben&Ben has". I'm not sure whether the norm in Filipino English is for band names to be considered singular or plural, but whichever it is should be used consistently
I missed this. I've changed it now so that it is consistent with the plural form throughout the article.
  • "Their inherent familiarity with music devices, such as fixing loudspeakers led" => "Their inherent familiarity with music devices, such as fixing loudspeakers, led"
  • "They had been interested at a career in music" => "They had been interested in a career in music"
  • "which infused folk music and its lyrics rooted from kundiman" => "which infused folk music and featured lyrics rooted in kundiman"
  • "the duo invited a small group musicians" => "the duo invited a small group of musicians"
Can't believe I missed this. Fixed
  • "Favorite Album of the Year at 2020 Awit Awards" => "Favorite Album of the Year at the 2020 Awit Awards"
And this...also fixed. Thanks for catching.
  • "experimenting with different narrative standpoints" - I don't really understand this and how it relates to the title, which is what the first half of the sentence was about
I have tweaked this so that the latter statement is specific to the production of the album. Hopefully that provides clarity, happy to revise if needed.
  • "regarded its sound a bold reinvention of Ben&Ben's artistry" => "regarded its sound as a bold reinvention of Ben&Ben's artistry"
  • "all of whom appeared in the album" => "all of whom appeared on the album"
  • The group photo caption isn't a full sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
Removed full stop
  • "Ben&Ben are active supporters of recycling and single-use products" - surely they are opposed to single-use products, rather than supporting them.....?
Totally my bad. You're right. Revised the sentence as well.
  • "Having surpassed more than two billion streams to date, Spotify has named Ben&Ben" => "Having surpassed more than two billion streams to date, Ben&Ben were named by Spotify"
  • The concerts section is unsourced, plus is there great value in listing just the names of three tours, with no additional context?
I believe, from another review, that if the concerts are mentioned in the prose, it would be okay to list them without inline citations (I could be wrong). Having said that, I do agree that listing it is unnecessary, so this section has now been removed.
Thanks for your time in reviewing ChrisTheDude! I have actioned all your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your support and edit as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorothy Olsen[edit]

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Dorothy Olsen, who flew military planes during World War II as a civilian member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots, ferrying newly built fighters and bombers from their factories where they were built to their embarkation points to Europe or Russia. I am grateful to UndercoverClassicist for their extensive comments at Talk:Dorothy Olsen and Wikipedia:Peer review/Dorothy Olsen/archive1. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Did you see this source? There are a few nice anecdotes in there that are not yet in the article.
    • I did see that. It's more about WASPs in general; was there some specific item that you think would be useful to add?
      • I'm not sure. It is mostly cute anecdotes:
        • "At the state fair in Salem during the Great Depression, she saw a biplane and spent every cent of the money she had earned picking hops to pay for a ride."
        • "Her daredevil stunts once caused damage to a plane’s front-wheel cowling." because she had been "hanging upside down at the time".
      • Including some of that would add further colour, but certainly isn't necessary.
  • Lead: clarify that she preferred the P-51 to the P-38 even if she preferred that one over bombers.
  • 40hp Taylorcraft: is that a Taylorcraft B?
    • I don't believe I've seen anything which specified the exact model.
      • I think the "40hp" was supposed to specify it; not sure whether that uniquely identifies the model.
  • WASPs: "Her training began in February 1943, at Houston Municipal Field [..] along with half of her class". Not a fan of the "along" here. Maybe "She begain training in February 1943. Half of her class trained at Houston Municipal Field, the other half ..."?
  • "Olsen initially hated her training" do we know why?
  • "She encountered difficulties when her fiancé died" do we know anything at all about him or how long they had been engaged? (Did he do anything other than inconvenience her by dying at an inopportune moment?)
    • Nothing that I've found.
  • "civilian aviation was grounded during World War II" really? Maybe general aviation was, but I think Delta and a few other airlines were operating scheduled civilian flights during WWII.
    • Hmmm, I'm unsure what to do here. You're probably right, but the source doesn't say that specifically. I've made it "civilian general aviation", which I think is reasonable even if not strictly supported by the source.
      • The Chinook Observer perhaps isn't the greatest source for the history of general aviation during WW2, so it may be better to cite this from elsewhere.
        • I've done a bit of hunting and haven't found anything definitive about general aviation being grounded during WW-II. The best I've found is a vague and unsourced statement in History of the Civil Air Patrol#World War II: On 8 December 1941, all civil aircraft, with the exception of airliners, were grounded. This ban was lifted two days later (with the exception of the entire United States West Coast) and things went more or less back to normal I'll keep looking, but for now I've put a more generic statement in the article.
  • "delivering brand new planes from the factory and was one of only 12 women certified for night flight" maybe better not to connect these separate facts in one sentence.
  • There is a slight abundance of "woulds" in this section.
    • I got rid of some of them.

Nice article overall, and she seems cool (I like the photo of her as an old lady with sunglasses). I guess her life outside the WASP episode is so unremarkable that its short treatment does not indicate a lack of comprehensiveness. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Other than as noted, I think I've addressed all of your comments. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed you have. My remaining comments are not showstoppers, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cataract surgery[edit]

Nominator(s): · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about one of the most common elective surgical procedures of all time, the only effective treatment for a disability that affects almost all people who live long enough, that is highly effective with a very high success rate, and has a hitory going back to antiquity, but is very variable in accessibility and cost depending on where one is. The sort of thing a lot of people will look for on Wikipedia. I think I have covered all the most important aspects, and most of the more interesting aspects, but more eyes will find more errors and omissions. I am less concerned with FA status than with improving the article, so I may debate or request clarification for changes that I do not understand or do not agree with. Please feel free to make small changes that are likely to be uncontroversial if it will be less work than explaining them. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source age[edit]

Peter, you probably don't have any idea how much I admire your results here. This is am impressive achievement and much needed. I point this out because I'm planning to complain that some of these sources are a bit elderly compared to the ideal. I suggest specifically:

  • Faust (1984) could be removed (unless it's there as a historically important paper?).
    • but Altman et al. (1985) is a historical paper supporting a historical statement, so it's okay.
  • Toczolowski (1993) should probably be replaced (for the definition) and is probably unimportant for the history.
  • Mathey (1994) should probably be replaced.
  • Thim (1993) could be removed.

From the present century, about 20% of the sources are 15+ years old. Without reviewing each one individually, this is unlikely to be ideal. We are usually hoping for sources from the last five years and willing to settle for sources within the last 10. The problem with older sources is that it's never easy to tell whether they're just "older" or if they're also "outdated". For example, "The pupil is checked for dilation using eyedrops; if pharmacologic pupil dilation is insufficient, procedures for mechanical pupil dilatation may be needed during the surgery" cites a 20-year-old (primary) source. Has anything changed since then? Maybe there's a new second-line drug available? Or maybe not? A 20-year-old source leaves me wondering; a recent source would help me trust that the information is up to date.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Faust(1984) mentions the origin of the term hydrodissection, at least in this context, so of some historical interest, but probably not important enough to keep if it bothers people. The term seems to be in general use, including in other applications, and the procedure appears to remain basically the same for this application, though there may be slight variations in technique outside the current scope of this article. I have found a more recent primary source mentioning importance and describing a variation of the technique which I have added (Tas 2018). Yanoff and Duker (2009) remains a better general description. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Toczolowski (1993) gives the best description of the technique that I was able to find, and as it is not generally used for cataract surgery any more, recent articles may not exist. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thim et al (1993) removed as redundant. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are alternatives to eyedrops for dilation of the pupil, which I have now mentioned with a reasonably recent reference. I don't think this is often needed, but worth mentioning. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mathey (1994) has been replaced by Han (2019) and Biswas and Batra (2020).· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For several citations I have used a combination of a reference to a relatively old medical textbook as a high quality secondary source and a more recent journal article mentioning the matter as background information as a more current source. I think this is a reasonably practicable method of managing the problem when I have do not have access to more recent textbooks. Currency and completeness will always be difficult to establish in a developing field, and are among the reasons for the FAC process which hopefully make it worth the effort. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaks needed[edit]

The article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report (the figure is the number of moss code hits):

  • 8 - Cataract surgery - "procedure,anterior", "cararact", "epinucleus", "hydroexpression", "advanved", "phacosandwich", "phacosection", "faciitated"

Some seem to be technical terms; there are a few typos, but I don't think a full copyedit is required. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1907–08 New Brompton F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, here's the deal, everyone. I tried really really hard to come up with a different type of article to bring to FAC, honest I did, but for whatever reason I just couldn't get enthused, so I am afraid you get yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. In this particular season the team (still under the original club name of New Brompton) started the campaign with the heaviest defeat in the club's history to this point, recovered to be roughly in the middle of the league table at the midpoint of the season, and then collapsed utterly in the second half, losing almost every game and finishing dead last, after which almost every player left the club. Along the way a player had to be restrained by the police from attacking fans who threw mud at him. Oh, and somehow in the FA Cup they managed to achieve the club's greatest victory to date. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • winning 11, drawing 8 and losing 23 -- I see you've used the serial comma in the body. Might need adding here for consistency.
  • the match finished 9–1 to the home team, the highest number of goals New Brompton had conceded in a competitive match in the club's history. -- I think this is better as a separate sentence.
  • Against Swindon Town in the first match of October a forward called Barker made his debut in place of Pickering and Fred Mavin -- comma after October
  • I recently learned this from another review, I noticed that the reporter mentioned at least five times, if there is no name that can be attributed, I believe we should not use a definite article, so it should be a reporter from. Also to avoid being repetitive, perhaps use some variation i.e. a writer or a journalist from...
  • The final game of the season was took place on 25 April -- the final game of the season took place
  • At this stage of the competition they were drawn to play -- comma after competition
  • and forced to leave the game inside the first ten minutes -- Perhaps it should be: in the first ten minutes or ten minutes into the game
  • Optional: Perhaps equaliser should be wikilinked
  • Martin made, the most, -- I think the first comma should be dropped
  • In the case of the former player it was his only appearance for the New Brompton first team. -- comma after player
  • That's all from me. Great works as ever. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14: - many thanks for taking the time to review the article. All points addressed, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks good. Support on prose. Also, if you happen to have the luxury of time and interest, would appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Teratix[edit]

  • the heaviest defeat in the club's history to date this reads like it's the heaviest defeat Gillingham has ever suffered, but I think all you mean is that it was the heaviest defeat suffered up to that time? I'd replace "to date" with something less ambiguous.
  • the team were in 6th place out of 20 teams in the league table in mid-November is there a particular significance to this point in the season? I understand highlighting the team's standing at the end of December, as that's the end of the year and around the season's halfway point, but this is a bit more cryptic to me. Was 6th perhaps their peak placing for the season?
    • Not sure if you saw this?
      • As far as I can work out it was their peak position, but short of ref-bombing it with their position after every single game I don't know how to address this. I do feel that it's worth noting that they climbed as high as 6th before falling away by Christmas, but not sure how to proceed. Take it out of the lead altogether but leave it mentioned at the appropriate point in the body (i.e. after the third of the three straight wins).......?
        • No, if it's there because you've worked out it was their peak position, that's OK, you don't need to take it out. I was just wondering why it was there in the first place, because the mid-November timeframe seemed a bit arbitrary.
  • which was seen as the greatest win in the club's history to date "to date" is not as ambiguous as it is in that first instance, but it's still not ideal
  • In the preceding eight seasons I'd split this sentence in two
  • Simmons of The Sporting Life wrote that New Brompton "always appear[ed] to be struggling against an adverse fate" is this a general reflection on the club or a particular reflection on last season?
    • The wording is quite vague but it doesn't seem to refer solely to the previous season
  • all left after a single season anything known about why all three left at once? Was this unusual or normal for the time?
    • I don't have any sources that say anything specific on this. At the time players were only contracted to a club for one season at a time so three players leaving at once was not unusual and it was probably just coincidence that they has all only been there for a year
      • Fair enough, just inquiring.
  • had to continue with a reduced number of players → "fewer players"
  • would tie as the largest in front of which New Brompton played during the season awkwardly worded
    • Still needs some work.
      • Had another go
  • a forward called Barker made his debut in place of Pickering and Fred Mavin, a half-back who had been a regular in the previous two seasons, made his first appearance this jarred on a first look, it initially reads as if Barker is replacing both Pickering and Mavin before you reach "made".
  • saying that he had given spectators ... that "few wing men in the country could have equalled his placing drop "that" x2
    • I believe the second "that" is needed for the sentence to be grammatically correct
      • Eh, might be a BrE thing. Not terribly important.
  • A week after Marriott scored the team's first hat-trick of the season, McGibbon repeated the feat doesn't make sense to talk of McGibbon repeating the feat if someone else performed it the first time.
  • who were in 20th and last place in the league table why not just "who were in last place"?
  • another team near the foot I think the implied first near-bottom team is Leyton, but they were not "near the foot of the table" – they were at it.
    • Not sure if you saw this?
      • I changed it to "a team below them in the table" which I think covers all bases
  • Smith made what would prove to be his final appearance why didn't Smith play any of the remaining matches, especially considering he was the player-manager?
    • I don't have any sources to confirm that. The full-length book about Smith's life mentions that game and then in a very perfunctory manner says something like "it turned out to be the last game he played". He may have been injured, but I can't confirm that
      • OK.
  • Cunliffe, who had left New Brompton at the start of the season, scored both goals ouch!
  • The result meant that New Brompton drop "that"
    • Not sure if you saw this?
      • In British English either is valid and I think the use of "that" would probably be preferred by linguistic purists but I have changed it anyway
  • generated significant interest, resulting in a new record attendance for the ground "generated significant interest" is a bit vague and I'm not sure it really adds any information to the article. Why not just "drew a record attendance for the ground" (not "new record", redundant) and let readers infer the match must have generated a lot of interest?
  • The Daily Telegraph noted that New Brompton were of "very ordinary ability" and that they would need drop "that" x2
  • set another new attendance record drop "new"
  • and late in the game the First Division team scored a second goal I think your inner Gillingham fan slips out a little bit here, highlighting City's First Division status feels a little bit defensive – the subtext seems to be "sure, we lost, but they were in another league to us and we'd done well to hold them off for this long!"
  • Is there some reason the "Results" header in cup matches is not a table caption, like every other table in the article has?
  • 21 players made at least one appearance for New Brompton → "21 players appeared for New Brompton"
  • fewer than five appearances of whom two comma after appearances?
  • In the case of the latter player, it was his only appearance → "it was McLachlan's only appearance"
    • Follow-up: "McLachlan's one appearance" → "McLachlan's appearance"
  • Eleven players scored at least one goal for the team → "Eleven players scored for the team"
  • The Aftermath section feels a bit thin – I would expect people to have more to say about the team's worst season in its history to that point. Any insights into why the team was so weak?
    • I searched all available newspaper sources and didn't really find any commentary on why the team had been so bloody awful in the second half of the season
      • Hmm, OK.
  • New Brompton were reprieved from relegation to Division Two why?
    • Relegation was not automatic but voted on by the other clubs
      • Was it unusual for teams to be reprieved? Was there a particular reason they were saved in this case?
  • Smith left the club, choosing to retire from professional football For sheer age or another reason?
    • Sources don't say. Presumably age, as he was 34 and that was old for a footballer in that era, but no source explicitly confirms it
      • Alright
  • the playing squad was almost completely overhauled Because they'd performed so badly or were there other reasons?
    • Sources don't explicitly say, I'm afraid. The closest I could find was an article stating that "it is not surprising that the directors decided to make extensive changes to the New Brompton team", which wouldn't really add anything to the article IMO
      • Fair enough!
  • That's all from me. – Teratix 14:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Teratix: - thanks for your review. All points addressed other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I have to say this article left me with more questions than answers at times – but I totally understand that when we're talking about a football season from more than a century ago, some things are just going to be lost to history, and there's only so much you can do when the sources you're relying on aren't talking. Just had a last follow-up on relegation but that's about it. – Teratix 15:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Teratix: - I added a chunk more which hopefully explains the situation..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The relegation chunk is all good and very helpful for explanation – I just had a last look-over and there were a couple of points from the original review you might have missed, and a couple you've had a pass at addressing but need just a little more work in my view. – Teratix 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • OK, all looks good: support, for real this time! – Teratix 05:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empire of the Sultans[edit]

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a successful FAC last year for an article about an art exhibition, I invite review of this article about another exhibition: one that visited sixteen venues. As with Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, this article results from my role as Wikimedian In Residence at the Khalili Collections. I make extensive use of paywalled news archives, so of course I am happy to answer any requests for detailed quotes from those sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Ghosts of Europa[edit]

Hello! I don't have much feedback for the Venues or Reception sections. However, I think the Background and Content sections are under-developed and would benefit from expansion. I also think the focus of the Background section is unclear; it doesn't seem to properly set up the rest of the article.

For the Background section:

  • You cite four sources to cover the history of the Ottoman Empire: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Deseret News, BYU, and the Salt Lake Tribune. The Encyclopedia makes sense, but otherwise this seems like a strange choice of sources. Is Deseret News really the best source for what the Ottomans did in 1516? Why cite newspapers at all instead of peer reviewed history books?
    • Can't do this straight away, but I'll find better sources. The newspaper sources are already used in the article and were written specifically to give context to the exhibition, but their statements can indeed be backed up by scholarly sources. Done: newspaper sources removed, academic books used instead, paragraph re-worded to fit those sources.
  • I think you should explain Islam's views on idolatry and its preference for non-representational art. Without that context, it's surprising that an exhibition covering 600 years of art is so focused on calligraphy and doesn't include e.g. sculptures.
    • This is a good idea; as with the above, I'll have to dig into scholarly sources.
  • In 1516, the empire took over the holy places of Islam in Arabia - What were these places? Everything on this list?
    • Yes, the part of that list that relates to Arabia. I could insert "Mecca and Medina" to make it explicit? Sentence now replaced based on academic source.
  • Although officially an Islamic state, the empire promoted a religious tolerance that was unusual for medieval Europe - Is this relevant to the exhibition? It sounds like it specifically focused on Islamic art.
    • I think this is useful context because the sultans did not fully embrace the restrictions of Islam, for instance commissioning portrait paintings. The exhibition combined Islamic art with art made for people who were unbelievably wealthy — maybe the richest family in the world at that time — and liked to show off their wealth.
  • The empire's rulers, the sultans, were keen patrons of the arts, especially calligraphy - This feels overly simplified. Was every single sultan for 600 years a "keen patron"?
    • I don't think "every single sultan" is implied. Sources use "the sultans" as the subject of the statement. I agree it's a breezy generalisation but not sure more is needed to explain why someone would be interested in the sultans' art.
  • Suleiman and the later sultans used this wealth to build large, domed mosque complexes that included schools and hospitals - It's not clear how this connects to the article. Did some of the art in this exhibit come from those mosques?
    • This was included just to underline that the sultans were very rich, but you're right that it doesn't illuminate the exhibition. Now removed. Removed mention of schools and hospitals, and added clause about inscriptions.
  • other objects with secular or religious purposes - This is pretty vague (isn't everything either secular or religious?). I don't have a clear sense of what's in this collection. More detail or examples would be helpful.
    • Many objects were religious in purpose but many were not. Rephrased to make this more clear. The scope of the collection is art from Islamic countries, whether or not that art has a religious purpose or function.

For Content:

  • The exhibition's curators were J. M. Rogers, the collection's honorary curator; and Nahla Nassar, its acting curator and registrar - This wording is awkward. Its curators were curators?
    • The curators of the exhibition were the curators of the collection, which isn't always true of exhibitions. I agree the repetition of "curator" is jarring. How about "The exhibition was assembled by..."?
  • More than 200 objects were on display, covering 600 years of the Ottoman Empire - This is also a bit awkward. The article on the Ottoman Empire says it lasted from 1299 to 1922, or 623 years. Were 23 of those years not covered by the exhibition?
    • 600 years is the number used by sources, but it's almost certainly false precision. Changed to "six centuries".
  • These exhibits fell into four sections. "In the service of God" displayed texts including the Quran as well as furniture and ornaments for decorating mosques. - The subsection about this exhibit doesn't mention furniture, which makes it feel incomplete after this overview.
    • Well spotted. I've added a sentence under "In the service of God" about mosque furniture.
  • Architectural inscriptions were a feature of Ottoman mosque interiors - This seems like it belongs in the Background section.
    • Seems like I need a new background sentence combining the fact that the sultans built mosques and they decorated them in a particular way. I'll think more about this. Rephrased and moved to background section.
  • The armour, forged from iron or steel, included helmets, chain mail shirts, and a 15th century war mask - This is an abrupt start to this subsection; I needed to reread the overview to orient myself. Consider re-introducing the topic: "This exhibit featured armour, which..."
    • You're right; I got sick of repeating "The exhibition included...". Now rephrased.
  • Other pottery on display came from Syria, among which were a set of twelve fritware bowls from 1860, each inscribed in Arabic with "Imperial Chamber" and "a gift for his excellency Abraham Lincoln". - I feel like I'm missing huge chunks of this story. Why was a gift for Abraham Lincoln in Syria? Did they never send it? Did Lincoln give it back?
    • I have the same feeling, and frustratingly the questions are not answered by the sources! So it's known that they bear Lincoln's name but I don't think anybody knows why these gifts were made for him but did not end up in the USA. I've added a sentence to explain that the curators don't know.
  • In the 19th century it was routine for sultans to be trained in calligraphy - This also feels like it belongs in the background.
    • Moved.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Very grateful for your feedback and happy to give the article more useful context. I've made some changes straight away; others require more thought and poring through sources. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cross-site leaks[edit]

Nominator(s): Sohom (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Say you clicked on that sketchy link that you shouldn't have clicked on, what's the worst that could happen ? This article seeks to answer that exact question by providing a technical introduction to an age old attack that has recently drawn some interest in the academic web security community.

A product of 4 months of almost-continual effort, this article has recieved a extensive GA review from RoySmith and has subsequently been peer reviewed by TechnoSquirrel69. This is my first time nominating an article for the featured star, and I would love to hear any feedback comments that y'all might have -- Sohom (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think it is great to be making articles like this of a good standard. I am sure it is well researched and accurate given the review you have done. However, technical matters like this are very hard to make accessible to an average reader, and I have to say, I really struggle reading this, although I consider that I have a basic lay knowledge of how some of these things might fit together. that said, it also seems a particularly challenging topic to convey in simple terms.

The introductory (lead) section is what really matters here. If this can explain the basic concept well enough, then the other sections may be comprehensible. You might want to see if you can try explaining it in reply here, in an over simplified manner, to see if that gives a guide to the edits needed make this sufficiently readable by a general reader. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JimKillock Thank you for taking the time to review the article :) As you mentioned, the topic is pretty technical which limits how simple some parts of the article can be. I've done some reworking of the prose of the lede at User:Sohom_Datta/csl, let me know if this makes it any better (I can try and simplify it further if you want). Sohom (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sohom Datta Better, especially the first paragraph, but further simplification is needed. Your lede audience is someone who knows nothing about the topic, for instance perhaps your grandparents, or aunts and uncles. (Apologies if they are in fact all software engineers!) (See WP:TECHNICAL and WP:EXPLAINLEAD which seem to guide towards "do simple first, then complicated after". These also give links to text simplicity checker tools, which rate the new text as within the 20% most complicated on Wikipedia, or as "PhD" level texts.) For instance:
To perform a cross-site leak attack, the attacker must find at least one URL in a victim website that provides at least two different responses based on the website's previous interactions with a user and identify at least one way in which they can distinguish between the two responses.
This is a lot to take in, if you are new to it. There are around five or six different ideas to comprehend within it. Perhaps it would be better to step through the process, with one concept per sentence?
An alternative way of presenting the information might reduce the technical explanation in the lead to a very basic statement, and give a noddy-level step through for people like me as the first section. (Post script: this is suggested in the MOS links above.)Jim Killock (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JimKillock Is the latest version of User:Sohom_Datta/csl better? I've broken down the second paragraph, added a inline example and broken a few more of the longer sentences up. :) Sohom (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sohom Datta Definitely getting there. I'll ask questions until I can readily understand it perhaps.
  • What do you mean by "response" in this sentence? For instance, on a search page, an attacker might find one response when a search yields results and another when there are no results. (A lay reader would assume the "response" was the search result.)
  • Then in the following sentence, what causes an information leakage issue or "side channel"?
  • Why does information leakage aid an attack, or how does it?
Jim Killock (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JimKillock Sure, no problems, feel free to ask any questions :)
- In this case response should mean the HTTP responses sent to the browser, however mentioning that requires that we go of on a tangent explaining "HTTP". Since the "search result" abstraction is not incorrect, I'm not too keen on doing anything here.
But a "search result" is naturally going to give a different "response" if it is for a different search term, which is what you imply here. However the http response seems to be different for another reason? This is why it seems confusing. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The HTTP responses are different because the search results are different. Imagine a attacker is trying to attack your Gmail account using this technique, the attacker would analyze gmail and find that the website has a search endpoint. They would then pick two queries (say "dog" and "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj"). They know that "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj" will always return a empty response. Given this, the attacker will then identify a information leak by which they can differentiate a empty response from a non-empty response. Once they do that, they are able to make the two queries, and if both responses are empty, they know that you don't own dogs, else they now know that you own/talk about dogs. Hope that cleared up the confusion. Sohom (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This is more difficult, and a good question. There is no particular cause for these information leakages, they are inherent to the way the web works and are a result of design choices that were made during the early years. This is touched upon in some detail in the "Background" and "Mechanism" section of the article.
IIRC, they are things like, http responses and JS etc allow the website to ask (or is told by dewfault?) things like what browser version, plug ins, language, fonts, etc are being used. Are there other relevant examples? An example or two would help. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are confusing Browser fingerprinting with Cross-site leaks. The most common example of a information leakage issues in a cross-site leak context would be the leakage of cache information across websites (a different website caches images and then you check if a specific image is cached). Another example I like to give is that of a website timing how long another website (say Wikipedia) takes to return a login page. If it takes particularly long, you can infer that the login page redirect somewhere else, and so make the inference that the user is logged into Wikipedia. Sohom (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Again, this is another really good question, I've struggled to explain this in a succient way in the lede, but these information leakages are necessary since they bypass the Same-origin policy (there is some discussion about this in the "Background" section). Under normal circumstances, browsers will block attempts by websites to query information about other websites rendering this attack ineffective.
Let me know if the changes work :) Sohom (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Improvements for sure. Perhaps it would be helpful to draft a simple explanation as not being part of the lede as a first step, so we don't conflate the parameters of a lede with the need of the average reader to be given a simple overvew? And then it can aid the lede draft as you would have the basic level guide ready? --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JimKillock Sure, I've answered your questions above, let me know if you need further clarification. Sohom (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will re-read your background section and see if I can understand better. Jim Killock (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current draft is better, but it is still hard to follow; your explanations here are very helpful, but I think it will take a long time to answer my questions in this way to the point I understand it sufficiently to be able to suggest edits or improvements to the text.
So I'm doing a bit of background reading elsewhere to see if I can get an overview into my mind.
Another step you could take is to read WP:TECHNICAL and WP:EXPLAINLEAD and produce a simple explanation based on those for the "general reader" audience, without regard to where it goes for now. Jim Killock (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cross Temple, Fangshan[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the only surviving site of the Church of the East in China. I think I have exhausted the research material I can find to ensure it is comprehensive and well-researched, and I am pretty sure the images involved are in the public domain, either because they are user contributions from the Commons, or because they were published before 1928. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might be able to borrow Qianzhi Zhu's 中国景教 [Nestorianism in China] next week. Might add tiny bits and pieces to the text. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borrowed, checked and reviewed. Nothing much to add–can confirm that it is very much comprehensive on the subject matter (yippee!) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generalissima's comments[edit]

Reserving my spot for a prose review! Love more Chinese history FACs. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edict of Expulsion[edit]

Nominator(s): Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the 1290 edict of expulsion that led to the departure of the Jews from England, and the reasons why it was issued; and the consequences and importance of the edict since then. It would be good for it to be featured as it is an important facet of English and Jewish social history, with an international significance. Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'll take a look at this one over the weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties he wanted" => "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties that he wanted"
  • "then adopted in England at the Synod of Oxford in 1222." - this doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. I would separate it into a separate sentence
  • "King Henry III backed allegations" - link him
  • "this was however an unrealistic expectation" - this either needs to be a separate sentence of else the comma before it needs to be a semi-colon
  • "Edward also attempted" - who's Edward? This is the first mention in the body of him
  • "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80 foot fall" => "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80-foot fall"
  • "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were to told" => "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were told"
  • "Perhaps more dangerous than the risk of piracy was the condition of the sea in Autumn" - autumn doesn't need a capital A
  • "the most valuable of which was houses in London" - while probably grammatically correct, this reads a little oddly, so I would suggest maybe "the most valuable of which consisted of houses in London"
  • "Some of the property was given away to courtiers, the church and family" - whose family?
  • "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised. £100 of this was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey" => "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised, £100 of which was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey"
  • Check for overlinking. Queen Eleanor is certainly linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • "it appears to be a deliberate attempt to associate himself and Eleanor with the cult." - this should be its own sentence
  • "for instance in the canonization evidence" => "for instance in the canonisation evidence" (British English spelling)
  • There's quite a bit of sandwiching going on with images, especially in the significance section. Maybe lose a couple of images
  • If kept, the Edward I image caption needs a full stop
  • Note c - "See Hillaby & Hillaby 2013, pp. 364–5" - this could just be a reference in the same format as all the others
  • Note d needs a full stop
  • Note f - "See Morris 2009, p. 226" - same as with note c
  • Same with notes j and h
  • Note l does not need a full stop
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great - those look very sensible. I'll work through them probably tomorrow. Jim Killock (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you very much @ChrisTheDude. Those are all done, bar removing an image. I've cut the image captions down, but left them for now, until I've had a think. On overlinking I checked Edward I, Queen Eleanor and Little St Hugh as the most likely candidates for overlinking with several mentions.Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sam Manekshaw[edit]

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of only two people promoted to the Field Marshal rank in India. I believe I have addressed all the concerns raised in the last FAR and look forward to going through the process once again, hopefully for the final time for this article. Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: For reviewers who find the Assessment section too short and lacking on comprehensiveness, please note that I do not have access to the Wikipedia Library and thus cannot access a lot of sources fully & instead have to rely on snippets.

RoySmith (support)[edit]

slightly off-topic discussion about TWL access

I'm not going to go so far as to formally oppose, but I think this should not go forward on procedural grounds. The nominator has identified a shortcoming in their own ability to properly research this article; lack of access to WP:WPL. Looking at the requirements, the only thing they're missing is "6+ months editing". I can see two trivial ways to handle that. One would be to write to the WPL folks (who I have found to be exceptionally eager to help), explain the problem with the old account and request that the 6 month requirement be considered met based on that old account. Two would be to wait another three weeks, at which point your new account will meet the 6 month requirement and apply that way. In the meantime, my suggestion is to withdraw this submission and resubmit after you have gotten access and been able to complete your research. Considering that this article has been submitted three previous times over the past six years, with all three submissions being unsuccessful, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you wait another three weeks to be able to avail yourself of the sources you say you need to complete your research. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roy, thanks for your thoughtful and considerate reply. The only source I don't have full access to is the Indian Arms Bazaar 1994 artice, source #141. I don't believe this one can br accessed through TWL too. I have full access to the rest of the sources used in the article, and do think I can research the article properly.
The reason I put the note though, is because most FA reviewers have TWL access and expect sources from catalogues there, like I don't have access to those yet, but I don't think TWL access is a prerequisite for FA status, is it?
I did try to get TWL access over at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library, but got my application rejected within a day. How else would you suggest I write to them? Are there other forums for that? I understand your suggestion to wait, but I don't want to, because I don't think TWL sources are better than open access ones. Also, having two failed FARs for the same article feels really bad, it's not the end of the world but is off putting.
But if the TWL thing is a negative qualifier for you, then I will consider withdrawing the nomination once again. Matarisvan (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just entered "Sam Manekshaw" into TWL's search box and got a page full of sources. I see you've used at least some of them (The obituary in The Economist, for example), but quite a number of other sources that you don't mention. Raghavan S. Soldiers, Statesmen, and India’s Security Policy. India Review. 2012;11(2):116-133. doi:10.1080/14736489.2012.674829 has several pages about Manekshaw. I don't see that mentioned in your sources, but they do cite Interview with Manekshaw in Quarterdeck (1996) reproduced in Lieutenant General J. F. R. Jacob, Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation (New Delhi: Manohar, 1997), pp. 18183 as one of its sources, which I see you do use, so perhaps you've already got that covered.
My point is that WP:FACR requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and I don't see how you can say you've done that without at least having run a TWL search to see if there's anything you've missed.
Samwalton9 (WMF) I see you processed Matarisvan's TWL application and rejected it based on failing the 6 month's tenure requirement. What wasn't mentioned in his application was that he previously edited as PunishedRottweilerAppreciator but lost access to that account because of a technology failure. Between the two accounts, he meets both the time and edit count requirements. Is there any way the rules could be bent to get him access now, so he doesn't have to wait another 3 weeks to hit the 6-month mark on his current account? RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this, I didn't know SW9 could be requested like that upfront. I did forget to mention the old account in my plea, maybe if I had, then perhaps I wouldn't have struggled in the last FA. I will incorporate the 2 sources you mention, and if I do get access to TWL then cite all the other sources available there as well. Thank you once again, cheers! Matarisvan (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matarisvan: I missed your followup note last time about having a previous account. Usually we would ask for some proof of ownership for your previous account, but in this case since you've only got a couple of weeks to go anyway I've enabled Wikipedia Library access for your account. On a broader note @RoySmith I'm wondering about this procedural decline on the basis of not having access to The Wikipedia Library - I would feel uneasy about us being a bottleneck to future FACs. There are a wide range of venues for doing research besides TWL. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Samwalton9 (WMF) I agree that TWL should not be a bottleneck per-se to FAC. However in this case, @Matarisvan specifically identified their lack of TWL access as the reason why they couldn't get a source they needed. It just seemed like a problem that could be easily solved, so I pushed a bit on that. FA requires "professional standards of ... sourcing". In a professional setting, if you submitted something for review with a note, "I know my paper/code/project/whatever is deficient, but I lost my library card so I can't fix it", it wouldn't go over very well, and that's really the point I was trying to make. Anyway, thank you for your assistance. Now, I've got a review I need to do... RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Roy, I'm glad to share that I got access to the Indian Arms Bazaar Source through the Open Library/ Now there are no sources left which I don't have full access to. Matarisvan (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, Wikipedia:Resource request should be utilised. If an article is not comprehensive, it is not FA status, no matter the nominator's personal position. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, great idea! I was almost done posting my request there when somehow I thought of using the resources which are part of the ISBN template. As a result, I was able to access the only source I did not have full access to, thanks to the Open Library. As for the comprehensiveness, I should have phrased my words better. I did not mean to say 'I think' or 'I believe' in the first reply, but inadvertently did so, it was absent minded filler. What I meant to say was that I have gone through multiple reliable source catalogues. I have gone through the entire search results for 'Sam Manekshaw' on Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR and NYT, and cited all the unique content I could find there. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Chief of the Army Staff" : be consistent about capitalization. Also see MOS:DUPLINK, "a link ... may be repeated ... at the first occurrence in a major section". I think it should be linked both in the lead and the first time it's used in the body (i.e. under Indian Military Academy).
    • Changed all to lower case.
  • "His active military career spanned ... five wars" is in the lead, but I'd repeat that statement in the body along with an explicit list of the five wars so the reader doesn't need to go hunting to find them all.
    • Wouldn't that mess up the chronological order? Also, all 5 wars & 1 skirmish he was part of are mentioned in the infobox; 4 of the 5 wars are also discussed in the body. I had written up a section for the 1962 war, which was deleted on the advice of Undercover Classicist in FAR #3, because there were only 2 sources and not much detail.
      • Well, as it stands now, I can't tell which 5 wars you're talking about. I see two top-level sections that talk about wars ("Word War II" and "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971"), so the obvious question is "what were the other three?" The infobox should summarize what's in the article, not include material that isn't otherwise there.
        • Hi Roy, I removed the 5 wars mention, is that alright? We know for sure that Sam was involved in these wars but don't have any further details, most of these are yet to be declassified.
  • "Manekshaw was selected as part of the first batch of cadets at the IMA" -> "Manekshaw was in the first batch of cadets ..." Also, "batch" seems like an odd choice of word. Maybe "class"?
    • Hmm, I see you use "batch" a lot, as in "batchmates". Maybe that's just standard Indian English usage, in which case it's fine?
      • I was gonna change this to cohort. Yes indeed, batch and batchmates are common words used for academic cohorts and colleagues.
        • Cohort works, but I found this stack exchange article which verifies that "batch" is the accepted term in Indian English, so I'd leave it as batch.
  • "In World War II, he was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry." is in the lead but not the body.
    • These exact words aren't repeated, but the details of and citation for the award are there in the body.
  • "partition of India" is sometimes in upper case, sometimes in lower case.
    • Fixed.
  • "Manekshaw was seconded to a planning role ... Hyderabad crisis" a military buff might know what "seconded" means, but I don't. Either explain it, or at least link to what I assume is the right target, Secondment. Also, "Hyderabad crisis" isn't mentioned in the body.
    • Added the link. It is not discussed much, but 'annexation of Hyderabad' is there in the body.
  • "167 Infantry Brigade" in other places, you write unit numbers as ordinals, i.e. "12th Frontier Force Regiment". Be consistent.
    • I had changed these to 167th earlier, but for this particular unit, that is just the way they are written by the army, without the suffix. I can still change all these to 167th, what would you suggest?
      • If the army calls it "167 Infantry Brigade", then that's what we should call it as well. It's possibly worth a footnote explaining that, but I'll leave that to you.
        • I was not sure about this. I haven't put in one, I hope that is ok.
  • As a general comment, you are inconsistent about capitalization of job titles. For example, "Chief of the Army Staff" vs "director of military training". I'll leave it to you to find all the other places.
    • I believe I have fixed these. The only time when the ranks are capitalised are when they appear next to a rank holder, as per the suggestions in the 2nd peer review.
  • "Army Headquarters" not clear if that should be capitalized. Maybe that's an Indian English vs. American English thing?
    • Yeah, I also guess it's a military thing.
  • In the lead you say "After completing the higher command course at the Imperial Defence College,", but in the body it's "... to attend a higher command course for one year". I assume the course is one year long and he completed it, but that's a little ambiguous. It sounds like maybe it was supposed to be a multi-year course and he only completed the first year.
    • Specified that the course was 1 year long.

(that takes me to the end of the lead, I'll pick this up again later)

  • "Hilla found it impossible to travel any further due to her advanced pregnancy.[9] After Hilla had recovered," This sounds like she was having morning sickness or something and got over that. But looking at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive1, I see that what she recovered from was giving birth, which seems like a significant detail to leave out.
    • Added.
  • "During World War II, Hormizd had served", I think just "... Hormizd served", but maybe a grammar expert should weigh in on this.
    • I was also stuck up on this, the latter phrasing seemed to be present participle so I changed it to past participle. Is that alright?
  • "Manekshaw's younger brother Jami also served in the Indian Armed Forces." This is mostly repeated in the next sentence. I'd combine and condense them: " Manekshaw's younger brother Jami became a doctor and served in the Royal Indian Air Force as a medical officer".
    • Combined.
  • "Jami was the first Indian to be awarded air surgeon's wings from Naval Air Station Pensacola in the United States." I'm curious how it came that an Indian officer was serving at a US air station. That deserves some explanation. It's also unclear what "first" applies to. The first Indian to get air surgeon's wings, or the first Indian to do that at Pensacola? Also, what year did this happen?
    • Added the year and clarified that he was not serving, but training there. He was not the first one to get air surgeon's wings, but he was the first one to get them at Pensacola.
  • "Jami joined his elder brother" I assume the elder brother we're talking about here was Sam, but with four sons, it's worth being explicit.
    • Done.
  • "passing with a third division in science" I suspect "third division" would be understood by somebody who had gone through the Indian education system, but I (an American), have no idea what it means. Is there some article that could be linked to which would give an explanation?
    • Added the equivalent grade (C).
  • "enrol" Is that a typo for "enroll", or is that just how it's spelled in Indian English?
    • Was a typo, fixed.
      • "Enrol" is also UK English; generally Indian spellings have followed UK usages AIUI but perhaps this is now changing. But the article should stick to Indian usages, I would have thought, whatever that standard is. Does or could the page specify this with a template? --Jim Killock (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    {{Indian English|small=yes}} can be included if not already. There isn't information about exact preferences at Wikipedia, but Indian English mentions that generally follows British English spellings. So I would guess that enrol would be preferred. Jim Killock (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The {{Use Indian English}} template is there, so I think the spelling needs another check. Jim Killock (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I already made the changes, considering that in the next few lines, the spelling used is 'enrollment'. Would it be prudent to revise both? Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't say for certain what Indian English uses, but the English spellings would be enrol and enrolment. I would expect these from what I've understood of Indian spellings. Jim Killock (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will make these changes. Matarisvan (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "You've got "batch mates" in one place and "batchmates" in another. Be consistent about it being one word or two.
    • Done.
  • "a holiday with Maharaja Kumar Jit Singh of Kapurthala and Haji Iftikhar Ahmed" Who are these two people? Is the first one, "Kumar Jit Singh, the Maharaja of Kapurthala"?
    • Changed as suggested.
  • "Of the 40 cadets inducted, only 22 completed the course." It's not immediately clear which course you're talking about here. I assume you mean "The cadet course at the IMA", but you have to go back to the previous paragraph to understnad that, so a little context here would help.
    • Changed to 'inducted into the IMA'.
  • "They were commissioned as second lieutenants" I'd end the previous sentence with a semicolon and combine it with this one: "... completed the course; they were commissioned ...". That makes it clear who "They" refers to.
    • Done.
  • "Many of Manekshaw's batchmates were captured by Japan during World War II and would fight in the Indian National Army" This is confusing. How did their being captured lead to them being in the Indian National Army?
    • Added a clarification. The INA was a rebel force formed and staffed by Indian POWs in Axis camps.
  • "was a junior by five years" it's not clear what this means.
    • Clarified, hope the rephrasing is clear and not confusing.
  • What does "antedated seniority" mean?
    • Backdated entry into ranks. Irrelevant bureaucratic detail, don't know why I put it in, removed.
  • "he was appointed the quartermaster of his company", this might just be an Indian vs. American English thing, but I'd leave out "the", i.e. "appointed the quartermaster" -> appointed quartermaster"
    • Done.
  • What does "substantive captain" mean? I'm guessing this is kind of like Brevet (military)?, but it should be explained.
    • It is indeed like the brevet system, added a link to the relevant page.

(I'll pick up with Battle of Pagoda Hill the next time)

  • "He saw action in Burma during the 1942 campaign", For starting a new paragraph (and especially a new section), I'd use "Manekshaw" instead of "He"; you can call him "he" after that in the same paragraph. I don't know if that's actual rule or anything, but to me it sounds better.
    • Done.
  • "While observing the battle, Major General David Cowan, ..." I'd run this together with the previous paragraph.
    • Done.
  • "The citation (which was not made public), reads as follows" This is confusing. If it wasn't made public, how do we know what it said?
    • Rephrased. It was not made public then, but released way later. Should this be removed?
      • The chronology is still confusing. I would do something like "While observing the battle on (insert date), Major General David Cowan ...." and then something like, "The citation (which was only made public on (insert date) reads:" I'd also leave off "as follows"; that's implied by the colon.
        • I have trimmed this sentence a lot now, the chronology should be clearer. We don't know what date the citation was made public, so I thought removing this detail would be better as it doesn't seem so significant.
  • "part of General William Slim's 14th Army." See if you can rephrase this to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Likewise with "general officer commanding, 20th Indian Infantry Division" in the next sentence.
    • For the first one, done. For the second one, could only come up with a rather makeshift solution, hope it is alright?
  • "he received the temporary rank of lieutenant colonel" then later, "He was promoted to acting lieutenant colonel". You should explain how "temporary" and "acting" differ.
    • Added a link to the relevant pages. Should I explain these ranks in a footnote the first time they appear?
  • "promoted to the substantive rank of major" as above, the reader will be wondering what "substantive" means.
  • " Manekshaw's unit, the 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment, became part of the Pakistan Army.". You link 12th Frontier Force Regiment; it should be linked (only) the first time it's used in the body.
  • "3rd Battalion, 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (3/5 GR (FF))." defining the short form here is convenient, but why not do the same for other units with similarly long names, such as 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment?
    • Done. Didn't do so for 9th Battalion, 12th FF, because it appears only once. Is that alright?
  • "lieutenant general equivalent" as with "temporary", "substantive", "acting", etc, what does "equivalent" mean? There's a lot of military jargon that many people won't understand. A little bit later, you've got "As an acting brigadier (substantive colonel)" which is similarly confusing.
    • Changed equivalent to status. Removed the second rank bureaucratese.
  • "he told Manekshaw that if he wanted to, he could sack Thimayya", "sack" seems like slang to me, but maybe that's another Indian/American English thing?
    • Changed to fire, is that ok?
      • Yeah, I think fire works better. But, again, that's based on my American ear. If "sack" is the correct word in the Indian dialect, then by all means use it.
        • Again I can't speak for Indian English, but UK English would regard "sack" and "fire" as informal usage, and prefer "dismiss" or "terminate employment". But this is reported speech? What word did Manekshaw use? If he said "sack", then that's better, I would have thought. Jim Killock (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The source says sack, so I have reverted to that. I hope that is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "These posts were very strategic as they oversaw the Chicken's Neck,", Almost all uses of "very" can be deleted. This seems like one of them.
    • Done.

(I'm up to Honours and post-retirement, where I'll pick up next time)

Hi Roy, thanks for your comments, I'll be incorporating them soon. I have to deal with a problem with the last 2 sections, as soon as that's over, I will make these changes. Hope that's not a problem. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "For his service to India, the President of India awarded Manekshaw the Padma Vibhushan in 1972": give the president's name. I assume we have articles about all the presidents of India, so link to that.
    • Done.
  • " He moved with his wife Silloo to Coonoor" It seems odd to say that he moved with his wife since that's what everybody would assume. This is also the first time Silloo is mentioned; it seems like his marriage should be mentioned under "Early life and family" Also, in some places you have "Siloo", in others, "Silloo".
    • Oh, I see this is covered later under "Personal life and death". So I would just leave it out of the "Honours and post-retirement" section completely.
      • Done.
  • "independent director on the board of several companies ... as the chairman" I think it would make sense to include a list of them.
    • Done.
  • "Sherry had a daughter named Brandy, and Maya had two sons named Raoul Sam and Jehan Sam.[117] Manekshaw's home is named Stavka, as a reference to the Russian military headquarters Stavka, which his daughter Sherry had read about in War and Peace.[108]" The details of his daughter's children doesn't seem necessary, I'd drop that part.
    • Removed.
  • "Reportedly, his last words were "I'm okay!"." per MOS:LQUOTE, drop the final period.
  • Done.
  • "the Army's apex meet to formulate policy," not sure what this means.
  • Removed, this was filler.
  • "The Republic Day celebrations in Karnataka are held at this ground every year" connect to the previous sentence with a semicolon.
    • Done.
  • Link Think tank
    • Done.
  • "General André Beaufre, a French military theorist, had been invited by Manekshaw in 1971 to analyse the war" Which war? I think you're talking about "the 1971 war", but you need to go back two paragraphs to find that. Actually, the previous paragraph ("... noted that the speed of the campaign") has the same problem; it's not clear which campaign you are talking about.
    • Specified that 1971 is being discussed.

OK, that's a full read-through for me. I'll let you work on this and then I'll come back at some point and take another look.

Thanks for these pointers, I have made all the changes you recommended, looking forward to the next round of comments. Matarisvan (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm ready to support based on my prose review. I am not familiar with military matters (and especially not the Indian military), but I assume some of the other reviewers will be SMEs who can cover that aspect. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Roy. I will ask some military history contributors if they would like to chip in. Matarisvan (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be ok if I put the resolved comments in a collapsible box, Roy? Matarisvan (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It won't bother me. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim Killock[edit]

resolved comments

Firstly I would like to say I support the efforts to get Manekshaw listed, I think it is important that Wikipedia features a more representative selection of topics so great to see efforts made to address these gaps.

The four paragraphs about his family background and early education seems excessive to me. Most of this detail doesn't pertain to his later contributions. Of course, that he came from a middling social background is important, as is the fact his family had to struggle. I would appreciate other people's views on this however, and I also recognise there may be some cultural bias here; what an Indian audience or source feels is notable may differ from a European or American one.

I was a bit concerned when I reviewed this article at peer review on two points: firstly Sam Manekshaw must have a reputation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and I have no idea from this article what that is. For instance, regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971: Concerned about maintaining discipline in the aftermath of the conflict, Manekshaw issued strict instructions forbidding looting and rape and stressed the need to respect and stay away from women. As a result, according to Singh, cases of looting and rape were negligible. The tone is somewhat self-congratulatory in the subtext; but decent treatment of civilians is what normal ought to be. His contribution seems to be that he ensured professional standards in a very difficult situation, but this isn't wholly clear given its presentation. Perhaps a counterpoint is needed? It seems there were reasons to be worried that the Indian army might not be disciplined for instance. In any case it feels like there may be another story or point of view which is not discussed here. Some more sources, preferably at a greater distance than a biographer would help. At the moment this passage is supported by one biography.

The second area of concern for me is the clear tensions between Manekshaw and the Indian government. Or, perhaps the indian government and the military. Why wasn't he honoured properly, or even paid his pension in full for 20-odd years? He was not given a national day of mourning. While this was not a breach of protocol, this would have been customary for a leader of national importance A casual reader will conclude that there was a dispute and ill-feeling, but given the reasons are absent, may believe that this omission is deliberate and non-neutral. Assuming that isn't the case, the reasons should be stated. Jim Killock (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim, great to have you here. On the first four paragraphs, I would want to hear other opinions, because people get defensive when too much information is removed. You can see this in the recent edit history.
On the first point you raised, addressing it will be difficult. On one hand, it is true that no war crimes should be the norm, but that is almost always not the case. I have not found any cases of such indiscipline in wars, but they are there in insurgencies. Adding them in as counterpoints, however, will be risky. I think the best course of action will be to add a neutral source which supports the assertion of no such indiscipline, say a researcher. Would you agree?
On the second point, I have added a brief explanation for the tensions, see the text before the 'national day of mourning'. I hope that is enough. Matarisvan (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the specifics of this incident - a neutral source would help, as would an explanation of the underlying concern.
On the tensions: the amount of information in the article should reflect the prevalence of information in "reliable sources" - eg news reports. If these were extensive, then a brief explanation would not suffice.
The wider issue is Manekshaw's reputation with those he opposed at war. At a minimum, I would hope to see mention of his reputation as to his dealings with Pakistani POWs, if relevant, anything relating to the handover to Bangladeshi authorities or interim authorities, and his reputation as a soldier with the Pakistani military. They would for instance have an opinion as to whether he was a successful or lucky opponent, someone to fear or otherwise. Often soldiers in former wars talk about each other. (And even meet each other. This was frequent with WWII veterans in Europe for instance. I can understand this may never have happened in these cases, but equally that would speak volumes.) However, I would find it hard to believe that there is no commentary on him at all from Pakistani sources. Jim Killock (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim, apologies for my delayed response. I will make the edits you suggest, there is an editor trying to do an edit war on a minor issue right now, so I will have to get that sorted out first. I think I can get this done in a day max, maybe through the Arbitration project. Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some further thoughts
  • There doesn't seem to be any mention of the biopic, or its portayal of him. This is surely of interest. Many articles have an "In popular culture" section, with mentions of any portrayals. I imagine there are others, where he might feature. The biopic probably needs to be mentioned in the lead as well, as an important fact.
  • Removed as advised by Ian Rose in the second PR.
  • Reading Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive2, this seems to be an admonition not to have a bullet point list, but to rewrite and possibly incorporate into "legacy" rather than an instruction to delete to content wholesale.
  • (On a general point, the Peer reviews are not linked from the talk page which makes it hard to find them.) --Jim Killock (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting the exact edit will be a little tough because I tend to club edits. We could ask Roy, who is a part of this FAR, about what he thinks of the need for a pop culture section. It was never a part of the lead. Ian's words, verbatim, were: "I'd consider ... dropping the popular culture section entirely". Matarisvan (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he meant remove the "section" rather than "remove all the content": See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, which advises on the pitfalls of these and gives advice on how they can work well. (Spoiler alert: bullet point lists fare badly; prose much better) … Agree with Schro -- as well as putting in prose, I'd consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. So not "delete", but "move".
As for inclusion in the lead, that's a judgement call, but it's just a fact that it will be in people's minds right now, but to my mind gives context to his perceived importance. Jim Killock (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, I'm not a fan of "in popular culture" sections. I do note, however, that George S. Patton does include a list of (the many) movies about him, without going into detail about any of them. I have no strong opinion either way. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sections is less important than what's notable and included. Fictional depictions are an indication of cultural significance beyond his actions within his lifetime, and issuing a biopic in particular gives him additional cultural valance. Of course, if they were low budget flops, that would be a different matter. Jim Killock (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we wait for Ian's final opinion? If he sees the mention, he will reply soon enough. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up to you, @Ian Rose was pretty clear: consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024. Nobody has recommended deleting it. Where you put it tho is a matter of preference. The recommendation was to incorporate it in the legacy section. Jim Killock (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reincorporated. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi guys, Jim had it right, my intent was that the content of the In popular culture section could be incorporated in the Legacy section, not necessarily removed entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Manekshaw's standing with the Indian government seems to be mixed in with their hollowing out of the independence of the Indian military and suggestions of graft at high levels. As Manekshaw was quite vocal about bad practice, and his reputation lies on his challenging the political powers of the time over how to intervene miltarily, it seems he was not looked on favourably. If this is the case, and there are sources that explain this, it should be stated in the later life section.
  • Don't think there are reliable sources for this, adding would be original research. In India, such issues don't tend to be discussed and are swept under the carpet. I've added the only instance I could find, which is the Karan Thapar article.
  • The Why the Narrative on Manekshaw – India’s Uncrowned CDS – Is Captivating Military Veterans Now also gives interest from the current military ranks, and context to the relationships between state and military, eg, since his departure "operational objectivity had steadily degenerated, to the point of vanishing, replaced regrettably, by a services-politician nexus guaranteeing reciprocal benefit" and cites an essay "Roots of moral decline in the armed forces" by Admiral Prakash explaining the situation in some detail. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are similar points made at India Today: He was infamous with the country’s bureaucracy and held no high opinion of the politicians. He made his dislike public and was often quoted as disapproving of the political elite. At a public function, he declared politicians as being illiterate. He said, “I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla— although a great many in the past have resembled the latter.” Not surprisingly, there was little love lost between Sam and the political bosses, who ultimately had their revenge. And A thorough gentleman, Manekshaw made it a point to never offend the leaders, instead choosing humour to coat his obvious dislike. The sarcasm, however, never escaped the politicians, especially Indira Gandhi. Naturally, he received a cold shoulder from the bureaucracy post his retirement. These seem to explain the tension pretty adequately, from reliable sources. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • yes but the points about using sarcasm to manage Indira Ghandi and others, and her particular distate for it, has not been incorporated. What was your reason for that? --Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor are the points about operational issues after his departure incorporated, and the current interest in Manekshaw from the POV of military reform is also still absent. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At the current moment, where is the interest coming from? There is some suggestion that it is linked to a general rise in Indian nationalism or national feeling, but I haven't made a detailed investigation.
  • The reason you mention + more Indians getting internet services + the biopic.
  • From English langage mentions of Manekshaw that I could find from Pakistani writers, they were quite positive about him. They were not the best sources tho, eg Quora, but if better sources could be found, this would be useful information to include.
  • I have used some Pakistani sources, the most notable one being RM Hussain for the doctrine subsection. I am adding one more for the reasons you suggest. Bangladeshis don't discuss him much, because, I shouldn't say this, but they are ungrateful.
  • This is pure speculation on my part, but I imagine that there is bitterness that the Indian intervention came quite late, on Manekshaw's advice that it was militarily unwise. Meantime there were mass murders of the Bangladeshi elite. So it would be understandable if, from a Bangladeshi perspective, Manekshaw was not seen as an altogether positive figure. Again, if sources exist to enunciate Bangladeshi perspectives on events or his role, this would be helpful to reach FA status.
  • What I can find so far is the opposite of what I speculated: Bangaldesh did honour him at his death, according to the Economist. That would be worth a mention. --Jim Killock (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jim Killock (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some more observations from the international obituaries (Guardian, NY Times, Economist):
  • One or two mention that he was a "Parsi over-achiever"; this would be worth mentioning (presumably the minority group is associated with focus on success)
  • This does feel a little embarrassing as a Brit in post-Imperial Brexit Island to raise, but several draw attention to his adoption of British habits like drinking whiskey and his handlebar moustache "as was common in his generation"; it does seem to have been part of the personality he projected so probably needs a mention
  • I wonder if a "character" section in the legacy / assessment section would help regarding some of the questions I've raised and can be found in the obituaries linked? eg, his sarcasm, his disrespect for politicians, etc.:::::Jim Killock (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if we should have such a section. I have thought about it and it seems to be polarising. Some reviewers want such a section but others are irked by even a sentence of such qualitative details which cannot be conclusively confirmed. I would like to hear from @RoySmith on this, we could then make a decision on consensus if that is ok with you. Matarisvan (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Structure is not the issue; it can be included in Legacy if preferred. the point is that his personality is not much discussed, it has to be inferred, but from the obituaries his very strong personality and personal skills in dealing with very difficult politicians etc come across loud and clear. I can't see how FA could be reached without this information, it seems central to who he was and why he succeeded.
I suspect the reason that reviewers are "irked" is because of the tone or presentation of the remarks. It is easy for these to come across as fawning, or hero-worship, so they have dealt with it as a style rather than content issue. But if the sources are clear and in consensus about certain things in his character, then FA criteria require neutrally presented descriptions, AFAICT. Happy to have opinions tho. For ease of discussion, this is the kind of thing what I would expect from my reading and could easily be referenced:
Manekshaw was charismatic, and known to be capable of charm. He was often described as a gentleman. Like others of his generation, his background in the British army gave him a fondness for some English habits, such as drinking whiskey and wearing his handlebar moustache. His background as a Parsi is sometimes attributed as a factor in his ambition and success. He commanded great loyalty from his troops, due to his reputation for personal bravery, fairness and his avoidance of punishments. He came into conflict with politicians, however, because he stood up to their often unreasonable or unethical demands. They also disliked his popularity as they feared the possibility of a military coup. He dealt with politicians' demands through sarcasm, which however was recognised by figures such as Indira Ghandi. (I know bits of this are now mentioned.)
Jim Killock (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added, though rather verbatim, except for the Parsi line, which I couldn't find a source for. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The mentions that Manekshaw was disliked for his humane treatment of the Pakistani soldiers, and was told off in cabinet for treating them like "sons in law". This seems worth a mention, and further shows the tensions between him and the political elite. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is still missing. Jim Killock (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also important context on this point, the Pakistani POWs remained in captivity for several years. See Willem va Schendel 2009, A History of Bangladesh, p. 172.
  • It seems the Pakistani POWs were kept as prisoners as a bargaining chip by Indira Ghandi's government until Pakistan had recognised Bangladeshi independence. That is also important context regard why pressure to treat them badly could have existed, and why it was important and exemplary behaviour from Manekshaw to resist these calls. See The History of Pakistan, I. H. Malik (2008) p163-4
Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • article links to a Youtube interview of Manekshaw by his grandson which seems particularly helpful for the external links section.
  • This is still missing, but not essential. If it's not being included, please indicate why. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The same video gives his account of his welcome by Pakistani military authorities and soldiers who seemed to hold him in high regard given the way he organised facilities for them as POWs. More on this would be helpful from secondary sources if possible. Although it may be surprising for a reader that these are so positive, it is important to get non-Indian perspectives on him in, as they will exist, whatever the contents of those assessments may be.
  • This is missing. I imagine it may be hard to get a source for this but please let us know if you have tried to find one. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have found one but it barely references the POWs and mostly talks about Tikka Khan. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to reiterate, assessment of all available sources is the key to FA status. Omitting information is possible at GA, but FA as you know requires that is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; and well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.
This is IMO the trickiest part of an FA review, especially where the reviewers are not experts on the subject matter, and why I'm taking a bit of time to get my head around what is out there. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the detention of the POWs to the article. Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several of the background points are missing tho, so full context is missing. I'm happy to make some light edits so you can see what I think is needed, if that is easier. Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim, I am afk for some time, but I will make these edits in the evening. I had come across these sources but was not sure if I should include them, I will do so now. Matarisvan (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. What I would be looking for is that the conflict between Manekshaw and the Indian bureaucracy and Indira Ghandi is well described, as this is clear in the sources, and that this is linked to his later treatment. Likewise, a better description of his character and personality (charismatic, principled, using sarcasm and humour to get around those with authority over him). he's clearly a very powerful figure who is also getting a lot of hero worship as a victor at war, but to me the real thread that runs through his career is that his heroism standing up to people making bad, immoral, unethical or self-interested decisions was rewarded by snubs from the government - which he equally didn't really care about, compared to sticking to his principles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the conflict with the bureaucracy to the article. I will add the personality part too, perhaps later today. Matarisvan (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JK: Reflection so far: better transparency and communication needed[edit]

I'm a bit concerned that a lot of the points I've raised have been either partially dealt with, rather than wholly dealt with, and the reasons for this aren't being made transparent. For example:

  • I asked for the "culture" items to be restored; see the previous mentions, and I was told this was done. The film was added back, but the mention of Salman Rushdhie / Midnight's Children's chapter on Manekshaw was not. There was a third mention of a documentary, which I can't judge the relevance of. I added Rushdie back onto the page. It's not great to have to check on the quality of the changes in this way. It would be better if the editors could explain what they had / had not included and why.
  • Indira Ghandi's cabinet appear to have suggested to Manekshaw that he treat Pakistani POWs worse, to hasten Pakistan towards signing a peace agreement, accusing him of treating them like "sons in law"; which Manekshaw rightly and courageously resisted. While other adjustments to mention the episode were added, these details haven't been actioned, and there isn't explanation for which bits around this episode have been omitted and which kept.

This is making the work and progress on this FAR a lot slower than it needs to be. There's naturally some to and fro and differences of opinion on what is or is not included, but it's important we are transparent with each other about our reasoning for edits and omissions. At the moment, I am having to check the page itself to find out what has been done out of a suggestion, and then come back to ask why certain items were omitted.

If the reason is that inclusion of certain material relating to Manekshaw's controversies will cause future edit wars, then I think we need to think about a strategy around that, rather than omit the material. The article cannot reach FA status without being a comprehensive account based on all sources. If this is the issue and is currently unsaid, then we are not helping each other.

If it's simply difficult to understand my suggestions, or how to action them, then I'm also really happy to help, including by directly editing the page.

All that said, I don't think that the work to get this to FA is impossible and I think objectively Manekshaw deserves that attention from WP's editors, and I would like for the page editors to get to that point. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the omissions were not intended, I must have skipped over them, I have added them now. My apologies that you had to get to it yourself. I believe all of the issues are now sorted. Would you agree? Matarisvan (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you, but we do need to take care over this. I'll go through and make copy edits to the changes and see where we are. Jim Killock (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for making those changes, I've made some light edits around them, mostly for style and to avoid some repetitions.
JK New comments[edit]

Some other things I've picked up:

  • is it the case that army personnel were diverted to building projects in the lead up to the China war? If so this feels like important context regarding the army's poor performance.
    • Would this be relevant here? (Sorry if this question comes across as rude). Sam could not participate in the war anyways so would we not just be adding important but unnecessary detail?
      • I think it helps explain the chaos he had to sort out, so I would say yes, it probably is. If he did object to it (as the movie implies) more so. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Could not find a good source for this, most ones I found were forums and blogs.
  • is it the case that underfunding of the military before the Bangladeshi intervention added to unpreparedness? If so that would be important context.
    • I have alluded to this but specific references are not available because this is kind of an unspeakable well known secret. The allusion is in the Procurement sub section, "urgently procure equipment".
      • I see, so no sources presumably.--Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • No good sources, yes. Most are informal forums and blogs, would not qualify as RS.
  • "During this period, there were suspicions that Manekshaw would lead a coup and impose martial law." Was it just the Americans who held this suspicion? Who within the Indian government felt this? If we know, we should name them.
    • Done.
  • Note my comment above re "fire" and "sack".

After that, I think it would be helpful to have someone look at the article from a copyediting and structure perspective. Although perhaps you have some checking to do with new sources. At some point the lead should be looked at and some of the points about his personal qualities and conflict with the bureaucracy and politicians mentioned. Jim Killock (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree on all points except including the personality in the leading. I apologise if this comes across as whataboutery, but the Douglas MacArthur artice we used as a reference here has multiple paragraphs on his personality but doesn't mention any of these details in the lead. We have a relatively smaller paragraph in this article on Sam's personality.

For me the next step is to take a rest and think if I have time to skim a biography cited, or similar. As mentioned my objective here is to at least understand the topic well enough to feel that the right information seems to be included. If there are any Mankeshaw / Indian recent history experts out there, I am certain they could do a better job than me however. I'd add that Manekshaw is relevant from a political as well as miliatary history perspective, and so far it has been the political side that has needed some improvement, and thank you for making those that I have spotted. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you, as always, for your comments. Looking forward to more of them once you have gone through a bio. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Jim, I've added something interesting which I just came to know of. You should take a look at it, meanwhile can we put the above comments in the collapse box? Matarisvan (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @JimKillock, I think you missed this. Matarisvan (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, I'll reorganise this a bit. And yes I did see your addition which looked interesting thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Carlyle[edit]

Nominator(s): Sinopecynic (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the most influential English prose writer of the 19th century. Sinopecynic (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • File:Thomas_Carlyle_lm.jpg: missing US tag, source link is dead. Ditto File:Crayon_portrait_of_Thomas_Carlyle_by_Samuel_Laurence,_circa_1838.png
  • File:Signature_of_Thomas_Carlyle.svg is mistagged
  • File:Silhouettes_of_Thomas_Carlyle's_father_and_mother_made_by_Jane_Welsh_Carlyle_with_captions_in_Carlyle's_hand_2.jpg needs an author date of death
  • File:Jane_Baillie_Welsh,_Mrs_Thomas_Carlyle,_1801_-_1866._Wife_of_the_historian_Thomas_Carlyle.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Carlyle_Maclise_Original.jpg, File:Thomas_Carlyle_Reading.jpg
  • File:Dr_John_Carlyle,_Thomas_Carlyle,_Miss_Mary_Aitken,_Provost_Swan_(Crop).jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Mr._Carlyle_delivering_the_address_on_his_installation_as_Lord_Rector_of_Edinburgh_University,_April_2,_1866.jpg needs a UK tag. Ditto File:Carlyle's_Seal.png, File:Froude_besmirching_Carlyle.jpg
  • File:Commemoration_Medal_for_Thomas_Carlyle_LACMA_79.4.41_(2_of_5).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Thomas_Carlyle_in_1851._Medallion_modeled_by_Thomas_Woolner.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I may stop in and do a full review, but a few points:

  • Per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I would excise or paraphrase the many short quotations, which read as scare quotes. See in particular In the summer of 1818, following a "Tour" with Irving through "Peebles-Moffat moor country", Carlyle made his first attempt at publishing, forwarding an article "of a descriptive Tourist kind" to "some Magazine Editor in Edinburgh", which reads as if Carlyle was up to something sordid.
  • Per MOS:BIRTHDATE, generally don't include people's dates of birth and death after they are mentioned in the text.
  • Terar dum prosim is translated here as "May I be wasted so that I be of use". A better translation would be something like "May I be worn away, as long as I may be of use": terar means "wasted" in the sense of "worn away to nothing" (related to our word attrition), and dum means "so long as" rather than "so that" (which would be ut).

UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm going to oppose right away because the article needs quite a lot of work. It's definitely salvageable, but I don't think it can be done within the normal time frame of a FAC.

  • First of all, the article is unbalanced. There are separate articles about Carlyle's philosophy and prose style, which is a good way to keep the article size under control, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an appropriate amount of coverage of those things in this article too. The article has a lot of detail, probably too much, about meetings, letters, the publications of individual essays etc in the biography section, and then quickly checks off the main things Carlyle is known for, such as the great man theory, his approach to history, his impact on major novelists etc. Try to find a better balance where you don't remove actually important content to give room for more trivial details.
  • The article relies too much on illustrative quotations rather than straightforward information.
  • The Works section lacks sources for some statements.
  • The Legacy section contains a lot of quotations and name-dropping but little useful information. We get a long list of writers Carlyle influenced, but we learn almost nothing about what his influence consisted of.
  • There is a massive controversy section that needs to be removed. The content is relevant, but needs to be restructured per WP:CSECTION.
  • The bibliography is largely unsourced and has a lot of external links, which is not recommended per WP:ELBODY.
  • Some of the sources are very old, especially the ones that cover minor details that probably are irrelevant anyway. It should be possible to find more recent sources for almost everything that's relevant.

You've done a lot of good work with this and other Carlyle-related articles. I definitely think you can bring it to FA, but as I said, I don't think it's possible within the typical time frame of a nomination. Ffranc (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raynald of Châtillon[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a 12th-century French aristocrat who ruled first the Principality of Antioch, then the Lordship of Oultrejourdain, both by right of one of his two wives, in the Frankish East. Notorious for plundering raids and attacks against caravans, he is often held responsible for the fall of the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, the usual script[2] reveals a good deal of duplinks, not sure if they're all needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for starting the review. A quick cheque shows that all duplinks are connected to individuals who are mentioned in section "Family" in addition to one reference to them in other sections of the article and in the lead. I think this approach is quite user friendly. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "but in 1989 Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the lords of Donzy." How? Could warrant at least a footnote, as it pertains directly to the subject of the article?
  • I do not have access to Richard's work.
Seems like it could be worth tracking it down, what is the citation? WP:RX usually works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Raynald was born around 1123 or 1125." Do we know where?
  • None of the two cited sources name the place of his birth. Britannica indicates that Raynald was born in Châtillon-sur-Loing but I am not sure that this claim could be verified by a reference to a secondary source. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done.
  • William of Tyre probably only needs to be linked in the first caption he's mentioned in, but now he's linked all three times.
  • Yes, he is linked in each caption of the pictures. I think this is the usual approach.
But in three different captions, one should be enough in the first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link Venetian?
  • Linked.
  • "The crusader states around 1165" State the colour of the area he ruled in caption.
  • Added.
  • Link excommunicated.
  • Linked.
  • Link Genoa.
  • Linked.
  • "Raynald made an alliance with Thoros II of Cilicia." Probably worth mentioning he was Armenian ("the Armenian lord"?) to show shifting alliances, since the previous paragraph tells of him fighting Armenians.
  • Added.
  • "orgy of violence" This sounds a little, err, loaded.
  • Reworded. I am curious how I could create this expression.
  • "Shaizar was held by Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Muslim Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald." This seemingly implies that the Assassins weren't Muslims. Perhaps be more specific about what kind of Muslims the two groups were?
  • Reworded.
  • "On Manuel's demand, he and his retainers walked barefoot" I think you could name him instead of the confusing "he".
  • Modified.
  • Link Latakia.
  • Linked.
  • "horses and camels from the local peasants" State if they were Muslims for context.
  • None of the cited sources refers to their religion. I assume they were more likely local Christians.
  • A shame many of the old illustrations are so low res, I wonder if some of them can be updated with higher res scans?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "res".
Image resolution/size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This[3] image has a copyright warning tag that is probably invalid.
  • I think the tag is obviously baseless but I cannot delete it.
Hmmm, that's an extremely annoying template, I'll ask around how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link leprosy?
  • Linked.
  • "but he protested when Baldwin confirmed Raynald's position as "regent of the kingdom and of the armies"." Why?
  • Explained.
  • Link Beirut.
  • Linked.
  • Link Arabian desert.
  • Linked.
  • Link Medina.
  • I am not sure it is necessary.
  • Link Holy Roman Emperor.
  • Linked.
  • It seems Saladin needs a proper introduction in the article body, now he's just mentioned without any context, unlike for example "a talented Turkic military leader Imad al-Din Zengi".
  • Introduced.
  • The long quote under Kingmaker seems kind of isolated, but could benefit from some commentary, if available, or introduction for context.
  • "Saladin sent blaming him" Not sure what this means, something missing?
  • This is a quote. I checked, and the quoted text contains the same wording. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "against ships delivering pilgrims" Specify Muslim.
  • Added.
  • Perhaps link Saracen, though it is only used in quotes.
  • You spell out Bernard Hamilton many times, when his full name would only be needed at first mention in the article body. This may possibly also be an issue with other names.
  • Modified.
  • "of French origin... a French noble family" Should be stated in the article body as well.
  • Added.
  • "he was the only Christian leader to pursue an offensive policy against Saladin" This does not seem to be explicitly stated in the article body.
  • The first sentence in section "Fights against Saladin" verifies the statement.
  • Link Red Sea in intro.
  • Linked.
  • Have to say it's fun to read these real accounts of characters I mainly know from the film Kingdom of Heaven hehe... Hope to see more!
Thank you very much for your comprehensive review and for your suggestion. I think I addressed most of the problems you mentioned above but I need some days to deal with the pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good, left some further replies about last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To follow. As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yugoslav submarine Mališan[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a dinky little midget sub that was built by the Italians for harbour defence and anti-submarine warfare tasks in WWII, but was incomplete at the time of the Italian armistice in September 1943, and ended up being handed over to the Italian Social Republic (rump fascist Italy) by the Germans after capture and completion. Captured by the Yugolavs at the end of the war, they repaired and commissioned her for use as a training boat. In 1953 she became a museum boat (a long way from the sea in Zagreb), and she was recently refurbished. There has been some controversy about returning her to her Italian colours and markings rather than retaining her Yugoslav ones. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review


  • The lead says "Malisan ... was a CB-class midget submarine", but that's only hinted at in the body. It should be stated explicitly somewhere, probably as the first sentence of Design and construction"
  • Given that you use "harbour", I assume you want {{Use British English}} up top.
  • "The inner pressure hull contained..." that makes it sound like there's an inner pressure hull and an outer pressure hull, which I don't think is what you intended.
  • "the steel used for the outer hull was not of high quality and highly prone to rust." how about, "the steel used for the outer hull was poor quality and prone to rust"
  • " Early boats of the class were deployed to the Black Sea in mid-1942 where they had some successes against submarines of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet." This is out of place in a paragraph that talks about the construction details.
  • "the Caproni company in Milan[2] – better known as an aircraft manufacturer": This sounds like Milan was an aircraft manufacturer; rephrase to make it clear you're talking about Caproni.
  • "The boat measures 15 m (49 ft 3 in) in length", simplify to "The boat is 15 m (49 ft 3 in) long"
  • Related to the previous, be consistent about past vs present tense, generally throughout the article.
  • "powered by a total of 308 batteries" -> "powered by 308 batteries"
  • "which were located under the control room and were charged by" -> "which were located under the control room and charged by"
  • "The maximum speed achieved by the boat was" -> "The maximum speed was", I think everybody can figure out that it's the boat's speed that's being referred to.
  • "surfaced and 6 kn (11 km/h; 6.9 mph) when underwater", drop the "when"
  • "When surfaced, at a speed of 7.5 kn (13.9 km/h; 8.6 mph) the boat had a range of only 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi), at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) her range was 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi)" I'd suggest rewording this as "Running at full speed on the surface, the boat had a range of 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi); at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) this increased to 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi)"
  • "When submerged, at a speed of 3 kn (5.6 km/h; 3.5 mph) the boat had a range of 60 nmi (110 km; 69 mi)." Likewise, I'd say "Submerged, at 3kn (...), the range was 60 nmi (...)"
  • For all of these specifications, it would be useful to provide comparisons to other contemporary designs.
  • "She was completed in Milan by March 1944", did Caproni complete the work, or did another builder take over?
  • "it was forced to return" Return to where?
  • " Her crew surrendered but were later killed by the JA along with other members of the Xª MAS.[7]" It's not clear what "along with" is joining. Are you saying "the crew and other members of the X MAS were killed" or "The JA and other members of the X MAS did the killing"?
  • "Mališan was commissioned into the JRM in 1953, and they used the submarine for training ..." -> "In 1953, Mališan was commissioned into the JRM, who used it for training ..."

I'll probably make another pass later, but that's what I see on a first read. RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, I would add that you need MOS:ALT texts for all images, but I see that Nikkimaria already said that, so I'll just say that you should listen to her :-) RoySmith (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other thing I noticed; reading over the MilHist assessment the question was brought up about how the batteries were charged. While "batteries ... were charged by running the diesel engine on the surface" isn't wrong, it would be more correct to say they were charged by (for example) an alternator driven from the diesel engine. Diesel engines don't produce electricity, but they can (and almost always do) drive an alternator, dynamo, or some other kind of generator. In fact, given that there's an electric motor on the same shaft, I wouldn't be surprised if that motor doubled as a generator when the diesel was running, and maybe even served as the starter motor for the diesel. If there's a WP:RS which speaks to this, it would be useful to go into some detail. If not, then what you've got now is fine.
If you can find it, relevant details would be the battery voltage, capacity in AH (amp-hours), and how long it took to recharge. If you can find something that says what the battery chemistry was, include that; I'd be astounded if it was anything other than wet cell lead-acid, but if not, then even more interesting to include. RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] claims Malisan had the 100 HP electric motor you say was only on previous boats of this class. That site also has different numbers from you for submerged speed and submerged range. Any idea why the discrepancy? RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horned sungem[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguably one of the most beautiful birds on earth – and a notorious nectar robber. I was lucky enough to find some of them a few weeks ago in Brazil, and even made a nice video, which is included in this article. The species is poorly known, but I did an extensive literature review, and now think that the article is as comprehensive as it could be. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Grungaloo[edit]

I reviewed and promoted this to GAN just a few days ago, so no comments on prose or sources from me. Just two things:

  • Some images are missing alts
  • Distribution map needs a label

grungaloo (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both added; thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support! grungaloo (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "only few other hummingbird species have recently expanded their range" => "few other hummingbird species have recently expanded their range"
  • "Even though this mistake has been pointed out in 1999" => "Even though this mistake was pointed out in 1999"
  • "The female is somewhat similar to the female black-eared fairy" - link the latter
Already linked earlier, but since it appears for the first time in a major section, I linked it again now.
  • "in the east from southern Maranhão south to São Paulo (state) " - showing the disambiguator in the article title looks wrong. Try "the state of Sao Paulo"
Right, fixed.
  • "and its range extends into northern state of São Paulo" => "and its range extends into the northern part of the state of São Paulo" (also no need to link the state again)
I removed the second mention of São Paulo to avoid being repetitive.
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The external links seem a bit random, like leftovers from the early days of the Internet?
I had already sorted out a few … now removed entirely. They do not really add anything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps binomials could be given in parenthesis after the common names in the cladogram?
  • Do those genera mentioned under taxonomy and the cladogram have articles to link?
  • "The species is considered to be uncommon,[1] though other sources have described it" This sentence seems a bit odd, as you don't initially mention a source.
Indicated source.
  • "The horned sungem has recently expanded into Espírito Santo" When is "recently?
No information. The source really only has a single sentence on this, I can't be more specific unfortunately.
  • Not a big deal, but the intro strikes me as quite long for an article of this length. Usually it would be two rather than three paragraph for this length, and the included text is almost as detailed as that in the article body.
I condensed the lead, and yes, I think it's much better this way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks fine comprehensiveness and prose-wise..only slight quibble for me is the lead but a non-dealbreaker as some prefer the flow of the lead contents to mirror the article subheading order - namely sentence 2 in lead is slightly jarring after the first sentence and I'd slot the description material after the range materal (and also allow melding of sentence 1 into where it is found in south america). But this is minor really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I reworked the lead accordingly, hope it is better now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Esculenta[edit]


  • "The sexes differ markedly in appearance" link to sexual dimorphism?
  • possible useful links: crest, buff; if savanna is linked why not also grassland?; nomadic, migrate, Amazonia directs to "Amazon rainforest" – is that intended? (same link later in Dist + hab)
All done, except for "nomadic", since the article is only about humans, but I explained in-text now. Link to Amazonia was incorrect, thanks for the hint!
  • since the page is also about the genus, Heliactin should also be bolded in the lead


  • there's no explanation in the text about what lapsis means in the synonym list
That's legacy from the old article version. I don't actually think these are spelling mistakes; they instead are suggested emandations. Removed.
  • shouldn't the basionym be in the synonym list?
  • since Temminck's original publication had an image but no description, I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to unlink the piped link from "named" and instead link it a couple of sentence later ("In the description of the new species that followed a few years later…")
Done, thanks.
  • please include non-breaking spaces in short-form binomials to avoid unsightly line breaks
  • shouldn't all of those bird common names be lower case?
Yes, done.
  • what type of information is the cladogram based on?
Molecular. Added.


  • "1.6 centimetres" the abbreviated "cm" was already used earlier

Distribution and habitat

  • following the example of our own articles on the topics, it seems that Cerrado and Caatinga don't need italicization

Ecology and behavior

  • link breeding season, lichen
  • the idea of "subordinate species" is interesting; is this an established biological phenonemon? Are they subordinate just because they are physically smaller?
Apparently, size is not the only criterion. In many hummingbird species, the male is dominant and the female is subordinate – unless they form a pair, when the female is granted access to the flowers guarded by the male, which allows her to brood and raise the chicks.


  • CITES is spelled out for the reader, who I guess already knows IUCN (in the lead too)?
Spelled out IUCN as well.
  • link protected area
  • "The horned sungem has recently expanded into" any timeframe for "recently"?
Unfortunately not. I don't have any more information on this.


  • link author "BirdLife International"
  • page # and link to page for Wied-Neuwied, M. 1821? trans-title?
  • make isbn hyphenation consistent throuhgout
  • FN#11 "pp. 187, 72" unusual to give the page order this way, no?
  • FN#15 this one has title case for a book title, but some other book titles are sentence case
  • "p. 40, 167." -> pp.
  • FN#22 Machado 2014 actually has a Portuguese title, so that should be given along with the English translation. Here's a link to a PDF of the article

Thank you for the review, especially all those wiki-link suggestions I would never have thought of. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source and prose review from AK[edit]

Thanks, added.
  • "Heliactin bilophus (Horned Sungem) - Avibase". Avibase is already the publisher, so you don't need it in the title.
  • The Temminck and van der Mije refs need a more specific page range.
  • The BOW ref needs the retrieval date updated.
  • Update the IOC and BirdLife checklist refs, they're both several versions out of date. Also applies to their archives and retrieval dates.
  • The Vitorino ref link and doi both lead to a Brazilian casino website?
Very ugly, apparently the doi has been usurped; I already removed it once but citation boot keeps adding it back. I have now added a comment that should keep the bot from adding it in the future.
  • Shouldn't the titles of books be in title case?
Puh, done.
Glad to hear.
  • The Marini et. al. link is broken (SORA link) and it also has a Spanish title (maybe subtitle translation?).
I added the "dead url" parameter, but the archive link is still working. I don't think it has a Spanish title; that is just the translation of the abstract.
  • In the Wied-Neuwied ref, either expand "Frankfurt a.M.: H.L. Brönner." to Frankfurt am Main or just put Frankfurt.
Spelled out (since there is another Frankfurt in Germany …).
  • "female will build the nest, incubate the eggs, and rear the chicks" to "female builds the nest, incubates the eggs, and rears the chicks"?
  • "classified as least concern" to "classified as being of least concern"?
Sure? Google Scholar gives me 3,280 hits for the former but only 104 for your suggestion.
  • Don't need the IUCN's initialism in the lead since you don't use it there.
  • Maybe link species, Suriname, and nomadic in the lead.
Linked species. Suriname is a country and we are not supposed to link them. For nomadic, I can't find an appropriate article (see also the same point by the reviewer above).
  • The way you've linked the Colibri and Anthracothorax groups makes it seem like they're the only genera in those groups; any way to make it clearer that they include others?
I didn't link them originally for this reason, but FunkMonk above requested the links. But the text states that there are 12 genera, not only 3, and the cladogram also shows that a group has multiple genera. I will think about a solution, but at the moment nothing comes to mind.
  • "upper side" Single word (has slightly different implication than just entire upper side of the bird) and link to birdgloss using the template.
Changed, but the birdgloss does not have this entry (it lacks so many terms …).
  • "can be identified based on its yellow-green" to "can be identified by its yellow-green"?
  • You use "female" to start two successive sentences here; maybe reword one of them to avoid the repetition.
  • "nectavivorous" typo.
  • "usually feeds singly" to "usually feeds alone"
  • "blossoms from close to the ground" to either "blossoms that are close to the ground" or "blossoms from plants close to the ground"
  • "studied Cerrado area" cerrado should be italicized.
I had them italicized but the reviewer above asked me to un-italicize them (not that I have any issue with both ways).
  • "swallow-tailed hummingbird where this species" "This" feels kind of ambiguous here in terms of what it's supposed to refer to.
Added "in areas".
  • An external link to the Macaulay Library would be useful; their photos are much better than the ones we have on Commons. I'd recommend distinct links for a couple of these photos (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), which I think illustrate several important stages of the hummingbird's lifecycle very well.
In an "external links" section? Done.
@AryKun: Many thanks for the detailed review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cool, excellent work otherwise, support on prose and Pass source review from me. AryKun (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vitamin C[edit]

Nominator(s): David notMD (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Vitamin C. I raised it to Good Article in 2017. I nominated it for Featured Article on 20 December 2023. That nomination was canceled as premature. I have done a lot of editing since then, including resolving all requests for citations. I requested a Peer review on 9 January, but closed that on 8 February because it was unanswered. I have raised a total of 19 articles to GA. David notMD (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest copy-editing captions
    • copy-editing completed
  • Some images are missing alt text
    • alt text added
  • File:Linus_Pauling.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • According to Wikimedia Commons this is a cropped image of a photograph published in The Big T (yearbook of California Institute of Technology) in 1955. It is identified as in the Public Domain. An uncropped version is used in Linus Pauling.
      • Where is the Swedish tag coming from, if this is a US image? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:NIH_citrus.jpg: source link is dead
    • Replaced
  • File:James_Lind_by_Chalmers.jpg needs a US tag
    • An editor provided a US tag
  • File:GyorgyiNIH.jpg: this image doesn't appear at the source link provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • image deleted (Gyorgy extracted ascorbic acid from paprika, not from bell peppers, and it was for research purposes, not manufacture of dietary supplement vitamin C.


  • A request was made at Talk:Vitamin C to comply with WP:MEDSAY
    • The Medical uses section was revised to remove the MEDSAY-type wording ("A meta-analysis reported..." or "Reviews concluded..." )

Reference quality

  • A comment was made at Talk:vitamin C to consider WP:MEDDATE and use of MDPI journals, especially Nutrients, when reviewing reference quality toward deciding if some references should be removed, and if no better quality references available, the content removed. The sections most affected are Deficiency, Medical uses and Adverse effects (refs 19-81). I will leave a note here when I have completed my references review, but ask that FA reviewers also look at this issue of reference quality. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Generally, avoid references in the lead. This is because the lead is only a summary; every information should be cited in the body in any case.
    • Ref use in Lead in process of being reduced. I do not agree with no refs in Lead
  • The first sentence of the lead is way to long and goes into detail (such as "wrinkles on the face") that clearly don't belong there.
    • Sentence shortened, and all mention of topical treatment deleted
  • The section "Definition" does not contain a single definition. I am not sure what this section is for, actually.
    • This section has been deleted. the content (if not already duplicating content existing and referenced elsewhere) will be incorporated elsewhere.
  • You start the article with sentences like "The term vitamin C encompasses several vitamers that have vitamin C activity in animals", but those do not explain and are not helpful for a general reader who wants to understand the topic. What are vitamers? What is vitamin c activity? This article is relevant for a very broad, general audience, and should be written accordingly.
  • The next section is "deficiency", but first I would expect something about its occurrence, functions, chemistry, etc. The associated diseases should come at the end.
    • I intend to leave the diseases section near the beginnings of the article unless more reviewers criticize this placement. My thinking is that a majority of viewers come to this article because of a curiosity about a health condition, and so should find that information where it is now.
      • Given second reviewer also suggested the diseases section moved to later - done. Also, there was scurvy content in deficiency and in diseases - now combined in diseases.
      • As a second reviewer also challenged the order of section, in process of rearranging.
  • All of these molecules have vitamin C activity and thus are used synonymously with vitamin C, unless otherwise specified – Which "molecules"? None are mentioned.
    • Deleted
  • The section on chemistry should be much more extensive. Sections on physical properties and molecular properties are missing entirely.
  • The article should also have an extensive section on physiology (how vitamin C works in the body), seems to be missing entirely.
  • Sorry, but I have to oppose this article, it is nowhere close to FA level in my opinion. It is very unfortunate that the article did not get any feedback at the peer review. To improve the article, I would recommend to have a look at the German Wikipedia's article [4], which seems to have a good and logical structure; that might be a solid starting point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I will work on addressing your comments even though your conclusion is that the article is not of sufficient content and structure to warrant approval for FA. I point out here that the sections and order of section is similar across the other vitamin articles in English Wikipedia (with the understanding that this may be a criticism of all of those rather than a justification of this one). David notMD (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think that the article Vitamin A could be a pretty good model in terms of structure and content. It has everything I was asking about above (except for the chemical, molecular, and physical properties). Also note the position of the "Deficiency" section (it makes sense to have that section further down: We first need to cover what Vitamin C is and what it does in the body, and from what food it comes from; this is the foundation, we need that before we can understand the deficiencies). Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I also agree with the deficiencies pointed out by Jens above, and would oppose if pressed. Here's some additional specific comments that I hope will be helpful in your improvements efforts. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the Albert Szent-Györgyi image has a quotation, but no source
    • Ref used in text added for quotation in the image caption
  • "Society and culture" - one-sentence sections aren't a good look.
    • Deleted (trivia; anyway, ref no longer worked)
  • "Pharmacopoeias" what is this two-word section even for?
    • Deleted (this was years-old content that I had neglected to look at)
  • there seem to be several instances of poor citation practices; for example this sentence: "In humans and in animals that cannot synthesize vitamin C, the enzyme l-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO), which catalyzes the last step in the biosynthesis, is highly mutated and non-functional.[128][129][130][131]" These four citations are to papers all 20 years old or more, some of them primary sources. If the statement made is true and important, then it should be citable to a recent MEDRS-compliant source.
  • "Limes, lemons and oranges" image needs MOS:CAPFRAG check
    • Period added to image caption because the caption is a sentence
  • The "References" section needs some attention to detail:
  • FN#7 is multiply cited to a page range of 90 pages; this should be broken up into specific page cites
    • page numbers provide for each use of FN#7
  • inconsistency with page numbering format: compare e.g. "pp. 155–70." vs. "pp. 260–275"
    • All ref pagination now consistent, using the former system
  • inconsistency with sentence case/title case in article titles
    • All changed to sentence case


I'll also oppose this nomination as premature. A quick look at the article reveals (non-exhaustively):

  • Several unsourced passages. The entire first paragraph after the lead in the current version, for instance.
  • As noted above, a rather counterintuitive structure. For instance: surely the role vitamin C plays normally should be mentioned ahead of deficiency and medical uses, no?
    • Although I have voiced that I oppose this (above), it is "not a hill to die on." I will deal with other criticisms, then get to this.
      • Per your and another reviewer's comments, Medical uses moved to later in article.
  • Some apparent self-contradiction: "Ascorbate and ascorbic acid are both naturally present in the body, since the forms interconvert according to pH." versus "In biological systems, ascorbic acid can be found only at low pH, but in solutions above pH 5 is predominantly found in the ionized form, ascorbate."
  • The sentence "However, a lack of conclusive evidence has not stopped individual physicians from prescribing intravenous ascorbic acid to people with cancer.", which really has no business appearing in an article going through WP:FAC.
    • Deleted.
  • A bunch of repetition and redundancy. The relationship between vitamin C, collagen, and scurvy appears repeatedly ("In humans, vitamin C deficiency leads to impaired collagen synthesis, contributing to the more severe symptoms of scurvy." and "Scurvy is a disease resulting from a deficiency of vitamin C. Without this vitamin, collagen made by the body is too unstable to perform its function" and "Vitamin C has a definitive role in treating scurvy, which is a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency." and "The disease scurvy is caused by vitamin C deficiency and can be treated with vitamin C-containing foods or dietary supplements or injection."), for instance.

I would suggest closing this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to opposition to date[edit]

The editors who have voiced oppose were kind enough to leave specific criticism, which I have been addressing, and will continue to. I hope that a final decision of accept can be reached. If this is closed before I have had the time to address the critical comments to date (and any more that new editors may add), I will not try again. I believe that an article which Wikipedia considers a Level 5 Vital Article and which gets more than 500,000 views per year deserves patience. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section deletion question[edit]

On 8 October 2018 an editor moved content from Chemistry of ascorbic acid to the Vitamin C article, where it now exists as subsection "As food preservation additives" within section "Sources." In the opinion of FA reviewers, does this content belong in the article? David notMD (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That section seems relevant to me, and does not fit within the scope of Chemistry of ascorbic acid. However, maybe it should be combined with the "medical uses" into a general "uses" section (which then discusses medical uses, uses in the food industry, and some other uses that are not yet mentioned in the article). Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved out of Sources, as this use (food preservative additive) is non-nutrient. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright infringement evaluation[edit]

See Talk:Vitamin C for a copyright infringement evaluation. As the nominator of Vitamin C for FA, my evaluation is that the duplication of text in the article and the mentioned sources is due to many short text fragments, and in two of the four, to referenced quotations. I leave to the FA reviewer whether the quotations need to be removed. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HMS Beaulieu[edit]

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HMS Beaulieu was a Royal Navy frigate that served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. She was not a particularly well-thought of vessel, and saw much of her service away from major combat theatres. Nonetheless, in her relatively short career she managed to participate in campaigns in the West Indies, have two mutinies, fight in one major battle, and take part in a celebrated cutting out expedition. This article has gone through GA and A-class reviews and I believe it is now ready to run the gauntlet of FAC. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoySmith (image review pass)[edit]

I may come back and do a full review, but for now, just a couple of comments

  • I know quite a bit about ships, so terms like "fifth-rate", "full-rigged ship", "keel", "beam", "hold", "draught", "fitted out" "laid down", "ballast", "quarterdeck", "forecastle", and so on are all familiar to me, but I suspect somebody who doesn't know anything about ships would find this tough reading. All those words are linked, so somebody can click through to find more details, but see the recent thread at WT:Manual of Style/Linking#A change to NOFORCELINK for an (unresolved) discussion on how much should be explained in-line and how much to rely on click-throughs. There's a bunch of other terms like "tons burthen", "ordinary", and "cutting out" that leave even me mystified.
  • I'm currently following the precedent set by HMS Emerald (1795), HMS Bellerophon (1786), HMS Roebuck (1774), and HMS Temeraire (1798), etc, in linking but not going in to too much detail about those aspects. This is an article about one particular ship rather than the anatomy of the ship in general, so I would prefer not to intersperse the article with semi-frequent explanations for what is already linked. That said, this is not a hill I will die on if reviewers deem it necessary.
  • Comment from Ykraps - I think this will interrupt the flow excessively - 122 feet 10+5⁄8 inches (37.5 m) at the keel, the first structural element laid in ship construction which runs the length of the ship, with a beam, the widest part of the vessel, of 39 feet 6 inches (12 m) and a depth in the hold, the distance between the underside of the main deck and the top of the limber boards, of 15 feet 2+5⁄8 inches (4.6 m) - seems even more confusing to me. Commonly books/sources overcome the issue with either a glossary or footnotes. I don't mind footnotes but then isn't scrolling to the bottom of the page as disruptive as clicking on a link? --Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fifth-rate says a fifth rate was the second-smallest class of warships, yet you call her a A well-armed and large ship, which seems inconsistent.
  • Have removed and reworded to avoid confusion.
  • The infobox image is captioned as a "plan". In my experience, "plan" means a view looking down at something, i.e. a deck plan, so it's confusing to see that word used for this drawing.
  • Changed to "diagram" but happy to hear any other suggestions.
  • Comment from Ykraps - I think it is most commonly referred to as the sheer plan but as I imagine that to be more confusing, I tend to use profile plan which is also the term Lavery uses the most. I am not convinced that plan is a common term for plan view, except among draughtsmen, but Gardiner often uses the terms drawing or draught.--Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, you're missing MOS:ALT on your images.
  • Added.
@RoySmith: Hi, thanks for having a look. I've replied above, and would be happy to further discuss your first point. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed, added a cropped version.

Support Comments from Ykraps[edit]


Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to recuperate, - makes it sound like the ship herself needed to recuperate. What about, Later in the year the ship's crew was beset by yellow fever and much depleted. Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to allow them to recuperate, or similar?

  • Done.

" of that squadron completed a hard-fought cutting out expedition against the French corvette La Chevrette in Camaret Bay" - I imagine most cutting out expeditions were hard fought. In what respect was this particularly so?

  • Agreed and removed.
  • Just to clarify, if the boats had come under prolonged fire or the crews were massively outnumbered, it would be fine to say so.

Design and construction

"Her draught was 9 feet 5+1⁄2 inches (2.9 m) forward" - not sure how the layman would interpret for'ad. I usually use bow and stern simply because a link is available for each but perhaps I'm over thinking here.

  • Added links.

"...allowing her to take on around double the amount of water and ballast". - Presumably this is drinking water? (taking on water puts me in mind of sinking). Consider store instead of take on. Also, not sure about 'allowing her to take on more ballast', which would have been more of a requirement.

  • Reworded.

In what respect was she a bad sailer? Presumably, with a greater depth in hold, she would have had an increased propensity to drift to leeward. Does Gardiner say anything like that?

  • He doesn't. Full quote: "No sailing quality reports on the ship survive, but it is unlikely that she was much of a sailer"
  • Shame. I suppose it would be possible to add a bit about how deep ships in general sailed but I don't think it's absolutely necessary here.

The frigate was crewed by 280 men (from 1794 this was lowered to 274) - I suspect this was due to the change in armament. Is there anything that says so or gives another explanation?

  • The Admiralty changed all frigate complements in 1794 in reaction to the creation of carronade establishments (274 for 38s, 254 for 36s, and 244 for 32s). Added.
  • Do you also have something that says carronades were lighter and therefore required fewer men to operate them?
  • I've checked all my relevant sources and can't find anything.
  • Page 17 of Henry, Chris (2004). Napoleonic Naval Armaments 1792-1815. Botley, Oxford.: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-635-5. says this. I often also add that the carronade could fire a very heavy shot but had a much shorter range than the long gun (page 13).
  • Thanks, added.

Where does the £2,200,000 figure come from and what's it based on, RPI?

  • I think a footnote explaining how the figure is calculated using the consumer price index is needed.
  • Added.


" part of an expedition containing 6,100 troops for the capture of Martinique" insinuates to me that the expedition was to capture only Martinique. Later you say Beaulieu continued on with the expedition, arriving off the island Saint Lucia. Was the plan to always attack Martinique, Saint Lucia and Guadeloupe?

  • Yes, a wider campaign against French-held islands.

It wouldn't hurt to mention how important these islands were to France's economy and how, in capturing them, she would be deprived of the wealth generated by the sugar. Howard has a bit on this in his book.

  • Have used Brown for this as couldn't immediately find the work in Howard.
  • Brown's fine but just for your info, Death Before Glory p. 30.
  • Thanks, added a sentence.

Nore mutiny

Despite this her crew went into a state of mutiny – Shouldn’t there be a comma after 'this'?

  • Added.

Any idea what happened to Mr Redhead?

  • John Redhead was stripped of his warrant by a court martial on 4 December and sent back to the navy as a "common seaman".
  • As he is mentioned prominently in the previous paragraph, I think it would be good to mention his fate.
Had already done so, should have made clearer here.

Might be a good idea to add a Spithead and Nore mutinies main template here.

  • Done.


I see you have a link to the battle but I would still be inclined to add a main article template.

  • Done.

English Channel

"...she was sailing in company with the 18-gun sloop HMS Sylph" – I would use sloop of war here (and link), to differentiate between Sylph and a sloop

  • Added.

La Chevrette action

I am surprised there isn't an article for this action. Perhaps one of us will write it sometime.

Link Plymouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)

  • Plymouth in this instance refers to Plymouth Dockyard, which is already linked.

Later service

Link Portsmouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)

  • As above.

I'll take another look later --Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ykraps: Thanks for the comments so far, have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's all I've got but I'll pass over it one more time when I get a few minutes. --Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ykraps: That should be everything now! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another great article; comprehensive and well researched. --Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knowledge is one of those everyday phenomena that seems relatively straightforward to grasp but is very difficult to precisely define. It is the main topic of epistemology and plays a key role in many fields, including the sciences. Thanks a lot to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, to Z1720, GuineaPigC77, and Tom B for their peer reviews, and to Biogeographist for all the improvement ideas and talk-page discussions. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Generalissima[edit]

Reserving a spot to review this later! Generalissima (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh gosh dang it I have been slow to get back to this. Dearest apologies! I will try my hardest to do a prose review over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This looks an impressive article, but as I am to abstract concepts what walruses are to needlework I can't venture to comment on its balance or comprehensiveness. I have only three comments on the prose:

  • "Sources of knowledge are ways how people come to know things" – "ways how" is awkward. Something like "ways in which" or "ways by which", perhaps?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "an infinite amount of reasons" – can one have an amount of reasons? One might expect "number of reasons" here.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Johanes Gutenburg" – forename and surname both misspelled.
    I fixed the image alt-text and the description on the image page. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck with the FAC, and I hope someone better equipped than I am to comment meaningfully shows up soon. – Tim riley talk 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a leap to venture into this difficult territory and for the helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would really love to add my support for promoting the article to FA, which I am fairly sure it deserves, and I shall watch this page to see if editors more competent than I on such topics give it the thumbs-up, in which case I'll be happy to add my support. Bonne chance! Tim riley talk 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

Pass Sohom (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the image review and for taking care of the source link. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pass for a prose review. Rather like Tim, above, I have limited knowledge (both in the subject and more generally), so I'll hold off a full support until someone more qualified than me comes along to support, at which point I will happily follow suit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for doing the prose review! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Jens[edit]

This is an excellently written article. I like the many examples that really help with understanding. Only a few nitpicks, and questions that came to me while reading the article:

  • Introspection allows people to learn about their internal mental states and processes. Other sources of knowledge include memory, rational intuition, inference, and testimony. – What about the knowledge how to ride a bicycle? Where does this knowledge come from? Is it perception?
    Experience is required to learn how to ride a bicycle but I'm not sure about the details. I would assume that various different sources are involved with perception probably playing a key part in that experience to get familiar with all the sensory information involved in the process. Generally speaking, knowledge-how can depend on various sources, including testimony. For example, if someone gives you an accurate description of how to walk from A to B then you know how to walk from A to B based on that testimony. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Testimony – In the lead, maybe add examples, to make clear that this includes books etc.
    I added an explanatory footnote to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is knowledge restricted to humans? Can plants have knowledge? Is genetic information knowledge? Can we say that anything that is able to learn has knowledge?
    That depends on whom you ask and how they define knowledge. The example with the ant knowing how to walk in the subsection "Non-propositional" is taken from Pritchard 2013. This source also suggests that some sophisticated creatures other than humans may have propositional knowledge. I don't think the term "know" is usually applied to plants. For example, saying that a plant "knows how to grow" sounds strange. The overview sources that I'm aware of give very little attention to animal knowledge and do not mention plant knowledge. Genetic information could be responsible for some forms of a priori knowledge, for example, by structuring our brains in a way that we automatically know basic arithmetic truths. I'm not sure about whether being able to learn implies knowledge. Computer programs and websites can learn things about users by gathering information. Is storing this information in a databank sufficient to say that they know things? The answer to that question probably depends mostly on how one defines learn and know. Some epistemologists hold that there is innate knowledge, that is, knowledge that is inborn and does not need to be learned. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently, in some way trees can learn from mistakes, so I would say they "know" things [5]; that's where I am coming from. I am not asking to add that to the article, of course. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article states that knowledge is a justified belief, and that knowing how to ride a bicycle is knowledge. What exactly is the belief when riding a bicycle?
    There are different views on the details. According to one view, the belief concerns the procedure of riding a bicycle, i.e., the different steps involved in the process. But not everyone accepts the traditional characterization of knowledge as justified belief and it is controversial to what extent this characterization fits knowledge-how. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For example, an ant knows how to walk – I am not sure about this example. It is like saying that humans know how to breath – but this is a reflex and not learned, so it it really knowledge?
    The example is taken from Pritchard 2013 and a similar example involving ants is found in Pavese 2022. I added a footnote to include this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some types of knowledge-how do not require a highly developed mind, in contrast to propositional knowledge, and are more common in the animal kingdom. – Why restricting this to the animal kingdom and not life in general?
    I answered this in part in the earlier response: this is how the academic sources deal with the issue and it also seems to reflect how ordinary language mostly uses the term know. A more interesting answer might be that knowledge is related to mind or higher cognition and that animals have it while plants don't. But it is controversial where mind starts and ends so we would have to be careful about including this type of claim in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • to understand the claim in which the term is expressed – I don't understand this wording. Wouldn't just "to understand the claim" enough? What is the "in which the term is expressed" adding?
    You are right, the original formulation was unclear so I reformulated it. If we wanted to have a shorter version, your suggestion would also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some conscious phenomena are excluded in this context, like rational insight into the solution of a mathematical problem – I first thought that "this context" refers to a priori/a posteriori, i.e., that some claims are neither a posteriori nor a priori. Maybe replace "this context" with "relevant experience" for clarity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: Thanks for the review and the thought-provoking questions. I tried to answer them as best as I could. I fear that at least some responses raise more questions than they answer, which is often the case with philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your replies! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To begin, it must be acknowledged that this is an article of extraordinary generality. Knowledge as such cannot be adequately covered in a monograph, much less an encyclopedia article. This, as far as I can see, makes it almost impossible to assess with respect to FAC criterion 1.b on comprehensiveness—and also, at least for me, with respect to 2.b on appropriate structure. If there exist any policies or previous discussions directly relevant on this point, it would be appropriate to link out to them here.

That said, I nevertheless have serious reservations about supporting this promotion. These reservations are, on my reading, a consequence of the intrinsic difficulty of covering such a broad topic for a general audience. But I am not sure how best to treat this. An obvious possibility would to commit, instead, to summary style. This, however, would be a massive project for which no one is volunteering—and which would outright obviate this entire discussion. So, let not the best (should it be even that!) be the enemy of the better.

Hello PatrickJWelsh and thanks for your detailed comments. I've pushed back on several of them and we'll have to explore where the middle ground lies. You are right that the topic of knowledge is vast, which makes comprehensiveness a key challenge. As I understand it, the FA criteria should not be applied to the topic in general, like its intrinsic difficulty, but to the article. The main reason is that, as Wikipedia editors, we can't do much about the topic itself. We can only try to properly cover it. This is also implied by the FA instructions: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comment 1: It is too long. (And I would submit that I probably have a longer attention span than most readers.) If it is possible without compromising the content, this article would benefit from an aggressive round of cuts.

The article has a readable prose size of 8152 words. According to the rules of thumb explained at WP:SIZERULE, starting for articles with over 8000 words, they May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.. If you feel strongly about this rule of thumb, I could try to shave of those 152 words. But this length is not uncommon for articles on topics with this kind of scope and an aggressive round of cuts would impact comprehensiveness negatively. So I think there is a strong case for why the length of the article itself is not a problem. I had a look but I didn't feel that any of the sections should be spun off into a new child article so it seems to me that the article follows WP:Summary style. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comment 2: I am concerned that it is overly biased towards the concerns of philosophical epistemology. Point 2.1: some of the details in this area seem unlikely to be of general interest. And, more importantly, – point 2.2: — Is there not also an underrepresented literature on this topic grounded in the cognitive sciences? My own background is in philosophy, but we do not have a monopoly on what counts as knowledge, as this article might be taken to imply.

I wouldn't say "biased" but I agree that the epistemological perspective plays a central role in the article. The main reason is that epistemology is the main field of inquiry studying knowledge, similar to how biology is the main field of inquiry studying life. The article includes perspectives from many other fields, like history, religion, anthropology, and sociology. But the inquiry into the characteristics of knowledge is not the key concern of these fields. The cognitive sciences study cognitive processes, information, and the like, but, as far as I'm aware, the specific topic of knowledge in contrast to these related concepts is not a central research topic in this field. It would be possible to include a short explanation of Goldman's epistemics but my impression is that research under this label has not received that much attention so far. Some topics relevant to the cognitive sciences are discussed in the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". I'm open to more topic suggestions in regard to the cognitive sciences if you have expertize in this area. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comment 3: A major topic that this article does not address is the limits of knowledge. Because the nominating editor knows my own philosophical background and interests, I should say that I would support, at most, a short paragraph on Kant. Gödel's incompleteness theorems, however, as well as theories of quantum indeterminacy, present serious challenges to some of the most basic assumptions about the possibilities of knowledge. This is a matter of interest to a general audience that deserves to be addressed under its own heading.

The sections "Sources", "Philosophical skepticism", and "Religion" address various limits of knowledge but there is surely more to be said on this topic. As I understand it, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about the relation between completeness and provability in formal systems of logic and belong to the field of metalogic. Given some additional assumptions, maybe some interesting conclusion about the characteristics of knowledge can be drawn from them but the theorems themselves are not about knowledge. The reliable overview sources on knowledge that I'm aware of don't discuss how quantum indeterminacy limits the possibility of knowledge. If you know of a high-quality source that present these issues as topics of vital importance to knowledge in general then I would be happy to include them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comment 4: The disciplinary sections filed under "Others" introduces massive issues entirely unaddressed by the article. Our computers "know" more than would ever even be possible for a human to know. This complaint predates even the Internet and, in this context, should be acknowledged—even if we are not in any position to draw any kind of conclusions. Technological advances and media coverage have been been exponentially exploding in even just the past few years. What computers can or do "know" – especially when it is beyond human possibility – is a topic that seems to me deserves to be acknowledged in this article.

Do computer "know" anything? This depends very much on your definition of knowledge. The claim that they store knowledge is less controversial, similar to how books store knowledge, as discussed in the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". The historical topic of the influence of the development of computers and the Internet on knowledge is covered in the last paragraph of the section "History". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specific comment i: Self-knowledge and its limits seem to me to deserve more detailed treatment than they are given as one "Type" among the "Others" and also, in more detail, as a general "Source". In contemporary philosophy, Nietzsche and Freud are probably the dominant figures on this point. It is, however, in no way an original insight on their behalves; they just happen to be prominent for pressing back against the excesses of the Enlightenment in recent history. Plato knew this, Augustine knew this, and it is abundantly supported by recent empirical research in psychology: we are not the authorities on ourselves that we so often take ourselves to be. And this seems to me to be the kind of thing that is likely to be of interest to the average reader of Wikipedia.

The term self-knowledge is used in various different senses. If we take self-knowledge as knowledge of the self then you can get self-knowledge from various sources. They even include testimony, for example, when someone tells you something about your character that you did not know before. As far as I'm aware, self-knowledge is not generally treated as a source of knowledge besides the other sources already mentioned in the section "Sources" but rather as a type of knowledge. For example, Steup & Neta 2020 discusses the sources of knowledge mentioned in our section "Sources" and does not mention "self-knowledge". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This comment also ties into the concerns of another reviewer about know-how vs. knowledge-that, which I agree might be expanded with benefit to the article. We are strangers to ourselves, yet unthinkingly we rely upon proprioceptive self-knowledge, which rarely fails us—except when it fails us reliably due to head trauma. The kind of knowledge, however you describe it, that allows us to move through the world – so often, so effortlessly – seems to me to deserve more attention. Many in the phenomenological tradition of philosophy argue that propositional knowledge is parasitic on this more basic sort of pre-understanding upon the basis of which we are able to move through the world in a way that makes possible the sort of knowledge with which this article is primarily occupied. Not at all suggesting article-wide revisions in support of this point, which is not universally accepted, just that the article would benefit from better coverage in some appropriate section.

Do you have a specific source in mind in regard to the importance of the role of proprioceptive self-knowledge? I'm not opposed to covering this in more detail as long as we avoid giving too much emphasis to the phenomenological perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specific comment ii: Almost nothing in the section "Philosophical skepticism" is anything that anyone, per even just this article, takes seriously—or even pretends to take seriously in the seminar room. If my other related suggestions are found to have merit, I suggest that anything here that cannot be incorporated into a discussion of legitimate limits to knowledge should be removed entirely.

I have more notes, but this is more than enough for now. Please, anyone reading this, do not be shy about pressing back or expressing any other sort of view, supportive, contrary, or otherwise.

Cheers, all best, et cetera —

Philosophical skepticism is a central topic in the literature on knowledge and many overview sources on knowledge cover it in detail. Removing the section entirely would hurt comprehensiveness. Its influence is not so much from philosophers who explicity defended philosophical skepticism but from everyone else who felt the need to defend their own non-skeptical position against its central arguments. This is explained right at the beginning of the section. If you feel that the discussion is too detailed then I'm open to removing some details. Which claims would you remove or trim? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Chipping in to deal with "Knowledge as such cannot be adequately covered in a monograph, much less an encyclopedia article". That's certainly not true. It's a topic covered in most encyclopaedias, including from the first editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boundary Fire (2017)[edit]

Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shepherds: ♠PMC(talk) & Guerillero Parlez Moi

This article is about another Arizona wildfire from 2017, a busy year. In this particular fire, high winds, high temperatures, low/no humidity, and the crispy remnants of a fire 17 years before were combined by lightning into a blaze that scorched almost 18,000 acres of the Coconino National Forest. Also, this is another really short article at 828 words as of time of writing. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As Vami has passed away, Guerillero and I will be taking over this nomination. I don't want to replace Vami as nominator, so I've put our names down as shepherds instead. ♠PMC(talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Will try to do a full review later. For the moment, just one question: why is it called "Boundary fire"? —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot recall a reason being given in the sources I read. If I were to guess, it was because the mountain on which the fire began is on the boundary between the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other Boundary Fire article (btw is one of them the primary topic?) just tells us it was near an international border. Maybe you can just state the "on the boundary" somewhere in the article, letting the reader conclude what they want from this information? A map showing the two National Forests would be really helpful to contextualize this, and a map showing the National Forests and the extent of fire damage would be perfect. Not sure whether you'd need WP:MAPREQ for this. —Kusma (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to see what I can do without an ArcGIS pro licence -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great to see that you as a mapmaker are helping with this. Although it is technically already linked via the coordinates template, I think something based on at least annotating the OSM map [6] (one zoom level in you find Kendrick Mountain, but you lose Flagstaff on my monitor) would already be very helpful. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kusma: I made File:Boundary Fire (2017).png. I guess I could make a second map that showed the area, but I think there is more EV from showing the area burnt -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guerillero, very nice. I made it display slightly larger by removing the fixed px width in Template:Infobox wildfire. A scale on the map or some information in the caption on how large the area is that we are looking at would be helpful, but other than that this works nicely. Further context is probably only really feasible via something like an interactive map, which is already accessible in the coordinates template. —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of review comments:

  • Background: perhaps explain here that the city of Flagstaff is nearby? In the "Fire" section we have that "Smoke [...] drifted into communities such as Flagstaff, 17 mi (27 km) west of the fire." Looking at a map, Flagstaff appears to be to the southeast?
    • It's basically smack dab between Kaibab to the north and Cococino to the south. I've added a ref with a map and noted the location.
  • "expected a typical season in the state's northern forests" I know zilch about Arizona; are these two forests "northern forests"?
    • They're towards the north end of the state, so I would assume so
  • Fire: how far away is the Grand Canyon?
    • About 65 miles north, more or less, now noted
  • Is "decided to confine the Boundary Fire to a 15,000-acre (6,100 ha) area" really the same concept as the source's "allow the fire to burn out from within a 15,000-acre planning area"?
    • I've clarified the intention to let it burn out from within its confines.
  • Aftermath: "was closed in July 2018 again" I'm not a native speaker, but isn't "was closed again in July 2018" more natural?
    • Yes
  • Potential sources seemingly not used but worth checking out:

Overall a nice little article; perhaps it is worth out checking a few more sources, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it over the line. —Kusma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've responded to the comments, but haven't gone through the sources yet. ♠PMC(talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Good changes, but Flagstaff is still not "west of the fire". —Kusma (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from ZKang123[edit]

A rather short article to review! Some grammar nitpicks:

  • "have been increased in" – do you mean "have been increasing"?
    • Fixed
  • For the sentence beginning with "Arizona State Forester Jeff Whitney" – I would also mention the date of the Forester's report (April 2017 would do).
    • Fixed
  • "on the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak, within the Kaibab" – remove comma
    • Fixed
  • Wouldn't it be more succinct to just mention boundary fire in the first sentence of the fire section? (e.g. ...and started the Boundary Fire on the northeast slope...)
    • Revised sentence
  • "US 180 was closed overnight as firefighters monitored the fire's spread,[13] then was remained until further notice along with the vicinity of the fire on June 9." – I'm a bit unsure about how the latter clause is necessary; I mean, was it planned to reopen the highway on June 9? Something is also rather awkward about the sentence. Maybe like: "As firefighters monitored the fire's spread, US 180 was closed on that night until further notice."
    • Revised sentence, removing the redundant clause
  • "drifted into communities such as Flagstaff" – are there also other reportings from other towns?
    • Yes, but there's enough of them that it's better to sum up, and Flagstaff works as a representative as it's the largest/most significant town in the area
  • "Again fanned" – "Further fanned"
    • Left it as "fanned" instead
  • "was being managed by 261 firefighters." – I'm unsure if "managed" is the proper verb for this sentence. Also would just say "was managed"
    • Managed works as a verb here. I think "being managed" sounds smoother so I'm going to leave it
  • "because of a civilian drone flown over the fire." – "because a civilian drone flew over the fire"
    • Same as above I think the original is better
      • I still think it's still rather clunky and unnaturally worded.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " Four evacuated civilians suffered injuries related to the fire." – curious, was it said about where the civilians from? Like are they residents or rangers?
    • The report doesn't say
  • "said in a statement that the closure" – "in a statement" is unnecessary
    • Trimmed
  • "because of the potential for landslides" – "due to risks of landslides"
    • Revised

The lead is rather short, though understandably the article is also short itself.

    • Expanded slightly including aftermath
  • "leftovers from a previous wildfire" – there's this mention in the lead, but where else in the body?
    • "Owing to the danger posed to firefighters by difficult terrain and leftover dead trees from the Pumpkin Fire in 2000"
  • Maybe I would also briefly mention the aftermath in the lead as well.
  • Is this fire also part of the general 2017 Arizona wildfires?
    • Yes

I think that's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ZKang123, responses above, let me know how you're feeling. ♠PMC(talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Made a few ces on the article itself. Happy to support. Also saluting to the late Vami.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

The sole image in the infobox is free-use, with alt-text. No other outstanding issues. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Image reReply[reply]

Do you think File:Boundary Fire 2017 (34583638403).jpg should be PD? The author seems to have been an employee of the Forest Service when he took the photo, and seems to still be one today. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I will review this. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]