Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations

Judicial murder and George, Duke of Clarence

Nominator(s): Serial (speculates here) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

An obscure vignette from 1477; a duchess dead, innocents hanged and an assortment of villains and sorcerers drawn and quartered. The usual happy fare. A cause célèbre, the case led directly to the disintegration of a noble network and the ultimate fall of the second most powerful man in the kingdom. It also led, indirectly, to a butt of malmsey entering the history books.*

Thanks in advance to anyone looking in. Serial (speculates here) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

* Not discussed here.

Comments from PMC

Fascinating. Okay, I'm in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Airship

Odd title? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

SP, 25-1.

It went through several possibilities. George, Duke of Clarence and judicial murder originally; I considered The fall of George, Duke of Clarence, but, to me—perhaps too close to the subject, I admit—the fall, itself, is merely the end result. Imprisonment, trial, attainder, execution; a rather brief and sordid series of events during which little of import happened, if only because the guy was in the Franz klammer for most of it. It's the events leading up to it that are of academic interest. I guess you are now forbidden from replying due to "that" being "it", though :D

Apropos nothing, Death of a Duchess, judicial murder and the disintegration of a noble affinity, casting WP:CONCISE into oblivion, was probably my preferred option. Serial (speculates here) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:George_Plantagenet,_Duke_of_Clarence.jpg needs a US tag

• File:King_Edward_IV.jpg: tagging requires that the image description includes info on steps taken to try to identify author

• File:IsabelNevilleRousRoll.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

After first canter-through for typos etc:

• "the justices of the the bench, John Hugford and Henry Boteler" – double definite article
• "Goddard read out Burdet's gallow's statement" – possessive apostrophe not wanted
• "instead of being sent to the the Tower, he was exiled instead" – more double definite articles
• "The medicial historian Jonathan Hughes" – the what?

More comments to follow after I've perused the text closely. Tim riley talk 11:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

After a careful read-through

• You really can't put up an article dealing with the death of Clarence without mentioning (if only to pooh-pooh in a brief footnote) Shakespeare and "I'll drown you in the Malmsey butt within" (Richard III, Act 1, Scene 4).
• I'm with AirshipJungleman in re the title of the article. I quite see that the article is tricky to find an entirely satisfactory title for, but I think your original idea, "George, Duke of Clarence and judicial murder", is better, not least because it opens with a specific and then moves to the generic – always best to get the key words in first. I hope other reviewers will express a view on this point – it would be worth pressing them if they don't, I think.
• WP:OVERLINK – a matter of personal opinion, I concede, but I wouldn't have blue links for clothier, witchcraft, abduction, prosecution, legal scholar, astronomer, sorcerer, torture, delusional, rebellion, exiled, hunting and archer.
• "his authority was slowly eroding" – eroding used intransitively as here looks a bit odd. One might expect "was slowly being eroded".
• "By then her death appears to have been anticipated" – there is only one undisputed meaning of "anticipate", viz to be aware of (a thing) in advance and act accordingly; to forestall (a person) and take action before they do. (Fowler). The loose use of the word to mean merely "expected" is better avoided.
• "This would also account for the error in Isabel being erroneously stated as being at Warwick" – the syntax is a bit tortured here: "error" and "erroneously" three words apart. Something like "This would also explain why Isabel was erroneously said to have been at Warwick" or some such would be easier to make one's way through.
• "Ankarette Twynho was forcibly seized" – can one be unforcibly seized?
• "In the context of 15th-century travel, news as important as the dumping of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk's murdered body on the Dover shore on 2 May 1450 arrived in London on 6 May" – I see what you're getting at, but the sentence needs strengthening. Something on the lines of "Even important news travelled slowly in the 15th century: the report of the dumping ..." might be an improvement
• "This was a distance of approximately 70 miles, averaging 35 miles a day" – this looks a bit odd. The arithmetic doesn't seem to me to work. If he was dumped on the beach on 2 May and the news arrived in London, 70 miles away, on 6 May that ain't an average of 35 miles a day, unless he wasn't found till 4 May, which you don't say was so.
• "could bring influence to bear on both jurors—four of whom were his tenants" – "both jurors" followed by "four of whom" looks most peculiar. I'd switch "on both jurors" to "both on jurors", and add another "on" before "the justices".
• "the responsible officials were his men to a body" – not an idiom I have run across. I take it to mean "all the responsible officials were his men".
• "to secret his heir, Edward, abroad for safekeeping" – "secrete" is the verb you want here.

I hope these suggestions are of use. Tim riley talk 13:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Al-Altan

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

A daughter of Genghis Khan, a princess of the Mongol Empire, the queen of the Uighurs, an intermediary between two peoples, an alleged murderer, an executed criminal, an object of censorship, a symbol of revenge. Interested yet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MSincccc

• Comments to follow soon. MSincccc (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)~

Lead

• ...Genghis Khan, founder of the Mongol Empire,... Can a "the" be placed before "founder" to avoid false titles?
• She was rumoured to have poisoned Ögedei, and remained under suspicion until the accession of her nephew Güyük Khan five years later. The comma after "Ögedei" could be dropped.
  • I advise against dropping the comma: without it she was rumoured to have remained under suspicion.
• favourite daughter of Genghis Khan Could you please justify this statement? (I cannot access the sources.) Also since it is mentioned twice in the article's body, can it be dropped from the lead?
• This rounds off my suggestions for the article's lead. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Done the first two; sources for the third include Broadbridge 2018 p. 191 ("the executions of Chinggis Khan's youngest brother and favourite daughter"), or p. 206 ("Chinggis Khan’s favorite daughter, Al Altan"), but I am more confused by the suggestion that something emphasised in the article body should not be emphasised in the lead MSincccc? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    @AirshipJungleman29 No it's fine. I just wanted to confirm whether the sources mentioned Al-Altan being his favourite daughter as I myself could not access the ones cited nor could I find similar information on the web. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Biography

• ...who lived along the Greater Khingan mountain range... Can only "Greater Khingan" be included in the link and "mountain range" outside it?
  • Done.
• and Al-Altan and her sisters took important administrative roles in large tribes, in addition to serving as the link between their father and his new son-in-law vassals. If the gaining of loyalties of large steppe populations and Al-Altan and her sisters taking important administrative roles were parallel, could "even as" be used in place of "and" before Al-Altan in the highlighted phrase above?
  • Assuming you mean the first "and", I don't think that makes sense, as there's no implicit contrast.
• Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but why she was present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain. This sentence could be rewritten as:

  Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but whether she was present in the Uighur lands or not is uncertain.

  • No, that chnges the meaning of the sentence from "why was she present?" to "was she present?"
    • Then it could be written as: Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but her reason for being present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain/uncertain. This is just a suggestion. You can stick to the original one or change "why she was present" to "her reason for being present".
      • I prefer the current wording MSincccc; let's see if other reviewers agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        • AJ, you are right to prefer the current wording. This reviewer has yet to learn, despite being told by at least two editors, that reviewers (particularly those with shaky drafting skills – see next bullet point) are not here to impose their personal stylistic preferences on prose that is already fine. Tim riley talk 09:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• ...in the Secret History of the Mongols, a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters,... Dropped the "which" before "described" for concision. It's unnecessary.
  • No, it introduces a subordinate clause. The main verb is "was excised", so "described" needs a preceding conjunction.

This rounds off my suggestions for the article's body for the time being. Looking forward to your response @AirshipJungleman29. MSincccc (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments MSincccc, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 The article is a fine one overall. I will be happy to extend my support to its FAC nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Airship continues his Genghisine conquest of the Mongol topic area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• "She was rumoured to have poisoned Ögedei and remained under suspicion" – as I say above, I think the intended meaning would be clearer if you restored the comma before "and"
• "a process which culminated in him being acclaimed as Genghis Khan" – "being acclaimed" here is a gerund – effectively a noun. In this case it is grammatically the same as "acclamation" and needs "his" rather than "him" before it.
• "An unintentional slip in a medieval chronicle" – as opposed to an intentional slip?
• "In the purges that commenced – merely a stylistic preference, and I don't press the point, but I agree with the advice in the current edition of Modern English Usage: It is a sound rule to use begin in all ordinary contexts unless start is customary (the engine started straight away; he starts work at 9 a.m.; the game started on time). Commence has more formal associations with law (to commence an action) and procedures, combat (hostilities commenced on 4 August), divine service, and ceremonial ... As a general rule it should be reserved for such contexts." (I sympathise with the Noël Coward character who says, "I just can't abide the word testicles. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words. If you have piles, say so!")

• "unlawfully interefered in the Uighur administration" – typo
• "This was likely to obscure the unjustice" – two points here: first, it is ambiguous: it could either mean "there was a strong chance that it would obscure the unjustice" or "this was probably intended to obscure the unjustice". Secondly, the OED admits "unjustice", but it is hardly a familiar word and one might expect "injustice" instead.

That's all from me. A fine article and I look forward to supporting its elevation. Tim riley talk 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Cher

Nominator(s): Cherfc (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Cher, an American cultural icon whose career has spanned music, film, television, fashion, Broadway, and the occasional infomercial. I began working on it back in 2012, when my English skills were about as questionable as Cher's decision to star in Burlesque. Over the years, with the invaluable help of editors like GabeMc, Wikipedian Penguin, Noleander, SNUGGUMS and AJona1992, the article has gone through countless improvements and achieved GA status.

Thirteen years (and three failed FACs) later, I think the article finally has what it takes to meet Wikipedia's highest standards. While I've grown from a teenager fumbling with sentence structure to a Family Medicine resident with limited free time, my fascination with Cher hasn't wavered. I may not always be able to reply to feedback immediately, but I promise to address every suggestion thoughtfully.

This article has been extensively rewritten, expanded, and carefully trimmed down to ensure it provides comprehensive yet concise coverage of Cher's legacy. I'd appreciate your help in ensuring it meets FA standards and earns a place among Wikipedia's finest work. Thank you for considering this nomination. Cherfc (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

I got you, babe. It has been 13 years since I did an FA review, so if I have a mistake in the formatting here, anyone should feel free to edit my comments and adjust the indents, bulletting, etc.

• Wording: in general, for the whole article, I suggest reading it out loud. Sometimes that exercise can reveal subtle grammar or phrasing issues that are hard to detect when reading the written word.

Got it. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Footnote #402 "Secondary sources stating that Cher is often called, nicknamed or known as the "Goddess of Pop"..." is unusually long. Consider moving it into a "Note" (you only have one Note so far) rather than in the References/Citations section.

Let me know if this is what you were going for or if further adjustments are needed. Cherfc (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• External links: consider making it 2 columns, if feasible, to be similar to preceding ref sections.

Done. Cherfc (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Cite tool shows that source "Zuckoff, Mitchell (2009). Robert Altman: The Oral Biography..." is not used a source for any citation. Normally that would go into a "Further Reading" section, but it would be peculiar to have such a section with only one source in it. No big deal to leave it as is.

The only use for this book was to source a lengthy quote from Cher in which she thanked Robert Altman for believing in her at the beginning of her film career. Since the quote was trimmed down and is no longer included, I decided to remove the source entirely. Cherfc (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Cher is widely revered .." sounds odd. Maybe eliminate "widely"?

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding "Through her 1970s television shows, Cher became a sex symbol with her inventive and revealing Mackie-designed outfits and fought the network censors to bare her navel...." Two questions: (1) was she successful in displaying the navel? [edit: I see a photo is included with the navel in question; so perhaps reword text to: "... and successfully fought the network censors ...";] and (2) I know that there was a tv show where she would throw off a cape at the start to reveal her outfit ... is that significant enough to mention? Probably not.

Done. As for (2), while I think her entrances were bigger than entire careers nowadays, I'm not sure others would agree with me on this... Also not sure if there are sources describing her entrances specifically in a way that can be linked to the whole navel drama. Would've been cool, though. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wording seems imprecise: "Cher publicly endorsed global recognition of the Armenian Genocide....". Better may be "Cher has attempted to raise awareness of the Armenian Genocide... " or "Cher has drawn attention to the need for more awareness of the ... " or "Cher has made efforts to raise awareness of the Armenian Genocide..." something like that.

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wording: "Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself through various personas" Consider -> "Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself by adopting a series of personas..."

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wording: "The New York Times declared Cher as the "Queen of the Comeback"..." I think the grammar is wrong there. Maybe "The New York Times declared Cher the "Queen of the Comeback"..." or "The New York Times declared Cher to be the "Queen of the Comeback"..." Not sure.

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Typo: Fascinated by film stars, Cher's idolized Audrey Hepburn, " -> "... Cher idolized.."

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Confusing wording: "Cher's following releases kept her solo career competitive with her work with Sonny" (1) "subsequent" is probably better than "following"; (2) I cannot tell if this means her solo work happened AFTER the breakup of Sonny & Cher; or she was releasing some solo work at the same time as some S&C music. Maybe try to clarify that.

They did not break up until 1974. In fact, Cher's solo career started a few weeks (!) before her breakthrough as Sonny & Cher, and she maintained her solo career since day one. I thought this was already clear in the article, but maybe not. What would you suggest? Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, I see no specific change. Noleander (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• "In 2023, Cher launched Cherlato, a gelato brand created with New Zealand ice cream company Giapo. The brand debuted in Los Angeles with a truck offering gelato made from local ingredients." I presume she has had many, many branding/endorsement deals thru her life. Is this one special enough to warrant being in the article? Is she part owner of the company? If it is not special, consider removing it.

She gave interviews saying how this has been a dream of her for five years and stuff. I don't know what to make of this either. Removed. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• The section "Tours and residencies" is confusing to me. The words "tour" "residency" and "concert" all have specific meanings, no? Tour = same act in many cities. Residency = Same act many times in one city. "Concert" - A one-time, unique performance. The section seems to use the terms in a confusing way, e.g. the subsection "Concert residencies" contains " Cher in Concert" which is desscribed as a tour that visited many cities in several continents. The subsction title "Concert residencies" led me to think items contained therein would be all residencies, so the inclusion of a tour is puzzling. Ditto for other bullets in the other subsections.

The confusion arises because Cher performed two distinct types of concerts between 1979 and 1982, both of which began as Vegas residencies and later evolved into world tours. While there is no definitive record of when exactly she transitioned from residency performances to a world tour, here’s what we know:

1. She had a Vegas residency titled Cher in Concert from 1979 to 1982. The fact that it was a residency is well-documented, as her performances in Vegas were often used as a cultural shorthand for the idea of a "career slump"; and
2. Cher also refers to a concert series from the same period as The Take Me Home Tour, which she identifies as her first solo world tour. This tour also began in 1979 and concluded in 1982, visiting multiple cities across several continents.

What complicates the matter further is the apparent lack of clear differentiation between the concerts she performed as part of her residency and those performed overseas. It seems that Cher drew from two main performance templates during this time, adapting them based on her schedule, audience demand, or even her own preferences at given time—whether performing in Vegas or on tour. To address this, I’ve included both The Take Me Home Tour and her Vegas residency under the 1979–1982 section. The paragraph seeks to clarify their coexistence and evolution, acknowledging what Cher herself distinguishes as the Take Me Home Tour, a separate entity, while also hinting at the fact that the lines between the residency and the tour remain blurred in historical accounts.

As an additional note, the concept of a cohesive "musical era"—where an album is followed by singles, videos, and a corresponding tour—was less firmly established in the music industry during this period. Between 1979 and 1982, Cher managed an extraordinarily diverse career: releasing three solo albums, fronting a rock band and releasing an album with them (sometimes classified as a fourth Cher album from that era), maintaining her Vegas residency and touring globally—both solo and with the band.

Without clearer documentation, this period remains somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps the only person who could definitively clarify the distinction between the Take Me Home Tour and her residency performances is Cher herself. For now, the best approach seems to be acknowledging both as distinct yet interconnected aspects of her career, even though the exact boundaries between them are difficult to define. This ambiguity also makes it challenging to separate Cher in Concert into two distinct articles, as the available sources documenting Cher's live performances during this time often fail to specify whether they refer to the residency or the tour. Hopefully, this explanation helps make this complex period a little less confusing. Cherfc (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Image selection and layout is superlative ... probably one of the better photo collections in all of Wikipedia.

Really glad you think so—it's a great collection to work with! Cherfc (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is all for now; more to come later. Noleander (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to it. Cherfc (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Fallout: New Vegas

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Fallout: New Vegas, a 2010 video game that is still quite popular to this day. A bit of history about this article. It got promoted to GA status back in 2013, but was brought up for a GAR in 2024. I decided to try and save it since I love the Fallout series, and gave it a complete overhaul (for reference, this is what it looked like before I made any edits). Since then, this has been a passion project of mine, slowly building it up to what it is today. I've scoured all available reliable sources, including digging through some old magazines, to try and find every little detail I can about this game. And at least for now, I think this is about as comprehensive as this article can be without delving too much into WP:GAMECRUFT. Baffle gab1978 did a lovely copyedit, and now I think this article is ready.

One last thing to note. The second season of the Fallout TV show is going to be set in New Vegas, so I'm sure more info about the game will come out as the season get's released. However, all sources seem to indicate that the second season won't be released until at least 2026, possibly even 2027, so for now I think we're good. Every now and again a new bit of info about the game's development trickles out but nothing substantial. Famous Hobo (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

BP!

Placeholder. If you have a moment to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

LunaEclipse

Will do a spotcheck in the following days. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 11:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers

Hello! Big fan of the series so happy to offer a review for this; thank you for your work. I will deliver the review in chunks.

• Lead
  • The lead is very crowded and heavy on narrative and neglects the game's extensive RPG systems, including branching narrative and dialogue, in favour of mentioning energy weapons. I would guess the RPG systems are more prominent across the reception sections than the melee combat (or guns, which were largely the same as its predecessor.

Condensed the narrative sentences, and will add more info about the other mechanics once I can find references for them.

• • Likewise, I don't think additional game modes (e.g., Hardcore mode) deserve this much emphasis placed on them. IMO, it should explicitly mention that it was a direct sequel to Fallout 3 made by a different studio.

I do mention in the first sentence of the second paragraph that New Vegas is a spin-off to the Fallout series and that it was made by a different company.

• Gameplay
  • A thorough, well-referenced gameplay section! I like to see it.
  • I think there are some problems with ordering, as with the lead, though. Gameplay sections of articles should explain from the top down, stringing gameplay mechanic to explain how someone would play the game. The mention of the Mojave in the first paragraph anticipates a need to explain the open world, because the open world is vital to understanding traversal, but then it doesn't mention the open world for for two paragraphs.

Switched paragraphs two and three, so now it goes straight to the open world. I agree with your comment, I think overloading the reader with more complex RPG components instead of just telling them the basic functions of the game is not a smart idea.

• • It might be worth splitting this section up under different subheadings to make this easier. That is what I would do for this article.

I decided to split it into two sections, the second of which talks about the role-playing mechanics. I can go more specific, but I'd rather not since that would more than likely lead to single paragraph sections, which I really don't like

• • Again, no mention of the RPG elements of the game – including dialogue, branching quest design, the game's delayed reactions to your choices, or the different end states.

Working on adding that. I'll probably have to use the guide book since none of the reviews make any mention of how dialogue works or branching questlines.

• • It mentions the reputation system but not the karma section, the game's other morality system.

So I'm gonna be honest, I know that karma exists in New Vegas but does it honestly even warrant a mention? It doesn't do anything other than affect the end slide show. Even fansites speculate that it was likely just a holdover from Fallout 3 that Obsidian either forgot about or scrapped larger plans for during development. I decided to instead focus on the reputation system. Note that none of the reviews I found even mention that karma even exists in New Vegas, so they don't seem to think that it's important either.

• Plot – Setting
  • This might be a limitation of sources, but New Vegas is quite a morally complex game; this section describes the NCR as a "democratic republic [attempting] to maintain law". My memory of the NCR is a bit more complicated than that, and I would hope this article had coverage of how immensely political the game is. I found a Polygon article that mentions that the game making the faction more expansionist.
• I'll provide more feedback later. Thanks again — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ImaginesTigers:! Thank you for the review. I've started tackling these issues on my sandbox, and I'll move them over to the mainpage when I've finalized them. I'll address more comments as I go along. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

1989 (Taylor's Version)

Nominator(s): brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth re-recorded album by Taylor Swift. I opened a PR to try and improve the article, but got not much responses, so I decided to jump straight into the FA review (this time, i did a few FA reviews beforehand so i have a better understanding on the criteia) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

• File:Taylor Swift - 1989 (Taylor's Version).png has a clear purpose in the article, appropriate WP:ALT text, and a complete WP:FUR.
• Unfortunately, there are WP:SANDWICH issues with File:Taylor Swift The Eras Tour 1989 Era Set (53110043448) (cropped).jpg and the infobox, particularly with the latest skin.
  • moved to release section brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing this point. I would be curious on your response to the audio sample question, and that should complete my review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

      oh, for the audio file, haven’t… added the sample yet. how do i get a sample, do i crop the piece of music or do i get it from somewhere official? brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 23:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it is no big deal if you do not want to an audio sample. As I said below, it is more of a suggestion than a requirement. I just wanted to get a response to everything in my review. I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Would an audio sample be helpful for the "Music and lyrics" section? Maybe, a sample for "'Slut!'" could be helpful as it could be use to represent the album's overall synth-pop sound and its usage of synthesizers throughout. This is just a suggestion of course so feel free to disagree. I fully understand that sometimes an audio sample just do not fit. I have worked on album articles without audio samples for that exact reason.

I hope this review is helpful. I have only focused on the images, except for a question about a possible audio sample. My only concern is how the Eras Tour image causes sandwich issues with the infobox. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oriental Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about an early pulp magazine. It was started as a companion to the more famous Weird Tales, but only managed 15 issues over four years. It included several stories by Robert E. Howard, including the first of his stories about Red Sonya, the inspiration for the comics character Red Sonja. The article is short but, I hope, comprehensive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

TompaDompa

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The All-Story Magazine/archive1 was promoted before I managed to get around to reviewing it. I'll try to do better this time. As an initial comment, the link for Edmond Hamilton in the body is—presumably unintentionally—piped to Edmund Sears (the link in the WP:LEAD is not). TompaDompa (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for spotting that; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• "any story set in an exotic location, including other planets" – is that other planets as in Mars, Venus, and so on, or ones outside the Solar System (or both)? If it's strictly outside of the Solar System, I would link extrasolar planets in fiction.

  Any planet, as far as I can tell without reading all the stories. For example, Ashley mentions that a late issue included one of Edmond Hamilton's "Kaldar" stories; these were set on Mar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would have thought from the title "Kaldar, World of Antares" that they are set on a planet orbiting Antares? I interpreted "Edmond Hamilton's "Kaldar, World of Antares", the first in a series similar to Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom stories, set on Mars." as saying that the Barsoom stories are set on Mars (which I know that they are). TompaDompa (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Henneberger incorporated Popular Fiction" – I would link Incorporation (business), as I think most people would read "incorporated" as "included".

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Frank Owen followed his story in the first issue" – surely this should be "stories", plural, given the content earlier in the paragraph?

  Yes; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Howard's "Red Sonja" story" – this should be "Red Sonya" with a Y, right?

  No -- the original character was spelled with a "y"; the comics character with a "j". I've added another link for the "Sonya" spelling; technically it's redundant because it's just a section in the story, linked earlier in the sentence, but it makes it easier for the reader to see that these are both valid spellings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Right. I think we're talking about different places in the article. I'm talking about the last paragraph of the "Publication history and contents" section. TompaDompa (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I missed that; you're right, of course. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• The magazine prices should be adjusted for inflation.

  Done. I also added an inflation figure for the value of the Tarzan issue. In both cases I didn't give a second parenthesis for the later numbers because they're pretty obvious from the ones I do give. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Images

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "It was in small pulp format" - this doesn't mean anything to me as a description, is it possible to elaborate as to what this format actually is/was?

  Added the size dimensions, and a cite for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Just a couple of minor drafting points for clarity:

• "Wright obtained stories from H. Bedford Jones, a popular pulp writer, and Seabury Quinn" – I'd replace the commas with parenthetic dashes to make it clear beyond doubt that we're talking about two, not three, people
• "The schedule was initially bimonthly" – both the dictionaries I generally use say that "bimonthly" can mean "every other month" or "twice a month". (Thank you, OED and Chambers!) It might be as well to say that initially the magazine was published every other month.

That's my lot. Happy to support: the article seems to me as complete as it can be, is in good readable prose, seems balanced, is well and widely sourced and strikingly illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the 2024 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Kyren Wilson won this event. Has deserved a big win for some time and bossed this event. Jak Jones was a qualifier but destroyed the competition until he ran out of puff in the final.

I look forward to any responses you have Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:2024_World_Snooker_Championship_cover.jpg: Meets free-use rationale- image has low resolution and no alternative image is possible
• File:Sheffield Crucible theatre.png: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:World Snooker Championship 2024 arena.jpg: CC0
• File:Fergal O’Brien at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-04 09.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Noppon Saengkham PHC 2015-3.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Neil Robertson at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-05 02 (cropped).jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Joe OConnor PHC 2017-1.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:John Higgins and Olivier Marteel at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2013-01-30 03.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:David Gilbert at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-04 02.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Jak Jones PHC 2016-2.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Kyren Wilson EuM 2022-3.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0

All are own work, expect the non-free image, which is taken from the event website (and mentioned as the source, along with the organising body as the author). All images are correctly licensed, and the article seems to meet the FAC on a semi-comprehensive read, so a support from me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Rodney Baggins

I've made a few edits of my own and these are the other things I've noticed.

• I think use of {{nbh}} for hyphenation is overblown, e.g. "Second{{nbh}}round matches" in Format section leaves massive space for me at end of previous line for no good reason. The article is full of them and on closer inspection, they are not even standard hyphens so you can't search on them – try copying across into a text file and you end up with a strange dash character that isn't actually a standard hyphen. I would strongly advise getting rid of these and using normal hyphens (allowing hyphenated words to break across lines). I'm fine with using {{nbnd}} in scores, that's a great idea, but hard hyphens is a step too far for me.

• I've noticed odd wording at start of each round section. Suggest the following changes:
  "as the best of 19 frames was played over two sessions" > "as the best-of-19-frames match was played over two sessions"
  "as the best of 25 frames was played over three sessions" > "as the best-of-25-frames match was played over three sessions" (x2)
  "as the best of 33 frames was played over four sessions" > "as the best-of-33-frames match was played over four sessions"
  "as the best of 35 frames was played over four sessions" > "as the best-of-35-frames match was played over four sessions"

Lead

• I've given the lead section a bit of a copyedit. What do you think about combining paras 3 & 4 to make the lead just three paragraphs in total? Para 3 is very short, and I think it might also be worth taking out "On his way to the final," which seems quite redundant, so para 3 would be even shorter then!
• "at the English Institute of Sport, also in Sheffield" > (simply) "at the English Institute of Sport in Sheffield"
• "worldwide" seems like an odd choice of word – implies that it was broadcast the world over! Could we change that to "overseas" or "in other countries" or even "outside the UK"?

Prize fund

• Suggest putting Total: £2,395,000 in bold, because at the moment it gets swallowed up by all the other figures and it needs to stand out as it's the total of the others. (I've often thought this in other tournament articles but never mentioned it until now.)
• Final sentence is unsourced: "Xu was defeated by Alfie Burden in qualifying, Ding was beaten by Jack Lisowski in the first round, and Allen was defeated by John Higgins in the second round." I think this sentence can come out as it looks like an afterthought.

Fourth qualification round

• Heathcote/Bingham match is verified by ref.56 but not "Heathcote was ahead 8‍–‍7 but missed a pot on the pink that would have opened up a two-frame lead" which needs a separate source.

First round

• Brecel needs to be in full as Luca Brecel, and why is he not wikilinked? Other players are linked at first mention in Main stage.

Second round

• Use full names at first mention: Milkins > Robert Milkins; Gilbert > David Gilbert; Trump > Judd Trump; Murphy > Shaun Murphy; Maguire > Stephen Maguire; O'Sullivan > Ronnie O'Sullivan; O'Connor > Joe O'Connor; Bingham > Stuary Bingham; Lisowski > Jack Lisowski
• Do we really need the bracketed [Higgins] in quoted text at end? It's blinking obvious who Allen's talking about!

Quarter-finals

• Use full names at first mention: Trump > Judd Trump; Gilbert > David Gilbert; Maguire > Stephen Maguire; O'Sullivan > Ronnie O'Sullivan; Bingham > Stuart Bingham
• "didn't win another frame" – remove contraction, e.g. "Trump, however, did not win another frame and was defeated 9‍–13."
• "top‑16 status in the World Rankings" > "top-16 status in the world rankings" (no caps needed, see elsewhere in article)

Final

• "Jak Jones's first ranking final" – possible to get rid of the awkward s's by rearranging the phrasing: "This was Kyren Wilson's third Triple Crown final; he had previously finished runner-up at the 2018 Masters and the 2020 World Snooker Championship. Jak Jones was appearing in his first ranking final, his previous best being a solitary semi‑final at the 2022 Gibraltar Open."
• Is it necessary to state who Kyren lost to in his previous finals? (see wording above)
• The word 'solitary' sounds a bit negative, maybe change to "his previous best being a semi‑final appearance at the 2022 Gibraltar Open."
• "someone had led 7‍–‍0" > "a finalist had led 7‍–‍0"
• Not every sentence is sourced, e.g. "Trailing by six frames, Jones made breaks of 75 and 56 to trail 3‍–‍7." Maybe combine sentences using semi-colons if all verified by same source?
• "final frame" (x2) – what's wrong with "last frame"? The match is the 'final' so this might confuse the layperson. Same with "final session" (x2) and close repetition of latter.
• "to force Wilson to lay snookers to win. Wilson successfully got the snooker" > "to leave Wilson needing snookers to win. He successfully laid the snooker" (and maybe cuegloss snooker again at this critical point in the commentary!)
• "Jak [Jones] played really well tonight" – do we really need the bracketed [Jones] in quote? It's blinking obvious who Kyren's talking about!
• I'd like to see an alternative source for the final score, e.g. this: [1] The second WST source is a dead link so it would be useful to replace it with this Guardian article.

Image captions

• O'Brien caption has awkward juxtaposition of players' names. Suggest something like "Fergal O'Brien (pictured) retired from the professional tour (which he had first joined in 1991) after his 8‍–‍10 loss to Mostafa Dorgham."
• Robertson image: suggest simplifying caption from "The 2010 champion, Neil Robertson, failed to qualify for the event for the first time in twenty years." to "Neil Robertson failed to qualify for the event for the first time in twenty years." and then change in body text: "Former winner Neil Robertson failed to qualify..." > "The 2010 champion, Neil Robertson, failed to qualify..."
• We have "Fergal O'Brien (pictured)" in italics, but "Joe O'Connor (pictured in 2017)" not in italics. We need one or the other, for consistency.
• David Gilbert caption: need to add in score for consistency?
• Jak Jones caption needs bracketed 'pictured' for consistency because it also mentions Stuart Bingham (I think that's the logic of it, right?) Also, need to add in score for consistency?
• Higgins caption: "to retain his top 16 position in the world rankings." doesn't sound right to me. Maybe try "to retain his top-16 status"? (needs hyphen too)
• Maybe expand Wilson caption: "Kyren Wilson (pictured) won his first World Championship by defeating Jak Jones 18‍–‍14 in the final."

Refs

• BBC refs.135 & 137 are dup cites (second one has correct title) [2]
• Some of the Eurosport citations need updated titles. Refs 98, 99, 103, 124, 134, 138 have wrong article title.
• Eurosport refs 98 & 124 also have missing authors
• Independent ref.104 has been updated, title needs changing + archive reflects old version and also needs updating.
• Sporting Life ref.133 has updated title.
• For the BBC Sport citations, and others, I wouldn't mind if you want to remove loads of work links in the refs. I agree with you that it leads to a SOB issue.

Finally, the introductory paragraphs in Qualifying draw and Main draw could do with a bit of tidying up, which I can look at for you if you like.
Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Rodney. Your copyedits look grand. I'll work my way through this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hurricane Emily (2005)

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the first Category 5 hurricane of the hyperactive 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Hurricane Katrina is a household name, but that was the second Category 5 of the season, and that was in late August. The season was already destructive and deadly by mid-July, which was unusual at the time. Now we take for granted that record-breaking hurricanes and freak natural disasters happen all the time. 2005 was a different time. For starters, it came on the heels of a bad hurricane season, when the likes of Hurricane Ivan devastated the Caribbean and the United States. I bring up Ivan because that storm hit Grenada, and then ten months later, so did Hurricane Emily. Ivan was a Category 5 in the Caribbean, so was Emily. And then Emily hit Mexico, twice. The hurricane was strong, and it had a lot of effects, setting up for a long, ruinous season.

As for this storm and why I think it should be a featured article - I'm trying to get the season to a featured topic (featured tropic, anyone?) by its 20 year anniversary. I have worked on the article for a while, adding onto the efforts of literally hundreds of editors who have worked on the article since the storm was active. Don't believe me? Check out what the article looked like when the storm was active. It was a different time, and there's been a lot of research since then, discussing the storm and its effects. I believe the article is well-researched enough to put it up for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Added, good suggestion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• File:Emily_stormfloater_ir_0718_0645UTC.jpg: is a more specific source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I swapped that image with another one that has a better source and is a better image in my opinion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this on Wednesday. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I had a look at the article and did some copyediting as well as grammar fixing. Revert them if you think that they're not constructive.
• Lede: Might be good to mention on what date it dissipated.
• Meteorological history: I'd propose splitting the paragraphs as they're quite large. Other than that, I did not find any major issues within this section.

I'll leave comments for other sections later this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Vacant0: for the copyedits, they looked good! I added the dissipation date in the lead, as well as splitting up the met history to four paragraphs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Saxophone Sonata (Creston)

Nominator(s): UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Paul Creston's music was widely performed during the mid-20th century, but today he is often known for his more unusual instrumentation. His Sonata for E♭ Alto Saxophone and Piano (1939) is a cornerstone of the instrument's classical repertoire and is an example of his efforts to help the musical underdogs. The article underwent a much-appreciated GA review by Aza24 over the holidays, with other pre-FAC suggestions attended to. I now submit it for your consideration. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

A few minor points on the prose:

• "several tonal centres" – as the article is quite rightly in AmE one might expect "centers" here.
• "benefitted from their provision of accompanists" – is "benefitted" with two t's usual in AmE? Fine if so. (In the King's English we spell it "benefited", but to each his own.)
• "finalised at a meeting" – not "finalized"?
• "Unaware to Creston" – odd construction: Creston was no doubt unaware but the fact was unknown rather than unaware to him.
• Notes b, c and d could do with citations.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments Tim, they should now be resolved. I had originally intended to write in BrE but I've switched the regional spellings as AmE does make more sense. I've removed [b] and [c], on second thoughts I don't think they are needed. [d] now has a citation to Slomski 1994. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

All fine now, it seems to me. Happy to add my support for promotion to FA. Good prose, well chosen illustration, evidently balanced, and well and widely sourced. – Tim riley talk 21:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I'll review this one over the next few days. It will make a refreshing change to review an article on this sort of music rather than the sorts I usually work on articles about...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• " A recipient of a 1938 Guggenheim Fellowship for composition, part of his wide-ranging output was" - this construction indicates that "part of his wide-ranging output" was the recipient of the fellowship, which I presume isn't what you mean.....?
• "In Spring 1939" - don't think spring needs a capital letter
• " the LaBudde Special Collections at University of Missouri–Kansas City" => " the LaBudde Special Collections at the University of Missouri–Kansas City"
• That's what I got as far as the end of the history section - back to do the rest later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for this first round of comments, Chris! They should all be dealt with now. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is there an appropriate link for "pantonality"?
• "as opposed to his baroque-inspired Suite." - is it correct to have a capital S here where it seems to be being used generically rather than referring to a specific piece?
• "The piano accompaniment to Creston's sonata also difficult" => "The piano accompaniment to Creston's sonata is also difficult"
• "Creston had previously expressed the original tempi were too fast " => "Creston had previously expressed that the original tempi were too fast "
• Note d needs a full stop
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think these should now be done. I've not linked pantonality as I can't seem to find an article on-wiki that fits how Creston uses the word. I have also kept the capitalised "Suite", but made it clearer that it is specifically that piece. Thanks again! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 08:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support from Crisco and passed media review

Responding to a request for non-specialist editors on Discord.

• Any more recent details on recordings? 1980 was 45 years ago... surely there have been more since?
• Agree with Chris about the fellowship mention
• "Cecil Leeson has been the greatest stimulus for the enrichment of the saxophone repertory, and I am most for having been chosen a contributor to the repertory." - Is this missing a word after "most"?
• aside from the exceptions of Glazunov's - aside from the exception feels redundant
• In Spring 1939, - Per MOS:SEASONS, this should be "in early 1939"
• The New Music Group were chosen - I believe in American English "The New Music Group was chosen" is correct.
• Creston's manuscript is held by the LaBudde Special Collections at University of Missouri–Kansas City as part of a collection donated by his wife, Louise Creston. - Do we need to use Louise's last name here?
• despite Leeson's tour, he still - Who is "he"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for both reviews, Chris. These should now be done, see below as well. I've added some information on more modern recordings in prose, taking the example of Short Symphony and pointing to the table. I hope this works for you? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this looks good. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you kindly :) UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• File:Carnegie Hall - Full (48155558466).jpg - Correctly licensed
• File:Cecil Leeson and Paul Creston.jpg - Correctly licensed
• File:Publicity photo of Paul Creston.jpg - Correctly licensed
• No file to actually link, but the excerpts total 33 seconds of a 13+ minute composition. "Performance" is done by MIDI, satisfying the requirements of WP:FREER as we have only Creston's copyright to be concerned about. Is there prior consensus about fair-use rationales in such cases? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure on this one. Looking at other FAs on in-copyright pieces (Short Symphony and Appalachian Spring), the standard seems to be an inline citation much like a quotation of prose. I found this comment from Nikkimaria: am I reading this right? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it seems to be; treating it as a quote rather than media makes sense, since technically there is no media being used. Media review passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, as long as the quotations are brief. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

I am interested in any classical composition up for FAC, and especially more recent ones, - thank you for offering one. I am reviewing offline, so things may have changed, - please ignore then.

Title

I wonder if the common name is Saxophone Sonata, in which case the first sentence could be

"The Saxophone Sonata , Op. 19, is a sonata for E♭ alto saxophone and piano composed by Paul Creston in 1939. It was ..."

The title in the infobox should follow then.

Not sure on this, per WP:OFFICIAL: "Where an undisputed official name exists it should always be provided early in an article's introduction". Since WP:COMMONNAME is policy for article titles, I think the use of the official name is fine and has better flow.

Infobox

Thank you for a detailed infobox!

• In this case of close collaboration of player and composer/player, I suggest to use the image showing both as a lead image, with links to the player in the caption, saying "(l.)" for him. The longish caption should - regardless of position - be integrated in the prose, but a year/range be supplied. If you want to keep the composer alone, I think the range is too broad, - something like c. 1950 would suffice. Any pic closer to composition time would of course be better.

  I'll split this one into a few points:

  "In this case of close collaboration of player and composer/player, I suggest to use the image showing both as a lead image, with links to the player in the caption, saying "(l.)" for him." Per MOS:SECTIONLOC, I think it fits best in background, which discusses their relationship in depth

  "The longish caption should - regardless of position - be integrated in the prose, but a year/range be supplied." Removed and not integrated as redundant the text at the bottom of the section. Range added.

  "If you want to keep the composer alone, I think the range is too broad, - something like c. 1950 would suffice. Any pic closer to composition time would of course be better." This image is from the Creston collection at UMKC and is the earliest I could find. I'm hesitant to change the range: c. 1950 could mean different things to different people, so a more definite range is superior.

• I'd drop first names when the same people are mentioned as performers.

  I think it's fine, FA examples with repetition of full name include Appalachian Spring, Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) and Short Symphony

• "13 minutes", and even "3 movements", the latter per my most recent GA review by Kyle Peake, as a number you will want to compare, - and we can probably skip "around" as redundant

  Skipped around, replaced with numerals for consistency with opus no.

• I'd drop the "official" in the infobox but have it in the prose.

  Used an efn similar to [c] instead

• I believe that for a piece related to all-American people, you better use their date format.

  Switched to MDY throughout, with regrets ;)

Lead

• I'll go into detail later - after reading through - but my first impression is that it has too much detail about the composition timing.

  Will await comments

Background

• "career composers" - it may be just me - not a native speaker of English - but I never heard that phrase.

  I'm using it as a modifier. My edition of the OED gives the entry "(before another noun) working with long-term commitment in a particular profession"

• I don't think that you have to repeat "American" for the saxophonist.

  Done

• I'd like to know the age of the two men when they met.

  Both were quite young, around 28 for Creston and 32 for Leeson. Not sure how to integrate this into the text?

• I don't think the "recently" adds much to "lost".

  Agreed

• "Leeson was presented with Creston: pleased with his playing, the two began a partnership." - I don't think you can continue with "the two" if what preceeded it is only one, and even unclear who. Sounds like both were pleased with the other's playing ;)

  Switched around a bit

• "perceived as unsuited to art music and restricted as such to more mainstream musical genres" - I don't need "as such".

  Axed

• Lawson Lunde - do we know a bit about him?

  I believe he used to have an article, but it was nominated for deletion by another editor. I've at least added a nationality.

Composition and publishing

• I'd move the first paragraph to background.

  I don't disagree with the idea, but I think it progresses more naturally without a heading break. Open to defer if this is serious

• In it, avoid repetition of saxophone, and perhaps link "string" because it has several meanings.

  Linked and shuffled to avoid a blue sea

• In the second para, it remains unclear to me how he can be in the fellowship, and then the sonata be required to achieve it, or what did I miss? If it's the same Guggenheim fellowship, it should have full name and link the first time, and if not that be clarified.

  I'm not sure what you mean, it doesn't say anywhere that the sonata was a requirement for the fellowship. Are you possibly confusing it with the suite?

• Do we know more about the publishers (planned and actual) than the names? Location? Should one go to the infobox?

  If I recall correctly, Morris (1996) doesn't go into any more detail than name. I've added Shawnee to the infobox as most recent publisher

Performances

• I suggest to repeat the year 1940 for the first of the tour dates.

  Done

• "that Creston discovered the truth" - that makes it sound (to me) as if Leeson had lied about it.

  I think this is lying by omission, so discovering the truth would be correct. Thoughts?

• I'd add at least here if not in lead and infobox that the hall is in (well-known) Carnegie Hall.

  Done. On second thoughts, I've given precedence to the larger venue in lead and infobox.

• "St. Vincent's Hall, Elkhart, Indiana" - please link at least the town if the hall has no article.

  Town linked

• the two concerts with Abato: how about getting the name in front and then have the two locations?

  Attempted

Reception

• "Regardless, Creston, Leeson and their audience were all satisfied with the performance."[- unsure what "regardless" adds.

  True

• "The sonata's debut recording by Vincent Abato" - I'd mention that it was made, together with a date and possibly label, in the previous section, and also mention this player in the lead.

  I can see the point in a lead mention, but wouldn't this duplicate the information in the recordings section?

• "Several reviewers saw the sonata as being traditional and lacking some depth." - How about dropping that sentence and let the following reviews speak for themselves?

  I think this sentence helps topic grouping, per the points at WP:CRS

• I'd bring sooner for whom Melson wrote.

  Sentence inverted

• "James Lyons wrote negatively of the sonata's styling, criticizing it as incompatible ...", - how about simpler "James Lyons criticizes the sonata's styling as incompatible ..."?

  Probably redundant, yes

• wl TNYT

  Linked in paragraph above, probably too close?

• "Tim Page of The New York Times wrote that he considered the sonata underrated in a 1983 article", - how about "Tim Page of The New York Times wrote in 1983 that he considered the sonata underrated"?

  Yes, good catch

• do we know about Burnet Tuthill?

  Same Tuthill as linked prior, on reflection a duplink is needed

I

Thank you for the musical examples! Perhaps comment on the movement titles in English?

• perhaps give 4/4 as common time, with a link in prose, and the symbol in the structure overview, for which you may think of a table as for example in Bach cantatas such as BWV 1#Scoring and structure (check throughout)

  Given common time and link, time signatures for all movements are in the list (not tabulated as I think there are two few elements to warrant a table)

• I would not use "crochet" and "semiquavers" in American context (check throughout)

  Ugh, I only looked for spelling errors when switching to AmE: thank you for catching!

• "in piano" - I'd say "in the piano", to avoid misunderstanding as a dynamic marking

  Did not think of that, thank you

II

• Perhaps have opening theme first, then form

  I'd prefer to keep it that way, as this keeps consistency with mentioning features of the movement as a whole first.

• try to have references in ascending order of numbers (check thoughout)

  Attempted to be tidy: done?

Style

• Suite should be linked (only) the first time

  Not sure what you mean, it's only linked once

• I wouldn't expect counterpoint in classical at all - rather Baroque

  That is what the source says, I note that Beethoven and Mozart are listed as examples in our article on the subject

• Here come the English titles - perhaps a little late? The remark about the missing key signatures would also make more sense before any musical example.

  Wondering if you see benefit in moving the whole style section before movements?

Tempi

• Perhaps explain that we speak here about metronome figures, not tempo markings?

  Isn't a metronome mark a kind of tempo marking? "Metronome: an apparatus for fixing tempo" (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music): my understanding is that tempo is the speed and the metronome mark a measurement of that speed, just a more precise measure than allegro or andante

• Perhaps repeat the three markings for easier comparison?

  Good idea

• "for each movement respectively" seems redundant at this point

  True

• I don't know why the 1976 exclamation is handled before the 1975 letter.

  Shifted

• The latter has an extra "that".

  Think this was dealt with before

Recordings

• Better say "movements I and II" right away, after we already know that the first full recording was not with Leeson.

  Done

Thank you for an interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your copious comments, Gerda. I think I've addressed these now: unlike the other reviews, I've replied (in italics) and indented rather than write a long screed here. Several of these are replies to unfinished issues, like your comments on the lead. Thanks again, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed replies, all taken (and next time, you can just indent instead of all the italics). I have two more things to settle before getting back to the lead. (Traveling.) Perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm back (postponed one thing to tomorrow. I forgot that I wasn't done with the review when I ran out of power on the plane.

Recordings - part 2

• Nice to learn about Abato's position, but how about moving that to when he first played the piece?

  Moved

• In the table: how about saying - instead of Performers - Saxophonist, Pianist, and dropping the brackets from the entries.

  Good call

• Would there be players who have an entry in a different Wikipedia?

  Added some

• I've seen Gramophone reviews online, any here?

  I had to use print copies for these ones, sorry!

• Is there anything in reviews that would enlighten further about interpretations, and thus the music?

  Most are rather short, only remarking briefly on the performance. I've mainly used them to apply some sort of inclusion criteria to the table.

Tempi part 2

• I suggest to continue the quotation after "fool". I missed that it was irony ;)

  I couldn't find a good way to do this with the quote, but have made it clear that this was self-deprecating

Lead

• I believe that for the lead, "Collaboration" is enough without details about it.

  Axed

• similarly about composition history.

  Tried to tighten this up

• "publication in 1940, although this date was missed due to logistical challenges brought on by World War II." - can we have the year it finally happened in lead and infobox?

  Embarrassing, I somehow completely forgot to put this year anywhere. Added

• "Altogether, it presents a considerable difficulty for both players." - doesn't leave me happy ;) - The piece is kind of "acting" ("presents"), and what does "Altogether" add? Do we know why the composer made it difficult? ... to show virtuosity of both, perhaps?

  Changed the sentence, presumably the difficulty is for virtuosic display but I can't recall seeing this in sources.

• I understand by a footnote (that I had overlooked) that the hall was then called Carnegie Chamber Hall, and think that's a good name to use, perhaps giving the later name once. Just Carnegie Hall, as in the present version, seems misleading. (I have great memories of Jessye Norman and a pianist filling the big hall.)

  Good point. I've changed to this name and removed that footnote: this is replaced with a link to the section of Carnegie Hall that discusses the name change.

• I suggest to sort the last paragraph differently: first the first recording, then the reviews, then further recordings and finally "Today ...". Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've reshuffled

Structure

• Sorry, in "⁵
  ₄, ...", the comma looks like a quotation mark to 4 instead of a separator, at least to me (similar to A and A'). Please find a different way, - perhaps a little table after all ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  This and others should now be done, does the table look OK?. Thanks again for your comments, Gerda! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The article "as a whole" - to quote your wording - looks like a FA to me, - support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Many thanks, hope to see you around. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ethan Winters

Nominator(s): 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the main character from the Resident Evil 7 and Resident Evil Village, who is the only character from the series that is faceless, mutilated multiple times, and has regenerative abilities to survive fatal situations after attempting to save his daughter after being abducted. I am looking forward for the comemtns/reviews! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support from Crisco and passed image review

• Article only has one image, File:EthanWinters.png. It has a valid FUR, meets minimum size criteria. I would probably modify the alt text to read "A person with a hidden face, wearing a jacket and carrying a gun". "Faceless" could be misconstrued as 'without a face' as opposed to 'with a face hidden' — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Replaced

• Second and third paragraphs of the lede are awfully short... might be worth combining.

Merged

• In the expansion "Shadows of Rose" for Resident Evil Village, Ethan appears in a third-person mode and despite attempts to obscure his face, players could see it by performing certain actions. - Is it worth mentioning here that the 3rd person mode added to RE8 in a patch blocked his face as well?

Fair point at this. I decided to remove it.

• Oh? I thought it was good that it illustrates the extent to which players went to see his face. I was just wondering if the sources mentioned the third-person mode that was added with/at the same time as the DLC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I really apologize for misunderstanding again. This is a good suggestion! I added the third person mode info a tad bit that might help. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• He locates her in Louisiana after being kidnapped by the Baker family. - Technically he finds her first, then he's abducted after she maims him.

Reworded

• The "Portrayal" section jumps between tenses. I'm going to massage it a bit.

Reworded

• The amount of blood and gore players as Ethan are exposed to in the Japanese version of the game, Biohazard 7: Resident Evil - Is "Portrayals" the best section for this?

Moved

• My apologies, I meant "Is Appearances the best section for this?" I've reworked a bit... what do you think? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering about it moving it to portrayal lmao, I apologize as well for misunderstanding it. It looks better than. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• In the Shadows of Rose DLC chapter, set sixteen years after the events of Resident Evil Village, - This is the epilogue of the game, rather than the DLC. The DLC has Ethan's consciousness still active in the mold, guiding Rosemary through the trap set by Miranda('s consciousness). Do any of the sources recap his role in this DLC better?

I'm having a bit hard time finding that, and I think it would be fine without the addition of this plot that shows in Ethan is still alive only in her imaginary stuff.

• Feels like that's a big piece of his posthumous characterization (i.e., Wikipedia:Featured article criterion 1b). TheGamer gives a bit — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Chris Woodrich Fair enough. I was hesitating this Valnet source before, but I guess a single usage of hisdsource oesn't really harm anyway. Thank you. I already added it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I saw that you had cited TheGamer already, and as the article was posted after August 2020 it meets the VGRS point that "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable". ScreenRant had something as well, but that's still situational.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Others have cited Ethan as one of the worst protagonists. - Among gaming's worst protagonists, or among the series'?

Oops, reworded.

• Not sure #Analysis is beefed up enough to stand on its own. Perhaps work it into the reception section, then if more academics examine Ethan we can break it off? As it is, Stobbart's analysis enjoys an entire subsection on its own. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Merged

• Chris Woodrich Thanks a lot for the copyedits and reviews. I think I've already dealth with it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, BP. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I do not have the time to do a full review, but I want to leave some comments to help with the FAC:

• I would avoid the following sentence construction: (with some praising his relatability). In FAC reviews, I have seen editors discourage the use of the "with X verb-ing" construction so I would revise that out here and anywhere else in the article. Another example is the following, (with Sato describing Village as the story of Ethan and "the entirety of who he is".)

Reworded

• There are sandwich issues with the quote box and the infobox. I am not sure the quote box is necessary, and it may be better to incorporate parts of the quote into the prose instead.

Done

• I am uncertain about the "an embodied presence" word choice for this sentence: (In Resident Evil 7: Biohazard (2017), players take Ethan's viewpoint as an embodied presence as opposed to an on-screen avatar.) I am not really sure what is meant by this. Do you mean "a disembodied presence" instead?

Replaced

• This sentence felt a little abrupt and random, at least to me, (The game's goal for players is to advance the narrative while keeping him alive with limited resources.), as I would think that this could apply to any of the Resident Evil games. The source provides further context for this by saying that previous Resident Evil games were becoming more action-oriented and Biohazard was a return to the original survival horror elements.

Expanded

• I think the "Portrayal" subsection is too short, and I would suggest finding a way to better incorporate this information into the overall section instead. I would also avoid the repetition as "voiced" for two sentences in a row. A way to avoid that could be the following: (Ethan was voiced by American actor Todd Soley for Resident Evil 7: Biohazard and Resident Evil Village and by Hidenobu Kiuchi in the Japanese versions of the games.)

Reworded, However I'm not sure what else I can add since Ethan only appears in 2 games sadly.

Apologies for not being clearer, but I think that instead of being separated into its own subsection, it could be integrated into the overall section. I know that other articles on Resident Evil characters have a dedicated subsection for this, but given that this character has only appeared in two games, I am not sure that there is enough to justify this kind of separation. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47 gotcha. Thanks for the suggestion. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I was uncertain what the following meant: (Tunisian model Yaya Chamki portrayed Ethan.) I was particularly unsure about the "portrayed" word choice. Looking at the source, it seems that Chamki was the model for the character. I would recommend saying either (Ethan's appearance was based on Tunisian model Yaya Chamki.) or (Tunisian model Yaya Chamki was the model for Ethan's appearance.)

Reworded

Apologies again for not being able to do a full review, but I hope that this still helps regardless. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47 No problem, I've addressed your concerns. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course. I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A vicious episode from a vicious war fought 2,266 years ago. War to the knife indeed. This went through GAN in 2020 and ACR in 2021. I have recently done a little tightening up and hope that it will not be too embarrassing at FAC. All and any constructive comments will be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Iazyges Pinging the ACR and GAN reviewers; it's been a while but it would be great if either of you felt like picking at the flaws I am sure still remain. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Mercenary_War_manoeuvres.svg: see MOS:COLOUR

• File:Illustrations_pour_Salammbô_Poirson_Victor-Armand.jpeg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

A clear exposition of the topic, and plainly, to my thinking, of FA standard. A few very minor quibbles about the prose:

• "Hamilcar and fellow general Hanno" – a false title we could do without.

Cast out.

• "Initial manouevres" – spelling.

Picky.

• "squeezing taxes out of the newly conquered territory in order to pay for both the war with Rome and his own campaigns" – I'm not one of those reviewers who have to get their smelling salts out at the sight of the phrase "in order to", but I really don't see what "in order to" has got here that plain "to" wouldn't have.

You are completely right. Sloppy proof reading I reckon.

• "decided to wait until all of the troops had arrived" – Unclear what the superfluous "of" is adding to the sentence other than an unnecessary word.

The surplus of has been declared redundant.

• "The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa" – this is Plain Words on "Majority": The major part or the majority ought not to be used when a plain most would meet the case. They should be reserved for occasions when the difference between a majority and a minority is significant. Thus: "Most of the members have been slack in their attendance". "The majority of members are likely to be against the proposal".

Ah. Well, by all means let us be stylish.

• "Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry; unarmoured troops who would charge ferociously" – the punctuation has gone awry. Instead of the semicolon you need either a colon or (preferably to my mind) a dash.

Dash inserted.

• "Initial manouevres" – still misspelled.

I only see it once Tim. Are you referring to the ToC and the section heading?

I was. All now fine. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Utica and Hippo slew their Carthaginian garrisons" – "slew" seems a touch antiquated, and has nowadays a slightly comic Wodehousian air, as in "one of those fiends with hatchet who are always going about slaying six". Wouldn't a plain "killed" do?

Changed.

• "but despite the siege being lifted ..." – another gerund problem. Grammatically, "being lifted" is serving as a verbal noun and this should be "despite the siege's being lifted". As that doesn't flow well, perhaps "but although the siege was lifted..."?

That doesn't really flow either. I am probably trying to pack too much into the sentence. Does "The supplies seized from the Carthaginian camp relieved the rebels immediate problems, but little further food arrived, despite the siege having been lifted." work?

Almost. "rebels" needs a possessive apostrophe, and there's still the gerund problem: "...despite the lifting of the siege" would work. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Afternoon Tim. It is extremely good of you to drop by a mere elephant and sandal saga. I am grateful for your erudition and all of your points above have been addressed. The last issue could do with your eyes on again if you would. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. On rereading I wonder about "envisages" in the image caption in the Siege section. Seems a slightly odd verb. Portrays or depicts might be more usual. Not sure the caption needs a full stop, either. I don't press either point and am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Clear, balanced, well and widely sourced, suitably illustrated (excellent maps) – meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

HF

I reviewed this at GAN in 2020 and at ACR in 2021, but I will see if I can find anything else to comment on. Hog Farm _Talk 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• "and Hippo (modern Bizerte)" - the link for Hippo just redirects to the Bizerte article; I don't know if both are useful

Supporting; this is my third time reviewing the article for different content levels and I have nothing further to add. Hog Farm _Talk 01:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

Reviewed this at GAN in 2021. Although there are no double links or duplicate refs (which I can only view as a perfidious attempt to put me out of a job) I will see if I can find something else to complain about. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• I can find no further suggestions for the article; happy to support promotion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Iazyges, that gave me a laugh. You sound upset. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You are most welcome; I am of course pleased that my disastrous misfortune has brought you joy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you hadn't done such a good job in 2021 you'd be happier now. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by from UC

• Per WP:GNL, we should not use "men" as a synonym for "soldiers", "warriors", "fighters", "troops" etc. See in particular The sources are not clear as to whether they carried towers containing fighting men: we surely don't wish to imply that the sources suggest they may have carried fighting women? There are other examples throughout. In this particular context, it would be a strong assumption to say that none of the Gaulish, North Africa, Iberian etc tribes represented in the Carthaginian forces had any women fighting for them.
• Polybius says that they too "quickly" surrendered: consider a rephrase: did P. say they surrendered more quickly than they should, or that they surrendered, as did the others?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Sources are consistently formatted, and seem to come from prominent authors/publishers. Checked some reviews too and nothing questionable cropped up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Why is it the city referred to a Tunis, when was Carthage stop being in common use? And why aren't the Carthaginians referred to as Tunisians? Sorry I have but superficial knowledge about North Africa and Carthage. 185.237.102.58 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Mind

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The mind is that which thinks, feels, perceives, imagines, remembers, and wills, encompassing both conscious and unconscious phenomena. It is relevant to various fields of inquiry, in particular, to psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy. Thanks to Jens Lallensack for the GA review and to Patrick Welsh for the peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

Thank you for engaging in our FA process.

Is this duplication needed:

"The mind is the totality of psychological phenomena and capacities, encompassing consciousness, thought, perception, feeling, mood, motivation, behavior, memory, and learning.[1]"

and

"The mind encompasses many phenomena, including perception, memory, thought, imagination, motivation, emotion, attention, learning, and consciousness.[15]

and long-term memory, which can store information indefinitely."?

The duplicated links certainly are not and there are others which need attention. As general rule, unfamiliar terms should be linked in the Lead and once more (only) in the Body.

Also, here "Some people are affected by mental disorders, for which certain mental capacities do not function as they should." Should this read "in which"?

-Graham Beards (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Graham Beards and thanks for your comments! I found a way to reformulate the passage in the section "Definition" to make it less repetitive. I also removed the duplicate links found in the two passages you mentioned. As I understand it, the rule for duplicate links changed a while back to the effect that links to the same term can occur more than once in the body if they are in different sections and contextually important.

To my ears, "for which" sounds more appropriate, but I think "in which" could also work. I'll wait for others to comment before changing the expression.

I didn't get your point about the clause on long-term memory. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I got distracted earlier. My point was meant to be that I think the word "indefinitely" is too strong. I have problems recalling many events that occurred more than sixty years ago. With regard to overlinking, my main concern was those terms that were linked again just a few lines further on, (which I see you have reformulated). I still think some of the repeat links are excessive such as "soul", "vertebrate", "hallucinations", "intelligence" and "nervous system", but this is not a big deal. I still think "in which" is clearer. Lastly, (for the time being), I am having problems parsing the second sentence of the Lead; "The totality of mental phenomena, it includes both conscious processes, through which an individual is aware of external and internal circumstances, and unconscious processes, which can influence an individual without intention or awareness." Why the "it"? Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I weakened the formulation for long-term memory to clarify that this is not the case for everything it stores. I also removed more duplicate links and I changed the formulation to "in which". I reformulated the second sentence, I hope it is easier to parse now. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking forward to other reviewers' comments. Graham Beards (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a few more comments on the Lead, (which I think is especially important to get right).

Could this sentence:

“Traditionally, the mind was often conceived as a separate entity that can exist on its own but is more commonly understood in the contemporary discourse as a capacity of material objects.”

Be simplified to:

“Traditionally, the mind was often thought to be an entity that can exist on its own, but is now more commonly understood as a capacity of physical objects.”

Done, but formulated a little differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And is this repetition?

“meaning that minds are certain aspects or features of some material objects”

“as a capacity of material objects”

I changed it to "capacity of other entities" to avoid the redundancy. A similar formulation without the "material" was criticized during the GA review, so I'm not sure if it is an improvement. Another option would be to just say "capacity". Your suggestion of using "physical objects" instead of "material objects" would also be feasible. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And this phrase has a fused participle:

“with theorists discussing the possibility and consequences of creating them using computers”

Perhaps recast it thus:

“and theorists are discussing the possibility and consequences of creating them using computers”.

Done in a slightly different form. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I find the switching from singular to plural (mind – minds) inelegant, but I can live with it. Graham Beards (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In principle, everything in the lead could be discussed using the singular only. But my impression is that for some points, the plural is better suited. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no more to offer except my support. I think this article is a splendid accomplishment. (Perhaps the nominator might consider adopting Life, which has similar difficulties of definition). Graham Beards (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments for ErnestKrause

Some general comments to start, with some similarities of interests as expressed by Graham Beards above. The study of various identity theories and duality theories concerning the study of the mind over the centuries does not seem to address subjects such as Type physicalism, the Mind-Brain Identity theory, the issue of Mind-Memory Identity and Duality theories, or any mention of scholars such as Gilbert Ryle throughout the article. I've mentioned the first four or five items which seemed most pertinent to my first reading of the article, and thought to ask if you have thought about each of them to any degree? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello ErnestKrause and thanks for taking a look at the article! You are right that it doesn't go into much detail concerning all the different solutions to the mind–body problem in the history of the philosophy of mind. The reason is that there is too much else to cover outside this particular subfield, which is why this broad overview article leaves the details to more specific child articles per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I found a way to mention Gilbert Ryle, but many philosophers are not mentioned by name for the same reason as the primary topic of the article is the mind and not the history of the philosophy of mind.

In our subsection "Mind–body problem", type physicalism and mind-brain identity theory are mentioned in the sentence Type identity theory also belongs to reductive physicalism and says that mental states are the same as brain states. If you mean "substance dualism" and "property dualism" by "Duality theories", they are discussed in the passage According to substance dualism, minds or souls exist as independent entities in addition to material things. This view implies that, at least in principle, minds can exist without bodies.[67] Property dualism is another view, saying that mind and matter are not distinct individuals but different properties that apply to the same individual.[68] I can try to add some extra information if you think they should be discussed in more detail. I'm not sure which major theory you mean by "Mind-Memory Identity". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Comments

• There still seems to be some clarity that can be gained from more carefully drawing of lines between Philosophy of Mind and the current article dedicated to 'Mind' as a subject unto itself. Using the term 'Mind' as an umbrella definition for it being encountered in the Arts, on the one hand, and for it being encountered in the Sciences on the other hand is mentioned, but not developed. For example, the use of the word "Mind" in Anthropology seems significantly different from its use in Philosophy.

  One of the difficulties of writing this article was to balance the perspectives from different fields. This is explicitly addressed in the sections "Fields and methods of inquiry" and "Relation to other fields". Anthropology is discussed in the paragraph starting with "Anthropology is interested in". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• The ambiguity of the term by itself is also evidenced within Philosophy itself. For example, Hegel's famous book on Geist in German has had its title translated into English in different versions as "Spirit" in one translation and "Mind" in another translation. It suggests a close interchanging of term 'Mind' for 'Spirit', which some agree with and many disagree with. (The book is otherwise titled "The Phenomenology of...".)

• As far as I'm aware, German doesn't have a term that exactly corresponds to the English term "mind", which is a challenge for translations in both directions. The second paragraph of our section "Definition" addresses terminological issues, including the term "spirit". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking that adding this as an example of the language gap in meaning between German and English would serve as a good example of the problem you mention of translation between languages when studying Mind. Hegel is a prominent philosophical figure and the example of the problems in translating the title of his well-known book would be highly recognizable and illustrative. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I added a footnote to cover this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Before going into the science aspects of the term, another example from the arts and religion might point out its use in biblical phrases such as "To love God with all one heart, mind and soul." That seems a very different context which is not covered in the current form of your article which appears to lay claim to "Mind" without qualification. Your article title does not emphasize a specialized reading such as "Mind (science)" or "Mind (arts)". Is there a reason to present the article without qualification as if it is to be Wikipedia's all purpose article on "Mind".

  I tried to make it clear that there is no one precise definition that everyone agrees on, but you are right that this is a challenging point. There is significant overlap despite disagreements about the details, as is the case for most broad-concept articles. The sections "Fields and methods of inquiry" and "Relation to other fields" deal with the different approaches, including one paragraph on various religious perspectives on the mind (starting with The concept of mind plays a central role in various religions). Do you think that the discussion on religious perspectives should be expanded? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Under the heading of a broad understanding of Mind, it might be useful to make a short addition and to perhaps give another example or two of usage from the better known sources. I've given one example, though one or two further examples might be useful if they are from well known sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I could add sentences like A well-known quote from the bible that uses the word mind is "To love God with all one's heart, mind and soul"., but without a proper context, listing quotes like this sounds like trivia. It could work if quotes were presented as examples to reinforce a different point rather than for their own sake. I'll keep the idea in mind in case I encounter appropriate examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Mind as a concept in this context occurs as well in Hinduism and in Buddhist thinking; my thought was an example from each, to supplement the one I previously presented, would be useful if included together. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Our paragraph says: "Buddhists say that there is no enduring self underlying mental activity. They analyze the mind as a stream of constantly changing experiences characterized by five aspects or "aggregates": material form, feelings, perception, volition, and consciousness.[179] Hindus, by contrast, affirm the existence of a permanent self. In an influential analogy, the human mind is compared to a horse-drawn chariot: the horses are the senses, which lure the sense mind corresponding to the reins through sensual pleasures. The senses are controlled by the charioteer embodying the intellect while the self is a passenger.[180] In traditional Christian philosophy, mind and soul are closely intertwined as the immaterial aspect of humans that may survive bodily death.[181] Islamic thought distinguishes between mind, spirit, heart, and self as interconnected aspects of the spiritual dimension of humans.[182] Daoism and Confucianism use the concept of heart-mind as the center of cognitive and emotional life, encompassing thought, understanding, will, desire, and mood.[183]" The difficulty would be to find influential quotes from well-respected translations that use the word mind and directly illustrate a points made in the article. If you know of such quotes, I would be happy to implement the idea. The quote from the bible about love does not really illustrate the point in this paragraph about immaterial aspects in Christian philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Switching to the Science aspects of Mind under the Mind-Brain identity theory, then it might seem useful to compare Mind to the main modalities encountered in the study of the Brain as encountered in Science, Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, etc. Three or four main modalities of the Brain might be enumerated as Attention, Memory, Activation as in the Brain's executive system, and Language. The Mind-Brain identity theory then asks how Mind is related to Attention, how Mind is related to Memory, etc.

  It's possible that we are stumbling over terminological issues here. According to my understanding, the term "Mind-Brain identity theory" does not primarily refer to the study of the relation between mind and attention or mind and memory. As I know it, the term has a more limited meaning, referring to the theory that "states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain" ([3]) Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  The points you mention are discussed in the article, but not in the context of the Mind-Brain identity theory. The different fields of inquiry are discussed in the section "Fields and methods of inquiry". The different modalities/forms of mind are discussed in the section "Forms". The relation between the mental phenomena and the brain is discussed in the section "Brain areas and processes". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• No mention of Alan Turing in the article, though there is mention of the Turing test as a test of human intelligence and language capacity. Does he deserve mention? Should the article say more about Mind and the scientific measurement of intelligence (intelligence quotient's and other cognitive testing, etc)?

  I found a way to mention Alan Turing in the context of the Turing Test. That's a good idea about measurement. In the text discussing research methodologies in psychology, I added a footnote using IQ tests as an example. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• The closest sibling article on Wikipedia appears to be the Philosophy of Mind article, and it might be useful to have this discussed at a more thorough level than just mentioning that Mind is related to the Philosophy of Mind as is currently done when you mention it next to Neuroscience near the start of the article.

  I changed it from "philosophy" to "philosophy of mind" to make this relation clearer. The terms "philosophy", "philosopher", and "philosophical" are used at various points in the article where appropriate to indicate the relation. Do you think that more such indicators should be added? Balancing here is a difficult issue, but I'm not sure that philosophy of mind is significantly more important in this context than psychology. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Its evident that significant time has been put into the article and it would be useful to know if the main editor is planning to differentiate future articles on Mind into a version for the Arts, and for the Sciences, etc. There is already the Wikipedia Philosophy of Mind article, and a number of other sibling articles which are closely related. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have concrete plans, but it sounds like an interesting project. For example, one could take the basic layout of the paragraph on religious perspectives on the mind as a blueprint and expand it into an article. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It sounds good. Anthropological and religious perspectives if added would further balance the material already covered in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Religious and anthropological perspectives are currently covered in the paragraphs starting with "The concept of mind plays a central role in various religions." and "Anthropology is interested in". I added one more example from anthropology about the traditional beliefs in the Azande culture. I could add more perspectives if you think the current ones are not sufficient. Do you have specific ones in mind that are influential enough to be added? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Comments Part 2

• Wouldn't the article benefit from a Background section to cover what previous generations of scholars have seen as the main merits of the study of Mind over the centuries in a short stand alone section. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Since we already have a section for the different fields of inquiry, I added a few passages there to discuss the background of how each one evolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Here is a further set of sibling articles some of which do not appear in your See also list. Are all of these subjects covered in the article. Possibly some might be added.

• Consciousness
• Biological naturalism
• Emergent materialism
• Materialism
• Mind–body problem
• Monism
• Philosophy of mind
• Physicalism
• Presentism

• I added the relevant ones that are not yet linked in the body of the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• No Infobox or similar Navigation box in the article. Might one be adapted or used in this article to help navigate the many related sibling articles? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Good idea, I added a navboxes of the main fields of inquiry. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any of the navboxes in the article this morning, are you planning to bring them in later in the week? Can you link them here when you are done bringing them in? Separately, there were some more additions to the Part One comments from earlier in the week which I added when I started the Part two section, which you've largely addressed. Could you look at those comments. Your discussion of the Science of Mind looks fairly good. I'm still considering what to decide about the absence of a History section or a Background section, as a standalone section: your approach of mentioning these items contextually only and scattered throughout the article does not give a centralized discussion. Are there any options other than the current approach you've taken for either Background, or, History? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The navboxes were added in this edit. I tried it in Chrome, Edge, and Firefox: they are shown as expected for me in all browsers. We could check whether there is some kind of mixup that prevents them from being shown in your browser. Which browser are you using?

Concerning Background/History my thinking is roughly the following. Please let me know if you disagree. The topic of the article is the mind. The history of the mind and the academic study of the mind are two subtopics. The history of the mind is discussed in the subsection "Evolution" and the academic study is discussed in the section "Fields and methods of inquiry". The history of the academic study of the mind is a subtopic of the academic study of the mind and would be a subsubtopic of the mind. For this reason, I think it is not important enough to deserve a full main section per WP:PROPORTION and is probably better discussed in detail in child articles.

I hope I responded to all the recent additions to the Part One comments. Please let me know if I missed any. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the sidebar you'll see 'Branches' which shows "Mind" if you position it in non-hide mode, which would be a nice addition based on the broad subject of your article here. This is to Support your article per GrahamBeard and Articocean. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the sidebar is a good idea: philosophy is only one besides several other disciplines studying the mind and sidebars in the lead are generally discouraged per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Thanks a lot for the review and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Arcticocean

This is a review of the article writing and prose, from section to section. Fundamental concepts can be elusive and writing about them a challenge, so well done for producing a quality article.

The readable prose is 7,800 words which, in my view, is a little long on the long side for a technical topic in a general encyclopedia. As the sections are all distinct and of regular length, the total length is fine.

• Lead:
  • Traditionally, minds … contemporary discourse: This sentence was confusing for quite a few passes. If I've understood your meaning correctly, then try this word order: "more commonly understood in the contemporary discourse as capacities of material objects." I am also wondering if the sentence needs to be rendered into the singular, such as "The mind was often conceived": the switch into plural for this sentence only feels jarring.

    I implemented your suggestion and changed the sentence to singular. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Some characterizations … transforms information: The word choice of "private" feels imprecise and unclear: private from whom? It's explained in a body section but clearer terminology would improve the lead.

    I added a short explanation. It's a little longer now but it should still be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  • the development of the nervous system: Nervous systems as a concept are developing (evolving or emerging), is what you are saying, but the use of the singular makes it difficult to distinguish the nervous system of a given person from the concept of nervous systems. The second paragraph already jumps from issue to issue fairly rapidly, so it is easy in this lead to confuse or lose a reader through your grammar. I'd word this as "…the development of nervous systems…".

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Good otherwise.
• Definition:
  • Not prose-related, but I would be careful about claiming that the study of the mind is part of philosophy. The Pashler source is correct that the ancient philosophers studied the mind, but I think that doesn't necessarily make it part of philosophy. As our article notes, many disciplines historically formed part of the work of the philosophers; modern philosophy is something narrower.

    I changed "philosophy" to "philosophy of mind" to be more specific about the relevant branch of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Very good, otherwise.
• Forms:
  • It is a goal-oriented activity that often: Perhaps just "It is goal-orientated and often…"? Reminding the reader that thinking is an activity does not add much. This is already a very long sentence, too.
  • a symbolic process: Is it clear enough what 'symbolic' means here?

    I followed your suggestion and I also removed the part about the symbolic process to further shorten the sentence. This part is already explained in the last sentence of the paragraph starting with As a symbolic process, thinking is deeply intertwined with language... Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Theories of the nature of mind:
  • This view distinguishes … refers to a piano: These sentences (describing derivative intentionality) are difficult to follow. I think you are saying that the word or picture do not refer to a particular piano or a real piano, and perhaps you should edit refer to a piano for specificity.

    I reformulated the passage in an attempt to clarify derivative intentionality. I'm not sure if I succeeded since explaining it in a few sentences is challenging. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Relation to matter:
  • Property dualism is another view … the same individual: Individual is used twice in what I took to be two different senses (firstly to mean an 'individual entity' and again to mean 'a person')… Consider another word for the first instance of it, e.g. "distinct entities".

    In this case, either interpretation works. I reformulated the sentence to use the same expression from the discussion of substance dualism to make it more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Monism is not really explained as there is only one, very brief, sentence on it. If I’m correct, metaphysical idealists and neutral monists are forms of monism, but the hierarchy isn’t made clear, and readers are left thinking that monism has been mentioned once and then the sentence on metaphysical idealists is a move onto something else entirely. The sentence on monism is intended to be a mini topic sentence but it doesn’t really function as one.

    I tried to better connect the sentences to make the connection clear. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Non-human:
  • The separate treatment of human and non-human minds is very welcome and helps to make the adjacent sections less daunting.
  • There are a number of redirect links in this section which could be retargeted, e.g. type identity theory.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Mental health and disorder:
  • The paranoid personality disorder should not have a definite article.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Throughout there is a lot of middle voice in this article, e.g. The hindbrain … the forebrain could have been "Many biological functions associated with basic survival are the responsibility of the hindbrain and midbrain". Middle voice can make the prose feel a little flat and unengaging. This article probably does not fail to be "engaging" in the sense of the FA criteria, but I think there was room to move even further up our standard for excellence. The content, structure, balance, and pace of the prose are all excellent.

The prose becomes very good within the more technical sections. This perhaps is because mind is such a fundamental topic, so early discussion of it can feel wooly. I am not able to offer any specific recommendations for improvement on this point. This is a challenging but accomplished article. Well done! arcticocean ■ 10:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Arcticocean, I appreciate all the helpful comments! I'll keep your point about the middle voice in mind but it can be tricky to spot. Some of the difficulties in the early discussion come from the fact that researchers often don't agree on the details. As a result, one often has to resort to vague formulations or slightly complicated explanations to remain neutral. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). arcticocean ■ 21:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• "Minds were traditionally conceived as immaterial substances" I feel like this is more of an Abrahamic/Platonic concept than a universal "tradition". Lots of cultures or ancient thinkers leaned heavier into materialism. For instance, the Greek atomists believed that everything (including the mind) consisted of indivisible particles, and a lot of Asian traditions more closely intertwine mind with body Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I weaken the claim to not make it sound as if this was the only view. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Since the Forms section is essentially a list I wonder if making it bulleted might make it easier to digest? I didn't realize it's literally an expansion of the list in the first sentence until paragraph 3 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I thought about it but I'm not a big fan of lists and this would be a rather long list. I don't think a is necessary to get the main point across: to give the reader an understanding of diverse mental phenomena. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• You could stand to wikilink more, like you could put {{Main|Theory of mind}} at the top of the Theories of the nature of mind section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I found a few more wikilinks to add. "Theory of mind" is linked in the section "Relation to other fields" since it has a slightly different meaning in psychology than philosophical theories of the nature of mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Mental capacities.svg: CC0 (nom's own work of a concept)
• File:Müller-Lyer illusion - simple.svg: CC0 (nom's own work of a concept)
• File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png: CC0 (other's own work of text over white)
• File:Gray726-Brodman-prefrontal.svg: Public Domain (recreation and slight highlighting of an image in PD due to age)
• File:Turing test diagram.png: CC BY 2.5 (modification of a CC BY 2.5 SA licensed image, which was someone's own work of a concept)
• File:OCD handwash.jpg: Public Domain (released into PD by its author)
• File:1206 FMRI.jpg: CC BY 4.0 (taken from a CC BY 4.0 licensed book, which is mentioned in source, and the publisher in author) (terms do not match, and a specific page would be better too) (update-) (fixed these two issues)
  • (image attributes WP Commons, which shows it was transferred from en.wp, with the original author releasing it into Public Domain- though this might technically make it PD too instead of CC BY 4.0)
• File:Braininvat.jpg: CC BY 3.0 (has been checked by a WP commons reviewer to be properly licensed, correctly attributed)
• File:Phrenology1.jpg: Public Domain (PD due to age)

Phlsph7, File:1206 FMRI.jpg is taken from a book, which has the terms "nclude on every digital page view the following attribution: Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/anatomy-and-physiology/pages/1-introduction", which is not followed. Also, a specific page number is not given which makes it harder to verify. You should use a different image, or upload/correct this one, as the book is available digitally.(edit-did it myself) I trust that you will do it, and a semi-comprehensive read of the page does not show me any more issues, so it's a support from my side. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello DoctorWhoFan91, thanks for the image review and for taking care of the licensing details of File:1206 FMRI.jpg! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Shapeyness

Hi Phlsph7, hopefully you're not tired of my reviews by now! Some initial comments below:

So far, I'm not getting tired of your helpful and well-informed reviews! I hope you are not getting tired of reviewing either. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Following René Descartes' philosophy, minds were often conceived as immaterial substances or independent entities and contrasted with matter and body. Now they are more commonly seen as capacities of material objects. I'm not sure this is necessary in the definition section when similar ideas are repeated in the Mind–body problem section - this also leads to there being some repetition in the lead

  The point I was intending to make is a little different, but you are right that there is overlap. The idea was to clarify the ontological category (substance vs property) in layman's terms in the Definition section and leave the relation between mind and body to the Mind–body problem section. I reformulated the sentence to not mention the mind-body issue. Have a look if this is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Part of me also wonders whether the second paragraph in the definition section is needed given it is just contrasting mind with other concepts instead of giving a positive definition. But it looks like other reviewers haven't called this out and it doesn't take up too much space so I just wanted to bring this up as an optional thing to think over.

  It probably depends on how much the average reader already knows about these terms, which all come up later in the article. Since it is difficult to give a straightforward definition of the mind, I thought that showing how these terms overlap and differ may aid understanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is imagination limited to just mental images? Looking through the sources, they seem to mention images alongside things like ideas, situations and experiences. What is important seems to be that imagination creates something novel, apart from what has actually been experienced before.

  That's a good point, I reformulated the passage to widen the meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Some theorists distinguish between preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states depending on their accessibility to conscious awareness. The unconscious is covered, but not preconscious or subconscious. Do you think they are important enough to include in a sentence or footnote?

  It's a little tricky because there is no general agreement on these terms. I added a footnote to cover Freud's perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Mental states are often divided into sensory and propositional states I haven't seen things divided like this before, but it may just be due to lack of knowledge. I have seen the distinction between intentionality and qualia but not termed in this way. Looking at the sources briefly, I can't see where the reference to sensory states has come from, do you have a more specific quote? One worry I have is that sensations often have content, and states other than sensations often have a qualitative aspect or quale.

  I think this is just an alternative terminology. From Kim 2005 p. 607: Mental events or states seem to fall under two broad kinds. One is comprised of those involving sensory qualities, or *‘qualia’ ... The second class of mental states, called ‘propositional attitudes’ or ‘intentional states’. Swinburne 2013 p. 72 calls them sensory events while Lindeman talks of qualitative mental states. I changed it to "qualitative states" and added a footnote that some mental phenomena may belong to both types.

  Yeah I thought it must just be that I hadn't come across it even though it existed, by the way I think part of the reason I got confused is that the url included in the Kim source points to a different entry ("Mind" instead of "Problems of the Philosophy of Mind") Shapeyness (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, good that you caught this. I fixed the URL. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• But they do not have this kind of knowledge of the physical causes of the pain and may have to consult external evidence through visual inspection or a visit to the dentist. What do you think about adding a few extra words here to make it "But they do not have this kind of knowledge about non-mental phenomena such as the physical causes..." I think it makes the idea slightly more explicit, but appreciate it makes the sentence structure a bit more complicated.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Related (also very minor and very optional) meaning that others do not have this kind of direct access to a person's mental state "this kind of" could be cut to make this slightly leaner

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• This view distinguishes between original and derivative intentionality I found the explanation of this slightly less accessible, I think it could be improved by flipping the order of the explanation. Here is an example I came up with but this is just one suggestion: "According to this view, the ability of words and pictures to refer to things derives from the fact that they can evoke a mental state. In this sense, it is the mental states that have original intentionality, and words and pictures would not refer if divorced from linguistic conventions or visual interpretations."

  I implemented a reformulated version. Another reviewer also found this passage challenging so I hope this makes it clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• For example, part of the functional role of pain is given by its relation to bodily injury and its tendency to cause behavioral patterns like moaning and other mental states, like a desire to stop the pain. The general gist is clear, but I found the sentence hard to follow, especially following the preceding sentences

  I tried to simplify it. Have a look if the new version is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's a lot clearer! Shapeyness (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• like a diary or a calculator extend the mind's capacity to store and process information It took me a re-read or two to figure out what was happening grammatically here - maybe "such as when" instead of "like" or split into it's own sentence beginning "For example,..."? It could just be that I was reading it strangely.

  I split it into several smaller sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• We almost got all the way to the four Es of 4E cognition :) Maybe a note on embedded cognition to cover over the last one? (Completely optional)

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• More comments to come.

Chinese characters

Nominator(s): Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a writing system (really, a set of systems) used continuously in some form for over three millennia, facilitating some of the most ramified literary culture and communications technologies in human history. While all writing we know of has its origins in symbols that represent units of meaning instead of units of sound, Chinese characters are the only such symbols that are still used; all other systems have been replaced with fundamentally phonetic writing. To those used to the latter, they represent evidence of how differently writing can function. Really, I have little idea if I'm writing this blurb correctly, so if it's not helpful please let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Generalissima

One hell of a first FA, Remsense! Image licensing first up, and I'll look over prose later

• File:Hanzi.svg good
• File:Evo-rì.svg good
• File:Evo-shān.svg good
• File:Evo-xiàng.svg good
• File:Compound Chinese character demonstration with 好.webm good
• File:Comparative evolution of Cuneiform, Egyptian and Chinese characters.svg good
• (all the individual character files good im not listing all of those)
• File:Shang dynasty inscribed scapula.jpg good
• File:Shi Qiang pan.jpg good
• File:姓解 Digidepo 1287529 00000014(2) (cropped).jpg good
• File:永-order.webm good
• File:噹噹茶餐廳2021年7月初的午餐餐牌-tweaked.jpg good
• File:This Letter written by Mi Fei.jpg good
• File:監獄體樣本.svg good
• File:Chineseprimer3.png good
• File:Tale of Kieu parallel text.svg good
• File:SecretHistoryMongols1908.jpg good
• File:Chenzihmyon typefaces.svg good
• File:ROC24 SC1.jpg needs a United States PD tag (PD-1996 works)
• File:CJK 次 glyph variants.svg good

Alright, just the one to fix for images Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

I've added commons:Template:PD-1996 to commons:File:ROC24 SC1.jpg, that's the one required fix right? Remsense ‥ 论 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup! Support on images then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also, the only place I could see to add an image would be a page from the Shuowen Jiezi when you describe it - I feel that'd be useful for understanding their traditional classification Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've been mulling over this, and I think the issue is a scan of a definition wouldn't do much more for readers than show the visual layout. I was thinking maybe to use a quote box to provide a translated and annotated definition instead? Curious what you and others think of this. Remsense ‥ 论 07:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Arcticocean

This is a review of prose and writing from section to section, skipping some sections. For this Westerner with no knowledge of other writing systems, this was an excellent treatment of the subject.

• Lead: Effective as a mini-treatment of the whole subject. The prose flows well. Technical language is only used where necessary and to convey a meaning that could not otherwise be expressed. All jargon has been wikilinked.
• Development: Good, especially where the writing deploys concepts in one paragraph (e.g. proto-writing) and then incorporates that into subsequent paragraphs. This style of prose carries the reader along well and is highly engaging. The one improvement needed was an unexplained use of the term 'encode', which makes it slightly difficult to follow the next few sentences.
• Classification: This is a long and highly technical section. The prose is good throughout, but the structure or hierarchy of the section becomes clear only after the reading. Clearer signposting (outlining what you are about to deal with at the outset) could make it easier not to lose the reader.
• History:
  • In general, I prefer belief systems to be described in English's equivalent of the inferential mood. Thus Wikipedia would say "God is said to have rested on the seventh day", not "God rested on the seventh day". The problem arises with On the day that these first characters were created … be cheated. While I appreciate that the immediately preceding sentence makes the context clear, please consider amending.
  • Otherwise good.
• Structure: The prose here is particularly good, and the images and media are deployed to good effect.
• Reform and standardisation: Good.

You should be very proud of this work. arcticocean ■ 12:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much both for the kind words and the points of critique. I think you're totally right about § Classification, and I'm thinking about what I can do. As regards the mood thing, it is something I've also thought a lot about. In the most general terms, I dislike the idea of accidentally editorializing or coming off as unduly cynical or reductive when presenting what are (often) meant to be poetic or otherwise non-literal narratives. It can feel a bit like putting unnecessary scare quotes around words, I suppose? My rule has always been to trust the reader understands the narratological context, but your critique is one I appreciate and haven't heard expressed this way before. Remsense ‥ 论 12:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). arcticocean ■ 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Airship

Marking my spot. Ping if I don't comment by the weekend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

UC

A quick note to say that I am hugely impressed by this article: the clarity of its explanation and the level of polish are excellent, even forgetting that it is a first FAC. I am about halfway through: a couple of queries so far:

• leaving Japanese as the only major non-Chinese language still written using them: is it worth rephrasing slightly so that we don't imply that Japanese is always or usually written with Chinese characters?
• I'm not sure I understand the logic regarding giving (or not giving) the pronunciation of signs. In general, it's good not to make readers treat as text something which they can't vocalise. I assume that we don't give a pronunciation of 大鹿 because it might be different in different dialects/languages: but then we do give (部件; bùjiàn), which is surely dialect specific? Similarly, a few signs have Wiktionary links, but most don't: in general, I think the non-linked versions are more readable, and we don't generally link common words, but again this is more a question of whether there's an overarching principle in play.
• Make sure that transliterated Chinese names (like Shuowen Jiezi) go in transliteration templates, not simple italics, so that screen readers can parse them correctly.
• Per MOS:BIO, we don't generally include people's dates of birth and death in flowing text, though it might sometimes be appropriate to do so (e.g. if a source only dates a text to "the life of SoAndSo", it would be appropriate to write "the text was written during the lifetime of SoAndSo, who lived between 40 BCE and 43 CE").
• awareness of the 'six writings' model: this and similar should be double quotes (MOS:"): single quotes should only really be used for glosses (e.g. "The Spanish word casa ('house')").

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! In order:

• It is, at least as far as what I mean to communicate: normative Japanese texts of any length generally require the use of kanji. Do you think this meaning is unclear?
  • Would a long text be entirely written in Chinese characters, though? That's what I take away from the article sentence, and I don't think that's true, unless we're saying that non-kanji Japanese characters count as Chinese ones. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Nay, but I've made very sure not to express "entirely", though I suppose since mixed scripts are so rare it could do to be more specific about the Japanese case. How's that? Remsense ‥ 论 10:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

      I think it would help: the explanation in the relevant body section is clear and, I think, does a good job of simultaneously saying how strongly Japanese characters are derived from Chinese ones, and how important bona fide Chinese characters (kanji) are to writing Japanese, while not giving the impression that the Japanese writing system simply is Chinese characters. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

      Does the added bit do well? Remsense ‥ 论 11:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• In general, I've tried to omit aspects of characters that are not germane to what is being discussed to avoid clutter—大鹿 is in the context of characters being discussed for their semantics only, specifically excluding aspects of pronunciation, while 部件 is a specific vocabulary term, for which it would be expected per our MOS to provide a normative transliteration (i.e. pinyin)
• I go back and forth very much on whether it is useful to language-tag nondiacritical pinyin in running text—if you think it is so, I will happily oblige.
  • I think it is, mostly for the benefit of screen readers (I think the Wiki software also does some behind-the-scenes categorising work based on language tags). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    •  Fixed at least with what aren't really expected to be proper names in English. I'm not sure it's best to do it with every single name derived from Hanyu Pinyin, but if there are outstanding examples lmk. Remsense ‥ 论 10:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Given the broad but fairly connected nature of the history here, I thought it would be useful for the reader to have consistent temporal anchors. If you think it's not useful, I can absolutely pare these down.
  • I think we can say things like "William the Conqueror, who took the throne in 1066", "the nineteenth-century admiral Horatio Nelson", and so on -- it's not the temporal anchors as such as the specific practice of putting life dates in brackets, which the MoS discourages. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can do—though I fear that there are so many dates that seem anchoring in the article that attempting to reconstruct them inline may do significant harm to readability. Remsense ‥ 论 10:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• 'six writings' is the English gloss of 六书; what differentiates this from other vocabulary terms is that I've seen this one glossed a number of different ways, with none clearly most common.

Remsense ‥ 论 00:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

All very sensible. A couple of replies above; where I haven't made a comeback, I'm happy with your explanation and don't advise any further action. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Works cited are in alphabetical order, with consistent and proper formatting
• References are consistently sfn
• Barely any urls, hence no need of archiving
• Appropriate number and spread of references, no uncited sections

Due to the sheer number of refs, I will check the most common ones with partial previews available, till around 20 refs are reached-

• Qiu 2000(full book available): 4, 7, 16, 23, 26, 30, 38, 50, 55, 67, 70 (technically it just says the book will not use it due to everyone using diff def, not that it has fallen out of use), 83
• Handel 2019: 2, 8 (technically one def out of several listed), 46
• Norman 1988: 33, 141, 180
• Zhou 1991: 165(I do not see anything in it saying "Each of these languages are now written with Latin-based alphabets in official contexts.")
• Qiu 2000: 190

Remsense, I do see some issues in the source review, though the first two might be due to me not being that familiar with the topic. Could you explain and/or make changes for the three? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I will address ASAP and add additional cites if needed. Remsense ‥ 论 00:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There we are, hopefully that clears all three up. Thank you for your diligence. Also, it goes without saying that anyone who would like to verify against the sources can ask me to send review copies of the corresponding page ranges via email. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Kusma

Great to see this here! The article seems to have improved further since the GA review and looks really nice now. I'll do a full read through later, just some quick observations now:

• Phono-semantic compounds: this seems the only place where the pinyin is augmented by Cantonese jyutping. I would suggest to drop the Cantonese unless it is actually discussed.
• 劉德升 is given only in Traditional characters, not in Simplified (刘德升); is this deliberate?

More later! —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

My hero! Kusma is the one who held my hand through GAN and let me take an extended period to get this article 85% of the way to where it is now, for which I will be forever grateful.

• The point of the Jyutping is to illustrate that it is not only Mandarin for which the pronunciation has shifted beyond utility for these terms. Does the added clause make that more clear?
•  Fixed

Remsense ‥ 论 11:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think part of my issue with the Cantonese is that you never tell the reader that this is Cantonese in Jyutping. The other is that the Cantonese seems to be reasonably close to the Mandarin in these examples (茶 especially is one where Cantonese is similar to Mandarin, unlike the Hokkien tê that is famous from the etymology of tea) so I don't quite see the point. If you want to say "here's a variety of Chinese that generally isn't as far from Middle Chinese as Mandarin but the phonetic series still make no sense" you might need a better example?

  Is the further elaboration sufficiently helpful? Remsense ‥ 论 15:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• For Liu Desheng, another alternative is to {{ill}} to the terrible Chinese substub Liu Desheng; that way you could avoid adding characters for his name that aren't discussed as characters.

  I am happy to live with the extra characters here, just for consistency's sake. Remsense ‥ 论 15:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Layout: wouldn't proper Latin grammar be to write "scriptione continua" so it should at least be "in scriptio continua"? Perhaps just saying "without spaces or punctuation" would work better than another technical term?

   Fixed

• Encoding and interchange: "As of version 16.0, Unicode defines " could be nice to also date this statement? Most people know what year it is, but not what Unicode standard is the most recent one.

   Fixed

I seem to find only tiny things, usually where there can be reasonable disagreement. Excellent work (but I will keep my eyes open for more tiny things). —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so very much again. :) Remsense ‥ 论 15:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Bæddel and bædling

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've got a LGBT history and medieval history crossover for you guys. Bæddel and bædling are two obscure Old English nouns found in a couple of old glossaries and penitentials that refer to some sort of sexual or gender variance, but have absolutely no solid idea on what kind! If succesful, this FAC will be used for the WikiCup. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I will ping Urve and Tenpop421 since they have looked over and given advice on the article previously; no pressure to review, of course! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• File:Julius_Zupitza.JPG: if the author is unknown, suggest instead using PD-old-assumed rather than life+70. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you as always! Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't believe in FAC, but the racial implication of cariar discussed by Wade (2024) is more involved than our summary of it suggests. Sayers is fairly similar in assigning some kind of racialized/socially stratified inflection of bædling. I haven't poked around but I'd be surprised if scholars haven't discussed these terms' influence on the journal baedan's name (as they acknowledge). I think, too, that there needs to be a more comprehensive discussion of these terms' relationship with pederasty; I know the Online Etymology Dictionary has glossed bædling as pederast, for example, though whether that's a reliable source I'm unfamiliar with. Urve (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ah I wish I could through in a reference to the journal Baedan but none of the sources mention it so I don't think it'd be DUE. I added more context on cariar, and the stuff about the subaltern groups from Sayer. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I think there is more to say re pederasty and our text's suggestion that only Bell theorizes baedling's connection to it is somewhat misleading. Frantzen, who you already cite, suggests that the suffix -ling may indicate young age. Sarrazin's article should be cited if you can find it (which may require a librarian's help since I can't make sense of the citations to it I've found). Frantzen's argument re: bædling's connection to an oppressed state deserves more mention. I wonder whether any of the 70s-90s pederasty/so-called 'youth liberation' magazines, which are NOT digitized, have any discussion about the term?

  "While in some of the extant sources bædling seems to have denoted a passive partner in gay sexual intercourse, the reference to bædlings having sex with each other complicates this as a strict definition". ... how? The sentence that follows doesn't answer that. In any case, Frantzen argues that bædlings may correspond to intersex person precisely because bædlings could have sex with both men and each other. Frantzen's citation to a TLS article seems worthy of mention, and for that matter, why not discuss other newspapers/magazines (especially the gay press) that seem to have commented on the term?

  Honestly I'd probably lean oppose on comprehensiveness if I believed in this process. Urve (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Simply by way of example, see for example Davoud-Oghlou. Urve (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  To me, it seems beyond the bounds of DUE to dive into older material, especially 19th century works (which, if they're not being brought up in the modern scholarly literature, are probably not that helpful to begin with) or those 'interesting' periodicals of the 1960s/70s. I have searched for it in modern, more academically rigorous queer publications but have come up short beyond what I've cited. Until niche tumblr discourse gets academic coverage (and from what I have seen so far we're only a few years off from that), I don't think there's going to be room for coverage here beyond Old English philology.

  Now, that being said, I will try to incorporate a bit more from Frantzen. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Disappointing. It's undue to actually quote Sarrazin, cited in Liberman, but it's not undue to cite Wright and Meritt? Anything published in a gay circular is magically undue because it's not a 'modern, more academically rigorous queer publication' - an assertion based on, what, exactly? (I'm not talking about anything relating to tumblr; I have no idea what you're even referencing.) Urve (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's academic history. I have to either use professionally peer-reviewed sources, or self-publications by subject matter experts; and unless they were getting professional historians to write in the 70s underground periodicals I am not really going to be able to use those per WP:V. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

UC

A really interesting article. Brief comments for now:

• Suggest adding a pronunciation guide to the first sentence.
  • These guides now need to go into (round) brackets. Suggest that a respell would be helpful as well, since a reader who doesn't know how to parse æ in Old English won't be able to parse it in IPA either.
    • Good point, added. - G
• In the lead image caption, it would be helpful to translate homo delicatus.
• The body only talks about the OED in relation to its first edition, while the lead seems to imply that the citation and definition remain in the current edition.
• I think it would be helpful to give a sense of when the different scholars were writing: we variously quote people active today and those who died in the nineteenth century, without any real sense of which is which.
• Sayers's title defines "Bædling" as "sodomite": that would seem to clash with some of what we've mentioned in the article, and seem to be germane for comprehensiveness?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: There we go, got to all these! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A couple more:

• Both terms are connected to effeminacy and adultery, although bæddel is glossed as hermaphrodite: it sounds here as if this is always the case, whereas I think from the body this is a particular feature of one such glossary.
  • Clarified. -G
    • In although bæddel is glossed as hermaphrodite in one glossary, "hermaphrodite" needs double quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• propose alternate origins: alternative, when there's more than one.
  • Fixed. - G
• The Paenitentiale Theodori distinguishes men and bædlings: this text needs some kind of introduction in the lead, if only by date and rough geography. Likewise The Antwerp Glossary (many manuscripts/ancient texts are named for where they are rather than where they were made: cf. any number of Codex Oxoniensis manuscripts written in Constantinople).
  • Fair point! Clarified these. - G
• The term may have included people assigned female at birth who took on masculine social roles or to intersex people: missing the word referred between or and to, I think.
  • Fixed. - G
• While bæddel is generally associated with intersex people in the attested sources: is this quite right? We say that it's the case for the Antwerp Glossary, but I can't see any other examples here that explicitly link it with intersexuality.
  • Is a 'hermaphrodite' not inherently intersex? I added a cite from Wade about this just to clarify.
    • Yes, but that's in the Antwerp Glossary as well, isn't it? Do we have any other sources that explicitly link the word with intersexuality, as opposed to just being somehow unmanly? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  UndercoverClassicist Ohhh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it's only in the Antwerp Glossary. Rephrased Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• including molles 'soft person': molles is plural; the singular is mollis.
  • Oops! Thank you. - G
• During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scholars such as J. R. C. Hall and Ferdinand Holthausen have argued : needs to be a true past tense, as it's no longer the early C20th.
  • True. - G
• a 17th century Arthurian ballad in Scots mentions a Badlyng, which the scholar William Sayers identifies as "sodomite" in a 2019 paper: we seem to be talking about the person here, so identifies as a "sodomite" (I would link that term). Alternatively, "a word which the scholar..."
  • Fixed! - G

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you again for looking over this! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• One thing that strikes me while doing some pedantic copyedits: we don't actually give any sense of when, or for how long, these terms were used. If nothing else, could we explicitly say when Old English was spoken? I'd be interested to know if these terms cover the whole of OE, or if they pop up/die out at a known time.
  • @Generalissima: Did you see this one? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  UndercoverClassicist Ope, yes; I added some footnotes since it turns out the specific dating on a lot of these texts is uncertain, and none of them even reckon a guess at when the terms themselves in use. I just put the dates on when Old English in general was spoken. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Another read through with a view to supporting:

• A third gloss from the Harley Glossary, cariar, is difficult to interpret and possibly a reference to the Anatolian region of Caria. ... The reference to Anatolia in the glossary -- we seem to have promoted the Anatolia hypothesis from a guess into a fact in the space of three sentences. Suggest "the putative reference" or similar.
  • Done. -G
• The penitential also specifies that both adults and children can be bædlings, setting aside different punishments for bædlings of different ages.: can we say what those punishments were? I think it's germane to note whether we mean e.g. death or ten Hail Marys.
  • Clarified. -G
• Indicated by an association in the Cleopatra Glossaries: introduce this source, as we have the others.
• While bæddel is associated with intersex people in the attested glosses: sorry to keep beating this drum, but why is glosses plural here? Didn't we establish further up that there's only one gloss in play?
  • Two glosses in one glossary. - G
    • Aha. I'd make that explicit, personally. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• The term may have also referred to people assigned female at birth who took on masculine social roles, or (as with bæddel) to intersex people: another "promoted" hypothesis that now seems to have taken on the trappings of fact.
  • I'm a bit confused here, doesn't it already just say it's a possibility? -G
    • Ah - now you point it out, I can see that reading, but to me it's not the most natural. The "may have" seems naturally to govern "referred to", but not so naturally to apply to "as with...". Compare "John Smith may have (like Van Gogh) cut off his own ear": that implies that we known Van Gogh did it, and guess that John Smith might have done so. Perhaps amend to something like "as bæddel may also have done"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Sayers has an interesting line: "both OE and OIr ... exhibit a range of meanings from cognitive and mental deficiency to moral deficiency.". I've only got the first page on preview, but does this develop into something (that the word may have something to do with mental weakness/misdevelopment) that we can use?
• It sounds from Sayers like the *baitos hypothesis owes a lot to Xavier Delamarre, rather than being entirely S's idea.
• Anatoly Liberman, concurring with Coates on the etymological link to *badde, states that bæddel was formed from bad. While yfel was the standard word for "bad" during the Old English period, bad was established enough by the thirteenth century to become a common nickname (in the form bade).: as we've written it, this doesn't make a lot of sense, since in our formulation bæddel came about 300 years before bad. I think it would help to clarify when bad is first attested.
• The Dictionary of Old English gives no etymology for bædling, only tentatively defining it as "effeminate man" or "homosexual": does this not more naturally belong in the section above, since it doesn't make any connection/reference to "bad"?
  • Good point, moved. - G

Support from Crisco

• 'andreporesis, ie. man of both sexes' - ie. should be i.e.
  • Fixed! - G
• I'd probably link philologist on first mention
  • Good idea. - G

Honestly, all I've got. Makes sense, though to be fair my educational background is in literature with a dash of linguistics. Happy to support, as neither comment is all that major. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

An interesting and unexpected article. I cannot presume to comment on the substance, but here are a few minor thoughts on the prose:

• blue links – I think some readers would be glad of links for "philologist" and "patronymic".
  • Added. - G
• "the exact meaning of the terms (and their distinction, if any) are debated by scholars" – I have never been sure whether to use a singular or a plural verb for a sentence like this with the main subject out of the parenthesis and a subsidiary subject bracketed off. It looks a trifle odd as it is, but would probably look just as odd with a singular verb. I merely mention it and will say no more.
• "citing German philologist Julius Zupitza" – clunky false title such as you avoid later in the text. (And is his nationality relevant here?)
  • Fixed. - G
• "alternate origins" (and alternate definition and alternate etymologies later in the text) – wouldn't "alternative" (indicative of a choice between two or more things) rather than "alternate" (of two things, each following and succeeded by the other in a regular pattern) be the appropriate adjective here?
  • Good point, added. - G
• "Bædling is likely derived from bæddel" – "likely" looks a touch strange here; one might expect "probably".
  • I am always caught offguard by this regional English variation - "probably" sounds pretty informal to my ears, but I've heard "likely" is only used in specific contexts in British English! Anyhow, since British English is def. preferable here, fixed. - G
• "a connection with eunuchs, which were commonly associated with the Byzantine Empire" – I wonder about "which" here. Eunuchs were people, after all, and might be thought to qualify for "who" rather than "which".
  • Good point. - G
• "leading philologists such as Herbert Dean Meritt ..." – I had to have two goes at this sentence. I took "leading" to be an adjective rather than a participle until the penny dropped when I clocked the comma rather than a stronger stop. I wonder if "causing" or suchlike might be less susceptible of misreading.
  • Fixed. - G
• "The 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and the OED Online continue to support Zupitza's etymology, dismissing alternate etymologies from Celtic words as "out of the question", while also suggesting a possible origin from bædan." – I can't comment on the 1989 print version of the OED but I have access to the OED's online version. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place but on the Etymology page for "bad" I can't find anything to justify "dismissing alternate etymologies from Celtic words as 'out of the question'."
  • Oops mistake on my part; that line is only in the 1989 print edition. Rephrased. - G

That's all from me. I hope there's something of use in some of these comments. – Tim riley talk 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Tim riley: Thank you very much for your thorough review! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

All now fine as far as I'm concerned (and some useful late additions too such as the "hermaphrodite" explanatory footnote). More than happy to support promotion of this excellent article to FA. It isn't lavishly illustrated – and I'm sure can't be – but the prose is clear and a pleasure to read; the article seems balanced and is well and widely sourced; it meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 20:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• The caption of the first image, you need a cite for "Homo delicatus means a soft or effeminate man."
  • Added. - G

I have problems with this. The actual dictionary definition does not define Homo delicatus as an effeminate man. Instead you have a modern academic writing 350 years after the dictionary was published that when the term was used on a single, specific occasion 1,900 years prior to the dictionary being current it was understood to mean an effeminate man. Why should the dictionary definition mean what the words on the page means. Or change that part of the caption to something like 'It is believed that 1,900 years earlier Homo delicatus meant a soft or effeminate man. When effeminacy meant something rather different.

• Fair enough. I just removed the image since a) it's from a later time period than we're talking about here, and b) the other sources don't touch on that dictionary's definition for it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly more later. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• "bæddel is defined as "hermaphrodite" in the two surviving glosses". "the two surviving glosses" implies that they were the only glosses to survive. Is that correct?
  • Yep. - G
• "The early medieval penitential Paenitentiale Theodori". "penitential" is unlikely to mean much to most modern readers. Could you add a brief in line explanation?
  • Good idea - added. - G

I'm not seeing it. Am I being slow?

Gog the Mild not slow - I just added the definition to the first mention of penitentials in the very first paragraph. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I was looking at the "penitential" next to Paenitentiale Theodori. D'oh! And after the first use in the main article?

Gog the Mild Oops, got to that too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• "early medieval" is a wide range, I understood the Paenitentiale Theodori to be more closely dated than that. And you don't date it at all in the main article.
  • The sources were vague about this so I went into another source about it by Fulk and added a footnote explaining it Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• "No reference is made to the word in the late Medieval period". Perhaps insert a "known" or similar?
  • Done. -G

Nicely written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you very much! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Just one come back above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MS

Lead

• Fine as it is. Just one minor comment-"philologist" could be delinked but I suppose you consider it to be a non-common occupation (and hence linked it).
  • It's a bit borderline, but I prefer to air on the side of avoiding confusion with links. -G

Definition

• -

Etymology

• Writing in 1988, Richard Coates... Coates could be described as "the linguist" here for clarity and concision.
  • Done. -G

That's all from my end Generalissima. MSincccc (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• And responded! @MSincccc: Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Generalissima It is a fine article and was a great read. I would be happy to extend my support to its FAC nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems consistent. Is Anatoly Liberman a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think he counts as a subject matter expert here - his University of Minnesota page says he specializes in Germanic philology, medieval languages, and etymology, and he's recently had a book on etymology published by OUP. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

45th Chess Olympiad

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about an international team chess tournament in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Budapest, Hungary in September 2024. The article was reviewed and subsequently improved in the previous FA nomination, but it did not receive much traction by reviewers and was eventually archived without promoting the article. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "programmes run by FIDE Commission for Women's Chess" -> "programmes run by the FIDE Commission for Women's Chess"
• "Overall, India players won" -> "Overall, Indian players won"
• "The main venue of the Chess Olympiad was SYMA Sports" -> "The main venue of the Chess Olympiad was the SYMA Sports"
• "Despite that the event was not officially" -> "Despite the fact that the event was not officially"
• "Each city interested to host the event" -> "Each city interested in hosting the event"
• "unconditional support to the event." -> "unconditional support for the event."
• "and re-open the bid after the Belarusian" -> "and reopen the bid after the Belarusian"
• "half-way between the Puskás Aréna" -> "halfway between the Puskás Aréna"
• "were prohibited to leave the playing hall" -> "were prohibited from leaving the playing hall"
• "and President of Hungarian" -> "and President of the Hungarian"
• "In this regard, FIDE Commission for Women's Chess" -> "In this regard, the FIDE Commission for Women's Chess"
• "support for preparation of women's teams" -> ""support for the preparation of women's teams
• "In addition, FIDE Commission for Women's Chess" -> "In addition, the FIDE Commission for Women's Chess"
• That's all I've got, if these are dealt with then I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I've improved the article in line with your suggestions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Edwininlondon's comments

Glad to see this back for another attempt. With fresh eyes I read the article again. My comments:

• current world number one Magnus Carlsen --> we have number 2 for Nakamura. Consistency needed. I would spell it out, so it's in line with "top ten"
• as "seminal moment in chess history" --> as a "seminal moment in chess history"
• I'm no specialist in hyphens and can't figure out MOS:HYPHEN, but I see "from the top ten players according to the FIDE rating list" as well as "who were both among the top-ten rated players in the world". Can both be correct?
• Dana Kochavi as a reserve player had the best performance of all players in the tournament with a rating of 2676 --> this was already mentioned in the previous paragraph
• warning messages by the IOC --> spell out IOC and link (remove later link)
• the Promotional activities paragraph seems excessively long. Perhaps break up and/or trim.
• CEO of Chess.com Daniel Rensch --> I believe his title is Chief Chess Officer
• the Sanctions against Russia and Belarus section seems disproportionally long. Would it not be better to fork this off into its own article? Or see if some of the background can be cut.
• one-two days --> one to two days
• winning less votes than Jorge Arias Bouzada --> winning fewer votes than Jorge Arias Bouzada

I'll do a spot check of sources tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional review. I've taken care of all suggestions. As for the "Sanctions against Russia and Belarus" section, I moved much of its content to the newly created article documenting the concerns and controversies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Spotcheck:

• #74 ok
• #52b does not seem to cover "even though they were not among the main pre-tournament favourites"
• #3 seems a personal blog and therefore not FA quality. Plus the relevant text seems to be copied from "Árpád Földeák's book on the Olympiads". #4 #7 and #10 therefore also need to be addressed
• #5 ok
• #14 ok
• #23 ok
• #58 source Guardian is missing
• #136 also missing source. Maybe check all references if any more need source
• #61 ok
• #59 does not seem to mention the points, so for 59a ref 52 needs to be added
• #36 is a bit too much of a straight copy paste of the source
• #38 ok
• #55 ok
• #50 title is given in Camel Case, unlike other titles. And it doesn't seem to cover the claim "Hungary's first team had the ninth highest pre-tournament average rating" Edwininlondon (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced OlimpBase with books as more reliable sources, made corrections in the other sources you noted and went through all references to check for missing parameters (there were few missing sources and one missing access date). Regarding the titles, only those by Chess.com are in upper camel case, whereas all others are in lower camel case. Do you prefer converting all to lower camel case?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the only thing that matters is consistency. I would change the chess.com ones. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I've changed them so all are now in lower camel case.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I spotted a few more issues with the sources and fixed them (e.g. publisher should have been FIDE I believe, not Budapest 2024). Please check and revert if necessary. Overall, I believe this article to meet the criteria, so I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Alt text shouldn't duplicate caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've shortened the alt text so that it doesn't duplicate the caption.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Licancabur

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in the Central Andes, which plays a major role in the local culture and religion. The Inca build a sanctuary at the top, which also features a crater lake. PS: There has been a suggestion to move references to the end of sentences. I really prefer them to be the way they are, at least until the FAC closes; multiple references per sentence make it so much harder to verify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. I did a pre-FAC review on the talk page and I think the article is FAC-quality. I would suggest removing the sentence "Lascar erupts every few years", which seems unconnected to the article, but that doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Media and support by Crisco 1492

• All images are correctly licensed. Captions are correctly formatted. Some issues with ALT text:
  • Infobox image has no alt text

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • "alt=Vegetation is sparse near the volcano" - Does not describe the content in a manner that helps people who need alt text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Mm, this image is in the section on vegetation. Expanded a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Prose review to follow — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• current conditions at its lakes resemble those on former lakes on Mars - "Conditions ... on ... lakes" sounds awkward. Would an "of" construct work better?

  Just one word? Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Annual mean precipitation reaches 360 millimetres (14 in) decreasing to 200 metres (660 ft) at its base - Missing a comma after (14 in), by the looks of things

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Puna tinamou doesn't need to be capitalized, per the article

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Liolaemus audituvelatus, Liolaemus barbarae, Liolaemus constanzae, Liolaemus fabiani and Liolaemus puritamensis - As these are all in the genus Liolaemus, any opposition to abbreviating to L. on subsequent mentions?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not a formal source review, but I see [41][19]; worth having a look to see if any refs are out of order.

  There are, but it's probably one of the last things to do before closure (in case edits during FAC rearrange it). I'll make a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• The preservation of Inca ruins in the summit implies that it has been inactive for 600–1000 years - Could be misread as "summit has been inactive". Perhaps "The preservation of Inca ruins in the summit implies that the volcano has been inactive for 600–1000 years"

  Hmm. Technically speaking, this interpretation would be more volcanologically accurate than the source's; many volcanoes are active only in certain portions of the edifice. Still, this one has few flank vents; I'll change it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• 70 metres (230 ft) long public square. - Missing the adj=on for this convert template.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Inca is pipelinked to Inka people; is that deliberate?

  No, corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• The first documented ascent was by Severo Titichoca in November 1884. - Might be worth better qualifying this; the first documented ascent by a named individual, by a non-Inca, or...? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I tend to think that "documented" is enough of a qualifier, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks. Looks good. Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "a crater lake which is among the highest" -> "a crater lake that is among the highest"
• "the Inca or the burial of an Inca king" -> "the Inca, or the burial of an Inca king"
• "cauri "mountain"." -> "cauri mean "mountain"."
• "Bolivia, Chile and Argentina," -> "Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina,"

  I don't think this comma is necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• "across Portezuelo Chaxas mountain pass" -> "across the Portezuelo Chaxas mountain pass"
• "depth is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body" -> "deep is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body"

  Isn't here the noun correct? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• "basement in southeast direction" -> "basement in the southeast direction"

  Kinda think that this might suggest the cuts are only southeast of the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ping me when completed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: Done except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Notes by nominator

Putting a note for myself to put refs into numerical order. I'll do after this passes so that the order isn't scrambled again by edits during the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think Chaxas (volcano) should be linked at one of the mentions

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Annual mean precipitation reaches 360 millimetres (14 in), decreasing to 200 metres (660 ft) at its base" - something has gone wrong here; I highly doubt that the volcano receives 660 feet of precipitation each year at its base

  Tyop fxdei. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• "and the mountain vigorously defends against violations of its summit" - I think this should be attributed to whatever culture(s) held this belief; it's a bit of an odd thing to have in wikivoice

  The sauce does not explicitly name who holds this legend; I figure it's the local one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  How about "and according to legend the mountain vigorously defends against violations of its summit;"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Figueroa, Oscar A.; Deruelle, Bernard (September 1996). LICANCABUR, AN ANDESITIC VOLCANO OF THE SOUTH-CENTRAL ANDES (PDF) (Report)." - has this source been formally published? If so, it should have a publisher listed

  It's something named "Third ISAG"; I dunno, a conference? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 22:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 17:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

Lead

• "Licancabur formed from Pleistocene ignimbrites". Nowhere in the article does it claim that Licancabur consists of Pleistocene ignimbrites. The only mention of ignimbrites at the volcano is "At the volcano, the basement is covered by ignimbrites" with no mention of the Pleistocene.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Volcanic history

• "Three generations of lava flows". Do you mean three lava flow units?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• "There are no known historical or Holocene eruptions" contradicts with the introduction which claims the volcano has been active during the Holocene.

  Cut out that bit. Since the lake level highstands (presumably correlated to Lake Tauca) postdate the ice ages, it's probably still correct to say that it was active after the ice ages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  What ice ages are you referring to? The ongoing Quaternary glaciation is considered an ice age. If you mean after the Last Glacial Period that's still during the Holocene. Volcanoguy 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, meant that we don't have any precisely dated Holocene eruptions. The date is about lake deposits, and it proves that Licancabur was active after that date, but it doesn't give a date for the eruption itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  The GVP gives the last known eruption of Licancabur as "unknown". Surely that could be incorporated into the article somehow. Something like "Licancabur shows credible evidence of having been active during the Holocene, but the age of the last eruption is unknown." or "Although Licancabur shows credible evidence of having been active during the Holocene, the age of the last eruption is unknown." Volcanoguy 21:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I put something, but now there are two "activity"'s in a row. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  If Licancabur was last active during the Holocene it should say so rather than "active after the ice ages" (the article body doesn't mention an ice age). Volcanoguy 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Archaeology and religious importance

• "the mountain vigorously defends against violations of its summit". How?

  Legend does not quite explain this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That's all I can see to comment on. I've nominated Tennena Cone for FA. Volcanoguy 22:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look, although I wonder if this might give the appearance of improper quid-pro-quo reviews; I recall these are contentious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, just saw this and thought I would add my two cents, having seen the discussions at WT:FAC about this in the past. It's not a problem in principle to link to one's own FAC, or for two people to review each other's FACs. The important point is that there's no obligation to do so, and as a result the system assumes good faith on everyone's part. Having an obligation would make it tempting to do vacuous supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Volcanoguy 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "A 400–500-metre (1,300–1,600 ft) summit crater". 400-500 m deep, high, wide?
• "A 400–500-metre (1,300–1,600 ft) summit crater containing Licancabur Lake, a crater lake that is among the highest lakes in the world, caps the volcano." I am struggling to parse this. Perhaps break it into two sentences?
• "and it has been active after the ice ages." May be a little more comprehensible as 'and it has been active in the past XX thousand years'?

  Did something, although I dunno if WP:CALC lets us use the Law of superposition here to conclude that it was active during the past 13,000 years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it does. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Eh, remembered that Holocene falls int

• "dated to 13,240 ± 100 BP". BP in full at first mention.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Did these things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• "and can be seen from San Pedro de Atacama." Why is this significant (eg, is San Pedro de Atacama a large settlement)? And how far is that?

  34km or thereabouts; SPdA is the main city in the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "while current conditions at its lakes resemble those of former lakes on Mars." This looks to me as if it needs an 'is believed to' or similar inserting.

  I confess I am not sure myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Licancabur is a 1.5-kilometre-high (0.93 mi) and 9-kilometre-wide (5.6 mi)". Both conversions, especially the first, seem to demonstrate a false precision. And "The flows are 10-to-50-metre-thick (33 to 164 ft) block lavas".

  It is. I think there is a format for the convert template to suppress this false precision, but I don't remember what it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "The summit, 5,916 metres (19,409 ft) in elevation,[25][d] is capped by a". The summit can't be "capped" by anything, or it wouldn't be the summit.

  Found a better word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Lascar erupts every few years." Could Lascar be introduced.

  Added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "The volcano is on the edge ..." This is a new paragraph, which volcano is being referred to?
• "The volcano is on the edge between the Altiplano and the Salar de Atacama basin." Being both on the edge and between doesn't work. Do both of those features have edges? Or do you mean 'The volcano is midway between the Altiplano and the Salar de Atacama basin.'

  Both done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "the melting of altered oceanic crust". What does "altered" mean?

  Source does not quite specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Give the depth of the mantle wedge.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Magma mixing, assimilation of continental crustal rocks and fractional crystallization of amphibole and garnet would explain trace element patterns." Would explain, or does explain?

  I confess I am not sure myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "The fauna includes birds". Are the three varieties named the only ones commonly found on Licancabur?

  The ones this source mentions, at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "In Chile, there were plans to create a protected area including Licancabur and El Tatio". There were, or there still are?

  Were, apparently, I don't see any sauce mentioning progress [4][5]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "It includes multiple structures with mostly semicircular or rectangular shapes and a ceremonial platform". This reads as if all of the constructions have ceremonial platforms; is that what you want to say?

  No, and I don't read it that way - one ceremonial platform, multiple structures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "capacocha". Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should be within langx templates, not just in italics.

  Apparently that template does not let me link capacocha? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have done it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "along which there are further Inca structures[106] from which Tambo de Licancabur was visible". "along which ... from which ..." could we have some variety.

  That was a tough one; did something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• "and is to this day used in culturally important events". The most you can say is 'and is used in culturally important events as of 2024' - assuming there is a sufficiently recent source.

  Unfortunately no; this is a situation where the Signor–Lipps effect applies to sources.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. As a matter of Wikipedia policy you can't say that something is happening today. And just in FA terms, is there a HQ RS stating that it is being "used in culturally important events" today? And is it in the article? That's why you need to tweak it.

@Gog the Mild:I see, I was thinking that "to this day" is often a figure of speech for recent times, not literally 16 January 2025, but tweak applied. Keeping such claims up-to-date is a hassle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) That's it from me. Nicely written. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, when you wrap up my last outstanding comments could you give me a ping? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Dusky dolphin

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So I brought this article to GA status over ten years ago. In past couple weeks, I've made some changes to it, including adding more information and sources. I now leave it to you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Jens

• It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray – how can this possibly under debate, when there are nomenclatural rules? And nothing is mentioned later on that he might not have described it.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot from a specimen collected off the coast of Tasmania two years before his own classification – the key question (regarding priority of names) here is when this dolphin was described, right? Why is this not mentioned?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, – its the current name, not just "another", right?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• from stuffed skin – "from a stuffed skin"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons – this meaning of "though" is new to me, but I'm not a native speaker.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray in 1828 from stuffed skin and a single skull shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum. Gray first described the species as Delphinus obscurus and reported that the animal was captured around the Cape of Good Hope by a Captain Haviside (often misspelt "Heaviside") and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons in 1827. – This whole paragraph is a bit low quality. It doesn't really go in-depth about the first description (I would definitely look-up and cite the first description itself, too). Also, it says shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum and in the next sentence, repeats that very same information.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• before his own classification – "classification" should be "description"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• link "described" to species description

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• The dusky dolphin was reclassified as Prodelphinus obscurus in 1885 by British naturalist William Henry Flower, before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, from American biologist Frederick W. True in 1889. – I feel this lacks context, and you did not even link to those genera mentioned, and do not explain what this means for its relationships.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• A 1999 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene indicates that the genus Lagenorhynchus, as traditionally conceived, is not a natural (monophyletic) group. – Related to my point above, clearly lacks context; you never explained how that genus was traditionally conceived, and you do not even mention which species it now contains, apart from the dusky dolphin.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• A 2006 finds that the dusky and the Pacific white-sided dolphin form the sister group to the (expanded) genus Cephalorhynchus. – Again, context: You have to explain what "expanded" means here, it is completely meaningless for me, even though I think that I know something about phylogenetics.

removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – But the two species are already united in the genus Lagenorhynchus? Why is a new genus name required to "accomodate" them?

Changed wording. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• are moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias – should explain what Sagmatias was, and why it fell in disuse.

The source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested – "suggested" means that these identifications are uncertain? Why is that?

Based on photography LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – The study is from 2006. Is this up-to-date?

Changed wording LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• The following cladogram is based on Banguera-Hinestroza and colleges (2014) – "colleges"? Colleagues? Link "cladogram"? Is this a genetic or morphological analysis?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose – I only went through the first four paragraphs, and just too many issues show up. Has this been at peer review? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It has not been peer reviewed. That draws hardly anybody. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, you now removed a lot of content instead of adding context. Thanks for adding the year of description for D. supercilious, but what I don't get: How can it be a "junior synonym" when it was named a year earlier? That would make it a senior synonym, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Clarified. I removed content that was clearly causing confusion and simplified it. The point is, genetic evidence does not support the traditional Lagenorhynchus species being one unique grouping. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Still not clear to me. According to Synonym (taxonomy), the earliest published name is called the senior synonym, while the later name is the junior synonym. The earlier name cannot be the junior synonym. You give two sources for this; I could only access the first, which did not mention junior synonym here, but it does say that, apparently, the first description was based on several skins (so you took my suggestion without checking what the sources actually say), and it also speaks of several skulls, not just one skull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I clarified further. The second source mentions the junior synonym. Please don't accuse me of not checking the sources. I checked the second source. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the inaccuracy with the skin/skins, and only wanted to say "don't trust what I say, always double-check with the source". Now you say "skin" again but shouldn't it be plural? Maybe "from stuffed skins with skulls", since the skulls were apparently inside the skins, and from the same individuals? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack, could you look at it again? I make changes to the rest of the article and two other users have concluded their reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you address my concern about the taxonomy section not being up-to-date? For example, why show a 2014 cladogram when a much newer one [6] is available? You say that A 2019 study has proposed that the dusky dolphin, together with the Pacific white-sided dolphin, hourglass dolphin, and Peale's dolphin be moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias, but without information if that proposal was accepted or rejected by subsequent studies. The paper I just cited says "Lagenorhynchus, now included within the genus Sagmatias"; this seems to be uncontroversial by now, so why do you still keep it in the genus Lagenorhynchus? For example, the Inaturalist link in the taxon identifiers [7] links to the inactive taxon since they already moved to Sagmatias obscurus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Because many post-2019 papers still use the traditional name, including cites 45 and 54. as well as this, this, this and this. I requested a new cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, will take a look at the rest once time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

brachy08

hi! im doing yet another FA review (i have no experience with animal-related articles, so extra points for that)

• However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826 based on a specimen near Tasmania. → However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826, based on a specimen near Tasmania.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested based on observations and on photographic evidence, including with a common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• The teeth number between 108 and 144. Missing an is.

Not needed. You can use "number" that way in the present tense like "they numbered over 50 people" in the past tense

Clarified. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• In Kaikōura Canyon, New Zealand, group size can reach 1,000 dolphins, while in Admiralty Bay, they peak around only 50 animals. Seems a bit inconsistent (dolphins and animals)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Whistling are is more common when dusky dolphins mingle with other dolphin species such as common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• The dusky dolphin is listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international co-operation organised by tailored agreements. → The dusky dolphin is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international cooperation organised by tailored agreements.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an extra period at the end of the sentence brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Images are all properly licensed/free work. Missing ALT text tho

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

overalls

• Mostly a good read, will leave the source review to someone else. for now, you have my support.

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Dusky_dolphin_size.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this diagram? Ditto File:Cetacea_range_map_Dusky_Dolphin.PNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Removed both. I already requested a new range map at Map workshop. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Gray classified D. superciliosus as a junior synonym of his D. obscurus. Gray doesn't mention a "junior synonym" - but when citing Lesson & Garnot he marks the reference with question marks. See:

• Gray, J.E. (1844). "On the Cetaceous Mammals". In Richardson, John; Gray, John Edward (eds.). The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Erebus and Terror, Under the Command of Captain Sir James Clark Ross, During the Years 1839-43. Vol. 1: Mammals and Birds. London: E. W. Janson. pp. 13-53 [37].
• Gray, J.E. (1850). Catalogue of Specimens of Mammals in the Collection of the British Museum. Part 1: Cetacea. London: Trustees of the Britsh Museum. pp. 107–108.

I take this to mean that without a physical type specimen Gray cannot be certain of its identity. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I saw these in Kaikoura, one of my favourite places on earth, in 2011, along with a couple of sperm whales. Also seven albatross species among the many seabirds. I fixed a couple of obvious typos as I read. I can't see many major issues, but some nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure in lead if "genetically" would be better preceding "very closely", leave it to you

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• with the most fit being able to catch her and reproduce.—not sure "with" is needed

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• link taxonomy, sister species, blowhole

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Its size can vary between populations—varies

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• high amounts of immigration and emigration.—amounts looks odd, perhaps occurrence?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• They are generally coordinated hunters.—last subject mentioned was common fish species, so they isn't correct here

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to readers to have Persistent organic pollutant in full rather than just the acronym

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 3 Spicilegia Zoologica is correctly italicised on the book title page, so should be Roman in the otherwise italicised book title

I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the first page of Grey's text, he has "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals." with the Latin correctly italicised, and for good measure in the preamble that follows he mentions two other texts with Latin names, both italicised. The convention is that when text is italicised because it's a book or journal title, anything that's already in italics should be printed plain, so it should be "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals.". Similarly, if the species occurred in a publication title, it would be reversed to "dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) " Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 5 livraison, perhaps gloss at first use as (part)?

I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 12, ref 34, genus should be in italics in both

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No other queries, will support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• "The dusky dolphin has a discontinuous range" what exactly does the source say? I only have access to the first edition (from 1998) but I feel like it'd be more appropriate to juxtapose this with the subspecies unless something major changed in 17 years Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  "They occur in apparently disjunct populations in the waters off..." LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I was more getting at maybe, "the [dusky] dolphin has 3 recognized subspecies: [A] found in [1], [B] found in [2], and [C] found in [3]" and it's implied that, since they're different subspecies and the locations are pretty far apart, the range of the species is discontinuous. Since subspeciation is probably the focal point of any discussion of the fragmentation in global distribution Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, (there may not be but) are there any ideas how the species got to all of these places if they don't travel across open ocean? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

They did cross the open ocean in the distant past or they lived in the open ocean and became more and more adapted to coastal regions as this implies. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Under the current classification. dusky dolphins from Argentina are considered to be the same subspecies as ones from NZ but not Peru. So no, I cannot described the range based on subspecies. It would be disjoined. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• "but is not currently accepted" by whom? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)