Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
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: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

[edit]
How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

[edit]
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • 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.


Shortcut

Nominations

[edit]

Pari Khan Khanum

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most famous princess from the Safavid dynasty of Iran, a cunning figure deeply involved in two succession crises, through which she was able to eliminate two of her brothers and was only defeated at the end because of the interference of another powerful politicking lady. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
General
  • "However": the word occurs six times in the present text. It is generally an unnecessary word, but where you feel compelled to use it you must use a stronger stop than a comma in "Pari Khan was requested to succeed her brother, however she refused the offer" and "She ordered the officials to remain in Qazvin and wait for Mohammad's arrival, however, Mirza Salman Jaberi, the former grand vizier...". (And "but" would be better as well as shorter.)
    • Reduced the number of However and replaced them with But
  • When a word such as "harem" is familiar in English you either don't want the language template at all or should add "italic=no" at the end of the template, and I'd say the same goes for "tomans" as our Wikipedia article on that topic doesn't italicise the word, and it is in the OED unitalicised.
    • Done
Other points
  • "wrote five eulogies in her praise" – can one write eulogies that are not in praise?
    • Amended
  • "her assistance and favour was coveted" – two nouns but a singular verb.
    • Deleted one verb
  • "Mohammad Khodabanda, was blind" – but in the lead you say he was "almost blind" [my italics] – not the same thing.
    • Amended
  • "due to his Georgian maternal origin" – the article seems to be in BrE, and although in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
    • Amended
  • "Afterwards, per Pari Khan's request" – the dictum "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. A simple "at" instead of the clunky "per" would improve the prose.
    • Replaced with 'at'
  • "read a khutba" – I think it would be a kindness to your readers to add an inline explanation of the term (as you do for "takhallus" and "ghazal") rather than obliging them to click away from the present article in search of explanation.
    • Added an explanation
  • "Ismail may have also been planning to kill her, evident from a letter" – this sentence doesn't quite work. In the first place, I'm not sure "evident" and "may have been" sit happily together, and in the second, the prose reads oddly: something on the lines of "It appears from a letter sent by Pari Khan to Ismail that he may have also been planning to kill her" might be smoother.
  • "the influence of Pari Khan, causing them to openly oppose Pari Khan" – infelicitous repetition of the name; I suggest a pronoun the second time.
  • "Pari Khan had an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 tomans" – this seems to me pretty meaningless without some attempt to convey inline how much 10,000 tomans were worth at the time. There are many ways of addressing this sort of point: a comparison with the central government's annual income, for example, or with the typical income of someone of the period, or the cost of building a warship – anything you can reliably use as a comparator.
  • "only one poem is proven to be written by her" – if we are in BrE, you want "proved", rather than the American (and Scottish) "proven".
  • "Tahmasp I considered poetry as an antithesis to his piety" – were there other antitheses? If not, I'd replace the indefinite article with a definite one. And the usual preposition for "antithesis" is "of", rather than "to" (and personally I'd knock out the "as" as well).
  • "a poet from Kashan who was awarded with the title malek al-sho'ara" – "with" seems superfluous here.
  • "identified by Iranologist Paul E. Losensky" – crashing false title, such as you very sensibly eschew elsewhere.
  • " a 'brave martyrdom' ... 'princess of the world and its inhabitants' ... 'the Fatima of the time'." – only single quotation marks?
  • "The presence of these two women speak of other smaller female influence" – singular noun – presence – but plural verb – speak.

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 11:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apt. (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lililolol (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a South Korean song titled 'Apt' by South Korean singer Rosé and American singer Bruno Mars. Lililolol (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Oppose per WP:FACR 1a, 4.

  • The first paragraph of the commercial performance section has 14 sentences, making it difficult to follow. The third paragraph is organized oddly, with data for UK, US, Canada, and Brazil all included with no apparent connection, and countries where it went number 1 like UAE and Switzerland aren't even given in the section?
  • Listing Global Exl. US data when it already charted on Global 200 (see WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS) feels superfluous. There is a lot of intricate data, like "achieved 207.5 million streams and 17,000 sold worldwide in its second week and claimed the sixth-biggest streaming week ever, while on the Global Excl. US, it earned 187 million streams and 12,000 sold outside the US" is a lot of detail for something (second-week chart performance) which is basically irrelevant and rarely mentioned in song articles to begin with. Likewise, "On the chart dated January 11, 2025, the song re-entered the top ten at a new peak of number five with 19.7 million streams, 30.6 million in airplay audience and 6,000 sold" – just because Billboard lists this data doesn't mean it needs to be republished in a Wikipedia article which is supposed to summarize.
  • There is no attempt at summary in the cultural analysis section. Five paragraphs of each critic's thoughts is not an engaging read.
  • Background and promotion section reads a bit like WP:PROSELINE, with consecutive sentences starting with "In August 2024", "In September", "On 16 October"

This is a sample of issues. I would recommend waiting a bit until the song has died down from the charts so information can be compiled better. Heartfox (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar North

[edit]
Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the video game developer Rockstar North, previously known as DMA Design. Founded in 1988, it has been a cornerstone of the British and Scottish video game industries for decades, notably creating the Lemmings series in 1991 and Grand Theft Auto a few years later. A studio for Rockstar Games since 2001, it still is the principal GTA developer, most recently making Grand Theft Auto V. Because of the studio's rich history, I seek to make it the second FA in the Rockstar Games GT I have been working on for some time. The article also eclipses my original FA, Rockstar San Diego. Many thanks go out to Vacant0 for reviewing the GAN back in July. IceWelder [✉] 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

I'm glad that I got pinged. I'll leave a review, as promised. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Direction

[edit]
Nominator(s): jolielover♥talk 13:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British-Irish pop boy band "One Direction", which is one of the best selling boy groups of all time. I have significantly improved on the article and I hope it will achieve FA status by the band's 15th anniversary coming up in July of this year. This is my first FA nomination, am open to any kind of improvement for this article. I also want to say, Earwig has flagged high levels of copyright violations in the article, but from looking at some of the links it is mostly things like quotations, names, awards etc, things that can not be paraphrased. Please do let me know if there is legitimate close paraphrasing and I will fix that. Thank you! jolielover♥talk 13:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

  • From a quick look, it looks like the table of the band's performances on The X Factor is completely unsourced. I'm not too familiar with the precedent in the case of realty TV show results, but I'd imagine that there should probably be *something*, even if it's just a primary source-citation of the episodes themselves. Leafy46 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I will work on this. jolielover♥talk 07:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Leafy46: I have added some citations, but am struggling to find reliable ones for the Bootcamp section. jolielover♥talk 13:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Oppose per WP:FACR 1c, 2c. There is a very inconsistent referencing style with some including publisher and others not, some publications not even listed, inconsistencies in title case, some sources cited that are not high-quality like US Weekly, BuzzFeed, etc. I also find it hard to believe that not one academic source could be cited. There are two paragraphs at doi:10.1017/S0261143016000635 analyzing their time on The X Factor, for example. Multiple are used at Larries, but none could be brought over to the main article? Heartfox (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Hi there, I have worked on the issues you have brought up. Brought about a consistent referencing style and swapped out some more unreliable sources. I have also inserted some academic sources. I hope it is fine now. jolielover♥talk 13:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Self (EP)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the past nominations' and PR participants (LunaEclipse, Heartfox, Dylan620, Dxneo, Aoba47, NegativeMP1, and TechnoSquirrel69) to participate in this nomination if they wish. Skyshiftertalk 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Virtual_Self_EP_cover_art.jpg: source link is dead

NegativeMP1

[edit]

Per my comment here, I will be providing a spotcheck on this article within the next couple of days. λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Dragoon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an RPG video game from the early 2000s that was supposed to compete with Final Fantasy. It did not live up to expectations but has become a cult classic. I hope you enjoy reading about this game as much as I enjoy playing it. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Placeholder. If you have a moment to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it!

  • Can you italicize game titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, including The Walking Dead?
  • Italicize Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy VI, IGN and RPGFan
  • Can you add description who Shadow is from Final Fantasy? Average readers doesn't know who shadow is, is he antagonist or something?
In the main final fantasy games he isn't a playable character but a recurring enemy ( he is a playable character only in the 2 spin-offs). So, I think a better definition would be better than a "playable character". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 2007, the game had sold over 280,000 copies in Japan.[40] According to Yoshida, sales in the United States were stronger than those in Japan, allowing the game to recoup its large budget.[17] By 2007, The Legend of Dragoon had sold over 823,000 copies in North America." It seems like "by 2007" was repetive. Maybe the info about it being sold in North America will be merged at first sentence that I mentioned?
  • What kind of source Rocketbaby is? Primary source? Looks a bit odd when it comes to reliability.
  • Hm, I'm not sure: this was added before I edited the article. I had removed reference to this source in other sections because I was dubious about its reliability, so now I've just removed the information that it is citing. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneless Pizza!: Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One concern above and added more comments.
  • The addition quick-time events" I think we're missing "of"?

Image review

@Nikkimaria: I swapped the image for another one. While the new image's source link is not accessible to the general public, I think that it is acceptable to have the restricted link because it might still be on Twitter and there's a VRT ticket attached to the original image. Let me know your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial murder and George, Duke of Clarence

[edit]
Nominator(s): Serial (speculates here) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

* Not discussed here.

PS. There is some discussion as to a proposed change of title; all suggestions welcome. Although I believe that if a page move is required it takes place after the closure of the FAC, apropos breaking the code... the Supreme Beings, AKA @FAC coordinators: , will advise below, hopefully. Serial (speculates here) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

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

Airship

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
I guess the real million dollar question here is if all of these events are treated as a distinct topic in the source material. If they do, what do the sources call that topic? If not, maybe a split would be preferable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I am wondering too. Why not Trial of Ankarette Twynho and John Thursby? The current title might be seen as not exactly NPOV because "judicial murder" appears to be the judgement of one historian. Surtsicna (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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
  • Per the tag, "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". That doesn't mean you have to actually be able to ascertain the identity of the author, just show that you've done your due diligence to check that it's not already known - for example, the image is included in this or that reference work with a designation of author unknown, the source used says it's unknown, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, I've clarified that the current holders (NPG) also ascribe it to an unknown artist? Serial (speculates here) 20:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

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)[reply]

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).
    Ah well! Added a line, referenced Shakespeare, plus a footnote. Or should the footnote be incorporated, d'you think?
  • 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.
    Thanks for the good faith suggestion re. the title. I've added a PS to my nomination statement.
  • 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.
    Delinked all.
  • "his authority was slowly eroding" – eroding used intransitively as here looks a bit odd. One might expect "was slowly being eroded".
    Done.
  • "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.
    Done.
  • "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.
    Done.
  • "Ankarette Twynho was forcibly seized" – can one be unforcibly seized?
    Ha!
  • "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
    Done.
  • "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.
    Good point. My error there: actually the news reached London on the 4th, and then Leicester (where parliament was sitting) on the 6th. Mea culpa, I elided the two.
  • "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".
    Done.
  • "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".
    As in: a group, body of men. I'm sure William and the outlaws charged someone as a body but got repelled on one occasion. In any case, used your wording!
  • "to secret his heir, Edward, abroad for safekeeping" – "secrete" is the verb you want here.
    Thanks, I kept thinking of secretion. Puts one right off.

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

All extremely useful, Tim riley, and many thanks for them—I've followed each of them. I hope you don't mind, but, having wasted about an hour trying to get {{Folger Shakespeare}} to provide a decent footnote for Richard III, I gave up and went back to the good old Arden. But it meant that by the time I started on the rest of your review, I just copied your suggestions verbatim. You have been attributed though. Thanks again! Serial (speculates here) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a final read-through I have found only one extra thing to carp about: in Note 6 "instead of being sent to the Tower, he was exiled instead" could do without the repetition of "instead". Happy to support the promotion of this article to FA: I found it both instructive and interesting; it seems to me to meet all the criteria. – Tim riley talk 11:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, actioned. Thanks for the detailed review, you know it's always appreciated. Give me a shout when you're up here next. Cheers, Serial (speculates here) 12:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
  • when the Duke had married Isabel, Richard, Earl of Warwick's daughter Isabel in defiance of Edward's express wishes and joined the Earl's ill-fated rebellion in 1471. "the Duke had married Isabel, Richard, Earl of Warwick's daughter Isabel" Why is "Isabel" repeated?

Only this much for the lead. I will post my remaining suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • By now, suggests the historian Charles Ross,... Could "historian" be de-linked as it is a common occupation?
MSincccc (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MSincccc, good to see you. Serial (speculates here) 20:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 Nothing more to suggest from my end. I would like to extend my support to this article's nomination. MSincccc (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good of you, MSincccc, and I want you to know I appreciate the review. Many thanks! Serial (speculates here) 16:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

Is this the best title?

Thanks Graham. I think there's a pretty clear consensus by now that the page should be moved, as noted (16:33, 18 January 2025) in the nom statement.

Some comments on the Lead for now:

  • Here their executions being carried out immediately and here This resulted in two of the duke's associates being executed there are two fused participles. You could add possessives or better still just say "were carried out" and "the execution of two of the dukes associates".
    Done.
  • Here his authority over his West Midlands, the West Midlands didn't exist until 1974.
    Well spotted! Bloody Heath.
  • I found this sentence tricky to parse This was partly caused by Edward himself, who liberally recruited from his brother's tenantry, but had also promoted his wife's family, who were personal enemies of Clarence, promotion often at his expense. Is there a better way of casting this?
    Yes, a pound of Dundee cake would be less of a mouthful. So I've split it into two, which hopefully clarifies.
  • Why is "Duke" in uppercase?
    Replacing his name, per MOS:JOB.

-Graham Beards (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more. Here Burdet and Stacy were taken to Tyburn the following day and hanged, drawn and quartered, still protesting their innocence. Perhaps this could be recast? It's hard to imagine how a quartered person could still protest. Looking forward to supporting. Graham Beards (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham Beards. That raised a smile; perhaps they were related to the Black Knight  :) so I've changed it to

Blake was reprieved after a petition from the Bishop of Norwich, but Burdet and Stacy, still protesting their innocence, were taken to Tyburn the following day and hanged, drawn and quartered.

Do you think that's too long a sentence; in which case I could split it, like:

Blake was reprieved after a petition from the Bishop of Norwich, but Burdet and Stacy were taken to Tyburn the following day. There, after protesting their innocence, they were hanged, drawn and quartered.

Thoughts? Serial (speculates here) 19:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first suggestion is more poetic :-) Graham Beards (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! :) Shelley 54129 19:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have nothing more that could be helpful to add. (Mine has mainly been a prose review). Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna's review

[edit]

Yo Surtsicna, ready and waiting :) Serial (speculates here) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I see my tedious nitpicks have been noted! I was initially looking it over for DYK, but I shall extend my review when so kindly summoned! Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally forgot I'd nominated it there too. Sorry for summoning you when you were already looking at that!
No problem. It's two birds with one stone. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am amazed that I did not know about this. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I have a few concerns, some minor, some less so.

  • The big one: "judicial murder" appears to be a single scholar's judgement. As such I find it quite inappropriate for use in the title of the article. It seems, however, that there is already agreement that the title should be changed.
    • When the article mentions the term "judicial murder", the designation should be attributed to the scholar rather than stated as a fact.
    Well; it's the term used by a single scholar, but a) it's the vital historian on the topic, so yes, his views deserve that weight, and b) while other historians might not use the precise form of words, they clearly view it the same light. Having said that, I'm happy to attribute it to Hicks inline, as a potentially controversial statement.
  • This article makes far too liberal use of notes in my opinion. A note within a note is something I had not seen before, and I do not think it works well. I am referring to note 18 containing notes 16 and 17. Most of the notes should be integrated into the main text or removed. Some of them beg questions that are not within the scope of this article, e.g. why would it be treasonous against your brother to send your son to your sister?
    Will work through them now.
  • The lead section should contain fewer details and summarize better. Generalissima asked whether "all of these events are treated as a distinct topic in the source material" and I wondered the same up until I reached the Bibliography section. The chronology of events in the lead is difficult to follow because the second paragraph is practically a prequel to the first and the third is a sequel. The lead section should clearly establish the connection between all the events discussed in the article. How do we go from Clarence's execution of servants to King Edward's investigation of alleged treason among Clarence's retainers and servants? I think that Bellamy's statement quoted in Clarence's arrest and fall would be of much help here.
  • I propose starting the article with a good introductory lead sentence, one that explains what the article is about, rather than jumping in with the arrest.
    I agree, fundamental. Doing this now.
    • Why is it important to note, in the lead sentence no less, that Twynho was a widow?
    Absolutely, it demonstrates how the lead needed to be reworked.
  • In what Ross has called a "staged political trial", and what his wife has called a "justly conducted, if political, trial" Whose wife? What is her name?
    Ah, sorry, Ross's wife, Anne Crawford (see Charles Ross (historian) for the lurid details  :)
I must confess that I did not expect them to be actually lurid. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that the article is a bit sprawling.
    Now tightened substantially, with the removal of material to three new articles (Twynho, Tocotes and Stacy)
    • Judging by the citations, most of the Background section is general biographical information about Clarence and Edward and not discussed by the cited historians as a prelude to the incident that is the topic of this article (Trial of Ankarette Twynho and John Thursby?). I see the first three paragraphs in the Deaths section, which discuss the deaths of Isabel and Richard, as the background to the events that I think are the topic of this article.
    The topic of the article is the fall of the Duke of Clarence, as I suggested at 18:24, 17 January 2025. I should have stuck with my original gut feeling! Most of the issues now stem from that original confusion; while the arrests etc of AT and JT are fundamental background, those of Burdet and Stacy are no less so. But they are what might be termed immediate causation; the longer-term causes were the breakdown of relations between Clarence and the King, which had multiple reasons over several years.
    I now have a different problem with the title and scope of the article. The article is now explicitly centered on Clarence, effectively being a partial biography of him. It looks as if it were split from the main biography; compare with Fall of Maximilien Robespierre being split from Maximilien Robespierre. But the main article about Clarence is terrible in comparison to this one, producing a rather bizarre situation that one can learn more about Clarence from this article than from the main biography. The article has turned out to be, probably unintentionally, a content fork. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. H'mmm. I think half of what I do then is a content fork! Never encountered that here, confession. I prefer to think of it as being by way of a WP:SPINOFF: an article focused on a sub-topic ... or a sub-genre being forked from its parent genre kind of thing, rather than the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic. It's true that George's main article is pretty crap (as is Edward's, which doesn't even mention their falling out!), but that's not uncommon I find. Another recent example from FAC might be Initial campaign of the Breton Civil War, a spinoff from the (currently) low-grade War of the Breton Succession, or, older, Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway from the delisted GA, Liverpool and Manchester Railway. I see this in as being in a similar vein. Serial (speculates here) 17:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know about the precedents. I think it is a poor practice in general, and this particular case seems more like a fork than a spinoff to me, possibly because the new article explains Clarence's entire career better than the main article. My preference would be to either a) bring the main article to a comparable standard, b) narrow the scope of this article down to the trial and its implications and consequences. I find the trial incident to be a more interesting topic anyway, and curiously enough it is treated independently in multiple academic articles. Option b would automatically see the main article improved by the material transferred from this article. Either option would lead to two great (featured?) articles instead of one great (featured?) article and one crappy parent article; option b would take less effort. Surtsicna (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right! Serial (speculates here) 20:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the details of Isabel and Richard's funerals discussed in the context of the trial that is the subject of this article?
    The context of the fall of the Duke of Clarence, yes! In any case, I do not think that ~30 words is particularly undue detail.
    • The death of the Duke of Suffolk strikes me as a spin-off story.
    True, it was too good to omit though! but now hived off into John Stacy (alchemist)—thanks for creating that link.
    So good that I ran to see if you had nominated it for DYK! Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the story about the abuse of noble power in 15th-century England need the details about Mary of Burgundy's suitors given in Proposed marriages? I do not think that we need to go as far as Austria. It seems to me that this could all be summed up in one or two sentences.
    Well, it was the latest in a series of perceived insults for Clarence, and probably goes some way to explaining his fear of poisoning by the king, etc.
  • Henry VI pops up out of nowhere, without any introduction or explanation. I suggest finding a way to remove the reference to him.
    Yes, fair enough—removed.
  • His marriage to Elizabeth Braybrooke of St Amand made him a brother-in-law to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury... Is this a case of half-siblings with different last names or a misinterpreted relationship?
    From what I gather, she was the daughter of Gerald Braybrooke, married firstly the Bishop of Salisbury's brother William (d.1447), and secondly Roger Tocotes the following year.
I see. That would not have made Tocotes a brother-in-law to the bishop, however. I suggest saying that Tocotes married the sister-in-law of the bishop. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be said he was related by marriage to the bishop?
To me it suggests that he was married to a blood relative of the bishop. I think precision ensures accuracy and does not leave anyone wondering. What does the cited source say anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"brother-in-law"  :)
  • Even important news travelled slowly in the 15th century: the report of 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 4 May. This was a distance of approximately 70 miles, averaging 35 miles a day. Similarly, in 1455, news of the murder of Nicholas Radford in Devon took five days to travel the 185 miles from Exeter to London, averaging 37 miles a day. Does Armstrong say this in the context of the arrest/abduction of Ankarette Twynho? I do not see her name mentioned in the cited book at all.
  • No, more like explanatory context (that an elderly widow had been transported with the same urgency that the death of a royal favourite was, for instance).
  • Too much detail about John Stacy and his supposed dark arts, culminating in a whole side-story, mostly relegated into a note, about the death of the Duke of Suffolk.
    Indeed! Now cut out into the Stacy article. Thanks!

I'll wrap it up by suggesting that the scope of the article be clearly defined in the lead and that the sources which do not mention the events that are the subject of the article be removed. This will then expose the information that is out of scope of this article and leads to possible bloat. Surtsicna (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Surtsicna; I think, mea culpa, the fault is mine for not clarifying the focus of the article—through the title if nothing else—in the first place. Hopefully it's clearer now, and establishes the relevance of much of the background/aftermath material. Serial (speculates here) 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In summary, I've now recast the lead to focus on the primary topic. I've reduced the footnotes from 15 to four, including that three in one job; and have removed a substantial amount of contextual material which has been hived off into smaller biographies (Burdet, Hyde, Stacy, Tocotes, Twynho) and the one about a Butt. It's pretty cool, really, that this new article has itself bred six even newer articles  :) Thanks very much for your comments Surtsicna, very good. Serial (speculates here) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is honestly a pleasure. This is my first time doing a FA review in 16 years on Wikipedia and you are setting the fun bar very high. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Surtsicna for your compliments, and the detailed review! Serial (speculates here) 20:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Altan

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
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".
  • ...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)[reply]

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

Comments from PMC

[edit]

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

  • "when Eljigidei and her surviving accusers" this may just be lack of sleep, but this briefly made me think "her" was referring to "Eljigidei" (also, the whole sentence is fairly long)
  • "On the other side..." this sentence is lengthy, I might split it at "bloodshed"
  • "the fatal party" it's not often you get to use a phrase like this in seriousness, I hope you cherish it
  • "(Barchuk had previously died)" this feels oddly placed where it is, although admittedly I'm not sure where else to put it. Maybe slightly earlier with "Al-Altan and her family"?
  • "unintentional slip in a medieval chronicle accidentally reveals" I'm not sure we need unintentional, slip, and accidental
  • Also, how do we know it's unintentional? This feels like opinion, as does "which raises questions" regarding Eljigidei - who is raising the question?
  • "that stretch the limits of believability" according to who? this is opinion and needs attribution
  • Can I ask why The Secret History of the Mongol Queens isn't used? It mentions Al-Altan under the alt spelling of Al-Altun a few times. Appears reliable, by a reliable scholar, and has some interesting details that aren't here.

That's all I've got. As usual, engaging and well-written. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • "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)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "to defend her Uighur subjects." That's not what the main article says.
  • "ruler of a new Mongol Empire". There was an old Mongol Empire?
  • "On the other side, Genghis gained the loyalties of large steppe populations without unnecessary bloodshed, 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." This sentence is probably trying to do too much.
  • "some enemies of the Merkit tribe." Enemies of the Merkits, or enemies who belonged to the Merkits?
  • "Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime". Really? Any further information on this?
  • "An unintentional slip in a medieval chronicle accidentally reveals". Do we need both "unintentional slip " and accidentally"?
  • "after Möngke repelled a Ögedeyid coup attempt". I don't think one can repel a coup attempt. Perhaps 'foiled'?
  • Which variety of English is this written in?
  • "a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, which described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters". Is it possible to avoid the repetition of "which"?
  • Injustice is usually preferred to "unjustice".
  • "make the Persian narratives very unlikely". Maybe "unlikely" → 'untrustworthy'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild This suggestion has been made my me as well:
  • ...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.
Airship's response:
No, it introduces a subordinate clause. The main verb is "was excised", so "described" needs a preceding conjunction.
Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weell, I am actually with ASJ on that one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild What do you mean by this then:
"a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, which described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters". Is it possible to avoid the repetition of "which"? MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just what it says. The current sentence is grammatically correct and simply removing either "which" would not be; but I feel the repetition is a tad not "engaging and professional", so could the sentence be rephrased "to avoid the repetition of "which"?" Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cher

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cherfc (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "Cher is widely revered .." sounds odd. Maybe eliminate "widely"?
Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Typo: Fascinated by film stars, Cher's idolized Audrey Hepburn, " -> "... Cher idolized.."
Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
That makes sense, I see no specific change. Noleander (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I won't be able to review the article as thoroughly as I'm shipping out to boot camp this weekend and won't be able to contribute fully. Good luck with the FA! Best – jona ✉ 16:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

There's a lot here! I like to use a random number generator to check 10% of the sources. In this case, that will be cites 2, 11, 23, 34, 37, 43, 49, 51, 55, 74, 84, 88, 109, 122, 123, 131, 138, 142, 146, 165, 177, 194, 195, 241, 251, 257, 265, 267, 275, 276, 300, 307, 311, 312, 324, 326, 331, 335, 363, 410, 417, 425, 428, 454, and 457, as numbered in this diff. It will take me a few installments but I will work my way through them. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verified with no close paraphrasing: 2, 11, 23, 37, 43, 49, 51, 55, 74, 84, 88, 109, 122, 123.
  • I think By age nine, her voice was unusually low implies something different from her statement in 11 that My voice was low, even then. The "by" framing emphasizes an idea that her voice was steadily growing lower all the time; I think "Even at age nine..." would be fine.
  • Not a source comment, but I found the paragraph break between Holt later married actor John Southall... and Holt's marriage to Southall ended... a little disorienting. Since there are only two sentences about Southall, can the be in the same paragraph?
  • 34 verifies, but I think the paraphrasing is too close, since it's the identical list of five fashion items in the same order. Maybe pick the three most important/relevant from bell-bottoms, striped pants, ruffled shirts, industrial zippers and fur vests?
  • For 74, Cher later commented that her tight schedule... it would assist with verifiability if you linked the exact page, since I had to get pretty clever manually changing the URL to access it in Wayback (the links themselves don't work).
  • Is IMDb considered reliable for the 1983 CableACE Award?
  • That's 1/3 done for now and I need a break. I'll make my way through the rest throughout the week. So far, looking pretty solid; very interesting article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review! I've addressed all the suggestions. Regarding the 1983 CableACE Award, the only alternative source I found besides IMDb is this one: Julien's Auctions. Since the award was discontinued, information is scarce—should we replace IMDb with this, or keep both sources for completeness? Looking forward to your thoughts. Cherfc (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a 1983 newspaper to cite here. Newspapers.com has some great stuff and it's available in the Wikipedia Library! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks for making those other changes, they look good to me! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my second pass, verified with no close paraphrasing: 130, 137, 146, 165, 177, 195, 241, 251, 257, 265, 267, 275, 276, 300, 307.
  • For 141, it would be helpful to link the Internet Archive copy available here.
  • Also for 141, I'm not sure the source really says she was receiving attention for her controversial lifestyle. It just says the outspoken star shown [sic] a penchant for the various lifestyle traits listed. I also think this is another close-paraphrasing case where the article has the same four distinctively-phrased items as the source. Maybe this could be something like, by the 80s she had gained a reputation for exhibitionist fashion, plastic surgery, and affairs with younger men?
  • 194-- "If Labels 'Believe' In Dance Acts, Success Will Follow"-- doesn't seem to add any information to the article.
  • the event's first sellout in five years is exactly how the source words this, can you rephrase?
  • About 2/3 done now. The sourcing continues to be very solid (and a bit distractingly fun to read!) so I'm sure I'll be back with a support after the last chunk. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I've addressed all the suggestions and also added Internet Archive links to all book sources where available. Cherfc (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! Thanks for the IA links. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, we're in the final stretch! Verified with no close paraphrasing: 312, 324, 326, 331, 363, 410, 417, 425, 428, 454, and 458.
  • The article's claim that "Believe" was the first commercial recording to use Auto-Tune...as a stylistic effect doesn't seem strictly supported by "Flashback: Cher Brings the Future of Pop to 'Top of the Pops' With 'Believe'", which just says it helped introduced the world to Auto-Tune when the software was less than two years old.
  • This section could use some revisiting: Although Cher has been erroneously attributed to being the first woman to expose her navel on television,[334] she was the most prominent to do so[335]. "Navel gazing: The first female belly buttons ever seen on TV" does not says that Cher is erroneously identified as the first navel on TV, though it does identify the actual first. I wonder if the cites should be swapped, actually. Maybe the whole bit could be reworked to something like "Cher has been erroneously identified as the first woman to expose her navel on television after the 1951 American Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters[335] (the actual first was Yvette Mimieux in 1964),[334] and her frequent exposed midriff earned her the moniker "pioneer of the belly beautiful" from People."
  • This supplied period seems unnecessary: challenging[338] our perceptions of her[.]
  • For "The 200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons Complete Ranked List", it would be good to link an archived link since the original is down.
  • And that completes my source review!! Once the notes on auto-tune and the navel are addressed, I will be happy to support. Great work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: New Vegas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

LunaEclipse

[edit]

FYI: I am reviewing this revision of the article.

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

[71]: OK

[3]: OK

[62]: OK, but I believe you should start the quote with "[...] when I reflect on the experience..." instead of "When I reflect on the experience...".

[39]: OK

[37]: OK

[82]: OK

[76]: OK

[49]: OK

[75]: Dexerto is a situational source per WP:VG/S; please remove it from the article.

[56]: OK

Weak oppose. The article has some minor issues here and there with sourcing, but they can be fixed in a timely manner. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 18:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: forgot the ping. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 18:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey, Hobo (lol)! IRL's eating up time right now but I'll come back to this at the weekend. The Development section I think will require dedicated time. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 11:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Fallout_New_Vegas.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Ditto File:Fallout_NV_gameplay.jpg
  • File:Flag_of_the_New_California_Republic.svg: why would the uploader have the right to release the image under the given license?

1989 (Taylor's Version)

[edit]
Nominator(s): brachy08 (chat here lol) 04:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

Sure, why not. Expect comments within the next few days, though if it takes longer than that don't be surprised, I haven't been too committed to on-wiki stuff lately... λ NegativeMP1 07:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Stories

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

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)[reply]

TompaDompa

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Images

[edit]

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

Comments

[edit]

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

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks! I made it "from H. Bedford Jones, who was a popular pulp writer, and Seabury Quinn" which I hope does it smoothly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I just realized I forgot to address your other comment; now clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Henneberger incorporated Popular Fiction". Assuming "Popular Fiction" is another magazine, it has not been introduced.
    It was the name of the company he formed -- reworded to try to make this clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gave up the other titles". Gave them up to Lansinger?
    Yes; rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "The magazine was not successful, and in 1932 publication was paused after the Summer issue." Article, just "After the Summer 1932 issue there was a break in publication, while Wright planned to relaunch it." with no mention of any lack of success.
    Hmm. I'm quite sure it was unsuccessful, because nobody in the history of magazine publishing has ever stopped publication of a magazine that's turning a profit, but I can't cite that. I thought this would be easy to find a citation for, but the best I can find is a reference in Locke that says the magazine was "a failed experiment ultimately", referring to the entire run. I think Locke probably does mean that it was unsuccessful throughout its run, but rather than try to interpret that I've cut the phrase from the lead. As a side benefit I found a sentence in Locke I hadn't noticed before which enabled me to add a line about the origin of the magazine.
  • "The second issue under the new title included Edmond Hamilton's "Kaldar, World of Antares", the first in a series similar to Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom stories, set on Mars." There is room for confusion as to which series is set on Mars.
    Yes, I misinterpreted it myself in responding to Tompa Dompa's review. Now clarified, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
  • "The next issue was dated January 1933, and the title was now The Magic Carpet Magazine." Was it still quarterly?
    Yes, clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the publication table the last four dates are not underlined. According to the caption this means that they were each titled as a monthly: is that correct?
    It is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a hiatus when the title changed". Maybe 'there was a three-month hiatus when the title changed'?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All the sources look appropriate and reliable to me (following precedent here that Phil Stephensen-Payne's bibliography site is OK). I checked sources 2, 4, 6, 9, and 14 as numbered in this diff. My only concerns are noted below.

  • You could add a link to the IA copy of Ashley 1976: [1]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason for the "A" in Weinberg 1999a?
    No -- I think I copied that ref from another article where it was needed to disambiguate refs, and never noticed I could cut it. Now gone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole sentence beginning Weird Tales soon ran into financial trouble... ought to be cited to p. 42 of Ashley 2000, not p. 41.
    I made it 41-42 since that covers all Ashley's discussion of the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Henneberger hired Farnsworth Wright as editor
    Same here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1930 Henneberger and Wright decided to launch a companion magazine that specialized in oriental fiction -- this I can't find in Ashley 2000 at all. I checked chapters 1, 2, and 3. I'm sure it's true, but perhaps it came from a different Ashley source.
    Not sure what happened there, but you're quite right. Now cited to Ashley (1976), though I can't be sure that's where I originally sourced this from as it doesn't mention "Henneberger and Wright decided"; it just says the magazine came out. I think that's OK though since Henneberger and Wright were the two people who would have had to decide to start the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a lot of this article is supported by Ashley 1985, which I cannot access. Since it looks brief, could you email me a scan or transcript so I can verify those citations?
    Sure -- send me an email and I'll reply with the pages attached. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting-wise, I am not an expert in all the expectations at FAC, but I notice that the various citations to Stephensen-Payne do not follow the SFN format of the other cites. Should these all be made consistent?
    The style I use is to leave web citations in the footnotes and put books and journal articles into the references with a short citation to them. FAC requires internal consistency but leaves it to the article to define what the style is, so I think this is OK.

Thanks for a thorough and interesting article. Let me know about Ashley 1985. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Answers above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending Ashley 1985! Checking all the citations to that source, I just have one comment:

  • The cover of the Spring 1932 issue was Margaret Brundage's first sale goes a bit beyond the source's statement that the Spring 1932 illustration was by a new artist who would soon establish herself as synonymous with Weird Tales of the 1930s -- Margaret Brundage. Brundage appears to have had a freelance career as early as 1919, so this can't have been her first overall sale.

Everything else verifies wonderfully. The article was a pleasure to read, excellent work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MSincccc

[edit]

Lead

  • and carried stories with far eastern settings, including some fantasy. Can the "some" before "fantasy" be omitted?
  • Can Edmond Hamilton and Seabury Quinn be introduced in short (the American writer, the writer,etc.) ?

MSincccc (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments from Rodney Baggins

[edit]

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: [2] 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) [3]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hurricane Emily (2005)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
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)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Continuing the review.

  • Eastern Caribbean and South America:
    • The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) described residents to be in "panic" → Residents were described as anxious by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
    • The nation's government enacted an overnight curfew during the storm's passage → During the storm's passage, the country's government implemented a nighttime curfew.
    • The St. Lucia Red Cross placed ten response teams on standby. The Antigua and Barbuda Red Cross placed 100 personnel on standby. → The St. Lucia Red Cross placed ten response on standby, while the Antigua and Barbuda Red Cross placed 100 personnel on standby.
  • No issues were found in the Elsewhere section.
  • Grenada:
    • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – Make it lowercase.
    • Across the country, Emily also damaged 21 schools, including 5 that were destroyed, as well as several health facilities. → Emily also wrecked health facilities and damaged 21 schools nationwide, including five that were completely demolished.
  • No issues were found in the United States section.
  • Regarding references:
    • Ref 45: HHuricanes... – Remove the extra H.
    • Article titles should consistently be in title case.
    • Titles for non-English citations need a translation. Use the |trans-title parameter for this.
    • Correct the |last parameters in citations. E.g. change |last=Arlene Laing to |last=Laing |first=Arlene.

Saxophone Sonata (Creston)

[edit]
Nominator(s): UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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! • 8va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

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)[reply]

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! • 8va? 19:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • " 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)[reply]
    Thank you for this first round of comments, Chris! They should all be dealt with now. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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! • 8va? 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Chris! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 08:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco and passed media review

[edit]

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)[reply]
    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! • 8va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this looks good. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you kindly :) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

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)[reply]

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! • 8va? 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    I've reshuffled

Structure

Source review

[edit]

spotchecks not done

  • The article cites a number of dissertations - how do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Ditto the theses in Further reading
  • It appears that the Umble work is essays authored by Londeix?
  • What makes Pan Pipes a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fanfare should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading entries should use |ref=none
    Thank you for the review, Nikkimaria. I've made the changes suggested above: I added Londeix as an author to Umble (2000), Simmons (2008) is now a cite magazine to allow italics, and I added ref=none to further reading items (more on those at the end).
    As for reliability, I've consciously favoured citing doctoral theses and dissertations per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have used these with care and cited them mainly for simple musical analysis (notes are given whenever the analysis presented in one thesis contradicts another). Detailed rationales for each thesis below:
    Frigo (2005) has been cited 17 times according to Scholar, including in the Music Educators Journal and in several doctoral theses. It was supervised by Julie Hubbert (LaDare Robinson Memorial Professor of Music at USC), who lists 20th-century American music as a research/teaching area. Frigo later worked at JMU and UGA.
    Hulsebos (1989) has been cited 12 times according to Scholar, including in a couple of university press-published books (Cottrell (2013), Vermazen (2008)) and in several doctoral theses.
    Leone (1991) is only cited in Gorman (2006), a doctoral dissertation, but this is due more to the specificity of the subject. Leone's major professor was Pamela Mia Paul, a one-time jury chair for the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition (albeit the amateur division) with an interest in 20th-century music. Leone later became the chair of piano studies at SMU.
    Liley (1988) has been cited 10 times according to Scholar, mainly in doctoral dissertations. Liley went on to become state chairman of the North American Saxophone Alliance and editor of their journal, The Saxophone Symposium. He also wrote a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone.
    Morris (1996) has been cited 5 times according to Scholar, again mainly in doctoral dissertations. It was supervised by Shirley Bean, a Creston researcher. Morris is now an associate professor of saxophone at UD.
    Sibbing (1969) has been cited 7 times according to Scholar, predominantly in doctoral dissertations. It was supervised by Charles Leonhard, a member of the NAfME Hall of Fame. Sibbing went on to become professor emeritus in saxophone and jazz at WIU.
    Williams (2011) has been cited in two doctoral theses according to Scholar. Williams went on to become professor of saxophone at BSU, although she doesn't seem to be in this position any more.
    Other concerns on reliability below:
    Newlin (1956) is by Dika Newlin, a renowned musicologist. By the time this review was published, Newlin had received her PhD and taught at WMC, SU, and DU for over a decade. Pan Pipes is the journal of Sigma Alpha Iota, an international, professional music fraternity. Newlin's review is cited in the Slomski (1994) bibliography.
    Eckers (1966) and Sweitzer (2010) are consciously not cited in prose as they are master's theses, but I think it would be a shame if they were removed entirely. Both are cited to some extent (Eckers: 4, Sweitzer: 1), Eckers, in particular, is listed in Slomski (1994). I'd be fine to axe them if it is deemed necessary, though.
    I hope this is comprehensive enough to resolve any questions on sourcing. Thanks again for your review! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, I'm wondering if my ping worked since its been a few days. Here's another as I think my formatting might have broken the first – appologies if this is a duplicate! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 11:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. Happy with your edits/responses on all points except the first. On the first: generally speaking, what the author of a thesis/dissertation accomplishes later in their career doesn't speak directly to the reliability of their student work. I'm satisfied with your explanation for Frigo and Hulsebos, but for the others I'm wary of leaning too heavily on who the author became. Is there more to say on those? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of WP:SCHOLARSHIP was that doctoral theses/dissertations are fine if used with care. I know FAs require "high-quality" sources; my proxy for this was the later sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." Albeit to varying degrees, I believe all meet the first point. In particular, I think that Liley (cited pretty widely in the literature of saxophone repertoire analysis), Morris (supervised by a Creston specialist), and Sibbing (listed in Slomski's bibliography, supervised by an expert in music education) do meet these additional criteria.
    That leaves Leone and Williams. As I said above, I think Leone's citation count suffers from a highly specialised topic, so unfortunately I can't justify this way. The rhythmic analysis would be missed, as this was the highest quality source I could find on that particular aspect of the sonata. As for Williams, I think this could be removed without pain if you think it isn't high enough quality. For the master's theses in further reading, these could also be removed without pain. Thanks again, Nikkimaria. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You indicated that Liley was primarily cited in other dissertations - what is there beyond that?

Spot-check

[edit]
  • Consistent use of sfn
  • The notelist is also correct
  • Everything that is possible to be wikilinked is wikilinked
  • The sources are correctly and consistently formatted
  • And also in alphabetical order

I'll probably give this a spot-check in a couple hours. You can ping me if I don't. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC) It doesn't have many refs, so I'll check 12-[reply]

  • Frigo 2005-3, 12, 16
  • Morris 1996- 6, 18, 25
  • Sibbing 1969- 42, 53, 61 (all kind of technical, but I am mostly sure they check out)
  • Creston 1973- 72, 75 (both very technical, but the parts I understood check out)
  • Billboard 1956- 89 (checks out alongside 88)

UpTheOctave!, can you send the page numbers/supporting prose to me? I can't access any of them? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91, I've shot over an email with transfer links to the sources. Thanks for helping out! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UpTheOctave!, got the sources, and they check out. The formatting is also correct. I also gave it a semi-comprehensive read, and I saw no issues in the prose. A support from my side. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your spotchecks, DoctorWhoFan91! I'll get onto your FLC soon. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 10:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Winters

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

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)[reply]

Support from Crisco and passed image review

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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
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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Merged

Aoba47

[edit]

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

Aoba47 No problem, I've addressed your concerns. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Tintor2 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

I'll do the source review like I did in a previous article from the same series:

  • 1. Washington Post is reliable
  • 2. Gematsu doesn't have an article but it's still common for Japanese sources similar to Siliconera.
  • 3-28-37. Polygon is quite a useful source for everything
  • 7-14-23-39 IGN is pretty reliable.
  • 8-27. GamesRadar is also useful
  • 9-29. GameInformer too
  • 10-19-30-36. Kotaku is useful despite the recent commentary the project had
  • 11-34. GamePro is useful too.
  • 12-24. PCGames is obviously dominant for steam games.
  • 13. Eurogamer
  • 15. I don't use Shack News that much but it seems reliable.
  • 16-22. Escapist is reliable.
  • 17. Digital Trends is aso reliable.
  • 18. IGN Japan might be in Japanese but it is accesssible by using translate machine.
  • 20. RockPaper is reliable.
  • 21-33.The Gamer might be a weak source but it recently obtained its own article to back it up.
  • 25-26. Destructroid is reliable.
  • 31. I often use Den of Geek and is pretty useful for multiple type of articles.
  • 35. I don't know much about Paste but after reading its article and wikilink it's useful.
    Paste have been used at FACs and that magazine is definitely reliable. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38. The Mary Sue is useful
  • The printed articles Videogames and Horror: From Amnesia to Zombies, Run! is accessible for everybody to use
  • The Metonymy of Resident Evil 7 is not accessible but we gotta use good faith.
    It is. It is accessible either at PDF or here [4]. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All citations are consistently wikilinked, translated and have their authors and dates mentioned.

I am pretty sure this articles passes the source reviews.Tintor2 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shooterwalker

[edit]

Review incoming. Let's see how this goes. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know editors vary in their opinion on this, but I think it helps to have the "Appearances" section before the "Concept" section, so we know what the creators are creating.
Reversed
  • Disembodied presence sounds confusing. Is he literally a ghost? Or is this just a switch from third person to first person? This is a circumstance where fewer words may be clearer.
He doesn't appear in third person, but a first person. So, I think disembodied presence seems to be fine since you only see Ethan and his guns throughout the game. I did also try to carefully use a word that has the same meaning to a source that wouldn't change its meaning a lot. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resident Evil 7: Biohazard was a return to the original survival horror elements. Instead of the game being an action-oriented, the goal is keeping the protagonist alive with limited resources." -> this sentence looks incomplete / broken. This is a good chance to do more than a small rewrite, making it clear that RE7 is a return to survival elements for the series, after a few action games.
Rewritten
  • The quotes may be excessive here, and it's enough to really hone in on the team's goal of balancing the player-POV character with giving this character his own personality. See if you can tighten one or both.
Trimmed
  • The paragraph about Ethan's face and appearance is a little confusing, mostly by WP:WEIGHT. The first sentence is clear, but I'd try to dispense with the easter eggs of seeing his face more quickly. e.g.: " Ethan's face is never shown within the gameplay for Resident Evil 7 or Resident Evil Village due to players controlling Ethan from a first-person perspective. However, the team did create facial features for his character model, which can be seen by X,[1] Y,[2] or Z.[3]"
Let's start chipping away at it here. It's well written, but would benefit from tightening up the tangential points, so it doesn't take away from the main points. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Hi Shooterwalker, I already attempted to resolve your concenrs. Comments above Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conception section has improved. Let's pivot to the Appearances section, now that we lead with it.
  • " in which he is looking for his missing wife Mia in Louisiana after being captive of the Baker family. " -> this is a little confusing. I'm guessing Mia is the captive, but the sentence almost makes it sound like Ethan is.
  • "He attempts to rescue Mia, but she abruptly becomes hostile and attacks Ethan while attempting to flee, dismembering his hand with a chainsaw.-> "After he finds Mia, they attempt to flee, but she abruptly becomes violent and dismembers Ethan's hand with a chainsaw."
  • "He later crafted a necrotoxin and then stabbed it into Eveline before she mutated into a giant monster. " -> there's a tense shift here. Shifting it back to present tense should fix most of it.
  • " After the final confrontation with Ethan, assisted by a paramilitary company led by Chris Redfield, Eveline is destroyed. " -> there is a sort of perspective shift here, as Ethan and Eveline sort of switch object and subject. Try to rephrase from Ethan's perspective, e.g.: "Ethan finally destroys Eveline, assisted by..."
  • " The amount of blood and gore to which players are exposed as Ethan in the Japanese version of the game, Biohazard 7: Resident Evil, is substantially less than in the international release" -> the way this is phrased doesn't feel entirely relevant. I see how it ties into the next sentence, but I'd either cut it, or rephrase it in a short way so it becomes context. e.g.: "Resident Evil 7 handles blood and gore differently depending on the region,[x] particularly Ethan's dismemberment.[y]"
  • "Ethan lives in Europe with Mia and their..." -> "Ethan and Mia are living in Europe with their...", just to clean this up, and clarify the tense. This is probably how the game starts, and not something he does during the game.
  • "Chris Redfield storms" -> a "suddenly" would go a long way here
  • " detonates a bomb that destroys the village" -> "detonates a bomb to destroy the village"
  • Is Shadows of Rose a DLC expansion? Maybe make that clearer.
  • "To promote Village, Capcom released a developer diary titled "The Making of Resident Evil Village: Winter Comes for Ethan" in September 2020, wherein staff members discuss Ethan's role within the game" -> "To promote Village, Capcom featured a discussion of Ethan in a September 2020 developer diary titled..."
  • " In addition, Epic Games included Ethan, along with Jill Valentine and Lady Dimitrescu, in a list of characters and brands as part of a 2021 survey it distributed to Fortnite players in order to gauge interest in future crossover promotions" -> "In addition, Epic Games included Ethan in a 2021 fan survey about potential crossover characters to be featured in Fortnite."
Let's pause there. Just looking ahead, disembodied is still going to sound a little weird, compared to simply saying he isn't visible. That said, it's less confusing now that we understand his role in the game, from the Appearances section. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker Hi. I did all of your concerns at appearances now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're making progress. A few last notes from these early sections:
  • Appearances and Conception
  • "before she mutated into a giant monster" -> could be a verb tense thing for consistency. "Mutates"?
  • " Set sixteen years after the events of Resident Evil Village, the DLC expansion Shadows of Rose chapter focuses on a teenage Rosemary's journey through her molded powers and becoming conscious of the mutated fungus, Megamycete" -> this is a long sentence and could be broken in two. Also italicized Shadows of Rose
  • "disembodied" still seems like it gives the wrong idea, especially in a horror game where things like ghosts or incorporeal forms are plausible. I'd be a lot more clear about using the term First-person (video games), including the wikilink.
  • " Resident Evil 7: Biohazard is a return to survival elements. Instead of the game being an action-oriented, the goal is keeping the protagonist alive with limited resources. According" -> this sentence seems less and less relevant to the article, especially since this paragraph is mostly about the camera perspective. But if we're keeping it, try "While the Resident Evil series had become more action-oriented in some releases, Resident Evil 7: Biohazard was designed as a return to survival elements with limited sources."
  • Reception
  • This section is solid, but I think it would benefit from small changes in sequence.
    • The most important one is how it starts. Quick recaps like " Some video game journalists..." are usually good at the end.
    • That said, if we're trying to get a good topic sentence that gives us an overview, I think you might try something like "Ethan has received a mixed reception, with some reviewers praising his role as a relatable "everyman",[1][2][3] while others criticizing his lack of personality or character development.[4][5][6]
    • And following the "headline" of Ethan as an everyman (or whatever aspect we feel most sources lean into), try to put those sources/sentences first. In this case, Destructoid, Escapist, and Polygon.
  • " Ethan has been criticized as lacking personality and character development. " -> "In contrast, several reviewers have criticized Ethan for his lack of personality and character development." (give us a transition, and make it more active)
  • Some of the sources are summarized into two very long sentences (almost four phrases). If you felt it deserved the WP:WEIGHT, then I wouldn't push too hard. But see if you can hone in on the main idea from each source and say it in one sentence, or two shorter sentences. I'm thinking about Destructoid, The Escapist, and Game Informer. The deeper look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre might be long too.
Let's pause there. It will definitely need another pass, but this should get us most of the way there. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Shooterwalker. I attempted to rewrite the first sentence to only "Ethan has received positive reviews from critics for his role as a relatable "everyman"." and moved the criticizing stuff at the second section so that it will not be repetitive I think. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image review

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

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

HF

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, that gave me a laugh. You sound upset. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
A combat force of this time and place is a case "where all referents are of one gender". HQ RSs support this: eg Miles, p 202 "menfolk"; Hoyos (2007), p 4 "twenty thousand and more men", p 36 "the men might refuse to leave their wives and children behind", p 58 quoting Polybius "mutinous men"; Bagnall p 112 "years of hard campaigning during which their carnal appetites had either been unrequited or forcefully satisfied", "asked to move their men"; and numerous other examples.
Regarding your strong assumption point, it seems to me to be a strong assumption to be to hypothesize that any women fought in a combat role at a time when gender roles were so separate. Do you have any sources that support the hypothesis of women in a combat role during the Mercenary War? Personally I find it much easier to imagine a boy smuggling themselves into an all-female school, or a student attending one identifying as male, yet "an all-female school" is used by GNL as an example of when "gender-neutral language ... does not apply". There would seem to be an implicit reasonableness test.
Of course, WP:GNL is an essay, one editor's view of how things should be, and as such sits outside the FA criteria.
It is, but MOS:GNL is, well, MoS, and so is part of the FA criteria. In particular, it has Use gender-neutral language ... if this can be done with clarity and precision. I'm not sure we lose any clarity or precision by swapping troops, mercenaries or similar for men. In several cases, the word can simply be cut altogether: for instance, At some point during 240 BC the Carthaginians raised another army, of approximately 10,000 men
On it seems to me to be a strong assumption to be to hypothesize that any women fought in a combat role at a time when gender roles were so separate.: I don't think that's really true, certainly if you go beyond the immediately Greco-Roman world. Our article on the topic has its limitations, but we have plenty of examples of (in particular) queens leading their people in war in or around the C3rd BCE. Indeed, one of the consistent themes of Greco-Roman ethnography is that "other" peoples don't share "our" ideas of the roles of men and women. Again, there's a lot of ifs, buts and caveats there, but I find it difficult to read (for example) Herodotus and Tacitus and then say that it's manifestly obvious that every tribe in North Africa shared the Romans' idea of gender roles. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
Rephrased. "... a few days ..."
Hi UL and thanks for dropping by. My thoughts on your thoughts above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Hi there and thanks for the input. Briefly: Carthage and Tunis were separate places, about 10 miles (16 km) apart; they are still separate places, see eg Google Maps, and still 10 mi apart. The Carthaginians belonged to Carthage or its empire, insofar as Tunisian meant anything 2,263 years ago it would have been a reference to an inhabitant of the (then) minor town of Tunis. Tunisia as a larger entity which one could be a member of didn't appear until around the year 800, more than 1,000 years after the events in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox placeholder

[edit]

I have been meaning to read one of your articles. Heartfox (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HF and thanks for that. This one is a bit gorier than usual I'm afraid, but hopefully interesting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Boo! Long time, no see, my old friend. You'll have to remind me to update you on my whereabouts: it's been a crazy few months! Now that everything's settled down again, I hope to return to my Wikipedia duties full-time again :) Comments to follow shortly! Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh! Gurgle. There may be a delay in responses from this editor while medical assistance is administered. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mind

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments for ErnestKrause

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I added a footnote to cover this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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" ([5]) Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
List of Comments Part 2
  • 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.
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)[reply]
Part of a series on
Philosophy
Philosophies
By period
By region
By religion
Branches
Philosophers
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Arcticocean

[edit]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Mental health and disorder:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shapeyness

[edit]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Could that idea be moved to the mind-body section? I think this is more a substantive philosophical issue rather than a matter of definition, and definitely relevant to the mind-body problem. I don't want to push this if you are heavily against it though (unless other editors/reviewers agree). Shapeyness (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a similar change in the lead [6], I don't mind if you revert or adjust it if necessary. Shapeyness (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Ah, good that you caught this. I fixed the URL. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Thanks, that's a lot clearer! Shapeyness (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • More comments to come.

A few more comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Earlier philosophers typically did not see mind and body as contrasting principles What are the quotes for this? Just checking as it is quite a wide-sweeping statement
    The word "typically" makes it a little less wide-sweeping. Westphal 2016 p. 12 says There is a very common view ... that ... Descartes ... invented ... the mind–body problem. On pp. 21–22, it is explained how earlier philosophical and religious thinkers spoke of mind and body but were not interested in their precise relation. Crane & Patterson 2000, pp. 2–5 talks about how before the "Cartesian paradigm" the "Aristotelian paradigm" dominated the intellectual landscape. It goes on to discuss Aristotle's hylomorphism, according to which mind and body complement each other since the soul is the form of the body’s matter. The body is ‘ensouled’ matter, the soul imposes a form on the matter of the body. The support of these passage is not as straightforward as one would wish for but I hope it is sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They understand material things as mental constructs, for example, as ideas or perceptions I think mental construct has a slightly different connotation than we want here, maybe simply "mental phenomena" or reword to "as collections of ideas or perceptions" or whatever you think is best
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences on reductive physicalism and behaviorism - is the page number right for the Searle source?
    You're right, the 148 should have been a 48. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While non-reductive physicalists agree that everything is physical, they say that mental concepts describe physical reality on a more abstract level that cannot be achieved by physics This is incredibly minor but "achieved by physics" seems like a weird wording to me, "articulated by physics" or "derived from physics" or similar could work
    Reworded. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a perspective that undercuts the distinction between mind and body How? This is left mysterious to the reader
    I tried to clarify it but I'm not sure that it is much of an improvement. There may not be a simple answer without a lengthy excursion into phenomenology. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a lot better! Shapeyness (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary operation of many of the main mental phenomena is located in specific areas of the forebrain → The primary operations of many of the main mental phenomena are located in specific areas of the forebrain?
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few more from my initial read-through. Shapeyness (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these should be the last comments. Shapeyness (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]