Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations

Tumu Crisis

Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about one of the major military defeats in Chinese history, marking the beginning of the decline of the Ming dynasty. The article reached GA for a while and it was also my first article to reach GA. I also hope it will be my first FA. Min968 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounder commuter rail

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

After a decade of sitting on some notes, I have finally finished writing an article on one of my username's inspirations: a commuter train system that serves the Seattle area. It has two lines, runs somewhat infrequently, but boasts great views (especially on the N Line, which runs along Puget Sound). A GAN review was completed last month and I feel that there wasn't substantial changes needed to prepare for a run at FAC. The first line turns 25 in September and I hope to have a TFA ready for that day. SounderBruce 01:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Other services, including reverse commute and mid-day trips are offered" => "Other services, including reverse commute and mid-day trips, are offered"
  • Fixed.
• "which is shared with Amtrak Cascades" - link Cascades, which seems to have an article
  • Added link.
• That's all I got as far as the end of the Stations section. Back for more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• "add passenger cars on gamedays in the future" - might be worth clarifying that the Kingdome was a venue for [whatever sports it was a venue for] (or at the very least clarify that it was a sports stadium) as without that info, "gamedays" is a bit meaningless in this context
  • Added list of sports.
• That's taken me up to the end of "Demonstration project and votes" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review so far. I hope you'll be able to enjoy a ride on Sounder; the N Line to Everett is very scenic and, when combined with a ferry trip, a perfect way to spend a summer afternoon here. SounderBruce 17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'll post a review over the weekend.

• As an early comment, the article would benefit from a better, and especially more interesting, infobox photo to get readers' attention. The current image is cluttered and doesn't depict anything clearly. Something like File:Sounder_at_Carkeek_(20192129658).jpg would be superior. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Swapped with a scenic shot that isn't too "scenic". Will look at retaking a shot from the same vantage point with my equipment when the weather is more reliably sunny. SounderBruce 06:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I've read over the article, which is in excellent shape. I have only 2 comments:

• For the 'Stations' section, were all the stations established for this service or did they exist before it started?
  • Several were existing facilities that were either repurposed for Sounder or built with the hope of eventually serving Sounder; in fact, one of the future stations will serve a bus platform that will have waited 40 years for its train.
• For the ridership section, how does the actual ridership compare with what was expected when this service was planned? Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: Thank you for looking over the article. I have added a blurb with some of the predicted rider numbers that were reported by the Times; will look for more in a bit. SounderBruce 07:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Support  Comments  from Noleander

• I reviewed this about a month ago for GA. The article was in great shape then, and the nominator addressed several issues that I raised at that time.

• A month ago, the article had some railfan lingo, but I believe that was all converted into layman's terms during the GA.

• The article's prose & paragraphs are rather dense and detailed, but I don't think it rises to the point of encroaching on WP guidelines WP:SUMMARY or WP:DETAIL; and a dense, factual style is somewhat expected when describing an engineering infrastructure.

• Map color contrast: There are two maps near the top of the article that do a poor job of communicating info to the reader due to a color-contrast issue: those maps draw the rail line as light blue, while the line is adjacent to a light blue bodies of water (Puget Sound, Lake Washington, etc). .. the lines are very hard to see because it is blue-on-blue. These two maps are in the sections Sounder_commuter_rail#N_Line and Sounder_commuter_rail#S_Line.

The content of the maps is not under the control of the nominator of this article ... the nominator is using the standard rail/subway map template template:Rapid transit OSM map. That template gets the color of the Sounder line from WikiData at: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56525586 and that file contains the official light blue color of the Sounder line, which, coincidentally, is nearly the same color as the map's ocean & lakes.

This is not the first time in the world's history that rail line colors have conflicted with map background colors (e.g. a green rail line going thru a green forest). This color-contrast problem has been solved in real world maps in many ways (e.g. drawing thin black borders on the rail line). For example: Google maps draws this same Sounder rail line in its official light blue color, but has white border lines, so as the line crosses blue water it is still visible: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6669173,-122.4022998,18.17z/data=!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Does the template:Rapid transit OSM map template offer any solutions to this color-contrast issue? For example: does that template provide an alternate way to draw the line to enhance contrast with the background? I posted a query on that template's Talk page: Template_talk:Rapid_transit_OSM_map#Is_there_a_way_to_draw_borders_on_a_rail_line,_to_distinguish_it_from_background_color?

Has this map color-contrast issue been discussed before in the FA process? What was the outcome?

• That's all I have for now. The article is a great article, and I hope my lengthy discussion about the map color issue is not out of place here in the FA review. Noleander (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Noleander: I have also made some inquires about improving the interactive map template; it seems to be using {{Maplink}}, which does have support for color changes, but the code is rather complex. For the time being, I have whipped up a new map in QGIS that should suffice as a placeholder. SounderBruce 07:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: New map looks fantastic. The article is in great shape... I look forward to seeing it on the front page of Wikipedia in September! Support. Noleander (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce One final comment: There is a redundancy near the bottom of the article: the See Also section has a link to Commuter rail in North America, and also there is topic bar Template:USCommRail at the very bottom of the article, which has the identical link to Commuter rail in North America in the topic bar's colored header. Some editors say "See Also" sections should not exist in a great article (on the theory that any important link should be in the body text); on the other hand, the topic bars are not displayed to readers on many devices (e.g. phones). Not a showstopper for FA, just pointing it out. Noleander (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved the link up to the very first use of the term "commuter rail" in the body. Thanks again for your comments. SounderBruce 17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Mercurial World

Nominator(s): CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the debut studio album by Magdalena Bay, a kind-of-indie pop duo from the US. It was almost entirely made by both members of the duo and received critical acclaim, appearing in several rankings (but not as much as their following album).

As my first nomination at FAC, I would appreciate any comments or interest in participating here, and I hope you have a good time reading the article. Thanks to everyone and also to Medxvo and OlifanofmrTennant for the comments in the Peer review. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Misti

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which despite its long inactivity is considered to be among Peru's most dangerous ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Misti has been cited as an example of a volcano where glaciers are retreating due to global warming," - if the consensus of the high-quality RS is that there are no glaciers on Misti, I think we can safely ignore the one reference to this as erroneous. I've seen my fair share of short one-off mentions of stuff in Civil War literature that is just plain wrong, from an author of an overarching work not specializing in the detailed topic matter and misinterpreting a source (or in some places, I almost suspect guessing)

  Done. Sometimes you run into this issue where otherwise reliable sources make plain mistakes - Copiapó (volcano) is my go-to one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the spelling choice between Inca and Inka be standardized?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The city itself was founded on 15 August 1540" - for context, this was founded by the Spanish, right?

  Most likely, but the history is a bit complicated around that time c.f Paullu Inca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru, having erupted 24 times since 1550" - reading through Ubinas#Eruptive history, it appears that this soure is outdated

  Did something a little ugly to solve this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The quebradas (dry valleys) carry water during the wet season" - I think it would be a bit better to introduce the meaning of quebradas earlier in the paragraph where the term is first being used

  However, these are place names, here it's a technical word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "and include the 300-metre (980 ft) thick Río Chili" - this is the only place that the diacritic is used in Rio Chili - is that intentional?

  No, removed it. Actually, I am not sure if it needs one, do you know? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Ready for the eruption history; I hope to be able to finish this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 21:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• I know this is probably due to inconsistent source, but having part of the article say "There is no clear indication of past glaciation, either, except possibly on the western flank." but then later "Traces of glacial erosion[126] like cirques,[128] evidence of hydromagmatic activity and mudflows imply that Misti was glaciated during the first last glacial maximum of the Central Andes 43,000 years

ago." So is there only marginal possible evidence of glaciation, or enough traces to state outright that there is an implication of past glaciation? I think there needs to be some sort of harmonization here

• Sigh. Went with what might be a partial solution, can you double check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Historical records begin in 1540 AD when the Spaniards arrived" - I'm not a huge fan of this phrasing, given that there is some sort of historical Inca record for the 1440/1470 eruption

  I wonder if the 2001 source is outdated, but I don't remember this well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• " on the 2 May 1677, 9 July 1784, 28 July 1787 and 10 October 1787. " - why the "the"?

  Took it and the other word out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• ", to discurage the volcano" - is this a spelling error or a technical term that I am not familiar with?

  Tyop. Fxied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The first documented ascent was by Álvaro Meléndez, a priest from Chiguata,[314] in 1 May 1667." - I guess what qualifies as a documented ascent? Earlier in the article there are reference to various people climbing far enough up the volcano in 1600 to throw stuff into the crater

  One where the person and date is clearly identified, I guess. Many of the mountains there have such ascents which found evidence of earlier ascents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The iron cross on the summit was placed in 1784 and was still there a century later" - this seems like an odd statement, as there's greater detail about the history of the cross earlier in the article, including information that the 1784 cross had been replaced by the century later

  Removed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all for the first pass. Hog Farm _Talk 00:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Greatest Hits (Mariah Carey album)

Nominator(s): TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Mariah Carey's second greatest hits album, released in 2001. Though it was far less commercially successful than her first greatest hits album, #1's (1998), it includes a much greater selection of Carey's previous work, comprising twenty-seven songs across her career from 1990 to 2000.

I will be as receptive to feedback as I can, so I appreciate it if you can take the time to read this article and leave feedback! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Hennebont

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A brief siege of a small town typical of a hundred or a thousand others during the Hundred Years' War. It was notable at the time for the defence being led by a woman, her husband being a prisoner. She even donned armour and rode among the fighting men. The horror! The excitement! She didn't come to the unfortunate end of a later Joan, but she did spend the rest of her life imprisoned as insane. Mostly the article is about the to and fro of armies across Brittany with the occasional short, sharp clash of armed men. I wrote this recently, ran it through GAN, honed it a little and offer it up to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

images - pass

• img1: license good, caption probably not required? as stated in box title, alt good

The infobox images are frequently generic - eg Edward III's Breton campaign. As we are fortunate enough to have a near-contemporary image of the actual siege it seemed worth emphasising this. Tweaked anyway - is that better?

• img2: map good, alt redirecting to caption is fine, consider changing caption to A map of Brittany with modern administrative boundaries, showing locations of interest or similar.

Any particular reason? It's shorter, but also seems to convey less information. (The current usage is also my standard formulation :-) which I have used in a couple of dozen FACs without attracting any comment.)

• img3: license good, caption good, alt good
  • I assume Medieval capitalisation is preference?,

It is.

cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 09:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up Dracophyllum, and so swiftly! My responses are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

ok, I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Well up to the usual Gog standard.

Thank you Tim. I try.

Just two points, neither of which affects my support.

• I think, as our article on the lady is headed "Joan of Flanders, Countess of Montfort", you might offer a little more than a mere footnote to make this alternative way of labelling her clear to the reader from the outset. Perhaps something on the lines of "Joanna of Montfort (sometimes referred to as Joan of Flanders, Countess of Montfort)"? I note, in passing, that a quick rummage in the Internet Archive brings up just one "Joanna of Montfort" as opposed to dozens for "Joan of Montfort" but I do not press the point.

I am loath to bog down the opening sentence of the lead with this sort of background trivia. I could, slightly reluctantly, do as you suggest at first mention in the main article. 1. I would rather not. 2. How Wikipedia articles are titled is not my fault and sometimes entirely beyond the wit of man.

• "... had been underway for five years, therefore Joanna despatched her senior ... counsellor" needs a stronger stop than the comma.

Done.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 10:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Mr riley, I appreciate both the support and the rapidity with which it was proffered. (No gerunds?) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 13:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies on the delay ...

I would remove "p. title page" from the Sarpy reference as another part of Sarpy is also cited, but otherwise after reading through this I feel that I can support. I generally dislike to leave FAC reviews with minimal commentary, but it looks like the other FAC reviewers have already picked up on any issues. Hog Farm _Talk 20:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Done.

Thanks Hog Farm Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• ...with her two-year-old son... Why not their? Was he from a previous marriage or an extramarital affair?

No one knows, they didn't have DNA tests at the time. Their works just as well for me, so changed.

• However, the presumption of legitimacy is on my side. :)

• ...to win the Montfortists back to France... To France or to his cause?

To France.

Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC) One of your usual articles of high-quality , so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MS

Lead

• The article Charles, Duke of Brittany is linked twice in the same paragraph; it constitutes duplicate linking.

I am not seeing this. Are you sure? Which paragraph?

• • I meant the first paragraph of the lead:

The siege of Hennebont took place between late May and late June 1342 when the forces of Charles of Blois conducted an unsuccessful siege of the fortified port of Hennebont, commanded by Joanna of Montfort.[note 1] The conflict was a part of the Breton Civil War, a dynastic dispute between two claimants to the Duchy of Brittany which had broken out the previous year. A complicating factor was the pre-existing Hundred Years' War between France and England. Philip VI of France was supporting Charles of Blois, his nephew;... "Charles of Blois" is linked twice to the article Charles, Duke of Brittany.

Got it. Thank you. Fixed.

• "pulled into this fight" → "drawn into the fighting"

I will if you insist, but I like to try and avoid - where I can - even mild cliches.

• "try and starve" → "attempt to starve"

The former is informal; "attempt to" suits formal historical writing.

Fair enough. Done.

Background

• "all but independent rulers" → "Virtually independent rulers"

Why? What's wrong with the nice straight-forward monosyllables?

• I will not insist upon it.

MSincccc (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a review MSincccc, I appreciate that. Responses above, some of them queries for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Background

• "reinforced the town from the sea" → "reinforced the town by sea" ("By sea" is the standard phrase in historical and military contexts.)

Done.

Siege

• soubriquet → sobriquet (“Sobriquet” is the correct modern spelling; “soubriquet" is outdated and not listed in standard British dictionaries.)

Soubriquet is given as a standard word in the on line Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, and as an alternative spelling in Collins on line and in Wiktionary. On a very quick skim I couldn't find a dictionary which gave it as archaic or non-standard.

Aftermath

• "on 30 September at the battle of Morlaix" → "on 30 September at the Battle of Morlaix"

Capitalisation of "Battle" is standard in British English for named battles.

The HQ RSs don't capitalise it. In fact they rarely capitalise battle when referring to the name of any armed conflict. Nor does it seem to be the standard usage, see [1] and [2]. Going by what we would consider RSs, capitalisation would seem to be the error.

Interestingly, if you ask ngrams to generalise here (by cutting "Morlaix"), there's a very marked preference for "Battle of X" over "battle of X" (clearest when you look at "Battle of the" or the variations on much-referenced battles, which removes the idioms "battle of wits" etc). However, it does seem that both are used. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s all from me for the prose. Responses to your queries above. MSincccc (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from UC

• Philip VI of France was supporting Charles of Blois, his nephew; while Edward III of England had promised military assistance to Joanna, the wife of the rival claimant, John of Montfort: I don't think we can have both while and the semicolon here: a semicolon can only divide two clauses that could otherwise be independent. I'd cut the while, personally.

"while" removed.

• A truce between France and England was in place when the siege started but expired in June.: suggest but it expired to be (grammatically) clear that the siege didn't start-but-expire in June.

Done.

• Would it be worth making Joanna of Montfort into Joanna of Flanders, to even more strongly avoid confusion with John of Montfort? On the other hand, as they're married, I can see the value in using the same epithet.

The sources are all over the place - some scholars simply duck the issue. Still, I would like to keep the current usage, which I think helps the reader in several ways: as you point out, it reinforces the John-Joanna relationship; and it would (IMO) be confusing to have Montfortists supporting Joanna of Flanders.

• The Montfortists pursued: it might be worth explicitly saying that supporters of (John? Joanna?) were/are known as Montfortists.

Ah ha. No. I think a reader can work out which side Montfortists support in an armed conflict featuring a Joanna of Montfort and a John of Montfort.

Well, yes, but are they their volunteer supporters, their hired soldiers, the members of their apocalyptic religious cult...? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that adding that Montfortists were supporters of the Montforts would help a reader in this improbable dilemma. In context in seems clear enough

Charles's French army overran eastern Brittany and captured John of Montfort. Joanna took up the cause and concentrated her resources in Hennebont. In late May 1342 Charles moved on the town. On arrival part of his army advanced against orders and attacked some of the town's defenders who were formed up outside its gate. More troops were pulled into this fight before the French were pushed back in a disorderly retreat. The Montfortists pursued, inflicting many casualties and burning the French camp.

At the time the Hundred Years' War between France and England had been underway for five years; therefore Joanna despatched her senior counsellor, Amaury of Clisson, to Edward III in England with a large sum in cash to encourage English military intervention. The Montfortist cause was soon being supported by Edward III as an extension of the war with France.

I've had a flick through and I can't see any case where there's a plausible misreading or misunderstanding, so I'm happy with the approach taken here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• the Montfortists abandoned Hennebont and redeployed further west, hoping for English reinforcements: is it worth saying here whether they ever arrived?

Ho hum. I could, and I am not set against this. With this sort of article there is frequently no obvious place to stop adding subsequent events. I mean: I add that they did, which raises "And how did they get on?". Etc.

• Brittany was a province of France -- a question -- how far does it make sense to talk about territorial states and provinces in this period, as opposed to which rulers/titles owed fealty to which other rulers and titles? Put another way, would it be more accurate to start this section at "The dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, but governed the duchy as all but independent rulers"?

It would be more accurate, but less helpful to a casual reader. One could write an entire paper on the nuances of the situation and how it arose, and still get responses pointing out all of the nuances one had missed. I have just reread Sumption and Wagner's summaries and I think "Brittany was a province of France. Although the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, they governed the duchy as all but independent rulers." is a decent paraphrase and as good a brief summary for a general audience as one might reasonably hope for. It is a wording which has been thrashed out at some length - with input from your good self.

• I'm not sure we need the regnal dates for John III and Philip IV: knowing John's date of death is useful, but then we get told it immediately after. MOS:BIO generally disapproves of life dates without a compelling reason, and I think the same logic applies here.

Agreed. Some reviewers are enthusiasts for them and sometimes I add them out of prophylactic habit. Although, thinking on't, John's does add some usful information. Philip's removed, John's left for your further consideration.

Honestly, I don't see what it adds that we don't get from finding out that he died in the following sentence -- and it is a bit of a "spoiler", since he hasn't died yet. I suppose it's vaguely useful to give us a sense of how long he's been duke, but I'm not sure we care that much and the narrative doesn't make a point of his being e.g. old, young, experienced, inexperienced -- so we're inviting readers to form judgements without guiding or endorsing them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Deleted.

• What support John had came largely from the lower levels of society, especially in the towns.: this is a little ambiguous: do we mean that most of John's supporters were poor and urban (so nobody in the countryside liked him), or that this pattern was mostly apparent in the towns (so some rich rural folks liked him, but no rich urbanites did?)

I don't get your point. Do "largely" and "especially" not cover this?

No, they don't -- it's not clear exactly what is modified by "especially" ("what support John had" or "the lower levels of society". Could do "Especially in the towns, what support John had came mostly from the lower levels of society", or "John's support came mostly from the lower levels of society, and primarily from the towns". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Neither of those. I think I will stand by the existing wording. I don't see what "especially" can be referring to other than support coming from the lower levels of society.

Can you think of another way of phrasing it, then, at least so that I understand the intended meaning? I don't understand how what we currently have can be equivalent to neither of the options I suggested, though of course I can understand a disagreement over style or phrasing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Rereading the three sources and taking a reasonable stab at just what one of them means, how is "John's support came mostly from the lower levels of society in the countryside and the bourgeoisie in the towns."? Which loses a nuance, but what the heck.

That's very clear to me (though not what I would have taken away from the current wording): you could always bring back "what support John had" to keep the nuance in the current framing that John didn't have much of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't the nuance. It actually works a little better without it. Implemented.

• Starting in early June 1341 John seized most of the fortified places in Brittany and by mid-August had all but made good his claim to the Duchy: lc duchy here.

Done.

• The French King liked: lc king.

No. "They are capitalized ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office". (MOS:JOBTITLE)

Right, but his title wasn't "the French King", so this is now a description. If it were "the King", we would capitalise. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so it is.

• The French King liked the idea of having a relative as the duke as it would bring: I think this could be reworked for clarity. Perhaps "Philip hoped to bring ... by having a relative as duke?"

Weell. I think it helps a reader to first give them what Philip wanted, and then explain why he wanted it; rather than t'other way round.

Perhaps, but the double use of "as", each with a slightly different meaning, makes the sentence stumble. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I have tweaked. "The French king liked the idea the new duke being related to him as it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province ..."

Works well; I've made a minor ce to what I assume was intended. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• This army overran all of eastern Brittany: restate the antecedent (which army?); some readers will make use of the contents links, or section links from elsewhere, and may not have read the preceding section.

Done.

• other lesser places also went over to the French: can we clarify lesser -- smaller? Less strategically important?

I am trying to combine smaller with and/or less well fortified but if "lesser" won't serve I think a longer description is getting non-summary. So i have gone with "and many other places"

• Joanna travelled to England where she went insane and ceased taking part in the war; she was held in Tickhill Castle until she died in September 1374. It has been suggested that her confinement in Tickhill was political, rather than because of mental illness.: two things here. One, the first sentence gives the mental illness as a fact, whereas the second suggests that it may have been a pretext -- do those latter sources believe she did suffer from insanity, but that this wasn't the reason for her confinement? (I must admit to an inherent scepticism here, given the track record of people in the past on claims of "this awkward and gender-non-conforming woman is not mentally sound"). Second, there's a bit of a difference in register between the very modern, PC (in a good way) "mental illness" and the more dated and arguably insensitive (see here, citing the AP stylebook) "went insane".

My fault. Two sentences written at different times using different sources, and then being too close to proof read properly. Most sources briefly state as a fact that she went insane. Sarpy dedicates most of her book to arguing that this was a fix - much as you summarise. I find this convincing, but perhaps because it fits my biases. How about "Joanna travelled to England and took no further part in the war and died in September 1374. She stayed in Tickhill Castle and it was given out at the time that she had gone insane; this is accepted by most historians although it has been suggested that she was confined for political reasons, rather than because of mental illness.

I think that works -- we're placing "insane" firmly as a contemporary judgement rather than endorsing it, much as we might say that someone was diagnosed with hysteria or melancholy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Implemented.

As Tim says, very much up to the usual Gog standard, and I enjoyed the memory test on the last article on the Breton Civil War.

Thank you UC, your usual insightful review. All addressed, with a number of queries back to you. Should I organise an end of series test for regular reviewers of my Breton Civil War FACs? Just one more to go on the first two years of this war - the Truce of Malestroit - and then I shall give you all a break from things Breton for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

My (relatively few) quibbles are now all resolved, so moving to support. Will look forward to the end-of-topic test. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

To come. —Kusma (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• What is the deal with Ormrod 1980 "The three Edwards"? The book appears to be by Michael Prestwich (and I can find a couple of other 1980 publishers, but you can of course use your edition).

The deal is I am cracking up. Ormrod wrote Edward [the Third], Prestwich The Three Edwards. They sit next t o each other on a shelf. I confuse them. Fixed.

The paper copy I own is an obscure Book Club edition.

• Some of the books have orig_year, some don't (for example, Burne 1999 is from 1955 or 1956 depending on who you ask. Allmand 2001 is the revised edition of a book from 1988). Check what you want here.

The two orig years removed.

• Some publishers are linked (one Routledge and one Clarendon Press), some are not. Probably best to unlink all.

Agreed. Done.

• I think Sarpy (ref 1) would look nicer if you dropped the "title page" from the citation and moved it into the {{sfn}} with |loc=title page but I will not complain if you ignore this suggestion.

I couldn't work out how to do what you were referring to, but have done something different which you may or may not be happy with.

Almost (and sorry for the typo in my suggestion): it still needed fixing in the Sources section, which I have just done.

• Ref 43: there does not seem to be a chapter named "political prisoner" in the book; what do you mean?

It's a section header. To save any poor spot checker having to wade through a whole chapter. It should show up on a ctrl-F search

Maybe say |loc=section "Political prisoner" then? Just "Sarpy 2019, political prisoner" looks a bit odd.

Sure. Done.

• Remove page numbers in Wagner 2006 (those are only for the "Breton Civil War" entry). You cite the same book also with other page numbers, for example in refs. 38 and 46.

Bleh! Sorry. Done.

Sources are generally decent history books from reputable publishers. Wagner 2006 is technically tertiary but looks decent (citing sources). Did a few lazy spot checks, all fine. One major issue (author name), a few small consistency issues, perhaps make Sarpy prettier. —Kusma (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Kusma. Appreciated. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Almost happy, just not a super fan of the political prisoner (see above). —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, all looks fine now. Source review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A second attempt for this one. In December 1862, Ulysses S. Grant and Henry Halleck managed to divert a command intended for political general John A. McClernand to William T. Sherman. After Sherman led this force to defeat in the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou, McClernand took over and reorganized the command. Sherman and McClernand had independently decided to reduce a Confederate position on the Arkansas River known as Fort Hindman, which was commanded by the luckless Thomas Churchill. After some maneuverings and shellings from the David Dixon Porter's Union Navy squadron, McClernand's infantry assault was repulsed along the lines, but unauthorized flags of surrender were raised over the Confederate lines. The ensuing chaos resulted in Union troops swamping the Confederate lines, and the fort was captured and later destroyed. Grant took personal command not long afterwards, and after some false starts embarked upon his famous campaign that captured Vicksburg. Courtesy ping to prior reviewers - @History6042, Nikkimaria, and Gog the Mild:. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

images

• img1: license good, caption good, alt long but key info in first sentence
• img2: license good, caption short but good, alt very long but key info in first sentence
• img3: license good, caption good, consider Operations against Vicksburg, including the Arkansas Post Expedition (4), alt long but key info in first sentence
• img4: license good, caption good, alt good
• img5: license good, caption good maybe consider appending Colonel although i see it is in prose, alt good
• img6: license good, caption good, alt good
• img7: license good, caption good, change alt to Soldiers advance across a ditch on planks and up sloped earthworks
  • Many of the alts are very detailed, but ok because they present key info right away. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 05:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    • @Dracophyllum: - Thank you for your review! Are these changes what you had in mind? Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

      yes. I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "the Union Army (as the United States was known during the war)" Pardon?
  • Is "As the United States Army was known during the war" better? I have had reviewers express concern that to non-Americans it is not necessarily obvious that Union = USA Hog Farm _Talk
• "that Arkansas Post should be attacked;" Optional: make the semi colon a colon.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Acting Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter's Union Navy fleet". That's a lot of blue.
  • Split up partially - I don't think there's a clean way to prevent the rank & name from being blue next to each other. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Link "cutoff"? Meander cutoff?
  • That isn't the sort of cutoff going on here - more like two rivers eventually eroding the space between them. Apparently the Corps of Engineers still has issues trying to prevent this from recurring on these rivers. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Union troops moved up close to and swamped parts of the Confederate line." Maybe 'Union troops moved up close to the Confederate line and swamped parts of it.'?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Grant relieved McClernand of command of the operations against Vicksburg on January 30 and took command of the campaign personally." I am not a fan of "command of" twice.
  • Is "Grant relieved McClernand on January 30 and took command of the campaign against Vicksburg personally" any better? Or does it read as a complete canning of McClernand rather than just a demotion? Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "this was a key event in the outcome of the war." I am not sure that something can be a "key event" in an outcome". An outcome is, as it were, instantaneous. What was it anyway? ;-) Maybe 'key contribution to the eventual Union victory' or similar?
  • Have rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "by controlling its coastline and major rivers. A significant component of this strategy was controlling the Mississippi River." "...by controlling ... was controlling ..." Optionally.
  • I've combined the sentences into a single sentence; Nick-D did express some concerns with excessive wordiness at the A-Class review. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "from separating the two-halves of the Confederacy." Perhaps 'from separating the eastern and western of the Confederacy.'?
  • Have rephrased to "from separating the eastern and western halves of the Confederacy" Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Union Navy elements". Would these "elements" be ships?
  • Yes, rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "to make another campaign". Does that work in US English?
  • I don't know I guess. This sounds right to me but so does the positive anymore and "might ought to" Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant ". Perhaps mention his area of authority?
  • I've added a sentence to mention this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "down the Mississippi Central Railroad". Perhaps 'along'?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "in an campaign".
  • Oops, fixed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "from high ranking Union military and political figures". Does that need a hyphen? ('high-ranking')
  • Not sure; have added to be on the safe side. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Halleck, who distrusted McClernand, used this language in the official orders". Perhaps 'put this language', to be really clear?
  • I've clarified some stuff in the prior paragraph. The orders were dictated by Lincoln but this part was influenced by Halleck. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Grant was also growing concerned about the length of his supply line in Mississippi". "Also". Also to what or whom?
  • I'm not sure, removed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the support of the president". Upper-case P.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Acting Rear Admiral David D. Porter was in command". You link rear admiral in the lead, but not here.
  • Linked. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the movement he had intended to command left without him." I have trouble with both McClernand commanding a "movement" and a "movement" leaving anywhere.
  • Replaced with "force" Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "The same day that Sherman left". It may be worth clarifying that Sherman left at the same time as his men. If he did.
  • I've added more detail to both this and the description of Sherman's advance movements. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Sherman's operation reached the Vicksburg area on Christmas Eve". An "operation" reached an area?
  • Replaced operation with force Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Defeated, Sherman's men re-boarded their ships on January 1, 1863, and withdrew from the battlefield." They "withdrew from the battlefield" after they "re-boarded their ships"?
  • Rephrased to "withdrew from the Yazoo" Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "was reassigned to supervise Confederate river defenses within the state. Suggest just 'assigned'.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Behind it was a sloped wall, which was 18 feet". High? Wide?
  • Clarified. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "was on the north side curtain wall." Hyphenate north-side?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "a 9-inch (23 cm) Columbiad cannon was position in the northeastern bastion's casemate." positioned?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Many of the men assigned to defend the fort were concerned that it was poorly sited" In what way?
  • What I've got to work with here is "The troops who manned the post, however, had serious misgivings about the location" followed by a series of quotes from Roger Q. Mills, an unnamed Texan, a captain in the W. P. Lane Rangers, and an "armchair historian" that the citation for the paragraph leads me to believe is probably a reference to an 1880s Southern Bivouac article. I will try to hunt up something more specific in the other sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "with another tier of rifle pits between the outer line and the fort." Was this line started or completed?
  • Started - clarified. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the attempt was foiled by flooding along the riverbanks." Caused by the defenders or the weather?
  • Weather, added. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "On the night of January 3/4, the two officers went to speak with Porter". Sherman and McClernand, or McClernand and Gorman?
  • The former; noted. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Writing about Sherman's support for the plan, Richard L. Kiper wrote that ..."
  • Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "as the operation would occur within Curtis's area of command". Maybe add 'geographical'?
  • Went with "geographic" Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of Prelude details Churchill's troops, except for his cavalry, which turn up in the next section. McClernand's forces are also broken down in Battle, while the Union navy contribution is partially listed in Battle. The Confederate artillery is listed in Background, except for some mobile artillery in Battle. Some mobile Union artillery crops up just after this. Might it make sense for all known information to be lumped together in an Opposing forces section?
  • @Gog the Mild: - Does Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)#Opposing forces look like an improved start? I'm going to have my wife go provide a list of copy-editing suggestions this weekend. I'm still looking for a succint summary of the Union Navy forces. The detailed oobs in Smith 2023 and Bearss 1985 do not list the naval vessels. Smith 2023 at one point lists a number of vessels involved in the operation, but this does not include among others Monarch and is clearly incomplete. Tomblin's The Civil War on the Mississippi includes a detailed listing of part of the Union fleet, but the structure of the rest is unclear from that work, and where Black Hawk among others falls in there is not stated. I can/will keep looking, but Bearss's trilogy is considered to be probably the most comprehensive thing ever written on the Vicksburg campaign, with Smith's five-volume work as the second most detailed. The lack of a detailed naval order of battle in those works is concerning. Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "he ordered his men to defend the outer set of rifle pits, which were still incomplete. As it was believed that the Union troops already heavily occupied the area of the lower rifle pits, the orders were changed to hold the inner line of rifle pits, closer to the fort." Is "the outer set of rifle pits" the same thing as "the lower rifle pits". Is "the inner line of rifle pits, closer to the fort" the "another tier of rifle pits between the outer line and the fort"?
  • Clarified in the original description of the rifle pits - although the comma placement in what I have added is guesswork. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "and the six cannons of Hart's Arkansas Battery". "the" implies they have already been mentioned in the article.

I'm going to pause here. The action hasn't started and I've picked up a lot of - mostly minor - bits and pieces. And I have reviewed it recently - did I miss all of this. HF, could you resolve the above - possibly by telling me I am wrong - give the rest of the article a bit of a copy edit and then ping me to finish the review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll work my way through these concerns over the next day or to, and then have my wife read through this for spelling/grammar/stuff not making sense. After which I will attempt to give this a round of self copy editing. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• The title: do we need the year as a disambiguator?
  • This was moved by Lieutcoluseng in 2018 to distinguish from Battle of Arkansas Post (1783). Pageviews in 2024 were about 2.5 to 1 for the 1863 battle rather than the 1783 one. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas refers to the 1783 action as the "Colbert Raid". I am not familiar with the 1783 action and would like to hear what Lieutcoluseng has to say. Hog Farm _Talk 01:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wholeheartedly agree, Hog Farm. Done. Your point of view makes sense for reasons stated in most recent page move comment. Have a great day. Lieutcoluseng (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Eritha

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This article was an interesting and tricky one to put together. There are probably two real-life figures from the Aegean Bronze Age (with apologies to Agamemnon) that we can really write about as rounded human beings, and Eritha is one of them. She was a priestess, probably of the goddess Potnia, who worked near the Mycenaean citadel of Pylos in the last year before that palace was destroyed by fire. Quite by chance, the blaze preserved records of her name in the palatial administration's accounts, which also give us the oldest known testimony of a legal dispute on the European continent.

The direct evidence base for Eritha and her life is minuscule: this article therefore has to do a lot more "building up" than would normally be necessary in a biography, particularly around apparently simple questions like "when did she live?" and "what was her job?" I have tried to strike a balance here, aiming to avoid digressing while making sure that the essential context to understand what we do know about her life is given, following what the grown-up academics include when bringing her into their discussions. Similarly, I have tried to keep things comprehensible while not shying away from the arcane questions of philology that are unfortunately essential to any discussion of the dispute that brings her into the historical record. The article underwent a GA review by Iazyges in January, for which I am grateful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers

Interesting topic! I didn't know she existed; I only know the creme de la creme and the firestarters, apparently I'll do some spot checks given UC's track record of successful nominations. I will spot-check 10% of the total references General questions

• I can't see the method for which sources are linked vs which aren't – e.g., Deger-Jalkotzy (1988) has a Google Books link, as does Finlayson (2013), but there isn't one for Bennet (2013) or Benet & Shelmerdine (2008).

Spotchecks

• Linear B tablets were written on clay and retained for at most a year.[36]

• Bennet (2001) is a bit dense so I struggled to find this. Got it, though! I think the article expresses a little more certainty than Bennet does ("implies"), but passes.

• Linear B tablets were written on clay and retained for at most a year.[36]

• Salgarella (2020) refers back to Bennet and uses more authoritative language, so that's a double pass

• Those identified by name in the Pylian tablets, such as Eritha, constitute around 2% of the estimated population of the polity. Dimitri Nakassis has argued that they represent "a broad elite group" within it.[7]

• Pass.

• Eritha appears to have been the more important of the two.[10]

• Pass

• Priestesses are shown as having control over land, men, women and material goods, including textiles.[8]

• Pass – I do wonder if it might be helpful to clarify, as the source does, that we aren't quite sure what ownership entails within the context of this society. It'd make for an interesting footnote?

• I've tried to hedge it with "having control over": you're right that the concept of "property" may not be helpful here (and, confusingly, there are people in the social picture called "owners" who are a completely different thing). At the moment I'm not sure a footnote would clarify or add much. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Land designated as "communal" was leased to individuals by the damos, and conferred obligations on the leaseholder with respect to the damos.[11]

• Pass.

Give me a ping when you respond. Engaging work, thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: thanks for the review. I've taken out the Google Books links, for consistency -- we now only have links where the full text appears online and is accessible by means other than the DOI, JSTOR or other named parameter. Happy to add any that I've missed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Support on sourcing. Ping me if a prose review is needed down the line. Thank you for the work — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

images

• img1: is it the case that the lede image only possible depicts Eritha?, license good, caption good, consider changing alt to Painting of a woman with skin rendered in white, holding up two bundles of grain
  • I don't want to go as far as "possibly of Eritha" -- although Mycenaean painting is remarkably standardised between sites and over time in its visual idiom, this one's from Mycenae rather than Pylos, and may not be quite contemporary with her. However, it's as close as we're going to get: I think it has encyclopaedic value in showing how a person like Eritha was depicted/visualised in her society, and the flipside of Mycenaean painting being so stylised is that we can say pretty confidently that a portrait of Eritha would look like that if one existed. Done on the alt. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• img2: license good, caption ok but consider linking polity, consider changing alt to: Photograph of Mycenaean ruins, showing the foundations of a wall
  • Both done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• img3: awesome svg, license good, caption good, remove fullstop from alt
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• img4: where is that map in present day terms?, license good, i would like present day loc in caption if known, alt good but rmv fullstop
  • I've added a bit to the caption. Full stop in the alt is needed, as it contains the full sentence Map of the south-western Peloponnese: several sites, including Pylos, are labelled in Linear B, ancient Greek and English.. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • overall shockingly great images here, if alts are not full sentences don't give them fullstops. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Thank you -- replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

      Great, I agree the lede image and caption are appropriate. support for images. Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• By the time of Eritha's life... I would add the century.
  • I've gone for "at the end of the Bronze Age", since she was alive around the transition between the C13th and C12th, but we don't know how old she was and therefore how much of her life covered either one. These dates are all a bit fuzzy anyway! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• It is believed to have been a religious centre near Pylos.... I would be more specific: "Archeological evidence and written sources indicate that...", or something similar.
  • Ha -- if only! Honestly, it's little more than well-established (and generally accepted) guesswork. The place seems to be important to the palace, and there's clearly some flow of people and goods between the two, so it would make sense for it to have been vaguely nearby. Similarly, there's a cemetery site not too far from Pylos at Volimidia, which has a lot of tombs despite not really seeming that impressive otherwise, so that gets hypothesised as a religious site because... tombs are kinda/maybe religious? We don't know anything about the links between Mycenaean religion and funerary habits, and the patterns as to where they put their tombs are complicated and pretty clearly involve lots of competing priorities. The best guess is that Sphagianes is Volimidia, but it's entirely a guess, and there's no real evidence behind it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ..., who may have been a mother goddess and was possibly the chief goddess of the Pylian pantheon. She was a mother goddess according to the relevant article.
  • The relevant article is a little overconfident, unfortunately. We know basically nothing about Potnia besides her name (which means something like "mistress") -- we have no images, no definite sites of her worship, no epithets... UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would move note "b" after the comma following the text "centre near Pilos" in the same sentence.
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ... "servants of the god"... Why not singular?
  • They are plural, so the label needs to be: compare "three magistrates known as consuls"; "major churches known as 'Basilicas'", or similar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Only 5% of the land... Why not plural?
  • Non-countable noun, like "5% of the water" or "5% of the money". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Most of the landholders there, including Eritha, are described with titles associated with religious cult, particularly forty-six people labelled as "servants of the god". ... Eritha is one of two women named as religious figures, along with another named Karpathia. ... Another woman at Sphagianes, by the name of Huamia, is listed on the tablet PY Ep 704 as a "servant of the god" Contradiction?
  • I wasn't counting "servants of the god" as religious figures -- they seem to be servants/slaves owned by the god/religious institution. There's probably a clearer way to phrase "religious figures" to mean "people like priests". Will think on it: any suggestions? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've had a go with "holding religious office". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why does not note "e" follow the citation (in contrast with all other notes)?
  • Now this is what I come to FAC for -- fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would state that the meaning of the term "etōnion" is uncertain in the section when it is first mentioned.
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ...happened late in the LH IIIB period, around the transition to LH IIIC, and... I would delete. Alternatively, explain the periods.
  • I ended up going for a footnote here. It's complicated, but we need to use the pottery dates, because that's the area of certainty: the absolute date is a lot less secure (because all absolute dates are dubious in the Aegean Bronze Age). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ...an etōnion may have been required to pay no or fewer taxes to the damos... To the damos (the ordinary people)?
  • Not a great definition, unfortunately: we did discuss what the damos was in the previous two paragraphs, so I don't think a gloss is helpful ("a body that probably represented or oversaw, somehow, at least some of the [other?] landholders"?) or particularly necessary.

• • What about deleting the text "to the damos"? Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Nakassis's point is that the tax Eritha owed (or didn't owe) might have been to the damos (so that damos are unhappy because they're getting less income); others think the obligation was to the palace, and possibly that the damos had to pay the difference if some of Eritha's land was tax exempt (so the damos are complaining either that Eritha is getting a free ride, or that they have to pay more tax because of her).UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• ...competing loci of religious, civic and royal power... I would avoid the use of the term "loci". Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • maybe domains could work? Loci basically means circular region iirc. Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 07:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    • "Loci" in the sense of "locations": I've gone for "centres", though I'm not totally happy with that (I was trying to keep it fudgy as to whether we meant places, institutions or people). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Borsoka. A few replies above; more to follow (mostly the ones where I agree straightfowardly). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• (lead) ..., near the palatial centre of Pylos I would delete.
  • I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but why? We've already established Pylos as a state, and I think it's helpful to show readers where Sphagianes was within that state; I think the link to Palace of Nestor has value as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would shorten the lead's second paragraph quite radically. Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Here I appreciate that we all have different approaches, and my way of writing an article is likely to be different from what many wise, skilled and capable people would have done. However, I'm not sure I see the advantage here. The lead is currently (by a rough count on Word) 257 of the article's 2455 words (which doesn't count references, notes and biblio), which at ~10% seems well in line for lead length; MOS:LEADLENGTH has Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. The paragraph in question is 69 words and summarises just about all the biographical information we have for Eritha other than her legal dispute; it condenses the "Position in society" section, which is 676 words, so again the rough 10:1 ratio is holding steady. I can't really see that anything in there is trivial or irrelevant for a reader who won't read the body -- but, as ever, happy to discuss. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I think that's all replied to, though I'm afraid I've quibbled a couple. Open to discussion on those, particularly if I've misunderstood your point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would still delete the second paragraph's first sentence because it contains information repeated in other sentences. However, this is not a major issue, so I support the promotion of this article. Thank you for completing this interesting article about the extremly poorly documented life of a Late Bronze Age woman. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, Borsoka -- appreciate your time and sharp-eyed comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

20 Exchange Place

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a skyscraper in Lower Manhattan, New York City. Built as the headquarters of the City Bank–Farmers Trust Company, it was one of the city's tallest buildings and the world's tallest stone-clad building at the time of its completion. At one point, 20 Exchange was planned to be the world's tallest building as well, but since it didn't, the tower has fallen into relative obscurity compared with the Empire State and Chrysler buildings (which did claim that title). While 20 Exchange may seem like just another NYC skyscraper nowadays, it has some interesting architectural features, such as massive "giants of finance" and a lobby with 45 types of marble.

This page became a Good Article five years ago after a Good Article review by Lee Vilenski, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit by Mox Eden (which I also appreciate) and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MS

Lead

• "New York City" should be delinked as per MOS:OL.

Critical reception and landmark designations

• The article on The Times could be linked in this section.

MSincccc (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Times and The New York Times are not the same and should not be used interchangeably. MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Architecture

• The articles Architectural Forum and Rotunda (architecture) could be linked in this section. MSincccc (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments so far, @MSincccc. I've addressed these, and I have used the NYT's full name to reduce confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Architecture (continued)

• DTH had also hired several teams of experts, who suspected the issues were related to power surges from Consolidated Edison machinery, but Con Ed said its equipment was functioning properly. Could "Con Ed" be mentioned within round brackets on its first mention?
  • I just spelled out the company's name, since this is the only other use of it. - EG
• The article Life and Trust could be linked in this section.
  • Done. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@User:MSincccc: Thanks for these comments. I've now addressed them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've no further suggestions. Good luck with your nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Support  Comments  from Noleander

• The primary image in the InfoBox is rather dark: it would be an easy matter to retouch it to brighten it: especially the shadow regions
  • I'm not actually sure how to do this. I'll ask around. - EG
• Explain: entire irregular city block and .. That phrase "irregular city block" is used twice. What does it mean? 99% of city blocks in USA are rectangular. Is this block 3-sided? 5-sided? trapezoid? Readers will want to know.
  • It's a four-sided block with irregular side lengths (I think the side lengths are already mentioned but I'll clarify this shortly). - EG
• Elaborate: Art Deco is a very important American art/architectural form. It is mentioned in passing a few places, including the lead which says it is an art deco building: but article seems to lack specifics. Maybe some pics of the art deco decorations? A list of art deco features? Comparison with other art deco NY buildings?
  • Unfortunately, the sources I found didn't even agree on whether the building was Art Deco, let alone elaborate on the Art Deco architectural features. The use of setbacks and vertical stone piers is pretty common in Art Deco buildings (but this is original research, so I can't add it). - EG
• Define ... white Rockwood stone.. - If this is a major component of the facade, it should be defined. The existing red link is not helpful. Where is the stone from? Can you find some website that defines/describes the stone and insert some of that info into this article?
  • The next sentence actually mentions where the stone came from (Alabama). The sources don't say who made the stone, only that it's a type of oolitic limestone. I found a source that describes what this is in more detail, but it goes into technical detail that, in my opinion, may not fit in the article. - EG
• Nationality is useful: as decorations designed by David Evans. ... Maybe change to ... British sculptor David Evans ....
  • Done. - EG
• Provocative word: which supposedly could handle over 100,000 .. "supposedly" should be omitted, unless the sources say there was some question whether the capacity was an exaggeration; in which case that controversy should be mentioned in the body text (or in a footnote for that sentence).
  • I removed this as suggested. The sources don't give any indication that this was in dispute. - EG
• Exernal Links vs InfoBox: External links... Official website is kinda hidden. The Infobox supports the website tag, so consider eliminating the External Links section and instead adding this tag into InfoBox: | website = http://20xnyc.com/the-building.aspx
  • Actually I realized that this was a dead link, so I've replaced it. I copied the new website to the infoboz as well. - EG
• Elevators: Problems with the elevators persisted through mid-2022... That was three years ago ... any updates?
  • Unfortunately, not that I can find. - EG
• Clarify: architecture critic Robert A. M. Stern wrote in his 1987 book New York 1930 that 20 Exchange Place's proximity to other skyscrapers, including 70 Pine Street, 1 Wall Street, 40 Wall Street, and the Downtown Athletic Club, "had reduced the previous generation of skyscrapers to the status of foothills in a new mountain range". I'm not sure what the critic was saying. The listed buildings are all about the same height as 20 Exchange Place , but it sounds like the critic is saying they are shorter than 20 Exchange Place? Regardless, consider adding some words to clarify his point, whatever it is, since it is confusing as it stands now.
  • Stern says that these other buildings are the same height or taller than 20 Exchange Place. It's older buildings that are shorter. I've fixed this. - EG
• and a budget of $9.5 million... Readers would be happy to see that in todays dollars. I think template:inflation would work, e.g.

    $9.5 million (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|9.5|1929|r=2}} million in {{Inflation/year|US}}) 

Will display: $9.5 million (equivalent to $173.96 million in 2024)

• Done. - EG

• See also Section: 60 Wall Street - Why is this here? If it has a special relation to 20 Exchange Place, then add a few words following the Blue link so users can decide to click on it or not.
  • It's one of the buildings near 20 Exchange. I moved it up to the Site section. - EG
• .. the lobbies had been closed to the public by the end of the 20th century. Lobbies are an important part of many NYC skyscrapers. Readers will want to know if the lobbies are open to the public today, or not.
  • The last paragraph of the "Residential use" section mentions that the main lobby has been open to the public as a coffee shop since February 2024. Please let me know if you want me to make it clearer. - EG
• @Epicgenius: That is all I have for now. Ping me when you have addressed/resolved the above, and I'll make another pass. Noleander (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the initial comments. I've addressed a few of these and will take a look at the rest soon. Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Noleander: Thanks again for the initial comments. I've now addressed or replied to all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Article is looking pretty good. Two remaining issues I see: (a) suggest delete "External Links" section, since that URL is now in the InfoBox (redundancy is generally avoided, unless there is a compelling reason); and (b) Image in InfoBox is rather lame .. consider swapping with the more vibrant image that is located in the article's Development section. Almost ready to support. Noleander (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: Thanks for these as well. I've done both of these; for the infobox image, I just swapped it with another pic. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Support. Noleander (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

images

• img1: license good, no caption req, alt good
  • Thanks. Actually, I might touch up this image later, per Noleander's above comments. - EG
• img2: a little blurry license good, caption good, alt missing
  • I've added an alt. I might head back downtown later to take a better pic, though it may take a few weeks. - EG
• img3: license good, consider changing caption to Entrance on Beaver Street; the central arch serves as a service entrance or similar. alt missing
  • I've added an alt. - EG
• img4: license good, caption good, consider swapping sentence order in alt
• img5: is license derived from no known author?, caption good consider adding date taken, alt good
• img6: license good, caption good, alt good; is that angle < 90 degrees i can't tell from the pic
• img7: license good, caption good, alt good
  • epic looking building. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review Dracophyllum. I've addressed the comments you've raised. Epicgenius (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

      nice. I can support for images. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Contingency Song

Nominator(s): Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

"Contingency Song" is a single from Jane Remover's second studio album, Census Designated. Released alongside a reissue of their debut studio album, Frailty (2021), and an announcement of their first merchandise capsule, the song's single version differs in production than its album version. In March, I created the article and upgraded it to GA. I later put it up for peer review with limited, yet substantial participation. I believe that, although the article is short, it covers its bases from all available information on the Internet, and has no information left behind. Thank you!

I would also love to give a big thank you to Medxvo for reviewing the article for GA and helping me out with copy editing. Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Averageuntitleduser

Signing on. Should be done today or tomorrow. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The two versions of the song differ in length and in the way in which they were produced." — perhaps just: "in length and production."
  •  Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• In the lead and body, "relationship" could be specified (e.g. romantic relationship, intimate relationship).
  • The Fader states Jane repeats, dreading the world-eating collapse of a relationship before the track descends into pure staticky chaos. Pitchfork states As its gloomy climate grows in harshness, Jane shuts down over a destructive relationship. Both don't specify what type of relationship, so claiming that Remover is singing about a romantic/intimate on in the wiki article would be OR, right? Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • "Relationship" is commonly used in that sense, and considering the dramatic contexts in the sources, I think we are okay. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• "while the mastering for the single and album version were handled by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively." — I think a rewrite without "handled" is more direct, e.g. "while the single and album version were mastered by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively". Change similarly in the body.
  •  Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "A drum-less track" — suggest removing from the lead as too detailed.
  •  Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Over the course of the song, the instrumental grows in intensity until it conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence." — replace
  • I'm going to need a little bit more guidance here; replace what exactly? Is the whole sentence poorly written? The sources that I am using for this claim (and the claim in the body) read: The pulverizing noise soon eclipses them, squealing and churning until a sense of resignation begins to close in. (Pitchfork) and Contingency Song” builds in beauty and intensity throughout most of its six and a half minutes without ever dropping a beat, then bottoms out into gorgeous near-silence again. (Stereogum). do you have a recommendation for what exactly could be changed with the sentence? not disagreeing but this is just the best I can currently come up with based on the sources. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Whoops! I clearly hadn't finished this. It was a originally a nit-picky word choice comment. But I think it's negligible now, so no issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• "alongside the release of" — I think this is used to avoid the semantics over whether Remover or the label released the songs, which secondary sources presumably don't always specify. But it felt a bit clunky both times:
  • The first sentence could be rewritten as a list and Helfand's article could be sourced to add that the songs were released by DeadAir: "In June 2022, Jane Remover came out as a trans woman, announced their new stage name, and released the songs 'Royal Blue Walls' and 'Cage Girl' via DeadAir Records."
  • At that point, I don't think active voice would be too confusing in the other sentence ("and released the single 'Lips'"). Passive voice could work too ("and the single 'Lips' was released").
    •  Done both. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "merchandise capsule" — I hadn't heard this phrase before, and when Googling it within quotes, a tweet by DeadAir is one of the top results. Would "merchandise line" work?
  •  Done, "merchandise line" works! Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Office Magazine has the good detail that Remover placed the song last to represent dawn.
  •  Added, thanks for this! Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "until its noise conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence" — "until its noise... ends in near-silence" is a bit confusing.
  • Same as the above one (where I listed both the Pitchfork and Stereogum sources) Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • I would just say: "until it conceals". The instrumental ending in silence reads smoother than noise ending in silence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• BrooklynVegan listed the song as among their favourites of the week. Not much, but I think it could be added.
  •  Added. I saw this when editing the article but BrooklynVegan, at the time, was not listed at WP:A/S, so I was unsure it would have passed the "high quality" source inspection for FA. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "artistic reinvention and sound evolution" — naturally, what was the artistic reinvention? Could you elaborate in the article?
  •  Done, let me know if it looks good? Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • It's good. I think we could say even a bit more. I came up with: "artistic reinvention away from bitcrushed electronic music and toward a shoegaze sound with clean electric guitars." Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

A few more comments about "Composition" and "Critical reception" are on the way. In the meantime, don't mind my pickiness. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries about the pickiness! I got most done, but need some clarification on a few. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• "It is a drum-less track" — I would say "It contains no drums". Also, it would be worth introducing/repeating here that this is in contrast to traditional rock and roll structures.
• Sometimes in the "Critical reception" section, the article could integrate the quotes to better explain what the reviewers mean. This would also help remove some repetition with the "Composition" section.
  • DeVille seems to think that the song builds up smoothly and without losing momentum. Something like that could replace his second quote.
  • Harris's article isn't very opinionated, so I would weaken "lauded" to "complemented" or "enjoyed". In place of the quote, we could just say that he liked the song's progression.

Ok. I think that's all. Also, I recommend removing the graphics templates from this review page. That instruction is in the blurb at the top of WP:FAC, which is admittedly not the shortest. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

wee image review

• image: fair use license good; resolution fine, no caption needed, alt good. That isn't the album cover so what exactly is it? Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  It is the single cover: Apple Music Locust member (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  ok. I can support for image(). Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of Beavers

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the plot, production, release, and reception of the film Hundreds of Beavers. It was upgraded to GA status by me back in February. It is comparable in length to some other FA-class film articles. I have done intense research for this article since May 2024. I have used every possible news article or web page and created a Google alert solely for subjects related to this. Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Dracophyllum

images

• img1: fair use license good, res good, caption good, alt missing
• img2: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white to alt
• img3: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white photograph to alt
• img4: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white photograph to alt
• img5: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white poster of to alt; maybe delink them in the footer?
• img6: caption good, license good, consider changing alt to Mike Cheslik attending a video call in 2024
• img7: caption good, license good, include location in alt
• img8: a little blurry license good, caption good, alt missing
  • some small changes needed. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum: Done in this edit Jon698 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

nice. I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Maltese nationality law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the history and regulations of Maltese citizenship. Given that it's been in the news recently for its citizenship by investment scheme, I thought I'd be a good time to put this article forward for FAC. I took it through GA a few years ago (thank you Pichemist) and updated it according to recent developments. Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Great initiative, I wish you best of luck. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Coat_of_arms_of_Malta.svg needs a tag for the design

• Changed this to an older design since that would have been the CoA at the time of passing. I tagged this one as PD under Maltese law.

• File:European_Economic_Area_and_Switzerland.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• So the main concern here the use of these specific colors? Or that there should be a pattern on the fill? I'm really unfamiliar working with images and so I'm trying to understand what is actionable for this. Horserice (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• There should be a way to understand the image without being able to see the colours - so that could be a pattern, or a symbol, or some other way of labelling. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've reached out to the original creator of that image for assistance. If we get to a point where the image is an issue for passing the review, I'll just remove it. Horserice (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Arcticocean

The recent ECJ case was timely, as you have been developing this article for several years and had it more or less ready to propose for FA status. I enjoyed reading this article.

I am surprised that after the recent case, the article is stable enough to meet FACR no. 1(e) but the page history shows that it clearly is. This will just be a review of its prose and readability, section by section:

• Lead:
  • Good, and initially conveys the legal significance of Maltese and EU citizenship with ease.
  • they continue to have favoured status when residing in the United Kingdom: is this WP:WEASEL? If the favoured status is the Commonwealth status, it may be better to make the link explicit, as in something like 'favoured status as Commonwealth citizens when residing in the UK; they are eligible to vote [etc]'. Otherwise, I'm not sure anything in the article supports the description of favoured status.

• • Rephrased. I was using "favoured status" in a generic way to try to highlight that they have more rights in the UK than other foreigners but I can see how that might be a bit confusing.

• Terminology:
  • Good.
  • I was surprised at the whole first paragraph being supported by the Kondo (2001) work, but I checked a preview of the work and it is.
• History:
  • Good. A long and complex history is presented briskly and in an encyclopedic manner. Legal-technical language use is appropriate.
  • British subject status was standardised as a common nationality across the Empire and its Dominions with passage of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 – perhaps this could more clearly explain the nature of BSS. 'Standardised as a common nationality' has some ambiguity. Was BSS a secondary citizenship, held in addition to a primary one, as presumably with Commonwealth citizen status which is treated later? Or did Maltese nationals (as they would otherwise be) become solely British subjects?

• • I was avoiding adding more context on 19th century regulations in an attempt to not overweight the article towards covering British law but I suppose discussing the standardisation of the status makes no sense without that context. Added a paragraph on that.

• • All British subjects/Commonwealth citizens – Reword (MOS:SLASH).

• • Done.

• • Foreign women married to Maltese men could acquire citizenship by registration with no further requirements – This left me wondering about foreign men married to Maltese women and whether that information is known. Perhaps specifying the situation would seem gratuitous or even create WP:NPOV issues – you would know best.

• • Post-independence, foreign men married to Maltese women would not have acquired Maltese citizenship. The article discusses coverture and how the traditional assumption in imperial law (really it was European law in general) was that women followed the nationalities of their husbands. Starting from that position, we can see how colonial (and later Maltese) law relaxes from that position. Basically what I'm saying is that I thought I wrote it in a way where that doesn't need to be written explicitly. Do you think it's unclear and something needs to be added?

• • Dual/multiple citizenship was constitutionally prohibited – Reword (MOS:SLASH).

• • Done.

• • Although Maltese citizens who naturalised as foreign citizens continued to automatically lose their Maltese citizenship – there are conflicting grammatical tenses here. '

• • Rephrased.

• • In the 2025 European Court of Justice case … Functioning of the European Union – I think that more needs to be said about this and the consequences for Maltese citizenship by investment (WP:FACR § 1(b)).

• • Hmm while the expectation is that the pathway gets shut down, there haven't been moves by the government to do so just yet and I can't find a source that even says something like "Malta is expected to end this pathway", etc. On the ruling itself, I suppose I could pull more information from the ruling itself, but I'm hesitant to do that due to WP:PRIMARY. The judgement is pretty fresh so I think it will be so time before academic secondary sources become available that discuss this specific event. Is there anything specific you would prefer added here?

• Acquisition and loss of citizenship:
  • may naturalise after three years residence – missing apostrophe: three years' residence.

• • Done.

Well done for some great work on this article. Although I have suggested changes to individual sentences above, I am able already to support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). Arcticocean ■ 10:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for going through it! I'm glad you found it a good read. Horserice (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Re the foreign women married to… and the ECJ items, if you've considered the feedback and are happy as is, I've no further concerns. Thanks, Arcticocean ■ 17:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• This distinction is clearly defined in non-English speaking countries... Are you sure? I would delete the whole sentence.

• That is what the source says. I understand it is difficult to confirm this fully and it might not be entirely relevant since Malta is not core Anglosphere, so I just removed it.

• ...is used in other laws... No law is mentioned in the previous sentences.

• The very first sentence mentions the Maltese Citizenship Act.

• Not in the main text. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, added it in that section. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• ...after their loss of Rhodes to the Ottoman Empire I would delete.

• Done.

• ...the Order of Saint John... I would not use this designation, for they were introduced as Knights Hospitallers. I would use "the Knights/Hospitallers".

• Changed.

• The 1802 Treaty of Amiens restored Malta to the Order but the organisation had been thrown into disarray following its 1798 defeat, which made enforcing this provision impossible. Regardless of the treaty, local residents vehemently opposed restoring the Knights to power and opted for continued British rule. Britain itself decided against leaving Malta after considering its strategic military value in the Mediterranean Sea following resumption of the Napoleonic Wars. I would delete.

• Done.

• ...; a subject who locally naturalised in Canada was a British subject there, but not in the UK or New Zealand I would delete.

• I changed this to specify Malta if that makes this better.

• There were two exceptions to this:... Only one exception is mentioned.

• There are two exceptions:

a) a wife married to a husband who lost his British subject status was able to retain British nationality by declaration

b) a British-born widow or divorcée who had lost her British nationality through marriage could reacquire that status without meeting residence requirements after the dissolution or termination of her marriage

• For me b) is not an exception, because she lost her British nationality by her marriage to a foreigner before being renaturalised. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Britain somewhat relaxed these measures in 1971 for patrials, subjects whose parents or grandparents were born in the United Kingdom,[21] which gave effective preferential treatment to white Commonwealth citizens. Is this relevant?

• I guess the end part is more relevant to other nationality law articles in the Commonwealth than this one, so I omitted that. I left the part on patrials in to illustrate that despite the changing relationship between Britain and colonies/soon-to-be former colonies, there were still vestiges of constitutional/nationality law that bound them together.

• I would link jus soli to "doctrine of birthright"

• Done. I omitted the wikilink to jus soli on "birthright citizenship" since the two would have been very close.

• Sections "Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption" and "Voluntary acquisition" mainly repeat information from previous sections. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Those sections show the regulations as they are currently, rather than what they were in the past. It's important for readers to be able to just skip to that section if that's all they want to know, which I would argue is essential to an article like this. Thanks for giving the page a read. Horserice (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I would delete parallel texts from the previous sections. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I omitted and shuffled around a few parts where I thought appropriate. I don't really want to cut too much or else it becomes harder to show progression in legislation over time. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Satsu (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a character in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics. Satsu is a Slayer—a young woman destined to fight the forces of darkness—and she is primarily known for her brief sexual relationship with Buffy Summers. This character is one of my favorite parts of the Buffy comics, and I think she had a lot of unrealized potential. I first worked on this article in 2018, but I recently rewrote it. Thank you to @Courcelles: for the GAN review and to @PanagiotisZois: and @Premeditated Chaos: for the help during the peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Popping over from the peer review to say I'm satisfied with the changes. The wording for the "ill-conceived romance" and "microcosm" bits look fine to me. Happy to support on prose, another fine piece of work :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for the support and for the edits, which improved the article. Apologies for closing the peer review earlier than expected and for not waiting for your replies before doing so. I am very grateful for the help that I received during the peer review so I felt it would be nice to close it so other peer reviews, particularly those that have received either little or no commentary, could hopefully get more attention. Thank you again for all of your help! Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Don't apologize, I was being lazy :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

I'm not experienced with comic book so I'll try checking parts that might not make sense to somebody not experienced with them:

• "story arc of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, a canonical continuation of the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The television series follows Buffy Summers,"

I know the term canon but is it necessary to write it? Maybe it makes sense if there is a contradiction later on.

• I believe it is helpful to clarify that Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight is canon since a majority of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics and novels are not considered part of the Buffyverse canon. Most tie-ins, particularly around this time and earlier, were not considered canon. I do not see an issue with clarifying that these comics are canon, as I feel that removing this would make it ambiguous and lead to questions from readers about its placement in canon. I firmly believe that it is best to be clear and concise and to avoid any potential ambiguity or misinterpretations. I have added a note to the article to hopefully clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• "They have a brief sexual relationship" The sexual relationship sounds random. You could simply mix it with the previous sentence and make a simple mention it is also intimate.

• Satsu's sexual relationship with Buffy is a major storyline and the main focus of most of the coverage about the character. While I am more than happy to hear ideas on who to make this seem less "random", I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion to combine the two sentences. The previous sentence is already long and dense with information, as it covers that Satsu is activated as a Slayer, is trained by Buffy Summers, becomes one of her best fighters, and then falls in love with her.
• Combining this information would not only result in a run-on sentence, but it would also minimize the relationship storyline, which would not reflect its importance to the character and its focus in the surrounding coverage. Besides that, words like "intimate" should be avoided; they are euphemisms and they could interpreted a number of different ways. The two characters had a sexual relationship. It is best to just directly say that. Maybe, there could be some sort of transition to make it flow better, but again, this is a central part of the character so it should be featured rather than folded into something else. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Appearances: Make a brief explanation to what exactly is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I can't tell if it's a comic or TV series.

• That makes sense. I have revised this part to clarify that Buffy is a television show. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Did the series end? Maybe you could mention the series is ongoing or that this the latest arc involving her.

• The canonical comics ended with Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Twelve, but that has nothing to do with this character so I do not think that this information has a place in this article. Satsu primarily appears in Season Eight, and although she is mentioned in and has a very briefly appearance in Season Ten, the rest of the comics has nothing really to do with her. Information about the comics ending would be more relevant in the articles about the comics themselves. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The rest of the real world info seems easy to understand. Ping me once you are finished and I'll support it. @Aoba47: Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Thank you for the comments. I have left my replies above. I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Leaving my Support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

BP!

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Support I did read the article 3x, and as much as I would like to nitpick something, including sources, it appears that everything is reliable. This article was written amazingly. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for the kind words!. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Support by PanagiotisZois

Sorry it took my a few days, but there's no way I wasn't gonna take part in this discussion. I'm happy to see more and more comic character articles reaching this feat. Unfortunately, as much as I would love to give this article my support, I did come across a few things I'd like to bring up with you Aoba. Most are quite minor things, and with some of them, it's not really an "improvement" that you have to do, but a suggestion that doesn't need to happen if you think the article is fine as is in those areas. Hope these comments are helpful.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Based on the Iron Man and Black Widow articles, I would recommend you specify exactly what Satsu's first appearance is; as in, Season Eight #1 (March 2007), or just include the year in the parenthesis.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also taking into account these two other articles, one thing that I wanted to discuss is the Infobox. Specifically, the part where you bring up Satsu's powers as a Slayer. Although we, as people familiar with Buffy and what Slayers are, know that these statements are true, for an outsider, there is nothing in the article itself to support these claims. I guess the last two bullet points are somewhat understandable given the references to Satsu being a soldier in Buffy's army and whatnot, but there is no indication anywhere that Satsu has prophetic dreams. The Black Widow article has the "Characterization" section that includes a "Fictional character biography" section, as well as a "Powers and abilities" one. Is that something that you would consider doing, or simply add notes to some of Satsu's powers in the infobox?

• Thank you for bringing this up as I had overlooked this part completely. I removed the last two bullet point as I could not find citations for them. Since I could find a source that explicitly discusses Satsu's power, I instead used ones for the Slayer powers as a whole and added a brief part to the article. While the comics give no indication that Satsu has prophetic dreams, these psychic abilities seem rather important to the overall Slayer lore. For instance, the Fray comics emphasize how Melaka Fray lacks these powers, which were instead inherited by her twin brother. I could just over-thinking this, and it may be best to remove this part, as like you have said, Satsu is not directly shown to have this. Please let me know if this part could be improved upon as I admittedly struggled with this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering that all Slayers have the exact same powerset - and as you pointed out, Fray lacking prophetic dreams is even a plot point - the current state is perfectly acceptable. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Just wanted to clarify this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Acknowledging past criticism of his treatment of LGBT characters, Whedon confirmed that Satsu would continue to appear after the end of her relationship with Buffy". Kathy Bates voice: "Liiiieees".

• To be fair, Satsu did get her own issue ("Swell"), and she did return for later issues, although more as a background character. That being said, she was dropped completely after Season Eight and her Season Ten reappearance could have easily been rewritten to fit any character. While I could not consider it a complete lie, Satsu was not really kept "in the rotation" for that long. Unfortunately, this could be applied to any of the other comics-original characters. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think "Fans had mixed reactions to Satsu's relationship with Buffy. Dark Horse Comics published fan responses in the letter columns of several issues" could be connected more closely to indicate that the latter sentence proves the former. Though if you're having difficulty connecting them, leaving them as is would suffice.

• Combined. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Response to its sexual component". The sentence made sense before, but given some recent changes, I'd clarify you're talking about Satsu's sexual relations with Buffy. Right now you go from one sentence discussing "Satsu's storyline" to talking about its "sexual component".

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Whedon said that". I believe changing this to "According to Whedon, Buffy" would make the sentence flow better.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• This isn't something huge, but I've noticed you often say "issue X (20XX) of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season X". Wouldn't it be better, maybe even "faster", to just say "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Nine [issue] #1 (2011)"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• "as Season Eight had already established Buffy as lonely and Satsu as in love with her". Repetition of "as" three times in a single sentence.

• Revised one of the instances. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• "season six episode". Season 6 is already linked in the previous paragraph.

• Removed link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the placement of Jeanty's and Gellar's comments. The first paragraph is essentially about the writers discussing the how/why (more or less) of how they came up with the storyline of Buffy and Satsu having sex. Jeanty's comments are somewhat connected, as he was the artist for the comic, but Gellar's come across as a bit random. And then the second paragraph is about the editor's comments on how he believes Whedon came up with this storyline. Would you consider moving Jeanty's and Gellar's comments there?

• I was also uncertain about this. I have moved these comments to the end of the second paragraph, but let me know if there is a better spot. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Buffy acts like a villain instead of a hero", should "in the comics" be added somewhere here for clarification?

• Agreed. Revised.

• I'll admit, the first paragraph from "Power dynamic and sexuality" does make me think "OK, how much of this is really about Satsu and not Buffy?", but I think I'm being too anal and critical here, so I'll assume I'm just being over-judgemental; sidenote, I honestly wish there were more academics/critics focusing on Satsu through a racial perspective.

• That is understandable. I appreciate the feedback. You are not being overly judgemental. I want the article to be the best that it can be so feel free to be anal and critical. I think the analysis is focused on Satsu since it is about the position that she is put into as a result of this relationship, such as whether or not she is being used and the degree of agency that she possesses. I wonder if it could be worded to hopefully make Satsu more front and center. I will think on this further, but feel free to leave any ideas or suggestions.
• I also wish that Satsu's race and ethnicity received more analysis, and I am honestly surprised that this did not receive more attention. I think other aspects of her character, such as her becoming the leader of her own squad, could have also been explored more. I get why the relationship with Buffy pulls focus, as the comics are clearly more invested in that, but I still believe Satsu could have been so much more than that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I ended up cutting down some of this paragraph, like the part on Buffy being more of a villain in the comics, which is more about her than about Satsu. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'll admit, that is definitely one of the sentences that stuck out the most. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I am glad that I was able to address it. Thank you for the edits to this part, as I do think that they improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Crying at the title of the Houston Press article.

• It is an interesting article. I feel that a lot of its points come from the benefit of hindsight, and I would love to see an analysis that approaches these same points with the added context of comic book trends at the time or past ones that may have inspired this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the comments! I greatly appreciate all of your help. Please let me know if one of the above points needs to be addressed further or if anything else could be done to improve the article further. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, after looking over the article, I do believe that it has achieved the best state that it can. And what a wonderful state that is. :D You really ate with this article @Aoba47:. I support its promotion to featured status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the kind words and for the support! I am really proud of my work with this article and I am very grateful for all of the help that I have received during the peer review and the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Just-a-can-of-beans

Allow me to preface this by saying I have no familiarity with the character and no interest in comics. While that does mean I'm unfamiliar with core concepts here, it also means that I may be closer to your average reader who would see this on the front page of Wikipedia.

I believe there are significant problems with the balance of material in the page. The page almost exclusively focuses on the sexual relationships of the character, and of the commentary and reactions of people to those sexual relationships. This is at the expense of other aspects of the character, as well as her role in the story (unless, of course, her actual role is simply to be a sexual/love interest - but having looked through synopses of chapters in which she appears, this doesn't seem to be the case). From reading the page, I do not, for instance, have any idea at all what her personality is like, as there are no descriptions other than of her powers and her sexuality. Is she cheerful? Moody? A prankster? Dead-serious? You say she is a skilled fighter - in what ways is she skilled, and how is she superior to others? Mentions of her achievements or actions in the series seem like afterthoughts, given minimal attention or space on the page. You mention the inspiration for her appearance came from Japanese street fashion - what exactly do you mean? Are there important elements of her clothing, hairstyle, etc that are drawn from this? With no context or expansion on this detail, I have no idea what you mean. You don't even mention the katana, or the criticism of this supposed inspiration, until the very end. And this is just one example of where the page falls through. (As a side note, these appearance inspirations may be a good place to implement more pictures, as the article somewhat lacks them and official art is copyrighted)

I feel that the lack of detail is pervasive, and that the page is not comprehensive enough for FA status. As someone who has no familiarity with the franchise or character, all I can take away from this article is that there is a woman in a comic series who has a lesbian relationship and that there was controversy surrounding her sexuality. That's it.

Therefore, I Oppose promotion. I do not think that these concerns can be addressed without heavy page restructuring. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Just-a-can-of-beans: I would first encourage you to read FAs about fictional characters. That would give you a better understanding on how these types of articles look and are structured.

As for this article, I have primarily used information from third-party, reliable coverage of the character. It is comprehensive in that respect. A majority of your questions, like those about her personality, are not discussed in those citations. Some of them are actually already answered in the article. You ask about Japanese street fashion for instance. The article already specifies how Georges Jeanty used Fruits—a Japanese street fashion magazine—as the inspiration for Satsu's look. I have included all the relevant information about the character's storylines in the comics. While you may think that "her achievements or actions" are treated as "afterthoughts" or are "given minimal attention or space", I can assure that is not the case. She is a supporting character, and her primary storyline is in fact her relationship with Buffy Summers.

In my opinion, this oppose is unactionable. It is not possible to include information that is just not discussed in the coverage, and it would not seem appropriate to lean on primary sources, which I have restricted to the "Appearances" section. I do not see how images could be added to that section, as it is encouraged to keep the usage of non-free content, such as panels, to a minimal. I am pinging @FAC coordinators: to get their opinion about this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, without evidence that the article omits significant parts of actual reliable sources, this oppose is unactionable. Just-a-can-of-beans, we cannot expect editors to conjure analysis that does not exist. For comparison, take two of my FAs - The Widows of Culloden and Neptune (collection). Widows contains an extensive Analysis section with five subsections, because it is a beloved major work that numerous people have analysed through all kinds of critical lenses. Neptune doesn't even have this section, because the collection sucks so bad that there's literally no critical analysis of it. The Neptune article is still considered comprehensive and was able to pass FA, because the kind of analysis that exists for Widows simply doesn't exist for Neptune. Similarly, here, there is simply comparatively less to say about Satsu, because she's a minor character whose major plotline – as lame as it is, thanks Mr. Whedon – was having sex with Buffy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave an acknowledgement that I did read your opinion and factor it into the response below. The implied action constitutes a significant rewrite of the page, either to re-balance the focus or to re-frame her as a minor character. The former, which was my initial thought, is probably too extensive for short-term change, which is why I Opposed rather than commented. The latter, I'm not sure. My main concern, then, if it is agreed that she is a minor character, is that the page does not do a good job of conveying this, and instead implies that she is a major character who has received attention for only a single aspect of her character. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not take issue with the sources of commentary used. If such commentary is the large focus of critical interest in the character, so be it; but it contributes significantly to the lack of balance on the page. If there is little to no critical analysis beyond that aspect of the character, then I think that a direct statement as much at the start of the Reception section would be sufficient for that issue. Otherwise, it appears that you have simply focused on one line of inquiry despite others presumably existing.

If the character's significance revolves around her sexuality, then perhaps the article should directly state as much. At present, it comes off as a page which is intending to provide an encyclopedic summary of a character, but which has been influenced by an author's focus on some aspects and not others. Perhaps the first paragraph of the lead contributes to this: her relationship with Buffy is initially stated to be a "brief sexual relationship" in the midst of other events surrounding the character and her plot lines. If this brief relationship and love interest is truly central to the character, then I think the first paragraph suggests otherwise. If it is not the central focus of the character, then it is given undue space on the page.

You must also understand - the simple fact that a character has an extensive Wikipedia page and a significant amount of critical attention? That's enough for an uninitiated person to reasonably presume that this character is very important in the series. If she is not important in her own right, then instead of framing her initially as "a character in the Buffy comics" with a following summary of events, you should directly and boldly state that she is a minor character whose main purpose is to serve as a love interest for Buffy.

Yes, you said the resources used - but in what way are they used? You simply state that Fruits was used, and you do not contextualize this. What aspects of her appearance are derived from Japanese street fashion? What motifs of that subject are connected to this character? I am suggesting you add images of Japanese street fashion to the page, such as photographs of people wearing it, because it is completely unclear what is inspiring what. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Just-a-can-of-beans: So, let's break this down. I cannot just add a sentence about how the character's sexuality and sexual relationship are the primary focus of the surrounding coverage and reviews without a source that explicitly states that. Doing this without such a source would be a clear example of original research. Besides, with the way that the article is structured, it should already be clear that this is the focus of the character. The article even says that analysis of the character's race and ethnicity was done to a lesser extent than those done on her sexuality and sexual relationship. You say there is little to no critical analysis beyond that aspect of the character, but that is not true when the article has an entire subsection devoted to something else (the interpretations of the character's race and ethnicity).

The lead's first paragraphs has two sentences on Satsu's relationship with Buffy (being trained by her, falling in love with her, and having sex with her) and a single sentence on her two other storylines (the issue with the stuffed animals and her brief reappearance in Season Ten). By doing this, the lead clearly conveys that the Buffy relationship is a significant aspect of the character. I do not see how a single sentence about those other storylines would be undue space on the page or how saying that the sexual relationship was brief implies that it is just a small part of other events surrounding the character and her plot lines. That last part is an assumption you are making. Satsu is a supporting character, but she is still important. She got coverage for a reason. Her storyline may be focused on her relationship with another character, but that does not diminish her importance. I cannot just call her a minor character without a source that directly states that because without that, it would again fall into the no original research category.

I do not simply state that Fruits was used and just not contextualize this. That is all the information provided in the interview. I am not actively withholding further information or context. No, I am not going to just randomly put in random images of Japanese street fashion just because. That would again be original research, which would not help the article. Japanese street fashion is very diverse without a lot of history so randomly guessing what inspired this character's look would be inappropriate. Frankly, I do not see this discussion going anyway, so this will be my last response to this. This is already just going in circles. Again, I feel that this oppose is simply unactionable. I will just let the FAC coordinators decide about this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It is most certainly not clear that the character's identity revolves around her sexuality. It is clear that your writing has primarily focused on that. My fundamental issue is that you have clearly and repeatedly stated that there are other roles for this character beyond her sexual and romantic interest, but these occupy a small fraction of the page. To me, someone with no exposure, this is confusing.

You allude to that subsection of criticism on another subject - the first paragraph in this subsection is, once again, calling attention to the sexuality of the character. This contributes to the feeling that the author's focus on sexuality is influencing their writing of topics which should normally be separate. There are other places more appropriate for noting that a different topic gets more attention than the first paragraph of the less-appreciated topic's section.

You are free to disagree with my opinion, and similarly free to determine that none of my criticisms have any merit, and thus warrant zero changes to the article. But this is a process of consensus, and I am a bit frustrated with this staunch refusal to change anything and arrogant hand-waving of every criticism I have as "original research" or "not actionable". Exactly how is it "original research" to add pictures of the things you claim are visual inspirations for her character design? Exactly how is it "not actionable" to rewrite a specific portion of the lead which you were directly told is problematic? I should note I am not the only one who has been concerned by that paragraph, which remains unchanged.

The suggested action of re-balancing page content is a major undertaking, but "it would be difficult" is not a valid reason not to make changes if they would lead to a superior page. Since you are so adamantly refusing to make any changes whatsoever or acknowledge any problems, here is a non-comprehensive list of observations related to my complaints:

1. The first paragraph makes only a passing mention of the sexual and romantic interest between the two, which is both preceded and followed by discussion of her activities as a Slayer. This suggests to the reader that her role as a love interest for Buffy is only one aspect of a more elaborate character.
2. The lead then goes on to discuss Satu's sexuality in all 3 of its paragraphs, despite ostensibly being about different subjects. The exact phrase "sexual relationship" appears in all 3, along with numerous paraphrases.
3. All sections except Creation and design discuss Satsu's sexuality and/or sexual activities.
4. The last sentence of the third paragraph of the Appearances section, which comes off very strangely - only after reading your provided references did I understand that this was the second of two total sexual encounters. As written, it appears as though they have had an ongoing relationship for a brief time, and that you for whatever reason want to tell the encyclopedia reader that they had sex again.
5. Paragraph 2 of the Themes and analysis section contains direct and explicit discussion of the sexual dominance of Buffy, with only tangential relevance to Satsu.

I see two possible approaches here, and as someone not familiar with the topic, I am unsure which is more appropriate. The first option is to significantly reduce and reorganize the material on the page which covers Satsu's sexuality. The second option would be to make it clear that the main significance of the character is her sexuality. If you do not feel that this is true, and you still can't find academic or critical discussion of much beyond sexuality, then perhaps you need to consider that more discussion existing on a topic does not make that topic inherently more important.

That being said, I'm not sure why I've wasted my time breaking this down, since you already stated you will refuse to make edits or continue discussion. I do not think it is appropriate to simply ping FAC coordinators to avoid making substantial changes in response to feedback. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you actually read any of the sourcing? Can you indicate where there are gaps or omissions in the article that are covered in reliable sourcing? It would be more helpful to say, for example, "Smith 2025 says X but the article doesn't", than to continue to broadly argue that Aoba has failed so badly that the article needs a complete restructure. If the article focuses on Satsu's sexuality, it's because the sourcing does as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review

Up-front, I kind of must agree with Just-a-can-of-beans that the lack of personality discussion is weird/raises questions about comprehensiveness. Proving a negative is hard, but it's hard to believe that nobody remarked on it. I think that File:SatsuBuffyCover.jpg might warrant a different NFCC#8 rationale that emphasizes the "illustrates article topic" aspect instead of several different things. One ALT text has a superfluous =. Is SlayAlive a reliable source for an interview? Do we have information on who reviews/edits Slayage: The Journal of Whedon Studies? What makes The Mary Sue a high-quality reliable source? Also wondering about Nerdist, AfterEllen and Comic Book Resources. Formatting seems consistentish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: None of the sources delve into the character's personality. That is just not the focus of any of the coverage. It is never brought up at all. As you have already said, it is hard to prove a negative. I am not really sure how to address this. I have modified the WP:FUR for the infobox image by adopting a similar approach to the one for File:Iron Man (circa 2018).png from the Iron Man article. I have removed the stray = from the ALT text. Yes, SlayAlive is a reliable source. That is whole reason that I have a note about it to the article in the first place, which includes an article from the Dark Horse Comics website about these interviews. Here is a link to the discussion about Slayage on the WP:RSN. The Mary Sue, Nerdist, AfterEllen, and Comic Book Resources are appropriate and high-quality sources for an entertainment topic. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I kinda wonder if there is something here. I'll need a second opinion on these sources above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, "consistentish" means that this topic uses diverse sources with different format requirements and for some reason my eyes were glazing over at that moment, so I wasn't as sure as elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus the source you linked, The Comics of Joss Whedon: Critical Essays, is already cited in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It is, but does it contain any information on personality? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The sole chapter in which Satsu is mentioned is entitled "Buffy is in bed with a woman? Problematic and perfect gay and lesbian representation", so while I don't have access to it, I'm going to assume it doesn't focus on her personality. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That chapter has only two brief mentions of Satsu's personality, which describes her as being "strong, accountable, and well put-together" in her initial appearance and emphasizes how much she is hung up on the relationship after it ends. I have added both parts to the article. The rest of the chapter is focused on Satsu's sexual relationship with Buffy and does not delve further into Satsu's personality beyond these two remarks.

I have looked through the sources to see if I could find anything further. I did add a part from the Hautsch source, about how Satsu is characterized as rebellious and emotionally vulnerable. Aside from that, I could not find anything else. I will check again in the future. To be clear, I do not think that there is not enough to justify a separate section on her personality and characterization. Aoba47 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think a "Personality" section is even needed to begin with. I mean, many character articles don't have one, and Satsu is a relatively small character to begin with. Not surprising little attention was afforded to whether she is "cheerful? Moody? A prankster? Dead-serious?".

Yeah, characters like Black Widow and Iron Man do have "Personality" sections, but they're also characters that have been around since the 1960s and have more than 1000 appearances. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Just as an update, I have removed the Joss Whedon and Georges Jeanty images in favor of a sketch of Satsu by Jeanty. I am still trying to figure out the best image size for it, and I would greatly appreciate any assistance with that.

Just-a-can-of-beans has repeatedly requested that an image of visual inspirations for Satsu's character design. That is not possible, as the only things that can be confirmed and sourced are that Jeanty used Japanese street fashion as inspiration, specifically the Fruits magazine. Japanese street fashion is very diverse in terms of look and encompasses several different subcultures. Even the Fruits magazine is quite diverse.

So, since I cannot add in a real-world image as a more exact source of inspiration is not named, I have instead added a sketch, which should hopefully provided a clearer example of the character's fashion sense and Jeanty's art style. I was inspired by the Ada Wong article to do this. I am also would greatly appreciate any feedback on the caption. Hopefully, this is a helpful addition and a good compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This is going to be tough because last I checked, "can't find a source for this" isn't always accepted as a justification for non-comprehensive articles. For that sketch, I guess it's borderline - seems like we might lose a lot of the understanding of the article topic by losing it, but again borderline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Except this article is comprehensive. I have included all the available coverage for this character that would be appropriate for a FA. I have attempted to engage with the comments. It should also be tough to argue that an article is non-comprehensive because "a source of coverage simply must exist out there", even though there is absolutely no evidence provided to support that.

I am frustrated as I think that the above statement referring to "non-comprehensive articles" could be taken to imply that this article is objectively one of those instances. I do not think that is the case. It is a serious accusation that does not have evidence behind it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

And I have included some information on Satsu's characterization to the "Appearances" and "Development" sections. So, the article does have "personality discussion". I agree with PMC's above comparison between two of their FAs (The Widows of Culloden and Neptune (collection)). It is important to take each article on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming that information is missing.

Besides, it is not like a personality or characterization section is even a requirement for these types of articles. This type of section is not even brought up in the MOS for comic book characters or anime and manga characters, and while it is brought up for television characters, that one makes a point that "the section headers below are not mandatory". There are FAs on fictional characters without devoted characterization sections. See Ada Wong, Claire Redfield, and Ethan Winters. The lack of a personality section was not an issue for any of those source reviews. Anyway, this part of my reply is primarily to clarify and emphasize that this article now includes information on Satsu's characterization so "the lack of personality discussion" is no longer true. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That's better then. I kinda wonder if some characterization info can be derived from the comics themselves - might be a bit too close to analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis though, and thus not suitable for a primary source. Also, I generally don't review comprehensiveness as part of a source review, this time I noted the outstanding oppose and commented on it, hence why these other source reviews have nothing to say on that issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the clarification. I hope that I have not come across as rude in my previous replies. This was just a lot to take in. I am taking a step back to process it and come back with a more level head. I appreciate the time and energy you have put into this review. I know that you do a lot of source reviews in the FAC processes, so I just wanted to say that it is appreciated.

I believe that I have added everything from the comic while avoiding unnecessary and trivial details and potential original research. I have primarily added to the character's initial appearances in the comic, adding a quote on how she is "strong, accountable, and well put-together", further defining her fighting style, and putting in how Buffy views her as a potential successor. I actually thought the article did a good job with summing up her character arc, right down to her ditching the lip gloss that she previously used to revive Buffy, but I think these additions are helpful in more firmly establishing Satsu as a fighter.

To better answer your earlier question on sourcing, Comic Book Resources (CBR), The Mary Sue, and Nerdist are deemed as appropriate by the WP:VG/RS. This article is about a character, not a video game, but in my opinion, this same rationale carries over here. CBR in this instance is more of a primary source, as it is an interview, and the publication is reliable, as it was published years before the VALNET acquisition. AfterEllen was an influential website for lesbian issues. See this Out article, this Slate article, and this article from The Advocate as some examples of its importance. Given that this article is about a lesbian character, having coverage from a lesbian-based website is important and I would think would help with potential concerns regarding comprehensiveness.

Articles from Slayage have been cited in books from reliable publishers, such as this one by McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers and this one by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers and this one by Bloomsbury Publishing. There is also the WP:RSN link that I have left above, and here is the about page. As for SlayAlive, just to reiterate my above point, Dark Horse Comics has an article that promotes the interviews done on this site, and that should be enough to prove that they are legitimate. I would imagine that a publisher would only actively platform and promote interviews from approved sites. SlayAlive is used strictly in terms of interviews. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Kitty Marion

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a tough-as-nails activist that always fought the good fight. This would be my sixth FA article; and my fourth FA article related to the Progressive Era in U.S. history. This article uses a hybrid convention for citations: short cites (sfn/harvnb templates) are used for major sources; long cites (<ref>) are used for minor or one-off sources. Noleander (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• "by selling the Votes for Women newspaper"→"by selling copies of the Votes for Women newspaper"
• Marion died in New York in 1944. Could "she" be used here since "Marion" has been used in the very previous sentence?

Early life

• "Her abusive father had a violent temper, often ridiculed her because of her red hair."→Her abusive father, who had a violent temper, often ridiculed her because of her red hair.

Acting career

• "England" could be delinked as per MOS:OL.
• Later violent acts committed by Marion included smashing windows of Sainsbury’s market on Regent Street in London; The word "market" could be dropped from this sentence to avoid redundancy.
• You could link to the article Regent Street. MSincccc (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the excellent comments. I addressed all of the above, per your suggestions. Noleander (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

World War I

• Upon the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the leadership of WSPU adopted a patriotic stance, and suspended their activism in order to support the national war effort. The second comma (after "stance") is unnecessary.

Birth control movement in the US

• The article American Birth Control League could be linked to in this sentence -In January 1917, she noticed an advertisement for an upcoming birth control rally at Carnegie Hall, organized by Margaret Sanger's organization, the American Birth Control League (ABCL).
• "selling Sanger's monthly magazine, the Birth Control Review"→"selling copies of Sanger's monthly magazine, the Birth Control Review"

• when she briefly returned to England to see the unveiling of a statue of British suffrage leader Emmeline Pankhurst. "British" could be dropped in this sentence, as the context makes it clear.
• "New York City" could be delinked as per MOS:OL.

General

• Could it be explicitly stated whether the article is in British or American English?

P.S. There is a typo in your nomination statement-and my forth FA article related to the Progressive Era in U.S. history. MSincccc (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc I addressed all of the issues raised above (by implementing all the suggestions). Regarding dialect of English: I added an "American English" template to the top of the article Talk page, reminding future editors of the convention used at this point in time. Noleander (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You’ve added a "Use dmy dates" template, but the mainspace still doesn’t clarify that the article is written in American English. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc Can you help me out with that? I added a template to the talk page that says the article is written in American English... template:American english... But I cannot find out what I'm supposed to do in the article page. I'm searching for a template that would go there but I can't find one Noleander (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added one to the article's mainspace. MSincccc (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I learn something new every day. Noleander (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions. Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Jon698

This is a very interesting article. I have always been interested by the bombing campaigns of suffragettes.

• Could United States obscenity law be linked in "Marion was arrested several times for distributing birth control information in violation of anti-obscenity laws." and "usually for violating obscenity laws"
• Could "she became a US citizen in 1922" be changed to "she became a citizen of the United States in 1922" since that is the first mention of the US in the article?
• Could Marion be added to replace pronouns as the first mention in these paragraph starters?
  "In 1906 she joined a union for actors"
  "During an acting career that spanned 24 years, she performed"
  "Britain was at war with Germany, and under the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914 she"
  "In January 1917, she noticed"
  "Unlike her suffragette years"
  "After departure from the ABCL, she"
• Could the "in 1907" part of "The WSPU, founded in 1903, initially relied on lobbying and peaceful marches, but in 1907 it gradually began to employ increasingly violent measures" be changed to "by 1907"?
• Could you wikilink the mention of Margaret Sanger in the body in the sentence "In January 1917, she noticed an advertisement for an upcoming birth control rally at Carnegie Hall, organized by Margaret Sanger's organization, the American Birth Control League (ABCL)."?
• Could "After Margaret Sanger resigned as president of ABCL" have the Margaret removed since she has already been mentioned in the article earlier? Jon698 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jon698 - Thanks for reading the article & providing valuable feedback. I implemented all of the suggestions you made above. Regarding the pronoun "she" vs the last name ("Marion"), I generally used the name ("Marion") for the first reference in each section, then shift mostly to "she" (with an occasional "Marion" for variety). But I'm happy to use the convention you suggest above, which is to use "Marion" for first reference in each paragraph. Let me know if there are any more issues you discover. Noleander (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: No further comments. Jon698 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Star Manatee

I don’t usually do FA reviews but I reviewed this for GA so I thought it might be worth nitpicking a few things that I didn’t see or have come up since.

• I see the image has changed since the GAN, but to a one that seems somewhat low quality. I think some form of File:Kitty Marion.jpg might be nicer, personally, but that’s just my own taste.

I agree that the current photo is not ideal: it is a bit washed out. However, it has solid proof of free use, as required by WP policies. All other decent headshots of her (including the photo that was in the article at the time of GA, and the photo named above) do not have solid free use proof, so they would probably fail the image validation phase of the FA review. I'll keep looking to see if I can find a better picture that is free use. Noleander (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• In [e], this is a personal nitpick, but only wiki linking half of Victorian England, when to me it appears to be more or less one proper noun, isn’t to my tastes. Maybe Victorian England?

Done. Noleander (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Several categories identify her as a socialist - I was not able to find a reference to socialism or any other branch of the thought of Karl Marx in the text, but I did not do a comprehensive read through for it. Could you point to if it is in the text?

Done: removed categories. She was definitely a strong supporter of workers & the labor movement, but the sources do not ever come out and call her a "socialist". So, the article cannot say so. Thanks for catching that ... someone must have added those "Socialist" categories a long time ago. Noleander (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s pretty much all. A great article, although short for someone with such significance. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee: Thanks for the review here, and -again - for the GA review. If you see anything else in the article that can be improved, please let me know! Noleander (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem. I think I mostly exhausted my nitpicky complaints on the review, so I don’t think I have anything more to say right now, but if i end up spotting something I’ll go back and say. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

New England Revolution in international competition

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the New England Revolution's somewhat modest history in international competition. I took inspiration from a few other articles for this, including Burnley F.C. in European football. Brindille1 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review by Arconning

• File:New England Revolution Bench before CCC Alajuelense match.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Morera-Soto-lda.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:BruceArena 20060511.jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Richie Williams NYRB.jpg - CC BY 2.0, source link needs to be fixed for WP:V
• All images have alt text though I'm quite skeptical with the alt text for Arena's.
  • "Bruce Arena with during US Men's National Team training", grammatically incorrect, should be a quick fix.
• Here are my comments for now. Arconning (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you @Arconning for the comments, I've addressed them. I've switched out the Richie Williams picture for a different one. Brindille1 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Pass per image review. :) Arconning (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Tables need row scopes.
• Tables need column scopes.
• Some cells in tables can be merged.
• "Bruce Arena with during US Men's National Team training" alt text makes no sense.
• All sources should be archived if they are online.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you @History6042 for the comments, I've addressed them. Brindille1 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

Overall comments Maybe this is just because I don't watch all that much club soccer, so this is just a genuine question, but why does the article separate the concacaf competitions and the mls/liga mx competitions? Does "international competition" refer to the concacaf competition specifically?

Lead

• "which they have reached on three separate occasions" → unnecessary word IMO
• "In 2022, they lost to Pumas UNAM in penalty shootout after winning the first leg" → "in a penalty shootout"; also recommend linking Penalty shoot-out (association football)
• "They won the 2008 edition of their tournament" → "the tournament"?
• "final of the 2010 North American SuperLiga" → since this is not the name by which the competition was introduced, I would recommend avoiding the use of the full name in subsequent mentions

History

• By my reading, none of the exception clauses of MOS:YEARRANGE quite seem to be satisfied in the case of the subsection headers, so I would recommend changing to First appearances in CONCACAF competitions (2003–2007) and Return to CONCACAF competitions (2022–2024) (except, of course, in the case that you read it differently, in which case I'm happy with a simple explanation)
• "brought the aggregate score within one" → a link or brief explanation would assist unfamiliar readers with what an "aggregate score" is
• "and Daniel Hernández were sent off" → need a link or explanation to "sent off"; recommendation is just a link to Fouls and misconduct (association football)#Red card (dismissal)
• The last sentence of the first paragraph might benefit from a very brief explanation of the two-leg fixture format, if such an explanation is not given at the mention of "aggregate" above; I think the two-leg format could be very confusing to some readers, especially those without an interest in sports
• "scored a 90th minute free-kick, which sealed a 1–0 result" → link Free kick (association football) (and I don't believe, based on the convention in that article, that the hyphen is necessary)
• the phrase "their record-breaking 2021 season" is practically begging for a link to 2021 New England Revolution season
• Also, the above phrase (and the whole sentence which contains it) appears to be uncited as the next citation doesn't mention it
• "to face Pumas UNAM of Mexico" → I'd de-link "Mexico" per WP:OVERLINK, that's a major country in my mind (especially compared to Haiti, which is not linked at mention shortly before)
• "and the Revolution won leg 3–0" → a word missing here
• "in what would be the" → "in what was the" sounds much more natural to me here, WP:WOULDCHUCK (not a guideline, just an essay I tend to follow)
• "Revolution's five participations in the tournament" → "participations" sounds awkward to me, maybe "appearances"?
• "Because of this aggregate win, they advanced" → if you want, you could slim this wording down a bit by adding ", an aggregate win." to the end of the last sentence and starting this one at "They advanced to". 100% up to you on this
• "and the away leg 5-2" → en-dash on the scoreline

Other competitions

• "held initially in 2007" → "first held in 2007" sounds more natural to me
• "season, with general manager Craig Tornberg saying" → the present tense sounds odd to me - I would go for a semicolon after "season" and start back with "general manager Craig Tornberg said..." though feel free to rework as you see fit
• "second trophy, with their first"
• "The followed this up with two more home matches" → "They" - also, this sounds a little too informal to me
• "ending their participation in the tournament" → "eliminating them" for brevity, plus it eliminates the repetition with "participated" used in the next sentence
• "the match tied 1–1" → the teams tied, not the match
• "the title-deciding match" → "the championship" sounds like an easier way to say this
• "Morelia prevailed 2–1" → "Morelia won 2–1" since you used "prevailed" two sentences earlier
• "This would be the last SuperLiga match " → "This was the last..."
• "that was started in 2019
• "for the 2023 edition. In the 2023 edition, the Revolution" → repetition
• "the New York Red Bulls, and a 5–1 win" → not sure the comma is needed here
• "where they drew 1–1" → "where" sounds weird to me since you were talking about the team they were playing, not the stadium or something - if you want to keep the sentence structure the same I'd go for something like "against whom they drew"
• I don't really care one way or the other, but is there a reason why Williams gets a year in the caption and Arena doesn't?
• The fact that attendance is given in one table but not the other seems odd to me, though I guess attendance gets hard to add to tables on two-leg fixtures
• duplicate links of "Gillette Stadium" in the table seem excessive to me
• In the club and country table - {{flagicon|MEX}} [[Mexico]] does not strike me as the ideal way to do this - I think {{flagicon|MEX}} {{subst:nfa|Mexico}} would be best - and the link pointing to the NFA seems more appropriate given the context than a link pointing to the country itself, ditto for "United States" below. I am also not super convinced that all of the flags in all of the tables are necessary but I know it's convention for soccer at this point so I'm not blaming you on that

Nice work. Comments above - mostly grammar and wording, I have this watchlisted so no need to ping. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and thorough comments. I've addressed comments in the article, and will respond to the other questions here.

• "Why does the article separate the concacaf competitions and the mls/liga mx competitions? Does "international competition" refer to the concacaf competition specifically?
  • I don't see "International competition" as referring exclusively to the CONCACAF competition, although it makes sense to separate that one for a few reasons: it's more prestigious (allowing teams to qualify for the Club World Cup), more long-running, open to all leagues in the continent, and consistently requiring teams to qualify. Most (all?) analogous Good/Featured articles for European clubs adopt the same standard for official UEFA competitions as I did in this article- it seemed appropriate here as well.
• "I don't really care one way or the other, but is there a reason why Williams gets a year in the caption and Arena doesn't?
  • The Williams picture is less clearly of a soccer coach- it shows him in his playing days. Felt relevant to clarify here to not give the impression he was a player manager. But if this is confusing I can easily change it to give years for both.
• The fact that attendance is given in one table but not the other seems odd to me, though I guess attendance gets hard to add to tables on two-leg fixtures
  • Yes- in addition to the challenge of displaying this for two-legged fixtures, I suspect attendance data for the 2003 and 2006 CONCACAF competitions doesn't actually exist publically.

Brindille1 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Changes and explanations look good to me - happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The club has taken part five times in international competitions organized by CONCACAF" - would it not be easier simply to say "The club has taken part five times in the CONCACAF Champions Cup (known as the CONCACAF Champions League between [whenever] and [whenever]"? "Competitions organised by CONCACAF sounds like it covers multiple totally different competitions, rather than (as far as I can see) the same one under different names
• "an annual competition between MLS and Liga MX" - I know it's kinda clear, but clarify that Liga MX is the top Mexican league
• That's what I got on the lead. Need to drop off now but will be back for more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• "faced Liga Deportiva Alajuelense of Costa Rica, in an two-legged tie" - it should be a two-legged tie. I also don't think the comma before "in" is needed
• "to play their first home match at the Bermuda National Stadium" - it was their only home match in this tie so "first" is not needed
• "Two years later, the Revolution again qualified for CONCACAF competition" - I think "Two years later, the Revolution again qualified for the competition" works better
• "The Revolution competed in the second season; general manager Craig Tornberg saying" - either change the semi-colon to a comma or change "saying" to "said"
• "the club had turned down transfer offers from Nottingham Forest F.C. and FC Nantes." - maybe say in which countries these teams play.....?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Newspaper citations should use page numbers that reflect their actual locations, rather than what Newspapers.com assigns; e.g. Citaition 1 is from p. E5, not p. 89. This seems to onl be an issue for a handful of citations.
• Newspapers.com links should include |via=Newspapers.com.
• Publications and/or publishers need to be wikilinked on the first use or on all uses, whichever is preferred.
• Several citations (MassLive and Boston Globe mostly) need to be marked with subscription-only access.
• MLS should not be shortened in citations.
• Citation 18: "MATCHDAY GUIDE" doesn't need to be all-caps.
• Citation 23 needs page numbers for
• Citations 25 and 26 should be switched to {{cite press release}}.
• Citation 44 does not need "Staff" as the author, nor the "SPORTS" in the title.
• Perhaps the main "By season" table could have a column for citations instead of stacking four citations in the caption.
• Has there been a check for citeable material in books about MLS?

Mostly formatting. Will do some spotchecks soon. SounderBruce 04:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Value theory

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Value theory is the systematic study of values, examining which things are good and what it means for something to be good. It distinguishes different types of values and explores how they can be measured and compared. Thanks to Acer-the-Protogen for their GA review and to Noleander for their peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• img1: license good, relevant, caption good. Alt could be expanded a little; Diagram with a box (instrumental value), and an arrow pointing to a circle (intrinsic value).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img2: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good
• img3: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good
• img4: license good, relevant, caption good.alt txt good
• img5: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good
  • Potentially the alt txt for these diagrams could explain what each shape represents.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img6: license good; the commons page should probably say public domain as pre 1930 (subject died in 1928), relevant, caption good. alt txt good

  I think it depends on the author rather than the portrayed subject. Our source simply says "public domain". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img7: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good.
• img8: license good, relevant, caption good; is it angular distance or whether or not the segments are neighbours? I guess those are equivalent? alt txt could be: Circular diagram showing the relations between different types of values, represented by segments

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img 9: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good.
• img 10: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good.

Dracophyllum 21:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dracophyllum and thanks for your image review! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Anytime. Support for images. Dracophyllum 08:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• I reviewed this a week ago in a peer review. The article was in great shape then, but I did manage to find some suggestions to make. The nominator subsequently made edits addressing most of those issues, and also made additional improvements. Looking at the article today: It has outstanding Prose, MOS-compliance, and citations/sources. The images are free-use. I wish there were more diagrams, but - given the nature of the subject - that deficiency is excusable. I'm leaning 'Support', but I'm curious to see what philosophy-savvy reviewers have to say, since the topic is Greek to me. Noleander (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

UC

Another one in the increasing series of excellent philosophical articles by Phlsph7. My usual disclaimer that my philosophical knowledge is limited to two or three lectures that went well over my head -- but I'll do my best to comment as a (reasonably) educated layperson.

@UndercoverClassicist: Hello again and thanks for reviewing another article on a challenging topic! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• We go a long time without an image, which does make for a somewhat intimidating wall of text. I'm not sure that there's necessarily a good fix here: I wondered about multi-imaging the various diagrams of types of values together, or else pulling the Schwartz diagram into the lead? However, all of those are currently doing good work where they are.

  It's not ideal, but I found a way to add an image of Socrates to the first section. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good (I made a small caption/layout edit). He's definitely better not being the lead image. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value theory is the study of values. Also called axiology, it examines the nature, sources, and types of values: this might be better under MOS:REDUNDANCY as something like Value theory (also called axiology) studies the nature, sources, and types of values

  I usually try to make the first sentence as simple as possible per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. I don't feel particularly strongly about this so let me know if you think MOS:REDUNDANCY is more important in this case. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Obviously, I'm not a neutral arbiter in this case, but I don't see that the current formulation adds any clarity that's lost in the one I proposed, or in something similar to it. LEADCLUTTER has Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject, but I think we're a long way off that in either case. If really concerned about LEADCLUTTER, you could footnote axiology, which would allow you to introduce some of the other terms we present as alternatives further down (like timology and "theory of values". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I was going to suggest linking "good in itself", but was surprised to find that neither that nor bonum in se point anywhere (though we do have Malum in se. Am I missing an obvious page here?

  I added a link to Intrinsic value (ethics) instead, which is close enough to "good in itself". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value realists state that values have mind-independent existence as objective features of reality: "mind-independent existence" might be a tough one: would this be much weaker as "exist as objective features of reality"? I think "objective" and "mind-independent" could be argued as equivalent.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Could link evaluation to "evaluative" in the lead, balancing "normative". We have that link in the body.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• The roots of value theory lie in antiquity as reflections on the highest good that humans should pursue.: not a problem, as such, but it's a bit odd to have a statement about something's beginnings at the end of a discussion of it.

  I added one more sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• the ancient Greek terms ἄξιος (axios, meaning 'worth' or 'value'): ἄξιος is an adjective, so better translated as 'worthy', 'of value'. The noun is ἀξία, but I think it's much less common.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• theories about what things are valuable and how valuable they are: which things or what is valuable and how valuable it is.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The term timology is an older and less common synonym: you could, if you wish, enlighten readers that this comes from the Ancient Greek τιμή, meaning 'honour', 'worth', or 'value'.

  It might be better to keep it as brief as possible since the term timology is not widely-used today. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Incidentally: if we're going to explain the aetiology of "axiology", why not that of "value"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  In principle, we could discuss the etymology of the words "value" and "theory" by looking at an etymology dictionary. But our sources on value theory don't do that, even though some discuss the etymology of the word "axiology", so I don't think it's necessary for us. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value theorists examine the expressions used to talk about and compare values: could we use another term that covers e.g. writing and sign languages (and indeed thought) -- "describe"?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Thick evaluative terms" is linked on second mention: is this intentional?

  Moved. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• One suggestion to distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value relies on a thought experiment that imagines the valuable thing in isolation from everything else.: when we say things like "some people have suggested...", I think it's usually best to credit those people where possible: I'd argue that it comes within WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as an implied or paraphrased quotation.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to a common view, pleasure is one of the sources of intrinsic value.: any value (sorry) in name-dropping Epicureanism here -- though I notice that you've generally avoided giving a genealogy to these philosophical perspectives at this stage?

  This is better reserved for the history section, especially since it is a widely-held view well beyond Epicureanism. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• value simpliciter: Latin lang tags around simpliciter.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The sentence "Pleasure is good" is an example since the word good is used as a predicate: italicise or quote good as MOS:WORDSASWORDS.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Consequentialism is a theory in normative ethics. It says that an act is right if it leads to the best consequences: I understand we're being brief, but is this quite right? So Consequentialism says that it's not right for me to donate all my possessions to a homeless shelter, because there would be better consequences if I gave them to a children's home?

  Standard versions of consequentialism agree with your example (donation to the homeless shelter is wrong in this case), but satisficing versions disagree. Technically speaking, our sentence is correct even for satisficing versions since it does not say that only actions with the best consequences are right. We could provide a more general and less accessible characterization by saying that "It says that whether an act is right depends on the values of its consequences". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that sort of framing would be better, or even "depends on its consequences", if that would be less technical and more accessible? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• A similar view, proposed by the Chinese philosopher Zhang Dainian: I know that "Chinese" here really modifies "philosopher", but it's a little unfortunate that we appear to be giving only Zhang's nationality but not that of the various more-or-less (Anglo)-Saxon people mentioned around him. Is there a more specific tradition into which we can place him: or else call him e.g. a historian of Chinese philosophy? He does also have a Chinese wiki page, which could be ILL'd.

  He belongs to a different tradition than most of the other main contributors in this fields, which is a reason for mentioning it. I'm not particularly familiar with his work as a historian of philosophy, but I think this discussion of values is his own philosophy, not a historical summary of someone else's philosophy. Our source, Li 2014, also introduces him as "The Chinese philosopher, Zhang Dainian...". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to this view, the evaluative statement "That act is bad" is as objectively true or false as the empirical statement "That act causes distress": are you intentionally leaving open the possibility that neither is objectively true or false?

  I guess we have this covered implicitly since it is a comparative statement: if both have zero objectivity, then the first is still as objective as the second. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, precisely -- I just wanted to check that this view allows for that possibility. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Natural properties can be known through empirical observation and are studied by the natural sciences, like size and shape: I think this would be clearer as Natural properties, like size and shape, can be... -- at the moment, we lull the reader into expecting the "like" to introduce examples of natural sciences.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• the property "is pleased".: the property "pleased", surely?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Between these two positions, there are various intermediary views: intermediary is a person who tries to negotiate or mediate between parties: intermediate?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• The historically influential theory of hedonism: can we be more precise than "historically": are we talking about the 80s BCE or the 1980s here?

  It has been influential in many periods, starting in antiquity. However, I think there were some ups and downs, which would make the discussion of its historical influence a little complicated. The point here is not so much to start a historical discussion, which would fit better in the history section, but to make the reader aware that this is one of the main views. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hedonists usually understand the term pleasure in a broad sense that covers all kinds of enjoyable experiences, including bodily pleasures of food and sex as well as more intellectual or abstract pleasures, like the joy of reading a book or happiness about a friend's promotion. Pleasurable experiences come in degrees, and hedonists usually associate their intensity and duration with the magnitude of value they have: is it worth mentioning qualitative hedonism here -- some would consider "higher" pleasures to be of greater value, seperate from the intensity or duration of the pleasure?

  I added a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, let's do a few more:

• This theory overlaps with hedonism because many people desire pleasure and because desire satisfaction is often accompanied by pleasure. Nonetheless, there are important differences: people desire a variety of other things as well, like knowledge, achievement, and respect; additionally, desire satisfaction may not always result in pleasure: a musing rather than a problem, but I notice we adopt very human-focused language here and throughout, which raises the implication that someone following this school of thought would think that an animal's happiness or suffering has no moral value, except where it causes happiness or suffering to a human being. Is that intentional?

  This roughly reflects how the sources discuss the topic since they also refer to persons and people and when explaining their views, such as Hurka 2006 pp. 361–362. Non-human animals are usually not explicitly excluded, but they are not the main focus. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• One debate in desire theory concerns whether any desire is a source of value: this is ambiguous (does it mean "whether there exists a desire that is a source of value" or "whether there exists any desire that isn't a source of value"?). Suggest whether all desires are sources of value, or whether a desire is necessarily a source of value.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to one suggestion, there are two main fields of human goods: theoretical abilities responsible for understanding the world and practical abilities responsible for interacting with it: see above: can we attribute this suggestion to anyone in particular?

  In providing a broad summary of the field, Hurka 2006 explains this distinction without attributing it to anyone in particular. There are often cases in philosophy where there are widely held views in a particular area that didn't clearly originate from a single philosopher or one specific school of thought. In these cases, I think it's better to just state the view as one proposal rather than attribute it to a randomly selected philosopher who happens to discuss it somewhere, like Thomas Hurka in this case. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• philosopher Max Scheler: this is a false title, which isn't as heavily frowned upon in AmerE as it is in BrE, but does get a bit tiring when we have example, philosopher Isaiah Berlin applied this idea to the values of liberty and equality, arguing that a gain in one cannot make up for a loss in the other. Similarly, philosopher Joseph Raz said that it is often impossible to compare the values of career paths, like when choosing between becoming a lawyer or a clarinetist. The terms incomparability and incommensurability are often used as synonyms. However, philosophers like Ruth Chang distinguish them a moment later. In the last case, it also creates a little ambiguity: do we mean that "normal" people use the terms interchangeably, but philosophers (of whom Ruth Chang is one) see a distinction? We're also quite inconsistent about it: generally speaking, the famous philosophers don't get the title. You might consider cutting "philosopher" when it's being used as a generic introduction for exactly the sort of person a reasonable reader would expect to find quoted in a philosophy article.

  Opinions on this point seem to be divided among FA reviewers. In earlier articles, I did not mention titles when introducing theorists and some FA reviewers complained. My current practice is that I try to mention the title when the name appears for the first time unless the person is well-known, like Plato, or the context makes it clear. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I think either practice works. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• For instance, Immanuel Kant argued that if a vicious person becomes happy, this happiness, though good in itself, does not increase the overall value: increase the overall value of what? Similarly, earlier, with For example, if a virtuous person becomes happy then the intrinsic value of the happiness is simply added to the intrinsic value of the virtue, thereby increasing the overall value: the value of that person? The value of the world? The value of doing the thing that made the virtuous person happy?

  I guess that depends on your metaphysical assumptions, for example, whether individuals or states of affairs are the primary bearers of value. This is discussed in the subsection "Realism and anti-realism". Also explaining this here might add unnecessary complexity. Our source, Oddie 2001, also simply talks about the problem of whether "happiness always and everywhere adds value" without specifying the value bearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Existential nihilists reject both naturalist and supernaturalist explanations by asserting that there is no higher purpose. They suggest that life is meaningless, with the consequence that there is no higher reason to continue living and that all efforts, achievements, happiness, and suffering are ultimately pointless: particularly in this paragraph, I'm struggling to keep straight the distinction between value and related ideas like "right/wrong", "meaning" and so on. Are we saying here that these nihilists think nothing has value, because nothing has meaning? Incidentally, if we're covering existentialism here, isn't all efforts, achievements, happiness, and suffering are ultimately pointless only half of the story -- nothing has essential meaning, so it's up to human beings to create that meaning and purpose -- il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux?

  This is not just you, it's the sources on existential nihilists themselves that often don't clearly distinguish. For example, from Pratt: Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value ... Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. One explanation could be that this is a broad tradition and different philosophers in this tradition use different terminology, so when you attempt an inclusive summary, you lose precision.

  What you say is true of existentialism but existential nihilism is not exactly the same thing. Existentialism is covered in our article in the sentence A similar view is defended by existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, who argued that values are human creations that endow the world with meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Values measure the extent to which an entity fulfills its concept. For example, a good car has all the desirable qualities of cars, like a reliable engine and effective brakes, whereas a bad car lacks many. Formal axiology distinguishes between three fundamental value types: intrinsic values apply to people; extrinsic values apply to things, actions, and social roles; systemic values apply to conceptual constructs: I found the plural on values tricky here: I don't have a sense of what this school of thought thinks "values" actually are. I get the idea that a good car has more value (singular) than a bad one, but where does the plural come in? Is a "value" here synonymous with a "desirable quality"?

  I changed the first plural to singular because we talk about an individual entity. Different entities can have different values or value properties, so the later plurals make sense. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still looking at It uses axioms to give an abstract definition of value, understanding it not as a property of things but as a property of concepts. Value measures the extent to which an entity fulfills its concept. For example, a good car has all the desirable qualities of cars, like a reliable engine and effective brakes, whereas a bad car lacks many and scratching my head -- in part, but not entirely, because the first two sentences seem to contradict each other ("the extent to which the thing fulfils its concept" is, surely, a property of the thing?). But then I'll freely admit that I always was too thick for philosophy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  From Hartman 2011 p. 103: The value predicate “good,” thus, is a property of concepts rather than of objects. Maybe it's similar to how the property "being instantiated" is a property of concepts rather than of objects. But I guess it depends how you use the term "property". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value theorists employ various methods to conduct their inquiry, justify theories, and measure values: conduct their inquiries reads as more natural to me.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• In this context, an intuition is an immediate apprehension or understanding of a self-evident claim, meaning that its truth can be assessed without inferring it from another observation. Value theorists often rely on thought experiments to gain this type of understanding: I'm not sure what specific type of understanding we mean here.

  It refers to the understanding discussed in the previous sentence: the type of understanding that belongs to self-evident claims, which could be a priori understanding, depending on your theory of intuition. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Based on his observation that people would not want to spend the rest of their lives in this pleasurable simulation: this might be me being a spoilsport, but when we say "observation", do we really mean "contention" -- or did he actually do a robust survey?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• According to him, the thought experiment shows that the value of an authentic connection to reality is not reducible to pleasure.: I assume another interpretation is that people are irrational?

  If I remember correctly, some defenders of hedonism make a similar point in their attempt to refute Nozick's thought experiment. But since the point here is to showcase how thought experiments work, I don't think we should get into this. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Our article hyphenates Open-question argument, which would seem the default for a compound modifier (it's the question that's open, not the argument).

  I think both spellings are used. I added the hyphen. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Didn't we do the bit on "Ethics -> Consequentialism" already, further up?

  The earlier discussion was just a brief definition in a footnote for readers who haven't heard the term, not the proper explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Classical utilitarianism, a prominent form of consequentialism, says that moral actions produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people.: this is only strictly true if we don't consider Mill a classical utilitarian, since his idea of higher and lower pleasures means that it's completely possible for an action to produce more utility while producing less pleasure (for example, forcing people to go to the library instead of the pub).

  This is often presented as the standard definition of "classical utilitarianism". For example, from Sinnott-Armstrong 2023: [Classic utilitarianism is] often summarized in the slogan that an act is right if and only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”. One explanation might be that even though most of Mill's ethics falls under classical utilitarianism, this specific aspect does not. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• The economic value or benefit of a commodity is the advantage it provides to an economic agent, often measured in terms of the money people are willing to pay for it: I would suggest what people are willing to pay: I'm only speaking from experience of economics teachers here, but they tend to avoid speaking about money directly when they can help it -- and the "costs" they're interested in are often partly paid in time or convenience, either directly or indirectly.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginal utility often diminishes if many units have already been consumed: could link diminishing returns somewhere around here.

  I'm not sure if diminishing marginal utility is the same as diminishing return. It might be that the first is about consumption and the second about production. Diminishing marginal utility redirects to Marginal utility. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• According to this view, values are beliefs or priorities about goals worth pursuing that guide people to act in certain ways: I might find this a bit clearer with a specific example of what this means in practice.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• One approach to this type of research uses value scales, such as the Rokeach Value Survey and the Schwartz theory of basic human values,: we already introduced these a little while ago, in the "Methods" section.

  The detailed explanation is up there. They are mentioned here in one sentence to make the reader aware that they are also used by sociologists. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Anthropologist Louis Dumont followed this idea, suggesting that the cultural meaning systems in distinct societies differ in their value priorities. He argued that values are ordered hierarchically around a set of paramount values that trump all other values: this might be another place where a specific example, perhaps from Dumont's work, might clarify things.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• values associated with the autonomy of individuals, such as self-directedness, independence, and personal goals: the fulfilment of personal goals, surely -- a value needs to be a singular noun.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:BIRTHDATE: birth and death dates generally shouldn't be included in an article text outside the first sentence of a biography. In the "History" section, I would therefore look to rework the essential dates into prose: for example, In the late fifth century BCE, Socrates identified the highest good as the right combination of knowledge, pleasure, and virtue ... His pupil Plato conceived the good as a universal and changeless idea ... Aristotle, a contemporary of Plato, saw eudaimonia as the highest good. Think here about how much detail or precision a reader needs here to get the point: in most cases, the exact dates of birth and death are less relevant than the general chronology. As we get down the history section, the dates become a bit of an obstacle to reading.

  I guess this depends on how you interpret the term "special contextual relevance" in MOS:BIRTHDATE. Given that we have to include this information anyways in the text, as your proposed reformulations suggest, I think there is a point to be made that they are relevant. You are right about the precision, but I don't think this is a serious problem. There are also other factors to consider, such as concision, ease of reference, and the difficulty of avoiding repetitive formulations when introducing new dates in prose in almost every sentence.

  To address the precision concern in particular, we could make the dates in the parenthesis more vague, such as "(5th century BCE)" and "(5th–4th centuries BCE)". However, this is not standard when the exact dates are known, so I think this is not a good idea. I could look up whether high-quality sources in the history of philosophy follow our practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• We are inconsistent on the capitalisation of "the Good".

  Adjusted. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:SAINTS: Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint" (see also MOS:HONORIFIC).

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• In general, we shouldn't put CE after a date unless there's a realistic chance of a reader thinking it's a BCE one, but see my earlier point that most of these dates probably need the axe anyway.

  The change between BCE and CE happens in the first three paragraphs, so I think it makes sense to include the CEs at least there.

• I think note v uses a hyphen for a date range (but see above re. MOS:BIRTHDATE).

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all for the text. I haven't done a systematic look at the references, footnotes, biblio or images -- I may do so, but no promises. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all the helpful comments! If you have more time to look at things like references or images, it would be much appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Rose Cleveland

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Rose Cleveland was the sister of U.S. President Grover Cleveland. He had not yet married when he became president in 1885, so she served as acting first lady until his wedding the following year. Despite all of the excitement in Washington, recent scholarship has taken more interest in the years after, when she began a same-sex relationship with Evangeline Marrs Whipple and moved to Italy. The couple provided assistance for refugees of World War I and the Spanish flu, of which Cleveland herself died in 1918.

This is the sixth U.S. first lady article I'm submitting as a featured article candidate, part of a project I began with WP:Women in Green, and the first not to be the wife of a president. I wasn't sure about submitting one of these simpler Acting First Lady articles, but Cleveland had surprisingly in-depth coverage of her life with publications specifically about her. Nonetheless, this is the shortest first lady article I've submitted to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Rose_Cleveland,_before_1918_(cropped).jpg: what is the author's date of death and where was it published before 1930? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria! Alt text added. I'm unable to confirm anything about the author or publication of that particular image, so I've removed it barring any revelations on its origin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Brockell (2019) uses sentence case while other references use title case. I'd recommend changing the style of this reference to title case for the sake of consistency.
• Per MOS:SMALL, {{small}} templates should be avoided in the infobox.
• You could mention that Ipswich is in England, e.g. Ipswich, England, in Early life.
• Avoid repetition: They moved to Holland Patent, New York, in 1853 → In 1853, they moved to Holland Patent, New York
• He had raised Cleveland and her siblings as Presbyterian, and she remained devoted to the religion her entire life. could be moved after the "The Clevelands were poor..." sentence.
• Would suggest cutting this: before returning home to her family home in Holland Patent → before returning to her family home in Holland Patent
• Holland Patent is wikilinked twice in the same section (Early life).
• Here she returned implies that the Houghton Academy is located in Holland Patent. I'd suggest changing it to: After recovery, she returned
• Recommend wikilinking Nassau.
• Besides teaching, Cleveland became a prominent lecturer in the state of New York, speaking at schools about things such as history and women's rights. could be moved after the "Here she returned..." (After recovery, she returned...) sentence.
• Cleveland inherited The Weeds Grover or Rose?
• Cleveland's brother Grover Grover is already introduced in the previous section so I don't think that it's necessary to state "Cleveland's brother" again. In order for this sentence to then make sense, I suggest changing so he asked her to fulfill the role to so he asked Rose to fulfill the role
• Typo: in June 1, 1886 → on June 1, 1886
• How is File:ROSE ELIZABETH CLEVELAND.jpg relevant to the section?
• Would suggest merging sentences: In 1909 → , while in 1909
• She founded the Florida Audubon Society along with the Whipple and Marrs families and served as its vice president. was this after or before her return to New York?
• Maybe change the Bagni di Lucca, Italy subsection to Life in Bagni di Lucca, Italy
• You could note that Bagni di Lucca is in Tuscany.
• What was Rob Hardy's occupation?

Overall, a fantastic article. I enjoyed reading it. Good job, TBUA. If you're interested, you can join our next month's GAN Backlog Drive!

Vacant0 changes made, that should be everything I think. The image is just where an image of her best fit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

MS

Early life

• Cleveland attended Houghton Academy in Buffalo, New York, from 1864 to 1866. "Buffalo, New York" could be linked in this sentence.
• Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited their home, The Weeds.→ Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited their family home. Or {{blue|Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited The Weeds. Any of the two suggested versions (in blue) will avoid repetition.

Acting First Lady of the United States

• Could "Annie C. Van Vechten" be introduced in brief?
• Could "Adelaide Hamlin Thierry" and "Katherine Willard Baldwin" be introduced in brief?

That's all for now. A few suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Bagini di Lucca, Italy

• The Spanish flu occurred this year,... Could "this year" be replaced with "that year"?

"That year" would be appropriate if the flu was happening in the same year you're speaking or writing whereas "this year" would refer to an event in the past (as is the case).

Legacy

• Cleveland's romantic to Whipple→Cleveland's romantic letters to Whipple

That's all from me. I hope that my suggestions have been useful, Thebiguglyalien. MSincccc (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc Thanks for the help! Everything should be fixed now. The people you mentioned aren't notable besides being friends with Cleveland, so I've introduced them as "women named". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

A fine article indeed. Support. MSincccc (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Love Is Embarrassing

Nominator(s): NØ 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

🎵I give up, give up, but I keep comin' back for more🎵

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Love Is Embarrassing". Yet another highlight from 2023's Guts, "Love Is Embarrassing" details Rodrigo's pessimism and, well, embarrassment about a love interest. It has also been a noteworthy performance on the album's soldout world tour, but not always for the best of reasons as you will find out upon reading the article... Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

I hope that this review is helpful. Just to be clear, I am looking at this version of the article. It should be the current version at the time of me posting these comments, but it is better to be safe than sorry. My review is below:

• For this part, Rodrigo's performance, in the lead, I would suggest clarifying this as either "Rodrigo's vocal performance" or as "Rodrigo's vocals" as "performance" by itself could be interpreted in other ways, such as how she expressed the lyrics or if she took on a character for the song.
• I would avoid the following sentence construction, with songwriting and recording consuming the first eight and the final two being used for mixing and fine-tuning, as the "with X verb-ing" phrasing is typically discouraged for a FA. I think that it would be a good idea to double-check the article for any other instances. Another instance is the following, with GQ including the latter in its list of the album's standout and "gutsiest" lyrics.
• I think this part, The following morning, from the "Background and release" section is rather jarring as the last sentence of the previous paragraph was about the 10-month process for making Guts. While the transition does make sense as the reader goes through the sentence, I still think this could be phrased better.
• Do we have any further information on why Nigro thought that including the song was a bad idea? Was it solely because of the timing or was there something else?

• I believe it was solely because of the timing.

• I believe that a word is missing in this part, but its spirited hooks were enjoyable. Something like "found" could be used.
• I have a comment for this sentence: Some commented on Rodrigo's vocal performance. I would clarify who is meant by "some".
• If possible, I would avoid repeating "relatable" for two sentences in a row in the "Critical reception" section.
• I was initially surprised by this part, despite being set in high school. Is this song explicitly set in a high school? If so, I think that would be useful information for the "Composition" section, unless it is already there and I overlooked it.

• Though the song mentions that the crush kissed a girl from high school, it is not explicitly revealed as the setting for all of its events. I have more clearly made this an attributed opinion now.

• This is rather nitpick-y, but I think that it would be worth writing out the song's title for this sentence: Rodrigo sang it during her Lollapalooza Chile set in March 2025. The previous sentences were all about reviews regarding the wardrobe malfunction, and even though "it" is clear in context, it would be still be helpful to say it in full.
• Shouldn't Olivia Rodrigo be linked for Citation 15?
• Citation 22 does not have an author attributed, but the article does have a by-line (Yolanda Xiao) so this information should be included.

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Aoba. I believe I have addressed this batch of comments, and it should be ready for your second read-through.--NØ 10:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I am just glad that I can help. I will read through the article either later today or tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Great work with the article. I have read through the article, and I could not find anything further to add. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I will take a look at this over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Nigro played acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, synthesizer, and drum programming" - I don't think you really "play" drum programming. Maybe "and programmed drums".....?
• "that is reminiscent of Dale Bozzio" - could you maybe say "that is reminiscent of Dale Bozzio of the band [whatever band Bozzio is/was in]" as, despite having what I like to think is very wide-ranging music knowledge, I have personally never heard of him/her so don't think he/she is well-known enough to be name-dropped without context
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Both done, ChrisTheDude. Thanks a lot for the review!--NØ 19:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I made a tiny tweak to the Bozzio sentence, I hope you don't mind -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Rodrigo derides her crush". "her" suggests that the crush has already been introduced. Perhaps 'a'? In both the lead and the main article.
• "how much she was attracted to him." "him" being?

• The crush mentioned earlier in the sentence. It's used as a noun.

• "which they also compared to other artists". In what way, and/or to what end? Eg, favourably?

• Neutrally, I guess; this refers to the second paragraph of the Composition section.

• "The song reached the top 30 in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States". Just checking that it didn't also make the top 30 in the UK.

• It didn't place on the main chart published by the Official Charts Company.

• "entered the charts in some other countries". Suggest "some" → 'several'.
• "and entered the charts in some other countries, receiving a gold certification in Australia, Brazil, and Canada." This gives the impression that the gold certification only applies to the "other countries". Suggest a new sentence for the last clause.
• "She conceived the follow-up album, Guts (2023), at the age of 19, while experiencing "lots of confusion, mistakes, awkwardness & good old fashioned teen angst"." The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
• "The following morning ..." Starting a new paragraph and a new topic like that jars. A reader thinks 'Following what? The ten months creating Guts?"
• "as the last song for the album in her living room." It's a long sentence and that bit could be phrased better.
• "just five days before Guts was due for submission". Submission to whom?
• "it was included on the album even though he thought it was not a good idea." It sounds like there is - or should be - some more information there, not included in the article. I mean, why would a producer include a song they thought was a bad idea?
• Link bridge.
• "Other artists "Love Is Embarrassing" was compared to ..." I beg to doubt that the song was compared to artists.
• "but its spirited hooks were enjoyable". Maybe 'but that its spirited hooks were enjoyable'?
• "due to their conflicted core." I think either 'due to its conflicted core' or 'due to their conflicted cores.'
• "Ragusa believed the latter was". You don't need to say "the latter" a second time.
• Unlike most of the article, the first few sentences of "Live performances" seem a list of factoids. Is it possible to make them less choppy?
• "similarly to Rodrigo, the dancer also flawlessly completed the high-energy choreography". Needs rephrasing.
• "Sales+streaming". Why the use of "+" and no spaces?

• This is automatically generated by the template and is the same on all song articles. It might be worth raising a discussion about it on the template talk page later...

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

All done, Gog the Mild. Thanks a lot for the review!--NØ 10:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

A cracking little article. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review

Which of 18 and 25 sources in which Rodrigo derides a crush and feels self-conscious about how much she was attracted to him". Source formatting seems consistent, you are using major sources but I wonder if @David Fuchs: has a second opinion on things like HuffPo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Image placement ALT licencing and rationales seem OK to me. Is there a particular reason why File:Love Is Embarrassing.ogg is the sample used? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The first source has "Rodrigo cringes at herself and throws shade at an old flame"; "throws shade at" = deride, and "cringes at herself" = feels self-conscious. Second one shows her deriding the guy by calling him a loser and mentions that the "self-deprecation continues". The sample used is the bridge which received the comparisons to Devo and the part where Rodrigo sounds most vocally similar to Marina and the Diamonds and Kelly Clarkson. Let me know if anything else requires an explanation, Jo-Jo Eumerus.--NØ 09:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

OK I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Big Boys (song)

Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 13:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Cuffing season may be over, but there's never a deadline to improving articles. "Big Boys" quickly became one of the most popular SNL sketches shortly after it aired last December 2022, mainly thanks to the Gen Z app TikTok. While its song's got a catchy chorus, it was never released on streaming or radio, to the chagrin of many music fans. This is technically my first TV show article (despite mainly being structured like a song article), so I hope my first foray in that topic area's successful on this try. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 13:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

Always wanted to review an Elias article as I've seen some of the hard work they've done. I don't have much time right now so expect a more thorough second wave of feedback at a later time.

• I noticed that "two million" is spealt out but other numbers larger than 9 are not spealt out. The MOS doesn't give specific guidance on numbers such as two million where there is a smaller number in front so I'm more curious about wether this is intentional or not as I'm not sure if this is incorrect or not
  • Yes, this was intentional on my part - Elias
• 48 is spealt out in full in the lead but not in other parts of the article (same with other higher numbers) for consistency perhaps consider changing this so they are all spealt out or not.|
  • I've followed the spelling standard used in the SNL season articles (forty-eighth season vs. season 48). - Elias
• It may be relevant to include which two songs in "SZA performed two songs from the album" but use your best judgement here
  • I think doing so takes away the focus from SNL and the comedy sketch, so I left them out on purpose - Elias
• "who specifically is overweight" may sound better as is specifically
  • I don't see the difference tbh - Elias
• fan culture may have an appropriate wikilink
  • Wikilinked "fan culture" to fandom; this also reminded me to add a WL for "fan video". I *think* that wikilink may be vidding? Not sure. I'm used to the term "fancams" or "fan videos" or "fan edits", and I don't know if "vidding" has the same meaning as those three. - Elias

That's all I have for now but I will return to this with hopefully some more feedback. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense thanks for coming along. I appreciate the compliments! Your comments have been insightful so far; I look forward to the rest. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the numbers, I have no fixed opinion of the whole two million vs 2 million so I don't think any changes are needed there. Regarding using the same style as other SNL seasons, there is other times where 48 isn't spealt out in reference to the season so I think for consistency it would make sense to stick with either spelling it out in every occurrence or using the numbers. Somewhat off topic but I'm surprised we have an article on Vidding and not fan edits or fan videos.

• Apparently "fan edits" are a form of vidding? Very confusing terminology even to someone immersed in fandom. Re. the number spelling, I don't think it really is that serious; "7th" looks weird to me and I can't just change "forty-eighth" to "48th" because "7th" is almost directly beside it. - Elias
• You know this area better than I do but Single (music) may be helpful wikilink

• Done - Elias

• " dancers who wear Santa hats and pajamas" may sound better as "wearing Santa hats..."

• Done - Elias

• "unofficial audio snippet of it was" may sound better as "of the song" or just "snippet was"

• I removed that part - Elias

• I may just be tired but the placement of the explanation for fancam in "In the sketch, the "Big Boys" chorus played when actor Pedro Pascal watched one fancam, a fan-made video about a popular figure, of himself on TikTok" reads a bit awkward to me. I'm not quite sure why though

• Moved into a footnote - Elias

That's all I have for now! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing, IntentionallyDense! It's a delight to interact with you at FAC for the first time. Responses above Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 23:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on the pretty short length here and the fact that the prose was in great condition when I got to this article, I believe that's all I have to contribute. Support on prose and best of luck moving forward! As always, thanks for your cooperation and willingness to hear others out. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

I'll do a few comments that I can nitpick, will add some more if I can.

• From my understanding, wouldn't it be more apt to omit mentions of the word "the" when mentioning "cuffing season"? [3] (e.g. concept of the cuffing season to concept of cuffing season).
  • I think this is a MOS:WORDSASWORDS situation (note the term in that dictionary entry is also in italics). The way the wikipedia article is using "cuffing season" is more similar to that of the examples given in the online Cambridge dictionary - Elias
• "fan videos", "fan-made videos" could probably work better in this context.
  • Anything can be a fan-made video... "fan video" refers to a more specific genre of fan-made works. The linked article vidding also uses "fan video" - Elias
• "For her appearance, SZA performed two songs from the album.", which were?
  • It does not need to be mentioned because it takes the focus away from the subject of the article. - Elias
• "SNL actor Kenan Thompson", since it's SNL, "SNL cast member..."?
  • Done - Elias
• "After it went viral on TikTok, SNL reused the song for another season 48 sketch, which parodied fan culture there.[12] In the sketch, the "Big Boys" chorus played when actor Pedro Pascal watched one fancam, a fan-made video about a popular figure, of himself on TikTok.", the title of the sketch could be included, "Fancam Assembly".
  • The sentence is already pretty long and I think this is non-essential information - Elias
• Would the audio require captions for accessibility?
  • Yes, but I'll get to it at a later time - Elias
  • These are my comments for now! Arconning (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning, thanks for going beyond the GAN review by helping with the FAC as well. I have replied to everything above (and addressed the comment about close captions as well). Hope you have a great day! Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@PSA I'll give my support, love the article! Hope you have a great day as well. :) Arconning (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a few questions about the "guest appearances" parameter in the infobox. Shouldn't the dancers be included? If we know their names, they should be credited here. What about Kenan Thompson? He also makes an appearance in the sketch. What about Cecily Strong, Ego Nwodim, and Punkie Johnson?
  • Nope, I couldn't find their names anywhere. And those four are cast members so they do not count.
    • That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying this for me. It is a shame that the dancers do not get credit, but that information is unfortunately unavailable. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I believe File:Big Boys (Saturday Night Live).png would need a stronger justification for inclusion. The WP:FUR, specifically the "purpose of use" parameter, is quite vague in my opinion. To be clear, I am not against using this screenshot, but since it is non-free media, it should have a strong rationale for its inclusion.
  • Expanded
• I am uncertain about the first two sentences of the lead. I would think that it would be more beneficial to start with the performers, as done for other song articles. A suggestion for these two sentences would be the following: ("Big Boys" is a novelty song performed by Keke Palmer and SZA for a pretaped comedy sketch on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL). It was included in the forty-eighth season's seventh episode, which features Palmer as the host and SZA as the musical guest.)
  • I disagree with this comment in that I prefer that the sentences not get overly long. I do not think there is a hard rule enforcing this stylistic choice and the current structure is not a detriment to the article.
    • Fair enough. I should have been clearer anyway. Song articles start by naming the performers in the lead's first sentence. Any reason why this article does not do that? Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • As explained, this is an article about an SNL skit, first and foremost. The most important thing about it is not the performers but its purpose. I think that if the sketch song got an official release like what happened with 3-Way (The Golden Rule), then I could have included the performers at the opening sentence. However, this is not the case.
• The lead should mention the songwriters. On a somewhat related note, do we have any further information on the people behind the song, such as the producers? I am guessing that since this song was never released, that this would not be known, but I wanted to double-check just to make sure.
  • I added the songwriters, though the producers are unknown
    • I figured the producers were unknown, but thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would cut down this part, (frequently mention the concept of the cuffing season), to the following, (frequently mention cuffing season), to be more concise. I have the same comment for when "the concept of the cuffing season" is used later in the article.
  • It just seems awkward when written that way. I know we aim for being concise but we have to balance it with having a smooth flow of words as well
    • Frankly, I think "the concept of" is more awkward. I do not think that it adds anything and it comes across more like filler to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Well okay, fair enough
• For the lead's second paragraph, I wonder if the first two sentences could be combined. The first sentence on the airdate seems rather abrupt to me. Maybe something like the following: (The "Big Boys" sketch aired on December 3, 2022 and in it, Palmer and SZA dance alongside three SNL cast members)? That is just an idea though, but I think this part could be worded better.
  • See my reply three comments above
    • Fair enough. I just feel that the prose reads as choppy by having a short sentence at the start like this, but I will not press this further. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I believe that the first two sentences in the "Background" section could be combined as they come across as slightly repetitive in my opinion. This is what I thought of: (On December 3, 2022, singer-songwriter SZA was the musical guest on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL) for the seventh episode of its forty-eighth season.) Either way, musical guest (as well as the host) should be linked in this section to match the link in the lead.
  • The links have been added. However, I did not merge the sentences as I found it overly long.
    • It seems repetitive to me. The first sentence is about how she ppears on SNL, but it is unclear in what capacity she appears in until the second sentence. I do not see the reason for not saying it at the start. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • We will have to disagree there. The introduction of SZA as a musical guest still happens relatively at the beginning of the paragraph. I can see the problem when this is mentioned in the last sentence, but I doubt that it is a major issue when done during the second sentence. I actually have no idea how I can transfer that detail to the first sentence, so an example here will help.
        • I already gave you an example, but you disagree with it. I will see if other reviewers comment on this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
          • Ah, my bad @Aoba47, I didn't see the example. Regardless, the suggested prose feels overly long to me. Say, if I did implement the change, then the first paragraph's ebb and flow would become rockier. We now start with a very long sentence, and as we go on the sentence length gets shorter: "On December 3, 2022, singer-songwriter SZA was the musical guest on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL) for the seventh episode of its forty-eighth season. Prior to this, she had been teasing the release of her second studio album, SOS (2022). For her set, she performed two songs from the album." Not super ideal. Alternatively I can write "On December 3, 2022, singer-songwriter SZA was the musical guest on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL) for the seventh episode of its forty-eighth season. Prior to this, she had been teasing the release of her second studio album, SOS (2022), so she performed two songs from the album for her set.", but the "overly long sentence" problem just gets doubled. I already established a preference for using long sentences sparingly, so now we're in a pickle. @IntentionallyDense and @Arconning, apologies for the ping but as previous reviewers, what do you think of Aoba's suggested change? (There's another suggestion a bit down the line for which I would also like your input.) Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

            It may be helpful to know where Aboda is coming from here. From my understanding it is based on repetitiveness, which in my opinion isn't something that jumps out at me here. The first paragraph seems to be some background on SZA's performance and the second paragraph is about the song itself. Regardless, repetitiveness is quite subjective so this may be a "wait and see" kind of situation.

            Regarding the placement of the writers of the song, the first few setences of a lead are vital. It's what makes people decide to keep reading or not. Putting the most important information first is important for this. If the writers were very notable for the topic (for example I can think of some artists where the producer they work with is vital to their song style and would be important) then I could see it being placed higher up but otherwise I don't see the big deal in splitting up that information. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

            I personally am fine with either writing style as they do make sense on paper. Though I lean in more with Elias' original suggestion regarding the consistency of the sentences' length in the section. Arconning (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

            Thanks @Arconning and @IntentionallyDense for the input (cc @Aoba47). There is another comment below for which I would like additional opinions. It's the one that starts with "This is another point where we unfortunately do not see eye-to-eye". Regards, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 13:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

            My second paragraph is in response to that. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

            To be clear, my comment on this part is about the repetition. I just think it is unnecessary to break this into two sentences. But if other editors disagree, then that is fine. I agree that it is a "wait and see" situation. If other editors are okay with it, then that is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• These two sentences, (For her appearance, SZA performed two songs from the album.) and (SZA performed another song during her appearance, a rap track titled "Big Boys".), are repetitive. They both use "performed songs" in some capacity for two sentences in a row. I would think that these sentences could be combined to something like: (For her appearance, SZA performed two songs from the album, as well as a rap track titled "Big Boys" for one of the episode's comedy sketches.)
  • I am unsure about merging them because the first part directly ties into the previous sentence about SOS. It would slightly break cohesion, I think. I agree with you about redundancy though, so I rewrote the second paragraph a bit.
    • That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the "Background" section would read better as a single paragraph.
  • The themes and topics discussed in each paragraph are different enough to make me think a split is warranted.
    • That is fair. I will not press this point further. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• The "Background" section brings up that the song was written for a sketch, but the actual writers are only named in the next section. I am uncertain on why this information would be separated from one another.
  • No clue why this is a problem.
    • When I was reading this part, it made me question who actually wrote this song. It just seems odd to me to bring up that this song was written for something without naming the writers right at that moment and instead having the readers jump to a different section to find that information. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Hm, think of it this way: we're dealing with a song created not for a musical artist's body of work. This is about a song created for a TV show. The songwriters do not really matter as much here. To me, it makes sense to focus first on setting the stage (so to speak), by bringing up the comedy sketch. Readers will likely want to learn "who performed this song?" first and not "who wrote this track?" Naming the songwriters this early into the prose (e.g. by writing "SZA also contributed to a rap track written by Punkie Johnson, Vannessa Jackson, and Streeter Seidell for one of the episode's comedy sketches") might strike folks as odd. Who are they? Why are they relevant to the conversation? The immersion in the section gets broken, if that makes sense.
        • Songwriters always matter. It does not matter if the song is on an album or just in a movie or a television. A song appearing in a SNL skit does not diminish the importance of the people who wrote it. You say that the first question readers would have would be "who performed this song?". Well, I was a reader. My first question when I read this part was "who wrote this track?". When I read about a song being written for something, I want to know who wrote it. I do not think that it breaks the immersion. I do not think that the second paragraph of the first section is too early in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
          • This is another point where we unfortunately do not see eye-to-eye. My apologies for being stubborn about this point - the confusion stems from my being unsure on how (or why) this can be improved. While I stand by my opinion that this comes down to stylistic preference, I am open to suggestions on how the suggestion can be incorporated. Where in the second paragraph of the first section do you want the detail about songwriters mentioned, and how? I am also open to having other folks (like Arconning and IntentionallyDense) comment on it.
            • An option would be to change (SZA also contributed to a rap track written for one of the episode's comedy sketches.) to (SZA also contributed to a rap track for one of the episode's comedy sketches.). If the writers and writing process is not going to be brought up in this section and the focus is on the episode, then "written" is not really needed here. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope that these comments are helpful. I have never heard of this song before so hopefully my more outside opinion can be useful here. I have only read the lead and the "Background" section so far, but I wanted to stop here for now. I will read the rest of the article once everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by @Aoba47. It's been a long time since we've seen each other! I have replied to your comments. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I have left my replies above. I will look through the article again sometime on Wednesday night if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would clarify how Cecily Strong, Ego Nwodim, and Punkie Johnson factor into the song and the sketch as it is rather vague in its current wording. It is not made clear until later in the article that they are rapping on the song.
  • Clarified
• I would recommend linking hook, particularly for readers who may be unfamiliar with music jargon.
  • Linked
• I have a question about this sentence: (SZA performs the hook in her singing voice, in contrast to Palmer and the SNL cast, who rap the remaining lyrics.) Why not just say something like, SZA sings the hook while Palmer and the SNL cast rap the verses?
  • Good idea to trim this part, although "SZA sings the hook" is a repetition of the previous sentences. I went with a slightly different approach.
    • Thank you for addressing this. I think that the article could more clearly identify that SZA is singing the hook. This part, (she could perform the hook), is a bit vague as "perform" could mean different things, even on a song. I would also be mindful of the repetition of perform in this paragraph. I would also link verses to help readers who may be unfamiliar with this kind of music jargon. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Addressed
• I have been told in the past to avoid the following sentence construction, (with the premise of finding a boyfriend who specifically is overweight). I do not have an issue with it, but I have seen enough notes in other FACs that it is likely just best to avoid the "with X verb-ing" phrasing when possible.
  • It's not the same structure; note the presence of the preposition "of" before the verbal.
    • Thank you for pointing this, and apologies for misreading this part. That was a pretty dumb mistake on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• For this part, (as Star-Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy), I would think that the Guardians of the Galaxy (Marvel Cinematic Universe) would be more appropriate as this is about the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of the team. That and Guardians of the Galaxy should not be in italics as it is referencing the team, not the movie.
  • I changed the link but kept the italics. Guardians of the Galaxy here refers to the entire franchise, and its particular use parallels Parks and Recreation which is a TV sitcom.
• For both (as Star-Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy) and (as Andy Dwyer from Parks and Recreation), a descriptive phrase should be added for both Guardians of the Galaxy and Parks and Recreation to better introduce both to readers.
  • Done
• I am uncertain of the placement of the poster sentence. That is about what happens in the video, but it is placed in the paragraphs about the lyrics. I would think that this would be better suited for the last paragraph of this section, which is about the video.
  • I split the parts about the video into its own section
• I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say: (It features an ensemble of overweight men in different contexts.). The "different contexts" wording in particular is very vague. Can any further information be added? If not, it may be better to reword this part to say: Mike Diva directed the video, which features an ensemble of overweight men.
  • Rewritten
• Something about this sentence just seems awkwardly constructed: (One of the social media platforms where "Big Boys" went viral was TikTok, where an unofficial audio snippet was used in over two million videos.) I think you worded this kind of thing better in the "Streets" (song) article.
  • I don't see the problem. If you're referring to how I wrote "used" in "Big Boys" instead of "appeared in" like in "Streets", that's because "using an audio" / "using a sound" is a valid way to say "included this song in a video" in TikTok.
• For the Today ranking, I do not think that it is necessary to specify the month and the year. I think the year alone would be good enough.
  • Removed
• I get what you are going for with this part, (In the view of multiple journalists), but I think something like "According to multiple journalists" would read better.
  • Done
• For this part, (Writing a retrospective of SNL sketches for Collider), why not add the year to the prose, like what is done for the Today ranking?
  • Done
• This source from The A.V. Club could be useful as the writer praises the chemistry between SZA and Palmer.
  • I ultimately decided on not including this because the article is not about SNL or the skit (it's about the One of Them Days film). Furthermore, the article doesn't really say anything super meaningful about "Big Boys".
    • Fair enough. I disagree as the source does praise their chemistry for this song: (SZA was the musical guest when Palmer hosted the show back in 2022, and the two made some real magic together.) That being said, it is not a major point so I will not press it further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• It is not required for a FAC, but I always encourage sources to be archived as that would avoid any potential headaches in the future with link rot and death.
  • Done
  • I will incorporate those two suggestions later as I will have to get lunch with friends outside in a few

These are my comments for the rest of the article. I hope that this is helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Aoba47! Your comments helped with rewiring my perspective on the article. Replies to all of your comments are above. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@PSA: Thank you for addressing everything. You have done a great job with this article. I am going to wait and see what other reviewers have to say. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Aoba47. Same goes to you. I'll be seeing Final Destination Bloodlines in a few hours so I'll definitely take my time enjoying the day Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to help. I hope you enjoy the movie! Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Harry Crerar

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Harry Crerar, Canada's most senior field commander in the Second World War, who commanded the First Canadian Army in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944–1945. I prepared this article as part of a series on the senior commanders in the campaign, but never got around to them all. Crerar is not a household name even in Canada, but Canada is in the news a lot lately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Crerar_e010750463-v8.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:CrerarReturnsToOttawa1945.jpg

  I do not know, but Archives Canada says the copyright has expired, so it must have been more than 50 years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• File:British-p011074.jpg: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  The rights have been released world-wide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  How do we know that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Toutes les images dont les descriptifs comportent la mention de copyright "libre de droits" et qui ont été numérisées, peuvent être téléchargées en haute définition (fichiers numériques TIFF en 300 DPI) et utilisées librement, avec pour seule contrainte l'obligation d'inscrire, lors de toute utilisation, la mention :
  "Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie / National Archives USA" pour les images dont l'origine indiquée sur le descriptif est "NA-USA"
  "Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie / National Archives Canada" pour les images dont l'origine indiquée sur le descriptif est "NA-CA".[4]

  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  That does not specify worldwide release? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment -- I notice the Knight of Saint John isn't showing up in the post-noms in the first sentence, leaving an odd-looking double comma; obviously the post-nom template could be altered to include this but can we confirm that it is a recognised post-nom in Canada (since I don't think it is everywhere)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Since 1990, the Order of St John is a recognised order in Canada, but the post-nominals are not used. [5] I believe that they were used in the past eg. [6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

Placeholder for now - I'll post a review later this week. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Zawed

Some comments:

• In the lead, is it necessary to abbrev the DSO since it isn't mentioned again?
• Lead: he became General Officer Commanding the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division,. Should there be an "of" after Commanding?
• Lead: where he assumed command of the First Canadian Army which, although designated the Canadian First Army, contained a significant amount of British and Polish troops. How about "where he assumed command of the First Canadian Army which, despite its designation, contained a significant amount of British and Polish troops...". This does away with the repetition of "First Canadian Army".
• Early years: Scottish born lawyer. Should be Scottish-born lawyer I think?
• Early years: The death of his father later on in 1912 prompted a career. Suggest "The death of his father later that year prompted a career" since 1912 mentioned in the previous sentence
• First World War: called up as units to form the artillery of the 1st Canadian Division. Is the "as units" necessary here?
• First World War: I think some of the details first para could be tightened up a little. For example, the mention of personnel numbers doesn't add much
• First World War: Although Crerar had survived the war intact. "Intact" seems an unusual way to describe it; how about "uninjured" or "without injury"?

I'm up to the "Corps commander" section, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

1883 FA Cup final

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I decided to give you all a break from articles on Gillingham F.C. seasons and nominate something else. I mean....it's still football, but at least it's different football This article concerns a match won by a team which I would imagine 80% of football fans in 2025 have never heard of, but it's undoubtedly one of the most significant matches in football history, as it accelerated the end of the "gentleman amateur" era and heralded the start of the transformation of football into a business rather than primarily a nice diversion for posh young men. If you watched the Netflix series "The English Game" in 2020 you may know about this game, although frankly very little happened in real life like it happened in that show.... Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:1871_FA_Cup.jpg needs a US tag.

• File:John_Frederick_Peel_Rawlinson_Vanity_Fair_8_January_1908.JPG has a dead source link and needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - I couldn't figure out which (if any) US tag applied so I uploaded the trophy image locally and removed the Rawlinson image completely as upon further consideration an image of him decades later as a judge (or whatever) probably wasn't relevant..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Erm... you've uploaded it locally with a US tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: I couldn't see an equivalent of that tag on Commons....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
        • There isn't a direct equivalent because on Commons you're expected to have a separate tag for US status. But if that tag is valid, wouldn't PD-US-expired on Commons be correct? It's just less specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria: - I added that tag to the Commons version and once again made that the version used here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Background

• Going into the 1882–83 FA Cup, Old Etonians, the team consisting of former pupils of the prestigious Eton College, were the reigning Cup-holders. Since "Cup holders" refers to the noun form in this sentence, it should not be hyphenated.

Route to the final

• In the first round, they beat Accrington 6–3, and in the second they defeated Lower Darwen 8–1. The article Lower Darwen F.C. could be linked in this sentence.
• In the third round, they took on Darwen Ramblers and scored only one goal in the first half, but dominated their opponents after the interval, scoring seven more goals without reply to win 8–0. The article Darwen Ramblers F.C. could be linked in this sentence. MSincccc (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: - done all that. I'm surprised to learn that those long-defunct minor clubs have articles (like an idiot I hadn't checked ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Match

• The reported attendance was 8,000, the highest for any final to date. Could "at the time" be used in place of "to date" since the latter implies up to now, possibly sounding like it's still the highest today (which it isn’t)?
• ...it was the ninth FA Cup final in which he played, a record which still stands as of 2025. Is the phrase "of 2025" required here?
• The "f" in "Fellow" should be in lowercase.
• "Cup holder" is a non-hyphenated term. MSincccc (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @MSincccc: - done the first and last but I think the "as of 2025" needs to remain because simply saying "a record that still stands" would become inaccurate in the (admittedly unlikely) event that someone plays in a 10th final -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Match (continued)

• Could "included the likes of John Chevallier" be replaced with "included John Chevallier"?
• Can "weavers" be delinked here?
• Could "the teenaged full-back Jimmy Ward" be replaced with "teenage full-back Jimmy Ward"?
• "Skilful" is the correct spelling in British English.

Post-match

• As he received his medal, a jubilant Hunter reportedly shouted "fifteen years at football, and got the English Cup at the finish!" Is "jubilant" required in this sentence or can it be omitted for neutrality?
• "Focused" is the more common spelling in British English.

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: -all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. MSincccc (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• " During the extra period, Blackburn's James Costley scored and Blackburn won the match 2–1 after extra time" → this might be a little on the pedantic side but I think since you start with "during the extra period", you can just cut the sentence off after "won the match 2-1"
• "they had defeated"
• "had entered" - the "had" strikes me as unneeded here too, and maybe later in the sentence as well. Though maybe it just sounds weird in my head for some reason

Route to the final

• "they took on Darwen Ramblers" → "took on" strikes me as being a little too informal
• "the interval" → I think a link here would be appropriate for non-sports fans
• okay, I will admit - the text wrapped right before "and was late beginning because a football had not been provided and one had to be located" and reading that part made me laugh

Match

• " Hon. Arthur Kinnaird was" → genuine question: what is the "Hon"/why is it necessary?
• "newspaper The Sportsman" - link to disambiguation page
• Any reason Matthews' name isn't linked in the "details" score template?

That's all I spotted - nice work as always. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: - many thanks for your review - all done! WRT Kinnaird, as the eldest son of a (living) baron, he was officially styled "the Honourable Arthur Kinnaird", which in prose is always written as "Hon. Arthur Kinnaird". Kinda like how our Prime Minister is officially "Sir Keir Starmer" because he holds a knighthood. "Sir" isn't part of his actual name but it is always used when his name is written in prose in a way that something like "Mr" wouldn't usually be. Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, good to know. Changes are good - happy to support! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Zhao Chongguo

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Zhao Chongguo was a general of the Western Han dynasty of China. Born on the rural western frontiers of the empire, he served as an officer in several campaigns against the Xiongnu before (in his seventies!) leading a campaign against the Qiang in what is now Qinghai. He is known mainly through an extensive biography in the Book of Han, through which his advocacy of the Tuntian system became influential on later Chinese military history. This is my first milhist article, and to date my only A-class: I hope everyone enjoys it!

Just in case they're interested, pinging Borsoka who helped with the GAN review, and Matarisvan, Hawkeye7, and Hog Farm who helped with the A Class review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike

• Can't promise a full review, but the zh template around "tuntian" in the lead caught my eye. I believe the output is only supposed to go in brackets. I suggest converting to tuntian (lit. 'farming garrisons').
  • Fixed. - G
• Also, the related article Marquis of Haihun doesn't mention Zhao Chongguo at all, instead listing three other people as helping Huo Guang. It would be nice to add Zhao to that article and perhaps add those people (Zhang Anshi, Yang Chang, and Sima Ying) to this article, if you have sources for them.

MSincccc

Lead

• Could military science be linked in the lead (I am aware of the fact that it has been linked in the body)?
  • Fixed. - G
• His life and career is known mainly through a biography in the Book of Han The sentence is missing a full stop. MSincccc (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - G
• Could you please clarify whether the article is written in British or American English?
  • American, added template. -G

Early life and career

• Could "advisory counselor" and "privy treasurer" be used in the article (without the capitalisation)? MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - G

Military service, Later life, and Death and legacy sections

• It should be "breach" not "breech" (used in two sentences).
  • Fixed. - G

A few minor suggestions for prose above; I will review the Campaign against the Qiang section later. MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Campaign against the Qiang

• "Huangshui valley"-Could “Valley” be capitalised as it is part of a geographical proper noun?
  • Fixed. - G
• "Hexi corridor"-Could “Corridor” be capitalised as it is part of a geographical proper noun?
  • Fixed. - G
• The Grand Administrator of Jincheng, an administrator who governed the commandery's force of 10,000 cavalry, was also sent to reinforce Zhao Ang. Could "an administrator" be dropped from this sentence to avoid redundancy?
  • Fixed. - G

That's all from me. Looking forward to your response, Generalissima. MSincccc (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• • • MSincccc responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

      A fine article. It meets the FA criteria; Support. MSincccc (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ten_mounted_soldiers,_China,_Western_Han_dynasty,_206_BC_-_24_AD,_painted_earthenware_-_Royal_Ontario_Museum_-_DSC04016.JPG should include an explicit tag for the soldiers. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Added a tag. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Generalissima, my comments:

• “in the Shanggui prefecture of the Longxi commandery”: Use of “the” doesn’t seem necessary. Perhaps this could be rewritten as “in Shanggui prefecture in Longxi commandery”?
  • Fixed. - G
• “a group from which many noted Han generals had their origins”: Does not seem grammatically correct. Perhaps “a group many noted Han generals originally belonged to” would be better?
  • Fixed. - G
• “in the Jincheng commandery”; “in the Wudu commandery”: “the” doesn’t seem necessary.
  • Fixed. - G
• “descendants of men who died in military”: “descendants of men who had died during military service”?
  • Fixed. - G
• “infamous to the Xiongnu”: replace “to” with “among”?
  • Fixed. - G
• Consider standardising on using either of BC or BCE?
  • Done. - G
• “who did not seek to take immediate offensive operations”: “who was not looking to launch offensive operations immediately”?
  • Fixed. - G
• “abolished by the fall of the usurper emperor”: What do we mean here? Was it abolished by the time of this fall, or was if abolished because of the fall?
  • We just know that by that point it had been abolished; rephrased. -G
• We have only 3 photos in the article. Could we add a photo of the Weiyang Palace in the Later life section?
  • Added. -G

That’s all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima, still waiting on your comments. You there? Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• • @Matarisvan: Apologies; forgot to get back to this. Made fixes! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

    Quite nice, happy to support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Outram Park MRT station

Nominator(s): brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about an MRT station on the Singapore MRT system that serves as a triple-line interchange of the East-West line, North East line and Thomson-East Coast lines. I should have addressed the issues in the first FA nom and did a PR to improve it further for the next FA nom. (i can say that this article has been changed for the better) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• I think there are too many images.
• Online sources should be archived.
• If passenger count is in the infobox it should be in the text.
• "An array of faces depicted in the artwork." doesn't need a period.
• The inflation/currency conversion estimate "(US$95 million in 2020)" needs a source.
• Any information that could be added about the naming of the station?
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 some, if not most of the online sources are from NewspaperSG, which is an archive of newspaper sources in Singapore. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 15:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oh okay, I was not aware of that, thanks for telling me. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  No problem also i can’t find An array of faces depicted in the artwork. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 15:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is an image alt text. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 i should have addressed all the points already. i think the images should be fine and i can't find much info about station naming... so.,, brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 12:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

• Where are the sources for the translations of Outram into Tamil and Mandarin?
• "In March 1996, Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan", "In March 1996, then-Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan"
• "site of a prison complex", the prison complex could probably be named instead.
• "10 metres away", conversion.
• Wondering why the first mention of S. Iswaran is not wikilinked whilst the second mention is.
• "Chinese opera and law or medicine", wikilink each.
• Source 5: via... where?
  • Here are my comments for now. Arconning (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  should have addressed most of the points. not sure what it meant by law... could be law during colonial Singapore (which I couldn't find any articles). Also, via where in FN 5? brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  oh nvm i see it brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  yup all of them should be done by now brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  • The sources used for the Mandarin (should be used rather than Chinese) and Tamil translations of the station should be archived.
  • A lot of the online sources used that are not on NewspaperSG still require some archive links.
  • "In the near future, a new underpass was opened to allow commuters to cross Outram Road.", I'm not sure about this sentence, could you explain it a bit to me? Maybe it's on my part but would the "In the near future" be dated once this article turns older?

  Arconning (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  it doesn't say when, so i put it as in the near future brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  should have dealt with the archives now yay =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Brachy0008 Even if it's the near future, it's still grammatically incorrect and would be outdated in the near future as this is an encyclopedia. This could be worded as "As of [Month, YEAR], a new underpass is set to open to allow commuters to cross Outram Road." Arconning (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  changed. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Arconning @Roysmith pinging =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Will give my initial support. Arconning (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

• Just a nit from a problem I saw on a sister article at DYK: the lta.gov.sg website is one of those stupid designs which hides text under drop-down tabs. If you're citing something that's burried in one of those tabs, you can use the "at=" parameter to {{cite web}} to tell readers how to navigate to the right place.
  • Added the parameter but not sure if it follows MoS.

• And while I'm here, the pluralartmag.com citation has a bogus title ("Art in Transit | North East Line Tour | Art Outreach S'pore")
  • Removed. =D

EG

It looks like this nom has stalled, and I don't want this to get archived, so I'll probably review this shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

k tysm brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations

Rani of Jhansi

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't know much about much of her life, nearly all the bits we do know about have been controversial, and her legacy has been heavily contested.

Still, I hope I've managed to muddle through this mess to create a coherent article on India's most revered heroine. Formerly one of the Women in Green Hot 100, this article has received a GA review from MSincccc and copyediting from Grumpylawnchair; I thank them both for their help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from MSincccc

• I recently reviewed the article for GA. The prose looks fine to me so do the images. MSincccc (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Rani_of_jhansi.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Rani_of_Jhansi,_watercolour_on_ivory,_c._1857.png: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?

• File:1857_jhansi_fort2.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?

• File:Sonia_Gandhi_as_Rani_Lakshmibai.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and that may need a different tagging

• File:1957_Rani_Laxmi_Bai_2.jpg is mistagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • The first, third, and fifth should be fixed Nikkimaria; I'm not sure why those details matter for the second when its owners state the miniatures are out of copyright; and I'm not sure what you mean for the fourth. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    • On the second, it currently has tagging indicating it is PD because the author died over 100 years ago, and because it was published before 1930; can those things be verified? On the fourth, the purpose of use indicates the depiction is "as shown by the similarity to other statues and depictions in the article" - if the other statues and depictions show this, why is a non-free image needed? Depending on how the FUR is developed, it may or may not meet the purposes of use covered by the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• Introduce Moropant Tambe as her father.
• Explain peshwa with one or two words.
• According to legend, the astrologers attending her birth foretold that she would combine the qualities of the three principal Hindu goddesses: Lakshmi, deity of wealth; Durga, deity of strength; and Saraswati, deity of knowledge. I would move this to section "Cultural legacy".
• If the traditional chronology is correct... I understand there are two "traditional" chronologies.
• ...the nearby kingdom of Orchha, who had remained loyal to the Company... Is "who" correct in the context?
• ...when they were driven off by the raja of Banpur's troops... Why did he intervene in the conflict?
• ...a ruler now seen as a "Jezebel"... Some explanation?
• ...in the late 1800s... Ambiguous: around 1809 or 1899?
• ...such as Alexander Rogers' 1995 novel in verse The Rani of Jhansi or The Widowed Queen, Philip Cox's 1933 play The Rani of Jhansi, and George MacDonald Fraser's 1975 novel Flashman in the Great Game, among others... Why is chronology ignored?
• The link to Mehtab is not helpful. Introduce her with one or two words. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Easter Oratorio

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the Easter Oratorio, one of three oratorios by J. S. Bach, the famous one being the Christmas Oratorio of 1734 followed by the 1738 Ascension Oratorio. The Easter Oratorio was - in a way - already composed in 1725, in a clever collaboration of Bach with Picander who would write the poetry of the St Matthew Passion. In their first project together (as far as we know), he wrote the text for a pastoral cantata that was probably performed as musical theatre for the birthday of Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels. For Easter 1725, all music except the recitatives was heard in the Nikolaikirche in the Easter service, now among four Biblical characters instead of shepherds, with different text probably also by Picander. - When Bach thought of oratorios in the 1730s, he could just make a new score with a new title. He must have loved the piece, making more changes in the 1740s and performing it again the year before he died. Find out why. - The article received a recent GA review by 750h+ and additional detailed comments by Michael Aurel. --Gerda Arendt

Image review

• File:Nikolaikirche_Leipzg_1749_(Kupferstich)_Foto_H.-P.Haack.JPG: under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for status of the original work rather than the reproduction.

Storye book fixed the licensing. --GA

The tagging is now contradictory - it has one tag saying the author's date of death is unknown and another giving a specific author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Also noticed inconsistencies in citation formatting that should be cleaned up before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll look into that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• Cantata could be linked at least once.

  I tried Bach cantata, - the general cantata seems very far off. --GA

History

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives,... Could the phrase "only composing" be rephrased with "composing only"?

  yes if you say so --GA

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives, for a church cantata for Easter Sunday. Could the phrase "on Easter Sunday" be used here?

  in this case, it's the occasion rather than the date --GA

• The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, after Bach had led the his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. There's a typo in this sentence.

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Movements

• The music of the arias and the closing chorus, Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11, correspond to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10,... It should be "corresponds" (not "correspond"), since "music" is singular.

  fixed, but perhaps there is a better way, - it's more that movements correspond (regarding the music) --GA

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is well-written. Good luck with your nomination. Support. MSincccc (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I will not insist upon it, but a few minor changes could be made to the lead if you want to-

• "chorus of praise and thanks" → "chorus of praise and thanksgiving"– More standard in British usage.

  taken --GA

• "Recitatives, with the characters talking among each other" → "recitatives, in which the characters talk among themselves"

  interesting, - that sounds to me like talking to self - try "conversation" --GA

• "Jesus has risen" → "Jesus is risen" since "is risen" is the traditional and preferred British liturgical form.MSincccc (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  interesting, it was like that, but during GA review, both 750h+ and Michael Aurel requested a change. ("Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" is a phrase I remember from U.S. services also.) --GAGerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  To chime in here, I wasn't protesting the use of the phrase "is risen", but the use of the phrase "was risen", which doesn't quite work grammatically. (Intransitive verbs don't take objects; we can say that "X rises", but not that "X rises Y". Here the use of the passive voice places "Jesus" as the object. A more obvious example would be that we can say "John sneezed", but not that "John was sneezed".)

  I suggested "has risen" as a replacement, no doubt because the standard, modern phrasing for the verb "risen" came to my mind before the more archaic construction did, but I don't have any issue with using the phrase "is risen". We probably shouldn't start writing "He is come" and "He is fled" about the place, but "is risen" sounds entirely fine to me in a religious context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

History (after a re-read)

• it's first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet (Come, flee and hurry). "it's" → "its" (possessive pronoun, not contraction).
• "well-suited for" → "well suited to" – British usage.

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

taken, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

I think there have been some changes since my recent comments, so I'll hopefully give the page another, more comprehensive read. I probably won't be all that prompt with my review, but marking my place here as I intend to get around to it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

A bit tardy (as per my warning above), but here's an initial set of comments. I do notice that you were editing the article at one point while I was reading over it, so apologies if any of the below suggestions don't quite match the current text:

• (Latin: Oratorium Festo Paschali), (German: Oster-Oratorium), – I'd suggest placing these beside each other, within one bracket (using a semicolon), as we have "(German: Oster-Oratorium)" enclosed between two brackets, which doesn't quite feel right

  done, thank you --GA

• Oster-Oratorium (Kommt, eilet und laufet) – Very much a nitpick, but in this field in the infobox I think the brackets shouldn't be italicised

  done --GA

• for Easter in 1725, when he used most of its music for two compositions, – By "when", are we referring to 1725 or specifically to Easter in 1725? I initially read it as the latter, but if by "used" we mean that he composed these in this time period, then it I think it would have to be the former?

  trying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a (BWV 249.1) – Hmm, it isn't entirely clear what the relation between "BWV 249a" and "BWV 249.1" is. Are these simply different ways or writing the same thing, or do these refer perhaps to different versions of this work (or to something else)?

  they refer to the old style of BWV numbers (with letters, in the NBA) and the more recent style (with secondary numbers, for Bach Digital). The latter is more precise, but the former is better known, and therefore also kept. Wikipedia articles go by the former. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I notice you've removed both "BWV 249a" and "BWV 249.1" when mentioning the Shepherd Cantata. Any reason for this? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you for noticing, - they are now back, also in the infobox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• a congratulatory cantata, – The link is about Bach cantatas in general (not necessarily just "congratulatory" ones), so limiting the link to just the word "cantata" might be better

  not sure, because the link to cantata is way too general, - it would go to Bach cantata, where congratulatory cantatas are mentioned earlier, and the rest is intructive for all who don't know what a Bach cantata is --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, there's no issue with the link itself. But now (with recent changes) the link is on just the word "congratulatory", but the linked article is about all of Bach's cantatas, not just the congratulatory ones. I'd place the link on the word "cantata" later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I used a link for that later one but specifically to the church cantatas (which has the other link in the first sentence --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• and Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), a cantata for Easter Sunday (BWV 249.3) – Per WP:SINGLE, glosses use single quotes. I also think it would be more natural to have "BWV 249.3" next to the title (for example, using commas).

  well, as explained above, I used the new BWV style in brackets, for differentiation --(forgot to sign)Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, is doing so standard practice in sources? If not, I'm not sure we need to do so in cases where we're only using the latter style. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, we will have to stick also with the older style (as Bach Digital does, having it in the first position), because, as I said, Wikipedia artile names rely on that one and most of the sources (Dürr, Wolff ...) rely on that one. The other has more numbers, for different versions. What do you think about a footnote, explaining on the first occurrence? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I changed that now to commas where there is a title and only one BWV number, using single quote marks for translations of titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those changes look good. I would just point out that double quote marks linger at Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"),. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both works are musical dramas of four characters – "of" isn't wrong, though I think we could be more specific. If there are only four characters in total in each work I would use "involving", and if we mean instead that there are four central characters then I would use "centering around" (or similar).

  "involving" taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Both works are musical dramas of four characters; in the secular cantata shepherds and shepherdesses, ... – I suspect you meant for this to be a colon instead (when using semicolons, the part after the semicolon should be a complete sentence). It also feels as though the "four"-ness isn't necessarily being illustrated for the secular cantata; for example, are there two shepherds and two shepherdesses (or one and three, etc.)?

  see below, in UC, look for "learning" --GA

  Hmm, UC's suggestion is the same as mine, I believe. Whether or not we do use a colon, a semicolon should be followed by a full sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  back to comma, and 2 + 2 for the secular work - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  The comma doesn't quite work; I would use a colon. For example, this would work: [...] characters: in the secular cantata, two shepherds and two shepherdesses; and in the Easter cantata, four Biblical figures from the Easter stories in the Gospel of Luke and other Evangelists.. I also think the "four" in "involving four characters" slipped out. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  tried colon - I don't think we need "four" twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, what you've done works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter stories from the Gospel of Luke and other evangelists. – I think it would be ideal to avoid "from the" being repeated. I think "in the" would work in the latter case.

  taken --GA

• Bach performed the secular work, known as the Shepherd Cantata, – I would suggest referencing this alternative name when the work is first mentioned

  done before I saw this --GA

• Its text was written by Picander, – Not necessarily required, but a brief description of who Picander was might be helpful.

  the lead is already longish, and he is well known as the author of the St Matthew Passion. There's more in the body, and here is a link --GA

  I think just "German poet" would work (this at least avoids the reader thinking he's a fellow composer, for example), but I'll leave the choice to you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  it would promise too much because poetry was only a voluntary free-time occupation for him - who would think of a composer for text-writing? --GA

• in both a morning service at the Nikolaikirche and a vespers service at the Thomaskirche. – I'd link vespers. My inclination would also be to use the English names of these churches, though I seem to remember you have a reason for not doing so.

  most of the sources are in German and mention the German names --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see. But most of our readers speak English, no? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Nikolaikirche is shorter in the image caption, - there is a pic of a church, and where else would the Easter Sunday service be? --GA

  All of that's reasonable, but we generally avoid dipping into non-English words when we don't need to (MOS:NON-ENG: Non-English terms should be used sparingly), and the linked articles seem to use "St. Thomas Church" and "St. Nicholas Church". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that we should be consistent within one article: Thomaskantor, Thomanerchor, Thomaskirche. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I have to say I don't really agree (the titles of our articles would suggest that for those other two the German word is the common name), but it's rather minor in the scheme of things, and there's not much sense in pressing the point when it is arguably partly a matter of personal preference. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd also re-suggest linking vespers. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  done, I overlooked that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach made the composition the Easter Oratorio (BWV 249.4) – Not sure "the composition" adds anything here. Very minor, but "created" sounds slightly better here to me. I would also again raise my query as to "BWV 249.4" being in brackets rather than between commas.

  but he didn't "create" anything here, as explained in the body, - only minor changes, - how would you word that? --GA

  "produced", perhaps? This probably doesn't carry the same implication of creating something original. I would also restate my feelings on "the composition". – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  commas taken - "produced" would still hint at some production, while he only renamed / re-labelled / or what? - If not "the composition" then what? "the Easter cantata"? - We have to be very clear (see the question below) about that the music of the oratorio is the same as for the cantata, besides those very minor changes of a few extra measures, different text layout in the middle section of one aria, and two different instruments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  "made" is fine, but it is essentially synonymous with "created", so it will still carry the same implication if that's your concern. As to "the composition the Easter Oratorio", the problem is that it sounds as though we're saying Bach made the composition into the oratorio. (Unless that is actually the intended meaning, and I've misinterpreted the phrase?) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  not sure my English is good enough for knowing exactly what "made it into" means. He took the composition, and wrote Oratorium on top when writing a beautiful new score. What is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• when he wrote a new manuscript copy with some minor changes and a new title in 1738. – Hmm, I wonder if we can be a little more specific here: "a new manuscript copy of ..." (I'm assuming it is the music written in 1725, though I think it could help to make this clear).

  but what else would it be? - trying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  What you've done works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Kommt, eilet und laufet ("Come, hasten and run") – Same comment on single quotes

  same reply ;) --GA

  Hmm, I'm not sure you replied on this specific point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  perhaps I misunderstood, - now single quotes for translations of titles --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale. – Possibly this was intentional, but "Evangelist" wasn't capitalised above

  yes, because it's a different meaning (with a different link) --GA

  I had thought so. That said, I do notice that the first instance links to Four Evangelists, where the word is capitalised. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you, taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• In the oratorio, Bach assigned the individual characters of the cantata more generally to four voice parts. – Hmm, I have to say I'm not entire sure what is meant by "more generally" here (can you assign something "more" or "less" generally?)

  I'd be happy with better wording, perhaps you can help: in the cantata, it was same history involving characters who lived 2000 years ago. In the oratorio (without changing anything), they are you and I, general people who react to the situation, - involving the listener, - perhaps read below and then come up with a summary --GA

• The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, – Hmm, I think when the word "basically" is used it can generally be omitted or replaced. Depending on what is accurate, I'd suggest "largely", "almost identical", or something similar.

  similarly: please read the changes below and then tell me how to summarise best --GA

• The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, is structured in eleven movements. – I'm not sure the phrase beginning in "basically" quite works grammatically. "cantata" and "oratorio" also need articles of some form. How about something like "The music, which is _____ the same between the cantata and the oratorio, is ..."?

  will depend on what you find one question above --GA

• are followed by a duet of tenor and bass, illustrating two disciples running to the tomb of Jesus – A "duet for tenor and bass" is better I think. Hmm, I'm also not entirely sure a duet can "illustrate" something; perhaps "representing" is better(?), though I have to say this wording still doesn't seem ideal.

  I'd normally say "for" but here - as just explained, they are the characters (formerly Simon and John), - not sure how to do that --GA

  "for" should still work, and I think it would sound more natural of the context of a musical composition (cf., for instance, "sonata for violin and piano" and "sonata of violin and piano"). As to "illustrating", how about "followed by a duet of tenor and bass, in which two disciples run to the tomb of Jesus ..." (this might some require some rephrasing later in the sentence). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  giving you "for", but the runs in the music are just an image / symbol / what? for the running - we can't say they run in the duet - especially as in the oratorio (by eliminating the characters) it's more we who move, but again not in reality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  We specifically say it's the disciples doing the running, so the readers should understand these are just characters being referenced (not the singers), meaning the "in which" should hopefully be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• where they meet two women who had followed Jesus. – The first part here is in the present tense, while the latter part is in the past perfect tense, when it only needs to be in the past tense. (Let me know if this if this needs further explaining.)

  past tense taken --GA

• The middle movements are alternating recitatives, with the characters mostly engaged in conversations, – "in which the characters mostly engage in coversation"?

  thank you --GA

• and arias, in which three of them (soprano, tenor and alto) express their emotions facing the empty tomb, – Any reason to not just go for "in which the soprano, tenor and alto express ..."?

  I found a bit unfair that the bass was left out, but taken --GA

  I see, well, maybe you'll have to take that up with Bach. ;) – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• express their emotions facing the empty tomb, and then on the news that Jesus is risen. – Hmm, I'm not sure you can have emotions "on" news. "upon hearing" perhaps?

  changed before I saw this --GA

• The music is scored festively with a Baroque instrumental ensemble of three trumpets, timpani, two oboes, oboe d'amore, bassoon, two recorders, flauto traverso (only in the oratorio version), strings and continuo. – Any reason to not link the instruments?

  yes, sea of blue, they are linked in the music section and all are mentioned in the linked Baroque instrumental ensemble - consistent with other such articles --GA

  Hmm, the featured article of yours which comes to mind is BWV 1 where they seem to be linked in the lead. If you want to avoid too many links, you could just link the ones which are lesser known; for example, while all readers will know what a trumpet is, those without a background in music likely won't know what a "flauto traverso" is. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I looked at three other FAs (4, 23, 56) where they are not linked, - the idea at this point is to give the idea of Baroque instruments and roughly what instruments, but not send readers away to individual instruments, - those interested can find them later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see, if it's been done at other FAs then that's no problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• In the cantata version and the 1738 oratorio version, – Hmm, we have a year for one but not the other; I wonder if this could be made consistent.

  we have only one cantata version but two oratorio versions --GA

• the choir sang only in the final movement. – I think the present tense is more appropriate here, as the work is extant, meaning that choirs today still sing this movement.

  not quite the question, that movement stayed the same anyway, - it's the other one - open for advice --GA

  I'm not sure I'm quite cottoning on to what you mean. Assuming both these works are extant (which I think they are), I would lean towards present tense. For instance, compare "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano plays arpeggios ..." and "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano played arpeggios ...". The latter sounds either as though the work isn't extant, or that the piano in question has met an untimely demise. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  trying harder to explain: in the 1740s, after three versions, Bach changed towards more choir participation, and then the former state with only on movement was a past ("sang"), - do you see what I mean? Since the change, the choir sings in two, and that is the version performed and recorded. - Better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I'm understanding correctly, the use of past tense is because these versions aren't (or aren't commonly) performed today? I do have to say that the use of the past tense still sounds to me as though it's suggesting these versions aren't extant. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  As said somewhere, the version typically performed and recorded is the final one (.4) but the others still exist. Perhaps compare Bruckner's symphonies, or Bach's St John Passion where four versions exist, and people often record the first version, thinking that the second was compromise with the city ... - perhaps you can think of some better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach again revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, in the 1740s, – Having "in the 1740s" at the beginning of the sentence feels a little more natural to me. I might also use brackets for "which he seems to have regarded highly", though this is largely personal preference.

  what you want to put in brackets is perhaps the most important information in the whole lead ;) - I'll move the period, but feel that revising again and again is the more important part than when precisely this happened, on top of we know only a timeframe --GA

  What you've done works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• The short description is "Bach music composition", three nouns which I'm not quite sure work together without separation. How about "Musical work by Bach"?

  I didn't write that but will change --GA

  Great, it's much improved. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

– Michael Aurel (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed reading and commenting, Michael. I usually do the lead last in reviews ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all, Gerda. Onto the rest of the article I move. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

A next batch of suggestions:

• In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig, – A nitpick, but I'm not sure "as" adds anything here

  gone --GA

• He took office in the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. – I wonder if it's possible to give any dates from the Gregorian calendar, as some readers mightn't know much (or anything) about the Christian liturgical year.

  added date, but don't know it it's in the source given or if it needs an extra one --GA

• Bach decided to compose new music for almost all liturgical events, which became his first cantata cycle. – Technically this reads as saying that all of the liturgical events themselves became his first cantata cycle.

  so how do say in English that it's the new music which ...? --GA

  "liturgical events, and this music became" would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  how about "these cantatas", - or begin with "new cantatas"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724 – "Good Friday in 1724" or "Good Friday of 1724", I think

  "of" then - would I say "Christmas of 2024"? --GA

• the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic sacred oratorio. – Perhaps ignorant to the reasons for drawing out this particular distinction, it seems to me that we could just say "the St John Passion, a dramatic sacred oratorio, for ...".

  The reason is that his first oratorio, that Passion, was completely different from what he had done before, and - as you will read later - the Easter Oratorio can be seen as it's sequel. --GA

  inspired by some question below I tried to expand the Background, by the Holy week, the heavy workload then, the days between Palm Sunday and Good Friday, such things. I'd like to add the exact pages from Wolff, but am in Poland and can't access the book here. I will add that when back home (Saturday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, what you've done works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The following year, Bach pursued to write a second cantata cycle, – I'm not sure "pursued" is the right word here. It typically refers to running after something, and I'm presuming that Bach wasn't writing the cycle while running. ;)

  What would be the right word for expressing his endeavour to do such an unbelievable thing? --GA

  Just "wrote" would work. While the achievement was of course impressive, we (per MOS:PUFFERY) generally avoid implying the impressiveness of certain things with our language, though quoting a scholar for this sort of assessment would of course be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The very source used says so, beginning on page 275, "Bach could begin with a most promosing cantata project of great homogeneity", and concluding three pages later: "It is hard to imagine that this fascinating, unprecedented project of chorale cantatas was initiated by anyone but Bach himself. ... Bach's artistic borders on the incredible. That Bach went about his grand project systematically becomes immediately evident ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• It was followed by the second version – Hmm, by "it", do we mean the second cantata cycle or BWV 1?

  BWV 1, on Palm Sunday, followed 5 days later (same year) by the second version of the St. John Passion. --GA

  Understood. I would use "This was followed ..." to avoid ambiguity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased differently, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday. – "..., which was performed on Good Friday". I would also query as to what year (or years) it was performed on Good Friday.

  We talk about the Holy Week of 1724, Palm Sunday (BWV 1), Good Friday (St John), Easter Sunday (our cantata), - a heavy load on the choir (which may explain why it has little to sing in the Easter cantata), - what is unclear? --GA

  Your rewording has resolved both of these points. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach – I would write "approaching his second Easter as Thomaskantor", as otherwise it might sound as though Bach was two years old!

  "in office" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, ... – A change may not be needed here, but the way we use "congratulatory cantata" makes me wonder if this is considered a specific type of cantata in Bach's output. If so, are there specific qualities or characteristics of congratulatory cantatas which set them apart? (Besides, of course, having to do with congratulating someone or something.)

  it is a specific genre in his output, as explained in Bach cantata, but that link is gone. - I guess I'll write more in the background about parody music, when he used it before this work, and later, in the Christmas Oratorio for example, based on congratulatory cantatas such as Tönet, ihr Pauken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata, – "also known as ...", perhaps?

  it's not known under the longish German name ;) - we also have Coffee Cantata and Hunting Cantata, with these common names, - well, first in German, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Perhaps "more commonly known as", then? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• During Lent, a time without cantatas in Leipzig, – By "without cantatas", do we just mean they weren't performed? It might also be worth briefly describing in brackets when Lent is, for non-religious readers who aren't aware.

  there is a link, and another one for Liturgical year, and from the context should be clear that it is the time in preparation of Easter (like Advent is the time in preparation of Christmas, also silent): no cantatas performed (which meant no cantatas composed, - he composed for the next occasion, after seven weeks without came Palm Sunday, Good Friday and three feast days of Easter, each with a cantata, all within 10 days). --GA

  A paraphrase of "time in preparation of Easter" (in brackets) would work well. I would also be explicit on the point that there weren't performed (or composed) during this time, as "time without cantatas" make it sound a bit as though the cantatas ceased to exist during this period. – Michael Aurel (talk)

• had the time to write an extended festive composition, – Hmm, is this composition BWV 249a, mentioned just before?

  it's any but turned out that one that year, - he normally had no time to compose such a thing --GA

  Ah, understood. I suspect I was misreading the phrase. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The librettist of the Shepherd Cantata was Picander, – I'd suggest briefly explaining the term "librettist" for the unfamiliar.

  we said in the lead that he wrote the text, for the unfamiliar, - there's a link for those with a short memory --GA

  The link is good, but (per MOS:NOFORCELINK) we generally try to avoid readers needing a link to understand a sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  while correct, I'd assume that 90% of readers who got reading this far will know what a libretto is and thus a librettist, - it would help them not to get held up, and the others have the chance to learn. - In operas, it's so common that we don't even link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• was Picander, in their first documented collaboration. – The other person in the collaboration is of course obvious, but, technically, he hasn't been mentioned in this paragraph so he can't be referred to. "in he and Bach's first ..." would work.

  I think it's obvious enough for a simple wording that treats them as equal partners --GA

  The issue is that pronouns should refer back to an antecedent, but here the antecedent ("Bach and Picander", or equivalent) is absent. (Also, as "their" can also be singular, it – at first – sounds a bit as though we might be using "their" because Picander's gender is uncertain.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  "with Bach" was added a while ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start – I think "had planned" works a little better here, as we're technically going back two "steps" into the past. Another nitpick, but "intended" sounds slightly better here to me, as what we care about here are his intentions (not necessarily some specific "plans").

  thank you, taken --GA

• to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata, – "to reuse", dropping "also", perhaps?

  well, I have my doubts, - doesn't re-use imply that first came one then the other? while it looks like he wrote one music (probably with more thought about Easter), and to it came two layers of text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Picander would write in 1728 about their collaboration: – Minor, but I'd suggest "In 1728, Picander wrote of their ...", as we presumably care more about what he wrote about it, rather than the fact he wrote about it.

  I thought that we are in 1725, at the beginning of their collaboration, when the other date is in a future, no? --GA

  Ah, if that was the intention, then that's no problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Their collaboration led to the 1727 St Matthew Passion and several cantatas, – "They also collaborated on the ...", maybe?

  yes, but the St Matthew Passion is not an "also" but a pinnacle --GA

  That makes sense, but I'm not sure that comes through, as we're also including "several sacred and secular cantatas" in that "pinnacle". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I might try something that their most prominent (best-known, or what?) collaboration was the St Matthew Passion (almost 70 movements) but would probably need a ref, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• and several cantatas, both sacred and secular. – "sacred and secular cantatas" might be slightly better, as otherwise it might sound as though the cantatas were both sacred and secular at the same time.

  but how could that be? - changed anyway --GA

• Picander published the libretto, of an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses – I'm not sure "of" works here. Perhaps "in which two shepherds and two shepherdesses interact ..."?

  taken and I also split the sentence --GA

• named after characters in Greek mythology, – You've dipped into my area of interest here, so I'll be extra picky: I generally think "figures" is preferable to "characters" in the context of Greek mythology, in the same way that we maintain a distinction between "mythology" and "fiction", even though mythology is of course fictional.

  taken with thanks --GA

  I found more precision about the names, new ref added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Out of interest more than anything (it may not be worth mentioning), but who are the mythological figures in question?

  no idea, I took that from the source without investigating --GA

• Picander published the libretto [...] in 1727 as Tafel-Music. – The two parts of this statement don't quite flow nicely into each other. I'd suggest splitting the sentence in two, discussing the publication part in the first, and the part about the shepherds separately.

  look above ;) --GA

• as Tafel-Music – I'd link Tafelmusik. It also seems to me that we're using half German ("Tafel") and half English here ("Music").

  the answer is already somewhere on this page, but again: this is the exact spelling in the publication. German was different 300 years ago, and less uniform. --GA

  Hmm, perhaps, but – unless I've misunderstood, and he published it with the literal title "Tafel-Music" – our article is in modern English, so we should use the form commonly used today (which, judging by ngrams, is "Tafelmusik"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I found a better source for the exact wording in the publication, and think we should preserve it, the same way as we don't subject Bach's German to modern orthography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The title suggests that it was performed as musical theatre in costumes during a meal – I'm a bit confused by "title" here. Do we mean the title "Shepherd Cantata"? Because if so, I'm not sure how we can infer all this from it.

  we talk about Tafel-Music, - how would you call that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see, so perhaps I have misinterpreted things in my above comment? Specifically, did he publish[...] it with the literal title "Tafel-Music"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  yes, see just above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• at Schloss Neu-Augustusburg on 23 February 1723. – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I think it would be worth mentioning that this is a palace

  after we said it's for a duke? --GA

  Hmm, it's presumably been performed plenty of places that weren't his palace, so I'm not sure this quite follows. If it was his palace in particular, "Christian's palace" (or similar) would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The (new) source points at that we don't know for sure where. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• I do notice that years are included in most of the subheadings in the "History" section, but not for "Secular model, BWV 249.1".

  there's only one, - the others are three versions to be distinguished --GA

  Hmm, I see. I would still include it, though it's nothing to worry too much about. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence, – Hmm, this feels as though it's a slightly odd thing to note in particular. Is it surprising that the music is in the same order?

  surprising or not, it should be said somehow - In the Christmas Oratorio, the use of the secular pieces is not strictly following the models, for example. - There is an Easter cantata which Bach also used by just underlaying sacred text, which I think I may mention in the Background section, to prepare this. --GA

• composing only new recitatives, – Did this involve adding new movements? If so, we might write "new recitative movements", to be specific.

  not really, there were recitatives composed for the secular work, but finding words for that music that also made sense would have been difficult, so there were new words and those set to different music, - better wording? - still same order of movements, even: where four characters interacted in the secular work, there are also four in the Easter work, which could probably be said somehow, but I didn't know where and how. --GA

• its first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). – "but this was soon ..." is better. I would also query as to what we mean by "soon"; for example, could we give a rough (or not rough) idea with any dates?

  "was" taken - the source (Dürr) gives us only this --GA

  That's fine. "but soon changed" is still missing a subject, though ("it" or "this" would work). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The festive nature of the original material made it well suited – I'd write "The festive nature of the original material was well suited"

  fine --GA

• can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story". – Either "play, and follows ..." or "play which follows ...", depending on the intended meaning

  "which follows" --GA

• It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the cantata. – I'd use "for this cantata", or, better, "for the Easter cantata", to distinguish from the cantata mentioned above that Picander wrote the text for.

  taken (but isn't that what the topic of this section is?) --GA

• This is jumping up to the previous section of the article, but I notice that we say It seems likely [...] that Picander also adapted the text for that purpose, but in the lead we say Picander may also have adapted his text for the Easter cantata.

  we are even encouraged not to use exactly the same wording in lead and body, no? --GA

  They're slightly different claims: "likely" implies that there is a greater chance that Picander wrote it than there is that someone else wrote it, whereas "may" doesn't imply this. If you'd like to vary the wording between the lead and body, you could use "likely" and "probably", or "may" and "possibly" (depending on which is more accurate). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both share the same metrical pattern – Similarly to above, we need to have explicitly referred to two things just before to use "both". "The Easter cantata and the Shepherd Cantata", or something similar (depending on how you change the preceding sentence), would work.

  "both texts" --GA

  I'll make a general comment here, as this has cropped up a few times in my suggestions. Pronouns rely on the noun they're replacing having been explicitly referred to just before, and this explicit reference is called the antecedent. In some places in the article, the antecedent is absent but you can still tell (or guess without too much trouble) what the pronoun is referring to; the issue is that, from a grammatical perspective, we still shouldn't use pronouns if we haven't clearly and explicitly referred to the relevant noun just prior. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  thank you for your patience, - I tried to be more explicit in the preceding sentence, - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Only the recitatives were newly composed. – Hmm, I feel as though we've already stated this above (specifically, when we say composing only new recitatives).

  dropped the second time --GA

• The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien in which Johannes Bugenhagen had integrated scenes from the Gospels, including Luke 24:1–13. – I have to say that this sentence has rather confused me. Sorry to hit you with a flurry of questions, but these are the points I think might cause confusion for the reader. By "The librettist", do we mean Picander (or librettists in general)? If we mean Picandar, I'd use his name. What's a "Harmonie aller Evangelien"? Who is Johannes Bugenhagen?

  We don't know for sure if it was Picander, so can't use his name. - One of the sources I found recently mentioned this work, and what it is is said: he "integrated scenes from the Gospels" (There isn't one Easter story - like there is one Christmas story - but are different episodes dispersed in four Gospels, and this Mr. Bugenhagen made it all one, - making it easy to build on.) It doesn't matter too much who did this, or does it? --GA

• scenes from the Gospels, – I'd suggest a relevant link for "Gospels"

  well, the one for Luke is linked in the same sentence, no? + we had a link for the Evangelists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those links are good, but some readers mightn't know what "gospels" are in general. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I come from project opera where we don't link to a composer when their work is linked right next. Whoever doesn't know who Verdi is will find it in Aida. Similarly: whoever does't know what Gospel is will find it in Gospel of Luke. Avoiding too much blue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, – By "he", do we mean Pincander or Bugenhagen?

  "he" was the librettist, and still is the librettist, and we don't know if he was Picander. --GA

• He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, assigned to the four voice parts – I'd use "involving", same as above. And "who were assigned to ..."?

  taken --GA

• the disciples Simon (tenor) and John (bass), – I'd link tenor and bass (voice type) (first mention in body)

  well, it would make a sea of blue, and the terms are rather familiar, linked in the lead - I'd go for an exception, also because we'll link soprano and alto, and readers who missed this corner would wonder why tenor and bass are not linked again --GA

  Hmm, I'm not sure I understand. Some readers will know what "tenor" and "bass" mean here, though many without a musical background won't. As to the lead, my general assumption would be that if something is linked in the lead, it should also be linked in the body (though this perhaps doesn't always need to hold the other way around). In any case, we link alto and soprano in the same sentence, and things should be consistent between all four. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  linked all now - should the links then be removed in the Music section? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• appearing in the first duet hurrying to Jesus's grave and finding it empty, – "who appear in ... grave, finding ... empty, and meeting ..." is preferable I think.

  taken --GA

• and "the other Mary", Mary Jacobe (soprano). – Hmm, is there any particular reason to call her "the other Mary"? In a literal sense, all this seems to be telling us is that her name is also Mary, something which, given her name is "Mary Jacobe", we'd hope the reader would realise. ;)

  dropping it, it's the exact phrase from the Gospel but we can offer a link ;) --GA

• Bach scholar Hans-Joachim Schulze summarised: – Is there anything "summarise"-ish about his statement in particular? If not, I'd use "According to ..., [quote]".

  I reduced it to "wrote", - "On the whole" indicated enough that it summary.

• Hmm, perhaps I'm not understanding things completely, but is there a particular reason we're quoting the scholar here? If possible, I would summarise his opinion in our own words.

  I think it's written well, and high praise for what others have regarded as a mediocre job of adjusting something to match the music; it is also nicely open about who it was. --GA

  I tend to avoid quoting full sentences, but that's all fair enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• the unidentified librettist – This is the first mention of an "unidentified" librettist. Is this who we were talking about above? If so, we should note his "unidentified"-ness there.

  We wrote before (as some sources): "It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the Easter cantata." That includes that he is not identified, just likely.

• The cantata, different from the secular model, – By "the secular model", I'm assuming we mean the Shepherd Cantata? It's worth noting that (outside of the heading) we haven't called it this, so it might be worth doing that in the section above.

  We wrote before: "Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence" - now what else is that than using it as the model? --GA

  The use of the definite article in "the secular model" implies that the reader has already been introduced to something called the "secular model", but we haven't actually referred to the Shepherd Cantata as such at this point in the text (except in a heading). This means that the sentence does make sense, but only if the reader recalls the statement you've quoted, from two paragraphs earlier (Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence), and recalls that we used "secular model" in the heading of the section discussing the Shepherd Cantata. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  was changed to "Shepherd Cantata" a while ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• is opened by two instrumental movements that are probably taken – Are these the differences (or some of the differences) between the two works? If so, I think it'd be worth making this explicit; for example, "In contrast to the _____, the cantata is opened ...".

  No, there is no contrast. We wrote before "The cantata, different from the secular model, is opened by two instrumental movements." (The other was opened by one instrumental movement, none of the two here.) --GA

  To put it another way, we are making two statements in this sentence: that the cantata and the secular model are different, and that the cantata opens with two instrumental movements. Presumably these aren't unrelated statements, so one is led to assume that this is a difference between the two, but we don't actually state this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• from a concerto of the Köthen period. – I'd link concerto

  That is a highly ambiguous term, and sending a reader away might confuse more than educate. It means here a piece for solo instruments and orchestra (like the Brandenburg Concertos) which seems to be the most normal meaning, but what exactly it is doesn't change the meaning for this piece. --GA

  The article concerto seems to include Baroque concertos, and the meaning here (a piece for solo instruments and orchestra) seems to match that page's definition, so I think the link would work. It's worth noting that even if the concept isn't important here, some readers will be unfamiliar with the term. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• like the Shepherf Cantata, – Typo

  sorry --GA

• The work is, like the Shepherf Cantata, a dramma per musica – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I would give a brief explanation for "dramma per musica".

  I'd say a drama for music, and that is nothing the term doesn't present (and nothing that hasn't been described by the dialogues in both the secular and the sacred piece. --GA

  Hmm, sure, that's the translation of the phrase, though it doesn't really tell us what a dramma per musica is. I'll also note that dramma per musica is mentioned (or is now mentioned) above, so this brief explanation should be included there, with the link dropped in this second instance. I also wonder if the phrase should be italicised, looking at the linked article? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, – "It was first performed on ..."? Also, by "performances", do we mean it was performed multiple times on this day?

  twice, and that's why "it was first performed" wouldn't fit. --GA

  "It was first performed" should still work, as it doesn't necessarily imply a certain number of performances taking place on that day. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• a week after Bach had led Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern – By "led" do we mean "performed"?

  "led" is there to avoid a repetition (performance - performed), - it is also a little indication that the leading was not "conducting" in our sense, but done by playing violin or keyboard. --GA

  If the wording is idiomatic, them then that's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• two days after his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. – St John Passion and Good Friday are linked above

  sorry (the above was added later ...) --GA

• Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, – Also linked above

  delinked --GA

• and in a vespers service at the Thomaskirche, with a sermon by Johann Gottlob – I'd specify "the second in a ...", to clearly indicate this isn't the same performance. I'd also link vespers.

  linked, and "the other" --GA

  Link added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Markus Rathey pointed out that this music was Bach's first and only for Easter that matched the dramatic approach of the Passions. – I'm assuming Markus Rathey is a modern scholar, though using the past tense here makes it sound a bit as though he was contemporary with Bach. I'd use "points out" or "has pointed out".

  I have done that, but where is the line? Dürr wrote in 1971, past, Rathey in 2016, - yes, that's more recent, but in 20 years, no more, - who would update? --GA

  I would generally use the present tense for all scholars whose opinions are reflective of modern scholarship. Exactly where the line is drawn will depend on the discipline, but, in general, if the scholar is not so outdated that their opinion is unreliable, I would use the present tense (and I would say this generally accords with MOS:PRESENT). That said, using the present perfect would also be perfectly fine for such scholars, if you'd prefer (but the tense should be consistent for all such modern scholars). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, – I'm not necessarily sure what he had time for was thinking, specifically, as thinking about "larger musical forms" presumably doesn't take all that long. Maybe something to the effect of "Bach had the time to compose in larger musical forms in 1732"?

  we'll have to search, - there was no large composition in 1732 (yet), and the 1733 Missa was a "composition" in the original sense of "put together": many older pieces with new text, therefore "to compose" might be misleading in both senses, no? --GA

  "plan", perhaps(?), though I suspect that also mightn't work. Or we could say that the added time caused him to gravitate towards longer forms, if this is what the source says. (I would probably need to see the source's claim to think of a more effective rewording.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• with no festive music – Where did it go? (I'm being facetious, but the point is that if we mean that it just wasn't performed, we should probably say so explicitly.)

  not sure what you mean, it wasn't only "not performed" but "not composed, because not needed" --GA

  That's fine, but "with no festive music" makes it sound a bit as though previously composed festive music also ceased to exist. If festive music both wasn't performed and wasn't composed, then stating this much would resolve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• In 1733 he composed the – I would place a comma after "1733".

  I understand that it is a US comma. --GA

  I would've still used it, but yes, it's more common in AmE. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• the Missa for the Dresden court, – Should "Missa" be italicised?

  no, its a generic title like Sonata --GA

  It is, though in this case it's also the name of a specific work. I would also note that Bach's Missa of 1733 seems to italicise it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• He also thought of oratorios – Hmm, what do we mean by "thought of". "planned", maybe? Or did he start writing them but not finish, perhaps?

  How do we know? --GA

  Well, I'm assuming "thought of" isn't the exact wording in the source. Depending on what the source says, I would make the statement more concrete, as "thinking" of a composition doesn't seem that noteworthy (and presumably he ended up doing more than just "thinking" about writing them). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• intended for use in their church services – "these church services', as the services don't belong to the works. Or, if "their" refers to the aforementioned days (rather than the works), I would write "intended for use in the church services on these days".

  sorry, I rearranged the sentence and it ended wrong, - fixed --GA

• probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738. &ndash "in" or "of", same as above

  "of" --GA

• For Easter Sunday, 6 April 1738, Bach could use the 1725 Easter cantata ... – Hmm, did he use it in the way we're referring to here? If so, would it work to just say "Bach used the ..."?

  well, perhaps you can help to word that it comes as a surprise that he used it as it was, instead of adding more work for the choir, some chorales, such things - It's unlike the later oratorios, therefore (but he sems to have liked it). --GA

  Hmm, I see, I'm not sure "could" is achieving that here, though. I'd just use "used" here, and, then separately state that the lack of meaningful changes before its use was unusual (or something to this effect). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• 1725 Easter cantata basically as it was – A grumble towards "basically". Does "with minor changes" work? Or "largely unchanged", perhaps?

  As the following text shows, the "changes" to the music are so minor that even "minor" seems too much, and "largely unchanged" even more so. The change was to no longer make it a drama involving historic persons, but a drama in which the listener is involved: called to run and to reflect. --GA

  If "minor" seems too strong, then perhaps use "very minor', or something more specific. Despite their minor nature, though, there were changes ("basically" sounds a bit as though there were no changes, but that we're unwilling to make an unqualified statement). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• He wrote a new autograph score of the music and at this time labelled the work – Not sure "at this time" adds anything

  Did you read the DYK nomination, with all the suggestions to say the Oratorio was performed in 1725, and I replied, yes, but it was not yet named Oratorio. It can't be clear enough, - what would you say? --GA

  Hmm, no, I haven't. I would think it's clear from context that we're talking about 1738, but, if we think it's necessary, we could restate that it's 1738 at the beginning of the sentence. Either way, "at this time" isn't really needed later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• labelled the work an oratorio, Oratorium Festo Paschali. – "labelled the work an oratorio, titling it Oratorium Festo Paschali"?

  added --GA

• He made several changes; – The points mentioned in the preceding sentences would count as "changes" in my eyes. Do we perhaps mean changes specifically to the music? If so, "He made several changes to the music;" might be better.
• the insertion of a measure in the first movement – Do we mean an additional measure of music? If so, I'd add "of music".

  good idea --GA

  Added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• a different underlay of the text in the middle section of the alto aria – As "underlay" has a specific meaning in a musical context, I'd link underlay#Music, or (probably the much better option, given that link's inadequacy) I'd give give a brief explanation of the term

  I'm no native speaker. I never heard the word "underlay" before, - the German is "unterlegen" (so the same): the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music, - but how could that be clarified? --GA

  Your explanation, "the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music", seems quite good, and would work with slightly more encyclopedic wording. (Or, alternatively, you could rephrase the bullet point to avoid the word "underlay".) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• a different underlay of ... and five additional measures – Technically, these aren't changes, and don't quite align with the phrasing in the other points. Something along of the lines of "the use of a different ..." and "the addition of five measures" might be better.

  how are additional measures no changes? - how is the different underlay of text, resulting perhaps in different vowels sounding, not a change? like the different sound of another instruement? --GA

  Sorry, my wording was a bit oblique. What I'm pointing out is that the wording in this bullet point isn't consistent with the others: "the insertion of a measure ..." vs "a different underlay ..." (rather than "the use of a different underlay ..."). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach took great care with expression marking in this score. – The immediate relevance of this statement isn't entirely clear to me. If possible, see if you can explain why this is significant to what's being said.

  Usually, he omitted all such markings, so it's relevant, - the source meantions it, why would we not? --GA

  There's no problem with us mentioning it, it's just that its relevance isn't evident. Your response, "Usually, he omitted all such markings", answers the question of its relevance, so stating this in the article would solve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Derived from the secular musical theatre, – By "the secular musical theatre", do we mean a specific work? If so – and maybe I'm just losing my way in so many different pieces here – which one? Or do we mean "secular musical theatre" as a genre?

  should we instead say dramma per musica again? - Perhaps we could drop the paragraph, because the same thing was said about the same music as cantata, but it seemed worth saying that this isn't like his other oratorios (now that it was named Oratorio). --GA

  I replaced "theatre" by "drama" as in the lead --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• I notice that in some places we use the serial comma (eg. it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale), and in others we don't (eg. an Evangelist narrator, Biblical texts and chorales,. I realise that checking for this is a right pain (so sorry for putting you through the ordeal), but they should technically be consistent.

  commas are so different in German, sorry, - can you please just fix when you see it missing? --GA

  I've added the serial comma in the quoted passage, and will do so when I read later parts of the article, but a skim of the article on your part, checking for this, would probably be a good idea. (It's minor, but it's worth noting that another reviewer will probably choose to point this out if they notice it.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• based on a scriptures – Plurality clash: "a" is singular", "scriptures" is plural.

  I thought I had moved the sentence to later, - my bad. --GA

• In a later version from the 1740s, between 1743 and 1746, Bach revised the oratorio once more – Hmm, I'm not sure this is quite right. It sounds a bit as though we're saying the same thing twice. Would dropping "In a later version from the 1740s" work?

  dropped "a later version from" --GA

  In the 1740s, between 1743 and 1746 – I'd remove "In the 1740s", as "between 1743 and 1746" already tells us the decade. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• he expanded the third movement from a duet into a four-part chorus, at least in the outer section, – Do we perhaps mean "outer sections" (that is, the sections at the beginning and end of the movement)?

  yes --GA

• in the middle section of the soprano aria (movement 5) – I'd write "in the 5th movement"

  we said "alto aria" in the previous section, - also there's only one (of both) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections. – Hmm, well, they technically need to decide whether or not to use the final version at all (even if it's common practice). A more appropriate statement might be that conductors commonly choose one or the other.

  no, not the same thing. Provided they use that last version (and we are in the section about that version), they still have to decide, because it's marked tenor bass but not indicating solo tenor ore choir tenor (same for bass) --GA

  I might protest that context doesn't change the literal statement we're making, but I can see your point that readers are unlikely to misinterpret our meaning given the preceding content. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• for the last time on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, the year before his death, right after his last performance of the St John Passion. – "and right after his last ...", as otherwise it might sound as though the year before his death came right after the last performance of the St John Passion. I would also query as to what we mean by "right after" (hours later, days later, months later?).

  It seems significant that in 1749 he coupled again the St John Passion (on Good Friday) and the Easter Oratorio (two days later on Easter Sunday, as explained in Background), similar to the first (cantata) performance. Rathey calls the Oratorio a sequel to the Passion. - rephrased, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, that makes sense. I'd rephrase it to: Bach performed the Easter Oratorio for the last time in 1749, the year before his death; this performance, which took place on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, again followed a performance of the St John Passion on Good Friday. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  taken with the exception of "on Easter Sunday" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This is down to the end of the "History" section. It's an interesting article (so far, at least), and it's always a pleasure to read about Bach. More soon on the way! – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

UC

Interesting stuff throughout. Most of the points below are nitpicks on grammar, sense and style, particularly around getting the flow of natural English. In a couple of places, I found the musical terminology tricky to follow: I think we need to make sure that a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation can still pick up what's going on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• He wrote an autograph score in Leipzig in 1738 using this name, matching his Christmas Oratorio and Ascension Oratorio.: using this name makes it sound like we're talking about the name Bach used for himself -- "under this title"?

  taken --GA

• He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725, when most of it served both a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, and: not sure about the idiom of most of it served -- what's the meaning here? Secondly, I'd use dashes to bracket off the title for extra clarity.

  I tried to clarify an admittedly complex situation further, in different order of title and description. --GA

• Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry: "Come, Go and Hurry" is a title, so needs to be in title case: depending on how we're reading it under MOS:MINORWORKS, either in quote marks or in italics (probably the latter). Ditto Kommt, eilet und laufet (Come, hasten and run)..

  no, "Come, go and hurry" is simply a translation of a title, not a title itself. --GA

  Translations of titles are formatted as titles -- see e.g. the Homeric Hymns, Poet in New York, and The Marriage of Figaro. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  My understanding is that they are formatted as titles when they used as titles, such as The Marriage of Figaro. "Come, go and hurry" will never be used as a title, just help understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I've seen this distinction made anywhere: translations of X generally follow the formatting rules for X in the target language. The rule you outline would imply that translations of proper nouns don't need to be capitalised, because they're not being used as proper nouns, which is clearly not correct. Have you got a statement of this principle in print that you could refer me to? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I saw it that way (copy-cat that I am), take example BWV 4, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  That one puts double-quotes around all the translated titles, as far as I can see? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see that but added those to the translations in the lead, trying to please ;) - In the BWV 4, we have two translations that need to be distinguished, but not a title, which would be italic and title case. I don't understand quotation mark for something clearly separated by brackets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Brackets and quotation marks do different jobs -- brackets separate things from the main sentence, quotation marks (here) indicate that the terms should be read as the title of a work rather than through their "natural" meaning: so, they differentiate the Charge of the Light Brigade, which was gruesome and traumatic, from "The Charge of the Light Brigade", which is only traumatic if you're a Victorian schoolboy forced to memorise it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Back to the beginning: some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations. In music, larger works have titles italic in title case, smaller ones (songs, arias, short piano pieces) in quotation marks and sentence case. This is a large work, while its movements are regarded as smaller works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  No objection to treating major and minor works differently (per MOS:MINORWORKS), but I really don't understand the distinction made with some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations: a title is formatted as a title whatever language it's in, per the examples I've given above. I'm happy to be corrected if you're following a specific style guide: could you show me it if so? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I gave you the quotation marks, didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  They only seem to be in the lead. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  sorry, I guess I was tired --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Both works have the character of a play of four characters, in the secular cantata shepherds and sherherdesses, and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter story in the Gospel of Luke, 24:1–13.: typo for shepherdesses. I'd go for a colon after characters, and remove the chapter and verse from the text: it's either "Luke 24:1" or "The Gospel of Luke", but chapter/verse numbers are only used with "short" titles (e.g. Ephesians, 2 Kings, Matthew).

  taken, dropping the verses numbers in the lead, but I don't think that a colon is wanted when what follows is not a sentence. --GA

  Another major use for colons is to introduce a list, which is precisely what we have following four characters. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you, learning --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725: there's an extra space here.

  please feel free to repair such minor things that take longer to explain ;) --GA

• with the characters mostly in conversations: idiom: in conversation or engaged in conversations.

  thank you, took the latter --GA

• In the cantata version and still in the 1738 oratorio version: cut still in: doesn't read right in English.

  removed - is there a short way to express astonishment that even in the oratorio, their isn't more choir singing? --GA

  I'm not sure that we're really in the business of expressing astonishment in Wikipedia's voice. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  the typical oratorio is a feast for the choir: Messiah, Israel in Egypt, Elijah, Le Roi David, - besides the Christmas Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio which has a huge chorus to begin and another to end, and several chorales. This is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Right: if a reliable source has expressed their astonishment, we can quote them, but we can't be the first to do so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• You have a habit of putting the adverb immediately after the verbal phrase, as it would be in German (He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725; Bach revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, again in the 1740s; . He thought of oratorios also for two other feasts) -- in English, it's usually better before the verb -- so "He had already composed...", "Bach again revised the work...", "He also thought of oratorios..."

  thank you, once more --GA

• Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1: comma needed after this.

  yes

• In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata, to be performed for the 43rd birthday of his patron, Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels.: again, this would be more readable with the title bracketed by dashes rather than commas, to give a sense of the hierarchy of the sentence.

  I split the sentence --GA

• The author of the Shepherd Cantata was Picander: as a non-musician, I need it to be a bit clearer as to what the difference between the composer and the author of the cantata is.

  I replaced it by librettist (but had thought that was the unfamiliar term) --GA

• our incomparable Kapellmeister Bach: why do we translate everything else, but not Kapellmeister?

  no, - we could link Kapellmeister but shouldn't in a quote, right? --GA

• an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses and termed a Tafelmusik,: can we explain what that means -- and attribute inline to avoid the charge of ?

  I took the wording from the other article: it was the title/genre when published in 1727. - we could get the longish German title in a Main header, - what do you think? --GA

• The work can be considered an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story": likewise, attribute inline.

  Dürr. --GA

• The Easter cantata does not include chorales, which is rare in his liturgical music: from the paragraph, his should be Picander, but I think we mean Bach's.

  said so now - it's open though, generally, who picked the chorales, the librettist, Bach, a pastor, or a book of chorales for occasions --GA

• 1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music: mourning for whom?

  the details are in the linked article, and are far away from this music: do we need to name the Elector of Saxony? --GA

• Missa for the Court of Dresden: is this a title? If so, it should be italicised or in double quotes; if just a description, "court" should be lowercase.

  no, this is not a title, court - my memory was wrong --GA

• Would Parody mass be a better link than parody music -- the latter seems to suggest that it was meant to be funny?

  A Parody mass is something different (Renaissance). Parody music#Baroque is what Bach did here and often: use music for one occasion also for other purposes. --GA

• The Ascension Oratorio, was probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738: no comma here.

  yes --GA

• Oratorium Festo Paschali: lang tags here.

  yes --GA

• He made several changes, of which editor Ulrich Leisinger who prepared a critical edition for Carus, mentioned four in his preface: this is not quite grammatical. Suggest He made several changes: Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface. Given that he made an edition, we don't need to say that he was an editor.

  taken with thanks --GA

• the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument: what's one of those?

  linked that flute, but think that solo instrument is known (violin in a violin concerto) --GA

• the alto aria (movement 9): should "Movement" be capitalised here?

  I dropped it - there's only one, and which number doesn't change the meaning: that all these changes were minor. (I added the details only today, because of questions in the DYK nomination: what is the difference between cantata and oratorio? And the answer is "not much". What Bach called oratorio in 1938 was already heard in 1725, so it's in a way his earliest oratorio, just was not yet named so.) --GA

• the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria: this is a bit technical for me as a layman. I notice we link two of these Baroque instruments a bit later.

  gave them links --GA

• Derived from the secular dramatic action: I'm not sure what this means: it clearly wasn't a secular story?

  used now "musical theatre" as further up --GA

• Its early performance history suggests that Bach enjoyed the work: Can you explain what about the performance history leads us to this conclusion?

  I have no idea. CurryTime7-24 added that, and the source (Wolff) is offline. I added the earlier book by Wolff, Bach - The Learned Musician, but didn't find it there (not in the parts offered by Google that is). --GA

  Perhaps a job for WP:RX? I would have reservations about bringing an article to FAC if I couldn't vouch that the material actually is supported by the citations. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is an old article by many, - no, I can't vouch for all of it. I'll look into sourcing that bit or drop it, but first wanted to give CurryTime a chance. I'd be willing to rewrite it on sources that I see, but integrating Klek and Schulze has higher priority. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  By now, I added from both Klek and Schulze, and I began a Reception section where the Wolff Trilogy stuff went. I left the sentence about Bach's enjoyment in place for now. It seems positive and harmless. - There could be more detail from both valuable sources but might be too much theology.? I also introduced the latest BWV numbers for clarification. I wonder if BWV 249.2 - a lost 1726 other congratulatory cantata with the same music and text by Picander should also be included, for completeness, or if it would rather cause irritation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• This final version is usually performed and recorded: not quite idiomatic: suggest "is the one most usually..."

  taken --GA

• Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections.: why is this any more true here than for any other part -- surely you could make a similar choice with any duet, or indeed any part at all?

  no, but perhaps I should place it to the recordings section. - It would just be easier here, where it was described that Bach rewrote the movement "for choir", but left the middle section for tenor and bass, without indicating if solo tenor and bass or choir tenor and bass. --GA

• Unlike Bach's later Christmas Oratorio, the music for Easter has no Evangelist narrator providing Biblical text: we seem to have said this at least three times by the "Music" section. Does it need so much repetition?

  no, I forgot to remove when repositioning --GA

• Alfred Dürr's standard work: this is cited to Dürr himself, who clearly has a vested interest here -- we need an independent source for the esteem in which this work is held.

  removed --GA

• The timpani always play with the trumpets: can this be put into more layman-friendly terms?

  timpani - drums? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but what does "play with the trumpets" mean? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know what to say besides "play with the trumpets": the timpani only play when the trumpets also play, - the table is there to visually show the sound a bit, large forces in the outer movements, intimate sounds in the inner ones. There's no extra information in adding the timpani because they are always together with the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  It sounds like your answer is there: "the timpani only play when the trumpets also play" is much clearer. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  might "play together with the trumpets" also work? ('cause the other is so long) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is the idiom of "play with", which is WP:JARGON -- it makes sense if you know about music, but those who haven't read a specialised work of musical scholarship (or attended a classical concert with a nicely detailed programme) are unlikely to have come across it. We could shorten very slightly: "the timpani only play when the trumpets do" is 8 words and 42 characters; "the timpani play together with the trumpets" is 7 words and 43. I'm not sure I see a material difference there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• What's the difference in the table between "SATB" (no spaces) and "S A T B" (spaces)?

  SATB is for the choir (all singing at the same time), the other for the 4 characters (who usually sing one after the other, in conversation) --GA

• to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10: idiom: movements 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Shepherd Cantata

  thank you, - the link looks strange though --GA

• a Sinfonia, an Allegro concerto grosso: not sure about the capitals here.

  they are movement titles here --GA

• were also used in the Actus tragicus funeral music: I would clarify that this is a Bach composition, and perhaps give a date for context.

  Bach clarified, but the date is not certain, 1708 could be - listen if you don't know it, the recorders come right at the beginning, Sonatina --GA

• based on words from the Song of Songs.: might be a nice touch to quote these in a footnote?

  I would not know exactly from where - it's more the attitude of love here and there --GA

  If we can't point to specific words, "based on words from..." is a bit too strong: "inspired by" or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  let's see: the source says "(an allusion to the Song of Songs)" - we can't say the same, so perhaps "inspired" is good.

  Song of Songs

  3

  1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth; I sought him, but I found him not.

  2 I will rise now, and go about the city, in the streets and in the broad ways, I will seek him whom my soul loveth. I sought him, but I found him not.

  5

  8: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, what will ye tell him? that I am love-sick.

  Aria

  Tell me, tell me quickly, say where I can find Jesus, whom my soul loves!

  What would you say? ... about searching for the beloved, who is described by "whom my soul loveth" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you're proposing based on words from the Song of Songs about searching for the beloved, who is described by as "him whom my soul loveth"? (see minor tweaks there for grammar). I think the idea here is sound but I might be tempted to stretch it out a bit: something like "...her desire to find Jesus. Mary calls Jesus "whom my soul loves", quoting the Song of Songs, in which the same phrase is used of the female speaker's beloved?" In an ideal world, we'd have a secondary source making that point, but it strikes me as one that would surely have attracted comment, given the strongly erotic context of the original text? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  no, I proposed nothing ;) - I propose now to say that the situation and phrasing allude to Song of Songs, 3:1–2. I'd hesitate to say "inspired", because the librettist could probably rely on the audience knowing their Bible enough to understand the allusion.

  I found this discussion, reading with interest (especially the Johannine aspect), but can probably not use it as a reference. About the aria, it says, very similarly to Leisinger: "Mary Magdalene’s aria (no. 9), as a Johannine love song, refers to “Jesus, “Welchen meine Seele liebt!” (whom my soul loves!), which is a reference to the biblical “Song of Songs” (3:1)". Perhaps I can give it as a second, supporting ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see that the Bach Cantatas website would meet WP:HQRS: I did Google around for William (L.) Hoffman, but can find no trace of him outside the website itself. The allusion is discussed in this ebook: the Google Books version isn't paginated, but I found it by searching "Welchen meine Seele liebt Bach Hoheslied" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. (Why do you think I said "but can probably not use it as a reference"?) - I found Schulze, which I will try to use for other details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I added the Klek source that you found, and used for that one bit. There could be more but not now (close to midnight. I don't know how to handle page numbering, - why is the linked page 2. I'll think about Schulze tomorrow, can't find a year for that, - some of it reads a bit dated, but the BWV numbers are the latest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Update: i added more from Klek, including the music section. There could be a section on reception (Spitta ...), and should be clarification of the trumpet part thingy (principale): I reads Klek as that the a part for a third trumpet was in the 1738 score, but the only part for it (for the player) dates to 1749. Which sounds reasonable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  I now added more from Klek (see above), including that trumpet part. Schulze supports the Song of Song connection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• the bass (John) summarises joy that Jesus lives again: not the right word: expresses?

  taken --GA

• added a new principale part in 1749: what's one of those?

  part is is the sheet for players, only what they have to play, principal means the principal trumpet, added --GA

• A few sources throwing Harvard errors as uncited: the two Bach digital sources and Funk 2025.

  used now --GA

• What's the thinking behind Rathey in the Further Reading? My usual view on FAs is that if there's something in that work that you can't get from the article, it should be brought into the article (and so the work moved to the bibliography): if there isn't anything in it you can't learn from our article, then why are we asking our readers to go read it afterwards?

  That was in the article since 2018, and I can't read it. I have read other things by the author and found them useful. --GA

  I found it (or something else by the same) and used it as ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Second read below:

• Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata: given all the commas in the title, I would bracket off titles like this with endashes -- so Bach composed a congratulatory cantata – Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a – known as the Shepherd Cantata

  I tried it differently, thinking that in the first approach, we don't need that precise German title which would cry for a translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• reconnecting to the court where the music director had just died on 6 February 1725: I'm not quite sure what this means: suggest it might be better as an independent sentence, but it definitely needs a rephrase for clarity.

  dropping it for the moment, - the source hints at Bach wanting to bring his name into play at that court, potentially as successor, but this would be more important for the bio and the other cantata than this piece of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata: another slightly Germanic idiom with also in that position: to re-use most of the music for an Easter cantata?

  teach me English: to me "re-use" sounds as if first came one, than the other, but the thought expressed is that Bach planned both together, the secular work almost a by-product of the Easter work, earlier performed just because of the calendar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• two shepherds and two shepherdesses named after Greek mythology: we seem to be missing characters in Greek mythology or similar.

  fine, why not --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Tafel-Music.: is this a title? Seems odd to have the German Tafel and not Musik.

  this is the exact title in the collection, - German spelling was different, including less standardised, 300 years ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The work can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story".: quotes need attribution inline.

  the quote is from Dürr, - it's only quoted to be not accused of copyvio ;) - I moved the two other refs to earlier in the sentence, and left only Dürr for the quote, how is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien: lang tags missing here: I haven't systematically checked for others.

  you probably read that before I added it earlier today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:': Jesus's.

  complied --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would help to put an explanatory footnote on the first use of "BWV X" to explain what that system means?

  added, with pleasure (BWV is linked from the infobox, but we shouldn't link from a bold item) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

More to come. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'll take a shot at this. I more or less meet UndercoverClassicist's description of "a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation". I know a little about music, but I'm far from an expert and totally clueless about Baroque.

Thank you for reviewing! --GA

• Wikilink to Liturgical year

  done --GA

• He wrote the St John Passion, an extended dramatic Passion, for Good Friday 1724.[5] I'd leave out "an extended dramatic Passion" to avoid the repetition. Or maybe "He wrote the extended dramatic St John Passion for Good Friday 1724"?

  I'd like to point out that the Passion was an extended piece and a dramatic piece, both in contrary to the cantatas. A Passion is a special kind of oratorio, so I wonder if we could say "an extended dramatic oratorio"? --GA

  How about "He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic piece, and of extended length"?

  I tried something similar, - "piece" seems a bit too little ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach continued to write new cantatas, now composing chorale cantatas again, I'd avoid the repetition with something like "Bach continued to compose new chorale cantatas ..."

  Well, yes, but the chorale cantatas are so exceptional that it would sound too harmless, rephrased differently --GA

• a format that he kept until Palm Sunday of 1725, when Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, was first performed on Palm Sunday.[6] Likewise, I'd leave off the trailing "on Palm Sunday".

  good catch, that was unintended --GA

• It was followed by the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday.[1][7] In addition to being clueless about Baroque music, I'm clueless about Catholic holidays, so I was confused about Good Friday coming after Palm Sunday. I had to go look up Palm Sunday to discover that it's the week before Easter Sunday. Would it work to say "... was first performed on Palm Sunday (a week before Easter). It was followed by ... five days later, on Good Friday"?

  I would be possible, but most readers who get this far into the article, will know - Holy Week being the highest holidays in all Christianity. (Bach was Lutheran, btw.) There are links, and with the link to Liturgical year, there's now one more ;) --GA

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start ... whose opinion is this? I'm assuming that's from one of the sources, so "Leisinger/Frindle/Veen considered it likely that ..."

  I haven't read any source that did not think so. Not all of them would agree that Picander was the librettist, but nobody had doubts about the plan to use the music for both occasions. I just try to not add more than 3 refs to one fact. --GA

• composing only new recitatives Give the reader a hint, "composing only new recitatives (spoken sections) ..."

  I'd hesitate. (It's not spoken but sung.) recitative and aria are very common in classical music, - perhaps compare some FA about Bach works. --GA

• It seems likely that Picander, again, attribute that opinion to whoever said it.

  I thought that it becomes clear by what follows: it must have been someone who knew both the other text and the music very well, and there are not many candidates. - Today however, two new sources didn't think it was him, one thinking that Bach did it himself. I'll think about it. (The same situation, btw, is in the very famous Christmas Oratorio, - practically everybody thinks that he wrote its text but he didn't publish it.) --GA

• arias of four Biblical character characters (plural)? I was also going to say that Biblical should be lower case, but hunting around I see that it's sometimes considered correct to capitalize it, so whatever.

  typo, thank you for the catch, - you are welcome to make obvious fixes yourself! --GA

• Simon (tenor) (and likewise for the others) WP:SEAOFBLUE

  the brackets are not blue - what would you suggest? --GA

  It takes a careful reading (and younger eyes than mine) to notice that the brackets are a different color. I've played with this a bit and can't come up with anything that really works better. Maybe one of the other reviewers might have some ideas?

  the others so far had no problem - we could delink tenor and bass (linked in the lead and in Music) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The cantata, different from the secular model, is now opened by ... I'm not sure what you mean by "now". Are you referring to modern performances in contrast to how it would have been performed in the 18th century?

  I added that "now" only today, but will drop it if it causes misunderstanding. Perhaps "in contrast" is clear enough about that - while the major five movements have the same music in both cantatas - the unusual opening by two contrasting movements is only there in the Easter cantata. --GA

• Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles,[11] twice, in the morning service ... this seems kind of complicated. I suggest breaking it up: "Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles.[11] They gave two performances; one in the morning service ..."

  taken, thank you --GA

• The Bach scholar Markus Rathey I think people can assume his area of scholarship is Bach.

  I'll try that. I tend to describe a bit when people don't have an article. --GA

• For Easter Sunday 1738, 6 April 1738 don't repeat the year.

  yes --GA

• the assignment of a flauto traverso I'd add "(transverse flute")

  it was only that until I noticed that it doesn't mean the same thing, flauto traverso being specifically Baroque, the other any flute blown sideways --GA

• He made several changes; Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface, the insertion of a measure in the first movement, the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument in the second movement, in the alto aria a different underlay of the text in the middle section and five additional measures at the end for better proportion, and the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria.[1][33] This is an overly-complex sentence and should be broken up.

  I'll try a list then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

(I'll pick up with "Movements" next time)

• My major concern about the Movements section is that it's broken up into a large number of small subsections, which in turn have lots of short paragraphs (some just a single sentence). I think this would work better if you got rid of the level-4 headings and turned it into running prose, mostly one (substantially longer) paragraph for each movement.

  I am not sure I understand because the level-4-headers are for the movements. I could, of course, throw everything under one of those headers into one paragraph, but tried to visually brake when one para deals with the secular cantata but another with the Easter work, or 1 and 2 are handled together because they belong together but then comes info about only 1, then only 2, then again common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I tried an example in my sandbox.

  Thank you for trying but for me, the level-4-headers are almost a must to get oriented. (I like for example that visibly the recitative sections are shorter, providing weight at a glance.) The headers relate to the links in the table, and are consistent with most other GA cantata articles and all other FA cantata articles. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• You use a few different styles for translating phrases. Early on you have the German in italics followed by the English inside parentheses and qoutes, i.e. Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). Later on I see both in roman and quoted "Kommt, eilet und laufet" ("Come, hasten and run") and both in roman and just the German quoted "Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares). Looking at the source, I don't see any difference in the markup, and I'm at a loss to explain why different examples render differently, but this should be tracked down.
  • Oh, I see. The three versions are:
  • {{lang|de|Kommt, fliehet und eilet}} ("Come, flee and hurry")
  • "{{langr|de|Kommt, eilet und laufet}}" ("Come, hasten and run"))
  • "{{langr|de|Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen}}" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares))

  The roman vs italic is the use of {{lang}} vs {{langr}} and the quotes are right there in the markup. Pick one style and stick with it.

  sorry, no: we have to distinguish two things, titles and text. I don't have German phrases italic, or half the article would be italic, but titles: yes italic (lang). Their translations, however, are no titles, therefore not italic and sentence case. Reviewer UC talked me into giving the translations quotation marks (see that review). Text, however, is just in quotation marks (langr), and its translations just in brackets. It may seem confusing that the same words are sometimes a title, and at other times the beginning of text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• and its character as a musical drama The word "character" has (at least) two different meanings. In most places in the article, you're using it in the sense of "a biblical character", but in this place you're using it as "style", which I think it a little confusing, so perhaps find a different word here.

  would you know one? - "style" is not it, and English not my first language - I rephrased it. --GA

  Consulting the keeper of all English knowledge, maybe " distinctive nature" or "expressive quality"?

  thanks for searching, but they read more like explanations, - not quite to the point here. I rephrased it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are "manuscript" and "autograph" synonyms? You use them both and it's not clear if there's a distinction being drawn.

  they are not, manuscript is anything written by hand, and autograph (manuscript) is an author's manuscript - I used "manuscript" in the sentence "when he wrote a new manuscript copy" when it's clear that the author wrote, and about the manuscript parts for which it's not clear who wrote them, - usually scribes would perform that job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• historically informed performances are shown with a green background This causes accessibility problems, per MOS:COLOR.

  without mentioning it, they are also distinguished by the words "Period" and "OVPP". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, that does it for me. For the most part, this is very nice and made for an enjoyable read for somebody (i.e. me) with very little famiarity of the subject. Most of the above are minor issues. The biggest thing in my mind is the layout of the Movements section. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for diligent reading and good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The trumpets play a broken chord, you wikilink chord, but it would be better to link broken chord. Unfortunately, that just redirects to Chord (music) which doesn't actually say anything about broken chords. Arpeggio talks about broken chords but only to the extent of saying that arpeggios are one type. So this could all use some clarification. Perhaps add a short explanation in-line of what you mean by "broken chord"? Does it mean arpeggio here, or something else? Or at least, add something to Chord (music) which explains what a broken chord is (I can't think of anybody more qualified to do that) and then link broken chord directly to that section.

Finally, I return, Roy. I am not sure. It's not an arpeggio, when the notes of a chord are not played at the exactly same time, which is possible on a piano, but in fast succession, like on a harp, but still sounding together. Here, the notes of a major chord form the melody one after the other, like steps or jumps, and I don't know how to say that. I actually thought that it is a familiar phrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a familiar phrase to music experts, but WP:TECHNICAL. You're the expert on this stuff; if you can't figure out how to explain it, nobody else will. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I know it in German, but not in English. Aza24, DBAK, could you perhaps look into the wording? It's the final movement (11) and sounds like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The trumpets are not playing a broken chord. They are playing simultaneously, which is a regular chord.Sailing moose (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We are talking about the melody formed by the three first notes sung, text: "Preis und Dank", which are played first by the first trumpet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying; but if you are going to be this specific about musical ideas, measure numbers would be helpful. Sailing moose (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, the source says that the first measure belongs to the trumpets alone, and when the voices enter (and the instruments repeat), the voices sing a "Devise" (motto) - the text "Preis und Dank" - to music taken from the trumpets. How can we say that without saying exactly the same (because it would by copyvio)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

Don't have much to say since i was the GA reviewer, but i think the lead has too many paragraphs. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 4 or less, but i think 5 is fine. 750h+ 06:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! I moved this in chronology after I couldn't find it. The typical FA doesn't have 4 versions, I guess, which should be distinguished for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping you after more changes, - it already changed a lot since you reviewed for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Berners Street hoax

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Another footnote-to-a-footnote-to-a-footnote of history, this time a monumental practical joke that had most of London talking. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Berners_Street_Hoax_caricature.jpg needs a US tag, and is it known where it was published?
  • It was sold as a print in 1810 (on 6 December 1810, according to this); tag added. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• File:Theodore_Hook.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Tag added. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your sharp eye. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I've added and removed several commas; see the article's history.
• Introduce by Theodore Hook → by the writer Theodore Hook

• Done. - SchroCat (talk)

• Hook spent six weeks → He spent six weeks to avoid repetition

• I’ve left it there, as it could be taken to refer to the friend, rather than Hook. I’ve removed the preceding ‘Hook’, however, to ease it a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• four thousand letters to tradesman → four thousand letters to tradesmen

• Oops, done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I did not notice issues in the body. All reads well.

What an interesting read. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for these, User:Vacant0: all sorted in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks better now with UC's recommendations. Support on prose! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Vacant0. That's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

TompaDompa

Footnote-to-a-footnote-to-a-footnote? That sounds absolutely frivolous, and thus amusing. I will try to find the time to review this. As an initial comment, "tradesman" in the WP:LEAD seems like it should be in the plural, but I think it would probably be best to just use "tradespeople" as in the body. TompaDompa (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Tompa - I look forward to seeing them. In the meantime, I've swapped to "tradespeople". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• "The Berners Street hoax was perpetrated by the writer Theodore Hook in London in 1810. He had made a bet with a friend that he could transform any property into the most talked-about address in London." – reading this, I came away with the understanding that the hoax was undertaken because he had made that bet. That this is not the case became evident upon reading the article, where it is mentioned that the bet was made in November 1810 and thus after the six-week preparation period had begun. The final paragraph of the body even states that "There has never been an explanation as to why the hoax was undertaken". I don't know exactly how to fix it, but the current version of the lead feels unintentionally misleading.
  • Reworked. I’m not entirely happy with the new version, but it covers the point you made adequately. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Hm. I parse "Unbeknown to the friend, Hook had spent the preceding six weeks" as referring to the six weeks leading up to the bet, rather than the six weeks leading up to the event. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• "goods deliveries included organs" – I would link organ (music) for clarity.

• Yes, done. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Background and build-up

• "Theodore Hook was a writer" – I would add his year of birth and death here, i.e. "Theodore Hook (1788–1841) was a writer".
  • I’m not sure we need that. We don’t give anyone else’s dates, and we have his age at the time of the hoax in that paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    • For clarity: it is indeed not needed, but merely a suggestion based on preference (hence "I would"). TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Incident

• "&c", as a fairly uncommon (and thus, to many, unfamiliar) abbreviation, should probably either be linked to et cetera or wiktionary, or explained using Template:Abbr. MOS:LATINABBR deprecates its use in WP:WikiVoice, for what it's worth.

• OK, linked. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "By 1812 Hook was suspected of the hoax" – how come? Do the sources say?

• Nothing, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "By 1812 Hook was suspected of the hoax and confessed to it in his 1835 semi-autobiographical novel Gilbert Gurney" – this feels awkward as written. I parsed the beginning of the sentence—"By 1812 Hook was suspected of the hoax and confessed to it"—as the confession coming in 1812, which was of course immediately contradicted. Changing it to "[...] hoax, and he confessed" would likely do the trick.

• Split it with a semi colon instead. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The site at 54 Berners Street is now occupied by the Sanderson Hotel." – should probably use a "since [year]" phrasing instead, per MOS:NOW.

• We don’t know since when, so I’ve added an ‘as at’ instead. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. TompaDompa (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa. Huge apologies for being so slow on getting round to these. I saw them once you posted, then completely forgot to actually do the editing. All sorted now, I hope. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Right back at you with the apologies, as I have been a bit busy with off-Wikipedia things and not found the time to give the article another look. My comments above appear to be satisfactorily addressed; I shall give the article as a whole another go-over to make sure there's nothing else before too long. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

MS

Lead

• Hook spent six weeks sending between a thousand and four thousand letters to tradesman and businesses... Shouldn't it be "tradesmen" here?

Background

• The identities of his accomplices—one male and one female—are unknown, but it is thought that one of them later became a famous actress. You could change one of them later became to the latter later became for clarity.

I've offered a few minor suggestions above (hope that they are useful). The article is well-written otherwise. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• The first done. The second I don’t think will clarify anything. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • The sentence states that his accomplices were "one male and one female". If one later became "a famous actress", it must have been the latter — that is, the female accomplice. MSincccc (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• It doesn't need changing. The man didn't become the actress - there's no clarification needed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

A few more

• Hook was unidentified at the time, but later admitted his involvement in a semi-autobiographical novel published twenty-five years after the event.

Is the comma required in this sentence? It could be dropped.

• Attempting to stop the situation, the police blocked off both ends of the street,... How about using "To contain the situation, "... in this case?

• Because they wanted to stop it, not "contain" it - that's a modern police euphemism we could do without. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Theodore Hook was a writer of comic operas and farces for the stage and the author of several novels. Could "farces" be linked in this sentence?

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I've linked farces. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. MSincccc (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• If you're going to switch from support to oppose, you have to give grounds for doing so. Your vote will be ignored without valid grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, you are yet to thank me. That's all. MSincccc (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

UC

Enjoyed this one. Reminded me of The Shed at Dulwich! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to forty fishmongers—who turned up with lobsters and cod—and forty butchers, each with a leg of mutton, there were 50 pastry chefs with 2,500 raspberry tarts: MOS:NUM would prefer that we used figures consistently.

• Now consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• As the officers arrived at Berners Street they found "six stout men bearing an organ, surrounded by wine-porters with permits, barbers with wigs, mantua-makers with band-boxes, [and] opticians with the various articles of their trade".: quote needs to be attributed inline (I'd quite like to know specifically if this was eyewitness testimony from the Times's correspondent.

• Added. The report doesn't say it was an eyewitness account or not - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• the culprit to the hoax: not sure about the idiom of culprit to -- can't find good examples either way, but in general I think we normally just see it written as "the culprit". Perhaps something like "Police investigating the hoax searched for the culprit"? Happy to be overruled by a counter-example.

• Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would start the blockquote with a capital letter (in square brackets if you like), as it is, at least visually, a new paragraph.

• Done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• an undertaker with a coffin made for Mrs Tottenham, which had been made to her measurements: this seems slightly repetitious: simply "for Mrs Tottenham, which had been..." or even "a coffin made to the measurements of Mrs Tottenham"?

• Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• estimates of the number of letters vary from at least a thousand to four thousand: I would be tempted to put quotes around "at least a thousand" to tidy up the very improbable misconception that the uncertainty is with us (as in, we aren't totally sure what the estimates are, but we know that the lowest is >999), and to avoid the current slightly awkward phrasing (we wouldn't say "there were between at least 100 and 600 people in the crowd".)

• Yes, done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• For some, the notes asked if the recipient "will call on her at two to-morrow, as she wishes to consult him about the sale of an estate: sequence of tenses isn't quite right with the quote, which would need to be "[would] call on her" -- however, might be better and more international to say asked the recipient to "call on her...", as "asked him if he would do X" is potentially ambiguous, particularly to non-BrE natives.

• Changed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• a post-chaise and four may be at her home: "four [horses]"?

• Good idea:added. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• To businessmen, the notes read: suggest "the notes to businessmen read" unless some form of psychic paper was in use.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• a version sent to dance teachers, asked them: no comma here.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• as she is desirous that her daughters should receive instructions: not instruction?

• Definitely ‘instructions’ - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• attend on the deathbed of a family retainer: another possibly contentious idiom, but I think you "attend [someone] on their deathbed", in old-fashioned English, or "attend the deathbed of [someone]" in more contemporary style.

• Done- SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Graeme Harper, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says the selection was made at random: comma after Biography. As we've dated Chambers, I think we should date Harper too.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• The journalist and author Robert Chambers wrote in 1879 that there was a grudge between Mrs Tottenham and Hook and his friends, but no details are provided: were provided, surely -- or perhaps better as provided no details?

• Went with the latter. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• he pointed to the seemingly random house at number 54: I'm not sure about random as an adjective to mean randomly-chosen: "he pointed, seemingly at random, to the house..."? Our current phrasing implies that there was something in the appearance of No. 54 to make it appear random.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• At 5:00 am on the morning of 27 November 1810: redundant, as we've said "am".

• Of course - nixed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hook and his friends had hired rooms in the house opposite 54 Berners Street so they could observe the proceedings of the day. At 5:00 am on the morning of 27 November 1810 a series of chimney sweeps knocked at the door, saying they had been sent for.: of Hook's rented house?

• Clarified - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• a dozen bakers turned up to deliver elaborate wedding cakes, who were followed by a series of bootmakers.: I think we need to cut who were here, as the grammatical antecedent of who ought to be the cakes.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• I understand the linking of unusual professions, but why bootmakers but not undertakers? The former seems quite hard not to guess; the latter is probably quite obscure to some.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Would it be worth naming any of the illustrious dupes in this story, like the Lord Major and the two chairmen?

• I've added the Lord Mayor, although as he isn't notable enough for an article, I'm not sure it's terribly illuminating. The sources don't bother with the names of the chairman, and while we know William Astell was the chairman of the East India Company at that point, I have no idea who was Chairman of the BoE - although I'm working on the assumption that the Chairman and the Governor are two different roles. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Location for Fone 2019?

Added. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Mayer 1969 would seem to be too old for an ISBN: they were introduced in 1970.

• There’s an SBN - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• OK, so we should use that, with the |sbn= parameter -- just as we use OCLCs rather than ISBNs for very old works, even when they've been reprinted with ISBNs in the last few years. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Didn't even know there was a field for that - switched. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Was there definitely more than one organ? The Guardian article seems to suggest otherwise. It also mentions the outbreak of fights, which our article doesn't. They also seem to spell it "Hooke": is that a widely-used alternative?

• The Times report has it in plural too: changed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks UC. All points addressed, although whether satisfactorily is another matter! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support: all looks good to me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks UC. You're eye has been as invaluable as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from PMC

I doubt there'll be much left to say after the thorough reviews above, but putting my name down anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• "After several weeks of preparation ... Hook spent six weeks" - I've read this over a few times and I find the tightness of the writing hampers understanding. I think introducing a little more detail about the bet might help; there's room for it. Can I suggest a revision to something like... "In November 1810, Hook made an apparently spontaneous bet with a friend that he could transform any property into the most talked-about address in London. Unbeknownst to the friend, Hook had spent the preceding six weeks sending between a thousand... [rest of sentence]."

• OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Is it possible to clarify that Mrs Tottenham was a real person? I somehow assumed she was also a fake until I reached the end of the article

• I've tweaked her intro a little which should help: is that better?

• No other comments all the way down into Aftermath
• "The hoax was repeated in other British cities as well as in Paris." - do we know when, or how many times?

• Unfortunately not - it's all a bit scant on details in places. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Organization of para 2 under Aftermath feels a bit odd. We go from aftermath (repeats and operas) to 2025 then back to disputing the identity of the hoaxer in 1841.

• I've moved the Sanderson Hotel info, which is the rogue bit. Does it look better now?

That's all I have for you, and it's not too much :) Another charming oddity. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks PMC. All dealt with: I hope successfully. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking good to me, I'm a happy support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

Source review

Doesn't look like anyone has done a source review here so I'll give it a go. I focus on formatting first then on spotchecks.

• Formatting is consistent. Capitalization is consistent, as is wikilinking authors and not wikilinking the publishers.
• Were there no available clippings for the news sources? I know it isn't strictly required however, it would make my life easier if you had links available.
• Chambers is verified
• Hook is verified
• Davis is verified

I was only able to verify 3/14 citations which is a little less than I would have liked to. If you do have links for the newspapers then I'd be happy with those. Otherwise I will go hunt down some of the book sources. Ping with reply. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi IntentionallyDense, I don't have links, I'm afraid, but if you ping me, I can email across copies of anything you want - just send me a list and I'll get back to you with copies. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a shame that there isn't links available online but tis life. I will send you an email with the sources that I feel would be most beneficial for me to check. Thanks! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks IntentionallyDense - I've emailed copies back to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Pass for the source review! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, IntentionallyDense! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

You're a dark horse, SchroCat! I had no idea you were brewing this article up. A delight to read, although not so delightful for the numerous victims. (I agree with The Times's dismissal of the hoax as a "very malignant species of wit".) Happy to support. Three quibbles so minor that they don't affect my support:

• "the wager was set for one guinea" – could do with a blue link
• "followed by a series of bootmakers.[16][6][5]" – any reason for the numerical order? (No rule against it that I know of, but it looks strange.)
• There are four mentions of "the police", and this puzzles me a bit. I thought the first police force in London were the Peelers, set up two decades after the hoax, but I see The Times refers to "Marlborough-street Police Office, and having raised the point I now put it down again.

The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 11:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim - the top two tweaked along your lines. The Bow Street Runners were there before the Met (from 1749, so back while America was still a colony) and they were known as police, among other names. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

FIM

I'm late to the party (had to fight my way through a load of job-seeking servants!) but a couple of suggestions re. chronology. I think the sentence 'In November 1810...' would flow better somewhere in the second paragraph as well as removing the necessity for a one-sentence paragraph. Likewise, I'd suggest the material after the duke of Gloucester's retainer, being neither background or build up, could be moved to either the aftermath section or perhaps a subsection (e.g. 'Motivation')?

Also, this biography has got a few pages (52–56) on the hoax; apparently he'd already carried out a dress-rehearsal for Berners St previously. Nice work this. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks FIM. The "In November 1810..." sentence is chronologically in the right place at the moment - he did all the letter writing in the six weeks running up to the event, and (possibly while that was still going on) only then did he make the bet. Obviously the exact dates are unknown, which is a shame, but I'd like to try and keep as close to the chronological path if possible.

You're right on the 'motivation' paragraph, of course, and that's duly been moved to the very end - if you think it should go elsewhere in the section please call out.

I've tried to avoid too many 'facts' from older works, as they can be a little unreliable (newspaper descriptions to give a little colour are a different thing to my eye though), so I had seen that and decided not to use it. I'll go back over the more modern sources to see if there is anything from there I can use instead, which should ensure no complaints on the reliability of sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair point re. chronology. I understand the concern re. 1853 guy, but I think you're on safe ground using it (very) lightly, for near-contemporary opinion, as it's also cited by your Davis (2013). Perhaps along the lines of 'a near contemporary believed that...' or the like. In any case, there's no reason not to support the promotion of this neat bit of microhistory. Nice one. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks FIM. I found a bit tagged on the end of the story in Flanders that covers the point nicely, so that's now been added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

750h

i'll leave some comments SchroCat :). coming soon! 750h+ 05:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

One Direction

Nominator(s): jolielover♥talk 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the English-Irish boy band One Direction. Formed in 2010 on The X Factor, the band grew to be one of the most successful musical acts of all time before their indefinite hiatus in 2016. I believe this article is FA quality. It is well researched, having consistent citation style and inline citations, with appropriate, reliable sources. They are several academic sources included as well. The article is well illustrated by images with the appropriate licensing. It is neutral and stable. As a defining band of the 2010s, contributing extensively to the popular culture, I hope to bring the page to FA by the band's 15th anniversary in July of this year. jolielover♥talk 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Avoid duplicating captions in alt text
• Some images are missing alt text
• Captions need editing for grammar
• File:What_Makes_You_Beautiful.ogg is missing a fair-use rationale
• File:One_Direction_2012_Stockholm.jpg is quite blurry
• File:One_Direction_figures_at_Madame_Tussauds_London_(33783672342).jpg: what is the copyright status of the figures? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Done
• Done
• Done
• Does it not have one? I can see one at the file's page.
• Ah... this image is up for debate as to whether it should be included in the page. Some people think it should be included, some don't. I personally think not since it doesn't illustrate much and isn't noteworthy by any means. See article talk page and this for more info. I removed it again since there has been a lack of discussion on the issue.
• Good catch - on further research, I think the figures may be possible copyright violations so am removing it for now, swapping with another image.

jolielover♥talk 04:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

A fair-use rationale is needed for every article in which a piece of non-free content appears. It has a rationale for a different article, but not this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I added the rationale, is it fine? jolielover♥talk 07:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, the figures are not copyright violations per c:COM:FOP, so are added back. jolielover♥talk 08:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why that would be the case? These aren't permanent displays, to my understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, multiple discussions on commons have expressed the sentiment that Madame Tussaud's figures are allowed. See: 1, 2, 3, 4. The discussions express than Freedom of Panorama applies to the sculptures. Wax figures count as permanent displays. jolielover♥talk 04:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

In general, they can be - but it appears in this particular case they are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how it doesn't apply in this case, when all the discussions previously establish they do. Technically, nothing can be considered permanent. Displays in museums are shifted around frequently. However, FoP considers such sculptures permanent. If you find an issue with it, feel free to start a discussion on Commons, because as of now, there appears to not be an issue with the image. jolielover♥talk 05:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Not all the discussions - see for example this one or this one. In this particular case, it appears that the display was limited and has now been decommissioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Both the links say it doesn't exist, did you put the wrong ones? jolielover♥talk 06:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok the links work now, those deletion requests are from 2011, predating c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom as they were written in 2012 (this is addressed in the first discussion I linked, expressing that Madame Tussauds figures are allowed). From c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wax figures in the Madame Tussauds London, here is examples of what permanently means: if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time". So if the viewer should not realize it is for a limited time it is permanently (limited time can be ice sculptures, sand castles and graffiti which is expected to be painted over sooner or later). So with that argument I would also think that it is permanently unless it is clearly stated that is it only for a limited time. jolielover♥talk 03:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Roy Marshall

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the West Indian cricketer Roy Edwin Marshall, who played international cricket for the West Indies in a brief Test career in the early 1950s, but is probably better known for his 19-year association with Hampshire in English county cricket. An attacking opening batsman, he was a member of Hampshire's 1961 County Championship winning team and would captain Hampshire from 1966 to 1970. He made 504 first-class appearances for Hampshire and scored 30,303 runs, a total that only one other has surpassed. A very important figure in the history of Hampshire cricket. Curiously, he was appointed chairman at Somerset in the late 1980s (having moved to the county some years prior), following the fallout of the 'Somerset Revolution' which had seen the departure of Ian Botham and Viv Richards. I have worked extensively on this article over the last few months. It was at peer review for nearly 3 weeks, but had no comments, and I have posted on the Cricket Project page for feedback, and it has had some edits from project members. Hopefully it is now at FA level. Any feedback welcome. Cheers, AA (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Roy_Marshall_of_West_Indies.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• • Comment. I have expanded the FUR. Though, this is a tough one! Any suggestions? AA (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Since the splendid Sarastro1 vanished into semi-retirement I can't think when I last enjoyed a cricket FAC as much as this. I have a few very minor quibbles, none of which affect my support:

• "Whilst still qualifying to play for Hampshire in 1954, Marshall made four first-class appearances" – the meaning is unclear. I read this as meaning not "although he still qualified" but "while he was waiting to qualify", and if the latter is what you mean I suggest you say so.
  • Done. I have (hopefully!) made it a little clearer that he was awaiting his County Championship qualification and the matches he played in were 'friendlies'. Though, I remain a little unsure on my wording here! AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Come the end of the season" – as a Lancastrian I might well say "come the end of the season..." but it looks a touch colloquial for an encyclopedia article, and perhaps "by" rather than "come" might be more suitable.
  • Done. "By" does read much better than "come", less colloquial. AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "with a team led by the Duke of Norfolk" – this conjures up visions of His portly Grace, padded up, leading the team onto the field, at which the mind boggles. Perhaps "managed by", "directed by" or some such?
  • Done. Now that is some vision! I'm almost surprised he never played, many aristocrats of the day, portly and old, with limited cricketing talents did (much to the hindrance of their teams). I have substituted in "managed by". AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "what Sandiford considered to be the most reliable opening partnership in county cricket" – in its day or of all time?
  • Done Most certainly he means in its day. To that point, Percy Holmes and Herbert Sutcliffe were (and probably still are) the most reliable of all time. Have reflected that Sandiford is talking about at that moment. AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "the three first-class matches that comprised the tour" – in the King's English the tour comprised the three matches, rather than vice versa. Perhaps "constituted"?
  • Done. A far more regal word! AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "As a result, most of the Hampshire batsmen struggled, however, Marshall was the exception" – a stronger stop than a comma needed before "however".
  • Done. AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I greatly enjoyed this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to record my support. I hope we shall see more cricket articles here from AssociateAffiliate. Tim riley talk 12:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim riley for your kind words and feedback :) I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and thank you for the support. I have a few more in the works, so watch this space! AA (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Good. Well, kindly ping me when you go to PR or FAC with any more cricket articles. Tim riley talk 14:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Just a few minor points from me:

• "However, on debut": the 'however' doesn't add anything to the party here and could/should be expunged
  • Done. I have removed "however". AA (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Why the different approach in "North v South and The Rest versus Surrey"?
  • Done. I guess habit of referring to the North v South matches using their classic naming, whereas matches between The Rest and Surrey were not called "The Rest v Surrey". I was a little conflicted on how to amend that. "The Rest v Surrey" does't sound right, and sounds a little colloquial. So I have amended all to "North versus South" and "The Rest versus Surrey". AA (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• "gaining 26 batting bonus points": it may be worth adding in a footnote to explain both the concept of 'batting points' and the rules under which they would be gained
  • Done... ish? I have briefly explained the concept of "batting points", but I cannot find an exact reference for that explanation which is relevant to 1959 (as batting bonus points have changed throughout the decades, and today's system is very different to that of 1959). I have also explained the rules of bonus batting points in 1959, which is referenced. AA (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope these help! - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. Please find my responses/actions above. Cheers :) AA (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Lovely article - very enjoyable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  Cheers, glad you enjoyed the article :) AA (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Arab–Khazar wars

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the 7th and 8th-century conflicts between the nomadic steppe empire of the Khazars and the emergent Arab caliphate for control of the Caucasus mountains and adjacent territories. Especially the 8th-century conflict, fought over several decades, was one of the major wars fought by the Umayyad Caliphate, featuring its most prominent commanders, with rapid reversals of fortune and ultimately little gain for the Muslims, but draining the Umayyad military and contributing to the Caliphate's collapse. The conflict may also have driven the Khazars (or at least their elite) into embracing Judaism as their state religion. The article has been loon gin work passing GA in 2016, MilHist ACR in 2018, and went through a first FAC in October 2023, which failed mostly because of lack of availability on my part. I have delayed renomination while looking for more sources, but nothing has come to my attention so far that is not in some way already covered. I therefore nominate it again with the intention of seeing this through to the end. Constantine ✍ 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Nagyszentmiklos_2b_korso_-_Hampel_1894.jpg: what's the full source for this?

• File:Caliphate_740-en.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Europe_814.svg, File:Chasaren.jpg

• File:Umayyad_Caliphate._temp._al-Walid_I_ibn_‘Abd_al-Malik._AD_705-715._AR_Dirham._Albanaq_(or_al-Niq)_mint.jpg needs a US tag for the coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• The Turkic Khazars appeared in the area of present-day Dagestan in the second half of the sixth century, initially as subjects of the First Turkic Khaganate. After the latter's collapse, they emerged as an independent, dominant power in the northern Caucasus by the seventh century. These two sentences and the last paragraph of the same section cover the same events.
• The Khazars are mentioned in medieval histories as being present in the Caucasus since the first centuries CE, but these are rejected as anachronistic by modern scholars. Some scholars have argued that the Khazars are to be identified with Turks who raided Sasanian Persia in the late 6th century, but again the evidence is unreliable, being derived from much later Arabic sources. I would delete both.
• First Turkic Khaghanate or Western Turkic Khaganate or both?
• ...the presiding prince... I am not sure I understand it.
• ...although it is also not explicitly mentioned... I would rephrase it.
• Why is the Nagyszentmiklós ewer relevant in the article's context?
• I would mention in the main text that Suraqa ibn Amr was an otherwise unknown commander/general/...
• ...Derbent was in the hands of the Huns... the North Caucasian Huns (who were Khazar vassals)... Are these two different groups of Huns? Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Funk

• Good to see it back, I completed my review last time around, so I'll copy my points you didn't adress back then here, so you can check them off if they were done in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "In 735, the Umayyad general captured three fortresses in Alania (near the Darial Pass) and Tuman Shah, the ruler of a North Caucasian principality who was restored to his lands by the caliph as a client." I'm unsure of how the part after the comma relates to the first part. I wonder if "who" should be removed? Otherwise it's hard to make sense of.

• You seem to randomly mention Ashot by his full title or only as Ashot. I think the full title is only needed first time around?

• "and paganism remained widespread" Do we know what specific kind?

• "Marwan also brought a large number of Slav and Khazar captives south, whom he resettled in the eastern Caucasus" Why?

• "since those Khazars who actually converted to Islam had to be moved to safety in Umayyad territory" When and why?

• Filan doesn't seem to link to anything relevant.

• You end with the Khazars gradually vanishing, but would it make sense to also add whether the Arabs returned to the area later on?

• You there, Cplakidas? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Constantine! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Chris Pratt

Nominator(s): 750h+ 13:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Chris Pratt—one of the world's most bankable, highest-grossing, and highest-paid film stars. You might know him for playing Star-Lord in the Marvel movies or for playing Owen in the Jurassic World franchise. Off-screen he has an extremely controversial public persona, and he is dubbed the worst Chris among the actors dubbed the "Hollywood Chrises", which in addition to Pratt includes Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pine, and Chris Evans. This one's pretty short, so enjoy the read! 750h+ 13:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'd suggest finding replacements for situational sources like you did at Ryan Reynolds. I would, however, keep the HuffPost interview.
• Maybe add a location for Allan (2015).
  • not required i don't think
• Early life and education prose looks good. I'll read through the rest later.
• Pratt portrayed Barry → Pratt then portrayed Barry
• Anna Faris is wikilinked multiple times.
• 2000–2013: Early roles and breakthrough reads well to me.
• Pratt initially declined the role of Peter Quill can be cut to Pratt initially declined the role of Quill
  • i changed it to Star-Lord since that's how he's referred to in most of the article
• leave an Earth to leave the Earth maybe, I'm unsure?
  • i don't think so the sentence sounds wrong
• Maybe mention the cost of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom?
• 2014–2018: Worldwide recognition and blockbuster films also reads well!
• Grant Cutler, played by him → Grant Cutler, played by Pratt
• Andy Dwyer is wikilinked multiple times.
• The Tomorrow War received... → The film received...
• 2019–present: Continued success and versatility also looks good.
• Acting style and public image looks good.
• Jews for Jesus is wikilinked multiple times.
  • the two sections it's linked in are pretty far away
• Director James Gunn, known for Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) links to Guardians of the Galaxy. This should be fixed.
• Personal life, Philanthropy, and Acting credits and awards look good.

Overall, I've re-read paragraphs several times to see if anything major would pop out to me, but it didn't, so good job on that. That's it from me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: what do you think? there is still a SR source but that is in a quote describing his acting style 750h+ 11:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: ? 750h+ 09:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at our other recent actor FAs and then compare it with this one, to see if anything is missing or if the prose style is similar. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: ?? 750h+ 05:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll respond tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Chris Pratt (43672959202) (cropped).jpg-This image does not have alt text.
• File:Chris Pratt by Gage Skidmore.jpg-What is the relevance of this image under the Acting style and public image section? We already have multiple similar images of his in the article.

MSincccc (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• File:Chris_Pratt_2009.jpg might have a potential image quality issue, given its blurriness.

• File:Signature_of_Chris_Pratt.svg-Source link is dead. MSincccc (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have no further suggestions regarding the images, 750h+. I look forward to your response (it has been over a week). No rush, of course. Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  @MSincccc: oops sorry.

  • i have added alt text to File:Chris Pratt (43672959202) (cropped).jpg
  • Acting articles usually have a picture of the actor at a public event under the acting style/reception/public image section
  • File:Chris_Pratt_2009.jpg i'm confused what you mean by "potential quality image issue", but it is properly licensed, being transferred from Flickr
  • Fixed the signature source link

  750h+ 09:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  File:Chris_Pratt_2009.jpg – The licensing of the image is satisfactory as it stands. The "potential image quality issues" relate to blurriness. If you are able to replace it with a clearer version, please do. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  @MSincccc: all of the images around this time are of similar of worse quality. 750h+ 01:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  I had approached Nikkimaria regarding this. They feel that, since there are several higher-quality images of the subject elsewhere in the article, you could drop this one, even though it is not forbidden to use it in the article. MSincccc (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  okay 750h+ 05:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Spyridon Marinatos

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about yet another Greek archaeologist, I'm afraid. Marinatos, for better or worse, dominated Greek archaeology for much of his life: he is best remembered for his excavation of the "prehistoric Pompeii" site of Akrotiri, and his associated theories about the Minoan eruption, but had several other high-profile turns, particularly the discovery of the battlefield of Thermopylae. He was in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service during two periods of dictatorship -- that of Ioannis Metaxas and the Regime of the Colonels -- and used his influence to shape the institutions of Greek archaeology in his own image, which included taking aggressive steps to push out leftists, women, and people who disagreed with him.

Marinatos was a fascinating if not particularly pleasant character, and not always an easy one to write about -- he inspired huge loyalty in many of those who knew him, and some of his students remain prominent in Greek archaeology today, but has also attracted huge criticism for his enthusiastic support of Metaxas and the nastiest parts of the Regime of the Colonels, and for undoing decades of institutional progress in Greek archaeology to serve his own ego and political ends. As ever, all comments, quibbles and suggestions most gratefully received.

Credit to Cplakidas for the GA review last year: I have expanded the article a little since then. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Kusma

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lead: [[Bronze Age]] [[Minoan]] is a bit MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • It is, isn't it -- slightly reframed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• The Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin was not the "Humboldt University of Berlin" before 1949. (WP:OR: There are some letters from 1946 in my family's archives with the letterhead "Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin").
• Same in the Education section.
  • Good catch: I've added the "Royal", per our article: I assume that was indeed the formal name, even though there was no longer a king in Berlin? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • This may have been the formal name (although it seems to not have been used in Latin [7]; I have also looked at a few PhD certificates), but never the common name. I guess nobody would use "Royal" unless they wanted to show extra deference to the King of Prussia. Friedrich Wilhelm University, our dab page, doesn't even mention the "Royal". This publication by the HU about the renaming generally uses FWU. I think "University of Berlin" (it was the only one at the time) is more common than "Royal FWU of Berlin", and you don't use the names "National" or "Kapodistrian University" for the one in Athens either. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

      OK, now "the Friedrich Wilhelms University of Berlin" throughout. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• "monthly salary of 3,500 drachmas" is there any comparison that would tell us whether he was right in calling it inadequate?
  • I tried to do some magic here with the inflation template, but it threw up silly numbers (making it approximately $400,000!). Doing some shameless OR, this document suggests that a well-paid weaver in 1924 made about the same number, and the drachma was significantly if not dramatically weaker in 1929 than in 1924, so Marinatos probably wasn't being totally ridiculous. Currently drawing a blank as to how to source and show that, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I was wondering how it compared to a professorial salary. But I know these things can be difficult to source. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

      I didn't manage to find that, unfortunately. I can give you a comparison to a professor's salary in the 1850s (350 drachmas/month), but that's not a whole lot of use here! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• What is an "epimelitis"?
  • Glossed on first mention as (junior archaeological official). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• First directorship of the Archaeological Service: That Thera = Santorini is too important to be relegated to a footnote, especially since you use "Santorini" in the lead and "Thera" in the body.
  • I've changed to "Thera" throughout and duplicated the footnote in the lead. "Thera" is still used today, particularly in publications about Akrotiri, and under MOS:GEO, we should use the name that was common at the time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • There is still a "Santorini" in the lead. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

      Good eye: fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Footnote f: Who is "Petrakos"? He has not been mentioned yet.
  • Introduced in the footnote, though that now means he's introduced twice. Not a huge problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Regimes of the colonels: "from whom Marinatos secured $2000 (equivalent to $16,253 in 2021)" reduce the false precision. Did they really give him US dollars?
  • Vermeule gives it in dollars, but she does provide a drachma equivalent, and I don't think it's a massive stretch to assume that she's actually calculated it the other way. Changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Apparently he died in an accident; is that worth mentioning in the lead?
  • I'd rather not, because of the uncertainty as to exactly what happened (see the relevant body section): slight OR, but I'm fairly certain that he actually died of a heart attack while the excavations were on, and that later on the legend grew up a heroic "death in action" that is often said to have involved a collapsing wall. Certainly, the latter story doesn't appear in any remotely contemporary reports. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I read "Contemporary accounts related that he had died from a fall" as also indicating an accident, but of course "a fall" can indicate all kinds of medical issues. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

      Indeed. Personally, when I see "an accident at a dig site", I think of e.g. a collapse or a disaster with some sort of machine, rather than someone falling over (very likely as the result of a tragic but unremarkable medical event). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• "his daughter Nanno" we didn't know he had a family until here, and she is only linked later. I am not convinced that the placement of marriage and family at the very end is a good idea.
  • Placing personal life and family at the end of a biography is fairly standard (and common in FAs): what would your suggestion be here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't know. In most of the biographies I write, family connections are more significant to the biography and work than here, so I am used to putting them in a more prominent place. Here it is interesting and seems relevant that Nanno followed her father's footsteps (although she was a woman), so I'd like to hear this a little earlier. Maybe you can start the personal section with the family instead of the pith helmet? —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

      I don't see a problem with that, but then to be honest I don't see a material difference: it only "promotes" it by a minute or so of reading. It seems more natural to end the story of someone's life with the people who survived them, rather than their fashion choices. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Personal life, honours and character: this is the weakest section of the article, collecting many semi-random bits without much of a structure. I don't understand the way it is sorted.
  • It is a bit scrapbooky, but they're all things that, under WP:DUEWEIGHT, really need to go somewhere, because they're prominent in secondary sources. Broadly, the scheme is "What he did other than digging -> what people say he was like as a person -> his cultivation of the press and his image -> honors and honorary degrees -> family and other relationships. Alternative suggestions gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I think the honourary degrees could come last or be elsewhere (like the Assessment and Legacy section), they really aren't as personal as the rest of this section. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
      • That's fair: I've shifted "Honours" up to go with "Assessment" and "Legacy". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Is Nanno's mother called "Emily" or "Aimilia" (see Nanno Marinatos or [8]) And should it be mentioned that Nanno's real name is Ourania?
  • "Emily" in the cited source, but that's just the English form of Aimilia, and we were originally citing the NYT. I've swapped Aimilia in, since it seems likely to be what she generally went by (it's pretty common for English sources to Anglicise Greek names of the period: see George E. Mylonas, John Papadimitriou etc.). As for Nanno, that's the name by which she publishes: it's certainly crossed into WP:COMMONNAME and seems to be what she's been known by in all contexts since very early childhood. "Nanno" isn't a form of "Ourania", so I think it would be more confusing than helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Another very interesting archaeologist who was involved in a huge number of major excavations. I couldn't find a lot to complain about but would suggest to think about where to place the family and what to do with the rest of the personal life section. —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Kusma. Replies above, some of which I'd be grateful for your thoughts on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

A few comments above. If I haven't replied, I am happy with what you have done or accept what you have not done. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support after reviewing recent changes. —Kusma (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Kusma -- all of the issues you raised were well worth drilling into, even if I haven't been able to fully tie off all of them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Reviewed this as GA, reserving a spot here for a review over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: No rush, but if you do have any thoughts, I'd be very interested indeed in hearing them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

I've had to scratch about a bit to find anything all to quibble about here. These are my meagre gleanings:

• "A recipient of several honours in Greece ... A native of Kephallonia" – a mildly tabloidese construction ("A resident of Reading for the last six years he combines being a committed Christian with support of Reading Football Club"). OK on a single appearance, but perhaps not twice in close succession?
  • I've reworked the first, and I think it now flows better: I'll take the accusation of tabloidese for the second, by your leave. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "southwest Greece" – you may or may not care (I don't) but the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "south-west".
  • Done (I notice that, quite by accident, I've hyphenated "north-east" lower down). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "firstly ... secondly between 1955 and 1958" – being an ancient relic I cling to the traditional (though illogical) construction "first ... secondly". It is true that even in the original 1926 Modern English Usage Fowler says "the preference for first over firstly in formal enumerations is one of the harmless pedantries in which those who like oddities because they are odd are free to indulge, provided that they abstain from censuring those who do not share the liking". All the same the traditional form seems to me more pleasing, but I am perfectly happy for you to take the opposite view.
  • I think it reads better as "first": changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "illegal antiquities trading" – as the antiquities themselves were not illegal, perhaps "illegal trading in antiquities"?
  • I think it would need to be "illegally", and there I think it would imply that you needed legal permission to engage in antiquities trading. Really, it's [illegal antiquities] trading, or more prosaically "graverobbing". There might well be a better way to do this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Hmm. OK. Let it pass. Tim riley talk 17:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "he discovered over twenty archaeological sites" – another old-fashioned and I'm not sure justifiable preference but I was brung up to write "more than twenty" rather than "over twenty" (which I have been for more than half a century).
  • Seems harmless enough; changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "and to commence the purchase of the land" – commence? A bit refained surely? What's wrong with "begin" or "start"?
  • Now "begin". I wonder whether "initiate" might be even better (as in, he had to sign a bit of paper, then other people did the legal paperwork), but not sure if the source will stretch to it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I can't think "initiate" could reasonably be objected to. Tim riley talk 17:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Marinatos held strong right-wing and Greek nationalist views ... he was a supporter of Eleftherios Venizelos, a broadly liberal politician" – this reads a bit oddly as it stands: why would a man with strong right-wing views support a broadly liberal politician?
  • Good eye. I made a slight adjustment for TSI: Marinatos Jr has On the contrary, in matters of foreign policy he was on the side of Great Britain, being a follower of the pro-British Greek politician Eleutherios Venizelos (and hence on the side of the Entente). Assuming his support for Venizelos did go further than that, it would probably be down to the Megali Idea -- Venizelos was the great advocate of Greek expansion into its "lost" territories in Asia Minor, and marched Greek troops into Constantinople at the end of the First World War. Like many, I suspect, Marinatos took his nationalism as the main part of his politics, rather than his (undoubtedly strong) social conservatism (see his contemporary Georg Karo for someone who, perhaps tragically, made the same decision for the opposite reason). Venizelos was, at any rate, briefly a national hero, and the "broadly" of "broadly liberal" is doing a bit of work: he also weaponised antisemitism for his political ends in northern Greece. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Good grief! OK. Tim riley talk 17:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "The conference has been described by the archaeological historian Georgia Flouda as "a propaganda venue" – this might flow better in the active rather than the passive voice, on the lines of "The archaeological historian Georgia Flouda has described the conference as "a propaganda venue". Just a thought.
  • Tried both and I can't see that the passive makes any improvement, so gone with the active as you suggest: if in doubt, it's usually the way. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "his most significant contribution to scholarship" – I'm sure I've bored you with this before, but this, from Plain Words seems to me sound on "significant": "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of 'important, considerable, appreciable', or 'quite large' ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'"
  • Gone with "greatest", though that might be a bit pufferyish. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That's my lot. A top-notch article, well up to the UC standard, if I'm any judge. – Tim riley talk 16:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks as ever, Tim: replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and has been a pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 17:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Much obliged, Tim -- thank you. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MSincccc

Lead

• Archaeologist could be delinked as per MOS:OL.
  • It could indeed - now is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• A native of Kephallonia, Marinatos was educated at the University of Athens, at the Royal Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin and at the University of Halle. Could the repetition of "at" be avoided?
  • Very easily: done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Could this phrase be used:collaborating with Carl Blegen, who was simultaneously excavating the Palace of Nestor at Pylos.
  • I'm not sure I see the improvement. It is fewer words, but does give me the sense that he was doing all the spade-work himself. 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• You could use this sentence-He later became an enthusiastic supporter of the junta- rather than repeat "he" more than twice in the same sentence.
  • The repetition is necessary to make sure that that clause is no longer governed by "in the 1930s". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Early life and education

• You could link to the article University of Cincinnati in this sentence -When a joint excavation between the University of Cincinnati,...
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Regime of the Colonels, Akrotiri and death

• It should be "the Athenian Agora",i.e, the "a" in "agora" should be capitalised.
  • Indeed (and I've deitalicised, following most HQRS). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Why not red-link "Tsepi" at its first occurence?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• In the late 1960s, Marinatos served on a fundraising committee to raise a monument to Metaxas in Argostoli on Kephallonia... Could "erect a monument" be used here?
  • What do you think is improved by making that change? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Using "erect" is more precise for statues or structures than "raise". MSincccc (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see any gain of precision here. "Raise a statue" is perfectly good English and common enough in professional writing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Personal life

• Could "long-standing" be used in place of "long-running"-Marinatos maintained a long-running collaboration ?
  • Likewise: it could, but how would that make the article better? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  We use "long-standing" for relationships, traditions, or reputations—like a collaboration. "Long-running" suits events or series. So, Marinatos maintained a long-standing collaboration is more natural. MSincccc (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  As above, long-running collaboration is well established in professional English. I don't think this "rule" is anything of the sort. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Politics

• In the late 1920s, he supported the foreign policy of of Eleftherios Venizelos, ... There's a typo in this sentence.
  • No longer! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, MSincccc: replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have no further suggestions—the article is well-written. I've responded to two of your queries above and look forward to hearing from you. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  After a thorough reread, I can confirm that the article meets FAC standards. Best of luck with your nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, MSincccc: as ever, I appreciate your time with the review and your comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

a couple comments from sawyer777

i don't have the real-life time to do a full review or anything, but i have a few ideas.

• the works cited section is pretty long; it may be helpful to the reader to split it up a little - maybe "news articles" and "academic works" or something along those lines.
  • Possibly. It is a bit long, but the overwhelming majority is academic material: there are two or three obituaries and news articles (themselves usually written by academics), so I'm not sure that would change very much. I'm also not sure that many readers actually read the Works cited section in full, as opposed to jumping in and out of it as they follow up citations. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

    fair enough! ... sawyer * any/all * talk 23:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• in the infobox it lists his field as "archaeology" - do you think it'd be better to specify "Bronze Age archaeology" or "Aegean archaeology" or something similar? this isn't necessarily a suggestion but just something i noticed.
  • Would seem a natural use for the sub_discipline parameter, which I've now added. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• i'm curious about Later, in 1950, he suggested that the story of Atlantis may derive from an oral tradition of myths concerning the eruption of Thera. is there any more information about this theory or its reception among academics?
  • It's bananas. We go into this a bit later: The story of Atlantis is generally considered to be an "invented myth" by the Athenian philosopher Plato, rather than a genuine oral tradition. There never was, really, a "myth" of Atlantis. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

    oh i see, i must have missed that follow-up. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 23:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

that's all i have for now... great read :) ... sawyer * any/all * talk 18:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Sawyer777: replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

thumbs up; this can be considered a light support as i have no objections. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 23:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review: passed

Source review to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Formatting

• Hood. You have "Pp", where all the other uses have "pp"
  • It's part of the title, saying that the work has that many pages. However, it might be better to swap in a pseudo-title like "Review of Thera: Pompeii of the Ancient Aegean by Christos Doumas" -- what do you think? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Your call on the pseudo-title. If you retain the original, for "Pp", MOS:CONFORMTITLE suggests we could drop it to the lowercase. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

      I've trimmed it down and stuck "Review" on the front: I think you're the second person to bring this up over the lifespan of the article, and the previous form was clearly doing more harm than good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• How do Karadima and Prevedorou pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • The criterion for doctoral theses is Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised (I seem to remember this being stronger, as something like "PhD theses are assumed to be reliable", but maybe that's changed or I'm misremembering).

• Karadima is used once, in a multi-cite: I can't remember where I got the other source from (Vlachopoulos), but it was certainly online, and I can't at the moment pull it up. However, the two together support The project was funded by Johanna Goekoop, the widow of the Dutch businessman and amateur archaeologist Adriaan Goekoop, who had paid for excavations by Marinatos's former teacher Kavvadias on the island in 1899, none of which strikes me as massively controversial: I think Karadima was only supporting the fact that Adriaan Goekoop had sponsored Kavvadias. She cites Kavvadias's publication of the excavations: I can't see that her bibliography is published online, but this is almost certainly in the Archaeological Bulletin, which isn't easy to get hold of in the UK outside a university library. On balance, I think the use of the thesis is justifiable, and certainly qualifies as "with care": it's a completed thesis, so it's undergone scrutiny and corrections; the claim is uncontroversial, and the only reason the thesis would be wrong here (as the detail is completely inconsequential to Karadima's argument) would be a bizarre fantasy or an equally bizarre error of reading, which was then not caught by the examiners.
• Prevedorou is used for the Tsepi excavations: she does give bibliography, and cites Marinatos's reports (in Greek) in the Proceedings of the Archaeological Society: those are easily available, and Marinatos calls the tumulus that of the Plataeans. For the fact that most people now don't agree with him, she cites a Greek book I can't readily access, as well as this 1995 work by Vasileios Petrakos, who confirms the dates and goes into detail as to why the tumulus is probably not that of the Plataeans (pp. 65–67). Xavier Duffy makes the same point here, talking about the "uncertainty among modern scholarship" about the identification and concluding that it can "only be accepted tentatively" (and see Anthony Snodgrass here, p. 166, who is less diplomatic). I've made a small change here: "rejected" to "considered unsound". If it would help, I could add these additional sources in support, but again I think that following up the thesis's references and confirming that they stack up meets the "use with care" test.

• I thought a bit on this and answered my own question: I've added those three sources in on Tsepi and the tumulus of the Plataeans. The PhD thesis is now holding very little weight: I think only the second-hand judgement that scholars generally don't put much in store by Marinatos's identification, which probably could be cited purely to Snodgrass, but Prevedorou phrases it more clearly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• OK, you've persuaded me! - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 118: ""Gold & Power in the Peloponnese", 2017, National Hellenic Museum". Single quotes for 'Gold & Power in the Peloponnese' would get rid of the double quote marks (MOS:QINQ applies here, as "the term quotation includes conventional uses of quotation marks such as for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, and so on", per MOS:QUOTEMARKS).
  • I've cut the title down (it's formatted over three lines, so it's a bit unclear what's title and what's subtitle), which does away with the problem here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    • OK, that's fine - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliability and range

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• The current sources are all appropriate (c.f. the discussion on the theses above)
• Searches have shown no additional sources that could or should have been used instead (there is the caveat that the searches I've made for sources were in English only, so I am AGF on the searches of Greek sources.
• Source review is a pass - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

Regarding File:Spyridon Marinatos Akrotiri 1968.jpg have there been any efforts to find a free image? ALT text and image placement are fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Best efforts on Google and in printed books -- there are a few other images of him out there, lots of which are crops of this one, but I haven't been able to find evidence of publication before 1930. As far as I can see there are none at all released under free-use licences. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If it matters, I have asked an archaeologist I know for a comment on the article and they said it seemed balanced to them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo: your archaeologist friend is surely owed an honorary FAC barnstar by now! Not that there's any rush, but did you have any further comments on the images? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Didn't see anything else, no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Alice in Chains (album)

Nominator(s): mftp dan ^oops 03:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the third studio album by Alice in Chains, one of the driving forces of grunge music in the 1990s and one of the more metallic of them. This was the last album to feature their original lead vocalist, Layne Staley, which brought them to fame. I have been working on translating content and expanding this bad boy from the Russian and, to a lesser extent, Polish Wikipedia articles for months now - which themselves are remarkably well-sourced. I believe I have finally reached the conclusion of my hard work for enwiki's version, and plan at this time to do the same for every one of the Chains' studio albums and even more.

You will notice I have gone immediately to FAC for this album. Normally, I'd send something like this to GA first, and I probably will for future albums, but my goal here is to get this promoted within a few months, leaving plenty of time to schedule the page for the front of Wikipedia, as its 30th anniversary is approaching. As you can see, time leaves me no choice if I want to reach my goal. If this FAC turns out to be a mistake, I am choosing to make a brave one and attempt to remedy any concerns brought forth on the fly, though I hope there are few. mftp dan ^oops 03:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ippantekina

Full review coming soon. Some preliminary comments:

• I don't think a chart section for the singles is necessary.
• Suggest adding captions to the tables (Charts, Certs).
• "highly successful" POV
• Inconsistent use of false titles (or not thereof) "American rock band Alice in Chains", "bassist Mike Inez", " the supergroup Mad Season". Ippantekina (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)]
  • All addressed. Do you think I could replace "highly successful" to "commercial breakthrough" if I add appropriate context and sourcing to the body? Or is that too much? It certainly exists and wouldn't be hard to include. mftp dan ^oops 17:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yes "commercial breakthrough" works imo. Ippantekina (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, so I've added that descriptor. Bad news: I went and added a whole paragraph to background to justify the timeline and its inclusion in the lead. Good news: it seems I might not have interrupted anything in terms of reviewing, so I hope it's not a problem. mftp dan ^oops 23:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

    Hey, sorry for taking so long to get back to this. My honest opinion is that, the prose is definitely GA-solid, but for FA it should be more polished. From the lead, the background info on which members did what prior to the album is rather lengthy, some sentences could be refined (e.g. the live performances bit, something like "The band did not tour to promote the album due to Stanley's addiction, and they only performed live on several televised events and opened for Kiss" could work), and some terms could be jargon-y ("metallic riffs" does this refer to metal music the genre or...? "delicate acoustic moods" rather POV-ish?). Throughout the prose some phrasings/sentences are also clunky ("When Jerry Cantrell first began thinking about releasing a solo album in 1994", "Cantrell then decided to work on material originally intended for a solo album" etc). I'm not confident to support this for promotion yet, and based on your contributions I believe this article could be better prose-wise. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

    That's fair enough, I appreciate the feedback. I'll begin working those out when I get home. mftp dan ^oops 19:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

    Alright, so I addressed the parts you mentioned. I would agree that the article might be able to do better prose-wise, as I do notice things here and there. I did send this to the copyedit guild before nominating this, so I hope there isn't a lot of it, but I'm here to answer the bell. mftp dan ^oops 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px sizes

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Staley04.jpg is of quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review. I agree the picture of Layne is less than ideal, but it's unfortunately probably among the better options for a picture of him, in my opinion. Given that he's been dead since 2002, had not been active since 1999, and largely did not tour after 1993, we are very slim on options and I would consider him essential for the reader; do you have one you'd rather use from his category? I adjusted to one other shot, but I don't love it. mftp dan ^oops 00:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for almost three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any chance at all you could give me a little more time to at least get some more input? I have been diligently addressing the comments given me, but it seems my nominations routinely struggle to generate interest. I've mentioned it on Wikipedia's Discord server multiple times in previous months with absolutely no response. I can make an appeal to the WikiProjects it belongs to. mftp dan ^oops 23:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

zmbro

Hey there. Like Ippantekina above, I think the article could use a little more work before becoming FA. It's heavily detailed The background section, for instance, I think strands a little too much into WP:OFFTOPIC territory, and some of the wording (i.e. "This was partly due to the fact that lyrics were written after the band had already entered the studio.") seems unencylopedic. Some of the prose can also easily be condensed (i.e. "The band played four shows in total for the tour" to "The band only played four shows for the tour"). You said you had the article copyedited but perhaps take it to WP:GAN or WP:PR before making another run at FAC? I wish you the best of luck! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreleased Sonic the Hedgehog games

Nominator(s): JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I've brought a few articles on released Sonic the Hedgehog games to FAC, so why not change things up a bit? This article chronicles the Sonic games that, for one reason or another, never made it to store shelves, ranging from fully-finished products to those that never progressed beyond the conceptual phase. I've done a fair amount of work on this article after getting it promoted to GA last month and I think it's ready to get a go at FAC. I hope you enjoy! JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• What makes Destructoid and TheGamer high quality in this case?
  • The two Destructoid references were written by James Stephanie Sterling, the site's then-EiC who has written for multiple sources the project deems reliable, and Jed Whitaker, a staffer who has written for reliable sources including Vice, Paste, and GameRevolution. The article from TheGamer was written by James Troughton, who previously wrote for reliable sources such as IGN and VG247, and was published after the cut-off at which articles from the site are deemed reliable. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Is Ref 3 and 13 (Games That Weren't) reliable?
  • Yes, according to WP:VG/S it's considered reliable for information on unreleased games. Its operator, Frank Gasking, is a published author via Bitmap Books, who are well-regarded. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• I did not notice any issues in the lede. It seems to be explained well.
• Maybe give a brief introduction of the Sonic the Hedgehog series in the body for the readers?
  • I adjusted the text in the Sonic's Edusoft section to introduce it as "Sega's Sonic the Hedgehog franchise". I think this should be sufficient. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• for the Master System → for the Master System console
  • Not done, saying "console" after the console name is tautological. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Do we know when The Games Machine published the screenshots?
  • They were published alongside the magazine's review of Sonic the Hedgehog in mid-1991. Clarified. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• for the PC-8801 → for the PC-8801 home computer
  • Not done for the same reason as the Master System comment. All that's important for this article is the platform name. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Explain what Chaos Emeralds are
  • Not done because the link should be sufficient enough for readers who want to learn more/are confused. We don't need to explain what they are in every individual Sonic article. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• that features similar gameplay concepts, such as?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Procedural question

Procedural question Is this the right venue, or would this be a better fit for WP:Featured list candidates? It seems like a borderline case to me, where it could go either way. TompaDompa (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Apologies for jumping into this conversation, but I would consider it an article rather than a list given the amount of prose in the article itself. FLs on video games generally have the prose restricted to just the lead and the games are listed in a table. See List of Civilization media or List of Mario role-playing games for what I mean by this. So while this boils down to a list of unreleased video games, it has prose for individual entries to that point that I would consider it an article. Not to emphasize this point too much, but I have not seen a list that would have this level of prose beyond the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  • It's ultimately up to the coords and I'll adhere to whatever they say, but I think FAC is the right venue here. The article is almost entirely prose, and to my understanding there's a distinction between list-format articles (which are rated on the normal quality scale) and actual lists (which go to FLC). Looking at previous examples, Superman in film, a similarly-structured article, was promoted to FA rather than FL, so I think we're at the right place. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• I was going to raise the same question. This is a collection of brief entries describing each part of a set. That's a list. It doesn't become an article just because the information wasn't crammed into a table or punctuated with bullet points. This is a list that provides helpful information for each item, which many lists decline to do. If the length of individual entries is an issue, then the long ones could be split into main articles for the games and then condensed in the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Comment, but a similar article I wrote, Pokémon episodes removed from rotation, has a very similar structure to this one, yet was determined by FLC coords to be more akin to an article than a list. While I personally disagree with the assessment, it seems to indicate a precedent that these kinds of articles are deemed closer to articles than lists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  If a set index is considered a list, then I don't see why these wouldn't be as well. It's the same amount of information in the same format. The only difference is that it doesn't have a disambiguation aspect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Mean (song)

Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a self-written track by Taylor Swift from her album Speak Now (2010). Although inspired by a particular critical review, the track addresses all of Swift's detractors who questioned her vocal ability in 2009 and 2010. Several music journalists considered it the most country-sounding track in her discography and one of the best country songs of all time.

Thanks to CatchMe for the great GAN review. Any comments from all editors are very much appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

NegativeMP1

By far one of my favorites from her discography. I'll take a look soon. λ NegativeMP1 13:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fully transparent, I delayed this review so that what other reviewers were bringing up–which seemed to be fairly significant issues at first, would have a chance to get their word in before I left my own comments. Let alone a support or an oppose. I'll wait a bit longer since there's still a bit more that seems unresolved but I should hopefully still get the review done soon. λ NegativeMP1 00:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Medxvo, I appreciate your efforts on T.Swift articles thus far! However I seriously think this article might need some more work before FAC. Some immediate issues I see include failed verification of a very significant claim: Swift said that the particular inspiration came from a critical review by Bob Lefsetz, who chastised her following her performance at the 2010 Grammy Awards. Swift did not mention the said critic by name in the 60 Minutes interview, and the Rolling Stone source said: "She’s never fully admitted it". Also, I am unsure if this article has been thoroughly researched, in regards to academic/scholarly analyses and not just webzine/newspaper sources. There are very useful sources like Zaleski 2024, Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol 2024, or academic papers/book chapters (that can be accessed to via the Wikipedia Library Platform) like this, this, this, this or this that have not been explored to add to the prose. I would suggest exploring all available sources possible to ensure that this article meets criterion 1c. Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Quoting the interview ref: "One nasty review said she had killed her career overnight, and was 'too young and dumb to understand the mistake she'd made.' (Taylor Swift: The things that were said about me by this dude, just floored me and like leveled me. [...]) But then Taylor did her thing, and turned the wound into a song, the hit single 'Mean'." Not sure how that fails verification. The Rolling Stone source was added there to confirm that Mr. Lefsetz was the one who said those statements. I'm uncertain if some of the provided sources contain significant information that isn't already available in the article. Unless I'm mistaken, all of Zaleski's statements can be found in the article (excluding her excessive Lefsetz trivia). And, to my understanding, the Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book critiques the "gendered judgements" of some of Speak Now reviewers (e.g. Ritchie and Keefe that are present in the article) in the context of the song "Mean", and I'm uncertain if that's worth adding or even related to the song itself. Also not sure if the Smialek and Ledbetter articles have anything particularly useful, unless I'm missing something, of course. ("Mean" being the first song where she sings about her career doesn't add anything significant to me). The remaining three sources are certainly useful and I've incorporated them in the article. Prior to this FAC, I only checked the Swift-related books, so I appreciate the sources and the reminder to check the Wikipedia Library. I've checked again and tried to search for other sources via TWL but didn't really come across anything helpful besides these sources, and it's particularly challenging to search through random books when the song title is just "mean". I'll keep searching, and I'm definitely open to more useful sources and more elaboration from you. Medxvo (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Re. the Lefsetz reference, that is a very much case of WP:SYNTH because in both sources, Swift never confirmed that he was the target of this song, and she only said "this dude". Retrospective commentary from the Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book could add value to the "Critical reception" section (could be how initial reviews have been cross-examined retrospectively, for example). Ippantekina (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: "This dude" explicitly refers to Lefsetz since he was the one who wrote the "nasty review". I've replaced the Roling Stone source with another source that I hope supports this more effectively. The Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book would've been great had they focused on the initial reviews of "Mean", instead of Speak Now as a whole. I'm not sure if it's relevant here but I'll take another look and see if it can be added. Medxvo (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the People source said, "Swift’s song “Mean” is rumored to be about critic Bob Lefsetz." Your claim (""This dude" explicitly refers to Lefsetz since he was the one who wrote the "nasty review"") is subjective that is nowhere found in the 60 Minutes interview. Besides how do we know that Lefsetz was the only one that wrote a negative review of Swift's performance? Presenting something treated as a rumor in Wikipedia voice is not it... especially when Swift never confirmed it. Ippantekina (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: People also wrote, "Swift said, referring to Lefsetz", when they were talking about the 60 Minutes interview. Re. "Besides how do we know that Lefsetz was the only one that wrote a negative review of Swift's performance?", the interview ref said "One nasty review said she had killed her career overnight, and was 'too young and dumb to understand the mistake she'd made'". These are Mr. Lefsetz's statements and they put them in quotation marks. Medxvo (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced and I think this should require a bigger RfC to have a third-party opinion. But from what I see, nowhere in the 60 Minutes interview is Lefletz's name mentioned... Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Also re. the print/journal sources, thanks for your swift action (pun intended) incorporating them. But I hope it also should point to a larger concern... that is an extensive survey of the existing literature should have been done prior to the FAC. I'm not sure if it has been done thoroughly now, but I'll take a look at the prose soon. Ippantekina (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thanks, I'll be waiting for your thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I hope this adds more context and doesn't come across as an "other stuff" argument, but I myself am a Swift-focused editor, and you and I, as with (I assume) a lot of editors who listen to pop music frequently, know that her songs almost always have a subject behind them. I would only include it in Wikipedia voice and present it as a fact when Swift has confirmed the subjects herself (i.e. "Hey Stephen", "Forever & Always"). In most other cases, it's always best to leave out the speculations/rumors... unless there have been widespread commentary regarding the possible subject (for example the article for "Dear John" does not present in Wikipedia voice that it is about John Mayer, although it must have been 99% the case.. or "All Too Well" is about Jake G., or "My Tears Ricochet" is about Scooter Braun/BMR, and the list goes on...). In the case of "Mean", I reckon one way to do it is, to present a background information (Swift was chastised by critics at the Grammys), an interview (Swift mentioned "this guy"), and the surrounding commentary (several journalists have speculated that Lefsetz is the target), although I am still not the best fan of this approach, it should be much more objective than presenting it straight-up as a fact. Ippantekina (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thanks for elaborating. If you're also interested in more context, my inclusion of the song's inspiration wasn't based on any journalistic speculations, and I generally have no interest in speculations regarding song subjects. It was mainly based on the 60 Minutes interview source, which directly mentions Lefsetz's statements followed by Swift stating "this dude". I don't think it would make sense to discuss the Grammys performance and the comments of "this guy" without mentioning Lefsetz. He was the one who said those specific comments that were mentioned and quoted in that specific interview. I personally see no speculations here but I understand your point and I've removed that paragraph now since the "music and lyrics" section already covers similar themes. Would you like to take another look? Medxvo (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Greetings to you all. Would you like to share your thoughts as third opinions on the above discussion or does it require a noticeboard discussion? I don't really want to waste anyone's time and I would highly appreciate the feedback. Medxvo (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a FAC coordinator, but it seems like the questioned sentence about Lefsetz has been removed. Regarding academic literature ... I see the problem: The name of the song is so generic that you get over 13000 hits, most of which irrelevant, if you search for it, even when also requiring "Taylor Swift". Are there any search engines or databases about sources specifically on music-related academic publications? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo for replying. I'm not sure if there's a search engine for academic publications, I'm only aware of this search engine for sources listed at WP:MUSICRS. Medxvo (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Google Scholar has a few bad sources in it but is otherwise pretty good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been searching throughout the day but couldn't really locate any useful sources for the song on Google Scholar... I would appreciate any sources that I may have overlooked. Medxvo (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TPH

• Could "Background" and "Production and release" be combined? Both are very short. I also feel that listing out the musicians in this part is redundant to the "personnel" section closer to the bottom, and would be better if only the latter were included.
  • Agreed, combined the two sections under the title "production and release" since the writing process is inherently part of production anyways. But most of the recently promoted song FAs incorporate the credits in the article prose, mainly to avoid giving undue weight to specific contributors (such as including writers and producers only and excluding other contributors), and also to provide readers with a brief preview of the recording process and instruments utilized. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Even if both of the above were combined, I feel the article is still rather lacking on the song's conceptualization.
  • Could you elaborate please? Do you have specific suggestions on how to improve this part? Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what's missing, but it just feels short relative to other FA-class song articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  TenPoundHammer, I think I understand your point now. I added more info related to the album that could be beneficial for this article, please let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that looks a little more fleshed out now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the "some critics" being relegated to footnotes. Why not include their opinions within the body? I've never seen this "attributed to" used so many times as a footnote in any other article. It feels ungainly.
  • It's just because they share similar statements, and sometimes they don't say much beyond "catchy" or "has great narrative". I was also encouraged to combine similar opinions at my previous FAC. But I realize that many consecutive footnotes may seem awkward so I've added more opinions, please let me know if it looks any better. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Music and lyrics" should include what key the song is in, which should be verifiable by any official sheet music. I use musicnotes.com for this.
  • Some editors had issues with musicnotes.com on previous FACs. I think the most recent one was this FAC. I concur that this would be beneficial, but I haven't seen any recent FA that incorporated musicnotes.com or other similar sources. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Then how else can the key of the song be confirmed? I would think that's a basic fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think we would need official sheet music that verifies this is how the song was originally written. But those published on musicnotes.com and other similar websites are mainly written by music experts and can differ from website to website. Most of the recently promoted FAs don't include sheet music info anymore, though I agree this info would be helpful.. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Could the sheet music be cited with a {{cite book}} without directly linking to musicnotes.com? And an attribution of "According to the sheet music published by X, the song is in the key of whatever and has a tempo of about X beats per minute." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @TenPoundHammer: Thank you for the suggestion, I hope I did this correctly. Medxvo (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've responded to your concerns above and am open to suggestions if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think every issue I brought up has been addressed, so I support. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@Medxvo:

• According to Link-dispenser,
  • 2 refs need an archive link.
    • Archived. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• There are 3 instances of duplicated citations; Refs 58&140, 63&139, 70&145.
  • These charts are generated through the chart template, and they are duplicated because of the two versions/two tables. Not sure how to fix that.. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Medxvo: It can be fixed using the |refname= parameter; see template documentation for instructions on how to. Vestrian24Bio 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vestrian24Bio: Thank you, I believe I've fixed this. Medxvo (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Isn't there any news coverage for NBC's 2010 Thanksgiving television special performance... Same for 46th Academy of Country Music Awards performance and Speak Now World Tour – Live as well.
  • Added news coverage (and more useful info). Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Mention "eponymous" album.
  • Could you elaborate please? Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, wrong page. Vestrian24Bio 10:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• There are links equal to wikitext in the page.
  • Should be fixed. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• DUPELINKS check;
  • Banjo guitar is linked twice in the article.
  • Mastering (audio) is linked twice in the article.
  • Country pop is linked twice in the article.
    • Should be fixed. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Media usage: All three files have proper copyright tags, captions and alt text.

Vestrian24Bio 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: Thank you for the review! I believe I've addressed your concerns. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 16:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Image and source (form) review

I see that someone above is already checking some sourcing; will comment on that separately. Out of curiosity, File:Taylor Swift - Mean.ogg why was this particular part selected for sampling? ALT text and image placements are fine. What makes Roughstock a reliable source? CMT is linked inconsistently to different webpages. Otherwise, it looks like the source formatting is consistent and we are using major magazines and stuff as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for the review. The sample features the most upbeat part of the song, which I think highlights the production elements effectively. It also includes the lyrics that are mainly discussed later in the section. I believe it would be beneficial to showcase how these lyrics were incorporated in the song, in addition to the production aspects. Roughstock is listed at WP:MUSICRS as a reliable source for country music-related articles, and their staff page seems to indicate editorial oversight from Matt Bjorke (who wrote the Speak Now review used in this article). I believe I've fixed the CMT inconsistency. Please let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry for the double ping. Just wanted to check if you're satisfied with my responses. Medxvo (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems OK (although I'll comment above on a different thing) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

comments from brachy08

Oh hi! Thanks for inviting me to this FAC. Will be dropping as much comments as I can. =D (it's one of my faves on Speak Now)

• male and woman seem a little... inconsistent not gonna lie. I would recommend changing male to man
  • Changed "woman" to "female" since "male"/"female" are more consistently applied in the article. Medxvo (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Punic Wars

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The Punic Wars: 118 years of enmity, four major wars - the first alone lasted 23 years. Outrageous swings of fortune and a death toll in the millions. Hundreds of significant participants, giving every reviewer the opportunity to complain that I have missed their favourite. I have taken 21 battle, siege and treaty articles from these wars to FA, plus the articles on the 4 constituent wars, and boiled these 25 articles, plus many, many others, down to fewer than 7,500 words. No doubt there are differing opinions as to whether they are the correct 7,500 words. This over-arching article stumbled at the final stage in 2022. I bring it back in the hope that this time it will be considered worthy. So fire away. But a word of warning to all reviewers - please do not pet the elephants. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

MS

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BCas a... There is a typo in this sentence.

Fixed.

• How about using a capital "b" in "battle" as in He was defeated in the battle of Zama...

Most HQ RSs don't capitalise battle, siege, campaign etc in these circumstances, so neither do I. (I was surprised when I discovered this.)

Primary sources

• "Greek" could be delinked here.

Done

Background and origin

• During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC, against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome in Italy and Carthage on Sicily, Carthage provided materiel to the Romans and on at least one occasion provided its navy to ferry a Roman force. The comma after BC could be dropped for clarity.

Indeed. It was inserted by a helpful editor who believes in post-temporal commas. I missed it on my proof read, so dropped with prejudice.

• You could consider clarifying with “a maritime empire (thalassocracy)” for broader accessibility.

Er, it seems pretty accessible to me. I am not entirely sure that this doesn't make it less accessible, but I have gone with your judgement.

That's all for now. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on this so quickly. I am looking forward to your continuing scrutiny.

Opposing forces

• When they did they fought as well-armoured heavy infantry armed with long thrusting spears, although they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined. Using a comma after "did" would help separate the introductory clause.

To my eye it would confuse things, leaving a reader suspecting that the first clause was subordinate.

• Could the first reference of light cavalry be linked rather than the second reference (both in the same section)?

Done.

• with a heavy spike on the underside, which was designed to pierce and anchor into an enemy ship's deck. Could the comma as well as the phrase "which was" be dropped here?

It could.

• The added weight in the prow compromised both the ship's manoeuvrability and its seaworthiness... You could simply write:The added weight in the prow compromised the ship’s manoeuvrability and seaworthiness...

I could, but I prefer including both to emphasise to the maritimely challenged that these are two different things.

• In British English, "partway" is the standard and more commonly accepted form.

Changed.

MSincccc (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

First Punic War

• Much of the First Punic War was fought on, or in the waters near, Sicily. The commas could be dropped in this sentence.

With pleasure.

Carthaginian expansion in Iberia

• In British English, "southeast" is the preferred form.

South East England, South Eastern Railway (England), South East London, South East Wales, South East Water, South East Hockey and BBC South East - to pick just a few of very many - would, taken together, seem to suggest that "south east" is at least a widely used formal alternative.

That's all for now. I have read until just before the Second Punic War. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments

• To be honest, aside from a few minor copy-edits, there's very little to fault in the rest of the article.
• Some of the images—particularly the maps—might raise an MOS:COLOUR concern.

All in all, it was quite a lengthy read, but a well-crafted one. Nicely done, Gog. Support. MSincccc (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (Support)

I don't know if I'll do a full review, but for now, I'll at least leave a drive-by request that you find enough room in your 7.5 kword budget to mention the origin of the word "Punic".

Hi there Roy, did you miss footnote 1 or are you after something more or different? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yeah, I missed the footnote :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to have another go. There have to be lots of things I left out. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• On the map, is it possible to make it say "265 BC" instead of "-265"? Also, comparing the -265 frame to File:CarthageMap.png, which claims to show 264 BC, I see some differences. Most significantly in Sardinia, but also along the North African coast. Any idea why these differ? And also on the technical front, is it possible to make this with some kind of control so the reader can stop it on any particular year for closer study?

Re the gif, I have put in a request at Maps Workshop.

Re the differences. That's due to differences between the sources, both ancient and modern, as to what constitutes "control". Or even how you define it. Especially in mountain or desert areas with few or no settled inhabitants.

• The Punic Wars were a series of wars "series of conflicts" would avoid repetition.

Well yeah, but we're an encyclopedia - they were wars, great big ones; and they're called wars. Shouldn't we make that clear up front, even if it is a trifle infelicitous?

• and involved a total of forty-three years of warfare It could just be my personal peeve, but I find this kind of "and" construction awkward. How about "involving a total of ..."?

Done, but also slightly rephrased.

• before the survivors withdrew Only the survivors?

They left their dead.

• It's a little odd that you refer to "Italy", since that country didn't exist at the time. I think you could get away with it as a colloquialism, except that you go to the trouble of using "what is now Tunisia", "what is now Piedmont", "modern Spain and Portugal", etc in other places.

Italy is - to my mind - a geographical area as well a country. Like Africa, or Malta.

• in 509 BC 348 BC and around 279 BC I think a comma after 509 BC?

Whoops.

• Carthage had a proprietary approach to Sicily what does "a proprietary approach" mean?

Changed to "proprietary attitude towards". Does that work better?

• as well as a short sword and a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield I don't imagine the Romans were using either cm or ft. Do you know what units they were using?

No idea, don't care. Any more than I do for what either the Romans or the Carthaginians used instead of km/mi, directions (S, SE, SSE), or a host of other things.

• Link Balearic Islands

Already linked. (In Background.)

• Link Syracuse to Syracuse, Sicily?

Already linked. (In Background.)

(pick up at Interbellum next time)

• Hannibal arrived with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he left Iberia[74][165] – in what is now Piedmont, northern Italy in early November; the Romans were still in their winter quarters. this is a bit of a long rambling sentence.

Broken into three more digestible ones.

• In Roman defeats, 217–216 BC, it's confusing how many armies there were. You've got "A large Roman army was lured into combat by Hannibal ..."

"A large Roman army was lured into combat by Hannibal at the battle of the Trebia, encircled and destroyed", so stop counting that one.

• "... an army at Arretium and one on the Adriatic coast" so I guess that's three armies, although one was "encircled and destroyed", so maybe just two at this point?

Yes, just two. I think most readers will consider that an army which has been "destroyed" has been, well, destroyed.

• Then later Hannibal attempted to draw the main Roman army, which leaves me wondering which of those were the "main" army.

Good point. Refined to "Hannibal attempted to draw the westernmost of the two Roman armies into a pitched battle ..."

• Then Hannibal ... completely defeated the Roman army: saying "the army" makes it sound like there was just one army

Changed "the" to "this".

• but A cavalry force of 4,000 from the other Roman army says there were two.

Changed "A cavalry force of 4,000 from the other Roman army" to "A cavalry force of 4,000 from the Roman army based at Arretium".

• Are these the same two as the ones at Arretium and the Adriatic coast? This all needs a bit of clarification.

Hopefully the above changes in total clarify the situation. Let me know.

• Hannibal attempted to draw the main Roman army under Gaius Flaminius into a pitched battle by devastating the area they had been sent to protect does "they" refer to Hannibal or Gaius Flaminius?

Ah ha! This now reads "Hannibal attempted to draw the westernmost of the two Roman armies into a pitched battle by devastating the area it had been sent to protect." Is that clearer?

• By early 215 BC they were fielding at least 12 legions; by 214 BC, 18; and by 213 BC, 22 I think "By early 215 BC they were fielding at least 12 legions; two years later they had 18; and a year after that, 22}} would be easier to read.

Ok. Done.

• suborning pro-Roman factions I had to look up what "suborn" means. Is there a more common word that could be used here?

Really! Ok. Done.

• After the second of these Syphax was pursued comma after "these"?

You are winding me up, yes? (That seems as near random as can be.) Just in case it is not dry humour, why?

The first time through, I parsed this as "these Syphax". I didn't know what a Syphax was, but it sounded like a plural noun and "these Syphax" was referring to the several of them. That didn't quite make sense, so I started hunting and found (in the previous section) the explanation that Syphax was a person. So I guess "these" is actually referring to "the two large Carthaginian armies which had been destroyed by Scipio"? Adding a comma would make that more clear, with no winding required.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. Comma inserted.

• after confused fighting they broke into the city, but, lost in the dark, withdrew, this use of "lost" had me thinking "lost the battle" until I figured it out. How about "disoriented"?

Ah, yes. Good point. I have changed to "becoming disoriented in the dark".

• killing everyone they encountered and firing the buildings behind them Maybe an American/British thing, but "firing" to me means "terminating employment". How about "setting fire to" or "burning"?

Switched to "burning" to be more colonial-friendly. ;-)

OK, that's it for a full reading from me. Overall, this is really nice. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith and thanks for the review. All of your comments are addressed above. Thanks for identifying some of the lumpier bits, hopefully it reads a little more smoothly now. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not competent to judge the "comprehensive" or "well-researched" aspects of this, but am happy to support as far as "well-written" goes. RoySmith (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti

Presently teaching this conflict! Will afford me a chance to brush up and make sure my students have the highest-quality source freely available. Will review sometime in next week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Image Review by Unlimitedlead - Pass

I can confirm that all seems well as far as the graphics are concerned. My only points of contention are 1) that there are not nearly enough commas and 2) whether we can get File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png in English. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Afternoon UL. So far the requests for commas to be removed v requests for commas to be added is 3:1. :-)

Re translating the map, you don't like latin? I could put a request in at the map workshop. I assume that you are only thinking of having the key translated? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just the key is fine. Hopefully it can be done with minimal hassle! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi UL, an update. The request is in with the Map Workshop, and I have also run it past a couple of editors who may have the requisite skills. I'll let you know when/if any results come through. Is there anything else standing in the way of an image pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No, that is all. Let me know when we're in the clear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings again UL. Done, thanks to Harrias's technical skills. (My hero!) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Cool beans. Passed image review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

UC

Various more-or-less inconclusive discussions

A couple of quick comments for now: The "Aftermath" section is, as far as I can tell, all true, but seems very light on detail by comparison with other war FAs. See for instance Pontiac's War, Rwandan Civil War, or indeed Second Punic War, where the comparable section ("Roman victory") is twice the length (and, honestly, I think is still rather lighter than it ought to be). In particular, I think we need some mention of the tremendous cultural impact of the Punic Wars in Rome (see for instance Elena Giusti's Big Book on the topic), and almost certainly the name of Virgil connected to that. There is no requirement, recommendation nor suggestion regarding the length of an "Aftermath", nor even a requirement that there be one. I am happy to write longer aftermaths when I feel they are called for. I suspect that Battle of Dunbar (1650) is more to your taste, or perhaps Battle of Poitiers. I can also produce as evidence more immediately relevant and not overly diminutive aftermaths such as First Punic War, Battle of Zama or the one you mention, Second Punic War. Aftermaths tend to be longer when events are ongoing. In many ways the Punic Wars ended with Zama, and everything after that is aftermath; quite possibly given undue weight in this article, but one follows the sources. I mean, Carthage wasn't even the most important city the Romans destroyed that year; the Third War was already a footnote and leaves little more to say. I am resolutely against the inclusion of cultural, or pretty much any other, "influences" in articles on warfare. The Romans no doubt wrote about, sang about, carved, painted and re-enacted Gauls, Greeks and, occasionally, Carthaginians. No doubt there is a fascinating series of articles in there, but this isn't one of them. Even when one may want to pad out an undernourished-looking aftermath. The sources don't do it - the books and collections on the wars that is. Miles does, but he is writing a history of Carthage. Influences are the thin end of the wedge, they rapidly lead via the influence of the Punic Wars on Renaissance painting to cricketers traversing the Alps accompanied by puzzled pachyderms. I could make a strong case for including the influence of the Punic Wars on causing both the outbreak of First World War (via the Schlieffen Plan) and the outcome of the Gulf War (due to Norman Schwarzkopf's desire to emulate Cannae) but neither are going in there is a line. There are three chapters in Blackwell's Companion on the aftermath/afterlife of the wars -- we cite two, with one citation each, to the total effect of Numerous large Punic cities ... were permitted to retain their Punic system of government. A century later, the site of Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city by Julius Caesar; it became one of the main cities of Roman Africa by the time of the Empire. This is all to the good, but is it really a fair summary of the key points made there? Lazenby, in his chapter on the wars here, similarly goes into detail on the aftermath and consequences of the war, talking about the impact of the war particularly on the institutions and politics of Rome. I note that one of the chapters in the Blackwell companion (Brizzi, currently uncited) is specifically about cultural memory. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Working on this. Part way through a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC) As you will have gathered, we seem to differ a little on how much (and thus what, or perhaps vice versa) to put into the aftermath of this one. I don't see a need for much more than there is. But, given the usual good sense of your suggestions, and what is in the sources you mention, I'll see what I can do. Some thoughts/points. Re "There are three chapters in Blackwell's Companion on the aftermath/afterlife of the wars ... is [the current Aftermath] really a fair summary of the key points made there?" It may be, or may not. No article nor section is required nor even supposed to be a summary of a source. I hope that the Aftermath is a fair summary of the scholarly consensus and gives the main points of it due weight in the context of the article - in this case a brief encyclopedia article on a series of wars. I think it is the due weight area that you are unhappy with. [?] so let me see what I can do to edge towards an acceptable compromise. Rereading Brizzi I really can't find anything appropriate for the aftermath, not even when straining. Did you have anything in mind? Richardson: I don't see that there is anything to be gained by adding key points concerning the Romans ongoing campaigns in Hispania, nor the role of the site of Carthage in the abortive Gracchian land reforms. (Do you differ?) I am unenthusiastic about adding details from as late as the early Imperial period, but see below for a possibility. Fantar seems passably well mined to me. But see below for a possible slight expansion. Lazenby: "talking about the impact of the war particularly on the institutions and politics of Rome." Actually, he doesn't. He does make a comment that the 2PW disturbances to Italian agriculture "were clearly factors behind the period of revolution that began with the Gracchi in 133 and 123 BC." 80 years later? Oh, come on! Absent considerable support from other sources that is not going in. I could put in something about ongoing poor relationships with the allies leading to the Social War, 125 years after Hannibal started poking at that weak point if you wish. But to me the connection seems too tenuous to be included. A proposed lightly expanded aftermath is below. What do you think? Rome was determined that the city of Carthage remain in ruins. The Senate despatched a ten-man commission and Scipio was ordered to carry out further demolitions. A curse was placed on anyone who might attempt to resettle the site in the future. The former site of the city was confiscated as ager publicus, public land. The remaining Carthaginian territories were annexed by Rome and reconstituted to become the Roman province of Africa with Utica as its capital. The province became a major source of grain and other foodstuffs for Rome. Numerous large Punic cities, such as those in Mauretania, were taken over by the Romans, although they were permitted to retain their Punic system of government and culture. The Romans did not interfere in the locals' private lives and Punic culture, language and religion survived, and is known to modern scholars as "Neo-Punic civilization". The Punic language continued to be spoken in north Africa until the 7th century AD. A century later, the site of Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city by Julius Caesar; it became one of the main cities of Roman Africa by the time of the Empire. Rome still exists as the capital of Italy; the ruins of Carthage lie 24 kilometres (15 mi) east of Tunis on the North African coast. References Part of this is a difference of philosophy, and I am trying hard to avoid falling into the trap of "I would do this differently, therefore your way is wrong" -- that's not right and it wouldn't be fair. However -- I do think we need some discussion of the long-term impact of the wars (particularly the 2PW) on Rome -- I believe Brunt's Italian Manpower goes into some detail on how many Italians were killed and the impact this had on Italian agriculture and the state's recruitment pool. Hopkins's Conquerors and Slaves would be another "obvious" place to look, despite its age and increasing creakiness on points of detail. I also tracked down Michael Taylor's DPhil thesis, which has a lot (and, more importantly, cites a fair bit) on the economic and political impacts of the 2PW. Clearly, this needs to be handled judiciously, as this article is about the wars as a whole, but by the same token, major changes that emerged as a result of one of the wars form part of the picture of what happened as a result of the whole. I may need to do some more reading to have a firmer idea of exactly what I'd think of as must-say points here, but I think we need something to mark how the Punic Wars were -- politically, militarily, economically, administratively -- a turning point for the Roman state. Now for the philosophical bit: I do think that at least some articles on battles/wars aren't complete without at least some discussion of the cultural impact of them. I'd include Battle of Thermopylae, and probably Battle of Britain there -- any article which didn't discuss how important they have become as stories would at least be missing something. I'm hesitating to go as far as to say that this is definitely in the same boat, but equally struggling to see that we don't need at least some acknowledgement of the massive role of the wars (and the end of Carthage as the "auld enemy") in the Roman collective psyche, as a major aspect of the way that these wars have been written about in scholarship. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have an FA on a really "transformative" war to use as precedent either way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Ah, enlightening. I am not much convinced that the Punic wars were either "transformative" or "a turning point" - politically, militarily, economically or administratively and see little support in the sources for it. In your previous comment you specified four sources; on examination they had little to nothing new along these lines. Now there are three more - two of which you seem to be querying even as you mention them and the third a thesis. How does Taylor meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Dissertations? PhD theses are just about allowed as RS, but are not usually considered to be the HQ sources FAC requires. "Turning point" wars: Second War of Scottish Independence, Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) and Mercenary War (PS Winter War? Rwandan Civil War?) are all FAs and one could at least make the case. And, as you point out, many of the effects which might at least be considered for inclusion in this article would fit under one or another of the constituent wars rather than in the aftermath of the wars as a whole. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC) This certainly is a philosophical one. To some extent, this is a "group biography": we wouldn't say that an article on the Flower Pot Men couldn't say anything about Bill that didn't also apply to Ben. Now, there's a confounding factor here that the wars didn't end with the big one, so to be really convicing we'd have to argue that the effects of the 2PW lasted beyond the end of the 3PW -- personally, I think that criterion is met here, particularly in saying (for example) what it meant for Rome to occupy most of Spain and all of Sicily, to have a navy, and to administer provinces. We don't currently have an "effects" or "legacy" section, which would be the natural place for this. However, at the moment I'm leaning towards "I would have done this differently" rather than "it's wrong if you don't do this". I'll leave this one for now, but might carry on looking for sources -- in the meantime, I'll come back in a bit and do the usual UC nitpick. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC) That seems sensible. In particular it seems helpful to separate any additions to Aftermath from any possible Legacy section. And within the former to distinguish between what, if anything, we may wish to put at the end of the individual war as opposed to the overall aftermath. Re the last point, if you are scrabbling around for sources then it seems to me that this is something which could be done at leisure after the FAC has closed. I don't have any problem with adding that, for example, the administrative or military structure of Roman politics or of the Roman army was changed by either one of the wars or the Punic Wars in general. So long as there is a solid consensus of sources, or sufficient for us to put "Some scholars argue that ..." Your call obviously, but it may take any time pressure of wading through a sea of sources off you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC) It might. The key question is whether I can swallow my reservations about supporting an FA on this topic that doesn't have, for want of a less crude phrasing, a section that decisively answers "why do people say this thing is so important?". I remember being advised, just before nominating my first academic biography, to make sure that it addressed how Panagiotis Kavvadias left the scholarly world different to how he found it -- I think that was very good advice, even though the topic might not be said to call for it so loudly as this one. I'm not sure I'm there yet, but I'm trying to keep the prospect open. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Having spent a ridiculously large proportion of the past six years hip deep in the Punic Wars my off-the-cuff response is that they weren't (so important). Just sticking with Roman wars the various wars against the Gauls were almost certainly more significant - politically, militarily, economically, administratively. For the Greek wars remove the "almost". The Punic Wars called for huge efforts but when they were over, they were over. Bar some technical bits around building and operating war fleets, cross-marine logistics and projecting (armed) force. Politically, militarily, economically, administratively - nope, not so that you would much notice. As I say, off the cuff and top level and happy to be overwhelmed by a mass of contradictory sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Each war involved immense material and human losses on both sides.: isn't that true of most wars? We might be hindered here by not having a section that's explicitly analytical rather than narrative about the wars' outcomes, but as far as I can see, we don't make a claim that these wars were unusually destructive by ancient/world standards. I think we would need to do so to justify this under MOS:LEAD. Some are, many aren't. I can cite it, but you are correct, it isn't overtly there in the main article. I'll take it out. As novice shipwrights, the Romans: the Romans were not novice shipwrights at all, though the Roman state was new to constructing military ships. Absolutely correct. I am unsure how that snuck in. Changed to what I meant to say. A small typo has snuck in here. Personally, I'd be interested in some detail as to how the procurement happened (partly because I have an instinctive "yuck" reaction to "Age of Empires" explanations whereby "the Greeks", "the Romans" or whatever build stuff and it just seems to pop into being) -- what did "[the] Romans set out to construct a fleet" actually look like -- voting money for the purchase of ships? Who actually built them? In Athens, for example, it would have involved wealthy citizens "volunteering" to buy ships, either abroad or within the city; construction being overseen by elected state officials, and physically built by people who might be regular carpenters in times of peace, and might have been working under terms of conscription. However, I appreciate we might not know: I know the imperial navy is not totally unstudied, but I don't think I've seen much written on that of the Republic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC) That's an interesting point. I have come across very little on that side of things. I was thinking that I must have put something into some lower level articles, but no. Bar the decisive battle of 2PW (the battle of the Aegates) where (my words) With the state's coffers exhausted, the Senate approached Rome's wealthiest citizens for loans to finance the construction of one ship each, repayable from the reparations to be imposed on Carthage once the war was won, and to donate slaves as oarsmen. The result was a fleet of approximately 200 quinqueremes, built, equipped, and crewed without government expense. The Romans modelled the ships of their new fleet on the vessel captured from Hannibal the Rhodian. By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding and with a proven vessel as a model produced high-quality quinqueremes. Importantly, the corvus was abandoned, which improved the ships' speed and handling but forced a change in tactics on the Romans; they would need to be superior sailors, rather than superior soldiers, to beat the Carthaginians. If it were me, I might include a very executive summary here -- that the ship-building was financed by loans from wealthy citizens, that these loans were to be repaid by the spoils of war ("reparations" is pretty euphemistic!), and that the crews were formed of slaves "donated" by said wealthy citizens. It's not only interesting, but a good insight into the operation of the Roman state at this time, and useful to give a sense of the nature of the Roman fleet that resulted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC) I suspect I wasn't clear. That arrangement was a one time only occurrence, noted by the primary sources - one assumes - because it was so unusual. I remember before I nominating First Punic War scouring the modern sources for the sort of detail we (well, you) are talking about and coming up with zilch. It does leave a hole. There are some scattered bits and pieces so I get a rough mental picture, but not something I could put into an article without being very synth. Or have I misunderstood you? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Was that the initial model of funding for the navy? If so, I still think it's useful: if it's just an odd thing that happened in the middle of a war, not so much. You may be ahead of me, but looking for general sources on the Republican navy, I see the book reviewed here, this article (which argues that Rome did not suddenly become a naval power during the Punic Wars), and a bit in this chapter on how the early navy was organised. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC) It was an odd, non-standard, one-off arrangement born of desperation and financial exhaustion after 20 years of continuous war. The navy so created did win the battle which ended the 1PW, but still, as you write "not so much". Steinby is great, but doesn't bring anything new to the table. Note the reviewer's response to "Roman naval history starts early": "the supporting evidence which is presented for this position is slight (pp. 32-34) and for the most part highly speculative ... The evidence for naval activity prior to the First Punic War is slim at best and is, in the end, analysed in a highly speculative manner." Steinby more or less doesn't cover any of the aspects we are interested in here; the review goes chapter by chapter and even from just that I think you can ascertain this. I like Harris, I cite him - not this paper - in other articles. I have this paper and assume I went through it prior to nomination, but I'll go through it again - possibly not today - and get back to you. (I am unsure why I didn't spuriously cite something from it just to prove I'd read it, but I didn't. Ah well.) Potter has barely two pages on the navy and his one comment on organisation is hedged with "we have little direct evidence on this point, it appears that ... If it is correct to generalize from the evidence of the later imperial fleets ... we may surmise that ..." The bit of Potter that stood out to me was The First Punic War saw a radical change in the structure of the Roman fleet. In the fourth and early third centuries b.c., we hear of officials known as the duumviri navales who commanded a fleet of twenty ships. ... [and] it is likely that the main purpose of these ships was to control piracy. This fleet appears to have been replaced in 278 BC, when the Roman state decided to depend entirely on the naval forces of allied states. The existence of a large seafaring population would prove decisive in the years of the first war with Carthage, for, while Rome assumed responsibility for building the necessary ships, it required the preexisting skills of naval architects throughout Italy to help in the actual construction of the ships. I think there's some useful context there, particularly in the fact that Rome had the use of warships immediately before the 1PW, even if they were technically held by the allies, and that these allies were critical to the building of the "real" Roman fleet -- again, it helps to do away with the popular narrative that "nobody in Rome had ever got their feet wet until, suddenly, they magicked a war-winning navy out of nowhere". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC) :-) We're not here to right great wrongs, but I don't see why we can't apply a slight tweak. I've seen another source who will support that, so bear with me while I hunt it down. (Was it Harris?) We are getting into the weeds here, and somewhat away from where this part of the thread started. done. According to the classicist Richard Miles, Rome had an expansionary attitude: I know that we've hedged this as Miles's point of view (though would also observe that he's writing in a mass-market book here rather than an academic one), but I'm really not happy with this kind of anthropomorphism -- it's dangerous for any state, even a modern one, but especially misleading for Rome. As many wise heads have pointed out, the Roman system makes it particularly complicated to project any kind of single agency or long-term strategy onto it -- we have absolute executive power invested in two potentially (often?) antagonistic men, who get carted away and changed every year! I don't think the sourcing helps you here, as we would naturally expect even a careful scholar to simplify things somewhat when writing for the general public, and oversimplification is precisely the problem at hand. Well quite. And put three classicists in a room for long enough and they'll give you four reasons for the 1PW starting. I have just reread Hoyos on this ("The Outbreak of War"). I like his analytical approach to the sources. He has his own take, but pretty much agrees that "stumble into war more by accident than design" and especially that war was more or less inevitable. (Summarised on pages 145-147.) A quick skim elsewhere suggests that most sources more or less agree. (Although I spotted a "This is a clear case where the factors within the Roman political system seen as favouring expansion did come into play and were the prime cause of a war", so I feel a need to be careful." What do you feel about something like 'As Rome and Carthage came closer to sharing a joint border the chances of misunderstandings and hostilities increased. In the event they stumbled into war more by accident than design, with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict." I know, I know, but for summary style, how would it do? Let me see if I can have a look at Hoyos: I think it's better, but I expect we can probably do something about the MOS:CLICHE of stumbled into war more by accident than design. I'm still not totally happy with with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict -- again, empires and cities do not have personalities, minds or expectations, though the people in them do -- but it's less important here because we're explicitly disavowing an anthropomorphic mode of explanation. That change is definitely a step forward, anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC) I shall put it in for now (while I have the sources open) then and we can both brood on't. The modern historian Andrew Curry: from what I can gather, Curry is a journalist, and very much not a Polybius scholar. Given that those are not a rare breed, he seems an odd choice here. (In passing, I'm not a huge fan of "this historian is reliable" vs "this historian is unreliable" as a useful mode of analysis, but I may have to swallow it here). Curry's comment removed and replaced with one from Goldsworthy. Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus;: Diodorus was writing in 21 BCE, which would be very impressive indeed if he were indeed contemporary with the Punic Wars. Colon added. We have a rather nasty sandwich in the First Punic War section (including the subhead "Course") between map and navbox. While this isn't strictly outlawed by the letter of the MoS, which only covers images, it would seem to fall within the spirit of not creating overly-thin chunks of text. On my screen, it reduces the first line to eight words. Better? Much. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire during the period 264 to 146 BC: I'm not sure about "Carthaginian Empire" here as a proper-noun way of referring to the polity. It does come up in print, but relatively rarely, and usually as "Carthaginian empire" to talk about the geographical extent of Carthage's territories -- see Walter Scheidel here, who does talk about the "Carthaginian Empire" (though tends to avoid the phrase when he can) in the sense of "the spread of Carthaginian control over the western Mediterranean), but refers to the state that makes the decisions and takes the actions as "Carthage". Carthage was just as much a republic as Rome was, and for much of the period in question, Rome was more of an empire than Carthage was, so I think the Republic/Empire distinction is unfortunate. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Grabbing a source at random (Hoyos's Companion) Ameling starts his section on "The Structure of the Carthaginian State" with "Carthage was an aristocratic state and a city-state, in other words, its structures did not really evolve with the changing conditions and the growth of the Carthaginian empire." and titles a section "The Carthaginian Empire". Bleckmann uses it more casually "the grain-rich island of Sardinia above all, which was particularly important to the Carthaginian empire." Elsewhere Pilkington has published The Carthaginian Empire. For several hundred other scholarly usages see [9].

Yes -- those uses make my point, though I may not have expressed it very well. The term is used for "the wide territorial possessions that Carthage had" (like, sometimes, "Athenian empire" or "Angevin empire"), but not as a metonym for the state -- we don't have e.g. "the Carthaginian Empire declared war on Rome", "Hannibal was a general of the Carthaginian Empire", or similar, just as we don't generally say "Pericles was a major statesman in the Athenian Empire" (additionally, the overwhelming preference is for "empire" in lc, which is not unrelated to the point here). I think "between the Roman Republic and Carthage" would be better and a closer fit for how those terms are used in practice. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BC as a result of Rome's expansionary attitude: I'm not sure this is (any more) a good summary of what's in the article (and it's anthropomorphic). We don't really say why the 1PW started in the article (we say that the "spark" was the desire to control Sicily, but we don't clearly divide that from the Battle of Messana, which is part of the war). I might be tempted to go more low-level here and say something like "when Rome sent forces to assist the Mamertine mercenaries, occupying the city-state of Messana, in their war against Syracuse". However, I must admit I'm not totally clear why, from the 1PW article, sending a garrison to a city already garrisoned by another state meant that the two necessarily had to fight each other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that is (quite a bit) too fine grained for this sort of very general overview article. One could readily write a whole article on this, as scholars have written whole papers. While I am not wedded to the current form of words it seems to me to do a workmanlike enough job.

Perhaps, but I think you now have a MOS:LEAD problem -- as I read it, the corresponding bits of body text are, roughly, As Rome and Carthage came closer to sharing a joint border the chances of misunderstandings and hostilities increased. In the event they stumbled into war more by accident than design, with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict ... The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina). I cannot read The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BC as a result of Rome's expansionary attitude as a summary of that -- have I misunderstood the lead–body correspondence here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Break

• Is "mainland Italy" an overlink?

Yes.

• This expedition enjoyed considerable early success and campaigned in Italy for fourteen years before the survivors withdrew: the use of "the survivors" hints that we've missed an important change in the campaign's fortunes over those fourteen years.

Why? A reader would hardly expect every single member of the expedition to have survived.

No, but I would suggest including the important fact that they ended up firmly on the back foot in Italy, even before they were forced to withdraw. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

* Suggest pulling the link on "armed forces" to cover the "its", so we don't expect the link to go to "armed forces" per se.

Good point.

* This caused Carthage to cease to be a military threat.: add to Rome?

It turned out to be to any one! But I take your point.

* Link on "defend itself" might be better on "attempted to defend itself". It's a bit of an Easter egg, to be honest.

It is a bit. I've take it out.

• In 151 BC Carthage attempted to defend itself against Numidian encroachments and Rome used this as a justification to declare war in 149 BC: I think these would be better joined with a semicolon rather than and, since only one of them happened in 151 BC.

Done.

* I wasn't expecting the link on "Carthaginian" (in the footnote) to go to "History of Carthage". Colour me at least somewhat astonished.

I suspect that was a "helpful" drive by and I missed it. I do some daft things, but hopefully not that daft!

* He is best known for The Histories,: better as "best known for the Histories". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Done.

* The map shows approximate extent of territory controlled by Rome and Carthage immediately before the start of the First Punic War: The approximate extent -- or just cut The map shows? Also suggest "controlled by Rome, Carthage and Syracuse", since most of the Greek isn't (the city of) Syracuse.

Done.

* Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts: did Goldsworthy really write that -- not differs from or disagrees with? Sloppy subeditors at Phoenix, perhaps.

He really, really did.

It would be catty to write "differs [from]", or even worse, to [sic] him, wouldn't it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. :-)

• Why is Goldsworthy a classicist but Craige Champion not? Goldsworthy's first degree was in history, although I think his DPhil was technically classics.

There is a degree of both inserting a bit of variety from me and of I can't be bothered to wade through first, second, third degrees and later possibly changing specialisations. If you feel I have any wrong, or simply not to your taste, feel free to change them.

* is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant: I am also going to quibble this line. In particular, Livy is often used for different things -- in particular, you'll find a lot of Livy in treatments of how the Roman army actually worked on a micro scale, and on "face of battle" type history (Sam Koon's work springs to mind here). How about amending "historians, particularly where..."?

Livy is widely considered a military incompetent by many modern HQ military historians. They are correct. If he makes a statement on a Koon type area (Koon's "Phalanx and Legion" is IMO excellent) there is a substantially non-zero chance he is wrong and in some cases laughably so. Whereas Polybius had actually commanded real troops. That is in passing. Your suggestion is an improvement and has been implmented.

* Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; and later writers such as Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius.: not sure about the colon at the start here. I know it's introducing a list, but to me it reads more naturally without.

I marginally prefer it, but I can see where you are coming from and so removed.

* empirical evidence from reconstructions, such as the trireme Olympias.: does Goldsworthy explicitly name-drop Olympias? I only bring it up because, as far as I know, triremes played a fairly minor role in any of the Punic Wars, and Olympias is modelled on one from the 5th century. As you point out later, Olympias also handles and would fight rather differently to a quinquereme.

Goldsworthy: "The full-scale reconstruction of an Athenian trireme and its extensive sea trials in the 1980s AD has greatly increased our knowledge." And so on to give details. Let me know if you would like me to dig out arguments that quinqueremes were so ubiquitous that Polybius uses the term to cover all war ships, even when they are demonstrably/arguably not fives.

No, this is fine -- all we need here is for G. to vouch that it's been used. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• It had conquered peninsular Italy south of the Arno River by 270 BC when the Greek cities of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) submitted after the conclusion of the Pyrrhic War.: this is a bit clumsy: what we mean is that this surrender completed the conquest of that region, not that Rome suddenly conquered the whole region (which, of course, includes Rome itself) in in that moment. How about "By 270 BC, when the last Greek cities of southern Italy ..., it had conquered all of..."?

Done.

* Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate: I would favour thinking of Carthage as a city with an empire, like Rome, so Carthage is in Tunisia. We wouldn't say "Rome, with its capital in Italy", or "Athens, with its capital in Attica".

Yes, I would indeed say "Rome, with its capital in Italy" if I was writing something I wouldn't expect a reader to already know. Much as I might write "The Seleucid Empire, with its new capital at Antioch in north-west Syria".

I'm not sure those two are equivalent -- but I'm me and you're you, and this is a perfectly acceptable point on which to differ. Struck.

* Relationships were good: relations is the normal term in diplomacy, I think.

The first sentence of Rankov "The First Punic War transformed Rome’s relationship not just with Carthage but with the whole of the Mediterranean world." The first sentence of Lomas "The Second Punic War was a watershed in the relationship between Rome andthe other peoples of Italy." Etc. Which means I should have written 'The relationship was good'. But changed.

Yup -- singular not plural. But either works. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

* the two states had several times: thrice?

Oh come on. I know I write in an old-fashioned style, but let us retain some reader friendliness. Plus, do we know it was only thrice? Scardigli for example list four.

It was the precision more than the archaism I was after, but if there's doubt, stick with what we have. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

* Detail from the Ahenobarbus relief showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC: I would suggest a slight rephrase to be clear that the relief is itself from the late C2nd -- it could be a modern relief that depicts soldiers from a long time ago.

Done.

* I would treat velites as a Latin word and italicise (in a template).

Quite a few dictionaries consider it to be an English-language word - [10]

Very well (though I'm not sure I could wear "a velite", as some of those suggest). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

* a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield: false precision, perhaps? It's pretty debated as to how standard these bits of equipment were, so I wonder whether "large, rectangular shield approximately 3 feet in height" or similar might be better. "90-centimetre" suggests "not 80 and not 100", and I'm not sure we can really do that given that we have exactly none of them to go and measure. Even on the relief, the soldier on the right has a shield a good 10% longer than the other guy.

We can't use imperial measurements as our primary units. Amusingly, Goldsworthy states "a circular shield 3 feet (40 cm) in diameter". In other works Goldsworthy doesn't give a size, Bagnall goes with "three feet". My trusty Roman Military Equipment disappointingly does not cover velite shields at all. I think I am going to go with "a large circular shield".

Can't we? Anyway, that works. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

* they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined: I would like to know who said this -- if it's the Romans, I think we need to fess up to that.

The cite is to Goldsworthy, although there are similar passing mentions elsewhere; he doesn't specify where he draws the information from. OR alert: given that the citizen phalanx - unlike most Carthaginian troops - was at best a militia - those who had had the Xanthippus treatment excepted - was at best a militia I would be astonished if he wasn't on the money.

Not a lot you can do here -- although professional soldiers were the exception in this period rather than the norm, so whether they would have stood out in that company might be debateable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

* Many were from North Africa and these were frequently referred to as "Libyans".: by whom?

That is more of an editorial comment by me to help out readers ("Libyan" = North African). I have tweaked the phrasing slightly ("Many were from North Africa and these are usually referred to as Libyans.") but cannot find a source which actually defines the word they throw around so readily.

* Hyphenate "close-order infantry" (and "light-infantry skirmishers").

Done.

• citizen-militia: not sure this one should be hyphenated, however, when standing as a noun.

Unhyphenated.

• If either commander felt at a disadvantage, he might march off without engaging. In such circumstances it was difficult to force a battle if the other commander was unwilling to fight: I don't really get the if here -- if the other commander was marching off, surely he was necessarily unwilling to fight?

No, he might be quite willing to fight in general, but not at that precise time, place or circumstances - ie, if he "felt at a disadvantage".

OK, so why not cut "if the other commander was unwilling to fight" -- after all, doesn't force require that the other person isn't willing? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Done.

• Quinqueremes, meaning "five-oarsmen": the word unambiguously means "five-oars", but Goldsworthy may be correctly nudging it because we don't believe that was literally true.

Nah. I am trying to paraphrase "derives its name from".

Ah -- that's not a good paraphrase, unfortunately. An ambulance derives its name from a walking medical team in the First World War, but ambulances don't walk. More importantly, "the quinquereme derives it names from 'five-oarsmen'" is at best only very indirectly true: it's a kinda-translation of the Greek term πεντήρης, which itself comes from τριήρης, and people debate whether the end bit of that is actually "rower" or just the root of the verb "row". Could we just explain what they were -- the heaviest type of warship in general use in the Hellenistic period? I'm not sure it particularly matters that there were (probably) five rowers in each vertical section, especially as we're not exactly sure how that "five" was made up. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Done.

* the workhorses of the Roman and Carthaginian fleets: suggest a rephrase for MOS:IDIOM (potentially confusing, as well: do we mean the ships that did the literal heavy work of transporting the most stuff, logistical/mechanical work, etc?)

Changed to "main components".

* In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and: Rome or the Romans.

Done.

• The Romans were unaccustomed to building quinqueremes: as we discussed above, it seems like at least a lot of the shipwrights in question weren't actually Romans.

I don't see how that effects the accuracy or relevance of the statement.

It affects the relevance massively: if the Romans weren't the ones building the ships, it doesn't particularly matter how experienced they were at doing so. What matters is that the many Italian shipwrights contracted by the Roman state, many/most of whom were actually non-Roman allies, may have been experienced at building other ships, but not these ones. A fairly simple change (from "the Romans" to "Italian shipwrights" or similar) would fix here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Tweaked to "The Romans and their allies ..."

* At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively: I'd quite like a basis for this number: which part of his body has de Souza plucked it from?

Ah. You have me dead to rights. I have over stretched my paraphrasing and will delete that sentence, rolling de Souza's thoughts in with Casson's.

* employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming.: not sure I like traditional here -- there wasn't any "tradition" about it, it was just the only good way of using your boat to put a hole in someone else's boat.

That depends on many things, but I have no particular interest in "traditional". Changed to "more common".

• Does "city-state" have a hyphen in it? We vary.

A sample of dictionaries has a majority giving both as alternatives.

Fine, but we should pick one for this article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Done.

* the only substantial, independent power on the island: I would lose the comma here for total clarity -- I don't think it adds much, and makes clear that other powers were either substantial or independent.

Done. I am always happy to remove a comma.

* was badly defeated at the battle of Akragas. That night the Carthaginian garrison escaped: suggest the night after the battle -- battles don't necessarily happen in the day or take a single one.

Done.

* It is possible that the presence of the corvus, making the Roman ships unusually unseaworthy, contributed to this disaster; there is no record of their being used again: lang template on corvus. As you'll surely remember, corvus is 2nd declension, not 4th, so can't be plural: we therefore either need to pluralise it in the first sentence as corvi or keep it singular in the second ("its being used again.").

Or we could consider it an English-language word, as several dictionaries do, including Wiktionary and the OED on line. I know I have gone for it being Latin, but I now feel that was a mistake.

I'd accept that, but then we should still treat it as singular (none of the OED quotes that I can see without an account pluralise it). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Wiktionary states "plural corvuses or corvi".

I'm sure you're including that purely for interest rather than to imply that Wiktionary is a reliable source -- or maybe just to taunt me with the awful prospect of corvuses. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• On Sicily the Romans avoided battle in 252 and 251 BC: Why on Sicily here, given that all the previous battling was on Sicily?

* We might consider calling Lilybaeum by its Punic name ("Lilýbaion"), much as we call Agrigentum by its Greek one, before the Roman conquest.

I would prefer to go with what the sources universally call it.

• Polybius regarded the war as "the longest, most continuous and most severely contested war known to us in history": consider adding the Polybius citation to the footnote, for those who want to read more or verify it.
• The immense effort of repeatedly building large fleets of galleys during the war laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance, which was to last 600 years: are we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? After all, fast foward less than two centuries, and Rome will be (apparently) unable to stop pirates from sailing up the Tiber with impunity. I need some convincing that Rome really held "maritime dominance" over (in particular) Egypt in 241.
• This breach of the recently signed treaty is considered by modern historians to be the single greatest cause of war with Carthage breaking out again in 218 BC in the Second Punic War.: just checking that one of the three citations makes the meta-judgement that it is considered this (rather than just saying that they consider it to be so?) Ditto, earlier, Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral between Carthaginian and Roman points of view.

* their previously-established colony: no hyphen here.

"ly"! Groan.

• An army had previously been created by the Romans to campaign in Iberia and the Roman Senate detached one Roman and one allied legion from it to send to north Italy: northern Italy -- but I would also consider reworking the long, clunky passive.

* Was it a conscious choice to use "New Carthage" rather than Carthago Nova?

Yes. The sources are about evenly split and when I can I prefer to use English on the English-language Wikipedia.

• the battle of the Rhône Crossing: the capitalisation here seems odd, since "Rhone Crossing" isn't really a proper noun -- it's like we've suddenly decided to use "traditional" capitalisation halfway through.
• Consistent diacritics needed on "Rhone".
• what is now Piedmont, northern Italy in early November: comma after northern Italy.
• The Carthaginians captured the chief city of the hostile Taurini Gauls (in the area of modern Turin) and seized its food stocks: is city really the right word here?
• Only 10,000 Romans out of 42,000 were able to cut their way to safety: at the risk of being a spoilsport, I would call MOS:IDIOM and replace with something dull like "escape". Can we really be sure that none of the 10,000 got out by bludgeoning, dodging, playing dead or some other means?
• Hannibal set an ambush and in the battle of Lake Trasimene completely defeated this Roman army, killing 15,000 Romans: and no allies?
• These allied states provided more than half of "Rome's" military manpower: the MoS doesn't really like scare quotes, and it's usually better to find a way of making the implicit subtext explicit. "These allies provided more than half of the military manpower used by the Roman state"?
• Hoping that the ethnic Greek and Italic states of southern Italy in particular could be persuaded to defect he marched deeper into Italy: that's a giant perambulatory clause -- I think we definitely need a comma after defect, or else a rephrase.
• the Roman army, public and senate: cap Senate.

Done.

• the richest and most fertile provinces of Italy: Italy didn't have provinces at this time.

You are correct of course - and rephrased - but the source cited disagrees.

• both were more aggressive-minded than Fabius: not a usual idiom in print: aggressively minded

Done.

• who accepted battle on the open plain near Cannae.: is it worth giving a vague idea of where that was?

Done.

• Libyan heavy infantry on the wings swung around their advance, menacing their flanks: might be a bit too flamboyant: threatening?

I like menace for its additional meaning of "An annoying and bothersome person or thing."

• Another Carthaginian commander named Hasdrubal, not the same man as Hasdrubal Barca, one of Hannibal's younger brothers, led the Carthaginian cavalry on the left wing which routed the Roman cavalry opposite: clearer, I think, if you use dashes or brackets for the "not the same man..." clause -- it's quite a run-on sentence otherwise.

Done. Much better.

• enrolling slaves, criminals and those who did not meet the usual property qualification: there's an unintentional comedy to the order of this tricolon ("and worst of all...!"). To take you way back to the "Armies" section, we said that Most male Roman citizens were liable for military service and would serve as infantry, but didn't actually clarify that the most meant "except the poor" -- later, we talked about the velites as poorer or younger men unable to afford the armour and equipment of a standard legionary, so it's now a bit of a surprise to find out that there was another tier of poverty below them.
• Hannibal repeatedly defeated Roman armies, in 209 BC both consuls were killed in a cavalry skirmish: semicolon here, not a comma. What were both consuls doing in the same cavalry skirmish, incidentally?
• The siege was marked by the ingenuity of Archimedes in inventing war machines to counteract the traditional siege warfare methods of the Romans: It's a little sub judice whether all or any of these machines actually existed...
• . A fresh Roman army attacked the main Carthaginian stronghold on the island, Agrigentum, in 210 BC: we've changed its name: is that intentional? If so, I think we should clarify/remind that this is Akragas.
• By the middle of the 2PW, we seem have fallen out of the habit of giving modern equivalents for places. I'm not sure I particularly mind, but consistency is, as ever, king (consul? Sufet?).

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• In late November the Carthaginian cavalry routed the cavalry and light infantry of the Romans at the battle of Ticinus.: a Roman force of cavalry and light infantry? It makes it sound here like they didn't rout the heavy infantry (who in fact weren't there at all), but somehow inspired the Gauls anyway.
• It was the only time during the war that Carthage reinforced Hannibal: successfully reinforced -- since Hasdrubal tried to do so later?
• For 12 years after Cannae: this seems like an odd way to mark time, since we haven't mentioned Cannae or its date for quite a while. Most readers will need to scroll up, I think.
• blocking the ready seaborne reinforcement and resupply of Hannibal from Carthage: I would look to rephrase this: does it mean that the reinforcements were ready, but just couldn't physically sail?
• Hannibal negotiated a treaty whereby Syracuse defected to Carthage, in exchange for making the whole of Sicily a Syracusan possession.: I think we need to be clear that the second part of this was firmly in the future tense; Hannibal wasn't in a position to actually make the whole of Sicily Syracusan at that point (or ever).
• 217 BC 40 Carthaginian and Iberian warships were defeated by 55 Roman and Massalian vessels at the battle of the Ebro River, with 29 Carthaginian ships lost: that was lucky for the Iberians!
• The Romans' lodgement between the Ebro and the Pyrenees blocked the route from Iberia to Italy: what does lodgement actually mean here?
• It's not ideal that Hasdrubal dies in the Italy section then comes back to life in the Iberia section: would this be better organised by year, with the theatres handled together?
• In 149 BC a Roman army of approximately 50,000 men, jointly commanded by both consuls, landed near Utica: can we name the consuls here?
• Ñaco del Hoyo appears to be alphabetised incorrectly.

Oops. Fixed.

• Capitalisation of Baker 2014 is out of whack with other similar sources.

Fixed.

• Some journals have ISSNs, others don't.

One work has an ISSN, because I was unable to find any other identifier.

Ah, gotcha -- so the system is that each source should have (exactly) one identification number of whatever sort exists? Fine in that case. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hoyos 2015b should have location removed. Ditto Sidwell and Jones 1998 and Whittaker 1996.

Not the way I do sourcing.

Ah, I was looking at Collins 1998 and assuming that you were following the template in not giving locations included in the publisher -- but now I think the missed location there was just a mistake? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm on board with citing Liddell Hart for historical fact (though would be sympathetic to using his view in the history of scholarship on the topic).

Fair enough.

• The Stele of Polybios Art, Text and Context in Second-Century BC Greece: missing a colon?

Done.

• Worlds Together Worlds Apart -- missing some kind of punctuation?

Yes, and not the full title. Remedied.

• Do you have any thoughts on Pen and Sword as a publishing house?

A bit more mixed than some in terms of quality. Some very sound authors, some very sound publications. (I managed over 60 cites to P&S works in one of my FAs.) I have heard that they have a higher than most publishers incidence of outright rogue publications but haven't noticed that personally - perhaps I am a bit fussier than average on what I purchase. Carey is a professor of military history and was pretty much a "have to have" when I worked on the battle of Zama. Roberts I treat with more caution (despite his seeming more on top of his subject than Carey) and rarely use on Wikipedia, although he is one of the few extended treatments of Hannibal from Tarentum on. (Worth a read, if only for how he struggles to get a coherent narrative out of the sources.)

• Link Walbank in Scullard 2006.

He is already linked at first mention in the Sources

• The World of Rome: an Introduction to Roman Culture: cap An?

Done.

• The UNESCO citation puts the title first, so alphabetise by that.

Done.

• Make sure there is consistently a space between two initials ("F. W. Walbank").

Done.

• Write out page range in full in Whittaker 1996 (WP:NOTPAPER).

Done.

UndercoverClassicist, we have just had an edit clash. I think I have rescued everything, but you may wish to run an eye over your recent comments and strike throughs. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

T8612

The captions of the pictures are inconsistent in the article; some suggestions:

• The picture of Polybius is a stele found in Kleitor, not far from his home city of Megalopolis. You could add a source, like this one.

Excellent. Thank you. Done.

• The picture of Hannibal is a modern statue, sculpted by Sébastien Slodtz in 1704, now in the Louvre.

Yep. I think that is all in the image details. Caption lightly tweaked.

The date of 1872 is when the sculpture was placed in the Tuileries gardens, but it was made in 1704.

Whoops. Changed.

• The mosaic of Archimedes is in the Liebieghaus, Frankfurt, but it's considered to be a forgery. See here (p. 294). I suggest saying it is a creation of the early modern era.

Ah! Thanks. Caption tweaked.

• The ruins in the picture of Carthage are from the Roman Empire. I suggest using this picture, which shows the remains of the circular military port.

I really like that image. I have used File:Carthage view.jpg in First Punic War to illustrate a similar point, but it needed a ridiculously long caption, as your suggestion would. I don't think that that is worth the space for an aficionado's point in an overview article.

"Remains of the military port of Carthage"?

T8612, done. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Excellent.

More to come later. T8612 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that T8612. Eagerly awaiting the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have some problems with the Primary sources section.
• The biggest problem is that the text downplays the usefulness of Livy, is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant. Livy is widely used, even when Polybius is extant. He was not as good as Polybius for analysing battles of politics, but Livy recorded everything and gives a comprehensive list of all the operations and Roman magistrates (it complements Polybius very well actually). Moreover, Livy relied on Polybius, but only on certain aspects, like campaigns or battles; he extensively used previous Roman analysts, such as Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus, who were contemporary of the events. I would like some rephrasing to express this.

While I am not necessarily doubting any of this, could you provide sources to support the points you make? While there are probably endless ways of expressing anything, and any piece of prose can be improved, I have reread most of my sources, especially Mineo's "Principal Literary Sources for the Punic Wars (apart from Polybius)", and feel that the current section is a reasonable, short summary of them. In particular I wish to avoid going down the rabbit hole of chasing nuances in a section which is peripheral - arguably optional - to the subject of the article.

• More generally, I think this section would benefit by telling which parts are extent: Polybius is extent for the 1PW and the beginning of the 2PW, in excerpts afterwards; Livy is extent for the 2PW and in short summaries for the 1PW and 3PW. As a result, the 2PW is the best known of the three wars.

I can, obviously, easily cite this, but suggest that this would be getting into rather too much detail for an overarching article.

• I would also mention that Polybius was a contemporary of the 3PW, and that he witnessed the destruction of Carthage as he was in the staff of Scipio (it could also be placed in the 3PW section).

Added.

• and the later Roman historians Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius. These men were ethnically Greek, not Roman, although they wrote during the Roman Empire. Plutarch is also a moralist/philosopher, but not historian. So, I would rephrase to and authors writing during the Roman empire, such as Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius

"The Roman empire" would need introducing and explaining, so I have tweaked your suggestion but, I think, captured the spirit of it.

• During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC link Pyrrhic War.

Already linked at first mention in the same section.

My bad.

• Messana (modern Messina). You link it twice in the "background and origin" and "Sicily, 264–257 BC" sections. Perhaps add a link to the Mamertines in one of them?

The first is to the city, the second to the battle. Rephrased the second mention to make this clearer. I think that may be a little Easter eggy.

• In the 1PW article, the responsibility of the war is rightly put on Rome (and Appius Caudex), but it is absent in this one. Can a short sentence of the events be placed here, like The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), and the desire of the consul Appius Claudius Caudex to obtain a rich booty from the war.

I have gone with just the first part of your suggestion. (But not the second: as I comment below to Tim riley, "in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them.")

Yes, I prefer it this way.

• under the command of the Spartan mercenary Xanthippus, perhaps link Sparta.

Done.

• their request for a 2,000-talent loan, I would link Attic talent somewhere.

I follow the sources and refer to all of the talents as Euboic. Do you have sources which contradict this?

• The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed, maybe tell who was Lutatius?

See my "interesting-and-nice-to-know" comment.

In that case, I would remove Lutatius, as the name brings more questions than answers. "The peace treaty" would be fine here.

Done

• The Romans, panicked by these heavy defeats, appointed Quintus Fabius, the abbreviated form of his (long) name is more "Fabius Maximus", than "Quintus Fabius". There were hundreds of Quintus Fabius, but only dozens of Fabius Maximus.

Again I would be grateful for evidence that this is the consensus of scholarly opinion.

• Gaius Varro and Lucius Paullus , idem, "Terentius Varro and Aemilius Paullus" are better.

Could I have the sources for these. Thanks.

• Hiero II, the tyrant of Syracuse for the previous forty-five years and a staunch Roman ally, Hiero started his reign in 275/270, so it's more than that. Moreover, it makes him king already at the beginning of the 1PW, when Syracuse battled against Rome. So I would say that Hiero had been a Roman ally since 263 (after he had been defeated by Rome).

Done.

You still have to change the "forty-five years", Hiero reigned for about 60 years.

• In 205 BC Mago landed in Genua, link Mago. But I also think you could tell in the Carthaginian expansion in Iberia that Hamilcar had three sons, and present them there.

I think it is easier on a reader - who may not read the whole article, and may not remember all the details if they do - to introduce them as they first feature in the narrative.

Fine.

• In 210 BC Publius Cornelius Scipio. In order to help the casual reader, I would mention either in the text, or in the footnote that he was the later Africanus. However, I think it's possible to remove the footnote, by mentioning the two Scipio in the text above, as in Both battles ended in complete defeat for the Romans, who also lost their two commanders (Publius and Gnaeus Scipio), as Hasdrubal had bribed the Romans' mercenaries to desert. This way, you can just say below In 210 BC Publius Scipio (son and nephew of the Scipios who died at the Upper Baetis)

Ah ha. That sounds better. That said, I have recently tweaked this for another reviewer. Could you have a look at that before I change it again? Thanks.

As far as I can see, you only changed the footnote. I still think it would be better to rephrase the way I suggest, because the footnote forces you to go back to the previous section, where you did not mention Scipio's father. I'm also not a fan of adding footnotes.

I am not a fan of jumping around chronologically. I don't see how it helps a reader to know what name a person will be given later in the article. On reflection I have ditched the footnote entirely. I am deliberately naming as few people as I possibly can, trying only to name check the most prominent. I have read through and trimmed a further couple who do little to aid a reader's understandin.

More to come later. T8612 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi T8612, it is good of you to review this. I have addressed your comments to date - I suspect you may wish to come back on some of them - and eagerly await your next tranche. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I was AFK for a week and I don't have my sources with me, but I'll check and come back next week. T8612 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

• Consider integrating note 2 into the main text.

It gets close to being trivia. I think that if it is to be mentioned, a footnote is appropriate.

• I would delete note 3 (this is not an essay, but an encyclopedic article).

Done.

• Explain thalassocracy with two words.

Done.

• ...Carthage was the dominant external power... I am not sure I understand. Were there more external powers on the island? I would rather say that "Carthage dominated/had seized large chunks of the island/...".

Rephrased.

• ...well-armoured heavy infantry armed with long thrusting spears... I would delete "well-armoured".

I see no need to deprive readers of this information.

• ...(also known as "heavy cavalry")... Do we need it? If yes, do we need the quotation marks?

1. Yes. 2. IMO yes, otherwise I wouldn't have included them. I think it helps a reader. As you, I assume, don't, quote marks removed.

• Link and introduce Messana when it is first mentioned.

Isn't that what I have done with the last nine words of "Background".

• ..., the only significant independent power on the island,... I would rephrase it. Perhaps changing "independent" to "native Greek/local" would help.

I don't see how either of those improve things for a reader, or even address the political point being made.

• According to my memories, Sicily was the first Roman province. If I am right, this could be mentioned in the article.

Your memory is correct, but I don't see that a diversion into Rome's internal governance is relevant in this summary of the Punic Wars. (I refer you to your second point above.)

• I understand your concern but I need time. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC) Oh, now I remember what was my problem: Sicily was not annexed as a Roman province, but as the first Roman province. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Neat. Done as you suggest.

Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, all addressed and ready for more. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• ...and their cities brought back under Carthaginian rule. We are not previously informed that they seized cities.

Done. (And changed to "towns".)

• ...an act of war... A link to casus belli?

It seems overlink to me. Are any readers likely to not grasp what an act of war is?

• Could the three Hasdrubals be distinguished from each other in the text in some way? Alternativel, I would introduce the third Hasdrubal in the text (not in a footnote).

Not, IMO, without mangling the text. None of thee sources do. I assume for the same reason. I don't introduce the third Hasdrubal in a footnote, I disambiguate him there. Nevertheless, I have moved this into the main text, although I am not sure it is an improvement.

Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, your latest batch addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I am not sure that socii is the best link to Latin allies, because socii were Rome's non-Latin allies, according to my memories.

Your memory is completely correct and the text should say "non-Latin allies". However, thinking on't, that is the most reader friendly of phrases, so I am going with "Italian allies".

• ...Several of the city states in southern Italy allied with Hannibal... Had these been Roman allies before Cannae?

Depends on how you define "allies"; tribute cities may be closer in some cases. They were all in some formal relationship with Rome.

• How do you define "allies"? They are mentioned in the section title, but in the text the city states are not introduced as such.

Ok. The logical place to introduce them would seem to under "Roman defeats, 217–216 BC" where I write "The prisoners were badly treated if they were Romans, but released if they were from one of Rome's allies. Hannibal hoped some of these allies could be persuaded to defect and marched south hoping to win over Roman allies among the ethnic Greek and Italic states." Before I expand this I just wanted to check that this works for you.

• Excellent idea. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Done.

• ...(see § Iberia below)... Is this necessary?

Few things in life are necessary, but I think the pointer is helpful. I can imagine a reader at this point ("In 205 BC Mago landed in Genua in north-west Italy with the remnants of his Spanish army ...") thinking "who? What? Where did he spring from? The indication that the whole article is not chronological, only chronological within themes, is I feel, likely to be reassuring.

• Only here? I would delete it. For me, such "helpful" references indicate the lack of copyedit.

Removed.

• ...jointly commanded by both consuls,... Could you name them?

Probably. But I am deliberately keeping the name-count down in this overview article. As I have said to other reviewers in similar circumstances "in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them."

• Rome still exists as the capital of Italy;... Is this necessary in an encyclopedic article?

I feel so. An astonishingly high proportion of people are extremely shakey on what thee and me would consider basic geography. I note that the Wikipedia article on Rome starts "Rome is the capital city and most populated comune (municipality) of Italy." And I think it succinctly shows the deep continuity.

• Sorry, but for me the last sentence (contrasting Rome with Carthage) is unencyclopedic. It reads like a last sentence in a speech about the Punic Wars for very young or very old people. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Then we differ.

Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Borsoka, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

More responses, including a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead): ...of wars between 264 and 146 BC fought between... Could it be rephrased?

Certainly. Excellent point. I have rephrased the opening paragraph and shortened it.

• (Lead): ...It lasted twenty-years years, until 241 BC... Twenty?

Fixed.

Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC) Happy to support this nomination. I highly appreciate your ability to write concisely about complex topics. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "Each war involved immense material and human losses on both sides." I might reverse "human" and "material", since by modern standards, the human losses are more important.

Done.

• "This caused Carthage to cease to be a military threat." Is this fully accurate? They could become a threat by breaking the treaty, presumably.

Nah. They couldn't even chase off a bunch of Numidians, as they established at [[|Battle of Oroscopa|Oroscopa]]. I've checked a couple of sources, it's a fair enough summary.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• --Progress report, up to "Italy" in War II, nothing further to report.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've read it through and it all seems very solid work, as did the previous iteration that I supported some time ago. Support. Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Going to qualify up-front that this is not a topic where I am deeply familiar with the sources. The source formatting seems consistent, although I notice that this is used as a full text link on one source but only that source has such a link - have other sources been investigated?

Link removed. I don't understand your final query Jo-Jo. Could you help me out by explaining a little further what you are after?

Mahaney, W.C. (2008). has one critical review, does it affect its assessment?

I quite like Mahaney's mildly left-field analysis. But it is not as if there is any shortage of sources for Hannibal crossing the Alps, so I have swapped out Mahaney for Briscoe and Erdkamp, who seem safe enough.

With the exception of Bagnall every source seems to be well-cited or from a prominent publisher.

One doesn't get much more prominent than Pimlico and he seems to be cited to the gunnels. On the first page of Google Scholar I found "There are a number of good general accounts of the Second Punic War, including Lazenby 1978, Bagnall 1990, and Goldsworthy 2000" by Kathryn Lomas, and that in Hoyos's magisterial A Companion to the Punic Wars. I felt no need to look further, but what skeleton did you shake out of the cupboard?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo. Thanks for looking this over and apologies for the delayed response. Do my comments above resolve your qualms? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It seemed to me that this source is the only one with a full text link, which begs the question whether it's because it's the only source with a full text link or because only one source had one added (which would be inconsistent formatting). Re Bagnall only that I couldn't find much information myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: okey dokey. Thanks again. Is this a pass for source review then? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

A couple of drive-by comments on the images

The terracotta elephant (Naples, Mus. Arch. Naz. 124845) illustrated in the section on the first Punic war is not from Herculaneum, as stated in the caption. It was found in the courtyard of a house in Pompeii (XV.15.5) in 1895: see Notizie degli scavi 1897, pp. 23–27, with fig. 3 on p. 25.

Changed. Source added.

The maps need better proofreading. I didn't check them all, but there are typos in the labels of at least two of the ones used in the section on the second Punic war: File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_Modified.svg ("Panoramus" for Panormus), File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png ("carthaginenis" for carthaginensis).

Request submitted.

I also endorse UC's comment above about Andrew Curry: he is not a historian, and should not be described as one. Champion's opinion on the reliability of Polybius carries some weight; Curry's carries none. — Choliamb (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Curry's comment removed and replaced with one from Goldsworthy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Jens

Excellent article. Only a couple of comments from me:

• In the lead, it is a bit unfortunate that the Mercenary war is introduced twice, but I am not sure if this needs to be addressed.

Well each of the four wars are introduced twice. I am not sure there is much that can be done about it.

• You do not mention the causes of the first Punic war; was there a particular event that caused Rome to declare war?

Er "The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina)."

• The conflict between these policies pushed the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design. – I wonder if this is really a widely accepted fact, or if it needs author attribution?

It is the consensus of scholarly consensus and I don't think it needs different attribution than any other.

• Akragas: Mention that it is also called Agrigento/Agrigentum, as you also do with another city? This helps with finding it on the map, which uses "Agrigentum".

Good point. Done.

• link Spartan

Done.

• which was already at war against Macedonia. In 205 BC this war ended with a negotiated peace. – Sounds as if both sentences refer to the same war, but they refer to separate ones.

It was one war. But I think my use of language is confusing, so I have rephrased.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jens and thanks for that. I have addressed your points above. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. In your articles it is a challenge to find any nitpicks at all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

SC

Background and origin

• You need a key for the map

Done.

• There's a word missing in the alt text ("a colour of the western Mediterranean region")

Inserted.

(I noticed these just in passing, but will conduct a full review shortly). - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• One a further readthrough, this all seems very solid and enough for encyclopaedic coverage of the the subject. Besides, the review is already longer than the article, so support. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

From first canter-through for typos etc:

• "entirely on Carthagian territory" – should this be "Carthaginian"?

Possibly.

• "a quasi-monarchial, autonomous state" – the OED calls "monarchial" "obsolete, rare". You might be better off with "monarchical".

Another fine traditional word goes down with all hands.

Starting proper perusal now. More soonest. Tim riley talk 09:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Down to the end of First Punic War section

• "forty-three years of warfare ... It lasted 23 years" – words or digits for such numbers? I like your first style more than your second, but either way you should, I think, be consistent

Ah. Yes. Sorted.

• "immense material and human losses on both sides" – should this be "matériel"? (OED: "The equipment, supplies, etc., used by an army, navy, or other organization, as distinguished from the personnel or body of people employed."

I keep reverting "helpful" changes to this. Even linking it to materiel. To little avail. Done.

• "Rome was a rapidly expanding power in Italy, with a strong army but no navy. The fighting took place primarily on Sicily and its surrounding waters" – not obvious how Rome could fight in the surrounding waters of Sicily if it had no navy.

I don't see that, for the lead, I need to add more than the current "At the start of the war".

• "This expedition enjoyed considerable early success and campaigned in Italy for 14 years" – do expeditions campaign? And I refer my honourable friend to my comment on "forty-three years of warfare etc", above.

I believe they do; much as an army or other military might.

You may, thank you.

• "Carthage provided materiel to the Romans" – both the OED and Chambers give "matériel" its acute accent.

I prefer to go with Collins, Wiktionary, Wikipedia and, even, some sources emanating from Oxford.

Now you mention it, I see that the current edition of Fowler says Used in English since the early 19c. to mean ‘material and equipment used in warfare (as distinct from personnel)’, it has been naturalized and is printed in ordinary roman type without the accent on the first e of the original French matériel. The open e in the last syllable differentiates it in speech from material., and I subside with what grace I can. Tim riley talk 15:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Good old Fowler I have always said.

• "Most male Roman citizens were liable for military service" – were there any female citizens? (I know not of Rome, but the only people recognised as citizens in ancient Athens were men.) And I presume there was some sort of upper age limit: you wouldn't want old dodderers like me in your front line.

Long ago, I omitted "male" from this boilerplate. It was objected to, on the grounds that how was a reader to know that there were no female Roman citizens at the time if I didn't tell them.

• "they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined" – says who?

The sources cited at the end of "the latter were usually Numidians." Are you hinting that you would prefer more frequent citations?

• "If either commander felt at a disadvantage, they might march off" – as there were no commanderesses I think a plain "he" would be preferable to a clunky gender-neutral "they"

Boudica, Zenobia, Mavia, Hypsicratea? Done, at the risk of the Wrath of UndercoverClassicist.

• "partway through the First Punic War" – the OED hyphenates "part-way"; Chambers and Collins make it two separate words. Take your pick, but certainly isn't a single unhyphenated word.

Torn apart.

• "the only significant independent power on the island" – this is Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'

I keep falling for that one. Sorry. Swapped out.

• "The Carthaginian's superior seamanship was not as effective as they had hoped" – the possessive apostrophe should be after the "s" in this sentence.

D'oh!

• "there is no record of them being used again" – anyone for gerunds? "their" would be preferable to "them" here.

That was my contractually required gerund misuse.

• "had declined by 17 per cent" – see my comment on "forty-three years of warfare etc", above.

Further comments later. Off to lunch now. Tim riley talk 10:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Years of warfare are consistently in words, percentages in numerals.

A few more

• "Carthage's oppressed dependant territories" – I think (but am not absolutely sure) that when used as an adjective the word is "dependent".

Yep. Dependant is obsolete; why am I not surprised?

• "Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" – you've told us that in the lead, but after that we've have four mentions of Iberia in the main text before we read this explanatory parenthesis, which might, perhaps be moved up to the first mention in the main text.

It might, it might.

• "in spring 218 BC Rome declared war on Carthage" – this isn't a carp or quibble, but I'm just wondering how a declaration of war was actually declared in those days?

Pushed the ambassador down a well? I just follow the source, which states "Fabius [the Roman ambassador] responded by declaring that he let fall war ... In this way war was declared".

• "but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – I don't imagine it really besieged itself. I might shift the "itself" to between "and" and "ambushed"

Great image though.

• "Fabius introduced the Fabian strategy of avoiding open battle with his opponent, but constantly skirmishing with small detachments of the enemy" – worth a mention and explanation of his nickname "cunctator"? I just mention it.

I mentioned it in Second Punic War - "The Roman populace derided Fabius as "the Delayer" (in Latin, Cunctator)" - but in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them.

Fair enough. Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "to be paid over 50 years ... restricted to 10 warships" – as above for digits-v-words.

I'm happy with both. (I am assuming that some new MoS rule to standardise all mentions of numbers has been introduced?)

• "almost all of the requirements of Scipio's large army" – do we want the superfluous first "of" here?

Nope.

More to come. Tim riley talk 18:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Last batch

• "Over the following 48 years" – words-v-digits again.

See above.

• "However, elements in the Roman Senate had long wished to destroy Carthage" – about all I knew until now about the Punic Wars (Alps and elephants apart) was Cato the Censor's "Carthago delenda est" and I'm mildly surprised at not seeing it in this article, though I don't press the point.

Again "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids. (Most of which relate to the Romans.)

Once again, fair enough. Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Vast amounts of materiel" – acute accent needed.

Umm.

• "Rome still exists as the capital of Italy" – do we really need to be told this?

Spoilsport! I can cite it> It is included for the benefit of North American readers.

Whoooo! Steady! Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Several different "talents" are known from antiquity" – this and note 14 seem to me models of their kind, helping the modern reader understand the values involved.

Thankee kindly.

• "prohibiting attacking each others allies" – needs a possessive apostrophe after "others"

Drat. Added.

• "Publius Scipio was the bereaved son of the previous Roman co-commander" – not clear why "bereaved" is in this sentence.

Rephrased

That's my lot. The article seems to me clearly of FA standard and I look forward to adding my support when you've had the time to address my comments, above. Tim riley talk 07:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Mr riley, I am even more in your debt. All addressed I think and the article much improved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Very happy with the above exchanges, and pleased to sign on the dotted line to support the elevation of the article to FA. It meets all the criteria, in my view, as well as being a crackingly good read. – Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Greetings all, this nom has six general supports, image and source review passes, no unaddressed comments and has been open for a little over three weeks. Could I have permission to nominate another? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: [11] Oh come on guys! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

We're out camping for a month and coverage has proved intermittent so just saw this -- go for it,more death and destruction please...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and your wish is my command. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy Feet (penguin)

Nominator(s): ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about an emperor penguin who arrived at a beach in New Zealand and became a bit of a media sensation. After filling his stomach with sand, he was kept at a zoo to recover, and was released 10 weeks later in the Southern Ocean with a GPS tracker. However, it fell silent and it is not known if he was still alive. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "namedafter = [[Happy Feet (2006 film)]]" should be something like ' namedafter = the animated 2006 film [[Happy Feet|''Happy Feet'']]'
• "In order to prevent the public from putting Happy Feet in danger" → 'To prevent the public from putting Happy Feet in danger'.

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Numbers in convert templates do not need commas.

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Miskelly et al needs an OCLC (837311158)
• "Happy Feet was an emperor penguin who in June 2011 ... making him one of the". "who", "him"?! Do the HQ RSs anthropomorphise to this degree. Even if they do, does it strike an encyclopedic tone?

• The newspaper sources do but the scholarly sources don't. I've had a look at the featured animal articles Laika, Easy Jet (horse) and Knut (polar bear) which do anthropomorphise like this. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• I also feel that we shouldn't anthropomorphise, as we aim to be a serious encyclopedia so following the language of scholarly sources makes sense. Besides, if you keep he/who, you would need to introduce him as a male in the first sentence in the lead already, before you can refer to him as "he". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "and as a result, was transported to Wellington Zoo". 1. Suggest deleting "as a result". 2. Suggest deleting the comma.

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Happy Feet was released in the Southern Ocean on 4 September 2011". Is the date of the bird's arrival at the zoo known?

Yes although I'm not quite sure what you want to be done with it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "more media attention than Prime Minister John Key." → 'more media attention than New Zealand Prime Minister John Key.'

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "making him only a few kilometres south of the world's northernmost recorded emperor penguin" This doesn't really work. Consider 'to only a few kilometres south of the world's northernmost recorded emperor penguin' or similar.

Now is "He was one of the northernmost emperor penguins ever recorded out of captivity" ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "He was named after the 2006 film Happy Feet, which features emperor penguins, and was initially estimated by an expert to be about three years old, but further analysis has suggested that he was about 11 months old at the time of his arrival." Recommend breaking the sentence.
• "Two weeks later, a DNA test of a feather sample determined that he was male." Two weeks later than when?

Clarified. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "A ranger subsequently went to take a look at the bird, a juvenile with a height of about 1 metre (3 ft),[10] who was later reported as being "initially bright-eyed, alert, and in apparent good condition"." I think that this sentence is trying to do three separate things and so confuses the reader.

Done. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The bird excited the public". I imagine that many members of the public had either not heard of the bird or were unexcited. I recommend not putting this in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps start the sentence 'thousands of people went visit him at the beach'

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "visit"? Perhaps 'view', or 'see'?

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "including people who work for the news". "work" → 'worked'.
• "including people who work for the news, school students, veterinarians and a penguin expert from Massey University." Does the listing of some random-seeming categories of visitors serve any purpose?

I've removed this list entirely. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "while locals kept watch of the penguin 24 hours a day". Is that grammatical in NZEng?

Changed "of" to "over". ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "he was ensured to have sea access at all times." Likewise.

Changed to " he was ensured access to the sea at all times". ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "DOC co-ordinated this protection effort" → 'The DOC co-ordinated this protection effort'.

• I don't know why but sources never write "the DOC" e.g. [12] -P

• "was stressed due to the relative warmth of New Zealand's climate". Delete "was stressed due to the relative warmth". The stress wasn't caused by the climate, but by the relative heat at that time and place. (Which in turn was, I agree, caused by the climate.)

• Do you mean to remove the climate part and change it to "with the temperature being about 10 °C (50 °F), was stressed due to the relative warmth."? I'm a bit confused here. -P

How you have it now works. Although "with the air temperature being relatively warm at about 10 °C (50 °F), was stressed" → 'with the air temperature of about 10 °C (50 °F) being warmer than emperor penguins were accustomed to, was heat stressed' or similar would save me coming back to ask "relative to what?". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, done. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "by Te Papa and DOC." 1. Could what or who Te Papa was/is be explained in line. 2. the DOC.

Added "museum". No "the" as I mentioned before. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a fascinating and well-researched article, but there are grammar issues and - more importantly - areas where an encyclopedic tone seems lacking. I am not surprised to note that much of the sourcing is to newspapers, as a popular tone pervades the article. Some of the article seems to be trivia, and at times I had the impression of an accumulation of available factoids rather than a themetic approach. I'll pick another section at random and see how that reads.

Legacy

• "In November 2011 a statue of Happy Feet was unveiled at the Coastlands Shopping Centre in Paraparaumu, to fundraise for the construction of the Coastlands Aquatic Centre, made with the help of Wellington Zoo nurse Sarah Holleman, who looked after the penguin." I got lost in this sentence. I think breaking it would help, as would perhaps a little more information.
• "people were planning on creating a documentary about Happy Feet." Grammar.

Done. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "reported him to DOC". the.

Nope ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "That year, Christine Wilton, the woman who discovered Happy Feet at the beach and reported him to DOC, wrote a children's book about the penguin, and in late 2011 Penguin Books published a children's book about him." "That year" makes "in ... 2011" redundant. "wrote a children's book about the penguin, and .. Penguin Books published a children's book about him" is clunky.

• I've never been able to figure out if these are the same books or not so I don't know how to word it any better. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "In December 2011, Time magazine named Happy Feet as the runner-up 2011 animal of the year". Is it possible to avoid mentioning 2011 twice in one clause?

Done

• "Happy Feet boosted votes for the emperor penguin in the annual Bird of the Year competition". "annual" - in wich year?

Done

• All bar the last occurrence in "Legacy" occurred in 2011. Any reason for that? Nothing legacy-notable prior or since?

Not that I know of. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I am leaning oppose and feel that a withdrawal for a thorough copy edit may be the best way to go. However, if the nominator prefers to try and tackle that issues while the article is still at FAC I am content to wait and have another look later. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, it was really helpful. I've been considering following your advice and withdrawing, but I've got a lot of time on my hands so I might try fixing the issues while the article is at FAC. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild I think I've replaced the 'popular' tone with one that is more formal (I've ignore the anthropomorphising for now). I have removed some trivia and am wondering if I should remove the question time part in the Aftermath section. What do you think? ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, apologies for another ping. Is it possible for you to have another look at the article? I think I've fixed all the issues but there haven't been any comments for a while. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Kusma

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lead: "one of the northernmost emperor penguins ever recorded" doesn't this need some hedging ("wild") against penguins in captivity in the Northern Hemisphere? Aalborg Zoo had emperor penguins from 1963 to 1983, for example. Or is this too obvious?

I thought it was obvious but maybe that's because I've been looking at this article for too long. I've added "out of captivity". ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "fitted with a GPS tracker so that his location could be tracked" can you say this without using "track" twice?

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "arriving just a few kilometres from the northernmost sighting of an emperor penguin" this sounds like that was in New Zealand as well, which seems to be incorrect; the northernmost sighting happened somewhere off the Argentine coast, thousands of kilometres away.

Added "which occurred in Argentina". ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Named after the 2006 film Happy Feet" do we know who named him? this claims it was the person who found him?

Added. The scholarly source says the same thing. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• I am not sure you are telling the Arrival story in the best possible order. The first paragraph is arrives/speculation about how he got there/age/sex, the second paragraph tells the actual story of the arrival and subsequent media attention etc.

I've just split a paragraph and moved some text down to make it more chronological. The first paragraph is now arrival/how he got there, second paragraph was discovery and age/sex/etc, third paragraph public attention at the beach, fourth paragraph health problems and move to zoo. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "at the noon of the same day" shorten to "at noon on the same day"?

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "by DOC and Te Papa museum" probably by museum staff?

Added "staff". ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Citation 17 is to an audio file; could you say where in that audio file we find the cited content?

I've removed that citation another source supports all the information in that citation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Release: grammar and tenses seem a bit off in the first paragraph.

I think I've fixed it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Cockrem believed" who is Cockrem?

I've added an introduction. There was one in the past but I must've mistakenly removed it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You tell us twice in the Release section now that he is from Massey University. Once should be enough. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Oops fixed. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

More later! —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• More in healthcare: a lot of work is done here by unnamed "veterinarians". Do we know more about them / can we use a little variety instead of "veterinarians did A", "veterinarians did B"?

I've converted it to passive voice to avoid the repetition which I understand is discouraged. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Veterinarians also put him on an intravenous drip" why "also"?

Removed

• "veterinarians flushed sand out of Happy Feet's stomach[16][14] which involved an endoscopy to look inside him" all of the operations mentioned here seem to be essentially by using an endoscope through the oesophagus and then targeted water flushing? It is a bit unclear the way it is written whether only the first operation was done with an endoscope. If I am right, perhaps explain endoscopy first and then say it was performed a couple of times?

Added "a method also used during subsequent procedures". ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The penguin was also provided" I don't think the "also" does much here.

Removed

• You could have the ten weeks before you describe the conditions for the penguin. Was he shown to the public?

I've moved it to the end of the second paragraph. I don't recall him being shown to the public. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for having to stop again, I'll try to finish reviewing later today. —Kusma (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Release: " It had experts" is there a nicer word than "had"?

Changed to "included". ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the risk of introducing to Antarctic colonies" introducing what?

Oops fixed. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "John Cockrem, a penguin expert from Massey University, believed that if he was released in sub-Antarctic waters and swam to Antarctica on his own, any disease would disappear naturally; but the penguin may not survive the journey" you can read this as meaning that if we release Cockrem and the penguin, then swimming to Antarctica would heal Cockrem and kill the penguin. Shouldn't it be "might not survive"?

Fixed

• "New Zealand does not have the facilities to replicate the climatic conditions required for an emperor penguin. California did" why different tense in the two sentences? Better use "did" both times.

Fixed

• "California": did they have a specific place in mind? SeaWorld San Diego apparently offered to take the penguin

Added

• More tense issues. "Another problem was that New Zealand did not house any other emperor penguins;[26] if he were moved to the International Antarctic Centre in Christchurch for example, he would be isolated.[12] Some media outlets had also suggested"

Fixed

More later! —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "On 29 June, the committee unanimously decided that after Happy Feet recovered, he would be released"

Fixed

• "The zoo estimated in late July that it would cost about $30,000 to return Happy Feet to the wild, with the original plan being to move the penguin to Bluff, in the southern South Island, via air or truck, then to sail past Stewart Island and then release him,[30] but the plan later changed." split up the long sentence and simplify. "The zoo estimated the cost of returning Happy Feet to the wild at about $30,000. The original plan was ..."

Fixed

• Why did the plan change?

The source says that going to Bluff via air/truck was a plan but they hadn't yet contracted anyone for the transport, so I guess it was just changed because they found the Tangaroa, which was at the same city as the penguin. So I've just removed that sentence. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lisa Argilla was probably one of the veterinarians who treated the penguin, shouldn't she be mentioned earlier?

I'm not really sure how to do that without it making it look forced. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Was Tangaroa making a detour for the penguin or was it planned to go to Campbell Island?

I don't know if any detour was made, but it was doing a survey around the island and I've added this to the article. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• 5 days of transmissions seems very little [13]

How do you mean? ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The article I linked to has a longer working time for the transmitters in every other case they looked at. You do not have to cite that article, but it does provide some context for the fitting of penguins with transmitters and what to expect in terms of how long you can track them. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Added "which was much earlier than expected". ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Gareth Morgan story could perhaps better be told first in the section with the deliberations what to do. (I assume the offer was rejected because it would have violated the Antarctic Treaty?) How were they planning to use the chip in order to find HF? I can understand that they could have identified him if they had come across the penguin.

Do you mean splitting that paragraph so the offer is moved to the first paragraph, and his suggested method of finding him remains as the last paragraph? It definitely would help with keeping it chronological and with the Antarctic Treaty thing (I don't know why his offer never played out so I'm making the same assumption as you), but I'm struggling to find a spot to put it into the first paragraph. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you would need to split the information. That Morgan made the offer could be said early. The thing about Marie Byrd land also seems interesting independent of Morgan and could be in the paragraph about the penguin's journey south? —Kusma (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Cost: Who was responsible for the costs and for which parts of the costs? The final paragraph sounds as if DOC and Wellington Zoo both spent some money.

I've added that DOC paid for the cost his care when he was still at the beach. I ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are any of the donations / planned donations mentioned included in the zoo's $29,000? (Assuming that DOC paid more than $1,000, does this mean that Wellington Zoo actually earned money by this?)

I'm not sure. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Media coverage: I think the 600 are just those that reported on the initial discovery, so I guess there were a few more.

I've changed it to this although the source isn't super clear on what it means. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "members of the Our Far South expedition reported on his location nightly" I am surprised that this expedition was involved in this reporting.

I think it's because Morgan donated the transmitter and he was involved in the expedition. The expedition happened later on so I do agree that it's confusing, and I've removed it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Legacy: Three months of reporting in 2011 is not really a legacy, more something like "recognition". Especially if the plans for the documentary were immediately abandoned. I am not sure how to best treat this, but I like the sectioning at Knut (polar bear) much better.

I agree. I've changed it to "aftermath" because "media coverage" might fall under "recognition", unless it would be better to merge the sections somehow. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Done with first read through. I guess this will need quite a bit of further editing; I am happy to do another read through when a few more people have commented. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kusma apologies for the ping but would you like to have another read through? I believe I've fixed a lot of the issues but there haven't been any comments for a few weeks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• NZPA is an agency, the Herald is the work. Similar problem with GlobalPost vs The World - check throughout

• FN5 is missing author. Ditto FN13, check throughout

• News sources sometimes include publisher, other times not

• FN27: work title shouldn't be part of article title

• News articles sometimes include retrieval date, other times not

• Why is ABC News italicized and NBC News not?

Generally quite a bit of formatting cleanup to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've always wondered what to do with agencies so I really appreciate the comment. I've fixed all those issues I believe. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Jens

• I still think that "it" instead of "he" to refer to the penguin is preferable, as noted by Gog above.

All I really have to say to this is that I've looked at individual featured animals using this query. All of those articles, where the gender is known, uses "he" or "she" over "it". I'd rather not move over to "it" because it'd be a lot of work, but if no one else agrees with me then I'm happy to change the article to "it". ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• The penguin was "initially bright-eyed, alert, and in apparent good condition" – per MOS:QUOTE, the quote needs author attribution (e.g, "in a 2012 scientific publication, Miskelly and colleagues stated that …"), or you can rephrase in your own words instead of using a quote. In this particular case, I think that rephrasing is preferable.

Done

• On 27 June, – and elsewhere, should this be rather "On June 27", or is this order specific to New Zealand English?

Yes it's used in NZ and MOS:DATES says that this ordering is fine. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• In images: alt=Refer to caption – this is not helpful. The "alt" entries should be to explain the image for blind people; something like "Photograph of the entry of the animal hospital" does a better job describing what the image shows.

Fixed

• approximately half of the sand was removed in an operation, is "operation" = "surgery", a word you used earlier? If so, use the same term.

Done

• and cable tied on to the feathers of his back – what does this mean? Fastened to the feathers, or connected to the transponder via cable?

Changed to "fastened with cable ties to the feathers of his lower back" ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• and Penguin Books also published a children's book Happy Feet – should this be "book titled 'Happy Feet'" or "book about Happy Feet"?

Fixed

• I also did an extensive copy edit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work and review, much appreciated. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I am happy with this one now after the recent copy edits. I would appreciate additional comments on the question whether "he/who" or "it/that" is more appropriate to refer to this penguin individual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yoshi's New Island

Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yoshi's New Island is a 2014 platform game developed by Arzest and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS... Still.

Third time's the charm? After two previous nominations and a peer review in the middle, I firmly believe this article is finally ready for FA status. I've reached out to several editors involved in the second nomination to implement additional feedback beforehand, just to be safe. Of course, new editors and new feedback are always welcome and appreciated. Please note that no additional references have been added to the article since the most recent nomination, nor have any changes been made to existing references.

Courtesy pings to all editors who actively participated in the second nomination: @Thelifeofan413: @UpTheOctave!: @Vacant0: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Considering that issues that I've found in the previous FAC nomination and the feedback I've left on the article's talk page have been addressed, I'll support this hopefully final nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll do a source review in the coming days. @The Green Star Collector: I'd suggest asking fellow editors to review this nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Good call. I'll ping every other editor involved in the previous nominations one last time to see if there's anything I'm overlooking: @Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• VentureBeat, Nintendo World Report, PC Magazine, Polgon, Joystiq, Shacknews, Eurogamer, Digital Trends, Kotaku, Siliconera, Nintendo Life, EGM, GameSpot, IGN, Famitsu, GamesRadar, The Observer, Edge, and Ars Technica are all high-quality reliable sources present across FAs.
• TheGamer, however, is not a high-quality source and I recommend finding a replacement for it.
• Why do you think Destructoid is high-quality in this case?
• What is the reliability of inside-games.jp?

@Vacant0:

• I'm seeing that News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable for TheGamer, with this particular article having been published in 2022 and updated in 2024. I've also found retrospective takes from Valnet's Screen Rant and Game Rant, though I can see that both publications fall into the same reliability category as TheGamer. I can remove the source if absolutely needed, though I haven't been able to locate a good replacement for it.
• The author of the Destructoid review has been writing for the site since 2009 and was reviews director at the time of the review's publication. The other Destructoid source's author has written almost 1,500 articles for the site since 2015 as an editor-at-large.
• The reliability of inside-games.jp is unclear.

(This is reiterating some of my responses to UpTheOctave!'s source review in the preceding nomination.) ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd then recommend removing TheGamer and inside-games.jp references from the article. I'll do a spotcheck by the end of the week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Ref 1 done
• Ref 3 done
• Ref 8 done
• Ref 9 done
• Ref 10 mentions that you got 10 seconds to pick up Mario, I don't see a mention of 30 seconds (Ref 2 seems to mention this)
• Ref 2 done
• Ref 13 done
• Ref 15 I don't see "For each flower collected in a level, one is added to the ring" being mentioned
• Ref 16 done
• Ref 17 done
• Ref 15, 17 I don't see Super Yoshi being mentioned, though the rest is backed up by these sources
• Ref 19 done
• Ref 21 done
• Ref 18 done

Development and release

• Ref 27 done
• Ref 13 done
• Ref 31 done
• Ref 26 done
• Ref 29 done
• Ref 32 done
• Ref 33 done
• Ref 35 done
• Ref 42 done
• Ref 44 done
• Ref 2 done

Reception

• Ref 45 done
• Ref 47 done
• Ref 5 done
• Ref 2 done
• Ref 50 done
• Ref 17 done
• Ref 49 done
• Ref 30 done
• Ref 51 done
• Ref 54 done
• Ref 46 done
• Ref 53 done
• Ref 30 done
• Ref 54 done
• Ref 2 done
• Ref 17 done
• Ref 1, 54 I don't see gyroscope being mentioned
• Ref 18 done
• Ref 51 done
• Ref 55 done
• Ref 58 done

Thank you for the source review, @Vacant0:

• The Digital Trends ref does mention that stars can be "spent" to extend the amount of time you can be separated from Baby Mario (you can store up to 30), though I've swapped this out with ref 2 so it's less confusing.
• I added a different Nintendo World Report ref for the flower ring info.
• I added a booklet ref for the name of the Super Yoshi transformation.
• I replaced "gyroscope controls" with "motion controls", since this is better reflected in refs 1 and 54.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's better. You should now remove TheGamer and inside-games.jp referecnes from the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My source review is done. Support on prose and sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

On another note, I've forgot to mention that there should be consistency with the |publisher= parameter, some references use it, some don't (e.g. Ars Technica is owned by Conde Nast and it's not mentioned). You can also remove the parameter if you want. The style is also consistent, all references are written in sentence case. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the publisher from every citation. Going forward, I will omit this parameter for consistency. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support   Comments   from Noleander

•   Regarding footnote Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island (Japanese: ヨッシー New アイランド, Hepburn: Yosshī Nyū Airando) - The "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" is confusing to me... they speak Japanese in Japan, not English. And when I run the first Japanese name thru Google Translate, it gives me the possessive: "Yoshi's New Island". Suggest either (a) drop the English name entirely from that footnote; or (b) provide a source that positively says that the Japanese name is _not_ possessive.

• Mid-sentence citations: Yoshi's New Island is a platform game[1] with gameplay.... The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels,[1] for a total of 60 courses.... The superscript citations in middle of sentences is a bit ugly & intrusive. I don't think the WP MOS prohibits them, but - in my opinion - they interrupt the reading flow, and hence should not be used unless there is a compelling reason. I would expect them to be found only in the middle of sentences that are very contentious. Another: .... collected by jumping through a roulette ring,[3] which functions as the goal of most levels[13] and replaces the post-leve... Is there a strong reason you avoided putting those superscripts at the end of the sentences? Did some editor challenge those specific assertions that have the mid-sentence cites?

• Cites in plot: . Moreover, it is revealed that "Mr. Pipe",[25] a moving Warp Pipe who supplied the ... I believe that WP generally discourages citations within a Plot section. Probably not a strong rule, but it is odd that the Plot section in this article is mostly free of cites, then - boom - there is one near the end.

• As of when? The Lead says: The game has sold more than two million copies worldwide and... Statements like that alway make me suspicious ... when was that statement valid? See WP:As of. I see that the "Sales" section in the body correctly specifies an "as of" date.

• That's all I have. Seems like a decent article. Noleander (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, @Noleander: I've done my part to address some of them:

• My guess is that the "Known in Japan" part is just trying to find the closest Japanese → English translation. I've seen this in a few other articles, but I can remove it if needed.

If the source for this is giving the English phrase that Japanese speakers use (when they are required to identify the game in English) then the article should say exactly that; also: including the Japanese spelling of the game is making it hard for readers to understand that point. If that is the point. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cut the "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" portion; the Japanese and Hepburn names will suffice. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I try to include citations mid-sentence only if the information isn't supported by a citation at the end. I could try bundling them, though I find this makes it confusing which citation supports which piece of information and leads to clusters.

Mid-sentence cites are permitted in WP, so this is no reason to oppose FA. But it is a balancing act the editor must perform: balancing flow/readability vs citation clarity. Very few readers will scrutinize the cites, but all readers will read the sentence. When I do that balance, the conclusion is to favor readability. I don't understand what you mean by "I could try bundling them ..." ... the article already has many sentences that end with 2 or 3 superscripts, such as ... that the platforming was rarely difficult.[8][17][50] Can that approach be used to eliminate the mid-sentence superscripts? If you want to help the reader know which specific fact is supported by the source, you can put that in the citation. e.g. "Smith, 2015, "New game arrives" page 14. Game rating is 82.5 In this example, you add the specific fact (rating is 82.5) at the end of the citation. That would only be required in the handful of mid-sentence cites that you move to the end of the sentence, not all cites. Again, mid-sentence cites are no reason to Oppose for FA .... I'm merely suggesting how to improve reader's flow. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: Apologies for my late response, but I was actually able to cut or bundle quite a few of these citations in the gameplay and development/release sections while ensuring every statement is still supported. If you wanted to take another look over, that would be much appreciated. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, Mr. Pipe's name is never actually mentioned anywhere in the game, so I would recommend including just this one reference in the plot section.
• Specified the relevant year for the statement about the game selling two million copies.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Green Star Collector: Replied above, below specific topics. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Green Star Collector, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• ... some more comments added by Noleander 25 April 2025:

• Terminology: The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels, for a total of 60 courses. I gather the terms "course" & "level" are synonyms? I believe "level" is more common, especially in US. Consider using "level" exclusively in the article, so as to minimize confusion to readers unfamiliar with gaming.

• Trim unneeded words: Much like that of its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... Consider Like its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... or Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ...

• No need to identify source in Lead: According to producer Takashi Tezuka, a sequel to Yoshi's Island was chosen.. When I see a source explicitly named like that ("According to producer Takashi") it draws my attention, and makes me think the fact is contentious, e.g. a controversial opinion. I'm not sure there is any need to name the source in the Lead, which is supposed to be a very high overview. Maybe omit source from Lead, and put into the body text?

• Include job title: The game was first announced by Satoru Iwata ... consider naming that persons title e.g. "producer Satoru Iwata ..."

• To use a source within an FA nominated article, it is generally required that the nominator read all the sources (at least, the parts of the sources relevant to the article). A few of the sources are in Japanese (14, 43, 47). Have you read those? If you cannot read Japanese, perhaps you can post a query at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles asking if it is okay to rely on the translated versions of those sources?

• Categories: They are appropriate & alphabetized.

• External links: "US official site" external link appears to have a dead URL: https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/yoshis-new-island-3ds/ That is not permitted by WP:ELDEAD. The archived version of the "US official site" is still of interest, but it would have to be in a footnote or someplace less conspicuous.

• Ditto for this external link: https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/yoshis-new-island-3ds

• Wording second to last ... consider next to last ... so fast readers don't read it as "second"

• Image free-use: The article has only two images; both are copyright, and both have "fair use" justifications that seem satisfactory (but I am not a copyright expert)

• Leaning 'Support'. @The Green Star Collector: after you've addressed/resolved the above items, notify me and I can make another pass. Note that some of the above are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: Most of your recent suggestions should now be addressed. I feel sufficiently confident in my understanding of the Japanese articles, at least the parts that are relevant to this article. With regard to the dead external links, should the archived versions also be removed or simply relocated? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think those dead archive links are historically valuable. Just try keeping them in the article but hide them in a footnote. Maybe a footnote at the end of the some other external link. Noleander (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support Noleander (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image placement, ALT and rationales seem OK. I see spotchecking was done above. I'll disclaim that I am relying heavily on WP:VGRS for the sources now: Are Chris Carter and Andriessen, CJ from Destructoid and Klepek, Patrick from Giant Bomb reliable sources? Same for Slant Magazine. Siliconera apparently is only barely acceptable as a source, so probably unsuitable for FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The author of the Destructoid review was the site's reviews director at the time of publication, while the author of the other Destructoid article was an editor-at-large. Likewise, Klepek was a news editor for Giant Bomb, and his name even redirects to Wikipedia's article for the site. LeChevallier authored more than 200 articles for Slant Magazine between 2011 and 2015, though I can remove this source if absolutely necessary. I've also removed the Siliconera citations wherever possible, though we do still have to rely on a few for the name of the art director as well as some key sales info. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

1985 Wales v Scotland football match

Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the World Cup qualifying game between Wales and Scotland in September 1985, at the end of which the Scottish manager Jock Stein collapsed and died. The article is already at GA status, but I done done a significant amount of revising in an effort to get it to FA status, in the hope of getting it onto the Home Page on 10 September this year, which will be the 40th anniversary of the game, and of Stein's passing Hammersfan (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Departure–

I'll be reviewing this over the coming days. Seems like an awfully interesting topic. I'll preface this by saying I don't know much about football or sports in general but a review is a review and I'll scrutinize anything that needs to be. Departure– (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Background

Home Internationals

• Put a {{main|British Home Championship}} template here - unsure about this point as it's linked later on, but it couldn't hurt.

Done

• Link Home Nations

Done - removed duplicate link further down paragraph

• What is the meaning of "friendlies"? It should be explained so those not familiar with sports can accessibly understand the article.

Changed entry to "exhibition games" with note explaining meaning of "friendly"

• But, as international football expanded, - Starting a sentence like this strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps replace "but" with "however".

Changed

• The objective "prestige" quality of the British Home Tournament isn't introduced until the part where it "starts to wane".

Added additional sentence

• The British Home Championship had ended in the 1983–84 season - Link the season if an article exists.

Done

• citing an increasingly congested international fixture list, and waning interest from supporters, - As there are only two reasons, with the second one being much longer, I don't think the comma is necessary for comprehension.

Removed

• The Home Internationals had been a fixture in the calendar for 100 years, and there was some level of disappointment felt by Wales and Northern Ireland over the decision. - The "a fixture in the calendar" strikes me as a bit puffery-y. Does the source support that wording?

Added line explaining that they had been played every year, with exception of the World Wars, since 1883

First set of items from Departure– attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• This game, Wales' first win at Hampden for 34 years, saw Scottish complaints over what appeared to be a foul by Welsh striker Mark Hughes on defender Alex McLeish in the buildup to the goal scored by Ian Rush, and a clash between Scotland captain Graeme Souness and Welsh midfielder Peter Nicholas, for which both were booked, and which led to a number of the Welsh team surrounding the Scottish player. - This sentence is very long and should be split up.

Done

• With this in mind, a draw for Scotland would be sufficient to virtually guarantee second place in Group 7 and advance at the very least through to the two legged play-off against the winner of the Oceania qualifying tournament, while a win would likely see them top the group and qualify automatically. For Wales, anything less than a win would end their hopes of qualification unless Spain failed to beat Iceland. - No citation here. While the material might be sourced, not having a citation is going to make verifying this information less accessible.

Found appropriate citation

• The situation was similar to the qualification for the 1978 World Cup, - This should probably be prefaced with "the initial" or some variant - perhaps changing it to "the matchup" - unless I'm missing something.

Changed to "the matchup"

• while Wales needed a victory to keep their hopes alive for their final game - the wording on "keep their hopes alive" strikes me as odd. Can it be changed to some variant of "have a chance"? I don't know if this is a formal MOS point.

So altered

Second set of items from Departure– attended to Hammersfan (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Build-up

• Scotland meanwhile went into the match - Add a comma here.

Done

• In 1985, the FAW did not have the use of a large national stadium. - It might just be a quirk of British English but from across the pond "the use of" seems like it should be replaced with "access to".

Done

• Ninian Park however had had its capacity cut - Add a comma here.

Slightly reworded

• the interest in the game led to the FAW to name the larger Ninian Park as the venue - Whose interest? The audience or the organizers? This should be clarified more.

Done

• while just two days after Scotland's qualifying game in Iceland, the Heysel Stadium disaster had occurred prior to the 1985 European Cup Final, which had led to English clubs being banned from European competition by UEFA. This sequence of events is preceded by a semicolon. Incidents should therefore each have a semicolon or something of the like to distinguish them from each other. Also, more information about the Heysel Stadium disaster would be appreciated.

Added semicolons; also added note going into more detail about Heysel - I don't feel this should form part of the text itself, but you're correct that it needs more explanation

• although there were discussions over their participation in the 1988 European Championships. Nor did it have any implication for either the Scottish Football Association (SFA) or FAW over their clubs' participation in European competition. - Replace that period with a comma and lowercase "nor", or you've got a live and primed fragmentation gren- er, sentence fragment, floating in your FA-to-be.

Done

Third set of items by Departure– attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Match

• in spite of the fact that the day was not so hot as to cause significant perspiration - "not so hot" has a double meaning as a metaphor for generally feeling unwell, so this should be rephrased to make it clear the temperature was at fault here.

Done

• and had lost one of his contact lenses. Not only that, but he did not have a spare pair with him. - These shouldn't be two sentences - it could be replaced with something along the lines of "lost one of hs contact lenses, while not having a spare replacement pair."

Reworded

• Reports were sketchy initially - "Sketchy" could likely be replaced with some variant of "disparate", "spotty", "inaccurate", "misleading", etc.

Changed to "confused"

• BBC Radio commentator Peter Jones (who had no access to the television pictures and was relying on information from other people in the press box) - The splits would be better off as consistent. As far as I can tell, this article primarily uses commas and endashes to break up text fragments so one of those should be used here instead of parentheses.

Done

• the depth of feeling from the Scotland fans was summed up when one said: - Who is this "one"? Is it just a random quote from a fan? If so, it shouldn't be described as "summing up" an entire community's feelings.

Reworded

A lot of my prose criticism may have to do with British vs American English but there is objectively plenty to improve as is. Plenty of prose, seems generally well-cited. Once all of this is dealt with I'd be comfortable supporting on prose. Departure– (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Last set of items from Departure– attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been busy working on my own article and haven't been checking this, but I'll be doing a spot-check later today before giving my support. Departure– (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Since my initial criticism and the cleanup after, a quick spotcheck shows prose about on par with what I'd expect from a featured article, so support on prose only; no prejudice against a second prose check, and a source check still needs to be done. Departure– (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Alt text added to images
• Captions need editing for grammar/style
  • Amended captions
• File:Daily_Record_Jock_Stein_death.jpg has an incomplete FUR
  • Completed as far as possible
• File:Jock_Stein_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1590588.jpg: what's the copyright status of the plaque?
  • The photo of the plaque is listed on Wikimedia Commons as being under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence - this is indicated on the page from which it was taken (https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1590588)
    • That's the photo - my question is regarding the plaque itself. To my knowledge engravings are not typically covered by UK freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no graphic one can hold copyright on so to my knowledge it would fall under {{PD-text}}, at least where US copyright law and by extension Wikimedia is concerned. Departure– (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If it is believed that the photo will cause an issue then it's simplest to just remove it - I have now done this. Hammersfan (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Issues raised by Nikkimaria attended to - Hammersfan (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• " In his programme notes for the first game of the 1984 tournament" - would it be more accurate to refer to this as the 1983-84 tournament?
• ""World Cup 1986". Internationals on ITV 1984-present. ITV Football 1968–83" - this is some sort of unofficial website - what makes this a high-quality RS?
• "having been drawn together in the same qualifying group for the 1986 World Cup," - is this necessary? This is found in the immediately preceding sentence
• Is there some sort of link available for "booking" for the benefit of those who do not follow association football/soccer?
• "while at the same time virtually eliminating Wales from the competition." - this sort of phrasing really implies that an Iceland victory over Spain was very unlikely, but nothing of that sort is directly stated in the article
• I am very confused about the 12.9% 32.26% 9.68% win percentages in the table for the stadium. The 9.68% is apparently the 3 wins at Vetch divided by the 31 games total, but I don't know what makes that an informative number - I can understand a winning % at the stadium, or maybe what % of the wins were at each stadium, but this is just confusing for me
• "The disaster at the Heysel Stadium in Brussels saw 39 fans of Italian club Juventus killed " - is it accurate to say that all 39 were Juventus fans? Our article on the Heysel disaster only states that most of the dead were Juventus supporters
• " showed Stein, who appeared to be both conscious and alert," - while yes, he does appear to be concious and alert while being carried down there, it's a little OR-ish to be citing this to a YouTube copy of the original TV broadcast
• "lewellyn, Don/Watts, John/Williams, Lewis (Directors) (1985). World Cup Soccer Special: Wales v Scotland (Television). Cardiff, Wales." - this would be a copyrighted TV broadcast, right? There isn't any indication that leads me to believe that the YouTube uploader has the copyright to this video, which would make it a WP:ELNEVER situation
• There is still an active CN tag in the article from last month, although it is followed by a citation?
• It's not clear to me where the game counts in the Welsh home venues 2000–2024 are sourced
• " "27 Years since Jock Stein died". Jambos Kickback. 10 September 2012. Archived from the original on 15 May 2023. Retrieved 7 April 2025." - what makes this a high-quality RS? It appears to be a web forum (non-RS) publishing newspaper scans (ELNEVER again)

I think there is a fair bit of work needed here yet. Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

St Scholastica Day riot

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not often a corked wine ends up with three days of rioting, ninety dead and a grudge between town and gown that still lingers, but that's what happened in Oxford in 1355 on the feast day of St Scholastica. Any and all constructive comments are, as always, most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. My absolute favourite Wikipedia article. Reads like a skirmish from the Hundred Years' War - which was ongoing at the time. More on this later.

• No ISBN for Crossly and Elrington?

And should "Vol. 4, the City of Oxford" be 'Vol. 4, The City of Oxford'?

• Cites 3 and 16 are inconsistent with cites 52 and 53 re case.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gog: these sorted. I look forward to any more comments you may have. Looking at the first FAC, you were quick to put your name down then too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the town was also made to pay the university a fine of one penny for each scholar killed." Inserting 'annual' or similar in that would make its meaning a little clearer. (I only know this because I queried last time.) In both the lead and the article.

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• "In 1349 the Black Death affected the town; there are no reliable figures for the deaths in the city." Which gives a reader no idea at all as to how bad it might have been. I can give you two solid modern sources estimating that it killed 45% of the population of England, and a very thorough and reputable 2004 source giving 62% +. Including something like this would at least give a reader some idea of the scale.

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• "fined the town's authorities 80 marks", "fined £200 in damages" etc. My way of putting this sort of thing in context is the footnote "To give a very rough idea of earning power, an English foot-soldier could expect to earn £1 in wages for, usually seasonal, military service in approximately three months." Let me know if you would like the source.

  I've connected it to agricultural workers instead, which should serve just as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• "is as a result of the settlement following the riots." Try it without the "as".

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• "and the practice was allowed to drop". Maybe "drop" → 'lapse'?

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would suggest that in Background you mention that England was 18 years into the Hundred Years' War - Edward was to campaign in both France and Scotland within a year. His son was to fight the Battle of Poitiers and capture the French king the next year. By 1355 tens of thousands of Englishmen had served in the military and experienced battle. Eight years before he had led the largest English army to be deployed overseas prior to 1600. Thousands of these men were convicted felons serving in exchange for a pardon. Between the Black Death and the near constant warfare, with large numbers of battle-hardened and/or traumatised men moving between more-or-less civil and military activities it was a toxic societal background which I feel a little more could be made of.

  I've added something to the resolution section - explaining the speedy closure of the matter, given the other pressures on him. I've done some research to try and find anything that comes close to the 'toxic society' being a factor in the riots, but I've drawn a complete blank, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Cheers Gog. A few done and I'll be back in the morning with the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

All now addressed, hopefully satisfactorily. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Cites 17 and 3 are in sentence case; 40, 57 and 58 are in title case. Either is acceptable, but could you be consistent. Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oops - I changed half, but not the actual refs. Now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• "£15.57" smacks a little of false precision.
• " With the French reneging on the Treaty of Guînes—which affected his approach to Scotland as well—". Optional: ' With the French reneging on the Treaty of Guînes, meaning that renewed warfare with both France and Scotland was imminent,'?
• 65% fatality rate. I remember Benecictow giving 62.5%, but that is without looking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  All sorted. I double checked Benecictow, and it definitely says 65 per cent (per the version at https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1017/9781787449312). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

MS

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Image

• All of them have alt text for their captions and the images in public domain have a US tag.

Lead

• Small "m" in "mass".

  It should be a capital. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Background and Dispute

• Could Royal charter be linked in this section as it is the first occurence (the Resolution section comes later)?
• The article Excommunication has been linked twice in the same section.
• Small "c" in "chancellor" in these sentences -
  • In 1349 scholars from Merton College rioted to have John Wylliot, their preferred candidate, elected Chancellor of the University;...
  • The following morning, in an attempt to stop any recurrence of the violence, the Chancellor issued a proclamation at the churches of St Martin and St Mary that no-one should bear arms, assault anyone or disturb the peace.

Resolution

• Small "b" in "Bishop" in this sentence: When the interdict was lifted by the Bishop of Lincoln,...

  This should be a capital. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

A fine article overall. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• One more suggestion after a re-read:
  • The tavern was located in the centre of Oxford, on the corner of St Aldate's and Queen Street, at Quatrevoies (now Carfax); the tavern was a regular drinking spot for the students. Could the repetition of "the tavern" be avoided?
• Support. Good luck with your nomination, Schro. MSincccc (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Don't delete comments and votes: it's pointy and disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

    Singling out users is also not a good thing. MSincccc (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim

Didn't take Gog long to gravitate to this article, I see. Drawn by the body count, no doubt, though it wasn't on the Crécy scale.

I dunno. 93 dead Englishmen is more than was reported at the time for either Crécy or Poitiers, two major battles with tens of thousands of combatants. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyhow, not much from me. I supported on the article's previous appearance here and I haven't found much to carp or quibble about now that it has reappeared.

• "which stood on Carfax, in the centre of the town" – but as you tell us later it wasn't called Carfax at that time I think perhaps you need "the street now known as..." or some such here. And American "on" rather than English "in"?
• "the resulting melee turned into a riot" – the OED and Chambers both give "mêlée" its circonflexe and aigu.
• "63 members of the university" – this is a bit vague: did "members" include undergraduates, graduates, dons and support staff?

  Possibly. The sources don't specify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The number of students killed in the riots is variously given as 63" – this looks a little odd to my eye. I'd have expected "variously given as" to be followed by more than one figure.
• "the work is in Latin and many are held in the Bodleian" – the work is but many are? Not quite right, possibly.
• "petitioned Thomas Wolsey about who held jurisdiction on various points" – might be helpful to explain in passing who Wolsey was.
• "One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century" – I struggle to understand why the civic authorities' weakness prevented plays and theatre until the sixteenth century. Did the University authorities object and put the kibosh on them?

That's all I can come up with, apart from quibbling with your preamble on this review page: whatever was wrong with the wine, it wasn't corked. Cork wasn't used as a stopper for wine bottles till the 17th century. But I digress. No apologies required, constant digression being the saving grace of senile reminiscence. – Tim riley talk 15:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim; all done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I find it chilling how cheap life was then in Oxford (but then anyone for Gaza in 2025?). 16:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• As a parent of a current Oxford University student, I feel drawn to this one, so will review it in due course. I'll also advise said student that if he is unhappy with the quality of beer in any establishment in which he drinks, maybe express it in a calmer manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• " which stood on the crossroads" => " which stood at the crossroads", maybe....?
• "He came down on the side of the university authorities" - "He" being the king?

  Yes - I've not touched this one as the king is the only individual mentioned in the preceding part of the paragraph

• Edward III is linked in the lead but not the body
• Woodstock isn't linked
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Many thanks Chris; all addressed, although I've demurred on one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Signing on! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi PMC; just the very gentlest of gentle nudges on this... - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Many apologies, here we go.

Lead

• "students' accommodation" suggest swapping to "student accommodations", purely to be neurotically consistent with the plural "university halls" (won't die on the hill of it)

  'student accommodation' or 'students' accommodation' would be much more common in BrEng (as is 'university halls'). We aim to confuse! - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Otherwise the lead looks pretty reasonable to me, although given Borsoka's concerns, I'll look again when I'm done the article

Background

• "while there were lay students, those who attended were called clerks" I was confused about the connection here. After a little googling, I see that "clerk" is derived from "cleric", so presumably it was originally a religious title/position. That may not be obvious to most readers. Could we footnote?

  Certainly: now done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Link tonsure?

  Linked - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Having reached the "unpunished" statement which was so problematic to Borsoka, I have thoughts (see subsection below)
  • To the accusation of close paraphrasing: it is close to the source, but it's also the kind of simple statement of facts where there are not many other ways to write it without tying ourselves up in knots of elegant variation
  • I think the source is actually fairly clear that neither the university nor the legal system undertook to punish many of these acts
    • The context of the paragraph is coroner's inquests. Coroners are judges. Their inquests are legal proceedings. It's pretty clear that the law is involved here.
    • The author then states that many of these incidents "seem to have been countenanced by the University". okay, "to countenance" is to support or approve of something, so that covers the University not giving a shit that their students were doing riot-murders.
    • Then in a new sentence, the author writes that these "offences frequently went unpunished". We've already established that the University is countenancing these, so it makes no sense for the author to be referring again to University punishment. In the context of the fact that we started out talking about coroner's inquests, I think it's fairly clear that he's saying that the legal system also did not care that students were doing riot-murders.
    • In light of this, I think the original version, "unpunished by the university or the law", is more accurate to the text, and more clearly communicates to the reader that neither of the big power players here, the university or the legal system, cared to punish the students for being hoodlums
  • I do think it may be worth emphasizing that the students were claiming religious privileges to escape punishment, since I think that does make it somewhat more clear why they were being let off the hook

  The source only mentions the religious privileges in connection with the 1314 riot, so I've added it there. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I feel that the info about previous incidents of violence could be condensed a bit. There's quite a bit of detail about individual incidents that at this stage don't appear to have a direct bearing on the Scholastica riot, whereas a more general overview might be more effective. I reserve the right to reassess this comment after I'm done, I just don't want to forget to write it now.
• I'm not entirely sure the paragraph about student on student riots is needed, since this is a student on townsfolk riot. Could be condensed?

  I've trimmed off the last part, but increased it with the benefit of clergy explanation - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dispute

• article says "Cricket Thomas" but the link goes to Cricket St Thomas - intentional omission?

  Sort of, but on reflection there is no need, so piping removed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Mildly suggest swapping the order of " Humphrey de Cherlton, the Chancellor of the University", only because Humphrey is linked and it's a near sea of blue with the University Church link that ends the previous sentence

  Yes, done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Other student corpses" - "the corpses of other students" sounds better, since arguably the corpses are not students

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Any indication where Mortimer gets his estimate from?

  None, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are there other plausible figures for the student death toll?

  Sort of! There are other figures given in older sources (Wood in 1793 says forty, for example) and there are others, but the sources are not the strongest, which is why I've hedged on the wording slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Resolution & Aftermath

• It's not entirely clear why the Bishop's response was to ban the townsfolk from religious services. Does the source go into greater detail about that?

  No details on why, unfortunately. My OR is that I think the church would always favour the university (it was seen as at least a quasi-ecclesiastical body), and an attack on the university and students would be considered an attack on the church, so the townsfolk needed to be punished - and putting their souls in jeopardy by refusing them access to services etc was certainly a punishment. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• "When the interdict was lifted by the Bishop of Lincoln" - do we know when?

  It seems to suggest it was at the time the royal charter was issued, but doesn't clearly says this, so I've gone with over a year later, which requires no reading between the lines. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• "A series of poems, "Poems Relating to the Riot Between Town and Gown on St. Scholastica's Day", was written; the poems are written" it may not be plausible to write around, but the flow is a bit awkward with the repetition of poems 3x and written 2x

  Reworded a little. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I assume the poems are anonymous, but we should say so

  They are similar to those of a named friar, so I've put in a possible connection to him. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Does Rigg cite the following verse as an example? If so, we should say as much, if only to introduce the verse a bit. Right now it's just there.

  OK. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• The discussion of theatre is curious to me, mainly because it's not entirely clear from the text why it's such a big deal that the town didn't have these facilities. Would it be possible to briefly touch on the significance?

  There isn't anything about the significance, just that there weren't any plays being performed to speak of, unlike towns of a comparable size like York or Wakefield, where there was a thriving theatre culture. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Several previous mayors...were fined" do we know when these happened? Even the latest one, at least. I'd be interested to see how far the fines persisted

  Me too, but the reporting is as bald in detail as out reporting of it, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That's everything I have, sorry again for the delay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much PMC. I think I've covered everything, but please let me know if I've missed anything out. I haven't yet added back in the "by the university or the law" line, but will leave it pending until others have chipped in on the point. (And no need to apologise - I'm just delighted and grateful for your comments). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The changes look good to me, so I'm happy to support. Well done! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks PMC - I'm very grateful for your comments, which have been a great help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Subsection for discussion of "unpunished"

I only comment here because you mentioned me above. My main concern is that the text "remained unpunished by the University" implies that the University had the legal capacity to punish its students for murders or other violent acts. Did it indeed have? Based on the background's section I rather understand that church courts/magistrates had the authority (but it is unclear, so should be clarified). For me, the text that the crimes "remained unpunished ... by the law" is ambiguous, implying that there was an act saying that Oxford students could not be punished for public violence. I doubt this was the case: they were unpunished because they had clerical status in contrast with the townpeople with whom they were fighting. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course the university had the legal capacity to punish its students. Most organisations can and will punish an individual who has committed a crime: the individual can be given a fine by the police and be sacked from work or expelled from school or university. The university has a form of jurisdiction over their students (they did then, they do now). Neither the law nor the university punished these students. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, we are in the middle ages: if canon law said that clerics could only be punished by a church court, no one else had the authority to punish them. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Borsoka, I think SC is correct in his reply here. You may be overthinking the meaning of "punish" as being something done under the auspices of the legal system, but that isn't necessarily the case. Being expelled, for example, is a punishment for bad behavior, but it is decision made by the administration of the university, not the legal system. I am not sure I understand why you think the source is implying that there was an act saying that Oxford students could not be punished for public violence. There does not have to be an official act permitting whatever for the law to just not give a shit. Consider the thousands of rapists who go uncharged every year simply because there is no will to investigate, arrest, charge, and punish them. There is no law that decriminalises rape, but because nobody cares, they get away with it. So again here. For whatever reason - it looks like religious, primarily - neither the university nor the legal system really cared about students doing murder. (Consider also that this was in the year 1355, when society was considerably more violent and the law considerably less sophisticated than it is today.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read my comment above about canon law. We are in the middle ages. (Actually, medieval law was much much more sophisticated than modern law, because people did not have the same status: clergy, noblemen, burghers, peasants, slaves, Jews were treated differently by legislation and many groups had their own courts of justies. For instance, clerics could not be sentenced to death and they were not imprisoned, but sent to a monastery by church courts.) Borsoka (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I did read your comment. Did you read mine? You have responded to almost none of it. I think this discussion will be more constructive if we are discussing the text and not one another's commenting, so let's both agree to focus on that going forward.

I don't understand your confusion on the matter. Again, I think you are overthinking the definition of "punishment". If canon law prevented the legal system from inflicting criminal punishment on clerics, then that accounts for why they were not punished by the legal system. It does not prevent the University, as an organization, from inflicting its own administrative punishment on the students, such as expulsion or suspension. The reactions of the legal system and the law are different animals here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read. The article's text emphasised that the students were not punished by the university or by the law, although the cited source does not say this, and this silence is not by chance: only church courts had the authority to punish clerics for murders and violent acts in any way. You are both assuming that the university could have expelled or fined a cleric for murdering a layman, but this assumption is not verified by the cited sources. The cited source only says that the University protected its students. Could we write that the murderer remained unpunished by his wife if we could cite a relaible source saying that his wife protected the murderer? Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

And the university would have been able to take action of its own, if it so desired, but chose not to. They were punished neither by the university or the law.- SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

although the cited source does not say this - this is where we disagree, because by my reading, it clearly does. this assumption is not verified by the cited sources - it is a reasonable inference from Musgrave's statement that the university "countenanced" the murders. If the University authorities were helpless in the eyes of the law, he would have said so, but he didn't. He chose to use the word "countenanced", as in, accepted, supported, or tolerated. Could we write that the murderer remained unpunished by his wife... The word "punishment" generally refers to a consequence imposed by an authority (parent, court, school, job, etc), so we probably wouldn't in a formal encyclopedia setting, because unlike the University over its students, a wife is not usually considered an authority over her husband (although husbands should be careful which wives they argue that to). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

A new assumption: you are assuming that universities had any authority in cases of murders commited by clerics in the 13th and 14th centuries, although anybody who ignored the privileges of clerics and the jurisdiction of church courts risked serious sanctions, such as excommunication. However, I think we do not need to discuss this issue any more. The present wording ("there were no punishments given to the students") is fully in line with the cited source. I would add an example about possible reasons, but otherwise I do not challenge this text. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It was fully in line with the sources before too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with SC, and I repeat that I think the previous version is more informative and more accurate because it tells the reader who exactly was doing the not punishing. It might help if other users weigh in as well so a consensus can be developed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Having looked closely I concur with PMC: SC's text accurately reflects the source and is more informative. Tim riley talk 12:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Even so, the cited sourced should be reflected not editors' assumptions: "The university protected the students, and there were no punishment given to them.", or something similar. Borsoka (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're on (or possibly passed) the point of bludgeoning in this review, given this is the third section you are commenting in. As PMC has said, it would be best to hear from others, rather than constantly from you. Let them have their say without further bludgeoning and maybe a consensus will have a chance to develop. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

As other opinions have been solicited here’s mine.

The disagreement is over whether this:

"Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law."

Is accurately sourced to this:

"A large percentage of entries on the Oxford coroners’ rolls deal with riot-deaths. Indeed, of the twenty-nine coroners’ inquests held between 1297 and 1322, twelve were concerned with murders committed by scholars, many of which seem to have been countenanced by the University. Such offences frequently went unpunished."

I think it is because "countenanced" means at least tolerated if not approved of by the university, and "coroners’ inquests" covers the "law". It is not close paraphrasing as there are limitations on the ways of saying such straightforward facts. I prefer SC's original sentence: it is truer to the meaning of the source. Graham Beards (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am of the same view as Graham Beards, immediately above. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks to all who have commented. I have put back the sentence now, given we have a rough consensus that a. it is appropriate and b) it is an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Support (and two comments) from Graham Beards

• Can you live with this fused participle "with armed gangs coming in" ?
• I had to read this twice, "the town burghers surrendered the rights of their respective entities to the King." I don't want to seem thick, but "entities"?

A lovely article, which is clearly of FA standard. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, Graham. Both these tweaked - I hope satisfactorily. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Pbritti

Adding my two cents. More to come. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• "On 10 February 1355—Saint Scholastica Day" Here, the saint's day is written differently than in the lead, where it is presented as "Saint Scholastica's Day" and the proper noun is linked completely. Per MOS, we should link the full proper noun in both places. While it's not consistent with the name of the article, "St Scholastica's Day" (with the abbreviation and possessive) is the correct form.
• Not something I'd insist on, but the position of bailiff is not immediately obvious to those without at least a passing familiarity with medieval offices. Perhaps a two word description of the post? Certainly not mandatory.
• "After the rioting ended both" My understanding is that there ought to be a comma between "ended" and "both".

• The first two are done. The third isn't, as it's fine in BrEng not to have a comma after the introductory date or phrase. Many thanks for these and I'd be delighted if you have any more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I was unaware of that EngVar difference–thank you for sharing it! I'll add more comments ASAP. Your responsiveness is greatly appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I should add that using introductory commas is also common practice in BrEng too - both forms are equally valid. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• "At least one previous mayor had refused to take part" This strikes me as a bit different in meaning from the statement "several of his predecessors", which seems to indicate at least two mayors tried and failed to end the ceremony.

• Fair enough: done. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• On a similar note, I think we would benefit from clearly indicating that the penance was perceived as a humiliation by the city's government. Adding that to the start of the final paragraph in the Resolution section would also provide a more natural transition.

• Although I think it probably was taken that way by the city, I don't think there's anything to actually say that. Cheetham, for example, calls it "this humiliating ceremony", but that doesn't actually say the city council found it humiliating (it could be percieved as Cheetham's personal view of the ceremony). - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merton College, Oxford appears to be linked twice in the body. They are separated by quite a bit of text, but I think this still constitutes overlinking.

• I think the rules in WP:OVERLINKING have changed, and having duplicate links in different sections is now allowable. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Right again, SchroCat (I need to brush up on MOS:LINKONCE, it would seem). Happy to add myself as a strong support. Excellent writing, by the way. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks Pbritti. Your comments are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment

• @FAC coordinators: Have User:Fowler&fowler's comments from the previous FAC been addressed? (Also... who decides if a comment is constructive?) 2A00:23C5:F0B7:D701:468E:EC6E:C86D:66F0 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Constructive" and Fowler are not natural companions; the less we see of him at FAC, the less trolling happens and the less dramah is stirred up. Either way, I care not one iota about his comments. The article—this article that stands now—is here for examination by reviewers, who seem to happy with it, so far. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

In essence SC is correct, if rather enthusiastic in the way they express it. Each FAC starts with a clean slate. Previous nominations are listed at the top of each nomination page and if any reviewer feels that any issues in them still apply they are free to bring them up again. In the case of previous opposes a coordinator will usually have at least skimmed them, and if they feel it necessary will bring them up again themselves.

"Constructive": usually the community self polices. Ultimately the coordinators decide what if any weight to give a comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose by Borsoka

• I think a very short introduction to the scholars' (and possibly the townspeople's) privileges is needed to better understand the context of the events. I would also add a general statement about the causes of frequent conflicts between townspeople and scholars.

• I will go through the sources when I'm back, but much of this is not in any of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • My main concern about the whole article is that the basic question "why?" remains unanswered several times. Why was the relationship between the university and the town/scholars and townfolk tense? Why were the scholars unpunished several times? I think chapter "Town and University" in Crossley (1979) contains relevant background information. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• During the first part of the fourteenth century the population was aware of the decline of Oxford's fortunes, and this coincided with disturbance and unrest between the town and university. I would delete it. First of all, there is no reference to the decline of Oxford's fortunes between 1301 and 1349.

• I think this provides a measure of context to the events (we don’t need details of the decline, just an awareness that it existed). - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• On the occasions when peace settlements were imposed on the two sides, the outcome favoured the university. I would delete it because the statements raises the question "Why?", and subsequent sentences explain the whole issue in details.

• I think it’s better with this retained. As the subsequent sentences explain they ‘why’, people won’t remain mystified for long. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law. Why? Were the acts sanctioned sometimes only by the university, sometimes only by the "law"? I do not understand the reference to "law" in context.

• Not in the source. There was nothing "sanctioned" by either university or law, but we don't claim there was.
  I'm not sure what's confusing about saying someone wasn't punished by the law - can you clarify where the confusion lies? - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• I doubt that murders were not punished by law (whatever the term "law" means in context). Could you quote the text verifying this statement? Borsoka (talk)

• This has already been reviewed and verified in the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• My problem is that the sentence is not fully verified by the cited source, which says "Such offences frequently went unpunished", without any referenct to the university or "the law". The phrase is also closely paraphrased. After rephrasing it, I would also add an explanation, because the cited source states that in a specific case studens "claimed having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• There is no close paraphrasing. That's just not true. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for deleting the unverified statement in an attempt to stop my silliness ([14]). You could save much time for both of us if you were more cooperative. For instance, if you had checked/quoted the cited source as I proposed above you could have fixed the problem without forcing me to add a tag in the article. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Your WP:POINTY actions and the untruths you have written are more than silly: they are disruptive. If you had waited before you added a childish oppose, then there may have been cooperation, but while I was travelling I had no chance to do anything too much, but despite me asking for a few days, you didn't bother and just opposed. That's a piss poor approach to take. Asking for me to give you a source when you had access to it and being pointy and adding tags is worse: there's no point in asking for cooperation if you're going to play stupid games to disrupt a review. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• If you think my actions are disruptive, you can take me to ANI. I added my childish oppose after it became clear that you are unwilling to address major issues that I raised. Believe me or not, I had no access to the cited source when I requested a quote. Now I am not surprised that you did not want to qote the text that did not verify your full text. I still want to help you to improve this article. For instance, you could address the issue I raised below. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• "you are unwilling to address major issues that I raised": that's yet another bald-faced lie. Look at your comments and see how many have been addressed and corrected. You think that's me "unwilling to address major issues"? FFS: just because you think something doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and I've pushed back where I do not agree with a comment you have made. You can be as "surprised" as much as you want. I didn't even bother digging it out because you were not clear in your opening statements which particular parts you were not happy with or why: that only came much later when it became clear you already had the text: why piss about asking me for a copy when you already had it? You could have been constructive and said 'Looking at the source, it doesn't mention the university or the law when saying no-one sanctioned them'. You didn't: you played silly buggers and asked for a copy. It's no surprise cooperation is not forthcoming when disruption and stupid game playing is going on and when you turn around and make up fatuous lies that are so easily shown as such. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• You are really entertaining, so I invite you to my Talk page to share your negative thoughts about myself. However, could you address the issue below? This action might improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Take the baiting and trolling elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• ...there were no punishments given to the students. Why?

Not covered in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Covered in the sources as it is demonstrated by the quote above. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• There is no quote above that deals with this and no explanation in the source. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• OK, I quote it again: the [students] "having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether" - an example from the same source. Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• That concerns a 1314 riot. We are talking about no punishments given to the 1298 murder, to which, 'Not covered in the sources' still applies. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• (1) No, your text mentions coroner courts held between 1297 and 1322: "Violence continued to break out periodically and 12 of the 29 coroners' courts held between 1297 and 1322 concerned murders committed by students. Many of these went unpunished." (2) The cited source covers the same period, explaining one of the 12 cases that "went unpunished": "Indeed, of the twenty-nine coroners’ inquests held between 1297 and 1322, twelve were concerned with murders committed by scholars, many of which seem to have been countenanced by the University. Such offences frequently went unpunished. After a riot between Northernmen and Southern-men in 1314, of thirty-nine students known to have committed manslaughter, only seven were apprehended, the others having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether." Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• The same problem still applies. The privilege of the clergy only affects some of those from the 1314 riot. I’m not going to apply that to everyone between 1297 and 1322. As a reminder, this article is about the St Scholastica day riot, not generally about violence in medieval Oxford, so readers don’t need to know every detail of everything that preceded it. At the moment we are briefly covering the background to give some context: it is a poor step to bloat the background too much with extraneous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, the cited source only mentions the 1314 riot from the period. If the cited source's author thinks that this is relevant in the context, this could also be mentioned in the article to give an example why the students were not punished. Especially, because we know that most students were clerics. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• ’Could’, but I don’t intend to. We’re too far away from the riot and moving in the wrong direction with this. This is not an article about all medieval violence in Oxford. I’ll pass on this suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

So do you want to delete all references to previous riots? Or do you only want to emphasise that the rioters went often unpunished without mentioning the possible reasons? In the second case, why? Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve already explained and I don’t intend to repeat myself. You’ve left your oppose, and that’s fine, but I’m not going to waste my time dealing with things I’ve already dealt with. - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• ...the antiquarian Anthony Wood, among others,... I would delete "among others".

• That would be misleading, making it look like it was only Wood. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• There were reports that some of the clerics were scalped... By whom? (I assume they were scholars and were scalped by the townsfolk, but I am not sure.)
• The charter... I would specify that this is King Edward's charter.

Done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• The situation was exacerbated by a lack of a cathedral in the town, which meant no religious plays were performed for pilgrims. I would delete it, for it is not connected to the riot.

• It is a repercussion of the settlement. As it’s covered by a source that directly links it to the settlement, it’s germane to the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century, largely because the small and weak guilds were not able to produce them. The situation was exacerbated by a lack of a cathedral in the town, which meant no religious plays were performed for pilgrims. I would delete both sentences because the cited source does mention the riot, but does not make direct connection between it and the lack of theatres in Oxford. That Oxford had no cathedrals and the guilds ceased to exist by the second half of the 13th century had no connection with the riot (at least according to the cited source). "Oxford was not a cathedral town and therefore not a religious center where pilgrims would congregate and the performing of plays could serve a religious need. ... <<By the second half of the thirteenth century, many of the trade guilds...had ceased to exist;>> ... The first overt clash recorded between Oxford and the new University took place in 1209, and the violent climax of terror was reached in the famous St. Scholastica's Day riot in 1355. The throne consistently supported the University in this conflict by granting it more and more authority...so that by the beginning of the sixteenth century the town of Oxford was practically governed by the University. Thus, it does not appear strange that the town did not nurture any plays;..." Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• OK, but I think this is still a relevant enough point for inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• The cited source does not make connection between the lack of cathedrals, the decline of guilds and the riot, and does not emphasise the riot's role in the lack of theatres in Oxford. WP:SYNTH. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• The article does not make the connection between the lack of cathedrals, the decline of guilds and the riot. It does make a connection between the riot and the lack of theatres in Oxford. We reflect the source. There is no Synth: that’s a false claim. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• No, it is not a false claim. Do you say, if I found a source stating that it was raining on St Scholastica Day in 1355, I could expand the article about information of average number of rainy days in Oxford between the 13th and 16th centuries? The source does make a connection between the lack of theatres and the growing power of the university as a consequence of a series of riots in Oxford, but not between the lack of theaters and St Scholastica Day riot, furthermore there is absolutely no connection between the lack of cathedrals and the riot in the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Now you're using logical fallacy to twist the point. I shall add information about the lack of cathedral, which should put this silliness to bed: the source makes a connection between the riots and a lack of theatres/plays: we need to do the same to be honest to the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think we can agree that we do not agree on this point. I say that a source that only tangentially mentions the riot as a background to the lack of theatres in Oxford cannot verify the two statements. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• ...the practice was allowed to lapse By whom and why?

• Not given in the source. Common sense would suggest that the university didn't kick up a fuss, given it was all a bit silly after so long, and obviously a possible cause of friction, but that's my OR that isn't covered by either source used, nor any of the others I've looked at. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• ...the two contemporary histories of the events ... Are these mentioned in the article? Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Cobban doesn't identify which two he is talking about. (I think I could probably hazard a guess, but I could be wrong) - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead): ...on 10 February 1355, St Scholastica's Day I would rephrase to avoid two mention the same term twice: "on 10 February 1355, the feast day of St Scholastica".

Done - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead): ..., which stood at the crossroads now known as Carfax,... I would delete this.

• I think it’s better with it in. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead): ...reports of clerics... I would clarify that these were scholars (if indeed this is the case).
• (Lead): Violent disagreements between townspeople and students had arisen several times previously, and twelve of the twenty-nine coroners' courts held in Oxford between 1297 and 1322 concerned murders by students. The University of Cambridge was established in 1209 by scholars who left Oxford following the lynching of two students by the town's citizens. I would delete it. I feel if extremly out of context between texts about the riot and the royal judgement. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• I’ll retain as being pertinent. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• In this case, I suggest that the lead should be restructured. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• I don’t think so. It’s the background to the riot, but for Wiki leads we don’t have background in the opening paragraph, but a v brief summary of the event. It’s valid info, and I think worth retaining as it is, where it is. I certainly won't "restructure" it to the end of the lead.- SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, but the present structure is disturing: 1. events, 2. backround, 3. sanctions. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• If we start with the background there would be very real complaints from all quarters, so that’s not going to happen. The first paragraph has to carry the main event of the article. I’m not going to leave the background out if the lead, as that would then fail WP:LEAD. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not, if the first sentence would properly introduce the event as a violent conflict between students and townspeople in Oxford. This would be fully in accordance with our relevant policy: "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." Presently, we are informed that St Scholastica Day riot occured on St Scholastica Day, and nothing more in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• That is a guideline, not a policy; it has a measure of flexibility and shouldn't be taken as holy writ. And the article follows in in letter and spirit: we say that it was a riot on St Scholastica's day: that is what the guideline tells us to do. If you really want a sentence that also includes a lot more background, I am sure I could introduce bad writing and bloat it to a monumental size with all sorts of bits and I'm sure someone would oppose based on MOS:LEADCLUTTER. But presently, the sentence does exactly what the guidance tells us to, and the opening paragraph fleshes it out further. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• I am really grateful for your above clarification of terms. I have never said that I want a sentence that includes a lot more background. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m away from my sources for a day or so, but will deal with the remainder on my return. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

For the time being, I think the article does not meet FACR 1a (lead section) and 1b (the lack of explanations). Furthermore, it may contradict WP:SYNTH. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Interjecting: I think the lead structure makes sense to me, similar to how event articles on Wikipedia are generally written: describing the event, the background and then the aftermath. Also in my source review, I don't believe there are strong cases of WP:SYNTH since the facts presented by the sources are also in context describing the background of the event.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEADSENTENCE is obviously ignored (that a riot is named after St Scholastica Day occured on that day is not a surprise for anybody). Could your refer to FAs which follow the pattern you are mentioning above? The cited source attributes the lack of theatres first of all to the lack of cathedrals, than to the decline of guilds in the 13th century, finally to the growing power of the universities as a consequence to a series of riots (among them mentioning St Scholastica Day's riot). This apporach is not reflected in the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple historical articles that follow this pattern, but I'm not going to dignify your misguided oppose by wasting my time digging them out. As has been explained above, we follow the guidance at LEADSENTENCE. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I fully understand you do not want to search for articles. It would obviously be a time-consuming process. My oppose is quite obvious at the very beginning of the section. I still think the article needs significant improvements. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be a complete waste of time. They are there (I know, because I've reviewed many of them and written a few others). Your oppose is noted, but it's based on your misunderstanding of a guideline that isn't reflected in the realities of a few hundred FAs written by dozens of editors over the last fifteen years or so. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I highly appreciate that you have written and reviewed FAs, but MOS:LEAD is only one of the reasons I am opposing this article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You have missed what I have said entirely, but I won't try and explain further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Map_of_11th_century_Oxford.jpg: I'm confused by the caption here, since the parish names are crossing over what I would see as blue. Could this caption be rewritten? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria - sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Allow me to do a source review on this. I noted in the previous FAC some chaos was stirred up regarding claims of "primary sources" and the citation formatting, but even from my understanding of Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC, and having undertaken source reviewing elsewhere before, I don't see any of the so-called issues pointed out. So, I shall ignore all that and do my own.

The article is well-cited to plenty of academic sources. The only trivial concern I have is the potential use of using a couple of Oxford University sources as it could be considered WP:PRIMARY with some concerns of bias, but even then, such commentary are published plenty of centuries after the event. Also it's Oxford; it's a renowned reputable university. There are also sufficient in-line citations when citing to Oxford publications. Overall, the sources are of high-quality.

Spot checks:

• Ref 1 I would actually cite both pages 75 and 81, since page 81 shows the map and 75 itself is just the description.

• OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 8, 10, 15 (both times) check out
• I will like to see the relevant quote from History Today to support Ref 21. Either link a screenshot via imgur or just quote.

• Which Ref 21? a, b or c? - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Doesn't matter - I'll send you the whole document. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Checks out.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• I can't really find in Ref 25 about the bailiffs partaking in the violence.

• 25 is supporting the description of what a bailiff is. 16 supports them taking part in the violence. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Then I would just shift Ref 25 that describes the bailiffs, but I'm not so particular.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 30 checks out. But I found it in page 100

• Odd - corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• The references of FN 33 check out
• FN 34, 35, 46 check out
• I was initially confused that for FN 55 you linked to a book of possibly a different title and author... until I double checked that Lawrence is the author of the said chapter.
• I might want a couple of screenshots of pages from Cobban, for FN48 and 60. And also Ref 52 for the poem, if it's possible.

• Do you mean FN47? (48 is Cheetham) - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yep I meant FN47. My bad. The pages by Cobban check out. However, for Rigg (FN51 as per this revision), I found the poem on page 269 instead of 262.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oops - done. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Overall, rather satisfactory. Will be happy to pass the source review once a couple of issues are cleared up.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sending the pages once again. Also a minor prose comment: Maybe also for like monetary values (e.g. £200) I wonder if you can give like the modern inflated values? I suppose 200 pounds is actually a lot more money back then.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve done them as a footnote, along with a wage comparison.

Thanks very much for your efforts here. They’re much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I find no further issues. Happy to pass.

Addendum: I actually also have an ongoing FAC which is pending a source review and I would appreciate if you are also able to take a look. But you aren't obliged to. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• @ZKang123: I found three unverified statements in the article although I only checked three sentences (two of them have been fixed) (by now all of them have been fixed: [15], [16]). Furthermore, I also found a closely paraphrased sentence. Did you check each sentence? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, I think you are being needlessly aggressive and grilling too hard into a veteran FAC nominator. I also did my spot-checks every five footnotes and my main concern was ensuring the facts are as stated as per the cited sources. Is that not enough for a source review? Must I scrutinise every citation and sentence such that you are satisfied? I might not have as much experience in source reviewing, but I have done plenty for various GANs and other FACs, and familiar enough with how source checks should be done. Also, why should I satisfy to your unreasonable expectations, since you aren't a FAC coordinator or the nominator? --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I have already read FAs and FACs written by veteran FA nominators that were filled with unverified sentences. Each FA nominator are expected to be cooperative and I am too old to accept arguments that "I have written and reviewed dozens of FAs and I know how to write an FA". When I started the review this was a tabloid article listing sensational facts now it begins to resemble an encyclopedic article. No, you need not to satisfy my expectations. I only indicated that each sentence I compared with the cited source contained unverified claims. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur with ZKang123 that Borsoka's contributions to this review have become aggressive and unhelpful. This is not the way we conduct our transactions in Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

When I started the review this was a tabloid article listing sensational facts now it begins to resemble an encyclopedic article. This is a tremendously arrogant statement for any reviewer to make at any FAC, and does not appear to be borne out by the difference between pre- and post-Borsoka versions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I would rather say I am tough when reviewing. If I wanted to list examples of agressive and arrogant comments and edit summeries, I would add the following items: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. According to my experiences both in WP and real life, aggressivity and arrogance to critical (or tough) statements are typical signs of uncertainty about the quality of our work. I maintain that I have reviewed few FACs of lower quality than this one. The article has improved but I still cannot regard it as an FA. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

More silliness. I am entirely entitled to disagree with suggestions you make - and I have done so when they did not improve the article. Thank you for those comments that did improve it, but the ones that were poor were turned down. If you endlessly push something that has been refuted, it's unsurprising that people get irked as a result. Now, you've said your piece, left your oppose and I think we can all move on with no more bludgeoning required. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

We agree: nominators are entirely entitled to disagree with suggestions reviewers make, and reviewers are entirely entitled to oppose an article's promotion if they think the article has not significantly improved. Yes, I leave my oppose, and we can move on. Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from UC

Another enjoyable read. I will try to avoid unkind remarks about Oxonians in what follows. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Definitely "St Scholastica Day" not "St Scolastica's"? Most saints' days are normally said in the possessive (e.g. tomorrow is St George's Day, not St George Day, as are other feast days (e.g. "All Hallows' Eve"). A non-scientific scan on Google Books seems to favour the possessive, though most of those are hardly HQRS. I notice we go for the possessive in the body.
  • The title was like this when I got here, and I noted that sources are split between the two forms, so left it like this. Like many of the sources, we talk about something happening on "St Scholastica's day", but refer to the events as the "St Scholastica Day riot" (aside from in one quote, where I've retained the original use of the possessive). - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Consistency is king -- I must admit that the distinction doesn't make much sense to me, but you're within your rights to make it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• My usual question on The town was fined 500 marks: was that a lot? Later, we have the EFN A medieval English mark was an accounting unit equivalent to two-thirds of a pound., but that only pushes the question to how much 2/3 of a pound was worth. There's a better EFN a bit later that could be adapted with a routine calculation.

• Added a footnote with the relevant details. It repeats what is in one and half other notes, but gives people who only read the lead what they need. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• The practice was dropped in 1825; in 1955—the 600th anniversary of the riots—in an act of conciliation the mayor was given an honorary degree and the vice-chancellor was made an honorary freeman of the city.: this sentence hinges on the reader knowing that a mayor is a civic official and the vice-chancellor a university one: suggest "the city's mayor was given an honorary degree, while the university's vice-chancellor" or similar.

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Has anyone put an oar in to say why the state (monarchy?) seems to have had such a soft spot for the students -- probably in general, rather than in this specific case? My naive assumption would be class, but it sounds like that isn't quite right, since the authorities seem to have fairly consistently sided with fairly ordinary students against fairly prominent townsfolk.

• Not that I could see, but I'll have another scratch round to see if there is anything. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Academic teaching has been ongoing at Oxford since 1096: any way to slightly hedge/fudge this so that we don't categorically state that nobody learned anything in Oxford in 1095?

• Doesn't 'academic' point to the tertiary level? - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, no -- I'm a secondary teacher, and my boss is the "Deputy Head (Academic)". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, swapped to 'university', although technically that may be a bit misleading, as it wasn't a university at that stage. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Would something like "formal", "institutional" work, or else "academic colleges have been operating..."? I don't know how far the latter works for the very early stages of what the university was. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

None of those really do it for me for various reasons. 'Formal' and 'institutional' seem wrong (neither signify a level of education) and I'm not sure we can go as far as 'academic colleges' - the source doesn't and I don't think it was that structured at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Academic teaching has been ongoing at Oxford since 1096; as a university it grew rapidly from 1167 and was given a royal charter in 1248,: I would think about rephrasing this. We start the sentence with "Oxford" referring to the city: that city is not a university, but contains one by the same name. How about "its university grew rapidly..."?

• OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Clerk" is derived from the Latin word clericus and originally meant "man in a religious order, cleric, clergyman", according to the Oxford English Dictionary: we normally attribute matters of opinion or statements that we consider doubtful, so I would probably cut here -- the attribution suggests that we're not sure of this, and we have the footnote to show on whose authority we're saying it.

• Fair enough, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• The secular clergy made up most of the student population and between 1200 and 1500, some seventeen per cent of the students were monks: I would explain this term, which looks at first glance like an oxymoron -- especially as its meaning is critical to understanding the force of the underlined bit. I might also be tempted to reverse: something like "Around seventeen per cent of the students were monks, while secular clergy -- other priests and deacons -- made up the majority of their numbers". Was there a third category?

• Reading that way round makes it look like secular clergy made up the majority of the seventeen per cent...
• Henry V went there and he probably makes up most or all of it! - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, so could we say that seventeen per cent were monks, and the remainder were overwhelmingly secular clergy, in that order? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• In 1334 Oxford, a town of 5,000 residents, was the ninth wealthiest settlement in England. -- two citations and two footnotes! Any way to collapse those down?

• Merged both - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• including some who settled in Cambridge to start the university that year. The university remained shut: unfortunate repetition, as there are two different universities here. Suggest "that city's university ... Oxford's university".

• Good point, done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law: this could be slightly ambiguous (do we mean that sometimes the law didn't punish them (but they were sent down), sometimes the university didn't punish them (but they were beheaded)...? I'm chewing on whether adding either helps ("Many of these went unpunished, either by..." -- I don't think that does!). I think it works with "both": "Many of these went unpunished by both the university and the law" -- like "the elephant went unnoticed by both of my great-aunts". I suppose we could equally just say "went unpunished"?

• There's a consensus elsewhere on this page that the additional wording is helpful in clarifying matters, so I don't think removal is right, so I've gone with 'both'. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• civic authorities requested that a papal legate intercede to bring the matter to a close. Included in Niccolò de Romanis's judgement in 1214: I would be tempted to allow this to breathe and state absolutely explicitly that de Romanis was that legate. Suggest something like "That legate, Niccolò de Romanis, included in his judgement of 1214 a clause..."

• Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• a clause that stated that if a scholar was arrested by the civic authorities, they would have to hand him over to the bishop of Lincoln, the archdeacon of the town or the bishop's named deputy is requested: if requested, I think. We capitalise "Bishop of Lincoln" in the EFN, but not here: I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES favours the capital. I think this whole sentence could be done more concisely and clearly: perhaps "a clause requiring the civic authorities to hand over, if requested, any scholar they arrested to the town's archdeacon, the Bishop of Lincoln, or the bishop's named deputy"?

• Done, but not done the final part of rewording. The request would come from whoever of the town's archdeacon, the Bishop of Lincoln or the bishop's named deputy requested it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, so "to the bishop of Lincoln, the archdeacon of the town or the bishop's named deputy, if any of the three requested?" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• In February 1298 a citizen was murdered by a student; one of the students was killed by townspeople: the semicolon suggests (at least to me) that this was a revenge attack: was it? If not, suggest "a citizen was murdered by a student and a student killed..."

• Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• This was the first occasion that the town's bailiffs—officers of the court who executed writs—were recorded as taking part in the violence: we didn't actually say that they did take part in the violence: could we build them in a bit earlier and explain what they actually did?

• Reworked - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• 39 students were known to have committed murder or manslaughter; seven were arrested: MOS:NUM would like "7".

• Gone with the equally allowable word form instead (as we've also got 'two' earlier in the sentence). - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Cricket St Thomas in Somerset and de Chesterfield was the rector of Ipplepen, in Devon.: why the difference of comma?

• Whimsy, nothing else. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• You could consider multi-imaging the Swindlestock Tavern with one of what's now called the Carfax Tower (like this one), as it was once the tower of St Martin's.

• Yep, added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Chancellor of the University: here I think PEOPLETITLES wants lc.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• chased them to the Augustine priory: I note with surprise that this form does get used, but as the proper noun is Augustine (like "Benedict", "Franciscus"), surely "Augustinian" is a better adjective?

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• to rally the respective supporters: I think we need "the respective factions' supporters, or a similar noun.

• 'Factions' works - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• students locked and barricaded some of the town's gates, to stop an influx of outsiders coming at them from a new direction: I can't quite tell from this whether there was an influx on its way, or whether they were simply preempting one that might turn up.

• The source doesn't clarify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• any action that involved a student or the university on one side was dealt with by the university: cut, unless we mean that the town had jurisdiction when students were on both sides. Equally...

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• The town authorities were left with the power to take action in legal situations where it involved citizens on both sides; any action that involved a student or the university on one side was dealt with by the university: we could lead with the change -- that the town authorities lost the authority to take action in a legal situation involving a student or the university on either side.

• Reworked - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• meaning that renewed warfare with both France and Scotland was imminent: might be nice to have an EFN saying when (and that) it did actually break out.

• Added a line about the Black Prince's grande chevauchée. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Gog, I've added this based on UC's comment here; as you're one of our experts on the point, is this okay, and with sufficiently solid sources? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The grande chevauchée was the 1356 one. In the 1355 one he marched to the Mediterranean and back - 675 miles. Suggest 'By the autumn of 1355 Edward III was in northern France leading an army against that of the French King, while at the same time his son the Black Prince led a destructive chevauchée 675 miles from English held Bordeaux to the Mediterranean and back.' or similar. You may wish to add more Wikilinks. I recommend citing to Rogers WC&S pp 296-304 for the former and Wagner pp 95-96 for the latter. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thansk Gog - much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• it was a unique position for any university in Europe: this seems to imply that some non-European universities had the same position?

• The source only refers to Europe, so it may be a bit of a stretch to make the thought global - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century: I need a bit of explaining as to how these two things are related. Is it that the city authorities were poor -- we say "weak", but what sort of strength do you need to put a play on?

  The source reads "Oxford was not a strong commercial center during the period when the cycles were being written and performed in England. Thus, there were no large and prosperous guilds to produce such plays in order to enhance the renown of the town and bring in tourists with pence to spend." (It's on JSTOR, so available), but the line of argument is shown, but not expanded upon. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Is it quite right to lump guilds under "the town's authorities" and, later, "the civic authorities"? I know guilds had influence and clearly had a lot of power over their members, but I'm not sure I've seen them promoted to being part of the actual state apparatus. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  They were part and parcel of the town's authorities - the Guilds were the power source for most. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Right, but the mafia are the power source for many people in Sicily, but I'd be uncomfortable calling them "the island's authorities". Do you have a reassuring academic quotation you can throw out to calm my nerves? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've reworked it a little, although the official power of guilds was clear at the time (see the make-up of the City of London for example - the Court of Common Council was made up of guildsmen; Exeter was the same, and so was Oxford). However, I think if I dig out sources that show the direct correlation between the guilds and local authorities we could be open to a charge of SYNTH in making the connection from there to the lack of theatre, so I've tweaked what we have. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• edited by the historian Thorold Rogers in 1891, and Medieval Archives of the University of Oxford: Vol 1, edited by the historian the Rev Herbert Edward Salter in 1920. The historian Jeremy Catto: I would cut the Rev (we don't call the others "Prof.", "Dr" etc etc -- MOS:HONORIFIC?). Anything to be done about the repetition here?

• Salter defrocked and the middle two 'historians' removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• A couple of journals don't have ISSNs.

• Added - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• The plaque commemorating the site of the Swindlestock Tavern from 1250 to 1709: I would give this caption another look: as written, it suggests that the plaque commemorated that site for nearly 500 years, but hasn't since 1709.

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hi UC, I think I've covered everything, but if there's anything still outstanding, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Great stuff: moving to support. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks - and for the comments, which were as excellent as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Roon-class cruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This article covers a pair of armored cruisers built by Imperial Germany in the early 1900s, one of which was sunk during World War I. This article is part of the Armored cruisers of Germany Featured Topic, and should this article pass, it will be one step along the way to turn all of the icons into stars. It passed a MILHIST A-class review last month, so it should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

UC

A few comments after a read-through from someone who knows almost nothing about warships. I enjoyed the article: it's clearly written from a place of huge knowledge, and on the whole was clear and engaging throughout.

• The two ships served in I Scouting Group, the reconnaissance force of the High Seas Fleet, after they entered service in 1905–1906: the High Seas Fleet didn't exist until 1907, which does not sit well with this or, later, On entering service, Yorck joined I Scouting Group, the reconnaissance squadron of the High Seas Fleet.
  • This is a fair point - the fleet existed, just under the name Heimatflotte - I've created a redirect from that name and updated the article accordingly
• the group flagship and the deputy commander flagship: this may be navy-speak, but should this be deputy commander's flagship?
  • Probably just an oversight, since I used the possessive further down in the article.
• By the early 1910s, the first German battlecruisers had begun to enter service and Roon was decommissioned in 1911: we need to split this sentence: Roon was not decommissioned in 1911 by the early 1910s.
  • "By the early 1900s" refers to when the battlecruisers entered service
    • Yes, this is a grammar problem: as phrased, it governs the whole sentence, but we want it only to govern the first clause. Accordingly, we need something like By the early 1910s, the first German battlecruisers had begun to enter service: Roon was decommissioned in 1911.
      • Sentences are split
• n armored cruisers for both service overseas in Germany's colonial empire and as scouts for the main battle fleet in German waters: I think we can do without overseas here, which made me scratch my head a little (don't ships by definition operate overseas?)
  • "overseas" as opposed to in home waters, but I suppose it's redundant, since Germany had no colonies in Europe at the time
• The design for the new ships, completed in 1901, were slight improvements over the Prinz Adalberts,: singular, not plural, needed here (and probably a slight rewrite). I'm not convinced about the mixed languages and fonts of "Prinz Adalberts": suggest keeping it singular as "the Prinz Adalbert class".
  • Rewored - take a look now
• which necessitated a longer hull and provided an increase by about 2,028 metric horsepower (2,000 ihp): an increase of what? It would be useful to know what it was increasing from, as well: was this a marginal gain or a massive one?
  • Added a note
• length to breadth ratio: hyphens: "length-to-breadth ratio" (compound modifier).
  • Good catch
• The Roon-class ships shared many of the same layout characteristics as the contemporary German pre-dreadnought battleships: slightly mixed constructions: we either want shared many layout characteristics with or had many of the same layout characteristics as.
  • Fixed
• And as with all of the preceding German armored cruisers, they received less armor protection than their opposite numbers in the British fleet: it's not strictly verboten to start a sentence with "and", but here I think it jars and adds little: would advise cutting.
  • Removed
• Further, they suffered the same fate as many pre-dreadnought type vessels completed in the mid-1900s, having been rendered obsolescent by the advent of all-big-gun warships like the British battlecruiser Invincible, launched in 1907.: there seems to be an elephant in the room we're not directly mentioning here?
  • They're different ship types with different roles - Dreadnought did not render armored cruisers obsolete, only Invincible did that
• the follow-on Scharnhorst class, which proved to be far better fighting ships, more than a match for their British counterparts: I think it might help to be explicit about what we mean by "counterparts": you surely don't mean Invincible, for example?
  • No, their counterparts would have been the last generation of British armored cruisers - but Dodson doesn't say specifically which class he's referring to (and the British built several during the period in question).
    • OK, but could we say "for contemporary British armored cruisers"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
      • Sure
• There's a lot of technical terminology in the first paragraph of "General characteristics and machinery". This isn't a problem per se, but I think it might help non-expert readers to have a little explanation of, for example, the point of having watertight compartments and a double bottom. This article section is rapidly becoming my gold standard for explaining detailed material without becoming simplistic.
  • I don't think I agree (and I don't really think the Preston article should go that far into detail on background information); FA criterion #4 states that articles should be "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Part of the benefits of an online encyclopedia is that readers can follow the links if they don't understand what a double bottom means, or how displacement is calculated.
    • Right, but FA criterion #2 includes "It follows the style guidelines": WP:GENAUD has "An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level or is not comprehensive", and MOS:NOFORCELINK has "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence". I don't think we need necessarily to explain what a double bottom is, but it would, I think, be helpful to explain briefly why you would want to add one to a ship.
      • But then you get back to the SYNTH problem; no references discuss general topics like a double bottom with regard for a specific ship. Even though it should be relatively innocuous to state something along the lines of "Roon had watertight compartments and a double bottom.[1] Watertight compartments and double bottoms are used to contain flooding in the event of a hull breach.[2]", it's still synthetic to take unrelated sources and put them together to make a point.
        • Here I disagree (or at least, I disagree that it's bad) -- if you follow that logic to its conclusion, we can't join any two facts unless a source has joined them in exactly the same way, and so every article must either fail WP:CLOP or WP:SYNTH. We have a different audience to most publications, and it stands to reason that we would explain things that academic works for an expert audience would consider obvious. However, I do take your point that summary style is part of the FA criteria, while clarity and comprehensibility aren't, as long as the prose is professional in quality -- and that it certainly is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• the ships lost up to 60 percent speed: of their speed? Again, possibly naval-ese (on which see WP:JARGON), but we wouldn't say "the car gained double speed" in my dialect of English at least.
  • Added
• The ships' casemates were placed too low, and as a result they were exceedingly wet, which rendered them impossible to use in heavy seas.: is that a retrospective comment on the design, or did someone mess up at the shipyard? What does "exceedingly wet" mean in this context, exactly?
  • It was a very common problem of just about all countries' navies at the time, so not a particular person's screw up. "Exceedingly wet" means water could easily splash into the casemate openings (to say something is "wet" is a bit of naval-ese)
    • OK -- I think it should be clarified that "The ships' casemates were placed too low" is talking about the design, rather than that the fitters placed them lower than the naval architects intended them to.
      • Done
• drove one of the ships' three screws.: with the apostrophe here, it sounds as if the ships had three screws between them.
  • Reworded slightly
• The central screw was 4.50 m (14 ft 9 in) in diameter, and the outer screws were 4.80 m (15 ft 9 in). Steam was provided to the engines by sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers built by Düsseldorf-Ratinger Röhrenkesselfabrik (Dürr). Each boiler had 4 fireboxes for a total of 64. The boilers were ducted into four funnels. The propulsion system produced 19,000 ihp (14,200 kW), which had a rated top speed of 22 knots (41 km/h), though on trials neither ship reached that figure, with Roon making 21.1 knots (39.1 km/h; 24.3 mph) and Yorck only 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph). The ships had four turbo generators, which provided 260 kilowatts at 110 volts: again, a lot of technical details which don't give the reader much to contextualise them, or much of a clue as to what they should take away about them. I find myself asking "was that a lot?" throughout. Footnote a, interestingly, does a very good job of contextualising a similarly unintuitive measurement.
  • The trouble is, it's hard to put most of these things in context without veering into synthesis; I could very easily cite figures for other ships of the era, which would make it easier for readers to compare them, but that's a bit closer to WP:SYNTH that I'd like to go.
• The forward conning tower had 150 mm (5.9 in) thick sides and a 30 mm (1.2 in) thick roof: these measurements should be hyphenated, as they are adjectival in apposition.
  • Abbreviated units don't get hyphens
    • Quite right; struck. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• At the waterline, their armored belt was 100 mm (3.9 in) thick amidships where the ships' vitals were located: with apologies for repeating myself, I would like to know whether this was a lot.
  • Same as above; and these sorts of comparisons are more difficult than just measuring thicknesses. There were different types of steel used, different arrangements of armor protection, etc. And it inevitably leads to Top Trumps comparisons, which isn't really helpful in understanding a particular ship design.
• By this time, Roon had been disarmed: this comes out of the blue: we haven't yet put the ships on the water, as far as the article's narrative is concerned. I wonder if this section would be better moved down to the end of the service history, especially as these changes never actually happened?
  • I get the point, but I generally don't like to mix technical details with the narrative section.
• Capitalisation: why "raid on Yarmouth" but " Battle of the Åland Islands"?
  • Fixed
• on returning to Wilhelmshaven on the night of 3 November, the ships encountered heavy fog and were forced to anchor in the Schillig roadstead outside the port to avoid running into the defensive minefields there. Yorck's commander decided that visibility had improved enough to enter the port, but in the haze he led the ship into one of the minefields. : if it's possible, it would be useful to have an indication of when he did this.
  • Do you mean a specific time?
    • Or at least a vague one: did the other ships anchor there, and Roon, push on, or did the captain wait for a couple of hours while the fog lifted, decide that it had lifted enough, and prove himself wrong?
      • Clarified
• with a joint Army-Navy assault: endash, not hyphen. We should probably also decapitalise and consider a rephrase -- do we mean that the Navy actually assaulted Libau, or did they provide support from the sea to army troops who did the assaulting?
  • Done
• Design work commenced in 1916 to convert the ship into a seaplane tender: this contradicts the date of 1918 given further up (but see my comment there about combining these two subsections).
  • Corrected
• the war ended before the project could be carried out, so the ship was stricken from the naval register on 25 November 1920: it may just be clumsy phrasing, but this is a non sequitur: we can't draw a straight casual line from "the war ended" (in 1918) to "so the ship was stricken" (two years later). Why did it sit around for two years?
  • Added a bit of context (namely, the Treaty of Versailles)
• Tucker 2005 is missing place of publication.
  • Added
• Taylor 1970 was published before the introduction of ISBN-13, so should have a 10-digit ISBN.
  • ISBNs can be converted from one format to another, and in my experience, preference at FAC is to standardize on one format.
    • We have different experiences at FAC: WP:ISBN has Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work. The ISBN-13 is often found near the barcode and will start with either 978- or 979-. However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it.
      • I dunno - I've been asked here and here, for example, among other instances. That language was added to WP:ISBN by a single individual with no discussion on the talk page, as far as I can tell. As such, it's in no way binding, and I haven't ever seen anyone ask to enforce it until this FAC. And I don't think it's accurate anyway - Worldcat has no trouble finding the book, nor does Karlsruhe, the CCC, Google Books, or any of the other search pages on Special:BookSources.
        • Some illustrious names there: happy to consider this a point of acceptable difference. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• By early 1915, it had become clear to the German naval command that older vessels like Roon were insufficiently armored to take part in an action with the powerful British Grand Fleet,: Scheer puts it very slightly differently: he says " The Third Scouting Division, which contained the oldest armoured cruisers ... had long since been handed over to the commander of the Baltic forces, as, owing to their lack of speed and inferior armour plating, the vessels were not suitable for use in the North Sea". He doesn't explicitly mention the Grand Fleet here, but I think it's a reasonable inference.
  • In context, it could really only mean the Grand Fleet; it was the only game going in the North Sea, aside from (from Scheer's perspective inconsequential) light forces in the Channel (and with which Roon wouldn't have had much trouble).
    • Absolutely, but I think we need to be faithful to the source and mention the speed as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see what you're getting at - added.
• The copyright on File:NH 92713.jpg does not look good to me. We have an explanation that "most" of the images in its colleciton are free from known copyright restrictions, but that isn't quite good enough. The last known source is someone who was in a position to give it in 1981, so we're about 45 years tops PMA, and it was taken c. 1914, so absent publication information, it isn't PD in the United States. Assuming it was taken in Germany, copyright expires 70 years after production for an unpublished, anonymous work, but we don't actually know for sure that this is the country of origin.
  • We've always relied on the NHHC disclaimer in cases like this. It's basically impossible to track down the original photograph, so we have to use the information available to us. But @Nikkimaria: may want to comment, since she's regarded as one of the foremost copyright experts on the site.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks UC, your comments have been very helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you: a few replies above. In the other cases, I'm generally happy or at least happy to agree to disagree -- in particular, I do take your point on the difficulty of contextualising e.g. speeds and armour plates without going into SYNTH. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Support, assuming that all comes back OK on the image licensing (and if it doesn't, that any problem there is fixed) -- we disagree on a few things, but you've got solid reasons for doing things your way, and those deserve to be respected. It's clearly an excellent article and a worthy addition to the long list of warship FAs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again, and just so we're clear (since it can be difficult to judge tone on the internet), I appreciate you pushing me in this review - it can be easy to become complacent on these things, and we all need to be challenged from time to time. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Support by Chetsford

What an excellent article! Aside from UndercoverClassicist's comments, I support with the following additional (but merely suggestive) comments that can be actioned or ignored at the nominator's discretion.

• The lead seems incredibly long for an article of this length (392 words). While it comes just under the 400-word maximum suggested, but not mandated, by WP:LEADLENGTH, the article itself is concise enough that it feels a bit "off".
  • It's tough, since I don't know exactly what could be trimmed without losing the key details of the topic
• "for both service overseas in Germany's colonial empire and as scouts for the main battle fleet in German waters" For clarity, this might be better represented as "for service both overseas ..."
  • Done
• "provided an increase by" I think (?) of is the correct preposition here, not by.
  • I think you're right
• "Roon and Yorck were powered by the same engine system as the preceding class, three 3-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines, each of which drove one of the ships' three screws." I think a colon instead of a comma might work better after "class" but this also might simply be a question of personal preference. I had to double-check the use of colons for non-lists and it doesn't appear to be a hard or fast rule that they must be used for explanatory statements [24].
  • I think that reads better with the colon

I'm sorry I don't have more comments. I attribute that to the thoroughness and excellence of Jackyd101's GA review. Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Chetsford! Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed
• File:Gws_scharnhorst_01,_rear_gun_turret.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Good question - I've moved it to en.wiki, since it's PD in the US at the very least. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

I meant to list criticism here but reached the end without complaints. I made a few changes to image placement, - feel free to revert, of course. The very last sentence doesn't quite belong under "World War I" but doesn't need an extra section ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "the ships had comparatively light armament and thin armor protection". Compared to what? If the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers then this doesn't seem to be the case. If foreign armored cruisers then the sentence structure is not perhaps as clear as it could be. (Eg, both "comparatively" and "compared" in the same sentence.)
  • The latter - does changing "comparatively" to "relatively" help?

It would. 'The ships' relatively light armament and thin armor protection compared poorly with their foreign contemporaries, particularly the armored cruisers of their primary opponent, the British Royal Navy.' would be even better.

Works for me.

I note that this hasn't been changed ...

Apparently I forgot to actually save the edit (which I had done at work the other day and gotten distracted - so I had to log back in to my remote desktop to actually save the page!)

My usual self sabotage is having too many windows open at once.

• What do you mean by "their primary opponent"?
  • The German fleet was being built more or less directly to challenge the Royal Navy

Then something like 'their potential opponent, the British Royal Navy.' or 'their anticipated opponent, the British Royal Navy.' seems to fit better.

Done

• "Though the additional boilers were meant to increase the ships' speed, both vessels failed to reach their designed top speed." So did the additional boilers succeed in increasing the ships' speed compared with the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers?
  • Yes, it did increase their speed compared to the Prinz Adalbert design, though those ships also failed to reach their design speed (I don't know that we want to get too far into the weeds in the lead)

Those additional boilers are explicitly additional to the number in the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers, so either don't mention them again, or - better - tell the readers whether they did their job. Whether the ships met their design speed is something else - perhaps they failed this by half a knot but were 5 knots faster than the Adalberts?

Added to the body, but I don't want to get that far into the weeds in the introduction.

• "Both ships were reactivated after World War I broke out in July 1914." Were both ships reactivated in July? I note that the main article uses a slightly different wording.
  • The war broke out in July - the ships were mobilized after that (being recommissioned in August once crews were assembled)

Then maybe use the same wording you do in the main article?

Reworded with a bit more specificity

• "tasked with screening for the main body of the German fleet." Possibly this works in US English, but could I interest you in 'tasked with screening the main body of the German fleet.'?
  • You could ;)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• "three 3-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines, each of which drove the ships' three screws." Just checking that you don't mean '... each of which drove one of the ships' three screws.'?
  • Lot of threes in that sentence - should be read to mean 1 engine per screw. Would it be easier to say "three 3-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines, each of which drove a screw"?

Good point, and yes, it would.

Done

• "Reconnaissance Forces of the Baltic". Worth a red link?
  • I don't know - de.wiki has a section in their overarching article on the scouting forces of the Imperial fleets (which we also lack). It's obscure enough that I don't know that it has a standard translation in English, so I'm somewhat hesitant to impose one

Ok.

That's it from me. Nice to see it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Are we sure that an all-English sourcing on a German ship class isn't leaving any important source out? What's the logic between linking some sources to the Internet Archive and others not? What's the "Naval Records Club"? Does "Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien – ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart" not have an ISBN OCLC or other identifier? I am pretty sure I have seen many of these publishers in other FACses and the formatting seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe certainly isn't English ;) (and Gröner is a translation of a German book, by the way). As for the ISBN/OCLC number, for some reason, Vol. 8 doesn't show up in Worldcat, and the hard copy I have doesn't have an ISBN included.

The links were added piecemeal by multiple editors over the years, but I haven't bothered to dig up the rest. I don't know how useful they are for the non-PD sources anyway.

The Naval Records Club was the original name for the International Naval Research Organization. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

• Placeholder - expect to start soon. Pendright (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• The two ships of the class, Roon and Yorck, closely resembled the earlier Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers upon which they were based.

The Roon & Yorck are punctuated as an appositive, indicating that they are non-essential to the meaning of the sentence. Since readers already know that there are two ships in the class,

it would seem appropriate that R & Y would be the topic of the sentence.

I don't think I agree with this - yes, it should probably be assumed that Roon and Yorck are the two members of the class, but I don't like the idea of mentioning the names without introducing them at all

• The ships were easily distinguished from their predecessors by the addition of a fourth funnel.

distinguished should be distinguishable from

Done

Design

• These failures were primarily the result of their length-to-breadth ratios, which was the result of limitations imposed by the dock facilities in Wilhelmshaven.

Could one result be substituted with amother word?

Reworded

General characteristics

• Like the preceding Prinz Adalbert-class ships, Roon and Yorck were good sea boats; when the fuel bunkers were full they had a gentle motion.

• Punctuation is unneeded before when if what follows is essential to the meamig of the sentence.

• But they aren't directly related - a ship need not have a gentle motion to be seaworthy

• It would have taken more than weight to experience gentle motion-the rate of speed and sea & weather conditions would have been determining factors, which are noticably absent fron the sentence.

• Presumably yes, but Groner doesn't exactly specify the conditions, he simply states "Good sea boats, with a gentle motion when lower bunkers were full"

• While serving as a squadron flagship the crew was augmented by 13 officers and 62 men, and as a second command ship by 9 officers and 44 sailors

Add a comma after squadron flagship -> It's an introductory phrase

Done

• Steam was provided to the engines by sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers built by Düsseldorf-Ratinger Röhrenkesselfabrik (Dürr).

• The steam was transferred to the engines from... -> provided means to supply or make something available: transfereed means to move something from one place to another
• Actually, in the scheme of things, steam was first generated–a process–by the sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers and then it was transferred–through pipes and valves–to the engines...

• True, which is why I simply stated that the boilers provided steam - I don't think we need to get into the nitty-gritty about generating and then transporting steam. It's enough to state that the boilers' job was to supply steam to the engines

• The ships had four turbo generators, which provided 260 kilowatts at 110 volts.[12]

Could you show readers some of the things that the generators were used for?

Nothing specific I can point to, but I can add a general comment

World War I

• Following the outbreak of World War I in July 1914, both cruisers were mobilized and assigned to III Scouting Group in August, which was initially assigned to the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea; Roon served as the group flagship

what is which referring to?

III Scouting Group

• During that action, a group of Russian cruisers attacked several German vessels on a minelaying operation and Roon sortied to reinforce the German ships.

During this action...

Done

• But higher priority projects at the shipyard delayed that was to carry out the work delayed the conversion,[30] and the war ended before the project could be carried out.

Clunky!

Reworded

@Parsecboy: This is it for now - Pendright (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Pendright:! Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Parsecboy: Move to Support - Pendright (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Mother Solomon

Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Mother Solomon is an interesting footnote in Wyandot history. Alongside other Wyandots in Ohio, she was forced into Kansas by the Indian Removal Act, where her husband and children died of illness. However, she resettled in Ohio two decades later and lived out as a nanny and cultural activist.

I was inspired to write this article last year after finding Daughters of Aataentsic at the library and have since improved it with the help of many editors. Thanks to TechnoSquirrel69 and Kimikel for their thoughtful GAN reviews and to Dudley Miles for reviewing the article as a mentor. There was discussion at the peer review about the reliability of certain sources, and Dudley suggested that I ask for opinions on whether Marsh's book in particular has been properly assessed. Thanks in advance, Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: if I'm reading this right, this is a first nomination for Averageuntitleduser and thus needs a source spot check? RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep. And a plagiarism check. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (spot-check passes)

Doing a source-to-text spot check. I'll be looking at [17, 18, 19, 21, 34, 38, 39, 41, 50, 54] from Special:Permalink/1283807770.

Ref 17

• President Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act, requiring Indigenous communities to move west of the Mississippi River, passed in 1830.[17]
  • Averageuntitleduser This is from Labelle. It looks like I can get it on inter-library loan, but if you could email me scans of all the cited pages, that would probably be a lot faster. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Labelle was on De Gruyter, but their website seems to be merging. I have sent Labelle and the encyclopedia. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Verified.

Ref 18/19

• Treaty commissioners in the region, spurred on by the federal government, began pressuring Wyandots to leave, and nearby Lenapes and Shawnees signed their own removal treaties. However, Wyandot scouting parties out west in 1831 and 1834 rejected their proposed land tracts. Tensions peaked in 1841 when white men murdered the head chief Summundewat.[18][19]
  • I can't find "Encyclopedia of American Indian removal" anywhere, so again you'll need to send me scans of the relevant pages.
  • Verified, but as a minor point, Littlefield and Parins only says that "most of the Delawares had relocated west", not that they had signed a treaty (like it does for the Shawnees), so might be worth rewording that a bit. Also, as far as I can tell, this one source covers everything in the sentence, so Labelle citation can be dropped here.
    • Reworded and dropped. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 21

• On July 12, 1843, Solomon gathered alongside hundreds at the Wyandot Mission Church. They grieved, spread flowers across the adjacent cemetery, and heard Squire give a farewell speech in the Wyandot language.[6][21][22]
  • Labelle
  • Most of this is verified in Labelle p 59; the only thing I can't find is that it was spoken in the Wyandot language. Perhaps that's in one of the other cited sources?
    • Removed "Wyandot language"; that was left over from Marsh. Dropped Wolf. Wood verifies the grieving more explicitly. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 34

• Her and John's two-acre land tract on the south end of Tauromee Street was put up for auction in October 1862.[34]
  • Verified (but as a nit, the source says "south side", not "south end")
    • Tweaked. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 38

• Labelle describes her childcare as tireless and daily, and the village nicknamed her "Mother Solomon" out of respect. Solomon promoted Wyandot culture throughout the village and demonstrated the Wyandot language in community gatherings and public presentations. She taught children about the relationships between their ancestors and Wyandots by repeating stories her elders had told.[38]
  • Labelle
  • Verified

Ref 39

• The Hocking Sentinel described her storytelling as "full of interest and romance". A writer for the newspaper claimed to have visited Solomon often and stated that she spoke for hours about early Wyandot history and her childhood.[39]
  • Verified.

Ref 41

• Solomon advocated for the village to restore and continue operating the run-down mission church as a means to preserve Wyandot presence in Ohio. In 1888, with a $2,000 budget,[h] the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church began repairs.[41]
• On September 21, 1889, the Central Ohio Conference held a rededication ceremony.[41][42]
• Solomon was the only Wyandot removed in 1843 to attend.[41][44]
  • Labelle
  • Essentially verified, but Labelle says "restore and preserve the mission". It's not clear if that means to restore the building as a monument/historic site, or as an ongoing religious establishment, so I'm not 100% sure about the "continue operating" part.
    • Left at "restore". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 50

• Many adults attested to being raised by Solomon, and some deemed it an honor. Labelle believes that her attainment of the honorific "Mother", rather than the lesser "Sister" or "Auntie", indicated success in her work. She ascribes Solomon to a Midwestern, 19th-century wave of mothers who sought to mediate between settler and Indigenous groups.[50]
  • Labelle
  • Verified. If I wanted to be really annoying I might complain that there's some WP:CLOP around "mediate between settler and Indigenous groups" but I think what you've got is fine. If you made it a direct attributed quote, it would be better.
    • Quoted. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 54

• Marsh died and was buried there two years later. In October 2016, the church held an event celebrating the bicentennial of missionaries in Ohio, and Solomon's life was recounted during a tour of the cemetery attended by 192 people.[54]
  • Labelle
  • Verified. The wording is a bit odd; at first I read this as her burial happening two years after she died, so I'd reword that.
    • Reworded. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, this is done. I called out a few nits here and there, but nothing of significance. Spot-check passes for both source-to-text integrity and copying (I also ran Earwig, which reported no problems).

Comments from PMC

This looks cool, I'll take a look. I usually get to FAC reviews within a week of putting my name down but please give me a ping if I let it slide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: pinging, but no rush. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry! Having a look now.

Lead

• "forced Wyandots to move to Kansas" - feels like "the Wyandots" reads more smoothly, since you're referring to the entire tribe
  • Done, and in a few other places too. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "took her to Indigenous sites as a child" I think this needs more context. Religious sites? Culturally-significant-but-not religious sites? Sites of great battles? Also, as a reader, I'd want to know what this meant for her, since it's significant enough that we're putting it in the lead.
  • I replaced this with the detail about elders relaying oral tradition, which I think is given more detail and importance in Labelle and the theses. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yeah this works better I think
• Suggest linking mission school, and in the body also
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "The Indian Removal Act forced Wyandots to move to Kansas..." repetitive of para 1, one of them should go
  • I think this detail is important in paragraph 1 to establish the notability of the topic. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • A couple of issues here. Regardless of its importance, having it in the lead twice is repetitive. Having this as the second sentence implies that the return to Ohio is the most significant thing about her, but I'm not sure that it is. Finally, as written, the first paragraph presupposes knowledge that the reader may not have - "returned to Ohio" implies that the reader knows that Solomon was from Ohio, but this is the first mention of Ohio. I would suggest swapping it for a summary of her activities - "she was known for her efforts to preserve Wyandot culture through X and Y".
      • I looked at MOS:FIRSTBIO, and as written, it would seem difficult to follow without repeating information further in the lead. I'm not sure about the third point. Of course, the sources don't discuss her return to Ohio in detail, but they all recognize it as context for her babysitting and cultural promotion, because it meant she did them in an area were there were few to no Wyandots. I propose something like: "The Indian Removal Act forced the Wyandots to move from Ohio to Kansas, though Solomon later returned to Ohio and began babysitting children and promoting Wyandot culture". Please suggest an alternative if you disagree. Another option is to remove this part and have a lead with only two paragraphs. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
        • It would be fine to have a lead with two paragraphs, as the article is not particularly long. Your proposed version is fine.
          • Went with two paragraphs. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Solomon helped her family recover energy" using "energy" this way feels somewhat informal and unclear. I see that this was just changed today, but recuperated is better imo (although yes, it would be better with the context that Dudley has mentioned)
  • Changed to "recuperated from the removal". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Honestly, on re-read, I'm not sold on it being a necessary detail for the lead. I'd recommend cutting it down to "Following the removal, Solomon had more children, though by 1860..."
      • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "had a few more children" "a few" is also informal
  • Removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "She sought to protect..." when?
  • I can't really date this. It was continuous, and presumably after her husband and children died. I think both are implied, though. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • It's a bit jarring as-is. Having some context, such as how she tried protect it, and from what, might help the flow.
• "[Animals] were stolen from her" when? And also, is this significant enough that it needs to be in the lead?
  • Between 1848 and 1859. I have removed it though; it is a bit jarring and only included in a primary source. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• When did she marry the second guy
  • Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• I know the limited use of Margaret is because of her husband, but it's a bit jarring and I think it could be written around
  • Fixed; hopefully it reads smoothly. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Throughout the village, she garnered the nickname" could be trimmed to "Villagers began calling her" or "Her village nicknamed her" or similar.
  • Done as suggested. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Solomon became weaker in her final years" - "weaker" doesn't tell the reader much about what's actually happening, and it's pretty typical that people don't get stronger in old age. Do we know what was wrong with her?
  • Removed; it's not very important for the lead. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Early life

• "Squire encouraged family visits to Indigenous sites." As with my comment on the lead, we should say why if we know it, and what kinds of sites if possible, since right now we only specifically mention one
  • Changed to "culturally significant sites" per the source. Reading the theses, the why they give seems a bit straightforward (Squire thought it was important that she receive a Wyandot education). Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the reader isn't reading the thesis, they're reading the article.
      • That was even a bit hasty of me. Little only presumes the explanation I gave. The best I can manage, based on Kelly, is: "Squire sought to teach indigenous knowledge to Solomon, and he encouraged..." Would that work? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
        • Yep, works
          • Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "and Wyandots relayed oral tradition to her" this phrasing feels odd. Random Wyandots? Friends of the family?
  • Specified: Wyandot elders. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "chief Warpole" chief should be capitalized here I think, since it's an office - see MOS:JOB
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• having "to the children" at the end of the sentence reads like he's emphasizing maintaining culture as something you're doing to the children. Suggest reordering, maybe "he emphasized to the children the importance of maintaining Wyandot culture" (or "to his audience")
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "eventually befriended..." - eventually isn't doing much here, unless it was a struggle to befriend these pastors (in which case we need more context), we can remove it without losing meaning
  • Removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Wyandot removal

• "Treaty commissioners" - link? or if we don't have an article, perhaps briefly explain their function? it's not a title that's obvious from context
  • I came up with: "Commissioners sent by the federal government to negotiate treaties". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "their proposed land tracts" proposed by the government or by who?
  • Presumably the government. Should I add that? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's not clear from context
      • Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I cannot find where Little p. 87 mentions Solomon at all
  • Whoops, this was Kelly. Fixed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Split the paragraph at "Around 664 Wyandots..."; this is a new topic and should be a separate para
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Harassed how?
  • Specified. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "a territorial dispute" with who?
  • Clarified. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "began an apple tree orchard" - "planted" rather than began maybe?
  • Switched. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Solomon had a few more children" informal. Also, split the para here, since we have a clear topical split between their agricultural activities and her children
  • Done and done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I might revise the sentence about her eight children to account for her having at least three in Ohio that we've already mentioned
  • So something like: "Throughout her life, she had three boys and five girls, at least three of whom in Ohio, though all of her children died young". I'm not sure how to present it though (mainly to make it clear that it is being repeated), do you have a suggestion? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Actually, come to consider, I'd just mildly reword and leave out the Ohio thing. "Solomon had more children in Kansas. She is known to have had three boys and five girls throughout her life, all of whom died young." I think "more children" and "known to have had" will cue the reader enough to remember the Ohio set
      • I like that. Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Ref says the children "died quite young", not that they didn't live past adolescence. For all we know, they all died by the age of 5, which would make the "adolescence" statement technically true but misleading
  • Changed to "died young". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• It feels weird that we're only linking Indian removal this far into the article
  • Introduced earlier. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "threatened the legal status of Wyandots and devalued the cemetery" in what way
• "so she continuously tried to prove its importance" to whom and by doing what
  • Responding to this, the one above, and the one about the lead. Labelle briefly states that Solomon was an activist for the cemetery, as described, but only gives the example of the letter she signed in Ohio. She doesn't give any more context to Solomon's activism, so would it be best to remove this sentence? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to post a quote or maybe email me the pages cited? I can only find a French version and the page numbers are really off; I can't read French so it's difficult to find the actual activism in the text. It'd be easier to give a suggestion if I could see what's there.
      • Here it is, with context: On 31 January 1855, Wendat/Wandat Chiefs made special provisions, through treaty negotiations, for the protection of their sacred burial grounds in Kansas. Upon conclusion, Chiefs Silas Armstrong Sr, George I. Clark, Joel Walker, John Hicks, Tauromee, and Matthew Mudeater signed a treaty with the understanding that the "question of the permanency of the burying ground was settled for all time." Thirty-five years later, Mother Grey Eyes Solomon signed another document, indicating her clear objection to the removal in 1890 of remains from the Kansas Huron Cemetery, the burial ground that held her late husband David Young and several children. This act of protest indicates that the provisions of the 1855 document had not been "settled for all time." Mother Solomon and other Kansas Wendat/Wandat had to continuously prove the importance and legitimacy of their cemetery as their legal status fluctuated in the wake of Indian Removal and forced enfranchisement. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay, the page numbering is wildly off in the French version, that's why I wasn't seeing it. Two issues, then. First, farther down, our article says she moved into the Hayman residence and "There, she signed a document...". The quote above does not say she signed the document at the Haymans' residence, only that she signed it in 1890. We have to be really careful about making assumptions not borne out by the text. We can certainly say "that year", but not "there".
          Second, I'm not sure the claim that she, personally, continually tried to prove the cemetery's importance is supported by the current citation. What we have right now is "Mother Solomon and other Kansas Wendat/Wandat had to continuously prove...". To me, that reads as though Labelle is taking all their actions collectively, not saying that Solomon herself was acting continually. Where does Labelle call Solomon an activist for the cemetery? I found an English version by looking at a different database, but I can't find this, and the index doesn't help. Can you quote a bit or give the page number?
          • You are right, changed to "that year". Your interpretation of the passage makes sense, too, and since it is the only one relevant to the claim, I have removed the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• The detail about of the various thefts feels like it isn't contributing much to the article. I see this is all sourced to a Senate document. It might be helpful to include the context of why she was presenting these complaints to the Senate.
  • I have added this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Makes more sense

Return to Ohio

• "Her and John's two-acre land tract on the south side of Tauromee Street was" feels like a case where the detail is getting in the way of the flow. I'd trim and revise this bit to "The two-acre tract of land she owned with John..."
  • Trimmed and revised as suggested. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "she previously" - "had previously", I think. Also, do we know when she lived in it? Is it the same one from her childhood? (I guess it can't be, since Big Spring isn't in Upper Sandusky as I understand it?)
  • Done. We do know what cabin it was, but only from Marsh. After Solomon married Young, they moved into a log cabin Young had built over the river a few miles northeast of Upper Sandusky. Solomon relocated to that cabin. I managed to add from a newspaper quoted in Labelle that the cabin was located north of the city along the river. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "The cabin had rafters..." this feels unnecessary
  • Removed that sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• should be "had burned down", I think since we're talking about the past of the past here
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I think I'm confused about locations. Putting this here rather than earlier so it doesn't get lost.
  • As I understand it, Solomon lived in Big Spring Reservation as a child, but then she attended school in Upper Sandusky. They're not terribly close, nearly 25km as the crow flies according to Google Maps. Was it a residential school, or did the whole family relocate again after the 1822 move? Or was the Big Spring Reservation perhaps not located at the linked township? Is it maybe Upper Sandusky Reservation?
    • I believe the Big Spring Township article is the right link. The Cincinatti Enquirer said her family moved north of Carey, which tracks (and which I have added). I also haven't come across the Upper Sandusky Reservation or a second family relocation in the sources. It isn't a fully satisfactory answer, but the students did board at the school and Solomon's siblings attended it too, which I have both added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
      • If it was a residential school, I think that makes sense, in terms of place. However, Big Spring Reservation isn't the same entity as Big Spring Township, and the Township article doesn't mention the reserve, so I still think the link is a bit surprising without context.
        • It would make sense, though I haven't found it in the sources. Also, removed the link. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • If it was the Upper Sandusky Reservation, our (admittedly short) article says that was dissolved in 1842, presumably coinciding with the removal of the community. Maybe we should mention that?
  • We keep saying "the village" but what village are we actually talking about? Sandusky was not a village, even at that stage, I don't think?
    • Good point. As above, according to Marsh, Solomon lived in a cabin north of the city, where there was a small settlement, but she often travelled into the city. I added that the cabin was located north of the city along the Sandusky River, based on a newspaper article quoted in Labelle. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Margaret began babysitting" - Solomon, not Margaret
  • Changed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Labelle wasn't there - who's she citing?
  • Looking into this, I only have a concern or two. Labelle cites Marvin Jr. about Solomon demonstrating the Wyandot language, and I cannot find that in his book, but she says that it was a certainty. She also does not cite a source for Solomon teaching children. If this is a problem, please let me know. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "the relationships between their ancestors and Wyandots" This sentence is incomprehensible to me. Were the ancestors of the Wyandot children not Wyandots?
  • Not changed or responded to still.
    • Changed to say she was teaching "nonindigenous children". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• I might provide some context for the Sentinel, as in "a local newspaper", because Hocking has not been mentioned at all in the text and it's quite jarring
  • Added context. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "claimed" - we usually say claimed when someone's account may be dubious. Do we have a reason to doubt this?
  • Revised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Split para at the visit to Kansas; separate topic from her childcare/storytelling
  • Not yet. Is there a better way to address this? That sticks out a lot. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Paragraph splits are not aesthetic in purpose. A paragraph deals with a particular point or idea; when we switch ideas, we start a new paragraph. Since the visit to Kansas has nothing to do with her childcare efforts, it should be a new paragraph.
      • Beyond that, I do think it disrupts the flow. The sentence after it is unrelated, so it would still be a bit of whiplash. Could I move them to the start of the next paragraph, so they do not feel so tacked on? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't know that her nephew's attendance is a necessary detail
  • Sure, removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Split para between attendance and Solomon's performance
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• The phrasing "at the age of 72" feels like it's unnecessarily emphasizing her age. If you really need to mention her age, I might move it to the previous sentence - "Solomon, now 72, was the only..."
  • Moved. I think it is a useful marker. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Same as in the lead, reporting that she became weaker in her old age feels like padding, given that most people get weaker with age
• I'm not sure what the extensive quote from Love brings to the table
  • Responding to this and the one above. I removed Love's quote and put less emphasis on her becoming weaker. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Do we know who the Haymans were to Solomon? Caretakers obviously, but - old friends? New friends? Etc
  • Only from Marsh, who implies that the Haymans had regularly checked up on Solomon, but even then, she doesn't discuss their relationship much. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I might mention this, at least to give some context.

Death and legacy

• Not sure we need Lease calling her a noble woman - seems pretty routine to speak well of the dead at their funeral
  • Removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "who sought to mediate between settler and Indigenous groups" sorry, but this is the absolute first we're hearing of this. The article describes her advocating for Wyandot culture and caring for children, but I don't see how that translates to mediating between Indigenous and settlers. Also, this is the first indication that she was nannying for white children also - is there a way to add that context earlier? I was assuming she was working with other Wyandot families.
  • I think Labelle meant this in a cultural sense, so I have revised the sentence. In regard to this and the comment about Solomon teaching children, the article now also states that she "began babysitting children in her settler village", which I hope makes it clearer. I wish I could be more overt, but sources don't explicitly say she was babysitting white children. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't know that this is an error per se, but I think you're going to need to add more context before it's going to make sense to a reader. I get what you're saying because I've got access to the source, but without knowing that, it looks like it's saying her work was specifically done with an eye to reconciling settlers with Indigenous people, which I don't think we can say.
      • That makes sense. I revised the sentence to not make it seem like a formal goal for Solomon. Does that solve the issue here? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• "An exception to the limited studies" - at no point does the article establish that studies on her have been limited, so this violates the principle of least astonishment.
  • Revised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Why is the book not cited? It may be billed as a kid's book, but if it's based on reliable sources and by an archivist, it may be useful, and not using it in an FA seems like a gap
  • The article previously cited Marsh, though two editors on the peer review said she would not pass FAC, based on issues of self-publishing and a lack of independent sources supporting her reliability. If there is a consensus to reinstate Marsh somehow, I would be happy to. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Arguably she's a subject-matter expert; I think your comments at the PR make a solid case for it. In addition to what you've already said, Marsh's research collection is held at Bowling Green State University ([25]), and a quick GBooks search shows me that her other work is cited in several other books by reliable publishers.
      • Ok, considering the peer review, could we wait to see what another prose or source reviewer thinks? Dudley, you noted at the peer review your willingness to see advice on this at the FAC. If more reviewers supported Marsh's inclusion, would you be willing to let that happen? Admittedly, I was surprised at how much content I could retain in the article without her, so I don't think there would be too much to add. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would still prefer that it is left out. Even if she is reliable in other works, we cannot know whether she took more liberties when writing a children's book. But I would not withdraw my support if you use it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure March's death and burial is relevant unless she was specifically buried there because of Solomon
  • She was an archivist for the church in general, so removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I would split/reorganize the last paragraph to put the 3 sentences about her artifacts being displayed in a separate paragraph at the end.
  • I'm hesitant to do this because of the time leap it creates. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it creates a unity of subject matter. One paragraph for Marsh's book and the service, one paragraph for various museum displays.
      • OK. Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

With apologies, I think there is quite a bit of work to do before this article is ready for FA. I really don't wish to oppose, but I'm leaning more in that direction than I like right now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I have been working away at them and should have replies ready tomorrow. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: replies above. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi PMC, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Really sorry for letting this go so long. I think it is looking much better but still have some things worth discussing, per my comments above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: thanks again. Some more replies. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• The alt text for the infobox image should include her name rather than describing her as "an elderly woman", in line with WP:ALT guidance.
• File:John Solomon circa 1870.png-Same as the above.
• File:Mother Solomon 1887.jpg-Same as the above. MSincccc (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Tweaked all. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have no further suggestions regarding the images. Support on media. MSincccc (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Solomon recuperated with her family". Recuperated from what? I raised this at PR and it needs clarifying.
  • Changed to "recover energy". Let me know if it should be revised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• You have changed it to "Solomon helped her family recover energy". This is even more confusing. The first version said that she recuperated, but did not say from what. Now it is her family, not Solomon herself, who needed to recover energy, although you have not said they lost it. You need to say first who suffered from what, and only then go on to their recovery. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks. Labelle only talks about how Solomon supported her family, not how they suffered. I changed it to "recuperated from the removal", which I hope clarifies in what sense "recuperated" is being used. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• It is OK in the lead now, not the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• "In Kansas, Young began work as a ferryman while Solomon recuperated with her family." As above.
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Labelle describes her childcare as tireless and daily" "tireless and daily" sounds odd. Maybe "Labelle states that she worked tirelessly every day at her childcare".
  • Done as suggested. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• "which she attributed to the prominent Vanishing Indian stereotype". Is "she" Solomon or Labelle? This should be clarified.
  • Clarified. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• "She ascribes Solomon to a 19th-century wave of Midwestern mothers". "ascribe" is the wrong word here. Maybe "She describes Solomon as one of a" Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Done as suggested, with one word tweaked. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Taylor Swift (album)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the first album by Taylor Swift, who started out as a country singer-songwriter. Is this country music? I don't know, maybe, but I know that this album kinda slaps, especially the track "Our Song". I believe this article is comprehensive and well written for FA standards and I'm open to any and all comments regarding its candidature. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

NegativeMP1

I've been busy with a couple of things over the past few days, but I'll see if I can squeeze in time to review this by the end of the week. λ NegativeMP1 15:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the wait, I'm beginning the review right now. λ NegativeMP1 04:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, there isn't much I have to criticize about this article, but I do have two things.

• The last sentence of the Release and promotion section, "From August 2019, Big Machine re-released the Taylor Swift singles on limited-edition vinyl. This was met with backlash from Swift's fans in light of the purchase of the masters of her first six studio albums.", would probably come off as a bit confusing to an unfamiliar reader. It reads like Big Machine purchased the masters (which they always owned) and simply re-released the singles. No context is given as to why the fans would have been mad, either. I think this sentence would make more sense if it was clarified that Scooter Braun bought Big Machine, a legal dispute followed, and that's why fans were mad. It would also make more sense to be written this way once the Taylor's Version of this album inevitably releases.
• In the last sentence of the Reception section, it says that the album itself was a "cut" according to Christgau. In the explanatory footnote immediately afterwards, it says that a "cut" is a "a good song on an album that isn't worth your time or money". Based on this, it's impossible for any album, let alone this one, to be considered a "cut". The sentence should probably be reworded to say that the songs were labeled as "cuts" and that he just didn't like the rest of the album.

Ultimately though, these are minor nitpicks in an ultimately very well written article. Whether or not you want to make these adjustments is completely up to you, but I'd still like to see a response. λ NegativeMP1 05:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi NegativeMP1, thank you very much for your time and review. I have addressed your two points accordingly; feel free to review the changes in prose and let me know if it reads more clearly now :) Ippantekina (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, those two parts definitely read better now. Given that those were my only two nitpicks in this article, I'm happy to give my support. λ NegativeMP1 16:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "who had produced her demo album" - I think "who had been producing demo recordings" is more explicitly stated in the source since it doesn't mention that Swift has a demo album, unless I'm mistaken

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• "she vows avenge" - "she vows to avenge"?

• Fixed to "vows revenge". Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• "Perone comments that this change" - Shouldn't we use past tense here?

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• A catchy wikilink would be useful

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• "Taylor Swift helped Swift earn a nomination for New Female Vocalist of the Year at the 2007 Academy of Country Music Awards, a Horizon Award at the 2007 Country Music Association Awards,[110] and a nomination for the Grammy Award for Best New Artist at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards (2008).[111]" - Is it possible to rearrange the sentence so that Swift's Horizon Award win isn't placed between two nominations?

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• "the infant Big Machine Records" - I don't think "infant" adds much here, but probably "newly formed" reads better?

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think there is a WP:REPCITE issue in the last paragraph of the "development and conception" section, I would double-check to see if there are any other similar incidents throughout the article

• I think this should be done. Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. Very impressive work! Medxvo (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and review as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support :) Medxvo (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Taylor Swift - Taylor Swift.png - album cover - has appropriate use rationale - okay
• File:Taylor Swift - Picture to Burn.ogg, File:TaylorSwift TimMcGraw.ogg - 15s song sample - has appropriate use rationale - okay
• File:Swift, Taylor (2007).jpg - CC-NC-ND licence - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review! Ippantekina (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@Ippantekina:

• According to Link-dispenser,
  • There are 2 potentially spammy links in refs.
  • 4 refs need an archive link.

• I manually added the archive URLs; for some reason IABot didn't work.. Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• In notes 4-6, instead of "for albums 1963–2015" say "for albums released in 1963–2015".

• Not done because it's for albums that charted in that time frame and not necessarily released. Ippantekina (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Mention "eponymous" album.

• Eh, I know it's not MOS per-se, but I prefer not to include that word, see WP:SELFTITLED. Ippantekina (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• DUPELINKS check;
  • Demo (music) is linked twice in the article's prose.
  • Mandolin is linked twice in the article's prose.
  • Nathan Chapman (record producer) is linked twice in the article's prose.

• Removed. Ippantekina (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio 14:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Vestrian24Bio, I've addressed your points above! Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review

1. 59 and #65 and perhaps others use ProQuest as the URL, unlike most other news media articles that use links and a padlock if necessary. Speaking of, Billboard sometimes is marked as paywalled and sometimes not. I don't think #10 is a good source for that claim. I think I reviewed most of the sources in other FACses. Kinda wondering what makes "Nainby, Keith (2024). "More than Music: The Image 'Taylor Swift'". Examining Blank Spaces and the Taylor Swift Phenomenon: An Investigation of Contingent Identities. Lexington Books. pp. 81–128. ISBN 978-1-6669-4272-9." a reliable source. Did some light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   Articles published on Billboard Pro are sub-based and marked such accordingly. Most ProQuest URLs are no longer on the web and thus I used ProQuest to cite them. Could you let me know why #10 might not be a good source? Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

   I was a bit uncertain if a trade publication is a good source for a court case concerning BLP issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

   I mean, Billboard is also a trade magazine which is widely used in Music/BLP articles. I can find substitutes of course, but I don't think Pollstar should be disqualified as a high quality source just because it is a trade magazine. Ippantekina (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

   Re. the book by Nainby, he is a scholar in philosophy and communications [26]. I believe he has the right credentials to a published book (or even a few). Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

   That leaves the Nainby source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

   Ah, I just replied above in case you didn't see it. Ippantekina (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

   I guess this is OK then, with the caveat that I don't know these sources very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

   Alright.. so is this a pass? Ippantekina (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, but with that caveat about unfamiliarity with sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Jorge906

1. I just realised that in the track list section, it says that all traks are produced by Nathan Chapman expect where noted, and even though Chapman is the main proudcer of the album, due to the way it is listed, with the song name and different producer, it makes the list feel cluttered and a bit unorganised, so perhaps we could add a column for the producer(s). Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

   I might do the edit. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

   I don't think that's a good way to go for, since the whole column would be repetitive anyway. Ippantekina (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

   But I think it makes it a bit confusing. On the deluxe some tracks are produced by others. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

   Ok, that makes sense. Let me implement the change as it is not a major disruption anyway. Ippantekina (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

   How does it look now? @Jorge906: Ippantekina (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes that's better. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Vince Gill

Nominator(s): Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Highly popular and prolific singer across a variety of genres, including a long string of country music hits, membership in Eagles and Pure Prairie League, and marriage to Amy Grant. He has a very substantial solo career including the most Grammys of any solo male country singer, and I'm a big fan of his music as a whole. I feel this article is among my best work in terms of how thoroughly and reliably it is sourced, and how I feel it summarizes the breadth and legacy of his career. After successfully getting Randy Travis to become my first Featured Article, I've been wanting to see if I can get another golden star. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Placeholder Comments

• I will jump on this one when I have a bit more time spare -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• "He began in a number of local bluegrass bands in the 1970s" => "He played in a number of bluegrass bands in his local area in the 1970s"
• "in addition to writing several songs of theirs" => "in addition to writing several of their songs"
• "He has also had number-one singles as a guest on Reba McEntire's "The Heart Won't Lie" in 1993, as well as Chris Young's "Sober Saturday Night" and the multi-artist collaboration "Forever Country", both in 2016" => "He has also had number-one singles as a guest on Reba McEntire's "The Heart Won't Lie" in 1993, and Chris Young's "Sober Saturday Night" and the multi-artist collaboration "Forever Country", both in 2016"
• "Additionally, Gill has written songs for Alabama and Ty Herndon, and holds a number of credits as a backing vocalist and session musician." - I would move this to before the bit about his marriages, as it makes more sense there
• It doesn't make sense to have a section heading "Biography" which only covers his life up to 1976. "Early life" would be a more appropriate heading.
• "Gill had previously been offered to do so" => "Gill had previously been offered the opportunity to do so"
• "The project accounted for three singles on the Billboard Hot Country Songs charts" - the chart has only been called Hot Country Songs since April 2005. References to hits before then should use the name in use at the time (Hot Country Singles until February 1990 and Hot Country Singles & Tracks thereafter)
• "When I Call Your Name included a large number of backing vocalists. Among them were Kathie Baillie (of Baillie & the Boys), Patty Loveless, Emmylou Harris, and Herb Pedersen" => "When I Call Your Name included a large number of backing vocalists, including Kathie Baillie (of Baillie & the Boys), Patty Loveless, Emmylou Harris, and Herb Pedersen"
• "also charted within top five between then and 1992" => "also charted within the top five between then and 1992"
• "Gill (center, seated and playing guitar) with the Time Jumpers in 2011." - this isn't a sentence so should not have a full stop
• "Gill's other collaboration in 1994 was on Kermit Unpigged, an album released by Jim Henson performing in-character" - Jim Henson died in 1990 so this does not seem likely
• "Gill (right) and Amy Grant (left) in 2004." - not a sentence
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Think I got your edits to this point. I went with "featured/including" on the Baillie sentence so as not to use versions of the word "include" twice in the same sentence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _talk 03:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• "After graduating high school, Gill chose to become a lead guitarist performer. He briefly founded his own bluegrass band called Mountain Smoke, which once opened for the hard rock band Kiss" - can a year be provided for this?
• "Despite the minimal success of Turn Me Loose," - this appears to be editorializing, as the source just mentions that he won the award
• "After this album, Gill ended his contract with RCA as Galante wanted him to record only songs by other writers." - is there a specific reason known why Galante wanted this? Were the Gill-penned songs the ones that flopped?
• "The editors of The Encyclopedia of Country Music wrote of Gill, "With an aching tenor, award-winning songwriting skills, and virtuoso guitar chops that rivals those of any ace Nashville session player, Vince Gill is one of today's biggest country superstars."" - given the time reference in the quote ("today") would it be worthwhile to note in the attribution when this quote was written?
• "Overall, Gill is credited with contributing to over 60 charities" - is there a better source for this than what seems to be a press release?

I tried to post this yesterday but that was right when all editing went down briefly; this article is in pretty good shape. Hog Farm _talk 01:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: think I addressed all your issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, supporting Hog Farm _talk 00:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: @ChrisTheDude: any idea why this discussion has gone stale? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Not really. You could maybe try mentioning the FAC at related projects, e.g. WP:COUNTRYMUSIC, to see if anyone wants to jump on. Another alternative would be to review another FAC and then ask if the nominator would be interested in reviewing yours.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ian Rose:, @Gog the Mild:, @David Fuchs:, pinging for suggestions. Also pinging @IntentionallyDense: who passed the GAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• For what if anything it may be worth I will post my boilerplate on attracting reviewers below.

  Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

  Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

  Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Image and source review

Images seem well-placed and ALT text is OKish. Regarding File:Paul Franklin.jpg, was the Flickr file licenced CC when it was uploaded? File:Patty Loveless (3470011524).jpg's source seems to be broken or deleted. Is #3 a high-quality reliable source? I get "reliable", but the rest? Are "The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture" editors listed somewhere? #18 and #22 are the same source in two separate citations and formats, of which the second (longer) one seems to be the most common format; also I wonder what makes 'em reliable. #53 is broken. What makes The Boot a reliable source? Regarding #58 why does the article say "against"? Why does #65 use a different form from other book sources here? And I again wonder if it's reliable for this kind of claim. Rolling Stone sometimes is linked and sometimes it isn't, and sometimes in italics and sometimes not. Similar inconsistency applies to other sources too, where newspapers sometimes have their title italicized and sometimes not. What makes Guitar.com and holler.country a reliable source? Honestly, a number of AllMusic sources makes me wonder which are reliable and which not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean on the Paul Franklin pic.
• I'll see if archive.org has the Loveless pic.
• The AllMusic source should be fine. WP:ALLMUSIC says that "some editors" question its use for biographical info, but I didn't see anything in the AllMusic bio that was contradictory to other sources in the text. Compare Pirates of the Mississippi, where the AllMusic bio was so egregiously wrong that I didn't even bother using it. Using AllMusic for attributed opinions in a review is considered acceptable.
• Oklahoma History and Culture source seems to be edited by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
• The Boot and Taste of Country have been considered reliable in past GAs and FAs. Taste of Country is listed as reliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, and so it can be presumed that the similarly-formatted The Boot can be used too. Both The Boot and Taste of Country were used on Randy Travis with no issues.
• Citation 65 (Country Music: An Illustrated History) is a novelization of a documentary by Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan. I see no issues using this as a source, as it's a bit more accessible than citing the documentary itself.
• Not sure about guitar.com. I will defer to others to find any argument either way. @Gog the Mild:, @Hog Farm:, any verdict here?
• Holler.country has an editorial staff with explicitly stated experience in the field, and can therefore be presumed to be reliable.

I'll get to work on formatting the citations you caught. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I will just repeat the obvious: at FAC to establish that a source is reliable is insufficient, it needs to be demonstrated to be "high quality". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

So should the Boot and ToC sources be replaced? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

ETA: The Dayton Duncan source uses "chapter" instead of "page" because I was told that's what to do when a publication does not have numbered pages. Sounds Like Nashville is down for maintenance and archive.org is running very slow right now, so I put an archive.org link in. Other than Rolling Stone, which I fixed, which other sources are inconsistent in italics use? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be several broken sources on my end at the moment (#18 and #52). Billboard is not italicized in one instance and italicized in others. Entertainment Weekly and Variety are italicized in the text but not the source section. With respect of The Boot and ToC, the main question is whether the authors and editors of these sources are good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: do you think the Boot and ToC sources should be replaced? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That or indications that they are high-quality reliable sources. Say by being frequently cited by academic and major newspapers, the publication of corrections, a reputable body of editors and authors etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Taste of Country has a credited editor in Billy Dukes, whose bio claims work in magazines and the Kalamazoo Gazette. I also found a LinkedIn for another editor named Sterling Whitaker, which claims further journalistic experience. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I can find several other citations so I guess that ToC might pass. Dunno about Boot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The Boot also has a credited editor in Angela Stefano. Boot and ToC have several staff overlap (I've seen Billy Dukes on both sites), so I would think that if ToC is considered reputable, then so is the Boot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The asterisk in the Sounds Like Nashville archive url is causing the template to freak out. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any idea how to fix this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Need to specify a particular snapshot. A generic link to the archive list is less useful, as that list can include archives of usurped/broken versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I still can't figure it out. I've tried 50 different things and the URL is still breaking the template no matter what I do. Can you fix it for me? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Um ... currently it does work for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Another editor fixed it. Did I get all your other issues taken care of? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@ChrisTheDude: @Gog the Mild: @Hog Farm: what is your stance on the Boot and Taste of Country citations?

My gut instinct is that they're some of the more important web country music reporting. So long as it's not supporting potentially controversial BLP information, I'd be generally fine with them as a source. They're definitely above the Whiskey Riff-type tier, and a long way above the Saving Country Music type-tier (which I would not use on a BLP at all). Hog Farm _Talk 19:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have used them on many of my FLCs and nobody ever questioned them over there. Both sites are published by Townsquare Media, a multi-million dollar media conglomerate. I have no issue with them as sources, personally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have I addressed all your other issues? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Paul Franklin.jpg on Flickr is licenced as all rights reserved. Why is the local licence different? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: addressed, any other issues? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "ballads and up-tempo material" - sentimental ballad and uptempo would be useful wikilinks
• Grand Ole Opry should probably be italicized
• "a pastime which Gill himself would develop" - I think "that" would read better instead of "which"
• "the Beach Boys's" - no need for the "s" per MOS:'S
• Some incidents of "country charts" are confusing, e.g. "peaked at number five on the country charts". It would be better to indicate if these are US charts, for example "peaked at number five on the US country charts", since there are also Canadian country charts, etc..
• "in 1991, where Gill was also awarded" - "when" instead of "where"? or alternatively, "at the 1991 ceremony, where...." would be fine
• "was nominated for Grammy Award for Best Country Collaboration with Vocals" - "a" or "the" is probably missing before "Grammy Award", I would also check for other similar incidents throughout the article
• I think Country Standard Time and Taste of Country should be italicized as well since they are websites
• "the song received a platinum certification in 2023" // "Both The Key and Breath of Heaven: A Christmas Collection were certified platinum" // "Let's Make Sure We Kiss Goodbye was certified gold after release" // etc... - It would also be great if we could indicate that these are US certifications
• "The former was issued as the project's lead single" - If we're talking about "Take Me Down" here, then this is stated twice, unless I'm mistaken
• "about his relationship to her" - I think "with" instead of "to" would read better
• "Distinguished Service Award from Professional" - "the" is probably missing before "Professional"

I think that's all from me. You've done great work on the article! Medxvo (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer:? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Not in Love (Crystal Castles song)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"Not in Love" was originally a song by Platinum Blonde that Crystal Castles decided to cover for their second album. It didn't get much attention from critics until Robert Smith replaced the original vocals, resulting in Crystal Castles' highest charting single by far and one of the best songs of the year. I believe it is ready to be featured following GAN, PR and GOCE. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Averageuntitleduser

• "more-impactful" — remove dash.
• "named it as one of the best songs of 2010" — remove "as"
• "for their eponymous 2010 studio album" — "self-titled" may be even more recognizable when discussing albums.
• "Ethan Kath recorded his vocals as 'a scratch demo' he intended to re-record but it was used for the finished version and released on the album." — suggest: "Ethan Kath recorded his vocals as 'a scratch demo'. He intended to re-record the song, but the demo was used for the finished version..."
• "Smith recorded 'raw demo vocals' for the song; when the band listened to the result, they became attached to the way the demo was sung and decided to retain Smith's demo and canceled their plans to re-record Smith in a studio." — suggest: "Smith recorded demo vocals for the song; when the band listened to the result, they became attached to the delivery, which they described as "raw", and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio."
• "stronger structure" — this is hard to conceptualize, or a bit vague. Try revising the phrase.
  • I've quoted directly now.
• "Emily Bick of The Quietus wrote the song" — "wrote that"
• "A writer for DIY described the song as the most-destined for festival stages and the purest of any Crystal Castles release, adding it is one of the best covers of the 2010s and 'a crazed re-creation of a song that looked to be dead and buried'." — suggest splitting the second half into its own sentence, e.g., "They concluded that it was one of the best covers..."

All minor comments. Very nice article! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser: Thank you! All done. Skyshiftertalk 20:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Support! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "second studio album Crystal Castles (2010)" - "second studio album, Crystal Castles (2010)"
• "re-recored" can be linked to re-recording (music)
• "when the band listened to the result, they decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio, as the band became attached to these "raw" vocals" - "when the band listened to the result, they became attached to his "raw" vocals and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio" -- reads better, in my opinion
• "distortion" can be linked to distortion (music)
• Shouldn't "[t]here's" and "[t]he" be "There's" and "The" since the sentences were separated with a colon?
• "crescendos" can be linked to crescendos
• "Rolling Stone characterized the version" - Shouldn't this be "Rolling Stone's Andi Harrima characterized the version"?
• "chorus" can be linked to refrain
• "synthesizers" and "synths" can be linked to synthesizers
• "filler" can be linked to filler (media)
• "the "Not in Love" re-recording with Robert Smith" - Does Smith's full name need to be mentioned again?
• "said Smith "elevates" Crystal ..." - "said he "elevates" Crystal ..."
• "catchiest" can be linked to catchiness
• "He also said this was one of Smith's ..." - "He also considered it one of Smith's ..."
• "ballad" can be linked to sentimental ballad

I think that's all. Great work! Medxvo (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: thank you! All done. Skyshiftertalk 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Medxvo (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review

Image licence, use and rationale seem OK to me. Might want to add why these particular parts of the song were clipped and why it takes two non-free samples rather than just one; remember, "must significantly enhance the understanding of the subject, and its omission would be detrimental to said understanding". Is undertheradar.co.nz a reliable source for interviews? What makes DrownedInSound a reliable source? It looks I have reviewed most of the magazines and sources here already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Two non-free samples are needed to show the (sourced) differences between the original version and the version with Smith. The same part was clipped in both, which clearly shows the pre-chorus, its vocals, and synthesizers and part of the chorus in Smith's version — aspects which sources commented on. I will add this to the rationales. Drowned in Sound is listed as reliable on WP:A/S. undertheradar.co.nz does multiple interviews with NZ artists/artists touring NZ, and they then republish on their official media accounts (example); I don't see any reason to doubt the legitimacy of the interviews. Skyshiftertalk 14:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Are the differences a significant aspect of the article topic, though? It doesn't seem like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel like most of the "Composition" section is about comparing both versions and noting said differences. Skyshiftertalk 10:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Commercially, it appeared in the singles charts of Australia, Denmark, Scotland, and the United Kingdom, and was certified gold by Music Canada." It may just be me, but consider either deleting "Commercially" or expanding a little (eg 'Commercially it was a modest success, appearing in ...'). I had to pause for a few moments to think through the connection.
  • Fixed
• "He intended to re-record the song, but the demo was used for the finished version and released on the album." Is it known how that happened?
  • It is not.
• "asked if he could remix one of its tracks". Remix any track, or did he specify "Not in Love".
  • Any track in the album. I've changed "Following its release" to "Following the album's release" for clarification.
• What are "home demo vocals"? Is there a link?
  • Just vocals that were recorded in his home.

The uninitiated may find "Smith recorded demo vocals for the song at home" more self explanatory.

• "It was planned to be released in the United Kingdom via Fiction Records with acoustic demos of "Celestica" and "Suffocation" as B-sides on December 6." And was it?
  • It was not. The article previously had something like "but the release didn't happen", but it was removed for being unsourced.

Ah, the good old trying to cite a negative. Drat.

• " "Not in Love" was sent to American alternative radio on January 11, 2011". This sounds a bit shorthand. Is it short for ' "Not in Love" was sent to American alternative radio stations on January 11, 2011'?
  • Fixed
• "Pitchfork's Mark Richardson said this version is filled with digital noise and heavy distortion.[17] Mark Pytlik, also writing for Pitchfork, said the track is "much tamer" than the version with Smith's vocals.[13] Cameron Scheetz of The A.V. Club said Kath's "distant ..." "...said ... said ... said ..." Synonym time?
  • Fixed
• "Larry Fitzmaurice of Pitchfork said this version has a "more muscular framework" than the first, and powerful synths with an anthemic intensity." The first part is a comparison, the second a statement. Did you mean something like '... and has more powerful synths with an anthemic intensity'?
  • It is supposed to be like that, but rearranged.

Better now. (IMO)

• The album version section is rather "A said "short quote" ... B stated "short quote" ... C described "short quote" ..." Is it possible to make it a bit more "engaging"?
  • Tried my best
• "Robert Smith version" is an improvement, but is in much the same style in large parts.
  • I've changed a word but I'm not exactly sure how to improve it much.
• ""Not in Love" was ranked as one of the 20 best songs of 2010 by ..." Which version?
  • Clarified

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thank you! Responded. Skyshiftertalk 20:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Reception

• The last part of the first paragraph now has three x "described" in a row: "while Cosores of Beats Per Minute described it as "pretty pedestrian". Emily Bick of The Quietus described it as "[shifting] towards discomfort, disillusion, despair". Justin Jacobs of Paste described it as "pretty" and said it sounds "the way twinkling Christmas lights look"." Maybe something like 'while Cosores of Beats Per Minute considered it to be pedestrian. Emily Bick of The Quietus wrote of "discomfort, disillusion, despair", although Justin Jacobs of Paste described it as pretty and as sounding "the way twinkling Christmas lights look" '?

I realised that this left 2 x considered in one sentence. I tweaked it but messed up my edit summary. Let me know if the revised version doesn't work for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "said the song is "massive" ... its "high-definition angst" feels unique to the band." Why the shift to present tense? (is instead of was, feels not felt) You use past tense elsewhere in the same paragraph. (described not describes, considered not considers)

• "Robert Smith version" section. you need to lose some of those verbs. Eg (just a suggestion) "Molly Beauchemin from Pitchfork described the song as having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision", calling it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads"." → 'Molly Beauchemin from Pitchfork called it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads", having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision".' Wa'da'ya think? It loses one "described", which you use six times in three paragraphs!

• If you like - or can at least can live - with what I have done in my first and third suggestions above, have a go at extending the principles over the rest of the reception section. Note that it is not required to put single words in quote marks if they are clearly and closely associated with the source. (Although you can if you wish.) If you are not happy, have a look at how other FACs have handled the issue and see if you can come up with a different approach. Bedtime now, so no responses for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've applied these suggestions but I'm not sure if it is sufficient. Skyshiftertalk 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I thing that you are now close to "there". It seems to be missing a summary of the critics view of "Robert Smith version". And the comments on Smith and on the band seem mixed together. How would you feel about separating them thematically?

Eg: 'The majority of critics were enthusiastic about Smith's cover. Pitchfork named it the "Best New Track" and Fact staff called the track "as satisfying as you could have hoped for". Larry Fitzmaurice, writing for Pitchfork, said the song was "massive", evoking chills, and that while a cover, its "high-definition angst" felt unique to the band. Molly Beauchemin, also from Pitchfork, called it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads", having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision". Brandon Stosuy of Stereogum said this version could be considered the best the Cure song in years, while providing a new perspective on the "saturated, blasted goth-noise prettiness" of Crystal Castles. A writer for DIY described the song as the most-destined for festival stages and the purest of any Crystal Castles release; they concluded that it was one of the best covers of the 2010s and "a crazed re-creation of a song that looked to be dead and buried".

Smith's vocals in particular drew praise, with most critics agreeing with Scheetz' assessment that Smith's emotional vulnerability reveals "the tender longing[s] beneath Crystal Castles' cool, icy facade". Slant Magazine staff wrote: "The crunchy production combined with Smith's familiar pangs is heart-wrenching and nothing short of blisteringly gorgeous". Fitzmaurice also considered it one of Smith's best performances in a long time, with Richardson judging that he improves Crystal Castles' first version, balancing nostalgia with the immediacy of life. Pitchfork's Ryan Dombal described Smith's vocals as "loud and clear", making this one of Crystal Castles' catchiest works.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Regarding this, I will try my best to explain. The correct structure is: "Someone said (past) the song is (present) this". The song is something, because the song is a definite work and its attributes don't change. Critics have said something about the song in the past, saying that it is something. This is used in many parts of the article: "Pitchfork's Mark Richardson wrote that this version is filled with digital noise and heavy distortion.", "Cameron Scheetz of The A.V. Club said Kath's "distant, distorted vocals" on the first version provides a ghostly feel to the lyrics.", and the entire second paragraph of Composition. I have followed this with other FAs such as Worlds (Porter Robinson album).

Got it.

I have applied your suggestions with this in mind. On "most critics agreeing with Scheetz' assessment"... I wouldn't put it like that if they haven't explicitly agreed with Scheetz' specific assessment, so I've reworded it. Skyshiftertalk 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I think that it would be helpful to have two infoboxes as this article is about two covers. An article like "Forever & Always" this an example of t. I would think that the album version would have an infobox, along with the one for the Smith version.

• Apologies for the double-reply, but I wanted to comment on the following edit. I think that it would be better to have both infoboxes in the lead, with the first release (in this case, the album version) coming first so the information is presented in more of a chronological order. This article is about both versions of the song, so I do not think that it makes sense to put a preference on the single version by having that appear first and separate in the lead. I would suggest looking at the article that I have linked above or at "You're Not Sorry" or "Hey Stephen". I know that all of the examples are Taylor Swift articles, but I think they are closest equivalent to this article, as they are all songs recorded multiple times by the same artist. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• I believe the single version is much more notable than the album version, and thus it should be the main infobox of the article. I'd say the album version is more of a context for the single version, and that's why I think it belongs better in the Background section.

• Sorry, but it still does not make much sense to me for the reasons that I have already listed above. The current placement in the "Background and release" section is also a bit odd as most of that section is on the single version. I disagree with the idea that "the album version is more of a context for the single version". Again, this article is about both versions of this song, to the point that it includes audio samples from both. At this point, in my opinion, it may be best to just eliminate the album version infobox entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about the lead's opening sentence. I do not recall seeing an article that starts with "X is the title of". I looked at other Wikipedia articles on covers, such as "I Will Always Love You" (Whitney Houston recording) and "Without You" (Mariah Carey recording), to see how other editors have handled this. I think that something like the following could be a better alternative: "Not in Love" is a song recorded by the Canadian electronic music duo Crystal Castles. It is a cover of of the 1983 eponymous single by the Canadian rock band Platinum Blonde.

• Done

• For the lead's first paragraph, I would put the part on Ethan Kath before the bits on the second cover and Robert Smith. It seems a bit jarring to go from the first cover to the second cover back to the first cover again.

• Rearranged lead.

• This is likely a silly question, but what does "impactful" mean in this context, has more impactful beats and synthesizers? To me, it reads more like a review, but it could also just be a more objective description that I am missing.
  • Changed to stronger
• For the lead's last sentence, it is unclear which version of the song appeared on those charts. It is also unclear in the "Commercial performance" section. I am guessing that it is the Smith version since that was released as a single, but it is always best to avoid any potential confusion.
  • Fixed
• I would recommend linking demo for readers who may be unfamiliar with music jargon.
  • Done
• What does "home demo vocals" mean? I am unfamiliar with that phrasing. Does it just mean that he recorded his vocals at home? If so, I think that should be stated more clearly.
  • Done
• For this part, they became attached to his "raw" vocals, it is unclear who is saying this quote.
  • It is the band. I believe this can be inferred through context (when the band listened to the result, they became attached...)
    • When it comes to quotes, the reader should not have to infer anything. The article should clearly and explicitly attribute the quote so this would need to be addressed. This could be fixed with something along the lines of: According to Kaith, the band became attached to his "raw" vocals and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Is the announcement of the Smith cover notable enough to mention in the article? I am only wondering because while announcement can be notable, this does not appear to be the case.
  • I don't see a reason to remove it if there is sourcing confirming when the announcement was made.
    • That does not really answer my question though. Sure, the announcement can be sourced, but why is the announcement notable enough to mention at all? Why not just say when the song was released? Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• I would be mindful of using "released" multiple times in close contexts. I know that it can be difficult while discussing this kind of thing, but it is helpful to avoid repetition.
  • I've used "launched" in some cases.
• Is there any further information about the music video, other than the director and release date?
  • I have added some information.
• Is the song's inclusion on FIFA 12 notable enough to mention here? It seem a bit trivial to me.
  • I believe inclusions in games like these are always notable.
    • I disagree, but I will leave it be. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• I would recommend adding some sentence variation in the "Composition" section, particularly for the first paragraph. The prose come across as a listing of random critics and for that reason, it is not as engaging in my opinion. It may be helpful to look at other song FAs, like "I'm Goin' Down", to see how this section is handled.
  • Because there is no connectivity between the critics' opinions, and due to the relatively low number of reviews, I don't know how to make it more engaging than just listing their views separately.
    • This has not been raised by other editors so I will leave it be. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• I would avoid one-word quotes like "massive" and "life-affirming". In the past, I have been told that they can take away from other quotes in the article, and for both of the instances mentioned above, they are used in the same sentence as what I view as more impactful quotes. That and it is always good to be mindful of quote usage in general.
  • I have removed the quotation marks.
• I would avoid the following sentence construction when possible, with Richardson judging that he improves Crystal Castles' first version, balancing nostalgia and the immediacy of life. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I have seen notes in other FACs that say to not use the "with X verb-ing" phrasing. This is the only instance that I see in the article, but it would be good to double-check.
  • Fixed
• For the "Accolades" section, I think the information should be presented with prose rather than in just a table.
  • I had all the table information listed in the prose, but some of it was removed after the GA review to focus on the higher listings. I don't have a strong opinion either way.
    • I would honestly convert the table into prose. I could be wrong, but I just have not seen a song FA with a table like this as a replacement for prose. It may be worth seeing how other FAs have handled this kind of thing. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• The "Personnel" section does not include the credits for the album version of the song, instead only discussing the Smith version. Do the liner notes for Crystal Castles provide any further information on the personnel for the original version?
  • Added
• For Citation 19, it should be Harriman, not Harrima.
  • Fixed
• For the citations, make sure that album titles like Crystal Castles are italicized to comply with WP:CONFORMTITLE. I noticed this with Citation 21, but I would double-check the other citations as well.
  • Fixed

Great work with the article. I think that this article would provide some nice diversity to the current pool of song FAs. I hope that these comments are helpful. I have never heard anything by Crystal Castles, so hopefully my very outside perspective is beneficial here. Once everything has been addressed, I will re-read the article to make sure that I did not miss anything. Just to be clear, I am primarily focused on the prose, as the source and image reviews have already been done. Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skyshifter, is there some hold up over responding to these? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I will begin responding soon. Skyshiftertalk 13:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I think it would be best to just remove the album version infobox. I disagree with the current placement, and since this was not something brought up by other reviewers, it is likely not really needed anyway. There are only two points left: the "raw" quote (because quotes should be clearly attributed) and the accolades table (as I am not sure about using a table as a replacement for prose, but it is worth looking into). After these points have been addressed, that should be the end of my review. I have left other replies as well, but they are not requirements. Thank you for your patience and I hope that this helps to get this FAC promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you, I have applied these suggestions. Skyshiftertalk 16:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you! I have responded to your comments. Skyshiftertalk 21:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the double reply. I just wanted to add to voorts' comments below about print magazines. I think that it could be worthwhile to look for further coverage in newspapers, which are accessible through a database like Newspapers.com. For instance, I found this article from The Independent about a live performance of this song and review of that. There is also another article from The Independent and a review of the album version from Guelph Mercury. I am only bringing this up now as my review was focused on the prose, but I wanted to expand on voorts' comments below and bring up up some ideas/examples. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also found another source through archive.org. I will add everything soon. Skyshiftertalk 14:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to help. I just wanted to point out some potential examples to expand on the comment below. I am happy that you found another source on archive.org. Just to be clear, this does not affect my review, and I still support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with your work on the article! Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Just a couple things I picked up from a skim. Citation numbers from this revision.

• Though I understand why you wrote it that way, I share Aoba's concern over the opening sentence, which seems to imply the article is about two songs which happen to have the same title. The article is about one song which happens to have two versions.
  • Fixed
• A handful of duplicate links: in § Album version, Beats Per Minute; in § Accolades, Beats Per Minute, Pitchfork, Slant Magazine, Rolling Stone, and goth.
  • Fixed
• Citations 3 and 27 are missing archive links. The Link Dispenser tool makes it easier to find these.
  • Fixed
• I recently learned about MOS:WEBITALICS, so the majority of the |publisher=s in the citations need to be |work=s or |website=s.
  • The only three uses of |publisher= in the article—AllMusic, BBC Radio 6 Music, and Spotify—should not be italicized.

    Could you elaborate on why these shouldn't be italicized? The footnote at that guideline specifically cites an RfC where this was discussed and advises against using the |publisher= parameter in this way. —TS

    The policy suggests that italicization depends on the type of website it is, which is mostly "magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content" as well as encyclopedias. AllMusic is a database, BBC Radio 6 Music is a radio station, and Spotify is a streaming service. Additionally, the title of these articles aren't italicized in their respective articles. You can also see other FAs that have also followed in not italicizing AllMusic or Spotify, such as "I'm God". Skyshiftertalk 22:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

    This is certainly true where the website is being mentioned in the prose, but the footnote states that citations should have things italicized regardless of what kind of website they are — the rationale being that we cite the publications, not the publishers — which appears to be supported by the result of the RfC and the template documentation. This seems to be a lesser-known guideline, so I'm not surprised if there are FAs that have passed using that style in the past (I'm pretty sure Worlds has a few as well that I haven't gotten to looking at yet). Ultimately, I'm not going to support or oppose on this alone, but I thought I'd at least bring it up. —TS

Nice work as usual, Skyshifter! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: thank you! All responded. Skyshiftertalk 22:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hi TechnoSquirrel69, checking in to see if Sky's changes meet with your approval and if you're interested in supporting/opposing. Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks David Fuchs, I'l refrain from leaving a !vote here as I did not perform a full review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by voorts

• I've copy-edited the article / made some clarifying edits. If you have questions/concerns, happy to discuss here.
• There are some full-sentence quotations. Can those be summarized?
• Has anyone written about the music video?
  • Not that I could find, except for the "VHS-styled" thing.
• I think the infobox should have information on the album version as well.
  • I think it's better to just have the single version info there, otherwise it can create confusion.
• Have you checked print magazines (Billboard, Uncut, Rolling Stone, etc.) for reviews of the single?
  • I'll add some soon.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Skyshifter any response to this or TS's comments above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I will respond soon. TS's comments have already been addressed. Skyshiftertalk 14:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)