Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Battle of the Trebia[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another article on a battle from the Second Punic War. Yes, I am getting a bit fixated on these; I will probably get bored soon and do something different. Meanwhile, here is Hannibal's first pitched battle against the Romans. A mid-winter battle against an over-confident Roman general turned out about how you might expect. I took the article through GAN in 2020 and have been doing bits and pieces to it since. In particular Harrias has just completed a beautiful set of maps illustrating how the fighting went. Hopefully it is up to FAC-standard, but in respect of any areas where it is not, please let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • File:2018_05_11_Rivalta_Trebbia,_mémorial_bataille_de_la_Trebbia.jpg is missing a tag for the original work
  • File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_Modified.svg: see MOS:COLOUR
  • File:Mommsen_p265_(cropped).jpg is missing a US tag and author date of death for the photo
  • File:Balearic_Slinger.jpg: what is the basis for the accuracy of this illustration?
That's a really good question, and one I feared I wouldn't be able to answer to a HQ standard. But I got lucky and found it in the third source I checked. Added.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

  • "...which encouraged it to resist future Roman demands" Would "enabled" be more appropriate here, or is that not accurate? I just find the usage of the word "encouraged" strange here.
While I am not wedded to it, "encouraged" seems to me to capture the nuance fairly precisely. "enabled": well, one is always able to resist, it is really a question of how sensible or realistic that is.
  • "Hannibal left his brother Hasdrubal Barca in charge of Carthaginian interests in Iberia" Was Hasdrubal Barca given any title/position at this time?
Not that we know of.
  • Not sure if it is just me, but the following sentence reads weirdly: "The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted theirs during their journey, and obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size which would enable it to effectively take on the Romans"
Not sure I get it, but I have recast as 'The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted theirs during their journey. They also wanted to obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size which would enable it to effectively take on the Romans.' Is that better?
  • Is " valley of the Po" Po Valley? If so, I would link.
It is. Done. Ta.
  • "Hannibal is reported to have stressed to his troops that they had to win..." Do we know according to whom?
We do. But in Wikipedia it is usual to put accepted facts in Wikipedia's voice and cite them, rather than attribute everything in line. Where there are differences of opinion, especially when there is no consensus at all, one might name the modern sources in line. (Quotations have a different rule again.)
It is deliberate. The MoS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers ...". Rather than expect readers to recall the first passing mention early in the article, or to labour the point in line, it seemed one of those rare occasions to invoke "generally". Happy to debate other approaches and/or changing it.
  • File:Sacred Band cavalryman.png does not have alt text.
How odd. I thought I had cut and pasted it. Done. Thank you. Well spotted.
  • Neither does File:Relieve de Osuna (M.A.N. Madrid) 03.jpg.
It also has px not "upright". I have had a bad day there. Thank you again. Sorted.

More comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good stuff. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Rome's other consul, Sempronius Longus, was meanwhile assembling an army in western Sicily, with which it was planned to invade Africa the following year.[25] Shocked by Hannibal's arrival and Scipio's setback, the Senate ordered this army to move north to assist Scipio." Sounds like by this time, the army had been in the making for quite some time, which makes me wonder if the first sentence should read: "Rome's other consul, Sempronius Longus, had been meanwhile assembling an army in western Sicily..."
Quite right. Tweaked.
  • "...Hannibal came to believe some of the Gauls in the immediate area were communicating with the Romans" Why did he think that?
We don't really know. Using Goldsworthy purely as an example "Hannibal became suspicious .. Perhaps the Gauls were genuinely duplicitous ... [perhaps] different leaders had approached each side."
  • "when the new consuls took up their positions" As this phrase refers to a future event, I would suggest "when the new consuls would take up their positions"
Good point. Done.
  • "...especially among the troops of the Carthaginian general Hannibal" Since Hannibal has been mentioned numerous times before in this article, I would delete "the Carthaginian general".
Very tactful. Done.
Again. D'oh!
  • "In addition there were an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he had left Iberia" This has previously been mentioned above in the Carthage invades Italy section. I would pick one location to have this information.
Ho hum. I take your point, but also feel it needs mentioning in both places. I mean, I mention the number of infantry and cavalry in both and you haven't objected. Let me think on't.
Ok. I have tweaked both, to avoid the obvious repetition. See what you think.
  • "The Romans were met by the Carthaginian light infantry; behind them the entire Carthaginian army forming up for battle" The grammar in the second phrase sounds off to me; maybe add "was" before "forming", or replaced "forming" with "formed".
You are correct, it is. Fixed.
  • "Richard Miles says that "many" not in this group were killed;[93] although Nigel Bagnall writes that this was only a minority of the Roman cavalry.[94]" Why the "although"? These ideas do not seem to contrast to me.
They do to me, but the although is entirely optional and so pouf!

A wonderful (and surprisingly comma-filled, I might add) effort.

Thank you. Logically that would suggest that either I am using more commas, or ...

Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A prompt and helpful review. Thank you. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the replies, Gog. I'll support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Al-Walid I[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the sixth Umayyad caliph, al-Walid I, whose decade-long reign represented the zenith of Umayyad power and prosperity, though his direct role in its successes is unclear. His reign is often deemed by historians to be the fruit of his father and predecessor, Abd al-Malik's, long, hard work. Started editing this article in Feb 2019, it passed GAN in July of that year, and I have been working on it periodically since. I believe it is finally ready for FA consideration. Al Ameer (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Gold_dinar_of_al-Walid_707-708_CE.jpg is missing a US tag for the coin
  • File:Coin_minted_during_the_reign_of_al-Walid_I_ibn_'Abd_al-Malik_in_Istakhr.jpg is missing tagging for the original work.
  • Ditto File:Syria,_Damascus,_The_Umayyad_Mosque.jpg

Portland Spy Ring[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Portland spy ring was one of the controversies in the Macmillan government at the start of the 1960s. It was one of a series of spy scandals that rocked the British establishment throughout the decade (it was uncovered between the scandals of Burgess/Maclean and George Blake), and a coup for the Soviets, providing their submarine fleet with details of British technological advances that they copied. Any constructive criticism welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Looks fine to me. A couple of quibbles to prove that I read it:
    • Bell (2007) is not used.
    • Could you eliminate the two-letter abbreviations for American states? ([Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations]])
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks Hawkeye. Both your points addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment it's not immediately evident which Portland is being talked about here, since the lede never mentions which country it is in. (I think it needs to be explicitly mentioned because there are two prominent Portlands across the pond)—indopug (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • ~Sigh~... Every flaming time I forget to do this. I swear it's not deliberate! Now added.- SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Konon_Molody_1961.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Morris_Cohen_spy.jpg, File:Rab_Butler.png, File:Lona_and_Morris_Cohen_1969.jpg
    • OK, These now have updated and archived links - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hmm. The first two of these have a UPI credit statement on the back, and the last credits AP. Are we certain these were not copyrighted by those agencies? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Portland_Spy_-_Talc_tin_with_hidden_compartments.jpg needs a more elaborate purpose of use statement in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Will do a full review later, but one thing that jumped out: "obtained classified research documents [plural] and passed it [singular] to the Soviet Union." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ~Sigh~ Sometimes I wonder if my brain actually works...! Thanks for picking that one up - and I look forward to any further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hungarian nobility[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a privileged group of people in the Kingdom of Hungary. Between c. 1000 and 1944, mainly noblemen were appointed to the highest offices in the kingdom but the Hungarian aristocrats never formed a uniform class. The wealthiest noblemen held more than one-third of all lands in the kingdom, but tens of thousands of peasant-nobles had no more than a single plot. Furthermore, there was a sharp legal distinction between "true nobles" and "conditional nobles" (such as the "nobles of the Church"). Although nobility was officially abolished in Hungary in 1947, Hungarian noble families still live in Hungary and the neighboring countries. I highly appreciate all comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead[edit]

Saving my place here. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "especially their tax-exemption and the limitation of their military obligations": I think this phrase can go without "their".
  • "Louis I of Hungary introduced...": Seeing as this entire article is about Hungary, I think "of Hungary" is superfluous.
  • "Actually" is a strange word to use. I would delete it for better prose.
  • "The monarchs granted hereditary titles and the poorest nobles lost their tax-exemption from the middle of the 15th century" Two seemingly unrelated topics. Can you either split the sentence or rephrase it?
  • Link List of princes of Transylvania to "princes of Transylvania"?
  • "Hungary was proclaimed a republic": can you find an appropriate link for "republic"? I was thinking either Second Hungarian Republic or Hungary.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Borsoka Have you seen these? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Maps are illegible at current size, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • I resized them. Sorry, I do not understand and do not want to understand MOS:COLOUR because I cannot edit maps, pictures, etc. Do you still suggest that any of the two maps should be deleted?
  • File:HetVezer-ChroniconPictum.jpg: source link is inaccessible
  • Changed.
  • File:Hungary_13th_cent.png is tagged for factual accuracy and the source appears questionable - it seems to have copied the image from somewhere (which would make the tagging incorrect) but not clear from where
  • Deleted and a new map added.
  • The source for this new map also appears questionable. Where is it taken from? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it is a reliable source ("taneszközök" means "material for teaching" in Hungarian) Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Added two more sources. Borsoka (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Hunedoara_castle.jpg needs a tag for the original work.
  • Changed. I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work". Could you add a link to such tags?
  • Ditto File:PM_139782_RO_Kemeny.jpg
  • I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work".
  • This is a photograph of a architectural work. The image has a tag reflecting the copyright of the photograph, but is missing one for the architectural work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I deleted the picture. I am unable to deal with these issues with photographs and architectural works. Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Stibor.jpg: which tag is believed to apply to the photo?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your note, so I deleted the picture.

&File:Paul_I,_1st_Prince_Esterházy_of_Galántha.jpg: when and where was this first published?

  • File:Emperor_Franz_Joseph_I-Gyula_Benczur-1896.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
  • Changed.
  • File:István_Bethlen,_Tibor_Kállay,_1923.jpg: where was this published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Andrássy.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • In 1865 (added).

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Given the article is 9308 words long and has a +1000 year span, this might be a long review/FAC but it appears a very worthwhile one. The article is very well written, so this review will mostly be about clarity ... via word reduction and removing the few extraneous aside have seen so far. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Your FAC blurb is far less confusing that the three lead opening sentences.
    I would put "c. 1000 and 1944" in the opening sentance. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • but the kings could promote "a daughter to a son" - rephrase maybe as "...under the Hungarian royal prerogative of prefection the kings could promote "a daughter to a son"
  • Most parts of medieval Hungary were integrated into the Habsburg monarchy in the 1690s. Monarchs The Habsburgs confirmed the nobles' privileges several times"

*We have Habsburg dynasty (article mentions the early modern period) and Habsburg monarchy (article mentions after the 1690s). The House of Habsburg article claims that the held "the throne of the Holy Roman Empire...continuously from 1440". I understand the difference, but maybe explain.

  • Don't like "all noblemen's equality" - equality between the [as outlined above its a very complex strata, not sure of the proper division terminology] classes of nobility. Is "maintained" (passive) right - should it be "reinforced" (active)? Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Masses of Magyars?
  • Around 950, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (d. 959) recorded the Hungarians were organized - wrote that the Hungarians were...?
  • Historians who say - "claim"
  • I would avoid "claim" because it would lead to heated edit warrings. I would say "are convinced". Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of Brothelyngham[edit]

Nominator(s): SN54129 18:52, 22 March 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check.

A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check.

Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check.

A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check.

Welcome to 14th-century England—again! Another curious gem displaying the past through an alternative lens, this reached GA-level some years ago and then got forgotten about, which is a shame. Having undergone an expansion, polish and update in scholarship, I thought it was worth presenting here. Thanks in advance, all. SN54129 18:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • For the Exeter map, I'd actually suggest the alt text is better suited to be the caption than the current caption
Right, swapped em out.
  • File:Miniature_Fête_des_Fous.jpg: what's the original source of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
14th-century guy, dead famous in the illustrated manuscripts world (although probably not to anyone else!), so have added some provenance to the commons page.
SN54129 14:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "The Order of Brothelyngham was a group of men, who" - don't think that comma is needed
  • "The group appears [singular] to have named themselves [plural]" - any way to avoid this apparent conflict?
Can never remember whether this is an AmBritEng thing ior just my crappy brain, but singularized the latter.
  • "The Church had waged a campaign against theatrical ludi" - could we explain what "ludi" are/were?
Made a short intra-dashes explanation and a slightly fuller background in a new footnote.
  • "the medievalist Lawrence M. Clopper, suggests" - no reason for that comma either
  • "such practices by the laity, in this case, expressed by the Brothelynham Order" - there's a G missing here
  • "This group comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men" => "This group was comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men"
Done, although I wonder Tim riley hasn't raised an eyebrow at that yet!
  • "in lieu of the sacrifices emphasized" - UK subject so UK spelling should be used
I know—i'm there! But my bloody auto-refill-whatever, thinks it's in South bloody Dakota or somewhere! I try and catch it where I can, but.
  • "that group should be stigmatized by Christians" - same again, also I believe the word "the" is missing before "group" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree again.
  • Thanks, ChrisTheDude, very much for looking in,; all your points, for now, both appreciated and addressed-even the most embarrassing! Cheers, SN54129 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Smalljim[edit]

Thanks for this great piece of research. A few suggestions:

  • Would the second sentence "...which by now was commonly perceived as corrupt." be better as "...which by then was..."?
  • Probably-done.
  • I think I'm right in that the entry in Bishop Grandisson's Register is the only contemporary (or near contemporary) source - that important fact should be mentioned prominently.
  • I think I can dig out a source which backs this this specifiv=c claim)-I'd certainly like too, and it shouldn't be too difficult.
  • Why "Grandison" rather than the far more commonly used "Grandisson" (even in our own article John Grandisson)? I note it's how ODNB spells it, but it's unclear why Audrey Erskine went against the trend.
  • It was a 50/50; I was going to wait and see who had complained the loudest by the close of play!
  • To aim a possible spanner in the heart of your work (sorry!), I'm not sure if all of your sources rely on Hingeston-Randolph's 19th-century transcription and Chope's translation of 1921, but there is another source: Records of Early English Drama – Devon, Ed. John M. Wasson. University of Toronto Press (1986), that provides more recent versions of both. The book is downloadable as a pdf from the Internet Archive here, but there's no preview (not here anyway). It appears to be a fine piece of scholarship which, on pp. 9–10, contains a newer transcription of the Latin in the Grandisson Register, and there is a new translation by Abigail Young (per p. [vii]) on pp. 323–4. Both differ in a number of points from Hingeston-Randolph's and Chope's work. For instance H-R's quin pocius erroris, translated by Chope as "or rather the Error" becomes quin pocius orroris, translated as "– nay, rather, the horror –". I think we should always prefer later translations over older ones, unless they are clearly inferior. There are a number of places where use of this more modern translation may be preferable, e.g. in the quote box aside "Historiography".
  • No, it's an excellent source, and I'll certainly mine the secondary aspects of it deeply! There just aren't enough of them, unfortunately. The new translation, I will make the primary use of in quotes and put Chope etc, in a footnote etc., again, for the reader to GoCompare if they so wish.
  • Done.
  • Under "Activities in Exeter" - "Name", last sentence, Mortimer doesn't say that Sempringham was the only abbey in the country to house both monks and nuns under the same roof. Mortimer doesn't seem to be too reliable here either: he says Sempringham was Premonstratensian, but it was clearly in the Gilbertine Order at the time.
  • To square the circle, I've omitted his Order error and replaced part of the claim with a similar source. I think he's reliable for small claims such as these.
  • Under "Riotousness", first sentence of second para, Wasson has quendam, not quemdam.
  • My eyes. Done.
  • Under "Later events", H-R and Wasson both show the ludum noxium register entry as being in 1352, not '53.
  • Added a secondary source confirming what you say.
  • In the bibliography, Frodsham, Henisch and Salisbury are out of alphabetical order.
  • Rejigged.
  • This is an old problem to which I haven't found a satisfactory result. The obvious example is Shakespeare of course: imagine having a cite to {{sfn|Shakespeare|2023}}! So the way around it is to let |ref={{whatever}}.That way, we can quote the recent(ish) translation than the original primary source. It's a pain, but IO rely on others' template knowledge in matters of these!
  • Hmm. I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't see this as a problem: look at the FA Hamlet#Editions of Hamlet for instance - there are a number of editions of the play listed there and none of them shows Shakespeare as the author. Couldn't you just omit |last1=Grandisson |first1=J. from the cite book template?  —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope some of this is helpful. I rarely comment at FACs, but this grabbed my attention!  —Smalljim  16:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hi Smalljim Thanks for this-if you check my latest edits I've addressed all your points, except of course, the New Source. I've started on that but will get stuck in further tomorrow. I'm creating a table of that historiography quote box so the reader can compare between Chope etc and Wasson, which should be interesting. As I said above, I'll make Wasson and his 1986 commentary the primary source, shunting H-R etc, into the background, somewhat.
    Thanks for looking in, these are all great points! SN54129 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Happy I can help a little. I've commented further under the last bullet point above, and may have a few more after another read through (if you can bear that!). In your next editing session you'll spot the wonderful invented word 'Grandissonam' that's crept in :)))  —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the help, Smalljim, and the technical know-how for |ref=editor- rather than author-so easy I can't believe it! Instead of all that messing about with templates etc. Anyway, I've done that throughout, so we know just have H-R in 1897, bibliographically. The other main thing-the newer source is also appreciated. I've used it on all major quotes, comparing them to Chopes' trans, letting the reader find out for themselves that Grandisson was even more of a hardnut than he has probably been given credit for! By the way, you're right about emphasising the limited and so biased, nature of the source, so I merged most of the discussion into its own source-hopefully that clarifies things for further along. Thanks for Grandissonam; that must be the accusative of To Grandisson...? ;)
  • Also, let me know if you do have further thoughts, of course. SN54129 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

First few after a quick canter through looking for typos etc. More on actual content later. You might like to revisit:

  • "They also practiced extortion" – unless they were American I suggest they practised it.
  • "gladitorial shows" – "gladiatorial"?
  • "a termination which in devon everyone would understand" – capitalise?

More anon. Tim riley talk 18:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First lot of general comments
  • "Bearing their 'Abbot' aloft" – double quotes, please (MoS).
  • "Martha Bayless has calculate that" – past tense seems wanted
  • "only 10%" – the MoS suggests "per cent" rather than "%" in prose.
  • "of poplar theatrical satires were not attacking the Church" – "popular"?
  • in re the above two points, "only ten per cent were not"" – seems an odd way of saying "ninety per cent were"
  • "The Order of Brothelyngham is … They were treated" – confusion of singular and plural
  • "dressed in the robes of a Bishop" – capital letter necessary?
  • "was a European phenomenon" – meaning Continental Europe?
  • "while wearing masque" – I can find nothing in the OED to suggest that "masque" is a costume. Perhaps "wearing masque costume" or some such?
  • "and hiding one's identity" – "one's"?
  • "their tormentors receive rewards" – past tense wanted here?
  • "was commissioned by his Bishop" – not sure the job title needs a capital letter here or elsewhere when used generically
  • "letters of the Bishop to his staff, the Order's avowed opponent" – his staff was the avowed opponent?
  • "comments that that methodology, however, "limited the historical value of his scheme" – we could advantageously lose the "however"
  • "often due to translation or interpretative differences" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

More to come. Tim riley talk 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diodorus scytobrachion[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the first FAC about a silesaurid, a member of a group of strange dinosaur-relatives, which may actually be dinosaurs themselves according to the latest research. This particular genus isn't known by much, so the article covers everything that has been published about it, and gives a bit of a wider look at its group for context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging the artist, Fanboyphilosopher. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now cited the source I consulted when creating the diagram. As for color, I am of the opinion that color-coding a skull diagram is much more useful for the purpose of visually presenting information on the size, shape, and relationships between individual bones. A black-and-white diagram would not be as immediately impactful for that purpose. For the sake of color-blind readers, I've investigated my coloration style in a color blindness simulator ([2]). Most colors can still be discriminated in dichromatic views, and even when there are exceptions the diagram is still useful thanks to the context afforded by the legend (top-to-bottom and left-to-right in the columns correspond to front-to-back in the skull). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The legend doesn't say that, so if a reader is unable to distinguish colours how would they understand that context? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case I will add that information to the description. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note a new size diagram image has been added to the article, if you want to review it too:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not, precisely, a review, but I checked for Lint errors and duplinks, and found none. That said, the map & cladogram (I assume meant to be side-by-side?) in the Classification section are instead a map with massive whitespace on the left, followed by a cladogram with massive whitespace on the right. Could another arrangement be found, that doesn't leave so much whitespace? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, doesn't look like that to me, must be different settings. Could you show a screenshot? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog 2[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This 1992 Sega Genesis game needs no introduction, but I'll do my best to try: while Sonic the Hedgehog's success proved that Sega could compete with the behemoth that was Nintendo, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 proved that success wasn't a fluke. It established Sonic as a major franchise and made the Blue Blur an industry icon. It wasn't all fun and games behind the scenes, though—development was rife with cultural clashes between the Japanese Sonic Team alumni led by Yuji Naka and Mark Cerny's American Sega Technical Institute staff. Despite considerable reductions in scope, Sonic 2 shipped on time and is still widely considered one of Sonic's best outings.

I began rewriting this article all the way back in 2020 but finally got around to finishing it recently. I believe it's the most comprehensive resource for the game on the internet and it's been a while since Sonic's paid FAC a visit—I hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Given the number of non-free screenshots, each will need a stronger justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: added alt text and strengthened the FURs—if it needs more work just let me know. JOEBRO64 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guitar Songs[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"
12:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

After months away from FAC, I am back with more Billie Eilish; that is, if you disregard this blip. Today we set our sights on a EP---a quirky one, for it has only two tracks. But despite the brevity, these two tracks are confessional and pensive enough to leave a lasting impression. One "explores the topics of abandonment issues and a desire for numbness as a distraction from the problems that plague the world", and the other is a very detailed chronicling of a car accident experienced by Eilish's very close friend. Ready for any and all comments. :^)

A little aside: @Indopug, since you opposed the last FAC, you might interest yourself reviewing the parent article now, but of course you are in no way obligated to comment again. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"
12:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image and media review[edit]

  • File:Billie Eilish - Guitar Songs.png has a clearly defined purpose within the article. The WP:FUR is complete, and I appreciate the archived version of the source link being included. There is also clear and appropriate WP:ALT text.
  • Everything looks solid with File:BillieEilishO2160622 (44 of 45) (52152978743) (cropped).jpg, but I think it would be beneficial to include in the image caption what year the photo was taken to provide a fuller context to readers. This is not necessarily required though, and it is more of an encouragement on my part.
    • I chose not to include the year because I feel readers can glean from the prose anyway roughly when it was taken; it makes the caption clunkier as well.
  • I have a question about File:Billie Eilish - The 30th song sample.ogg. The caption and the WP:FUR are focused on the song, but from my understanding, if an editor is using an audio sample for an album (or an EP in this case), it should be restricted to something that is representative of the release as a whole and not just an individual song. While I do understand the EP is only two songs, I think it should be remembered that it is encouraged to keep non-free usage to a minimal, and the caption and the WP:FUR seem better suited to justify the sample's inclusion in an article about the song not the EP. Would there be any way to reframe this as being representative of the EP and less about the song as an individual release?
    • This should be done
      • That looks much better to me. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Everything looks appropriate with File:Cloud Forest, Gardens by the Bay, Singapore.jpg, and I will assume good faith that it really is the uploader's original work.

I hope this review was helpful. Everything is solid with the images, but I do have a concern and a question about the appropriateness of the audio sample for this particular article. Please let me know if you have any questions and I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, @Aoba47, and likewise! I'm off to see a therapist appointment later in the day, so my mood's particularly up this weekend. Hope life is treating you well. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"
02:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the very prompt responses. I hope you have a solid and productive therapy appointment. It is always good to be in a good mood. I plan on being productive and using this weekend to hunker down and get a lot of off-Wiki work done. At least hopefully. Anyway, this passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song)[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Made You Look". After years of experimenting with different genres to little to no commercial returns, Trainor returned to her doo-wop roots and delivered a shocking comeback with this global top-10 single. Although not her most acclaimed release, it appealed to TikTok users and the rest is history. I would like to give special thanks to Aoba47 and SNUGGUMS for their help with the prose and media during this article's peer review. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support my concerns were already addressed during the peer review (where I assessed files used so media review passes as problem-free in my eyes). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "She struggled while creating her third one" => "She struggled while creating her third album"
  • "rewriting it four times as an attempt of "adapting to"" => "rewriting it four times in an attempt to "[adapt] to""
  • "She stated the elevated emotions" => "She stated that the elevated emotions"
  • "Trainor reprised the song at the eighth season" => "Trainor reprised the song during the eighth season" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just addressed these comments, ChrisTheDude! Thank you so much for the review :)--NØ 12:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Suggest linking "trend" to viral phenomenon
  • Trainor wrote "Made You Look" alongside songwriter Sean Douglas -- co-wrote consistent with the lead
  • Now wrote in both places.
  • attained viral popularity -- same as above, perhaps should be linked to Viral phenomenon instead
  • Piper Westrom thought harken back to the sound of Title. -- per WP:NOTSIMPLE, perhaps something a little simpler than "harken back"
  • it achieved a correct balance between -- achieved a right balance IMO is more appropriate

That's all from me, great work overall. As a note, I have not read other editors' comments so apologies if there are overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you so much for the swift review, Pseud 14! I believe it should all be addressed now.--NØ 15:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the prompt response. Happy to support on prose -- Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

Fun! I remember reviewing this at DYK, and now it is finally here at FA.

  • Briefly introduce Sean Douglas (you can say "the songwriter Sean Douglas")
  • ALT for File:DarylSabara2022.png could be more descriptive.
  • Likewise introduce Sean Douglas in the body.
  • You mention in the lead that Federico Vindver was a producer but he is not referred to as such at first mention in the body.
  • "Her body image insecurities after pregnancy and an exercise where her therapist asked her to look at herself naked for five minutes inspired the song" This sentence is rather long and awkward; I suggest rewording it.
  • "Trainor came up with the lines "I'll make you double take / Soon as I walk away / Call up your chiropractor just in case your neck break", a reference to how Trainor's husband..." Suggest: "Trainor came up with the lines "I'll make you double take / Soon as I walk away / Call up your chiropractor just in case your neck break", as a reference to how Trainor's husband..."
  • "Petras adds new ad libs and high notes during her verse..." I believe it should be "added", not "adds", especially since the following sentence (also about Petras) is in the past tense.
  • "The lyrics and flirtatious approach of "Made You Look" were discussed by critics" Can we have a reference for this statement?
  • This is a summary statement to transition readers between the paragraphs so it's not directly stated in one secondary source but sourced by the following sentences.
  • Ditto with "'Made You Look' debuted at number 95 on the US Billboard Hot 100 issued dated November 5, 2022"
  • "Additionally, the song charted within the top 20, at number 11 in Hungary": if we know that it debuted at number 11, is it really necessary to say that it was top 20?

Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article's DYK had the most views any of my hooks have ever gotten, if I remember correctly. Thank you so much for that and for coming back to review this for FAC, Unlimitedlead! All the comments should be addressed now :) --NØ 19:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will support this nomination. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I participated in the peer review process for this article, and all of my concerns were already addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Source review

  • What makes Renowned for Sound, Riff, and Plugged In high-quality reliable sources?
  • Renowned for Sound was launched by an editor who now has 20 years of industry experience. Riff has an extensive editorial team and is ran by Daniel Willis according to their About page, who has contributed to LA Times, The Atlantic, and several other reputed publications. I believe Plugged In is not a great source for anything controversial but another user at a noticeboard suggested it should be incorporated to represent diverse critical opinions about the song. I would be willing to remove this one if you insist.
  • Has Riff been cited by any other publications, or does the author of the article (Piper Westrom) have any credentials of her own?
  • The Plugged In author is listed as an intern, and while it is good to have diverse critical opinions, this website does not seem like a high-quality source for music criticism so I would remove it
  • I'm not sure how to check citations but Riff has been recognized with three awards by the San Francisco Press Club and the author in question has written for Newsbreak. They have an extensive editorial team and there doesn't seem to be any oversight problem. I have now removed Plugged In.
  • Do note that News Break is deprecated per WP:RSPSS. I'm just trying to get at why we care about their opinion as the author seemingly hasn't written for any other publication of a higher notability. Upon searching on ProQuest, it appears that Riff Magazine has been quoted/cited a couple of times. I would personally not include it, but I'll leave it up to you.
  • Italian radio refs should use Template:Cite press release; the second is missing author
  • "Meghan Trainor Chart History (Billboard Vietnam Hot 100)" → Billboard Vietnam Hot 100
  • link
  • "as the second single from Takin' It Back (2022)" → not supported by All Access ref

This passes the source review. Heartfox (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose review

  • "An online dance challenge choreographed by TikTok users Brookie and Jessie set to "Made You Look" became a trend on the platform, following which around two million user-generated videos also used the song." → this is confusingly situated between a sentence discussing the a capella version release and one discussing the other remixes
  • the commercial performance section should have an intro sentence saying it was one her highest-charting songs in years
  • likewise for the performances paragraph, an intro sentence like "Trainor promoted the song with appearances on several television shows" would help distinguish the paragraph topic
  • what order are names in the credits section listed in?
  • Just the liner notes order I believe, which goes: producer, songwriters, instruments, and mix/master.
  • Some of the quotations could be paraphrased to be more understandable because Trainor doesn't seem that eloquent discussing the song. For example:
    ""[adapt] to what's going on in the music industry" → could be paraphrased "respond to market shifts in the music industry"
    "Everything I write I'm like 'Yo, TikTok's gonna eat this up,' like I truly um am focused on like, my fans on TikTok, [...] that's my home and I'm writing for TikTok."
    "I knew for this music video that I wanted it to be bright, fun colors. That's my thing, always ... but I wanted this to feel like (an) elevated (version of 'All About That) Bass,' more saturated"

Once these comments are addressed, I will be happy to support promotion and pass the source review :) Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for the source and prose reviews. I believe the above comments should be addressed.--NØ 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC), Muwatallis II (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey folks, this article is about the Chilean cruiser Esmeralda, a warship that marked an important milestone in naval design—albeit a short-lived one. This was the world's first protected cruiser, a type that made Esmeralda's builder a lot of money. The soundness of Esmeralda's design has been debated both then and now, but given the rapidly improving naval technology of the time, it was in any case destined to be quickly surpassed by new warships. Little more than a decade after Esmeralda entered service, Chile sold it to Japan to help fund a newer and larger vessel. My thanks in advance to everyone who takes a look through this article! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Bombardeodeiquique.png needs a US tag
  • File:Tsushima_battle_map-en.svg would benefit from a legend, and what's the source of the data presented?
  • File:Japanese_cruiser_Izumi_at_Sasebo_1908.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hello Nikkimaria! I've added a US-PD_expired tag and swapped the second image for a regular map. For alt text, I think only one image needs it + the captions serve well enough for the others. Please let me know if you disagree. For the third image, a publishing date is not required per Japanese copyright law, which for this time period needs a publishing or creation date to prove something is in the public domain. I have a longstanding unresolved talk page message related to how the publishing requirement was added to the template. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Good to see you back at FAC.

  • "Constructed by the British shipbuilder Armstrong Mitchell in the early 1880s, the company's founder ...": needs rephrasing; the founder was not constructed by Armstrong Mitchell.
  • The lead says Esmerelda showed the flag and conducted gunboat diplomacy during the Panama crisis of 1885. The body has "the Chilean government sent the ship on an unusual and statement-making voyage to Panama, where it showed the Chilean flag alongside the great powers" with no more details about what Esmerelda (or the Chilean government) did there. Do we need both "show the flag" and "gunboat diplomacy" in the lead?
  • Suggest linking to "Navy_Directory#Background" instead of to wiktionary for "stricken"; the wiktionary sense is hard to spot on that page. You have another link near the end of the article; if you do want the duplicate link I would make the same change there. Are "struck" and "stricken" synonyms in this usage?
  • In the "Background" section I think it would be worth giving the date of the end of the War of the Pacific (presumably April 4, 1884, when the Treaty of Valparaiso was signed), and the date of Esmerelda's completion, making it clearer that she never participated in that war.
  • I initially read "developed it from the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" as meaning that the ship that became Esmerelda was originally destined to become Tsukushi. The next sentence clarifies the situation, but how about "who based the design on that of the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" or something similar?
  • "Nathaniel Barnaby, the Director of Naval Construction for the British Admiralty, (the department in charge of Britain's Royal Navy), would later write that ...": don't use both parentheses and parenthetical commas.
  • Per MOS:TYPOFIX you can correct "Chili" to "Chile", unless you feel it's significant in some way.
  • "This perspective was part of a larger effort to draw attention to the underfunded and under-equipped state of the United States Navy." Does this mean that the quote just before this should not be taken at face value?
  • We say it "lacked a proper conning tower", but later that "the conning tower was provided with its own 1-inch armor".
  • "While the British government upheld its neutrality through the active prevention of warship deliveries to the countries involved in the War of the Pacific, Esmeralda was finished after the conclusion of the conflict and arrived in Chile on 16 October 1884." Presumably the Chileans knew about the British policy. If they knew they would not be able to take delivery till the War of the Pacific was over, I think that should be clearer in the "Background" section where the war is discussed as an incentive for the order.
  • "She did not find them, although Abtao would later join the rebels." Suggest "and" instead of "although"; there's no contradiction here.
  • "which bombarded the positions of the Presidential troops until they finally capitulated": I think you can drop "finally".
  • "fired three shots to alert the Presidential forces of the arrival of the Congressionalists": I think it should be "to the arrival", not "of", but why would Esmeralda want to alert the enemy?
  • "with a successful result": a bit vague -- what actually happened?
  • "Renamed Izumi, the Japanese Navy": needs to be rephrased; the Japanese Navy was not renamed. Perhaps "It was renamed Izumi and employed by the Japanese Navy in ...".

All fairly minor points; looks good overall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hey Mike Christie! I didn't even have a chance to leave you a talk page message before you caught this. :-) Thanks so much for this review. I've tried to address all of your thoughts, and some specific points follow:
    • "Struck" and "stricken" are synonyms in naval parlance. I've added a more specific links to wikt:stricken#Adjective, as I'm looking to give the definition of the word. Does that work?
    • The Background section: I added "Esmeralda was the most capable of these ships, and although British neutrality meant that it could not be delivered until after the war's conclusion, the Chileans ordered it with the intention of gaining naval superiority over their neighbors", citing Grant's Rulers, Guns, and Money. I haven't added the requested dates for the end of the War of the Pacific/Esmeralda's completion, but I can if this change is not enough to satisfy your point.
    • The conning tower point is tricky. It had a conning tower in the sense that the position was used like one, but unusually it was not one of the best-protected areas on the ship -- it was only protected against rifle fire. I've added the rifle fire bit to the article, and could swap "proper" for "full-fledged" if that makes more sense?
    • Three shots: that's an excellent catch. I went back to the source and clarified that the ship's crew was alerting the Congressionalists to their arrival. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fixes all look good. Re the conning tower, how about saying it lacked a "fully-armored conning tower", if that was the main shortcoming? And one more point I just noticed: you refer to Esmerelda almost throughout as "it", but in the "Chilean Civil War" section you twice use "she", which I assume is an oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've gone with "thickly armored," if that works? From the descriptions in sources, it sounds fully armored... just not against naval guns. :-) I've also added an explanatory note in the article for that + addressed your second point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Changes all look good. Perhaps "heavily-armored" instead of "thickly-armored"? But either is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1894–95 New Brompton F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following my 21 previous successful nominations of seasons from the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C., I thought I would challenge myself and delve back almost to the beginning of the club's history in the far-off days of the Victorian era. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive by comments[edit]

Steelkamp (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Steelkamp: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Daily News is still linked to a dab page. It seems it should link to The Daily News (UK). Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Steelkamp: - done (someone else got there before me :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review – The 1st, 3rd, and 4th tables are missing integrated captions and the 5th table is missing row scopes per MOS:DTAB. You can also add alt text to the infobox image using the alt1= parameter. Heartfox (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Heartfox: - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "The New Brompton club had been formed in May 1893" => "The New Brompton club was formed in May 1893"
  • "The club was invited to join and allocated a place in Division Two, the lower of the new league's two divisions" => "The club was invited to join and allocated a place in Division Two, the lower one of the new league's two divisions"
  • "Ahead of the new season, New Brompton played a friendly against Barking Swifts" => "Ahead of the new season, New Brompton played a friendly match against Barking Swifts"
  • "having been signed by the club after he impressed in an inter-county match between teams representing Kent and Sussex" => "having been signed by the club after he impressed them in an inter-county match between teams representing Kent and Sussex" -- NØ 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- NØ 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saving Private Ryan[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the 1998 war film Saving Private Ryan, a highly influential film about a troop of soldiers tasked with recovering a single man and the last surviving son of the Ryan family, James Ryan, and getting him out of World War II alive. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • File:Niland_brothers.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Matt_Damon_TIFF_2015.jpg: the source link includes a ND license, and the photo ID link for NASA is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I removed the tag from the Matt Damon one as I searched the site and it appears to have been removed. I wouldn't know where to find the original release date of the Niland brothers image but I know it's prior to 1945 since three of them were dead by that point.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Damon, now we're left with a problem: the NASA tag states their stuff is not copyrighted unless noted, and now our only source link asserts copyright (the ND license). On Niland: that supports that the image was created before 1945, but the given tagging is based on publication. If we can't demonstrate a publication from that era, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Morning Nikkimaria, so I have replaced the Matt Damon pic with File:Matt Damon 2014 3.jpg and I have found this page here with a newspaper clipping using the image of the Nilands. Is that any good? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That gets us halfway there - it demonstrates this was probably published in the 40s. But any idea what that publication is? We'd need to confirm lack of copyright renewal for the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So searching the article title on via our library gives me this, which probably won't load for you unless you go through the library. This was printed in The Buffalo News, June 9, 1944 . Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. So if you can add that information to the image description page, this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serial# emerges from pill box[edit]

Saw this the other day as it happens, so count me in. The main question is, without having read the article yet, whether it's true that the opening scene is what most people remember of it.... SN54129 12:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • If you can find out for certain what the total budget was (instead of giving a range), then I'd go with a specific number.
  • "The cast includes"..... I'd recommend "Other cast members" or "The cast also include" or something like that when we've already mentioned Tom Hanks and Matt Damon who are also part of the cast, contrary to what the current phrasing suggests.
  • By "most involved scene", do you mean the one used most for filming?
  • "Despite concerns about releasing a serious war drama in a season normally reserved for escapist entertainment" is a trivial concern you can safely scrap; just focus more on the actual results
  • "had an important impact on" → "impacted"
  • "three of four brothers"..... we should add "Ryan" in there to better establish a family connection
  • The plot section should make a distinction between James Francis Ryan (the one being sought) and James Frederick Ryan (who he got temporarily mixed up with) as the middle name discrepancy was how John Miller and his crew realize they initially went after the wrong guy
  • Try to avoid having super-short paragraphs with just one or two sentences as that makes the flow of text feel choppy
  • Under "Cast", you should adjust "Saving Private Ryan's cast includes" per my earlier comments for cast listings within the lead
  • Using "Frank" for "Frank performed rewrites" is confusing when Frank Darabont and Scott Frank are both being discussed shortly beforehand
  • It seems like "found this a 'a mentally demoralizing experience' because the cast started together" has an extra "a". One of them should be deleted.
  • The entire "Context" subsection is superfluous, and most of it focuses on other irrelevant films. Speculation over how much this movie would earn also isn't nearly as important as the official gross.
  • Don't presume all readers will know what publications the critics are writing for; we should name more of these than just (which I'm not fully sure is trustworthy)
  • "Best Director (Spielberg) and Best Actor (Hanks) at the Empire Awards ." has a stray space before the period
  • "Best Casting (Casting Society of America, Denise Chamian)" is missing a comma between the ending parenthetical and its accompanying citation
  • The New York Observer needs italics for "While the Observer found the German characters" (and should use the paper's full name)
  • "now considered one of the greatest war films ever made"..... see WP:RELTIME
  • "anchored by another winning performance" should have "anchored" start with an upper-case "A"
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same heading as them

Once these get fixed, you should be up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done these, I'm sure we've had this discussion about Context sections on a previous FA but I do disagree on them being superfluous, I find them quite interesting and it sets up expectations vs reality which i think, especially for films 20, 30, or 40 years ago, helps establish what the films were competing against, provides natural internal links to these films, and helps us understand where things predicted to do well failed and things thought to be limited end up overperforming. I have, however, trimmed it down a bit. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following the compromise of a trim and all other points being addressed, I give my support to the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you SNUGGUMS! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review – The infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heartfox am I missing something? The infobox has an alt field that is filled in. Did you mean the infobox? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Telephone (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get ready to be dialed into Lady Gaga's world with "Telephone", where she delivers a phone-tastic performance that's sure to ring in your ears long after the song ends. Another FAC on a Gaga song by me, have at it. FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • All of the images appear to be appropriately licensed.
  • Usage of the non-free music video screenshot is amply justified by the detailed caption.
  • File:Beyonce.jpg is in use on several websites so it is hard to establish who took the picture but assuming good faith that it is the uploader's own work as claimed.--NØ 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • The source link for File:Lady Gaga Telephone cover.png is dead (at least on my end).
  • In the lead's first paragraph, there are two sentences that start with the song's title, i.e. ( "Telephone" metaphorically represents) and (Musically, "Telephone" consists), and I think it would be better to vary one instance to avoid repetition.
  • Apologies for being super nitpick-y, but I do not think the word "guests" works in this instance (they go to a diner and poison the guests' breakfast). I would consider people eating at a diner to be more customers than guests. I have not just never seen "guests" applied in this context.
  • This is a random suggestion so apologies again. I vaguely remember the Kidz Bop cover of this song having something weird, and after doing some research, I found a few sources (The 25 Most Ridiculous and Confusing Kidz Bop Lyric Changes, 7 song lyrics that were rewritten to avoid the censors, and The 13 Most Awkwardly Altered Lyrics On Kidz Bop 18) that focus on how the cover changes lyrics to be more kid-friendly. It might be notable enough to mention in the "Other versions" section.
  • For the captions for the Britney Spears, Beyoncé, and Tyrese Gibson images, I would include the years that they were taken to provide a clearer and fuller context to readers without having them click on the image.
  • I have a clarification question about this part (but Spears rejected it). I was curious if we knew for certain if Spears was the one to reject it, as she was under her conservatorship and it seemed like a majority of the creative decisions were handled by others and less by her. Have any sources discussed this? I tried to look it up, but all the sources I found attributed the rejection to Spears so it could just be me speculating, but I still wanted to ask you anyway.
All the sources I found related to it only said that Spears rejected it. I didn't see someone else influenced this decision.
That is what I thought too. It is unlikely that we will ever know the exact nature of how this song was rejected (or how songs in general are rejected as a lot of coverage seemingly links these decisions to the artist when it could be the label, the artist's team, etc.). Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe that all of the song's credits not only need to be listed in a separate section, but also need to be incorporated into the actual prose. I did a spot check to judge this, and I only see Paul Foley and Gene Grimaldi mentioned in the "Credits and personnel" section and not in the prose.
  • Quentin Tarantino is linked twice in the article.

I hope this review is helpful so far. My above comments cover the lead and the "Background and release" section, and I will read through the rest of the article later in the week. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Aoba. I have resolved them in parts and will get to the rest soon. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the response. Take as much time as you need. I will read through the article more and post further comments when you are done addressing everything. I hope you are having an enjoyable week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, they all should be done now except for where I have left a reply. I hope you're enjoying your week so far, too. :) FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For this sentence (It was called an album highlight by Nicki Escuerdo from Phoenix New Times, Michael Hubbard from MusicOMH and Evan Sawdey from PopMatters.), I would put the citations in numeric order. I would encourage you to check the article for other instances of this.
I actually put that in order that the publications are listed.
  • I would shorten the start of this sentence (Media outlets The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Belfast Telegraph, Billboard, Vulture and Uproxx ranked "Telephone" as one of Gaga's best songs.) to just Media outlets as I do not think it is necessary to list all of the music publications in the prose.
  • Tanner Stransky should be linked in the article and in the citation.
  • I find this sentence, (Director Jonas Åkerlund and cinematographer Pär Ekberg had to finish filming in two days that involved multiple locations, dance numbers, many extras and busy schedules of Gaga and Beyoncé.), to be awkwardly constructed. I get the meaning, but I think the information could be conveyed better. For instance, when reading it aloud, I found the "two days that involed" a bit awkward. Plus it was unclear on why there was a two-day limit until the end when the performers's busy schedules were mentioned.
  • The cast of Queer Eye did a lip sync performance of "Telephone" on Lip Sync Battle, and it has appeared to have received enough coverage from various sources (Billboard, E! Online, Los Angeles Blade, Out for some examples) to warrant a mention in this article in my opinion.
  • "Telephone" was a lip sync song in the season 14 of RuPaul's Drag Race. Did it get enough coverage to be considered notable enough to be mentioned here? I could not find any real coverage on this, but I only did a superficial look.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on this either.
  • Around the time that "Telephone" was released, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé had a separate and similar collaboration with a "Video Phone" remix. The "Video Phone" Wikipedia article brings up how critics compared the two songs and music videos, but this article does not address any of that. I would think that would be notable enough to mention in some capacity.

This should be all of my comments, but I will take time over the weekend to read through the article a few more times just to make sure I complete my due diligence as a reviewer and make sure I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review as always. I think I have incorporated them all unless stated otherwise, and look forward to your rereading of the article. FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would find a way to better incorporate this sentence (Nicola Formichetti outfitted the video, which includes fashion pieces by Thierry Mugler and Atsuko Kudo, as well as Gaga's own creative team, Haus of Gaga.) into the section as I am not sure putting it as its own separate paragraph is the best choice.
I have included this in plot subsection following a sentence which talks about the designer of an outfit. Not sure it goes there but I couldn't think of anywhere else where it works.
  • I remember speculation on a sequel to the "Telephone" music video with "Aura" being a popular pick. Gaga teased a follow-up, and it was here and here and here. Have any media outlets further discussed this sequel. To be clear, I am unsure if this should be added to the article. I personally do not see enough coverage even with the three sources I've linked above, but my hesitation is primarily with not wanting to adding speculation or teases that ultimately did not result in anything. With that being said, I still wanted to get your opinion on it either way.
Yeah, I remember that as well but as you said, those were merely speculations, and I don't think this warrants a mention.

These are my last comments. Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope it is not too much of a pain. I had a lot of fun reading through this article. It gave me a lot of nostalgia and memories. It's wild to think that this song was released over a decade ago lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you again, Aoba. Your review was definitely not a pain and was very helpful as always. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it; I also had a lot fun researching the different analyses. It really is strange to think the song/video is now 13 years old; it feels like yesterday when I first listened to it but then again I started listening to Gaga much later. Back then, I was far too young for her stuff and would've been traumatized for life LOL. FrB.TG (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! The responses above make sense, and I agree that mere speculations should not be included in the article. I was in high school when this song was released so it makes me feel crazy old lol. I support this FAC for promotion and best of luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Have you ever considered splitting the music video into its own article à la "We Found Love"? Granted it is connected to the song, but I'm just wondering what your thoughts are given that it includes five subsections which is essentially an article within an article. Heartfox (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Heartfox: I've thought about it and also considered it for Alejandro (song) back when I expanded its music video section but at nearly 5k words, I think this article's size is pretty manageable. The WFL article is already at nearly 6k words even with a separate music video article (3k words) so a song article of 9k words would have been far too big. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Saving a spot ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"
04:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of the Great Plains[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is another from the Second Punic War, as the Carthaginian war effort falls apart. A certain lack of esprit de corps may be detected in this battle. The article shares many features with the immediately preceding battle of Utica. The article was overhauled and went through GAN in January. I hope that it will be favourably received here, if so I hope to shortly be bringing you the battle of Zama. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

You know the drill, Gog. Comments to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The ALT for the lead image doesn't seem to match the actual photograph?
I have removed "black and white".
  • Instead of template formatting like {{c.}} 30,000, can we have {{circa|30,000}}?
  • Was Polybius more favourable to the Roman or Carthaginian side? This would change the meaning of the sentence "The near-contemporary historian Polybius considered this act of bad faith by the Romans to be the single greatest cause of war with Carthage..."
Nope. As Primary sources says "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view."
  • "In 210 BC Roman reinforcements stabilised the situation;[23] later that year Publius Cornelius Scipio,[note 3] arrived with further Roman reinforcements to take command in Iberia" Superfluous comma before note 3?
I am going for a little lie down.
I try not to make the same mistakes too many times. Instead I find new ones to make.
  • "He was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC, despite not meeting the age requirement" Do we know how old he was? That might be useful to briefly mention here.
Good point. Done.
  • Is there anything about Hanno on Wikipedia? Or shall it remain linkless?
There is nothing more about him anywhere. Linkless he shall remain.
  • You should be consistent with your usage of the Oxford comma: for instance, I see "here was also extensive fighting in Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa", but then I see "Scipio assembled a vast quantity of food and materiel, merchant ships to transport it and his troops, and warships to escort the transports"
In the case you cite the commas are all needed for clarity. Eg, removing the last one has the merchant ships transporting their escorts.
  • "When word of the defeat reached Carthage there was panic, with some wanting to renew the peace negotiations" Do we know if "some" refers to general citizens, or was it lawmakers/government officials?
Senators. Added and sourced.
  • Do any sources state what "Africanus" means? As in, what does it translate to?
Of the first six I checked which mention it, no. The only one which says anything about it is Lazenby "... the first Roman general to be known by a name derived from the scene of his victories". The fact that no later sources seem to repeat this explicit claim makes me a little twitchy.
  • The title of Rawlings (1996) is not capitalised.
Oops. Fixed.

I think I've spotted more frequent comma usage in this article!

There is no need to be insulting.

By the way, I've recently spoken with my dear English professor, who informed me that my methods of commaisation, while not incorrect, are quite antiquated. I don't dare to ask how old you are, Gog, but certainly you write like a young person!

Lol. I imagine that I am older than you are.

Wonderful work on yet another Punic War article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks ULL, all good points and all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I shall be glad to extend a support. Keep up the good work, lad. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. You are starting t sound very British. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really, now? I must being hanging around too many Brits... (looks at you and Dudley)
Wait. How did you know I was American? Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*smug smiley*


  • A while since I got to one of yours in time, so marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "battle at Cirta, and again defeated" in the intro are both links to the same article.
Bleh, fixed.
  • Link names in captions?
I don't usually as I consider it dup linking. But if you prefer it, I will. Could you clarify what you mean by "names"?
I'd link Scipio, Second Punic War, and battle of Zama, to make it easy for the readers skimming the article to get an overview. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for dropping by Funk, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The near-contemporary historian Polybius considered" As I've repeated a couple of times, could be nice to note that he was Greek, to show impartiality.
I don't see how that would establish impartiality. Plenty of Greeks of the time disliked the Romans. Often for good reason. And I don't see how this would communicate what you think it would to the average reader. But added.
You agreed with the rationale when I brought it up long ago, the assumption being that being neither Roman nor Carthaginian, he would he would have less of an interest in . FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and equipped legion provided by their Latin allies; allied legions" This confused me a bit. By Latin allies, do we mean Latin-speaking people outside Rome proper, wouldn't they already be considered Romans due to being part of the empire?
There was no Empire. This was the Republic. There was a very sharp distinction between Romans and non-Roman ethnic Latins. Most of whom probably but not certainly spoke some dialect of Latin.
Makes sense, I'm not too strong on Roman chronology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " who were not Carthaginian citizens. (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.)" Shouldn't the period of the main sentence come after the parenthesis, and the first word in the parenthesis be de-capitalised? Probably a style variation I just don't know of.
To me that would look really odd. And it looks standard as it is. Given that the same phrase has gone through 11 FACs unchallenged, I think it's a style variation.
  • "close combat. (The latter were usually Numidians.)" Same, but pardon me if it's only sheer ignorance that I haven't seen this style before.
I had a similar issue with Unlimitedlead and we both ended up confused with the other's approach. Perhaps we could ask the scholar and guru of all things stylish Mr Riley to arbitrate? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could still be interesting to hear Tim out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link "Libyans" to something?
Linked to something.
  • "Aged 31 was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC" Missing "he" before "elected?
Bleh again. Sorry.
  • "But Roman commitment was less than wholehearted, Scipio could not conscript troops for his consular army" Missing "and" after the common, to show it is the result of the first part of the sentence?
In my use of English "and" would mean that the second part of the sentence was something additional to (and) and implicitly separate to the first. (Eg, ham and egg.) But it is easy enough to tweak. Does 'But Roman commitment was less than wholehearted: Scipio was not allowed to conscript troops for his consular army, as was usual, but could only call for volunteers.' work for you?
Yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Livy gives totals" Introduce him as Roman historian?
Apologies. I forgot I wasn't using an introductory sources section. Done.
Good stuff. Thanks FunkMonk, looking forward to the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - couldn't find more issues in the rest of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Funk, appreciated as ever. I think I have covered everything outstanding from above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Splendidly clear and readable article. It is my usual practice to put any article I review through a spell-checker, and I am enchanted to find that your "Hasdrubal Gisgo and Syphax" should be "Hasdrubal Gismo and Syphon". Or not. Be that as it may, here are a few quibbles, none consequential enough to prevent me from adding my support:

  • "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – "eligible" sounds like a privilege. Perhaps they saw it that way − Dulce et decorum est and all that − but speaking as a proud holder of The Queen's Award for Cowardice I see them as "liable" rather than eligible. I do not press the point.
I have used the word in 17 prior FACs and it has not been picked up. But you are quite right. Changed.
  • "less than whole hearted" – the OED makes "wholehearted" a single word.
Hmm. Wholed.
Your "Hmm" sent me to the other dictionaries on my shelf. The Bloomsbury is with the OED, Collins ditto but admits a hyphenated alternative and Chambers hyphenates the word, but whatever way it ain't two separate words. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Scipio could not conscript troops for his consular army, as was usual, only call for volunteers" – "only" is not a conjunction: you could do with a "but" in front of it.
  • "more than 90% were infantry" – I may be out of date – it is in fact my default position – but when last I looked, the MoS recommended "per cent" rather than "%" in the prose.
Which bit are you looking at? I was relying on "Write 3%, three percent, or three per cent".
Blimey! You're on your own there, laddie! I leave it to you. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was from the MoS. Delving a little deeper [!] Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers says "In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used". "commonly used" huh? Ah well, changed. Serves me right for delving.
  • "individual centuries - the basic Roman army manoeuvre unit of 80 men - to exercises …" – you want spaced en-dashes rather than hyphens here.
Good grief! I don't know what came over me.
  • "Hanno and 1,000 of his men were killed or taken prisoner" – Hanno was killed or taken prisoner? Surely you know which?
I believe that he was in a SchroCatian state of indeterminacy. This has now collapsed.
  • "The size of both of these armies … have been questioned" – singular noun "size" wants a singular verb, "has"
  • "stripped them of all of their overseas territories" – is the second "of" necessary?

Pray consider these minor carpings, but I am happy to support the article for FA. It is clear, highly readable, balanced, evidently comprehensive without going on at length, well and widely referenced and well illustrated, even though Scipio has got no nose. Quomodo olet? Malodorus est. – Tim riley talk 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you as ever Tim for keeping me on the straight and narrow. All of your comments addressed. The % one with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Splendid stuff! Sorry to have raised and then dropped the % point. Would it be intolerably feline to ask if you are thinking about changing the "eligible" in the 17 articles you mention? Be assured I shall not pursue the point. Onwards and upwards to further top-notch Punic War articles. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to have to. Or else you will bring it up at every future Punic War review. % also changed, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. Happy to leave my support clearly displayed so that the co-ordinators (you know what they're like) don't miss it. Tim riley talk 21:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Not too many images.

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Placeholder for now JennyOz (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gog, only some minor questions from me...

info box

  • Medjerda River - this name not mentioned in prose, change to Bagradas River per elsewhere?
  • image - I'm confused. Why is it named bust of Sulla? Is it another photo of same bust as that on Sulla which is captioned "Bust formerly thought to be of Sulla"? If it's Scipio, should it be renamed on commons? Do the refs in the infobox explain it?


Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. Personally I never believe anything I read on it. And don't get me started about Commons. Yes, the cites nail down as firmly as anything from 2,000 years ago is ever likely to be that it is Scipio. I hate putting cites in captions, but have had so many - entirely reasonable - queries on this that I have gone with them. Why an image "formerly thought to be of Sulla" is considered to be appropriate for the Sulla article I really would not like to say.
Agree, a weird one JennyOz (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gisgo spelling but Gisco elsewhere
  • After a disastrous Roman setback in 210 BC (ie Baetis) but later "In 211 BC the Romans suffered a severe reverse at the battle of the Upper Baetis"
Hmm. I hadn't realised it could be read that way. Slightly rephrased to be less ambiguous.

Opposing forces

  • tightly-packed formation - no hyphen
Ah, "-ly". Removed.
  • if the other commander was - if one commander was?
Gone with "if either of the commanders".


  • while the Numidian cavalry under Masanissa were - Masinissa
*eye roll* I thought I had got all of those.
  • the battle opened with the cavalry on each flank charged - what does "charged" mean, ready to fight?
Sorry. Tjhat got mangled somewhere in the copy editing. Should read "the battle opened when the cavalry on each flank charged"


  • ...not Carthaginian citizens. (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.) - Punc, ie not a sentence?
Ah. Nice spot.
  • Masinissa also married Syphax's wife, Sophonisba, Hasdrubal's daughter. - Bigamy normal? Had Syphax been killed after capture?
No, he died in captivity a year later. The sources don't directly comment on that aspect, but the founder of Rome (Romulus) married the already married woman Hersilia in the wake of the "rape of the Sabine women", so there seem to be traditional precedents which raised few eyebrows.

That's all from me, JennyOz (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonderful stuff. Just when you think you have nailed down all the corners, Jenny comes along and spots all of your silly errors. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All good thanks Gog, very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • All sources are of high quality. All are from the last thirty years, which is unusual for an article of this type.
  • Sources are well-formatted.
  • Spot checks: 55, 58, 61, 88 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers Hawkeye7, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query for the co-ordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Please sirs, can I have another one? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More...?! Oh all right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshfield station[edit]

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the most complicated junction on the Chicago "L", and the station that served it. The Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad had a trunk line reaching west from downtown to Marshfield, where it split in three to serve all throughout Chicago's west side. It chose Marshfield Avenue, a minor street next to the much more prominent Ashland Avenue, to serve as this junction point, which actually contained two junctions; a crossover east of the station, and a another one west of it. Even more crazily, it served an interurban (essentially a light form of commuter rail) known as the Chicago Aurora and Elgin Railroad (CA&E) for much of its existence. Alas (or, really, fortunately for residents), a new line and subway to go downtown was constructed removing the northern part of the junction and, eventually, the station itself. The western part of the junction has a spiritual successor that still exists, but not the station.

Major thanks to Steelkamp for GA reviewing this article and helping me sort out and arrange the loads of information on the topic; this was not your neighborhood "L" stop. I would like this review to conclude by the end of April for WikiCup purposes, but I am well aware how little control anyone has on that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nom pinging[edit]

It makes me slightly nervous that this has not received any feedback after a whole week and has no watchers other than myself, so I'm silently (re-)pinging certain users here. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem @John M Wolfson. I can review this nomination soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passing comment by Richard Nevell[edit]

  • I like the use of a chart to illustrate ridership data. At 1000px it is a touch wide; in preview mode 500px seems to work pretty well, and while I think you'd still need to scroll on mobile it does reduce how much. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Richard Nevell: I tried to make the graph like a science paper (which is also why the caption is on top and the graph is separated from the text, unlike the images) but it appears that graphs don't allow for sizing relative to the page width. 500px is quite better for mobile users, thankfully. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Bentley Hart[edit]

Nominator(s): Jjhake (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a living American writer, philosopher, religious studies scholar, critic, and Eastern Orthodox theologian born in 1965 noted for his Baroque prose and provocative rhetoric. He has translated the New Testament for Yale University Press and been criticized by other Christian thinkers who consider him heterodox in a variety of ways. Jjhake (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First-time nomination[edit]

  • Hi Jjhake, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you. Is the source to text integrity spot check something that someone else will complete automatically, or is it something that another Wikipedia editor needs to complete as they have time and interest? Three other editors provided reviews recently: two peer reviews and one GA review. I could ask some of them if they would be willing to complete a source to text integrity spot check if that would be helpful. Jjhake (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • File:David_Bentley_Hart_3_Nov_2022_Interview_cropped.png is described as an interview crop - where is it cropped from?
  • File:David_Bentley_Hart_and_Roland.jpg: has the permission been verified by VRT? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I recorded this interview with Hart and posted the video content in two places. Most of it is on a video course subscription service where I am the director. A little of it, I posted to my personal YouTube account. Hart shared links to both of these from his Substack newsletter here.
  2. No, I'm not familiar with VRT, should I send them a copy of the email that Hart sent releasing the David_Bentley_Hart_and_Roland.jpg image into public domain? Jjhake (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update: In case helpful here, I've just sent a note to that included a full copy of the emails between Hart and myself in which Hart released File:David_Bentley_Hart_and_Roland.jpg into the public domain. Jjhake (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Further update regarding Roland image (File:David_Bentley_Hart_and_Roland.jpg): Alfred Neumann, a volunteer with with Wikimedia Commons, does not consider my request to David Hart (that he "release this image into the public domain") to be adequate, and I have put David Hart directly in contact with Alfred Neumann in the hopes of getting this verified by VRT. --Jjhake (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    David Hart forwarded me Ticket#2023031410014384 that he got in response as he wrote separately to Wikimedia Common about releasing this David_Bentley_Hart_and_Roland.jpg image file. I'll hope to be able to confirm soon. --Jjhake (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thank you the note about the need for VRT verification for File:David_Bentley_Hart_and_Roland.jpg. This is now in place. --Jjhake (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I took a quick spin through (not even an in-depth review), and saw the following problems:

  • "writer, philosopher, religious studies scholar, critic, and Eastern Orthodox theologian": too long and involved
  • "noted for", "known for": these are a jarring way to provide information
  • "Born and raised in Howard County, Maryland": Way too detailed for the lead
  • "a 2nd edition": second, not 2nd
  • The lead overall comes across as a bit hagiographic
  • WP:LQ is something you need to take note of (as well as sorting out the curly quotes that appear frequently)
  • One sentence paragraphs are not good
  • blockquote are for quotes longer than c. 40 words
  • Do we really need to know his wife "owned a soft toy sheep whom she named Beauchamp Cholmondeley Featherstonhaugh." – and if we do, why is this a quote?
  • WP:ELLIPSES is also something you need to take note of
  • some odd capitalisation

I'm going to suggest withdrawing and giving it a good copy edit prior to trying again - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SchroCat: Extremely helpful feedback. Thank you. This doesn't sound like copy edit work that would require much time. I agree with and could implement the bulk of what you note fairly quickly. This has recently had a GA review and two peer reviews, including by User:Gerda Arendt with some FAC experience. With a little help from these other editors, I think this could be cleaned up shortly. However, I'm new to FAC, and if withdrawing and coming back when cleaned up is best, I'm obviously glad to follow whatever path is prescribed as the best practice. --Jjhake (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you say that it won’t take much time, I’ll stress that my comments were from a quick spin, not a full review. Others may differ in their opinion, but this is mine. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as other's weigh in and as I have the time, I'll start working through the feedback here that seems most straight-forward to me. More of a full review would be a great help as well, of course, regardless of the FAC status. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SchroCat: I've made an effort to address the very helpful list of issues from you. Regardless of this FAC process, if you or anyone that you might recommend can give a more complete critique and edit, it would be a great help. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do have a specific question and let me know if this is not the place. Ed Simon writing for the Los Angeles Review of Books in 2022 said that Hart has "thousands of essays, reviews, and papers", and I use this in the lead while only citing further down within the article body. I'd estimate that Hart has well over one thousand essays, reviews, and papers, but "thousands" seems like an exaggeration. What’s the best solution? Cut this specific from the lead? Jjhake (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2007 World Cup of Pool[edit]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the 2007 edition of the World Cup of Pool. This is a doubles event played every year. An exciting event that came down to the very last couple of balls. I've only promoted one previous pool event (2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship) so I'd appreciate any comments you might have about this article Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Will do a full review later, but one drive-by comment on the lead - you have "deciding rack" linked to Glossary of cue sports terms#deciding_rack, but as no such anchor exists on that article it just takes me to the top. Scrolling down to D reveals that there isn't even a listing for "deciding rack", unless it's the same as "deciding frame"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, yeah. They are the same thing (a rack is the same as a frame). I'll fix that. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • Name of the venue is different in the lead to the infobox and first para of the body
  • "with players taking shots alternatively" - think you mean "alternately". "Alternatively" means something quite different
  • Any reason for italics on alternative breaks?
  • "play alternating shots in scotch doubles style" - no need to link for a second time
  • "played from 25 to 27 September as a race to eight" - earlier you had hyphens in "race-to-[whatever]"
  • "The pair met the Dutch B team; and won six racks" - don't think that semi-colon is needed
  • "The defending champions Filipino pair" - don't think this works grammatically
  • "The other semi-final match was played between China, seeded 8th and the unseeded Japanese team" => "The other semi-final match was played between China, seeded 8th, and the unseeded Japanese team"
  • "The final had a lot of dry breaks, with six in the first 15 racks, having had just ten in the rest of the tournament" => "The final had a lot of dry breaks, with six in the first 15 racks, there having been just ten in the rest of the tournament"
  • "Below is the results" => "Below are the results"
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nominator(s): Constantine 12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the ninth Fatimid caliph, whose rise to the throne in 1094 was due to the machinations of the powerful vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah, and caused a major rift in the Isma'ili branch of Shi'a Islam. Al-Musta'li remained under the thumb of his vizier for the duration of his relatively short caliphate, and his reign is mostly a record of al-Afdal's actions. The article is a pendant to Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, al-Musta'li's elder brother, who was likely the legitimate successor. For the initial sections on the disputed succession and Nizar's revolt, there is considerable overlap between the two. Both articles were heavily rewritten, effectively from scratch, in 2020. Al-Musta'li passed GA in March 2022, while Nizar's article became FA in May 2022. As usual, I am looking forward to any comments and suggestions for further improvement. Constantine 12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]


  • "when learning of al-Mustansir's passing" => "when learning of al-Mustansir's death"
    • Done.
  • Is there not more to say about al-Musta'li himself? The "reign" section, for example, barely mentions him
    • Unfortunately, no. As a younger son, he was not in line for the succession, and would have been a mere name, if that, in the footnotes of history. As caliph, he was a puppet ruler, and even on affairs concerning the Isma'ili da'wa, it is unknown whether it was al-Musta'li showing agency or whether, as figurehead, events were attributed to him. All historical and modern sources on his life focus on two things: the disputed succession, and then the events of his reign, which saw the arrival of the Crusaders. I have also given only a brief overview of these events, and not gone into as much detail as I could, since they properly belong to the article on al-Afdal, who actually was responsible for the government.
  • That's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: comments addressed. If I may ask, did you find the article easy to understand? Or is there more context/detailed explanation that can be added somewhere? Constantine 09:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Will do a naive non-expert review soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Lead: is "youngest of the sons" definite enough to be stated like that?
    • That appears to be the consensus. In the main article text, I was a bit more cautious given Walker's comments, but most sources don't hesitate in calling him that (e.g. Gibb and Özkuyumcu). Halm, as you point out, is an exception. I have rephrased it, however, to make clear that he at any rate wasn't the oldest.
  • I am wondering whether it is worth giving a little bit of historical context about the Fatimid Caliphate and where al-Musta'li stands within its history. (According to that article, the Fatimid Caliphate was in decline at this time and ruled only over Egypt). The capital was in Cairo?
    • Excellent point, done.
      • Much better. However, "Life" is no longer a very descriptive section header (and not all of the life is covered here).
  • CE dates seem to be Julian; I assume this is standard?
    • Hmmm, since the Gregorian calendar wasn't around yet, I guess so? What would be the difference?
      • A few days :) I don't think you need to do anything here.
  • Life: "youngest of all of al-Mustansir's sons" Halm p. 88 has him as the fourth oldest of ten sons, quite a bit different from the youngest of seventeen. Would it make sense to state how much younger than Nizar he was?
    • Yes, this puzzled me for a while. I don't know where Halm gets this from. Walker, who lays out his investigation in some detail, is quite definitive: "it now appears even more likely that the future al-Musta'li was the youngest of al-Mustansir's sons. He was, moreover and perhaps most importantly, the only one born (and raised) under the dictatorship of Badr." The statement of Halm contradicts even Halm's own notes on the issue, since he remarks (p. 366) on the existence of Ahmad's older namesake brother. I guess what Halm means is that Ahmad was the youngest of the four surviving sons of al-Mustansir at the time of the latter's death, but this is contradicted by calling these four the 'eldest'. Given that Nizar, likely the firstborn, was born in 1045, thirty years before al-Musta'li, it beggars belief that al-Musta'li may have been among the older sons of al-Mustansir. As noted above, the communis opinio among scholars is that he was indeed the youngest son.
  • "no definite designation of Nizar" this makes sense only in conjunction with the footnote that talks about Nass (Islam). It might be worth moving some of that footnote into the main text. Or to just say "no formal designation"?
    • Changed.
  • The three paragraphs starting from "In 1122" are later explanations and justifications for al-Musta'li's accession. I found this a bit confusing, as the accession itself hasn't happened yet in the body of the article, and it seems we are jumping forward and backwards in time. Perhaps an introductory sentence would help, or some reordering (you could have the paragraph talking about al-Mustansir's death and the accession right after talking about Ahmad's wedding, and then tell us about al-Amir's proclamation and other attempts to justify what happened. In other words, first have the succession and then the dispute about the succession?
    • Good suggestion, done.
  • Would it make sense to cite some modern Nizari scholars? And do we know what other Islamic leaders/scholars at the time thought of this split?
    • Good question: I have tried to find WP:RS on the issue (or at least some source in a language I can read) while working on Nizar's article, but have failed so far. Modern Nizaris are obviously partisans of Nizar's succession, but remarkably for an event of such apparent importance I don't have the impression that it is a major talking point. As long as there is an 'imam of the time', the past is not so relevant, it seems. The reaction of other Islamic leaders is also difficult to know; within Ismailism, the reaction is known and given in the article. Outside, it must have been seen as a simple succession dispute, if it registered at all. If you are a Sunni ruler or scholar, and learn of these events, you would likely not attribute any particular religious significance to them, since you already reject Fatimid claims and legitimacy in toto.
  • Nizar's revolt and the Nizari schism: How long/when is the "in the meantime" (you mean the time between al-Mustansir's death and the "grand assembly of officials")?
    • Yes, but it is needlessly confusing. Have rephrased to 'After fleeing from Cairo'.
  • "allegiance of the Arab tribes" which Arab tribes? Are they important players? (I do not understand enough of the context here).
    • No names for the tribes are given here, although I could make an educated guess who these were (Juhayna, Tha'laba, Tayy). The point is that the Arab tribes were semi-autonomous, and could provide a crucial pool of military manpower (as well as an excellent and skilled, albeit undisciplined, raiding/reconnaissance force). Have slightly rephrased to emphasize the military dimension of this, but don't know if it is enough.
      • The main issue for me is that "al-Afdal managed to win back the allegiance of the Arab tribes" is surprising, as we didn't yet know that their allegiance had changed.
  • perhaps clarify "immured" to "immured and died" as in Halm?
    • Done.
  • Do we know anything about the rumours that he was poisoned? (Where do these rumours come from and who wrote about them?)
    • Well, the sources report it as a rumour, but as Halm notes ('wie üblich munkelte man'), this is the inevitable rumour that will always arise when a ruler dies at an early age, and in unclear power relationships, as here. The other sources don't even mention the rumours.
      • Mentioning this only in the body and not in the lead is fine.

A very interesting article about a puppet ruler in a complicated time. As I said, I found the "Disputed succession" bit somewhat hard to understand, and as this is kind of the central issue from the religious split perspective, it would be worth clarifying it as much as possible. As I said, I am clueless about the period, so I apologise if I missed something obvious. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Some comments above. Thank you for the interesting responses. —Kusma (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments by Unlimitedlead[edit]

I will review after Kusma's comments have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Throughout his reign, al-Musta'li remained subordinate to al-Afdal, who was the de facto ruler of the state" Which state? I think this needs to be explicitly stated.
  • "While Egypt experienced a period of good government..." This is rather vague.
  • "Despite Fatimid attempts to treat with the Crusaders..." What does it mean to "treat with"? I would reword.
  • Cairo is double linked in the infobox.
  • "Ahmad's oldest half-brother, Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, was apparently considered at the time as the most likely successor to their father, as was the custom..." What custom? I would briefly explain or place a note.
  • "...Abdallah and Isma'il made for a nearby mosque..." "made off" sounds quite colloquial; reword?
  • "In it he puts forth a number of arguments..." "puts" is present tense; please switch to past tense.
  • "Modern historians point out that this was a deliberately misconstrued argument, as the princes were sent away for their protection, not because of their rank" Is it possible to have a citation for this sentence?
  • Link Coup d'état?

Comments by Borsoka[edit]

  • The long reign of al-Mustansir ensured that he had numerous offspring... Is there a connection between the length of a ruler's reign and the number of his children? For instance, Sigismund of Luxemburg ruled for 50 years but he fathered only one child.
    • There definitely is, if you have a large harem at your disposal and not much to do since your viziers govern the country for you... But you are right, the statement is open to misinterpretation. Rephrased.
  • Other reports... No reports have been mentioned. Is his date of birth mentioned in the first sentence a fact or an assumption?
    • Removed and replaced with a variant date. The commonly mentioned/accepted date is the former (1074).
  • Do we know his mother's name?
    • No, at least not in the sources cited here, and I haven't been able to find anything anywhere else. Given the deliberate Fatimid policy of not allowing prominence to anyone from the family but the caliph and his designated heir (with some exceptions that are notable precisely as exceptions), her name was likely never recorded.
  • I assume Nizar was Ahmad's half-brother.
    • Indeed, aded.
  • Do we need a footnote within a footnote? I think the issue could be solved with a wikilink to nass (Islam) and a reference to the Ismaili conception of imamate in the main text.
  • ...was apparently considered as the most likely successor to his father... Is "apparently" necessary? By whom or when was he considered as his father's heir? Perhaps "their father"?
    • Rephrased a bit.
  • often stated ... By whom or when?
    • Added.
  • ...favoured the accession of Ahmad. Why?
  • I would mention Cairo before referring to it as "the capital".
  • (father of the Caliph al-Hafiz) Do we need to know in the article's context? If yes, his reigning years should also be mentioned.
  • the wedding banquet... I am not sure that all readers will understand that this is a reference to Ahmad's wedding.
  • Link Fatimid Great Palaces when the first reference to the palace is made (in the section's second paragraph).
    • Done at an earlier place, where it is now mentioned
  • Introduce (and link) Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi when she is first mentioned.
  • What does the term "Musta'li leader" mean?
  • ..., but the Fatimid vizier's efforts ultimately failed Consider deleting this text, because the following sentences contain a full account of the events.
  • ...other Seljuk emirs of Syria... Were all of them emirs or some of them were leaders bearing a different title (such as atabeg)?
  • make contact with them... I assume with the crusaders/crusader leaders.
  • Do we have further information about his family? Was Sitt al-Mulk his sons' or al-Amir's mother? Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mustaʽli Ismailism should be mentioned and explained in the main text.
  • I understand his date of birth mentioned in the lead is not a fact.
  • ...and main candidate... Is this factual and neutral?
  • Al-Musta'li died in 1101 and was succeeded by his five-year-old son, al-Amir. I think this could be the closing sentence in the lead. I would not repeat the year of death in the lead but would mention the rumours that he was poisoned.
  • Consider linking the Siege of Jerusalem (1099) in the lead.
  • ... a major victory over the Fatimid army ... Perhaps "a major victory over al-Afdal/al-Afdal's army"? Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ernest Roberts (Australian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ernest Roberts was an up-and-coming South Australian state and federal politician who died young. Not my first soldier/politician, I brought Bill Denny and Arthur Blackburn up to FA a few years back, but some extra non-military eyes would be really helpful, especially anyone with experience of reviewing politician bios. Roberts served twice in the Second Boer War with colonial and then Commonwealth mounted troops. I haven't done many bios of soldiers from that war, and I think the recent GAN by Hog Farm and A-Class review by a few Milhist types have improved the article markedly. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment on nationality field in infobox[edit]

I'm unsure what the convention is for using this field on this infobox, but "English-Australian" seems rather strange to put on here? If it's supposed to represent national status, then "British" or "British subject" would be more appropriate. If nationality means ethnicity in this context, then wouldn't just filling in "English" make more sense? Horserice (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. Not sure when that got there, but have adjusted it to British-Australian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

I reviewed this article (and provided a source review) at A class and assert that it is of Featured Article quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review by Steelkamp[edit]

I'll review this article seeing as I have experience in writing Australian politician articles. Steelkamp (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • " as an independent Labor Party candidate". I would replace that with "as an independent Labor candidate". Isn't the whole point of describing oneself as an independent Labor candidate to say that you aren't part of a party but subscribe to the same ideology? That's why I would leave out "party" and not link the party as well.
  • "The Premier of South Australia". This should be "The premier of South Australia" as per MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • Upper house could be linked.
  • And on that note, is it possible to mention lower house somewhere?
  • You could link "crossed the floor" to crossing the floor.
  • It should be mentioned that the Kingston government governed with the support of the ULP, seeing as Kingston wasn't actually part of the party.
  • "The election brought the Price-Peake Government to power, a minority government under the ULP premier, Thomas Price, working in a coalition government with the Liberal independents led by Archibald Peake." That's a lot of mentions of "government" I would remove the third one and just have it as "...working in a coalition with the Liberal independents..."
  • There's an inconsistency in capitalisation between "Kingston government" and "Price-Peake Government". Perhaps Price-Peake Government needs an RM to move it inline with Australian federal governments.
  • "and his explanation met with loud cheers from the crowd." Should that instead be "and his explanation was met with loud cheers from the crowd."
  • Boer Commando has an uppercase "C" but this article uses a lowercase "c".
  • Can rearguard be linked?
  • What's with the inconsistency between "de Wet" and "De Wet"?

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi PM, a lot of life in 45 years. I only have a few comments and suggestions...


  • He was re-elected in the state election of 3 November 1906. - why include "the" in wlink here but not in the 1905 immediately preceding?
  • When a by-election was called on 13 June 1908 - called for 13 June to avoid ambiguity?
  • He successfully contested his seat - defended?
  • The loss of Roberts ... was keenly felt by - "keenly" is an unfortunate word in this circumstance? It can also mean enthusiastically. Perhaps swap to intensely felt or similar?

Early political career

  • trade union-run weekly magazine - swap hyphen to a MOS:SUFFIXDASH ie trade union–run

Soldier and journalist

  • The convoy was regularly sniped at, but the troops, supported by the guns - what sort of guns? maybe link artillery above?
  • Hartebeestfontein - is Hartbeesfontein?

Later political career

  • Roberts was a member of royal commissions in 1906 and 1908, inquiring into the affairs of produce merchants and into wheat-marketing practices in the state respectively. - these are state RCs? Would better link be List of South Australian royal commissions#State of South Australia? His name appears (unlinked) in 1907 merchants but not the wheat RC. He also appears in the 1897 Bundaleer waterworks RC
  • a by-election was called. Roberts won the 13 June by-election as - swap the 2 by-election links?
  • He successfully contested his seat at - defended / held?
  • Minutes after speaking in a fiery - new para or even Death and memorial/legacy or similar new section?
  • a stone statue of Queen Victoria - a? is there more than one in Adelaide? If only one (Victoria Square, Adelaide#Statue of Queen Victoria) change to the stone statue? (not suggesting to link)
  • It consisted of a broken column - still does? ie consists?

Consistencies etc

  • 4th Imperial Bushmen's Contingent - is linked in infobox but not elsewhere?
  • per cent of the vote v per cent of the votes
  • "wagons of De Wet's rearguard" v "continued to pursue de Wet into" - mid-sentence caps consistency?


  • Manning, Geoffrey - authorlink Geoff Manning
  • Murray, P.L. - add space between initials


  • add Category:Burials at West Terrace Cemetery
  • add Category:19th-century Australian politicians - (was in SA HoA 1896)

Thanks PM, very interesting to read this. My relative was also with the 4th Contingent and sailed on the Manhattan. He was KIA in May 1901 and was later honoured by Rowell.

I may have one more comment but have to re-read the sentence tomorrow to check I'm not confused. JennyOz (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freedom (concert)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having previously worked on a Filipino concert article, I've decided to try my hand with another one. This time it is about a 2021 livestreaming concert curated by singer Regine Velasquez at the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns and absence of in-person live events. It finds Velasquez crafting a show with the intention of being given the freedom to sing whatever she wants and to have freedom from her audience's high expectations. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "through four live streaming platforms at 8:00 p.m." Should "at" be 'from'?
I think "at" is used to describe specific times or a particular numerical time on the clock i.e. it aired on Wednesdays at 9:00 p.m., "from" would probably be used for time ranges/duration i.e. from 8:00 p.m to midnight. Thoughts?
In which case perhaps 'through four live streaming platforms at 8:00 p.m.'?
Done as suggested (I think). Let me know if I understood it correctly.
  • "she's". The MoS depreciates such contractions. (If it didn't, it would be 'she'd'.)
  • "spanning different music eras, such as Elton John, Chris Isaak, George Michael, Sara Bareilles, Dua Lipa, and Billie Eilish". That doesn't really work. Perhaps rephrase?
  • "many of whom praised". "whom" → 'which'.
  • "₱1 million". Is it known what the equivalent in US dollars was?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for doing the review Gog. I have addressed all points, except where I had a comment to clarify. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Development of Freedom began ..." → 'The development of Freedom began ...'.
  • "the show would be livestreamed on February 14, 2021". But it wouldn't. Maybe 'the show was scheduled to be livestreamed on February 14, 2021' or similar?
  • "The concert's name and concept was crafted from Velasquez's desire to perform new material from a variety of music genres and step out of her comfort zone." This seems a little promotional. Could we step back from Wikipedia's voice? 'Velasquez stated that the concert's name and concept was crafted from her desire to perform new material from a variety of music genres and step out of her comfort zone.' or similar?
Revised as suggested
  • "In an online press conference with Star Music, Velasquez revealed, "Because of the pandemic that happened, it’s like we all want to be free. Personally, I wanted to do something else and be given that freedom of singing whatever I want ... free of expectations from people". This seems both primary sourcing and marketing tosh. What information is it conveying? Whatever it is, could it not be paraphrased in straight prose? (Per MOS:QUOTE.)
Paraphrased in prose.
  • Does the last sentence of this paragraph not effectively duplicate the first?
  • "The show was stated to have a total of 20 production numbers and will have a running time of two hours". This mixes tense. One way of resolving t would be 'The show was stated to have a total of 20 production numbers and a running time of two hours'. There are others.
Revised per suggestion
  • "and revealed that". Maybe something a little more NPOV? 'claimed', 'stated', 'asserted', 'said' or even more circumlocutory?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Gog. Comments/suggestions have been actioned. Let me know if I missed anything.Pseud 14 (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "female dancers doing a lyrical dance routine." Consider "doing" → 'performing'.
  • Optional: Something at the end of this paragraph to indicate that the first act has ended? Similarly at the end of the following paragraph.
I was able to use "ended the segment" on the second para. Can't think of any alternative to close the act or end the segment for the first para though. Hopefully that's fine.
  • "Freedom closed with a performance of Tears for Fears's "Mad World"." Should it be mentioned that this was an encore?
  • "A music critic from the Manila Standard. Is the name of this critic known?
Unfortunately, it's not mentioned on the article. In the absence of name(s) in reviews for film/tv/concerts, we usually substitute it with media critic, music critic, a writer for [publication].

Not in my usual area, so feel free to argue with anything. Still, nice to see such a solid article outside of where I usually review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Gog, I have addressed the above. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction. I appreciate you taking on this review, a fresh set of eyes is always welcome. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review and your support Gog. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "Freedom: The Regine Velasquez Digital Concert" - infobox image seems to suggest the full-length title was actually Freedom: The Regine Velasquez-Alcasid Digital Concert
Updated the title
  • "that she'd never done before" => "that she had never done before" (no contractions!)
You're right! I should've remembered, I learned this from your reviews :)
  • "Velasquez stated that the concert's name and concept was crafted" => "Velasquez stated that the concert's name and concept were crafted" (there are two subjects so the verb should be plural)
  • "by The Philippine Star, who noted it is" => "by The Philippine Star, which noted that it was"
  • "The performance began [...] She then descends [...] The singer continued" - begins in the past tense then switches to present tense then back to past. Use past throughout the synopsis
Should be consistent in the past tense now
  • "including those who have passed away" => "including those who had died"
  • "In a review by the Philippine Entertainment Portal, it considered the show's production" => "A review by the Philippine Entertainment Portal considered the show's production"
Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude. I have actioned your comments, let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for reviewing and for your support ChrisTheDude. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria. Removed px size. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment
"₱1 million (US$0.02 million)" looks very strange; something like "₱1 million (US$20,000)" would be better. —Kusma (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Kusma. Revised as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • No verification problems found in my brief spotcheck.
  • All refs have links to accesible archives.
  • I feel obligated to ask, are there any secondary sources that could be used as alternatives to Instagram (ref 5) and Twitter (ref 6, 19)? Since these are posts from Velasquez herself they are acceptable in the absence of other options.--NØ 13:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the source review MaranoFan. I have removed ref 5 & 6, replaced with a secondary source (now ref 4). Ref 19 has been replaced with a secondary source, now Ref 17. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for addressing this so quickly. Apologies for another minor nitpick, but I noticed that most of the refs that go to have as the publisher but ref 3 and ref 11 have ABS-CBN News. It should probably be consistent. This is the last thing I caught.--NØ 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MaranoFan No worries at all and thanks for catching that. I believe it should all be fixed and consistent now. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With that out of the way, the source review passes!--NØ 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also support this FAC on prose. Got a good look at it during the source review and it is engaging and of a professional standard. It is well-researched, and props to the nominator for watching the whole concert and writing an elaborate synopsis of it for the readers.--NØ 09:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the kinds words. Appreciate the dual reviews and your support MaranoFan. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panagiotis Kavvadias[edit]

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a Greek archaeologist - one of the most significant figures in the discipline in one of its most important periods. Kavvadias led the Greek Archaeological Service between 1885 and 1909, and was responsible for some of its most significant excavations of the 19th century as well as for completely transforming the way that antiquities and the practice of archaeology were handled in Greece. He was also notable for managing to so totally upset the Greek government and most of the rest of its archaeological establishment that he was eventually marched out of the country, with the official label of "dangerous reactionary".

The article has gone through a GA review from User:Modussiccandi, which gave me the first indication that it might have legs for FAC, and subsequently a peer review from Modussiccandi, User:Gerda Arendt and User:Iazyges. In the course of both, it has gone through substantial changes, and I am grateful to them for all their help so far, particularly as this is my first nomination.

It should be said that Kavvadias is not a well-documented subject, particularly given his prominence at the time. I don't think it's too hubristic to say that this article is currently the closest thing to a thorough biography of him that exists in English, and the most detailed Greek sources (largely, the work of Vasileios Petrakos) don't come close to attempting a whole-life portrait. It's difficult to reconstruct a lot of the fine details and chronology of some important parts of his story, particularly his education and his last months as Ephor General, and there are a few key sections where we're really reduced to one or two sources.

Thank you in advance for your time, comments and assistance.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting here that I have signed on as the mentor for this FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coord note -- I gather this would be UndercoverClassicist's first FA if successful, in which case welcome...! As a reminder for reviewers and fellow coords, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing will be required at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

I confirm the support reached in the peer review. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Panagiotis_Kavvadias.png: if this was first published in 1937, why would it be PD-1996? The Greek copyright would have expired after 1996.
  • File:The_Euthydikos_Kore_1.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Persian_rider.jpg, File:Tanagra_d'època_hel·lenística,_museu_de_la_Ciutat,_València.jpg
  • File:Parthénon_-_Chapiteau_couché_-_Athènes_-_Médiathèque_de_l'architecture_et_du_patrimoine_-_APMH00025669.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
  • File:Stefanos_Koumanoudis.JPG needs a US tag. Ditto File:Achilleas_Postolakas.JPG
  • File:Goudi_coup_poster.jpg: when was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm afraid I'm very much not an expert in copyright licences - bear with me for what I'm sure are some fairly amateur questions:
      • File:Panagiotis_Kavvadias.png: I uploaded that one, having thoroughly confused myself as to exactly what the applicable rules were. I asked the question on Commons, and got no answer. Looking again, my current understanding is that (assuming 1937 is the first publication, which is not a given, as it's almost certainly a pre-1909 photo) it's probably in copyright until 1937+95=2032. However, it's also certainly Fair Use (once reduced in size), so I think the best thing to do in the short term is to re-upload it to Wikipedia under those terms and use that version: does that sound right? UndercoverClassicist (talk)
        • Yes, there would be a potential for a fair-use claim if no free image of the subject could be found. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I've re-uploaded the file to Wikipedia as Fair Use, and that's now the version linked in the article (it'll be shrunk down by the bot in the next few days, I imagine). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean by 'a tag for the original work', could you explain? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        This means the copyright for the object itself, to show that it is in the public domain; as the 3d objects require a PD justification for both image and the object. In this case, as the works are ancient, you use PD-art-70-3d. I have tagged them as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Got it: thank you for doing that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • File:Parthénon_-_Chapiteau_couché_-_Athènes_-_Médiathèque_de_l'architecture_et_du_patrimoine_-_APMH00025669.jpg: I'm fairly sure that everything on POP (which is called the Open Heritage Platform) is licensed under the License Ouvert: I'm not sure where the CC license comes from, though, and suspect it's not correct. The photographer, Magne (Lucien, not Louis, as on the page), died in 1916, so we're over 100 years PMA if that makes a difference? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        The work is released by the French ministry of culture as CC-by-SA-3.0. I have corrected the tag. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • File:Stefanos_Koumanoudis.JPG appears in the same publication as File:Panagiotis_Kavvadias.png, though I strongly suspect that's not its first appearance (it's certainly about 30 years older), so I suppose the same applies - and therefore that it probably needs to go unless we can sniff out an older publication? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've added {{PD-US-expired}} to File:Achilleas_Postolakas.JPG - and, after a ridiculous amount of sniffing around, managed to track down and verify the source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • File:Goudi_coup_poster.jpg is 1909 or 1910 (and certainly before 1912): the Commons page says 1909. It's difficult to be 100% about which exact version of the poster/postcard it was, but it's from the immediate aftermath of the coup in August 1909: see here for a similar image. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Kusma[edit]

This will be next on my list of things to review. Looks very interesting! —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Lead: I am a bit concerned that the phrase "ΒΜΧς/2626" has no hits outside Wikipedia on Google, and none on Google Books or Scholar. Are there other more widely used designations for this law?
    • This is one I've found very tricky. ΒΜΧς' is a number: in Arabic numerals, it's 2466 (not 2626 as in article; I think that was a misreading or different number quoted in one of the sources.) In Greek, it's universally referred to as νομος ΒΜΧς', sometimes with its subtitle Περι Αρχαιοτήτων (On Antiquities). I've rarely seen it referred to in English by non-Greek scholars: here's one example with the Greek number, the Arabic and the subtitle. With that said, an article published for the Ministry of Culture calls it Law ΒΧΜΣΤ (2646) [I suspect the 'T' is a mistake], and I'm sure I saw 2626 quoted in another source. I wonder whether just 'the Antiquities Law of 1899' might be the way forward? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Cplakidas: I imagine this is something you might know about? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: ΣΤ is merely the capitalized form of the letter ς when used as a numeral (e.g. Louis XVI is Λουδοβίκος ΙΣΤʹ). Let me have a look whether I can find the law in question. Constantine 16:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Found it: Law ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ Περὶ ἀρχαιοτήτων, issued on 24 July (O.S.) 1899, published in the government gazette on 27 July (O.S.). Constantine 17:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying! For the article, I would suggest to use something like "the antiquities law of 1899" in the lead and to add the full name/Greek numerals in the body. —Kusma (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you both: User:Kusma, I agree and will make that change.
    @Cplakidas: as I'm now thoroughly confused with Greek numerals, can I just confirm what the correct Arabic numerals are? As far as I understand - which isn't far - it should be 2466? Also, is there a reason you've used Ϛ (capital ς?) rather than Σ, ς, ΣΤ... is one seen as more correct than the others? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    'Ϛ' is the form used in the actual document, and the correct contemporary capitalized form of the letter ς. ΣΤ is another way of writing it if you do not have a 19th-century-vintage Greek typewriter at hand, which is why it has become the common modern form (and you found it in modern Greek publications thus). So if you want the original name, it is ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ (with the quotation marks, which are actually part of the numeral). In a modern publication, it would appear as ΒΧΜΣΤʹ, and the Arabic numeral rendering is 2646 (͵Β = 2000, Χ = 600, Μ = 40, Ϛ = 6). Constantine 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you: I'll make those changes. As far as the exact phrasing, I'm leaning towards 'the archaeological law of 1899' in the lead and 'Law 2646/1899 'On Antiquities'' as the full name in the body: there seem to be a million and one ways to refer to these laws in English, but that seems to be the most common (that is, including the year) in HQRS. I'm in two minds about including the Greek transliteration: that would fit the general practice for most Greek things in the article and reflect that the 'real' name is Greek, not English, but I wonder whether appending (Greek: Νόμος ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ Περὶ ἀρχαιοτήτων) to that title is a bit clunky? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    'Law 2646/1899' would be enough IMO, and is also a valid format that a Greek person would immediately recognize. I would only recommend using the original name if you want to reference the original document somewhere. Constantine 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, let's go with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "His career saw significant modernisation" hmm, could you be clearer on whether this is credited to him?
    • I was trying to thread that needle: I don't think I found a source explicitly using the word 'modernisation' in respect to K. himself (though you could argue that Petrakos' detailed description of the professionalisation of archaeology through his reforms amounts to the same thing), but at the same time, Greek archaeology during his career goes from 1885, when it's a basically-amateur thing conducted largely by looters, self-trained and untrained 'archaeologists', to 1924, when it's a government-run business with a large, Greek-trained and professional body of people working to do it and regulate it, almost entirely thanks to rules and laws that he introduced. Happy to take a steer here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps you could move this closer to the "energetic, centralising, autocratic" bit and just state he oversaw the professionalisation of his field in Greece. The foreign bodies were equally important for his downfall and for his achievement, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned only for one of them. —Kusma (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's fair; Bosanquet linked the two in his obituary, but he certainly had an angle on the matter as a British archaeologist and a strong Kavvadias supporter. With that said, I'd be inclined to mention them for both in the lead: they're certainly an important part of his career (and downfall!), and so ought to feature somewhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now slightly reworked, both in lead and later on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Early life: Do you think it is not worth linking via {{ill}} to el:Κοθρέας Κεφαλονιάς? I can see arguments either way.
    • Done in the body; I did put the link into the infobox as well, but the red link there catches the eye in a bad way. Happy to put it in there to be consistent if there's a strong opinion that way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did Kavvadias obtain any degrees during his studies?
    • This is one of the really tricky ones: the sources are almost completely silent on his education, except for the totality of where it happened. Munich is pretty clearly his 'main' archaeological training, and so almost certainly his doctorate, if he held one (which isn't a given: he's variously referred to as 'Dr. Kavvadias' and 'Mr. Kavvadias' in sources, and either would be plausible for a respected academic with or without a degree), but none of the sources actually come out and say as much. I think it's currently as precise as it can be: it's certainly following closely to the HQRS available. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From my searches of the LMU Munich library catalogue, I don't think he obtained a doctorate there (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence though) so there's not much to do here unless you have RS that state explicitly whether he obtained any degrees. —Kusma (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for checking that: I think we're in the same position, which is that this part of his life is a bit unclear. That's not a total surprise: I'm mindful that most of K's predecessors as E-G have pretty murky early lives before coming into the archaeological service - in the case of his immediate predecessor, we don't even know when he was born! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Archaeological career: this seems a bit overly detailed in parts. (Do we need the 1908 and 1913 visits to Same?) The Archaeological bulletin could also be simplified to just "he edited the volumes for 1885 to 1892" or similar, dropping the lack of issues in some of these years.
    • I'm hesitant on 'overly detailed': one of my big difficulties in researching this article was the lack of precision as to chronology, and exactly what K. did when (particularly on the Acropolis). I'm with you on the lack of issues (that's relevant to the article on the journal, not really here), but I think the archaeological visits to Same are useful to anyone trying to reconstruct his biography and/or career, and I'm reluctant to pass judgement on what a future visitor 'needs' to know, and what they'll 'need' to find elsewhere - as I understand it, an FA is meant to be a one-stop shop. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it is pretty obvious that anything written in the Greek alphabet is in Greek, and would change some of the {{lang-el}} to {{lang|el}}.
  • "During his period as Ephor General" we don't know yet from the body that he became Ephor General or when.
  • This section seems to be an overview of his career except for the things that are important enough to be their own section. I'm not convinced that this is organised in the optimal way: it is neither in chronological order nor an overview of what follows. I am wondering whether reducing this to an "Early career" section concentrating on the positions held and articles written and moving all the excavations into an "Excavations" section could work better. (But I could be wrong!) Alternatively, make this a chronological overview of the entire career by adding a few sentences about the Acropolis of Athens and Epidauros.
    • Yes, that's an accurate summary of what it is. I think the second approach is better: the problem I had was that an 'Early Career' section leaves some awkwardness (basically, everything after the second paragraph) that doesn't fit nicely around the chronological sections further down.
      • I've now added a short summary of Epidaurus and the Acropolis to that section, which means that the "Archaeological Career" covers all the practical archaeological work in which he was involved. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Epidauros: Link to the Ancient Theatre of Epidaurus also in the main text, not just in the image caption.
    • Done.
  • "The building was never fully published" is this archaeologist's jargon/can this be rephrased better?
    • A little: it really means something like 'nobody ever wrote a formal article or section of a book outlining what was known from the excavation of this building'. I'm not sure the best way to say that briefly, but will have a think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've slightly reworked this bit. Different; not sure if better. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stopping here for now, will continue later. The article brings back very fond memories of visiting Epidauros and Bassae as well as Athens together with my Ancient Greek class back in the 1990s; I had no idea all these excavations were connected to the same person! —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Epidaurus: "the first major ... apart from minor" a bit redundant.
  • abaton: you give all the information via footnote and link to Wiktionary, but I'm wondering whether this wouldn't just be simpler to explain in the main text instead. And... is it the abaton or not?
    • My concern is that it's quite a lot of information to shove into a pair of brackets - it either ends up so long that it disrupts the text, or so short that it's of no help to someone who doesn't already basically know how a sanctuary of Asclepius worked. The identification was controversial at the time; it seems to be generally accepted today, so we could be bold and just say that it is the abaton, perhaps adding a modern source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " in 1896,[13] In 1896, " something went wrong here
  • "third stele of cures" took me a moment to realise that "cures" here means "reports of healings".
  • " All remaining post-Classical buildings on the site were demolished" and there is no criticism of that action?
    • I haven't come across any! You have to remember that, by this point, most of the controversial ones are already demolished: Frankish Tower (in 1878) had attracted some controversy, but largely from the French, who saw it as 'theirs'. Most of what was left on the Acropolis was Ottoman, and there wasn't (and isn't) a lot of love lost between Greece and Turkey: it was just about becoming acceptable to suggest that post-Classical Greek culture was worth preserving (see the comments on 'Hellenism' elsewhere on this page), and nobody in Greece was going out to bat for Turkish culture. If you want a bit of background on how Greeks of the time looked at the Turkish traces on the Acropolis, have a look at the article on Kyriakos Pittakis and this article cited there. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Incidentally, Perserschutt describes Kawerau as an "architect". Is that correct?
    • A lot of the people working in Greek archaeology at this time are drawing and rebuilding buildings: a lot of those, including Kawerau, have an academic background in architecture, especially because formal archaeological education is a comparatively rare thing. Kawerau did do some building in Turkey after his time with Kavvadias, but also worked on digs with Schliemann and for the Berlin Museum, and ended up as a curator at the Berlin Museum's outpost in Constantinople. I'll amend to 'archaeologist and architect': he's certainly most famous, both then and now, for his work with old buildings. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ephor General: Most of this section seems to be about the fight for control of the Archaeological Society of Athens; only the subsection "Reorganisation of the Archaeological Service" truly is about his work as Ephor.
  • Efforts against antiquities crime: gloss the Aineta aryballos? (I assume it is this aryballos)
  • "formally identified the Byzantine period as part of "Hellenism"" can you elaborate on this? (This is none of the "Hellenisms" mentioned at Hellenism). Is this about identifying East Rome as Greek more than Roman?
    • It's more about officially saying that Byzantine antiquities were the state's 'problem' - until then, 'Greek' history was taken to mean Classical stuff, so if you wanted to bulldoze a Classical temple to build your house, the state would intervene. However, the government and ephorates didn't have a legal duty or real interest in protecting anything from the Medieval or Ottoman periods until the 1899 law, and didn't employ anyone to look after it. Incidentally, the Ottoman period suffered from the same problem well into the 20th century, and arguably still does. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then perhaps don't talk about "Hellenism", just say that the protections for antiquities were extended to cover also Byzantine ones instead of just classical ones. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's bigger than that, though: the point in the source is that it's the first time the Greek government acknowledges the Byzantine period as part of its national story, rather than having a narrative that Greek culture runs in an unbroken line from Mycenae to Alexander, goes a little fuzzy after that, and reappears in 1821 for the War of Independence in a glorious resurgence of a pristine fifth-century past. That's really why the law is important: the practical effects are of course significant for heritage management, but it's much more important in the context of how the Greek state defines the Greek national identity.
    There's a bigger story here about how Greece comes to reckon with everything between about 323 BCE and 1821: in archaeology, you've got the squabble over the medieval Frankish Tower (demolished in 1874, and variously seen as an extraneous foreign eyesore or as having just as much claim to be there as the Parthenon). You've also got the Greek language question, where people in the 1830s are trying to re-establish fifth-century Attic as the national language (because the language of the Byzantines is 'impure'), then settling on a compromise with katharevousa but then arguing over exactly how archaic it needs to be... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've added a short note explaining the gist of the above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fake terracotta plaques: if they were fake, why bother?
    • Forging and selling antiquities was (and is) a crime: there's a good article here about the issue in Greece - nearly 250 people were arrested for it in the 2000s. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dismissal: Εntitled "Νeed for Ηonesty" why ΕΝΗ instead of standard Latin ENH?
    For some reason the letters were Greek instead of Latin (indistinguishable in the default font). I've fixed it now that you seem to say it wasn't deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • why the Piraeus?
    • Perhaps a Classicist-ism: it's standard for the place in Antiquity see here, like 'the Bronx' or 'the Champs-Elysees'. I think 'Piraeus' is more common for the modern place, so I've changed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • settled in Paris: not for very long it seems. Was he still in Paris when he was elected representative of Kephallonia?
    • Presumably, but it's tricky: the chronology here isn't clear at all, and we're usually working from sources which give one or two pieces of the puzzle, but don't set it into much context. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why could Kavvadias return to Greece and why did he regain all his posts?
    • The government set up by the Goudi Coup was no longer in power - this is the point about Venizelos and the National Assembly. Everything post-1909 is a real black hole: until I found Whitling, I had practically nothing on why he was deposed except vague insinuations about discontent among his subordinates; I then found Petrakos, who looks at the issue through the Archaeological Society and Svoronos rather than through nationalism and the foreign schools. Both move on to other subjects once Kavvadias is out, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Administration and legislation: This is more others' view of Kavvadias than the impact of his administration and legislation. Is there a better section title?
  • Personal life: Was he married? I assume you don't know.
    • Presumably, but I can't find any sources that give that fact, his supposed wife's name, or a mother for either of his children. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is strange that we don't have name(s) for the mother(s) of his two notable children. I have some hope that someone fluent in Greek might be able to dig out more, but I certainly won't hold up this nomination for this. —Kusma (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pinging @NickKav: (a family member): I wonder if he knows of any documentation here? I've drawn a blank from obituaries of Panagiotis, Alexander and Epameinondas, although I couldn't find many for Epameinondas. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Hand in the Deep: seems like trivia
    • Agreed; it fitted better when the section was smaller, and more generally about his legacy and impact. Now deleted. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Publications: the "The Excavation of the Acropolis from 1885 to 1890" is in Greek and German, and the name used is "Cavvadias". Full scan here, possibly worth linking to.
    • Cavvadias is just an alternative, now outdated transliteration of Kavvadias (K and C are both Κ in Greek), so I think giving that alternative spelling would create confusion by falsely suggesting that it was a different person. We haven't written his name in Greek for the Greek books, for example. Primary sources use Kavvadias, Cawadias, Cavvadias, Kabbadias, Kavadias and Cavadias in English alone; you see a lot of Cavadie in French, but Kavvadias is by far the most common today and the best fit with modern Greek transliteration norms. Fixed the languages; I didn't realise the template could handle two. I'll add in that link too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reasonable. I made a suggestion how to handle the title translations (but lazily only did the first two). Revert or extend to the rest. —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't have a strong opinion here: the current template use is odd (giving the language twice), but I'm mindful that this is an English-language encyclopaedia and we usually give the English title of a work as the 'main' one, and then give the original language as a gloss - e.g. One Thousand and One Nights (Arabic: أَلْفُ لَيْلَةٍ وَلَيْلَةٌ, ʾAlf Laylah wa-Laylah)', not the other way around. One option is simply to swap the language templates so that they don't put the language before and after the title. Does anyone else have a view? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I generally expect to cite a foreign work with its actual, foreign language title as that is the title you need to find it in a library (ideally transliterated if it is in a foreign script). We can translate it for convenience/information, but anything we have translated should not be the 'main' title. —Kusma (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a good point. I'll change them all later on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are you sure all your single and double quotes are in accordance with MOS:"? I think I have never seen an article with so many single quotes.
    • The position we reached (that is, User:Modussicandi and I) at GA review was to follow common usage: double-quotes when someone is actually being quoted (that is, those words appear in a source), and single-quotes for glosses or problematised terms (e.g. 'owners' in respect to the 1834 law, where opinions differed sharply on whether one party could meaningfully be considered to own the antiquities: to use the word owners straightforwardly would be to take one side of that argument, and so break WP:NPOV). I think the article is consistent according to that logic, but please do point out anywhere that it isn't. My understanding of MOS:SINGLE is that it doesn't really have much to say on the use of quote marks for things other than true quotations. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very interesting article. The choice not to present the life in chronological order is probably the right call (so the excavations can be kept together) but it muddles a bit the connections between the offices of Ephor/Ephor General and those he held in the Archaeological Society. —Kusma (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the way around this is to 'promote' the Archaeological Society to its own section, and shift a lot of material from the current Ephor General section into there.
It should be said that the waters were pretty muddy - all of Greece's Ephors General after the foundation of the Society were Society men, most of them held high office within it, people often moved back and forth between the two, and it often wasn't clear exactly which of the Society (notionally private) and the State (notionally public) was actually responsible for, carrying out or paying for a particular project. Indeed, a large part of the friction between Kavvadias and the Society is that he's seen variously as trying to further blur that divide (by increasing the state's role in the Society and by using the Society's resources for the state's purposes) and as trying to sharpen it (by pushing the Society out of 'official' archaeology). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now done this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many improvements, especially some of the sectioning / ordering is better now. I'll have another read through soon and then see if I can support :) —Kusma (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent article overall, has my support. —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Cplakidas[edit]

Congrats to UndercoverClassicist for bringing it this far. I wanted to review this in the peer review, but didn't find the time, so I will reserve a spot here. Constantine 12:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Epidaurus is not in Attica, but in the Argolid
  • which, while initially praised suggest to start a new sentence here
  • though he was able to return to public and academic life from 1912. we should add something that would fill the gap to the end of his life.
Early life and education
  • Did some minor tweaks to links for precision
  • "narrowing and sharpening" this quote should be attributed in-text
    • It's Marchand, who is cited at the end of the sentence. Could you help me understand more precisely what you're asking for: should the citation be repeated next to the quotation, or the name Marchand used in the text? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The latter :).
        • Hm... not totally averse to it, but it's a widely-held opinion that Marchand happens to have articulated in a concise way: it would be giving Marchand rather too much credit, I think, to suggest that it was his idea. We've currently got "has been described as", which is true, and reflects the fact that similar sentiments can be found in other sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Hmmm, I leave this to you. Perhaps something like "in the words of Marchand...". But it is not a deal-breaker.
            • I've kept that quote as 'has been credited', but added some more context and sources on Brunn, which should help to show that the thesis hangs on more than just Marchand's opinion. I think the article now does a better job of reflecting exactly what about Brunn was so revolutionary and so important to Kavvadias' education, too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archaeological career
  • Kavvadias returned to Greece, where he entered the Archaeological Service do we know the date (for his return/entry)?
    • No: all we know is that one of his first postings is to Delos. I've skirted as close as I dare to OR by giving the dates of that excavation, which means that his return is almost certainly later than 1873, though you could argue that that was obvious from his age and the number of years he must have spent in education. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • rank of Ephor General position rather than rank, or not? And can we add the identity of his predecessor here? Efstratiadis is mentioned further down, but never properly introduced.
    • It's considered a rank later on (when it's re-introduced in the 20th century, three people are given it, and neither is actually in charge of the Archaeological Service), but definitely a position at this point; changed. Also added a little on Efstratiadis; we get more of the story of Kavvadias' appointment in the relevant section. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excavations at Epidaurus (1881–1928)
Excavations and restorations on the Acropolis (1885–1909)
  • Link the Acropolis' monuments, such as the Propylaia and Hekatompedon, to their respective articles
  • There is an inconsistent italicization of transcribed Greek and Latin terms (e.g. opisthodomos vs kouros), plus I would suggest using the {{transl|grc|}} and {{lang|la|}} templates respectively.
    • I've tried to follow usage in HQRS; in particular, if the term is 'naturalised' in English, it shouldn't be italicised. Kouros is pretty reliably italicised in HQRS, 'opisthodomos' isn't. I think I've now used the transl template for all the true transliterations (that is, not e.g. stylobate, which is Anglicised.)
Ephor General of Antiquities (1885–1909)
  • assisted with the planning and design of the Heraklion Archaeological Museum, which opened in 1883 it is important to note here that Crete was not part of Greece at the time, but an Ottoman province. Ditto for the Cyprus Museum, in British Cyprus. Kavvadias was not only active in Greece. Conversely, established operations on the then-independent island of Crete is incorrect; Crete was not independent, and even after 1898 was still nominally an autonomous part of the Ottoman Empire.
  • organised the first international archaeological conference the first such conference generally, or just in Greece?
  • having previously employed only the Ephor General between 1836 and 1866 and between 1866 and 1879?
  • A relatively minor issue, but it pervades the entire article: when relying on Greek sources (or sources written in Greece) there is the need to check what calendar they use. E.g. the dates for the conference of 1905, or two royal decrees are very likely Old Style, as was used in Greece until 1923. That is very much the case e.g. for the date given for the 1910 election.
    • That's a good point: we're almost certainly on OS for most of those dates. What's the best way around this: simply to use the {{Julian Calendar}} template? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I generally follow two approaches: either stick to OS dates as relayed in the Greek sources, adding Template:Greece Old Style dates and the Template:Julian calendar, with dates for events outside Greece explicitly marked as New Style, or use Template:OldStyleDate throughout. If I use a mix of Greek and non-Greek sources, I tend to favour the latter, among other reasons as it makes source verification easier. Up to you, but the difference should be clear to the reader, so only Template:Julian calendar would not be enough.
        • I've gone through, adding Template:Greece Old Style dates throughout. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it at the moment: the two 'edge cases' are post-1923 dates (presumably we shouldn't add the OS here?) and month-year dates (should we mark 'July 1909' as 'July or August 1909'?). There's also a few points (particularly the Archaeological Society controversy) where a lot of them cluster, and it looks a bit ugly, but that might be a necessary evil. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • You could remove some redundancy, e.g. "Dimitrios Filios [el] resigned on 11 January 1895 [O.S. 30 December 1894], followed by the numismatist Ioannis Svoronos (on 14 January) and the folklorist Nikolaos Politis [el]". As long as the year is clear, and N.S. dates are preferred, not every date has to be rendered in both calendars.
            • I worry that that might be a little redundant: I can see the value where, theoretically, there was only one option, but I worry that a reader would be confused as to whether Svoronos resigned three days or two weeks later. I'm leaning towards keeping the 'redundancy' on the grounds that it trades elegance for clarity, and that's generally something we should do if given the option. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's about it. An extremely well-written, comprehensive, insightful article. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot from it. Once the minor issues above are resolved, I will be happy to support. Constantine 12:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: thanks for the quick response, have replied above. Constantine 08:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Have made a couple of suggestions above, but otherwise I am happy to Support now. Thank you for this excellent article. Constantine 10:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Modussiccandi[edit]

I will write something once I find the time. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "the young ephor" seems too flowery for an encyclopaedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "uncovered the theatre" wouldn't it be okay to spell out what theatre is meant? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The obvious solution is something like this: "The first major excavations Kavvadias led personally were at Epidaurus in Argolis, which began in March 1881. In their first year, the excavations uncovered the Theatre of Epidaurus...": that sounds a little tautological to me, since 'Theatre of Epidaurus' is the name because it's the only theatre in Epidaurus. Or did you have something else in mind? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, you are right, I could have thought of that myself. Never mind. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "continued to work at the site and publish the results of its excavation until his death in 1928": the phrasing is somewhat ambiguous, but it could just be me. Did his death interrupt the visits to the site, the publishing or both?
    Now "both to work at..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and remains of Odysseus' Ithaca": change to 'including the remains' since these are also Homeric. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not too fussed about this, so I'm happy to change, but my sense is that 'the remains' implies that someone's looking for the whole thing, whereas 'remains' implies that they're looking for anything, and that's more what I think we're talking about. It would read oddly to say 'he went to Sardinia, looking for the remains of the Roman Empire'. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Roman period" should be linked here, not at its later occurrence. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Homeric is spelled with double as well as single quotation marks. The latter seems more appropriate to me. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He edited all of its volumes between 1885 and 1892 himself": is "himself" necessary? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Parthenon, Erechtheion and Propylaia" should be linked at their first occurrence. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the quotation marks around "Nessos Painter" could go since it's a common name. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed and done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " as well as establishing the 'Nessos Painter'" < 'establishing its painter'? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link "rescue excavations". Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Already linked in the bit about the Nessos painter. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remind me, what is your policy regarding the italicisation of Latin and Greek terms? I'm asking because of apodyterium vs. stele. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Theoretically (I think this follows MOS), it's a question of whether the word is in common English use: if so, it's in regular text, if not, italicised. I've just gone in and italicised apodyterium on that basis, and will look through later to check consistency. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Similarly to the earlier point, "for his part" could be removed. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider turning "which Vasileos Petrakos etc." into an independent clause to reduce the presence of relative clauses in the section. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "including ... building members": are these parts of buildings? I think it's a bit unclear. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • 'members' in this context means 'bits of fallen-down buildings' (a calque of disiecta membra). I've changed to 'architectural remains': a little jargonistic, perhaps. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the transformation of the [Acropolis] from castle to monument": a nice and succinct way of saying why K. matters. Perhaps it's worth including this in the lead? Modussiccandi (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "pinakes": is given in Greek and later twice in italics. What is the policy? Modussiccandi (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • On first mention, I was introducing the term pinakes as a more precise way of saying 'walls or panels' (they're loosely wall-like structures built out of and to display disassociated ancient sculptures). On second and third, I was using it; my sense is that everything in main-flow text (that is, outside brackets) should be in the Latin alphabet, so that it can be parsed by English-speaking monoglots. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I think I see what you meant, now - I'd wrongly changed that template to {{lang|el}} rather than {{lang-el}}, which meant that the transliteration was not showing. Now changed back. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "more recently": check MOS:RELTIME. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Changed to 'were later criticised'... it's a 20th-century thing, but I don't have the resolution in the sources to pin it down much more closely than that. Major work to undo it starts in the 1980s, but that's not quite the same thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "professional head of the Greek Archaeological Service": is 'professional' necessary? Modussiccandi (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I suppose not: removed.
  • Link "prehistoric" and "Ottoman"? Modussiccandi (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Add links in the caption for the Archaeological Society entrance. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some context for Anastasios Erneris? Modussiccandi (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just to see whether I understand the article correctly: the revolt against K. broke out in the general upheaval of the Goudi coup, right? Or were they more closely connected? Modussiccandi (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's more or less my understanding: the Goudi coup is all about throwing out the old (Westernising) order, which gives impetus to his subordinates and enemies to launch a parallel effort to get rid of K. - separately, part of the reason they're trying to boot him (his support for foreign schools) catches the ideology of the revolutionary government, and they join the bandwagon, declare him persona non grata and have him effectively exiled. It's all a bit murky in the sources: all of them connect the two, but aren't very clear about exactly how the coup and Kavvadias' downfall tied together.