Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each opposition must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the opposition, 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 oppose are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their opposition has been addressed. To withdraw the opposition, 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 opposing, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple * '''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

FACs needing feedback view •

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

• May 28 Athanasius I Manasses
• June 9 Thomas Edison
• June 14 Poecilia velifera
• June 16 2021 Pennsylvania Amendment 3
• June 22 Palestine at the 1996 Summer Olympics
• June 24 Rei Ayanami
• June 30 Minnehaha Park (Minneapolis)
• July 2 Flag of Rwanda
• July 9 Paris Street; Rainy Day
• July 14 Paimon (Genshin Impact)
• July 17 Urtica ferox
• July 21 Dead Island Reveal trailer
• July 22 Mi Reflejo
• July 23 Gopal Mukund Huddar
• July 24 Abdul El-Sayed
• July 26 Semiotics
• July 26 Arbel Yehoud
• July 27 Marie Salmon
• July 27 Warriors (novel series)
• July 27 1987 Aegean crisis
• July 28 SS D. M. Clemson (1903)
• August 1 SS Hippocampus
• August 2 Kim Seon-ho
• August 2 Map

Nominations

Chimpanzee

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is from the Natural Sciences and is about the Chimpanzee. It is a co-nomination with LittleJerry and is the 1st time that this page has been nominated for FAC. A previous 2010 GAN nomination of the article was unsuccessful though it was renominated for GAN in 2019 with success. A Peer review was recently conducted with useful comments from both Jens Lassensack and Noleander. The current nomination has been expanded also to include the Peer review comments along with more recent results from the Chimpanzee Genome Project as well. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in the Chimpanzee article. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Will have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chimpanzees using twigs to dip for ant" this seems unconventional, "ants"?

Your way better. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chimpanzee brain is smaller than the human brain" likewise. "a chimpazee's brain" or similar would be less jarring.

Done. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• ""Great ape" is a common name rather than a taxonomic label, and there are differences in usage, even by the same author. The term may or may not include humans, as when Dawkins writes" is this actually stated explicitly in the source, or is it your own editorializing? If so, it verges on WP:original research or .

Some Wikipedia articles seem to prefer this convention as in Great ape language. The current link in this nominated article for Great ape is to Hominidae; is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Evolutionary relationships among the great apes.[22][23]" state in the caption what it's based on. And why are there two citations? Does it combine info from two different cladograms? That would also be a synth issue.

changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• It is discouraged that subjects of images face away from the text; the two chimp photos under ecology do so, but this could be fixed by reversing their alignment.

• "glossed as meaning "mockman"" was this used in reference to the chimpanzee? Not clear, could be made more explicit.

That's how its presented in the Wikipedia article for Pan (genus). Any suggestions? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "it had first been proposed for the genus" could be "this genus" to make it clearer.

Clarified ambiguity with genus of Wren. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The first great ape known to Western science in the 17th century was the "orang-outang" (genus Pongo), the local Malay name being recorded in Java by the Dutch physician Jacobus Bontius. In 1641, the Dutch anatomist Nicolaes Tulp applied the name to a chimpanzee or bonobo brought to the Netherlands from Angola." Most of this seems unnecessary here. All we need to know is that the term orangutan may also have been used for chimpanzees or bonobos in 1641.

changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "but a genus of wren took priority." which wren?

The link currently in the article goes to the article of Wren specifying it as: "Wrens are a family, Troglodytidae, of small brown passerine birds." See comment above about Wrens. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "was the "orang-outang"" WP:duplinked.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The German naturalist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach classified the chimpanzee as Simia troglodytes by 1775. Another German naturalist, Lorenz Oken, coined the genus Pan in 1816." So what happened to Simia? Since you explain what happened to Troglodytes, you should explain this too.

It was replaced. There isn't much more to that. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Despite a large number of Homo" duplink again, check throughout for more.

• "Pan fossils were not described until 2005." You go into a lot more detail about much more tangential issues, so what species of Pan, from where, and how old?

Chnaged. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "the derived traits" explain scientific jargon in parenthesis.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Sahelanthropus could be a sister group to" since this is a single genus with a single species, sister taxon would seem more appropriate.

• "Gerhard Roth in his book The Long Evolution of Brains and Minds" why do we need the name of the book in-text? The year of publication is more crucial.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "line from the human-neanderthal line" Link Neanderthal.

Done.

• "According to studies published in 2017 by researchers at George Washington University... Another 2017 genetic study" Would be more helpful to list first authors than university, either way, you should do so for both studies or none.

• Why do you cite different studies for the cladogram than for the genetic studies in the article body? Could be consolidated.

I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• I might not be able to do a full review due to other commitments, both on and off-wiki, but I have made a few minor revisions, which I hope you don't mind. Congrats to the two of you, Ernest and Jerry, on such a broad topic. I wish you luck moving forward. Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Pioneers

Nominator(s): - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 13:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about... a Palestinian children's show that initially ran from 2007 to 2009.

I believe the article has improved considerably since I last nominated it, with a lot of the neutrality issues addressed, and I have tried to include sources and documentation from all sides of the argument (Western, Israeli, and Palestinian/Arab communities being the three big ones). Furthermore, the episodes section was removed, as it was deemed original research - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 13:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

Coming to this as a non-specialist in the topic area, with the usual caveat about what I have and have not checked: I have read the article against the archived first nomination, but I do not read Arabic or Hebrew and I have not opened any of the sources, so everything below that depends on what a source says is a question rather than a statement. Most of it is internal consistency, lead-to-body agreement and mechanics, which is what I can actually check. Congratulations on getting it back here, and I hope some of this is useful.

Things I think need sorting before this can be promoted

• There is a live maintenance tag in the article: {{bsn|date=July 2026|reason=[[WP:JERUSALEMPOST]]}} on the Jerusalem Post citation in the Nahoul section.
• The infobox says num_seasons = 6 and num_episodes = 92, both uncited, and now that the episode list has been removed there is nothing in the body that supports either figure.

• Related, and I think this is the biggest risk to the nomination: with the episode section gone, the article has no coverage of production, format, scheduling, audience or reception figures. For a show that ran on and off for fifteen years I am not sure that meets 1b. Is there anything at all on how it was made, who made the costumes, where it was recorded, how it was scheduled, how many people watched it?

• The background section states contested characterisations in Wikipedia's own voice, and links the word "agenda" to Palestinian political violence, which is an easter egg link and a loaded one.

Lead against body

• the show is hosted by a young Saraa Barhoum and a large costumed character is present tense for a show that ended in 2022.
• Presented in a children's educational format similar to shows like Sesame Street and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood appears only in the lead.
• Tomorrow's Pioneers teaches Islamist morals and values, periodically quoting the Hadith and Quran. The Hadith and Quran quoting is not in the body either.
• he was replaced by his cousin, a giant bumblebee named Nahoul. The body never gives Farfour and Nahoul as cousins.

• who ordered that the first co-host, Farfour, be written out of the show is stronger than the body, which has Disney initially making no public statement and then Iger and Diane Disney Miller expressing disapproval. LastJabberwocky raised the underlying problem at FAC1, and the lead has since gone further than the body rather than the other way round.

• Farfour was killed in the fifth episode is not in the body. Same question for In episode 403 in the Nassur section.
• while others have argued that criticism of the show adds to negative stereotyping of Muslims in general does not match the body.
• where Carmon declared MEMRI's translation of the show to be more accurate than CNN's Arabic translation against the body's account of what he defended.
• The lead has Crowley submitted House Resolution No. 1069; the body has the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passing it with Crowley as lead sponsor.
• The lead covers almost nothing after 2009: no Maryam, no 2013 revival, no Nassur, no 2022 ending beyond the date in the first sentence.

Internal consistency

• The presenter's name appears three ways: Hazim Al-Sha'arawi, Al-Shara'awi and Hazam Sharawi.
• Fathi Hamad is Tomorrow's Pioneers director in one place and Al-Aqsa TV board chairman in another, and the infobox lists him as director while the lead credits direction to Al-Sha'arawi.
• The infobox lists Al-Sha'arawi alone as presenter, and also as editor, while the article says Saraa Barhoum hosted.
• Section heading Nahoul (July–February 2008) is missing a year, and the section covers material outside the range in its own heading.
• The Assoud section opens was introduced after his brother, the previous co-host, Nahoul, died of illness, but the Nahoul section never says he died.
• The article never tells the reader that Assoud is a rabbit.
• Image caption: All five mascots that are seen in Tomorrow's Pioneers, but the Nahoul section also names Karkour the chicken.
• The Fatah competing show is in the article twice on the same reference, and the Barghouti ban appears in the lead, in Episodes and in its own subsection.
• The closing paragraph of "Response from Disney" is about a Hamas cartoon attacking Fatah and about Fatah's own children's programme. Neither is about this show.

• although this ban was later lifted appears in both the lead and Episodes. Which citation supports the lifting?

• Tomorrow's Pioneers was rebooted in the early 2010s is cited only to the seraj.tv page for the 22 July 2022 episode.

Prose

• Although Nahoul and his parents travelled to Al-Arish, Egypt, for medical treatment, but they were denied permission to leave Gaza by Israeli authorities. "Although ... but" is a doubled conjunction, and as written they both reached Egypt and were prevented from leaving.
• In 2013, Nahoul was resurrected ... they should be stoned or beaten. As written, "they" reads as the children being stoned.
• He is a brown bear who claims to have come to the Gaza Strip (although he gives evidence that he may have come from Iran) reads as an editor's inference from watching the episode.
• Tomorrow's Pioneers has garnered mixed reception worldwide. An uncited summary judgement opening the reception section.
• The semicolon before a capitalised new sentence in the Reception paragraph, and the unnamed attributions around it.
• Disney, who ordered wants "which" for a company, and including CNN Arabic department is missing "the".
• Assoud, was introduced after his brother has a comma sitting between subject and verb.
• The title is not italicised in the Nahoul section.
• Tense wanders.
• "martyrdom" is linked to two different targets.
• Mustafa Barghouti is linked three times; Disney is piped two ways; Palestine is linked twice within the infobox.
• PMW is defined as an abbreviation and then never used again.
• The two opening paragraphs of Reception are each around 200 words in a single block.
• The section titled "Episodes" now contains no episode information.
• "Response from Disney" is a level-4 subsection of a character sketch, while comparable material sits at level 3 under Reception.

Sourcing

• Professor Mia Bloom, who specialises in Islamic studies is not a fair descriptor; her published specialism is terrorism, political violence and the recruitment of children.
• Bloom estimated that many children who watched Tomorrow's Pioneers would grow up to become responsible for attacks against Jews is a large causal claim resting on one newspaper interview.
• Two books in the bibliography and one journal article, against a very large number of news reports, press releases, advocacy-organisation transcripts and blogs.
• What makes these reliable: the Facts on the Ground blog, CAMERA on Campus's blog, the thirteen.org Worldfocus blog, and seraj.tv?

• The Arutz Sheva citation carries the Assoud quotation, one of the most quoted lines in the article, and also the Nahoul illness material. Its headline refers to "PA TV", which is a different network from Al-Aqsa TV. Is the piece definitely about this show, and is there a second source for the quotation?

• PMW and MEMRI transcripts are doing a lot of work as the record of what was said on screen.
• Saraa's uncle, Fawzi Barhoum, is a Hamas spokesman is present tense on a 2008 New York Times citation.
• The Wexler press release is credited to Josh Rogin as author.
• The lead gives 13 April 2007 as the first broadcast but I cannot find a citation for it. Same for the Gaza Strip production location.

Citation mechanics

• {{sfn|Gleis|Berti|2012|pp=168—170}} uses an em dash in the page range where the rest of the article uses en dashes.
• Date formats are mixed against {{use dmy dates}}: six citations use ISO or YMD.
• The NBC News citation for Farfour's death gives publisher=CNN on an nbcnews.com URL.
• The Ynet "educational" citation has an entire paragraph of Hebrew article text in the title= field.
• The PMW February 2008 citation has unbalanced quotation marks in its title.
• The seraj.tv citation uses lang=Arabic, and its trans-title renders the date as 7/22/2022.
• The Al Jazeera citation for the actor's death has no website= and gives the author as a single string.
• The Küntzel citation carries url-status=bot: unknown.
• Several citations use website= inside {{cite news}}.
• One named reference is ref name=":0", and three others are invoked in earlier sections than the ones that define them.
• Access-dates are absent from most citations, and several live URLs sit on fragile-looking domains with no archive.
• The bibliography of books sits under a heading called "Citations", below the short-citation list under "References".
• There is a leftover HTML comment about Cite.php at the top of the References section.

MOS and mechanics

• The article is tagged {{Use British English}} but mixes varieties, and the short description says "program".
• Double space in former Palestinian Information Minister, successfully lobbying.
• "jihad" is italicised and "mujahideen" is not.
• The alternative title is bolded inside a footnote.
• {{Clear}} after See also is not doing anything.
• The IMDb template has stray spaces and gives the title as "Tomorrow Pioneers".
• See also lists List of television shows notable for negative reception.

I am not going to register a declaration yet. My honest reading is that the neutrality problem RoySmith identified is better than it was but is not gone, and that the comprehensiveness question created by removing the episode section is the harder one to answer. If production or audience material can be found and the background section's framing is attributed, this gets a good deal closer. Happy to look again at any point. Metalicat (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat hi! I addressed a few of the issues in my latest edit. I put your comment into a text document so I can access it at any time. Also, I'm currently converting the "Episodes" section into a "Broadcast history" section, which will likely be part of or near the "Background" section - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, the Nassur source (link) says The current teddy bear host, Nassur, is a mujahid (ostensibly from Iran) who has come to free Palestine - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat pardon the ping, but I addressed more issues and replaced some of the news/current event sources with more retrospective/scholarly books and articles. I hope this helps! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'm a little hesitant to add MEMRI sources. They caused quite a bit of trouble last time, so I'll only use them to cite non-controversial claims, such as Nassur's introduction, and I'll use them later in the translation section as primary sources - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for turning that round so quickly, and no need to apologise for the pings. A lot has landed. Below is what is left, plus a few things the revision has brought in.

The one to deal with before anything else. {{sfn|Feiss|2017|p=98}} is cited twice, for Al-Aqsa TV's launch on 9 January 2006 and for the station being bombed during the 2008–09 war. Joel Feiss's Desert Pawn is a self-published mystery novel from AuthorHouse, written by a practising gastroenterologist in Florida; the publisher's blurb calls it "a contemporary, character-driven mystery" about a kidnapping in Eilat, Amazon files it under Literature and Fiction, and the author's other titles are Pickup Murder and The Formula. I don't see how it can support anything here?

Citations

• {{sfn|Zanotti|2017|p=57}} has no target: the bibliography entry says year=2011. It is the only one of the sixteen sfn calls that fails to resolve, and it carries the whole first sentence of the House Resolution 1069 section, including "unanimously".
• The Congress entry is set as last=Congress|first=United States, so it renders "Congress, United States". |author=United States Congress is the usual fix, but it changes the CITEREF, so all three sfn calls need updating in the same edit. More substantively, the source looks to be the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing Combating Anti-Semitism: Protecting Human Rights of 14 April 2010 (Serial No. 111-87); I matched on title, year and publisher rather than ISBN, so please confirm. If so, pp. 39–40 are witness testimony, and according to the United States Congress attributes to the institution something a person said in front of it.
• Unlike the previous three co-hosts, Nassur survived the end of the series. is cited to Sankey (2018) and Parker (2019); the article dates the end of the series to July 2022. If they mean the end of the original run, the sentence should say so.
• The prose gives the title as Small Arms: Children and Terror while the bibliography has Small Arms: Children and Terrorism; the second is correct. Two Bloom points remain: the book is by Bloom and Horgan jointly, so "Bloom and Horgan write" is the accurate attribution; and which is squarely on children and armed groups is a characterisation of the book rather than anything in it, so it should not be in the article's voice.
• Smaller: Byman's publisher is given as "University of Oxford Press"; the seraj.tv citation gives website=[[Al-Aqsa TV]] for a seraj.tv URL; the two Arutz Sheva citations name the outlet two different ways; Konovalov is in {{cite thesis}} but has a DOI, a page range and a journal URL; eight bibliography entries carry both year= and date=; that is now down to one, Jarosz and Kącka; ISBN= is capitalised on two entries and ISBNs are a mix of hyphenated and unhyphenated; they are now uniformly hyphenated but grouped in threes rather than by registrant, so 978-0-42-975717-4 should read 978-0-429-75717-4 and most of the others are wrong the same way; and of the three sfn page ranges, pp=208-209 is fixed while pp=168-170 still uses a hyphen.

The new books. The direction of travel is right, so these are questions rather than objections.

• Does the Routledge Handbook of Political Islam chapter carrying the An-Nahl point have a named author? Edited handbooks are cited to the chapter author. The page number has also become {{sfn|Akbarzadeh|2020|p=PT63}}, which renders on the page as "p. PT63". PT63 is Google's ebook position rather than a printed page, so there is no page number to give here yet.
• Pieslak for the pastel background, Back and Bull for Farfour throwing stones, Jarosz and Kącka for the stated target audience. Do those pages carry the specifics, or are they passing mentions?
• Farfour previously threw grenades, cited to Der Spiegel; he now throws stones, cited to Back and Bull. What changed?
• Both Arutz Sheva pieces are headlined about "PA TV" and "Palestinian Authority children", but this is an Al-Aqsa TV show and the article elsewhere treats PA TV as the rival network. Between them they carry Nahoul's introduction, the illness material and the Assoud quotation.
• In a later episode, which aired on 16 October has no year, and its citation is headlined "English is the language of the enemy" for a claim about Hebrew.

Lead against body

• Worse rather than better: the lead says Directed by Hazim Al-Sha'arawi, Background says The show was directed by Fathi Hamad and Samir Abu Muhssen with Al-Sha'arawi creating and editing, and the infobox agrees with the body on director but still lists Al-Sha'arawi as presenter, which the body contradicts too.
• which later ordered that the first co-host, Farfour, be written out of the show. This has gone further backwards. The body previously had came in direct response to actions by the Disney family, which was not an order but was at least adjacent; that clause has now been removed, so the Disney section ends The story arc in which Farfour was killed off and replaced by Nahoul was created by Al-Sha'arawi and there is nothing in the body supporting the lead at all.
• the House Committee on Foreign Affairs submitted House Resolution 1069 against the body's unanimously passed with Crowley as lead sponsor. A committee does not submit a resolution.
• while others have regarded criticism of the show as a reflection of the realities of life in the occupied territory reverses the body, where it is the show's content that is said to reflect those realities.
• According to various news outlets and western sources is cited to a congressional hearing and to Palestinian Media Watch, neither of which is a news outlet.
• Barghouti lobbied to have the show pulled from airing, but broadcasting later continued. The body says it was pulled at the ministry's request, then that Hamad said the station would not pull it, and nothing sources the resumption. Reception still offers Barghouti as one of those suggesting the show reflects the realities of occupation, when he is the man who called it a "mistaken approach".

Prose

• The show was directed by Fathi Hamad and Samir Abu Muhssen, the show was created and edited by Hazim Al-Sha'arawi is a comma splice with "the show" twice.
• Quick ones: was first broadcasted wants "broadcast"; particularly Barghouti and Afana that needs a comma after "Afana"; considers media as a "decisive weapon" wants "considers media a"; Hamad explained that the Jews want... presents a contested claim as explanation (MOS:SAID); and where his behaviour remained the same refers to behaviour the lead has not described. The licensing clause is now and was licenced by Palestinian Authority TV, which wants "licensed" for the verb, and I am still not clear what it means: PA TV is Fatah's network and Al-Aqsa TV is Hamas's.
• Tense is much better. Two residues: Farfour was beaten to death during an interrogation by an Israeli official, who is trying to buy Farfour's land, and He is a brown bear who claims to have come to the Gaza Strip.

Still outstanding from my first list. The character montage at 500x500px with no alt text; the two Internet Archive full-season collections and their copyright position; MOS:LQ on will finish off the Jews and eat them. and three to seven years old.; and the "congress" and "CNN1" refs, invoked before they are defined. Only the unbalanced quotation marks in the PMW February 2008 title are left.

On MEMRI, your instinct sounds right, and using them as clearly-labelled primary transcripts in the translation section is a position you can defend to a reviewer.

One thought, offered kindly: this is moving very fast, and a self-published novel got into the bibliography in the last day. It might be worth slowing to a section at a time and reading each source before it goes in, rather than working down a reviewer's list. Metalicat (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat okay. If you'd like, you can strike out comments (used with {{s}}) that have already been addressed so we don't get lost. As always, thanks for your feedback! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

What's the self-published source? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I added the MEMRI source in to the translation section, where it's only used as a primary source to verify that The Guardian and CNN weren't making this stuff up :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm rewording some things. Nassur claimed to know Hebrew. Here's the PalWatch script proving it:

Nassur: "Like me! Just like I know the Zionist enemy's language."/Host: "Really?"/Nassur: "Hebrew."/Host: "Okay, speak [in Hebrew]."/Nassur: "I can't." [Laughing.] - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The self-published source is Feiss, Desert Pawn (AuthorHouse, 2017). It is still in the bibliography and still carries two claims: Al-Aqsa TV's launch on 9 January 2006 in Background, and the station being bombed during the 2008–09 war in Broadcast history. It is a mystery novel by a practising gastroenterologist, so both facts need re-sourcing.

I have struck what is settled above, which is most of the first list. A few things have come in with the latest edits. {{sfn|Akbarzadeh|2020|p=PT63}} renders on the page as "p. PT63"; PT63 is Google's ebook position rather than a printed page, so there is no page number to give there yet. The Combating Anti-Semitism citation has author-link=United States Congress twice in the same template, which does not affect the rendering but shows up as a duplicate-argument lint error. Its page range reads pages=39{{subst:En dash}}40 in the source I am looking at, which I would expect to have been expanded on save, so worth a glance in case something went wrong there. and was licenced by wants "licensed" for the verb. And the comma after "Afana" has landed before "that" rather than closing the appositive, which has itself gone.

One has gone backwards. The Disney section now ends The story arc in which Farfour was killed off and replaced by Nahoul was created by Al-Sha'arawi, with the reference to Disney's actions removed, while the lead still says Disney ordered Farfour written out. There is now nothing in the body supporting an order at all.

And one is my fault: which is squarely on children and armed groups in the Bloom sentence is a phrase from my review describing the book, not something the book says. Please cut it. Small Arms is by Bloom and Horgan jointly, so "Bloom and Horgan write" is the accurate attribution. Metalicat (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I changed "ordered" to "requested". I hope that sounds less forceful - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat "PA TV" refers to Palestinian Satellite Channel, which Al-Aqsa TV was licensed by. I hope this clears the "Arutz Sheva" confusion up - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

For the concern Is there anything at all on how it was made, who made the costumes, where it was recorded, how it was scheduled, how many people watched it?, there sadly isn't much material online surrounding the specifics of the show. The best I could find as of now is that one of the sources about Barghouti's lobbying says that the show was broadcast on Fridays at 4pm. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 07:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat I just clarified something. AATV was licensed by the Palestinian Authority, not the Palestinian Satellite Channel. I hope that makes sense - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA

I don't understand why the episode list was removed? We are allowed to cite the plot summaries and basic details to the show itself, per MOS:PLOT and MOS:TVEPISODE. That's the standard, actually. Totally lacking any description of the episodes or when they came out or what they were titled seems an issue for comprehensiveness. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Really, there is no actual section that describes the show itself and its contents (besides, bizarrely, the first paragraph of the reception), only the characters. This seems a fairly major omission! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Paprikaiser, who removed the table - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

They cited TVEPISODE for the removal, which states "Episode title, writers, directors, episode numbers, airdates, production codes, and viewership numbers must be reliably sourced, either from the opening/closing credits or from secondary sources (preferred, see WP:RSPRIMARY)". I don't see this as a reason for removing the thing entirely. This, notably, does not include the plot sections, which per MOS:PLOT is implicitly cited to the show itself (you can do an inline citation for that if you want either way). If there were OR issues with the table, possible, it should be re-added in a fixed form, not totally thrown out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm readding it (albeit with some changes) as we speak - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Idia

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Idia, a significantly respect woman across the Kingdom of Benin till date, and one of the most respected and adored woman across Africa. Till date, Idia is the only woman that went to war in Benin. She was a royal woman of the Kingdom of Benin and the first person to hold the title of Iyoba, an Edo term for the mother of the reigning Oba ('king'). She married Ozolua and gave birth to Osawe. She held ritual, military and political authority during the succession disputes and conflicts associated with her son's accession and the early decades of his reign in the first half of the sixteenth century. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This article recently passed GA, thanks to Noleander for prepping me ahead. I believe WP:FACRIT is met and would appreciate any comments pertaining to the criteria, as well as your cooperation in helping this article archieve the Featured status. Thank you already! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Morcom

Nominator(s): ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Christopher Morcom, known for being a childhood friend and crush of Alan Turing, who worked on mathematics, computer science and other subjects. Morcom is probably best known from his depiction in the film The Imitation Game (which contains many factual inaccuracies). He died at the age of 18 due to tuberculosis. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

A couple drive-by comments:

• What makes "The Old Shirburnian Society" a High Quality Reliable Source?
• The primary academic reference here is Hodges 2012, which I should note was originally published in 1982. While this source is no doubt high quality, and perhaps still the most comprehensive work on Turing's life/context, are you confident there are no other scholarly sources that could add to this? I am a bit surprised to not see a wider range of sources drawn upon here

- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Kikwit

Nominator(s): — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Kikwit, a secondary city of the DR Congo and the capital of Kwilu Province. Located at the crossroads of the Kwilu River and a highway to Kinshasa, the city is of some economic importance, having been developed by Belgian colonists for palm oil production. Despite its population of possibly one million people, it has been very neglected in terms of infrastructure in the post-colonial era—no doubt worsened by a high-profile Ebola outbreak in 1995. With only four paved roads, no municipal water supply, and an electrical grid that's still a work in progress, locals think of it as a "large village".

I'm very excited that this is my first FAC, thanks to some encouragement from the wonderful Generalissima. I likely would not be nominating this particular article if not for her suggestion and help with source searching. :D — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Great start for an article, well done. There are quite a few little issues though. I have time just for a few unfortunately:

• Note 1 should list the estimates in chronological order.

• Done. I initially thought it would make more sense to put them in numerical order, especially since the years are close enough that it won't make a huge difference. But I can see the case for chronological order. —🐧

• History: "with the goal of exploiting resources" should indicate which resources they were planning to exploit. The history should probably start with the town instead of the colonists. Which peoples lived there? What language did they speak? How long have they been there.

• Expanded on resources. —🐧
• The pre-colonial history is not mentioned in mainstream academic sources at all, as far as I can determine. There does appear to be some work by local historians that discusses this era, but it has only been published by small, regional publishers. —🐧

• That's ok, but it should at least say "Kikwit was a small (insert name of ethnic group(s) here) village prior" Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Demographics: Need a year for your estimates of 500k to 1m. I would remove the 1983 sex ratio sentence, it's not really informative. It's not clear what language is spoke, you first write Kongo, but then later lingala? This paragraph needs a bit of a rewrite to be more clear.

• The years for population estimates are mentioned in the footnote; I don't think it's useful in the body as this refers to a wide range of estimates, not specific to a year. —🐧

• I do think you need a year here, think about the article in 5 years, 10 years, will this sentence still be valid? You can say a range if you want, but you do need some date or range. Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Removed the sex ratio; the source mentions it in the context of jobs but it's not as informative without context. —🐧
• Clarified the language thing by adding the phrase "In addition" —🐧

Mattximus (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Jon698

I will be using Kigali, a FA about a Rwanda city, as reference for this article;

• 1. Can you add an IPA pronunciation template
• 2. "Originating as a small village, Kikwit was developed by Belgian colonists" -> Wikilink Colonization of the Congo Basin in "Belgian colonists"
• 3. "transport of palm oil for export would contribute to the development of Kikwit's" -> Change "would contribute" to "contributed"
• 4. "Missionaries had travelled eastward from Kinshasa" -> Alter to "Missionaries had travelled eastward from Léopoldville (modern-day Kinshasa)" and remove the "Léopoldville (modern-day Kinshasa)" from its later mention
• 5. I would move the last paragraph of "Colonial development" into "Demographics" under a new sub-section of "Religion", but you can keep it as is if you prefer it that way

First Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)

Nominator(s): ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the Chapel of Saint Paul, a log chapel built on the bluffs of the Mississippi River in 1841 by Lucien Galtier. From July 1851 to December 1851, it served as the first cathedral of the Catholic Diocese of Saint Paul. Before it was eventually dismantled, it also alternatingly served as a chapel, school, and a hospital for the Sisters of St. Joseph. While the building only stood for around two decades, it left a lasting impact as the eponym of Saint Paul, capital of Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:First_Cathedral_of_Saint_Paul.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Oil_painting_of_first_Cathedral_of_Saint_Paul,_Minnesota.jpg

• File:Lucien_Galtier_plaque.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:First_Cathedral_of_Saint_Paul_plaque.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Icepinnner

I remember reviewing a Minnesota church when I first started getting into GAN reviewing... now that I think about it, the review was a bit too strict for GAN. Anyways, may do a full review in the near future, but for now, I notice that Nygaard 1964, a Master's thesis, is cited; does it have any significant scholarly influence, per WP:THESIS? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Following the successes of The Widows of Culloden and Sarabande, Alexander McQueen was poised for a triumphant hat trick when he presented the occult-themed In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692, but derailed himself with a series of miscalculations. The show was a logistical nightmare, aggravating critics before they walked in the door. Dim lighting and macabre theatrics overshadowed clothing that swung between boring and overwrought. Ultimately, while there are some worthwhile concepts within, Elizabeth Howe was not one of his finer moments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima

I'll give this a review.

• Lede good. "statuary" is an obscure enough word it might be worth linking to statues (or just using the word statues)
• Background very solid.
• Could hanged->hanging be overlinking?
• In contrast, I couldn't tell you what "colorway" means - that might need rephrasing or explanation.
• Neopagan might need linking (thought it'd be difficult to word that in a way which avoids two links in a row)
• Link sarcophagi (there's a use of "sarcophagus" later that'd need to be correspondingly unlinked)
• Link bustiers, scarab, and carapaces
• Lmao at the photograph's name
• Not finding anything to fix under runway show or reception
• Cleopatra is re-linked in Analysis

Your articles are polished enough all my feedback seems like petty nitpicking, lol. I'd be happy to do a source review after this stuff is fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123

I will also hop in.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't really have much prose comments really. Just a few minor clarifications or nitpicks.

• Some authors felt they resembled the ovum – the female egg cell. By "some authors", is it only Bethune and Watt, or they are quoting multiple other authors?
• I concur with Generalissima on the need to wikilink a few things
• As a result, critics were already irritated by the time the show began, and were not inclined to judge it kindly This felt a bit worded like an opinion or somewhat essay-like. Just to clarify, this is what the cited sources say right
• .[47][56][65][66][67] I'm just a little concerned with WP:OVERCITE, but I suppose that's to support the sentence that many critics did appreciate the collection of clothes presented. Might wrap up in a bundle, like Terminator 2: Judgement Day did for multiple references
• Some thought there was a reasonable balance between showpieces and commercial items. A little concern with WP:WEASEL; would just name the two authors unless, like before, they are quoting from others.
• Similar for Some dismissed the evening gowns as uninspired.
• on-again, off-again boyfriend Wonder what's with the phrase "on-again, off-again" used here
• Don't have many comments for the rest of the section. Interesting article on a less well-received fashion collection.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hongxi Emperor

Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the Hongxi Emperor, the fourth emperor of the Ming dynasty of China. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ancient Cappadocian language

Nominator(s): Kisseran (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about an obscure ancient language spoken in Anatolia. Practically nothing about the language is known for certain. I believe that this article meets all of the FA criteria. This was my first GA and now it is my first FAC. I would like to thank Vigilantcosmicpenguin for the GA review and Generalissima, RoySmith, and A.Cython for the helpful comments at PR. Kisseran (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima

I gave this a pretty thorough review at PR, and I don't really have anything else to add; the additions have resolved my remaining concerns. I support on prose. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'll give this another look when I get a chance, but for now I'll just note that this really needs a review from a SME so I'd suggest advertising this at both WP:LING and WP:LANG to see if you can attract some good reviewers. RoySmith (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Posted on WT:LING. I'm not sure what the etiquette on WT:LANG is since the article alert is already there. I should have also pinged and thanked Choliamb, who has already left very helpful comments on the article's talk page. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any more time to spend on this right now, and in any case my knowledge of ancient languages other than Latin and Greek is minimal, so I wouldn't be much help. ThaesOfereode comes to mind as someone with solid linguistic chops who might be able to provide a useful opinion. Choliamb (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm. There's a fine line between being so passive about recruiting reviews that you don't get the reviews you need vs making a total pest of yourself :-) There's two things you could try. First, do reviews of your own. If people see that you are contributing to the smooth running of FAC by reviewing other articles, they'll be more likely to want to review yours. The second is to see if you can find previous FAs on similar subjects, especially recent ones, and ask the nominators directly on their talk page: "I see you wrote about language X, would you be willing to review my article about language Y?" I would check all the entries in WP:FA#Language and linguistics. RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to generate another version of File:Kingdom of Cappadocia.png which shows a little more area? If a bit more of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea were visible (and the latter labeled), it would give the reader a better geographic context.

  I would like to, but unfortunately I do not have the skills to go about graphics editing, so I have to rely on what is already on Commons. I have swapped in a map of Achaemenid Cappadocia, which shows more of the surrounding area and matches Strabo's description better, but it seems to be a jpg with a lower resolution than the hellenistic map. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  The current map File:Achaemenid Cappadocia.jpg is much better. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• the Euxine to the north Apparantly, the Euxine is what is now known as the Black Sea, so I'd state that here for the convenience of the reader. I'd also add the other areas mentioned (Cilician Taurus, Armenia, and Colchis, etc) to the adjacent map.

  Changed Euxine to link to Black Sea. The replaced map no longer labels Armenia, which is annoying. If this really is a dealbreaker I suppose I have no choice but to figure it out myself. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  See WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop RoySmith (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• For the We call it ouranós... text, use {{text and translation}} instead of {{blockquote}}. Likewise with the He delivered his declamations ... text later on.

  Changed to {{Translated blockquote}} per the template documentation pages. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Other nineteenth-century western scholars ... used a calendar with Iranian month names.[12][13] Overly long and complex sentence should be split. The previous sentence (As evidence ... other Semitic languages) is kind of wordy as well, but not as bad.

  Split. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Hittite was deciphered first in 1917 after the discovery cuneiform tablets ... Something's missing here. Perhaps "... discovery OF cuneiform tablets"?

  Yes, fixed. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Responded above. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Look good, conditional Support based on the quality of the prose. Everything flows well and this was an enjoyable read but this very much needs to have somebody who knows about languages and linguistics to validate it from an academic standpoint. RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map

• Kingdom_of_Cappadocia.png: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria thank you. One of my long-term gripes is that we tend to exempt images from WP:V. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who worries about that. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The hellenistic map probably came from this map by Ian Mladjov, but I have swapped it out for a different image, which is already sourced in the description. Kisseran (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

ThaesOfereode

Great to see you bringing your skills to FAC, Kisseran (and thanks to Choliamb for the ping/kind words). Saving a spot; review to follow. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

White-faced spiny tree-rat

Nominator(s): -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the white-faced spiny tree-rat, a widespread arboreal South American rodent. It has been sparsely covered in the scientific literature despite its first formal description being over 240 years ago. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review and accessibility review

• All images have alt text
• All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are captioned appropriately
• All of the tables meet MOS:DTAB, along with the infobox.

Support on image and accessibility review. splains (💬/📝) 14:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Hi Recon, comments within a week (otherwise ping me). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Mildly suggest cropping the lead image to focus more on the lil guy, there's a lot of empty space around it
• Is the ref needed in the lead? The claim doesn't seem so controversial that it would need it under WP:LEADCITE.
• "The rat's dark fur is darkest" repetitive. Is there a synonym we can sub in here?
• "potential hazard to its continued survival" - you can toss "potential" and "continued" here. "Potential" is redundant since a hazard is defined as "a potential source of harm". Similarly, "continued" is redundant since survival is a continuous state.
• I admit to being somewhat confused by the systematics. Zimmermann first described it based on Allamand's description of it? If so, he can't be first, logically. I think we need more info about what Allamand's article was doing with his article so we can be clear about what Zimmermann was doing in response.
• Split para 1 at "Another species description..." since we're moving on to a new topic
• I made a bold tweak to para 2 that I was having trouble explaining concisely, feel free to revert or revise.
• "would assign it" -> "assigned it" (see WP:WOULDCHUCK for a somewhat silly explanation of why the "would" construction is rarely necessary)
• "The etymology of the species name derives from" this is redundant, I think. I'd trim to either "The etymology of the species name is..." or "The species name derives from"
• "it is only known from four localities" the link here is not very helpful, as it redirects to Type (biology), which does not define locality. I know the bad redirect is not a you problem, but I'd consider removing the link or glossing it in the text yourself here
• Not sure why the info about other rats in the genus is relevant, that seems more useful for the genus page. If there is some additional context there, like the white-faced rat outcompeted its cousins and drove their numbers down in those specific areas or something, it might be relevant, but presently it feels off topic.
• "It also lives in open, primary forests." can you gloss the distinction from the other type of habitat?
• "The small ears of the white-faced spiny tree rat" idk if you need to give its full government name here
• "Among members of the Echimyidae family" suggest splitting here as now we're on to a new thought
• "The main diagnostic character state or trait of this species is the presence of a white stripe on the head that extends from the muzzle back to between the ears, though the alveolar length of the rodent's upper cheek teeth (between 13.3 and 14.5 millimetres (0.52 and 0.57 inches)) has also been used as a diagnostic trait, as this length is greater than that of any other member of Echimyidae found in Suriname.[9]" this sentence is longer than some movies. Please split.
• Swapped around a sentence to put their usual slow movement first, then the startlement exception
• "remaining motionless for minutes at a time when disturbed" Doesn't this contradict the statement about them moving fast when disturbed?

That's me on first pass. Feel free to push back on any suggestions, I'm always open to discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• There seem to be a good deal of WP:duplink in close succession.

• At a glance, I think the photo now in the description section is the better of the two, perhaps it should be swapped as the lead image?
  • It used to be, but was switched following peer review. If there's some objective criteria whether one is better than the other I'd appreciate that since it could resolve the debate here. -- RR

Hmm, I think having a representative image as the lead is a more objective criterion than the "avoid a "wall of text" feeling" thing, which I'm not even sure what means in this context. Perhaps Femke can elaborate FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

My point in the review was to use both images, I don't have a strong opinion on whether to use the technically lower-quality image that shows the rate more fully in the lead or in the description section. The wall of text comment is about not having a lot of text without any image, to ensure the prose remains engaging. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ok. In that case, if the nominator of course agrees, there would seem no problem with swapping the photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "titled "Le Lerot à queue dorée"" what does this mean?
  • The title translates to "The golden-tailed garden dormouse". I am not sure whether to put the original French in an efn footnote or to put an English translation there (and if so, how it should be presented). -- RR

Seems ok with the footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "According to genetic analysis, the species is closely related to the dark spiny tree-rat (Echimys saturnus).[9]" which means there must be a cladogram we can incorporate? Perhaps also showing a bit of its wider family?

• "but following reexamination of the type specimen of this subspecies" I think "of this subspecies" goes without saying at this point.
  • Changed -- RR

• What's the story behind the synonym Echimys cristatus?
  • I've added some info. -- RR

• "potentially non-functional mammary glands in the groin region" What is meant by "potentially"? That we don't now if they are functional or what they sometimes are?
  • From Husson, 1978: "Apart from a single pair of small (non-functional?) inguinal mammae, the adult females show three pairs of well developed abdominal mammae". Is this worth including? -- RR

Your new wording ("possibly") seems clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "As compared to Echimys vieirai and E. saturnus, the fur on the back of the white-faced spiny tree-rat is brighter." why use binomials here?
  • Changed -- RR

• I'd expect the function of the spines being discussed under behaviour rather than description.
  • I find that it would be jarring to be presented with the function of a part of the body under "behaviour" after it had been mentioned before without any description of what it was for. -- RR

• "being infrequently identified in literature." identified or mentioned? I'm not sure what the former would mean.
  • Infrequently mentioned. -- RR

• The next to last paragraph of description says "The main diagnostic character state" then "though the alveolar length of the rodent's upper cheek teeth... has also been used as a diagnostic trait" only for the next paragraph beginning with "The species is distinguished from other members of Echimys by several characteristics of its skull" it appears all these are diagnostic features, but somehow arbitrarily divided in the text.

• Its spines seem significant enough to describe in the intro.

Comments from Jim

I've made a couple of minor edits, please check. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC) First pass:

• "Found" is overworked in your text.

• produces two young in a litter.— per litter or each litter?

• titled "Le Lerot à queue dorée" when writing his description. Needs a translation. Also, should be Lérot with acute accent.
  • As above - unsure where to place the translation. -- RR

• ''its type locality was in Suriname.—does the source say in Surinam or just Surinam?
  • Should just be "Surinam". -- RR

• authors would assign it to Glis, Loncheres, and Nelomys[6] before the currently accepted name, Echimys chrysurus, was assigned by—repeats assign(ed)
  • "Given"? -- RR

• The etymology paragraph is clunky. Also you italicise "gold" and "animal tail", but not "hedgehog" or "mouse, rat". I suggest "The etymology of the binomial name is from Ancient Greek. The species name comes from χρυσός (khrusós), "gold", and οὐρά (ourá), "animal tail". The genus Echimys, and also its synonym Echinomys, derive from ἐχῖνος (ekhînos), meaning "hedgehog", and μῦς (mûs), meaning "mouse, rat"."

• potentially non-functional mammary glands—what does that mean? Should it be Possibly...?
  • The author isn't clear, but possibly is a better descriptor if this should be mentioned at all -- RR

• Nothing about parasites. See this and this. Both have Echimys chrysurus as a host. Also this, accessed. via Cambridge UP in TWL. It says "Using spool-and-line mammal tracking a new species, Rhodnius paraensis, was discovered in nests of the arboreal rodent, Echimys chrysurus (Sherlock et al. 1977)." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Following on from the Kocher ref (first ref above), maybe worth noting that sandfly Bichromomyia flaviscutellata is the main vector for parasite Leishmania amazonensis here, cause of Leishmaniasis.

• It's obvious that this species has mammalian predators. In my FAs, if I can't find a named species, I list typical carnivores of the area as potential predators, see this. Perhaps something like "Potential mammalian predators in this rodent's range include large cat species, the South American coati and the tayra."?

Comments from Aterbiou

A few small comments. I will not do a full review.

• Habitat and distribution says "E. saturnus is found in [blah], while E. saturnus is only known from [blah]". Should the second be E. vieirai?
  • I just fixed this. -- RR
• The infobox includes as synonyms "Echimys paleaceus Lichtenstein, 1820". But the ASM Mammal Diversity Database source says that Lichtenstein is instead associated with "Loncheres paleacea, 1818".
  • Corrected. Embarrassingly I hadn't touched the synonyms section at all and it was still using the uncited names from 2009. -- RR
• Systematics and etymology says "Allamand initially placed the species in the genus Hystrix". I looked over the text of "Le Lerot à queue dorée" of Allamand, and it does not seem to mention Hystrix or another genus. Instead, the ASM Mammal Diversity Database source appears to associate Hystrix with von Schreber. Maybe this could be looked at?\
  • The species account states "it was initially assigned to Hystrix, and subsequently to Myoxus, Glis...", so this is a misattribution on my part, but the Hystrix genus assignment post-dates Zimmermann by 3 years. I imagine this could be a mistake on the authors' part, I'll flip these around - Allamand didn't assign a genus at all. -- RR

Disclosure: I used an LLM to discover potential typos and source-text issues in the article. I verified everything myself and wrote the comments myself. Aterbiou (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Richard Nevell

This is not a topic area I'm familiar with, so hopefully approaching it with little background knowledge might be useful to ensure the article is suitable for general readers. That's my excuse if I ask silly questions.

• Should the date of identification be mentioned in the lead?
  • Good point, noted -- RR
• The Echimyidae article say most spiny rats resemble rats, although they are more closely related to guinea pigs and chinchillas. Without exploring that article I would have assumed that a spiny tree-rat was a type of rat. Is it worth noting somewhere? It may be entirely valid to say "no" especially if it is anticipated that readers will understand what Echimyidae are.
  • Considering "rat" is a vague term on its own already (see the french version of the article on rats, which I'm working on translating for more on that), I don't see it as useful to a reader to describe that "actually as a spiny rat this isn't a rat but something else". -- RR
• For the 'Systematics and etymology' section, do we have information on what Indigenous peoples called the animal before the colonial period?
  • As Rookmaaker notes, the original specimen specifically doesn't note what it was called by the Indigenous population. Other sources only note contemporary name translations and the alternative "white-faced spiny rat". -- RR
• Speaking of colonial history, I think it would be useful to include a sentence explaining Allamand's activities in the region and noting that at the time it was a Dutch colony. Was he exploring specifically to find specimens?
  • Your note made me re-read Rookmaaker's article and realize that the specimen collector isn't identified - Allamand only knew about this species because Klockner wrote to him about it. It's not clear who found the specimen especially given that it is specifically noted as being sparsely described. -- RR
• I think would make more sense to mention Allamand collecting the specimen and then Zimmermann describing it.
  • See above -- RR
• How long do they live?
  • I've searched and found nothing about its lifespan; other spiny rats seem to range between 6 months and 7 years but there's nothing specific I've found about Echimys. -- RR

🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I've responded to these points (though I still have work to do in above sections). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Leon Russianoff

Nominator(s): UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Leon Russianoff, the so-called "Godfather of American clarinetists"... no, not that kind.

Anyway, Russianoff was an extremely influential pedagogue who taught an entire generation of U.S. players and helped to set up the International Clarinet Association (as it is now called). The article has already passed through DYK, GA, and an impromptu PR with some much-appreciated help from Maximilian775, Vanderwaalforces, and Aza24, so now I present it to you fine folks. This is my second FAC, and I would appreciate comments from both those familiar with and strangers to musical articles. Many thanks for your time, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from VWF

Hi UTO, thank you for bringing it to FAC. I loved what I saw at GAN, so I’ll be going through again with FACRIT in mind. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The former settled in a neighborhood near Hester Street…", here "The former" refers to Isadore, but the preceding sentences discuss both parents and two places of origin. The passage is unnecessarily difficult to follow.
• "Russianoff never took a college-level music class, which Ann McCutchan … suggested was potentially due to…", here "Suggested was potentially due to" is excessively hedged. Something like "McCutchan attributed this partly to…" would be cleaner, provided that accurately represents the source. I think I raised this at GAN as well.
• "After amicably ceasing lessons with Bellison…", "Ending his studies with Bellison" would be more natural.
• "The lessons ended after less than a year … This conflict led Russianoff to quit after less than a year." The timeframe is repeated in consecutive sentences, I believe it was a leftover copyedit from my GAN review suggestion.
• "Late in his sixties, Russianoff returned from his long hiatus to perform…" this should be "In his late sixties, Russianoff returned to performing after a long hiatus.", I also suggested this at GAN.
• "At some point in his career." This is too vague for FA prose. If the sources cannot establish even approximate dates, either explain that limitation or reconsider whether the institutional list is useful in the first place.
• "save his performing career" sounds dramatic, I gave a suggestion at GAN.
• "quit" is used several times where "left" or "ended his performing career" would be more formal.
• the time-sensitive phrase "now out of print" is a problem, I believe.
• The article states 1916 unequivocally in the lead and infobox, while the explanatory note acknowledges conflicting sources. Both 1990 newspaper obituaries reportedly give his age as 73, implying 1917, and the 1938 source also apparently conflicts with Clark. But then I believe this disagreement should not be kept in an infobox note. The article needs to explain the evidentiary basis for preferring 1916. If the discrepancy cannot be resolved, then the lead and infobox may need to acknowledge this uncertainty.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanderwaalforces, thanks for the review. These should all be addressed now. I mostly used your suggestions without alteration, with the following exceptions:

• 3) kept "amicably" since otherwise it might be inferred that they fell out due to incompatibility.
• 6) I respectfully disagree with any sort of removal, as I think it's important to include all the places a teacher worked at for comprehensiveness. Both the cited RSes and others say no more about specific date ranges for these schools. Open to "explain[ing] that limitation", but how would you suggest I go about this?
• 10) firstly, the obituaries both specify that he was born in 1916, so it is not a birth year issue. This is why the note is only attached to the age at death. Secondly, Clark himself has acknowledged this discrepancy (admittedly in a Facebook post, but I digress), and clarified that the NYT is wrong; Clark was a student of Russianoff and was assisted in writing his biography by both Penelope and Sylvia Russianoff, so using my editorial judgement I think it is far more likely that he is right in this instance. Given this, I don't think much more than a note acknowledging the discrepancy is needed per Tamzin's excellent essay WP:SOURCEWRONG (see approach 3), but I am open to any suggestions on the exact wording of the footnote.

UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces, I was wondering if this ping hasn't gone through? Apologies for the double ping if not. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave! I’m beginning to miss out on pings lately for some reasons. Your changes LGTM and I’m happy to support. I have two open FACs: Ogbebo and Idia and would benefit from any type of review you’re able to give, thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Simeon_Bellison.jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 (or 100) years ago?

• File:M._Rose._(Professeur_au_conservatoire)_-_btv1b53201579x_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, the image of Rose was taken from the BNF, who state that it came from a reference book of photos by Nadar. That's why they put a range on it. In any case, Nadar died in 1910, so even if we disregard the BNF's upper limit it would be PD-US. As for Bellison, my bad. I can't find the original image, so if you think it's OK, I will replace it with the postcard image from . Oehler, the recipient, died in 1936, so since this is an unpublished work (private correspondace), I believe it is PD-US? If not, I'll have a more in-depth look for potential replacements for that section when I get home. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 10:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've pre-emptively replaced the image of Bellison with one of Samuel J. Tilden High School, which is PD with a known photographer and date. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are you certain that the Nadar work is from a reference book? From what I can tell from the BNF record, it's from an album - do you know if and where that was published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, my reading of is that it was from a reference book used by the studio to showcase examples of their photographs. I do not know the exact date or place of and publishings, including potential previous cases. That said, I don't really see why we need a certain date or place here: the BNF dates it as between 1875 and 1895, which believe is PD in the US and France for both published and unpublished works when we factor in that Nadar died in 1910. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on how you conclude it's PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria: I believe it is PD because any possible US copyright term has expired regardless of whether the item was published or unpublished. The BnF record identifies this as a demonstration print from the Atelier Nadar's reference albums, dated 1875–1895. Nadar died in 1910, so whether the photograph was unpublished, published during Nadar's lifetime, or published later, any possible US copyright term has expired by now. The only caveat would be if the attribution/date were incorrect and the photograph were actually a later work by another author, but the BnF record does not indicate that. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  If it was indeed published circa 1875/95, I'd agree - but if it was published later, that wouldn't necessarily be true, depending on where and when. What is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria: unknown, and it would be a tremendous hassle to figure out by looking through the U.S. copyright entries. I've instead replaced it with File:Chrysogone-Cyrille Rose Pierre Petit (cropped).jpg, which is definitively PD in the US and France as the BnF specifies it was published c. 1880. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Support from Aza24

• Will give this another read but certainly leaning towards support atm. – Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that I already gave this a fairly thorough review last month (see Talk:Leon Russianoff#FAC Prep), I am finding very little to comment on.

• I guess to my eye, it is always a little strange when the lead sentence does not match the infobox occupation, which could be: Clarinetist  • Music teacher. Fine either way
• In the lead, is this line even needed: "During this time, he took on his first students, who were referred to him by Bellison." ? Seems like a lot of emphasis on the fact that these students were recommended by Bellison. Could see this combined with the next line: "During this time, he took on his first private students, and after parting ways with Bellison in 1940, began teaching at the..."
• Could perhaps link Sociology
• I guess it is easy to see how Ellis and Fromm could have influenced his teaching style, also being psychologists like Gallwey. But throwing Marx and Engels in there without any explanation almost seems like vanadlism lol. I would suggest a brief qualifier (if available) to explain what exactly he's drawing influence from them.
• I think it would be worth expanding on what he got from Kovar as well. Especially because some of Kovar's students are quite critical on his teaching: Re Norman Herzberg's article: Kovar had "absolutely no system (...) and would teach whatever came into his mind on a given day." So familiar readers may not know what to think
• Since the entire eulogy is printed on Porter page 147, it definitely seems worth a note or a "see Porter 47" when mentioning Naomi's eulogy in-text. I might even consider putting some of it in the article, even as a {{quotebox}} if not wanting in-line quote
• Porter 1991 seems underused. I guess I'm not sure waht it could be used for though. It may be worth a note "For other Russianoff students see Porter 42–44"?
• We are still missing a number of students with Wikipedia articles:
  • Arlene Alda, Walt Weiskopf, Rick Bogart (musician) Jerome Bunke and Lenny Hambro
• That's all I got – Aza24 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Aza24, should all be done. Re: Kovar, Clark doesn't really say much more, just emphasises how important he was to Russianoff's teaching philosophy. I checked elsewhere, but the only thing I can add is that Russianoff adapted a lot of Kovar's techniques. Re: Porter 1991, I didn't want to use it past a nod in the Personal life and death section since it's fully primary, and there's already a lot of positive quotes in the Legacy section that were deemed more important by secondary sources. I would consider another note, but as Porter 1990 states, the quoted musicians are not just Russianoff's students. The names not included, which you list, were done so as I couldn't find a HQRS that discussed their connections with Russianoff. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support this nomination as a well deserving FA. Happy with the depth of sourcing, coverage and prose. – Aza24 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Support by ZKang123

I will review this. The name quite caught my attention.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• Leon Russianoff (August 19, 1916 – September 16, 1990) was an American clarinetist, primarily known for his teaching career. Russianoff's students included many orchestral principals and soloists in the United States. He was a founding member of the International Clarinet Society, serving as the organization's first vice-president from 1973 to 1976 and contributing to the early International Clarinet Clinics in Denver. I felt this could be slightly rewritten/rearranged to list his other positions before noting that his students included many orchestral principals and soloists in the United States. I.e. just swap the last two sentences I'm quoting here.
• Russianoff never studied music at a college... while studying at the City College of New York from 1933 to 1938 Is it known what he studied instead? I saw later in the body that noted he pursued a Bachelor of Science in English and Sociology

I did some minor edits in the "Early life and education" and "Career" sections. I don't see much issues with them. In fact, I really love how the prose flows and it's not difficult to follow. Will continue reviewing.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Teaching method:

• Despite this, even his early style was "not a Bellison facsimile, but a Russianoff original", according to his biographer Stephen Lee Clark. Might try to vary instances of "according to". Here, I might rewrite to: Despite this, his biographer Stephen Lee Clark said even his early style was "not a Bellison facsimile, but a Russianoff original". or ...his biographer Stephen Lee Clark described his early style as "not a Bellison facsimile, but a Russianoff original". Also might say Clark given his full name was already mentioned before.
• Is it known why his Clarinet Method went out of print? Also, found an online copy on the web archive
• the "fulcrum" study of the 1960s and the "pyramid" study I want to ask if any more is known about these studies, but going into detail might be a bit too technical for non-Clarinet players
• Jungerman contrasted his approach with teaching based on "harsh criticism of the student by the teacher". First mention of Jungerman here. Also, was confused what "his approach" refers to.

Personal life and death.

• and a eulogy delivered by Naomi (see Porter 1990, p. 46).[2] What's with the (see Porter 1990, p. 46)? Ref 2 goes to that FN already.

Don't see other major issues. That's all I have.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review! I think I've addressed all of these. Re: Clarinet Method, anecdotally I believe there was some difficulty when Schirmer was acquired by Macmillan, but it goes dark after that. The sources aren't specific here, sadly. Re: studies, I could probably go into a bit more detail here if you think it's needed? Re: the Porter note, this was added on Aza's suggestion to indicate that the full eulogy is printed in that source. Open to rewording, of course. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I might go a little more detail in the studies. As for the Porter note, I'm not so sure how to reword it, but also I might instead then put a footnote (e.g. using {{efn|The full eulogy can be read at (see Porter 1990, p. 46).}}).--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123, tried to fix both of these in my most recent edit. How do you find it now? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support. Also, I have an ongoing FAC, but you aren't obliged to take a look.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Irwin Conference Center

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a 1950s-era bank building in Columbus, Indiana. Designed by Eero Saarinen, it has a glass facade, a concrete roof with nine domes, and an open-plan interior. Its facade and open plan have drawn comparisons to New York City's Manufacturers Trust Company Building (another FA on a modern-style bank building). The site also contains an annex by Saarinen's proteges Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo, along with some landscaping by Saarinen's frequent collaborator Dan Kiley. The building was used as a bank from its 1955 opening to 2010; it is now a conference center.

This page was promoted to Good Article status earlier this year after a GA review by A.Cython. After some additional copy edits and expansions, I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Octave

I'll take a look at the prose sometime before next week. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Eero Saarinen designed... Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo designed... Dan Kiley designed" – this phrasing in the lead gets slightly repetitive, and could do with more variety.
  • Done. - EG
• "brick and concrete facade" – should "brick-and-concrete" not be hyphenated, as it is being used as a compound adjective to describe the facade?
  • Done. - EG
• "A steel-and-glass arcade leads westward to the annex, which is made of similar materials." – similar to what, the arcade? We've just listed three sets of materials.
  • Clarified. - EG
• "The building has received critical acclaim for its design over the years, and it is designated as a National Historic Landmark because of its architectural significance." – this feels like it fits better as either the last sentence of paragraph one or the first sentence of paragraph three.
  • I moved it to the end of the first paragraph, for consistency with similar articles. - EG
• "drive-through" – linked in the lead, but not in the body?
  • Done. - EG
• "The bank building became a conference center and office building until it closed in 2020." – awkward phrasing, try something like "The building was converted into a conference center and office building and remained in use until it closed in 2020."
  • Done. - EG
• "The main building, at Washington and Fifth streets, has.." – "at the corner of Washington and Fifth streets"?
  • Done. - EG
• "Dan Kiley was the bank building's landscape architect, selecting specific types of trees..." – seems a bit weak, try "Dan Kiley, the bank building's landscape architect, selected specific types of trees..."
  • Done. - EG
• "The trees are placed near the sidewalk..." – try a simpler active voice construction, like "The trees stand near the sidewalk..."
  • Done. - EG
• "The building has a concrete roof covered in standing seam metal." – are you looking for "clad"?
  • Indeed. - EG
• "otherwise-flat roof" – not a compound adjective, no need for a hyphen.
  • I would say that arguably, it could be reworded as "the roof, which is otherwise flat"; I've reworded it - EG
• "lamp shades" – most dictionaries use the modern spelling of "lampshades".
  • Done. - EG
• "Observers made fun of the new bank building's roof, which they likened to a 'brassiere factory'" – are there any important voices to attribute this to in particular?
  • Not particularly. This source says that tour guide Sally Madge said people called it a bra factory, but the other sources don't say where this originated. - EG
• "The design helped increase the Irwin Union Bank's patronage" – patronage feels like the wrong word here. What about simply something like "The design helped attract more customers..."
  • Done. - EG
• "The Green Bay Press-Gazette wrote in 1989... Cultured magazine wrote in 2017..." – reception section generally good, but could we avoid starting consecutive paragraphs with the same construction?
  • Done. Thanks for the review UpTheOctave!. Epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Cool. Happy to support. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Irwin_Union_Bank_and_Trust_Floor_Plan.jpg has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the image review @Nikkimaria. I've filled out the FUR. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Support by ZKang123

Will take a look at this.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead and infobox:

• The infobox image is missing a caption
• The main building, at the corner of Washington and Fifth streets, has a square floor plan with a glass facade The part "at the corner of Washington and Fifth streets" felt a bit repetitive from the earlier mention that it is located along at "500 Washington Street, on the northwest corner with Fifth Street"
• The bank building operated as a conference center and office building until it closed in 2020. "it" refers to the conference centre?
  • "It" refers to the offices and conference center. I rephrased the sentence to avoid this issue. - EG

Site:

• When the building was constructed, there were radiant heating coils embedded into the outdoor concrete slabs. I suppose this was for the winter
  • Yes. - EG
• No other issues I can find for the site section

Architecture:

• Might wikilink World War II
• and has a square floor plan measuring 88 by 88 feet (27 by 27 m) across Being a square, I thought saying it has a length of 88 feet would be enough
• The western elevation has drive-through tellers' windows;[5] there were originally two, each with bulletproof glass. Is it known what's the current number?
  • These were replaced with the standalone booths, but the windows themselves still exist. - EG
• The office wing largely measures 104 feet (32 m) west–east "east–west" is more natural
• since it has no materials or shapes in common with the main building Might rewrite to: since it shares no common material or shape with the main building

Will continue reviewing from the interior subsection.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @ZKang123. I've addressed all of the comments you left so far. I left replies to some specific comments above; where I have left no comment, I made that change. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Back on the bankteller windows – though their function was later supplanted by standalone booths. I want to know, by booths are they still like shops, or something? Wonder if there's an image of the booths.
  • They are tiny booths similar to what you would find at toll gates or the entrance to car parks. They are small enough to fit only one person. A picture of them can be seen , although these images show the booths after they've been modified for an art installation. I added a little detail to the Site section. - EG
• There were also red planters. What's a planter?
  • Oops, this is an American term for a standalone flower box (as opposed to window boxes, which are sometimes called flower boxes). I added a link - EG
• To avoid having traditional tellers' windows with unwelcoming "Closed" signs, the banking hall originally had tellers' counters with movable plastic hoods This sentence reads quite awkwardly
  • Reworded. - EG
• The floor space is mentioned for the annex, but not for the rest of the building?
  • I didn't find much info about the original building's floor area. This source says the total floor area is 90,794 square feet. - EG
• Much of the architecture descriptions references most of the bank, which from my understanding has ceased to operate. Not much information on these spaces' modifications for existing use? Like, I would at least mention the former bank offices are now open-plan offices. And the Banking Hall now as the building's atrium
  • Unfortunately, the building is closed and isn't used for any purpose right now. But even when the offices and conference center were operational, there wasn't much info on that. I copied the info you mentioned to the Architecture section. - EG

History:

• which included a grain elevator. Wonder if there's a wikilink for grain elevator
  • Linked. - EG
• sought to improve the bank's image by making the building feel welcoming... Saarinen wanted the design to be perceived as welcoming, not formidable. Find this a bit repetitive
  • Reworded. - EG
• Workers tried for several weeks to demolish the old building's vault, but this was extremely difficult because the vault was encased in 27 inches (690 mm) of concrete Was the effort eventually abandoned? Also a bit curious what happened to the old building
  • The vault was eventually demolished successfully. The old building was converted to other uses; this is mentioned briefly in the "Completion and early years" section. - EG
• The bank moved all its departments between the old and new downtown branches on March 9, 1955 "between the old and new downtown branches on March 9, 1955" Kind of imply the move was two ways, which I doubt it is in this case.
  • Reworded. - EG
• Despite a construction accident in June 1971, when some of the annex's beams collapsed during a heavy wind, work proceeded with few delays. No one was injured I suppose?
  • Nope, luckily. - EG
• The bank's travel bureau, which had offices in the downtown branch, was sold in 1980 to IVI Travel, which continued to occupy the building. Repetition of "which". Might split
  • Reworded. - EG
• Actually, I would have mentioned in the lead about the 2008 recession, given that's a rather important event
  • Done. - EG
• Would have mentioned when the building was designated a National Historic Landmark
  • Done in the lead. - EG
• Not much updates on the conference centre since? Actually I would have stated earlier in the lead that the building is currently closed
  • Unfortunately, no. The latest news I can find about this is from early 2024. - EG

Impact:

• Not much issues I can find in the impact section

That's all I can find.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks for the additional comments. I've addressed them all now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Aucanquilcha

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Chile that is notable as the site of the highest known mine and permanent human habitation on Earth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Added them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Unfortunately, my comments didn't publish and my edit save was lost. I've tried to recreate what I originally commented on below, but might have missed some things.

• I edited the article while I was reading: feel free to revert if not helpful.
• "The slide lacks the hummocky topography usually found on debris avalanches but has radial ridges and grooves and lateral levees;" What is a hummocky topograph? a wikiink or explanation would be helpful.

  Added a link; does that work? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "(oxidation rinds are c. 1 centimetre (0.39 in) thick)" What is the "c." referring to here? I suggest that this have a wikilink or some sort of explanation (maybe a circa template?)

  Did that. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Ahlfeld 1947 reported ongoing formation of sulfur crystals in a cave on the summit." Who is Ahlfeld? Suggest explaining and rephrasing to something like "In 1947, F. Ahlfeld reported..."

  Specified. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If I find what my other points were (there were only a couple) I'll add them below. In the meantime, feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Oy, browser crashes. The bane of wiki editing. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Three Dikgosi Monument

Nominator(s): splains (💬/📝) 12:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The Three Dikgosi Monument is located in the Central Business District of Gaborone, Botswana featuring three dikgosi (plural form of "kgosi") who traveled to Great Britain and convinced the British government to not merge the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company. Funnily enough, it was built by a North Korean company, Mansudae Overseas Projects. This is my first serious attempt at FAC, with my previous and only other nomination being Larrabee County, Iowa, an article that is shorter than Miss Meyers. I've been a member of WikiProject Botswana since I joined Wikipedia and this would be the first Botswana FA that is not an animal or a mineral that can be found in Botswana. Admittedly, it's a short article, but I believe it is still broad in its coverage. splains (💬/📝) 12:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Pinging GA reviewer @AlphaBetaGamma, who might be interested in reviewing. splains (💬/📝) 07:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Image review

• File:3_Kgosis_Monument_Image_in_Gaborone1.jpeg: fair-use rationale is incomplete
  • Completed
• File:Dikgosis_on_the_3_dikgosi_monument.jpg: per the UK tag, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Done

@Nikkimaria: - thanks for your comments, I believe I have addressed your concerns. splains (💬/📝) 09:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

I shall review.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• The monument features 5.4-metre (18 ft) tall statues of Khama III, Sebele I, and Bathoen I—three dikgosi (or tribal chiefs) recognized as foundational figures in the nation's history; for in 1895, the three traveled to Great Britain and convinced the British government to not merge the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company following threats to merge the two entities. This sentence is quite long. Suggest splitting at the semicolon
  • Split
• until its independence in 1966.... The three were eventually declared "Founders of the Nation" by the government-owned Kutlwano Magazine at the time of Botswana's independence in 1966. The second "in 1966" is redundant.
  • Done
• By the feet of the statues, there are six plinths which provide information about Botswana's independence and struggles from the Mfecane period to Botswana's independence. – Six plinths at the the feet of the statues provide information about Botswana's independence and struggles from the Mfecane period to Botswana's independence.
  • Done

Background:

• Fearing German influence in the region, the United Kingdom agreed to form the Bechuanaland Protectorate I might elaborate further about this German influence. Like, what did they control? Maybe you can also wikilink German colonization of Africa
  • Done

History and planning:

• but construction was delayed due to objections from planning officials. Is it known what sort of objections?
  • Yep. Added (and added another source)
• The group was given a contract of P7 million Possible to convert the currency value?
  • I can't find any reliable sources which convert the value
    • The Template:ToUSD uses data from the World Bank which includes the currency for Botswana. You can see an example on 2024 East–West Line disruption on how to note the currency conversion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
      • @ZKang123: Done, thanks -- but I can't get it to show something like 1.5 million -- it just shows the exact number. I hope that's fine. splains (💬/📝) 11:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Earlier in the lead you said It was inaugurated on 29 September 2005 by former President Festus Mogae. But later, you wrote: The monument was inaugurated on 29 September 2005 by Festus Mogae, President of Botswana at the time.
  • Made less redundant

I felt the section "Political significance and criticisms" should be after the description.

• Moved

I don't see other issues. Looks almost in good shape.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: I finished, however I couldn't find any reliable sources converting the value. -- splains (💬/📝) 05:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Splains: Replied to a comment on currency conversion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Mauritius scops owl

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is another article in the unfortunately very long series about Mascarene birds exterminated by humans. This time it's a Mauritian owl which was only recorded in a few accounts and a single drawing before disappearing, until bones were later found. Its taxonomy only became increasingly confusing from there, as three different owl species were named based on different lines of evidence, with their relations to neighbouring island owls being unclear, and it took until just a few years ago to fully disentangle this mess. All of the relevant historical sources are cited and the only known drawing is shown here, along with a few contemporary quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Reconrabbit

Image review below, some other comments if I can identify anything out of the ordinary. If it's linked there are changes I'm requesting on the commons page, but the only "issues" here on the article itself with regards to images is a lack of alt text.

• • File:Mauritius owl.jpg I'd like for this to indicate where it was first published (as the work was created in 1770 but it's not clear how it was published until 1896 based on the BHL article).

It was in the collection of Philibert Commerson along other drawings, but not published until Oustalet rediscovered them. I've added the following to the Commons description: "A reproduction of it was only published in 1896 by Émile Oustalet". FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:Mauritius island location.svg Prefer to have alt text but license is good.

Added, forgot there was a range map alt-text field. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:Mascarenotus sauzieri.jpg, File:Mascarenotus murivorus.jpg, File:Scops commersoni.jpg all needed a United States public domain tag so I added them

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:Megascops nudipes newtoni.jpg and File:Scops commersoni.jpg are public domain
• File:Madagascar_torotoroka_scops_owl_otus_madagascariensis.jpg, File:Leiolopisma telfairii Ile aux Aigrettes 0422.jpg, File:1_MonVert_Nature_Walk_-_View_of_indigenous_forest_Canopy.jpg all appropriately CC licensed
• In addition to the range map, alt text would be useful for File:Scops_commersoni.jpg, File:Madagascar_torotoroka_scops_owl_otus_madagascariensis.jpg, File:Megascops_nudipes_newtoni.jpg, File:Leiolopisma_telfairii_Ile_aux_Aigrettes_0422.jpg, and File:1_MonVert_Nature_Walk_-_View_of_indigenous_forest_Canopy.jpg

That's all until I get a better view of the prose -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to at alt-text halfway through, now added for the rest, and fixed other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I adjusted some of these texts (per MOS:ALT, which states "All readers will be aware this element is an image, so adding "photograph of" isn't usually necessary"). I'd mark this nomination as "passed" on the image review. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I'll add as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• whitish or with white parts— perhaps wholely or partially white to avoid repetition.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention that Newton was colonial secretary there, so his is a first hand account?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• You write in Taxonomy the discovery of a graphite drawing. Your source says mine de plombe which I believe translates as "pencil lead", which is more likely to be graphite and clay than pure graphite. I'm not fluent in French, so I might have missed something.

Just removed the word "graphite", as the source does just say that, but it doesn't add much anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• by then little known 1837 report should have at least one hyphen, if not three.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• He also found the Rodrigues owl (then Athene murivora), described from subfossils and descriptions from the Mascarene island of Rodrigues in 1873, unrelated— perhaps...to be unrelated?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Check your link for pelves!

Ouch, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• You have a number of duplinks

It seems the duplink highlight tool is acting up and counting links in the intro as well, I don't think I have duplinks within the article body itself? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do you really need Jossigny's drawing twice?

If you look closely, it's not the same drawing, but redrawn! I think it's important for historical purposes, as that was the only version widely available for over a century. I added this to the caption: "a high resolution version of the original was only published in 2018". As a bonus, it's just good to also have next to the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• All looks good, weird about duplinks, happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Z1720

• I made some copyedits to the article. Feel free to revert if not helpful.
• The "Taxonomy" section is quite long, which might make it difficult for readers to read and find specific information, especially on mobile. I suggest breaking this up with two or three level 3 headings.
• "In 1994, the French palaeontologist Cécile Mourer-Chauviré and colleagues" is this Cécile Mourer-Chauviré? If so, wikilink.
• The last paragraph of "Behaviour and ecology" is basically lists of species that are extinct on Mauritius. I don't think these are necessary and are too much detail for this particular article.
• Lead check: no concerns, information seems to be in the article.
• Infobox check: no concerns, information in the article.

Please ping upon reply. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

FutureSex/LoveSound

Nominator(s): RedShellMomentum 04:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a 2006 Justin Timberlake album deep cut. While initially receiving mixed reviews from music critics, Billboard later ranked it as one of the best deep cuts by 21st-century pop stars and of 2006.

Idk if this can make the cut to FA, but I hope it can! RedShellMomentum 04:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Will look over this soon. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 03:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Alt text for File:JustinTimberlake.jpg is needed
• File:JustinTimberlake.jpg has been approved by Filckr reviewer, no issues with this.
• File:FutureSex LoveSound.ogg holds the appropriate license and fits MOS:SAMPLE conditions
• That's all I see for the image review. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Camilasdandelions: Added the alt text. RedShellMomentum 01:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Splains

Will look over this soon. splains (💬/📝) 00:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Delirium (Ellie Goulding album)

Nominator(s): Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is British singer Ellie Goulding's third studio album. On this album, she embraced a more pop-oriented sound than on her previous two records, working with Greg Kurstin, Max Martin, and among others. Delirium also includes Goulding's hit single "Love Me like You Do" and peaked at number 3 both in the UK and US (ironically marking her lowest-charting studio album in the former and highest-charting one in the latter). My favourite tracks on the album are "Devotion" and "Heal". I hope you enjoy reading this article as well. As always, all comments from this review will be appreciated :). Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do a source review since I love "Love Me like You Do" and "On My Mind". RedShellMomentum 00:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 7 random passages from throughout the article (4.7% of 148 total passages). These passages contain 9 inline citations (4.2% of 214 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 00:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: Source review is all good. I've recently opened up a peer review for Justin Timberlake and an FAC for "FutureSex/LoveSound", you may leave comments on either one of them if you wish. RedShellMomentum 18:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
During this process, she worked with various producers such as Max Martin and Greg Kurstin;
11		npr.org	web.archive.org	✅
calling it "a fun song" and explaining that it is "the first of its kind because [she liked] to write about [her] own experiences".
37		eonline.com	web.archive.org	✅
38		youtube.com	web.archive.org	✅
on 6 November 2015, to digital platforms.
2	b	music.apple.com	web.archive.org	✅
It was serviced to Italian radio and US contemporary hit radio stations on 15 January and 19 April 2016, respectively, becoming the album's second single.
70		radiodate.it	web.archive.org	✅
71		allaccess.com	web.archive.org	✅
Carl Wilson of Billboard regarded Delirium as a successful experiment, citing its "vivacity" and suggesting that it could further strengthen Goulding's profile in the United States. However, he felt that the album never matched the "sustained ambience" of Halcyon, attributing this in part to its "singles-minded" approach, though he viewed it as another stop in Goulding's "ongoing stylistic travels".
89		billboard.com	web.archive.org	✅
Germany,
110	a	offiziellecharts.de		✅
"We Can't Move to This" contains elements from "It's Over Now" written and performed by 112.
131	a	Delirium (Deluxe edition liner notes). Ellie Goulding. Polydor Records. 2015. 4758716.		✅

Comments

• "While the album is not devoid of its characteristic electronic atmosphere" - by definition an album cannot be devoid of its own atmosphere, so I suspect you mean something else here
• "and move between lower-register passages as well as falsetto delivery" => "and move between lower-register passages and falsetto delivery"
• "Delirium opens with "Intro (Delirium)", where Goulding sings" - a song isn't a location, so I suggest "on which" rather than "where"
• O2 2016 image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • If it was "Goulding performed at the O2 Arena in London in March 2016", a full stop would be required, but it is written "performing" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I totally misread it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• "North American leg that included the stops at Staples Center in Los Angeles" - multiple stops at a single venue doesn't sound possible
• "Despite criticising Goulding for copying pop trends and stating the "darker, deeper tones" " => "Despite criticising Goulding for copying pop trends and stating that the "darker, deeper tones" "
• "The album also peaked the top 5" => "The album also peaked in the top 5"
• Think that's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks a lot for your review! I've addressed your comments except where I commented. Regards, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Will review soon. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 03:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi Camilasdandelions, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delirium_(Ellie_Goulding_album).png

  non-free image with a valid non-free use rationale

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ed_Sheeran-6886_(cropped).jpg

  CC BY-SA 3.0, own work

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ellie_Goulding_O2_Arena.jpg

  CC BY 2.0, from Flickr

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. The source and author links of the Flickr image are not working. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Thank you for the image review. Although those images' sources and authors are unavailable, they were reviewed by Flickr reviewers, respectively. (I also tried to find their archive links but I failed) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, this is not ideal. However, the information was already assessed and confirmed by a reviewer. I don't think that there is a strict requirement to have working links, so it should be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

• If the use of "mainstream pop" is intended to convey what was mainstream for 2015 (or the general 2010s decade) based on other genre bits described within the lead, then you should specify this per MOS:RELTIME. Remember that what's counted as mainstream for one time period won't necessarily be the same for another.
  • I have removed all "mainstream" terms in this article. I think I misread "pure pop" as "mainstream pop", so I revised this as noted by Nylon article. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• I have similar MOS:RELTIME concerns with "contemporary" when that's another way of saying "modern". It's unlikely that the term's use within "contemporary dance music", "contemporary pop trends", "contemporary pop producers", and "major contemporary pop releases" can be applied anymore for 2026 when the pieces they're attributed to come from 2015.
  • Removed. Contemporary R&B and contemporary electronic music are exception here, right? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • The use for R&B is fine to distinguish it from rhythm and blues, but I've never heard of the electronic music genre referred to as "contemporary electronic" before. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Revised Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Per WP:OVERLINK, there's no need to link common terms like "multi-platinum certifications", "digital", "music critics", "certified platinum", or "certified double platinum".
  • I unlinked music critics, but I'm not sure for other ones. I don't think normal people would understand what "certifications" means, and yk we usually link digital on "Release history" section. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the use of digital within "to digital platforms" under the section "Marketing and packaging". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Yes Ik. It feels odd to me to unlink "digital" in prose while keeping it in "Release history" table, and I guess those should be wikilinked as we have done in that table. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• The lead should name other markets this album charted within the top five. Feel free to use it as a replacement for year-end chartings, and I'm surprised you gave a separate sentence to a couple of top-three placements instead of giving more or equal focus to the highest peak of number one in Belgium.
  • Named them. I understand you to be surprised for that, but as we know, US and UK charts markets are more significantly important than others, and that's why I put their chart entries first and then Belgium's chart performance right after them, since Delirium peaked atop on there. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • It's elitist to suggest any market is inherently less or more important than others. Let's not perpetuate any systemic biases giving them preferential treatment. You're better off consolidating those number three positions into the sentence that collectively lists places within a range of top fives. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Fair, addressed. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
        • In case it wasn't clear before, I meant taking out the "sales" bit from lead and reworking it so the list of top fives reads as "reached the top five in Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States". On a more minor note, starting two consecutive sentences with "the album" is repetitive as you did with the lead's last paragraph. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
          • @SNUGGUMS: Done! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
            • Very good, now there still is the tour bit and UK portion under "Commercial performance" to address. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Unless the Delirium World Tour only took place during November 2015 (which I doubt), the prose should be adjusted accordingly
  • Very surprisingly, I couldn't find ANY source showing this tour's full dates or schedule. Only its receptions could be found. Even the Wikipedia article doesn't even cite meaningful sources there. I'll just trim it to "from" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Not even an opening show or final date? Can't say I was prepared for that. For the lead, you can just take out the November bit entirely. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• When the charting and review details for Halcyon don't appear to have affected the contents/creation process for Delirium, you can safely delete that here when more relevant for that album's own page. Same goes for the chart peak of Halcyon Days.
  • Are you talking about the Background section? I was supposed to describe Goulding's career briefly right before the release of Delirium. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes I was, and you can just stick to how working with the likes of Max Martin and Greg Kurstin helped increase confidence for working in studios. That and wanting to make a contrast from Halycon are more relevant things for the creation of Delirium here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • I understand what you mean. But I believe briefly explaining Goulding's previous effort's performance in here would somewhat be beneficial. Also various Featured Articles are adopting this way (1, 2, 3, etc), and I've tried my best to consolidate these, since it is not directly relevant with Delirium's release, as you stated. But I tried once again to consolidate it more, hope this version looks find to you. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
        • While I don't see how there's any benefit of discussing things not Delirium-related, the trim you've given it does look better than what was previously there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Several" is a vague term that's best avoided as much as possible, especially whenever you can be more specific
  • All has been replaced to "multiple", "some", or "various". I forgot to change this before your review, although I was thinking to do so as you don't like this term as well. Sorry for my mistake! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Not sure what the use of "understated" for "energetic yet understated stage presence" is supposed to mean, but that reads awkwardly and it's better to stick with the more understandable description of "energetic stage presence"
  • Has been revised to: "Critics praised Goulding's energetic performances and vocal-focused stage presence." Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• It looks like you misused "cited" as well as "citing" within the "Critical reception" section, and either way those parts don't read very well. While the Q review is inaccessible for me, so I can't tell what a better verb would be for the "nuanced lyrics", a better choice to describe "vivacity" from the Billboard piece is going with "praising" or "highlighting".
  • Both done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• What does "pop accessibility" even mean? It regardless is an odd word choice.
  • Lol, it's fair. I just directly quoted "pop homogeneity" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• The notion of anything being "singles-minded" is a nebulous description at best. You're better off deleting or replacing it with something else.
  • IDK if I did it well, but anyway it has been revised to: ", criticizing its emphasis on individual standout tracks," Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Definitely a better choice SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• "successful realisation" → "successful attempt"
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• For the NME review, "quality" of music is a subjective description, and "Matthew Horton acknowledged the album's quality" comes off as trying to treat opinions on this album as a fact. This definitely needs revising.
  • Revised by changing verbs and directly quoting. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• The "first studio album to miss the top spot" tidbit is an undue focus on number ones in the UK for album chartings. On another note, are you sure 38,429 copies remains Goulding's largest opening week for the nation when that comes from a 2015 article and she since has put out more albums?
  • I added it because her previous albums have indeed been charted at number 1 in the UK, her native country, and Delirium missed that; even the reliable source Billboard also explicitly says: "The only LP to miss out was 2015's Delirium, which peaked at No. 3." And for the latter, yes, as she entered Khia Asylum after 5 years of hiatus; Brightest Blue sold 14,820 units and Higher Than Heaven sold 11,828 united on their first weeks. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Please don't ever use the mean-spirited "Khia Asylum" term to describe musicians and their careers again. It's a cruel way of mocking declines in overall success/popularity, and is especially disrespectful towards Khia for treating her name as a punchline. As for album peaks, you're better off saying something along the lines of it being her "third album to reach the nation's top three" or perhaps top five. If that requires using a different citation (maybe from Official Charts), then so be it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That should be all with the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thank you so much for your detailed review. I've addressed most of yours, except some. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing, and see what I wrote above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: All done! Thank you again. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It was my pleasure to give input, and I now support following sufficient improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I'll try to review this soon. Please ping me if I do not leave any comments within a couple days. Pamzeis (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Woman to Woman (Keyshia Cole album)

Nominator(s): Indigault (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Woman to Woman, the fifth studio album by American singer-songwriter Keyshia Cole. Released in 2012, the album was preceded by a period of changes in Cole's management and musical direction following her previous album, Calling All Hearts. The article covers the album's development and recording, musical style, release and promotion, singles, critical reception, and commercial performance. It also documents the Woman to Woman Tour, which supported the album.

I am nominating this article for Featured article status because I believe it meets the featured article criteria and provides a comprehensive, well-sourced, and neutral account of the album's production, release, reception, and commercial performance. The article has previously undergone a peer review, during which concerns were raised about the use of excessive direct quotations in the critical reception section and the quality of several sources. I have addressed these concerns so far by reviewing the article's sourcing with particular attention to the use of high-quality reliable sources.

I welcome comments on whether the article satisfies the featured article criteria and on any remaining issues that should be addressed before or during the nomination. Indigault (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

Hi! I decided to review this article. It has much potential to be FA, and here's my comment:

• studio album, single, lead single, and music video are generally regarded as an overlink
• "Musically, the album is an R&B record and includes elements of" -- could be trimmed to: "Woman to Woman is an R&B record that includes elements of"
• "The lead single, "Enough of No Love", was released on July 3, 2012." -- full release date of the album's singles are redundant; I would just describe their overall commercial success
• "Cole released her fourth studio album Calling All Hearts" -- comma needed here after "album"
• "It spawned the two singles" -- shouldn't "the" be removed?
• "Cole also deemed that the album's material" -- should be "She", as her name was mentioned just before
• "with whom the singer had not collaborated with" -- remove second "with"
• "In August 2012, Cole revealed" -- remove "2012", as you already mentioned just before
• "would be released in fall 2012" -- ditto and MOS:SEASON
• "Cole stated that the recording process" -- "She"
• Is ThisInRnB reliable source?
• "Cole told J. Medina of Thisis50 that Woman to Woman reflected around" -- remove "around"
• You can add |type=music on the {{Listen}} template
• "complicated love triangle between a person's lover and their betraying best friend" -- I can't understand how "love triangle" works between two people ("a person's lover" and "their betraying best friend"), can you reword this?
• "an R&B and hip hop song" -- unlink R&B
• "The next track, "Zero" features" -- "The next track, "Zero", features"
• "Described as a "post-breakup anthem"" / "Described as a "girl power anthem with a twist"" / "Described as a "contemporary lovemaking 'til sunset" song" -- by whom? Also I suggest you to avoid same structure
• "In August 2012, Cole held a cocktail" / "On October 11, 2012, Cole revealed the covers" / "However, more recording and production pushed the release to November 19, 2012" / "in Los Angeles on November 5, 2012" / "which aired via BET on November 4, 2012" / "On November 16, 2012, Cole performed at WGCI's Big Jam event" -- "2012" is redundant
• "On July 3, 2013, Cole performed" -- "2013" is redundant
• File:Lil Wayne (23513397583).jpg need an |alt=, and its size should not be forced per MOS:IMAGESIZE (use upright instead)
• I think music streaming service is more proper target than streaming media
• "It depicts Cole in a state of emotional distress as she sings the song while sitting in a padded cell and Lil Wayne rapping his verse sat atop a piano." -- Isn't this for "Music and lyrics"? Also I suggest you to revise it to: "It depicts Cole in a state of emotional distress as she sings in a padded cell, while Lil Wayne raps his verse perched atop a piano."
• "was released as the album's second single on October 2, 2012." -- also redundant 2012, and "album's" is also redundant here
• "Its music video, directed by Benny Boom, was released on November 8, 2012, and features Cole playing" -- Try "Its music video, directed by Benny Boom, was released on November 8, featuring Cole playing"
• "to Frank Ocean's "Thinkin Bout You"." -- disambig link
• "Woman to Woman debuted at number 10 on the US Billboard 200" -- "Billboard 200" is already wikilinked
• "Credits are adapted from the liner notes of Woman to Woman." -- "of Woman to Woman" is unnecessary
• "for Woman to Woman" in all tablecaptions should be removed per MOS:HEADERS, including track listing section's headlines
• Initial reviews done, I'll take a look for this article again after you addressed these. Great work! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I appreciate your review and comments. Now that I've responded to all of your feedback, I hope you will find the article's revisions satisfactory. Cheers! Indigault (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, you did great job on it. Here's my additional comment ():

• Move citations in Infobox to the proper prose position per MOS:INFOBOXCITE (except for note [a])
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, italics should also be applied to citation template titles
• As I know, all of Rap-Up sources are dead, since they were sold to Revolt TV, so |url-status=live should be removed
• Can ref 14, 17, and other many primary sources be replaced with reliable secondary sources? It is fine if unavailble
• Ref 25, 74: BroadwayWorld is unreliable
• Ref 27, 33, 46, 84, 87, 89, 100: Reliable?
• Ref 44: Dead link, remove (There's no way to recover Idolator source)
• Don't forget to archive all links which can be archived

Camilasdandelions (✉️) 14:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional comments. I've now responded to all of the other comments, with the exception of the sixth, because I think all of those sources are trustworthy and support the information they provide, particularly The Guardian, Rated R&B, Metacritic, Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, and Billboard, which are clearly prestigious publications with accurate information. Additionally, I was able to locate substitutes for outdated or unreliable content. I think the article now looks fantastic overall. Cheers! Indigault (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You welcome. The sources you just mentioned are reliable sources, as sure. But I was referring to this revision, which I already put on my comment. Please click this link and check the ref 27, 33, 46, 84, 87, 89, 100's reliability. Regards, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I have reviewed every source, and I can see why you would doubt their credibility. I certify that OnSmash and Atlanta Black Star are legitimate, trustworthy sources with genuine data. I believe that the less well-known ones should be questioned, particularly FreddyO and Def Pen, which have since been taken down or replaced.

However, I think the following two should continue to be included in the article:

• ThisisRnB - As one of the few publications that reported on Cole's Ustream and Woman to Woman's particular musical sound in a review, it appears to be one of the few that actually reports on detailed information regarding R&B artists like Cole.
• Video Static - This appears to be a decent source and one of the few outlets that reports the 2013 MVPA Awards nomination results. I'm fine with trying to dig for another site though.

Indigault (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Now I'm glad to support the article. Best luck with your FAC! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance and am happy that I was able to correct any aspects of the article. I'm hoping to begin and complete the remaining Keyshia Cole-related articles soon because I think many of them should be expanded, enhanced, upgraded, etc. All in all, this process has been thrilling. Cheers! Indigault (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 00:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 6 random passages from throughout the article (5.0% of 121 total passages). These passages contain 8 inline citations (4.4% of 181 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 00:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Indigault: Source review is all good. I've recently opened up a peer review for Justin Timberlake and an FAC for "FutureSex/LoveSound", you may leave comments on either one of them if you wish. RedShellMomentum 01:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Indigault (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Cole drew inspiration for the songs from the real-life experiences of her friends.
24	a	youtube.com	web.archive.org	✅
Reviewers also commented on the album's songwriting and vocal approach. Alex Macpherson of The Guardian highlighted the detailed songcraft found throughout the record and observed that its closing stretch adopts a lighter and more flirtatious tone than much of the preceding material.
27	a	theguardian.com	web.archive.org	✅
"Hey Sexy" is a 1990s-inspired midtempo song where she expresses her excitement over a newfound love.
36	f	ratedrnb.com	web.archive.org	✅
37	c	soultracks.com	web.archive.org	✅
Cole performed "Zero" for the first time at An Evening of Stars: Educating our Future, an annually-held event promoted by UNCF, which aired through BET on January 27, 2013.
63		bet.com		✅
The song peaked at number two on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 and number 32 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs; it remained on the latter for 18 weeks.
78	a	billboard.com	web.archive.org	✅
The album spent a total of 20 weeks on the Billboard 200, and had sold a total of 246,300 copies in the US by January 2013.
101	a	billboard.com		✅
102		sohh.com	web.archive.org	✅

Theo Faiss

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Theo Faiss, as regulars of FAC may recall, was a seven-year-old boy who died in curious circumstances in 1914, and in whose death Anthroposophical Society leader Rudolf Steiner found spiritual significance. Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This article was split off from In Memory of Theo Faiss, about the relief by Edith Maryon; that article recently appeared here, and, with thanks to MSincccc, Crystal Drawers, BorgQueen, RoySmith, and Metalicat, was promoted today. This one was promoted to good-article status last month by RandFreeman, and is ready for here. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I've been beaten up at other FACs for raising similar objections, but I still feel compelled to ask: is there really enough here to justify two distinct articles, i.e. Theo Faiss and In Memory of Theo Faiss? There's entire paragraphs that are copy-pasted from one article to the other. The entire Fire sections of both appear to be identical. Likewise for the Significance sections. If I ask Earwig to compare the two articles] it comes up with a 94.6% score. I'm not complaining about the WP:COPYWITHIN from a copyright aspect, but more from a WP:PAGEDECIDE point of view. The main body (i.e. exclusive of the lead) of Theo Faiss is 1400 words. The bits and pieces that are word-for-word identical between the two add up to (as reported by https://wordcounter.net/), just over 600 words, or almost half the text. Much of the rest covers the same basic material in different wording. Two of the three images are taken from the other article.

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing how this makes sense.

RoySmith, primarily because, when In Memory of Theo Faiss was up at GAN, two separate reviewers said that splitting out the part on Faiss was necessary for the article to pass the review:

1: I'm interested in reviewing this for GA, but the background section makes up 2/3 of the article. That is far, far too long. This is an article about the relief/s, not Faiss, it would fail the 3b, "stays focused on the topic".

2 The full biographies of Maryon and Faiss would be appropriate in a short scholarly article or in a thesis about Maryon's work to make it self-contained (and to present additional background research into these people), but they do not seem relevant enough to take up so much space here. ... I think there is some re-working necessary to turn this piece into something that is clearly an article on the artwork, not about what Steiner thought about the death of this young boy.

Can reasonable minds disagree? Sure. Did I initially take the opposite approach? Sure. But don't shoot me for following orders. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I see your dilemma. Being caught between two different reviewers is not a fun place to be. But however we got here (even with the best intentions) I think we ended up in the wrong place. Most of the text which doesn't duplicate what's in other articles isn't really about Faiss. The Early life life section largely talks about things his parents did. About all we learn about Faiss himself is that he delivered vegetables on a cart and people liked him. RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I partially agree with RoySmith here, but I don't think this article is the issue - the coverage of the relief is relatively minimal. I think the issue is with In Memory of Theo Faiss, which I think dedicates quite a bit too much to Faiss and the Anthroposophists' activities rather than the piece itself. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, RoySmith & Generalissima. Generalissima, I'm happy to work on cutting down In Memory of Theo Faiss if there are parts that you think are unnecessary; that's likely a discussion better for the talk page, however. (It's worth noting that this has already been discussed at some length.) RoySmith, I'm likewise happy to work in any improvements here that you suggest. We are of course limited by what the sources say. Given that he died at the age of seven, and that his death is what provides his significance to the anthroposophical movement, it's not altogether surprising that there is little recorded about him outside of the context of his death. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think at this point, I've stated my opinion so it's time for me to step back and let other reviewers have their say. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  On a technical note, in the Significance section, don't use tables for layout per MOS:NOTABLELAYOUT. {{Text and translation}} is designed for this sort of thing, and gives the software the freedom to lay things out as most appropriate for the user's device. RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Having cogitated on this for a few days, here's where I am right now. I'm reasonably convinced that Theo Faiss and In Memory of Theo Faiss are independently notable. I can see both sides of the argument for Theo Faiss vs Death of Theo Faiss being the better title and can't get too worked up over which way you go. I regret not having noticed this problem during the In Memory of Theo Faiss review. I'm still stuck on the idea of having two short articles with such a high percentage of overlap, especially when most of the overlap is copy-pasted from one to the other. RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm thinking through this and will reply in turn. On the technical note, I've gone with the option identified at Help:Columns, to which MOS:NOTABLELAYOUT links. {{Text and translation}} didn't seem to be as good an option, as that appears to be designed for two quotations (source/translation), not four. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

BorgQueen

• Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event: When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. — I don't feel convinced that Theo Faiss satisfies the criteria for a separate article. BorgQueen (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  BorgQueen, are you saying that the article should be retitled Death of Theo Faiss? The guideline to which you point does not say that articles should not exist concerning people notable for only one event; it says that The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Here, I don't see a reason to change the title; there is plenty of coverage about Faiss, including biographies, the relief, and Steiner's many mentions. But even were it appropriate to do so, that would be merely a ministerial change. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  My impression has been that Theo's death is notable only because it inspired In Memory of Theo Faiss, for which you've written an excellent article. (Congratulations on the FA promotion, BTW.) Since that article already exists, I'm not convinced that a separate article about him or his death is needed. BorgQueen (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, BorgQueen. Theo Faiss (and his death) are mentioned in numerous works that make no mention of the relief. Steiner discussed Faiss in speeches at least 15 times between 1914 and 1916 (well before Maryon created the relief in 1921). Bos 1987, which is a biography of Faiss, makes no mention of the relief; Raab 1993 calls this biography "the second monument" to Faiss, which is consistent with an understanding of Faiss as independently notable. Kottmann-Solinger & Wanner-Faiss 2011 makes no mention of the relief; ditto Petersen 2001. Some of von Halle's works do; others don't. In fact, of the works cited in this article, I think only Raab 1993, Sam 2007, and some by von Halle, discuss the relief. All that is to say, whether parsed as Faiss or his death, notability is met. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  BorgQueen, the more I think about it, an article on Faiss, rather than his death, is the appropriate way to go. Anthroposophical belief has it that Faiss's death was the fulfilment of his karma—it was thus not an event with which he happened to be involved, but a voluntary act of sacrifice. Unlike (for example) the killing of Hamza Ali al-Khateeb, the belief is not that an external event happened to coincide with a person who had the misfortune of being there at the same time, but that a person manifested an event. A better example, then, would perhaps be Thích Quảng Đức, whose notability is similarly intertwined with his death, but where it was a voluntary act. This is also consistent with the sources on Faiss, where the focus is on the person himself. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

1872 FA Cup final

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Recently several billion people watched the World Cup final amid a blaze of worldwide publicity and hoopla. The first ever "final" in association football took place in far humbler circumstances 154 years ago, when a bunch of toffs and army officers ran out in front of a small crowd to play the final of a tournament which most eligible clubs didn't even enter and the winners of which didn't receive the trophy until a month later. Feedback on this article will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Marindin_1892.png: what's the status of this work in its country of origin? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - I don't know how to work that out. It was printed in a book published in 1892 (134 years ago) and the only credit is the name of a photographic studio/company, not a named individual. Does that help.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • If you follow this flowsheet, where do you end up? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: I don't know how to answer the very first question "is the author known?" We know that the photo was taken by a company/studio, but does that count as the author being known, given that no specific named individual is listed as having pressed the button......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

        No - if the specific person was not identified, that would count as unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

        @Nikkimaria: - I added what I believe to be the relevant template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

        Per that template, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

        @Nikkimaria: - added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (7/27/26)

I will review this for you tomorrow! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Bgsu98: - thank you!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The biggest issue that appears throughout the article is the use of "the Wanderers" versus "Wanderers". It reads awkwardly without the "the". So, the first sentence would be "The 1872 FA Cup final was an association football match between the Wanderers and the Royal Engineers on 16 March 1872 at Kennington Oval in London."

@Bgsu98: - the thing is.....we do generally talk in those terms in British English. This article, for example, is headlined "Looking at Michael Wimmer's career since he nearly joined Bristol Rovers as head coach in 2024", not "...since he nearly joined the Bristol Rovers". Similarly, this one is headlined "Can you remember the six Americans who have played for Bolton Wanderers?" not "...who have played for the Bolton Wanderers?", and this one says "You played for Wolverhampton Wanderers for over 13 years" not "You played for the Wolverhampton Wanderers". Literally not a single British football fan would ever refer to "the Wolverhampton Wanderers" or "the Bristol Rovers" or "the Queens Park Rangers". Specifically pertinent to this article, this page uses "However, he played under the pseudonym of AH Chequer as he had already played for Harrow Chequers in an earlier round", not "the Harrow Chequers". This one says "John Hawley Edwards played for Wanderers in London" not "the Wanderers". This page, from the FA itself says "Wanderers beat Royal Engineers at Kennington Oval in London before a largely middle-class crowd of 2000 who each paid a shilling to watch." not "the Wanderers beat the Royal Engineers" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I thought about that, except you also use "the Wanderers" and "the Engineers" throughout the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Bgsu98: - everything should be consistent now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• "Although fifty clubs were members of the FA, only twelve opted to take part and three of these then withdrew; a further six clubs then decided to enter, taking the total number of entrants to fifteen." --> The section in italics reads a little awkwardly. Perhaps replacing "and" with "although". The use of two "thens" in such close proximity should also probably be avoided.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Route to the final

• the Harrow Chequers
• the Clapham Rovers
• the Hampstead Heathens
  • See above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• "in a match which ended in near darkness after starting late due to the late arrival of a number of players" --> Too many "lates" in close proximity.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• "Rather than be made to replay the match, however, both teams were permitted to go through..."
  • I think "be made to" is needed, otherwise it sounds like it was the teams' own choice not to replay the game, which wasn't the case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Summary

• "The newspaper described his performance as a whole as "perfect"." --> Is there any other way of phrasing this that avoids the duplicate "as"?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Post-match

• "at the annual dinner of the Wanderers at the Pall Mall Restaurant, Charing Cross, on 11 April." --> I feel like there should be a preposition (like "in") used in place of a comma between "Restaurant" and "Charing Cross".
  • Changed. You can't really say that a location is "in" Charing Cross, because it's a large road intersection, not a district. So I change it to "in London" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude: I did not mention every instance where a team's name should have a "the" in front of it. Please let me know when you have had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• See my comment above. In British English it is normal to refer to teams in that way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. If that's how it's done in the U.K., then that's how it's done. I also have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ice dance/archive1 here if you have a minute and are so inclined. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Bgsu98: - many thanks for your review and I will certainly look at your nom in due course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• The clubs taking part were mostly based in London and the surrounding area, but also included the leading team in Scotland, Queen's Park.[6]
  • I could not access the source. Does it support the fact that they were the best?
    • I am not in the same town as my books at the moment so can't check myself, but I added another source which hopefully covers that specific point --ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• We could include a link to "crème de la crème" from Wikitionary.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• As was common at the time, both teams focused mainly on attack rather than defence,[9] Royal Engineers lining up with seven forwards and Wanderers with eight.[32]
  • This sentence could be rephrased.
  • How about As was common at the time, both teams focused mainly on attack rather than defence.[9] Royal Engineers lined up with seven forwards and Wanderers with eight.[32]
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• We could link to obituary.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• ChrisTheDude That's all from me. A fine prose as always.

We might as well preserve this article for 2072. Thoughts? Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: - many thanks for your review! If I am still alive in 2072 I will be sure to nominate it for OTD :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude All's fine then, thanks for the responses. Happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Z1720

• Recommend adding a level 3 heading to "Match" to split up the "Summary" section: Perhaps "Pre-game and personnel" and "Match summary" or something similar?
• I made some copyedits to the article. Feel free to revert if not helpful.
• Removed instances of repetitive, consecutive refs.
• Lead check: information is in the article.
• Infobox check: "Alfred Stair (Upton Park)": This is the only mention of Upton Park in the article. What is this referring to? Should this be added to the article body somewhere?
• Ref 51: Author listed as "Tomás Hill López-Menchero"
• Ref 9: Author listed as "Tom Rostance"

Please ping upon responses. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: - all done I think. I had to take a guess as to exactly what parts of Tomas's rather long name are his surname.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Concerns resolved, no further comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Newaukum Creek

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Another article about a small stream in the Pacific Northwest. This one flows through a fairly rural area near Enumclaw, southeast of Seattle, and provides a spawning habitat for various salmonids. Although it has suffered some pollution and modifications, both local and federal restoration efforts have been taken in the past twenty years. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (8/1/26)

• I will review this article for you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Generalissima: I was like, this sounds familiar. I didn't realize I had done the GA review on this article. 😂 Anyway, my only recommendation is in the first paragraph of Hydrology: While on the plateau, the channel of the river is unconfirmed and only gradually descends.

I will go ahead and Support since that is just one small verb change. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up: Actually, both verb forms sound right. I'll let you decide which is the most accurate. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Signing on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Will give it a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Enumclaw in infobox image caption.
  • Done.-G
• "While on the plateau, the channel of the river is unconfined and only gradually descending." what does "uncoinfined" mean in this context? Jargon that could be explained?
  • Added an explanation.-G
• Link glacial?
  • Done.-G

• Link biome.

• "A lack of old-growth forest in the watershed has expatriated bird species such as bald eagles and spotted owls from the watershed" is it necessary to mention "watershed" twice?

• "It was incorporated in 1913" I guess incorporated could link to something?

• "From 1984 to 1990, a landowner periodically bulldozed the lowest 0.3-mile (0.5 km) portion of the creek to straighten it and prevent it from meandering, piling woody debris to maintain the dug channel." so does this still affect its condition today?

• Link dredging in the article body as you do in the intro.

Ogbebo

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Ogbebo, who was the thirty-second Oba ('king') of the Kingdom of Benin and briefly ruled during a succession dispute around 1816. He was a son of Oba Obanosa and contested the throne against his brother Eredia-Uwa, later Oba Osemwede. Ogbebo initially drove Eredia-Uwa into exile in Ishan. After ruling for approximately eight months, Ogbebo was defeated by Eredia-Uwa's supporters. As if it stopped there, there are traditions mentioning unfortunately that he destroyed palace treasures, burned part of the royal palace, then died committed suicide by hanging.

While the article is pretty straight-to-the point and makes good use of the available details from sources, you may consider it short or even not. But I believe the WP:FACRIT is met, basically. Happy to hear your thoughts and collaborate with you in making the article even better. Many thanks to A.Cython for the GA review and spot-checks, looking forward to another look here again :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  @MSincccc Hi there... wondering if you were able to get to this :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Background

• "after a reign of fifty-four years" → "who reigned for fifty-four years"
• "reminding his father of his age and of the expected succession" → "reminding his father of his age and the expected succession"
• "Historians Jacob Egharevba, and Toyin Falola et al." → "Historians Jacob Egharevba and Toyin Falola et al."
• "Sources differ in their accounts of the formal character of Ogbebo's accession." → "Sources differ on the formal character of Ogbebo's accession."
• "before crowning him as Benin's divine ruler" → "before crowning him Benin's divine ruler"

MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc Thanks for looking, I tended to all. Let me know if you have more. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Reign

• "associated with rulers of Benin" → "associated with the rulers of Benin"
• "intercepted the party by ambushing the messengers and shooting some of them; the survivors fled." → "intercepted the party, ambushed the messengers, and shot some of them; the survivors fled."
• The soldiers backing Eredia-Uwa sang a war song demanding punishment for Eyen and Eboide and denouncing the replacement of a firstborn by a younger brother.
  • Could we insert a comma after "Eboide" as it is a different clause?

Defeat, death and succession

• "civil war had reduced the town's population" → "the civil war had reduced the town's population"
• "Eyen and Eboide are also said to have taken their own lives after Ogbebo's death." → "Eyen and Eboide are said to have taken their own lives after Ogbebo's death."

MSincccc (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc Tysm. Done Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Legacy

• ​"mentions that European accounts and oral traditions indicate" → "notes that European accounts and oral traditions indicate" (or "states that")

Historiography

• Could we simply state Blackmun since she has been introduced in the article body once before?
• ​* "and contested the throne against his brother Eredia-Uwa" → "and contested the throne with his brother Eredia-Uwa"

Bottom line

• Vanderwaalforces That's all from me. A few minor suggestions, but the article's largely fine as it is. Hence, I will support the nomination. Good luck. MSincccc (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• @MSincccc Per MOS:SAID, I intentionally avoid "note", all else done, thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanderwaalforces No worries. The prose is fine as it is. This one was a bit shorter, yet as engaging as your other nominations. I look forward to your next article. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• I'll have a closer look soon. In the meantime, are the any more images of for example relevant places or objects that could be added? FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  • @FunkMonk I am going to browse commonswiki now and see whether I can come up with anything relevant. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

    • Okay, I've added some now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• "faced opposition from Osopakharha of Ugbague" anything that could be linked or explained here? As a layreader, I assume it's a person and a place, but I can't be sure.
  • There's unfortunately nothing to link to, but I added village to Ugbague so it is now "Osopakharha of Ugbague village" at first mention, which I believe is better. –VWF
• There seems to be significant and very specific disagreement among the historians in regard to various events described in the background section. How come? Are they using different sources or interpretations?
  • I think it more of interpretations though, but I can't possibly be sure why. –VWF
• "and Falola et al." Could we get Falola's full name as you do with most other scholars mentioned?
  • Done. –VWF

• "Ogbebo's removal resulted in the accession of his rival and the restoration of Eredia-Uwa's claim to the Benin throne.[6][11]" This seems like it just repeats what has just been stated, but with different words? Could it be consolidated?
  • Done. I removed the repetitive concluding sentence and consolidated Eredia-Uwa's return and coronation into a single sentence. –VWF

• Link Ivory carving?
  • Linked. –VWF

• "He then died by hanging after ruling for about eight months." looks like the length of his rule is mentioned as an unimportant afterthought when it's only mentioned in relation to the suicide. I think the intro does it better (of course, shorter) like this: "After ruling for approximately eight months, Ogbebo was defeated by Eredia-Uwa's supporters." So I wonder if the ruling length could be moved to somewhere where it carries more standalone weight?
  • Done. The section now begins "After a reign of about eight months, Ogbebo was defeated by Eredia-Uwa's forces", so the length of his reign is no longer presented as an afterthought to his death. –VWF

• "and died by hanging" only saying this in the intro doesn't make it clear it was suicide, the reader could just as well think he was executed that way.
  • Agreed; I changed this to "hanged himself", making the suicide explicit. –VWF

• The same goes for the article body, I only know it was suicide because the infobox says so.
  • Likewise clarified in the article body and attributed there to the account discussed by Blackmun. –VWF

• This also leaves one wondering why he killed himself if he could just have fought on later? Was it a ritual thing, an honour thing? Any context for this, was it customary?
  • I could not find a source that gives Ogbebo's motive or characterises his death as a ritual or an honour suicide. –VWF

• "burned during the fighting of 1897" what fighting? Anything to link?
  • Linked and clarified as "during the British Benin Expedition of 1897". –VWF

@FunkMonk: Thank you for your comments, I have tended to all above. Please let me know if I can assist with any other thing :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - this looks nice to me now, really adds some flavour with the extra images, too. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review - support

Only one issue here:

• File:MARKK C2436 Figure of an Oba with Eben Sword DSC-1124.jpg - OK
• File:Esanland in Nigeria.png - I suspect that this is based on another map, which the creator didn't attribute it to. I'd suggest using another map with better information.
• File:EdoKingHead.jpg - OK
• File:Benin kingdom Louvre A97-4-1.jpg - OK
• File:Carved tusk, c. 1820, Benin Kingdom, Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg - OK Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D Ah, thank you! I didn't even observe that. It is also surprising that there's no other map available to use, so I just removed that one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I usually get pinged for not checking maps in A-class and FA nominations! Happy to support now for images. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Query

@FAC coordinators: Can I, by any chance, nominate another at this point? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, David. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Scharnhorst-class cruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This article covers the last pair of "standard" armored cruisers built by Germany before World War I (the last one, Blucher, being something of a halfway step to the battlecruiser). It also happens to be the last article in the associated Featured Topic to arrive at FAC, which means that should this nomination be successful, the topic will receive this fun little icon! In any event, I created this article nearly 19 years ago, and in the intervening couple of decades, it's gone through several major updates and GA and A-class review (the latter more recently in April 2026). Thanks for all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm not going to do a full review, but I will restate a general objection I've made elsewhere about article overlap. The Design sections of SMS Gneisenau and SMS Scharnhorst are identical copies of each other, modulo the ship names. These in turn just repeat almost verbatim what is in this article. Some overlap is to be expected, but my general impression is these sets of articles about ship classes have an excessive amount of duplication.

That being said, I was intrigued to learn that Gneisenau used smaller propellers than Scharnhorst but frustrated that there's no explanation of why this is so.

Also, The vessels' electrical plant consisted of four turbo-generators that delivered 260 kilowatts at 110 volts. Was that 260 kw each, or in aggregate? AC or DC? And if AC, what frequency? How many phases?

The cross-article duplication is not limited to the design material. The two individual ship articles have extensive sections on the the Battle of Coronel and the Battle of the Falkland Islands, both of which are also covered here in the class article, not to mention having their own Battle of Coronel and Battle of the Falkland Islands articles. Forgive me for being abrupt here, but we should not just be recycling the same material over and over and bringing it to FAC again under a different title to earn another bronze star. RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems you need a refresher on WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The class article covers, primarily, technical details and design history, with a summary of the ships' operational histories. The ship articles are the reverse. If you object to the concept of SUMMARYSTYLE, the proper venue is that page, not an individual FAC. Comments like these are entirely disruptive and tendentious, and ought to be ignored.

As for your two substantive comments, the source doesn't say why smaller screws were used for Gneisenau, nor what type of current was used. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: @Parsecboy: As an interested observer with no direct stake in this nomination, I feel it is worth clarifying that there is no Wikipedia policy or MOS prohibition against including class-wide design and specification context within individual ship articles. In fact, maintaining a clear, self-contained summary of a ship’s design is a well-established convention across the Ship and Military History WikiProjects.

Under WP:SUMMARY and WP:SELF-CONTAINED, articles are meant to stand on their own. Readers arriving at a specific ship’s page should not be forced to navigate to the class article just to understand its dimensions, armor, armament, or speed—key technical factors that directly influenced the vessel's operational role and combat record.

While a degree of structural overlap across sister-ship articles is inevitable, this is a normal outcome of covering related topics across the encyclopedia. So long as the prose complies with the Manual of Style, uses proper summary style, and avoids direct verbatim duplication where practical, re-litigating the validity of including standard design context is counterproductive. Pendright (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text
  • Added alt text to those missing
• File:SMS_Scharnhorst_by_Arthur_Renard.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Renard was an active photographer in Germany at the time, and usually published his photos as postcards, various naval publications, and the like. It can be safely assumed that the US Navy acquired the photo commercially (something they commonly did), which means it would have been published sometime before the 7 May 1908 date they provide. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Several other minor changes were introduced, including a strengthening of the tertiary battery of 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns to the level used in contemporary battleships like the Deutschland class. – How were they strengthened? Did the designers add more, increase the caliber, etc.?
• Like the preceding classes of armored cruisers, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were good sea boats, though the ships had superior seakeeping to the earlier vessels. – I'm not seeing relevance of the concessive here.
• The ships' design placed the casemates too low, and as a result they were exceedingly wet, which rendered them impossible to use in heavy seas. – The 21cm or 15cm casemates? Specify.
• The ships carried a number of smaller vessels, including two picket boats, two launches, one pinnace, two cutters, three yawls, and one dinghy. – "Including" seems to imply this is an incomplete inventory, but it seems pretty complete to me.
• Any information about fire-control? If they're winning gunnery awards, I don't think they're shooting off of their guts.
• ...but no attacks materialized. – Where was the threat emanating from?
• The hostile attitude of Japan toward Germany convinced Spee to consolidate his force with the cruisers Leipzig and Dresden from the American station, and head for Chile to refuel. – If the "hostile attitude" refers to Japan declaring war, it seems strange to bury it in euphemism.
• Fisher ordered Admiral John Jellicoe, the commander of the Grand Fleet, to detach the battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible to hunt down the German ships. – Fisher needs an introduction, he comes straight out of the blue.
• Aidan Dodson is an Egyptologist...
• Papeete seems like a city to me, not an island?

Stikkyy (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Premise

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

A premise is a proposition offered to support a conclusion. Premises are assumptions or commitments that act as the starting points of logical reasoning by presenting considerations to justify or refute standpoints. This is a level 5 vital article with about 350.000 page views last year. I worked on it as part of the Core Contest. Thanks to Z. Patterson for the GA review and to BorgQueen and MisterCake for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Metalicat

• Scope: a non-specialist pass on prose, structure and internal consistency, plus a limited check of the citation apparatus. This reads as a strong article.

• "False premises offer no support": the definition section says false premises offer no support. Later on, the article explains that a valid argument can have false premises, because validity is about what would follow if the premises were true. The two passages seem to use "support" in different ways. Could the earlier sentence say which sense it means?

  I assume that you are talking about the subsection "Deductive reasoning". I added a footnote there to explain that validity alone does not offer support. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Something similar happens in "Premise adequacy and relevance": Their aim is usually to preserve truth or transfer justification from accepted statements to the claim being argued for. Preserving truth is normally something an inference does, rather than something the premises aim at. The lead carries the same wording, so both may want a look.

  Good point. I think the original formulation a while back was "The aim", referring to the whole process rather than the premises in particular. I changed it back. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Euclid: the body and the caption both say Euclid showed how five fundamental premises can serve as the basis of Euclidean geometry. Book I of the Elements actually starts with twenty-three definitions, five postulates and five common notions, and the common notions count as axioms too. Do Priest, Novaes and Rosenberg mean the five postulates in particular? If they do, would calling them the postulates match the sources better?

  Rosenberg 2011 calls them "postulates or axioms". I changed the text to reflect this terminology. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Captions that repeat the text: two captions say the same thing as the sentence beside them. In "In various fields", the caption is the body sentence with "For example" taken off: Euclid showed how five fundamental premises can serve as the basis of Euclidean geometry. In "Others", the caption Aristotle developed syllogistic logic and distinguished between major and minor premises sits right above Syllogistic logic, first formulated by Aristotle, distinguishes between major and minor premises. Reading the same sentence twice running is a little odd. Could those captions say something the body does not?

  I reformulated them to avoid the repetition without presenting entirely new information not found in the body. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Others" heading: this subsection covers axioms, intermediate premises, affirmative and negative premises, universal and existential propositions, simple and compound premises, descriptive and normative premises, and major and minor premises. That is a lot for one heading called "Others". Could it get a more descriptive name, or be split in two?

  I made an extra subsection for axioms and intermediate premises. Generally speaking, they are grouped together because these categories do not get as much attention as the others and because the explanations are relatively short. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Lead links: the lead says Premises are true or false statements, with "true" linked to Truth and "false statements" to false statement. The body instead talks about false premises, and says each premise has a truth value. Would statements with a truth value be more accurate, and match the body better?

  I think it could also work and would be more concise than the current formulation. However, truth value is a technical term, while the current formulation is more accessible, which matters more for the lead section than for explanation in the body. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Two source titles cut short: Magnus and Button is listed as forall x: Calgary: An Introduction to Formal, but the book's own title page reads "forall x: Calgary. An Introduction to Formal Logic". Sen is listed as An Introduction to Critical Thinking:, ending on a colon.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Cook page: the bibliography entry for Cook pins page=227, but the work is cited at pp. 21, 227 and 251. The pinned page probably wants removing so the short footnotes carry the page each time.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Allen editors: the third editor field reads editor-last3=Galles with editor-first3=Eduardo Ortiz and Carlos Delfino, which looks like two editors run together.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Date format: the Mackie entry uses 2021-04-15 and 2026-05-21 while the rest of the bibliography is day-month-year (MOS:DATEUNIFY).

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

thats all I have. It's a good read. Metalicat (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Metalicat and thanks for all the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. It's all implemented, so happy to support a very well written article. Metalicat (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat Hi there, I hope you’re okay and happy reviewing; I wanted to let you know that the bolded support above coupled with this one is duplicating, haha, maybe use italics for the one above or just quotes would work fine. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Whoops! Thanks for the heads up. It's rectified now. Metalicat (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

One comment from Cake

The footnote about validity not by itself offering support has me worry if the use of justify in the lead will have readers confuse logic with epistemology, and inference with justification. Might one use "imply" or some such logical notion? If one meant to include epistemology, so as to include a premise of non deductive reasoning, could one still make sure to distinguish them, say by the disjunction? "Premises depending on context serve either to logically imply or epistemically justify" or something more artfully expressed. Cake (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi MisterCake and thanks for the input! The point you mention is in part addressed in the third lead paragraph. I changed the term to "defend" to avoid taking sides. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I like the switch to defend. "Substantiate" or something might be even better, as 'defend' might lead one to think about a 2-player dispute rather than a 1-player proof. I think I have the same worry about the third lead paragraph suddenly talking about epistemology. I would again try something like "to preserve truth and infer conclusions, they may also serve to justify..." Cake (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

substantiate also works for me, so I changed it. The topic is relevant to many fields, including epistemology, so I don't think that this is a problem. For example, Blair 2012 says the epistemic ... status of the premises .. will transfer to the conclusion. The first part of our expression "preserve truth or transfer justification" could be associated with formal logic, while the second part is closer to epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn't so much the mentioning of epistemology I have a problem with, as I tried to say in my comment, but there is still the worry of confusing epistemology and logic, or justification with inference. For that reason I still prefer something distinguish the two notions, perhaps "The purpose of premises is typically to preserve truth and infer conclusions. They may also transfer justification from accepted statements to a conclusion." I don't think you have the notions confused, but it is the kind of thing a student will confuse, and I fear them seeing it endorsed on wikipedia. It seems to me some notion of logical consequence is a glaring omission from the lead, while it covers epistemic support just fine. Cake (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I reformulated the sentence to make it more explicitly that those are distinct points. Have a look if this works better. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's my main peeve addressed, so I would just nitpick to make it clearer. "preserve truth" is arguably vague, one might have to say "preserve truth from premise to conclusion", or perhaps "preserve truth so as to infer conclusions", or just ditch "preserve" and say "infer true conclusions." Logical consequence, say, can be linked to explain "infer true conclusions". If you wish to keep "preserve truth", I am trying to think of a concept to link to explain it. Salva veritate nearly works, but that is more about substituting premises. Cake (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to "preserve truth when drawing a conclusion" and I added the wikilink to Logical consequence. I think salva veritate also covers the substitution of co-referring expressions, such as replacing "Cicero" with "Tully", so it's probably too broad here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am pleased to see logical consequence linked. I think a few other logical notions could be in the lede (or is it lead). For example, my ear for English finds the use of "standpoint" a bit odd. Perhaps it sounds too German and obscure for my taste, like when people say "worldview" in philosophical discussions. The schwerpunkt and Weltanschauung. I think the logical notion would be assertion (probably not "judgment", as again we sound like we are trying to confuse with Kant jargon). Also "support" for the notion of the Socrates syllogism seems to me incorrect once again, blurring the lines of logic and epistemology. Though I understand, you are trying to say something broader than "entails". You are trying to explain the concept before introducing it. I think I would recommend "guarantees the conclusion" for when you want to talk about logical entailment in non-logical terms. I have similar trouble with "preserve" truth. I am reminded of William Lane Craig who in the Kalam cosmological argument talks of "traversal" when he means "counting". In both cases I get the concept but I think the choice of the word has me make other connections. I don't think "preservation" is what logicians call it. Again, perhaps "guarantee truth"? Maintain? Transfer? Maybe I just think of strawberries with the word preserve. Cake (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There are various synonyms that we could use for standpoint, and assertion works fine for me so I changed it. For a source that keeps using the term standpoint, see van Eemeren et al. 2014. Support is the broader concept, but for this deductive example, guarantees also does the job. The expression "preserve truth" or "truth-preserving" is quite common in logic textbooks and introductory articles, for example: Beall 2024 says "If an argument preserves truth ... the argument ... is necessarily truth preserving"; Smith 2020 says "the inferential pattern ... doesn’t necessarily preserve truth"; Hintikka & Sandu 2006 says "Inferences can be either deductive, that is, necessarily truth preserving, or ampliative, that is, not necessarily truth preserving". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point, "truth-preserving" is used enough. Is there a reason the different types of premises and connectives are never introduced? Like a conjunction, a disjunction, and a conditional (aside from a footnote)? And what about even more specific than that like material conditional? I think it would make more sense to talk about those first, before talking about inference rules. To talk about disjunction before disjunctive syllogism, especially when premises are the topic. Further, it mentions fallacies, yet the first fallacy coming to mind is not mentioned. Affirming the consequent is essentially getting the first premise of a modus ponens backwards. Confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition is when you have a conditional premise stated incorrectly. Cake (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Compound premises made up of several propositions are discussed in the subsection "Types#Others". I added disjunction as an example. Strictly speaking, they are primarily types of propositions or sentences, so I don't want to get too much into it in this article and leave a more detailed explanation to articles dedicated specifically to those topics.

For formal fallacies, like affirming the consequent, the problem is primarily with the form of arguments rather than premises per se, so I'm not sure if we should discuss them as well. What do you think about adding a short paragraph along the following lines?

In formal fallacies, the source of the error lies in the logical form of an argument. For example, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that resembles modus ponens but erroneously swaps the second premise and the conclusion.

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

While it is certainly an accurate description of affirming the consequent, I am making the additional point that affirming the consequent oft happens due to errors with the first premise, the conditional. If one is thinking the first premise reads Q -> P instead of P -> Q, they will affirm the consequent when they try to do a modus ponens. That is confusing a necessary condition (e. g. If you exist, then God made you) with a sufficient condition (If God made you, then you exist), which is simply another name for affirming the consequent. Cake (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

While you are correct, I'm not sure that we can expect the reader to know what "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition" mean. So we would probably have to add several additional sentences to explain those concepts and the form of the first premise only to get this specific point across. This kind of explanation would fit better into a more specific child article. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I felt I made enough progress in my other wiki endeavors to be able to look at this more closely. Your writing in general is impressive, so I hope you will forgive me for going over it in such a way. Take all these with a pinch of salt.

• Lede

Is "offered to support" common in the literature? There is something off about it for me. I am not sure if I prefer a different verb to "offered", maybe 'given' or 'asserted' or some such; or if it is the preposition (or whatever that is called). Should it be "offered in support of?" Maybe both, 'given in support'

There are different ways how to express this. This particular expression is given in Copi, Cohen & McMahon 2019: Every argument...consists of a group of propositions of which one is the conclusion and the other(s) are the premises offered to support it. Or from Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction: The explicit premise offered to support the conclusion.... Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

One might be overly philosophically sensitive, but since this is a focus on a philosophy topic, and as you probably know, some authors would distinguish propositions from statements. One can hover over 'proposition' and over 'statement' and see they are different. Granted, I can imagine wanting to tell a student a sentence is true or false, not an object. Not saying I have a better word, but it should be flagged. Linking "false statement" when saying "true or false statement" also seems weird to me. As if it is either true simpliciter or it is a false statement, rather than a true statement or a false statement.

The terms proposition and statement are often used as synonyms in the relevant literature. I added a footnote to clarify. I linked "false" instead of "false statement". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The body says 'As a proposition or statement'. I like this transition, or something like it. Premises are propositions. So, therefore, and since this is this case, premises are true or false (unless we go crazy with many valued logics). In the end, I don't think I like "that serve as" or "by presenting" either. I think if I were copyediting, I would go "As they are propositions, premises have a truth value (e. g. true or false). Premises are those propositions which are the starting points of arguments, presenting reasons to either substantiate or refute assertions". If one needs to emphasize we are talking about sentences rather than objects, I might try "premises are statements with a truth value", but I would be looking for some synonym of statement that isn't philosophically loaded.

I changes "serve as" to "act as". However, I think the expression "serve as" is quite common. For example, from Dowden 2020: Statements that serve as reasons in an argument are also called premises. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The body has "Each argument is made up of a set of premises together with a conclusion." Quite true, it should be in the lede. After "assertions." and before "For example" if you ask me. Explains what argument is and how it is related before giving example.

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Universal and existential as types of premises would be nice to add to the lede as well. I can imagine wanting to avoid the jargon, but I think parentheses would not make it too ugly. "Universal (e. g. All...) or existential (some...)"

In that case, we would have to mention singular propositions as well. maybe we could try something along the lines "... and whether they are express a general claim or a claim about one specific entity." Phlsph7 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of expressing the same idea in ordinary language. One might use parentheses too. General (or universal), and so on. Perhaps your experience is different from mine, but that distinction seems to me the most common one between types of premises. It also seems to me a kind of nice intermediate level of those mentioned. Affirmative v negative is trivial or ancient, while descriptive v normative is more in the weeds with rule-following paradoxes and the like. It could also be an excuse to add a footnote about quantifiers, which should be in an article about premises, but could perhaps be avoided in the main article for fear of scaring with jargon. Further, existential import would be something cool to mention, for a real academic, philosophical issue with quantifiers (and therefore with premises). I notice we don't have an article on wikipedia for this. For some reason, it is combined with Empty domain. Cake (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

And before mentioning those, I would still say something like "Types of premises include conjuncts (...and...), disjuncts (...or...), and conditionals (if..., then...)". Both of these seem to me as important as the types of premises cited, if not more so.

While I would certainly talk this way, is "being argued for" proper English? I think one has to do "the claim for which one is arguing".

It sounds correct to my ears. I changed it to "the claim one is arguing for", which may be easier to parse. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

In English, one is not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. However, we often talk this way. A quote attributed to Winston Churchill making fun of this rule is "This nonsense is something up with which I shall not put" Cake (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Cannot be false". How about "must be true"? or "must necessarily be true". "must be true, in the strongest sense of must."

That could also work. However, we already have the expression "must be true" in the previous sentence, so we can avoid the repetition by saying "cannot be false". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Now for my point about affirming the consequent. What about if a premise is just stated incorrectly? What if I put a conditional going the opposite direction (affirming the consequent), or what if I replace "and" with "or", etc? That seems to me a source of fallacies not mentioned.

"Premises are central to many fields" They sure are. I think I would emphasize this, if I knew better how to use a semicolon, or an en-dash. "Premises are central to many fields; any field which wants to make an argument."

• Body

The lede doesn't say "assumption or commitment". Indeed both assumption or commitment to my ear seem to imply implicit premises, which are not and should not be introduced yet. Just wrong words to me. An assumption is something taken for granted, but a premise is just any proposition. This seems to me to lead a student to confuse the idea of presupposition ("Have you stopped beating your wife?", that is making an assumption) with the idea of the a priori. And a commitment means, or can mean, something one is not saying but they are nonetheless committed to.

If we were just saying "assumption or commitment" without any qualification, then, I agree, that could easily be misunderstood. However, we talk about "assumptions or commitments that serve as the starting points of logical reasoning...", which hopefully addresses this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"presenting considerations" is also not in the lede. While I kind of like it as a way to say it, I think "presenting reasons" or "giving reasons" is more natural.

Your suggestion would work fine as well. The problem is just that we use the term "reasoning" right before this expression, and talking about reasoning by presenting reasons can make it sound repetitive or tautological. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"sentence types". My ear prefers "types of sentences"

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to avoid truth value in the lede, here too could be "(true or false)"

Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it needs "while all premises are propositions" before "not all propositions function as premises"

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding "simply" before report observations seems good to me

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Others

No more objections until here

Something should be done about the example of affirmative also being a universal. Perhaps universals/existentials should be introduced first. There should probably at least be a footnote (if you find it too technical) introducing the term quantifier.

I changed the example for affirmative premises and I added a footnote to explain the term quantifier. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Hypothetical" should be called a conditional also. Kind of strange to have one in the footnote and one in the body like they are different. That is the more common term these days. However, for example Kant, or Lewis Carroll calls them hypothetical, so that is good to keep as well. Also, material conditional is just the most common type of conditional in logic. I am not sure one should link it for conditionals in general. I suspect you find it too technical but the paradoxes of material implication would be a neat thing to see added even obliquely in a footnote as well, as every student struggles with it, and it opens the door to modal logic.

I added the term conditional as a synonym. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The square of opposition was brought up previously, but let me try again to say maybe in a footnote as I can hardly think of something more famous historically where the topic is premises.

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Premise adequacy

"properly related" Just properly related? Entails I would think is the word. Guarantees works nicely as an informal equivalent We agree of course. Logicians are interested in logical consequence, not the truth of the premises. It is well said, but is "properly related" enough? One might ask in what sense of properly, and get back "logical" and be stuck in a loop without the concept clarified.

Also the "properly related" sentence should probably be in the lede. This first paragraph feels out of place.

Feels like there is no transition between talking about truth to talking about adequacy and relevancy. Feels like one needs an extra sentence to say why we are talking about these concepts. Feels like were are going over the concept of premises again in the first paragraph. Good content but might be put elsewhere. Needs something like "Despite logicians not focusing on truth, premises still must be adequate and relevant, because blah blah" and something to clearly distinguish these three concepts

I will come back with more nitpicking. Cake (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

SoHo Weekly News

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about an alternative weekly paper that existed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in New York. Offbeat and flakey but at the same time a serious force in NYC journalism with a major influence in the burgeoning punk rock scene. Ultimately a financial failure, SWN left a reputation and history far beyond what its circulation figures would suggest.

This is the second nomination. I believe I've addressed all the issues from the first nomination, the biggest of which was excessive use of quotations. Ping @Gatoclass, Rollinginhisgrave, MSincccc, and Gog the Mild: from the first nomination. Also thank you to @Vacant0, Aoba47, and Metalicat: for their helpful comments at peer review and to @BorgQueen and Generalissima: for additional post-PR comments. RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a question about the Bruce Weber and Jeff Aquilon photoshoot. The article includes coverage from The New York Times and BBC, but this is all retrospective coverage rather than anything contemporary to the photoshoot. Would it be worthwhile to clarify this in the prose?
  • I've added "years later". Retrospective is indeed the right word, but I've already used that too many times in this article so went for something different. I didn't do anything explicit for BBC, but I think in context it should be obvious that this was also not contemporaneous. RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • That makes sense to me. I agree with the "years later" wording, and I agree that it should be clear from context that the BBC source was not contemproaneous. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do we know when Video Lounge exhibit was displayed at the Museum of the City of New York, as in something like a year or years?
  • The best I've got is when archive.org grabbed their first snapshot, so I've added c. 2023. RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • That works for me. Unfortunately, I am not surprised that the dates for these things are either lost to time or were never really properly posted online in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Should the unionization link be moved up the following sentence, Banes also had a major role in a failed attempt to unionize SWN, as I believe that this is the first time unionizing is mentioned in the article?
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This should be it for me. I only have a few minor questions. Everything else looks good to me. After my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Great work with the article, and I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. I have made some minor edits to the article (here and here), and feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I had a good time reading this article, as it was a nice snapshot into a particular moment in time in a partiuclar place. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Eddie

I'll hope to take a look here sometime in the next few days as well. Do ping if it seems like I've forgotten. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The 1960s had seen the emergence of many short-lived alternative newspapers in New York" Is there a source for this? Some of the sources that we include in this para for the individual newspapers don't seem to clearly define them as alternative, and you only list three founded in the 1960s- your mileage may vary, but that's not *necessarily* many.
  • Added "and early 1970s". I think the "alternative" description falls under WP:BLUE.
• Our Wikipedia article, and this random website state that the New York Avatar only ran in 1968. Can we confirm? It also seems like it was still stylized just as Avatar, no New York (see no. 1
  • The cited source says "The initial run of Avatar ran from 1967-1968". That from a university research library describing what they have in their collection, so I'm inclined to trust it.
    • Ugh, wrong quote. It's "A New York edition also ran simultaneously in 1968 and 1969", so the original dates I have are correct. I've fixed the name of the paper.
      • I can't find any better source. It's really not that important, so I've just dropped it completely. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've added a source which supports "many" and "short-lived". I have the John McMillian book on request at my local library so I'll see if there's anything better once I get that. There's also https://rozsixties.unl.edu/collections/show/9.html if you think that's better. As for why I picked this particular collection of papers to mention, it's mostly because those are ones we have articles about. RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• FN 5 doesn't seem to support that the New York Ace was "with many of the same staff," as EVO.
  • Added another source ("EVO was on its last legs and soon I would lead many of the staff onward to create its successor, the New York Ace , as its publisher.")
• "Founded by American music publicist Michael Goldstein, the paper was positioned by him as a competitor to established alternative newsweekly The Village Voice." The passive voice reads a bit awkwardly to me- I suspect you're trying to avoid too closely paraphrasing the source, which uses the rather more pleasing "[he] position[ed] his newspaper as a direct competitor of the successful Village Voice." But I think we can find a somewhat more elegant solution, and perhaps one that doesn't parallel the NYT's phrasing so closely. Something you might consider is adding a bit more background to what makes an alternative newspaper alternative. From our section, I'm left knowing that some of these papers did exist, but nothing about what made them distinctive.
  • I need to think on this a bit. The current wording was at the suggestion of a previous reviewer. I've tried a few variations just now, but none sound better to me. As for some background on the general topic of alternative papers, I'll think on that as well. I don't want to go into a big digression about alternative papers, but I'm sure I can spare room for a couple of sentences.
    • I've rephrase the opening couple of sentences. RoySmith (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

A couple comments before clocking in for the day. More to come. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I don't find that source adequate for the New York Avatar publication dates. The same collection listing only includes issues from 1968, and the summary by itself is not exactly a high quality rs- no indication that it was written by a subject matter expert, or that it underwent peer review. In my experience University finding aids can contain errors as they are intended to summarize a collection's materials rather than provide the most accurate broader scope information. Can't we find a better source to settle this somehow? If not, why choose to mention it over any number of others?

I'll hold off further comments on this section but I just think the background section is struggling without a common thread to tie it together. Right now we have facts (there were some alternative newspapers in NYC and around the country) but are wanting, I think, a couple sentences to tell us why this matters (something about the counter culture movement of the 60s, probably a link to Underground_press#North_America, something about what the publications focused on). Even following the one broader link that currently is in the section (to alternative newspaper) doesn't really give me much context on this period (all it really says is "Alternative newspapers represent the more commercialized and mainstream evolution of the underground press associated with the 1960s counterculture." - which almost raises more questions than it answers. The first and foremost being is calling the 1960s papers alternative (rather than, say, underground) an anachronism?) I'm sure there is a scholarly source somewhere that would let us contextualize this bit further.

And if the SWN doesn't fit into this story really, why do we mention all these publications? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences on alternate newspapers. I'm going to have to disagree with you on the more general need for this section. The proliferation of alternative newspapers in New York sets the stage for SWN's founding. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that was a bit of a rhetorical question. I agree that it is a helpful section to have, but where is the secondary sourcing that draws any connection between the the proliferation of the 1960s and the establishment of this weekly newspaper? What sources describe the Soho Weekly News as being a part of this? Otherwise it all feels a bit SYNTH-y to me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, later on I talk about how Goldstein recruited Jaakov Kohn from EVO, and various bits and pieces about who considered SWN to be an alternative paper and who didn't. And a quote about SWN wanting to set itself apart from the underground papers that came before it. I think having this section gives some useful context for those bits. RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your changes to that section, I think it sets the article up a bit more naturally. I don't want to leave you hanging for a long time, but I've spent some time thinking about the rest of the article, and feel that I need to think about it more before I comment further. To be upfront, I'm currently not feeling like the article as-is is up to FA quality in terms of prose and content, but my biggest problem is that it feels like parts that have been put together rather than a cohesive narrative. And I think that is maybe a problem with the availability of the sourcing, so am not sure how I would suggest that it be addressed yet. I will think about this and circle back as soon as I can. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I will drop some comments that have occurred to me in the meantime:

• "SWN relied heavily on freelance writers; in 1976 they made up 80 percent of the staff." The first half of the sentence is taking too much from the footnote, to me. All we know is that in 1976 most of the staff were freelance. We don't know for sure if the paper actually relied heavily on them, or if that was characteristic of the paper over its whole run. This could very easily have dramatically before or after the article was published

There are an abundance of sources that say "Person X was a freelancer", but you are correct that there is no one source that says it in this way. I've removed that part.

• "Annie Flanders had been the fashion editor" is a bit jarring because we aren't given any information about when Flanders was at the SWN, just that she was there at some point. Can we be more specific? It's ok if not

Added year she started.

• I can't verify that "Timothy Greenfield-Sanders" worked at the SWN in the cited sources. Probably I am just missing it, but could you quote where it comes up?

Added a source

• "SWN's publisher (unnamed but presumably Goldstein) " feels like OR?

Yeah, this one I struggled with. The source says "writing at this time for the Soho Weekly News ... One day the paper's publisher, who had learned of our plans, approached us with a deal". Although it doesn't say so, "the paper's publisher" is clearly Goldstein. So, I've got two choices. I can just say "SWN's publisher" and leave the reader scratching their head to figure out why I'm talking about some unnamed publisher, or I can just do what I did. I'm open to any better ideas.

• "In a 2003 review of the revitalization of the neighborhood, however, Stephen Petrus (then a doctoral candidate in history) offered a different opinion." The "offered a different opinion" doesn't seem quite right: Petrus doesn't dispute that the paper opposed gentrification (outspokenly), but argues that their actions had the (perhaps unintended) effect of contributing to it at the same time. Also, who is the opinion supposed to be different in respect to? The sentence before gives us a description rather than an opinion (as I think it should): "The paper was an outspoken critic of the commercialization and gentrification of SoHo." Suggested revision along the lines of: "In a 2003 review of the revitalization of the neighborhood, Stephen Petrus (then a doctoral candidate in history) argued that [other actions] of the paper actions contributed to the same outcome they opposed." Not wedded to that phrasing at all, but just a suggestion

Did some rewording. Happy to try something else if that's not what you had in mind.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the above responses. Will try to work in a more chronological order for whatever further comments I have, starting with "Startup and operation".

Break

• I feel like you could effectively paraphrase Kostelanetz's quote ("was founded ... in part to exploit the success of the Voice, with a similar size and similarly weekly publication schedule") without losing much - I don't think he's the only one who would agree that the SWN was founded on to compete with The Voice so that first part doesn't need to be attributed to him, and you could then mention something along the lines of "Richard Kostelanetz notes that the papers had similar publication schedules and scale".
  • I suppose I could, but you haven't given me any reason to believe it would be an improvement. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "SWN art editor Gerald Marzorati, however, had a vision for the paper" I'm not certain that "wikt:however" quite works here. It is plausible that Marzorati's vision was that was what the paper would do in addition to competing with the [Village] Voice, rather than opposed. Also, I don't think that the quote actually is reflective of a founding philosophy/vision, which is how it is presented in our article now (to me "vision for" -- what our article says--and "vision of"-- what the source says-- are slightly different things). Marzorati worked at the SWN for seven years ending in 1982 (according to this source) - which would put him starting in 1975, two years after the paper was founded. So, I'm not sure this quote fits here.
  • The however introduces (and emphasizes) a contrast between what the two people are saying. Kostelanetz is saying "we wanted to compete with the Voice". Marzorati is saying, "No, that's not it. We wanted to differentiate ourselves from them and their kind". That fact that Marzorati was not at SWN for its founding does not mean he didn't have a vision for where the thought the paper should go. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In January 1976...positioned as a direct competitor to The Village Voice". This is now, by my count, the third time that this article says the paper competed with the Village Voice, and I think it feels somewhat redundant.
  • The competition between SWN and the Voice is a recurring theme in the sources, so mentioning it multiple times doesn't seem out of line. That being said, I've removed one instance. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• " He described the intended audience as 22-to-35 years old:" I'm not sure this quite reflects the source, which says "He thinks that audience is basically the 22‐to‐35‐year old group". The article's phrasing suggests that was what the paper was written for (which may well have been the case), but the source says that is what he thought it was read by, something different.
  • Changed it to "the paper's audience" RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Hank Weintraub of advertising agency " I would preface this paragraph along the lines of "in response to Goldstein's claims,..." so it is clear about when Weintraub et al were making these claims
  • Well, in line with your desire for literal interpretation of the sources, I'm not sure the source supports saying "in response to". There's nothing in the source that indicates Weintraub was indeed responding directly to anything Goldstein had said. The reporter might have called up Weintraub and said "Goldstein said this about his paper, can you respond to that?", or he could have just said "I'm doing a piece about SWN, can you tell me how you feel about the paper?" We don't know which. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Goldstein recruited Jaakov Kohn, former editor of EVO," Consider spelling out and linking EVO as a permissible WP:REPEATLINK: it's now been a while since you first introduced the paper, and I could imagine many readers going right to the staffing section
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "; in a 1991 interview, he said that if The Village Voice was Off-Broadway, then SWN was Off-Off-Broadway" I feel like this doesn't really fit in in this section, which is otherwise listing notable people and their affiliation with the paper. Could it be moved somewhere?
  • There's a bunch of people here; it would be a boring and repetitive list if I just said "X worked at SWN" for each one. Having something to say about each person makes for a more varied and interesting presentation. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• ", the latter being where Marzorati started his career as an art writer" I'm not sure this adds much, if anything, to the article's discussion of the SWN itself? What is the reasoning behind mentioning?
  • I've recently talked about Marzorati. Now I'm talking about a paper where he used to work. It seems logical to mention this connection and this seems like the logical place to do it. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• It seems like you are inconsistent in usage between "the SWN" and simply "SWN"
  • Using "the" in "after the SWN published an enthusiastically positive review" was indeed incorrect; I've fixed that. I believe all the others are correct because in those cases, "the" is modifying the noun that comes after SWN: "the SWN office", "the SWN staff", etc. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• I think Paper magazine would be another useful repeated link in the 'follow-ons' section
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Why do you give a year span for Details magazine but none of the others?
  • Stating that it stated in 1982 ties the startup of Details to the same year SWN shut down. Mentioning the start year without the end year would imply that its still running. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Cunningham did a style feature, Bill Cunningham's Sunday, having been recruited by Annie Flanders" I would suggest "Cunningham, who [was/had been] recruited by Annie Flanders, did a style feature, Bill Cunningham's Sunday"
• I would suggest splitting the photography section into one paragraph about what the photographers did while at the SWN, and one about after; right now it feels like they are mixed together somewhat
  • This is much the same as with the earlier list of staff. There's not a lot that I say about most of these people. It would be awkward to just list them all and then go back and touch on each one again. Covering each one completely then moving on to the next one makes more sense to me. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• " Petrus said that SWN's classified ads for loft space drove up rents" I think this now goes too far, as Petrus hedges that "The precise impact of the ads is impossible to quantify"
  • I've reworded this a bit: it now says "contributed to". RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "wrote that the dance boom of the mid-1960s was followed by increased opportunities for young dance critics in New York, with The Village Voice and SWN being the two main publications providing space for their work" I would suggest foregrounding the SWN in this sentence; as it stands it feels more like an afterthought: "wrote that The Village Voice and SWN were the two main publications that offered space for young dance critics in New York starting their careers after the dance boom of the mid-1960s" or something
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "In 1975, SWN was one of the first papers to interview the Ramones." I think this might make more sense coming after we introduce the CBGB, rather than before, as right now it is a bit unclear to me why the sentences are put next to each other, swapping would imply (as I think is the case) that the CBGB was where the SWN encountered the Ramones?
• "In 1978, SWN ran an interview with Talking Heads." Why is this important? Presumably they ran many interviews with many bands?
• "comparing its coverage most directly to the East Village Eye and more distantly to The Village Voice and New York Rocker" Source says "could be found in the pages of local outlets like The SoHo Weekly News and the East Village Eye, along with others with a further reach such as the Village Voice and New York Rocker". To me, the source only compares the outlets in that they were local, whereas your phrasing suggests that their coverage itself was comparable
• "the venue was largely ignored by The Village Voice and The New York Times, relying instead on coverage from the alternative press" The implication here is that the Village Voice was not alternative- which I'm not sure most people would agree with?
• "nor that of punk rocker Sid Vicious, whose girlfriend she was" Might be more elegant as "nor that of her boyfriend punk rocker Sid Vicious"?
• "Henry Benvenuti incident" stands out to me as an odd L2 header when compared to the others ('staff' 'startup' 'decline'), which are much broader. Given that there is no non-contemporary coverage, I'd question whether it is notable for inclusion in the article (WP:NOTNEWS, etc). It was sensational, certainly, but is it encyclopedically relevant? If yes, is it worthy of a whole section?
• " Reportedly, this was in response to media mogul Rupert Murdoch (with whom Harmsworth had been feuding) having bought The Village Voice the previous year." Not seeing this in the cited source?
• Still have a couple more sections to work through, but I get the feeling this article isn't quite comprehensive. I didn't spend a ton of time looking, but found a number of pretty extensive articles on Newspapers.com that don't seem to be cited here. Examples of things they could add: pretty substantial profile in the NY Daily News 1981: "'the soho news is no longer considering itself an alternative weekly,' says [Robert] Manoff [of the Columbia Journalism Review", Estimates distribution at 1,000 newsstands, etc; Claimed circulation of 35,000, 1978; circulation reported as 12,000 in 1980 (lower than 14,000 which our article suggests is the lowest dip); there is a whole aspect of the paper's attempt to cover "hard news" that isn't in my opinion really addressed in our article now: 1978 mention in The New Yorker "On a visit to the offices of the Soho Weekly News, on Spring Street, we spoke with Al Ellenberg, its executive editor (young, long-haired, blue-jeaned), who told us that his paper was including more general news than before, that circulation and advertising had jumped considerably, and that he had temporarily added to his staff Howard Thompson, of the. Times; Peter Freiberg and Eric Fettmann, who are both former Post reporters; and Clyde Haberman, who is normally one of the editors of “The Week in Review” in the Sunday Times"; reporting on Israeli politics/ the PLO (1977): "[the SWN] has moved toward more hard news coverage in the past year, since Executive Editor Al Ellenberg joined it"; corruption in Phoenix; Published a leak of a Nixon Memoir that was picked up by the AP; but by 1979 the paper was apparently in turmoil, with Elleneberg on "enforced leave" - what happened there? I'm not saying for sure all of this merits being in the article, but I think it's indicative that the article is incomplete.

At the moment, I find myself landing at an oppose on grounds that the article does not meet FACR 1a (engaging) and 1c (comprehensive). I hope the above comments provide helpful suggestions, but to me the prose needs much more work (the fact that awkward constructions like "whose girlfriend she was" have made it this far is to me rather telling), and combined with my concerns over comprehensiveness, we are getting into work that is rather farther from what an FAC review should focus on, imo. I am totally open to striking this (and hope I will), but that's where I find myself right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Thanks for the ping.

Background

• "positioned by him as a competitor to established alternative newsweekly" → "positioned as a competitor to the established alternative newsweekly"
  • I believe the current wording was at the request of a previous reviewer. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• "spun off from a Boston predecessor" → "spun off from a Boston-based predecessor"
  • Meh.

A couple of suggestions to start with. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Startup and operation

• "Initially 8 pages, 'SWN' eventually expanded to more than 100." → "Initially eight pages, 'SWN'..."
  • I can't find it right now, but somewhere in the MOS it says when writing two numbers near each other like this, you should break the normal digits/spell rule and do them both the same way. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Found it. MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures ..." RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• ​"which set it apart from its other predecessors" → "which set it apart from its predecessors"
  • No, "other predecessors" is right. He's talking about being similar to one predecessor (the voice), but breaking from other predecessors discussed earlier (EVO, etc). RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• "22-to-35 years old" → "22- to 35-year-olds"
  • I don't honestly know which is more correct, so I'm going with the one that just looks better to me. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• "had not shown itself to be as much competition" → "...as much of a competitor"
  • Meh. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Staff

• Dramaturgy scholar Elinor Fuchs contributed as a freelancer.[19]
  • Move up the link to freelancer to this sentence (first mention)?
• We could link to art criticism.
  • Done
• Annie Flanders had been the fashion editor;[25] very shortly after SWN closed
  • Do we need "very" here or could it be dropped?
    • It is correct as is: the source says "We founded Details almost literally on the night that The SoHo News closed"
• "In a 1985 review, publisher Bonnie Marranca wrote of her efforts in 1975 to get Performing Arts Journal started." → "In a 1985 review, publisher Bonnie Marranca wrote of her efforts in 1975 to start Performing Arts Journal."
• "who previously had been a successful music publicist"

→ "who had previously been a successful music publicist"

• • More natural word order?
• Greenfield-Sanders has work on display
  • "work" → "works"
• "renamed to 'Resnick's Believe It'" → "renamed 'Resnick's Believe It'"

I've done some of the above. The others don't seem like improvements. RoySmith (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Editorial stance on gentrification

• "their classified ads for loft space drove up rents" → "its classified ads..."
  • Singular agreement with "paper".
• The paper touted the advantages of converted lofts, writing, "Living in a loft gives you a whole new dimension in space and space relationships to work with"
  • A missing full stop. Also, do we have a better word than "touted"?
• We could link to loft apartment and to classified advertising.

MSincccc (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Did some of these. Touted is a perfectly good word. RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Music and arts coverage

• ...for driving SWN's music focus and for its ability to differentiate itself from The Village Voice.
  • Could we avoid repeating "for"?
• "the dance boom of the mid 1960s" → "the dance boom of the mid-1960s"
• "tacked on the end of another review" → "tacked onto the end"
  • The preposition.

MSincccc (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The two uses of "for" are correct: they introduce two parallel clauses. Did the others. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Henry Benvenuti incident

• Interviewed at Bellevue, he expressed disappointment at the lack of attention his exhibition at a SoHo gallery had received a year earlier and that his self-mutilation at the SWN office was "to protest the plight of starving artists".
  • "and that his self-..." → "and said that his self-..."(Parallelism)

MSincccc (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline and shutdown

• How about including the conversion template for these figures ($1.1 million and $1.7 million)?
• "their circulation was 60,000..." → "its circulation was 60,000..."
  • Singular pronoun agreement
• We could link to op-ed.

Lead

• "Many staff had distinguished careers" → "Many staff members had distinguished careers"

Bottom line

• RoySmith That's all from me. A few suggestions from the final sub-section and the lead.

The article has been a fine read. I hope that my suggestions have been helpful. I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Did some of the above. RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

• "The paper was known for its coverage of Manhattan's SoHo neighborhood as the area was beginning to become fashionable." I am unsure what information "fashionable" is describing here. Was the neighbourhood becoming a fashion district of the city? A favourable or popular location for specific groups of people? A better descriptor might help.
  • Replaced it with "gentrified". RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Outside of New York, similar publications of the era included" The subsequent list only has American publications: it might be better to rephrase this as "Outside of New York, similar publications of the era in the United States included..." to acknowledge that this is purposefully a list of American publications (for our international audience who may think Wikipedia is not acknkowledging similar publications elsewhere).
  • Interesting. I hadn't intentionally picked only US papers. As I recall, I just perused List of alternative newspapers and found a bunch that were of the right time period; it's just happenstance that they are all US. Well, not quite happenstance; it's a function of that list being so heavily US-weighted. In any case, for the moment, I've clarified this with "Elsewhere in the US". I'll see if I can find any others from the 60s that would give a more global view. So far, the only one I've seen is The Georgia Straight but that's still in operation so doesn't seem to fit the pattern I was looking for. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• "(equivalent to $2.5 in 2025)" It's weird that a price would only have one digit after the decimal place. Should this be increased to two?
  • Yeah, this is a problem. I asked about this at Template talk:Inflation#Padding with trailing zero?. It looks like there's a fix for this in progress; I'll keep an eye on that and update the article when it gets rolled out. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• "which in turn impacted staff morale." positively or negatively? This should be specified in the article.
  • Clarified. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Refs 48 and 51 appear to be the same source. These should be merged together.
  • Good catch, fixed. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That's all from me. Please ping when ready for me to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Just adding on from one of the reversions: "to make a name for themselves" to a non-English speaker might be confusing as how does one "make a name" in the literal sense"? This is why I think it falls under the MOS:IDIOM concern. While my proposed wording might not be the best, I think the "make a name" wording should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  The OED says "a good or distinguished reputation; personal fame. Now chiefly in to get (also make) oneself a name, to make a name for oneself" with no indication that it's colloquial, slang, or otherwise substandard. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 pinging as requested. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I'll leave the "make a name" concern as-is: if others bring it up it can be addressed again, if not than I'm probably against consensus. Other concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Will spot check the sources soon. I have some comments below (ref numbers as of this revision).

• I notice that some web sources (e.g. 10-13 for the LOC) do not have access dates, while others of the same type (e.g. 3: "The Village Voice (New York) 1955-Current [Online Resource]". The Library of Congress.) do. Can this be consistent?
• Similarly, the work or publisher parameter for some sources like The Pittsburgh Press (ref 69) and The Washington Post (ref 82) are unlinked, even though you link similar parameters in other sources. Either link them all, don't link them, or link them at the first mention (though the latter is not recommended).
• Similarly, for NYT sources, there is inconsistent formatting for some sources that cite pages out of specific sections. For example:
  • Ref 46: Green, Penelope (June 24, 2025). "Marcia Resnick, Whose Camera Captured New York's 'Bad Boys', Dies at 74". The New York Times. p. Section B, Page 10. Retrieved June 9, 2026.
  • Ref 48: Duka, John (July 20, 1982). "Weber's Naturalistic Eye on Men's Fashion". The New York Times. p. 7 (section C). Retrieved July 23, 2026.
• Ref 35 (Page, Tim (July 11, 1999). "A Critic's Closing Lines: Tim Page, Leaving on A Fond & Hopeful Note". p. G01.): What is the work or publisher name?
• Ref 50 (Rise of the Male Supermodel (Video). September 20, 2024. Event occurs at 45:11. Retrieved May 6, 2025 – via YouTube.) - What makes this source reliable? Who is the publisher?

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed all these. As for the last one (Ref 50), it's from Fashion Industry Broadcast, which seems to be a major podcaster in the fashion world. This particular podcast won a bunch of awards:

• WINNER LA INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL 2022
• SEMI FINALIST SYDNEY INDIE FILM FESTIVAL 2022
• OFFICAL SELECTION CHICAGO INDIE FILM AWARDS 2022
• OFFICIAL SELECTION CANNES INTERNATIONAL CINEMA FESTIVAL 2022

We've got 25 articles that cite FIB. In any case, most of what I'm using is Paul Cavaco (SWN fashion director) talking about his own experiences with the photo shoot. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will do the spot check soon. Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 10 random passages from throughout the article (9.3% of 107 total passages). These passages contain 10 inline citations (7.9% of 127 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Walter Bowart's counter-culture East Village Other (EVO) started in 1965, running until 1971 or 1972.
7		nytimes.com		? → Y	The source says "1965 to 1972" without mentioning 1971. Was there a source that said 1971?
SWN art editor Gerald Marzorati, however, had a vision for the paper which set it apart from its other predecessors, saying he wanted to "avoid the pitfalls of underground journalism – like self-indulgent, first person writing".
18	a	sohomemory.org	web.archive.org	Y
In 1976 freelancers made up 80 percent of the staff.
2	c	nytimes.com		Y
Marranca again wrote about SWN in 1995, reflecting on her experiences as a theatre critic there during 1975 – 1977. She described the paper as "one of the respected, opinion-shaping newspapers at that time, featuring extensive coverage of the burgeoning downtown arts scene".
37		doi.org		Y
Resnick's portraits of well-known people ran regularly.
44		eastman.org		Y	For some reason Cloudflare has blocked my device. Hmm...
Author Richard Boch described how many of the SWN staff would frequent the nearby Mudd Club each night, recalling that Goldstein often went dressed in a brass-button navy blazer, "looking like a country club admiral".
53		Boch, Richard (2017). The Mudd Club. Port Townsend: Feral House. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-62731-058-1.		Y	Given that other source checks have passed with flying colors, AGF on this one since I can't access it.
Film critic Jerry Oster lamented in his 1977 coverage of the New Directors/New Films Festival that The New York Times gave it minimal attention, and The Village Voice and The New Yorker none at all: "The most comprehensive coverage of the program was ceded to the scrappy irregulars of The SoHo Weekly News".
61		jstor.org		Y
The paper's circulation was variable, at one point dipping as low as 14,000.
70	a	O'Brian, Dave (March 23, 1982). "SoHo News: The Death of a Weekly". The Boston Phoenix. Retrieved A…	archive.org	Y	I guess this is another way to say "slow but steady growth".
Reflecting on her time at SWN after being informed of the shutdown, dance reviewer Marcia Siegel wrote that it was widely known that the paper was in financial trouble. She put some of the blame on Goldstein, saying that his inexperience in the business made him underestimate how much money it would take to start a newspaper in New York. Siegel likened hearing the final news of the paper's demise to hearing of "the sudden death of a friend".
78		ezproxy.nypl.org		Y
After SWN closed down, Zimmer wrote for The New York Times as art critic for their suburban sections. He described how SWN differed from the Times:
84	b	bctv.org	web.archive.org	Y	This is one instance where I would have linked to the YouTube video directly.

Ref 7: Hmmm, I'm sure I had a source that said 1971, but I can't find it now and have in fact located archived issues in 1972, so dropped the 1971. RoySmith (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Ref 44: I sent you a PDF on Discord. RoySmith (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for sending me the PDF. I confirmed that the source says what it says it does, so passing this source review. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ice dance

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The ice dance competition at the 2010 Winter Olympics gained plenty of notoriety, and for all the wrong reasons. The choice of the Russian team to perform an Australian Aboriginal-inspired routine was fraught with controversy, all of it well-deserved. This was the first time that a team from outside Europe won the ice dance event at the Olympics. Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir of Canada went on to create one of the strongest legacies of excellence in ice dance; they are the only figure skaters to win five Olympic medals (three gold and two silver). Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "23 teams representing 15 nations entered the competition" - any way not to start this sentence with a number written in digits?

• Done.

• "only twice had a Russian or Soviet team not won the event" - I'd say "Soviet or Russian" given that the Soviet era would have been first

• Done.

• "although several teams this year were seen as likely medal contenders." - this sentence doesn't start with a capital letter and in fact it doesn't seem to be a complete sentence - have some words gone AWOL?

• Yes; fixed.

• "However, their original dance – set to what they claimed was Australian Aboriginal music and featuring garish costumes – provoked some controversy." - when did this happen? During all of the competitions mentioned in the previous sentence?

• Clarified that it was from the current season.

• " Two teams from the United States were also seen as medal contenders:" - make this its own sentence

• Done.

• "Only twice since ice dance became an Olympic sport has a team from anywhere other than Russia or the Soviet Union won the gold" - same comment as earlier

• Done.

• I would actually move that bit to the end of the previous paragraph and start the second paragraph with "Meryl Davis and Charlie White won the silver medals"

• Shuffled some stuff around; let me know what you think.

• "And just as the designs were not from the Australian First Nations community, neither was the music, as she explained" => "Just as the designs were not from the Australian First Nations community, neither was the music, as she explained"

• Done.

• "and they had created the routine because they "wanted to be different." => "and that they had created the routine because they "wanted to be different."

• Done.

• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude: Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Connection Lost

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

"Connection Lost" is an episode of the sitcom Modern Family, best known for being the first television episode to take place entirely on a computer screen. The format was viewed as more than just a gimmick, with reviewers remarking on how it was used to create an interesting story with many opportunities for laughs. Retrospectively, the episode has been deemed one of Modern Family's best. I began working on this article almost two years ago, and since its first failed FAC in 2025, it has gone through a few copy edits and a peer review. Pamzeis (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Eddie891

A bit out of my wheelhouse, but I do remember watching this episode (and enjoying it) years ago, so leaving some comments feels like a nice way to revisit things. Do ping me if I lose track and don't comment in a reasonable amount of time. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Seems like we don't cite anywhere that this is the 136th episode overall of the series? "
  • Removed.
• We also don't mention in the body or cite the appearance of Helen Siff as Traveler. I suppose it could be inferred to be sourced to the episode credits, but I tend to think that anything worth mentioning in the infobox should be in the article too
  • I think Siff is co-starring, not guest starring, in this episode, so I've removed her name.
• "Lily mentions that Dylan (Reid Ewing)—Haley's ex-boyfriend—had spoken with her" I think it's a bit ambiguous from this phrasing who 'her' is in this context
  • Revised.
• "and eliminated ways of capturing the ceiling or air as "dead time"." Not sure I really understand what this means?
  • Revised.
• "Bowen had to be careful when moving her eyes due to her close proximity to the camera" I don't think this sentence really adds anything.
  • Removed.
• "He planned to use screen capture software to create the final episode. However, the image would become blurry when zooming in on specific elements." I feel like this duplicates the earlier " The producers intended to shoot the episode as a screen recording on the Mac, but the quality was insufficient when displayed on a high-definition television screen." so you should cut one
  • Removed the former.
• "However, when initially transferred to After Effects, the compression format "wasn't really cooperating". Thus, the crew used Media Composer to " Not sure it's super relevant that one approach didn't work - maybe lose this part too?
  • Removed.
• " To make sure the episode remained up-to-date, the crew had to keep up with modifications to Yosemite, which Brown said was "frustrating"" Is there anything more to say about this? How much/dramatically would Yosemite realistically be modified over a four ish month timeframe?
  • I think the reason for this was that Yosemite was in its beta stage, so I've added that, but other than that, Brown says something along the lines of "We'd have act one locked down and then the FaceTime notification would change so we had to change the visuals" but it seems like more of a throwaway comment, so I didn't include it.
• " It placed second in its time slot" Among adults age 18-49, overall, or does adults 18-49 == the overall placing? It might be helpful to have some context-- was this placing/viewership notably good (or bad (or average)) for Modern Family (S6)?
  • Added some stuff—the articles also discuss its viewership compared to exactly a year before but I'm not sure how relevant that is.

That's pretty much it from me for a first round - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Responded to your comments Pamzeis (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm pretty satisfied with your revisions. The new sentence "Levitan stated that this season's writing team sought to revitalize the series" implies that the series was struggling before that? I don't think we want to digress into much further discussion of the broader show, but is that accurate? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the show was struggling before then (the source says: "We’re just trying to not let the audience down at this point and to reinvigorate the show"), but I think that implication would be negated by "maintaining audience satisfaction" (which I think would imply that the audience were satisfied). I've reordered the sentence to try to make that clearer.​ Pamzeis (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me, given that is basically what the source says. Support, primarily on prose. I didn't do much looking at other criteria. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

750h

Will review, I'll get to this soon ! 750h+ 07:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

image review - pass

• File:Modern-Family-6x16.jpg has appropriate FUR and alt text.
• File:Steven Levitan.jpg: The original file has been reviewed by Flickr reviewer; proper alt text. No issues.
• File:Julie Bowen Oct 2014 (cropped).jpg: Ditto. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

prose review

• "They reveal Haley borrowed a suit" -> "They reveal that Haley borrowed a suit"
  • Done.
• "surprising Claire since she was unaware that the two of them were still in touch" -> "which surprises Claire, who was unaware that the two were still in touch"
  • Partly done, because I think the antecedent becomes unclear otherwise.
• "which make her emotional" -- if the subject is "slideshow", it should be "makes"
  • Done.
• "apologizing for eloping" -> "to apologize for eloping"
  • Done.
• "his laptop to simultaneously FaceTime his daughter, browse websites, and check his email." -> "his laptop to FaceTime his daughter, browse websites, and check his email simultaneously."
  • Done.
• "the season-two episode" -- No hyphen required
  • Removed.
• "satire version" -- Isn't "satir[ical] version" grammatically correct? Please ignore if I'm wrong
  • I think that both are correct, since English allows for use of attributive nouns. I'll keep it the same so that the quote doesn't have to be altered
• "they also troubleshooted" -> "they also troubleshot"
  • Done.
• "An iPhone positioned atop the Mac's camera was used to record shots of Bowen facing the computer" -> "To record shots of Bowen facing the computer, the crew positioned an iPhone atop the Mac's camera"
  • Done.
• "viewership and rating, behind Empire" -- I bet it would be beneficial if you briefly explain what Empire is
  • Done—I actually had no idea what Empire was before this.
• That's all I see; excellent article! Also if you're interested, you can leave some comments for my current FAC. Cheers, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments, Camilasdandelions. I've responded above. Pamzeis (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Pamzeis You're welcome, thank you for addressing my comments. Now I support your nom! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

NØ

• ""Connection Lost" presents the entire episode through Claire's laptop screen" - I wonder if there's any way to rephrase to shorten the link, since it did distract me while reading this part to be honest.
  • Rephrased it a bit to cut three words from the link.
• "Levitan developed that concept during a FaceTime call" - I find "the concept" to sound more natural than "that concept" in this type of construction
  • Revised.
• Is it worth mentioning Noah is a Canadian short film? I kind of assumed it would be American without this
  • Added.
• "Apple Inc. provided the show with several devices, though the company gave no compensation for the use of its products." - I was a little confused who "the company" is referring to, since it would make sense both, for the production company to compensate Apple for using its products and for Apple to offer up compensation for product placement. It might be possible to avoid the ambiguity by rephrasing
  • Revised.
• "Claire FaceTimes her brother, Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson), and his husband, Cameron (Eric Stonestreet), to inquire about Haley's whereabouts, as she babysat their daughter, Lily (Aubrey Anderson-Emmons), the night before." - 7 commas! Is a sentence split or some type of rephrasing possible without detracting from the meaning being conveyed?
  • I've semi-colon-ed it.
• "which makes her emotional, and FaceTimes her father" - a "she" should appear before "FaceTimes"
  • I don't think it's needed here, cuz the sentence has an earlier "she" at "she opens a slideshow...")
• "Haley clarifies that she is neither married nor pregnant, explaining that the suit was for a friend's wedding; she left her phone in Andy's car; her Facebook status was a joke about a "Cronut"; and the pregnancy book was for her boss's fashion line." - I am not sure the semicolons are correct, as they seem to usually be used to begin fragments that could work as individual sentences. I believe commas would be right here
  • Done.
• "He developed the concept of presenting the episode through a screen while using his laptop to FaceTime his daughter" - would seem obvious from preceding sentences
  • Done.
• "The film provided him with the "proof of concept" that such an approach could maintain an audience's attention and could sustain a complex narrative"
  • Done.
• "they were unavailable due to their involvement on another project" - should it not be in another project?
  • Done.
• There seems to be some inconsistency, with "Apple Inc." in the lead and "Apple" in the body
  • I used "Apple" as an attributive noun and "Apple Inc." when referring to the company (in both the lead and body), because I think it'd be a bit awkward to say "Apple Inc. devices", or the like, and the phrasing "Apple devices" is far more common. I hope that clarifies.
• "The team used the Media Composer and Adobe After Effects applications. They used Media Composer to encode the footage ..." - Kind of similar starts to consecutive sentences. How about "The team used the Media Composer and Adobe After Effects applications. Media Composer was used to encode the footage ..."?
  • I've just removed the first one, because it seems unnecessary.
• "It has topped rankings by /Film and Rolling Stone Brasil, as well as appearing on top-episode lists by ..." - Slightly off transition. I would suggest "It has topped rankings by /Film and Rolling Stone Brasil and appeared on top-episode lists by ..." I know it repeats "and" but it improves the flow a bit imo
  • Done.
• "marking Modern Family's third win—after "En Garde" and "Dude Ranch"—and sixth nomination in the category." - Are the three wins all in this category or is it overall?
  • Revised.
• This external link is giving me a "Page Not Found".
  • Removed.

Nice work! I've only watched one-off episodes of Modern Family here and there and haven't sat down to binge the whole show. This episode seems really acclaimed, though, so I might give it a watch! Reading this article reminded me of the Victorious episode Wi-Fi in the Sky, lol. I hope this review is helpful.--NØ 17:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, MaranoFan. They were definitely useful. I've binged the first few seasons of Modern Family, but I've only seen some episodes here and there from the middle/later seasons (including this one). I've revised the article in accordance the comments, except for a few of 'em. Pamzeis (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. Support on the prose.--NØ 16:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Bankers' Toadies incident

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a pamphlet produced by supporters of the Alberta government who called for the extermination of men who were considered aligned with the banker establishment. I asked for the previous nomination to be archived so I could devote enough time to address concerns: I think this article is now ready for promotion. Pinging those who participated in the last FAC review @MSincccc, Hog Farm, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, UndercoverClassicist, and Caddyshack01:, of whom some also participated in the last FAC's subsequent PR. Thanks to everyone who reviews this. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• I found this to be an interesting read both in the previous FAC and the subsequent PR. Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• "proposed by British engineer C. H. Douglas" → "proposed by the British engineer C. H. Douglas"

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "A meeting of the People's League called for the resignation of Aberhart and for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to stop airing Aberhart's Sunday radio show." → "A People's League meeting called for Aberhart's resignation and for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to stop airing his Sunday radio show."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Pamphlet

• We could link to investment broker.

• Is this an uncommon term though? I'm on the fence. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "a one-page pamphlet was left on the desks of every member..." → "a one-page pamphlet was left on the desks of all members..."

• I like the current phrasing better. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• referred to a new group called 'bankers' toadies
  • Could we drop "new" here?

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "4,000 or 7,000 copies" → "either 4,000 or 7,000 copies"

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "...counselling to murder." → "...counselling murder."

• I think this might be a legal term and so can't be changed. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "withdrew the Crown prosecutor assigned to it." → "...assigned to the case."

• Rephrase per FAC. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "...(the counselling to murder charge had been dropped)." → "...(the counselling murder charge had been dropped)."

• See above. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "to help with the lawyer's fees." → "to help with his legal fees."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "He testified that he had ordered the pamphlets, which were government-funded, and then circulated them..." → "He testified that he had ordered the government-funded pamphlets and circulated them..."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• • Parallelism.
• "leading to turmoil among society." → "leading to social turmoil."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Appeals by both men against conviction and sentence were unsuccessful." → "Appeals by both men against their convictions and sentences were unsuccessful."

• Rephrased slightly differently per below: "Both men appealed their conviction and sentence, and both were unsuccessful."

Legacy

• "highlight the conspiratorial influence of financial institutions." → "highlight the alleged conspiratorial influence of financial institutions."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "protested the government instead." → "instead protested the government."

• I like the current phrasing better. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "They grew to believe that Douglas's strategy" → "Caucus members came to believe that Douglas’s strategy"

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "separating the government and the board..." → "separating the government from the board so that..."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "was not necessary." → "was unnecessary."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Within the Social Credit caucus at the Alberta legislature," → "...in the Alberta legislature,"

• It was specifically in the caucus where he was discredited, which is different from the whole legislature, so this wording should probably stay. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• "Aberhart blamed the banking system for his failure to follow through on this pledge." → "...for failing to fulfil this pledge."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "raised concerns on the pamphlet's contents" → "...raised concerns about..."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "...counselling to murder." → "...counselling murder."

• See above Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Both were convicted of the libel charge," → "Both were convicted of libel,"

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "and negatively affected his ability to pass his legislative agenda." → "and affected his ability to pass legislation."

• I think its OK to keep negatively there, for clarity. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• Z1720 That's all from me. I hope that my suggestions have been useful. I look forward to your response. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• @MSincccc: Thanks for reviewing (again). Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've no further suggestions at this stage. A fine article. Hence, I will support the nomination. Feel free to ping in case there are any improvements to the prose. MSincccc (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Joseph_Unwin_portrait.png: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?

• Link has been updated. "When" has already been included (1935). No location is provided in the document, though it is credited as created by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for their portraits of legislators, thus I think for copyright reasons it is safe to assume that this was originally published in Alberta, Canada. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• So the image is part of a larger display, located here, whose entry states that it is a collection of the members . It states that it was created in 1935 and is "Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, August 1935". This would be hung on the walls of the Alberta legislative assembly, which would indicate its publication at that time. Therefore it meets the three requirements of the copyright notice: first published outside the US, first published before 1964, and and in the public domain in Canada in 1996. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Simple display does not typically meet the legal definition of publication in the US - could you verify whether this case did? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:David_Milwyn_Duggan.JPG: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:W._C._Ives.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• This file doesn't have a publication date nor a location. However, it was created by the Northern Alberta Pioneers and Old Timers' Association, so I am willing to assume that it was first published in Alberta, Canada. Duggan died in 1942, so this photograph must have been taken before the January 1, 1949, stipulation in the copyright tag that would cause it to be public domain in Canada (and thus the US. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Further information about this file: This file is not subject to Crown Corporation copyright, as the creator is unknown and was donated to the archives by the Northern Alberta Pioneers and Old Timers' Association, not a government organisation. The summary of the donation states that the items were donated between 1957-2010: the E-10 designation seems to indicate that it was part of the first batch of donations in 1957, indicating a publication date before then. It therefore fulfils the three requirements of the US copyright notice: first published outside of the US, published before 1964, and public domain in Canada in 1996. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Could you elaborate on the relationship between donation date and publication date? Is it known that the image was published before donation? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• I did not realise that Ives was also listed, so here's information about it: the source link dates the photograph to the 1930s, so we will assume 1939. The creator is unknown but donated from the A.E. Cox family fonds as family photographs. Therefore, I think this meets the three requirements: it was first published outside the US, before 1964, and in the public domain before 1996.

• Again, could you elaborate on how you've determined publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Do these responses satisfy your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately no - US status depends on publication, not solely on status in Canada. What are the first known publications? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Responses posted for the three images above. Please let me know if this is sufficient: if not, please suggest next steps, as I do not think there's further information to find. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Unfortunately, response times are slow and I cannot get the necessary information needed to determine when the photos were first published, so I have removed the three images. Would it be acceptable to upload the images to English Wikipedia (not commons) and add the Template:Non-free biog-pic? If a publication date is determined, we can restore the fixed Commons version. If a different image is found that is public domain, we can swap the images. Z1720 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Potentially, but keep in mind, the more non-free images included, the stronger the rationale required for each. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I decided not to add any non-public images. Instead, I added an image of the front page of the Bankers' Toadies pamphlet. Does this image (and the article) pass the image review as-is? Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  That will need a Canadian tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Canada PD tag added. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

UC

In this article's last FAC, I made a number of comments about prose quality and clarity, several of which had not yet received a response when the nomination was closed. Could you give a brief account of the changes that have been made in this respect since then? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Here's an overview of the changes made after your last set of comments if I did not respond to them in the FAC:

• Extermination has been left in the lead, due to MOS:SCAREQUOTES concerns for including them, although after some thought I would be willing to add the quotes.
• phrasing changed to "or the trial judge of the two cases, William Carlos Ives,"
• phrasing changed to "Both men appealed their conviction and sentence, and both were unsuccessful."
• Fort Saskatchewan Penitentiary dup link removed
• Additional information about the legislature's resolution was not added: secondary sources did not deem it important enough to include in their text, so I think it is too much detail to include information like who proposed it and what the final count was.
• Inflation numbers were rounded.
• "social credit leader" changed to "a leader of the British social credit movement"
• "police magistrate Gibson" it would be too much detail to include a description of what this job is in this article, so no further information is included.
• "The incident was part of a series of events..." This sentence has been split.
• "These include the 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt and the creation of the Social Credit Board..." these were removed.
• "The incident, along with the subsequent lawsuits and convictions, demonstrated that the laws in Alberta..." I cut down this section quite a bit and credited the information about the law not being necessary in the article.
• I rephrased to "plans to implement tenets of the social credit economic system were postponed."
• All sources published before 2007 now have 10-digit ISBN, and those after have 13
• I have not found mention of the radio drama in sources, but I will keep looking when the link is fixed (so I can get publication information about it).

Let me know if I missed anything. Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks -- I can't promise I'll have time for a full review, but I'll try to drop by if I get the chance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi UC, any update, one way or the other? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Eddie -- Source review

It seems this FAC needs a source review still, which I will endeavor to undertake within the next few days. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC) All cited books seem to be high-quality RSs. Of the few that were by publishers that I did not recognize, I found some reviews that satisfied me: Bible Bill: A Biography of William Aberhart , ; The Good Steward: The Ernest C. Manning Story ; cited by a number of other on GBooks/Scholar. I took a quick look at GScholar and did not find any substantive sources that are not already cited here. Will try to do spotcheck today. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC) This table lists 6 random passages from throughout the article (14.3% of 42 total passages). These passages contain 7 inline citations (15.2% of 46 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. With the exception of one footnote (which may well just be me not reading well at 6:45 in the morning!), everything more or less checked out- there are a couple tweaks that I suggested below, but I saw no evidence of systematic problems or issues with close paraphrasing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
William Aberhart's Social Credit League won a substantial victory in the 1935 Alberta provincial election largely on its promise to implement social credit, an economic theory proposed by the British engineer C. H. Douglas.
1	Elliott Miller 1987, p.198.			?	should probably also cite p. 97 for "an economic theory proposed by the British engineer C. H. Douglas"
Social credit held that poverty during the Great Depression was partly caused by bankers, who kept the cost of credit high, and by extension, the cost of production.
2		Barr 1974, pp. 26–27.	archive.org	?	Can't see where this is in the source
On October 3, the police raided the Social Credit League's Edmonton office and seized either 4,000
14		Barr 1974, p. 109.	archive.org	y	Checks out
Ives found Unwin's testimony more credible, convicted Powell on November 15, and sentenced him to six months of hard labour at Fort Saskatchewan Penitentiary and recommended his deportation to the United Kingdom following his sentence.
12	d	Barr 1974, p. 110.	archive.org	?	See below
17	e	Elliott & Miller 1987, p. 274.	archive.org	?	Neither source seems to cite that deportation was to the UK
Social Credit MLAs celebrated Unwin's return to the legislature with a snake dance on the floor of the Alberta legislature and chants of "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" and "we want Powell".
18	b	Hesketh 1997, p. 172.	archive.org	y	Checks out
In the 1940 Alberta general election, Aberhart's government was reelected but with a reduced majority; plans to implement tenets of the social credit economic system were postponed.
27	b	thecanadianencyclopedia.ca		y	Checks out

Hilda Dajč

Nominator(s): Aeengath (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Hilda Dajč, a young jewish woman who volunteered as a nurse at the Sajmište concentration camp near Belgrade and smuggled out letters describing conditions there before she was murdered with the rest of the detainees. Her letters are one of the only surviving documents written by a prisoner of the camp and one of the few first person accounts of the Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia to survive at all.

I've expanded this from a GA to what I believe is FA standard, using historical scholarship (Manoschek, Matthäus, Browning, Subotić, Byford, Saiger, Daković, Giergiel, Krug) Several sources are in German or Serbian; I can provide quotes on request for spot-checking. Thank you. Aeengath (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from Jaguarnik

I like this article. I've checked this against the WP:FACR and I don't see any major issues with the prose (although I do admit I don't have much experience with FAC and other reviewers may have a more discerning eye). The prose is well-written, broad, well-researched; I didn't feel as if I had any questions left to ask. Earwig doesn't flag any copyright violations. I don't see any grammatical errors. It has a lead that covers all sections of the article and appropriate structure. The length of the article is acceptable per WP:SIZERULE; sadly it is a bit short, but that's to be expected when the subject's life was cut so short. Only a few comments:

• Remove "often" from often called a Serbian Anne Frank in the lead, as the body says that she is sometimes/occasionally compared to Frank.
• During the winter of 1941–42, an average of around one hundred prisoners at Sajmište died each day from exposure. I'm guessing that this is exposure to the cold, but from the description of conditions, it sounds like it could be exposure to illnesses because of the poor conditions, so there is some ambiguity.
• Not necessary, but a translation of the memorial plaque to Hilda would not hurt (at least as an alt caption).
• Why does citation 65 use a sfn ref with the label of Jerusalem Post when the author's (Radojković) name is known? Wouldn't it be simpler for it to link to Radojković?

Jaguarnik (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the close read @Jaguarnik!

• Changed "often" to "sometimes" in the lead.
• I've left "exposure" since it's Subotić's exact word (p. 52) she writes "During the harsh winter of 1941–42, an average of one hundred Semlin inmates died daily from exposure." She treats exposure as distinct from disease and starvation elsewhere in the same book too (p. 3: "more than ten thousand died in the camp from disease, starvation, exposure, physical exhaustion, and savage guard beatings" and p. 153: "Many died in Siberian camps from exposure, disease or exhaustion"), so it does specifically mean death from the cold rather than illness. Hopefully that resolves the ambiguity.
• Added a translation of the plaque to the caption.
• Fixed citation 65, it now points to the author {{sfn|Radojković|2018}}.

Aeengath (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

All my comments are resolved; I'm happy to voice my support for this FAC. Jaguarnik (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from ThaesOfereode

Good to see more Balkan topics come to FAC, despite how depressing this one is. I speak passable Croatian so I'll probably end up doing a source review for Serbian-language sources as well. I think there are German speakers who haunt FAC, but few if any BCMS speakers. More to come, but to begin:

Thank you for the review @ThaesOfereode, really glad to have an editor who can check the Serbian-language sources too! Aeengath (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Our subject is referred to by her Serbian name here. You should include the Serbian Cyrillic (Хилда Дајч) and the Serbian pronunciation (Serbian pronunciation: [xîlda dâjt͡ʃ]; you can easily cite to the HJP here). To avoid bloat, your footnote already captures the "Deutch" spelling so you can remove that from the lede.

Added the Serbian Cyrillic (Хилда Дајч) to the lead. I'd rather keep "Hilda Deitch" bolded in the lead since it's a legitimate alternate name in my sources and the title of the graphic novel about her. Jerusalem Post

HJP does have "Dajč" listed but as a list of German-derived surnames, marked as used in two Croatian towns with a different accent than the one you proposed. So I'm not sure it can be used, it's also Croatian data not Serbian. That said, I think you're right that a pronunciation should be in the lead.

Correction to my comment above, I misread the accent notation. Your proposed [xîlda dâjt͡ʃ] uses circumflex without a length mark which per Help:IPA/Serbo-Croatian is short falling, matching what HJP actually shows for "Dajč". Not in conflict after all I compared two different diacritic systems by mistake. Adding the pronunciation to the lead now, cited to HJP.

• On the topic, do sources really spell it "Deutch" instead of "Deutsch"? They also, in article, should be Soft suggestion to include the German pronunciation.

"Deutch" isn't a spelling that appears in any sources as far as I know, the variation is between "Deitch" (Saiger, Daković) and "Deutsch" (Shelach). The footnote now cites both properly, attributed to the sources that use each one. I don't think the lead needs German pronunciation too, her story is almost entirely Serbian, Vienna is just her birthplace.

• That first sentence is... long. You should consider splitting it (maybe Jewish prisoners held there and represent one of the few → Jewish prisoners held there. They represent one of the few).

Split the first lead sentence as suggested.

• "Stolpersteine" should be in a {{lang}} template

Added lang template to "Stolpersteine"

• Might be worth mentioning what the award honors since it's not immediately obvious.

Added the award's two categories (youth award, outstanding contribution to remembrance culture) per sources.

• All of the family were executed in 1942, so why is her brother's death date the only one noted in that first section?

Added death years for Augusta and Emil alongside Hans as suggested, per sources. Aeengath (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

More now

• Belgrade was subjected to heavy aerial bombardment – I'd just have the link cover this whole phrase. I thought the link would lead to some kind of specific style of bombardment (e.g., Blitzkrieg) rather than a particular instance and we want to avoid an WP:EGG here.

Extended the link as suggested.

• Consider a similar approach to the following link; I thought "military administration" would lead to something like Military government or Military junta.

Changed the link text to the article's actual title Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

• During the early months of the occupation – Recommend breaking the paragraph here and combining with the one below.

Done as suggested.

• Her father, Emil Dajč, an engineer – First, you don't need to tell us either his name or his title (father) again; you just told us one paragraph ago, so pick one and go with it. Second, this is a long sentence so I recommend cutting it up.

Done as suggested.

• A decree of 30 May 1941 required Belgrade's Jews to register with the authorities – Does this decree have a name? A Serbian-language Wikipedia page? Worth milling through Wikidata to see. Also, again this is a very long sentence that could bear to be cut up a bit.

Decree now named and cited, split up sentence.

• Link Forced labour and soft suggestion to link Tram here.

Done.

• Following an anti-German uprising in German-occupied Serbia that summer – Was all of Serbia under German occupation at this point? If so, you can just remove "German-occupied". Also, presumably this happened in particular locations within Serbia; do we know which had the largest numbers or impact?

Removed "German-occupied" and added where the uprising began and its biggest success, the capture of Užice.

• Link Reprisal, Romani people, and internment

Done.

• by the year's end, most of Serbia's Jewish men were dead – Do we have any idea what the original number was?

I don't have a sourced count of men specifically and the territory itself changed with the invasion, so I'd rather leave it out than guess.

• On 8 December 1941, the surviving Jews in Belgrade, about 7,000 women and children, along with others from Banat, Šabac, Niš, Kragujevac, Kosovska Mitrovica, Novi Pazar and elsewhere in occupied Serbia, were ordered to report to the police to be transferred to the former Belgrade Fairgrounds across the Sava River, near the town of Zemun (Semlin in German). → On 8 December 1941, the surviving 7,000 Jewish women and children in Belgrade – along with others from Banat, Šabac, Niš, Kragujevac, Kosovska Mitrovica, Novi Pazar and elsewhere in occupied Serbia – were ordered to report to the police to be transferred to the former Belgrade Fairgrounds across the Sava River, near the town of Zemun (Semlin in German).

Done.

• Okay, pointing this out now because this is a problem throughout: translations of non-English terms need to be in single quotes.

I think I got them all now.

• Link Serbo-Croatian.

Done.

• were released before the murder of the Jewish prisoners – What? Why?

Both sources I have (Manoschek p.178; Winstone p.404) report this as a fact but don't explain why so I'd rather not speculate about the reasoning behind it.

Found it: An order issued by the Military Commander in Serbia on 11 July 1941 allowed Romani prisoners to be removed from the official register of "Gypsies" and reclassified as Serbs which is why they were released while the Jewish prisoners were not. Added this to the footnote with new source (Pisarri 2014) added to bibliography.

• Sicherheitspolizei, Standartenführer, and Untersturmführer need to be in {{lang}} templates.

Done.

• Link Police reserve

Done.

• five kilometres needs to be in a {{convert}} template.

Done.

• around 7,000 Jewish prisoners were interned there – 7,000 additional Jews? Or is this just a reflection of the previous 7k Jews mentioned earlier?

They're the same 7,000 people described in the Death section. Reworded to make that connection clear.

• German-occupied Serbia – As above

This is different, removing it would make it unclear which population the "half" is calculated from.

• Although her father's position initially protected the family from some anti-Jewish measures in occupied Serbia – Why on earth would this protect them? If anything, it seems like this would put a big target on their backs.

Rephrased for clarity per source (Dakovic says :"During the first months of the occupation, her life remained relatively unchanged since her father, Emil Dajč, secured a prominent position in the “Vertretung der Judischen Gemainchaft, the representative body of the Jewish community in Belgrade,” allowing him to protect his family from the deteriorating living conditions.")

• Dajč chose in early December 1941, after completing a medical course that year, to enter the camp voluntarily to serve as a nurse, against her family's wishes. → After completing a medical course that year, Dajč chose to enter the camp voluntarily to serve as a nurse in early December 1941, against her family's wishes.

Done.

• On 8 December 1941, she reported, like other Jewish women and children, to the headquarters of the Jewish police and was transported by truck to the Sajmište concentration camp. → Like other Jewish women and children, she reported to the headquarters of the Jewish police on 8 December and was transported by truck to the Sajmište concentration camp. (You already established the timing.)

Done.

• Link Sava River and probably want to find an appropriate link for "exposure" here too.

Done.

• Link Jewish cemetery (unless you can identify the specific cemetery) and maybe Jewish funeral to "bury the dead"

Linked Jewish cemetery, left "bury the dead" unlinked as not enough detail to specify a funeral rite.

• Weinstein, the camp's Jewish administrator – No first name?

The source (Berger et al. 2017, p. 426.) only names him as "Herr Weinstein".

All done now, thank you! @ThaesOfereode: Aeengath (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. More again:

• four letters to two schoolmates – Not a big deal, but two each?

Yes two each: the first and third letters to Novak, the second and fourth to Petrović, as detailed further down in the section.

• Link Aleksa Šantić, unless his literary society has a sr.WP equivalent (?)

Done as suggested, also literary society

• Link Slavist.

Done as suggested.

• Specify Serbian Cyrillic; there are notable differences, especially in handwriting.

Done as suggested.

• Soft suggestion to link Overcrowding.

Done as suggested.

• According to historian Magdalena Saiger – Passim perhaps, but consider whether you want to use false titles or not. Strictly, they are not prohibited, so I will not object if you decide to keep them. Same with the Oxford comma, passim.

Added "the" before the descriptor in all the false title constructions and a consistency pass on the Oxford comma.

• staff from the Jewish hospital – If the same as linked before, capitalize "hospital". Once again a passim note.

Capitalised throughout.

• on the eve of – Borderline MOS:EUPH; prefer "the night before" since "the eve of" is broader and murkier.

Done as suggested.

• In it Dajč explains – Comma after "it".

Done.

• only about 80 cm of personal space each – {{convert}}

Done.

• Soft suggestion to link anthill and barbed wire.

Done.

• half a kilometre – {{convert}}

Done.

• a makeshift surgery – A makeshift surgery suite?

Changed it to surgery suite.

• Giergiel's account of the letter suggests a date of around 13 December. – Does he say why?

No she doesn't give a reason, I've kept 11 December as the primary date, since that's given directly in the archival document itself (VEJ vol. 14, Doc. 136) and by Saiger; Giergiel's approximate date is noted in the footnote for transparency.

• Link Lice infestation and Cresol.

Done as suggested.

• The hospital's daily courier visited – Given the following information, what is this supposed to convey? Her brother clearly knew their parents were en route.

Rephrased so it's clearer that Hans came separately.

• Italicize The Sorrows of Young Werther per MOS:MAJORWORK.

Done as suggested.

• as well as English and Hebrew textbooks – Like "how to learn a language" textbooks or textbooks in those languages on such topics?

Not done, type of textbooks isn't specified in my sources.

• As an aside, do we know how she got these books?

yes she brought them with her when she entered the camp. I found it in the third letter "Although we were only allowed to bring as much as we were allowed to bring, I have Werther, Heine, Pascal, Montaigne, an English and Hebrew textbook."

• Even amid these conditions, Despite the harsh circumstances, etc. – Another passim note: one or two of these are fine per section, but these are one after the other (and kind of a writing crutch).

Reworded that whole paragraph to break up the pattern.

• the growing sense of isolation from the outside world. She writes that the inmates felt "so near the outside world, yet so far from everyone", – Kind of repetitive, re: "outside world"

Reworded as well.

• At the same time she – Comma after "time".

Done.

• as Dajč asks whether they might be shot – Asks whom? Petrović?

Changed it to "wonders" since it reads more as her own uncertainty.

• the two friends were able on several occasions to arrange brief meetings when prisoners were allowed to cross → the two friends were able to arrange brief meetings on several occasions when prisoners were allowed to cross

Done.

• to eliminate the remaining inmates of Sajmište → to kill the remaining inmates at Sajmište – Per WP:EUPH, I hope you'll agree it's important not to mince words here.

Yes, changed it to "murder".

• Given this was before the time historians generally view the "changing tide" of the war, it may be important to explain why the internees were being killed en masse like this.

Good point, added a paragraph per Browning on the Wannsee Conference and Heydrich's decision, which left Belgrade without a deportation option prompting Berlin to supply a gas van instead.

• Remove the quotes for "Entlausungswagen".

Done.

• Those killed included Dajč's mother and younger brother, Hans – So not Dajč herself? Dajč's death is not mentioned directly at all in a section supposedly about her death. Worth also pointing out that she died in spring 1942, which could be added to the infobox.

Her own death is stated directly earlier in the section ("she was among the Jewish prisoners killed in the gas van") so "also killed" here refers back to that. Added her death to the infobox as "Spring 1942 (aged 19)".

@Aeengath: Do we know she was 19? 22 March is only two days into spring; it seems much more likely that she was 20, but without knowing the day she was killed, this is only speculation. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I have three sources saying 19 (including Almuli directly), but you're right that I shouldn't assert a specific number without knowing her exact death date, especially given how close it falls to her birthday. Changed it to "Spring 1942 (aged 19–20)"

• In August 1942 Turner reported – Comma after 1942

Done.

• Link Jewish problem and recommend linking solved as Final Solution.

Linked "Jewish problem" Holding off on linking "solved" to Final Solution, as we may risk the same WP:EGG problem you flagged earlier.

• Almuli located the letters' recipients, Nada Novak and Mirjana Petrović – Reintroducing Nada and Mirjana but not Jaša. Why? Why reintroduce them at all?

Fair point, removed their names here.

• Link United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Done.

• An earlier documentary, Ljudi govore: Hilda Dajč ('People Speak: Hilda Dajč'), directed by Radoslav Ognjenović – Minor translation quibble, but might "The People Speak" be a more appropriate translation? Open to pushback here. Typically I would reserve "the" for a word like narod (i.e., the people at large, as in We the People), but here I think it works better here.

Agreed, changed to "The People Speak: Hilda Dajč".

• The Serbian artist Aleksandar Zograf has also depicted her letters and the experiences of Jewish prisoners at Sajmište in a graphic novel, profiled in The Jerusalem Post in 2018. – Presumably this effort has a title?

It does, The Letters of Hilda Deitch, added.

• Link Civic responsibility, Social activism, Terracotta, and University of Sussex.

Done.

• Recommend adding Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia in the "See also" section.

Done.

• Recommend adding a blurb from one of the letters to the "Letters" section, especially since Cyrillic handwriting is notoriously difficult to read; I recommend using both English and Serbian for those interested (as I did at Argos (dog) with the Greek)

Added a quote from the fourth letter as a quote box, with the Serbian Cyrillic original collapsed underneath as suggested. Really enjoyed reading (and learning) about Argos (dog) in the process.

@Aeengath: Thanks for the kind words; it was an enjoyable page to write. As an aside, I recommend a comma after "fourth letter" since it seems otherwise that this is the fourth letter she wrote to Petrović rather than the fourth letter overall. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review to follow. A nice article overall. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

All done, thank you @ThaesOfereode:! Aeengath (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Two additional minor quibbles:

1. You appear to be using British spelling without Oxford standards, so Aryanization should be spelled with an "s" instead of a "z".

   Done.

2. In footnote A, Deutsch and Deitch should be italicized rather than quoted or left alone in accordance with MOS:WAW

   Done.

ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Serbian-language source review below:

• Almuli (2005): Link the author. Email me the relevant pages.

Author linked, working on relevant pages.

Sent a transcript of p. 127, have requested a proper scan and will send that along if I get one.

• Almuli (2010): Ut supra

Sent.

• Byford (2011): Link the author. Also another translation quibble, but probably "The Old Fairgrounds", right? Especially since your German sources use "the" (Das Gelände der alten Messe)

Author linked. Also changed to "The Old Fairground", I checked Google Books and the singular form is far more established than "Fairgrounds" so I left it as is.

• • [36]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [69]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [168]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

• Vukadinović (2026): Translation quibble, but it's "Hilda Dajč and Her Letters: A Rare Record of the Holocaust in Belgrade". Also, why are you forcing the sfnref when there's a credited author? I thought you hadn't even used the source for a minute.

Fixed the trans-title and dropped the forced sfnref. Updated the sfn to Vukadinović instead.

• • [29a]: This says until May 1942 (do maja 1942), not March.

    Good catch, that source wasn't actually supporting that end date anyway so I removed it from the sentence and left Krug as the sole citation. It's been rephrased to match Krug exactly

  • [29b]: Quibbles -- Is this an indefinite usage? I'm not 100% sure. If it is, I get why you would translate malog as "small" here, but I think the intent is more like "short". If it isn't, then it should be "the little diary of Anne Frank" or "Anne Frank's little diary", which is substantively different. Given the semantic ambiguity, I would just write that Almuli compares the work to the diary and leave it at that, without the quote.

    Agreed, the phrase is genuinely ambiguous in Serbian. Dropped the quoted "small diary" and just left that Almuli compared her letters to Anne Frank's diary.

• Vulović & Draškić (1988): Email the relevant pages.

Sent.

• The Film Center Serbia source has the page in English, so I'm not sure why you're presenting the Serbian-language form here.

Now leads with their own English title with the Serbian as the parenthetical. Also added italics to the lang template.

Will be on the lookout for the emailed sources. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aeengath:

• Almuli (2010): Any reason why you don't include the term "martyr" (mučenica) in your chapter title for this?

  I did miss that, have updated the citation to match.

  • [3a]: Dates and location check out, but Almuli calls her parents merchants (trgovca), not an engineer? I see that Berger et al. calls him an engineer, but is there any reason to we should consider that source more informative than this one? May not be mutually exclusive either.

    Kept "engineer" per the majority (Matthäus, Saiger, VEJ/Berger) but added a footnote mentioning Almuli's calling him a merchant. I agree that the two aren't necessarily contradictory, he could have trained as an engineer but was also a merchant.

  • [3b]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [8a]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [8b]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [38]: Isn't this just page 35?

    Fixed.

  • [41]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [46]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [47a]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [47b]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

    • As an aside to this, it seems noteworthy that Dajč is writing about what appears to be either systematic rape or at least transactional prison sex (whatever ljubavnicizam is supposed to mean; 'mistressism' is probably the most accurate literal translation, but that seems wildly misleading) at the camps. She uses some euphemisms here too; does she specify what her "special affection" (osobita naklonost) means? Similarly, I'm not entirely sure how to interpret jer ko prvi devojci onome u devojka. This may be a Serbian phrase I'm unfamiliar with. Do any of your other sources discuss this element of her letters, because admittedly it jumped out at me.

      Working through getting the passage and the translation right.

      Ljubavnicizam does seem to describe favoritism tied to relationships with young female inmates, it seems to be Hilda's own coinage, built by analogy to nepotizam used in the same sentence. Osobita naklonost reads as ironic here not literal fondness. In jer ko prvi devojci, onome i devojka, roughly "whoever gets to a girl first, she becomes his," she's describing the predatory dynamic of the camp, similar to the English phrase "first come, first served." Semlin.info's translation is: "as soon as one of them chats with a girl, she becomes his girlfriend." Almuli (p.39) frames it as part of the camp's corrupt kapo system run by young women from Banat but doesn't comment on that specific favoritism/relationships claim itself. I have also checked Berger, Byford, Daković, Krug, Matthäus, Saiger, Subotic and Giergiel, none of them touch this part of her letters. Given that I don't think I can include it, it'd be leaning entirely on my own reading of one letter with nothing in the secondary sources to back it up. Leaving it out for now but will revisit if something turns up. Thank you for highlighting it. Aeengath (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)`

      Yes, I gathered the irony of the naklost but I thought it may have been a reference to some other event(s) in her life; no matter. I agree that it seems there's nothing really to add to the body, which is a real shame because it's an interesting set of remarks about the experience of the women inmates. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

      I agree and I'll keep an eye out in case a source ever discusses it directly.

  • [48]: Checks out.

    Thank you for checking

  • [52a]: Wrong page? Appears to be pp. 43–44, not 42.

    Fixed.

    • As an aside, is this your translation or one found elsewhere? If yours, I do have to ask why you chose 'outside word' as the translation to sveta? Also need a {{sic}} tag next to her misspelling of klaonica unless this is a dialectal thing. Also also, "We are all alike in our cowardice, you all and us" seems like an important crescendo to the quote. Any reason you left it out?

      The translation came from semlin.info (Giergiel p.272 also used "We are so near the outside world, yet so far from everyone") but you're right "sveta" just means "world" so I have trimmed it to match the original. "Klanica" is not a misspelling it's the standard Serbian form, "klaonica" is the Croatian equivalent. I have restored the missing closing line too, corrected the page and ended per Almuli with a period not an exclamation mark.

      TIL. People always discount how many Serbian terms are different from Croatian ones. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  • [52b]: This appears to be the wrong page too. This looks like 41–42, though I admit the use of the word letujem ('fly'?) is throwing me. Is this an ad hoc perfectivizer? HJP was not helpful in interpreting that for me.

    It's not the wrong page but it makes sense to add p. 41 and her hope for imminent release, leading to p. 42 footnote, thank you for pointing this out. On "letujem", it's from letovati ("to summer"),, "I have no intention of summering here", it is not related to leteti ("fly").

    Damn, I did consider that, but of course in English this has something of an upper crust affect so I must've just batted it out of mind. Shame on me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• The one Vulović & Draškić (1988) citation checks out, but I would either move that source to the comma break (i.e., After completing a medical course that year) or put it in a {{multiref2}} and say something along the lines of For her medical training see Vulović & Draškić (1988), p. 123., vel sim.

  Now moved after the content it supports.

Still waiting on Almuli (2005), but if all is like before should be an easy pass. Apologies for the false ping earlier. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @ThaesOfereode, all done. Aeengath (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Added final reply Aeengath (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Almuli (2005):

• [a]: Checks out. Other info seems to be supported in the other sources, so that's fine.

  Thank you for checking

• [b]: Checks out. Other info seems to be supported in the other sources, so that's fine.

  Thank you for checking

• [c]: Checks out. Other info seems to be supported in the other sources, so that's fine.

  Thank you for checking

• [d]: Checks out. Doesn't explicitly say the date, but I trust our readership to understand the concept of "7 + 1 = 8".

  Same!

That's all from me. Everything else is just nitpicks. Happy to support based on prose quality and Serbian-language source review. Congratulations on an excellent article which appears to be headed in the direction of being your first FA! ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much @ThaesOfereode: the article is much stronger thanks to your careful review. I hope this means more people will learn about Hilda's story. Aeengath (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Vacant0

Hey, thanks for writing this article. In case if you need more reviews, I'll gladly review this. I don't have time to do it during this week though. I only noticed while scrolling that the Serbian BBC source is not used in the article, although it is listed under used sources. You can either incorporate the source in the article, move it to "further reading", or remove the source from the article. Good luck with your nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations

Buangkok MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 14:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully, third time's the charm?

This article is about an MRT station in Singapore which got caught up in a small bit of political drama in Singapore. Even though the line opened in 2003, Buangkok station remained closed, and the line's operator offered plenty of justifications like projected low ridership and lack of developments at the time. However, a few disgruntled residents, who were taken aback by the sudden announcement to close the station, lobbied with grassroots leaders to have the station opened. That led to the "white elephant" incident – a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts. The station eventually opened in 2006, and presently it's a rather bustling station with a new shopping mall.

The previous nominations expressed concerns on clarity and wording in certain portions of the article, especially explaining what a "grassroots leader" is (in the Singapore context, it's more like a volunteer appointed by a government body to liaise with the community). Much thanks to YuniToumei (talk · contribs) for giving an outsiders' perspective and pointing out ways to fix the article. Also pinging past reviewers 750h+, Gog the Mild, Chipmunkdavis, Vacant0, Premeditated Chaos, Mike Christie, Epicgenius. Noleander who have offered feedback before in past FAC nominations or peer review, but none are obliged to review. ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 14:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

EG

Thanks for the ping. I actually forgot to leave my comments last time, so here is a placeholder. I hope to complete this within a week (or at least before Wikimania). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead (I touched on this in the PR):

• Para 1: "located near the road intersection of Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow." - I'd say "located near the road intersection of Sengkang Central and Compassvale Bow" because intersections are typically phrased as "the intersection of X and Y" if both streets X and Y are in the same clause. ("With" would be appropriate for something like "along Sengkang Central near the junction with Compassvale Bow", where the streets are mentioned in different clauses. You use this further down in the article.)
• Para 2: "youth minister Vivian Balakrishnan" - Should "Youth Minister" be capitalised per MOS:JOBTITLES?

• Fixed all the above.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Construction:

• Para 1: "proposed by the Government of Singapore in 1984" - Should "Government" be capitalised? In other parts of the world, this word is lowercase even when referring to a specific government.
• Para 1: "communications minister Mah Bow Tan" - Should this be "Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan"?
• Para 3: "the site was excavated to a depth of up to 20 m (66 ft), and work on the station proceeded" - I would say "depth of as much as 20 m..." because "up to" (in the figurative sense) doesn't really pair well with "depth".

Delay in opening:

• Para 1: "Housing demand had declined due to the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the economic downturn following the September 11 attacks." - The 9/11 attacks occurred halfway across the globe, so I would clarify that this was a "global economic downturn".
• Para 1: "operating costs by S$2-to-3 million" - Hyphenating makes it seem like this is an adjective phrase, which it isn't. How about "operating costs by S$2 million to S$3 million" or "operating costs by S$2 to 3 million"?
• Para 2: "A poll of residents living within 700 m (2,300 ft) of the station showed that nearly 7 in 10 were willing to walk to the station" - How about "...nearly 7 in 10 were willing to walk there"? This would reduce repetition of "to the station".
• Para 3: "transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong", "deputy prime minister Lee Hsien Loong" - Should these be capitalised?
• Para 3: "saying it would open once the area has been developed" - This should be "...saying it would open once the area had been developed" as the rest of the sentence is past tense (even though Tong was saying that the opening would open in the future).

• Fixed all the above.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

White elephant incident:

• Para 1: " Chong attributed the renewed dissatisfaction among residents" - How about " Chong attributed residents' renewed dissatisfaction"?
• Para 2: "Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said the investigation was initiated because they could not selectively enforce legislation" - I feel like this should be placed before the sentence about the police closing the investigation.

• Fixed all the above.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Station opening:

• Para 1: "...SBS Transit agreed to the expedited opening due to reduced losses from its rail operations." - So did they agree to the opening because the losses they had already incurred were less than expected? Or was it because the projected losses on this station were less than expected?

• The source states: Transport operator SBS Transit said it had agreed to the opening in light of declining losses from its rail operations. The source also noted increased ridership.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it does seem like the police overreacted to the shirt thing. Just my opinion anyway.
• Para 3: "defence minister Teo Chee Hean" - Should this be capitalised?

• Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Para 3: "SBS Transit, after saying it was still "too early to draw a conclusion" about ridership, remained committed to keeping the station open to serve future developments nearby" - Was there ever any consideration to closing the station?

• Not really. That also has never happened in Singapore before, except for Ten Mile Junction LRT station.

• Did ridership increase after the station opened? There doesn't seem to be much info about the station post-opening, but I would at least expect the ridership issue to have been addressed.

• The infobox latest number is about 19,000. So yeah, definitely quite a jump. There aren't any secondary sources on this though.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Details:

• Para 1: "has the station code of NE15" - I would change to "with the station code NE15", or "which bears the station code NE15".
• Para 1: "12:25 a.m" - This should be "12:25 a.m." (second period after a.m.)
• Para 2: Link Teochew Min?
• Para 2: "The station has two entrances" - Where exactly? Are they at opposite ends?
• Para 2: "integrated commercial-and-residential development" - I would remove the hyphens as they are not necessary (this is not an adjective phrase).
• Para 3: "rounded-or-elongated" - Same as above, the hyphens can be removed.

• Fixed the above (I think these hyphens were a result of a past copyedit).--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Artwork:

• Para 1: "The artwork consists of two strips of images" - I'd say "It consists of two strips of images" as "the artwork" is mentioned at the beginning of the previous sentence
• Para 1: "Through colourful embellishments ... through the use of primary colours" - Is it possible to reword the sentence to mention the primary colours earlier in the sentence?

• Realised I have two "through..." clauses. Shifted the primary colours at the beginning

• Para 2: "decided to experiment fusing art and photography" - I'd say "decided to experiment with fusing art and photography".
• Para 2: "to reflect the lifestyle of old Buangkok and rural Singapore, and for commuters to connect the past with the future" - I suggest "to reflect the lifestyle of old Buangkok and rural Singapore, and to help commuters connect the past with the future.", because "to reflect...to help" are grammatically parallel.
• Para 2: "The enlarged photographs resulted in an abstract appearance" - This would only be abstract if seen up close, right?

@ZKang123, that's all the prose comments from me. (This is a record for me, I don't think I've ever done a whole FAC review in one setting.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: addressed the above.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't see anything else, so Support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from YuniToumei

Hi! Continuing from my informal peer review. The prose is looking solid by now, I have a few notes on comprehensiveness after a deeper dive into literature:

• Continuing my inquiry from the peer review about ridership in subsequent years and EG's question on it, I found Tan, 2 Nov 2009, p.6 , The Straits Times, which says "Ridership is now around 7,000 a day - fourfold its initial number", as well as Yong & Toh, 19 Nov 2010, The Straits Times, which says "At that time, LTA had explained that it had delayed the opening of the station because there were insufficient people living around it. That problem has evaporated. The area has developed quickly. The number of HDB blocks has increased from under 100 to 149 in just four years. Numerous amenities have been added near Buangkok MRT, which opened in 2006." Could you use these sources to expand on the ridership development after opening?
• Buangkok appears in discussions around "mothballed" stations. It seems that in 2009, the Woodleigh and Buangkok delays prompted the government to promise that no MRT stations would be mothballed anymore in the future (Tan, 2 Nov 2009, p.1, The Straits Times), but then did so anyways in 2022 (Yufeng, 12 Jan 2022). This discourse feels recent and might be worth mentioning as a legacy and effect of the Buangkok delay.
• Were you able to extract anything useful from the Financial Times article I mentioned at the peer review?

That's it from me for now :) Let me know if you need help accessing the sources. YuniToumei (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@YuniToumei: Thanks for reviewing. I added a couple more details of Buangkok's subsequent developments. On the mothball stations, I felt it would be more relevant for Woodleigh MRT station, and there might be a little SYNTH if I were to elaborate on the two TEL stations. And the FT article imo doesn't add very much except for being a summary of the White Elephant incident as a whole, but I might add as a citation.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@YuniToumei: Resolved your other concerns.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Awesome! The increased ridership over time feels adequately addressed now :) A few final comments on the prose of that section:

• surrounding population: Sounds a bit strange, and duplicates "surrounding" which appears in the next sentence. Maybe "nearby population"?
• of insufficient people: Sounds a bit unprofessional. Better to say "of low population density around the station"?
• white Teflon sheets, supported by metal frames, instead covered the entrances: Why covered (past)?

That should be all that's left for my concerns. YuniToumei (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@YuniToumei

white Teflon sheets, supported by metal frames, instead covered the entrances

I wrote the past tense in an attempt to respond to this comment below. I mean, yeah, I'm sure the Teflon covered the entrances in the late 2000s. Maybe not so much in 2026. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I prefer to do the fixes myself, thank you. YuniToumei did the other fixes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Looks all good to me now. Happy to give a thorough support across the board in terms of prose, sourcing, and comprehensivenss, after the extensive informal peer review and my comments above. The article has come a long way, nice work in being undeterred after two archivals. YuniToumei (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment on images

I note that the images are quite outdated, the Exit A image has now been integrated with Sengkang Grand Mall (which is where Buangkok Bus Interchange is located), and the platform images have the old line signage design (don't have the line diagrams on the platform screen doors). Mind if I find one from my personal photo gallery and upload it here (with a suitable alt text)? Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 09:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: as a fellow drive-by guy, I'd like to thank you for that lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: I don't think for the platforms it will be necessary to change, unless there was a major renovation. But I might agree the entrance photo might need to change.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused @ZKang123 I have added the first 12 images that I took today into c:Category:Buangkok MRT Station. However, I cannot decide which image to choose. It was a pain IRL, as the station sign for Exit A was covered by the structure that replaced the classic netting at some camera angles. I do have another set of photos, but I won't upload them unless you tell me to (if the 12 already uploaded are not good). I'm very aware that my phone's hardware is not as good as I want it to be, but oh well.

Also, no platform shot for me, there is an escalator upgrading work now and it wouldn't look as nice. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 12:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: I volunteer to take photographs for the article tomorrow

By the way, the light grey stair edges in File:Cantonment MRT Exit 4 and FTPRS side - 2026.jpg look to me like the tracks of a street-level LRT you'd see in the West Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 13:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

"The station's design... features white Teflon sheets that cover the station's two entrances."

If anyone had been drilling on that, we might have been doing GAR prevention instead of the third FAC for this article Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: copyright issue

In Singapore, freedom of panorama is granted for 3D artistic works installed "other than temporarily" in public locations, but not for temporary 3D works, sheltered 3D works, or 2D works

With that said, the issue is that the art piece captured in File:NE15 Buangkok MRT 20201020 080807.jpg appears to be a 2D work actively protected by copyright Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe, given how any derivative work (zooming in) focusing on the artwork would be too grainy for any commercial value, and that the picture is on multiple parts of the station (concourse lift, artwork, platform), the image would fall under de minims. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 03:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: I get it now

I still feel, however, that when you say de minimis and then immediately use a photo to emphasise the de minimis part(s) of it, you stop engaging in the de minimis defence

By the way, today I took File:Buangkok MRT exit A, 1 August 2026.jpg and File:Buangkok MRT exit B, 1 August 2026.jpg to make good on my promise from yesterday; both are licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC 4.0. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologise if this is unnecessarily long and out of the FAC's scope. lol.

1. Point on de minims: oops. On hindsight, I added the external media in case the image gets removed. I was going to say: keep the image and remove the external media (which is quite old), to show some illustration of the artwork. However, File:NE15 Buangkok MRT Platforms 20210827 132626.jpg already does some of the illustration, so I'm happy with removing the image taken from the concourse (no need to delete it). TLDR,  Self-trout
2. I told @ZKang123 of-wiki (that is, Discord, but not WP:DISCORD), that taking the exit A image was unnecessarily painful, as the new structure covered up the station sign if you tried to take a photo of the entire thing. The one you took identifies that it is the said station, but it doesn't give a good representation of what the station's exterior looks like, especially for an international audience. Could you try taking a panorama of B from A and A from B? Or, do we want to wait for exit C to open?

Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 07:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: what is a panorama when you're trying to make do with the limitations of a mobile phone? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I appreciate your feedback and concerns but even I don't think the new image is appropriate. I'm planning to reshoot Exit B which has the iconic white canvas. Also I've removed the artwork image.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

• I made copyedits to the article as I read through: feel free to revert if not helpful.
• "Charles Chong, then a Member of Parliament for Pasir Ris–Punggol Group Representation Constituency, echoed the residents' sentiments." Not sure if this is necessary, and might be too much detail.
  • I kept this largely because the transport minister attributed the station's earlier opening to Chong, and I also need to establish who is he and why he lobbied on behalf of his constituents. I can shift some information into a footnote though, especially where he was representating.
• "Buangkok station is operated by SBS Transit and is open from 5:45 a.m. to 12:25 a.m. daily." I'm not sure that station operating times are necessary in the article: it might be too much detail and could be difficult to maintain accuracy if the station changes its operating times. This information might be better placed in WikiVoyage.
  • True. I actually personally try to avoid putting timings. Removed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of quotes in the references: I think it clutters up the section and if readers are interested in reading the source, they will go to the source. There's also copyright concerns when too much of a source is quoted. I did not read anything in the article that was so controversial that I thought a quote from the source was necessary. I would consider removing them.
  • Alright. I initially left them there for a possible source review, tbh. But since also some of the references are used multiple times, I get why. I also have the full articles saved if required.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Lead check:"Buangkok MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)" I could not find information in the article body about the station being underground. This might be good to add in "details" (perhaps how far underground it is?)
  • Unfortunately there aren't any sources outright stating it's an underground station, although the North East Line is already said to be fully underground. Will that fact work?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• You can put a note beside "Underground" that says, "The entire North East Line, including this station, is underground." and then cite this statement. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Infobox check:

• Infobox says that the station has two tracks, but I could not find the information in the article body. It might be good to add to the "Details" section
  • Removed.
• Infobox says that there is taxi connections to the station. This is not mentioned in the article body: this should be cited, mentioned (and cited) in the article body, or removed as too much detail.
  • Added citation in infobox.
• Infobox says that the station has parking and cycle facilities, but I couldn't find where this is mentioned in the article body. This should be cited, added to the article body with citations, or removed as too much detail.
  • Removed.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me upon responses. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: Responded. Thanks for looking through.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• @ZKang123: One response above, to "underground". Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: Done so. I've actually found another source from an architecture website which stated it's underground.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Mike Enzi

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Mike Enzi, the third-longest serving U.S. Senator from Wyoming. The son of a shoemaker, he entered politics after being convinced to run for mayor of Gillette, Wyoming in 1974. He defeated the incumbent mayor and was reelected, but left office after declining to run for reelection in 1982. He was elected to the Wyoming House of Representatives and was later appointed to the Wyoming Senate. In 1996, he was elected to his first of four terms in the U.S. Senate. During his tenure in the U.S. Senate he served as chair or ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and Budget committees. He ended his political career when he left the U.S. Senate in January 2021, but died in a biking accident months later. Jon698 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There are some important details that people should know because I think these comments will be asked. The section for his time in the Wyoming legislature is rather small because the Wyoming legislature is the least active legislature in the US. The body only meets for 40 days and half of that is allocated to making the budget. Jon698 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Over the past few months I went over every reference in the article (I changed the format to know which ones I already went through). I also searched through JSTOR, Project MUSE, Brill, De Gruyter, and Taylor & Francis through the Wikipedia Library for additional sources. Jon698 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I will be able to do research for the content suggestions below starting on Sunday. Jon698 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• I was just looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2026 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2026 for my own reference and saw that the minimum for a passing FAC is three supports. Would that be correct? Jon698 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Done. Jon698 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123

I will take a look at this.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• Just a bit of clarification, but the Air National Guard is considered part of the Air Force?

• It is a reserve of the Air Force. I removed the mention of it in the first sentence since it is not extremely relevant to him. I don't know who added it. Jon698 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

No issues I can really find for Early life and education

Career:

• State representative Alan Simpson convinced Enzi to run for mayor of Gillette in 1974. Just curious, but is it known how Enzi met Simpson?

• I tried searching for this information on Newspapers.com, but nothing popped up.

• ... mayor of Gillette in 1974... incumbent Mayor Cliff Davis Why is the later Mayor capitalised?

• I made "incumbent Mayor" lowercase in this edit

• Two city council seats were vacated within a one month span of April to May 1976, by the resignations of Ed Geringer and Jack Babcock Might rewrite to: Ed Geringer and Jack Babcock resigned within a month of each other in April and May 1976, leaving two city council seats vacant.

• Done in this edit

• Also, is it know why they resigned?

• According to the source Babcock was moving outside of the city limits and Geringer was doing so for personal reasons. There are no other newspaper reports on what those personal reasons were. How would you like me to add this information to the article?

• Like Geringer cited personal reasons for stepping down, while Babcock was moving out of the city Or smth to that effect. Perhaps as a footnote or inline.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Done in this edit

• Enzi was appointed to serve on the National League of Cities' community development committee. Was appointed by who?

• The National League of Cities itself according to the source

• Is it also known when he joined the Republican party and why?

• I don't think it is possible to find that information. Unless the person has an interesting reason for joining a party then nobody is going to report on it.

• It was widely speculated that Enzi might run to succeed him Widely speculated by whom?

• Done in this edit

• Senator Kelly Mader resigned on December 9, 1991, due to him having moved his family to Denver, Colorado, and starting a business there. Reads a bit awkwardly. Might rewrite to: Senator Kelly Mader resigned on 9 December 1991 after moving with his family to Denver, Colorado, where he started a business.

• Done in this edit

• In the elections subsection, is it actually necessary to know how much his opponents spent?

• It adds a lot of context. For example: A race where you beat your opponent 90%-10% after they spent $5 is far different from a race where you beat your opponent 90%-10% after they spent $5 million.

Will continue reviewing.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Political positions:

• Opposed to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Enzi voted to sustain a filibuster against it stating that it violated the First Amendment rights of interest groups to contribute money in 1997 and 1998 Would suggest spliting the sentence. Also, I find the part "Opposed to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" an odd dangling modifier

• Done in this edit

• Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin be aware of WP:SEAOFBLUE

• I removed the wikilink for Treasury Secretary in this edit

• 16 Republican senators, including Enzi, cosponsored legislation in 2018, that would suspend the 22% tariff on newsprint from Canada Would try to avoid starting a sentence with a figure

• Done in this edit

• The environment section could perhaps be reorganised chronologically

• Done in this edit

• Legislation in the Wyoming state senate which would declare all same-sex marriages in the United States invalid in Wyoming was supported by Enzi This sentence is a bit complex.

• Altered in this edit

• Same for this sentence: The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which eliminated American imports from Myanmar, placed restrictions on the visas of Myanmar's leaders, and required American opposition to international financial institutions giving loans to Myanmar, was passed in 2003, with Enzi as the only senator to vote against it.

• Altered in this edit

My overall impression is that this is a neat article on his political career, especially based on the local sources available, but I felt there isn't much that really elaborated in his political views (like why was he opposed to estate tax and raising the minimum wage, or why he joined the Republican Party). However, if these explanations/analysis aren't known or covered anywhere (given he might not be that prominent of a politician), then I think the article is fine as is.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: I have responded to all of your comments above. I had a question for the point about "Also, is it know why they resigned?" Jon698 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698: Satisfied with the responses. I also replied to one of your questions.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thank you for your comments. Could you change the heading to "ZKang123 (Support)" or "Support from ZKang123"? Jon698 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Support --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

• Scope: I have done a non-specialist prose, structure and internal-consistency pass, concentrating on reader-facing issues.

• Following on from ZKang123's Air National Guard question above, the account of Enzi's military service is internally inconsistent. The infobox gives the United States Air Force and Wyoming Air National Guard, and the lead calls him an Air Force veteran who served in the Air National Guard, but the body says Enzi served in the Wyoming Army National Guard. The same passage links Officer Candidate School to the United States Navy. Which branch and unit do the sources support? Sorry if I've misunderstood this.

• I removed Air Force veteran from the lede in an earlier edit stated in ZKang123's section. I also chose to replace US Air Force in the infobox with Air National Guard. The Officer Candidate School is linked to since it "rejected Enzi due to glycosuria".

• The final lead paragraph gives the wrong chronology:
  • He served until he declined to seek reelection in 2020, and was succeeded by Cynthia Lummis.

• Changed to "reelection in the 2020 election" in this edit

• • The body says that he announced his retirement on 5 May 2019 and remained in office until January 2021. Something like He announced in 2019 that he would not seek reelection in 2020 and left office in January 2021, when Cynthia Lummis succeeded him. would resolve that.

• In the opening paragraph, the third longest-serving U.S. Senator from Wyoming Recommend: the third-longest-serving U.S. senator from Wyoming.

• Done in this edit

• The Wyoming Legislature section starts with the 1986 election and the 1988 and 1990 reelections, then jumps backwards to John Ostlund's 1978 gubernatorial campaign and speculation about Enzi succeeding him. I suggest that the 1978 material would read more naturally in Local politics, or before the account of the 1986 election.

• I believe it is easier to read in its current state as the section's paragraph are organized right now as state house elections, state senate appointment and election, and then tenure.

• The balance of the United States Senate coverage needs another look. Enzi served for 24 years, but the Tenure section devotes a full long paragraph to the 1997 laptop dispute and another largely to awards and ratings. His policy record is then presented mainly as a catalogue of individual votes under Political positions. Could the Senate material be reorganised around the work and subjects that defined his tenure, with the laptop episode and less significant one-off details compressed? The lead would then need to summarise those central themes.

• There are not too many modern U.S. Senators with FAs so it is hard to find a good format. John McCain (which was promoted all the way back in 2008 so not too good of an example) has an entirely seperate page for his political positions. I do have one FA (Beverly White) and it uses the same format that Mike Enzi has. I think it is easier for the reader if all of the stuff they said or voted on goes into a political positions section while the positions they sought, committee stuff, and other non-political stuff goes into the tenure section. Jon698 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• The electoral-history table:
  • Its screen-reader caption is Electoral history of Kurt Wright. This should be Electoral history of Mike Enzi.

• Fixed

• • Every party-colour cell contains the malformed attribute style="background-color:{{party color|Republican Party (United States)}};";". The extra ;" should be removed throughout.

• Done in this edit

• • The prose says that Enzi and the other representatives won the 1990 election against Democratic opponents, but the table places 4,414 votes under the primary columns and marks the general election as not applicable. Please check the election source and reconcile the prose and table.

• I was unable to find any newspaper reporting on the final election results and emailing the Wyoming election authorities produced no results. The source for Enzi's general election victory only has 20 of 32 precincts reporting so I can't use that for the electoral table. Would you prefer if I added "missing data" instead to the table?

• The laptop paragraph:
  • On November 5, the Rules committee voted against allowing Enzi to bring his laptop onto the floor, Rick Santorum was the only member that voted to allow laptops onto the floor.
  • Suggested: On November 5, the committee voted against allowing Enzi to bring his laptop onto the floor. Rick Santorum was the only member to support the proposal.

• Done in this edit

• • As of 2018, all personal electronic devices are still prohibited from the floor. uses relative wording; suggest As of 2018, personal electronic devices remained prohibited from the floor.

• Done in this edit

• This sentence is grammatically broken and repeats “signed”:
  • In 2020, signed amicus brief calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade was signed by 168 representatives and 39 senators, including Enzi.
  • Suggested: In 2020, Enzi was among 39 senators and 168 representatives who signed an amicus brief calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

• Done in this edit

• Questioning what objectives would be achieved or interested served should be Questioning what objectives would be achieved or interests served.

• Done in this edit

• The gun-rights paragraph has faulty parallelism and a missing full stop. In would require background checks ... regulate the transfer of firearms ... and banning the importation, “banning” should be ban. A full stop is also needed after “parent” and before the citation in the sentence about juveniles possessing semi-automatic weapons.

• Done in this edit

• several minor citation-metadata errors:
  • The Jacey Fortin citation is labelled as a New York Times obituary, but its main url= points to the Newspapers.com clipping used for “DeMolays Elect”. Its archived URL points to the obituary.
  • The Ursula Perano citation links to Axios but identifies the work as Vox.
  • The 9 November 1997 Eric Schmitt citation to The New York Times repeats the title of the 10 August Casper Star-Tribune article, although its URL and Harvard target identify a different article.
  • The Kyle Roerink citation repeats the title of the Burns, Kopan and Hohmann Politico article, but its URL points to a different Casper Star-Tribune piece about Cheney criticising a poll. The title should match the linked article.
  • The Iraq war resolution target contains a stray closing parenthesis in both {{sfn|H.J. Res. 114)|2002}} and its {{harvid}} target.

• I have corrected all of that in this edit

• The depth of newspaper research is a genuine strength; the Casper Star-Tribune coverage of the mayoral and legislative years documents a local career far more thoroughly than most biographies manage. Nothing above is structural apart from the Senate-balance question, and I will be glad to revisit once these points are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your points above. Jon698 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Jon698, that's a thorough set of responses and most of it has landed cleanly. Three things still open, plus a few I picked up on the re-read.

Military service

This one hasn't been resolved, and I think the change may have gone in the wrong direction. The problem wasn't that the infobox said Air Force; it was that the infobox and lead say Air National Guard while the body says Enzi served in the Wyoming Army National Guard. The article still contradicts itself, and now the infobox and lead agree with each other rather than with the sourced sentence. What does Fortin actually say? Whichever it is, the infobox branch and unit, the lead and the body all need to match.

• On the Officer Candidate School link: my question was about the target, which is Officer Candidate School (United States Navy). If Enzi was joining the Army or Air National Guard, a Navy OCS rejection is unexpected, and a reader will assume it's a linking slip. Does the 1996 reporting specify the branch? If it doesn't, an unpiped link or a general one would be safer.

• Correct to state in the body that he served in the Wyoming Air National Guard in this edit. The source states that he was applying for the navy.

The 1990 table row

To answer your question directly: yes, please replace {{n/a}} with something indicating the figures aren't available. As it stands the table asserts that no general election took place, which contradicts the prose saying all three representatives won against Democratic opponents. "Not available" or a similar marker is honest about the gap, whereas n/a makes a claim. Keep the Casper Star-Tribune general-election citation on the row so the "Won" is still supported. Not being able to find precinct-complete returns for a 1990 state house race is entirely reasonable and no reviewer will hold it against you; asserting the wrong thing to fill the cell is the only real problem.

• Done in this edit

Senate coverage, reframed

Your reasoning on the political positions format is fair. But I don't think layout was really my point, and I'd like to put it differently.

• The Tenure section covers 24 years in three paragraphs: the laptop dispute, lobbying for Frist plus three awards, and a list of impeachment and Supreme Court votes. The Committees section is a record of who he succeeded and when. Between them, the article never says what Enzi did as chair of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions from 2005, or of Budget from 2015. No bill he wrote or led is described, apart from the Sacagawea dollar and the biennial budgeting proposal, both of which sit in Political positions.

• I have added a section in the tenure sub-section that includes two resolutions he sponsored and a law he sponsored. If you read the review from the person below, you will see that Enzi only wrote 16 bills that were passed into law. I also moved the ideological sub-section into the tenure sub-section.

• Being a chair of a committee seems like he would be doing a lot, but he is just presiding over the meetings, overseeing deliberation, and overseeing decorum.

• Two of your own sources point at the gap. Straub 2005 is titled "An effective compromiser" but is cited only for the fact that he succeeded Judd Gregg. Wheeler 2021 is "Former U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi Remembered For Political Career, Bipartisanship" but is cited only for his being third-longest-serving. Both look as though they contain career assessment that hasn't made it into the article, and there's currently no section where such material would live.

• I used the Wheeler 2021 reference to add in a sentence about his 80/20 rule for bipartisan compromise.

• Relatedly, the lead has nothing at all from Political positions, which is roughly half the body. WP:LEAD asks it to summarise the whole article.

• I added "He was ideologically conservative, but was also one of the most bipartisan Republicans in the U.S. Senate." in this edit

Broken sentences

• The Campaign finance section opens with a stray link and a duplicated one: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Enzi was an opponent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act stating that it violated the First Amendment rights of interest groups.

• Fixed in this edit

• In Wyoming Legislature: It speculated by the Casper Star-Tribune that Enzi might run to succeed him. Suggest The Casper Star-Tribune speculated that Enzi might run to succeed him.

• Done in this edit

• Enzi supported legislation in the Wyoming state senate which would declare all same-sex marriages in the United States invalid in Wyoming doesn't quite parse. Do you mean marriages performed in other states?

• Yes. The sentence is saying that all same-sex marriages in the US would not be recognized in Wyoming.

• Enzi supported legislation to repeal legislation that phased out incandescent light bulbs repeats "legislation".

• Changed to "Enzi supported repealing legislation" in this edit

Internal inconsistencies

• The lead says the third-longest-serving U.S. Senator from Wyoming while the body says the third-longest-serving senator from Wyoming. Per MOS:JOBTITLES the lowercase body version is right.

• Done in this edit

• The body says he succeeded Gregg as HELP chair in 2004; the succession box gives 2005–2007.

• The way that committee and leadership positions work is that they vote on who gets it before the next session starts. This means that Enzi was given the position in 2004, but officially took office in 2005.

• The lead says he was raised in Thermopolis, Wyoming, but the body has the family moving to Sheridan in 1952, when he was eight, and him graduating from Sheridan High School.

• Changed to "raised in Thermopolis and Sheridan, Wyoming" in this edit

• The lead chronology is better but still slightly off: He served until he declined to seek reelection in the 2020 election reads as though his service ended when he declined, whereas he announced in May 2019 and left office in January 2021.

• Altered to "He declined to seek reelection in the 2020 election and was succeeded by Cynthia Lummis." in this edit

• Craig Thomas appears in the Committees section as bare Thomas with no prior mention anywhere in the body, so a reader has no idea who he is. He also needs distinguishing from the two separate events both described as "Lott's resignation" (the 2002 leadership resignation and the 2007 Senate one).

• Fixed in this edit

Citations

• The Federal Election Commission entries carry dates that don't match what's being cited: "Mike Enzi 1996 campaign finance" is dated January 1995, "Charles Hardy 2014 campaign finance" and "Curt Gottshall 2014 campaign finance" are both dated January 2007, and "Chris Rothfuss 2008 campaign finance" is dated January 2001. These look like registration dates rather than the cycle being referenced.

• I removed the years in this edit

• "Enzi supports move to $1 coin" (June 16, 2013) gives work=Casper Morning Star. The Morning Star name fits the 1963 DeMolay item but not a 2013 one.

• Corrected in this edit

• "Campbell rancher appointed to House" is dated January 4, 1992 but its harvid is 1991, so the short citation and the full citation disagree on year.

• Corrected in this edit

• {{sfn|Barilleaux|Kelley|2010|pp=207-208}} uses a hyphen where the rest of the article uses en dashes.

• Changed in this edit

• In Books, Barilleaux and Kelley is listed third, after Barr and Clymer.

• Moved in this edit

• Were the 1997 and 1998 filibuster votes on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as such, or on earlier McCain–Feingold bills? Naming a 2002 statute for a 1997 vote may be reading the later name backwards.

• The 2002 statue was proposed in previous years. That is how legislation works.

Small things

• gave Enzi a F rating should be an F rating.

• Done in this edit

• "That" is used for people throughout: 24 U.S. Senators that wrote, 16 Republican senators that cosponsored, one of two senators that voted, the 22 Republican senators that called, the 47 Republican members ... that signed. All want "who".

• Done in this edit

• The Public Interest Research Group gets a 0% rating while NARAL gets a zero percent rating.

• Done in this edit

• "A" ratings links to Grading systems by country, which isn't what the phrase means here.

• This link was added as a result of the Good Article nomination process. There is no formal rules about this, but unofficial practice is that earlier requests by editors should be honored.

• Committee is capitalised inconsistently: Finance committee, Budget Committee, Rules committee, Revenue committee.

• Made lowercase in this edit

• Immigration and flag desecration sit under Crime, and abortion under Equality. Both fit a little awkwardly. Metalicat (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• I will look for more stuff on Enzi to see if I can expand immigration and abortion into their own sections. I don't see where else to put flag desecration since the legislation was to classify it as a criminal act.

• I made abortion its own sub-section in this edit. However, I'm surprised that there is pretty much nothing about him and abortion even after a basic Google search.

• @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your comments except the "Senate coverage, reframed" section. I will work on that soon. Jon698 (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your comments above. Jon698 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Third and last pass from me. Most of my second round has landed: I've checked the military service, the 1990 table row, the broken sentences, the "who" usage, the ratings, the capitalisation and the citation-metadata items in the current text and they're all good.

Sentences that don't work as written

• The Powell act is described as legislation which would have the 322 acres of federal land conveyed, and then as having been signed into law, so the sentence contradicts itself. Suggest The Powell Shooting Range Land Conveyance Act, which directed the Bureau of Land Management to convey 322 acres of federal land near Powell, Wyoming, to the Powell Recreation District, was sponsored by Enzi and signed into law in 2013.

• Done in this edit

• The same-sex marriage sentence still doesn't distinguish marriages performed elsewhere from marriages generally, which is the distinction you confirmed to me you meant. Enzi supported legislation in the Wyoming state senate that would have denied recognition in Wyoming to same-sex marriages performed in other states.

• Done in this edit

Citations

• Several shortened footnotes render as author surnames when they aren't authors. Reno 1998 points at a Casper Star-Tribune piece headlined "Reno asked to oppose assisted suicide", so it reads as though Janet Reno wrote it; the same goes for CSPAN 1997, Daly 1992 and Pastors 1998. Three Casper Star-Tribune items are also keyed to the paper plus a year while every other article from that title is keyed to its headline, and Stanton continued 1997 presents the two pages of one continued article as though they were separate works, which a single citation carrying both page numbers would avoid.

• I have changed Reno and CSPAN to use the full titles of the articles in this edit, but I cannot change the Daly and Pastors ones as those are the full titles on those pages. The Stanton references were fixed in this edit. The Casper Star-Tribune references were fixed in this edit

• Two of the books look like edited collections. Barilleaux and Kelley is entered with editor parameters, so the footnote credits the editors for a chapter written by someone else. Fifty Years of Revolution: Perspectives on Cuba, the United States, and the World reads like a collection too, but Mariño is entered as author. Can the chapter authors and titles be supplied for pp. 207–208 and p. 321? Metalicat (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I believe that doing that would complicate the references too much. It would also be misleading as it would make the viewer believe that person wrote the entire book. It is common to see editors listed like this. I also do not know how to implement your requested edits.

• @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your comments above. Jon698 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Metalicat: Courtesy ping Jon698 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support. Thanks for working on these points. Metalicat (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

Seeing that I have an FAC already open, and I'm a fan of U.S. political articles, I figured I should review.

Lead

• Enzi was born in Bremerton, Washington, raised in Thermopolis and Sheridan, Wyoming, and educated at Sheridan High School, George Washington University, and the University of Denver. - too much for one sentence. The lead is short enough that this can be explained in a few sentences.

• Made into two sentences in this edit

• He served in the Air National Guard, and held positions in the American Legion Boys State, DeMolay International, and United States Junior Chamber. - the National Guard is a lot different than the others, and it's also good resume for a future politician. So I was disappointed when the body of the article only had this small detail:

  " In 1996, Enzi stated that he tried to enlist to serve in the Vietnam War, but was ruled medically ineligible and joined the National Guard. Wyoming Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Bill Saunders and others questioned how he could serve in the National Guard if he was medically ineligible for active service. " - this makes me wonder if there's more to the story. If that was in 1996, it was presumably before Enzi's Senate election campaign.

• I don't really see what you are asking for. He served for six years in the national guard of a minor state. Nothing to comment on.

• The article mentions that Bill Saunders questioned how he could serve in the National Guard if he was medically ineligible for active service. Did anything come of that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I tried finding more about it on Newspapers.com, but the entire controversy happened just a few days before the 1996 election. A search for Bill Saunders on Newspapers.com in that period shows nothing new.

• He entered politics after being convinced by Alan Simpson to run for mayor of Gillette and defeating incumbent mayor Cliff Davis. - since that was his first position, you should add the year

• Done in this edit

• Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 - this glosses over Enzi's win in a crowded primary.

• Added to lede in this edit

• Did Enzi have any legislative achievements? Any notable bills he co-sponsored that could be mentioned in the lead? It seems like his proposal to get laptops on the Senate floor was the closest, and that failed (although that could be interesting in the lead if that's indicative of his legislative career)

• Enzi sponsored 659 bills according to Congress.gov. I will look there for any major bills he created.

• A further search shows that 16 were passed. This includes the Powell Shooting Range Land Conveyance Act and awarding a Congressional gold medal to Constantino Brumidi.

• I have added both of these to the tenure sub-section of the United States Senate

• Thanks, that gives a sense for what he actually did. And I think it would help if you could include any other of the bills. Like, even the renaming of the post office in Thermopolis, Wyoming, that's the sort of thing that Congress is known for these days, so mentioning that would be representative of his career. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Early life

• When/how did Mike meet his wife?

• A review of Newspapers.com for Diana Buckley and Diana Enzi shows nothing containing that information. A Google Search just gives us articles with information like "They married in 1969." and nothing else. Even this longer piece about her does not describe it. Articles about her cancer diagnosis in 2006 also just state the date of their marriage and nothing else.

• Thanks for checking, sometimes that happens. I'm guessing Enzi never had a book written about him, so that info just might not be publicly known. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Career

• Water was rationed in Gillette prior to a water pipeline being built during Enzi's tenure as mayor. - this seems like an actual achievement. Could you reword it, like, "As mayor, Enzi approved the construction of a new water pipeline."

• Done in this edit

• The Wyoming Legislature part is out of order

• It is not out of order. It is ordered this way: House elections, Senate elections, and Tenure

• "It starts with a 1986 election in the first paragraph, then the second paragraph starts by mentioning the 1978 election. Since it's about the mayorship, maybe the opening of the second paragraph should be moved to the mayor tenureship section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I moved the bit about 1978 to be the start of the section in this edit

Political positions

• Enzi requested the United States Department of Justice to close the loophole of the Zone of Death in Idaho's section of the Yellowstone National Park.[119] Enzi was notified of this issue as it was covered in C. J. Box's 2007 novel Free Fire.[120] - this could use more detail

• I've expanded it in this edit. Not much more to say about it since the end result was the DOJ saying "We're aren't going to change anything". The Atlantic source also mentioned how Enzi never made more comments on the issue even when they reached out to him.

• Ah, thanks anyway. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has some shortcomings. I'm willing to re-review, but I'm going to stop here for now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I have answered or replied to all of your comments above. Jon698 (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "but was also one of the most bipartisan Republicans in the U.S. Senate." - the US Senate was very different in 2014 than it was in 1996, when it comes to bipartisanship. Can you point to any Democratic bills that Enzi co-sponsored?

• I have added another sentence showing his lifetime bipartisan score from the Lugar Center in this edit.

• "Enzi led the effort to create the Sacagawea dollar to honor the Native American guide Sacagawea and replace the Susan B. Anthony dollar despite other members of the U.S. Senate who wanted the coin to depict the Statue of Liberty, Clara Barton, Shirley Chisholm, Rosa Parks, Pocahontas, or another figure." - this is a bit too long. Could you split or add a semicolon?

• Divided into two sentences in this edit

• "John Perry and Enzi cosponsored legislation in 1986, which would make the assault and battery of people above the age of 65 a high misdemeanor.[125] He supported the use of capital punishment." - was the use of capital punishment for people assaulting people 65 and older? Its placement right next to it made me wonder.

• The two sentences are not related. I initially had them together as a general crime paragraph, but broke them up in this edit to make it clearer to readers that they are not related.

• Enzi was notified of this issue as it was covered in C. J. Box's 2007 novel Free Fire. - is this supposed to start the paragraph?

• Added a new starting sentence for the paragraph in this edit

• The Drug Enforcement Administration ruled that it was illegal to use controlled substances for assisted suicide and Enzi requested Attorney General Janet Reno to make comments against assisted suicide as he was "concerned that the proponents of assisted suicide could interpret her silence on the matter as an approval".[ - this is long, but could just be summarized that Enzi was against assisted suicide, right?

• I divided it into two sentences in this edit. I don't want to simply summarize it as "Enzi opposed assistant suicides" as the news article covers something more than that.

• I can't tell what order the Economics section is supposed to be. Like, I thought the moratorium on state land would be in Environment, not Economics. Also, the time periods keep going back and forth.

• I moved the state land sentence to environment in this edit and reordered the dates in this edit

• "The Public Interest Research Group gave Enzi a 0% rating for votes on environmental legislation conducted between March 1997 and March 1998." - what about over his whole career?

• I can't find any other scorecards from the Public Interest Research Group, but I will add the scorecard from League of Conservation Voters

• Done in this edit

• "Enzi supported Santorum's comments on Lawrence v. Texas in which Santorum stated that sodomy laws should be upheld stating that allowing sodomy would give people the right to incest, bigamy, and adultery." - complex sentence structure

• I altered the sentence in this edit

• "In 2000, Enzi asked Senator William Roth, the chair of the Finance committee, to implement geographic equity for Medicare spending in order to give money to rural healthcare." - did anything come of this?

• I looked online for more information, but nothing from 2000 shows up. A similar proposition from 2003 shows up as detailed on page 52 here.

That's it for my re-read. The article just seems a bit underdeveloped for a guy who was a US senator for 24 years. But maybe that's how he was a senator for 24 years. He was a conservative who didn't want the government to do things but restrict abortion, oppose minimum wage increases, oppose same sex marriage, oppose environmental legislation, oppose health care except when he wants more rural healthcare except for the parts of the ACA that helped rural healthcare, and he was against war in Kosovo but for war in Afghanistan/Iraq. He seems like a pretty boilerplate conservative republican, so it would make sense that his article would be pretty boilerplate. That's why I appreciated you going into detail about the bills Enzi sponsored and got passed (and hope you can add others). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Hurricanehink: I have responded to all of your comments above. I hope it is enough to receive your support for it becoming a FA. Jon698 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support - thanks for all of the edits. I know they seemed like nitpicks but it made the article stronger. Nice work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Training Season

Nominator(s): NØ 03:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Wedding season is in the air, and one of the latest artists to have participated is Dua Lipa. In honor of her dating phase ending, I would like to present you "Training Season". While I often write about other artists associated with, um, training... I am very proud of this article too. Though it didn't have the "psychedelic" sound Lipa was promoting at the start of her album era, it is still a pretty infectious disco-pop song that was a global hit. Kind of ironic that it shares its release date with Lipa's husband's birthday given the lyrical content... Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 03:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment it's a bit misleading to say "It reached number one in the Commonwealth of Independent States, Turkey, Latvia, and Lithuania" when it only went number one on those countries' airplay charts, not the main ones. 750h+ 04:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Demarcation between the different types of charts more clearly drawn as suggested.--NØ 05:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Whonting

Hey MaranoFan, good to see you back from your break. Having a look over, not too closely at the sourcing on a first run through.

• "they compared it to other singles from the album" without detail on the substance of the comparisons, this is padding.
• Some application of WP:THEGAME would help, including cutting mentions of "Training Season", e.g. "Vincent Haycock directed the music video for "Training Season", which depicts..."
• "In January 2022, she revealed that a large part of songwriting for it had been completed, and half of it was done by March that year." This can be tightened up. I would just cut the January update which doesn't lend meaningful comparison to progress in March, but if it is to be retained, along the lines of WP:MEDSAY move from a framing of "she revealed" with its somewhat promotional tone to "a large part of the songwriting was complete by January 2022" etc.
• "whom she had been a fan of" this can be cut -- it's unremarkable that a singer says she was a fan of a collaborator during a promotional tour.
• Can we give a bit more background on the producers? What style they generally work in, what they're bringing to the table etc, lest it just become a list of names.

• With secondary sources written after the song's release not going into detail about this, I have erred on the side of caution to keep us in due territory and to avoid synthesis. Curious people could explore the wikilinked biographies and find their usual styles quickly in the infobox.
  • At least a bit can be taken from the Rollingstone India piece (e.g. therein Harle is identified as "electronica auteur"). At least for Parker I'd push for including background. - W

• "Lipa was inspired by the title's dual meaning" Suggest clarifying which title, considering the last title mentioned was "Tokyo Nights".
• "Lipa was inspired by the title's dual meaning, stating that it is about both informing men that she will no longer be training them about how to treat her as well as the completion of her own personal growth." Hm. Does this make sense? She said it as a play on two meanings, but I don't think those are inherent, and it is strange chronologically to have her create a dual meaning and then be inspired by her creation to talk about the dual meaning? Perhaps "expanded on".
• "training them about how to treat her"
• "8 of the 11 tracks finally included on it were written with"
• "as the lead single from her third studio album"
• "She wore a sweater with the caption "Training Season" in an Instagram photo in January 2024.[14] On 25 January, Lipa posted a TikTok video of her singing the song's chorus in a car." I would suggest consolidating these.
• "She premiered it at the 66th Annual Grammy Awards on 4 February."
• "accompanied by its extended, instrumental, and a cappella versions."
• "A Recap of Radio Add Recaps" This URL can be marked as dead. I would also appreciate if you could spell out what in it is supporting the text.

• "Warner's Chester and Reich crew bring in [...] 14 early adds on Dua Lipa's 'Training Season.'" - Chester and Reich is Warner Records' team which promotes songs to radio stations.

• The composition section strays into an accretion of facts already conveyed in the credits section. Is there any elaboration you could offer on, for instance, what the drums were doing? In general, I would cut details already conveyed in the credits section if all that is being offered is a name not notable for a stand-alone article.

• It cannot be made sure of that all readers read the Credits section, so it is the norm to cover this information in the prose as well. As for the placement here, I believe it is logical as the instruments played are all part of the composition and the bit about the background vocalists, for example, ties into the girl group harmonies part in the following paragraph. Cameron Gower Poole and Josh Gudwin are the only two names without Wikipedia articles currently, and quite frankly, creating those might be warranted.
  • That's fair. I do still feel some movement can be made on moving the section away from a list of facts; I'll invoke RoySmith's refrain on it reading "choppy". - W

• The composition section has too many statements attributed rather than summarized. I suspect User:LEvalyn/Getting information from book reviews may be helpful here, even in a different domain.
• Sorry if I'm being thick: "Lipa's demands from her romantic partners" what she demands of her romantic partners, or what they demand of her?
• I believe "ideals" is the opposite of "standards" of the source. This can also be better attributed to establish it as Lipa's values.
• I like how you arranged the critical reception section by theme, but the structure of Outlet's name said is repetitive. Much of it can be consolidated, e.g.: "Reviewers believed "Training Season" was catchy. AllMusic's Neil Z. Yeung included the song among the "truly insidious earworms" on Radical Optimism that were sure to get stuck in listeners' heads, and Wang thought it had "an insanely catchy hook".[55][38] Its hook and beat were described as "infectious" by Slant Magazine's Sal Cinquemani and NME's Damian Jones, respectively." is saying little of substance.

• Actually I was struggling with this section a little bit before, but I think your comment made me think along the right lines and I have massively redone it. Hope all looks good.

• "thought they enhanced the fleeting and feel-good quality of the album." MOS:SAID, and I'm not sure what it means for the album to have a "fleeting" quality.
• "showcased her most powerful skills" singing? Other?
• "thought the beats were deeper, more layered, and sensual" than?
• "had consistently embodied" suggest "presented as".
• The commercial performance section is a bit of a drag. I can't imagine anyone actually reading long lists of countries and an associated number; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Use prose where understood easily, put this in a list or table. This also afflicts the Background and release section to a lesser extent with its enumeration of versions.

• Just significantly cut the bulk using a note. Well, we have an entire Charts section with several tables but there needs to be some representation of commercial performance in the written prose. Hope this works for you.

• Some awkward wording in the music video section. "preoccupied by listening to", "undaunted", "are all trying to impress and capture her attention"
• "Marie Claire's Sophia Vilensky praised Lipa's hair in it as "a casual sunlit red that looks natural as ever".[113]" WP:DUE? If so, better establish why it isn't just tacked on.
• Consider adding a screenshot from the music video, which would conveying the framing and scale of pusuit in a way words don't or cannot.

• Keeping WP:NFCC#3 in mind, and as we already have a copyrighted artwork file and audio sample, I feel like a music video screenshot in this case cannot really be justified to a media reviewer. I believe it is best reserved for cases like "Feather" with some sort of extensive critical commentary or controversy about the video.

• The Live performances section reads like a rather dry recounting of facts, at least from my reading at the moment. Can you have a go at reworking it to flow better, and consolidating critic assessments? I would also like to hear from you on whether you think there may be a bit too much detail on clothing. I wonder if there are grounds for creating a Fashion of Dua Lipa page?

• Well, looking at the Grammy performance, we have one sentence purely about Lipa's outfit which looks ok to me. I significantly cut the similar sentence for the Brits performance. Fashion of Dua Lipa sounds like a good idea to me, though, whenever I have some time in the future, lol.
  • This section is looking better, but I have some additional comments / elaborations I'll continue below. - W

• "she levitated" > was suspended
• Some MOS quibbles: Per MOS:ENDASH use en-dashes for date ranges, and apply MOS:PLAINLIST in the infobox

Whonting (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the very thoughtful and detailed review, Whonting. It has helped a lot. Please do have another look at it when you have some time.--NØ 09:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• "This preceded the release of "Training Season"" repeats "Training Season" in close succession.
• "into singing "Houdini" in the middle of the stage and performed the dance sequence from its music video" the chronology here is a bit unclear: I'm not sure what the relevance of the middle of the stage here, or when she dismounted the jungle gym (if she did). The detail on her Houdini performance reads like we're straying off-topic.
• I would try to tighten up the critical reactions to the Grammy's performance, which come across a bit disjointed.
• "She sang the song" preceding this is the London version, I assume we're just talking about "Training Season" in general?
• I feel the rest is still a bit drawn out, but I won't press it, and actioning the above will get me across the line to support.

Whonting (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I have implemented all from the second batch of comments along with intros for Parker and Harle, Whonting. Feel free to make any edits you like.--NØ 20:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks MaranoFan, I've had a brief spot check of some refs and didn't have anything turn up. Happy to support. Whonting (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "reprised it at festivals, including the Glastonbury Festival 2024." - "reprised" is an odd word choice here, as that indicates revisiting an earlier performance, implying that the festivals came after the tour mentioned in the same sentence, but Glastonbury 2024 took place before said tour even started......
• "A large part of songwriting" => "A large part of the songwriting"
• "Upon release, music critics opined "Training Season" had commercial potential" => "Upon release, music critics opined that "Training Season" had commercial potential"
• "Lipshutz thought "Training Season" showcased her most powerful musical instincts and people who enjoyed her 2020 single "Physical" would become fans of it.[36]" => "Lipshutz thought that "Training Season" showcased her most powerful musical instincts and that people who enjoyed her 2020 single "Physical" would become fans of it.[36]"
• "She realizes that the men" - UK spelling is "realises"
• "Uproxx's Flisadam Pointer thought the aerial dance moves were impressive and Lipa displayed stamina" => "Uproxx's Flisadam Pointer thought that the aerial dance moves were impressive and that Lipa displayed stamina"
• "Lipa recorded a live performance of the track, which was called the "London Sessions"" - I don't believe the live performance of this one track was called "the London Sessions" (plural). Maybe it was part of a longer release with that title.......?
• "She sang it at the Royal Albert Hall on 17 October,[157] which was released on the live album Dua Lipa Live from the Royal Albert Hall (2024).[" - I think "She sang it during a performance at the Royal Albert Hall on 17 October,[157] which was released as the live album Dua Lipa Live from the Royal Albert Hall (2024).[" works better
• Think that's all I got....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Everything is addressed I think, ChrisTheDude. Thanks a lot for the review!--NØ 19:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 22:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 7 random passages from throughout the article (4.8% of 146 total passages). These passages contain 10 inline citations (3.8% of 262 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 22:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Source review is all good. I've also recently opened up a FAC for "Dick in a Box", you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 23:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Warner Records promoted the song to contemporary hit radio stations in the United States.
25	a	hitsdailydouble.com	web.archive.org	✅
the Middle Eastern-influenced melody to "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)" (1979) and "Voulez-Vous" (1979),
41	c	variety.com	web.archive.org	✅
Others also commented on the production of "Training Season". Aimee Phillips of Clash thought the beats were deeper, more layered, and sensual than Radical Optimism's opening track "End of an Era", while the lyrics carried greater intent, reinforcing the bold and self-assured pop star persona that Lipa had consistently presented as.
60	b	clashmusic.com	web.archive.org	✅
double platinum in Greece,
103	a	"IFPI Charts – Digital Singles Chart (International) – Εβδομάδα: 23/2026" (in Greek). IFPI Greece. …	web.archive.org	✅
One line from "Dance the Night" was included,
124		nme.com	web.archive.org	✅
125		variety.com	web.archive.org	✅
Lipa recorded a live version of the track, which was titled "Training Season (London Sessions)".
28	b	music.apple.com	web.archive.org	✅
137		thisisdig.com	web.archive.org	✅
138		telegraphindia.com	web.archive.org	✅
and Romania,
89	a	mediaforest.ro		✅

Aoba47

• I have a question about the following sentence: She invited him to a studio session with Caroline Ailin, electronica producer Danny L Harle, and Tobias Jesso Jr. at 5DB in London. Is there a reason why only Danny L Harle has a descriptor?

• Whonting mentioned this as well above. I've just gone ahead and given them all the descriptors used by Rolling Stone India.

• Thank you for addressing this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I would recommend linking interpolation as it is an example of music jargon and I could see some readers being unfamiliar with it. It may also be helpful to link earworm later on in the article.
• If possible, I would add further information on "Tokyo Nights", like the artists or the release date, to provide readers with additional context.

• Unfortunately nothing exists for us to elaborate on this further than what is in the article. The interpolation is not notable, and even the current mention only exists to avoid giving the impression that the interpolated writers were in the room writing "Training Season" with the actual writers. If it were available, I do agree such information would have benefited readers.

• Thank you for explanation. That makes sense to me. It is a shame that this was not further discussed in the coverage for the song, but I am not that surprised by it, as a lot of sources do not delve into the more technical aspects of music. Aoba47 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• The article makes a point that critics praised the single's commercial potential. Was there any subsequent coverage on if the single performed well or not (whether it is compared to Dua Lipa's past singles or other singles from the time period or any other metric)? I was just curious if there was any discussion on if this potential was realized.

• Rolling Stone, Billboard, and USA Today did call it a hit in passing, but an analysis of the song's commercial performance is not the center point of those articles so it's probably just journalese best ignored by Wikipedia...

• That is fair. Thank you for looking into this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Would the song's inclusion in RuPaul's Drag Race season 17 be notable enough to mention in this article? I was able to find a Billboard article that mentions its inclusion in the show.

• The list does have 23 different popular songs, so that gives me pause about how noteworthy being included in the show is. I think if "Training Season"'s inclusion itself drew an individual article, like Kelly Clarkson's Kellyoke performances sometimes do, there would be a much better case.

• I agree with your rationale. For whatever reason, I would have thought that there would have been more coverage of the Drag Racee usage, but this song was part of a larger lip-sync tournament, so it probably just got overshadowed as a result. I looked into this further, and I could not find any significant coverage, and there is an article on this particular Drag Race episode anyway, so any information and citations would be more relevant there. Aoba47 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I hope that these comments are helpful. Wonderful work with this article. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through everything a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

OMG, an Aoba review! I had to blink my eyes a few times when I saw it. I guess you're just not into Olivia Rodrigo, lol. Helpful comments as always and it should be ready for your re-read.--NØ 18:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help. I do not have any negative opinions on Olivia Rodrigo lol. I have been more so taking a break from reviewing for a bit. I have read through the article, and everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I've seen clips of this song, but I've just realised that I've never heard the full version—I will try not to screw anything up!

• "as part of its more memorable and uptempo segment" — I had to read this bit twice 'cuz I was unsure what the "its" referred to until "segment"
• "twenty-seven on the Billboard Hot 100" — maybe specify that it's a US chart?
• "album was done by March" — done sounds a tad unencyclopaedic
• "Lipa ended up writing 97 songs for the album; 8 of the 11 tracks finally included were written with Ailin, Harle, Jesso Jr., and Parker." — seems a bit random in a paragraph on how she came to write this specific song
• "and made it available on physical formats like 7-inch, cassette, and CD" — where? Given the sentence also mentions Italy, I can see readers assuming that it's only referring to that country
• "Woodshed Recording in Malibu, California, and Parker's home studio in Los Angeles, with Parker, Ailin, and Jesso Jr. contributing background vocals" — nitpicks: California could be mistaken as a separate location because of the way the commas are and its position; and did Parker, Ailin, and Jesso Jr. record background vocals at all the studios or only the LA one?

• I split the sentence. Hopefully that takes care of it? It doesn't seem like it is specifically singled out in the liner notes where the background vocals were recorded.

• "stronger representation of" — stronger than what?
• "She yearns for someone who can provide emotional support, be in command when Lipa feels vulnerable, and who she can have meaningful conversations with" — is it possible for this bit to be edited a bit so that the list items have parallel structure?
• "Lipa asks a person if he can meet these requirements, because she no longer wants to have to guide people how to love her correctly: "Training season's over"." — this bit is a bit confusing for me—does the lyric "Training season's over" articulate the entirety of ideas discussed in this sentence? It seems to only be relevant in representing the latter half of the sentence to me
• "Joe Muggs praised the songwriting" — maybe clarify if this is the songwriting of the album or the singles?
• "believed the singles sounded like Lipa's other material" — does Muggs indicate whether he means this positively or negatively?

• It is positive, just rephrased this a bit.

• "ninth top 10 single", "15th top ten single" — consistency?
• Might just be me being dumb, but this bit "number four in Belgium[101] and on Japan Hot Overseas,[102]" really confused me for a while until I looked at the source 'cuz I kept wondering why the number for Japan wasn't listed
• I'm a bit iffy on whether some of the chartings are worth mentioning in the prose, since some aren't the "main" chart for the country, like Japan Hot Overseas
• "Reviewers praised it as an opening to the show" — how does one praise something as an opening? Did they specifically comment on the performance's quality in regards to how well it functioned as an opener to the show or something like that?
• "Lipa opened her Glastonbury Festival 2024 set with "Training Season"" — would it be useful to note that she was a headliner as well?

Overall, a very well-written article. I found it very enjoyable to read. I hope my comments help :) Pamzeis (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your review and insights as always, Pamzeis. All done. I am not surprised there are a lot of clips of this song floating online, as Lipa has opened every show since the song's release with performances of it, and they're actually all pretty good? I didn't enjoy the album, personally, but can recommend this song for sure.--NØ 18:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, I remember seeing a video from her team that promoted her tour using this song and joking how she'd improved from "go girl, give us nothing". Perhaps I will give the full song a listen now. Anyhow, I support this nomination. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments at a current FAC of mine :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

Not strictly necessary, but has someone access to the source Flickr of File:Tame Impala Surly Brewing in Minneapolis 2019 (48419382936) (cropped).jpg? Is the sampled section of File:Dua Lipa - Training Season.ogg particularly significant to the song as a whole? ALT text and image placement seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• As per this request, I attempted to access through my Flickr Pro account, and the 403 error remained; the audience may now be set to "Friends" or at least not "Public". That being said, the Flickr item was reviewed by a bot at time of upload, and the Flickr user has generally used CC-BY 2.0 as his license (he has had spurts where he has used All Rights Reserved, but a) a CC-BY license is non-revokable [for items where the original license was free] and b) the user has generally switched to a CC-BY 2.0 license when items were originally uploaded as "All Rights Reserved"). Consequently, I don't see any reason to doubt the license.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Chris. To avoid any headaches, I have just switched out the image for another one of Parker playing a guitar onstage with an open license, which functionally serves the same purpose. For the audio sample, this is the part of the song with the hook, the Middle Eastern-influenced ABBA-esque melody, and the girl group-type harmony, so imo a lot of the production elements discussed in the surrounding prose. I also find these 20 seconds most relevant to critical commentary about how the song has "cluttered production". Hope this checks out now, Jo-Jo Eumerus.--NØ 14:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Cite 72: "British single certifications". That should be upper-case S and C. Similarly in cites 103, 104, 107, 109, 110 and 111. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

These are all references auto-produced by the Certification Table Entry template. Just wanted to confirm if you want me to actually replace these, since their use would seem recommended by WP:ALBUM/CERT though not absolutely compulsory?--NØ 03:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The titles of articles in the References section can be all in title case or all in sentence case, but need to be consistent. As all of the others are in title case, it seems easiest to change these seven. I have no qualms with the sources themselves. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Ich geh und suche mit Verlangen, BWV 49

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a Bach cantata which will turn 300 this year. It's an unusual dialogue of love poetry based on the Song of Songs. The text was written by a student of theology in Leipzig who attended Bach's performances regularly and alluded to many other biblical verses. He had also written the text for the famous Kreuzstab Cantata, premiered the previous week. Bach "dressed" the music in exquisite scoring with an obbligato organ featured in several movements, oboe d'amore and violoncello piccolo. The final movement is a unique combination of chorale, duet and organ concerto. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

History

• He took office on 30 May 1723, performing his church cantata Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75, for the first Sunday after Trinity[3]. In the new position, Bach decided to compose church cantatas for almost
  • While both links to "church cantatas" point to different articles, a surface reader might mistake it for a duplicate link and not visit one of the two.

    I dropped both. They were both already there in the lead and infobox, and make for a sea of blue. Readers still really unfamiliar with this basic concept will find links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• We could link to feast days.

  Yes, and I would if this was Catholic. However, it's almost a surprise that the Leipzig Lutherans still held on to a few Saints (John the Baptist and Michael the Archangel, actually, and some feasts of Mary). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1726, his fourth," → "In 1726, his fourth year,"

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "He went on to compose more cantatas for Sundays after Trinity, Ich geh und suche mit Verlangen being one of them." → "He went on to compose more cantatas for the Sundays after Trinity, Ich geh und suche mit Verlangen being one of them."
• Bach led the first performance of the cantata at the Thomaskirche[9] on 3 November 1726;[9][12] the sermon was given by Urban Gottfried Sieber [de].[9][15]
  • How about a full stop in place of the semicolon?

    If you think that's better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "He was the author of six cantatas before the Advent season of 1726, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, the previous week." → "He was the author of six cantatas before the Advent season of 1726, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, composed the previous week."

  tried: "composed for the previous week" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Music and Manuscripts and publication, and Recordings

• "as if Jesus said so." → "as if spoken by Jesus."

  taken --GA

• "with the figuration of the organ expressing in sound what the cantus firmus words:" → "with the figuration of the organ expressing in sound what the cantus firmus states:"

  taken --GA

• We could link to facsimile.

  done --GA

• "The manuscripts of both the score and parts survive, possibly revised by Bach." → "The manuscripts of both the score and the parts survive, possibly revised by Bach."

  taken --GA

• "The selection is taken from the listing provided by Bach Cantatas Website." → "The selection is taken from the listing provided by the Bach Cantatas Website."

  taken --GA

Bottom line

• Gerda Arendt That's all from me. A fine article, and I hope my suggestions were helpful. Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you for a diligent look! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  All's fine then. I will try to be more thorough next time. Happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Why is File:Baroque_oboe_damour.jpg uncaptioned?

  As in Easter Oratorio: because the image is so slender. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Without explanation, it would seem to be decorative. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  It shows a historic woodwind instrument. per the looks of it and the alt text, so can't be confused with a violoncello piccolo, the other instrument mentioned in the movement. What would you suggest how to add a caption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't a case where a caption is unneeded; it can be added like any other image. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  

  Oboe d'amore

  With a caption, which causes an additional frame, I dropped the image completely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I gotta say, I find this whole exchange kind of frustrating. @Nikkimaria I think you're being silly insisting on a caption. And @Gerda Arendt I think you're also being silly for insisting that if you can't have it your way, you won't have it at all. Meanwhile, it's the WP:READER who suffers because we deprive them of seeing what this instrument looks like. RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  No objection to the rotated version if that resolves the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Per one comment below ("by all means) I take it although I really don't like the frame. --

• File:Thomaskirche-1885.png: source link is dead; when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Urban_Gottfried_Siber.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Will look at this sometime in the next week. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 03:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Unless I'm mistaken, Dellal 2026 is (as a translation) a copyrighted derivative work, I don't think we're allowed to reproduce it in Movement 6 ... see ©Pamela Dellal!

  For understanding of the German, we need some translation. Dellal has translated every word that Bach wrote vor voices, so is best at it. (Better than I would be.) Most Bach FAs use hr translations most, some also tat of Jones, translating the Dürr book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't dispute that, but the translation is still Dellal's derivative work, and I think that we ought to be on the safer side of copyright. -Stikkyy

  We don't use her complete artwork, only the first lines, and if not in the article but each needing a click would made reading needlessly inconvenient. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Movement 6 has nine lines of prose, to me that's pushing the upper boundaries of fair use. Are there no public domain translations that could be used? -Stikkyy

  We talk about a 1599 hymn in German. This offers several translations, beginning in 1722, includin two versions by Catherine Winkworth. Problem I see is that these are more concerned with creating something that rhymes and can be sung to the same tune, rather than focus on the meaning as close as possible to the original. It's public domain but less helpful to understanding the meaning that Bach set into music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, as I said, I think that nine lines is pushing the upper limits of fair use. Stikkyy (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Which of the historic translations offered wouls please you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that hewing as closely as possible to Bach's original German should be the intention here, so I don't think that I can judge the available translations accurately. Stikkyy (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Personally I think that if a quote appears in the lead it shouldn't appear again in the body – there isn't much to elaborate on for one, right?

  Hofmann quote removed in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• These were for Sundays and feast days of the Christian liturgical year, except for the "silent times" of Advent (before Christmas) and Lent (before Easter), including feasts of saints, of Mary, and several days of celebrating the high holidays. – I think that this could be split into two sentences? "including" following "except" makes the structure confusing.

  Please help me splitting: the key sentence is "for Sundays and feastdays, which should not be split, but the Sundays have exceptions. We could also argue that tese exceptions are not relevant for this work in the bulk of ordinary Sundays, and drop it it here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. -Stikkyy

• The cantata is termed a Dialogus. – I presume "Dialogus" here means a dialogue cantata? The term is never used again, so I would consider taking it out.

  I see no reason to drop a term that Bach used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• I think that "Geistlich Brautlied" should be italicized (per MOS:FOREIGN) rather than quoted.

  It's just a song, so a "small work", which usually come in quotation marks, while larger workd (such as a cantata" are italic (per Classical music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• The ISBNs look wrong (e.g. 978-0-19-816707-5) – Shouldn't it be (in term of digits) 3-1-3-5-1, instead of 3-1-2-6-1?

  This is how I learned it (Kafka). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Loy 2012 is cited 11 times without page numbers, but twice with a page number.

  unified with page number --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Schulze 2024 links to BWV 110, not BWV 49.

  Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Zedler 2008 is a self-published book.

  dropping it - it was there before, and I didn't check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for a careful look! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose, but a more qualified eye on copyright to examine the use of Dellal's translation is IMO necessary. Stikkyy (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

VWF

A well-researched article with strong sourcing, here goes my comments:

• {{sfn|Dürr|Jones|2006|p=594}}{{{sfn|Loy|2012|p=4}} is broken as the second sfn opens with three braces instead of two. Should be {{sfn|Dürr|Jones|2006|p=594}}{{sfn|Loy|2012|p=4}}.

  thank you --GA

• {{sfn|Loy|2012|p=4}}} has similar issue.

  thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• No repeat performance is known with certainty needs a period.

  yes --GA

• Movement 4 says accompanied by oboe d'amore (depicted, right) and violoncello piccolo. but no oboe d'amore is depicted to the right. This is presumably residue from an earlier article version? maybe?

  please see (unresolved) image review - what do you think? --GA

• The libretto section associates faithfulness until death with Revelation 3:20 but that verse concerns standing at the door and knocking. "Be faithful unto death" is Revelation 2:10. Revelation 3:20 is instead relevant to the final movement's language about standing before the door.

  thank you, appreciated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt Oh, I see the conversation now, I believe the image is important and should be added back by all means. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• It is a solo cantata, a dialogue of soprano and bass. reads somehow. I believe "It is a dialogue cantata for soprano and bass soloists" would be clearer.

  The technical term "solo cantata" should appear at some point. --GA

• They covered Sundays and feast days of the liturgical year… The antecedent of "They" is the cantatas, but the paragraph has shifted between the cycle, the project, and the works. I believe the paragraph can be simplified.

  I tried to repeat "cantatas" for clarity. --GA

• Birkmann studied theology at the Leipzig University… Standard English is "at Leipzig University" or "at the University of Leipzig".

  taken the latter --GA

• The topic features in both cantatas that Bach composed previously for the same occasion… I believe this would read more naturally as "Bach had treated the same liturgical occasion in two earlier cantatas…"

  We know he wrote them, but it is not a given that he used the same topic (of a wedding) in both previous cycles. How could that be clarified? --GA

  @Gerda Arendt: How about Bach had previously composed two cantatas for the same liturgical occasion, both of which likewise draw on the Gospel's wedding imagery: Ach! ich sehe, itzt, da ich zur Hochzeit gehe, BWV 162, and Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele, BWV 180.? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• the bride reflects her beauty as if looking in a mirror and finding herself as dressed in… "Finding herself as dressed" is unidiomatic. Something like "contemplates herself as clothed in…" would be better?

  taken, thank you --GA

• initiating the voices to unite in duet → "after which the voices begin to unite as a duet."

  taken, thank you --GA

I have FAC myself at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ogbebo/archive1 as well as at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Idia/archive1 and would appreciate any comments :). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thank you for your good comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Eunos MRT station

Nominator(s): Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a small local train station in Singapore. Despite surrounding stations having modern, sleek domed roofs, this station actually has a traditional Malay-style roof. The station also had several design-related issues, all of them strangely concerning stairs.

Anyways, this was one of the earliest articles I've worked on. Premeditated Chaos gave me the idea to nominate one of my articles for FAC, and ZKang123 suggested that I nominate this article. I do believe that this article, despite its niche, is comprehensive enough for FAC. I've also adopted an efn style similar to Noleander (who has also done a wonderful peer review for this article). Let the floodgates be opened. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from YuniToumei

I'll review this over the coming days. YuniToumei (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• Plans for Eunos were outlined in May 1982 as part of the initial MRT system, and it was planned as part of Phase IIA: There is a duplication of "Plans/planned", and of "as part". Could this be rewritten to avoid this?

• Rewritten. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

History

Planning, construction, and opening

• Throughout the article, the station is sometimes referred to as "Eunos station" and sometimes just as "Eunos". Same for other mentioned MRT stations like Jurong West. Would be nice to make this more consistent maybe? Could also be a form of consistency where the first time a station name is mentioned in a paragraph, it still says "{name} station", and then subsequently only "{name}", for example.

• I thought this was encouraged to avoid repetition? Anyways, done to the best of my knowledge, let me know if I missed out any other instances. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• I guess there isn't actually a guideline on this. I was thinking something along the line of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Subsequent use where the initial mention (within a section) is the full version and subsequent use is the shortened version. YuniToumei (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• with Eunos part of "Phase II": Somewhat of an unclear clause. I think if you were to fill in the implied verb, it would be "with Eunos being part of "Phase II"", which is a form of WP:PLUSING (i.e. what exactly is the connection of this clause to the one before it?). You have the same situation in the sentence following it. Could you rephrase them to avoid that construction?

• Rephrased. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• which was 32.6 kilometres (20.3 mi) long and composed of 22 stations: This doubles info already said just one sentence earlier in Eunos was proposed to be constructed as part of the 32.6 km (20.3 mi) East–West Line (EWL), which was to have 22 stations

• Ah... the second mention is Phase II (which included stations on the EWL and the NSL); I must've copied it from the EWL stats and forgot to change the length (coincidentally, Phase II also had 22 stations). Anyways, fixed. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• among five other tenders: "tenders" or "tenderers"? Before the article spoke of 7 tenderers.

• Tenderers. Fixed. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• contract included the construction of Eunos station and viaducts to Kembangan station: While this is technically true, it is not sufficiently clear to me from that sentence that the contract now includes these additionally to Paya Lebar and the Paya Lebar–Eunos viaduct (if I understood the source right). Maybe "By then, the contract also included" or so.

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• was terminated, with the former undertaking: Another plus-ing. Clearer to say "after which the former undertook"

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• began in December 1985: About the footnote clearing up the inconsitency in the sources, the article from The Business Times says "Work on the project started in December 1985". By "the project", they refer to the contract including not just Eunos as you explained earlier. This makes it unclear to me whether work on Eunos actually already began in December 1985, it could be that they started with another element in that contract first. The Weekend East article, on the other hand, says that work specifically on Eunos started in January 1986. Shouldn't this be more accurate?

• Good catch! Removed the footnote and added it to the body. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• VSL Systems Pte Ltd: Can you do away with the Pte Ltd per WP:NCCORP? It's different for Okumura Corporation where Corporation seems to be an integral part of the common name. Also, you can probably link it to VSL International? Seems to be just the Singaporean branch of VSL (which on their website is also referred to as "VSL SINGAPORE PTE LTD", so maybe a better name would be "VSL Singapore"?) if I'm not mistaken.

• Did the above. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• It was later found out that: Drop the "out".

• Dropped it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• post-tensioned cables: This isn't my area of expertise, but we do have a redirect for post-tension → Prestressed concrete. I assume the cables here are the same things as the tendons described in that section of the concrete article? If yes, a wikilink should be added.

• I think it's more specfically Prestressed concrete#Post-tensioned concrete – the tendons are tensioned after the concrete has been casted. Linked. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Developments after opening

• from the station's terrace to the ground underwent repairs after it had sunk into the ground: You've got a duplication of "ground", and the first instance of "ground" is a bit unclear. Maybe "from the station's terrace to the street level" to solve both issues?

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• a man fell: The police in ref 37 says that the man jumped. Is this the same as saying he fell? The train operator in ref 38 said that they saw him fall. Which is true? Though I understand that this is a sensitive issue regarding Werther effect.

• The New Paper reported that he jumped, but subsequent news articles say that he fell onto the platforms. I've added a footnote clarifying this, but I'm sticking with "fell". Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This is it for now up to and including the history section per Special:PermaLink/1363580526. YuniToumei (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Stuff above looks good, I've replied to one point. YuniToumei (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Details

• surrounding landmarks such as the Eunos Bus Interchange, Masjid Darul Aman, Eunos Crescent Market and Food Centre, Mangala Vihara Buddhist Temple, and the Kampong Ubi Police Post: I'm not sure a bus interchange and a police post should be called a landmark.

• Changed to "amenities". Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• mostly wheelchair-accessible: Why mostly? The map cited suggests that all exits are accessible. You wrote on List of Singapore MRT stations that all stations are accessible.

• Exit A doesn't have a wheelchair icon (compared to the other exits), so it's not wheelchair accessible. I think when the LTA says that "all stations are accessible", it's more so that all of them are accessible, but to different extents. For example, the newer stations tend to be fully accessible, whereas the initial MRT stations are only somewhat accessible since they weren't really designed with the disabled in mind, unfortunately. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Ah, I somehow missed that. YuniToumei (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• high-volume low-speed fans, which were installed by the first quarter of 2013: There's a problem with the sourcing here: The source says whether HVLS or jet fans depends on the structure of the station roofs, and doesn't specify which were chosen for Eunos. It also states that the installation was "expected" to complete by the first quarter, but you would ideally use a source that retrospectively states that they have been installed.

• Can't find anything else about it, so removed. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• profiled steel roof sheeting: Is this Corrugated steel? If yes, could benefit from a wikilink.

• I mean... profiled steel roof sheeting seems to be more modern than corrugated steel. I might link it to corrugated steel or Metal roof – I'm not an expert on this, unfortunately :( Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• My main concern was that a term like "profiled steel" might be a bit too technical and that a wikilink could alleviate that. But if there's no suitable link target then eh. YuniToumei (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• well-received by other government agencies: Why other? Other than what? Was it not well-received by the Panel itself?

• The source (vaguely) says other government agencies; I've sent you photos of the relevant pages via Discord. I'm guessing that "other government agencies" refers to government agencies involved in the construction of the MRT system or agencies that members of the Architectural Review Panel were part of (like the Public Works Department). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for providing the source to me. Now that I've crossread it, I think I see where the problem is. Currently, the article connects the presentation of the design to the ARP and other government agencies temporally with the word "when". To my understanding, the source says that the ARP was happy with the design in its weekly meetings with the designers, but other government agencies separately liked the design so much, that the designers were also commissioned for Eunos. As it is, these two sentences – especially with the parentheses – are clunky and don't flow well. I'd try to simplify and break up the sentences. I would have started with what the roof design was meant for, then in a new sentence explain how the design was received, and last how it was selected for Eunos specifically. YuniToumei (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Rewritten, to the best of my ability; let me know if it needs improving. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looks a lot better! I think the According to [...] sentence is still really long. I suggest splitting it up at the , resulting [...]. You could start a new sentence there with "This resulted in" etc. YuniToumei (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comic Connect: not part of this FAC itself, but I'm a bit surprised this doesn't have a section on Art and architecture on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Would be a useful wikilink else.

• Added a section on the page (and the link). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• This was entirely unrequired for this FAC, but nice work there! :) YuniToumei (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding the art section, it talks a decent bit about the themes and motives about these murals. Is there any more you could write about the process of creation? It feels a bit barebone.

• I've checked my sources, and they don't talk about the process of creation. My guess is that they don't talk about it since it is a relatively minor addition to the station (compared to the more grand Art-in-Transit programme artworks) Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• If it is that minor and there are no sources, to what extent is it due to be included in such detail? YuniToumei (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Two secondary sources cover the mural in a bit of detail (ex: motives, what the creator thinks of it, etc), so I think it can stay. As to how much coverage we should give, I think a description of what the mural depicts can be axed; the secondary sources focus on the topic of the mural. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 19:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• The trimmed version that you have in the article now feels a lot more appropriate. LGTM! YuniToumei (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's the review for the Details section. YuniToumei (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Responded in-line, YuniToumei. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Left replies inline. YuniToumei (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I did a check on comprehensiveness by skimming through potential sources in the news. Looks mostly good to me. The only thing I could find was a 2015 article listing Eunos as one of 17 stations that might be redesigned to give passengers more space on the platforms by 2018. No article after that seemed to report on such a conversion though. Do you happen to know if this was anything major worth mentioning? YuniToumei (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I did see an LTA press release on that during my research. As much as I'd like to, I decided not to include it since I couldn't really find any source that details any aftermath of this plan (or whether it even went through – much to my knowledge, I don't think this plan was implemented, but the mind is not the most reliable source), so it's a minor aspect I guess. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 19:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose if it wasn't reported, it isn't due a mention in the article. YuniToumei (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm happy to support this now based on prose and comprehensiveness after all the changes above. I haven't done a full source review but cross-read most sources as part of my prose review work. The text-source-integrity and source selection generally looks good to me. YuniToumei (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi Icepinner, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EW7_Eunos_MRT_Station_exterior_202412.jpg

  CC BY-SA 4.0, own work

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SGMRT-LRT_map.svg

  CC BY-SA 2.0, own work based on OpenStreetMap

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EW7_Eunos_Station_Platform_level_202502.jpg

  CC BY-SA 4.0, own work

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. Is there a specific reason for the two external media boxes in the article? I think the more standard approach would be to move those links to the section "External links". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7, thank you for the image review! Regarding the external media boxes, they contain links to copyrighted media related to the station and its history (like map sites of the station when it was first announced, images of the station mural artwork, etc). I do realise that some of them are not really relevant (like a link to the termination notice on the contract to build the station – the notice is cited as a primary source, anyway), and there wasn't enough external media to justify the external image boxes, so I moved them to the "External links" section, anyway. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. That takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have access to my laptop for the past two days, so I didn't see this comment until today. I'm currently trying to get some people to review it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

I figured I should review since I have an FAC of my own (or is it "a FAC"?)

Lead

• "Operated by SMRT Trains, the station is connected to the Eunos Bus Interchange and provides access to other surrounding landmarks such as the Masjid Darul Aman, Eunos Crescent Market and Food Centre, and Mangala Vihara Buddhist Temple." - this is a lot of detail that should be split into two sentences

• Splitted, but I don't know if it disrupts the flow of reading. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Not at all, I think it's a good pace (especially for the beginning of the article). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Plans for Eunos were outlined in May 1982 as part of the initial MRT system" - rather than having passive voice, I think you should say who did the plans, even if it means expanding the lead more.

• It's not exactly stated by the sources cited in this article who drafted the 1982 plans, though I think it's Wilbur Smith since they were the ones who conducted the preliminary MRT studies. I will try to find out who drafted it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "During construction of the station, one of the contractors, Oh Teck Thye, was put under receivership, resulting in the termination of its joint venture with Okumura Corporation [jp]; Okumura continued the project alone. " - I don't know what receivership is, so could you explain what that means so I don't need to click the link? Also, I would split everything after "receivership" into a new sentence

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 06:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I appreciate the explanation but the sentence is on the long side now. I suggest having a sentence about the start of the construction (where you could mention the joint bid by name). Then, have a separate sentence about the Oh Teck Thye company. Something like - "Construction for the station began in January 1986, in a joint venture between the Japanese Okumura Corporation [jp], and the Singaporean Oh Teck Thye. The latter company..." and then explain the receivership part. Right now, the company that underwent receivership is mentioned before the one that actually did the construction, which I think is the wrong order, flow wise. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Done. To be honest the lead of MRT articles tend not to mention the contractor's names for some strange reason, I don't actually know why. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Eunos, along with other stations from Marina Bay to Tanah Merah, opened on 4 November 1989." - how many other stations?

• Added. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 06:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

History, construction, and opening

• "13 stations" - make sure all numbers followed by units have non-breaking spaces, per MOS:NUM. It should be formatted like "13 stations" (see edit window)

• Done, to the best of my knowledge. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• The units are inconsistent. You first start with "32.6 km (20.3 mi)". As a reminder, the first instance of any units should be spelled out, and the second time abbreviated. But the second time, it's "40 kilometres (25 mi)"

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Stations under Phase II were planned to start construction while Phase I stations are under construction" - why the present tense?

• Phase II stations were planned to begin construction while Phase I stations were under construction. Fixed. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Ten companies were shortlisted by July,[14] and the contract was awarded to an American–Singapore consortium between De Leuw Cather, Wilbur Smith & Associates, Skidmore Owings Merrill, and Singaporean firm RSP Architects in October for S$11.5 million (1984) (US$5.39 million)." - split sentences, the first one should end at "July". And I'm assuming it was the MRTC who shortlisted these companies? They handled the process?

• Yes. I have splitted the sentence as well. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• "By May 1985, there were seven tenderers that prequalified for Contract 303" - I don't know what tenderers are, or Contract 303

• Contract 303 is explained in the next line ("seven tenderers that prequalified for Contract 303, which initially detailed the construction of Paya Lebar station and a viaduct from Paya Lebar to Eunos). Regarding tenderers, I have linked it to Invitation to tender (note that tenderer redirects to Procurement, but the procurement article doesn't actually explain what a tenderer is, hence the link). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks, that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "By February 1986, 41% of the contract had been completed,[22] with Swiss–Singaporean company VSL Singapore winning the subcontract for the supply of post-tensioned cables and precast beams for the station's viaducts in July." - these are two separate ideas

• Seperated. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• "It was later found that..." - Weasle wording

• Removed. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• "...though the opening date was moved to 4 November in September as the test runs were ahead of schedule.[31] Eunos, along with other stations between Marina Bay and Tanah Merah, opened on 4 November 1989" - can you reword this part to avoid saying "4 November" twice? The "4 November in September" is a bit clunky. You could say "...though in September, the opening date was moved ahead two weeks as the test runs were ahead of schedule." And then keep the next sentence as is

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "After the station was opened, in February 1996, a flight of stairs from the station's terrace to the street level underwent repairs after it had sunk into the ground. " - a bit clunky. Was there nothing about the opening day of the station? No ribbon cutting? No formal dedication? It seems odd to have so much detail getting to opening day in 1989, and then nothing until 1996.

• I still think the wording is a bit clunky. Given that the section is called "After opening", I think you could just start the sentence with "In February 1996..." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think there was any formal ceremony for Eunos station for the following reasons:

This was one of 10 small/local stations that were opened on the same day

I don't think there were a lot of people living near Eunos station at the time

The MRT was constructed such that the first stations to be opened were in areas that had the most traffic congestion to the city (like Toa Payoh MRT station in Toa Payoh, for example), so naturally those stations would serve a lot of people and have a lot of celebrations. However, by the time Eunos opened, rouhgly half of the stations in the initial system were in operation, so I think they were at a stage were MRT stations became a normal part of people's lives.

There was a ceremony at Tanah Merah MRT station where a train ran through a rice paper banner, but that's about it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 06:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I really, really appreciate the explanation! Yea, that makes sense, especially that the population was low when it was built. That reminds me of China building subways that initially were in the middle of fields, only to be built up later on. Yea, this works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Were the problems noted by the public letter in Today ever fixed, like the stairs to nowhere, or the inaccessible ramps?

• Not to my knowledge. This took place in 2006, so I imagine commuter feedback like this was followed up on the train operator's website; the National Library Board only started archiving websites in c. 2008, so quite a lot of online content between c. 1996 to c. 2008 are lost. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Are there any other incidents? If so, you could move the part about the man dying into an "Incidents" section

• No other incidents as far as I know. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 06:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Details

• "5:45 am to 12:25 am daily" - add the time zone in a note

• MOS:TIMEZONE says "give dates and times appropriate to the time zone where an event took place". I really don't think that we need to establish what timezone the operating hours are in, since it's already established that the station is located in Singapore. Besides, this has never been raised before in past MRT stations FACs, so I'm gonna have to decline on this comment. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• My mistake :) I'm used to dealing with tropical cyclones that often move across time zones. Stricken. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Guess I'll get rid of the footnote Noleander mentioned. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 14:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Eunos is mostly wheelchair-accessible" - yea, the previous section made it apparent that, what was it, "assumes the wheelchair bound can suddenly get up and walk the [steps connected to the ramp]" But if the section clarified when that was fixed, I wouldn't be making such a snarky comment :P

• This is for Exit A; the ramp for the Eunos Crescent Food Centre and Market would be around Exit C. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Other details

• Is there ridership info? I was comparing the station to this random NYC subway station, which had that section

• Technically there is, but the LTA doesn't make it publicly available and requires a subscription to their database. I do have access to said database, but tbh, the method to process most likely goes against WP:CALC, so I'm not very inclined to add it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Makes sense, you can only write about what's publicly reported. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Similarly, what about station layout? You could go into detail about the murals. I think that would cover everything in the "Details" section but the first paragraph, which could be part of the history.

The article is well-written, so I hope my comments aren't too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. I left a few follow-ups, but good work so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support - good work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Explain for readers not familiar with Singapore or SE Asia:
  • .. a traditional Malay roof as it is located in a Malay area.
  • ... the station is located in a Malay neighbourhood and was next to Malay cultural centre

Some readers from around the world may not recognize what Malay means. So a link to Malays (ethnic group) is required. If it is not possible to link in the body text (since Malay roof is linked to Malay house) then consider an efn footnote with a link a and a 1-sentence definition. And the same footnote could be used for both of the above sentences using the efn "name" parameter.

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Sec title Developments after opening - Consider shortening to "After opening" because the word "development" is ambiguous and could mean either (a) additional construction; or (b) any event.

• Shortened. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 01:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding time zone comment in the review above re 5:45 am to 12:25 am daily - Consider adding an efn footnote at the first place a specific time is mentioned in the article; in the efn footnote simply repeats the WP:TIMEZONE guidance namely "All times in this article are in local Singapore time." That would be unobtrusive, and would satisfy the reviewer, and would help any readers that might think WP times are UTC+0.

• I did add it, but removed it per the above conversation with HurricaneHink. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 14:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Word "Eunos" used by itself: Eunos has an.. the designer of Eunos... That reads awkwardly, to my ears, because "Eunos" is also the (alternative) name of a neighborhood: Geylang East. Consider using either "the station" or "Eunos station" or "the Eunos station", instead of "Eunos".
  • I looked at the London tube articles, and it looks like they follow the convention of using the word "station" rather than the name of the station ... at least when the station name is also the name of the neighborhood or nearby landmark. Example: Westminster tube station: the word "Westminster" would be ambiguous, so that article uses the word "station" throughout the article, and never "Westminster" (alone).

• I think this happened because of YuniToumei's first comment for the history section. Anyways, changed. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 01:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• In contrast to other Phase IIA stations, Eunos has a traditional Malay roof ... - Probably best to include "... have domed roofs ...". I know this is in the lead, and verbosity is discouraged; but without "all the others were domed" the sentence is confusing.

• Done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 01:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "... by local artist Erica Wee which depicts the history of Katong, Joo Chiat, and Eunos.[63][64][65] The murals took eight months to complete, including the design concept, and were unveiled in September 2023. Wee, who had returned to Singapore after 15 years of working in Kuala Lumpur, commented that the murals were "the best homecoming gift" for her as they contain elements of her childhood. Was she from Eunos neighborhood specifically? or just Singapore? If from Eunos, that is more meaningful and should be mentioned.

• In the Lianhe Zaobao source (and the 8World News source, I suppose), the artist says that the murals contain elements of when she was growing up. I think we can infer from the quote (plus the entire point of the Comic Connect programme) that Wee is from Eunos, or at least grew up in an adjacent area and frequently visited Eunos, but that's WP:OR. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 01:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I ran the Earwig copyvio tool, and it reported no warnings.

• Prose is satisfactory quality, except for a few minor issues noted above.

• The format/layout of the sourcing & cites complies with MOS and is consistent. I have not done a source check.

• That's all I can find. Let me know when you have considered the above items. Noleander (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

EG

May look at this over the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

1909 Chinese provincial elections

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the first set of elections held across the Qing dynasty in 1909, just a couple years before its collapse. They were the first provincial elections ever held in China, and suffrage was restricted only to wealthy men, few of who even turned out to vote. There were no parties, and the bodies elected were purely advisory, so this is written a bit differently from a typical election article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

I will revie this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Vacant0: Checking back in on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was away for a bit. I'll review this today. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Lol, I started the review last night and forgot to save the review and all of my progress is now gone. RIP. I'll start over.

• Maybe add an infobox?
  • There's not much information that could be added; there aren't definite figures on the makeup of political alignments and the total number of eligible voters (and thus turnout), and the different political blocs didn't have clear leaders. So an infobox wouldn't really have any information beyond the map and the basic information described in the lede.-G
• Lede is okay.
• Maybe explain what "imperial examination system" is in a sentence or two?
  • Done.-G
• "the Qing empire was in social and political turmoil" caused by what?
  • Various things; expanded a little.-G
• "three northeastern Provinces" why are Provinces capitalised here, but later in the sentence they are not?
  • Error, fixed.-G
• "In June 1905, prominent imperial officials Yuan Shikai, Zhang Zhidong, and Zhou Fu jointly submitted a call for the creation of a constitutional monarchy.[6]" did they achieve anything?
  • Source doesn't say, so I assume nothing directly, just part of the general process towards the imperial government pursuing this. I can remove it if you think it's unnecessary.-G
• "western-style" should western be capitalised as Western?
  • "western systems" same here.
  • "western-style elections" same here.
    • Fixed.-G
• what is fengjian?
  • This has a footnote which explains it.-G
• "National Assembly" is wikilinked several times throughout the article. In its first mention, it is written in lowercase, as "national assembly", while in the next section, it is written as "National Assembly".
  • Fixed.-

That's it from me. Very interesting and well written article IMO. Good job, G! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Vacant0: Ok, thank you! I think I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

BorgQueen

• The Qing government reduced the frequency of the imperial exams and began to promote a western-style education system; when this met resistance by local gentry, the examination system was abolished entirely in 1905. "entirely" is probably unnecessary here. BorgQueen (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Fixed this.-G
• To be eligible to vote or run, citizens were required to have either taught at above the primary level for at least three years, graduated from a secondary school, previously held the imperial examination rank of gongsheng (貢生), held a post at or above the seventh rank of the civil service or the fifth rank of the military, or wealth (either through a business or land holdings) exceeding 5,000 yuan. What did the threshold of 5,000 yuan represent in practice? A modern currency conversion would probably be misleading, but some historical context (for example, how it compared with a civil servant's salary) would help the lay reader understand how restrictive it was. BorgQueen (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  • So this is a complicated question because there's a lot of tricky conversions to do between yuan and tael, and the late Qing dynasty saw a lot of inflation... but I was able to find a figure of the GDP per capita of China in 1912, which was 52.2 yuan. I added a footnote. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

    • @Generalissima Thanks, that helps. Another point: […] opium users, police officers, students, priests, and those with family members in disreputable careers were barred from voting or standing as candidates. Women were additionally barred from voting. This paragraph builds up a list of requirements, and then the final sentence abruptly reveals that women were excluded entirely. That can make the reader feel as though the previous discussion applied universally, only to realize that it wasn't the case. Why not make it clear from the outset that the it was male-only? Something along the lines of: Both voters and elector candidates were subject to the same set of requirements, beyond a minimum age of 25 for voters and 30 for electors. Eligible male citizens were required to […]

    BorgQueen (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

    @BorgQueen: I moved it to the front, but I found it helpful to explicitly state that only men were allowed, since otherwise it could be implied that women had a different set of eligibility requirements. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

    @Generalissima Sounds good to me. BorgQueen (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1909_Chinese_provincial_election_map_colored.svg: suggest clarifying in the caption what the different colours represent - the current caption mentions two cases but there are three colours

• File:梁启超在日本期间.jpg: where was this first published?
  • Can't find anywhere it was published, but it turns out this was taken while he was in Japan, so it falls under the more lenient Japanese copyright for old photos.

• File:Nanjinglinshicanyiyuan2.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag and author date of death
  • Couldn't find a source or equivalent photo; removed.-G

• File:顺直咨议局.JPG needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Added.-G

Joko2468: sourcing review

The article makes use of a number of books and journal articles that specialise in the period of constitutionalism, as well as Chang (2011) which explicitly focuses on the subject itself. It has evidently been well-researched. Joko2468 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yan & Leung (2020: p.20) seems significant vis-a-vis the legacy of the provincial boards and the source might be used to flesh out the narrative up to the revolution (I think you can just Ctrl + F for "provinc"). I think the parliamentary elections should probably be briefly covered in the lede-- the source seems to present them as being closely related. Please correct me if something has gone over my head here.
  • I was actually able to, through that, find a source I had overlooked which they cite (Fincher 1981), which I implemented to cover the provincial assemblies. Thank you for that! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Great, happy to support promotion on the basis of sourcing. Joko2468 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Citations spot check

The article doesn't appear to have gone through a spot check at GA so I'll do a full one. I'll make my way through this incrementally and add any further general comments above. This table lists 20 random passages from throughout the article (44.4% of 45 total passages). These passages contain 27 inline citations (39.1% of 69 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Joko2468 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• 5: I'm not too familiar with the terminology here but are you sure constitutional monarchy is supported?
  • Constitutional monarchy can refer to a wide range of systems. The kind they were advocating for is sometimes called a "semi-constitutional monarchy". For instance, the UAE and Morocco are constitutional monarchies, although the monarch very much have power.
    • I think ideally this should be "constitutional government" since the page doesn't mention monarchy but I'm satisfied with the explanation.
      • Reworded.-G
• 6: the prose appears to imply that this began in 1905 (as much as the Emperor's views had shifted earlier) when the source has this at 1901.
  • Was kinda out of order chronologically there; rearranged.
    • I think this still implies that the administrative reforms began in 1905-- I would personally move the 1905 sentence to the end of the paragraph and put something like "Beginning in 1901," (p. 391) at the start of Administrative, bureaucratic, and judicial reforms...
      • Done.-G
• 13b: could you provide the quote for this? You don't have to answer but, out of curiosity, how did you get access to it? This appears to all be supported by Min (1989)-- Ichiko (1980) seems to be redundant.
  • I figured extra sources are good to have if they confirm the same things. I actually used to attend the university Thompson teaches at, and just asked to see the thesis. I no longer have access to it.
    • I think WP:CITETRIM would suggest that these be dropped (especially since the thesis is largely unverifiable) but I'll leave it to your discretion; it's not going to preclude a support.
      • Removed one of the Thompson 1985 cites.-G
• 28: I think you can drop p. 148?
  • Okay, dropped.-G
• 34: pp. 154-155 don't seem to be relevant.
  • @Joko2468: Fixed. I think that's everything? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The article has passed the citations spot check-- just the first comment above that needs a response. Joko2468 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Since the Song dynasty (960–1279), positions within the Imperial Chinese bureaucracy and civil governance were filled through the imperial examination system, merging the educational and political systems.
1		Hill 2013, pp. 215–216.
In June 1905, prominent imperial officials Yuan Shikai, Zhang Zhidong, and Zhou Fu jointly submitted a call for the creation of a constitutional monarchy.
5		Min 1989, p. 141.		⏳
Administrative, bureaucratic, and judicial reforms were the first major focus; redundant and archaic offices were abolished, the functions of the Six Boards were transferred to a new set of civil ministries, and the three northeastern Provinces were integrated into the administrative framework of the other provinces.
6		Ichiko 1980, pp. 389–395.
Proposals for local and provincial assemblies were raised following the end of the Hundred Days' Reform. In the first few years of the 1900s, reformist and revolutionary thinkers such as Sun Yat-sen, Ho Kai, and Kang Youwei began to advocate for the creation of such assemblies, citing both western systems of local governance and the traditional principle of fengjian.
8		Min 1989, pp. 138–139.
in preparation for the establishment of a national assembly (資政院; Zīzhèngyuàn) and proper provincial legislatures.
13	b	Thompson 1985, p. 293.		⏳
14		Min 1989, pp. 150–153.
15		Ichiko 1980, p. 398.		⏳
Following this, various provinces (including Jiangsu, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Fengtian) created unelected provincial assemblies with appointees from the local gentry.
16		Min 1989, p. 154.
Women were additionally barred from voting.
21		Chang 1984, p. 6.
Officials were often forced to give concessions to local gentry — in the form of leadership positions within the preparatory offices — in order to guarantee cooperation.
22	b	Min 1989, pp. 155–156.
Cartoon of a candidate offering a meal to voters in Jiangsu, from the Shanghai Shibao
27		Hill 2019, pp. 96–99.
The public was generally apathetic towards the elections. Only one voting station existed in each electoral district, often many miles apart. Citizens who were eligible through their wealth were often hesitant to give their property value to register, fearing that they would come under target from tax collectors. Preparatory office officials made an effort to emphasis that the voter census would not be a precursor to new taxation.
28		Chang 1968, pp. 147–148.
29		Hill 2019, pp. 85–86.
As the infant Xuantong Emperor had ascended to the throne after voter registration had begun, many registered voters were listed with names violating the new name taboo; in southern Jiangsu, those who could not be contacted to change their names in time had their names changed by the election preparatory office.
19	b	Hill 2019, p. 85.
In most provinces, turnout was low even among the eligible population. Out of 21,073 registered voters in Shuntian Prefecture (containing Beijing), only a little over 1,500 votes were cast. Somewhere between 40–70% of eligible voters in Jiangsu participated; in Fujian, turnout was as high as 40% in the cities, while ranging from 10–20% in the rural countryside.
30	b	Cameron 1963, p. 122.
33		Min 1989, p. 157.
Members of the provincial assemblies were largely scholar-gentry, especially those with advanced degrees. Out of a set of five assemblies with known member compositions, a slight majority of members were higher-ranking gentry, with only about 10% from non-gentry backgrounds. A small but prominent percentage of members had studied outside of China‚ mainly in Japan; Japanese-educated members were most numerous in the Sichuan assembly.
34	a	Chang 1968, pp. 149–155.
35		Cameron 1963, p. 123.
The vast majority of members elected were constitutionalists. Although they formed a broad opposition bloc to revolutionary groups such as the Tongmenghui, they were not a unified faction; the Shandong and Guizhou assemblies quickly fell into factional conflict between conservative and progressive wings. Many of the progressive constitutionalists were younger and had studied abroad.
37		Chang 1984, pp. 18–19.
The provincial assemblies convened on 14 October 1909.
41		Min 1989, p. 137.
In 1910, the provincial assemblies elected half of the members of the National Assembly, similarly an advisory council, with the other half of the assembly appointed by the imperial court.
47		Bartlett 2009, p. 132.
The new provincial assemblies were dismantled under Yuan Shikai's regime and dissolved by the Beiyang government. Further provincial elections, fraudulently controlled by the Anfu Club, were held in 1918.
49		Chang 1984, pp. 4, 26.
Jiangxi, Henan, and Yunnan figures are estimates by Min Tu-ki
39	b	Min 1989, p. 178.			WP:AGF that these have been calculated accurately.
Based off the 1910 Chinese census, statistician Walter F. Willcox estimated that Henan had 20,977,000 people. Combined with Min's estimates, this would mean that 0.43% of the population voted.
39	d	Min 1989, p. 178.			ditto
40	b	Willcox 1928, p. 28.
Based off the 1910 Chinese census, statistician Walter F. Willcox estimated that Yunnan had 7,076,000 people. Combined with Min's estimates, this would mean that 0.66% of the population voted.
39	e	Min 1989, p. 178.			ditto
40	c	Willcox 1928, p. 28.

Kisseran

Needless to say, this is a well-written article. I shall do a prose review as requested:

Lead

• "Following a lengthy period ... in the aftermath ..." are two phrases that roughly mean the same thing and should be merged into something like "Following a lengthy period of political turmoil including the failure of the 1898 Hundred Days' Reform and the 1900 Boxer Rebellion..." or something like that.
  • Fixed.-G
• "valuable initial step" → "first step"
  • Fixed.-G
• "approved the creation of provincial assemblies in 1907" — did the approval take place in 1907, or did the approved creation take place in 1907, or both?
  • The former, rephrased.-G
• "constitutionalists, who"
  • Fixed.-G
• "Tongmenghui revolutionary organization" → "revolutionary organization Tongmenghui"
  • Fixed.-G
• "although firm numbers are unknown" → "although their exact numbers are unknown"
  • Fixed.-G
• "the 1911 Revolution saw the collapse of the dynasty and the creation of the Republic of China" → "the Qing dynasty collapsed in the 1911 Revolution and was replaced by the Republic of China"
  • Fixed.-G

Background

• "Imperial Chinese" — is Imperial part of the proper name?
  • No, fixed.-G
• "bureaucracy and civil governance" — unless there's a substantive difference I'm missing
  • Fixed.-G
• "where scholars who passed varying levels of state-run examinations were appointed to positions" — It might just be me but this feels redundant; perhaps rephrase the entire sentence along the lines of "scholars entered the imperial Chinese bureaucracy through the state-run imperial examination system", but I'm not sure.
  • Rephrased.-G
• "the late 1800s" → "the late 19th century" — to avoid confusion with the decade
  • Fixed.-G
• "in the Russo-Japanese War"
  • Fixed.-G
• "the first major focus" → "the first major targets for reform"
  • Fixed.-G
• "attended to" — not sure what the intended meaning here is; perhaps "intended to"?
  • Yes, my bad.-G
• "elections began to be pursued by the central government" — "the central government began to pursue elections"
  • Fixed.-G
• "advocate for the establishment of"
  • Fixed.-G
• "towards the creation of
  • Fixed.-G
• "A 1906 state committee headed by Prince Zaifeng recommended the adoption of a constitution and national legislature, prompting Cixi to issue an edict in support." → "Upon the recommendation of a 1906 state committee headed by Prince Zaifeng, Cixi issued an edict supporting the adoption of a constitution and national legislature"
  • Fixed.-G
• "on 19 October,"
  • Fixed.-G

Procedures and preparations

• "established qualifications for candidates and set in place the electoral processes" — are the qualifications for candidates not part of the electoral processes? Or were the rest of the electoral processes already drafted somewhere else, thus being "set in place" to the exclusion of "qualifications for candidates"?
  • Good point, rephrased.-G
• "previously held the imperial examination rank of gongsheng" — (1) that exact rank? (2) previously as opposed the other requirements? e.g. is the civil service requirement "were required to hold a post at or above the seventh rank of the civil service" or "were required to have held a post at or above the seventh rank of the civil service" as currently written?
  • Rephrased.-G
• "Women were additionally barred from voting" → "Additionally, women were barred from voting"
  • Rephrased this section on another reviewer's feedback.-G
• "These regulations excluded the overwhelming majority of the population from voting"
  • Fixed.-G
• "Although the abolition of the examination system prevented citizens from becoming part of the gentry" → "Although new entries into the gentry class ended with the abolition of the examination system"
  • Fixed.-G
• "two Jiangsu assemblies were dropped" — condensed into one?
  • Yes, reworded.-G
• "an assembly for Xinjiang" → "the assembly for Xinjiang"
  • Fixed.-G

Campaign

• "made an effort to emphasis" → "emphasized"
  • Fixed.-G
• "was also transmitted"
  • Fixed.-G
• "allowing them to spread to remote regions" → "which were distributed to remote regions"
  • Fixed.-G
• "The process of registration"
  • Fixed.-G
• "unqualified" → "ineligible"
  • Fixed.-G

Results

• "Out of a set of" → "Within the"
  • Fixed.-G

Aftermath

• "In 1910, the provincial assemblies elected" — the link points to the 1909 parliamentary election, so which year was it?
  • I think that article is wrong but it's hard to find sources on when the elections took place? The National Assembly did not convene until October 1910 so it seems like it was probably in 1910, but maybe some voting was underway in the assemblies by the end of 1909? The source I use says they were in 1910 at least.-G
• "compared the 1909 elections to the first Republican elections, due to both having" → "said that both elections had" — (1) surely the comparison was not caused by the mundane similarities (2) it doesn't need to be pointed out explicitly that he was making a comparison when his comparison is quoted immediately afterwards
  • Fixed.-G
• "dismantled under Yuan Shikai's regime" — to me this is near-perfectly synonymous with "dissolved by the Beiyang government", so perhaps some clarification is due in place of deletion.
  • You're right, fixed.-G

Kisseran (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Bibliography check

Not checking the source content, just the bibliographic information in the article:

• Chang 1968 is missing page numbers.
• Ichiko 1980 is missing page numbers.
• Murthy 2008 is missing page numbers.
• Xiao-Planes 2012 is missing editors.
  • Fixed all these.-G

Kisseran (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Kisseran: Thank you so much! This was all a huge help. Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Support on prose. Looks good to me! Kisseran (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Signing on! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Xinjiang elections were postponed due to low rates of Chinese literacy" - this feels oddly phrased. If the citizens were generally illiterate, I'd drop "Chinese" from here. If the citizens were literate in their native script just not in Chinese, I'd maybe say "low rates of literacy in Chinese"
  • Fixed.-G
• "although it had come under increasing intellectual opposition as corrupt and ineffective during the late 19th century" - suggest rearranging slightly as the current phrasing it implies it was "corrupt and ineffective during the late 19th century". I suspect what you mean is that it had "come under increasing intellectual opposition during the late 19th century as corrupt and ineffective"
  • Fixed.-G
• " the functions of the Six Boards" - since this is a new concept for the reader, maybe a slight gloss here?
  • Done.-G
• "Manchu bannermen were also allocated seats." - briefly gloss who these guys are?
  • Done.-G
• Same comment about Chinese literacy applies for body, and maybe here we have room to slightly expand on why not (footnote maybe?)
  • Done.-G
• "instead administered under the Lifan Bu" explain also?
  • Done.-G
• "come under target" slightly odd phrasing. "come under scrutiny" maybe, or "be targeted by", depending on which part you'd prefer to keep
  • Done.-G
• "many registered voters were listed with names violating the new name taboo" you've gotta explain this one a bit more I think. What's a name taboo? How were they violating it?
  • Done.-G
• "Votes cast in Ansu, Zhili, were decided by village brawls." I kinda think they were on to something here
• "Contemporary political and press responses were favorable to the new assemblies; the conservative..." I might split this at the semicolon, it's quite long
  • Done.-G
• explain/gloss Anfu Club?
  • Done.-G

That's all I got! Great work :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you very much as always PMC! I think I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Happy to support! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Check-in

@FAC coordinators: May I nominate another article? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Vigilantcosmicpenguin

I will review the prose. Other reviewers have addressed most of the points to address, but I see a few small things remaining. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• The first sentence states that these were the first provincial elections of the Qing dynasty. You said above that these were the first elections in China, ever; this is an important point but is not stated anywhere in the article. This fact should be included if it's explicitly stated in sources.
• failure of the 1898 Hundred Days' Reform and the 1899–1901 Boxer Rebellion is technically ambiguous as it could be parsed as "failure of the Boxer Rebellion"
• They would be held → They were held
• Suggestion: I think exact numbers are unknown is an unnecessary detail for the lead.
• The lead says "Advisory Council" while the body says "National Assembly"; should be consistent
• Suggest changing the creation of such a system → its creation for conciseness
• Suggestion: I think "traditional principle" is too vague a description of fengjian. How about "traditional system of governance"?
• There is a statement about "two sets of regulations" but then only one set of regulations is described. Is the next paragraph describing the other set? If so, this should be clarified.
• The word yuan does not need to be italicized; the name of a currency is a common term.
• The "Procedures and preparations" section includes a few sentences about the gentry that could be moved to the "Background" section. This would flow better chronologically; otherwise, I (the reader) am a bit confused why there's a few sentences about what happened during a past era, in the middle of a paragraph about 1909. It would also be useful to include this in the background section because the gentry is briefly mentioned in that section, so it would be useful context there.
• prefectures, counties, and districts should be linked to the respective articles, if possible.
• Is there a reason for the proposal to split Jiangsu, or for the opposition to this proposal? I understand that this may not be known, but if it is then it should be explained.
• periodicals, which were distributed → periodicals distributed for conciseness
• Japanese-educated members were most numerous in the Sichuan assembly is a little ambiguous. I assume this means that Sichuan was the province with the highest number of Japanese-educated members, but it can be misread as saying that most of Sichuan assembly members were Japanese-educated.
• Missing a comma after fraudulently controlled by the Anfu Club political clique
• Footnote [d] links to the dabpage Mongol language, should this be Mongolian language?

Overall, this article is very close to meeting the criteria. Well done. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Is there a publisher location for Fincher, 1981? And Hill? And Schlussel? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

True Blue (album)

Nominator(s): 750h+ 06:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about True Blue, the best-selling studio album by Madonna, and one of the best-selling albums in history. It was the album that sent the singer to superstar status and established her artistic credibility, spawning five worldwide hit singles: "Live to Tell", "Papa Don't Preach", "True Blue", "Open Your Heart", and "La Isla Bonita". If successful this will be my nineteenth FA. Enjoy, and all comments are appreciated :). 750h+ 06:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from Camilasdandelions

• Nice to see this work nominated for FA. Glad to review it!

Background

• "American singer and songwriter Madonna released her sophomore album, Like a Virgin, on November 12, 1984." -- Is full date needed? I would just write "in 1984"
• "that "he [was] almost like my brother"." -- "[her] brother"
• "Madonna's twenty-seventh birthday on August 16, 1985" -- "1985" is already mentioned, so it is unnecessary
• "co-starred in the adventure comedy film Shanghai Surprise" (1986) -- MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • I can't really change the "adventure comedy" part as that's how it should be formatted, but I moved it from being alongside the title

Recording and development

• With Leonard, the recording process was informal: he would typically develop a musical idea on piano, after which Madonna would "write a lyric, she'd sing it, and the next day we would do another song", often completing one per day. In contrast, Bray focused on "shap[ing] things and [...] creat[ing] arrangements to show off the song[s] better". -- It is unclear who wrote/spoke these direct quotes (attribute)
• "he would typically develop" -- why not just "he typically developed"
• "and the next day we would do another song" -> "and the next day [they] would do another song"
• "The ballad "Live to Tell"" -- same as before, ballad or sentimental ballad?
• "The singer expressed immediate interest and acquired the song." -- who is "the singer"? Madonna or Elliot?
• "Madonna was drawn to the track as it aligned with her "personal zeitgeist of standing up to male authorities"." -- attribute?
• "although it was recorded, it was ultimately excluded from the final track list.[35] It was later included on her first remix album, You Can Dance (1987). -- avoid repetition

Songs

• Add |type=music there
  • Where?
    • On {{listen}} Camilasdandelions (✉️) 07:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• "Songwriter Brian Elliot stated that" -- just "Elliot" since he was mentioned multiple times
• "is a pop ballad" -- wikilink pop ballad entirely
  • relinks to "sentimental ballad", so that'd be a WP:DUPLINK
• "that includes keyboards, synthesizers, electric guitar" -- wikilink synthesizer here and unlink "synthesizer bass" below
• "of the Dixie Cups' "Chapel of Love"" -- "of the Dixie Cups's "Chapel of Love""
  • the previous one is correct
    • I guess "the Dixie Cups" is a name, thus it should be treated as singular noun. No? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 07:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
      • possessives are determined by the name's form not by whether the entity is singular or plural. "Dixie Cups" ends in the plural noun Cups. The standard possessive of a regular plural noun ending in "s" is to add an apostrophe
• "is a Latin pop dance ballad with" -- unlink ballad
  • Ballad is not linked before
    • It will be sentimental ballad, so I would suggest unlinking it Camilasdandelions (✉️) 07:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
      • "La Isla Bonita" is not a sentimental ballad

Artwork and release

• You'd better add "(pictured)" since I'm confused who he is, Lucy O'Brien or Andy Warhol?
• "Biographer Lucy O'Brien described" / "In April 1986, Billboard reported" / "and Warner Bros. Records" -- unlink them since overlink

Singles

• single, lead single, music video -- those terms are regarded as an overlink among music editors
• ""Live to Tell" was described by several" -- why not "The song"?

Initial reviews

• "Billboard opined" -- unlink

Track listing

• MOS:PSEUDOHEAD here
• "signifies additional lyrics" -- add full stop

Personnel

• "Credits adapted from the album's liner notes." -- "Credits were (or are) adapted from the liner notes."

Charts

• Remove "for True Blue" in all headings (MOS:HEADERS)

Certifications and sales

• Add caption per MOS:TABLECAPTION
• Initial reviews done. I'll look through the article once again after you addressed these! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 07:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Camilasdandelions: done unless I left a comment. 750h+ 07:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Additional

• "Although it was recorded, the song was ultimately excluded from the final track list.[35] "Spotlight" was later included on her first remix album, You Can Dance (1987)." -- you can trim it to: "Although recorded, it was ultimately excluded from the final track list,[35] while later included on her first remix album, You Can Dance (1987)."
• All lowercase: "Extended Remix", "Extended Version", "Mix", "Remix", "Remix/Edit", "Instrumental" in Track listing section
• @750h+: That's all I see. Very nice work! Comments and replies above. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 07:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Responded to comments! 750h+ 08:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thx, it was easy. Best luck with your FAC! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• I'll review this. MSincccc (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• "Eventually, it sold over 21 million copies globally" → "It has sold over 21 million copies worldwide"
• "After Madonna met actor Sean Penn on the set of the music video for 'Material Girl', the two began dating in February 1985." → "After meeting actor Sean Penn on the set of the music video for 'Material Girl', the two began dating in February 1985."
• "Following the tour's conclusion, Madonna asked Leonard" → "Following the tour, Madonna asked Leonard"

Recording and development

• "former boyfriend, Bray, whom she had worked with..." → "former boyfriend Bray, with whom she had worked..."
• "excluded from True Blue’s final track list" → "final track listing"
  • The current's fine i think

Also, could we add the relevant language template to the mainspace?

MSincccc (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: thanks for the comments, looking forward to any followups. 750h+ 06:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: any updates? no rush. 750h+ 08:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@750h+ I'm planning to wrap up my review this week. I may add a few further comments later today if time permits. MSincccc (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. No rush of course, the nomination isn't old. 750h+ 08:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Composition

• "songs that take influences from"

→ "songs that take influence from"

MSincccc (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Promotion

• "second highest-grossing tour" → "second-highest-grossing tour"
  • both are fine, but i prefer the current
• "eventually peaked at number four in its sixth week" → "peaked at number four in its sixth week"

Critical reception

• "Madonna's maturity as a vocalist, producer, and songwriter was particularly acclaimed among reviewers." → "Madonna's maturity as a vocalist, producer, and songwriter was particularly acclaimed."
• "He ended his review with the comment:" → "He concluded:"
• "were also critical in their reviews" → "were also critical"
• "Editing for the magazine PopMatters" → "Writing for PopMatters"

"Mary Von Aue stated in Stereogum that the album experiments" → "Mary Von Aue of Stereogum wrote that the album experiments"

• "tracks such as 'Live to Tell' and 'Papa Don't Preach' suggested" → "tracks such as 'Live to Tell' and 'Papa Don't Preach' suggest"
  • I think the current works slightly better.

MSincccc (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: much thanks for the comments, all done (unless i left a comment). 750h+ 02:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: tagging, just incase you didn't see this 750h+ 02:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@750h+ I will see if we can wrap up the review by this weekend. I've been under the weather as well as a bit busy with coursework recently. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Commercial performance

• The British Phonographic Industry certified it septuple platinum and it has sold over two million copies worldwide.
  • But the previous version states that " It was the best-selling album of 1986 in the UK, with sales of over two million copies".
• Having sold over one million copies overall
  • Do we need "overall" here or could it be dropped?

MSincccc (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Legacy

• Edna Gundersen, critic for USA Today, recognized the album for "boost[ing] her credibility with critics" and making her "an envelope-pushing provocateur and legitimate songwriter".
  • The reference gives the publication year as 1958, which I suppose is not possible in the given case.

Lead

• None here except stylistic suggestions.

Bottom line

• 750h+ That's all from me. I hope that my suggestions have been helpful.

It's a support from me. MSincccc (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Much thanks for this review MSincccc. 750h+ 12:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment

• Comment – The Main article hatnote in the Touring section is unnecessary and incongruous: the target article Who's That Girl World Tour is already linked, perfectly naturally, within the first few words of the following line, and the title of the section itself refers to touring in general, rather than specifically to the Who's That Girl tour. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

As a musician (and with an FAC of my own ongoing), I figured I should review.

Lead

• "Madonna assumed greater control over the creative direction of True Blue, attempting to establish herself as a more serious artist and to appeal to a broader, more mature audience." - there should be some passing mention of the previous albums, so the "more serious" and "more mature" have comparisons. It's merely implied by it being the third album.
• "25 million" - this and all other numbers in the article need a non-breaking space  

Recording and development

• "Madonna collaborated separately with Leonard and Bray, with all three working together collectively on only one occasion." - what occasion?

Composition

• Madonna's earlier recordings featured a bright, high-pitched vocal style that critics likened to "Minnie Mouse on helium". - love this, but who said the quote? All quotes must be attributed
  • It was an unnamed critic, so I've changed it to show so, but it's largely there because Madonna herself noted the criticism

• Lyrically, "La Isla Bonita" portrays Madonna as a "humble observer" - is the humble observer mentioned in the song lyrically? Or is this quote a description of the song?

• Love, romance, commitment, and fidelity constitute the album's main themes.[42][14][51] - can you make sure that all refs are in order, both here and throughout the article?
• I notice there's nothing about Madonna's vocal range in any of the songs. I don't know if that's just not a factor in any of them, but other than "Minnie Mouse on helium", I wondered what the new sound was, from a music composition point of view. Or maybe it's in the article and I'm missing it.
  • Most sources speak about her vocal maturity, which is already mentioned. This talks about her using a "throatier, fuller instrument", and this one speaks about her using her "best vocals" and a "full flow" voice. I don't think including vocal range for each song is very optimal, or a normal thing to do in album articles, unless I misinterpreted something you said.

Artwork and release

• "It depicts the singer in profile" - is "profile" a photography term (that perhaps should be linked)?
• "platinum blonde shade" - not to throw shade, but shouldn't "platinum-blonde" be hyphenated?
  • I don't believe so
• "Joe Lynch of Billboard deemed the cover as among the greatest album artworks." - perhaps specify the 100 greatest album artworks of all time, as of (XXXX year)?
• "It was the first release from Madonna's "Silver Collection" reissue series" - is there a link to this Silver Collection?
  • Doesn't look like it

Promotion

• "it also supported her soundtrack album Who's That Girl (1987)." - I only found out at this point in the article that Madonna was in another box office failure, other than Shanghai Surprise. That should be mentioned.
  • Who's That Girl was a year after True Blue was released, and doesn't really have anything to do with the album. Shanghai Surprise has some relevance to the article as both Penn and Madonna starred in it. I don't particularly know where I'd mention Who's That Girl.
• Her performance of "Papa Don't Preach" was Madonna's first conflict with the Vatican, as she dedicated the song to Pope John Paul II, who encouraged Italian audiences to boycott the concerts. - iconic. No notes.
• "With a total gross revenue of US$25 million" - should mention that it's in either 1987 USD, or unadjusted for inflation (like in a note).
• Reviewers rank the song highly amongst Madonna's other songs. - other songs? What's "other" about it?
  • It's ranked high when reviewers put it against Madonna's songs
• "La Isla Bonita" was released as True Blue's fifth and final single on February 25, 1987.[156] Critics liked the Latin-influenced sound of the song. - wasn't Madonna also criticized for appropriation?
  • The music video, which I've added
• composer Rikky Rooksby opined that it was "marginally more interesting" than the song. - faint praise, or a jaded composer who wanted Michael Jackson to perform the song? Don't worry I'm just trying to read into the behind-the-scenes gossip that might've happened.
  • praise

All in all, it was a good and entertaining read. Lemme know if you have questions about my review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for the comments, i've left some responses above if you'd like to respond to those. 750h+ 13:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, good work! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Will look over this soon. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 03:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I'll try not to screw anything up!

• "to appeal to a broader, mature audience" — unless her previous audience wasn't mature at all, this should be "more mature", right?
• "collaborating with Patrick Leonard and Stephen Bray on its writing and production" — is this saying that Leonard worked on writing and Bray on production or that they both worked on both? If the former, I think there should be a "respectively" and the latter a "both"
• "True Blue was promoted with the Who's That Girl World Tour" — the passive voice here makes the sentence a bit awkward for me
• "During her Virgin Tour in 1985, Madonna met producer Patrick Leonard, who was hired as the tour's musical director." — I'm confused on the logistics of this—did her tour not have a musical director already? Did they fire the old music director?
• "After the tour, Madonna asked Leonard if he wanted to work with her." — but the previous sentence says her was already hired to work on her tour?
• "She was greatly in control of the album's development" — is a bit awkward
• "Madonna collaborated separately with Leonard and Bray, with all three working together collectively to create "Where's the Party"." — seems to be contradicting itself
• "after which Madonna would "write a lyric, she'd sing it, and the next day [they] would do another song"" — can the quote be paraphrased?
• "often completing one per day" — ambiguous what "one" refers to
• "Madonna also revised the lyrics, which allowed her to get a songwriting credit,." — feels clunky
• "After Paramount rejected the track, he asked Madonna to write the lyrics" — the wording's doesn't feel... engaging, I suppose? I don't know, something about it just falls flat for me
  • any suggestions? I mean the current sentence is quite concise already, and if i changed it it'd probably only be wordier
• "A demo was presented to Warner Bros. executive Michael Ostin, who played it to Madonna during the recording of True Blue. Elliot had been working with Dent for six months and was initially reluctant to offer the song to another artist, but ultimately agreed, later describing the prospect of Madonna recording it as "hard to resist". Madonna expressed immediate interest and acquired the song." — the order of these sentences doesn't feel logical to me; wouldn't it normally be Ostin was presented the demo → played it to Madonna → she expressed interest in recording → Elliot agreed to her recording it → she acquired the song?
• "While her lyrical contributions were minimal, she received a co-writing credit" — is it standard for one to not receive a writing credit if their contributions are minimal in the music industry? Otherwise, the "while" doesn't make sense
  • Yes, and the whole idea of Madonna receiving a songwriting credit despite her little contributions has been reported quite a bit
• "Madonna was drawn to the track as, according to her, it aligned with her "personal zeitgeist of standing up to male authorities"" — shouldn't this be placed earlier with the bit where she initially expressed interest?
• "Although it was recorded, the song was ultimately excluded from True Blue's final track list, and later included on her first remix album, You Can Dance (1987)." — I feel like this could be more concise... something like "The song was ultimately included on her first remix album, You Can Dance (1987), rather than True Blue", maybe?
  • I don't know, You Can Dance is a remix album so readers on a quick glance might imply that it was included both on True Blue and You Can Dance
• "vocal style that an unnamed critic likened to" — is it relevant that they're unnamed?
• "the typical focus on crime" — the typical focus of what?
  • it's largely in line with the previous sentences ("gunshot effects", the crime film), which is why "typical focus" is there.
• "were inspired in part by Madonna's youthful fascination with actor James Dean" — meaning her fascination when she was young, right? I'm not sure if the actual fascination can be "youthful", so maybe this bit should be revised?
• "In the US and Canada, the album cover did not display Madonna's name. In an interview with Aperture, Heiden explained that the record company opted to use shrink wrap for these releases, allowing the photograph of Madonna to be revealed once the packaging was removed." — If I'm understanding this correctly, these two sentences are saying that the album cover didn't display Madonna's name because they could already see Madonna on the cover? Is that correct? Could the connection between these two sentences be made clearer? Also, does "packaging" mean the shrink wrap or some other type of packaging?
  • Yes, and I've clarified this. And packaging does refer to the shrink wrap (which was used to keep the cover concealed until it was removed). Once the shrink wrap was taken off her image was visible, but her name was not printed on the cover. The word "packaging" usually refers to the entire physical enclosure of the album (sleeve, case, box)
• Remove WP:DUPLINKs
  • Done, but I'm not sure why the script began counting lead links towards the rest of the article..
• The notes that aren't full sentences shouldn't have full stops

I got to the end of #Artwork and release so far. Pamzeis (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: thanks for the review, looking foward to follow ups. 750h+ 09:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Continuing my review:

• "The tour broke several attendance records, including a performance near Paris attended by over 130,000 people—the highest for a female artist at the time." — not sure this is grammatically correct, 'cuz it implies that the performance in Paris is a record
• There seems to be a lot of MOS:WEASEL words in #Singles, e.g. "lauded by some critics", "described by some reviewers"
• "with a more demure and understated image" — compared to?
• "vocalist, producer, and songwriter was particularly acclaimed" — per MOS:ACCLAIMED, this should be supported by several sources that explicitly mention acclaim
• "he noted greater confidence in her singing and more mature lyrical themes" — "noted" implies a fact but what comes after here is an opinion
• "Dismissing the record as "warmed over Go-Gos material", Observer–Reporter critic John Quayle praised the singles for being "strong enough to convince even her worst critics that Madonna does have talent"." — the framing feels a bit weird; it follows "some reviewers were more critical in their assessments", yet the "main" bit of the sentence is the praise
  • I changed the first sentence to "mixed", as it is still quite a critical view of the album
• "True Blue has continued to garner acclaim from music critics" — citation needed
• "True Blue is the album that launched Madonna into worldwide superstardom." — is there a song or something that also launched her? Can it be mentioned here as well? Otherwise, "is the album that" is unnecessary
• "Now we're in an era where Madonna is on her fifth [from True Blue]"" — this part of the quote doesn't really to say much IMO

Interesting article! I think that's it from me for the first pass. Pamzeis (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thanks for the comments! 750h+ 16:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of the changes look good! Now, my only comment, which I admit may be very nitpick-y, is that I feel that "the typical focus on crime and material gain" is still too ambiguous—I don't know who/what media is focussing on crime and material gain. It could refer to a whole host of things (the GP, the media, those films, music, audiences, etc.), if that makes sense. Pamzeis (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thoughts? 750h+ 16:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• All good now! I support this nomination! BTW, I'd appreciate any comments at a current FAC of mine. Pamzeis (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Much thanks! 750h+ 08:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Image and source review

As usual, I have to question File:Madonna - open your heart.ogg and File:Madonna - La Isla Bonita.ogg - this is an album article, samples from two songs are unlikely to enhance the understanding of the album sufficiently as to pass WP:NFCC#8. Everything else image-wise seems OK. Nothing worth noting about the sources although I am not deeply familiar with the books. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for the image and source review. Since the audio files may not be of importance I've replaced them with photos of actors (which the songs were inspired by). 750h+ 14:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• I fail to see what any of the 17 links under "See also" add. MOS:SEEALSO: "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number."
• Cites 20 and 21 both have (different) p/pp errors. And cite 87. (Morton)
• Cite 269: "Top 100 albums of '86". Why the lower-case a?
• Cite 280, change to title case.
• Cites 288 and 289 need to be in title case. Could you check every cite to ensure they are in a consistent style, I assume title case.
• "Madonna assumed greater control over the creative direction of True Blue". Greater than what, who or when?
• "Madonna recorded the album between 1985 and 1986". There is no period between 1985 and 1986.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Algorithmic amplification

Nominator(s): Metalicat (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Peer review
• Good article review

I am nominating this article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article covers how platform ranking and recommendation systems increase the reach of online content, including the underlying mechanisms, evidence on misinformation, political content and young users' mental health, the methods researchers use to study opaque systems and regulatory responses in the EU, UK, US and China.

The article draws on peer-reviewed research, regulatory and legislative sources, court decisions, and high-quality reporting. It treats the scale and direction of algorithmic effects as contested, presenting structural critiques of engagement-driven recommendation alongside experimental findings that user preferences often play a larger role than recommendation algorithms.

The article passed its good article review, conducted by A.Cython, in March 2026. It was peer reviewed in April and May 2026, where comments from RoySmith and Noleander were addressed.

I look forward to reviewers' comments and will respond promptly. Metalicat (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

BorgQueen

• Thank you for the comprehensive article. I notice that the lead image, File:Algorithmic amplification.svg, was created by you. Could you tell us which software/app you used to create it? I'm asking because AI-generated images are generally not allowed per WP:AIGI. BorgQueen (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • (drive-by) It's an SVG, and a clean one at that with text selectable, so I doubt it's AI-generate; they can't really do vectors. I imagine it was either made with Inkscape or Illustrator. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

    @Generalissima I see. It's good to go, then. BorgQueen (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• MOS:SEEALSO says: Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. I recommend using the template {{Annotated link}} for the link in the See also section, or an annotation could be manually added. BorgQueen (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Done. changed the See also entry to {{Annotated link}}. Thanks for the tip. Metalicat (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Terminology

• Could we briefly introduce Gillespie (like his university or specific field)?

  Done, introduced as a communications scholar. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• We could link to systemic risk.

  Left this one: the target article covers systemic risk in the financial-system sense, whereas the DSA uses the phrase as its own term of art (risks to fundamental rights, civic discourse, public health and so on). A link there would send readers somewhere misleading, and there is no dedicated article for the DSA meaning. Happy to reconsider if you know a better target. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "playing down the ways in which they intervene" → "playing down how they intervene"

  Done. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "filtering what users can see" → "filtering what users see"

  Done. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "the term appears frequently in academic and policy commentary on the regulation" → "the term appears frequently in academic and policy commentary on regulation"

  Done.Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

History

• A 2021 overview traced the origins of modern recommendation systems to the early 1990s
  • Could we note who conducted or published the overview?

    Done, it now reads "A 2021 overview in AI Magazine by Dietmar Jannach". Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "which gradually shifted from chronological presentation towards algorithmically ranked content" → "which gradually shifted from chronological presentation to algorithmically ranked content"

  Done. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Consider linking "search engines"?

  Done, linked at its first appearance in the body. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "shaping product visibility for large numbers of shoppers" → "shaping product visibility for many shoppers"

  Done. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "rigid categorisation of content" → "rigid categorisation"

  Done.

MSincccc (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc:Thanks very much for the careful read, all actioned bar the systemic risk link, with my reasoning above. Shout if you would prefer it linked anyway. Metalicat (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Mechanisms

• We could link to machine learning and click-through rates.
• Also could the link to "feedback loop" be moved up to the previous section, i.e., on the first mention?
• "machine-learning models that predict which content a user is likely to engage with from their prior activity" → "machine-learning models that predict which content a user is likely to engage with based on their prior activity"
• "filter a large catalogue down to a short ranked list of the items with the highest predicted relevance" → "filter a large catalogue down to a short ranked list of items with the highest predicted relevance"
• "particularly when applied repeatedly across multiple browsing sessions" → "particularly when applied repeatedly across browsing sessions"
• "allowing platforms to adjust rankings in near real time" → "allowing platforms to adjust rankings in near-real-time"
• "reduce the diversity of items recommended" → "reduce the diversity of recommended items"

• Metalicat That’s all for today. And yes, I wouldn’t shout, as I’d prefer the same at my FAC.

MSincccc (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc:All actioned. Machine learning and click-through rate are now linked, and I have linked "feedback" at its first appearance in the section rather than at the later "feedback loop", which I think is what you were after. The five copy-edits are all in too. I would be glad to look over your Catherine FAC :-) Metalicat (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Beneficial and public-interest uses

• "surfacing material predicted to match their interests or needs" → "surfacing material predicted to match users' interests or needs"
• "though the same recommendation systems also risk amplifying misinformation alongside official guidance" → "though the same systems also risk amplifying misinformation alongside official guidance"
• "have become a significant channel for public participation and backchannel communication in crises" → "have become a significant channel for public participation and back-channel communication in crises"
• "the same platform infrastructure that accelerates the spread of useful information can also amplify rumour and misinformation" → "the same platform infrastructure that accelerates the spread of useful information can also amplify rumours and misinformation"
• ​"persistent concern among creators and industry stakeholders about whether such systems unfairly advantage some artists or genres over others" → "persistent concern among creators and industry stakeholders that such systems may unfairly advantage some artists or genres over others"

​*"promote diversity and commonality of experience" → "promote diversity and a commonality of experience"

MSincccc (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Effects on information ecosystems

• "Much of this work concerns the spread of misinformation and harmful content and the visibility and income of creators and news outlets." → "Much of this work concerns the spread of misinformation and harmful content, and the visibility and revenues of creators and news outlets."
• "Other studies address filter bubbles, political polarisation, effects on young users' mental health, and the use of recommendation systems by state actors." → "Other studies address filter bubbles, political polarisation, the effects on young users' mental health, and the use of recommendation systems by state actors."
• "although the authors attributed this primarily to human sharing behaviour rather than platform algorithms." → "although the authors attributed this primarily to human sharing behaviour rather than to platform algorithms."
• "A 2025 algorithmic audit of X found that the platform's engagement-based ranking algorithm amplified content that was emotionally charged and hostile towards members of opposing political groups" → "A 2025 algorithmic audit of X found that the platform's engagement-based ranking algorithm amplified content that was emotionally charged and hostile to members of opposing political groups"
• "The topics bots amplified predicted subsequent coverage by partisan news outlets" → "The topics that bots amplified predicted subsequent coverage by partisan news outlets"
• "Users clicked on links within the AI summary itself in around 1 per cent of visits" → "Users clicked on links within the AI summary itself in about 1 per cent of visits"
• Could the links to the US Senate and filter bubbles be moved to their first mention?

MSincccc (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: All actioned, thank you, it reads better. Metalicat (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Methods of study

• "randomised experiments run by the platforms themselves" → "randomised experiments conducted by the platforms themselves"
• "Sock-puppet audits create artificial accounts with controlled characteristics and observe what content the platform recommends to them." → "Sock-puppet audits create artificial accounts with controlled characteristics to observe what content is recommended to them."
• "do not interact with content as real users would" → "do not interact with content as real users do"
• "participants who volunteer may not be representative" → "participants may not be representative"

MSincccc (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Debate

• "on how large its effects are relative to other factors that shape information consumption" → "on how large its effects are relative to other factors shaping information consumption"
• "weakens the common experiences on which cultural citizenship depends" → "weakens the shared experiences on which cultural citizenship depends"
• "producing limited measurable effects on attitudes" → "with limited measurable effects on attitudes"

Lead

• "Major platforms including Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) use such systems" → "Major platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter), use such systems"
• "through feeds, search rankings, or autoplay systems" → "through feeds, search rankings, or autoplay"
• "The scale and direction of those effects remain debated" → "The scale and direction of these effects remain debated"
• "Internal documents and whistleblower testimony reported by the BBC in 2026 described how" → "Internal documents and whistleblower testimony reported by the BBC in 2026 describe how"
• although the two can interact in practice
  • How about "may" in place of "can"?

Bottom line

• Metalicat That's all from me. The comments may feel a bit long, but on the whole I'm a support. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Thank you very much for a thorough read that has left the article in better shape. All actioned. Metalicat (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from VWF

I've read through and I honestly find this article impressive. I have only few below:

• The article says New York's SAFE For Kids Act "requires platforms to default to chronological feeds" for under-18 users unless parental consent is obtained. The New York Senate text says it prohibits "addictive feeds" for minors without parental consent, and AP describes the alternative as feeds limited to accounts young users follow, not necessarily chronological feeds. I would rewrite that claim more precisely.
• I was a bit confused as to if the "History" section is really a history of "algorithmic amplification" as a concept or a history of recommender systems. Maybe renaming it to something like "Development of recommendation systems" or adding a clearer paragraph on the emergence of the term itself might work. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Thank you, thats appreciated. You are right on both counts.

• On the SAFE For Kids Act: the same loose wording had propagated to a second sentence in the Regulation section, so both are now rewritten. The Act restricts algorithmically personalised feeds for under-18s absent parental consent; without consent, minors are shown content only from accounts they follow or select, in a set sequence such as chronological order. Chronological order is an example of a compliant sequence rather than the requirement, as you say. Checking the source also turned up a second problem I had not spotted: the article was written in the present tense as though the Act were operative, when it in fact takes effect 180 days after the attorney general finalises implementing rules, which were only issued in proposed form in September 2025. That is now stated.
• On the section: it is a history of the recommendation systems that do the amplifying rather than of the term itself, so I have renamed it "Development of recommendation systems". On the term's own emergence, I would rather not add a paragraph yet. I have not been able to establish a reliable earliest datable use, and a request at WP:RX is still open. I would rather leave the question open than assert an origin I cannot source; if something solid comes back I will work it in.

One further update while I was in the section: Ofcom published the categorisation register on 10 July, so the UK section no longer ends on the postponement. Thanks again, both were worth catching. Metalicat (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat That is very reasonable and interesting. I find this article very comprehensive, well-written, and I won't hesitate to support promotion now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Metalicat (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• This article is on a very topical and important topic ... it would be nice if we can get it to FA quality and see it on the WP main page.

Thank you, that's kind and much appreciated. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• The article does not have many images. I realize that relevant images may be hard to find for such an abstract topic. But images is one of the advantages WP has over AI encyclopedias, so if additional relevant images can be found, that would be great.
  • For images: as a last resort, consider photos prominent people mentioned in the article; e.g. person Frances Haugen is named & linked, so a small headshot next to that paragraph might be useful to readers. But resorting to headshots is only needed if non-headshot images are not available.
  • If the sources have some images (of a schematic/diagrammatic nature) that would help the article, and if you can envision a way to describe alternative versions that do not violate copyright, I can draw just about anything in Inkscape and put the images in Commons for you to include in this article.

Agreed, and I'd like more. The feedback-loop material below gives a natural candidate: a simple cycle showing recommendations being shown, consumed, logged and fed back into the model, which would help readers more than a headshot. I'm happy to have a go at that myself, but equally happy (and appreciative) for you or anyone else to suggest images or make them for the article. A Frances Haugen headshot is a sensible fallback if a freely-licensed one turns up. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added a diagram of the loop to the Mechanisms section, what do you think? Metalicat (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat - The new feedback diagram is xlnt. The article could benefit from about 3 more illustrations to break up the text. The goal is to help the readers grasp the article's points after they start reading the article. But it is even more important to invite readers into the article: many readers will avoid an article if they are greeted with a wall of text. Noleander (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Section title "Background". Would "History" be a better title? ...

Agreed, renamed to "History". Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Section title "Criticism and debate" — The word "Criticism" in a section title is generally discouraged; should only be used as a last resort. See essay WP:Criticism. If consistent with the sources, consider another word such as "Assessments", "Analysis", "Concerns", "Responses", "Reactions", "Discourse", or "Critiques" etc. Or maybe "Debate" alone.
  • Alternatively: if the debate/discourse focuses primarily on certain issues, select a section title that identifies the issues, e.g. "Ethical and social implications" or "Societal impacts" or "Societal harms" etc.

Renamed to "Debate", per WP:Criticism. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• My gut is telling me that the relation of AA to feedback loops is significant; but I see the word "feedback" only 4 times; and none of them are linked to a WP article. If the sources warrant it: consider (a) adding WP link; (b) discussing feedback loop aspect of AA more; (c) a devoted subsection? (d) an image illustrating feedback loop. But only if sources warrant it.

The sources warrant it. I've added two sentences to Mechanisms on how recommender feedback loops can amplify popularity bias, reduce item diversity and homogenise users' preferences (Mansoury et al. 2020; Chaney et al. 2018), and linked feedback loop. A dedicated subsection felt heavier than the sourcing supports for now, but a diagram is very much on the table. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Regulation" section directly jumps into 4 geographic subsections. Is it possible to add an introductory sentence at the very top of "Regulation" that tells the reader what the section covers? Something simple: just describe the common themes/elements of the 4 subsections. Probably doesn't need any citations if it is just restating or distilling facts from the subsections.

Added a short opening sentence describing the common themes across the four subsections. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Ditto for "Effects on information ecosystems" section. Ideally, a section like this starts with a small intro telling the reader what the content/intent/purpose/theme of the section is.

Likewise, added a short scene-setting sentence at the top of the section. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Show Ref Check" tool says page # missing from cite: Trielli ...

Fixed; the citation now carries the article number (453). Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Normalised, with one style per type as you suggest: article titles are now sentence case throughout, book and formal-report titles kept in title case. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• See also section: Only has one link ... Consider ... eliminating ... the entire See Also section.

Removed the section entirely, since the sole link was already carried by both footer navboxes. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Terminology" section: ... does OED have any record of when the phrase first was used? Maybe post an inquiry at WP:RX ...

Good idea. I've posted a request at RX for the earliest datable use of the phrase; if anything comes back I'll work it in. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• That is all for now. Excellent article, on an important topic! Ping me around 15 July and I'll make a second pass. Noleander (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander:Thank you again, a generous and useful first pass. I'll ping you around 15 July for the second look. Metalicat (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat - Readers would greatly benefit if the article included 2 or 3 screenshots of social media app feeds. To locate more images, consider looking in Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_posts_feeds Although some screenshots of apps may be copyrighted, the above Commons category may include some that are not. Noleander (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander: Thanks for the suggestion. I am not sure a screenshot is the right tool here, though.

• Licensing: would a genuine feed screenshot be usable under Commons:Screenshots? My concern is that the platform interface and the visible posts would be central to the image rather than incidental. If you have a particular file or licensing rationale in mind, I would be glad to look at it.
• Usefulness: a screenshot can show what a feed looks like, but it cannot by itself show amplification. That needs a comparison between the same items ranked in different ways, which is what the feed comparison diagram already provides.

Your Inkscape offer is much appreciated. I think we should keep looking for places where a diagram would genuinely help, rather than force one into a section. Any alternative suggestions or ideas would be very welcome.

Metalicat (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I have also added a diagram illustrating how sock-puppet audits are conducted: view the diagram. Metalicat (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander: Pinging as requested. Metalicat (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Second pass

• Article is looking fine. I'm leanding support. The only remaining issue I see is the shortage of images: there are only about seven images, and it is a big article (6,486 prose words). Disclaimer: I'm a visual learner, and I find images to be very important part of any WP article. On the other hand, there are topics where not many images are available. On the third hand, even articles on "dry" topics like Logic (FA) or Agnosticism (FAC) have 10+ images.

• The question is: can additional relevant, useful, informative images be found?

• A possible source is to look within the article sources. Many of those sources, I'm sure have fantastic images.

• Are any of the sources open source? If so: the images in that source material can be placed into Wiki Commons and be directly used in the AA article (provided that the the source's open-source license permits both commercial and non-commercial use).

• Here is a random source in this article: Trielli, Daniel; Diakopoulos, Nicholas (2019). "Search as news curator: The role of Google in shaping attention to news information". CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Art. 453. online at https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3290605.3300683 Within that article are about 11 images/charts/diagrams/figures. Are none of those useful? It is not a violation of copyright for a WP editor to use a spreadsheet app to draw a histogram illustrating numerical data in a copyrighted article. Then upload the chart/histogram/pie chart to Commons, and voilà.

• The article has about 80 sources. I presume the vast majority have multiple images. If this AA article could use a single image from each of only 10% of the sources, that would be 8 additional images. Granted, most of those 8 images would need to be re-created in a spreadsheet or Inkscape app, but that is a very common exercise for editors preparing FA-quality articles.

• Summary: The prose & MOS of the article are great, but the article looks dryer than toast :-) I strongly suggest adding some new images (perhaps inspired by images from the sources). It is early in the FAC nomination timeline, plenty of time to research images. Noleander (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander: Many thanks. Your second pass sent me back through both the sources and Commons, and I agreed that several substantial sections could be illustrated more helpfully.

I have now added five images to previously unillustrated parts of the article:

• a diagram comparing filter bubbles and echo chambers;
• a chart of the UK and Canadian results from the Huszár study;
• a diagram of the decentralised propaganda model identified on Douyin;
• a photograph of Frances Haugen; and
• a photograph of Shoshana Zuboff in the Debate section.

The three diagrams and charts were created specifically for the article, using only figures or relationships supported by the cited sources. I also checked the Regulation section, but decided not to force an image there. It compares four jurisdictions, and an image centred on one legislature, regulator or legal regime would give that subsection disproportionate visual weight without adding much explanatory value.

I hope the article is now a little less dry than toast. Thanks for pushing me to look again; I think the additions have improved both the visual balance and the explanation of several concepts. Metalicat (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander: Following up on the above: anything further you would like me to look at here? Metalicat (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose and MOS. I have not done an image or source review. My only remaining thought is that the article seems to (a) emphasize scientific/technical material a bit much, and perhaps under-emphasizes day-to-day impacts to normal social media consumers. and (b) is written for academic/technical audience, not WP lay/general audience. So I'd suggest that nominator review WP:TECHNICAL including WP:TECH-CONTENT, WP:GENAUD, WP:ONEDOWN ... and see if those guidelines support more a more general-purpose material or tone. Noleander (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander: Thank you, a fair point. I will reword the more technical passages of the lead into plainer language, gloss method terms like "counterfactual-bot study", open the Mechanisms section with a plain-language summary before the detail and add an everyday example early so a general reader can see what amplification means before meeting the research. Metalicat (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• See MOS:COLOUR

• File:Recommendation_systems_history_timeline3.svg: particularly given that the spacing is not to scale, this seems like an image mostly of text. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you, both actioned.

• Timeline: removed. You are right that it was largely text, and the milestones are all in the prose anyway.
• MOS:COLOUR: thank you for pointing me at this, it was a gap in my understanding. I have been through every remaining diagram and reuploaded those that needed it, so that nothing now depends on colour alone and all text meets the contrast floor.

Metalicat (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Since your last comment I have added several images to previously unillustrated sections. I have tried to keep the new diagrams and charts faithful to MOS:COLOUR and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, and would welcome your eye on whether they meet the mark. Metalicat (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks okay. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review and a major concern on prose

Or not. Because as it stands, the "Effects on information ecosystems" section has that "X says Y, Y says Z" problem that WP:RECEPTION talks about. I don't think this format meets WP:WIAFA's professional writing criteria; such a list format makes it unclear how important each finding and more pertinently its sources are, and is rather hard to read. A court ruling can be just one special case, for instance. How reliable are the whistleblowers cited? They are commonly cited, sure, but that's not the same thing as reliable. What's the follow-up on "In October 2024, the European Commission issued requests" there are some other instances similar of time-dependent topics. On "media scholar Jian Xu " is this person prominent enough on the topic to be the source for an entire paragraph on China? In general, while I see a number of academic sources there is a lot of views attributed to specific people. I kinda worry that we can't treat factual claims like opinions and use attributed claims, but need to look for evidence or say that it doesn't exist (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you, this is useful and I agree with most of it.

• Structure. Agreed on "Misinformation and harmful content": it has no topic statement and runs findings, policy changes, disclosures and litigation together in sequence. I will break it into signposted blocks, each opening with a statement of what the block shows. Is that the shape you are after? And is "how important each finding and more pertinently its sources are" part of the same fix, or a separate weight point?
• Court rulings. Agreed. The litigation is about liability rather than effects, so I will move it to the United States subsection under Regulation.
• Whistleblowers. The sources there are CBS News, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and BBC News reporting on the disclosures rather than the whistleblowers themselves, with Meta's and TikTok's responses given alongside. If the concern is the weight that strand carries rather than its sourcing, I am happy to look at it on that basis.
• Time-dependent statements. Agreed. I will go through every dated statement and either give the outcome or make the position as at a stated date explicit.
• Jian Xu. Agreed. The 2022 Provisions and the registration figures are documented rather than interpretive and should carry independent sourcing, with Xu attributed for his own analysis.
• Attribution. Agreed where it dresses up a plain fact, for instance what the Online Safety Act permits Ofcom to request, which should cite the Act. Where the literature genuinely disagrees, as on polarisation, would you prefer that characterised from a review source rather than left as attributions to individual studies?

I will ping you when this is done. Metalicat (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The point about pertinence is that this format lends itself greatly to cherrypicking and giving undue weight to particular statements, both intentional and unintentional. When there is literature disagreememt, one needs review papers - statements like "some studies say X, others say Y" are a last resort as again one can easily give undue weight here. Regarding whistleblowers, honestly, I don't know what makes them reliable sources for anything but their own claims most of the time. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have now worked through these points.

• Structure and weight. The effects subsections now open with review-level sources rather than running individual findings side by side. Lorenz-Spreen and colleagues frame the material on filter bubbles and polarisation, Valkenburg and colleagues frame the mental-health section, and Stray and colleagues frame misinformation and recommender effects. The full YouTube counterfactual-bot and X audit discussions have also been moved into Political content and polarisation.
• Limits of the reviews. The article now states that Lorenz-Spreen examined digital-media use rather than ranking alone, and that most well-being studies have not separated algorithmic selection from other aspects of social-media use.
• Whistleblowers. The remaining material is presented as claims reported by named news organisations, with Meta's response included. I removed the TikTok complaint-review material because it concerned moderation rather than recommendation. I can shorten the remaining Meta material further if it still carries too much weight.
• Dated material and court cases. The SAFE For Kids, European Commission and Christchurch Call passages now give the latest outcomes or state what remains open. The court cases have been moved to the United States regulation subsection because they concern liability and editorial activity rather than evidence of effects.
• Jian Xu and factual claims. The Chinese Provisions and the August 2022 list of algorithms now have independent sourcing. Xu is retained only for his analysis and for the April 2023 figure of 262 providers, which is explicitly attributed to him. The Ofcom passage now cites the Online Safety Act itself rather than academic evidence describing it.

Would you be willing to begin the source review on this basis, or is there a remaining weight or structure concern I should address first?

Metalicat (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the structure problem has been addressed at all. It still has too many "X said Y" paragraphs. I believe that such structure issues are usually best addressed outside of FAC; I'll see what others think but leaning oppose on the structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Fair enough. It would be a shame to get this far and fall on it, so I have had another go, this time at the whole Effects section rather than the one subsection.

Where review literature exists it now sets the frame: Stray on misinformation and radicalisation, Lorenz-Spreen on filter bubbles and polarisation with Stray for the recommender-specific conclusions, Valkenburg on mental health. Studies are grouped by what they measure, and the repeated summary-and-detail sequence in Political content has gone. I cut the social-bot study, which did not test ranking, and moved the policy and children's legislation material out of Effects entirely.

On the whistleblowers, I agree they should establish only what they themselves alleged. The disclosed documents are now attributed to the news organisations that examined them, the allegations to the individuals who made them, with Meta's responses alongside. That strand is down by more than half, and to one sentence in the lead.

Creator visibility and State use rest on a book and individual studies rather than reviews, so I have organised them by topic without implying a field-wide consensus. Metalicat (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - with the caveat that this is an important article and I can see a lot of work has gone into it, so I don't feel good lodging this vote, but I'm afraid I don't feel the article is near FA quality at the moment. It seems to struggle to lock in on a specific topic. (My comments here are based on this revision) There are a number of citations to primary sources used to draw conclusions, which feels dangerously like WP:OR. For instance, FN3 is one of the laws cited to establish "The phrase also appears in regulatory and legislative discussions of recommendation systems." Yet the bill (law?) that is cited does not contain the word "amplification". Another problem here is that many of the sources I spotchecked do not actually use the phrase "algorithmic amplification". So how are we deciding what to include here? There are three paragraphs on "Filter bubbles and echo chambers", which this article tells us are related concepts, but FN 39, one of the most prominently cited studies- again doesn't use the word "amplification". Another problematic sentence to me is something like "The Meta and Twitter findings are not directly comparable: the Meta experiments assessed political attitudes, whereas the Twitter study measured political-content amplification." Neither source seems to address the comparability, so again it feels like OR for us to say they are not comparable (not to mention the study is earlier referred to as "Facebook", so it would be quite confusing to an uninformed reader to call it Meta now). Finally, to circle back to my initial problem about scope. A lot of the stuff in here feels like it just belongs in an article about algorithms--maybe we need to expand regulation of algorithms or effects of digital algorithms--but I'm concerned about how they are presented here, in an article under this title. Especially when a number of the sources don't use the term in question, it is hard to draw a line about what should be here and what shouldn't. Tellingly, our article Recommender system doesn't contain the word "amplification" at all. The specific examples I cite above are intended to be illustrative, rather than exhaustive, and that leads me to conclude that unfortunately, I don't think concerns like these can be reasonably resolved at FAC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Spectrum Range

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 01:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a small mountain range in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. It is the eroded remains a large volcano at the southern end of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, which was studied in detail by Canadian volcanologist Jack Souther from the 1960s to the early 1990s. The Spectrum Range does not seem to have gained much attention since Souther's studies. Volcanoguy 01:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Used upright. Volcanoguy 21:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than three weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this nomination makes significan progress towards such a consensus over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Would you be interested in reviewing this article? Volcanoguy 07:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I admit I worry a bit about a "X and Y always review each others' articles" dynamic cropping up, but I'll do:

• I kinda wonder about "These ridges are the eroded remains of a once-continuous lava dome whose original surface is only preserved as a few small remnants on the summits of the higher peaks" because "lava dome" does not generally refer to an entire volcano.

  Maybe, but Souther described the range as the remnants of a once continuous lava dome. Volcanoguy 17:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• " is exempt from vegetation" mabye "devoid of"?

  Done. Volcanoguy 19:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I am bothered by the formulation of "which receded and advanced periodically until about 11,000 years ago when deglaciation was essentially complete in a steadily warming climate" which implies that 11,000 years ago the climate exited from the oscillating regime.

  That's exactly what's being implemented. Then the climate started cooling again about 2,600 years ago. Volcanoguy 19:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Then it's wrong, because 11000 years ago was just another transition in the oscillating regime. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  What should the wording be then? This sentence isn't about climate but rather the retreat and advance of glaciers. Volcanoguy 17:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• In the "Drainage" section it might be useful to reduce the use of "flow*"
• "resulted in the formation of a crater" shorter maybe?

  Shortened to "created a crater". Volcanoguy 17:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Re comprehensiveness, it might be worth sharing some of the human use etc information from the main Edziza articles here; we can't assume that folks will go read them instead.

  I'm not sure what human use you're referring to. The only information I can find regarding human use for the Spectrum Range is obsidian from Obsidian Ridge, which is mentioned in the "Composition" section. Volcanoguy 17:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• The drop-random-sentences-into-Google method showed no plagiarism or copyvio.
• No indication of instability or non-neutrality.
• Image and structure seems OK to me.
• Sources seem OK to me.
• Can't find the images on Google, but apparently it now can't do an image search timely. Oy.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of, there's no problem with users reviewing each other's articles. Volcanoguy 17:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• In the lead, I would add a bit about where the mountain range got its name – I'm not very familiar with these sorts of topics, but in my view the lead should focus more on what differentiates it from other mountain ranges. So the caldera, the recent eruptive history, etc.

  MOS:LEAD says a lead is supposed to be a summary of an article's most important contents. I don't see how a mountain range got its name is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. What other mountain ranges are you referring to? The only other ranges mentioned in the article are the Coast and Skeena mountains, which aren't even geologically related to the Spectrum Range. How is the caldera one of the article's most important contents? It's buried and there's not much known about it. Volcanism in the last 2.5 million years has been minor compared to what occurred 3.5–2.5 million years ago. Volcanoguy 20:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Trying not to veer into WP:OTHERSTUFF, but some articles have naming information in the lead, see Annapurna (mountain range) and Transhimalaya. I'm referring more to what makes the article unique, as a lot of other mountain ranges seem like they would have glaciers, be drained by streams, and be formed from a lava dome. So the caldera stuff is me spitballing, as you may tell, I'm not very familiar with this subject. -Stikkyy

  None of those articles are up to GA or FA standards. I actually don't know of many mountain ranges that consist of a single lava dome. Most ranges seem to result from tectonic uplift along the boundaries of tectonic plates rather than volcanic activity. I've added the following sentence in the lead: "It is characterized by multi-coloured rocks, after which the range is named." Is the wording okay? Volcanoguy 17:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• The infobox gives Arctic Plateau rather than Arctic Lake Plateau, standardize

  Done. Volcanoguy 01:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• 3.5–2.5 million years old – Doesn't this contradict the body, which details Holocene volcanism?

  The lead claims volcanism has occurred on the northwestern and southwestern sides of the mountain range in the last 2.5 million years; Holocene is within the last 11,700 years. Volcanoguy 00:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I should clarify, I'm referring to the infobox, where it notes "Rock age": is the time range for the primary formation, or is it for the recent volcanism? -Stikkyy

  It says in the article that most of the rocks forming the Spectrum Range were deposited by volcanic eruptions between 3.5 and 2.5 million years ago. Volcanoguy 20:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a difference between formerly gazetted vis-à-vis "formerly known as"?

  Replaced "gazetted" with "known". Volcanoguy 02:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Mount Edziza Provincial Park is the main protected area surrounding the mountain range. – "main" implies that there are more protected areas?

  Replaced with "only". Volcanoguy 02:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• The range is drained on all sides by streams within the Stikine River watershed and, unlike Mount Edziza to the north, contains relatively small separate glaciers. – This implies that we already know about Mount Edziza in the first place so that we can contrast with it ... personally I would cut the comparison and let it stand on its own as a descriptor.

  Mount Edziza is mentioned previously in the names of the volcanic complex and provincial park. Volcanoguy 00:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  At first glance, I'm unsure about what types of glaciers Mount Edziza has, and I think that the article should be able to stand on its own without the reader clicking on the wikilink, per WP:SUMMARY. -Stikkyy

  I'm not sure what you mean. It says in the article body that Mount Edziza has an ice cap. Volcanoguy 03:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's not communicated in the lead. -Stikkyy

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 18:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Two sections start with As a part of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

  I don't see what the problem is here. Several sections also start with "The". Volcanoguy 00:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Drainage seems like a dense list of creek names, with very little surrounding context. If at all possible, I would try to categorize and differentiate them. Like, either say that these X creeks drain towards the west, these Y creeks drain towards the east, or maybe just go through them clockwise.
• Renewed volcanism at Exile Hill 8 km (5.0 mi) to the west – "to the west" of what?

  Clarified. Volcanoguy 01:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• As of 2026, Alpine Lakes Air and BC Yukon Air are the only air charter companies permitted to provide access to this area via aircraft. – This might be stale in a couple of years? I would probably hedge it to Access is limited to charter operators authorised by BC Parks.

  Alpine Lakes Air and BC Yukon Air have been the only air charter companies permitted to provide access to Mount Edziza Provincial Park for years so that's probably unlikely to change in the near future. Maybe drop "As of 2026"? Also, I think it's helpful to mention what charter operators are authorized by BC Parks. Volcanoguy 03:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK. -Stikkyy

• Try Ctrl+F with "mountain range", I think that using the full phrase instead of "the range" or a pronoun has to be justified by the content – replacing many of its uses would make the article flow better.

  I've replaced "mountain range" with "the range" throughout the article. Volcanoguy 02:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Standardize "Souther, J. G." with "Souther, Jack G." — Also I think that only the first mention should have author-link.

  I did the standardization, but I'm not sure about the linking. Is there a guideline that says authors should be linked only once? Depending on what source someone is looking at, they might not realize Jack Souther has an article. Volcanoguy 02:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I see the point, but sfn will bring the reader into the Sources section, where Souther's works are lined up. I won't press on it though. -Stikkyy

• Souther 1990 is a chapter within a book, provide a chapter title and page range?

  Added chapter and page range. Volcanoguy 19:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Also, there doesn't seem to be any mention of human interaction with the mountain range. It's noted in Obsidian Ridge that it was used by the Tahltan people, I'm not expecting something like History of the Alps, but is there really nothing about exploration, tribal lands, wildlife, what % of the range is protected, etc.? I note that a good half of the citations are to Souther 1992, a geological survey – I'm a bit skeptical that it could provide a full, comprehensive picture of the range.

I wasn't able to find much human interaction with the mountain range, most likely because it's in a hard-to-reach location far away from any major communities. Volcanoguy 01:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, not much doesn't mean none. A sentence or two would be warranted, if only to demonstrate complete coverage. -Stikkyy

I've mentioned the Obsidian Ridge obsidian in the "Composition" section. Mountain goats and Stone’s sheep apparently exist in the Spectrum Range, but I'm not sure where that could be mentioned in the article. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about wildlife in the range and a single sentence barely warrants a separate section. Volcanoguy 03:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding the rapid glacial recession – the cited source is Souther 1992, are there any more recent sources?

Not that I know of. Volcanoguy 01:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Support from a non-expert perspective. Stikkyy (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Austrovenus stutchburyi

Nominator(s): AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Austrovenus stutchburyi, one of the most common shellfish of New Zealand. This species has a surprising amount of scientific research about it, so I have made this article to fully encapsulate everything that is known about it. The article has already had a round of excellent feedback during the peer review and as such I am confident that it is more than ready to be reviewed for Featured Article status. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I look at this when it was at peer review and generally liked what I saw.

• One thing I called out at PR was the lack of a range map, which was added then removed due to MOS:COLOR issues. A better response to "X is not MOS:ACCESS would be to fix X, not remove it. I think another attempt at creating a more MOS-compliant version would be good thing.
  • I wasn't fully happy with the distribution map to begin with. My main concern is that it isn't particularly informative since this is a species that is everywhere in New Zealand coastlines. I would be happy to just make one myself, but the available map templates for NZ don't feature the subantarctic islands. The closest I could find is the one I used for my version of the distribution map, but that doesn't look great. Especially if I add island names to it. I did put a request to the Graphics Lab group to see if someone there would be willing, but received no response so I gave up. I really think a map is unnecessary since the distribution can (and has) been described in a single a sentence. Since Graphics Lab has had a spike of activity, I'll try asking them again if desired, but otherwise I might need some advice on how to proceed.
    • Let's see if the GL folks can come up with something better. I'll call this a "nice to have": worth pursuing, but not worth holding things up over.
• A made a few copyedits around the ethnocentrism of calling the Europeans "first" when it came to naming the thing.
  • Ok.
• being slightly larger in the southern parts of the country is that the same as "... on the South Island"?
  • No.
• occurs throughout all three mainland islands,. I think of "mainland" as meaning "not an island", so this seems a bit odd to me. Is that the standard phraseology in NZ English? Also, what the three islands? I'm only familiar with North and South. What's the third?
  • Third refers to Stewart Island (just below the South Island). I've reworded this to be a bit clearer. When I think of mainland, I just think of the main bulk of a country.
• cytochrome oxidase I gene (an informative gene in such studies) "informative" is an odd word choice. What does it inform? Would "important indicator gene" work as a replacement (I'd really like a SME to weigh in on that one before just trusting my suggestion).
  • I am a SME and use this gene regularly (Albeit I've used this for non-mollusc DNA). Indicator probably isn't quite right. The general idea is COI tends to mutate at an ideal rate thats fast enough to accumulate detectable change, but not so fast that mutations are getting overwritten too quickly (which would make this information less reliable). So I guess when I say its informative, I'm trying to state that it provides an effective amount of information to make genetic analysis meaningful (having said that, informative probably has different meanings to lay people that it would to a SME, but I don't see a good alternative).
    • OK, that makes sense. Could you expand the current explanation a bit to cover that in a way which would make sense to a non-technical reader? Perhaps "The COI gene makes a useful yardstick in studies of this type because its predictable rate of mutation gives clear indications of when populations diverged"?
• Austrovenus stutchburyi promotes ammonium Maybe it's OK as is, but I would have written "ammonium ions" (and again later). Check with a chemist to be sure.
  • The terms are interchangeable. I prefer adding "ions" since that's more formal, so I've added that.
• it took the veliger larva 20 days to develop What are veliger larva?
  • It's stated earlier in the description section.
• A. stutchburyi is infected by the larval stage of the trematode parasites this makes it sound like every one is infected. I assume you mean something like "can be infected"?
• limit for commercial harvesting in the Dunedin area is 1,470 tonnes ... maximum annual catch limit for commercial harvesting in the area is 1,390 tons Be consistant with spelling (tonnes vs tons)
  • Fixed.
• all found to have decreased from AD 1300 to present day I don't think you need to specify AD here.
  • I feel that it looks a bit odd without something there to explicitly indicate that 1300 is a year. Perhaps it's just me.
• Surveys have since found that the populations in the harbour are recovering Should be {{asof}} with the year.
  • Cool, I didn't know about that template. Added.

OK, that's it for another read-through. All of these are minor issues that should be easy to fix. RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again @RoySmith. I've got replies to your comments above. Only main thing of note is the distribution map stuff. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The map's not a blocker. I made a suggestion above about how to handle the COI gene stuff better. Once we get that resolved, I think we're good to go. RoySmith (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@AxonsArachnida any progress on the COI wording? RoySmith (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not just yet. I've got some IRL committments I need to prioritise. Aiming to sort it out in the next 2-3 days. AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith Never mind, I found some time. I've added an explanation. Also I put a request in with Graphics Lab a little while ago. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. Support based on the quality of the prose. RoySmith (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle

• 'In the Whangarei region, A. stutchburyi was only harvested from Snake Bank in Whangārei Harbour. From 2002 onwards, the combined maximum annual catch limit for commercial harvesting in the Whangarei was 346 tonnes.' It needs to be specified whether this is the Whangarei region or Whangarei Harbour as both are mentioned earlier. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks @Traumnovelle, I specified that this refers to the Whangarei region. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• 'It was first described using the modern system of nomenclature as Venus stutchburii by English zoologist William Wood.', any secondary source to confirm this was the first description? Will do a source review later. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's listed in the full species name ie Austrovenus stutchburyi (Wood, 1828) so it has to be the first description in modern nomenclature. But also WoRMS lists Wood as the first description. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  A tertiary source would be fine for the claim too. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review: ' The lectotype (a single specimen designated as the type specimen when none was specified) is stored in the Natural History Museum of London.' Is the verification for this passage? 'and is here designated the lectotype of Venus stutchburyi Wood, 1828. The larger paralectotype is the specimen illustrated by Reeve ( 1863, pl. 15, fig. 59) (K.M. Way BMNH pers. comm. June 2005).'

• Yep that's correct.
  • Supported by the source.

'In these habitats, A. stutchburyi can be extremely abundant with population density varying between sites. In the Canterbury region, the species was estimated to have a population density of over 1,200 per m2 in Akaroa, but less than 100 per m2 at Port Levy.' Two Akaroa Harbour sites were used for the study, so it is somewhat inaccurate to say that the population density is 1,200 in Akaroa when that is one site and it appears the population varies heavily within the harbour. Also the study location is Akaroa Harbour not the settlement. The first Port Levy site had population densities comparable to Akaroa. It would also be good to mention that salinity is the influence here, even if it is mentioned later in other sections. It may even be better to compare the two Akaroa or two Port Levy sites here as that shows how much it can vary within a very close area.

• @Traumnovelle I've reworded it to say "At Akaroa Harbour in the Canterbury region, the species was estimated to have a population density of 1,200 per m2 at one study site and 500 per m2 at another nearby study site.". The study says that salinity is uncorrelated with density, so I've not made an attempt at speculating why this difference is occurring.
  • Supported by the source now.

'It rarely burrows more than 50–100 mm (2.0–3.9 in) below the surface' - Supported by the source.

'In one study of A. stutchburyi population genetics, the haplotypes...' Supported by the source.

'A. stutchburyi is dioecious, meaning it has separate sexes.' Supported by the source. Although as I mentioned in the peer review isn't gonochorism the preferred term for animals?

• Not sure how I missed that. Added.

't is inferred to undergo spawning during at least spring and summer' Support by the source. Although secondary sources would be preferable, is this the only study/report looking at when spawning occurs?

• It's the only study/report that has attempted this.

, see WP:THESIS. Has this thesis been cited, was it republished through a peer-review process?

• It's been cited 19 times. It doesn't seem to have been republished anywhere unfortunately, which is all to common with theses (It took me six years to publish my masters!). It's worth noting the supervisors of the thesis are (were?) all active researchers (especially Phil Mladenov) and the author herself remains an active zoologist.

'In a laboratory study, following fertilisation, it took the veliger larva 20 days to develop and attach to a solid surface. Spatfall (settlement of the larva to surfaces) occurs shortly after spawning, with the authors inferring that this presumably happens from February to May'. Which part supports the 'spatfall occurs shortly after spawning'? Sorry, I am a bit of out my comfort here with this.

• From the study: "C. stutchburyi has a 4-month spawning period, from January to April (Larcombe 1971; Stephenson, unpubl. data). Assuming a natural development time similar to that observed in culture, of about 20 days, spatfall would be expected to occur from February to May." Spawning is when fertilisation occurs. Around twenty days after this, the larvae engage in spatfall. I suppose it's a bit subjective to say "shortly after", but I think its within reason here.

• I thought it may have been that but I wasn't completely sure whether 'shortly after' meant 20 days or something else. Thank you for confirming.

'A. stutchburyi is infected by the larvae of the trematode parasites Curtuteria australis and Acanthoparyphium. These parasites damage A. stutchburyi's ability to burrow into the mud, causing them to lay exposed on the surface where they are eaten by birds. C. australis specifically infects the South Island oystercatcher (Haematopus finschi) when the bird consumes infected A. stutchburyi. Inside the birds, the larvae lay eggs which are excreted and consumed by whelks. The parasite develops in the whelk and later emerges as a free-swimming form which penetrates the foot of A. stutchburyi, restarting the cycle' I could verify all of this except the part about the eggs being excreted and then consumed by whelks. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how I missed this extra comment. I've added the reference Allison 1979 which states that "Rediae invadethe digestive gland of the whelk,". Annoyingly I couldn't find anything that explictly states that the eggs leave via faeces (even though that's very obvious), so I've reworded it to simply say "exits the body" and cited Leung et al. (2010) "Adult worms in the definitive hosts then release their eggs, usually in host faeces.". Hopefully that covers it. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Jens

• Any reason the article title is not "New Zealand cockle" per WP:COMMONNAME? Google Scholar shows quite some papers that use this common name in their titles.
  • Mainly because in text I've chosen to refer to it as "A. stutchburyi". I did this because writing out "New Zealand cockle" was too clunky for repeated use. So since A. stutchburyi is used in text, I've chosen to keep the title the same for consistency.
    • You have to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). From skimming the guideline, it seems that the title should be "New Zealand cockle". You could often abbreviate by just writing "the cockle" or "the species" when it is clear what you are referring to; I don't see "clunky wording" listed as criterion in the guidelines. I think that, if you decide that the title needs to be changed, you might have to do that after the nomination is closed in order to avoid script errors (not sure about this point). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
      • If we decide to do the name change, I'll ask the coordinators if changing the name would mess up the scripts (and do it after the nomination if it would). If you don't mind, it might be good to get an extra set of opinions on this. @RoySmith, @Traumnovelle @Barbalalaika do you guys think it should be renamed to "New Zealand cockle"? I'm a bit too biased here since I think "New Zealand cockle" is such a stupid common name lol. AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

        Meh. I'm kind of in agreement that we should go with what WP:COMMONNAME says, but looking at WP:FA#Invertebrates, we seem to be roughly 50/50 on whether we use common names or scientific names, so I really can't get too excited either way. RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

        Cockle is certainly more recognisable to the average reader, at the same time there is no requirement that we use the article title in the body. We can start with the common name, introduce the scientific name, and then use that for consistency/brevity. But also simply 'cockle' would work. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

        I'm not actually convinced that Cockle is actually more recognizable. I've known the word since I was a kid, but only in the context of it being something Mary had in her garden without actually knowing what it was. But, as I said above, I have no strong opinion either way. RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

        • But still, we should probably just follow our policies. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) does not take title recognizability into account as far as I see. But it states this: When there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to (as in the sardine example above), use the scientific name. Neither applies here, so we probably should use the common name, unless there is a convincing policy-based argument why we shouldn't. Anyways, I won't withold my support over this (in my view relatively minor) point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

          Okay, when this FA nomination is done, I'll just put it up for requested move and advertise it to Wikiproject NZ and Wikiproject Bivalves (I'll also tag reviewers from here) and let them sort it out. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Austrovenus stutchburyi, common name the New Zealand cockle – this is ungrammatical; rephrase to "commonly known as" or something?
  • Your wording works. Added.
• How does the species differ from related species? How do I identify it if I find it? That's an obvious question many readers would have, I think.
  • Both other species in the genus are extinct, so there's not much risk of confusion there. Distinguishing it from other Bivalves is a pretty broad net and there aren't any ID keys for doing this. Just looking at the other common Veneridae in New Zealand, I do think the combination of images and description will be enough to make it identifiable.
    • I think that the information that it is the only extant species in its genus, and that two more fossil species are known, is quite relevant and I would definitely mention this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
      • Added. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Maori name – in lead, link at first mention, and unlink second mention.
  • For the first mention I've added a link to "Maori language". I left the second mention alone since this goes to "Maori people" instead.
• Populations – in lead, in the middle of the sentence, so should be lower case
  • Fixed.
• A. stutchburyi – Maybe spell out the genus name in first sentence of the main text?
  • Done.
• million years ago – This explanation of the abbreviation "ma" comes one sentence too late
  • Fixed.
• is common from the Cenozoic Era – Bit confusing; we currently live in the Cenozoic Era.
  • I've changed to "is common in Cenozoic Era deposits". Does that read better?
• The shell's overall shape can vary slightly throughout New Zealand, being slightly larger in the southern parts of the country. – Are you speaking about shape or size? Those are different things in biology (shape + size = form).
  • Size. Added.
• frequently stained purple towards the corners – what corners?
  • Reworded.
• It found that the genetic population is more subdivided than other – replace "It" with "The study", otherwise it refers to the gene.
  • Replaced.
• "dispersal" might need a link.
  • Linked.
• A. stutchburyi may reflect limited dispersal in its estuarine habitat relative to open-ocean species – so I guess this means that it is not an open-ocean species. However, earlier you say "It found that the genetic population is more subdivided than other open ocean fauna", which I think means that it is an open-ocean species. Seems contradictory to me.
  • Changed to "genetic population is more subdivided than open ocean fauna in the country", which doesn't infer its an open ocean species.
• Austrovenus stutchburyi promotes ammonium ion release from the sediment via excretion – the sentence here is very technical. You could also explain how the ammonium gets from the sediment into the clam to begin with.
  • I've reworded it to be a bit clearer how this happens.
    • It now reads Austrovenus stutchburyi promotes the release of ammonium ions from the sediment by excreting the ammonium into the sediment, which causes the ammonium to then diffuse into the water. This is a bit clunky, and it seems to promote release "into" the sediment, not "from" the sediment? Why not simply The excretions of the clam are a source of ammonium ions, which support primary production (the conversion of inorganic carbon to organic compounds) in the water by photosynthetic microbes when production is limited by nitrogen abundance. That would also be much shorter.
      • That works. Added.
• In the lead you say "A. stutchburyi is a primary producer". I can't find that repeated in the body, which instead states that it "may support" primary production by ammonium release.
  • Reworded (along with the oxygen uptake stuff). The paper doesn't do a good job explaining these mechanisms, but I think I've got it.
    • But you still say that the clam is a primary producer in the lead only, not in the body?
      • Fixed.
• photosynthetic microbes from photosynthesising – I think that the first "photosynthetic" is redundant, as no reader will assume that non-photosynthetic microbes are prevented from photosynthesising.
  • Ha, good point. Removed.
• increases oxygen uptake by sediment – how does it do that?
  • I've reworded this (along with ammonium release).
    • But those photosynthesising microbes are in the water (as you stated earlier), and increasing the amount of oxygen in the water promotes oxygen uptake by the sediment, do I understand this correctly now?
      • Yep, you've got it.
• dissolved oxygen – linked, but why isn't that linked the first time "oxygen" is mentioned?
  • Moved link.
• A. stutchburyi is a suspension feeder, meaning it feeds on organic particles filtered from the water. In one laboratory study of A. stutchburyi where suspended sediment concentration was raised, water filtration rates on the second day increased and peaked with increasing amount of suspended sediments before decreasing again. However, on the fourteenth day, the filtration rate was largely identical regardless of the amount of suspended sediments. This suggests that the feeding response of A. stutchburyi to increased suspended sediment concentrations (such as those caused by sediment runoff) varies over time. – I think this is poorly written and I don't really get it. What has suspension feeding do to with suspended sediment? Does it feed on sediment? On the second day, filtration rates increased, and then, suspended sediment increased and filtration rates peaked (you don't say when), that doesn't make perfect sense. On the fourteenth day, filtration rate was identical to what? "varies over time", I'm also not sure what to make of that, if you increase food availability (?) of course the uptake will change?
  • I've reworded all this. Hopefully its clearer now.
    • It is. But it needs a copy edit. For example, the second sentence is incomplete, and "the greatest level of water filtration rates" could simply be "the highest water filtration rates", no?
• attach to a solid surface. Spatfall (settlement of the larva to surfaces) occurs shortly after spawning – Can't follow. "attach to a solid surface" and "settlement to surfaces", are these two different things?
  • Reworded.
    • Great. But unfortunately, "in the field" is jargon; will a general reader understand that it actually means "in the ocean"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
      • Good point. Reworded.
• occurs shortly after spawning – didn't you just mention "20 days"? Or is that referring to something else?
  • As above.
• rolling behaviour – since rolling is passive (by a current), I wouldn't call it a "behaviour". Coming to the surface to allow the current to carry it away is a behaviour.
  • Reworded.
• You do not state where the name "stutchburyi" is coming from, and where the first shells were collected (here is an interesting source for this: ).
  • Brilliant find. How did you find that? I thought I found everything on this species that is available online.
    • Thanks. Stutchbury quickly got me to Samuel Stutchbury as the only possibility. I then entered this query into Google Scholar: "Austrovenus stutchburyi" "Samuel Stutchbury". This gives only one paper, which doesn't have the information but cited the one that has (and which I linked above). This shows again how incomplete things like Google Scholar actually are. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• More soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack Cheers. I've gone through your available comments. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• As these factors vary between sites, so does growth rate – After the details provided, this feels redundant. Delete or move to beginning?
  • Deleted.
• As A. stutchburyi grows, growth bands can appear – below you use "growth rings", not "growth bands", and that might be confusing (a reader might assume you mean two different things if you use different terms)
  • (drive-by comment): oblink WP:ELEVAR but more specifically I agree about the possible confusion. Especially in a technical article where the reader may unfamiliar with all the terms, it is natural to assume that two different words are intentionally being used to denote two different things. One possible fix is to just use the same word. Another is to explicitly tell the reader that they're synonyms: "... growth bands or rings can appear" or perhaps even "... growth bands (called rings in some sources) can appear". RoySmith (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks both. I went with just referring to them as bands.
• growth bands can appear in the shell – not as helpful as it could be; I assume these are only visible in cross section?
  • They can apparently been seen in the intact shell, although I'd assume a cross section would be easier. I did spend a bit of time trying to do this with some of the shells I have, but the papers are vague about how to distinguish them.
• In the same study, A. stutchburyi grew at a rate of 0.17 to 0.35 mm (0.007 to 0.014 in) per month, with factors like salinity, concentration of chlorophyll-a (a proxy for photosynthetic microorganisms) and temperature during low tide being the main influences.[22] – Both the growth rates and the environmental factors were already discussed further above; maybe combine with that?
  • Combined.
• was suggested that this may delay maturity and reduce the ability of A. stutchburyi to burrow into sediment. – You already mentioned the inability to burrow
  • Reworded.
• epidermis – Link
  • Linked.
• None of the viruses detected are known to be pathogens to humans or bivalves.[30] – I can't follow; if those viruses are not affecting bivalves, why are they discussed here (A. stutchburyi is a bivalve)?
  • I've put them in the parasites section for lack of better place to put them. Also its mentioned that A. stutchburyi is a Bivalve further up.
    • My question was actually concerning the claim that these viruses are not affecting the bivalve. So are they present in the bivalve coincidentally? Or do we simply don't know if they are pathogens or not (in which case, I think the sentence is misleading as is).
      • They're not known to affect the bivalve, although the authors are careful about how they word this. I'm not sure I'd describe them as being there coincidentally though. I think its similar to how humans are always carrying loads of completely harmless viruses at any given time. I tweaked the wording a bit to try to make it clearer that no negative effect of these viruses are known yet.
• The density of B. acus appears to be highly dependent on A. stutchburyi.[32] – "highly dependent on that of"?
  • Added missing wording.
• Reported commercial harvesting in the region has managed to stay well below this limit. – This wording ("has managed") implies that the fisheries stayed well below the limit on purpose. Is that indeed uncontroversial enough that we can state that in wiki-voice? Or just replace "has managed to stay" with "stayed"?
  • I went with your wording.
• A. stutchburyi is a traditional food source for Māori people. Middens (old dump sites for domestic waste) dating back to pre-European contact often contained shells of A. stutchburyi that were used as a food source. – The shells itself are not a food source. The last part "were used as food source" is redundant anyway as this was stated at the beginning of the section.
  • Fixed.
• The Māori principles of taiāpure, mātaitai reserves and rāhui – A reserve is not a principle, right?
  • I changed from "principles" to "practices", which I think is a better fit and covers your comment.
• When large amounts of sediment is – "are"
  • Fixed.
• four estuaries within a single harbour – I can't follow here; how to get four estuaries in a single harbour?
  • I missed some details here. Added.
• specific name – link
  • Linked.
• I am surprised that, under "Conservation and threats", climate change is not mentioned. You mentioned that extreme temperatures can be a problem to the species. In addition, sea level rise is an obvious threat, and there seems to be more than one paper on this (example: ).
  • Good find. I've added a subsection for this study. There's heaps of other studies on Google Scholar, but they're all student theses or just an offhand remark at the end of an article.
• That's all from me. Will revisit all my points (and possibly add some replies) once all are addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks @Jens Lallensack for the thorough review as always. I've replied to everything above. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I left a number of replies above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks again @Jens Lallensack, I've got through your latest replies. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Barbalalaika

I've participated in this article's peer review and am happy to see how far it's come. Please give me one week to give it one last look (ping me if I disappear, sorry in advance if it happens) Barbalalaika 🐌 19:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@AxonsArachnida some final remarks:

• "A. stutchburyi is preyed upon by numerous estuarine animals including crabs, wading birds (such as oystercatchers), large whelks and fish (such as large stingrays)." -- "fish" is a very large, diverse group. I'd give one or two more examples of what other fish prey on the cockle, and if only stingrays are mentioned specifically in the literature, then I'd keep to that. I'd also apply it to the lead.

• Only stingrays were mention specifically, so I've reworded to that.

• Looks good - just checking that the source on A. stutchburyi foot cropping doesn't mention other fish species as predators that you could specify? Barbalalaika 🐌 15:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yep that's right. Just mentions fish as a whole and stingrays specifically.

• I suggest adding the IUCN conversation status of the clam in the infobox, even if it hasn't been evaluated. This is still relevant info (and could always change)

• The issue I'm seeing is that if I add that, there's nothing to cite since there's no assessment.

• I thought so as well, but isn't the assessment's nonexistence proof in itself? You could ask about that, or whether this SeaLifeBase species summary is eligible as a source, at WP:RSN Barbalalaika 🐌 15:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• The mindset I have here is that the complete absence of an IUCN assessment in the article can be taken to mean it is unassessed. I've asked WP:RSN for their opinions to see what they think.

• Hopefully they answer (this interests me as well); if it remains unanswered for too long, leave the infobox as is. Barbalalaika 🐌 12:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

One of them also suggested just citing SeaLifeBase (as you suggested first), so I've gone ahead and added it. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'd use image2 caption to add a caption to both thumbnail images altogether (something like "view of A. stutchburyi shell from outside (upper image) and inside (lower image)" or something)

• Awesome. Added.

• "During the larval (veliger) stage, after A. stutchburyi settles on substrate (...)" -- putting veliger in parentheses implies, to me, that this is the cockle's only larval stage and that it's called veliger. Yet most bivalvia have an earlier, trochophore larva. I found no information on them for A. stutchburyi but would reword for clarity.

• I've also not found anything to clarify if there's a trochophore larval stage. Presumably there is, but I'm unsure how to proceed.

• IMO you don't need to mention anything about the trochophore larva, just reword that sentence so it doesn't sound like there's only one larval stage and it's called veliger. I've edited the sentence to how I think this could be solved, feel free to go over it! Barbalalaika 🐌 12:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• "However, it also noted that A. stutchburyi could disperse long distances to some extent." -- did the study cite a specific number for these long distances, to give the reader a notion?

• It didn't unfortunately.

• "Patch of seagrass (Zostera muelleri), which is beneficial to A. stutchburyi" -- suggest changing to "which provides shelter to A. stutchburyi" or anything else explaining what the benefit is exactly

• I went with your wording.

• "It has been proposed that both species benefit from shared space, with the seagrass providing shelter to A. stutchburyi and reducing mortality" -- The seagrass reduces mortality THROUGH the shelter offer, right? If so, I suggest a bit more clarity with "thus", "consequently", or something similar

• "thus" works best.

• Suggest explaining "macroalgae". I'd think most readers are only familiar with "algae".

• Explained.

• "A. stutchburyi is a suspension feeder, meaning it filters organic and inorganic particles from the water, feeding on the former." -- so what does it do with the inorganic particles or why does it filter them?

• Reworded.

• Nice, I got it now. Barbalalaika 🐌 12:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In one laboratory study of A. stutchburyi where individuals were subjected to different concentrations of suspended sediment (which the species filters for food)." -- The sentence is incomplete. I think switching "where" for a comma solves this.

• Swapped out for a comma.

• "the authors inferred that settlement (spatfall) in the ocean most likely occurs between February and May" -- the spatfall in parenthesis is doing nothing for me. Is this what settlement by cockles specifically is called, or what does it mean?

• Reworded.

• "The juvenile can disperse from unsuitable habitat by crawling" - with its foot? I assume most readers won't know how a cockle crawls.

• Clarified.

• "It can control dispersal by either staying buried or emerging to the surface. The round, robust shape of the shell may assist it in passively rolling with water currents." -- suggest switching the sentence order, since the sentence before this snippet is talking about the rolling.

• Good idea. Shuffled.

• "A. stutchburyi has been observed slightly opening its shells and extending its siphon to feed during times that coincide with when high tide would have been in their natural habitat, indicating that it tracks the tides" -- "when high tide would have been in their natural habitat" implies that there were no tides in the experiment but "tracks" suggests the animal is actively following something that exists (at least in my opinion). Suggest rewording.

• Reworded.

• Good one. I just rephrased the sentence for a better read flow if you don't mind. Barbalalaika 🐌 12:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks great to me. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Since 2002, the maximum annual catch limit for commercial harvesting in the area is 1,390 tonnes, but the total reported catch is far below this limit." - any estimates of the reported catch to give a notion of how far below the limit it is?

• I've added reported numbers

• Good finds! Barbalalaika 🐌 12:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Harvesting slowly declined over time and, due to low biomass of A. stutchburyi, the fishery has been closed since late 2012." -- I assume harvesting also declined due to low biomass of A. stutchburyi, so I'd reword to start the sentence with the reason for both happenings.

• Reworded.

• In my opinion, a picture of a red tide is more interesting for the article than the Brevetoxin B5.

• It would be, but there aren't any images of NZ red tides and I feel it would be misleading to use one from somewhere else.

• I personally don't think so if you state in the picture's description that it is an example of a red tide from X location, but it's up to you. Barbalalaika 🐌 12:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm just going to err on the side of caution on this one. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Since 1998, Māori often have customary fishing rights to harvest A. stutchburyi in some areas of cultural significance." -- often, but not always?

• It's a sad reality that Māori sometimes don't have access to areas of cultural significance.

• "Although sometimes A. stutchburyi may be kept in cages to protect them from predators while being transplanted, this increases mortality, possibly due to stress." -- what does "while being transplanted" mean here, transportation to the area of transplantation? Or are they left in the cages after being transplanted?

• Reworded.

• The picture of the Aotea Harbour lacks an alt text.

• Added.

• "A. stutchburyi is also capable of accumulating organic pollutants." -- here you use "pollutants", in the next sentence "contaminants". I suggest choosing and sticking to one to avoid confusion.

• Made it more consistent.

• I reworded the section on sea level rise, feel free to go over it.

• Looks good to me.

Barbalalaika 🐌 12:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again @Barbalalaika for you comments. I've replied to them all above. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@AxonsArachnida Sorry about the wait, just finished replying. I have no new comments - once the we close the last talking points I'm happy to support :) Barbalalaika 🐌 12:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks @Barbalalaika. Looks like I'm finished. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support now! Barbalalaika 🐌 11:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Aloy

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 22:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Aloy is the main character in the Horizon video game series. This is the third article in the Horizon GT that I have brought to FAC in an attempt to eventually get the topic to a FT. I have only brought video games to FAC in the past, so this is my first character article. Courtesy ping for @Vacant0 who left me some helpful feedback on the peer review. -- ZooBlazer 22:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

I have already reviewed this article as a GA and at PR. Nevertheless, I'll go through the article again and see if I missed something. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I gave another look at the article. No issues with the prose (besides what Phlsph7 mentioned). I have one question though. Gamepur is listed as a "situational source", therefore what does it make reliable in this case? Other sources appear to be reliable and of high quality. Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0 In this case it is covering something non controversial and there aren't many other options. There is an IGN ref that I can use, but I wasn't sure if it was better since to confirm the info, you have to scroll through a gallery instead of just scrolling the page/ctrl+f on the Gamepur article. -- ZooBlazer 15:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Hopefully the source reviewer won't mind this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Image Review - RandomEdits

Hi ZB, I'll look at the images later today.

As an aside, one thing I noticed in a drive by read; you have a lot of 3/4-length ref bombs in the Critical Response. I'm generally fine with 3 sequential refs but I imagine the 4 refs is going to be an issue in your source review, and they could do with either being bundled up in a note or seeing if any of the less important ones could be removed. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)

Thanks for bringing that up. I have dropped redundant refs from those bundles. -- ZooBlazer 16:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Great :)

• Aloy (Horizon Zero Dawn).png - Justification is fine, but very minimal and not up to what's usually required for FA. I've added some stronger wording if you're happy with the changes.

More importantly, I don't see this image on https://www.playstation.com/en-us/horizon/community/ anywhere.

• Ashly Burch (14703225936).jpg - Original source is dead, but luckily there was an archive for this and tagged correctly wit CC 2.0.
• Horizon Forbidden West Burning Shores kiss.jpg - Justification is fine for this and I think the picture warrants inclusion based on the text that accompanies it.
• E3 2018 (27900182017).jpg - All good, marked with CC 2.0 correctly

So it's just Aloy's main pic needing a source clarification.

One thing I wondered, had you considered adding another image between Ashly.jpg and kiss.jpg? There's approximately 2500 words of fairly dense paragraphs between the two images, so more of a visual break might help readers out. Including Joris de Man's picture in "Musical Theme" was the main idea that came to mind, but I'll leave that to you.

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember Huh, pretty sure it was in one of the cosplay guides and someone just made it a transparent background. All the guides I see are from the second game and not the first one, which is what the image was from. Would it work to update the source to this archive? It is what I remember seeing as the the original image of the file. -- ZooBlazer 16:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I also added the image for Joris de Man. -- ZooBlazer 17:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Great :)

I've done some digging and it looks like the original image came from Dan Calvert's artstation, which would be a better source than the fandom wiki.

https://dc_gg.artstation.com/projects/JQErv

(It'd be worth archiving this but web.archive seems to be down for me at the moment). RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember Thanks for finding that! I updated the info on the file and managed to get the wayback machine to work long enough to get an archive. -- ZooBlazer 20:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice - the Joris de Man picture is also completely fine so that's a pass for the image review.

Afraid I can't review the prose currently as I'll be busy for the next few weeks, but later on if you still need another pair of eyes feel free to ping me. Best of luck with your other reviews. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Phlsph7

Hi ZooBlazer, happy to review the nomination. I don't know much about the topic itself, so I'll stick to prose comments.

• American actress Ashly Burch voices her. This sentence in the first lead paragraph seems to be disconnected from what comes before and after. I think it would fit better into the 2nd lead paragraph where actress Hannah Hoekstra is discussed.
• centreing replace with "centring"
• and reflected her ongoing struggles replace "reflected" with "reflects"
• Afterward I think British English prefers "Afterwards" per the template "Use British English"
• Dark Horse released 1:9 scale statue add "a" after "released"
• She appears as a minifigure in multiple Lego sets, which includes a 2022 Tallneck build replace "which includes" with "which include" or "including"
• to survive a world that has been reclaimed by nature and overrun by the hostile machines. add "in" after "survive" and remove "the"
• Guerrilla based Aloy's facial likeness was based on Dutch actress remove "was based"
• lacking a mother, a young Aloy is determined remove "a" before "young"
• her initial distant attitude towards those companions replace "initial" with "initially"
• and the 2024 Remastered edition lower case for "Remastered"?
• Sam Loveridge wrote that she reconciles with the legacy I presume "she" refers to "Aloy" and not to "Loveridge"; It might be good to replace the pronoun with the name
• He compared this to real-world adoptive and mother-child relationships. I think "He" is supposed to refer to "Sam Loveridge" (female); replace with "Loveridge" to avoid pronoun confusion
• first engage with her non-traditional role as an outsider ... through virtual photography before her romance with Seyka similar problem for the two pronouns "her", which could refer to "Aloy" or to "Allen"/"Connell"

Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 I think everything has been addressed. Thanks! Let me know if there is anything else. -- ZooBlazer 17:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. A few more:

• was a creative pivot that distanced the studio from the masculine tone of its previous Killzone franchise. maybe more encyclopedic tone: was a creative shift away from the masculine tone of the studio's previous Killzone franchise.
• the type of armour the player equipped. remove "the player" for concision
• specific lines or reactions felt true to Aloy's established personality. maybe better: specific lines and reactions aligned with Aloy's established personality
• Gonzalez explained this early trauma created a deep compassion for others. It drove her curiosity about her origins and her willingness to help people in need, which the developers used as the narrative justification for her willingness to assist non-player characters (NPC) during side quests. sounds a little repetitive. Maybe better: Gonzalez explained this early trauma created a deep compassion for others and drove her curiosity about her origins, providing a narrative justification for her willingness to assist non-player characters (NPC) during side quests.
• Bastien Ramisse explained that taking advantage of the advanced hardware of the PlayStation 5 maybe more concise: Bastien Ramisse explained that the PlayStation 5's advanced hardware
• This allowed for enhanced facial a little repetitive since the previous sentence already uses the verb "allowed"
• This narrative arc culminated in her meeting...This culminates in an optional "Flashpoint" dialogue repeats the verb "culminate"; switches from past tense to present tense
• The instrumentation was kept minimalistic. Sparse arrangements of analogue synthesisers, cellos, and contrabass flutes are meant to evoke Aloy's isolated upbringing as an outcast and her underlying loneliness. Elven was originally recommended to the team by composer Ian Livingstone; de Man asked to "tack on" to their recording session to have Elven sing a short, minute-and-a-half phrase he had written. This approach relied on soloistic performances and improvisations. Elven's vocalisation is Aloy's "musical voice". also tense inconsistencies

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Thanks for the additional comments. Everything should be fully addressed now. -- ZooBlazer 17:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That addresses all the points that stood out to me. Otherwise, the prose looks good to me, so I support on prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Gommeh

I'd be interested in reviewing this, but my schedule at the moment is rather tight. Please ping me if I haven't said anything here in a few days. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 15:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Concept and design

• Aloy is a skilled machine huntress While I understand the meaning intended behind this, the wording here could imply that Aloy herself is a machine or a robot of some kind, especially for readers who are blind or who can't see the picture of her in the infobox. I would suggest rewording
• She soon uncovers that a benevolent artificial intelligence created her as a genetic clone of the 21st-century scientist Dr. Elisabet Sobeck Would this make her non-human for purposes of the infobox? If so, the species parameter needs to be set.

  Nothing in the game suggests she isn't still a human.

• Outside of video games, Aloy's narrative has been expanded in a comic book series published by Titan Comics. Is this important enough for the lead?
• text
• Sony anticipated that a female lead might pose a commercial risk, so they conducted market testing before approving the character Did they ever say why they thought this was risky? I see that in the next paragraph they mention the comparison to a Disney Princess; perhaps this should be moved?
• De Jonge explained that Aloy was conceived as one of the initial three design elements. This sounds clunky, but I can't put my finger on why.
• pushing for her to discover her augmented reality Focus device as a child What is a Focus device? This should be explained upon first mention.

I will do the rest of the sections later. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 14:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh I have addressed everything so far. -- ZooBlazer 17:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Appearances

Several terms need explaining:

• The text states that Aloy wins the tribe's Proving ritual but never explains what it is.
• What is a Seeker and why do they matter?
• The Hunter's Lodge is mentioned briefly, could use an explanation as to its role
• What is the Eclipse Cult?
• Why add the names of other tribes (e.g. Banuk)?
• What is a Horus war machine?
• What is a Daemon?

Reception

• Peter Tieryas of Kotaku wrote that optional mechanics, like speaking at her surrogate father Rost's grave, demonstrated her humanity and vulnerability could be reworded, but I am not sure how.
• Retrospectives have identified her as a prominent protagonist of her console generation. This seems like a generalization; I would rephrase unless there's a source that proves that this is how retrospectives think in general.
• As the franchise progressed, reviewers focused on Aloy's evolving emotional core, particularly her struggle to balance her independence with the legacy of her predecessor, Elisabet Sobeck. The phrase "emotional core" sounds off, and I question the decision to mention that Sobeck is her predecessor again since this is already brought up at an earlier point in the article.
• VentureBeat argued that her reluctance to accept help occasionally "bordered on the extreme" - this and a few other instances should mention the name of the author in the prose, e.g. "John Smith of the New York Times".
• Sony executives have described Aloy as a "PlayStation icon of the future". This isn't really reception, as Guerrilla is part of PlayStation Studios which is owned by Sony. It's fine, but it should go in the creation and design portion instead.

  This is something I meant to just delete long ago and I guess missed it or forgot, so it is now just removed entirely.

• Is there any reception you can find about her appearance in Genshin Impact? Reference 48 (Sisi Jiang) seems like it might be worth using in the reception section.

  That ref seems to be the only one that focused on Aloy specfically and not just what she brought to the game. As a result it felt a little trivial to include in reception.

• I personally would move the section on cultural impact and merchandise towards the top of the reception section, but this is personal preference.

  I ended up leaving it where it was. It felt like the best fit to me having reception about the game first.

That's all from me, please ping me when this is done. I currently have an FAC open at Firefly (Honkai: Star Rail) [nom] if anyone is interested in contributing there. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh I think I have addressed everything in one way or another now. Thanks for the review! -- ZooBlazer 19:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh Just a courtesy ping in case you didn't get the last ping. -- ZooBlazer 06:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I did but forgot to say something. Anyhow I support. Best of luck! In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 11:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I will try not to screw anything up!

• "is a fictional character and the main protagonist" — are both needed? I mean, surely a protagonist would be fictional by default, right? And is "main" needed in front of protagonist, 'cuz a protagonist is by default the main character right? And also, does WP:PROTAGONIST apply here? (Sorry, lotta questions)

  Both are needed but I dropped "main" from protagonist. -- ZooBlazer

• I'm not extremely keen on around half of the lead being taken up by a plot summary per MOS:FICTION; also doesn't seem consistent with the body where #Concept and design and #Reception take up a lot more prose compared with #Appearances

  It is organized by the paragraphs in the body. I did a little trim to get rid of some details that weren't needed in the lead. -- ZooBlazer

• "the oversexualised tropes common in the video game industry" — seems like an opinion to me? I'm not entirely sure
• "American actress Ashly Burch voices her" — I find the wording a bit awkward here
• "This was a departure from the masculine tone of the studio's previous Killzone franchise." — Burch voicing her is a departure...? Or something else?
• "scholarly analysis regarding her themes of ecofeminism and" — question: is "her" themes correct here?
• "The concept of Aloy dates back to 2010 when Guerrilla Games art director Jan-Bart van Beek pitched an early concept for a game featuring her as the protagonist in a post-apocalyptic world reclaimed by nature and robotic dinosaurs." — wording feels almost off to me. I'm really sure how to explain it so bear with me here. The "her", to me, implies the final version, if that makes sense? Like she was fully conceptualised at that point? To me, it would make more sense if it was worded like "...pitched an early concept for a game featuring [description of how the character was at that point] as the protagonist..." Sorry, this comment is really long-winded, but I hope it makes sense.

I've not read a lot of the article so far, but I do wanna review this, so ping me if I go a few days without any comments. Pamzeis (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis I have addressed all of these comments so far. Hopefully things have been better clarified as a result. -- ZooBlazer 18:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Continuing my review:

• Could the uses of "felt" be reduced a bit? It's used quite a few times, and sometimes, it feels a bit euphemistic.
• "The team aimed to avoid industry trends of overly sexualising female characters" — same as earlier
• "Her red hair and tribal braids were retained to avoid impractical fashion flourishes" — this is really nitpick-y, but I initially read "retained" as meaning retained from an earlier design, rather being retained, I'm assuming, regardless of which armour she's wearing. Could this be worded more clearly?
• "physical and emotional equal who could understand her perspective" — is a bit awkward IMO
• "In Burning Shores (2023), McCaw explained" — what is Burning Shores? It's not mentioned before this
• "Equipping Seyka with a Focus helped cement this dynamic to mirror Aloy's past and ensure she felt like a genuine match" — any reason for why? As someone who's never played the game, I don't have enough knowledge to understand the significance of a Focus (at least, not ATP reading the article so far)
• "latter features a full level based on" — I don't have much expertise on video games—is "full" needed here?
• "critics observing her ability to bring humanity, confidence, and emotional depth to the role" — states an opinion as a fact
• "journalists saw this fixed in Forbidden West" — wording is a bit awkward here
• "the exaggerated, lighter take on her usually serious personality endearing, supported by a more comedic vocal performance from Burch" — I think it's unclear what Burch's performance is meant to be supporting here—the lighter take? The endearing-ness?

For the most part, I find the article very well-written and quite easy to follow. Pamzeis (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis I think I have cleaned up everything from your latest comments. -- ZooBlazer 18:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• I support this nomination. Pamzeis (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Referencing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2 because while they are old they show some of the challenges that FACses on fictional characters can face. Right off the bat I see the games are apparently used to source just the summaries of her plots, which makes me wonder if anything is missing/filtered through secondary sources, which adds a potential for error. Everything else seems reliable but note that I have to rely extensively on WP:VGRS since I don't know most of these sauces. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Do I need to added secondary sources for the appearances? This is the first character article I have worked on, and in the past with films and games I contributed to, the plots didn't require other sources but I'm not sure if it is different for characters. -- ZooBlazer 17:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the intrusion. I wanted to provide some insight as I have worked on fictional character articles. I have used primary sources for this type of section in my own featured articles (like with Satsu (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Melaka Fray), and I have seen other featured articles do the same (like with Yeti (Doctor Who) and Ice Warrior). That being said, I can understand Jo-Jo Eumerus's comment. It could be helpful to look through secondary sources to see if there is any useful information that could be added to an appearances section.

I have admittedly not read this article, but it could be worthwhile to check and see. Just as an example, I have used secondary sources to more clearly verify and support information implied in the story but not as clearly or explicitly stated. Apologies again if this is not helpful, but I wanted to try and help, as I do have experience with this general topic (fictional characters). I hope that this helps and best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my issue isn't that you are using the games to source the plots, but that you are using the games to source only the plots and nothing else. One wonders if, for example, details on her appearance that don't come up frequently in secondary sources were thus omitted. I know that folks occasionally handwave to WP:WEIGHT then to assert one needs secondary sources for these too, but that solved neither the second-hand error issue nor does e.g character description require a WEIGHT assessment much of the time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus I feel like the important details about her are pretty well covered in the other sections of the article so that the plot info is able to be more story focused and nothing is intentionally omitted for not being covered by secondary sources. Her physical appearance details for instance are covered in the Characterisation and casting, so it probably wouldn't be needed in the plot. Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying? -- ZooBlazer 08:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are misinterpreting - the issue isn't where you are putting the information, but whether you are not using the games as sources even for information like details on how she looks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the clarification. Apologies again. I just wanted to pop in to try and help with this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Ah, okay. I added the game sources to a few spots in the article including her hair, her clothes, and her augmented reality device. -- ZooBlazer 17:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, how are things looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

OKish, but I can't vouch much for the source usage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Reviewing presently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Ben Roberts-Smith, holder of a Victoria Cross for Australia, who has been described as the most decorated living Australian soldier. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

Here shall be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:Ben Roberts-Smith-2015.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC investiture.jpg - CC BY 3.0, source link needs to be updated
• File:Ben Roberts-Smith and Mark Donaldson in 2011.jpg - CC BY 3.0, source link needs to be updated
• File:Ben Roberts-Smith medals December 2011 (cropped).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Ben Roberts-Smith's uniform at the AWM March 2026.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Governor-General attends Cross Your Heart event (1).jpg - CC BY 3.0, source link needs to be updated
• All of the images have alt-text for accessibility, are relevant to the article, and have proper captioning.

@Arconning: the issue of source links having rotted was brought up during the A-Class review. I've just tried searching again and I've been unable to find any working links. Do you recommend removing the three images? TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I do believe it'd be best to remove them to avoid the issues brought up. Arconning (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Arconning, I've removed the three images and added another which is public domain. See Special:Diff/1361361713/1361658008. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Pass. Arconning (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Review by from angrysunbird

I don't normally review non-biological articles but this nomination needs some love so here goes. Not an expert but my family is Aussie military (and at least one of my aunts was a fan. Haven't asked here about it lately).

• So about that... you didn't bury the lede in the article but you did in your summary about why Ben is well known now in the nomination. As for its relevance to this review, I've taken a look and the article seems fairly stable for such a controversial figure.
• judge advocate general Why is this role not linked to its article Judge Advocate General (Australia) and capitalised as it is in that article?

Linked and capitalised.

• Roberts-Smith developed a reputation for intimidating smaller students at school - any indication of how early? By phrasing it this way, while referring to "high school" in the next line re:sports - it seems to imply he was a bully (allegedly) in primary school. Is this reading accurate?

The relevant passage in McKenzie's book comes after another which states that he had left another Perth college to attend "Perth's exclusive Hale School". The section reads "In the schoolyard, Roberts-Smith developed a reputation for standing over those who were smaller than him, which by his later high school years left an entire student cohort to intimidate. Those on the receiving end tell of an outsider who appeared to use his size to feel in control." For reference Roberts-Smith is reported as being 6'7" (202cm). Unfortunately nothing as specific as we'd like.

Okay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• After completing basic training at Blamey Barracks in Kapooka - why is the School of Infantry at Lone Pine Barracks linked in the next sentence but Army Recruit Training Centre not linked in this one? And if we are being consistent, wouldn't it be training at Army Recruit Training Centre at Blamey Barracks?

Updated as suggested.

• He took part in preparations to evacuate Australian citizens from Fiji in 2004 and was part of Security Detachment Iraq throughout 2005 and 2006. This statement follows directly on from a sentence saying he was widely deployed in Southeast Asia. Neither of the two postings listed her are in SE Asia and no examples of a posting there are given, if none exist (and I get they may be classified) an also or as well near the start will clarify this is in addition to the SE Asia deployments. Also, The statement about what he did in Fiji could use a little context - I assume it was in regards to the flooding in 2004?

Added also.

And the evacuation? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The sources I've read so far don't say much about it, just that it was an operation evacuating Australian citizens. Given the year, you're probably correct that it was regarding the flooding; however, the sourcing doesn't make that clear. As you've pointed out, a lot of what he's done is probably classified and a lot of the sourcing for some things is official accounts (War Memorial or Department of Defence). TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Roberts-Smith was deployed to Afghanistan on six occasions, in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012. - Is this all that can be said about the wider purpose of his deployment beyond the specific incidents that follow? Surely some context regarding his Service's deployment could be provided here, even if we have little else about the rest of his deployment (again, I understand why the latter might be absent, but it may be worth even mentioning that a lot of info is classified?)

I've adjusted the small section to read "Roberts-Smith was deployed to Afghanistan on six occasions, in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012, as part of the SASR, which conducted long-range covert intelligence, reconnaissance and strike operations, often behind enemy lines. The regiment's operations have been characterised as secretive." TarnishedPath^talk 10:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Better, but still leaves a lot unsaid. You need to click on to "deployed to Afghanistan" to see which conflict is even being discussed. Maybe something like "Deployed to Afghanistan as part of Australia's contribution to the western War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) or something like that? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 03:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Roberts-Smith had threatened to shoot them in the back of the head - is the them in this sentence the junior soldier with the jammed rifle? Maybe clarify?

Done.

Junior is now inconsistently capitalised between the two lines. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. It should be lowercase in all locations now. This is something Hawkeye also pointed out below. TarnishedPath^talk 03:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• as a patrol second-in-command (2IC) was he commanding the patrol in the previous section (medal for gallantry)? I assume not but it is not clear - he makes a number of decisions (to go after the teen (with Locke) and to divide the patrol) but would surely be outranked by Locke.

You're correct that he was outranked by Locke. I think part of the confusion was with how things had been termed in the prose. The term "patrol" was used, when the War Memorial source used "team". His decision to divide the team came after Roberts-Smith was tasked as part of a two man team of moving out to neutralise the Taliban. I've made the change from "patrol" -> "team". Hopefully that makes it clearer.

• With air support, Roberts-Smith and his patrol were able to move within 70 metres of their opponent's positions. The patrol advanced on the insurgent position but were pinned down by sustained fire 40 metres from their objective. It's not clear what the significance of the first stament is given to reach 40 metres they would have to have also passed 70 metres as well.

I've adjusted the two sentences to read "With air support, Roberts-Smith and his patrol manoeuvred to within 70 metres of their opponents' positions to launch an assault. When the assault began, the patrol drew sustained fire and was unable to advance beyond 40 metres from their objective." I think this makes it clearer. Please advise if otherwise.

• Roberts-Smith's patrol was still pinned down by machine gun fire from three positions. this would read better if it was "the rest of his patrol"

Done.

• During defamation proceedings in 2022, the awarding of the VC to Roberts-Smith was questioned, while this is true, it would be just as valid to say "the entire account was questioned". I know it does in the next part of the sentence, but focusing on the award seems slightly off.

I've replaced the whole sentence with "During defamation proceedings in 2022, testimony from multiple SASR members suggested that the events underlying the award may have been fabricated, calling into question the account for which Roberts-Smith received the VC."

• In 2012, Roberts-Smith was deployed to a rotation in Afghanistan as a patrol commander and held the rank of corporal. Might it be better to say His final deployment to Afghanistan was in 2012, by which time he had been promoted to corporal was served as a patrol commander. Gives a sense of narrative flow.

Done with minor adjustment, "Roberts-Smith's final deployment to Afghanistan was in 2012, by which time he had been promoted to corporal and served as a patrol commander."

• Seven Queensland - maybe link? I know we don't overlink but I don't think it has been mentioned once since the lede.

Linked. I've recently been going aggressively against any sort of overlinking, but you are correct it wasn't mentioned once since the lead.

I have more to go but need to step out, I'll keep reviewing later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that's almost all of this section done. I'm aware that I haven't addressed the sixth dot point as yet and plan to come back to it. If I later on forget, please draw my attention to it. I'm still recovering from having the flu on the weekend so I won't do anymore tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue:

• Following the publication of Chris Masters's No Front Line book in October 2017, Fairfax Media's Nick McKenzie and the ABC's Dan Oakes covered the story, linking the case to an ongoing inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into criminal misconduct on the battlefield by special forces; an inquiry that resulted in the Brereton Report. - Run on sentence. More importantly, this is the first time that war crimes are mentioned in the main body of the article - and the sentence is written like that idea had alredy been introduced. Break up this sentence and add a starter sentence introducing the news of allegations breaking to add some context.

Updated to 'In October 2017, journalist Chris Masters published No Front Line, a history of Australian special forces in Afghanistan. The book drew attention to discrepancies between Roberts-Smith's own accounts of a 2006 incident in which he and Matthew Locke killed an Afghan man they suspected of being a Taliban spotter. ABC's Dan Oakes reported on the book, linking it to an ongoing inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into criminal misconduct by special forces on the battlefield. That inquiry later produced the Brereton Report. Responding to the coverage in an interview with The Australian, Roberts-Smith described the scrutiny as "un-Australian".' I hope this is what you were looking for. The sources initially didn't directly accuse of war crimes.

Better, but:

• Did Dan Oakes report on the book outside his capacity as an ABC journalist? Or was he the journalist that led ABC's coverage?
• For non-Aussies it may be worth saying "ABC News's Dan Oakes" or ABC News journalist Dan Oakes, as this is the first time the organisation is mentioned and will not be well known outside Aussie
• Presumably the Brereton report was the culmination of the inquiry (which incidentally is referred to as the Brereton inquiry later but not here) - so maybe provide a date when the report was published and what impact it had - again that is perhaps alluded to later but this report is only touched on tangentially.

Updated to "In October 2017, journalist Chris Masters published No Front Line, a history of Australian special forces in Afghanistan. The book drew attention to discrepancies between Roberts-Smith's own accounts of a 2006 incident in which he and Matthew Locke killed an Afghan man they suspected of being a Taliban spotter. ABC News journalist Dan Oakes reported on the book, linking it to the ongoing Brereton inquiry, an inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into criminal misconduct by special forces on the battlefield. The inquiry's findings, the Brereton Report, were published on 19 November 2020. The report recommended that dozens of incidents involving current and former special forces personnel be referred for criminal investigation. Responding to the publication of Masters's book, Roberts-Smith described it as inaccurate and called the scrutiny of his record "un-Australian". He also said the book was damaging to the legacy of Locke, who had been killed in action."

This sort of breaks chronology a little bit, but there is a thematic connection, so I guess it works. Let me know what you think. TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It does make the chronology a little hard to parse, yes. Digging deeper, I think this section still needs something. This article draws attention to the book No Front Line, but when you click on the link to the general section on war crimes, it discusses the series of stories by ABC stories :The Afghan Files. It might be worth summarising the chronology of the breaking of the story entirely in the first paragraph, namely the opening of the investigation by Samantha Crompvoets (who isn't named in this article), the book and news stories (including the raid) and then how Roberts-Smith got embroiled. Then leave the fact that that early investigation woiuld lead to the Brereton Report, but move the conclusions of the report down to "investigation", around teh point where the text discusses the report again (The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions later decided that the original AFP investigation could not lead to a prosecution because of the likelihood that information it had received from the Brereton inquiry). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, see Special:Diff/1365113431/1365116046. I've taken material about Crompvoets that I was working on in my sandbox and incorporated it. I've also moved things around a little bit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Much better. One last thing to address - Crompvoets is introduced without context as to who she is and why she was investigating. The link doesn't make it apparent till you get to the bottom of the linked section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I'll add something in a few hours. TarnishedPath^talk 06:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, I decided to do it now. See Special:Diff/1365116046/1365254303. TarnishedPath^talk 06:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Responding to the coverage in an interview with The Australian, Roberts-Smith described the scrutiny as "un-Australian". He also described the allegations as inaccurate, which should absolutely be included here. Simply stating he said it was un-Australian to subject his record to scrutiny isn't the complete picture, and arguably paints him in an (unintendedly) unflattering light.

Done. I've also expanded the paragraph a bit, linking it to the battle for which Roberts-Smith and Locke were awarded the Medal of Gallantry (covered in The Australian source I added which reports on the interview with Roberts-Smith).

• In June 2018, a joint ABC and Fairfax Media investigation detailed an assault on the village of Darwan in September 2012 during which a handcuffed man was kicked off a cliff by an Australian special forces soldier nicknamed "Leonidas" after the famed Spartan king. Is it implied that Roberts-Smith is Leonidas? If so, it should be stated.

Done.

• Fairfax Media reported that Roberts-Smith bullied several of his fellow soldiers and alleged that he had committed domestic violence against a woman he was having an affair with. Was the bullying an allegation as well? Or substantiated?

The bullying was indeed substantiated. At least to the civil standard. See the judgement section. Please let me know if you want anything added here. Personally if I did, I'd only be duplicating material further down in our article on him.

• Roberts-Smith denied these allegations - all the allegations in this paragraph, or just the last one or two mentioned?

That was reference to the last two mentioned. I've clarified the sentence.

• Keelty's disclosure came days after the AFP began a covert operation targeting Roberts-Smith, leading him to start using burner phones to obstruct the police investigation. It isn't clear what triggered Roberts-Smith to start using burner phones - the disclosure or the covert operation. I assume the former, given the "covert" nature of the operation, but this isn't clear.

Updated to "Keelty's disclosure came days after the AFP began a covert operation targeting Roberts-Smith. After learning from Keelty that he was under investigation, Roberts-Smith began using burner phones to obstruct it."

Better. Is the use of burner phones very well established legally? This is if true an attempt to pervert the course of justice I imagine and if not assessed as true by a court may be defamatory? Not sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added allegedly between Roberts-Smith and began. There is no finding of fact in this regard and it's not something he's even been charged with. TarnishedPath^talk 07:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• his defence from a scheme set up to provide assistance for legal representation and related costs for current and former ADF members who have been "charged with a crime in relation to matters that are the subject of the AFP or OSI Afghanistan investigation". who established and funds this fund?

Added prose to clarify it's a program of the Australian Attorney General's Department.

• Although no formal court plea has been entered, Roberts-Smith said in a public statement on 19 April 2026 that he denies all allegations. Not a lawyer but at this point he is denying charges not allegations, yes?

Adjusted allegations -> charges.

More to come. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, thankyou very much for your time. I'll try and address your points later on today and I'll keep a look out for any further suggestions for improvement. TarnishedPath^talk 23:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird, I will have to pick up the rest of this either tomorrow or the day after, as I have come down with the flu and I'm not feeling crash hot or able to think clearly. TarnishedPath^talk 04:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't push yourself, we're all volunteers and your health matters. I'll continue reviewing tomorrow. Rest up and see you when you're mended. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm mostly better now. I'll try and get a bit done today. TarnishedPath^talk 03:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue:

• In 2018, former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty informed Roberts-Smith that the AFP had received referrals regarding alleged war crimes.[45] Keelty's disclosure came days after the AFP began a covert operation targeting Roberts-Smith, leading him to start using burner phones to obstruct the police investigation. This phrasing is ambiguous about which capacity Keelty acted in alerting Roberts-Smith - I had to go to the sources to establish that Keelty had not been acting properly, which led to his eventually handing in his honor (we assume given he didn't give a reason). Per my bullet point above, the link between the Keelty spilling and the damage it did to the investigation needs to be made clearer.

See above. I hope that makes it clearer. Please advise if extra prose, context, etc need to be added.

• In November 2020, the Federal Court was told that Roberts-Smith and his wife had given inconsistent accounts about the status of their relationship during previous years. - while this is possibly relevant it lacks sufficient context to understand what it means. Why was this asked, or why was the court told this? Was it in relation to the improper relationship? If so, again less ambiguity.

Updated to "In November 2020, the Federal Court heard that Roberts-Smith had asked his wife to falsely claim they were separated during his affair with a woman later referred to in the trial as 'Person 17', contradicting the couple's earlier public statements."

• Person 1, a serving SASR member, said that Roberts-Smith had stated that he would "put a bullet in the back of his head" if he did not improve his performance. is this the same incident listed in the gallantry section?

Correct. Updated to 'Person 1, the SASR member whose weapon had jammed during the 2006 battle in the Chora Valley, said that Roberts-Smith had stated he would "put a bullet in the back of his head" if he did not improve his performance.'

• Person 43 and Person 10, other serving members of the SASR in this sentence also might be better than other.

Done. I tried to think of other ways to word this, but couldn't.

• On 11 July 2023, Roberts-Smith filed an appeal against Justice Besanko's judgment to the Full Court of the Federal Court after being granted an extension. What is the significance of granting an extension? I have no legal training and no idea why it was necessary, so I would assume most readers would also wonder.

Adjusted to "On 11 July 2023, Roberts-Smith filed an appeal against Justice Besanko's judgment to the Full Court of the Federal Court, after the court granted an extension to the standard deadline for lodging it." That said, neither of the sources give specifics about why the extension of time was needed, just that the normal time for lodging appeals had passed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• seeking to amend his appeal due to a secret recording of a conversation between Nick McKenzie and one of his sources. why would a recording result in an amended appeal?

Adjusted wording to "Lawyers for Roberts-Smith filed an interlocutory application with the Federal Court on 27 March 2025, seeking to amend his appeal after a secret recording emerged of Nick McKenzie appearing to say he had been briefed on Roberts-Smith's legal strategy by his ex-partner and her friend, which his lawyers argued may have affected the outcome of the trial."

• Legal costs are estimated to have totalled $30 million for the initial trial and $4 million for the appeal. who's legal costs? Earlier, the 30 million number was the costs of the defendants - is it that cost? I assume so, but wouldn't the legal costs on Roberts-Smith include his own lawyers as well?

There's a conflict in prior and later sources, with the earlier source being an attributed claim from Chris Masters (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-29/ben-roberts-smith-failed-defamation-costs/102539508). In that Masters states that defending the action cost Nine Entertainment $30 million. The later source (see https://web.archive.org/web/20260308045621/https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/ben-roberts-smith-s-last-ditch-bid-to-overturn-war-crimes-decision-20250521-p5m0y7.html) states "... a combined $30 million in legal costs. The appeal cost the parties a further $4 million." Given the conflict I've decided that perhaps the best way to deal with it is to attribute the earlier statement to Masters. Let me know if this works. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• The Australian War Memorial subsequently updated its wording of his display which now states that he has exhausted all legal avenues to challenge to the defamation judgment. the occasional updates to his exhibit at the AWM would read very oddly to someone unfamiliar with the case - who would not grasp the significance of it. I'm going to address this in more detail later but these snippets would be better off collected together in public perceptions.

Moved the material to the public perceptions section. TarnishedPath^talk 07:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Throughout his legal actions, Roberts-Smith has been financially supported by some several Australians. After this statement, only Stokes, who we've already established provided a lot of funding, Singleton, who per this article didn't fund any legal action, and Rinehart, who the courts accepted didn't fund anything, are mentioned. It looks like only Stokes funded the proceedings, so that sentence needs to be modified.

Adjusted to "Throughout his legal actions, Roberts-Smith has been supported by several prominent Australians." TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Public perceptions and this is the section in most need of work. This unfortunate affair has been the scandal of this century in Australia. It has been intensely politicised, been dragged into the culture wars, divided the Liberal Party and made Roberts-Smith a cause célèbre for the far right. Former prime ministers have waded into his defense, Liberal MP Andrew Hastie testified against him, and conservative commentator Andrew Bolt has railed against his defenders. This section does not come close to addressing the ways this has divided public life. It needs to address these wider implications neutrally, not avoid them entirely. This is where the informtion on how the AWM has not covered itself in glory should go, along with a placement of his case in the wider scandal.

I've added the following paragraph. "Roberts-Smith's arrest and prosecution has generally divided opinion along existing political and cultural lines. Former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott have both defended him publicly. Howard described him as the "modern personification of the Anzac tradition". Abbott said the rules of engagement in Afghanistan had been overly restrictive and that combat actions should not be judged by civilian standards. One Nation senator Pauline Hanson has voiced continuing support. Support for Roberts-Smith has extended to figures on the far right. Not all conservative figures have backed him unconditionally. Liberal Party politician Andrew Hastie, who had testified against Roberts-Smith during the defamation trial, said that no one was above the law. Columnist Andrew Bolt challenged Roberts-Smith's supporters directly. He asked them to consider the specific nature of the allegations, including the killing of unarmed and injured prisoners."

Please let me know if this is what you were thinking of and if you think I need to add more. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it will do. Deeper analysis would probably be synthesis at this point and would be best left till a bit of time allows more dispasionate analysis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, I think I've addressed everything so far. Can you please review and let me know of any further suggestions you have. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Good work. I've started picking through the responses and striking the ones addressed, will continue working through but this week will be busy for me so bear with me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Okay, I've ticked most stuff off, one more thing to address and one more point to review, the last one, which I need to think about for a few minutes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Sabine's Sunbird no worries. I'll probably come back to the allegations/investigation section tomorrow. Regarding your comments on that re Crompvoets, I have read most of her book Blood Lust, Trust & Blame and had been working on some material around it (See User:TarnishedPath/sandbox) but hadn't tied it off as her book doesn't discuss Roberts-Smith at all and I was wary of sailing too close to WP:SYNTH. Have a read of what I have in my sandbox and let me know if you think I should incorporate it into the allegations/investigation section.

  Ps, I already use her book as a reference in our article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support now. Good work, thanks for your patience with all my points and good luck with the rest of the nomination. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, thankyou for your time. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Review Support by Hawkeye7

Looks pretty good. A few comments:

• " Roberts-Smith had threatened to shoot the Junior soldier" Lower case "Junior" (Fair enough I say.)

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• 2 Squadron, 3 Squadron. I would prefer that these read "2 Squadron, SASR" and "3 Squadron, SASR". Not everybody would realise that the squadrons are part of the SASR, and it would be consistent with "3RAR".

  Done. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• "During defamation proceedings in 2022, testimony from multiple SASR members suggested that the events underlying the award may have been fabricated, calling into question the account for which Roberts-Smith received the VC" Fabricated? By whom? It couldn't have been Roberts-Smith.

  Adjusted to "During defamation proceedings in 2022, Person 41, a serving SASR member, testified that fellow soldiers Person 7 and Person 42 believed the events leading to Roberts-Smith's Victoria Cross may have been falsified and that he was undeserving of the award." Please let me know if this works. TarnishedPath^talk 08:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• "In June 2018, a joint ABC and Fairfax Media investigation detailed an assault on the village of Darwan in September 2012 during which a handcuffed man was kicked off a cliff by an Australian special forces soldier nicknamed "Leonidas" after the famed Spartan king." Does this have anything to do with Roberts-Smith?

  Sabine's Sunbird brought this up above. I've added some prose to make it clear that they were referring to Roberts-Smith. TarnishedPath^talk 07:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• alleged that he had committed domestic violence against a woman he was having an affair with. Roberts-Smith denied these allegations." Because they weren't true; a drunken woman falling down the stairs.

  The allegation about domestic violence was in relation to events alleged to have occurred later on in a hotel room. See https://web.archive.org/web/20201126080449/https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/beneath-the-bravery-of-our-most-decorated-soldier-20180801-p4zuwp.html

  I should have clarified with the above statement that the woman falling down stairs occurred at the function and from what I've seen there is no allegation that Roberts-Smith is at fault for that. However, what has been alleged is that he hit the woman afterwards at a hotel. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, I've adjusted the wording of the sentence to use the term assault rather than domestic violence, given that the allegations are unproven and the woman at the centre has been ruled by a judge to not be a reliable witness. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  What an achievement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Given that the allegations are unproven and the woman at the centre has been ruled by a judge to be a nut case unreliable witness, WP:BLP would require the removal of this allegation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• "five counts of the war crime of murder" Any details about these? They aren't in the article.

  I've added the following sentence in the Arrest and charges section: "The charges relate to the alleged killing of an Afghan man in Kakarak in April 2009, and the deaths of civilians in Darwan and Syahchow in September and October 2012."

• "In April 2018, Groom discovered that Roberts-Smith had been having an affair when a woman, who was given the pseudonym "Person 17" in the defamation trial, arrived at her house and showed her hundreds of text messages sent by Roberts-Smith." Something wrong here. Looks like two sentences tossed together.

  I think perhaps that was placed in the article at a point in time where Person 17 hadn't been referred to and you're correct it was two sentences acting like one. Given that Person 17 is now referred to prior to that sentence I've reduced it to "In April 2018, Person 17 arrived at Groom's house and showed her hundreds of text messages sent by Roberts-Smith, revealing that Roberts-Smith had been having an affair."

  This affair was with Person 17, right? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yep. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, thankyou for your time going over the article. Please see above and let me know if there are any other ways in which you think the article can be improved. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

TY very much for your time and support. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ping me when angrysunbird has finished and I’ll take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 cheers and will do. TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, angrysunbird has now finished their review. TarnishedPath^talk 08:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, will have a look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Cheers and thanks for your time. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

PM

I'll note first up that I provided a peer review in March last year. The details are in the tp archives.

Early life, family and education

• all good, but a little thin? Do we know what Sue did for a job or how he went at school?

Unfortunately, nothing about Sue. I've added some detail that he struggled academically, and that he was awarded Hale School 1st XV's best and fairest in his final year. I'll come back to this review tomorrow. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Military career and honours

• "On 31 May 2006, Roberts-Smith was a scout and sniper in a patrol[a] deployed during the 2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive, whose objective was to establish an observation post on the mountain Koran Ghar, overlooking the Chora Pass in Uruzgan Province." this is potentially confusing about whether the objective was that of the patrol or the offensive. I would end the sentence at "Offensive." then "The patrol's objective ..."

Done. I'll try and get more done over the weekend. It's 10:39pm now and I'm going to wind down before going to sleep. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Is it known who was commanding the patrol? Locke presumably?

That would be a correct presumption. I've made it explicit. TarnishedPath^talk 03:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "On 2 June, the American witnessed a lone Afghan teenager approaching the patrol observation post, leaving shortly thereafter, and communicated what he saw to the team." again, potentially confusing. I suggest, "On 2 June, a lone Afghan teenager approached the patrol observation post and left the area shortly thereafter. The American had seen the teenager and communicated what he saw to the rest of the team."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Where were RS and Locke if not at the OP?

The source, which covers that they were away from the OP (Masters) doesn't go into that detail. Presumably the information was fed to Masters by either Person 1 or Person 2 (the two junior soldiers) and they may not have known or gone into that much detail. TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I find the whole description of RS stating that there were two enemy and the report only stating one confusing. Perhaps it would be better to state what the patrol report said, then that RS later stated there were two armed insurgents, and then that he was confused. Presumably he agreed that there was only one and he was unarmed? Or what?

I've added a quote from RS "Without the benefit of the patrol report to guide me it would appear I have confused my many engagements and identified two insurgents initially locating our observation post as opposed to one". TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps "who moved out of their secure position to kill the enemy combatants."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 08:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• How is it that RS decided the team deployment given he was a lance-jack and Locke as a sergeant was presumably in command? Perhaps he moved to the sniper position on his own initiative?

This was discussed above in angrysunbird's review. The Australian War Memorial states "In another incident, two Anti Coalition Militia attempted to attack the Observation Post from a different flank, Lance Corporal Roberts-Smith again moved to support and neutralise one of these Militia. Lance Corporal Roberts-Smith then realised that the forward edge of the Observation Post was not secure and made the decision to split the team and take up an exposed position forward of the patrol so he could effectively employ his sniper weapon. Whilst isolated, and in his precarious position, he observed a group of sixteen Anti Coalition Militia advancing across open ground towards the Observation Post. Lance Corporal Roberts-Smith effectively employed his sniper rifle to stop their advance whilst receiving very accurate small arms fire from another group of Militia to his flank." (bolding mine for emphasis). You're correct that Locke was in charge. My interpretation is that when RS made the decision to split the 2 man team he was away from Locke, after being one of the two members of the patrol who moved out of their secure position to kill the enemy combatants, and perhaps the other soldier with RS was one of the junior soldiers and thus RS held rank between the two of them. The sourcing doesn't go into that much detail though. I don't know what can be added here, or if anything should be, but I'm open to suggestions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• suggest "While under fire, Roberts-Smith used his rifle to stop their advance."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 09:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I would not refer to it as "his patrol" but "the patrol"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• the AWM quote appears to be a quote from the MG citation, not a statement attributable to the AWM.

You are correct. I've added a source (https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/stories/biographies/benjamin-roberts-smith) which makes that clear and updated the wording accordingly. I've also move the placement of that sentence to the end of the paragraph. TarnishedPath^talk 09:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 again, thankyou for your time undertaking this review and I'll try and address most of this tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 23:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• What was his rank at the time of the VC action? LCPL?

By the time of the investiture he held the rank of corporal; however, the sourcing doesn't state what his rank was at the time of the Tizak mission. I've been unable to determine if he was a corporal before the Tizak mission or if he attained that rank between the mission and the investiture. TarnishedPath^talk 06:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• link rocket-propelled grenade and add (RPG)

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• suggest "unable to advance closer than 40 metres from ..."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• suggest "Roberts-Smith then identified a structure from which he would be able to get cover from fire." What was this structure?

Updated the wording per your suggestion. Regarding what the structure was, the detail is taken from the VC citation and it doesn't go into any more detail than that it was a small structure.

Here's a quote:

"Upon commencement of the assault, the patrol drew very heavy, intense, effective and sustained fire from the enemy position. Corporal Roberts-Smith and his patrol members fought towards the enemy position until, at a range of 40 metres, the weight of fire prevented further movement forward. At this point, he identified the opportunity to exploit some cover provided by a small structure.

As he approached the structure, Corporal Roberts-Smith identified an insurgent grenadier in the throes of engaging his patrol. Corporal Roberts-Smith instinctively engaged the insurgent at point-blank range resulting in the death of the insurgent. With the members of his patrol still pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he exposed his own position in order to draw fire away from his patrol, which enabled them to bring fire to bear against the enemy. His actions enabled his Patrol Commander to throw a grenade and silence one of the machine guns. Seizing the advantage, and demonstrating extreme devotion to duty and the most conspicuous gallantry, Corporal Roberts-Smith, with a total disregard for his own safety, stormed the enemy position killing the two remaining machine gunners."TarnishedPath^talk 06:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "engaged a grenadier"? Suggest "He approached the position and killed an enemy soldier armed with an RPG." if that is what is meant?

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• He exposed his location to the enemy to draw fire away from the rest of his patrol. This was successful, and Roberts-Smith's ..."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• certainly explain what the VC is at the point of his investiture.

I've added it as a note. Please let me know if you'd prefer it to be added into the paragraph instead. TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• perhaps state in general terms who Persons 7 and 42 were, other than fellow soldiers. ie they were anonymous senior special forces soldiers who gave evidence for the media organisations (against Ben Roberts-Smith) in the defamation trial.

I've added the following sentence "Person 7 and Person 42, who were given pseudonyms for national security reasons, were senior soldiers who appeared in court as witnesses against Roberts-Smith in defamation proceedings." TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Down to corporate career, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I've gone through all of your points so far. For some of them I haven't been able to do anything, because the detail you've been after isn't in the sources. Please have a look and let me know if there is anything further you would like added/adjusted in relation to the above and when you're ready please let me know any suggestions in relation to the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Corporate career

• An issue that arises here is that so far the chronology is fairly tight because the first two sections flow into one another timings-wise, but while this section starts chronologically, it then backtracks from his MBA grad to his Seven appointment the previous year and threads in stuff about the war crimes allegations and defamation actions. Then we have the war crimes allegations, the defamation case etc. I'm not a fan of the thematic approach to this, and think it would be better to handle it in a more chronological way, ie he starts studying, while studying is appointed by Stokes, about which time Crompvoets starts her investigation, the release of her report, Stokes promoting him (in whichever order those things happened), etc. I also think that timings have an impact here, and the article should include what month events occurred, and even the actual date if events happened close together. The media reports, the defamation case, the release of books, the AFP investigations, the charges etc should be presented in the chronological order they happened, and allegations made/matters disclosed through those events presented as they occurred. I find the current presentation disjointed and hard to follow (and I know a fair amount about these matters, having read the books etc). Currently, I don't think it meets criteria 1a and 2b. I'm not opposing, but I can't see myself supporting if it stays in its current form. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67, I'll attempt a restructure over the weekend, mostly maintaining the same or close wording. It might require a bit of clean-up afterwards, especially in regards to headings, etc. TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67, I've performed a restructure in my sandbox. It will need a little bit of clean-up, but can you have a look before I drop it in. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if this addresses your concerns about the structure. Please see User:TarnishedPath/sandbox. Pinging @Sabine's Sunbird and @Hawkeye7 as you have already reviewed the article and if I go ahead with dropping in the restructure it will be a significant departure from what you have offered support for. TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, see User:TarnishedPath/sandbox/Ben Roberts-Smith TarnishedPath^talk 09:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Ben Roberts-Smith owes Kerry Stokes $1.9m is a Rear Window column, which is an opinion column, so its not reliable. Steelkamp (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've replaced the source in the two places it was used. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Regulus (Turner)

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Regulus (Turner)/archive1

Nominator(s): Citrus🍋 23:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial painting by the English artist J. M. W. Turner, depicting the legendary tale of Marcus Atilius Regulus. It may be most well known for the account of its 1837 overpainting, during which Turner buried the center of the painting under a white sun in front of a viewing audience. Contemporaries, including Turner's supporter John Ruskin, derided Regulus, with Ruskin going as far as to say it should be "placed in a condemned cell, or chamber of humiliation". This culminated in an 1863 stabbing of the painting by a man upset with both the painting and its creator. While the controversy over its quality has diminished, modern scholars still debate the influences, location, and even perspective of the painting. Citrus🍋 23:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0, Jimfbleak, and RoySmith: courtesy pinging, thank you for working on the peer review :). Citrus🍋 00:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

I've already given this a once-over from a feedback request on the Wikimedia Discord server and was liking what I was seeing; I'd be happy to go through this again in more depth! Expect comments later next week (and feel free to ping if it's slipped my mind). —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Here come some comments! —TS

• overpainted twice, first → overpainted twice; first
  • I don't think a semicolon would be appropriate here, as the latter section does not function as an independent clause. I have split the sentience at an earlier point to maintain focus
• To what extent is the painting "owned" by Tate? The body doesn't use this phrasing or say anything about a purchase. Maybe it would be good to clarify the contextual meaning of "transferred" as well.
  • Trust me, the "ownership" status of National Gallery/Tate paintings is a rabbit hole there's absolutely no need to go down. Just say "now in". But "transferred" seems clear enough - is "moved" any better? Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
    • This might be a useful source to use on the "transfer", though the full story is rather more complicated. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "Transfered" as a single bullet point was the best I could find on the transfer of the painting in any source. Changed "owned" to "now in."
• In 1863 it was → In 1863, it was
  • Added
• The painting has suffered from flaking paint. → The painting has also suffered from flaking paint. (better flow?)
  • Added
• Another point of contention is if Regulus → Another point of contention is whether Regulus (twice more in that sentence)
  • Changed
• In footnote b, neither Beaumont nor Powell have been introduced yet. Similarly with footnote d further down.
  • Beaumont and Powell here are used to refer to the source, not the person. As it is not a critical commentary, I am unsure an introduction is needed.

    In that case, I might spring for a {{harv}} or {{harvnb}}, which are good for explanatory footnotes like these. —TS

    I think this might be redundant, given the footnotes linking to the same sources immediately after

• "One refrain heard ..." sounds a little off. It seems to weasel out of who actually said this, or who reported hearing it.
  • Clarified critics
• Latin seems like an excessive link.
  • Removed
• "Caccatum non est pictum" (It's shit; it's not painting!) → Caccatum non est pictum ('It's shit; it's not painting!'). ({{lang|la|Caccatum non est pictum}} ('It's shit; it's not painting!'). See also MOS:SINGLE)
  • Added
• "It is also possible Regulus was damaged in London in any number of ways ..." Indeed, and I think our readers can be trusted to come to that conclusion themselves, given how doubtfully the previous explanations are presented.
  • I think its good to still explicitly mention it, along with an example proposed by experts
• "a large tear in the upper left corner" feels repetitive with earlier in the paragraph. Maybe remove that detail the first time around so it doesn't feel redundant here.
  • Removed
• Similarly with "which covered most of the sky" and "containing mostly sky".
  • The first is "which covered much of the sky", not "which covered most of the sky". The sentences say two different, but related things, and I don't think either should be removed
• "possibly performed by William Redmore Bigg" would be clearer within dashes or parentheses.
  • Added em dashes
• stitched shut, and hidden → stitched shut and hidden
  • Removed comma
• unwanted paintings, particularly given → unwanted paintings, and given
  • Cut "particularly"
• "increased crowd" sounds unidiomatic. I suppose larger would be the natural choice, but you just used that, so maybe "more substantial audience"?
  • Changed
• Do the sources provide an explanation for why Turner used Regulus in the British Institution exhibition despite it being "unsuited for this goal"?
  • Explained in the subsequent sentience, "It is possible that he wanted to display the painting to demonstrate how the principles of Claude could be modernised."

    Right, and I didn't find that much of an explanation, which could be my lack of expertise talking. I (and the average reader) don't know what Claude's principles are; do they have anything to do with the small canvas size? If so, how can that be made clearer? —TS

    I see, would "Claude's artistic techniques" make more sense?

• "the only case which had both a written and visual description" Does case here refer to this varnishing day or the painting itself?
  • Clarified
• "extreme modifications" Word choice seems a tad... extreme. ;)
  • Changed to significant
• "National Portrait Gallery George Scharf" is becoming a sea of blue. I'd suggest "... described 45 years later in a letter to George Scharf, the director of the National Portrait Gallery." (keeping MOS:JOBTITLE in mind).
  • Changed
• The article goes back and forth on its use of false titles. I would pick one or the other, but since consistency on this is not required, it's not a big deal either way.
  • Should be free of false titles, every time I think I have removed them all I find one more.
• notes that at an angle, → notes that, at an angle,
  • Added
• The prose after "Analysis performed in 2012" seems out of place in § History considering we also have § Analysis.
  • § Analysis is used for critical analysis of the painting, this analysis was of a technical nature that is most useful in contrast to the historical information presented immediately before.
• I would move the two paintings of the varnishing day down to the paragraph that describes them.
  • This unfortunately would create an issue with pushing the engravings further down, far past where they are mentioned. While these paintings are described later, they also depict the event described higher up, and so I think the best option is to keep them where they are.
• 'Inaccessible gallery' should have double quotes per MOS:SINGLE. Also, capital I?
  • Doubled quoted. "Inaccessible gallery" is capialised like that in the source, I am unsure why.
• "until his death" The year of Turner's death may be relevant to mention.
  • Added
• "keeper of the National Gallery" Capital K, per MOS:JOBTITLE?
  • Capitalised
• 'Turner Room' MOS:SINGLE applies again, but are quotes even necessary here?
  • Cut quotes. Sources disagree on if "room" should be capitalised, I have gone with "Room"
• Maybe move footnote e to the end of the sentence so Bradshaw's full name can be mentioned first.
  • Moved
• Is it relevant that Stephenson was "poorly dressed"? It's mentioned later that he was homeless.
  • Removed
• "Turner room" is used here without quotes and a lowercase R.
  • Corrected
• I would get rid of the quotes around "he replied ..." so you don't need to nest them.
  • Removed
• January 18, 1864,
  • Changed

I'm a very amateur visual artist and by no means an art historian, so this was a really interesting look into the field. I've gone through to the end of § History — excellent reading so far! Please ping me when these are addressed and I'll keep going. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: I have responded to your points. I kept some things, though with reasonable justification. Thank you so much for your work on this :). Citrus🍋 19:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice work so far, CitrusHemlock! I'll finish my reading later this week, but I have some replies for you above in the meantime. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review from Usernameunique

• #39 — Suggest linking Tate and adding an archived URL. Also, this is a bit of an outlier in terms of not having a short cite; it contrasts with Conrad 2014, which doesn't need a short cite (the full cite could be in "References") but has one anyways. Any particular reasoning?
  • They're just different because they were added a few months apart. I have removed the unnecessary short cites.
• In the bibliography, most of the publishers could be linked (e.g., Yale University Press).
  • Added
• Per WP:ISBN, Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work. ... However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type. Here, many books are old enough that I would expect an ISBN-10 to be appropriate.
  • Added ISBN-10, used ISBN-13 for Gage as it was originally published without an ISBN.
• Hornblower, Spawforth, & Eidinow 2012 — Suggest "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
  • Done, same with the other work authored by three people.
• I've added links to the Internet Archive for a few of the books, and suspect that many (if not most) of the others could also be found there.
  • Added a few, there's an upload on IA of The Fall of Carthage but I do not think it was legally uploaded.
• Hellen 2014 — The British Art Journal can take a link.
  • Done
• Publishers and locations are missing for the three journals.
  • Are publishers and locations needed for journals? I haven't really seen that on other FAs and GAs.
• Conrad 2014 — The Guardian can be linked. Also, this article is on newspapers.com and you might clip it and add the URL here, but that's certainly not required. (I would clip it myself but my TWL subscription is up for renewal at the moment.)
• Cust 1895 — The Magazine of Art can take a link
  • Done
• Rosenberg 2017 — Ditto The New York Times.
  • Done
• Ditto The Spectator. Is there no volume/issue information for this?
  • Not really, it was a weekly magazine before bylines became standard, so there isn't really any further detail that can be obtained.
    • The full issue can be found here, and says it's issue #450. I would also add the page number to the long cite. (Given that it's a one-page article, it's not clear that you need both long and short cites, but up to you.) --Usernameunique (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I have removed the shortcite
• Townsend, Hellen, & Warrell 2017 is missing a page range for the chapters.
  • Added

Spot checks Numbers generated from a random-number generator:

• 3
• 4 — Checks out.
• 7 — Used three times and they check out. Note that this source quotes Turner as writing "Regulus returns", but the source from which it is taken (Powell 1987) quotes it as "Regulus return".
  • I am going to change the quote to the Powell version, I didn't notice the discrepancy while writing. Do you think it would be good to add a note including the Beaumont version? It seems like it could have been a simple typo or autocorrect issue that isn't worthy of mention in the article, but it is an otherwise reliable source.
    • It's probably a typo. It wouldn't be the worst thing to add a footnote saying that Beaumont, citing Powell, quotes it as "Regulus returns". I will sometimes take a similar approach (see, e.g., footnote 1 at Ann Dallas) to help anyone else who is confused. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• 8 — Checks out.
• 11 — Checks out.
• 13 — This generally checks out, with a caveat. Reading the footnote, it seems that he's making a case for why he believes the fragments of the poem are indeed from "The Southern Coast". The article, however, makes it seem a bit as if he's making a logical leap without the foundation for doing so.
  • That's a fair assessment. The note on the title is already somewhat of a tangent, and adding that more nuance may make it even more irrelevant. Would it be smart to remove it altogether?
• 23 — Checks out.
• 25
• 29 — Cited four times, and they generally look fine. Where on page 98, however, does it mention that the The engraving is marked with the year 1840?
  • Fully my fault, the 1840 date is visible on the engraving itself, and I felt that this fell under WP:ORMEDIA. Placing it before the Finely source made it seem like Finely was stating that, which he does not. I have removed The engraving is marked with the year 1840, let me know if you think it should be readded in a more clear form
• 31
• 32
• 44 — There's an em dash in the source that's omitted in the quotation.
  • Added

Overall

• The references look reliable and well formatted. Some nits are addressed above. My only substantive comment is to ask how comprehensive this survey of literature is intended to be? As a well-known nearly 200-year old painting by a well-known artist, I expect much more has been written about it. What is the thinking behind using this selection? --Usernameunique (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Usernameunique: Just a friendly note that criterion 2c only requires citation consistency and not any particular style. While most people, myself included, prefer to link works and publishers, it isn't required. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  TechnoSquirrel69, I don't believe anything in my review suggested that such issues were requirements. But just because something that might improve an article isn't required doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Great, we're on the same page, then. :) I more so wanted to make that clear for CitrusHemlock, who's new to FAC. Relatedly, will you be tackling the rouns of spot-checks required for first-time nominators? If not, I can try to get to it during my review next week. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good, TechnoSquirrel69, thanks for clarifying. And thanks for noting that this is a first-time nomination. I'd be happy to carry out the spot checks. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Most modern work on Turner merely repeat Gage's analysis of the work and move on, primarily using it as an example to illustrate a larger point. The sources I used are those that really focus on Regulus in its own right. Citrus🍋 02:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod

• I also participated in the peer review, and said I didn't think it was ready for FAC. I think some comments I made were acted on, but haven't checked. I will probably let this roll on for a bit before reviewing, but ENGVAR issues were one concern. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

MCE89

Some prose suggestions from me:

• It is owned by Tate Britain in London - The phrasing "owned... in London" sounds a little odd to me here, might "owned by the London gallery Tate Britain" or similar work better?

This has been changed about 4 times already. Tate Britain is a large museum rather than a "gallery", which suggests a commercial space. My own suggestion at the peer review was "is now in" as preferred by MOS:ART. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• It depicts a harbour scene - I'd replace the subject "It" with "The painting" here given that it's been a few sentences since you last mentioned the painting
  • Changed, removed the use of the "The painting" in the subsequent sentence
• Since then it has suffered from flaking paint - The wording "since then" reads somewhat as if the flaking paint is connected to the stabbing, whereas the body seems to imply that they're unrelated
  • Clarified
• It is unknown if the painting depicts Regulus leaving Carthage for Rome, or his subsequent journey back - Can I suggest rephrasing to something like Some believe that the painting depicts Regulus leaving Carthage for Rome, while others believe that it depicts his journey back? I think this would link more neatly with "debated" in the previous sentence
  • Rephrased
• It is also contested if Regulus is a figure - I find the phrasing "it is also contested if" a little awkward here as well, suggest rephrasing
  • Rephrased
• Evidence is drawn from... - I think the meaning here could be made more explicit, e.g. "Scholars have supported their interpretations using evidence drawn from..."
  • Added
• Is it worth adding a sentence or so about J. M. W. Turner in the "Background" section? I'd suggest at least adding "the English Romantic painter"
  • Adding "the English artist", I think that 'Romantic' pigeonholes him a bit. Aspects about Turner relevant to the painting, such as his interested in Roman history and poetry are described later in the section.
• The sentence beginning "Some historians add details..." is a little ambiguous - is the story about him being placed in a barrel of sharpened nails also being attributed to Tuditanus, or was that another historian?
  • Clarified and added to section
• Details in Turner's writings indicate some of his opinions of Regulus originated from... - I think you could simplify this sentence to something like Turner's writings indicate that he was influenced by... without losing much meaning
  • Rephrased differently, Turner's writings indicate that he was influenced by... implies that he directly read Horace, which is not stated by the original source. Also shifted to the end of the paragraph, as the main literary evidence used is the poem mentioned then.
• You could consider dropping the clause "indicating his interest in the figure", which I think largely goes without saying
  • Dropped
• damaged in London for any number of reasons - Suggest changing to damaged in London in any number of ways, such as by falling onto furniture
  • Rephrased
• You could considering dropping either "45 years later" or "in 1882", including both seems a little redundant to me
  • Dropped 'in 1882', the important part is the length of time between observation and telling
• I believe the MOS requires double quotes around "inaccessible gallery". You could also cut the single quotes around Turner Room later on
  • Clarified
• "had slightly different aspect ratio than the original painting" -> "had a slightly different aspect ratio to the original painting"
  • Corrected
• Suggest removing "regardless of profession", as I don't think it adds much and the tone sounds a little off to me
  • Removed, I believe I wrote that part when I was still pretty new to writing in an editorial voice
• This is nitpicky but there are a few MOS:LQ issues, e.g. the full stop after "Turner's Modern and Ancient Ports: Passages through Time" should be outside the quotation marks
  • Corrected, LQ just does not come naturally to me
• "Drawing significant critique" - Would "criticism" be more suited here? "Critique" can be positive/neutral, whereas I think you're saying here that it attracted specifically negative critique
  • Criticism works better, changed
• Suggest introducing The Turner Gallery, e.g. "...that had been published in the 1879 collection The Turner Gallery."
  • Introduced, thought this is the 1859 work, not the 1879 work.
• "before Regulus leaves to Rome" -> "before Regulus leaves for Rome"
  • Corrected
• The actual location of Regulus himself is also up to interpretation - Can I suggest The location of Regulus himself has been subject to multiple interpretations?
  • Changed
• Professor of English Literature Matthew Beaumont - I think "literary scholar Matthew Beaumont" or "scholar of English literature Matthew Beaumont" would be more common than giving his full title
  • Changed

Overall the article seems very well-written to me, and these are all pretty minor points. Just ping me when you've had a chance to look through these suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@MCE89: Should have addressed most of the issues. Sorry for responding so late, some personal stuff came up in my life. Citrus🍋 07:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me, happy to support. MCE89 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I commented on this at peer review, so returning for another look. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• What is the point of the red linked harbour scene? It’s unlikely that there will ever be a topic of that name especially as you later refer to and link seascape.

I suggested at PR the term was better, though I didn't suggest a redlink. It is in fact highly likely that this redlink for a very common genre in painting will turn green, perhaps soon. But the redlink here may not be needed. The painting is not really a seascape. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Johnbod: thanks for that. To clarify, I had no objection to the term, just the redlink, but not a big deal. Your reply does, though, raise the question as to whether the description as a seascape at the start of the Background section is correct Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's ok - I was being rather over-emphatic, as harbour scenes (like this, with open sea in view) are a sub-group of seascapes/maritime paintings. The latter of these is the better link, just on the quality of the destination article, as seascape isn't much use to anyone. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• after which it was transported back to England, where he lived— Is "back" necessary? It implies it had been there before.
  • Cut "back"
• with its technique and Turner himself— "Its" seems odd here, perhaps with both Turner’s technique and the artist himself.
  • Added
• An inch and a quarter— You give the picture dimensions as metric (imperial), but here we get only imperial. For consistency, you need the conversion, which rounds as 32 mm
  • used a convert template

• I have no further queries, and there seems little outstanding from the queries by @MCE89: above, so will support now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

I was one of the reviewers at the PR and looking at the article again, I see no issues with it. Therefore, I'm handing you my support. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review

This is a source review primarily, though prose/source comment to start things off: 5-6 redlinks in the article seems a little high; are they all needed. The 'harbor scene' redlink might also be addressed by looking at the article for Seascapes on Wikipedia.

Will you change to Seascapes? And do you need all of the redlinks at the bottom sections of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Deatails of review:

The article has just over 50 cites, most of which are to books which appear to all be properly sourced, with some other cites linking to galleries and online journals/newspapers, etc. The following should be looked at:

(1) TNYT is paywalled and should be marked as such. Possibly an archival copy exists somewhere or could be created for the article.

• Added paywall sign

(2) The Spectator is paywalled and should be marked as such.

• The Spectator archive is not paywalled

Spectator is paywalled as linked in the article for me; its required one pound payment. Can you link it to the 'archive' you mention, since the direct link is again paywalled? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The website is archive.spectator.co.uk. It may be a regional issue, I am based in the United States, and here there is no such paywall.

From a USA site, the Spectator is again paywalled for me with the message: "This archive is for subscription only". ErnestKrause (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

(3) The Guardian is paywalled and should be marked as such.

• @ErnestKrause: it isn't paywalled, never has been Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• The Guardian is not paywalled

As occupying a full half screen on my laptop, this Demi-paywall comes up blocking the normal view of the material (this to me would qualify as being a paywall-like obstruction of the article) here: "We are also free to read: instead of a paywall, our readers support us. Do you have 37 seconds to help? Even $5 makes a difference, but for the most impact (and to limit these annoying pop-ups!) please consider a monthly gift. Thank you for protecting the free press." ErnestKrause (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

(4) The Tate gallery link is coming up on my screen as being compromised. Link should be authenticated since it does not link to the Tate on my screen and internet connection.

• Do you mean ref 40? Looks Ok to me, perhaps a temporary blip? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Safari gives an unregistered website warning and does not allow the link. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Tate link uses https and has worked for others, might be an issue on your end

Tate looks ok now. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Waiting for response on these issues. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• @ErnestKrause: I have responded to your current issues.Citrus🍋 07:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Seascapes link does not work for you in the lede redlink for yur 'harbours' redlink? I'm counting 8 other redlinks in the articles which seems a little high? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I cut references to the type of painting due to the amount of disagreement that has been had. I believe that all of the redlinks are justified, notable people, paintings, and works that do not yet have pages. If you have an issue with one of them, please point it out. Citrus🍋 02:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm only signed up for a second source review and I'm going to sign up for this article. The paywall for the Spectator is still there, and the Demi-paywall for the Guardian is documented above. I'm also not sure why seascapes doesn't work for you instead of 'harbour' on the prose links though I'll leave that up to you. Wikipedia needs more Turner articles and I'm now giving a Support here on this Sources review. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I gave this a quick look at PR and was happy with what I saw there. Coming back for another look. RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• measuring 89.5 by 123.8 centimetres (35.2 by 48.7 in). I'd be inclined to leave off the fractions. The slight loss of precision is worth it to improve the readability.
  • I would disagree. Most of the FA painting articles which choose to include the painting's size in the body, such as The Goldfinch and Freedom from Want, choose to include the exact size. I do not thing prefacing the size with 'about' and removing the decimals would be better for the reader.

• I did a little bold copyediting on Background.

• Regulus was tortured by having his eyelids removed or sewn open before ... Quintus Aelius Tubero said his eyelids were sewn open. Try to avoid the repetition of the sewing open. Perhaps just omit the first mention?
  • I chose to remove the second, just two examples of details added by historians seems enough.

• they arrived three months after it opened, on 20 July Did the paintings arrive on 20 July, or was that when the exhibition opened?
  • Clarified

• While Turner was known for often making significant late modifications to his paintings, the overpainting of Regulus is the only which had both a written and visual description. Something's wrong with this sentence. The only what? And why does it jump from modifying paintings to describing them. Did something get lost here?
  • Seems like "case" got hacked off during the many edits to that sentience. I have readded it, which should provide clarity.

• The English artist John Gilbert observed the event More confusion here. What event are you referring to? The modification of the painting, or the varnishing day described in the previous paragraph?
  • Clarified

• Two other surviving depictions of the event exist in paintings created during the varnishing day So, I guess the event you're talking about is the varnishing day, but it still needs more clarity. Maybe a new subsection devoted to the varnishing day, containing the several paragraphs about it?
  • Given that the paragraphs discussing varnishing day are between two unrelated paragraphs, I think a separate section would be confusing. I have added a sentence better connecting them, which I believe is sufficient.

• On 19 February, Charles Buttery was hired to repair the painting I'm confused. You just said George Morrill had repaired the painting, so why was Buttery also involved?
  • Morril relined the painting, which is explained earlier in the article as the addition of new fabric to the back. Buttery, as described in the source, performed subsequent "repairs". The only repair explicitly stated in the source was repainting, though it is likely he revarnished it as well. I am unsure if it would be useful to the reader to say, for example, "repairs, such as repainting".

That's it for me.

CitrusHemlock ping to make sure you've seen this. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

History of cricket to 1725

Nominator(s): Jack (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the origins and early history of cricket, which is now a global sport. The article was written in the mid-2000s, and was promoted to WP:GA in 2008. It has been maintained and improved ever since then, with relatively few instances of vandalism or other types of interference. The vast majority of sources are books, many of which are not easily obtainable, but I can guarantee that every book referenced has the full approval of cricket historical circles, including The Cricket Society and The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians.

A good many cricket articles have already been promoted to FA, but this one is in effect the beginning of our cricket coverage, and it would be appropriate for it to reach FA standard too. I am sure that the article is, shall we say, "good on the whole", but nothing is ever perfect, and I hope we can work together to bridge the gap between GA and FA. I might add that I am not looking for glittering prizes, only for the article to be the very best it can potentially be. Thanks, Jack (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Review request

Pinging Mike Christie, ChrisTheDude, MSincccc, Tim riley, Michael Aurel, Dumelow, and Noleander. I see that you have reviewed previous cricket articles at FAC, and I wonder if you might be interested in this one which covers the sport's early history. I would be happy to return the favour, if you can help, by reviewing any FA/PR/GA candidate you have. Whether you can help or not, thank you for reading this request, and all the very best. Jack (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Charles_Lennox,_2nd_Duke_of_Richmond,_by_circle_of_Jean_Marc_Nattier.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Book_of_Sports.jpg

• File:1stEarlOfYarmouth.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the px size. I think BorgQueen has resolved it.

I've tagged the three images with {{PD-art-100-expired}}. Please check if they're okay now. Thanks, Jack (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The last of these still has a dead source link; when and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll replace it with File:Richmond Green - geograph.org.uk - 2888554.jpg, which is probably more relevant. Back in a minute. Jack (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, I've done that, and removed all the px values. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

AA

Placeholder, I'll review over the next few days. AA (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• I'd remove the reference in the lead and move it down into the "Origins of cricket as a children's game" section, as this will repeat what the lead summarises. Done.
• "All that can be said with a fair degree of certainty..." I'd reword this to say: "All that is known with a fair degree of certainty..." Done.
• I'd have a semicolon after 1611, to join two relatively short sentences to improve flow. Done.
• "...offered for gambling and this escalated...", comma after "and". Done.
• Comma after "vociferous crowds", I think. Done.

Origins of cricket as a children's game

• I wonder of this section might be better being renamed: "Origins and etymology"? This encompasses both its origins, and subsequent discussion about the origin of the name. Much better; done.
• "In Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755), he derived cricket from "cryce, Saxon, a stick"." The latter part of this sentence reads a little awkwardly, I wonder if "...he derived cricket from "cryce, a Saxon word for a stick". This flows a little more naturally, I think. Agreed; done.
• Comma after "Surrey", in the sentence beginning "Their consensus view...". Done.
• Comma after "baseball". Done.

"Creag"

• Nothing to add here

Earliest definite references

• I'd lose the "anywhere" in the brackets, to avoid quick repetition. Done.

The development of village cricket 1610–1660

Beginning of adult participation

• I'd be inclined to delink " Chevening" here, as while this links to the Kent village, the earlier link leads to Chevening House. By the looks of the sentence in this section, it is referencing that 1610 match played at the house, so I don't think the link to village is necessary. Done. Could have been confusing.
• "...and the earliest known organised match in Kent, in England, and in the world." I wonder if "in England" is needed, as by saying it is the earliest known organised match in Kent, implies that by extension, it is the earliest in England too. Done.

Fatalities

• "The tragedy was repeated..." Don't doubt this was a tragedy, but I wonder if this is bordering on opinion? Perhaps rewording along the lines of: "A further fatality under identical circumstances occurred in 1647 at Selsey, now in West Sussex, when a player called Henry Brand was hit on the head by a batsman trying to hit the ball a second time."? Yes, it was a bit subjective. Changed to your wording.
• Might this subsection be better placed after the "Breaking the Sabbath" section? Just thinking along the lines of the first dates in both sections? 1624 jumps back t0 1611 in the opening of the next part. You're right, it breaks the chronology in the section openers. Moved as suggested.

Breaking the Sabbath

• "The first definite mention of cricket in Sussex was in 1611, and relates to ecclesiastical court records..." This is the same as the opening sentence in the "Beginning of adult participation" subsection, so I'd be inclined to mix it up a little! Perhaps: "Cricket was first definitively mentioned in Sussex in 1611, relating to ecclesiastical court records...". Ha! I never would have noticed that. Changed the Sussex one.
• I'd try and join the following short sentence to the former: "...that were permitted on Sundays. Cricket is not mentioned." Maybe by means of a semicolon, but reworded to "...on Sundays; cricket was not amongst them". Done.
• As Jasper Vinall and Henry Brand have been introduced, I think it is okay to referrer to them as "Vinall and Brand". Sections have been swapped, so they first appeared here now. I've taken their names out, and added a section link instead. Please check if that's okay.

• Looks alright to me :) AA (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• "It did him no good..." could this be more formal? Perhaps: "His defence was dismissed and...", or along those lines? Done.
• Could Cromwell be re-introduced here as the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, to give the reader his status in the Commonwealth and why his playing it as a child might lend credence for its (or his) approval of it. I notice this is done in the following section, but would be better introduced earlier, I think. Yes, good point. Changes made, but please see what you think.

• Problem solved! AA (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The beginning of amateur cricket

• I think this section detracts enough from the village cricket narrative to become its own level 2 heading. Done. There is something of a sea change at that point.
• Comma after "gentry". Done.

"...and all the then players became nominally professional." I wonder if this might be more succinctly put, and read more naturally, as: "...and all players became nominally professional thereafter."? Better. Done.

• After "extracurricular activity", the following sentence could be connected with a semicolon with "the" being dropped. Done.
• Derek Birley is named above, herein he can be referred to as "Birley". Done.
• Comma after "1728". Done.

Development of important cricket 1660–1700

• Comma after "1662". Done.
• With the em dashes, I wonder as the subject matter is British, whether a gap between the words and so the use of en dashes might be better to adhere to UK English style. This is completely up to you, it is more of a stylistic choice – so no biggie if you stay with em dashes!

Actually, the emdash is one Americanism I prefer, but you're right that this an English article, and we do use the endash, so I've swapped them throughout. I counted eight in all.

• "...in which he mentioned that their son had taken part in 'a game of criquett (sic) on Richmond Green' which is the first reference to cricket at Richmond Green. I'd link Richmond Green in the quote, and then change the second mention to "...the first reference of cricket there" followed by "with it being a popular...". Done. Much better.
• I'd change the mention to Rowland Bowen here to "Bowen", and introduce him above in the section that briefly mentions cricket in Ireland, as "the cricket historian/writer Richard Bowen". Done.
• Refer to Harry Altham as "Altham" and delink as he is linked above. Done.
• Introduce John Major here, as you did in History of English cricket (1726–1750), and hereon refer to him as "Major". Done.
• Refer to Derek Birley as "Birley". Done.
• "£3 being paid to him when he went to a cricket match..." → "£3 being paid to him when he attended a cricket match...", slightly more succinct! Done.
• After "Mitcham Cricket Green", connect the next short sentence to his with a semicolon. Done.
• "Re" sits a little uneasy in this sentence: "This venue was first mentioned re cricket on Friday...", perhaps reword to something like: "Cricket was first mentioned at thie venue on Friday...". Done.
• Also quite a lot of "cricket" in this short paragraph, largely unavoidable. Yes, several instances. I decided to rework the whole, so could you please check:

The London club was to become chiefly associated with the Artillery Ground in Finsbury. Cricket was first mentioned at this venue on Friday, 7 May 1725, when the minutes of the Honourable Artillery Company refer to it being played there, in a note concerning 'the abuse done to the herbage of the ground by the cricket players'. The Artillery Ground became the feature venue for matches in the mid-18th century.

Looks alright to me! 21:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• I wonder if "cricket" could be swapped out for "the sport" after "...referred to its being used..."? Done.
• Introduce G. B. Buckley as "the cricket historian..." Done.
• Delink "Licensing of the Press Act 1662", as this is linked above. Done.
• Delink Surrey, as linked above... I might have missed a couple of other incidences of Surrey (the county article) being linked more than once. As soon as I started looking for Surrey, I noticed several more olinks. So, I've run a full routine to identify them all, and I think I've got them, though the odd one or two might have slipped through the net in an article this big.

Rules and equipment of early cricket

• Delink "cricketers" and link the first mention of cricket in "Origins and etymology". Done.
• Link "pads". I've also linked protective equipment, gloves, and gloves.
• Delink "Artillery Ground". Done.
• Comma after "1760s". Done.
• I'd be inclined to link "cudgel" to Club (weapon), as it's quite a niche term (must admit, I'd never heard of it). It's a very archaic term, but it seems to have been in common use through the 18th and 19th centuries. I suppose we would just say 'club' now.
• "(i.e., with a flat surface at the bottom of the stick in ice hockey style)", this this might flow better as: " (i.e., with a flat surface at the bottom in the style of a stick in ice hockey)". Done, except I found Ice hockey stick, so I've used that.
• I think the following two short sentences can be combined, and slightly reworded: "The term 'bat' remained comparatively rare until about 1720. The terms in more general use were 'staff', 'stave' or 'stick'." → "The term 'bat' remained comparatively rare until about 1720, with the terms 'staff', 'stave' or 'stick' being more prevalent".. Done. Much better.
• Link "Gloucester". Done.
• Delink "cricket ball", as this is linked earlier in the section... hmm... this could probably be delinked there too, with "cricket ball" being linked in the 'a kind of game with a ball' quote in the "Beginning of adult participation" section. Done.
• Comma after "invited", I think? Done. Could be a colon instead, I reckon, but a comma is fine.
• "John Derrick" can be referred to as "Derrick". Done.
• Comma after 'nowadays'. Done.
• "It is also the first mention of cricket in the county of Middlesex". This seems a bit "out the blue" at the end of the paragraph. Could Middlesex be mentioned earlier, perhaps around "1680"... "...dates from a match in Middlesex in 1680... and then attach to the sentence with a semi-colon "; this constitutes the first mention of cricket in the county". Agreed, and done.
• "was in vogue" could be simplified to "Although single wicket was popular during this period...". Done.
• I'd omit "so it is out of scope in this article". Done.
• The final paragraph, I'd merge with the "The earliest known mention of the umpire dates from 1680..." paragraph. Yes, they belong together.

English cricket in the early 18th century

Patrons

• Connect the sentence following "Arundel men'" with a semicolon. Done.
• I wonder if "Arundel was a prominent centre of cricket in the 18th century" could be put in brackets? Like: "The venue was probably either Goodwood, where Richmond had his estate, or Arundel (which was a prominent centre of cricket in the 18th century), possibly on Bury Hill, which was used for cricket in later years." Also needs a comma after Bury Hill, which I have put into my suggestion. Good suggestion to keep the Arundel pieces together. Done.
• "...main benefactor, and became a famous patron of Sussex cricket for the next thirty years. → "...main benefactor, becoming a famous patron of Sussex cricket for the next thirty years.". Done.
• "...(sic) year'. He went on to wish the Duke... slight rewording: "...(sic) year', going on to wish the Duke...". Done.
• After "played at Bury Hill", I'd remove "Arundel", as it has already been established that Bury Hill is near there, and the same after "Berry Hill" in brackets. Done.
• Amazing large crowd watched the match at Berry Hill, I hike there regularly, and is very hilly and remote from Arundel.

That's interesting. I just double-checked the source, and it does say 'a vast concourse'. I often find, though, considerable hyperbole in 18th century reports. For example, the same report says the two teams were 'the finest and best that ever was seen to Play', and you see similar comments time and time again. If I were to use those words, I'd be describing 1980s West Indies when they had Malcolm Marshall, Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Jeff Dujon, etc.

Bury Hill must be in the South Downs, I presume? We lived in Kent in the 1980s, and we went to the Downs a few times for walking and scenery. It wasn't a national park then.

It's right in the downs! 3 miles from Arundel, but up a very steep hill with stunning views over the Arun River valley, toward Amberley quarry (which you might recognise from A View to a Kill). Lovely part of the world, good pubs and Roman stuff. AA (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The terms of the wager

• Comma after "and the game". Done.
• Comma after "four wickets standing". Done.
• "Another court case followed. It is known that Lord Chief Justice Pratt presided over the case and ordered them, as in the London versus Rochester match in 1718, to play it out so that all wagers could be fulfilled." Could this short sentence be merged? "Another court case followed, presided over by Lord Chief Justice Pratt, who ordered them, as in the London versus Rochester match in 1718, to play it out so that all wagers could be fulfilled." Something like that? Done. Used your wording, which is fine.

Matches of the early 18th century

• Comma after 'Maulden'. Done.
• "On Thursday, 26 June 1707, there was a London versus Mitcham match at Lamb's Conduit Field, Holborn. The result is unknown." I'd merge the short sentence at the end, something like this: "On Thursday, 26 June 1707, there was a London versus Mitcham match at Lamb's Conduit Field in Holborn, with The result unknown.". Done. Inserted a semi-colon.
• I think the sentence that follows needs to be split, I reckon a semicolon after "London Cricket Club" might do. Done.
• After "played London twice", I think a colon would fit nicely in there. Done.
• "...drawn from local residents." → semicolon after residents, to connect the interconnected following sentence. Done.
• I'm not sure "...who was the first modern researcher..." adds much to the article, I'd suggest putting that into Waghorn's article. Done. That was just a comment, really, which wasn't needed.
• I'd remove the DOB/DOD of Bedle. Done.
• "He was 'reckoned to be the most expert player in England'" is it possible to attribute this quote to a named source? Yes, it was Buckley, page 48, although Bowen later did half a chapter on Bedle's place in history.
• "His son Will played for 'our parish'..." → commas before and after "Will". Done.

Dartford versus London

• "...Conduit Fields, and Kent won." → "...Conduit Fields, with Kent victorious." Done.
• "...On Saturday, 9 July 1720, London versus Kent at White Conduit Fields was won by London." I wonder if this could be worded more succinctly, perhaps: "...On Saturday, 9 July 1720, London defeated Kent at White Conduit Fields."? Done.
• The sentence that follows could also be connected to this, following Fields: ...Fields, with the match marred by two London players being badly injured following a clash of heads". Done.
• I'd remove "(a)" and "(b)". Done.
• South Sea Bubble is linked twice. Done.
• The sentence with the second linked "South Sea Bubble" is sort of a longer version of this sentence: "the South Sea Bubble which ruined many investors, and so could have reduced cricket patronage." I wonder if this is repeating what has been put in this sentence, or whether parts of the latter sentence can be merged into the former? Personally, I'd only look to merge "South Sea Company was found to be insolvent" into the former. Done.
• Comma after "1712". Done.
• "...White Conduit Fields. The match was abandoned following a dispute. I'd merge the short sentence, something like: "...White Conduit Fields, with the match being abandoned following a dispute." Done.
• "Teams styled 'London' were already in existence, as above, but this is the first actual reference to a 'London Club'." I'd suggest moving this info to the part that reads "there was an actual reference to a London Club in 1722", in the "Development of important cricket: 1660–1700" section, to avoid repeating info and for succinction purposes! Done. I think all that was needed was to delete the sentence here, and add Maun as an extra source to the earlier bit.

Other matches in the 1720s

• "...unknown venue, and Kingston won." → "...unknown venue, with Kingston victorious.". Done.
• "...unknown date in 1723. The result is unknown." → "...unknown date in 1723, the result unknown." Done.
• "Mr Dawson" → just "Dawson". Done.
• Comma after "Islington". Done.

The growth of cricket in England and overseas

• "It so happens that...", I'd drop omit this and begin the sentence with "These". Done.
• The following short paragraph is with in the context of North America and can be merged to the first. Done.
• Link New World. Done.
• Ditto, the 1721 paragraph can also be merged, as it is in the remit of the first. Done.
• Comma after "years". Done.
• "The rest were among, but were not all of, the Home Counties." I think this can be said more succinctly: "The rest were some of the Home Counties." Done.
• I'd probably omit the list as it repeats what is in the previous sections.

I had some doubts myself about this list, and I agree with you that it is unnecessary. I've retained all the citations, however, merging a couple of them; and I've added Oxfordshire to the Oxford University origin in the earlier section.

• I see that West Indies is mentioned in the lead, but not discussed here, I'd add that into this section to keep it in the lead. Removed it from the lead, because there is no definite mention of cricket there until after 1725.

Known organised matches (c.1610 to 1725) + Earliest known participants (1598 to 1725)

• Change "vogue" to popular. Done.
• Some styling notes: I'd capitalise the titles within the tables, and might change source to "Ref", though no biggie on the latter. Done.
• Some sections of the table are white and others are grey, with no explanation as to why. Is this simply a styling error?

It's a default, not an error. The first is a basic "wikitable" class with minimal style parameters. The second is a "wikitable plainrowheaders" which uses the rowspan function. PRH highlights the 'key' column (year, in this case), while rowspan highlights the content that is common to its span. This is standard for that functionality. I can provide an explanation note if you like, but there may be a problem if FAC requires tables to be a particular class, and I don't know about that.

It's very odd. It seems where there is more than one person mentioned, it goes to grey. Ideally, it needs to be all one colour. AA (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Just reading some of the notes in both tables, and they largely repeat what is in the body. A couple of options here: omit the notes completely (particularly in the second), or whittle them down.

Agreed. I recall that both of these tables had separate existences originally, and were added to this article sometime after they had been developed. The notes, as such, were largely drawn from this article, so they are indeed largely repetitive. I've removed both sets of notes, and the tables are now limited to straight facts, which is better.

Much better now, more concise and provides a good summary. AA (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• I wonder how organised the 1721 fixture was, sounds more like an ad hoc match, rather than something strictly organised. Possibly the same with the 1717 match as well.

I agree. I've removed 'organised' throughout, as it is inappropriate given its modern context. Most matches at this time must have been ad hoc to a large extent. So, the title of this section is now 'Known matches'.

• I see that the two London fielders were injured with a clash of heads chasing the ball. I'd mention this in the body of text that discusses this. Done.
• The 1702 Arundel result in the table (unknown), contradicts the result in the prose (D of R XI victory)

The result is actually unknown. It has been surmised that Lennox bought the brandy to celebrate, but he might have wanted to drown his sorrows..... I've changed the narrative to make no comment on a result.

• Earliest references to cricket in English and Welsh counties in the "See also" could be linked here, Template:For or similar could be used above the first table. Done.
• I think a date/venue and date/name sortable tables would be useful, though a little time consuming to make :(

Would First known use of English cricket venues (1610–1825) be what you have in mind for date/venue?

@BlackJack: something like that! AA (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Notes

• see First-class cricket → see: First-class cricket. Done.
• For "crack", Wikitionary can be used: wikt:crack (Noun, 11). Added.

References

• Metalicat has identified some of the issues I spotted. Okay, I've noticed an overlap.
• Source titles should be consistent so that all the words are capitalised, except for prepositions and conjunctions. Could you give me an example, please, maybe using John Lichfield (ref. no. 7), to make sure there's no confusion. Thanks.

@BlackJack: sure! French hamlet claims to be site of the first recorded cricket match → French Hamlet Claims to be Site of the First Recorded Cricket Match AA (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, AA. I'll go through them all. The vast majority of citations are sfn, so there aren't many to do.

Done, except for #65, which is controlled by Template:Formatprice.

Image captions

• The Royal Grammar School in Guildford where John Derrick was a pupil when he and his friends played creckett c. 1550. Comma after Guildford. Might be worth adding (pictured in 2007) as well. Done.
• The Oliver Cromwell caption, attribute it to Robert Walker (painter) and give the year of the work (1649). Done.
• MTC

Will crack on tomorrow with some more. AA (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, AA. This has all been very useful. Jack (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

MTC! And you're welcome Jack, getting there :D AA (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for addressing the points rasied Jack. There is just the odd colour difference in the table, but I'm sure that can be addressed in time (tbh, it's stumped me!). AA (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, AA, for a really thorough review. Your findings and suggestions have certainly improved the article enormously. I'm puzzled by that table colour thing myself, I must admit. I'm going to look at other formats, and see if one of them will do the job. Anyway, thanks again, and all the best, Jack (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, AA. Forgot to mention that 'scope row' caused the colour problem, easily fixed, and I converted the people table to sortable. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

• Scope: I have done a non-specialist pass on lead and body alignment, internal consistency, the tables and citation mechanics.

• Opening date: I think the first sentence has an internal calendar problem. In English Old Style dating, 17 January 1597 falls in the year we now call 1598. On the Julian calendar, 17 January 1598 was a Tuesday, not a Monday. Monday fits literal Julian 17 January 1597, which contemporaries using the Lady Day year would have called 17 January 1596. Which date does Bowen p. 261 actually give? The same wording appears again in "Earliest definite references".

Bowen says: '17 January 1597 Old Style which is 1598 New Style'.

According to this calendar, 17 January 1597 was a Monday in the Julian calendar. Of course, this uses the January to December year. I think you're right about the contemporary date as 17 January 1596 (pre-Lady Day). Other sources are vague about the date, except Altham and Underdown who both say 1598.

As agreed in the end discussion, both mentions of Monday have been removed. Thanks for your help with this.

• Lead and body:
  • English colonists had introduced cricket to North America and the West Indies: the body covers Virginia, but I could not find the West Indies below the lead.

    In fact, the earliest definite reference to cricket in the West Indies is after 1725, so I've taken that out of the lead.

  • The explanation that cricket can only be played on relatively short grass, followed by the forest-clearings and sheep-grazing material, appears only in the lead. Recommend moving it into "Origins and etymology" with its supporting citation.

    I hadn't noticed that it wasn't in the narrative. As it happens, it fits perfectly into the piece about bat-and-ball sport evolution, so I've moved it there. Same sources as for the existing piece.

  • The lead has the sailors and traders of the East India Company; the body mentions only sailors.

    It does. I've removed 'traders'. All sources refer to sailors only.

  • fewer than thirty historically important eleven-a-side matches: the table includes a ten-a-side series and a two-against-four odds match, while the body identifies the 1697 Sussex game as the earliest recorded eleven-a-side match. What is the basis for "eleven-a-side" in the lead's count?

    I've removed 'eleven-a-side', which was something of an assumption.

  • Two meanings of "historically important" seem to be in use. The lead says village matches are important simply because they are known, but note 2 says the term means of the highest standard. I suggest distinguishing historical significance from playing status.

    Very good point. I've taken a chunk out of paragraph 2 so that the focus is on known matches, without mention of importance or organisation. The ACS guide concerns matches in the 18th century, so it applies to the latter part of this article, but it's best left out, all things considered.

• Internal consistency:
  • The 1702 prose says Richmond's XI defeated an Arundel XI; the matches table gives the result as unknown. Which does McCann p. 1 support?

    It is actually unknown, so I've taken out the bit about celebration.

  • The Winchester reference is hedged in the prose as a probable reference ... if so, but the county summary states Hampshire – 1647, at Winchester College without qualification.

    You're right, but the county summary has been removed, as suggested by AA above, because of repetition.

  • The prose says Maulden almost certainly refers to Town Malling; the table says it was possibly Maidstone or, more likely, Town Malling. These should use the same level of confidence.

    Done.

  • Paston's letter is quoted as a game of criquett in the prose and a 'cricketting' in the participants table. The two passages use different sources. Which wording appears in the letter?

    He wrote about his son playing 'a game of criquett'. I'm sure 'cricketting' is a term used elsewhere, and might be in another article, so it was put in here by mistake.

  • Marchant called the side 'our parish' often in the prose but invariably in the table.

    Again, you're right, but the table notes have gone too. 'Often' is definitely the correct option.

• Tables:
  • Both tables repeat long passages from the prose, and several of the inconsistencies above occur in the repeated material. I suggest reducing the notes to information not already given in the body.

    This is the same point made by AA. All notes have been removed. The tables formerly had separate existences, and this article was used to populate their notes, so they should have been dealt with when integration took place.

  • The organised-matches table includes the 1721 Cambay entry, which the prose describes as sailors amusing themselves, and the 1717 entry records Marchant's first diary mention rather than an identifiable fixture. Do these belong under "Known organised matches"?

    They didn't, so I removed all mention of 'organisation'. Nearly all early matches were ad hoc to a large extent. This is an extension of your fifth point under 'Lead and body'.

  • Its introduction still says single wicket was in vogue at the time, although the same sentence was changed to "popular" in the rules section.

    Changed earlier per AA.

  • The participants introduction says each year is when the person's name first appears in surviving sources. Bedle is placed under 1709 because he could have taken part in that match, but the evidence cited in his row is a 1768 obituary. Is there a surviving source that names him in 1709?

    No. I've reworked the paragraph about early players to remove 1709, and I've taken Bedle out of the table. I think I've seen a book which suggested he must have played in the 1709 match, but it was a long time ago, and it doesn't seem to be a book I have now. So, best to leave him out unless a source is found.

  • Does McCann p. 4 connect Gage and Richmond with Slindon by 1725? Their shared location cell gives Slindon and Sussex, although the same row says this was their earliest cricketing mention.

    No, they were both Sussex at this time, although they also ran their own XIs. I've removed Slindon.

• Attribution and sourcing:
  • All acknowledged subject experts and authorities agree and dismissed or ignored by authorities are broader than the attribution supplied. Recommend naming the historians whose views the cited pages establish and identifying who dismissed each alternative theory.

    I've rewritten those parts of 'Origins and etymology' as the 'authorities' statements are too broad. Instead, I've focused on specific references, rather than what can be called 'general views'. A case in point is David Underdown's dismissal of speculation and going straight to the Guildford court case.

  • The "Creag" section says it is possibly an early spelling of the word craic, but its note appears to establish only a sense of "crack". Does a source explicitly connect the wardrobe-account word to crack or craic? Otherwise this looks like an editorial inference.

    The source for 'creag = craic' is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (ACS), but it is conjecture as it cannot be proved. I don't think their view has ever been published in any formal sense, and none of the other main writers have done more than mention 'creag' as it was written in 1300. John Major states categorically that it was not cricket, but he is unable to offer an explanation for what it might have been, which is fair enough. I think the best thing to do is remove the references to 'craic' and 'crack'. Done.

• Citation mechanics:
  • Kingston versus Richmond is cited to Maun p. 28 in the prose and p. 23 in the table.

    23 is the correct page. Well spotted.

  • Penshurst is cited to McCann p. 4 in the prose and p. 18 in the table.

    Ha! A problem with McCann is that he numbers paragraphs as well as pages. This one is paragraph 18 on page 4.

  • The Gage letter is cited to McCann p. 19 in the prose and p. 4 in the participants table.

    Ditto.

  • The Martineau book citation has no page number.

    I know someone who has that book. Have sent them a text to ask.

    My friend doesn't have that book any more. I thought perhaps David Terry would help, and he does, but he doesn't mention ice hockey. Martineau might have done. Amended sentence with Terry as the source.

  • The St Paul's School claim uses a full Wisden citation in the prose and an sfn to the same work in the table. I suggest using the bibliography entry consistently.

    Done.

• Mechanical points:
  • dates from dates from in the umpire paragraph.

    Done.

  • just south of hite Conduit Fields in the White Conduit House caption.

    Done.

  • the game, while incomplete was the subject needs its closing comma: the game, while incomplete, was the subject.

    Done.

  • The participants table gives Aleppo as then in Turkey; the body uses the historically appropriate Ottoman Empire.

    Yes, that was done earlier. Used Ottoman Empire in both.

The article has a clear chronological basis, and the court records, diaries and correspondence make the surviving evidence easy to follow. Most of my comments concern duplication and consistency rather than the underlying account. Happy to revisit as these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Metalicat. There is some overlap with AA above, so I've already addressed a few points. I'll work through the rest, and let you know when I've done. All the best, Jack (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Metalicat. I think I've covered everything except the date of origin, which we need to think about. I'm inclined to just say January 1958 (NS), but I'd like your further comments first. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. On the date, I'd go with 1598, following Bowen's own gloss and Altham and Underdown. The one element that cannot be reconciled is the weekday: Monday fits Julian 17 January 1597 in modern reckoning, but Bowen's '1597 Old Style which is 1598 New Style' places the Julian date at 17 January 1598, which was a Tuesday. Unless a source actually gives the weekday, I'd simply delete 'Monday' from the first sentence and from 'Earliest definite references'. Everything else then holds together, since 17 January 1597 (Old Style) does equate to 27 January 1598 in the Gregorian calendar. Your 'January 1598 (NS)' would work equally well, though I'd keep the day of the month as Bowen supplies it. (I'll assume 1958 was a slip of the finger rather than a bold revision to the chronology!)

I just removed the two Mondays. I think it would be a very long article if it went all the way to 1958, ha! Jack (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A few small things from a final read-through:

• The 1702 prose still says Richmond's XI defeated an Arundel XI, while the table gives the result as unknown.

Didn't notice that when I removed the celebration bit. Done.

• The same paragraph now says Arundel was a prominent centre of cricket in the 18th century twice, once in brackets and once as a standalone sentence.

It's amazing how things like that can go unseen. Done.

• In the matches table, the 15 July 1725 row still cites McCann p. 19 where the prose has p. 4. Is this the paragraph-versus-page issue again?

It is. I should have checked this table when I corrected the participants one yesterday. Done.

I've just noticed that the index of this book uses paragraph numbers, not page numbers. So, a reader looks in the index, notes the number, goes to the entry, and then uses the number on the note as the page number......

• In the participants table, the 1628 row cites McCann p. xxxiii, but the East Lavant prose cites pp. xxxiv–xxxvii; and the 1647 row cites p. xxxiv, where the prose has p. xxxix for Selsey. Which pages carry those cases?

All things considered, I've decided to check every citation of McCann. Will be back later.

I've examined every McCann citation, and made a number of changes. Could you please take another look, to make sure I haven't missed anything? Thanks.

• Two very minor ones: the non-renewal of the Licensing Act is explained twice in 'Development of important cricket', once before the 1697 report and again after it; and the Bedle sentence carries the same Buckley p. 48 citation twice.

I've trimmed one of the press pieces, and removed one of the Buckley citations.

Once the date wording and these last few are settled, I'll be glad to add my support. Metalicat (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Metalicat. I think I've covered everything now, but please let me know of anything else that needs attention. Thanks again, and all the best. Jack (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. I've taken another pass through the current version, including the McCann citations in the prose and both tables. The substantive points from my review are resolved, and the page references I queried now line up.

Support. Thanks for working through the review so carefully. Metalicat (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Metalicat, for a thorough review which has been a great help to me in improving the article. All the best, Jack (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Llewee

• "Origins and etymology"
  • "southern counties like Berkshire, Essex, Hampshire, and Middlesex" - I would suggest specifying "southern English counties" as the country we are talking about should be introduced in the article's body.

    Done.

  • "As early as about 1610, a cricket match was played at Chevening, in Kent, between teams representing the Downs and the Weald." - I am not sure about this jumping back and forth in time. Shouldn't this be in the earliest definite references or village cricket development section?

    Duplication, really. I've merged it into the village cricket sentence, keeping the link and source.

  • "A number of words in common use at the time are thought to be possible sources for cricket's name" - The time period being discussed should be specified. Also, the various French and Dutch words mentioned here were presumably widely used in England.--Llewee (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

    Actually, the source does say 16th century, so I've put that instead of 'at the time'. There had been an influx of people from Flanders especially, escaping religious persecution, so much of their language had been converted to English.

  • "Cricket was probably devised by children... " - The paragraph doesn't really give any justification for this argument. Is it just that the first people who were known to have played it were kids?
  • "The invention of the game could have happened in Norman or Plantagenet times anytime before 1300; or even in Saxon times before 1066." - Doesn't this contradict Underwood's comment that nothing is known about the origins of cricket?--Llewee (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

    Combining these two points, I've reworked the paragraph, which is now two, by having Underdown immediately following the suggestions by Altham and Arlott, which are somewhat speculative. Could you please have a look, and let me know what you think? Thanks.

    Yeah, that seems clearer.--Llewee (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Will continue with this.

Hi, Llewee, and thank you for joining this FAC. All the best, Jack (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• • "which may have been played in Dál Riata as early as the 6th century" - I would suggest explaining where this was.--Llewee (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

    That's useful to have.

  • "Others are the definitely Celtic sports" - I would suggest being a bit more specific here, "Celtic" is I think a bit of an ambiguous and contested term.--Llewee (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

    Yes, good point. I've said hurling is Irish, and shinty is Scottish, so there is in fact a considerable difference.

  • "it is generally believed that cricket essentially belongs to the same family of bat-and-ball games" - What does that mean in practice if its not known if they related to each other?

    There is actually some duplication here now because of a sentence that was taken out of the lead during one of the earlier reviews. I'll look into this next. Decided to remove the 'generally believed' sentence altogether, as it effectively repeated the relocated sentence, now in the previous paragraph.

  • "but it was almost certainly something quite different" - Could this be clarified?

    Changed the wording to say what most historians believe, and added a few more citations. The fact is that no one knows what 'creag' was, and the suggestion by Bowen was probably optimistic at best.

  • "The earliest definite reference to cricket being played anywhere in England (and hence in the world)" - This feels like an odd way of wording it, maybe say something like "being played in it's home country of England".

    Yes, now you say that, it does look a bit awkward. I've altered the wording along the lines you suggest.

  • "It is perhaps significant that cricket is the only one of the plaies to be specifically named." - firstly why, secondly I would suggest translating "plaies"

    The two sources both mention cricket being the only one of the games actually specified, but it reads a little POV-ish, so I've just converted it to a straight fact. 'Plaies' in this context meant 'games', but I think (haven't checked) that they also used the expression for theatre.

  • "to thrum a wench lustily till the bed cry giggaioggie" - middle English is so funny

    Ha! I agree. I remember doing Chaucer at school, and he gave us a lot of laughs. For example: and Nicholas, he let fly a fart.

• "The development of village cricket: 1610–1660"
  • "recorded a 'cricketing' of the Weald and the Upland versus the Chalk Hill at Chevening 'about thirty years since'" - Does a 'cricketing' mean a cricket team?

    No one can be 100% sure, but it is widely believed to mean 'a match' or 'playing cricket'. I've put (match) after 'cricketing' for clarification.

  • "This is the earliest known village cricket match; and the earliest known match in Kent" - Could the meaning of 'village cricket' be explained? I assume its referring to more organised games involving adults.--Llewee (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

    Not necessarily adults, as village cricket today includes matches between teams of boys and girls. It basically means a match between teams representing two villages or parishes, so it is supposedly a lesser class of contest than one between two towns, for example, and is minor in comparison with county cricket.

    I've rewritten the latter part of the paragraph as: The match is the earliest on record anywhere in the world. It involved two village/parish teams, and these contests became popular in the first half of the 17th century, so the match also marks the known beginning of village cricket, which has continued to the present day. The main source is Roy Webber.

  • "Breaking the Sabbath" - This feels a bit newspapery, perhaps say something like "Religious restrictions" or "Interference with sunday worship".

Now you've said it, there is a whiff of tabloid there. I've changed it to Religious issues, if that's okay.

• • "The declaration had limited success until the Civil War began in 1642. The Puritans were by then in control of Parliament which closed the theatres..." - Should we be jumping ahead here? This is discussed later in the section.

I've done a merger here with the later content, to restore chronology.

• • "The Declaration of Sports manuscript was publicly burned by order of the Puritan Parliament in 1643" - Why?

I've included this with the ban on recreational activities.

• • I think the text from "The latter reason was because the rules at the time allowed the batsman to hit the ball twice, ... denounced cricket as 'profane', especially if played on Sunday.[42]" could probably be one paragraph. Llewee (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That's fair enough. It isn't too long, and it encapsulates everything between the significant events of 1622 and 1642.

• • "Fatalities" - You mention a child's death in the previous section, maybe change it to something more specific (e.g. "player fatalities")

Actually, no child had been killed, because 'had like to have' meant 'was likely to have'. Even so, I think 'Player fatalities' is a better section title.

• • " When the first Laws of Cricket were encoded in 1744, it was illegal to hit the ball twice, and a batsman breaking the rule was to be given out" - I think "illegal" isn't the best word here. Presumably you wouldn't be arrested. Also, isn't this a bit out of the article's time period?

I think mention of the 1744 code is needed in this instance, but not in the text, so I've converted that sentence into a footnote. I agree that 'illegal' was a bit strong.

• • "The record of the 1624 case confirms that two villages, Horsted Keynes and West Hoathly, were involved in the match, providing further evidence of the growth of village cricket.[45]" - I think this sentence should be moved straight after that case. --Llewee (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Done.

Thanks for your feedback so far, Llewee. It's been very useful, and the article is much better as a result. All the best, Jack (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The beginning of amateur cricket"
  • "The beginnings of cricket's social division between amateurs and professionals" - Is this separate from village cricket or is village cricket the amateurs?

No, the social division was constant from then until 1962, when so-called amateurism was abolished. It was a case of gentry and working-class playing together for the same team, and it applied equally to village, county, and even Test cricket.

• • "by forming select teams that would improve their chances of winning" - of experienced players?

Many players were experienced, but it's believed the patrons were especially on the lookout for young talent, whom they saw as a long-term investment. Basically, a select team was the best eleven players available, including both gentry and workers.

• • "Curiously, considering the huge sums of money staked later in the century," - this seems like a bit of an odd word to use? Given that the point is that the bet was much smaller than later in the century then maybe "incongruously" would be better?

Yes, 'incongruously' is more apt. Thanks.

• • "a certain unlawful game called cricket" - Why was it considered unlawful? These two sentences on the Cranbrook case don't seem to be that closely linked to the rest of the paragraph.

I've moved things around about and added 1652 to the 1646 paragraph; it was unlawful if played on a Sunday, so I've added a clause to that effect.

• • "extracurricular activity" - maybe add a link to Extracurricular activity

I'm constantly surprised by article titles. Done.

• • "alive and well during the interregnum" - maybe add a link to Interregnum (England) as this seems to be the first time the period is mentioned

Done. That's a good point because, strictly speaking, it wasn't really the same as the Commonwealth.

• • "As evidenced by the legal cases of 1646 and 1652, described above, cricket was played jointly by gentry and workers." - It seems a bit odd to repeat information discussed earlier related to adult men at the end of a paragraph about young boys.

Especially as it was unsourced. That seems to have been a leftover after some other text was relocated during one of the previous reviews. It doesn't add anything, so I've removed it.

• • both of those establishments were attended by William Goldwin who, in 1706, wrote a Latin poem of 95 lines on a rural cricket match" - making this link sort of implies that the poem is set at one of the universities, which presumably wasn't the case?

That's true. I've reworked the paragraph to say he was a former student when he wrote his poem.

• • "it was published in his Musae Juveniles." - I would suggest explaining what this is (e.g collection of poems) and/or translating the title.--Llewee (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added the translation, which is 'Youthful Muses'. Jack (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Development of important cricket: 1660–1700" - This feels like an odd choice of name.

There is a reason for 'important' but it's complex, so best to simplify the title. I've changed it to 'Development of cricket from 1660 to 1700'.

• • "'the game took a real grip' especially in the south-eastern counties"- I would suggest specifying that this was in England.

Done.

• • "which is the first reference to cricket there, a popular venue for matches during the 17th and 18th centuries" - Presumably this is the late 17th century if the first reference is in 1666?

I decided to remove the latter clause, as the same could be said of several venues.

• • "The Restoration of the Monarchy in England in 1660..." - I think this paragraph belongs with the first paragraph and probably some repetition could be removed. In both paragraphs, however, their seems to be assertions that the game was growing alongside comments that their is a lack of evidence, which is a bit confusing.

I've done something of rewrite in this area, and combined the content into two paragraphs, with the Paston one moved lower down. Could you please have another look at this and see what you think. Thanks.

• • "in the general euphoria which both accompanied and followed these historic events," - this comes across a bit non-neutral, I doubt everyone was delighted by the regime change

Yes, Birley's words were 'great upsurge of sport' so I've quoted him.

• • "One momentous aspect of this evolution" - I think "significant" would be a neutral sounding word to use here.

Done.

• • "That was equivalent to about £18,000 in present-day terms." - I would suggest moving this too a footnote. If you use this template {{Inflation|GBP|100|1664|r=0|fmt=eq|cursign=£}} it will update over time.

Good idea. I've done the same with '50 guineas' in the next sentence.

• • "It has been claimed that Mitcham Cricket Club was formed in 1685" - by who if their isn't any evidence

I'm glad you've asked that. Frankly, I think the 1685 claim is BS. I've thought a number of times I should just remove it, but the source is supposedly reputable, and the claim does help to introduce the subject of earliest known club. Anyway, I've reworded it for now.

• • "Freedom of the press made it possible for sporting events to be reported; but, as Major says, reports in the early newspapers were sparse, although trivia tended to make good copy, and large wagers between rival patrons were given coverage." - I think this should be included with the discussion of the liberalisation of the press in the previous paragraph.

Agreed. Done.

• • "No match reports could be found so the results and scores remain unknown." - I think "survive" or "are known to exist" would be clearer than "could be found".

Done.

• • "it was probably minor in quality" - because they were amateurs?--Llewee (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

A bit POV-ish, I think, so I've just stated that it was the earliest-known match in Surrey. Jack (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Rules and equipment of early cricket"
  • "A 1743 painting of a game in progress..." - I appreciate that their probably aren't that many sources available but it does seem a bit odd to include so much detail about a painting from outside the article's time period.

Well, it is generally agreed that this painting is an accurate representation of the game as it known to have been played some some twenty to thirty years earlier. It wouldn't do for the 17th century because clothing was different then.

I would suggest that should probably be discussed in the article, at least in a footnote. Llewee (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. I've moved a couple of sentences into the footnotes, and made some wording changes. The main thing needed, however, was more sources. I've used Maun and Terry for different bits, but I think some of the other books have covered this topic, and I'll check those later. Jack (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• • More generally there does seem to be quite a bit of discussion of the later 18th century in this section.

The sport underwent considerable evolution through the 18th century, and I think it helps the readers to know why the curved bat eventually ceased to be used, and how the wicket grew towards its modern dimensions. The 1744 code of Laws is a useful reference point for some aspects like the length of the pitch. It is 'looking ahead', but it anticipates readers' questions.

• • "There has been a lot of conjecture about the origin of the wicket, but suffice to say that the 17th century outline shape is more akin to the profile of a church stool, which is low and broad." - Prose isn't my strongest area, but this feels like a ponderous tone which seems a bit of for Wikipedia. Llewee (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A bit too wordy, I agree. I've rewritten it to make it simpler. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• "English cricket in the early 18th century"
  • Apologies I haven't been able to edit much over the last few days. Hopefully, I can get the review finished or close to finished by the end of the weekend.

Hi, Llewee. No problem. All the best. Jack (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• • "played against an Arundel XI" - Could this be made a bit more accessible to simpletons such as myself? (e.g. "a team linked to Arundel cricket club")

We've already got the link to Arundel Cricket Club, so I've just changed 'XI' to 'team'. I've also added a footnote after 1st Duke of Richmond's XI to explain the concept of 'XI' in a team name, with a link to a list of such teams.

• • "the concept of the County Championship" - I struggle to see how there could be a direct link between these rivalries and a tournament which started the best part of two centuries later. Maybe you could make a more general point about this being the beginning of regional or county rivalries in cricket.--Llewee (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It was more 'bragging rights' than any kind of title or championship, although the most important thing for each patron was winning the wager. That was especially true of Edwin Stead who seems to have been a compulsive gambler. I've rewritten the last sentence to emphasise bragging rights and the wager.

• "The terms of the wager" - I think this title doesn't really summarise the section's context. Perhaps something like "Role of gambling" would be better.

Yes, it's a bit vague. I think just 'Gambling' will suffice.

• "The London players sued for their winnings, and the game, while incomplete, was the subject of a noted lawsuit in which the terms of the wager were at issue." - It seems a bit odd to say "while incomplete" as if that is contradiction. The fact that it was incomplete was the reason for the court case.

Done.

• "The court ordered that the match must be 'played out', and this happened in early July 1719" - Clarify that this meant finished, presumably?

It did mean 'played out to a finish', but the judge only said 'played out'. I've changed it to 'played out (to a finish)'.

• " but were all out for 9." - Could this be clarified for ignoramuses like my myself?

I think this was somewhat overwritten, so I've simplified it to say they only scored nine, and so London won by 21.

• "In 1724 (exact date unknown), Edwin Stead's XI versus Chingford ended early because the Chingford team refused to play to a finish when Stead's team held the advantage" - perhaps specify that this was a match.

• "The introduction of articles of agreement, agreed before matches by the stakeholders, largely resolved any problems between patrons and match organisers." - When did this happen? I think "these" rather than "any" might be a better word here. Llewee (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows when Articles were first drawn up, but it's thought to have been c. 1720 to 1725. The first that are definitely on record date from 1727. I've added a few words to reflect this, and changed 'any' to 'these'.

Thanks again, Llewee. All the best, Jack (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• • "Matches of the early 18th century" - Are these selected examples or every known match?

It's really a summary of the period, so I've changed it to '1701 to 1720'.

• • "No post-match reports could be found, so the results and scores are unknown." - I think the "could be found" wording has come up previously.

No, there is a 'could be fulfilled', but I think 'have survived' is preferable to 'could be found'.

• • "The match in Holborn was a return to the one on 1 July." - I think this could be made more consise.

Actually, I've removed it because it's obvious in the opening sentence that the two matches formed a pair.

• • "Although this was probably a minor match only, it illustrates the popularity of cricket in Kent." - I'm not sure that evidence of one match which was "minor" really tells us much about how popular the game was locally. Unless there is additional context in the sources, I would suggest cutting the second part.

Done.

• • "Village cricket continued to thrive in the 18th century." - This feels like an odd place to put this sentence unless I'm missing something. Llewee (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it as village matches are mentioned later in the paragraph, and it is clear enough that Hurstpierpoint was a local club.

• • "Dartford versus London" - Maybe something along the lines of "Earliest cricket rivalries" would be a more informative

I've gone for 'First rivalry' as it is only those two teams, given that Dartford and Kent were effectively the same at that time.

• • "There is an insight into the priorities of early 18th century cricketers as the contemporary report concludes with: 'The Kentish men won the wager' (i.e., the wager was more important than the match)." - This feels repetitive given we have already been told about the relationship with gambling. It appears editorialising to draw the conclusion that gambling was more important based on the fact the wager was reported. If the note is kept it should be cited to a historian or whoever.

Yes, I agree. I've reduced it to: A contemporary report concludes with: 'The Kentish men won the wager'.

• • "If there was a lapse in cricket at this time, the more likely causes would be either the South Sea Bubble, which ruined many investors after the South Sea Company was found to be insolvent, and so could have reduced cricket patronage;" - How is a source from 1999 citing the point that the South Sea Bubble is a better explanation than one given 2005?

Waghorn 2005 is a facsimile of his book originally published in 1906. It sends the harvid probe into apoplexy if you get the oclc/isbn mixed up, so you must use the year= and orig-year= parameters. If you look at the entries for Haygarth, Nyren, and Waghorn in the bibliography, you'll see what I mean. Those three are facsimiles, the rest are when first published.

• • I think this quote could be summarised in a way that would be more consise and make the point more explicit. (e.g newspapers may have reduced reporting of cricket due to a lack space) You could get rid of it entirely as the next line makes more or less the same point.

I've reworked it so that Waghorn's bit 'including the advertising and reporting of matches' is tagged on at the end.

• • "On Wednesday, 18 July 1722, London versus Dartford" - Could this be clarified (e.g "a disrupted match between") Llewee (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Done.

• • "Other matches in the 1720s" - I think both this section and the early 18th century matches one could perhaps be condensed down to avoid as much repetition of similar content. Llewee (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the problem there was stating the uncertainty about dates, and some of the quotations were longer than necessary, so I've reduced both sections accordingly. Hope that's okay. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The growth of cricket in England and overseas" - I think it would be sensible to have this section be called something like "The growth of cricket outside England", "Spread of cricket through British imperialism" or "Cricket among English expatriates" and the content which is about England moved into the relevant sections of the rest of the article. The current title feels a bit odd when most of the article is about the growth of the sport in England.

I've renamed it as 'The spread of cricket overseas' and reworked things a bit.

• • "though the country was inhabited by the Culeys" - Who is he referring to here?

One of the great unanswerables, I'm afraid. They must have been local people, but whether Culeys was their actual name or not is unknown.

• • "Road transport was slowly improving and, in 1707, Parliament established the first turnpike trusts..." This paragraph doesn't really make clear how and why cricket benefited from the expansion of road transport in particular. I would suggest the link needs to be emphasised or it should be cut.

I've moved the substance of this into the previous section as a sub-section in its own right, and placed more emphasis on how poor roads inhibited the spread of cricket.

Yes, that looks better. The title could perhaps be made more specific (e.g geographical spread and transport issues). Maybe, the line about Scotland, Wales and Ireland would fit better here rather than the overseas section as its spread to those countries seems to have happened at about the same time it was reaching the more remote parts of England.--Llewee (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a much better title, thanks. I've shifted the three countries into this as well. Jack (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• • "The earliest match designated inter-county was in 1709, and the traditional county soon became the key unit of organisation" - This has already been discussed and we were told at the time that the county teams were actually representative of particular villages. Llewee (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That's true, so I've merged part of it into the earlier piece about the 1709 match, which is useful because that now incorporates Webber's information.

• • "the connection was educational" - I think this could be made a bit clearer. (e.g. "They were linked to local schools or universities.") Llewee (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've removed that. Not necessary.

• "Known matches"
  • "In terms of perceived status, some of the matches may have been 'minor', but are nevertheless historically important." - I am not sure this sentence is adding much and it feels a bit non-neutral.

I don't think it added anything, so I've taken it out. The rest says it all, really.

• • "Although single wicket was popular at the time, the earliest definite record of a single wicket match is in 1726" - Before 1725? Llewee (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you mean 'after 1725', which I've input.

No sorry I was asking if it was popular in the period before 1725, which was my impression from the sentence.--Llewee (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It is believed to have been played before 1725, but not actually recorded till 1726. I'll rework that sentence a bit. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

All done down to the 'Known matches' section, Llewee. Could you please take a look at everything to make sure I haven't missed or misunderstood something. Thanks again, and all the best. Jack (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Earliest known participants (1598 to 1725)" - I'm not sure having a long list of people with some involvement in the sport is really adding much, as is mentioned many of them have already come up in the article. I would suggest either cutting the table down to the most important figures and including a brief explanation of their role or removing it entirely. Llewee (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I have thought it's a toss-up between useful summary and repetition. At best, it is just a nice-to-have. Anyway, I've taken it out. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Lead
  • "Another key reference to the sport is dated 1611;"- I would suggest being more specific here (e.g "A dictionary published in 1611 describes a type of cricket bat.").

That's better. Done.

• • "fewer than thirty matches are known to have been played" - maybe "are recorded" would be better here as presumably they comprised a minority of games played

Done.

• • "The sport noticeably began to spread throughout England as the century went on." - You say in the article that much of that expansion happened later in the century. I'd suggest a sentence that emphasises the limitations of its expansion during this period would probably be more helpful here. (e.g While impeded by poor transport links, the game was beginning to reach parts of England outside the home counties by the early 18th century.") Llewee (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that tallies with the changes made in the article. Done. Thanks again, Llewee. Jack (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my comments BlackJack, it was nice to learn about a subject I wouldn't normally be interested in. I am happy to support the nomination but would prefer it passes a source review before being promoted. Llewee (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Llewee. You've been thorough, and the article has been improved by your suggestions. All the best, Jack (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• I will take a look at this one when I have a sufficient chunk of spare time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Chris. Much appreciated. All the best, Jack (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• "meaning a stick; or the Old English cricc or cryce meaning a crutch or staff" => "meaning a stick, or the Old English cricc or cryce meaning a crutch or staff"
• "in Norman or Plantagenet times; or even in Saxon times before 1066" => "in Norman or Plantagenet times, or even in Saxon times before 1066"
• "while croquet was apparently imported from France; and, globally" => "while croquet was apparently imported from France and, globally"
• "as per the Guildford schoolboys above" => "as per the Guildford schoolboys mentioned by Derrick"
• "as § Player fatalities would drastically confirm" - "player" should not have a capital mid-sentence
• That's what I got as far as the end of "Player fatalities". Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Chris. Those are all good points, and changed as suggested. All the best, Jack (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1706, he wrote a Latin poem of 95 lines on a rural match. It was called In Certamen Pilae (On a Ball Game), and it was published in his Musae Juveniles (Youthful Muses)." - could combine these two short sentences as "In 1706, he wrote a Latin poem of 95 lines on a rural match entited In Certamen Pilae (On a Ball Game), which was published in his Musae Juveniles (Youthful Muses)."

Much better as one sentence. Done.

• "But, as Major says, though early reports were sparse, trivia tended to 'make good copy', and large wagers between rival patrons were given coverage." => "As Major says, however, although early reports were sparse, trivia tended to 'make good copy', and large wagers between rival patrons were given coverage."

Done.

• "Apart from the shirts and stockings, none of the clothes are white" - might be worth explaining why anyone would expect the rest of the clothing to be white

Good point. I've amended to 'none of the clothes are white, as they would normally be in modern cricket' (I say 'normally' because of the multi-coloured limited overs outfits). Is that okay?

• "The ball is bowled underarm along the ground, as in bowls, at varying speed towards a wicket consisting of two stumps mounted by a single crosspiece.[10] The batsman addresses the delivery with a bat that resembles a modern hockey stick, this shape being ideal for dealing with a ball on the ground." - the present tense is odd here. Is this because you are referring to is how things are depicted in that painting? If so, add it to the previous paragraph

Yes, past tense is preferable. I think I was describing the painting rather than saying what happened.

• "But, earlier 18th century pictures show a wicket that was low and broad" => "Earlier 18th century pictures, however, show a wicket that was low and broad"

Done.

• That's taken me to the end of "patrons". Back for more later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That's great, Chris, and thanks again. Jack (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

HMS Sardonyx

Nominator(s): simongraham (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a Royal Navy destroyer that had an interesting life, laid down during the First World War yet survived to serve as an escort to the Normandy Landings in 1944. simongraham (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

This is an interesting read. My comments cover prose plus citation and Manual of Style formatting.

I have also made a number of small copyedits directly (typos, a couple of missing or misplaced commas, two British-English spellings, two hyphenations and a piped link); please revert any you are not happy with.

Thank you. Those look excellent to me. simongraham (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

prose points:

• Lead: the destroyer was sent to Latvia, arrived just after the cessation of that country's war of independence, and returned to reserve soon after. The middle clause does not quite fit. Perhaps "...sent to Latvia, arriving just after...", or split it into two sentences.
  • Fixed.
• Lead: The vessel was placed back in service in the 1930s, and it helped search for the missing submarines M1 in 1925 and M2 in 1932. The M1 search was in 1925, but the body dates the return to service to a recommissioning on 6 August 1931, so grouping the 1925 search under "the 1930s" reads as a contradiction.
  • Good point. Clarified.
• Lead: Depth charge throwers replaced the torpedo tubes and all the main armament but the forecastle gun was removed. A little hard to parse. Something like "The torpedo tubes were replaced by depth charge throwers, and all the main armament except the forecastle gun was removed" would be clearer.
  • Amended.
• Interwar service: the western front. As this is the proper name of the front, should the displayed text be "Western Front"?
  • I guess so.
• Lead and Second World War: western approaches is lower case in both the lead and the body. If this is the proper name of the sea area, it should be "Western Approaches".
  • Again, I guess so.
• Second World War: which subsequently called a wolfpack of four other boats. Slightly unclear; if U-47 summoned other submarines, "called in" may read better.
  • Amended.
• Second World War: the escort groups are styled inconsistently: Fifth Escort Group and Second Escort Group are spelled out, but 8th Escort Group and 21st Escort Group use figures. Should it not be one style throughout?
  • Amended.
• Second World War: the vessel was one of the popular with serving sailors. A word seems to be missing, probably "more" or "most".
  • True. Amended.

Citations, MoS and accessibility:

• Burns (1988) and Howse (1993) carry the same Google Books identifier, id=fX2wCwAAQBAJ, although they are different books, so one link is wrong.
  • Yes. Burns was wrong but is right now.
• {{GS|U-619||2}} has an empty year parameter where the other uses of that template supply a year; worth checking it still links correctly.
  • It does. There was only one U-619 so there is no need for a year.
• The Times Digital Archive citations omit access-date while the Navy List and convoyweb citations include it; better one way or the other for consistency.
  • Added.

That is all for now. I have not assessed source content or images. Metalicat (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat: Thank you. These are all very helpful. simongraham (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose, and citation and Manual of Style formatting. Metalicat (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Excellent suggestion. Added. simongraham (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments Support by A.Cython

I am not an expert on ships, so this is from a casual reviewer/reader. Overall, I enjoyed reading about a destroyer developed in the midst of WWI, but it had an active role in WWII. I have some minor comments listed below.

• The S class were → The S class was or The S class destroyers were a development
  • Fixed.
• powerful V and W class → powerful V and W classes
  • Fixed.
• Initially 30 add comma before "30"
  • Added.
• This reached a peak when the people of Latvia declared independence which, after a war of independence, they achieved on 14 November 1919. I find this sentence rather confusing, perhaps breaking it into two?
  • perhaps some reordering as follows: "which was achieved on 14 November 1919 after a war of independence."
    • Reworded.
• the destroyer escorted ships carrying the troops that participated in the Normandy landings, but took no part in the landings themselves. I had to reread this sentence again as I got confused on whether the destroyers assisted in the landing or not. Perhaps the second part of the sentence is not needed since it is explicitly stated their role.
  • Removed.
• In October, the ship was withdrawn start a new paragraph, because you start a new theme, i.e., post active-duty and retirement.
  • Added.
• It was hoped that keeping the warships together would help them operationally. The statement as presented begs the question. Did this grouping have the desired effects? What do the sources say?
  • They do not explicitly state that it was, but I would imply from the next paragraph that it was not.
• an attempt to strike at German submarines transiting the gap between Iceland and Scotland Is there a relevant map, I suppose this is optional
  • I do not have one, but
    • Understood
• increasingly large amount of time → increasingly more time
  • Amended.
• near Selsey Bill I do not think most non-UK people would know where this is located. It has a wikilink, but I had to jump to its article to figure it out. Perhaps adding "at the English Channel" or something similar.
  • Clarified.
• recommissioned at Portsmouth it would help the reader to explain what Portsmouth was, i.e., a naval base.
  • Clarified.
• the steamer into Southampton I assume to its port
  • Indeed. Clarified.
• Along with others can you specify what "others" mean
  • Absolutely. The list is extensive, so I have just given the number. Please tell me if you would like me to name them.
    • This more than asked, my concern was whether you meant "other destroyers" or "other vessels in the fleet" including battleships. Irrespective of this, you have addressed this concern.
• convoy wikilink? A.Cython(talk) 00:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Linked.

@A.Cython: Thank you for this review. Please take a look at my amendments and tell me what you think. simongraham (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Many thanks for the changes. You have addressed my comments, so Support from me. A.Cython(talk) 04:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• although in that case the destroyer's presence was insufficient to deter the German submarine U-32 from sinking the liner. I would just say that she failed to prevent U-32 from sinking the liner, as we can't divine U-32's calculations.
  • Amended.
• Two consecutive sentences that begin with At the same time in the lead.
  • Reworded.
• dropped from covering twenty convoys in 1942 to nine in 1943 – I don't see this supported in the body, and I can't quite construct the "nine" that is provided.
  • The nine are one escort of Leinster to Iceland, one return, three other single-ship convoys to Iceland, three from Iceland, and WS30, the single convoy to Freetown.
• one of thirty-three Admiralty S class destroyers ordered by the British Admiralty Redundant?
  • The consensus seems to be that class is termed Admiralty S class and the body responsible for their order is the British Admiralty but I am happy to change it.
• The design was a development of the R class introduced at the same time as, and as a cheaper and faster alternative to, the V and W classes. – at the same time as is tripping me up, at the same time as the S-class, or at the same time as the V/W-class? I assume, per the lead and cheaper and faster alternative to that this is referring to the R class, but it should be made clear.
  • Good spot. The lead is wrong. The R preceded the others.
• Two funnels were fitted. – A very lonely sentence.
  • Combined with a previous one.
• making the vessel very wet needs to be explained for a layperson.
  • Explained.
• "Training-only director" probably needs to be explained for a layperson.
  • Clarified.
• shortly before the end of the First World War Is it really "shortly before"? I might be biased as a Yank.
  • Changed.
• I'm looking at Latvian War of Independence, and I can't make the connection to when the people of Latvia declared independence, which was achieved on 14 November 1919.
  • The date is from th source.
• Explain to the reader that 50-cm refers to the wavelength rather than the size.
  • Clarified.
• Alongside Saladin and Shaker – I can't find a HMS Shaker.
  • It's a misspelling.
• Initially, 30 charges were now carried – This sentence doesn't work, "now" negates "initially".
  • Removed.
• fitted on a bandstand abaft the middle funnel – I thought there were only two funnels?
  • There are. Amended.
• which subsequently called in a wolfpack of four other boats on 19 October 1940 – Is the date attached to the attack or the wolfpack?
  • The wolfpack, hence the lack of a comma after boats.
• Two consecutive sentences that begin with Despite.
  • Reworded
• Is the big list of convoy pennants necessary?
  • Not necessary but the more notable are wikilinked.
• It was hoped that keeping the warships together would help them operationally. – Any rationale?
  • The sources are not explicit.
• After each deployment, when the ship returned to harbour, it was rare that there was not some damage from bad weather which meant that the destroyer spent an increasingly more time in repair rather than service. – Sentence needs to be repaired.
  • Broken up.
• Another crew member was an American volunteer, Derek Lee, who served as a deck officer with the collateral job of security officer. His role included censoring photographs, for example of the survivors of the merchant ship SS Yorktown that had been sunk by U-619 on 28 September 1942, taken as they climbed aboard the destroyer. – Is "security officer" the term used in the sources? Also, I still don't get what photographs are being censored, and whether the photographs are being taken by the crew or the survivors. Read literally, my first impression was that the survivors of Yorktown were taking pictures of Sardonyx as they were being dragged onboard.
  • The source states "Lieutenant Derek Lee was a deck officer with the collateral job of security officer aboard HMS Sardonyx, another vintage destroyer brought out of the Royal Navy's fleet at the start of World War II. She picked up survivors from Yorktown. Sardonyx continued to scour the sea for further signs of life. Lee censored as "Not for Publication" several photographs taken of the survivors as they climbed aboard his ship."
• I reworded the WS 30 sentence, still not completely happy with it.
  • I have split it up, which I hope improves it.
• 8 June means that the troops that Sardonyx escorted were not part of the first wave, clarify.
  • Clarified.

Stikkyy (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Stikkyy: Thank you for your insights. Please take a look at my edits and tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Is Sea Classics a reliable source? Just browsing through their covers, it doesn't seem very academic. Stikkyy (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a popular magazine so not academic. However, it is published by a credible publisher and adds a different perspective to the article, being primarily targeted at a US audience.

Support Stikkyy (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• What makes Convoy Web a high-quality reliable source? March? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
  • It is a searchable database of all World War II convoy participants collected by Arnold Hague, sub-editor for Jane's Fighting Ships and author, in 2000, of The Allied Convoy System 1939-1945: It's Organization, Defence, and Operation, published by Naval Institute Press. I consider him a reliable naval historian. simongraham (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

    What about March? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

    Edgar J. March is a respected naval historian. simongraham (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

    Hi Nikki, are you satisfied with the source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

    Not yet - need a bit more info. What evidence suggests that March should be regarded as an a subject-matter expert? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

    @Sturmvogel 66: Can you help provide the assurance Nikkimaria is requesting please? simongraham (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

    March wrote a massive book on the design history of British destroyers. While not quite definitive, it's more than enough to qualify him as a high-quality SME. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you, Sturmvogel 66. @Nikkimaria: Is that sufficient to give you comfort please? simongraham (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

    Who published the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

From Worldcat, Seeley, Service Stikkyy (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I've edited March's entry in the bibliography to give the full title, which might help in evaluating his expertise Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Nikki on their behalf in case she missed the reply above: Nikkimaria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Meh. Not sure the full title contributes much but as it's not being used for extraordinary claims, suppose it's good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Source spot-checks – pass

I checked eight numbered citations against the source material in this revision.

• Citations 27–28 (Howse, pp. 40 and 43) — not supported as written. The aircraft-detection range is wrong by a factor of ten: Howse, p. 27, gives 2.5 miles, not 25 miles. The relevant information is also on a different page from the one cited. Also, p. 40 describes trials of the named Combined Wireless Rangefinder and Lookout Set on 14 October 1939 as disappointing for surface detection, after which the combined-set proposal was abandoned, but the article conflates the June and October trials and presents them simply as successful.
  • Amended.

• Citation 35 (Howse, p. 79) — incorrect chronology. Howse states that the Type 286M set was fitted at Londonderry in June 1941. So, its placement immediately after the collision of 31 May 1940, with "Soon afterwards, in June", currently places the fitting in June 1940. The corresponding statement in the lead also needs correction.
  • Ammended.

• Citation 37 (Convoy HX 79) is verified for Sardonyx's participation, as the database lists Sardonyx as an escort from 20 October 1940.

• Citation 40 (Arnold Hague Convoy Database) — not supported. I found three discrepancies:
  • SC 69 sailed in February 1942, so it cannot belong to the "next five months" after 27 October 1940. Sardonyx escorted it from 22 to 27 February 1942.
    • Moved.
  • So, SL 103 lists Sardonyx as an escort from 30 March to 2 April 1942, maybe you want to add it to the article's 1942 list.
    • Added.
  • I tried a database search for Sardonyx and it produced 26 records dated 1941 and 22 dated 1942, rather than the article's totals of 21 and 20. Although, the nine records for 1943 agree with the article, if some records are intentionally excluded, then the selection criterion needs to be explained and supported, otherwise the body and lead totals will need correction.
    • Amended.

• Citation 48 (Convoy ON 66). The database supports Sardonyx serving as escort from 14 to 16 February 1942, with no loss shown.

• Citations 56–57 (convoys DS 36 and SD 36) is partly verified but inaccurately worded in the sense that DS 36 reached Iceland on 23 January 1943; SD 36 departed Iceland on 25 January and reached the Clyde on 27 January. Thus the ships began the return voyage two days later, but did not complete it two days later. A precise formulation might be like so "They escorted Leinster to Iceland from 21 to 23 January and back to the Clyde from 25 to 27 January".
  • Ammended.

Please audit all statements derived from Howse and the Arnold Hague database. Well done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Thank you for this thorough review. I have gone through these and the other statements sourced from Hague and they should be fine now. simongraham (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

LGTM, Simon! Well done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Whitley: You have 2002 in the cite and 2000 in the bibliography.
• "HMS Sardonyx was an Admiralty S-class destroyer that served with the Royal Navy in the Second World War." But not before?

• "an Admiralty S-class destroyer". What is an Admiralty destroyer.
• It would be nice if somewhere in the lead we were told the ship's nationality.
• "The ships shared a main armament of ..." In the previous sentence you mention four classes of destroyer. Did all of them share the same main armament?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The Chattri

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell, Hassocks5489 22:02, 13 June 2026

Another war memorial, but a different flavour to my previous nomination. This one commemorates an aspect of WWI that is largely forgotten in British history. Many thousands of Indians fought in France and Belgium in the early days of the war. Wounded soldiers needed somewhere to recuperate away from the front line, so Brighton's Royal Pavilion (an Indo-Oriental palace built for a bored prince and by then largely disused) was converted into a makeshift hospital. This monument, high in the hills above the town, was built in memory of those who did not survive, though it has had a somewhat uneasy history since it was unveiled in 1921.

Hassocks created the article and developed the skeleton a few years ago, and I've recently expanded it with some more research. I'm sensitive to the monument's position in imperial history and I've tried to describe the controversy as best I can and avoid taking sides. It's only ~2,000 words but I feel it's comprehensive. Thanks for taking the time to read it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• I will review this one; comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Background

Indian soldiers in Brighton

• Could we trim this sub-section's heading to "Background"?
  • I like the extra detail and I can't think of any MoS-based to lose it.
• "among those to visit the pavilion during their stay were" → "among those who visited the pavilion during their stay were"
  • Done.
• "Photographs were taken of the deceased, which were sent to their relatives" → "Photographs of the deceased were taken and sent to their relatives"
  • I'm not sure about this, but done.
• The 21 Muslim men who died were taken to
  • How about "The 21 Muslim men who died were buried at..."?
    • I think it flows better as it is.
• "one in the workhouse" → "one in a workhouse"
  • Unless we are referring to a specific workhouse.
    • We are indeed referring to a specific workhouse.
• "despite the fact that" → "although"
  • I don't think "although" adequately conveys the uniqueness of the situation.
• instilling Imperial pride
  • Lowercase "imperial"? Also, how about "fostering" in place of "instilling"?
    • I could go either way on this so we'll go yours.
• "considered it to be of great importance"→ "considered it of great importance"
  • Done.
• "near Patcham, high on the South Downs" → "near Patcham on the South Downs"
  • No worries with the present version. A suggestion lest "high" could be dropped.
    • I think I prefer it the way it is but I don't feel strongly about this one.
• "ceased accommodating Indian soldiers" → "ceased to accommodate Indian soldiers"
  • Done.
• dietary and religious requirements of the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims
  • Do we need the definite article before "Hindus"?
    • I think it's helpful. We're talking about these Hindus (etc) in particular, not Hindus in general.

MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc Thank you for taking a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I note the hospital in the Brighton Workhouse was renamed as the Kitchener Indian Hospital while serving as a hospital for Indian soldiers. It eventually became the Brighton General Hospital (the article mentions its use as a ww1 hospital). We may want to add those links and properly source. Erp (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Inception

• We could link town centre and reimbursement?
  • Both of those are common English terms and neither is crucial to this article. I know I'm a lot more conservative in my linking than most people but I don't think either of those links would be helpful. Almost any term could be linked in an encyclopaedia with seven million entries but we should focus on the most important ones.
• Jacob had worked extensively in India and was widely associated with the Indo-Saracenic architectural style and in particular was known for his use of chhatri, elevated domes supported on pillars.
  • How about "and, in particular, was known for his use of chhatri,"?
  • An alternative: How about "was particularly"?
    • Done (the first one).
• Also, "chhatris" in place of "chhatri"?
  • I'm not sure about this. Our article seems to suggest the plural form is the same as the singular but it's not a term I was familiar with before I started researching this.
    • I think ‘chhatris’ is clearer here since it’s a plural (‘elevated domes’). Happy to defer if needed. MSincccc (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Funds were raised and Henriques completed his design by 1917.
  • Do we know who the funds were raised by?
    • The sources don't specify, other than the sharing of costs between the borough and the government. I would guess that the borough had to do some fundraising but that's speculation.
• "soon after the last cremations" → "soon after the final cremations"
  • Done.
• "were owned by Marquess of Abergavenny" → "were owned by the Marquess of Abergavenny"
  • Done.
• "Jacob, 75 years old, declined the commission" → "Jacob, aged 75, declined the commission"
  • I think it flows better as it is.
• "Henriques waived a fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses" → "Henriques waived his fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses"
  • Done.

MSincccc (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Design and setting

• "...each has four brackets projecting from them." → "...projecting from it."
• "from a path off a bridleway off the A27 Brighton Bypass" → "from a path off a bridleway from the A27 Brighton Bypass"
• "which itself stands over three blocks of granite" → "which itself stands on three blocks of granite"
• "The plinth is square, and stepped down..." → "The plinth is square and stepped down..."
• "The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella." → "The Chattri is roughly umbrella-shaped." (a suggestion)

Unveiling

• We could link to the British royal family.
• "Edward, Prince of Wales presided." → "Edward, Prince of Wales, presided." (commas needed for the non-restrictive appositive)
• "...was imperialistic and a 'symbolic performance'" → "...was imperialistic and constituted a 'symbolic performance'"
• "and the exception to the law to allow the open-air pyre and to the construction of the Chattri." → "and to the exception to the law allowing the open-air pyre, and to the construction of the Chattri."

MSincccc (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, @MSincccc. I think I'd want a source or a native speaker to weigh in on chattri vs chattris. And I don't think the royal family link is likely to add to the reader's understanding. Other than that, I think I've addressed your latest batch. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I note the article on Chhatri is not consistent. The intro uses same word for singular and plural but later in the article an 's' is sometimes added for plural. And the spelling variants are considerable. We might want to look for usage in recent scholarly articles. Erp (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Later history

• "fell to the Borough of Brighton but the memorial was neglected" → "fell to the Borough of Brighton, but the memorial was neglected"
• "no replacement was appointed and the cottage was demolished" → "no replacement was appointed, and the cottage was demolished"
• "Previously, the names were spread between the Hollybrook Memorial" → "Previously, the names were split between"

Lead

• "a chattri or chhatri (a word which means ‘umbrella’" → "a chattri or chhatri (a word meaning ‘umbrella’"
• "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire and show that Indian troops were well treated." → "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and to show that Indian troops were well treated."
• "At least one suggested that its neglect" → "At least one has suggested that its neglect"

Bottom line

• HJ Mitchell That's all from me. A fine read, and I won't mind the chattri vs chattris point that much. I look forward to your response. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts @HJ Mitchell? MSincccc (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell It's been ten days since I took the article up for review. It has been a fine read, and everything else feels like stylistic polish. I have nothing more to add here. Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikki, I hadn't thought to check the one image that survived my rewrite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support from VWF

Will be reading this and reviews coming soon. –VWF

• The claim that the Indian Army had "never previously been deployed outside of South Asia" is too categorical and appears historically unsafe. I checked the source and it does not support this exact wording. Its more limited claim is that the Indian Army was reserved for regional combat in South Asia and that Indian soldiers had never previously fought alongside British troops in a European war. Those are not equivalent to never having deployed outside South Asia under any circumstances. Something like "The Indian Army had generally been reserved for regional operations in South Asia, and Indian soldiers had not previously fought alongside British troops in a European war." anyhow is what is expected at least.
  • Good point. Amended.
• The lead says the Chattri "was built in 1921", while the body says construction ran from August to the end of 1920; the category is also "Buildings and structures completed in 1920".
  • Indeed. Construction was complete by the end of 1920 but it wasn't unveiled until February 1921. Fixed.
• The infobox uses File:Chattri front view 2024-07-19.jpg, but its caption reads "The memorial in 2010". Is this not an obvious mismatch that needs fixing?
  • Removed. Good catch; I replaced the image but not the caption when preparing the article.
• Nairn & Pevsner, p. 458. is cited but I can't find that in the bibliography.
  • Hmm. Not sure what happened here. Must be a gremlin introduced in re-drafting. I've removed it for now; if I remember what I was trying to do, I'll re-add it with a full citation.
• The Bance 2024 source has a url different from the archive-url entirely.
  • I don't know what that means or whether it's a problem. I'm no good with the fiddly side of references.
• "Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri." This does not tell readers anything specific, I believe it should be dropped.
  • I think this is a reasonable introduction and preferable to an abrupt change of topic but I'm not wedded to it.
• The lead says "over 4,000" Indian soldiers were treated in Brighton, while the body gives "over 4,300". Use one figure consistently, preferably the more precise one supported in the body.
  • Done.
• "This extended to the correct funerary rites, the exception to the law to allow the open-air pyre …", The earlier statement says there was "some debate" over legality and that government sanction was required, so "exception to the law" is stronger than the earlier account, and the language should be harmonised.
  • I see what you're getting at but it was unclear whether the cremations were allowed or not but an exception was made anyway.
• "The event is supported by …", shouldn't this be past-tense?
  • The event still takes place annually so present-tense is correct I believe.
• Instead of citing "Barringer, section: 'In the Trenches'." this way, why not use page numbers? It was somehow difficult to find the sections without search for them.
  • Because the version I used was an HTML document with no page numbers.
• The lead says "Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri. Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and show that Indian troops were well treated. At least one suggested that its neglect after the unveiling ceremony was evidence of the British government's insincerity, but that it had been repurposed by the local community."

• The body says "According to the art historian Tim Barringer, the intended audience was India—although nationalist tensions had been set aside during the war, they were gaining momentum again by 1921. During the war, the British authorities had been keen to show that Indian soldiers were being treated properly."

• But after checking the cited source, it does not exactly support "During the war, the British authorities had been keen to show that Indian soldiers were being treated properly." That is broader than the passage. Barringer here says that the Raj was anxious to be seen mourning Indian soldiers and that the ceremony communicated loyalty, imperial connection, and care. He does not directly make the broader claim that authorities wanted to demonstrate that Indian soldiers were generally "being treated properly"
• This also appear in the lead and should be rephrased. I could say "Scholars have interpreted the Chattri as both a war memorial and an imperial political symbol, intended to support ties between India and Britain and to demonstrate public recognition of Indian soldiers' service." or something like that.
• For the Ashley point, I believe you should name her rather than saying "at least one".

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanderwaalforces, I think that all of your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I've got the last one yet. It's on my list for tomorrow/Monday. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces apologies for the delay. I believe I've addressed everything now. Your last point took a bit of thinking about. I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to draw, but you're right that Barringer focuses specifically on the funerary rites. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: LGTM, happy to support promotion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead you say was damaged by target practice, in the body it's rifle practice. Assuming the latter is correct, changing the lead to match makes it more accurate. As it stands, could be heavy artillery.
  • Reasonable point. So done.
• I linked workhouse
• where a ghat (open-air funeral pyre) was built and the bodies were cremated.—Looking at our articles on ghat and shmashana, the latter seems more accurate, and you have parenthesised the meaning, so nothing lost.
  • Ghat is the term used almost universally by the sources (some use "pyre"); I haven't come across the other term.
• Lakhbir Jassal described the rituals as "imperial paternalism". —no indication of who he his, so why does his opinion matter?
  • They're an academic of one flavour or another but I can only find their affiliation, which I've added.
• local Sikh teacher took on the responsibility—name?
  • Their name is in some of the more derailed sources but I tend to err on the side of leaving out the names of non-notable living people.
• I agree with @Vanderwaalforces: comment For the Ashley point, I believe you should name her rather than saying "at least one".

• Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• @HJ Mitchell: is this FAC still active? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I've been busy recently and I'm not on-wiki every day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Jimfbleak I believe I've addressed everything from you and VWF now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Happy to Support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why do some Bibliography entries include |ref=none and others not?

• Be consistent in how you format short cites to sections

• Why is Singh formatted differently to the other books? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nikki, thanks for taking a look. I've added ref=none to all the books (I don't really understand what it does; apparently it's needed for a script to work, which feels a bit backwards). What was the inconsistency you spotted, was it the introduction, which isn't a section per se (it doesn't have a subheader like the others). Singh looks different because it's a chapter within a book. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Differing punctuation (section: " vs section ")

Singh: sure, but is there a reason this couldn't be done with the same template as the other entries? And is there a reason to repeat the date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Fixed both (I didn't know the cite book template supported a chapter name with a different author, thanks to Erp for doing that). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri. – The cited scholarship runs from 1999 to 2022.
  • This feels a little pedantic. I have recently added a piece from 1921 (because it was highlighted on the talk page) and there's probably more out there, so I don't feel this is an unreasonable statement.
    • I've just taken out the sentence. For Several academics have suggested that the Chattri's purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and to show that the Indian casualties were treated with respect. – Whom are these academics? I think you should specify Ashley if she's one of them. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• The Commonwealth War Graves Commission unveiled a separate memorial on the same site in 2010, listing the names of the dead. – Specify that it's not all 74 soldiers.
  • The article says This memorial is a stone wall engraved with the names of the Hindu and Sikh dead. Do you think it needs to be clearer?
    • Yes, but that's in the body, I'm picking on the lead. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Brighton, being a resort town on the south coast and close to major ports, was well-positioned to accommodate the evacuees. – Presumably because of the latter more than the former?
  • Not entirely. Being a resort meant it had plenty of facilities to accommodate an influx of people.
• Over 4,300 Indian soldiers were treated in hospitals in Brighton, of whom 74 died of their wounds. – Died of their wounds, or died of their wounds/disease?
  • Died of wounds or complications from wounds; I've seen no coverage of widespread disease.
• Photographs of the deceased were taken, which were sent to their relatives in India along with a portion of their ashes. – Of their corpses?
  • Well, yes, but it goes without saying that a photo of a deceased person taken after their death is a photo of a corpse.
• After leaving office, Otter chaired Brighton's Indian Memorials Committee – When?
  • Added some context.
• It is roughly a mile and a quarter north-northeast (two kilometres) – Why not use numbers?
  • Per MOS:NUMERAL, numbers below ten are written as words.
• The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella. – The section above already covers this, redundant?
  • The section above tells us what the word means, not necessarily the shape of the monument.
• It is a domed pavilion rising to 30 feet (9.1 m) to the finial at its apex. – I think 'finial' and 'apex' are describing the same things, is it common practice to measure finials at their base or halfway through?
  • I don't think they're exclusive. "Apex" is the highest point, "finial" is the object that reaches it.
• The plinth bears an inscription in English, Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu, the text of which was prepared by Sir John Otter – Did Otter write the text in Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu?
  • I would imagine it was translated though by whom is not specified in the source material.
• The monument covers an area of 40 by 60 feet (12 by 18 metres) – I thought it was square?
• Otter initially approached the Duke of Connaught (a member of the royal family and army officer who had served in India), but the duke was due to be out of the country on the proposed date. – He approached him what for? The unveiling?
• The mayor and mayoress of Brighton and Otter joined at Brighton railway station and the party proceeded by car to Patcham, greeted by enthusiastic crowds along the route. – The party has not been introduced, so who did they 'join' with?
• Lakhbir Jassal, of the University of Edinburgh Institute of Geography – Does the 'University of Edinburgh Institute of Geography' grant Jassal any particular credibility? I think we shouldn't use academic titles in the same way we don't use 'Dr.'. Also, a brief Google search of the name doesn't allay my confidence, why is she qualified to speak on the subject?
• but the memorial was neglected in the years after the unveiling and was allowed to fall into disrepair. – I think the latter implies the former.
• and the India Office prompted the Borough Corporation into action in 1924, but complaints about the condition of the site continued. – What sort of action?
  • Minimal, hence the continued complaints.
    • If the source allows for it, it should be specified. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• This was agreed, though the corporation was reluctant to pay for the restoration works and postponed them to 1942. – This is the first mention of the 'restoration works', what did the plan entail?
• and a public ceremony has been held annually since 2000 on the third Sunday in June. – I note that all three cited sources predate COVID, did it have an impact? I also note that the centenary seems to have gone unmentioned, was there anything that was held then?
  • The ceremony has certainly continued. The most recent source for its continuation is Dunlop (2025), but it doesn't seem to attract much attention in reliable sources. It's one of those things that just quietly happens. The people in the relevant communities presumably know by word of mouth but don't document it. @Stikkyy: Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately I've only just seen them and I'm away for a week (at Wikimania in Paris) starting tomorrow. I hope you'll forgive me if I can't address the rest of your comments until the week after. To other reviewers: do feel free to leave comments if you were waiting for me, and I'll get to those in week's time as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The monument covers an area of 40 by 60 feet (12 by 18 metres) – I thought it was square?" I think the article has to be clear that the full site consists of a grey stone terraced enclosure which is the 40 by 60 feet (by eyeballing some aerial views, unfortunately none seem usable in wikipedia), inside is the Chattri proper (which is square) at one end overlooking the sites of the three ghats at the other end (the wreathes in the first picture are on the ghat sites), surrounding the terrace are landscaped gardens. I think the best picture currently in wikimedia commons for showing this is File:The_Chattri,_Brighton_09.jpg Ideally an aerial view would be useful.
• "and a public ceremony has been held annually since 2000 on the third Sunday in June – I note that all three cited sources predate COVID, did it have an impact? I also note that the centenary seems to have gone unmentioned, was there anything that was held then?", Services were held in 2020 (though only the organizer and presumably a camera person were present due to covid), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrGZt1ogTu8), 2021 (it is mentioned that the 100th year since unveiling and 71st ceremony though nothing much more, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7c-noOZII), and apparently every year since including this year.

Thoughts on two of the comments. Erp (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also add

• It sits on a plinth (or terrace) of grey stone which itself stands on three blocks of granite covering the slabs used during the cremations. The plinth is square and stepped down four times on the eastern side. - this seems wrong. Looking at a satellite view, the plinth with the Chattri has three sets of steps down on the SSE side to another terrace with the three granite slabs on it that cover the location of the cremations. A last short set of steps leads to the exit to the wider garden

BTW https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9577815/ has a picture of the dedication ceremony which seems to be CC by-SA licensed and therefore, I think, usable by wikipedia Erp (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Harry, are you able to respond to the remaining comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)