Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etcEdit

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Electric eelEdit

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC) and LittleJerry

This article is about the electric eel, recently found to be a genus with three species, but long studied by science as a unique and remarkable species; its study advanced understanding of electricity as well as of physiology. We've tried to present the subject at once plainly, historically, and scientifically, and we hope you like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
    • Added alt texts for lightning symbols. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Lightning_Symbol.svg is too simple to warrant copyright protection
  • File:Sternarchorhynchus_oxyrhynchus.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Rhamphichthys_marmoratus.jpg, File:Exodon_paradoxus_Castelnau.jpg
    • All three images given US tags on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Impedance_matching_in_electric_fishes.svg needs a source for the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    • The image caption is cited to Kramer 2008. Copied the citation to Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

R2K: The ConcertEdit

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

After working on Philippine-related BLP articles and bringing them to FA, I've decided to explore other interests within music by working on a concert article and take a bit of a break from another biography. This article is about a concert event staged by Filipina singer Regine Velasquez. It went through a GAN and has undergone a copyedit to address MoS, flow, punctuation issues. I feel ready to bring this to FAC. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

1899 United States Senate election in PennsylvaniaEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... an election which lacked one of the usual things you find with elections, that is, a winner. Unimportant in itself, this election which elected no one set off a chain of events that helped make Theodore Roosevelt president.Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:History_of_Beaver_County,_Pennsylvania_and_its_centennial_celebration,_(1904)_(14804406853).jpg: is more specific tagging available?
  • File:George_A._Jenks.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:BenjaminFJones.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and what evidence is there this was published c. 1870? The source says only date and doesn't specify whether that was publication or only creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I've given a more specific tag for the first one and swapped the two other images for (regrettably inferior) ones that are clearly PD. I'll keep looking, but this should do the trick for now. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Duckport CanalEdit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The little cousin of Grant's Canal. A single boat made it through, but this one wasn't really successful either. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from IazygesEdit

Reviewed this at ACR, happy to support as FA standard. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Source review - PassEdit

Also performed the source review for ACR; similarly willing to support the sourcing as meeting the higher FA standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Added
  • File:VicksburgCampaignAprilJuly63.png: suggest adding legend, but see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I've actually swapped this map out with a crop, as only a small portion is really needed for this article. For now, I've added a legend, although I've made a request at the Graphics Lab to see if something can be done here to fix the accessibility issues. Hog Farm Talk 23:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Low Memorial LibraryEdit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the original library building constructed on Columbia University's Morningside Heights campus from 1895 to 1897. Great care was taken in designing this building, which was literally the centerpiece of the campus. Named after the father of Columbia president Seth Low (and ironically the highest point of the original campus), the structure is shaped like a Greek cross, with a limestone-and-granite facade and an ornate domed rotunda. The Low Memorial Library had space for 500,000 volumes but was inadequate as a library. It was converted into offices in 1934 but remains a prominent fixture on the Columbia campus.

This page was promoted as a Good Article ten months ago after a GA review by GhostRiver, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Baffle gab1978, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Trustees_room_at_Columbia_University_MG_0908.JPG: to which work(s) is the PD-expired tag believed to apply?
  • File:Low_Library2.jpg: where was this first published?
  • File:Low_library_1897.jpg: given the date this cannot be own work, and where/when was this first published?
  • File:Columbia_Book_Slide.jpg: where was this first published?
  • File:AlmaMater2020.png needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ErnestKrauseEdit

Fairly nicely written and organized article about this well-known tourist visiting spot in NYC. Would it be of any interest to possibly consider adding a section dealing with the artistic renderings of the building as it has been visited by artists and moviemakers over the past several decades, such as here: [1]. It seems like I've seen in several NYC movies such as the ones by Woody Allen and other directors. Also architects have made artistic renderings of high quality, etc. Could you consider such a section for this article. As a separate point, the lead section should say more about the centrality of the building to the campus, it needs more emphasis as the cornerstone for the entire campus, rather than just simple focal point; you already have some of this in the section on this topic which you could move up into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments ErnestKrause. I've edited the lead to emphasize the fact that Low is actually at the center of Columbia's Morningside Heights campus (the university has since expanded to another campus in nearby Manhattanville, hence the clarification). I'm working on adding some information about media appearances, including film and artwork. Unfortunately, so far, I haven't been able to find many reliable secondary sources, although the university's own website has a couple of pages describing film appearances. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-KingEdit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ælwynn was an important figure in tenth-century England, but as with almost all women in this period, very little is known about her. The article is therefore short even though it is comprehensive and I hope it will be found suitable for FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Edgar_from_Winchester_Charter.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from IazygesEdit

  • Taking this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Ælfwynn was the wife of Æthelstan Half-King, Ealdorman of East Anglia. He was called the Half-King because it was believed that he was so powerful that King Edmund I (940–946) and his brother King Eadred (946–955) depended on his advice. There's a lot of "he" usage in the second sentence and the following one, perhaps Ælfwynn was the wife of Æthelstan Half-King, Ealdorman of East Anglia, who was called the Half-King because it was believed that he was so powerful that King Edmund I (940–946) and his brother King Eadred (946–955) depended on his advice.
  • However, Cyril Hart, suggest introducing him, and other modern historians, perhaps However, historian Cyril Hart, and so on.
  • He was part of Edgar's inner circle as his camerarius (chamberlain) until 963 suggest He was part of Edgar's inner circle, serving as his camerarius (chamberlain) until 963

Lumines: Puzzle FusionEdit

Nominator(s):Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is about a 2004 Puzzle game originally released on the PlayStation Portable. It had received multiple revisions and ports along with sequels and spin-offs. The article covers in detail the original game and its revisions. The sequels and spin-offs are covered briefly but have their own article and intended to be summarized in detail in the Lumines article. This is the second nomination. It initially failed because of criteria 1a. I had since requested Guild of Copy editors to assist with the specific intent of getting it to Featured status. Baffle gab1978 assisted with the copy-edit and i had found all the edits satisfactory. I believe this time it meets Featured class.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Apologies for leaving a message, but I just wanted to let you know that this FAC does not appear to be properly formatted. I am not sure how to correct it, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I tried to format it manually. Sorry for the inconvenience.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
No apology necessary. Thank you for addressing this point. Unfortunately, I will be unable to review this FAC, but I wish you the best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Kathryn D. SullivanEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and TommyBoy (talk)

This article is about Kathy Sullivan. Sullivan was selected as a NASA astronaut candidate with NASA Astronaut Group 8, the first group to include women; the group also included Sally Ride and Judith Resnik. Unlike them, Sullivan is still alive, and is currently serving as a scientific advisor to President Joe Biden. She has flown in space and descended to the deepest point in the world's oceans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

File:Kathryn Sullivan, PCAST Member (cropped).jpg. What is the evidence this was taken by a federal employee acting within the scope of their duties, rather than being (for example) a copyright acquired by the federal government or held elsewhere?
File:Sullivan Views the Earth - GPN-2000-001082.jpg. Dead links.
File:STS-41-G Sullivan checks SIR-B antenna latch.jpg Can we just have one link, that works, on the image page?
File:Sullivan and Ride Show Sleep Restraints - GPN-2000-001032.jpg Dead links
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Not very much.
" They installed a valve into a satellite propulsion system that mimicked that of Landsat 4 and transferred 59 kilograms (130 lb) of hydrazine to it using the ORS." So they didn't actually refuel a satellite?
  • "In September 1988, Sullivan was assigned to the STS-61-J mission, which was scheduled to deploy the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in August 1986.[22] " There seems to be an issue of continuity with this sentence.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WAP (song)Edit

Nominator(s): —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a song that needs no introduction. The song that angered parents across the globe. Number-ones across the world. Easily one of the most controversial songs in recent times. Dare I say the most controversial? I nominated this article for GA status in June, and my nomination was reviewed by MaranoFan, who passed the article after I tended to their suggestions. I requested a peer review in July, which included two helpful points from Czarking0. Now, it's August, and I'm nominating "WAP to become a featured article. I've worked to make this article as complete and concise as I could on my own, and now I'm ready for the community's opinion.

This is my first featured article candidacy, so do let me know if I've done something incorrectly. Thank you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixing ping to User:Czarking0. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ErnestKrauseEdit

Some comments and concerns which I've seen in the article nominated.

(1) The song is well known and the lyrics are explicit, however, you appear not to link or discuss the Wikipedia article for explicit lyrics. Was there a reason for this.

I thought it would be a violation of WP:OVERLINK. Also, there is no Wikipedia article for that topic. It's a redirect to Parental Advisory. Not a big deal though, I'll just wiki-link it now. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(2) Regarding the theme of explicit lyrics, this genre is well established in rap for at least 2-3 decades, however, you do not discuss the difference between explicit lyrics used for political opposition and explicit lyrics used for sexual intents. The song you are nominating makes no secret about which version of explicit sexual lyrics are being used in the song.

This one has confused me a bit. Why would this difference be established? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(3) There is no Lyrics section in the article. Because of the nature of the Lyrics, it seems that there should be at least a little more about the content. To start with there is the monotonously repeat back-up lyrics from start to finish in this song "There's some whores in this house" which seem to have reliable sources discussing them. A Lyrics section would be a good place to discuss this, as well as the main lyrics of the song, in addition to the back-up lyrics.

Is a composition section not sufficient for this purpose? If you'd like, I could add a paragraph about this there. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(4) History. There is a long tradition of explicit sexual lyrics in rap and funk which might be mentioned in the history section of this article which is presently not covered. Rick James did "Superfreak" several decades ago, and a decade ago there was "Sweat" by Snoop Dog. Are you saying that none of the reliable sources covered this at all?

Can you explain why this would be covered in an article specifically about "WAP"? I'm certain this is described in numerous reliable sources, but I fail to see why it's relevant for this article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(5) Your Impact and Legacy section looks like it might also be done by separating the Impact part into the Reception section which comes earlier in your article and possibly combining the Legacy section with the Covers section of the song which is currently directly above it, "Cover versions and legacy".

I'll merge the prose into the reception one. However, the quote, I feel doesn't fit in with the cover version section. I'm going to remove it; if you object to that I'll re-add it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(6) In the Music video section, can you align the Synopsis title with the actual text. There is currently a left side image which seems to separate the text from its section title.

Fixed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(7) For the video section, was there any discussion in RS about the selection and use of model types used in this video. The models do not look like 'Victoria's Angels" models, though they are not quite 'plus' sized models either. How were they described by RS? Was the selection process discussed by RS?

Everything I've seen about the casting of the music video is limited to the cameo appearances from the rappers and singers. I've checked through RS and haven't found anything about this part of the music video, though I could have missed something. I will note that inclusiveness of this sort is far more common these days. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(8) There is a significant social discussion in the press about movie rating and media ratings to protect children from obscenity and prurient content; is it making more comment about this in this article. For example, many parents are sensitive to R-rating, and do not let their children go to these movies. Similarly for explicit sexual song content.

For this one I'd like you to go more in depth. I see your point, but I don't know what you want me to do. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(9) I'll need to agree with Nick's comments below as well; there seems to be a issue with how comprehensive your list of RS for the article has been. I've already asked for some more RS above, and Nick is stating below that there are at least a half dozen to a dozen more scholarly RS to be found on Google Scholar; also you might want to look at JSTOR, Web-of-Science, and the other more conventional search engines to find sources. The 'comprehensiveness' issue is going to be an issue for this kind of FAC nomination.

(10) I'm still not sure about the question of why the article does not have a conventional Lyrics section and a conventional Music section. The Lyrics section I've already made some comments about above, and a Music section also seems absent here which would tell me which key the song is written in, what the metronome setting is for the song, if there are any key changes, how many key changes, etc. This seems an important thing to add to this article.

Let me know if there any of these items listed need more elaboration. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: thank you for a swift review. I've implemented a few suggestions of yours; thank you for those. I have asked a few questions, if you could answer those. Again, thanks for your comments. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Adding comments #9 and #10 above. See Nick's comments below as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Drive by comments by Nick-DEdit

Four observations:

  • The really noteworthy thing about this song is it's explicit lyrics. The article dances around this, and doesn't really describe what the song is about.
  • The 'Reaction from conservative figures' section seems to be limited to views from two obscure political figures in the US and a prolific trollish commentator only: is this really the worldwide reception, and what makes these views so noteworthy they require a detailed section?
  • If these people's views are worth noting, where's the discussion of the song by feminists and progressives? A lot of women aside from music critics found it empowering, yet this doesn't seem to be discussed.
  • A search of Google Scholar suggests that there are some academic works on the song that don't seem to have been consulted yet: [2] (though at least some of the works look to be by students so may not be RS) Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Two things about point four: I'm having trouble distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources in this area, furthermore I've only found one that would add something to the article which is not already covered by reliable sources. The one I found is this: WAP through a gender lens. I haven't looked at JSTOR or other databases, but most of these works do seem to be made by students. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Drive by comments from theleekycauldronEdit

  • "Credits from Tidal" shouldn't be in the article body – seems that, at the very least, should go in a footnote (if preserved at all)
  • Is there a reason to link to the songwriter as Belcalis Almanzar rather than her stage name, Cardi B?
  • The Guardian should be linked
  • Why is Personnel all the way at the bottom? That seems like an odd place to leave it – also, shouldn't it be in the ibox?
  • The second paragraph in "Background and release" looks a little skinny – can it be moved or beefed up?
  • I think the censored version can take up a bit more space...
  • The ellipses in the second paragraph of "Critical response" give an impression of tone where there isn't (see "full off... detail") – can the quotes be cleaned up a little?
  • Is BET a high-quality reliable source? Particularly for the amount of space its information takes up...
  • "The following is a selected list of publications." in Accolades should be removed – wikivoice doesn't reference itself
  • "Political commentator Ben Shapiro was widely mocked for his sarcastic reading of the lyrics to 'WAP'." Seems like a caption for the article body – can this caption instead talk about when this photo was taken?

2022 Welsh Open (snooker)Edit

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It may surprise you to learn that I don't get to see a lot of professional snooker live. This was the second event I managed to get to in the last five years. A superb week in a great venue - with some images taken during the event in the article. The Welsh Open is often a good but minor event, but for two years straight has had a great narrative. The previous year's winner Jordan Brown won his first event, ranked 80th in the world. This year, perennial journeyman Joe Perry won the event, defeating the majorly in-form Ricky Walden in the quarter-finals, Jack Lisowski (who had won a match of the season contender against Ali Carter in the round prior), a serial winner Judd Trump in the final to win his second ranking event, the first being a minor 2015 Players Tour Championship Grand Final win. Perry's win was at age 47, the second oldest winner of a ranking event (at the time). A great event, and hopefully a well written and researched article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

Prose review:

  • "True Sport in Thailand;" Wikilink to True Sport?
  • "won the fifth on the colours after potting a difficult yellow ball" I am unsure what "on the colours" means, and I can't find the term at Glossary of cue sports terms Perhaps this should be explained in the article or a different term used.
  • "the 31st edition of the Welsh Open," This is mentioned in the lede but not cited in the article

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Z1720, I have made the above changes. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • For Ref 2 (the one used to cite the 31st Welsh Open) should include a retrieval date, and I recommend archiving it. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • "Ronnie O'Sullivan's held-over qualifying match" - up to this point you have only used the surname on any mention after the first (which I believe to be correct practice) but O'Sullivan is named in full...?
  • "Three-time World Women's Snooker Championship winner Ng On-yee" - not linked?
  • "failed to escape from a snooker" - link snooker in this context
  • Image captions which are complete sentences need full stops
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLooseEdit

Sources (not a full source review)

  • Remove "author=World Snooker Tour" from ref 71.

I had a look at the Snooker Scene refs:

  • "in the fifth frame, potting single reds and then playing safe or attempting to snooker his opponent" seems to go beyond the source - unless you can point me to a part I'm missing.
  • The Snooker Scene ref after "stated Vafaei afterward." can be removed as it's redundant (and unlike the Eurosport source, doesn't include the "It was unbelievable" part of the quote).
  • "Perry cited a match he won over Lee Walker at the Turkish Masters qualifying event as a catalyst for his change in form during the event" - maybe add a bit more about what he said? (improved his confidence because he played well, according to him)
  • "The win took him from 42nd to 23rd in the world rankings" - the Snooker Scene ref is redundant. (You could use the WST source there to add in that the trophy is named after Reardon, maybe.)


  • I couldn't see explicit support for "the 31st edition" in the source; is this a WP:CALC based on "ever present on the snooker calendar since 1992"?


  • It's probably obvious who the "him" in "The win took him from 42nd to 23rd in the world rankings" is, but consider changing it to "Perry".

Infobox and Lead

  • Can "held-over" be explained here?
  • Could mention highest breaks in the lead.

@Lee Vilenski: that's all I could see; unsurprisingly not very much as I had reviewed this for GA. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Mount GaribaldiEdit

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a dormant volcano in Canada that partially erupted onto glacial ice during the last glacial period. It has been improved greatly since the last time it was at FAC in 2008, two years after I became a registered Wikipedian. Mount Garibaldi is one of Canada's best known volcanoes and Natural Resources Canada considers it to be one of the country's highest threat volcanoes due to its location near the populated southwest corner of British Columbia (e.g. Vancouver, Squamish, Whistler, Brackendale). Volcanoguy 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the topographic and route maps, and see MOS:COLOUR
    • I've scaled up the topographic and route maps; not sure why you're linking to MOS:COLOUR. Volcanoguy 04:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
      • The topographic map conveys information through colour alone, and some of the shades are indistinguishable without colour. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if there's anything I can do about that. Not everything on the topo map is coloured; the names of the map features are black, which is a shade. If the map is really that problematic I can just replace it with images of subfeatures. Volcanoguy 03:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Giuseppe_Garibaldi_(1866).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Done. Volcanoguy 04:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
      • When was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure. I've replaced it with a different image. Volcanoguy 03:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

JJE's review

  • "This activity produced mostly dacite, such that much of Mount Garibaldi is composed of this volcanic rock." is a bit of an odd prose.
    • I don't see what's odd about it. Volcanoguy 11:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I've revised this sentence, not sure if it's any better. Volcanoguy 22:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Several individually named outlet glaciers drain the Garibaldi Névé.[8] This includes" shouldn't that be plural?
    • I think I got it. Volcanoguy 11:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Nothing about the etymology of the other toponyms on Garibaldi? You only mention Cheekye.
  • "built of granitic rocks." I am not sure that "of" is right here.
    • Changed to "made of granitic rocks". Volcanoguy 21:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "due to Pacific air often passing over this area" something of an odd prose.
    • I don't see what's odd about it. Volcanoguy 11:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I've reworded this to "due to air from the Pacific Ocean often passing over this area". Volcanoguy 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What makes a reliable source?
    • I'm not sure how it's an unreliable source? Volcanoguy 12:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
      • The question is whether it's a reliable one. Unlike the other ones, it isn't obviously reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
        • I also found that source questionable when I added it in the article. I've decided to delete the Garibaldi at Squamish paragraph until better sources appear. Volcanoguy 21:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What's a bergschrund?
    • I've reworded the text to "bergschrunds and other crevasses" to make it clearer that it's a type of crevasse. Volcanoguy 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Are these accidents mentioned in the "Dangers and accidents" section the only ones? If there are more, why were these highlighted?
    • I was not able to find more accidents. Volcanoguy 11:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What does "(grade II and class 3–4)" mean? Same for similar parentheses farther below.
    • It is stated earlier that the grades and classes of Mount Garibaldi's climbing routes range from II-to-V and 2-to-5 on the Yosemite Decimal System, which is used for rating the difficulty of climbs. Volcanoguy 11:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I've added a table explaining the Yosemite Decimal System grades and classes. Volcanoguy 21:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "moderately angled snow and ice " shouldn't that be "sloping".

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AirshipEdit

I'm not a geologist in the slightest, so this will probably just be a review of the prose.

  • "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé. This is a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers." would one sentence be preferable?
  • What's a "scarp"? A wikilink would be nice.
  • "fans out in the Squamish Valley" into instead of in, perhaps?
  • "the primary volcanic rock comprising Mount Garibaldi" awkward, please rephrase. Don't think either of the words "primary" or "comprising" are the most precise.
    • How about "the main volcanic rock forming Mount Garibaldi"? Volcanoguy 05:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "If this were to happen, relief efforts may be quickly organized." Fairly redundant sentence.
    • How is this fairly redundant? Volcanoguy 18:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • " involve traversing glaciers, snow slopes or loose rock. Mountain climbing hazards include crevasses, avalanches and rockfalls." this somehow seems to be saying the same thing twice.
  • I must inquire as to whether the biogeography section is fully necessary — it seems almost entirely reliant on one source, and most of its information only seems indirectly related to the volcano itself.
    • Given that there's no biogeographic information about the volcano itself it doesn't hurt mentioning the areal biogeography. What's in the local ecoregion is what is at the mountain. Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Mount Garibaldi is a moderately dissected stratovolcano" is there a link for 'dissection' (whatever it is) as a process?
    • Changed "dissected" to "eroded". Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I have taken the liberty of wikilinking Giuseppe Garibaldi in the body.
  • Two of the coordinates in the recreation facilities section are identical. Are the coordinates really necessary?
    • No, deleted. Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The table of grade and class explanation isn't necessary—a simple explanation in the body would suffice.
    • I'm not aware of a way to easily explain grades and classes in the body. Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Prose is generally good, although perhaps slightly too punctuated at times. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)



  • "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé. This is a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers." These sentences could probably be combined: "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé, a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers."
  • "Flowing from the steep western face of Mount Garibaldi is the Cheekye River, a tributary of the Cheakamus River." Perhaps: "On the steep western face of Mount Garibaldi is the Cheekye River, a tributary of the Cheakamus River." Removes "flowing" from this sentence, as "lava flow" was in the sentence directly before.
  • Should "scarp" be Wikilinked to something? Wikipedia has two articles from the DAB page "Scarp" that could apply: "Cliff" and "Escarpment". If you link here, remember to link on first instance in the main as well.
  • "The first period of volcanism that led to the construction of Mount Garibaldi commenced between 260,000 and 220,000 years ago with the formation of an ancestral cone that was subsequently destroyed." – Perhaps: "Mount Garibaldi construction commenced between 260,000 and 220,000 years ago with the formation of an ancestral cone that was subsequently destroyed."
  • "Another period of growth began with the eruption of Atwell Peak..." – Perhaps: "Another growth period began with the eruption of Atwell Peak..."
  • "After the ice sheet disappeared..." – "After the ice sheet melted..."? or "After the ice sheet dissipated..."? Disappeared sounds a bit like magic. Your call on that.
  • "...with the eruption of lava from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone" – Could this be "...with eruptions from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone"?
  • "Although the mountain is not known to have experienced a volcanic eruption since that time, it could erupt again..." – maybe just "it could again" as "erupt" is implied within the context of the sentence.
    • How about "Although the mountain is not known to have been volcanically active since that time, it could erupt again..."? Volcanoguy 02:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    • That works. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "...which would potentially endanger the nearby populace." – "...which could endanger the nearby populace" would give the same meaning (probably) and more succinctly.
  • "If this were to happen, relief efforts may be quickly organized." – "may be" or "would be" or "could be"?
    • Definitely not "would be" because it is not accurate to state that this would (definitely) happen. Volcanoguy 21:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
      • How about "If this were to happen, relief efforts could be organized by teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan who are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "They have passed down several stories regarding the mountain, including one involving the great flood." – perhaps replace with "Their oral history includes a story of the mountain and the great flood."
  • "Several mountaineers had climbed Mount Garibaldi by the early 1900s, some of which were members of..." – pretty sure it should be "some of whom", as "who" is for people and "which" is for things.
  • "Attempts at creating a ski resort at Mount Garibaldi began in the 1960s." – perhaps "A ski resort was begun in the late 1960s, but developments were halted in 1969 due to financial difficulties." This gives the "lead-only" readers a succinct sentence about the dead resort and doesn't leave them hanging.
  • I know the Oxford comma is not required and is main writer's preference. I do find the final lead sentence difficult to follow without it. Not sure if there is a solution. "...Brohm Ridge and the Diamond Head parking lot at the end of Garibaldi Park Road." Took me four reads, most likely my problem.
  • "The non-indigenous name of the mountain was given by George Henry Richards in 1860, who named it in honour of the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi."
Perhaps "The non-indigenous name of the mountain was given by George Henry Richards in 1860 in honour of the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Done. Volcanoguy 17:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


  • Do we also link first time in the main even though something was Wikilinked in the Lead? I thought we did. If so, some links may be needed in this section.

I'll have more later. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I Need You (Paris Hilton song)Edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know that Paris Hilton released a doo-wop song as a Valentine's Day present for her fiancé Chris Zylka? Its lyrics are filled with holiday-related puns, such as “merry in your Christmas”, “the bunny in your Easter”, and “your forever Valentine”. The music video features Hilton wearing lingerie, posing in a bed covered with red rose petals, and popping out of a cake among other activities. This song is so unapologetically and unironically corny that I can't help but love it.

I created this article in 2018 and it received a helpful GAN review from @IndianBio:. I recently opened a peer review and I received a lot of great feedback from @ChrisTheDude:, @Pseud 14:, @MaranoFan:, @TheSandDoctor:, @FrB.TG:, and @Tunestoons:. Thank you in advance for any comments. I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


  • Support per my peer review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support and your help in the peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from TheSandDoctorEdit

  • Support per my peer review. Best of luck! :) --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Media reviewEdit

I'll take this ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  • ALT texts are there, which is good. Most are satisfactory, though can the ALT for the cover art be trimmed? I find it shares more detail than necessary.
  • The ALT text for the infobox image has been trimmed down per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:INeedYouSingleCover.png
    • single cover arts usually pass NFCC; this one is no different.
    • For posterity, the source link could use an archived version
      • Archived. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Paris Hilton at the US Capitol (cropped).jpg
    • licensing is a-ok. Derived from a photo taken for a US Congress representative, so this is PD.
    • However, this is causing MOS:IMAGELOC issues on my screen, pushing the "Music and lyrics" header to the right. Can we shrink this using |upright=?
      • Revised. I decreased the size of the image per your suggestion, and I also shortened the image caption to hopefully help with this matter further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:AmericanBeautyParisHiltonScreenShot.jpg
    • I skimmed the section in which this image is placed. The detail shown in the music video screenshot is covered substantially in the prose, passing NFCC #8. It also passes NFCC #1 since one can't make a free alternative image to this screenshot, and readers cannot discern what "classic Americana" aesthetic looks through words alone.
    • I'd fill out the Replaceability_text parameter and say why text alone cannot substitute the picture, which I outlined above.
      • Thank you for the suggestion. It is best to be more specific with these rationales as it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum (which is understandable). Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Ditto with the single cover; I'd archive the Instagram link and include the archived version in the NFC rationale
      • There was already information for the single cover's replaceability, which was used from other FAs on songs, and I am not sure if anything further could be added, but I am open to suggestions. I have archived the Instagram link. To be completely transparent though, it is not the most helpful since the image is not showing up in the archive, but that could be an Instagram issue. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:INeedYouParisHiltonAudioSample.ogg
    • Of short enough length (10% of original song's) and low enough quality (50 kbps). The relevant section's prose significantly discusses the details intended to be illustrated by the sample. Hence NFCC #8 is satisfied. It also passes NFCC #1 since a free alternative is impossible, and readers cannot discern how doo-wop and pop sound through words alone.
    • Like with the MV screenshot file page, I'd fill out the Replaceability_text parameter for the sake of completeness
      • Very good point. I have revised this point. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Your Power: Thank you for the media review! It is great to get this kind of thing addressed early in a FAC and you have done a wonderful and thorough job as a reviewer. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if things can be improved further. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


  • The cover seems to be 250x250px instead of the usual 300x300. This is totally OK though from a policy POV.
  • Revised as it is best to keep everything consistent. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Do you think "Hilton's fifth appearance on the Dance Club Songs chart, the single peaked at number 31" might be a more climactic way of writing the lead's second paragraph's second sentence?
  • While I understand and appreciate your suggestion, I am not sure about ending a sentence with a number. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Hilton posted photos from the music video on her Instagram account" - "Hilton posted photos from the music video on Instagram" might work just as well
  • Very good point. It is better to go with your more concise suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe it could be indicated somehow that this second album was never released
  • Unfortunately, I could not find third-party, reliable sources that confirm this information. There are articles that pop up every now and then about Hilton promising new music, but that's the tough thing with non-releases like this. They hardly ever get confirmation in the press. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Dresden described the song as "over-the-top syrupy and smothering" - "over-the-top" sounds a bit critical to me so does this maybe belong in Reception rather than Music and lyrics?
  • Understandable. I have revised this bit and moved it down to the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Does it need to be mentioned the video was released on her "official" YouTube account? It would be rather unusual if they released it on an unofficial channel.
  • Agreed. It would be assumed the channel is official unless stated otherwise. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to be more specific while describing "Stash Konig, Dirty Disco and Nitemover" than just "artists"? Maybe their country, or if they are DJs or producers could be included.
  • I have included that they are all DJs, with an appropriate wikilink, but I am uncertain about their country. I would imagine that they are from different areas so that may be overly cumbersome to list here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it necessary to include that one of the remixes was released through Facebook? If no secondary source covered this and the Facebook upload is the only source maybe this isn't very noteworthy.
  • Fair point. I was initially reluctant to cut this sentence, but the platforms that the remixes were released on is trivial and since it was nothing noteworthy (i.e. neither the SoundCloud or FaceBook releases received attention in secondary sources), I cut the whole thing. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Nothing else I can see of concern. Hope you are having a great week!--NØ 15:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help and I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies. Happy to support this FAC on prose.--NØ 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and the support! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Pseud 14Edit

  • Support on prose, per my peer review. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "Through the track, Hilton sings about love and how she will" -> "The lyrics describe how Hilton is in love and how she will..." To emphasise that this paragraph is about the lyrics.
  • The next sentence already starts with "The lyrics ... " so it would make the prose repetitive. I am not sure if the change is beneficial since the transition from the production to the lyrics is already quite clear (at least in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Michael Love Michael viewed the track", "Raisa Bruner cited "I Need You"", since these people don't have wikipages, their credentials (stating that they are critics, or which publication they are writing for) should be included in the article.
  • Both critics were already introduced in a previous section where the publication was attributed in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • You are correct, so reintroducing them is unnecessary. Perhaps their first names can be removed after their first mention? Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I thought it would be helpful to include their full names since this is a new section and it may confuse some readers to just see a last name. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • In the lede, Hilton is described as a socialite, but this is not cited in the article body.
  • I do not believe this is necessary. I have not seen similar things in other featured articles about songs (i.e. having the descriptor backed up by a citation) and the primary Paris Hilton article already make this descriptor quite clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not typically ask editors go to other articles to verify information. While a citation would not be needed to say someone is a singer in a song article (the fact that a person released a song is enough to verify that they are a singer is verified because they sang the song, so it doesn't need to be explicitly stated), the fact that someone is a socialite is not inherently implied by the release of a song. It doesn't need to be cited in the lede, but I would imagine that it would be mentioned in the body with a citation. Since I am not very familiar with song/music articles, I will leave that to your discretion on whether it should be added and won't let this affect my support, because at the end of the day this is relatively minor. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • How would you introduce and cite this information in the article? I cannot think of a way that would not come across as awkward? Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The best way I can think of to do so is in the first sentence of "Recording and release" to say, "American socialite Paris Hilton co-wrote "I Need You" with its producer Michael Green..." Again, I am not very familiar with song articles, so if this seems awkward then I do not recommend putting it in the article unless another reviewer also flags this. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    That would not work in my opinion. Look at featured articles on songs, such as "I'm Goin' Down", "Dear Future Husband", and "Sound and Vision", and none of them use a descriptive phrase for the primary artist. I thought about including a sentence or two in the "Recording and release" section about how Hilton is a socialite who first pursued a music career by an album in 2006, but it seemed odd to include this for something outside her first musical release and it came across like padding to me.
    For clarification, I am also hesitant to change the lede to say "American singer Paris Hilton" because Hilton is more commonly associated with other aspects of her career outside of music. I am just not sure how to best approach this to accommodate your suggestion. Apologies. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Z1720: Just so you are aware, I have added a brief paragraph to the beginning of the article about how Hilton was a socialite who pursued a music career. I hope that is helpful. Thank you for your review and support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this addition resolves this concern. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Lede says, "The single peaked at number 31 on the Dance Club Songs chart," While body says "peaked at number 32 on the Dance Club Songs Billboard chart."
  • Thank you for catching this. It should be 32 so I have changed the lede. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • @Z1720: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if anything could be done to further improve the article. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I left some notes above for the nominator's consideration, but it won't affect my support. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • WP:QWQ issue in source 3 and 31d.
  • En-dash should be used instead of hyphen in source 5, 28 and 31. You can use this script to do the work for you.
  • Apologies for my mistake with this one and thank you for the correction. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Spot-checks: source 3, 4, 11 (in PR), 14, 15, 16, 20. No issues (just one extremely small point noted below).
  • Thank you for checking through these citations. Spot-checks are always important. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Source 14 and 15: article quotes "breathy vocals" based on these two sources but one of them only uses "vocal" without the s. FrB.TG (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG: I have revised this point. Thank you for catching this as I would not want to misrepresent a citation even by accident. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article further. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Consider it a pass from me. FrB.TG (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the source review! Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

I PRed this article and, although there have been some minor changes since then, there's nothing to pick up on so I am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from VersaceSpaceEdit

  • Clear and comprehensive. Well-written and contains good media. My only complaint is that the amount of prose in the image caption has caused there to be a large amount of empty space. Still, very good. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not get empty space in the article in my view, but I have attempted to trim the caption for the music video screenshot (which is what I am guessing you are referring to) to hopefully avoid that as much as possible for other readers. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from IppantekinaEdit

  • I think it's helpful to add a brief introduction of Heiress Records i.e. it was created by Hilton herself
  • I have added a bit to the "Background and release" section about this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Hilton's decision to experiment with a different musical genre" I believe it's helpful to discuss briefly what styles she did before to see how "different" this song is
  • I have hopefully cleared this up in the lede, and I have heavily revised the second paragraph in the "Reception" section to make these connection clearer in the prose. Feel free to let me know if these areas could use further revision. I will be looking at them again later when I have some distance. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Could you please be more specific? I am not seeing it, but I am not the best at this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Do we have credits from a more "official" source, like the digital booklet or Tidal?
  • Unfortunately, we do not. There is not a digital booklet for this single, and Tidal does not provide any credits for this song. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The rest of the article is well written and comprehensively researched. Nicely done! Ippantekina (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ippantekina: Thank you for your review. You have helped to improve the article a lot, specifically the point about the different musical genres. I have addressed everything, but the curly apostrophe. I cannot see in that section, but I am more likely than not reading over it. Apologies for that. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    Though it is nitpick-y, I have went on with fixing the apostrophe myself. Thank you for addressing everything else, and I support this article for promotion on prose. Ippantekina (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for the support and fixing the apostrophe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nitpick-y as the article should meet all the requirements. I am not sure how/why I kept overlooking that one so thank you for catching it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

1963–64 Gillingham F.C. seasonEdit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

After my most recent FAC nomination, which was about one of the most catastrophic seasons in the history of my favourite football club, I needed to write about something more positive, hence this one. I don't personally remember this season, as it was [mumble] years before I was born, but it was enjoyable to write about and to take a peek into the heady days when floodlights were a new concept, goal average was used, and players were called things like Geoff and Brian :-) Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

Prose review

  • "in which Gillingham competed in the Football League," Should "the" be included in the wikilink? It's not part of the bolded phrase in English Football League
  • "Gillingham began the season with an unbeaten run of 13 games, the longest such run from the start of the season by any team in the Football League," I'm not liking the repetition of "run". Maybe, "Gillingham were undefeated in their first 13 games, the longest such streak from the start of the season by any team in the Football League," or something similar
  • "The team played a total of 52 competitive matches," Delete "a total of" as redundant
  • "and a total of 18 in all competitions." Same as above
  • After re-reading the lede, I'm surprised that there is no mention of the team leaving the relegation zone during the season in Jan/Feb and the fan's reaction. This feels like a key detail to me.
  • I checked the lede, and all of its information is in the article body.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: - many thanks for your review, all points addressed. On point 2, I have used your wording other than the word "streak", which we really don't use in that context in British English. On point 5, I think you have conflated a couple of issues (the team didn't drop out of the top 4 until April, and the fans' anger in January was merely to do with the team's dour tactics) but I think I have covered the points you were referring to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, my concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


  • I would recommend separating the lede's first paragraph in two. It is a rather intimidating large block of text right at the start.
  • For this part, would not win another for nearly 50 years, in the lede, wouldn't it be better to be more specific and use the exact number of years?
  • This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. File:Priestfield2.jpg says the image was taken circa 1986, but the image caption in the article goes for a more general mid-1980s. Is there a reason for this difference?
    • Mainly that I was too lazy to check the image page for a more specific date of when I took the picture. Amended now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This is another clarification question. For this part, 22 players made at least one appearance, I am guessing words are used rather number as you do not want to start a sentence with numbers. Would that be correct?
    • Basically yes, but I changed it anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is in solid shape. I am very much a non-expert so I can only comment on the actual prose, but I do not have much to say in my review. Once my comments (and clarification questions) have been addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion on the basis of the prose. Wonderful job with handling a topic that is now over 50 years old. That is impressive. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

    • @Aoba47: - many thanks for your review and your kind words. All addressed now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      Thank you for your very prompt responses. I support this FAC based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sumitro DjojohadikusumoEdit

Nominator(s): Juxlos (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about an Indonesian economist/politician/rebel/oligarch/aristocrat/statesman, depending on when and who you ask (well except "economist", everyone agrees on that), who formed Indonesia's economic policies from 1950 to 1957 and 1968 to the 1980s and arguably to this day. Recently passed through a GAR by Goldsztajn, who provided extensive additional sourcing. Sources are currently a mix of fine details from Indonesian language sources and academic but broader sourcing from various Indonesia scholars or economic historians. Juxlos (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Texas A&M UniversityEdit

Nominator(s): Buffs (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Texas A&M University and has sought extensive feedback through previous FACs/FARC. Feedback and mentorship has been requested from literally every FA mentor listed (in most cases to no avail). While I still contend that previous discussions were prematurely closed, I still jumped through all the hoops as requested and have requested clarification (again, to no avail) from both objectors and the closing clerk. Lastly, I feel that there are some demands that have inappropriately been requested in previous FAs with no clarification given despite numerous requests; clarification/outside opinions on those matters would be appreciated.

Other discussions not mentioned above


My comments in the most recent FAC do not seem to have been addressed. For instance, the article still doesn't discuss the integration of women and minority students (though room could be found for a a full para on the women's basketball team!) and the para on the statue continues to use evasive language that privileges the views of the university's administration. As a spot check, the statement that "The event received worldwide attention during World War II, when 25 Aggies held a brief Aggie Muster during the battle for the island of Corregidor" is not supported by the source, which refers to this receiving attention only in the US. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "the article still doesn't discuss the integration of women and minority students (though room could be found for a a full para on the women's basketball team!)"
    Based on this feedback, I've added two more sentences in the history section explaining the integration of women/minorities in the 70s (the whole 140 year history is summarized into ~60 sentences). Given the overall impact, I think that, in addition to the other half dozen sentences in the history section, 10% of the history section is appropriately balanced good and bad.
    Yes, the women's basketball team (which, perplexingly, is part of the "discuss the integration of women..." you asked for above...I mean, I'm really confused here.) has enjoyed a long string of major success. As such, 4 sentences outlining 30+ years in the athletics section is appropriate. I'm not sure what you want. Less on the Basketball team? More?
  • "the para on the statue continues to use evasive language that privileges the views of the university's administration."
    I've repeatedly asked you what "evasive language" you are alleging and you have yet to clarify in 9+ months. The paragraph summarizes this situation in 3 sentences:
    1. the climate under which there was controversy
    2. the official university position prior
    3. the protests, counterprotests, and the ultimate decision by the university
    I'm very hard pressed to see what else you'd like to see added/changed. It isn't "administration heavy" by any stretch of the imagination. An informal student senate survey (which most everyone acknowledged was statistically questionable based on its sampling methodology based on poor student sampling...those with strong negative feelings responded at significantly higher rates than the general student population and there were poor controls on who could respond [more than one student came forward claiming they'd tried to respond to the survey to oppose any action only to find they'd allegedly submitted a response already]) showed that the student body opposed the statue's removal by a ratio of 2:1, but the results were highly striated on racial lines. I've asked you for further clarification in the past as to what you think should be added/what should be changed. I cannot address a point that is so vague. Could you perhaps be more specific? Give me a sentence or two that would illustrate the shortfalls/the changes you want? If you want me to include the unscientific student poll, I'll be happy to do so, but I don't think it changes anything substantive in the paragraph.
  • "As a spot check, the statement that 'The event received worldwide attention during World War II, when 25 Aggies held a brief Aggie Muster during the battle for the island of Corregidor' is not supported by the source, which refers to this receiving attention only in the US."
    While the Houston Chronicle is read worldwide, I'm not going to quibble over that: changed to nationwide. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the MildEdit

Recusing to review. Oppose and recommend withdrawal.

This is the first time I have looked at this article, US education not normally being my thing. But I thought this FAC may benefit from fresh eyes. I still haven't read all of it, as it seems clear to me that this is not yet ready for FAC. I could go on at some length about specific points and areas, but I shall stay with those used by Nick-D above. I note in passing that the nominator's responses to Nick-D's very clear and clearly made points (to my eye, coming across them and the article for the first time) puzzle me. I am unsure if the responses are deliberately evasive or reflect, somehow, genuine bafflement as to the points being made. Neither bodes well for a constructive exchange of opinions leading to promotion.

  • The para on the statue does seem to use "language that privileges the views of the university's administration."
    As I've asked repeatedly, can you please specify what it is that you feel meets that criteria? I'm happy to rewrite it. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The paragraph in which the erection of the statue is covered also seems PoV: eg "well-respected Confederate Brigadier".
    "well-respected" is the exact verbiage of the source. Would it be better to place it in quotes? Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • In this paragraph there is a longer sentence on the statue than on the first admission of women, which would seem to cry out for some background and context; come to that, whether any women ever did attend classes. (And if so, how many, when and whether on an equal footing?)
    "whether any women ever did attend classes" apparently you skipped the lead which states that the institution is currently coeducational.
  • Still in this paragraph "Enrollment doubled to 467 cadets". As of what date? And doubled from what number and when? The last mention of numbers is "Enrollment climbed to 258 students in 1881 before declining to 108 in 1883". 467 is four times 108, not a doubling. What is the difference, if any, between "students" and "cadets"?
    The number of cadets doubled under his tenure. I think that's pretty implicit from the given sentence (before he arrived: x, after: 2x). I don't think we need to specify a number, but I will be happy to do so if that's your hangup (please clarify if I'm missing something). There is no effective difference between "cadets" and "students" at this point in the school's history. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "had a separate Board of Directors". Why the upper case initial letters?
    It is a governing body established by the state; a proper name similar to the US Senate. (see WP:MOSCAP) Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "During his tenure, many Aggie traditions were born, including the creation of the first Aggie Ring." Re "Aggie Ring" (why the upper case R?) see MOS:NOFORCELINK "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" and "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." To most readers this sentence will mean little without chasing the links.
    Again, capitalized as a proper name. Rephrased as "class ring" is more prevalent. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "the college was saved from potential closure by its new president Lawrence Sullivan Ross". How? What did he do?
    Expanded Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "to emulate the traits of Ross". Which were? And/or were perceived to be?
    I feel like you're asking to be much more specific than is necessary for the article. I could add "soldier, statesman, knightly gentleman" (the words on the base of his statue), but the sources only state they sent their sons to "Be like Ross". It doesn't specify what the specific attributes were that they were attempting to emulate. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "During his tenure". Which is not given.
    It is. He started in 1891 and served until his death in 1898. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I had intended to cover Nick-D's other two points, but I feel that the non-exhaustive examination of the one near-random paragraph adequately illustrates why I think the article is not yet ready for FAC. Note that if all of the points above were addressed this would not change my mind; almost every paragraph has similar - and/or different but equally egregious - issues.

I recommend withdrawal, a thorough visit to PR and another to GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I asked for clarification almost 3 months ago from you so I could address any shortcomings, but you chose to provide no feedback until now. No one to-date, has brought up the concerns you brought up despite the review of (by my count) about 60 people. Almost all were easily corrected and were at least arguably accurate, but, you wanted more specificity, so I obliged. I've added the additions you sought, but the article is getting increasingly/inappropriately long. Previous reviews complained about the length. When you say "add more" and others say "shorten it" and both of you say "...or it doesn't get my FA blessing", it's a no-win situation. This idea that it needs to go through two more processes seems more than unnecessary for trivial and easily fixed changes. If you could be so kind as to clarify and let me know whether I've addressed your points, it would be appreciated Buffs (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Fallout (video game)Edit

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Third time's the charm, I guess. The last candidacy only had one responder, and they voted "support", so I will be bringing this article back for a third candidacy before the two-week mark. I'm pretty sure everyone gets the gist by now: Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed by Interplay that helped revitalize the genre for PCs. Anyway, I'll soon be pinging a group of people who helped review this article for GAN, PR, and previous FACs to help. Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging GAN reviewer @Haleth:; peer reviewers @RogueShanghai: (don't feel obligated) and @Shooterwalker: (who also participated in the first candidacy); first FAC reviewers @Buidhe:, @Spy-cicle:, @Ovinus:, @JimmyBlackwing:, and @Darkwarriorblake:; and second FAC reviewer @CactiStaccingCrane:. Lazman321 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Support, source-text integrity I think is FA-class after the last candidacy and a quick check now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Spotchecks by OvinusEdit

Seeing as source-to-text integrity was previously an issue, I will provide a second opinion; I may also review the article in full.

  • [4]: Fine
  • [5]: Can't check
  • [35]: Fine but please fix archive link, prefer [3]
  • [68]: Fine, but I wouldn't say "a document called Vision Statement", I would just say "a vision statement" (lower case)
  • [70], [75], [78], [95], [101], [135], [155], [165], [178], [183]: Fine

Looks good from those 14 checks. Ovinus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your spot checks. I fixed the archive URL and tweaked the vision statement sentence according to your recommendation. If you want to check citation 5, you can find the intro on YouTube. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64Edit

Should have my review in within the next few days. I'll likely do some minor copyediting while I review. JOEBRO64 23:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Battle of TicinusEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Another in my series of Second Punic War articles. This is an account of the first time Hannibal fought the Romans. No prizes for guessing who won. The article was promoted to GA two years ago and has been reworked a little in the light of feedback during the recent FAC of Second Punic War. Sadly, no elephants. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from IazygesEdit

Comparing the two (see below) the current one (top) seems to me to contain more information, to convey it more clearly, to show Rome's sphere of influence in northern Italy and Sicily more accurately, and to have a more complete and more visible key. What do you find better about the suggested alternative?
Personally I prefer the higher quality of the image, as well as the better display of rivers and lakes, as the Ebro river is quite significant. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers... perhaps The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, as the two main powers... or else The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, where the two main powers... to better link the clauses
I see your point. Resolved a little differently.
  • Four years later Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence... I would expand this a little to give a bit more context perhaps, Four years later Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence and imposed a further 1,200 talent indemnity, after the Carthaginians were weakened by the Mercenary War
Gone with "Four years later, when Carthage was weakened by the mutiny of part of its army and the rebellion of many of its African possessions, Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence and ..."
  • escorted him away from the fight, saving his life. in the lede you say captured or killed; should standardize the two IMO, or at least have the one in the body be the more expansive of the two.
Thanks Iazyges, that was very prompt. Your points all addressed above. Also your comment below. Thanks for your helpful copy editing. Note that I have reverted a couple of minor tweaks - [4]. There is not a complete ban on duplicate Wikilinks and I think it unreasonable to expect a reader to understand that "16-year-old son", which they may not have clicked on, is "Publius Cornelius Scipio". "to" has come up before and I think it is a USEng-BritEng thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Source review - PassEdit

Will take this up as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Hoyos, Dexter (2015b). Worldcat seems to want to give publishing location as New York in spite of being from Oxford University Press; defer to whichever version you used. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The copy I used has 16 locations on the publication page, with Oxford first. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Well it seems you have 15 more locations to add /s. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:Défaite_de_Scipion_près_du_Téssin.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN_(cropped).jpg presents a MOS:COLOUR issue which is complicated by the fact that the colours in the legend don't seem to entirely align with the colours actually visible on the map?
  • File:218_aC_GALLIA_CISALPINA.png needs a legend
  • File:Sacred_Band_cavalryman.png: what's the author's date of death?
  • File:Mommsen_p265_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and author date of death for the photo.
Tag done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


  • Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Link more names and terms in image captions?
Personally I consider image captions to be part of the article they are in, and so are liable to over-linking. Is there any policy which suggests they shouldn't be?
I thought the guideline was clearer, but it just says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."[5] To me, the image text is separate from the article body in the same way as the intro is, and I think it helps the reader to get the context of the images. But appears it is optionable. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a borderless (and textless) alternate version of the infobox image could be made? Looks a bit distracting, and borders are generally discouraged.
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Link Rome and Carthage at first mention outside intro? Iberia?
Oops. Done.
  • Link Gallic at first instead of second mention?
Picky, picky. Done.
  • Link Carthaginians?
It just comes back to Ancient Carthage, which is already inked.
Ah, I swore I saw a link to Punics from that somewhere. Oh, seems it's in Hannibal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Same with Consul.
Moved from second to first mention.
  • "weakened by the mutiny of mutiny of part of its army" I assume only one mutiny is needed?
They were very mutinous. Done.
  • "The contemporary historian Polybius considered this act of bad faith" State his ethnicity so we know he was of neither side?
  • "to expand Carthaginian holdings in south-east Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" Who controlled it prior to this?
A rag bag of petty tribes, some loosely organised into unstable confederations. I am not sure that going into this would be helpful to a reader.
  • "in 229 BC} and" What is that bracket for?
A Typo, well spotted.
  • The Hannibal caption could state his role, per "establishes the picture's relevance to the article".[6]
He's Hannibal'! But done.
Sure is, ever thought of doing biographies? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Hannibal arrived with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 37 elephants" You say no elephants in the blurb here, so what happened to them?
ORing, I would guess that Hannibal considered them unsuitable for a fast moving reconnaissance role.
Excellent stuff FunkMonk. I am eagerly awaiting your next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Many were from North Africa, ans are usually" And?
  • Link javelin in first instead of second mention in article body?
  • Link and introduce Livy at first mention instead of second.
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son, of the same name, leading a small group, cut his way through to his wounded father and escorted him away from the fight, saving him from being either captured or killed." Where is the movie about these wars?
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son" and "In 204 BC Publius Cornelius Scipio, the same man who had fought as a youth at Ticinus" is confusing, as the first is an easter egg, and the reader doesn't know it's the same person from just reading the article. Add more of the name first mention and remove duplink?
  • "the Carthaginians moved south into Roman Italy." A bit of a cliffhanger in the intro, should it be stated here that he campaigned in Italy for the next 12 years? Would perhaps round it off better.


Just a random comment here.

  • The image File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN (cropped).jpg is a bit blurry maybe replace it or try to make it less blurry? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It may just be me, but I don't find it blurry at all. Eg, compare the two maps at the top of this page where (to me) "File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN (cropped).jpg" seems the crisper. As well as considerable other advantages. That said, if your map manipulation skills are better than my non-existent ones feel free to tweak the map in any way that you feel improves it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the latest of my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings. It has been improved by helpful comments at peer review by Mike Christie. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

Support. This is up to Dudley's usual standard; I commented at the peer review and have nothing to add here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Pass. I made one formatting tweak. Sources are all reliable and consistently formatted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Silver_penny_of_King_Eadwig_(YORYM_2013.1351.4)_obverse.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Silver_penny_of_King_Eadwig_(YORYM_2013.1351.4)_reverse.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Not yet - the typo wasn't the issue here. Both images have a tag representing the copyright status of the photograph. However, they also need a tag representing the copyright status of the coin itself (which will almost certainly be a copyright-expired tag of some flavour). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, although I'd suggest labelling the tags to make clear what applies to what. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


  • "The following year, Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, separated Eadwig from his wife Ælfgifu on the ground" - I would say that that last word ought to be grounds (plural)
  • OED has ground singular if there is only one ground. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, maybe I just talk weird ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "while others see his character and the events of this reign" - his reign?
  • "By 878, it had overrun" - for total clarity, I would say "the army had overrun"
  • "he does not name the daughter in his account. [17]" - random gap before the ref
  • That's what I got as far as 955, I will endeavour to look at the rest tonight -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Ælfsige, who he appointed" => "Ælfsige, whom he appointed"
  • "allowing landholders to convert folkland" - wikilink folkland?
  • I wondered about this, but the wikilink goes to bookland, so it would read "allowing landholders to convert [[Bookland (law)|folkland]], which they already owned as hereditary family estates which owed food rent and services to the crown, into [[Bookland (law)|bookland]]". What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that would work nicely (although you need a comma between food and rent :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "the kingdom was divided even though had been appointed by Eadwig" - think there's a word missing in there

Comments from Z1720Edit

I write historical biographies, but not in this time frame, so my expertise is limited. I started the comments a couple hours ago, and did not realise that another editor would also comment, so I'm sorry if these comments overlap and will not be offended if you resolve Chris's comments first.

  • "In the ninth century Anglo-Saxon England" suggest putting a comma after century
  • "By 878, it had overrun", " By 883 Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians," The use of commas after years should be consistent. I recommend using the comma, but that's personal taste.
  • Added comma. I have no strong views either way, but I see that I have mostly use the comma. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "He almost immediately lost control", "He almost immediately invaded" The duplicate sentence starters is jarring. I also don't understand how someone "almost immediately invaded". Did he invade the kingdom or not? Or is this referring to how it was invaded very quickly after this time?
  • Changed to "He then invaded Mercia". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "According to Dunstan's earliest hagiographer," Suggest wikilinking to hagiography, as this is a specialised word.
  • "Rory Naismith sees the story of Dunstan's intervention" Who is Rory Naismith and why should the reader care about their opinion? Since they do not have a wikilink, a job title might be appropriate to add here. Some editors would also suggest adding job titles or credentials for wikilinked experts, but I'm of the opinion that it isn't necessary.
  • "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it threatened to cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." Two threats in quick succession. Maybe, "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it could have cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." or something similar
  • "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig and his women may" Should it be "Eadwid and this woman"? If not, I don't think its appropriate to have women be phrased as a possession of Eadwig. Perhaps, "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig's romantic relationships may" or something similar.
  • I don't think it is a problem. "romantic relationship" sounds coy to me and I think you can refer to a woman and her men and a man and his women. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "and Eadwig was not even mentioned." I don't think even is necessary here and can be removed.
  • "was appointed an ealdorman in Mercia in 956." Suggest wikilinking ealdorman
  • Wikilinked on first mention above. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "According to Dunstan's biographer B," B has already been extensively talked about previously, so I don't think this author needs to eb reintroduced here.
  • Done. I have kept it below in "such as Dunstan's biographer B and Byrhtferth" as "such as B and Byrhtferth" sounds odd to me but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is a difficult case because the name is just a letter. I think the current text is fine. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "and Frederick Biggs comments that if Edgar" Who is this person and what are their credentials?
  • "amounting in the view of Shashi Jayakumar to" Who is this person and what are their credentials?
  • "was abandoned by the Mercians and the Northumbrians with contempt"," Is that comma supposed to be a period?
  • "William Hamilton (see right)," I don't think "(see right)" should be included here. Mobile versions won't put the image to the right (it is placed on top or below the text) so this will be confusing to many readers. I think the caption under the image is enough and "(see right)" it is unnecessary here.
  • I think it is helpful to the reader to point to the picture so I have changed it to "see image". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This is not necessary for my support, but I suggest putting the "Sources" section into two columns to make the list shorter to scroll.
  • I never use columns for sources as I find that it is quicker to find a source in a list without columns. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Support My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I turned up too late for the peer review, but it looks as though I wouldn't have had much to contribute in any case. I have only four minor quibbles on the present text:

  • Background
  • "…thus became the first king of all England. He died in October 939 and was succeeded by his half-brother and Eadwig's father Edmund, who was the first king to succeed to the throne of all England…" – aren't you telling us the same thing twice? If Edward was the first king of all England and Edmund succeeded him, the latter must ipso facto have been the first king to succeed to the throne of all England. (As Eadwig had only one father I'd put a comma before "Edmund" if I were writing the sentence, but we won't fall out over the point.)
  • Historians distinguish between the two cases. Æthelstan succeeded as king of the Anglo-Saxons and only became king of England when he conquered Northumbria. Edmund was the first to succeed as king of England. I am open to suggestions of how to express this more clearly. Added the comma before Edmund.
  • Fine. I do not press the point. Tim riley talk 17:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Reign
  • There are a lot of "Eadwig"s in the opening para of the section: perhaps a pronoun or two would make things smoother?
  • Early reign 955–957
  • His sixty odd gifts of land – you really need a hyphen here; otherwise, it's sixty strange gifts, rather than sixty-something unstrange ones.
  • Done. This seems to me one of the few cases where adding in a hyphen helps the sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • around 5% – I believe the MoS favours "per cent" rather than % in the text (not in tables etc), and I'd also go for "five" rather than "5". (Not quite so sure about the percentages in the coinage section, though: I think they look all right as drawn, MoS notwithstanding.)
  • Changed. I prefer 5%, but life is too short to argue with MoS. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That's my lot. Nothing of enough importance to prevent my adding my support. – Tim riley talk 11:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Bad RomanceEdit

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If someone were to ask me to define "Lady Gaga", this song would be my answer. It has everything that made Gaga famous—catchy chorus, elaborate music video, outlandish costumes and nonsensical chanting. I have been working on this article intermittently for quite some years now. A few months ago, I digged deep for academic sources and found to my delight many of them. A song called the catchiest in the world by a prominent organization of psychology should have the highest-quality article on Wikipedia. Kinda reviewers, help me make that happen. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


  • For the RedOne and Francis Lawrence images, I would include the year that the photos were taken to the caption to provide the full context to readers.
  • I do not think File:Lady Gaga BR GMA.jpg is necessary. A performance image does not fit in the "Critical reception" section and the article already has two performance images.
  • Apologies for adding yet another thing to my review, but I just noticed that this part was not really addressed, and I would appreciate your feedback about it. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey Aoba, I’d removed it as per your suggestion because it really does seem out of place there but I was reverted by another editor here. FrB.TG (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. I had removed the image and used a detailed edit summary to hopefully clear up this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not think the citation in the infobox is needed as this information should be present and cited in the article. I do not think it is controversial enough that a person is credited under their legal name for songwriting credit to require this citation.
  • I would spell out extended play on its first use in the lead to help readers who are not 100% familiar with the concept. I'd look at '"All About That Bass" as an example of what I mean. The body of the article should mention that The Fame Monster is an EP and a reissue, which it currently does not.
  • I am uncertain about the "full-throated" quote. In the article, it is not given clear attribution in the prose, and I am not sure if a quote like that works in the lead.
  • I think this part, attraction to individuals with whom romance never works, her preference for lonely relationships, reads a little awkwardly and would benefit from revision. This information could be conveyed more concisely and the phrase "lonely relationships" seems off in particular to me.
You are quite right; "lonely relationships" sound almost oxymoronic to me. I have tweaked it.
  • I do not think the French bridge is notable enough to include in the lead. I also could not find this information in the article.
  • This part, The recipient of a Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, it was, is not grammatically correct. if read literally, it says that the song won the award, when the award was given to Gaga.
  • For the Saturday Night Live bit, I'd clarify that Gaga performed the song to avoid any potential misinterpretation.
  • The "released" is used twice in close succession in the first paragraph of the "Background and release" section.
  • I do not think the caption for the audio sample is particularly strong to justify its inclusion. The current caption is more focused on the lyrics, which could be illustrated through the prose alone, and I would instead do something about the song's genre or sound.
I played around with it quite a bit and in every scenario, it fails WP:NFC. I have removed it.
  • Is there a reason for using a university's sheet music over
Musicnotes is generally badly received at FAC, and it is usually not known if the sheet posted there is in fact the original or just another version posted by the label/singer. I believe a university source than one which does not even have its own article on Wikipedia should be the better choice, no?
  • I have seen the issues raised with MusicNotes. From my understanding, these issues are not specific to that site, but they are more about sheet music in general. I could be wrong and it would likely be better to have a more experienced editor comment on this, but the university could have the same issue as the website. The university could have a specific arrangement made for a band that is separate from the version Gaga recorded in the studio. It could be the same arrangement, but there is not a clear guarantee that this is the case. Again, I'd go with a more experienced editor's opinion, but I think the issue is really with sheet music in general. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Not to get super nitpick-y, but I'd revise this part, The song then plays keyboard sounds, as I do not think a song can play anything.
  • For this part, a postdoctoral fellow in American studies at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, I would remove the university as it is not necessary and it would make this more concise.
  • I believe the "falling in love with one's heterosexual best friend" analysis would benefit from revision. I would lead with how it connects to Gaga's LGBT audience since I was a little confused by this sentence until I got to the second half of it.
  • The final two paragraphs of the "Music and lyrics" section has a lot of great content, but could you tell me how you organized it? I think it would benefit from a clearer structure.
I have done quite some rearranging, with the third one being about unhealthy relationships and the title's meaning (which is the same thing: "bad romance"). The last one is entirely about Horn's analysis. Hopefully, the structure is more comprehensable.

I hope this review is helpful. These are my comments up until the "Critical reception" section. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • There is not a clear citation supporting this part, with praise for its chorus, beat and hook.
The citations are the follow-up reviews in that para.
  • That was not immediately clear to me and I think it looks off when there is a citation in the middle of a sentence, but not at the end. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes like "relentlessly" as they are not particularly informative and they take away from the other quotes.
  • This Rolling Stone citation has an author, but they are not included in the citation or the prose.
  • I have noticed some other issues with how critics are attributed in the prose. Pitchfork has an author for the "Bad Romance" entry, but they are not attributed in the prose. While the article often includes critics' names, there are instances like "a critic from Rolling Stone" and "The Billboard review" where the name is not used so it is rather confusing.
  • While the Boston Public Health Commission stuff is interesting, it is placed in a weird spot in this section. It is in a paragraph that is praising the song, and this does not fit that. It is also not really a review of the song. It is more of a study or analysis.
  • I'd be careful with the following wording, "They felt it was not on par with them", as it makes it sound like the "not on par" and lacking the "instant catch" is a critique from both reviewers instead of the individuals.

Apologies for jumping in with some additional comments already. I just noticed some issues I wanted to raise first. While I can tell a lot of great work has been put into the article, I am not sure if it is fully prepared for a FAC (but I will leave that up to other reviewers). Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No apologies needed. This was nominated just now after a PR so resolving the issues shouldn’t be a major problem. I’ll see if this can be done within the FAC scope. If not, well I’m sure we can figure something out. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Aoba47, for your comments. I have done quite some rearranging in "music and lyrics" and "critical reception" sections. See if you wish to continue your review or stand by your current viewpoint, either of which is perfectly fine. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your responses and for being understanding about everything. I will continue my review later today or tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I am guessing the music video synopsis is sourced with the video as the primary source; would that be correct? The synopsis seems a little on the long side, and I am wondering it could be made a little more concise.
That is correct, as per WP:FILMPLOT. I have trimmed the subsection a little. Hopefully, it is more concise now.
  • This part, for its fashion, choreography, futuristic set-piece and costumes, does not have a citation. I am guessing that this part is supported by the citations later on in the paragraph, but it does look odd to have a sentence with a citation in the middle and none at the end.
  • For the "Reception and thematic analysis" subsection, would it be worthwhile to separate the reviews and the analysis? This subsection looks quite long and I think that further structure may make it looks less intimidating to readers.
  • I am not convinced that File:Praying mantis india.jpg is necessary, especially since the "insect" dress is not being shown so there really is not much of a comparison being made.
  • The university in this part, sociologist Mathieu Deflem of University of South Carolina, is not necessary so I would remove it.
  • I am uncertain about the sentence starting with this part, Calling it a "culture-breaking moment". This sentence is pushing together two different Billboard articles by two different writers and it gives off the impression that they were either written by the same person or downplays the individual reviewers.
  • This is more of a note than anything. I'd be cautious about the size of the "Live performances" section in the future. It is pretty much guaranteed that Gaga will continually perform this song throughout her career due to its popularity so I'd be wary of this section becoming too big or overly detailed.
You are absolutely right. I did some trimming and removed some superfluous information and rearranged the structure a bit. It's much more condensed now.
  • The information from the "Personnel" section (i.e. the production and recording processes) should also be written out in the prose of the article, likely in the "Background and release" section.
  • I am not sure what "actor" means in the "Personnel" section?
Neither do I. It must have been vandalized at some point and nobody noticed.
  • Both MTV or if MTV News are used in the citations for the same website. Citations 2, 109, 112, 135, and 138 use MTV while Citations 63, 64, 73, 107, 114 use MTV News. I would be consistent with one way or the other. I'd go with MTV News as it is more specific.
  • Citation 140 is missing the author.
  • Citation 229 should have its title translated to English. This is true of any citations with titles in a non-English language.
Done wherever possible. In some places, the ref. is automatically generated as part of {{single chart}}, which cannot be modified.
  • Simon Price should be linked in the article and in the citation.

This should be all of my comments for my first read-through of the article. I hope that this review was helpful and not too nit-picky. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Aoba. It was not nit-picky at all and was very helpful. The article has improved in leaps and bounds now. Hopefully, this is now enough to convince you of the article's quality at the FA level. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will read through the article again a few more times tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I will leave the sheet music citation up to other reviewers. I am not fully convinced, but I will focus my review and support on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my peer review, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from ErnestKrauseEdit

This article has been at GA level for some time now and has been written at a high level of narrative quality and thoroughness. One comment I would add here is that I think this was used in the context of the very last show which Alexander McQueen did before the end of his life and that there are reliable sources for this. Since Lady Gaga was a follower of his designs, mentioning this as his very last full fashion show with reliable sources might be a good addition to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Added, as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, there is a fine Covers section in this article along with the well done Video section which accompanies the song article; I'm sufficiently familiar with this article since the GAN was done by another editor that I'm supporting the FAC nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from NØEdit

I had a look at this article while it was at PR and it seemed to be in solid shape. I will give it the customary reread and then add some comments here. Btw, I would greatly appreciate if you could review my current FAC, although it is totally fine if you do not have the time or interest.--NØ 03:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  • If the abbreviation "EP" is not used again, it does not need to be mentioned.
In the lead, the infobox uses the abbr, and in the body, it is used in "Track listings" section.
  • The oxford commas should be consistently used (or not); Not used: "chorus, beat and hook", Used: "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show"
I generally try to do without it as I find it unnecessary but in places like "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show", I have intentionally used it to not confuse with the and's (and residency shows is used to not repeat while the second and is preceded by a comma to clarify that it's part of the main listing of places Gaga has performed the song at.
  • "Gaga explained that she generally felt lonely in her relationships and was attracted to unhealthy relationships" - Perhaps there would be a way to avoid the repetition?
  • Thanks for replacing Musicnotes. I'll leave it to the source reviewer to determine if the university source is okay
  • Does its inclusion in the list of "Top 10 List of Songs with Unhealthy Relationship Ingredients" fit the "Music and lyrics" section? I found this placement kind of random
I think so. It's more of a themes analysis (which is what the music and lyrics section is about) than an "award", but unfortunately I couldn't find the main source, which I am sure has a thing or two about why it's in the list.
  • "and Rolling Stone critic Jon Dolanfelt that song made her name a "Teutonic chant" - Space before "felt" and the word "the" should be there after "that"
  • Do you think it would be beneficial to include the release years for "Tik Tok" and "Empire State of Mind"?
  • Seems to be missing alt texts in the music video section. Not sure if intentional
  • Do we need a wikilink for rubles? Seems like a well-known term to me
  • While I do think Elle is generally reliable, is its opinion reputed and important enough to be highlighted in a quote box?
I think Elle definitely counts among reputed sources; it has been referenced in CBS News, NY Daily News and Time. The author herself has written for Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, Vogue, Esquire etc. As for the quote itself, I think it truly captures all the successful aspects of the song (genre combination, lyrics, music video and Gaga's voice), which no other source does.
Love the inclusion of various research studies which truly gives the article a comprehensive feel. After these are addressed, I will go through the article once more to see if I got everything. Regards.--NØ 04:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Marano. I think I have addressed everything. Let me know if you are not satisfied with something. FrB.TG (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Very happy with the way this has been handled and it totally looks like an FA to me. Great work!--NØ 03:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14Edit

The article appears to be well-written and has an in-depth coverage, especially on its analysis of the themes from scholarly sources. As the article's prose has already been PR'd and reviewed by experienced editors on this topic of interest, I have very little to add. Here are a few suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

  • "Bad Romance" was acclaimed by music critics -- suggest linking music critics to music journalism
  • and was included in yearly "best-of" -- I think annual instead of yearly is what’s commonly used.
  • making Gaga the first woman to have three number-one singles in one year -- perhaps it could be specified as first female act or artist, as woman is a bit vague.
  • The song was certified quadruple platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association for shipment of 280,000 copies of the single. -- I think we can omit “single” at the end as it is understood that the song shipped X copies.
  • and 12 million in total, becoming one of the best-selling singles of all time -- I assume this figure is to date? If so, it would be worth clarifying.
  • with more elaborate sets, including sets outdoors. -- perhaps a little tweaking, to remove mention of “sets” twice’'
  • Glee cast performed -- Although it’s linked to the article, I think it's worth mentioning Glee as a musical tv series.
  • That's all I have. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, Pseud 14. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sammi Brie - image reviewEdit

Please note this is my first FAC review of any variety. I will be claiming this for WikiCup. Please tell me if I make any comments that are off track.

This article has seven total images. One is in the infobox and is the album cover. It has an appropriate fair use rationale and alt text.

There is also one other fair use image, which is a still from the music video showing the choreography of the song. I agree with its fair use as irreplaceable content discussed in a critical manner in the article.

Of the other five images:

  • One has a VRT ticket confirming approval for use under CC-BY-SA 4.0.
  • The remainder were ported from Flickr, where they were posted under various CC licenses (confirmed by Flickreview).

Two images need alt text: File:The Monster Ball - Bad Romance revamped3.jpg and File:Glee-Born This Way.jpg. The latter should also be displayed on the right size as it currently bumps a section header. Its caption is a complete sentence and must end with a period.

Moved one paragraph upwards.

All of the images have good captions other than the missing period.

I intend to pass the image review when the missing alt text is supplied and the one image is shifted from left-side to right-side display. Pinging the nominator, FrB.TG. Other reviewers are encouraged to leave me feedback on this review. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for the detailed image review, Sammi Brie. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The issues I identified have been fixed, and the image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by IppantekinaEdit

I have very fond memories of this song.

  • "with a full-throated chorus" "full-throated" is somehow POV in my opinion; can we reword it?
I think if it sounds POV-y this way, it will sound POV-y any other way. I have simply removed it from the lead.
  • "Lyrically, it explores ... the paranoia she experienced while on tour" I think the lyrics per-se don't explore this, but rather were inspired by this?
  • "A 2017 journal, published by the American Psychological Association, called the song the catchiest in the world." interesting, but I'd also want to know on what metrics (is it song structure or melody or something else?) were used
  • Background and release—Do we have the date the song was leaked?
  • I am doubtful about the reliability of the sheet music provided; it is the sheet music to the drum arrangement of the song, and the personnel listed are not credited as producers/engineers of the song.
Since two reviewers have objected to this source, I have restored the one from
  • Critical reception—"by Pitchfork—which called it "epic in construction"—MTV News" perhaps a comma after the quote "epic in construction"?
I think the em-dash functions as a comma; the reason I used it instead of a comma was to clarify it is not one of the publications calling the song one of 2009's best.
  • "Kaufman lauded the drastic transition into a bombastic "Erasure-esque throb" during the chorus, called catchy by Rolling Stone's Jody Rosen, one of Gaga's best by MusicOMH's Michael Hubbard" am I missing something or is the grammar a bit off here?
It was supposed to be about the chorus being called xy: "..during the chorus, (which was) called catchy". I guess the transition from the active to passive voice is a little awkward here.
  • Serial quotations, especially short ones, make it hard to read; I'd paraphrase some
  • Commercial performance—"second artist to have three singles [...] each sell five million digital copies" also who is the first?
  • Pipe Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs)
  • Personally I don't think we need to mention which week the song reached number one in Sweden and Ireland. We can simply group them into the countries where the song reached number one (Austria, Denmark et al)
  • Music video—"hoping to work with her again" unless they did collaborate on some later projects, I'd leave this out because it comes off as trivia
  • "Gaga created a pair of razor-blade sunglasses" did she really create them? Just to make sure...

More to come... Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ippantekina. Unless I have explicitly stated otherwise, I have implemented your suggestions. I look forward to the next batch of your reveiw. FrB.TG (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I love the depth of research in the Thematic analysis section, but am a bit lost on the organization because it reads a little staccato... like a simple display of disparate opinions without flow. Maybe a brief introduction sentence at the beginning of each paragraph, or grouping some similar opinions (for example, I see some opinions having the same concern regarding sexuality) would help?
  • "winning for Video of the Year,"?
  • I am unsure if the Elle commentary is significant enough to be singled out in a quotebox
I don't know, I like it a lot. This touches on all the aspects of the song that made it so impactful. Do you think it should be removed altogether or just not highlighted like that in a quotebox?
I think it's fair to keep it in the prose, just not the quotebox. If a quotebox should be useful, I'd go for an opinion from a reputed critic or academic, and the Elle journalist, while reliable, is just not the best option imo.
  • "Gaga sang "Bad Romance" during her residency show, Lady Gaga Enigma + Jazz & Piano (2018–2022); on her Enigma show, she performed it in a champagne-hued gold outfit,[142] and on Jazz & Piano, she did a stripped-down version" so Enigma and Jazz & Piano are two shows or one.. I am confused
  • I think the Glee version entered some charts; should we mention them?
  • For the track listing section, I doubt if it is necessary. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Single track listings they say that it is not standard practice to include such a section unless the track listings received extensive commentary. Given that none of the remixes listed here are discussed in prose, I'd remove the section altogether.
I don't know it's unusual for a song to have this many versions with different durations. It can be part of prose if necessary (in Background and release section for example).
I personally don't find the track listings helpful, but I'd leave it to other editors.
  • I think it's better to include table captions for separate years; i.e. one for 2009 year-end charts and one for 2010 year-end charts...
I'm not sure that is necessary since it was released pretty late in 2009, and the song's peak was somewhere between 2009 and 2010. For 2017, for example, it makes sense since it and 2009 are several years apart.
I do think it is helpful to include table captions for separate years. While it may be clunky, it helps with accessibility.

This concludes my prose review. Apart from my comments I made some minor edits that are hopefully beneficial. A great read overall! Ippantekina (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Ippantekina. I think I have addressed the rest of your comments. Let me know if you disagree with something. FrB.TG (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. I have a few remaining concerns, but they are minuscule to the quality. Great work! Ippantekina (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

David (son of Heraclius)Edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC), User:Haukurth

This article is about David, one of the co-emperors of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps a perfect example of a victim of Byzantine politics, he was raised to the throne as a child, was the subject of intense dynastic scheming, and was hated as the product of incest. And of course, in the end, he was deposed, mutilated, and then ignored. While in some ways more a receiver of history than a mover of it, he still held the throne during a period of vast controversy in the empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up the map and adding a legend, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • File:David_plate.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Heraclius_with_sons.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    The tag added indicates that a US tag is also needed, and COLOUR still seems to be outstanding? 23:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Tag has been added to both; not sure exactly what you mean in terms of COLOUR; I've changed the caption of the map to "Map of the Byzantine Empire (orange, possessing Anatolia, North Africa, and much of Italy) in 650, showing the Rashidun Caliphate (green, possessing Egypt, the Levant, and much of the Middle East), after the loss of Egypt and other territories to Muslim conquest.", which should allow any colorblind individual to understand it. Are you suggesting changing the map entirely? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    That's certainly better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Does the article now pass image review, or is more work needed? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

I have written historical biographies, but I am unfamiliar with this person, time period or location.

  • " November 7, 630," The other dates in the article have the day first, so this should be standardised.
  • Done.
  • "September 1, 641." Another date inconsistency.
  • Done
  • "But according to Theophanes they were ousted by the Senate" I'm not thrilled with this sentence starter. Maybe, "Theophanes states they were ousted by the Senate" The reader already knows there are contradictory sources so it does not need to be emphasised at the beginning of this sentence.
  • done.
  • "Haldon, John (1990). Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521319171." Since the other refs have dashes in the ISBN, this one should have them, too, for consistency.
  • done
  • I checked the lede, no concerns.
  • In the infobox, the reign says October-November, but the article says the co-orination took place in September or October. Perhaps this needs to be clarified.
  • done

Those are my comments. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: All concerns addressed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


My only comments are these:

  • The caption to the map is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
  • done
  • "a military leader named Theodore led a rebellion and defeated first David, Martina's ally, and then marched against Constantinople where he overthrew Martina's regime" would (IMO) read better as "a military leader named Theodore led a rebellion and first defeated David, Martina's ally, and then marched against Constantinople where he overthrew Martina's regime"
  • done
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


  • Will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Link more names and terms in image captions?
  • Link Byzantine at first mention in article body?
  • Since there are no images of David, and the plates comes cloest to being tied to him, perhaps show more of them[7] by using the multiple image template (like in quagga)? Would also make the image smaller so that it doesn't clash with the quote below.
  • "literally "David Caesar, may you be victorious."" Shouldn't the period be placed after the quotation mark?
  • "The high number of titled princes under Heraclius had not been seen since the days of Constantine the Great." How many siblings were there, and how many from the same mother?
    Done (in first paragraph)
  • "An agreement was reached, one part of which was that David was to be crowned as a co-emperor." It seems unclear who he was to be co-emperor with (at least until much further down, and stated as an aside)? And which of them had highest rank?
    Resolved by your solution.
  • This explicit sentence in the intro is what could be good in the article body to solve the above: "As part of a compromise, David was raised to co-emperor with the regnal name Tiberius, ruling with his brother Heraklonas and their nephew Constans II."
  • Likewise with: "All three emperors were children and the Empress Dowager Martina acted as regent."
  • It would seem the map showing Muslim conquest would make more sense under Downfall, after it has been mentioned, than where it is now, Succession struggle, where this is not yet mentioned, and has little relevance?
  • Should Blue faction really link to Chariot racing?
    Unfortunately, yes, as there is currently no page for each Chariot racing faction, the general explanation of them at Chariot racing is the best we have.
  • Link Bulgar?
  • "and Marinus" Earlier you spell it Martinus.
    Done (result of page move, didn't catch it)
  • Link Jerusalem in intro.
  • "given the senior court title Caesar at the age of 7" His age only seems mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    I haven't been able to track down the source that gives him as 7 (although this is obviously correct), so I've changed it to "in 638" in the lede; strong possibility I did the math when crafting the lede in my userspace and assumed there would be a source to give the number in the body, and that never ended up being the case, good catch.
  • "in an early example of Byzantine political mutilation" Only the intro states it is n early example.
  • "and the noses of her sons were slit" Unclear what "slit" means, probably better to be as explicit as the article body, "cut off".

Chibi-Robo! Zip LashEdit

Nominator(s): CaptainGalaxy 23:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 video game Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash, which was developed by Skip Ltd. and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS. The game departs from the series previous entries' 3D adventure genre roots by being a 2D sidescroller instead. The game was developed with the hope that it could save the series; however, fans often cited it as the cause for the death of the series after Zip Lash was a critical and financial failure. I created this article back in 2020 as I was surprised it didn't already have one and have since raised it to be a GA last year. Thanks to a peer review by Panini! and having a copy edit recently finished, now I hope to get it promoted to FA status; as well as get it to become my first article elevated to FA status. CaptainGalaxy 23:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose by Lazman321Edit

Sorry Captain Galaxy, but this article is not ready for being a featured article. In my spot check, I detected too many verification issues for this article to pass candidacy, along with at least three non-high-quality sources being used in the article. Not to mention, during my spot check, I also noticed other problems in this article such as the atypical first sentence (First sentences in video game articles are often formatted as either "[TITLE] is a [YEAR] [GENRE] game developed by [DEVELOPER] and published by [PUBLISHER]." or "[TITLE] is a [YEAR] [GENRE] game developed and published by [DEVELOPER/PUBLISHER]."), instances of awkward prose (e.g. "Some reviews said the game has underused the levels' surroundings and has 'no real sense of scale' compared to Chibi-Robo's height."), swapping between past and present tense in the reception section, a comma after a semicolon, inconsistency in linking works in citations, etc. This article cannot be considered a featured article by its current condition. Don't feel discouraged though. This certainly has potential, and with enough work, this can become a featured article. I might be willing to take another look at this article if you go through this article again and fix any issues I have raised or you notice. Lazman321 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Louis H. BeanEdit

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Mr. Bean, not that one, but one who was really good predicting elections, and was the "Lone Prophet" of Harry S. Truman's fantastic victory in the 1948 presidential election.

We don't know much about him, and he would have been a normal office assistant like million others, had he not developed a passion in election predictions. The article is mostly based on secondary sources about his life and career. The article was reviewed for GA by ExcellentWheatFarmer, and was copy-edited for FAC by Baffle gab1978. All constructive comments are more than welcome! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Comments from EWEdit

Congrats on Abbott, which I never got around to reviewing (sorry)—I'd be happy to review Mr. Bean instead! Some initial comments below; I'll do a full prose review in the coming days.

  • "born on April 15, 1896, in Lithuania" – can you mention that this was part of the Russian Empire at the time?
  • Does this 1953 NYT article have anything worth adding?
    • Yeah, the fact that his position was abolished. Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Economical" in the infobox and short description – I think you mean economic; economical is a different word entirely.
  • "He accurately predicted the results of all presidential elections from 1936 to 1948" – this doesn't seem to be in the body
    • It is. "In the 1936 presidential election, when ... Truman defeated Dewey" cover all 4 election including 1940 and 1944. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see; I didn't realize that "He did not argue that the Republican Party's victory in the 1938 or 1942 congressional elections would help them win the 1940 or 1944 presidential elections" meant that he actually predicted Roosevelt's victory. Could that be made clearer? (By the way, perhaps choose another word than "victory": the Republicans didn't take control of either chamber of Congress, although they did gain a number of seats.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could add a further reading section with some of Bean's works (e.g. How to Predict Elections and Ballot Behavior)
  • "In a letter on October 29, 1948—days before the election—Bean projected Truman's victory." – Rosenof (pg. 72) says this letter "quite explicitly stated his ambivalence and his ultimate expectations" of a Dewey win.
    • Adjusted a bit. So, long story short, Bean analysed and predicted Truman to win. Then days before the election, got influenced by the Gallup poll and "hesitatingly" changed his mind. But Truman won, and people credited Bean for the correct prediction. Great! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "he published a book titled How To Predict Elections" – it's probably worth describing what this book said about the 1948 election: the NYT obit says "in that work...he correctly forecast that voters would return the White House", although other sources are more skeptical.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "According to author Theodore Rosenof" – does this need in-text attribution? Seems like an uncontroversial factual statement to me.
    • Removed.
  • 1936 United States presidential election is linked twice.
  • "accurately predicted Roosevelt to win both the presidential elections" – the source (Rosenof, pg. 68) doesn't really say that: it just says that "he did not argue" that the GOP would win in 1940 and that he thought their success in 1942 "by no means presaged" a 1944 victory.
    • Well, I don't have a fundamentalist approach here. By saying that GOP would not win, he did mean that the Democrats would win. That is my interpretation, and this is more clear that the previous version. If you insist, I can change back to the previous version, "He did not argue that the Republican Party's victory in the 1938 or 1942 congressional elections..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I read the source to mean that Bean didn't think the Republicans were guaranteed to win, which is different from saying that he thought the Republicans would lose. Do you have a source that explicitly says "He accurately predicted the results of all presidential elections from 1936 to 1948"? If you do, just cite that source; if you don't, the "he did not argue" version is probably best. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Remove the Roosevelt victory part. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "In the book, Bean predicted Truman to win the election and the Democratic Party to gain majority in the Congress" – I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on due weight here since the sources are all over the map: the NYT says "he correctly forecast that voters would return Truman"; Campbell (pg. 69) calls the idea "that Bean had predicted Truman's victory" a "minor media myth"; and Rosenof (pg. 69) strikes a middle ground by saying that he "suggested the likelihood of a Democratic victory" but also "set forth more pessimistic possibilities". My instinct is that we shouldn't be saying he predicted Truman's victory in wikivoice, but I'd be interested to hear your views.
    • I remember thinking about this when I published the article the previous year, and yes this is a tricky part. Given the abundance of sources in favor of Bean, we can say that in Wikivoice. The recent Campbell source does says that the book which Bean authored in early 1948 (which would be before the election) contained "passages that suggested a Democratic victory in the presidential election that year wasn’t out of the question". And in the article, we say that he predicted Truman to win in the book. This is supported by the NYT source as well. We also have the fact that, days before the election, he did change his stand. We cannot, for sure, in 2022, know what happened in '48, but almost all modern sources used in the article agree that he is most famous for predicting Truman to win, including NYT, The Washington Post, and partially even Rosenof. We also have in the article the viewpoint the Bean made no clear prediction. Here is where the criteria 1c applies, "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and even perhaps WP:VNT. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I understand; it’s just that the "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements" part of WP:NPOV gives me pause. Perhaps consider something like this: "In his book, Bean—unlike almost all other observers—argued that a Truman victory was possible; he cited the likelihood of high turnout and the unpopularity of the Republican Congress’s policies to suggest that the political environment was favorable to Democrats. (Cite to pg. 23 of this book by Rosenof.)" Then keep the "On election day...'a major miracle'" sentence. "Bean’s book earned him a reputation for successfully predicting Truman’s victory (cite Rosenof’s article, pg. 69): Life magazine referred to him as the “Lone Prophet” of Truman’s victory, and the Alfred A. Knopf publishing company, which publicized Bean’s book, began advertising: "Oh Mr. Gallup! Oh Mr. Roper! Obviously you don’t know Bean’s How to Predict Elections." Rosenof, however, argues that "the truth ... was somewhat more complicated" (cite pg. 23 of this book) because Bean's personal correspondence suggests that "in the end, however hesitantly", he "accepted the polls that consistently showed Dewey solidly ahead nationally". (cite pg. 72 of Rosenof's article)" The idea is that it describes what Bean said without taking a position on the disputed issue of whether he actually predicted Truman's victory, while still providing both the mainstream view (the book "earned him a reputation for successfully predicting Truman's victory") and an alternative perspective from Rosenof. Hopefully that's helpful; feel free to use as much or as little of it as you like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Referred to the source and incorporated some parts of this in the article. Thanks a lot for being so helpful! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Alfred A. Knopf publishing company" – perhaps "The Alfred A. Knopf publishing company"
    • Sure.
  • "Bean's HOW TO PREDICT ELECTIONS" – I think MOS:ALLCAPS would recommend removing the all-caps stylization.
    • I am not sure of this, as it is inside direct quotations, but I'll make the change anyways.
  • "Pollster Elmo Roper later argued in the book How to Predict Elections, Bean made no clear prediction" – this sounds like How to Predict Elections was Roper's book. "later argued that Bean made no clear prediction in How to Predict Elections" or something like that might be clearer.
    • Done.

More to come. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I found this BusinessWeek article (cited by Rosenof) at the Internet Archive; perhaps it has something useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ, I have been trying to avoid using old sources (generally those earlier than 1960s) unless they are primary sources. This one from '51 is pretty old, but can still be used for uncontroversial information. Have added a line from this in the article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments and support from GerdaEdit

Going to make notes as I read, again about an unfamiliar subject, lead to be last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and TOC look mostly good, I'd just not need four headers for the references, of nine altogether.

Early ...

  • I'd expect a link for Army, otherwise perhaps just army?
  • To get married and have children isn't exactly what I'd call education ;)

Economic ...

  • vice president under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, - I'd assume of the before-mentioned agency, but that could be clearer.


  • Something is wrong with the grammar of the sentence about publishing Ballot Behavior.

That's it, short and sweet. Unusual! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, addressed all comments except the Economic part, which I am not able to understand. Could you please clarify? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
superficially reading, one might think served as vice president of the U.S., - while it's clear from the context that probably not, I think it would not hurt to clarify president of what.
I forgot the lead:
  • I'd like some hint in the first sentence how lonely he was with having that one right, for more prominence and the wish (in the reader) to find out more.
  • I believe adding "President" to Wallace would not hurt, for us foreigners who don't know all U.S. presidents' names.
  • Well, Wallace wan't the President. He was VP.
  • I'm not happy with that sentence, "and ... and also", but don't know what to do.
These are all minor points, and however you handle them, I support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Title (album)Edit

Nominator(s): NØ and Lips are movin 03:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut major-label studio album Title, her breakthrough into superstardom and commercial success (which unfortunately didn't last long). Defying expectations of one-hit wonderdom, the album achieved an impressive three top-10 hits on the US Billboard Hot 100 and capped 2015 as one of the best-selling albums of the year. Critics were however proven right in doubting Trainor's overall commercial sustainability. This article is the centrepiece to several other FAs I have written in this topic. It's pretty lengthy so thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 03:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


  • I have moved the image up for the time being which fixes the sandwiching issue. I will remove it if multiple reviewers share this opinion, though.
  • Thank you for addressing this for me. It looks better to me and I think it is best to leave the image up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I do have one comment, but I will post a full review sometime tomorrow. I am looking forward to reading the article tomorrow. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • The lead only mentions negative reviews for the album. Are there positive reviews/trends worth mentioning there as well?
  • Added.
  • Done.
  • For this part, shaming thin women, I think it may be beneficial to spell out body shaming in its entirety to make this completely clear for readers.
  • Spelled out.

Here are some further comments. I will do another read-through once the above comments have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to massively thank you for providing a review to all FACs in this topic! These are addressed, excited for further comments from you Aoba47.--NØ 05:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything! I will read through the article again later today if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A track-by-track commentary edition of the album was released (which can be found on Spotify). Do you think that should be briefly mentioned in the article?
  • I'm unsure how to work this into prose as it does not seem to have drawn commentary from any secondary sources; I don't recollect this having been released along with the album either so the given release date looks sketchy as well.
  • That is fair. I does look odd to me as well. I have seen this kind of thing for an album before, but this one in particular seems off. I only wanted to ask as I remember randomly finding on Spotify. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is my last comment. Thank you for your patience with my review and I am glad that I could help with all of the different FACs. You have. put a lot of work into these articles and you should proud of that, and I am looking forward to whatever you work on in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for getting through this pretty big article so quickly and the kind words! I hope you are having a great week so far and I look forward to your future works as well.--NØ 18:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14Edit

  • They were tired of the electronic dance music that populated contemporary hit radio -- suggestion instead of "populated" - They were tired of the electronic dance music predominant in contemporary hit radio
  • Accepted.
  • While a teenager, Trainor's parents nudged -- As a teenager
  • Amended.
  • I would link eponymous to eponym
  • Done.
  • offered a full scholarship to the Berklee College of Music -- at the Berklee..
  • Done. Thanks for catching this!
  • Done.
  • She deleted her independent albums in the build-up to its release. -- did she delete/remove from her YouTube channels/social media accounts, etc? If so, perhaps you can specify where it was removed.
  • I've reverted to the source wording here which hopefully gives more clarity. Unfortunately secondary sources weren't very specific with this.
  • Revision looks good and clearly explained now.
  • comprising music videos and behind-the-scenes footage -- comprising of
  • Done.
  • She performed at award shows including -- comma before including
  • Added.
  • Trainor's appearances on popular television talk shows -- perhaps we can omit "popular" as this can be perceived as subjective.
  • Agreed, reworded.
  • In the critical reception section, I think you’ve used the word "opined" four times, perhaps tweak a few of it to avoid repetition. (e.g. wrote, commented, said, etc)
  • I cut this down to two usages.

That's all I got. Article is well-written, detailed and has all the elements. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and compliments, Pseud 14! Should be all addressed now. I hope you're having a great day!--NØ 16:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Happy to support for promotion. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback as well on a music related FLC.

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

  • "The album was supported by four singles, "All About That Bass", which reached number one in 58 countries and became the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s, and the US Billboard Hot 100 top-15 singles "Lips Are Movin", "Dear Future Husband", and "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", the latter of which features John Legend and peaked at number one in Australia, New Zealand, and Poland." Too many and's and too long a sentence. I suggest splitting it.
  • Split.
  • "As a teenager, Trainor's parents.." This sounds like her parents were teenagers when this happened.
  • Clarified.
  • "Trainor was unsure about becoming a recording artist herself; her father recalled: "She thought she was one of the chubby girls who would never be an artist".[2]" The source needs a |url-access=subscription parameter. If the quote ends in full stop in the source then the full stop in the article needs to be placed inside the quotation mark ("...artist.") per MOS:LQ.
  • Good catch!
  • From sentence "Trainor wrote songs she wished existed when she attended high school" in the lead, I got the impression that Trainor wished these songs existed when she was a high-schooler (i.e. another artist had done it), but "she wished she had written some of its songs before she attended high school" suggests that she wished that she herself had written it earlier.
  • I have now made this consistent after consulting the source wording.
  • Do we really need the ellipsis at the end of the quote " "I want to help myself"?
  • Removed.
  • "The standard edition of Title includes 11 tracks; the deluxe edition includes" - suggest replacing one include with contain or comprise to avoid repetition.
  • Done.
  • "present a list of the things a man needs to do in order to be Trainor's life partner" - this can be simplified to "lists the things a man needs to do to be Trainor's life partner".
  • Simplified.
  • "It was the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s, selling 5.8 million digital downloads in the US" - repetition of "selling" within a close proximity.
  • Fixed.

Down to the end of Release and promotion. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Added this.
  • The critical reception section somewhat suffers from the "A said B, C said D" where one opinion is listed after another, making it repetitive at places. For example, the second section begins with some reviewers deeming the album repetitive and ends with a certain critic criticizing this aspect. It could benefit from some rearranging so we don't have a "some reviewers criticized the repetitiveness ... critic A called it repetitive".
  • I intended "Title's repetitiveness drew criticism" as a summary statement for the second paragraph so the repetition here is intentional. It is written with WP:CRS in mind and each paragraph tries to drive home the point expressed in its first sentence. I understand your point about repeating the exact same wording, though, so I have rephrased this particular example.
I get that and that's what I am trying to emphasize. The second paragraph introduces the repetition criticism. As such, the reader knows that the section is going to be about this so a sentence fragment like "criticized the repetitiveness" is repetitive. I see that this part has already been removed, which is much better now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We have four instances of "debuted at number one" in two paragraphs. Some variety would be good.
  • I brought some variation.
  • "Title received certifications, including 3× Platinum in the US,[128] Australia,[129] Canada,[130] 2× Platinum in Poland" - the way the certifications in Australia and Canada remain nameless and the Polish certification is mentioned, it sounds like the album was 3x Platinum certified in those two countries. FrB.TG (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It was! Let me know if there's anything else, FrB.TG.--NØ 18:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Then there should be an and before Canada to clarify that 3x Pl. ends here. The same applies to places like "Platinum in Denmark,[133] New Zealand,[134] Sweden,[135] and the UK". I would suggest separating them with a semi-colon: "Title received certifications, including 3× Platinum in the US,[128] Australia,[129] and Canada;[130] 2× Platinum in Poland;[131] Platinum+Gold in Mexico;[132] Platinum in Denmark,[133] New Zealand,[134] Sweden,[135] and the UK;[136] and Gold in the Netherlands." FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Done--NØ 19:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington)Edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Portland, Oregon's bypass freeway, which took a quarter-century to build after many, many arguments over where it should go and what it should do. Among its obstacles were rich homeowners, community activists, the city itself, and prisoners at a soon-to-be-closed jail. The article has been a GA for a while and recently went through a GOCE copyedit; it was written to the same standard as my other recent highway FAs, such as Interstate 182. SounderBruce 06:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review by Sammi BrieEdit

This article contains seven images, all of which have alt text and appropriate captions.

All of the pictures are CC or CC0-licensed. This includes a 1980–81 photo of bridge construction. The creator of that image also uploaded two other images of construction, and all three have metadata indicating the "camera" was a 6608, which appears to be a scanner given the other images that have that metadata, so I will assume that the creator took those images and then scanned them for use. There is also a scan from a 1955 Bureau of Public Roads map, which is PD-govt.

The image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Nothing to pick up at all on the lead and the route description. I'll look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "At the hearing, the cities Gresham and Camas, Washington" => "At the hearing, the cities of Gresham and Camas, Washington"
    • Fixed.
  • "The section also included the first rest area on I-205, which was built near West Linn, and was designated as a state scenic highway" - wording is slightly ambiguous and could be taken to mean that the rest area was so designated
    • Switched order.
  • "The interchange with OR 99E on the east approach of the bridge was built on fill" - what does "built on fill" mean?
  • "The study concluded an alternative alignment would be infeasible" => "The study concluded that an alternative alignment would be infeasible"
    • Fixed.
  • "it concluded constructing I-205 as originally designed" => "it concluded that constructing I-205 as originally designed"
    • Fixed.
  • That's all I got! Nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review and for spotting those errors. I've fixed up all of them. SounderBruce 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by BennyOnTheLooseEdit

This is my first time reviewing an article of this type. Feel free to challenge any comments, or point me to precedent/consensus if my suggestions are off-track. I ran a general formatting script after looking at the suggested changes - but you can revert this if it created any issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Consider running IA Bot to avoid WP:LINKROT.
    • Will run it when it does load. The tool seems to be slow at the moment.
  • I'm seeing a "CS1 maint: url-status" message about ref 2 (Multimodal Planning Division (January 4, 2021)) but I think sometimes the scripts I use generate false positives.
    • Not seeing it on my end. It's controlled by a custom template for the route logs, so I'll see if it's throwing up errors on other articles that use it.
  • There are more than a dozen duplicate links (these can be identified with a tool - see MOS:DUPLINK)
    • Removed all that I found were unnecessary.
  • There are a few places where public opposition is mentioned (e.g. " despite opposition from local residents", "drew opposition from the public"); I looked at some of the sources and the level opposition wasn't quantified, so I think the existing descriptions are OK as they reflect sources.
    • For the most part, the opposition wasn't organized (and any groups are named), so I'm not sure if this can be fixed.
      • Sorry, I should have made it clearer that this was an observation rather than something actionable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Route description

  • Add that Interstate 205 is in the United States.
    • Already mentioned in the lead, but I don't think readers would get this far down and not know that it's a highway in the US.
      • I'm used to seeing all the info in the lead being in the body and cited, but happy to accept that this falls under the "basic facts" part of "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" from MOS:LEAD. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "the busiest of the two main bridges" - not sure about in American English but in British English this should be something like "the busier..." (AFAIK, superlative adjectives are used when writing formally about at least three things .)
    • Switched to "busier".
  • "carries a daily average of 138,000 vehicles" - the other figures have a year attached, so I suggest mentioning that this is a 2020 figure.
    • Added year and an additional source since the original doesn't state a year.
  • "but the route was deemed a low priority" - by who? Looks like voters rejected a proposal; and "Oregon officials" seemed set on a different route. Looks more like a rejection than a low priority but I may be missing something.
    • Reworded.


  • "In 1943, New York-based planner Robert Moses conceived"
The source doesn't verify that Moses was based in New York at the time as far as I can see - maybe reword to something including "...New York Public Works Director..."?
I have no idea how long such a plan takes, but it might be safer to use something like "presented" (although that's the word from the source) or "produced" rather than "conceived".
  • Switched to "authored"; his position makes it clear that he was based in New York at the time.
  • "The proposed bridge was later shifted west" - optionally, consider rewording as there was no bridge to move.
    • Reworded a bit, but it isn't that unclear.
  • "In 1969, the federal government approved the Mount Hood Freeway as part of the relocation of I-80N (now I-84), which would be partially concurrent with I-205, from the existing Banfield Expressway until it was canceled entirely in 1974." - doesn't quite read right to me, maybe make the "until it was canceled entirely in 1974" into a new sentence?
    • Split.
  • "the cities of Gresham and Camas, Washington, joined the Multnomah County Commissioners"- expand on "cities" per MOS:INSTITUTIONS
    • Fixed.
  • "braided interchange" - the phrase may be familiar to many readers, but it wasn't to me. Could be wikilinked to Interchange (road) or Interchange_(road)#Braided_interchange.
    • Linked.
  • "which approved despite opposition" - "which was approved despite opposition" or similar
    • Fixed, must have been picked up during the copyedit.
  • "development on Mill Plain the City of Vancouver imposed due to traffic congestion" - I think would read better as "development on Mill Plain imposed by the City of Vancouver due to traffic congestion"
    • Reworded.

Future plans

  • "ODOT plans to" - suggest futureproofing this a bit by rewording to something like "In 2021, ODOT announced plans to"
    • Added "In the 2020s", since the plans were not announced at the same time.
  • Could wikilink "seismic upgrades" to Seismic retrofit (I think).
    • Linked.

Exit list

  • MOS:COLOR says "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method" - I'm not sure if the templates used do this; if not, then you could use one of the other methods mentioned at MOS:COLOR.
    • This is covered by MOS:RJL, but it seems that having a note in the last column is sufficient.
  • Are the blanks in the location column intentional?
  • Looks a little odd to have no state/county against the Columbia River section - is this the way such places are represented in Wikipedia (rather than e.g. mutliple states and counties)?
    • It's common for routes that change states at a water body, e.g. Interstate 82.

External links

  • What makes the link suitable?
    • The author is the chief cartographer for the Washington State Department of Transportation and is therefore a subject expert. That website is usually included in Washington road articles.
      • That's fine, then. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
      • That is not a correct read of WP:SPS, which states:
        • Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.
      • If you want to use an SPS you need to show they have published by RS, and you need to show why the inclusion of the material meets WP:DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
        • I won't object to the removal of the external link (which is mostly there to balance out the Oregon road site), but it's been used in other Washington FAs. Should it be removed from those ones as well? SounderBruce 23:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article, SounderBruce. I'll have another read later, but this is all I have for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the review. I had to revert your general fixes script edit due to the change in citation titles (which I prefer to match the original headlines). I have responded to your other queries above. SounderBruce 01:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Support - I'm happy with the responses, and didn't notice anything else in a further read. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123Edit

Decided to check through this highway article.
At first glance, this article is pretty comprehensive. Especially in the planning phases, when various alignments were proposed.

  • "In 2000, the Oregon portion was designated as the War Veterans Memorial Highway, and has since been used for an annual vehicle convoy to mark Veterans Day." Question: shouldn't it be "is designated" instead of "was designated", since the name is still being used?
    • Feels natural to me. As far as I understand it, past tense is acceptable here due to its relationship with the present perfect tense used later in the sentence.
  • Side note, who actually designated the labels? (passive vs active voice) Might suggest mentioning the agencies earlier somewhere in the first paragraph.
    • Added "state legislature". Mentioning ODOT and WSDOT early would confuse readers, I feel, since we're also talking about the state governments in the first paragraph.
  • "the freeway has a scenic overlook of the falls for northbound traffic" Wondering if this section is relevant. Sounds like promotional stuff to me.
    • The scenic overlook is signed from the freeway, so I don't think it qualifies as anything more than the bare minimum description.
  • "The freeway passes Oregon City's train station, which is served by Amtrak's Cascades route". I might suggest the segment "served by Amtrak's Cascades route" to be written as a footnote
    • Dropped Cascades, as it doesn't really have much to do with the highway in general.
  • Similarly for "on the west side for the MAX Green Line, a light rail service operated by TriMet". Alternatively "on the west side for the TriMet MAX Green Line".
    • This would create a SEAOFBLUE, so I'd rather not do it. I think the current implementation is fine and could be turned into a parenthetical note instead if it's still disrupting the sentence's flow.
  • "The incomplete interchange is located southwest of Washington State University Vancouver and requires some movements from I-5 towards Vancouver to be made via two half-diamond interchanges on Northeast 134th Street." This sentence is a bit confusing to me; what sort of movements?
    • Switched towards to "to and from"; basically, the south half of the interchange requires using a local street to complete the connection.
  • For the Planning and routing debate, I would have overlaid all the possible alignments differentiated by colour on one map (sketching on OSM)... though that might be a little confusing. Actually, I wonder, can there be some sort of gif showing the progression of the highway alignment over time, like it was done for a couple of metro articles? Or at least a map of the expressway with the segments built by year. Something like File:Singapore MRT Network (1987-1990).svg
    • It would be fairly difficult to create a progression map, but I'll look into it. I don't think I'd be able to produce an alternate alignments map as many of them were not republished in easy-to-access places, so much of it would be guesswork on my part.
  • "In late 1972, the freeway was extended northeast from Oregon City to Gladstone". Suggest removing "was"
    • As the freeway was actively being extended, "was" is necessary; otherwise, it would read as if the freeway only existed from Oregon City to Gladstone.
  • The history section is pretty interesting to read through, on all various parties involved in the alignment. The public seemed to be very involved.
    • Indeed, that's how things go in the US (and maybe too much because of the NIMBYs).
  • "The FHWA, which had initially opposed the busway but later withdrew their complaints following further design changes, endorsed the third concept.". Might suggest rewording to: "The FHWA initially opposed the busway but eventually approved this concept following further design changes of the busways [in December 1975]." Might also further add that they initially opposed due to "safety concerns" as according to the source, and also why the other two (Portland City Council and Multnomah County Commissioners) eventually approved with the mention of integrated transit component in the highway plans.
    • Added a bit more, but further refinement will need to wait until I have access to the newspaper article that is being cited by Kramer.
  • Just curious, do you know of the construction firms contracted to build the expressway?
    • They're only occasionally named, but never prominent unless there's an issue or incident during construction. Normally, they are local firms or joint ventures that form solely for the project's few years of existence.
  • No other issues pertaining to other parts of the article.

ZKang123 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks for the review. I've left my answers to your comments above and will get working on the remaining items. SounderBruce 09:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Corinna is, after Sappho, the ancient Greek woman poet with the most surviving fragments, so we know almost nothing about her, rather than absolutely nothing. Three fairly substantial fragments of her poetry survive, and her works preserve versions of Greek myths not otherwise attested. Despite this, the main scholarly interest in Corinna over the past century has been the surprisingly contentious debate about when she actually lived – despite this being the one fact about her life which is unanimously agreed upon by the ancient sources!

I brought Corinna up to GA back in 2019; this year I submitted it for peer review and got helpful comments from Mujinga, SusunW, Kaiser matias, and Tim riley. As far as I can tell, I have read nearly every piece of English-language scholarship about Corinna written in the past century, and I think the article is now ready to be examined at FAC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

image review

  • File:Frederic_Leighton_-_Corinna_of_Tanagra.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Statue_of_Corinna_(Revue_archéologique_1898_32,V).jpg
    • Frederick Leighton died 1896; I've added that to the license tag. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Re. the Compiègne statuette, the photographs are credited in Revue Archéologique as being by "Berthaud, Paris". Commons says the author died 1912, which would make the photographer Michel Berthaud, who did indeed have a photographic studio. However, he ran the studio with his brothers, and I can't work out on what basis the photo was credited to Michel rather than one of the others. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I've asked the original uploader on Commons if they can shed any light. I will also try to find the dates of the other brothers – if one was born in 1845, it seems likely that the others were both dead by 1952 which as I understand it is the important cutoff here as France is a Life+70 copyright country? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Looking further into this, it looks like one brother was Michel Gabriel Berthaud (born 1852; I can find no information on year of death); there may also have been a brother Jean Berthaud (though Michel and Michel Gabriel's father was called Jean – unclear if the possible brother is just confusion with the father). Commons has the license tag Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed; is that plus Commons:Template:PD-US-expired sufficient? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Stückelberg_Myrthis_und_Corinna_beim_Töpfer_Agathon_1897.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:"CORINNA_(THE_LYRIC_MUSE)"_"WILLIAM_BRODIE"_from_-Sculptures_of_Andromeda,_the_Toilet_of_Atalanta,_Corinna,_and_a_Naiad-_MET_DP323119_(cropped).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The sculpture was by William Brodie, who died in 1881 (and it was published no later than 1859, when the photograph in question was published); I've added PD-old-auto-expired to this image which I believe is the correct tag? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Doing some further research, if I do have to remove the Stuckelberg and Compiègne images, there's this Blake drawing, but it's also missing a US public domain tag. It's likely that either PD-US-expired or PD-1996 apply, but I haven't yet been able to demonstrate either. There's also this, which doesn't have a tag for the artwork but I think ought to be PD-old-auto-expired – it's in a public place and both the artists who painted it died before 1927. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, I've managed to find a 1901 publication with an illustration of the Stückelberg painting! That one is safe, I think. I think the only remaining question is about the Compiègne statuette photo – I have not been able to track down any evidence that Michel Berthaud rather than one of his brothers was the photographer, and the uploader is now inactive and has not responded to my talkpage enquiry. I have replaced the Commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired with Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired. I hope this is sufficient, but I can't find any discussion about the use of this template on; if this is not an acceptable license here then unfortunately I think the photo will have to be removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Suggest wikilinking orthography on first usage as I, for one, don't know what it is
  • "Corinna: The Lyric Muse, c.1855. William Brodie." - this caption is not a complete sentence, so should not have a full stop
  • Note h also doesn't need a full stop
  • That's all I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I had my say at the peer review, and I'm not going to make a song and dance about the spellings "romanized" and "archeologists" (I understand the reason for the former, and the latter has the merit of being one letter shorter than the spelling I favour.) "Set forth" strikes a slightly archaic note, but that's hardly a bad thing in an article on an archaic subject. The only thing I knew about Corinna was the line about not sowing with the whole sack – still good advice for all of us – and I have much enjoyed meeting her again here. I can't begin to judge the content or the comprehensiveness of the article, beyond recording that to my eye it looks authoritative, and it is clearly well and widely sourced. Splendid illustrations, and highly readable prose. As far as I can see it meets the FA criteria in every respect, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks again for your useful comments at peer review, Tim! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matiasEdit

I did go through pretty thoroughly during the Peer Review, but I'll give it another read in the next day or so, see if anything else should be edited. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Went through it again and nothing stands out to stop me from supporting it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AishipEdit

  • Should papyrus be linked at all?
  • "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" seems awkward. "often-unique mythological innovations" or something?
  • Note C has just Suda, whereas all other uses include the article: the Suda. Any reason?
  • "now in the collection of the Berlin State Museums" is repeated, albeit once is in a note.

That's pretty much it. Well done.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Changed the easy things ("Suda" without the article is a dated use an should probably be avoided; linked papyri in the lead). I agree that "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" is clunky, but I'm not sure "often unique mythological innovations " is any better; I shall think on it further. The discussion of the papyri could probably be rewritten to avoid the repetition – I will work something up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I've had a go at rewriting the two points you raised – how does it look now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice. Nothing to stop me from a support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • A minor suggestion which can be ignored: I would link the publishers as I generally find it to be helpful.
  • Does MA in Cambridge, MA refer to Massachusetts? If so, I would write out the full form. People not familiar with the city/state might not know the abbreviation.

Otherwise sources are of appropriate quality and formatted correctly/consistently. Spot-checks not included. Version reviewed. FrB.TG (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

So, this was already at FAC but failed b/c of lack of supports and some prose concerns so it went through a second peer review during which some prose work was done. This is a star which is noted for the presence of seven planets in a harmonic chain, and some of these planets may even be habitable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Several of the diagrams would benefit from being scaled up, but this should be done using |upright= rather than fixed px size
    It looks like several already have that parameter. Any that would benefit from a higher number? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    Possible interiors and the following animation, relative sizes, habitable zone. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    Did this for the non-animated images; one would need to click on the animation anyway to get useful information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Some images are missing alt text
    Did this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: There is no alt text for the infobox image, File:The ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 in the constellation of Aquarius.tif. For this, a short sentence describing the position of TRAPPIST-1 within Aquarius (similar to the article text) should suffice. All the remaining images are good. (I don't think the lack of alt text in the navboxes at the bottom is an urgent issue.) Complex/Rational 16:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:TRAPPIST-1_system_to_scale.svg should be cited to a non-circular source
    I think Agol 2021, Grimm 2018 and Delrez 2018 are, but I'll ask Cmglee for confirmation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) is another source, though its values are slightly different. cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 00:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    cmglee, can you add this source information to File:TRAPPIST-1_system_to_scale.svg? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Though I can do that, it might cause confusion, as the sources don't agree with one another, and thus the values in the diagram don't correspond to those in . I could put it a note that that source has slightly different values. cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    All what's needed here is a citation on the file page, rather than "data taken from Wikipedia", I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Cmglee: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:TRAPPIST-1e_Const_CMYK_Print.png: source link is dead
    Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Eso1733s_Artist's_impression_of_merging_neutron_stars.jpg appears not to be an ESO artwork - are we certain it would be covered by ESO's blanket license? *
    Um, that image doesn't appear on the page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    It is - in one of the navboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    The wonders of transclusion ... that said, the EXIF claims it's CC-BY-SA 4.0 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Artem

  • As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) are hypothesised to be orbiting within the habitable zone[c][12] - do you really need this ref 12 in the lead? everything is referenced in the body.
    No; removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • TRAPPIST-1 is in the constellation Aquarius,[13] only[14] five degrees south of the celestial equator.[d][1] - why does 'only' need a separate source? Is it that important?
    Yes, there was a discussion on the peer review about this sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • In 2016, TRAPPIST-1's rotational period was first measured as 1.40±0.05 Earth days,[31] a typical period for M dwarfs.[43] 2017 measurements showed that the star actually rotates about every 3.295±0.003 Earth days,[8][44] though that may constitute the rotation period of active regions rather than stellar rotation according to a 2019 paper.[40] As of 2020, discrepancies between rotational data obtained by the Spitzer Space Telescope and Kepler satellite remain unexplained.[45] - I think it would be better if 2016 and 2017 events would be more implicitly accossiated with instruments, smth like "In 2016, data from the Spitzer show ... In 2017, Kepler measurements show ... As of 2020, discrepancies between those two remain unexplained."
    I think the 2016 observations were from more than one source, but I added the Kepler thing in 2017. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Kepler satellite remain - why not 'Kepler space telescope'? Isn't it a common name?
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Based on a combination of techniques, an age of about 7.6±2.2 billion years has been established for TRAPPIST-1,[46] - maybe these combination can be added? (if it's not very important, maybe a note would work?)
    It'd be pretty difficult to make it comprehensible without making it overly long, I am afraid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[i]) - maybe just a link - run out of hydrogen - will work?
    Eh, I don't think it's common knowledge what the "main sequence" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    I suggested this construct during the peer review, and I feel that such a link might be a WP:SURPRISE. At that point in the text, if we're to add a link, hydrogen burning or similar feels more appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Possible faculae (bright spots[52]) - is this ref proves that faculae are bright spots? If yes, I think it's redundant. Same for albedo (reflectivity[136]). It just looks strange when there is a translation of 'faculae' or 'albedo' (especially for 'albedo' as a common word in astronomy), and there are no explanation of stuff like Alfvén surface, planet's Hill radius, global Rossby number, etc.
    Some of these are explained in text, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • As of 2017, this is the largest known number of planets within the habitable zone of a star or star system.[135] - what about 2022?
    It is not feasible to keep an article - even at FA standards - up to date on a monthly basis. Thus I only do it once per year during Christmas, hence any 2022 publication isn't used yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • making TRAPPIST-1b a candidate magma ocean planet - link magma ocean (it was linked before, but would be useful here)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Models of tidal effects on TRAPPIST-1e have been created.[242] - maybe any details about these models are worthy and can be included?
    I'd prefer to leave them to TRAPPIST-1e. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

More later. Artem.G (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  • For each section about a planet you have {Main article} and then start sentence with the planet's name. Maybe it can be simplified - insert links into first sentences and remove {Main}? (just a thought, I have no hard feelings of either variant)
    I think the current form makes it clearer that detailed information on each planet is found elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets is often incorrectly attributed to NASA - 'often' is referenced by one source, maybe 'sometimes attributed to NASA'?
    This was a tough one. It certainly seems to me like NASA is frequently (not just "sometimes") mentioned as the discoverer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The speculative Breakthrough Starshot proposal for sending small laser-accelerated unmanned probes would require around two centuries to reach TRAPPIST-1.[305] - link is dead
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Besides these comments, I can't find any serious flaws - as the article was under PR and FAC before, I think everything was polished several times. Nice article, I support it being promoted to FA status. Artem.G (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from EdwininlondonEdit

I'm glad to see this back here again. I reviewed it last time around. The prose flows much better now. My comments:

  • telescope at La Silla Observatory --> perhaps add which country this is in
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • have precise numerical ratios of 8:5 --> it is not obvious what the ratio is of, so perhaps add "of neighboring planets have precise.."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • the formation of the planetary system --> link planetary system
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • of the planets including --> of the planets, including
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • whether planets could retain --> whether the planets could retain
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • exoplanets should be linked
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Dwarf stars like TRAPPIST-1 --> this seems out of order, as not until the next paragraph are we told it is a red dwarf.
    Yes, but I'd like to first introduce general information before specific one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Its luminosity is --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • a typical period for M dwarfs --> I thought it was a red dwarf? somewhere earlier it needs to state it is an M dwarf, with explanation or at least a link
    Per our article, they are (mostly) synonyms. I don't have a source for its definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I see. But we have to say this somewhere, perhaps right after where you talk about its temperature. Something like "TRAPPIST-1 has an effective temperature[h] of 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F), making it fall within the definition of an M dwarf."
    AFAIK the definition is mostly a matter of spectrum, only indirectly of temperature. Added a note for red dwarf to explain that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry to be a pain, but I'm not convinced adding a note is good enough. I don't think we can rely on users reading the note. As it stands now "typical period for M dwarfs" is puzzling because the reader has not been told whether Trappist-1 is an M dwarf or not. Can this not be stated? For instance right after stating it is a red dwarf?
    Recast this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • the Kepler space telescope --> link here, delink in the next sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • the star actually rotates about every 3.295±0.003 Earth days,[8][44] though that may constitute the rotation period of active regions rather than stellar rotation --> given the caveat, I don't think the word "actually" is appropriate.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • making it almost twice as old as the Solar System --> I don't think we should say this. Not with that 2.2 error range. Just say older, like you have in the lead
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • about 700 times[48] longer than the present age of the Universe --> I don't think this is helping. It interrupts the main point about the sun comparison. I would delete it.
    Well, this paragraph discusses both the past and the future of the star sequentially, so I wouldn't agree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    OK, if you want to hang on to it, then make it at least easier for the reader to understand your point by not intertwining two comparisons. So something like "The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is hundreds to thousands of times longer than that of stars like the Sun:[27] TRAPPIST-1 is expected to shine for ten trillion years, while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[i]) in a few billion years. TRAPPIST-1's life expectancy is about 700 times[48] longer than the present age of the Universe."
    I am kind of concerned about inserting the solar lifespan in the middle of the sentence as that proposal does. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry for being so astronomically clueless, but the way I understand what you have now is as follows: 1) "The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is hundreds to thousands of times longer than that of stars like the Sun:" == comparison to Sun lifespan. 2) "TRAPPIST-1 is expected to shine for ten trillion years" = absolute TRAPPIST-1. 3) "about 700 times[49] longer than the present age of the Universe" = comparison to Universe. 4) "while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[j]) in a few billion years" = absolute Sun. I had a hard time understanding 1) because 3) is in the middle of 2) and 4). To me as a layman person 2) and 4) should be next to each other in order to make sense of 1), which has a colon to tell me what is coming.
    Attempted a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • NASA Exoplanet Archive --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • between Mars-sized to slightly larger than Earth --> this assumes the reader knows the size of Mars. Better to put this after the next sentence.
    I don't think that would be clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • requiring lower-density molecular species to be present --> is this species the right word? Smells of life ...
    At least in the jargon, it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Is there a way to avoid the jargon as per MOS:JARGON?
    Yes, and that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • it would causing --> ?
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • facilitating --> facilitate?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • This is particularly important early in the star's history, when radiation was --> present tense and past mixed
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • existing telescopes and observations cannot infer --> inanimate objects indeed can not infer
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • including oceans over hundred times larger than Earth's --> this puzzles me: the biggest planet is estimated to be 150% size of Earth. the Pacific covers a third, so how do we get to 100?
    The vertical dimension also counts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • if there are not other gases --> if there are no other gases
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • additional hurdle for atmospheres --> delink atmospheres
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • M dwarfs have intense flares. TRAPPIST-1 has about 0.38 flares per day[12] and about 4 to 6 superflares[z] per year. --> should this info not live in the Star section?
    This is more important here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Samara, Patsourakos and Georgoulis 2021 --> this format differs from the X et al. (2019) you used before
    Matched. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The stellar wind from TRAPPIST-1 has a pressure a thousand times larger --> this seems to be at odds with "The stellar wind properties of TRAPPIST-1 are not precisely determined."
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System is largely independent on planetary properties such as mass[219] and could remove the atmospheres of TRAPPIST-1 planets --> mixing Solar System with Trappist
    Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • may have lasted for hundreds of millions[204] and up to two billion years --> may have lasted for between hundreds of millions[204] or up to two billion years
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • orbits its star every 2.42 d --> orbits its star every 2.42 Earth days
    Sorry, but I dunno how to make that work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Am I missing something? 1b "orbits its star in 1.5 Earth days". 1d "has an orbital period of 4 Earth days". Is it not possible to express 1c's orbital period in Earth days? It would be really good to have consistency.
    Yes, the formatting template. I don't see how to make it pronounce the units. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Can you not use what worked for Trappist-1b? "and orbits its star in 2.42 Earth days" Or am I missing something obvious again?
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • the oribital periods for e f g h are missing
    Still. Or are they not known?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • TRAPPIST-1e is the TRAPPIST-1 planet most likely to have water --> this was just said in the previous paragraph
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • TRAPPIST-1f could have kept up to several Earth ocean masses of water[12] that could make up as much as 50% of the planet's mass --> again, is "several times" not a bit much, given that the biggest planet is only 150% size of Earth? Or are the oceans on 1e to be expected much much deeper than Earth's?
    They can be much deeper, yes. Water/planet mass ratios are not at all conserved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Large quantities of carbon dioxide, as well as hydrogen or methane[245] --> delink
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • the star is considered a promising site --> the star's planets I assume
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Mullan and Bais 2018 ... Lingam and Loeb 2019 --> again, different formatting from X et al. (2019) you used before
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The outer planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system could feature subsurface oceans --> should this not be mentioned in the sections about the outer planets?
    No, because the statement pertains to more than one planet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (from the viewpoint of TRAPPIST-1) --> I feel this is in the wrong position. It should be after "the Sun"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • close-by ultra-cold dwarf stars --> is there a reason you use cold and not cool?
    Matched. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Its planetary system was discovered by --> delink here and link first use of planetary system in body article
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • with their orbits constrained by the Spitzer and Kepler telescopes --> what does this mean? How do telescopes constrain an orbit?
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The movement of a stellar body with respect to the sky, rather than the movement of the body itself --> The other footnotes seem to include what it is they are explaining, but this one does not
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That was a lot of things, but I think I got most. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Just a few points left. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy my points have been addressed. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments (support) from ComplexRationalEdit

As I noted at the close of the peer review, I'm quite pleased with the improvements to this article since FAC1. I just gave it another quick review (having done the bulk of reviewing during the PR) and pending a few minor comments, I'm happy to support promotion to FA.

  • I made a few minor formatting fixes, removed a couple of duplinks, and changed a second occurrence of magma ocean (in the section TRAPPIST-1b) to the more specific lava planet.
  • See my comment above re alt text – the infobox image doesn't have it, but it can be written to reflect the article text.
    Template:Starbox image does not have an option for ALT text, it seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Would it work to specify |alt= in the file link itself? I don't see anything suggestive of the contrary. Complex/Rational 22:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Let's see if it shows up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed it does in the alt text viewer (toolbox). I might also suggest mentioning that TRAPPIST-1 is located very close to the ecliptic. Complex/Rational 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I already noted this in one case at the PR – sources published by exactly the same authors in the same year should be distinguished, e.g., 2014a, 2014b, per this and similar guidelines. This is nicely done in some cases, though I've noticed a few instances of broken numbering (e.g., there's a Gillon 2020b but no Gillon 2020a) as well as slightly different author listings. I propose standardizing the authors (even with et al.) and numbering sequence.
    I think I got these? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Still needs a bit of work. In the list of sources, months and days are also provided in some cases, which serve to distinguish the sources there. I'm not sure if style guidelines permit, e.g., "April 2018a" and "July 2018b" unless there are multiple papers from either month with exactly the same authors. In these cases, it should suffice to leave them without letters in the list (using letters only as a "last resort" when authors and dates are not sufficient), but rather distinguish them using WP:CITEREF; thus, the list would include April 2018 and July 2018 but the footnotes would use 2018a and 2018b, respectively.
    Also, I think you might have missed that there's still a 2011b without a 2011a – there's only one paper by Prantzos on the list. Complex/Rational 22:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Good work! Complex/Rational 16:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Did that one, I don't know about CITEREF enough to make a change on the April and July things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's similar to {{harvid}}, which is already used and I hadn't noticed. I made the change here and it seems to work. Complex/Rational 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsfan77777Edit

I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


  • What's rationale for calling TRAPPIST-1 just a star as opposed to a "planetary system" or a "star with a planetary system" (i.e. a "stellar system")? The website calls it a "planetary system" and I would think that when most people say TRAPPIST-1 they are referring to the planetary system, not specifically the star. (i.e. The equivalent article is the solar system, not the Sun.)
    The article covers both, unlike Sun-Solar System, but added planetary system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Related to that, I would suggest mentioning TRAPPIST-1 has seven known planets in the first paragraph to give that more emphasis. The current placement of that makes it a bit buried.
    Also done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "with the shortest period being" <<<=== suggest rephrasing the sentence to avoid the with "-ing" issue.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Also suggest rephrasing that sentence to put the range of orbital periods first (1.5 to 18.8 days) and then add that they are in resonance afterwards. It's much easier to understand the length of the year part than the resonance part.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "The habitable zone is the region around a star where temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold for the existence of liquid water" <<<=== "could be" neither too hot nor too cold for the existence of liquid water. (see e.g. [8])
    I dunno, usually one would say a planet too cold or too warm is outside of the habitable zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) are hypothesised to be orbiting within the habitable zone[c] of the star and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and the development of life. <<<=== Suggest rephrasing to make it clear that what's uncertain is the extent of the habitable zone, as well as possibilities of water and life, not the orbits. The current wording sounds to me like the orbits are uncertain.
    Did this, but I sort of don't like the formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


  • only[14] <<<=== suggest not citing "only" or moving the citation to the end of the sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Dwarf stars like TRAPPIST-1 are over ten times more common than Sun-like stars[27] and these stars are more likely to host small planets than Sun-like stars. <<<=== This sentence is out of place. It should be in the next paragraph after it's stated that TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf. (albeit see the new few comments) Also, careful: "dwarf" doesn't mean "small", it means "not a giant star, i.e. stars either on the main sequence or below the main sequence".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf;[30] red dwarfs are cold stars with" <<<=== suggest avoiding these types of constructions in general. You could use a construction like "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf,[30] a cold star with... "
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • red dwarfs are cold stars with a mass less than the Sun, including the spectral types M and K,[31] ad TRAPPIST-1 belongs to class M <<<=== I don't think this captures what a red dwarf is. Suggest "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf, the smallest, coolest, and most common type of star". I would lean towards thinking mentioning K dwarfs is not relevant.
    Need a sauce for such a formulation, and I think that not mentioning K dwarfs would be slightly misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think "cool" is preferred to "cold". "cool" is a jargon term. (It's not actually cold, it's a few thousand degrees. That's really hot!)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Spectral type" is introduced twice in the second paragraph. You should mention "M8.0" when introducing the spectral type.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • which is a scheme to categorise stars by their temperature <<<=== I'm not sure this captures the point. "Spectral type" categorises stars by their spectra, hence the name "spectral type". For main sequence stars, that classification implies a bunch of other properties including temperature, mass, lifetime, etc.
    I don't think it does, but the problem is that definitions like these are hard to source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Link spectral type to Stellar classification#Harvard spectral classification.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • it has only barely sufficient mass to allow nuclear fusion to take place <<<=== this is related to the mass not the radius, but it's in the radius sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggest starting the rotation period paragraph by noting the disagreement
    It's somewhat hard to explain things when put in that order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • You could compare the rotation period to the Sun.
    I don't think the rotation period is as important as the mass and luminosity, myself. Plus, it'd need another sauce for the Sun's rotation period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "to shine" <<<=== this is too informal. I assume you mean "stay on the main sequence"?
    Kind of, but "shine" captures the pertinent aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

More commments later. In general, I think the quality of explanations could still be improved. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Elon MuskEdit

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 02:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk is the 14th most visited article on Wikipedia. This FAC is about about a year and a half in the making, and the article has been a GA since last June. Hopefully this nomination will have its supporters, but I know it already has at least one "oppose". Cheers! ~ HAL333 02:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Let us do it! A lot of work has gone into the article. QRep2020 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
We don't count a BLP's assessment of their own biography, due to the obvious conflict of interest. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I was joking..... ~ HAL333 17:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments: I respect the amount of effort HAL333 and QRep have put to this article, but I do think that it is a bit of a hasted nomination. Some sections are a bit too short, such as in the "Neuralink" and "The Boring Company" sections. There's also too much short paragraphs that are 1-2 sentences long and a bit of a liberal use of quotations (especially at "Wealth" section). Overall, I think this article is a solid GA, but I think that a bit more work is needed to be done for the article to be of FA-quality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have expanded the Neuralink and TBM sections. Also, paragraph length is irrelevant unless it impacts comprehensiveness, which I believe it does not. ~ HAL333 18:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
After skimming through the "Leadership" and "SpaceX" sections, plus with my concerns above, I don't feel comfortable for the article to get promoted. The SpaceX section focuses way too much at Starlink while not much is talked about Starship, though both have similar level of ambitiousness, while the "Wealth" section is a mess. Prose is not excellent and certainly not featured-quality yet. Sorry to say this, but I suggest a withdrawal to allow more time to polish the article. The article should only be nominated again once everything is absolutely satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SteelkampEdit

Will look at this now. Steelkamp (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  • There are many duplicate links.
Is there a bot I could use to find these? ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@HAL333: - click "highlight duplicate links" in the left-hand side bar..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you have to install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js for that. Steelkamp (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: oh OK. I don't recall doing that, so I just assumed it was a feature everyone had. I must have installed it when I was half asleep LOL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • There are a few instances where there are more than three footnotes in a row.
  • many of whom are in states in which he has a vested interest. What does this mean?
He has vested interests (i.e. Tesla and SpaceX assets) in those states/countries. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Musk has also been described as having a "charm offensive" to woo China and its markets for Tesla. How does this go under politics?
  • What is a registered independent? Seems oxymoronic to me, but maybe this is a thing in American politics.
Yeah, in some American states you can register as an independent. I'm one myself. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • In 2022, Musk said that he could "no longer support" the Democrats, ... Do we know the reason he can no longer support the Democrats?
Added. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Musk criticized then-president Donald Trump for his stance on climate change and after joining Trump's two business advisory councils,[304][305][306] Musk resigned from both in 2017 in protest against Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. Prose could be improved.
  • and that COVID-19 were inflated. This sentence doesn't really make sense.
Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • refused to close the Tesla Fremont factory in March 2020, defying the local shelter-in-place order. In May 2020, he reopened the Tesla factory, defying the local stay-at-home order, and warned workers that they would be unpaid and their unemployment benefits might be jeopardized if they did not report to work. First sentence says the factory did not close, then the next sentence implies that the factory did close at some point. Also, did Musk or Tesla suffer any legal issues as a result of this.
Fixed. And there were no legal issues.
  • Musk eventually bought and donated medical devices that hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines. Seems like weasle words.
  • In 2012, he announced a divorce from Riley. In 2013, Musk and Riley remarried. In December 2014, he filed for a second divorce from Riley; however, the action was withdrawn. WP:PROSELINE.
  • Musk has made multiple cameos and appearances in films... Change this to Musk has made cameos and appearances in films... Or is this saying he made multiple cameos and appearances in all the following films listed?
  • Link Yale University.
  • Infobox image appears to have no alt text.
All other comments addressed. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Steelkamp have you read the WP:FAC instructions? Why are you using templates like tq? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of that. I've removed those templates. Steelkamp (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can do a full source review (466 sources is too many), but Backchannel pre-Wired and Page Six don't seem like high quality reliable sources to me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Guerillero Page Six has been removed, but I'm confused about Wired. Which ones need to be removed? ~ HAL333 01:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Ray ReardonEdit

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC), Rodney Baggins

Nicknamed Dracula, Reardon was the dominant snooker player of the 1970s. He won six World Snooker Championships, and was the number one player in six of the first seven years of the snooker world rankings. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins.

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Wikilink Monmouthshire? (done)
  • "was presented to him by Joe Davis" - maybe specify who Davis was (former world champion, etc) (done)
  • "A week later, at Pontins in Prestatyn, Wales, he retained the Professional title and won the Spring Open title" - these both took place at Pontins at the same time?
    • I believe so – maybe Benny can check/confirm? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks, ChrisTheDude. Yes, they did take place at the same time. 1975 was the second "Pontins Festival of Snooker" - this had both professional (eight invited players) and open pro-am (over 650 entrants) events. The professional event took place at the same time as the early rounds of the pro-am event - the professionals were exempted until the 5th round of the open. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "He advised Ronnie O'Sullivan on the way to his 2004 World Championship victory, giving him psychological and tactical help" - O'Sullivan was already mentioned and linked, so no need to do so again (done)
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Chris, tweaked article per your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

BioShock 2Edit

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You're tasked with creating the followup to one of the most-acclaimed video games of all time. What do you do? In the case of 2K Marin, you create BioShock 2, an adroit sequel that arguably didn't get its due upon release. Article received a good article review by Etriusus and a line edit/review by Ovinus, so thanks to them for their input on this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the screenshot
  • File:Bioshock2_cover.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I have fixed the issue with the cover. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
And I scaled the screenshot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

I love this game (even though it couldn't live up to the first). I have some experience with writing video game articles.

  • "He sat next to Alyssa Finley," What is meant by this? I think this might be too much of an idiom, and perhaps "worked alongside" might be better
    • I believe it's literally his workspace neighbor was Finley, but if worked alongside is clearer, there's no problem. Changed.
      • If you can verify that they literally sat next to each other, then that can be clarified in the article if you want. I'm not bothered either way. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "and presented unique challenges." What kind of challenges? Can this be more specific?
    • I've added an anecdote from the source.
  • I am surprised at how few publications are included in the Template:Video game reviews. Were all of the sites listed there consulted? For example, Jeuxvideo, 4Players, PC Gamer, CNET, Destructoid, to name a few.
    • {{Video game reviews}} requires scores listed to be incorporated into the reception text; I tend to focus on a selective sampling of the more well-known reviewers, rather than trying to cram every mentioned score into the template (especially since that usually leads to text collision or whitespace issues depending on screen sizes.) Looking at the above reviews, I didn't find any sentiments that weren't already expressed in the article. Is there anything in particular you feel those reviews are covering that's not highlighted?
      • I think this comment was out of a concern about which reviews were included and which were excluded. The reception section is already quite long, so I would not make it longer. I took a closer look at the instructions in template:video game reviews and I see that the reception section already includes the most popular and recommended reviews, so I am not concerned about which sources are included. I trust that a search in less popular sites and non-English language sites were already conducted and it was determined that they would not add significant information to the reception section. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

These are my thoughts. Ping ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the look Z1720, and thanks for your edits to the article. Responded inline above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Added some responses above but I don't think it would affect my support. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has picked up just the single support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm planning to get a prose review in soon. Should have it up within the next day or two. JOEBRO64 23:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64Edit

Content-wise, I think this article is there, but could use some copyediting before it's fully ready for promotion. In general, I think the prose needs a little tightening up to remove redundancies and tautologies. My more specific comments will mainly pertain to the lede, and then I'll give some more general copyediting advice for the rest of the article.

  • Minor first sentence quibble, but I don't think you need to say "video game" in "BioShock 2 is a first-person shooter video game". All first-person shooters are video games, so I'd definitely say it's tautological. If someone doesn't know that a first-person shooter is a video game, they can click the link.
  • This is another stylistic preference, but I don't think you need to say that a game called BioShock 2 is "[t]he sequel to the 2007 game BioShock"—this should be self-evident to the reader. I think you can chop this clause and just add a wikilink to BioShock at "eight years after the events of BioShock" in the next sentence.
  • As a general comment, hit Ctrl+F and look for every mention of "the game's" or "of the game". In my experience, you'll find that in almost all cases, it's unnecessary. Some examples include "In the game's single-player campaign, players control...", "... expanded the sonic palette of the game to include more blues and religious music to parallel the game's themes", and "A remastered version of the game was released..."
  • "BioShock 2 received positive reviews upon release... The multiplayer mode was supported with downloadable content upon launch" "Upon release", "on release", or "upon launch" is almost never, never necessary. Readers understand that games aren't reviewed until they're finished—not to mention they're often reviewed shortly before they come out.
  • I've noticed several instances of "called" and "titled", such as "...a single-player campaign expansion, titled Minerva's Den..." Similar to "upon release", these are almost never needed. For example, "Modified and conditioned children, called "Little Sisters", collect scarce ADAM..." doesn't lose any clarity when dropping it.
  • Is there any reason the plot section comes before the gameplay? Plot sections generally come after gameplay per WP:VGORDER. I see it describes things like Big Daddies and the setting of the Rapture but I think these could be concisely introduced in gameplay first. Up to you though.
  • I removed some instances of overlinking in my review, but I may not have caught them all—I'd take another look to ensure that they're all gone.
  • In the reception section, I'd challenge statements like "The game's campaign was generally well received" and "The multiplayer mode had mixed reception" as generalizations that require direct refs to back them up.

Overall there are some issues with the writing but the content is great. I'll take another look after some copyedits have been done. JOEBRO64 14:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ceres (dwarf planet)Edit

Nominator(s): Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This article nearly won its previous FAC, but ran aground on the writing and style. Since then I and a fresh pair of eyes have given it a copyedit, and I think it's ready for another FAC. Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

NOTE to Coords: former featured article; if re-promoted, please adjust the placement and tally at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comments: Great article on the dwarf planet. That's being said, the article's images and image placement may need some work, one-line paragraphs should be merged, and there's some stuff that can be written more about (Why Ceres don't have a moon? Is Ceres seismically active? Does Ceres has a magnetic field? etc.) so I don't think the article should be promoted yet, but overall, good work on a Level 4 Vital article. You should be proud of your efforts and accomplishment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's possible to answer why it doesn't have a moon; that's like asking why I don't have a sports car. Serendipodous 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I concur on that point. Regarding the magnetic field, as far as I know, it's not thought to have one [9], and the bow-shock event detected by the Dawn spacecraft is thought to be due to the solar wind impinging upon the transient exosphere [10][11]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Take "Why Ceres don't have a moon?" as an example – why does Salacia and Orcus have a moon even though the parent body is less massive than Ceres? It may be because of their distance from the Sun, or their origin. I doubt that there haven't been any research done about the topic yet that would warrant inclusion into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
        • It still sounds strange, because we can also ask "why Orcus don't have two moons?" or smth similar. I tried to find any paper that talks about hypothetical moon of Ceres, but didn't find anything significant except for thia paper Dawn mission's search for satellites of Ceres: Intact protoplanets don't have satellites. I think it can be included, though I'm not an expert on Ceres: Examination of the physical properties of the 41 largest and most massive main belt asteroids suggests that large asteroids without satellites are intact and their interiors have internal strength. This is consistent with results from the Dawn mission at both Vesta and Ceres. Ceres' volatile-rich composition also is a likely contributor to both the absence of satellites at Ceres and of Ceres meteorites at Earth. These results suggest that collisional disruption creating rubble pile structure is a necessary condition for formation of satellites around main belt asteroids. Artem.G (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
          My bias is that one should explain why a body has a moon, rather than why it doesn't. Of course, if people have done studies, then we can write about them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
      I'm not sure that seismic activity has been studied apart from the cryovulcanism that the article already discusses, but I did a little work on the other topics mentioned. My standards for image selection and placement are very low, so somebody else ought to evaluate that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I removed a line that was unreliably sourced; it's been restored with a {{citation needed}}, but I can't find any reliable source that could substantiate it or indicate that it's a sufficiently important datum to include. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    The {{citation needed}} was filled in with a personal website, which I am highly doubtful of, and since the point is a really, really marginal one, I snipped it out again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ArtemEdit

Article is good, sources seems to be ok, will try to read thoroughly and comment later. At a first glance, 'Proposed exploration' seems odd, as it describes missions proposals for Vesta or just some asteroids, but not specifically a Ceres mission. More comments later. Artem.G (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Some source checks:
Ref 7 should be moved to notes; ref 14 - do you think it's reliable source? Looks self-published. Artem.G (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Ref 17 can be cited properly, with authors (and maybe it can be swapped with some real paper, not with a conference summary?)
Refs 30 and 31 should be formatted, can they be found online? Ref 35 needs ISBN. Ref 100 - can it be found online?
Fixed. (except for some reason the format isn't recognising "et al.") Serendipodous 11:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild just a note about what is going on in astronomy articles. Unfortunately, some months back, different editors nominated five astronomy articles at once at FAR, which has placed an enormous burden on the few editors who work in this area. I'm wondering if you might consider giving this one a little extra time, depending on what those editors say ? They are quite taxed, and it's demoralizing and demotivating ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Then they need to come here for some R&R positivity. Happy to give it, or any other article, a little extra time - so long as there are clear indications that this will result in some further reviewing attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Serendipodous and Gog the Mild ... as the other side of the same same coin, 90377 Sedna was originally a FAC nomination of Serendipodous. Serendipodous, if you were to help out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/90377 Sedna/archive1, the few reviewers at FAR who are stretched so thin might have more time to devote to this FAC nomination. It doesn't seem quite right for the very few editors we have working in astronomy to be struggling to clean up five, now reduced to three FARs at once, while a new nomination appears at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:: They could close the Sedna FAR, which was pointless to start with. Serendipodous 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2022Edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Posh Brit university canoes back on the Thames after Covid disruption. Yes, it's not the Super Bowl. The men got it all wrong but the women triumphed, depending on your preferred shade of blue. As I write "short" FAs, I expect this to be a very truncated process and look forward to addressing concerns with incredible speed and guile. And thanks in advance to those of you who make constructive comments here, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • I think the first, or at worst the second, paragraph of the lead should mention who actually competes in the Boat Race. At present we don't find that out until the third para and even then for the women's race we are only told the winner, not anyone else who took part.
  • "The women's senior race was umpired by John Garrett who rowed for CUBC" - you haven't used (or linked) the full names of the clubs in the body, only in the lead
  • The key to the map should probably indicate that the county names shown are historic counties. Barnes, Putney, etc, haven't been in Surrey for decades, and Middlesex no longer exists at all.
  • "He is a former Great Britain Olympic coach" - is there a way to re-word this to remove the present tense, so that it won't need updating when he's no longer with us (which I appreciate may be decades away, but it doesn't hurt to futureproof :-))
  • "Each year before Christmas, each squad stages" - change the first word to "every" to avoid repetition?
  • "and after a further blade clash, extended their" - not sure that comma needs to be there
  • "following warnings to both crews from the umpire to avoid a clash, Style held" - same here. Is this a standard form? It looks a little odd to me but maybe that's just me.......
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Hi Chris, thanks for the comments, sorry for taking so long to get to them. I think I've addressed them all, solvling the final two by adding a comma before as well to bring out those clauses separately if that makes sense. Let me know if there's anything else I can do! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review from Hawkeye7Edit

Support I reviewed this at GA, and believe it meets featured quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 thanks for both the previous GA review and this check-up. I've removed the upright parameter as you recommended. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AirshipJungleman29Edit

  • Lead needs restructuring.
    • "The Boat Race 2022 took place on 3 April 2022." is a pretty terrible first sentence, considering it only conveys one piece of new information to unfamiliar readers—that the race, whatever it is, takes place on 3 April.
    • The first link is in the third sentence. Why?
    • The Tideway?
    • "resulting in the head-to-head record between the universities being" rather wordy no?
  • Don't particularly like one sentence paragraphs, and one sentence sections even less. Is "The official fixtures to be conducted in advance of The Boat Race were announced on 27 January 2022" really worthy of a section for itself?
  • The 1927 Women's Boat Race is mentioned twice, but not linked.

Probably more to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello AirshipJungleman29 thanks for your comments. I've re-written the opening paragraph of the lead and trimmed some of the redundancy. I've fixed the one-sentence para (which I also dislike) and the 1927 WBR is already linked on the first instance (to whit: "... Before 2015, the women's race, which first took place in 1927, was usually ..."). Let me know if you have more thoughts! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HALEdit

I admit I'm a bit oblivious when it comes to rowing, my only exposure being this scene from The Social Network.

  • cancellation of the 2020 race as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic -- > "race due to the" for concision
    Are you sure? I'm never keen on "due to" and I'm never certain when it's appropriate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What is a senior boat or senior race?
    The main boats, as opposed to the reserve boats. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • after agreeing a four-year extension to their existing contract Is that proper English? Would "agreeing to a four-year extension on their..." be better?
    No, that's proper English. Certainly in British. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe link coxing?
    Lined. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Should it be Trial VIII's rather than Trial VIIIs?
    No, in fact that article uses the apostrophe version just the once before reverting to the correct usage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What is the Middlesex station? And the Surrey station?
    That's shown on the explanatory map, the starting points depending on which side of the river. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I would more clearly introduce what the names of the Cambridge boats are before using them. Also, who named the Cambridge boats that? And why?
    I don't follow. There's no RS stating who or why they were thus named, otherwise I'd have included it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Woody and Buzz, named after Ryan's dogs Are they in turn named after the Toy Story characters?
    I presume so but I have no RS to back up that assertion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the Build-up section. What are fixtures?
    It's a sporting event, it's just an English word, see the second definition here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • If you link "The Championship Course" in the image caption, why not the names of the rowers/coaches?
    Linked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • In the "Women" subsection, you use the past perfect tense (had represented) only for Smith. I would change that to plain old past tense like you did for the rest.
    "had" gone. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What are the "reserves"? I would explain and expand that section a bit.
    They are the B-teams if you like. Standard British English word, see this (reserve NOUN extra person). There's nothing more to add in RS about this event. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That's all. ~ HAL333 16:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

HAL333 thanks for your comments, I've addressed and/or responded to each of them above! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi HAL333, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Source review by Z1720Edit

Version reviewed, spot checks not done

  • Should be OK, some editors are concerned with differences in ref structure and sfn templates, but I'm not too bothered about it anymore. Since this is the only magazine that has page numbers (The Times has page numbers, but they are a newspaper) it should be OK. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • And curiously, The Times has its own template, so this kind of "commonality across the piece" suggestion doesn't really stack up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Is "The Boat Race 2022" a magazine? I ask because the link to the source goes (I think) to a magazine subscription website. If it is, it should use Template:Cite magazine.
    It was an e-publication so you can call it a magazine if you like, but I don't see why that makes any difference at all to our readers' experiences of this (now sub-only) reference. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Others who are more knowledgeable than me in source reviews have asked for the cite templates to match the media, which is why I bring it up here. The ambiguity of an e-publication probably won't make this a problem. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 thanks for taking a look, responses etc above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Pass. My comments have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Tahmasp IEdit

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... Tahmasp I, the second (and my favourite) Safavid Shah of Iran. The article has been under copy edit, and I had put it under a peer review (unfortunately, nothing came out of it) but I'm confidant that this article (unlike my other two unsuccessful nominees) is ready to promote as a Featured article. Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

image review

  • File:Tahmasp_I.png: why is this believed to be CC?
It seems the person who cropped it from the original (which itself was a cropped version from this one), wanted to emphasis that they grant full permission for usage of the image, should I change it?
Yes - a simple crop is unlikely to meet the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Khalili_Collection_Islamic_Art_TLS-2714-back.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Iran,_Qazvin,_Safavid_period_-_Shah_Tahmasp_I_(1514-1576)_Seated_in_a_Landscape_-_1917.1078_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art.tif, File:Flag_of_Shah_Tahmasp_I.svg, File:Qazvin_-_Chehel_Sotun.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Islamic_Art_qur_0729_fol_1b-2a.jpg, File:Coin_of_Tahmasp_I,_minted_in_Shiraz.jpg
Um, I don't really know what the tag for the original work is, can you please give me a link for an image that has one?
Here are a couple of examples from current FACs: File:Sculpture_"Asia"_at_main_entrance_to_Alexander_Hamilton_U.S._Custom_House,_New_York,_New_York_LCCN2010720093.tif and File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Done, though you might want to take a look to check of I've done anything wrong. Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Shah_Tahmasp_holding_court,_attributable_to_Mu'in_Musavvir,_Safavid_Isfahan,_circa_1670_A.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Sueleymanname_nahcevan.jpg, File:Elkas_Mirza.jpg, File:Tahmasp,_Humayun_Meeting.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

First look by JohnbodEdit

  • The article is perhaps rather short for an FA on a 50 year reign.
All major events of his reign are addressed, what remains is some minor events that happened during those major ones. I expended the Georgian campaigns section. But really there's nothing left unsaid about his reign.
  • The English needs touching up.
I enlisted it for a Copy Edit.
  • Lower down, there are overlong paras that need splitting.
  • My interest and knowledge of T is as a patron of the Persian miniature - until he wasn't. The article doesn't seem to use any refs by art historians except Soudavar (and Canby, not used to ref material on art). "Tahmasp has been called the greatest Safavid patron" is true, but not best referenced to a general historian. Little about major commissions, or the artists he employed.
Expended the section with references to Canby and Marianna Shreve Simpson. Despite searching, I still can't find a source by an art historian that summarises Tahmasp reign. Most of them analyse the works created during this era, which I believe would be too long and somewhat irrelevant for this article.
  • Doesn't seem much on Persia's place in the developing Eurasian strategic balance over this long period.
It seems Tahmap's lasting legacy was more internal than his father before him and his grandson Abbas the Great. Especially regarding the religion and how he changed the Safavid ideology towards one of zealousness.

Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Johnbod:. Just a question, should I wait for more of your comments or should I address these ones? Thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Address these, please. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, hi, I addressed all of them. Any thoughts? Amir Ghandi (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Not very impressed so far. The arts section starts: "Tahmasp has been called the greatest Safavid patron.[1] He was the namesake of one of the most celebrated illustrated manuscripts of the Shahnameh, which was commissioned by his father around 1522 and completed during the mid-1530s.[2] In his youth, Tahmasp was inclined towards calligraphy and art and patronised masters in both.[3] Tahmasp's most celebrated contribution to the Safavid arts was his patronage of delux illustrated manuscripts that took place during the first half of his reign.[4]" with obvious English problems, a concealed link to the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasp, and no link (anywhere I can see) to Persian miniature, the main type of art patronised. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Streusand 2019, p. 191.
  2. ^ Simpson 2009.
  3. ^ Mitchell 2009b.
  4. ^ Canby 2000, p. 49.

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • You should explain what the territory of Iran was then. It was obviously much larger than the modern Iran
  • "painters, calligraphers and poets and painting himself". This is unclear. Do you mean that he was himself a painter or that he painted a self-portrait?
The former; I rephrased it. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Tahmasp is known for his religious inclination, allowing the clergy to participate in legal and administrative matters." This is vague. You mean that he was a hardline Shi'ite?

Yes, rephrased the line. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "Although contemporary Western accounts were critical, modern historians describe him as a courageous and able commander who maintained and expanded his father's empire.[1]" This is referenced and I do not see it in the main text. The standard Wikipedia method is to have referenced statements in the main text and an unreferenced summary in the lead.
The first part is sourced later on the article; but I'll remove the source just in case.
  • "ending the Qizilbash worshiping his father as the of Messiah". This is ungrammatical and confused. Qizilbash should be explained and linked.
  • "Tahmasp's father, Ismail I, became shah of Iran in 1502". This needs expansion. You need to spell out that he created Iran and who ruled the area before.
  • "Unlike his ancestors, Ismail believed in Twelver Shia Islam and made it the official religion of the realm." Presumably you mean that his ancestors were Sunnis, but you should say so specifically.
Actually what I meant was Sufism. Done anyways.
  • " The Uzbek victory, during which Najm was executed". He was executed during the battle or afterwards? Executed by the shah or the Uzbeks?
Captured during the battle and then executed. Amend it.
  • "The following year, Ismail appointed the Diyarbakr governor Amir Soltan Mawsillu as Tahmasp's lala (tutor) and governor of Balkh.[16] This was done to replace the Shamlu and Mawsillu governors of Khorasan, who did not join his army during the Battle of Chaldiran in fear of famine.[17] Placing Tahmasp in Herat was an attempt to reduce the growing influence of the Shamlu tribe," This is unclear. Why should an appointment to Balkh replace one to Khorasan and what is the connection with Herat?
Both Balkh and Herat are located in Khorasan.
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Ismail appointed Div Sultan Rumlu as Tahmasp's lala, and the governorship was given to his younger son Sam Mirza Safavi." How could Sam Mirza be governor when he was only four years old? Presumably the appointment was nominal but then why mention it?
Its important to mention that Sam Mirza was nominally the governor of Khorasan because later on the Regency section of the article, its mentioned that Herat was conquered by Uzbeks but they allowed Sam Mirza safe return to Tabriz.
  • More to follow, but in general the main problem I find with this article is that it assumes too much knowledge of the history of the period to be easily understood by a non-expert. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "During the civil war, the Uzbek raiders temporarily seized Tus and Astarabad". Your treatment of the Uzbeks is unclear. You refer here to "the Uzbeks" as if they were a specific faction, but above to a raid by Uzbeks, implying that they were a tribe some of whom launched raids. You do not link Uzbeks at their first mention in the lead. You need to link and explain them there. Presumably they were a tribe living outside Iran, unlike the other factions which were internal to the country?
Every time the Uzbeks are mentioned its regarding the tribes who dwelt in Central Asia and raided Iran. Also, I have linked Uzbeks in the lead in the sentence "Tahmasp also had conflicts with the Uzbeks over Khorasan".
  • Mawsillu is not linked at first mention.
  • "Hossein Khan raided the camp, killed Chuha and replaced him". What camp? You have not previously refer to one.
Further explained it.
  • "In 1528, Ubayd reconquered Astarabad and Tus". You have not said that they lost it.
The source doesn't say when they lost it, but it said that they temporary seized it. So I guess they either abandoned their seizures and were drove out.
  • "fighting the Habsburgs and the siege of Vienna". As there were several sieges of Vienna and this was not the most famous one, maybe [[Siege of Vienna (1529)|attempting to conquer Vienna]].
Rephrased it to "unsuccessfully attempted to Seize Vienna"
  • "Suleiman sent Olama Beg Takkalu with 50,000 troops under Fil Pasha". Sent him where?
The source says "Olāma Beg Takkalu returned to Persia in 1532 with an Ottoman patron, Fil Pasha, and 50,000 troops." Amended it.
  • "tried to obtain support from Gilan". It would be clearer if you spelled it out as Gilan province.
  • "Suleiman tried to lead another campaign against him. Tahmasp primarily attacked his rearguard" "Suleiman led another campaign against him. Tahmasp attacked his rearguard" woudl be simpler.
  • "These terms, in circumstances favourable to the Safavids, were evidence of a decisive victory by Tahmasp." It is not clear why they were favourable to Tahmasp as, apart from access for pilgrims, you list concessions by him.
Added "Moreover, this treaty enabled Iran to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from war" per this source.
  • "He also had the governor of Tbilisi, Golbad, converted to Islam." This is an odd wording. No one can order conversion if the proposed convert refuses.
Forced conversion exits though.
  • Ditto with "and had Levan of Kakheti swear fealty to him".
Reworded it.

Coordinator noteEdit

This has been open for four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it makes considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56Edit

Mathsci (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of the most beloved, so here we try a third time. Thanks to all who commented and improved in the long article history. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is one of few cantatas that Bach called a cantata. The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash!. I asked Mathsci to do a third round, because he contributed most after the last nomination, but he was banned. - Today is the birthday of the conductor with whom I sang it. Those attending a memorial concert for him joined singing the closing chorale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

licensing concerns:

  • File:BWV56 aria Da leg ich den Kummer auf einmal ins Grab.jpg, File:BWV56 recitative Mein Wandel auf der Welt.jpg, File:BWV56-excerpt-aria-Endlich wird mein Joch.jpg, File:BWV56-4 final adagio.jpg, File:BWV56-5-harmonized-chorale-No-87-Becker-1831.jpg who is claiming copyright on this? What original contribution exists? Buidhe public (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    All files uploaded recently by Mathsci, with detailed information about the IMSLP file, and licensing. GRuban is my help with images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Hello, I was summoned. Insert puff of smoke and smell of brimstone here.  All of these are musical scores in an unremarkable font, which are except for the contributions of the composer; you can't retype a piece of music in a perfectly standard font and claim copyright on the end result. The composer is, unless I misunderstand, Johann Sebastian Bach, who died in 1750, and the works were published in 1831 or so, yes? All of that easily meets public domain standards for Germany, the US, and basically any countries we know of. There are no 190 year copyright statutes. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    All of that would suggest the current licensing of CC BY-SA is not correct, so the tagging needs to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Re-tagged.--GRuban (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Of course you can. Copyright on the composition and copyright on the typography are two different things. Without acknowledging the author of the typography and the license it is released under, these files are in violation of their license. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    I humbly disagree, for the reasons as stated. PD-text is quite clear that we, Wikimedia Commons, do not accept copyright on mere typing. Neither can anyone retype Gulliver's Travels or The Merchant of Venice and claim copyright on that. If the esteemed administrator wants to add an additional template of CC BY-SA, I will not object, due to my respect for the mop, but I am quite sure it is not necessary. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Musical notation is not text, and publishers get valid new copyright on new typography. If you are unaware of the difference between musical notation and text, please stay out of this discussion. See [12] for the author. There are two ways to rectify Mathsci's copyvio here, to properly follow the file's CC-BY-SA 4.0 license or to delete it. I feel too esteemed to add any templates, but may nominate for deletion if the false PD claim isn't corrected. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Actually, let me expound a bit, as this is bugging me. Copyright, as the first sentence of our article about it says, is granted not just for work, but for creative work. Retyping is not a creative work. If the typist or the printer employs their creativity in retyping the Cantata, if they intentionally change a C# to a D here and a B to an A there ... it's just not the Cantata. It may be a closely related derivative work, but I don't see anyone claiming that is what happening here. As best I can tell, these are exact reproductions of Bach's composition of 1726, as published in 1831, as best the printer could manage it, correct? If so, the only creativity involved was choosing which font to use, and PD-text is quite clear, we, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, don't consider that single choice sufficient to establish copyright. And I'd say, neither do most courts, but as those of us in the US recently learned, relying on a court to continue ruling the way it has for the past many decades is not at all a matter of certainty! So the best we can do is rely on Wikimedia Commons rules, which are quite clear here. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    The Neue Bach-Ausgabe is PD in Germany (where the copyright in such editions last 25 years), but not PD in the United States (because the US managed to kill half of the public domain in 1996). Why do you think you're smarter about musical scores copyright than the specialists at the International Music Score Library Project? —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Looks like we should take this discussion outside of the FA candidacy, wherever you prefer, Commons deletion, third opinion, RfC, whatever. How about ? Can we stipulate that if the community decides with Kusma, we will place whatever license he chooses on these files, and let the FA proceed meanwhile? I'm quite sure Gerda will accept whatever the community decides, as this is a very hair-splitting point, since whether CC BY-SA or PD, these files will look exactly the same in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    The author of the PDF that the files are extracted from has already chosen a license that we could just follow. I am happy to believe in the licensing given for several versions over at the IMSLP wiki page I linked above, which means we could just end this by being nice and acknowledging the person (Markus Müller of; this may even be the best source as it gives author information) who typed this up by following their CC-BY-SA license instead of saying they have no right to it and claiming we can use it unacknowledged. I think what you are proposing is a very poor way of treating the work of people contributing free content. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    OK, I will restore the license on the files, pending any discussion. --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Kusma:   Done, all four files, also added acknowledgment of Markus Müller of under Bach in the Author slot. Satisfactory? I admit I would like to have the public domain for music typography discussion, since it seems likely we will have these issues again. Do you know where it's been discussed before? If not, will you join me at the Commons Village Pump for Copyright, and possibly invite other people who may be authoritative or at least knowledgeable? --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'm happy now. I tried to do some research but ran into contradicting claims in two different German Wikipedia articles, making me less certain of my position (apparently there is some degree of debate). There is probably a difference between "mechanical" reproduction and a "new edition", but I wouldn't know how to tell. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    It does seem complex. Asking at I hope I explained the question well enough, but if I missed something, please do help. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by BrettEdit

The Legacy section starts, "Raised in Alsace, the polymath Albert Schweitzer..." Unless being raised Alsace is somehow pertinent to the cantata, Bach, or the biography in ways that I'm missing, this should be cut. Brett (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

done, - hopefully most readers will known him anyway --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by VersaceSpaceEdit

Nothing major to add, as I'm largely unfamiliar with the topic, but I would move ref 1 out of the lead. Hopefully what it cites is inside the body, if not that's likely a separate issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, but quotes have to be cited in the lead. - Fell free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Fe[e]l free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. Wise words! I'll be giving the article a full read at a later date, and giving my thoughts. What I will say prior to my absence is that I believe the lead is a bit long and includes some information that isn't of the utmost importance. An example: Bach not referring to his compositions as cantatas. Much less necessary (to me at least) is the one time he did refer to it as such. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem lead-worthy. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It singles this one out, from his perspective, therefore it seems worth mentioning to me. But I'll see what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by KusmaEdit

I think this may still need some source work and checks.

  • I just read the "Recordings" section, where the sentence about "complete cycles" is unsourced (and quite unwieldy). You probably mean "The cantata was recorded before people like X, Y and Z did complete recordings of all cantatas".
    The recording section was in this article in detail, and was mostly placed in a separate article, as getting too heavy. What is left wasn't written by me, but I'll check. --GA
    Kusma: I'm now in the process of making the recording section prose. ---GA
    I think prose is better :) There are some issues with it still: As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times.. The website by now has 102 entries for complete recordings, and some of these are a bit dubious (not much is known about the second one from the 1940s; two of the 2021 entries are the same). Maybe something more attributed is better ("As of 2022, the Bach Cantatas website lists 101 recordings"). —Kusma (talk)
  • The next sentence, "The earliest extant recording was a live concert performance ..." is sourced to a dead link, but it is archived. The source says "American baritone Mark Harrell is heard in a 1939 performance of Bach's Cantata No. 56, a performance that shows the big-scale influence of Mengelberg's interpretations of that composer." and says nothing about "earliest extant recording".
    archive-url taken with thanks. - If you insist, we could say "early" instead of "earliest", but it's unusually early, and we don't know of any earlier one according to this. --GA
    Just write only what you can verify from sources. Either just say "In 193x, it was recorded" or say something like "The earliest recording listed at ThatListOfBachRecordings is ..." Claiming this one is the earliest without a source saying so is WP:OR.
    done ---GA
  • The sentence "The cantata is often coupled with Ich habe genug, BWV 82" is sourced to a review that only says they have been "frequently recorded in the past", not that they have been recorded together.
    What can we do? Of the items in the table, 8 have them together. Should we list references for all eight (or more) for that one sentence? Should we drop that sentence as redundant, because naturally cantatas for bass are frequently grouped together, especially when related in content? --GA
    You could state that they have been recorded together eight times, out of X recordings listed at SomeGreatPlace.
    That's now becoming a sourced section, - please check. ---GA
    I like it better now. A few more comments: well focused voice in an intimate rendering full of devotion sounds like it might be better off as a quote instead of in wikivoice. Thomas Quasthoff recorded them in 2004 it is not obvious that Quasthoff is the singer here. three works was released sung a comma might help, or generally a bit more copyediting. —Kusma (talk)
    thank you for looking! - Sorry, I can't access the Cookson saying (and other pages on the site, but some I could see - strange), will check again later. I added baritone to Quasthoff. Not sure about the comma, because we have already one after the year. Move or add? (I'll never learn commas in English, I'm afraid.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The source for the following "bass cantata" sentence also mentions a fourth cantata. It is unclear to me whether these cantatas should be mentioned at all.
    The fourth cantata, Traitor Love, is secular, and doesn't need to be mentioned. --GA
    I don't understand this argument. The third cantata is incomplete and yet both are mentioned in the source. Secular/Non-Secular doesn't seem to be a dividing line for some of the people interested in bass cantatas.
    This is about a church cantata. It seems noteworthy to talk about the other church cantatas, but less so for the one secular work that I see only that one time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    Amore traditore is now mentioned. ---GA
  • What are the selection criteria for the list of recordings here versus those in the dedicated sub-article? Many of the entries appear to be unsourced.
    I don't know, Mathsci did it. We could drop the table completely, or add from the many recordings. --GA
    no more table here, but expanded in the discography ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, from just looking at this section I don't think the article is ready. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Does look better now. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking at the "Poet and theme" section, I find the research by C. Blanken that is cited to be fascinating, but there's probably more that can be taken from her article, for example Birkmann's interest in the cross-staff as a mathematical/geodesic/navigational tool (pp. 25–28) could be joined to the mention in the next paragraph. The "cross staff" pictured here is not that tool.
    Yes. --GA
    having looked there more: I am not sure what to say. He was interested, but would the text mean to "tragen" such a thing gladly? Could you suggest a wording. I find also interesting that the poet was torn between scientific studies and theology, but again wouldn't know how to integrate that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I would put "The text is rich in biblical references" before "Birkmann's text alludes to Matthew's gospel"; this way is a bit redundant/repetitive.
    I am not sure, because biblical references are one thing, and solo cantatas sometimes have few (to none), and the specific Gospel reading for the occasion is another. --GA
    Then at least put "other biblical references". You currently first tell us that the text alludes to the gospel, and then tell us the more general fact that it alludes to the Bible, which we already know because you told us it alludes to the gospel of Matthew.
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A lot of this is about the text, more than the "theme". "The final lines of the opening aria ("There my Savior himself will wipe away my tears") are repeated just before the closing chorale.", for example, is not "theme". Neither is the rebus on the title page. BTW, the source mentions that Bach used χ for the cross, but "On the title page [of BWV 56], Bach replaced the word "Kreuz" by the Greek letter χ" is not in the source given, which is about other cantatas.
    I added "text" to the header, although I found it a bit redundant. - The X on the title page can be seen, which other reference would you want? --GA
    I did not see that. Could you mention this in the caption? Or perhaps move the whole sentence into the caption if it is not sourced without the image?
    I restored the χ to the image caption. It appears also in the complete quotation of the title page above the movement table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Chorale: So apparently this part is not written by Birkmann? It could have been mentioned earlier that not everything is by him.
    It's rather basic about Bach's church cantatas that they have up to three text sources: Bible - contemporary poetry - chorale. See Bach cantata, adding a link to it. It's not normally repeated in every cantata. The second para of the lead says that the chorale is from Johann Franck's hymn. --GA
    I tend to expect articles to be complete also without their lead section. I would suggest to explain the basic structure of Bach cantatas here; should this ever become TFA, it should be well readable for people who know nothing about Bach cantatas.
    For those readers, we have the links to Bach's church cantatas and Bach cantata. Please compare current FAs about Bach's cantatas, such as BWV 1 (2022) and BWV 165 (2015), - we can't repeat the basics in all 200 articles about his cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • First performance: do we know in which church this was?
    Sorry, no. Bach digital has just Leipzig, same Dürr/Jones. --GA
    Do they say that the specific church is unknown? That would be worth mentioning. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    No. they say just Leipzig. For many cantatas, it was Thomaskirche in the morning, Nikolaikirche in the afternoon the same day, or Nikolaikirche in the morning, Thomaskirche in the afternoon. But that was more for festive seasons such as Christmas (compare BWV 40#History). In ordinary time - as for this one - rather only one service. Does it matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll leave checking other sections to others. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I hope I could clarify some, and would be interested in how much table of recordings you'd want, now that we have the other article for them, for example, and how much more you'd like about the navigational instruments, which is one of the several meanings of cross staff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to make a table of recordings, sorry. Personally I would probably use prose and only talk about those with excellent sources. For the navigational instruments (or alternatively the question "what is meant by Kreuzstab?") I just see that both Blanken 2015 and Corral 2015 (both seem like excellent scholarly sources; actually, both are "journals", see Understanding Bach) both spend some time discussing this. While we're on the topic of sources: any reason why you're not citing Wollny 2017? One obvious piece of information in there (probably also in better scholarly sources, but I haven't tried hard) is the name of the bass in the first performance (Johann Christoph Samuel Lipsius). Other uncited sources are Ambrose 2014 (probably not RS) and Bayer (dead link). Is the "Carus 2000" source meaning the printed book or the webpage (which, incidentally, attributes the chorale to Johann Rist)? —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Only few replies (need to do a bit more for Alice Harnoncourt): used Wollny, made Ambrose external link. Will think about the others, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
By now, the recordings table is gone, there's more detail from Blanken and about her (want to write her article, perhaps?), and the bass mentioned. Anything else, Kusma? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Many improvements! I can try to read more but not today. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Source review – PassEdit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Version reviewed: [13]
  • You could consider including 'R.E.B.' as the author for the ref
    Or even better, Robert Benson? —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Your linking of publishers in the books section is inconsistent (i.e. A & C Black is not linked)
    linked now --GA
  • Your inclusion of locations in the Books section is also inconsistent (Rowman & Littlefield)
    loc added the second time --GA
  • Since Gramophone is not a 'Journal' but a magazine, the subheading might be out of place. Perhaps 'Articles', instead, though you would probably have to move some online sources up then? It might be best to keep 'Journal' and move Gramophone down to the online sources section. Also, it should probably be 'Journals', right?
    moved to online for now --GA
  • Bach (journal) and jpc (retailer) (in online sources) should probably be linked
    done --GA
  • Blanken, Christine says 'in German', but appears to be in English?
    fixed --GA
  • The The Bach Choir of Bethlehem should probably be the publisher, not website, as the website is a different name
    done --GA
  • I'm not convinced that is a high-quality publication for FAC purposes.
    Understand. The original source for the earliest recording we have was Bach Cantatas but came Francis Schonken and said it's not reliable. One thing is certain: that recording exists, there's even YouTube, and it was reissued. I'm sure it's mentioned in the "milestones" book, but don't have it. Is this better? A combination? Help, anybody?
    In the context: what do you think of this one for a different recording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    The source is a lot better, even has a WP page (Muziekweb). I think the Audiophile Audition source is okay. Aza24 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. I replaced several refs, including Will tale Audiophile on board. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Just so it is addressed: I am okay with the use of Schweitzer 1911, as it is limited and directly attributed in the text (or a quote every time); except once where another source is used in addition
  • I would move the Griffel page number from the cited sources to the short ref 67. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    doing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review. I'll look asap (which may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, (Duino Elegies) took longer than I thought, and the last two points will again have to wait. Thanks for diligent looking and patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    I added some refs from the discography, to support more prose, and still more may come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Everything is looking a lot better Gerda, though my comment in the Reliability section concerning classicalcdreview has not been addressed—should either be replaced, or explained how it is a high-quality source for FAC purposes. Aza24 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Concerns seem to be addressed. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


I'll review this section. With the caveat that I know next to nothing about the topic or its sources, the prose and writing seem OK to me. Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1? Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead? Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't. What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and the less someone knows before, the better we can tell if the writing makes sense. Breaking it up:
  • Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1?
    not sure I understand the question, do you mean why a referenence in the lead? Because all quotes in the lead need one. "2011"? --GA
    I mean in the reference section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    still don't understand, sorry, no 2011, and link to what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    "Schweitzer 1911, p. 255." vs "Wolff 2002, pp. 237–257." for example, in the "References" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    Do you mean the link to the pages? In the Schweitzer book, it's several different page locations. For Wolff, it's the whole chapter explaining Thomasantor, unless you say it needs to be more specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, the first has a link under p.255 and the others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead?
    yes. I might add more refs there to support it, - saw one yesterday in what I added to recordings. --GA
    yes, see [14] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't.
    When the use of a ref is restricted to a certain part, I have page numbers there, but if different bits from a book are cited, rather not. There may still be inconsistencies, please let me know. Several authors worked on this. --GA
  • What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in?
    As it's intro sentence states: Dürr/Jones, the bible of Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the prose seems OK but as I said I don't know anything about the topic. I think one thing to consider - but don't consider this mandatory - is to footnote terms like "cantata" and "rebus". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the approval. Would you footnote "symphony"? Rebus seems a common word, but in English I never know. There's a link, so what would a footnote do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Footnotes are easier to use w/o having to leave the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the slightest difference between going to another article and return, and going to a foonote and return. Therefore I prefer article, because that will be monitored and updated better than individual footnotes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from KavyanshEdit

  • "In his biography of Bach, Albert Schweitzer praised the cantata" — will "musicologist Albert Schweitzer" be better? We have quotes by him in the lead, so the reader should be aware that, in this case, the biographer is a subject matter expert, and not just a writer.
    tricky. I'd expect readers to him just by name, but "musicologist" is possibly the least appropriate of the many descriptions we could give him. He came from being an organist, and went on to be awarded a Nobel Prize for his humanitarian work in Africa as a physician. --GA
    Oh yeah, he was a "theologian, organist, musicologist, writer, humanitarian, philosopher, and physician"!! --K.S
  • "Until recently the librettist was unknown" — Year in place of 'recently' would be better and more accurate.
    Which year, of first thought it was Birkmann, or generally accepted he did it (and then which would it be)? --GA
    What I meant was that 'recently' is pretty vague here. I think it would be 2015. --K.S
  • "The third movement expresses joy at being" — fix the disambiguation link at "movement", probably to Movement (music)
    sure, sorry about that --GA
  • "Jones, Richard D. P. (2013). — we need an {{endash}} instead of hyphen in '1717-1750'. Same with Barfoot, Terry (February 2002), Cookson, Michael (10 March 2010), McElhearn, Kirk (2 April 2002).
    what I get for just copying titles ... - thank you --GA
  • ""Ton Koopman / Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir / Solo Cantatas for Bass"" and ""Johann Sebastian Bach: Kantaten BWV 56,82,158". 2006." are never used in the article.
    Thank you, to be used. --GA

That is it! Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: One comment above, nothing substantial! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • " in English, it is commonly referred to as the Kreuzstab cantata" This is English? You render Kreuzstab in italics, presumably meaning that it is a non-English word.
    Mathsci insisted that in English sources this is not Cross staff cantata (as I had written in the DYK hook) but Kreuzstab cantata, and I found that true in those I checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    Example: Kreuzstab Cantata (no italics, capital c) on p. 290 of Dürr/Jones --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    in other souces (not used for article)
More soon.--20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "sets all stanzas of a hymn unchanged" Unchanged from what? This reads a little obscurely.
    better wording welcome, - in most of Bach's chorale cantatas, only the first and the last stanza of a hymn (or chorale) were retained unchanged, while the inner stanzas were paraphrased by a contemporary poet, - see lead, for example. (Let's not forget that Bach lived 200 years later than let's say Luther, so chorale text was already sort of old-fashioned.) In a few cantatas, this was not the case. "omnes versus" literally translates to "all stanzas", but this "unchanged" is implied. --GA
  • "published in 2015 her finds suggesting that Christoph Birkmann wrote the text of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen.[16]" I might say "researches" for "finds" if the source will support it. It seems more formal.
    fine, only she was introduced as researcher in the previous sentence, - is there an alternative perhaps? --GA
  • " As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times" I would say "has been" rather than "was"
    English remains a miracle for me - I though past tense for things past, no? --GA
  • I'm not good at the explanations, but that's what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "In 1964, Barry McDaniel was the soloist for a recording in a series Bach cantatas of Fritz Werner with oboist Pierre Pierlot, the Heinrich-Schütz-Chor Heilbronn and the Pforzheim Chamber Orchestra. " Should there be an "of" before "Bach"?
    yes, thank you --GA
  • " related to peace (Friede) has been added.[68][28][69][70]" Refs out of order, intentional or not?
    not, thank you --GA
  • Thomanerchor is linked more than once in the body.
    no more, thank you, same for Thomaskantor --GA
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)