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. 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, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.

Please do not use graphics or 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. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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.

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, 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.


Burnt CandlemasEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The 1356 English invasion of Scotland is little discussed. It gets little mention in English sources because it failed. Perhaps not surprisingly when they depended on resupply by 14th-century sailing ships in the dead of winter. And little in the Scottish sources because they provoked it by breaking a truce and weren't proud of their strategy of destroying their own crops, livestock and buildings and then running away. I believe that I have extracted pretty much all there is in the sources and that it is ready for FAC. Doubtless I am as wrong on the latter as I usually am, so have at it.

The name? Read the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

You may well have, but not on one of my nominations. Douglas's coat of arms removed.
  • File:Edouard_III_devant_Berwick.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Drat. Apologies. Fixed.
Hi Nikkimaria and thank you for your prompt attention. I think that I have addressed your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comprehensive support - I reviewed this at GAN, and found little wrong with it, and all of what I saw there was satisfactorily addressed. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Support. Have already made an edit adjusting some punctuation, but found no flaw with the rest of the article. A little polish, and I think it'll be more than worthy of FA. Horsesizedduck (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Manganese, MinnesotaEdit

Nominator(s): DrGregMN (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Manganese, Minnesota, one of a handful of small mining communities on the Cuyuna Iron Range of north-central Minnesota, and the only one to be abandoned. Manganese was an incorporated community, platted and quickly settled in what was a new iron rush to Minnesota's Cuyuna Range. Manganese boomed quickly, then suffered a slow demise after World War I, existing just over 48 years before it was completely abandoned. A lot of time and resources went into amassing information about the veracity of the community. Despite the fact that Manganese was an incorporated community, very few photographs are know to exist or survive. No resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one source. The article is loosely modeled after the featured article Pithole, Pennsylvania. Comments from both Peer Review and the GA Review procees seem to indicate it meets FAC criteria now that it has been suitably sourced. The article both reads and flows well thanks to multiple revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. DrGregMN (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • How do you know that the File:School Teacher Anna Dugan and Manganese Minnesota Depot.jpg was "First published May 8th, 1985 in the Brainerd Dispatch"? And if so, how do you know the newspaper was not copyrighted?
    • This is one of four original photos of Manganese held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network. It was used in the article "Manganese Revisted" by the Brainerd Dispatch, published on May 8th, 1985. Regrettably, there is no current online access to this particular article. However, even if the article is copyrighted by the Brainerd Dispatch, the photo is not. It should be noted that the photo is of low resolution from a digital capture of microfilm. It can be stated definitively that the photo is pre-1930, but it cannot be demonstrated that it was pre-1923 and in the public domain. The author is unknown. However, if the photograph is post-1923, the copyright would still be held by the photographer even if deceased. It is not known how the original photo was acquired by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, but the copyright was not transferred from the photographer. I can remove the photo if this is problematic, but the image meets Wikipedia content requirements and significantly improves the content of the article. The orginal photo was published in this article in 1985 with no claim of copyright. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been published prior; it should not be an issue.
  • File:Manganese State Bank Postal Cover and Cancellation 1920.jpg: Was this work published before 1926 according to the legal definition? Then it does not matter who scanned it.
    • Obviously, the postal cover dates to 1920. If this was architecture, this photo would qualify under Freedom of Panorama, but it is not. The photograph of this particular cover was taken by Jim Forte, administrator of the website, on March 12, 2017. Because Jim Forte took the photograph, he is the copyright holder. The photo is used with his tacit permission, which may be found in the screenshot of his email here:
  • File:Cuyuna.jpg and File:Stratigraphy of the main units of the Cuyuna North range.png how do I verify that the copyright holder released under a free license?
  • Other image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "The Minnesota Territorial Legislature enacted the creation of Crow Wing County on May 23, 1857" - don't see this claim at the cited link
    • You are correct! I swear it was there before. The Wikipedia page Crow Wing County, Minnesota also cites this as a source. As I navigate to it today, the page has changed and now has a disclaimer. I will use a different source and let you know here when it has been changed.
  • What makes LakesnWoods a high-quality reliable source? Jim Forte? American-Rails? Dan West? Ghost Town USA? Wikimapia? Porter GeoConsultancy? Map Developers? Minnesota Brown? Sutherland?
    • As I am a little pressed for time right now, I will address these and your other concerns later, hopefully this evening. Good hearing from you again, Nikkimaria
  • Fn15: what kind of source is this, and how would it be accessed?
    • Not everything that is sourced has an online access. This is especially true of historical information. The information cited is archival in nature held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, in Crosby, Minnesota. One would have to travel to Crosby in order to examine the archival material for themselves. A good example can be found here:,_Minnesota#/media/File:Manganese_Lots.jpg. This is a newspaper clipping that is a part of the archival material related to Manganese at the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network: I have no idea what paper it is from, what the date for this advertisement is, or what page it was on, but that does not mean it's not sourceable. Wikipedia has a citation template "Cite Archive" specifically for this purpose which may be found here,, and the acceptable citation where the author of a work cannot be identified to use "Anon" in place of the authors name.
  • Newspaper names should be italicized
  • FN28: page?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
  • FN36: date doesn't match source
  • Be consistent in how citations to reports are formatted
  • Don't repeat publisher in author field

Oppose due to concerns about sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Manganese was one of the last of the Cuyuna Range communities to be established, and named after the mineral located in abundance near the town – link to the mineral?
  • Trommald formation – has to be upper case, since these formations are formal names: Trommald Formation.
  • the main ore-producing unit – link to geological formation?
  • The Trommald formation and adjacent Emily district – hmm, a formation is not a region, it is a rock unit, and the lateral extent of such units is often much larger than the part that is cropping out at the surface. Maybe name the other formation in that district instead?
  • No need for citations in the lead generally, since everything stated in the lead should appear in the main text in any case.
  • all of which collapsed at some point due to the heavy clay soils – but "heavy" is not a reason why a well collapses? I guess it is because the clay flows over time?
  • World War I – link in main text at first mention
  • As mining operations began to shut down, residents gradually started moving their homes out of town for relocation to other communities in the region.[43] – This was already stated.
  • Very few photos of Manganese are known to exist. Never a wealthy community, residents had no money for cameras, a luxury item during the Depression.[33] – Would expect this at the end of the paragraph, because it does not seem to belong within the chronology.
  • site was consumed by the steady growth of natural vegetation – sounds repetitive; you already stated that plants overgrew the site.
  • which opened in June 2011[70] and have been a tourism asset since the last manganiferous ore was shipped from the Cuyuna Range in 1984. – How can they be a tourism asset since 1984 when they only opened in 2011? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

University of MississippiEdit

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the University of Mississippi, a public university in (you guessed it) Mississippi. This article has been through the GA process and a short peer review and I hope it's up to snuff. ~ HAL333 21:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review the only outstanding issue is that File:1861 Lyceum.jpg does not list any publication as the license tag requires. However, I did not check licensing of the images I removed, so if they are added back, this review will not be valid. (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I decided to just remove the image gallery. I'll try to find the publication date for that image. ~ HAL333 22:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Courtesy notice: I have opened an RfC at the university's talk page regarding the "Ole Miss" nickname. For the sake of centralizing discussion, I would encourage editors to place comments about the issue there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: before a full source review is done, please go through and clean up citation formatting. I'm seeing lots of information in the wrong parameters, similar sources with different formatting, citations missing information available at the source link, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I've used up my free NYT articles for the month. Could someone tell me who wrote this article? Thanks. ~ HAL333 18:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333: Author is Janet Maslin. For future reference, most of the time you can disable JavaScript on a webpage, and you'll be able to see the full article. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Until the RFC is resolved over the name, I don't think the article meets the stability criteria --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav gunboat Beli OraoEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a Yugoslav ship that was built just before WWII as a royal yacht, and intended to be used as a patrol boat, escort or guard ship in wartime. She was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion, and served in various roles under their flag until 1943, including for training anti-submarine warfare crew. Returned to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile, she was refitted and used as a tender for a flotilla of motor gunboats in the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas. Taken over by the Partisans, she continued to serve in the Yugoslav Navy until the late 1970s. The article recently passed Milhist ACR after I secured copies of two new books on the Royal Yugoslav Navy and naval actions in the Adriatic in WWII which allowed me to expand the article to the point that I now think it is comprehensive enough to meet the FA criteria. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Could the namesake information in the infobox be elaborated to reflect what's in the text?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Any idea why the measurements vary between sources?
No, it happens though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in if and how publication location is presented
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean dropping England from London, or what? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
You've got locations for all sources but Niehorster; some locations include city and some are at the country level; some locations include country while others include a subnational entity. I'm looking for a consistent rule for whether locations are included (eg if you're not including it for Niehorster because it's a web source, it shouldn't be there for Miramar either), and then a consistent rule on what level and type of location detail is included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't duplicate between publisher and author fields
Dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Leo Niehorster a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Niehorster has a PhD and is a published author (with The Military Press, a reliable military book publisher in the UK) on orders of battle. I've used him in a couple of dozen FAs/FLs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

One query, Nikkimaria. Thanks for taking a look, as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I could find remarkably little to pick at when I reviewed this for ACR, now it is at FAC I shall recuse and try harder.

  • "post-World War II". All entries in the infobox should commence with an upper case letter.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "she was pressed into service as the Admiralty yacht". Perhaps you could tell readers, or at least me, what the function of the Admiralty yacht. (And the upper case A with the lower case y seems to beg a couple of questions.)
dropped the A (as it can cause confusion because the Admiralty is usually associated with the British Royal Navy), and added a short explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Re-armed" implies that at some point she had been disarmed? If so, should it not be mentioned?
reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "a flotilla of motor gunboats that had been loaned to the Yugoslav Royal Navy-in-exile." By?
Complicated, they were US-built ones leased by the Brits then loaned to the Yugoslavs. Not sure that is needed, so just went with the Royal Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "as a naval yacht". Without even a link to help us out, what the devil is a naval yacht?
similar to an admiralty yacht, but for wider use, but Armed yacht is close, so linked that and tweaked the wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Anchored off Krtole within the bay, the commander-in-chief of the fleet, Rear Admiral Emil Domainko, was summoned to meet with the Italian general whose troops had captured Kotor." The chronological flow would be improved if we were told about the Italian capture of Kotor before Domainko's movements.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "She was put into service with the Regia Marina ..." Possibly start a new paragraph here?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Zagabria was then attached to the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) school". Any idea when? Even very roughly.
Great question, sadly the source is quite vague on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

And that trivia is all I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC), Chiswick Chap

This is another article about a major group of animals with unique adaptations. Turtles are defined by a bony or cartilaginous shell, developed from their ribs, which acts as a shield. We been working on this for months and feel it is now ready. Special thanks to Vaticidalprophet and Faendalimas. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Some quick notes for now:
  • late Jurassic, late Triassic: these need to be upper case
  • I suggest to avoid "et al." in the text (replace with "and colleagues") since this is a really technical term that is easy to avoid.
  • In both the text and the citations, there is inconsistency how you write author names: surname only, with initial, or full name.
Jonesey95, could you please? LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I found and fixed a few inconsistencies, but I do not have an easy way to replace author initials with full names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Spelled out forenames. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 71% of all tortoise species are either gone or almost gone. – This is too unspecific imo, I don't know what "gone or almost gone" precisely means, and what it adds. Why not stick with terms like "critically endangered"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The shapes of turtle shells vary with the adaptations of the individual species. and sometimes with gender. – dot too much
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review

  • Asher, J. Lichtig; Spencer G., Lucas; – I think you are confusing surnames and given names here?
Gone. LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Lyson et al.. (2010) – two dots
Don't see it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, you already fixed it while replacing "et al." with "and colleagues". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Source "Thomson_Spinks_Shaffer_2021": Link to pdf is not working for me.
Removed URL, article has DOI access. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't use the em dash for page ranges (e.g., 44–45, not "44—45").
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to be a pain, but there are also some ranges that use the simple hyphen-minus, e.g. "118-120". That should be consistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man has fixed them (thanks!). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • genus and species names need to be in italics (I spot several examples in the references where they are not)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I still spot at least two examples that are not. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed those. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • WWF source Throughout their life-cycle, marine turtles … – I think you need to cite the report (not the webpage) and with the correct title.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Red-eared slider turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans) – Where is this source published, and what makes it a reliable source?
Replaced claim and ref using Van Dijk 2002. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (no byline) (April 1, 1899). – What does this mean?
It means that the linked 1899 article listed no named author. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Then the Queen left off, quite out of breath, and said to Alice, 'Have you seen the Mock Turtle yet?' 'No', said Alice. 'I don't even know what a Mock Turtle is.' 'It's the thing Mock Turtle Soup is made from', said the Queen." Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, chapter 9 — Is this the correct way to cite it? It also lacks information (pages, publisher etc.). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
It was a quotation reference. Added a citation.

Spot checks:

  • The development of a shell reaches completion with the late Triassic Proganochelys. It lacked the ability to pull its head into its shell, and had a long neck and a long, spiked tail ending in a club, somewhat like an ankylosaur.[94] – can't find it in the source.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Paragraph The turtles' exact ancestry has been disputed. … – again, not really covered by the source? Isn't there a better source than this museum webpage?
Replaced source.
  • The date of separation of turtles and birds and crocodiles was estimated to be 255 million years ago. – Again, I can't find it. Is it in the source cited for the previous sentence?
Yes, repeated the ref for the sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Paragraph Turtles make use of vision to find food and mates, to avoid predators, and to orient themselves. … – The source you use for this paragraph is about sea turtles. On what basis can you apply it to turtles in general?
Added citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A freshwater turtle, the red-eared slider, has an exceptional seven types of cone cell defined by the color of their oil droplets and their photopigments.[36] – This checks, but I think the source says something different. Instead of "defined by", it states "based on", and I think this gives it quite a different meaning. I propose to just delete the part "defined by the color of their oil droplets and their photopigments", this is only the method used to come to the conclusion, not needed in this general article.
Agree, removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In the laboratory, turtles (Pseudemys nelsoni) can learn novel tasks and have demonstrated a long-term memory of at least 7.5 months. – Checks.
  • Turtles share the linked circulatory and pulmonary systems of vertebrates, – Checks.
  • Turtles are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans, being absent mainly from the polar regions, the northern parts of North America and Eurasia – Parts of this paragraph do not appear in the source (which is, again, a museum website). And the source also states "The migratory route of some leatherbacks may pass close to the Arctic Circle", therefore contradicting your statement that turtles are absent from the polar regions.
Replaced source, edited paragraph using Pough 2001.

I have to conclude that the spot checks did not pass. The sourcing does not yet seem to be of the high standard required for an FA. I suggest to carefully double-check the whole article content again, and then request a second spot check, preferably done by somebody else. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I'm sure this'll be popular among reviewers, so marking my spot now, and will return when I've reviewed some of the more urgent, old nominations. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • At first glance, looks like there's a good deal of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.
Ran the script one more time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Lumines: Puzzle FusionEdit

Nominator(s): Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2004 Puzzle video game developed by Q Entertainment. I'm willing to address any situation in order to get it to Featured status. I'm hoping that everything can be addressed.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

Addressed comments

I love video games so I am very happy to see an article on one in the FAC space. I am not particularly experienced with video game articles (and there are much more qualified editors in that field), but I want to at least try my best to help you with this FAC. My comments are below:

  • I would encourage you to add alternative text for the images. I am not sure if it is 100% required for a featured article, but I still think it would best to add regardless.
  • For this part, After listening to one of Mondo Grosso's songs, he requested songs, of the lead, I would avoid repeating "songs" twice in the same sentence. I know this is rather nitpick-y, but I think it helps to keep the prose engaging.
    • done
  • In the past, I have been told to avoid sentence structures like the following, with critics praising it for integrating gameplay and music. I have seen notes in FAC reviews to avoid structuring sentences like "with X verb-ing" so I would encourage you to revise those out of the prose. I do not have any real issues with them, but it is a note that I have seen rather often.
    • Done
  • This part, and many stated it being addicting to play, from the lead sounds a little off to me. I think stated it was addicting to play reads a little better (at least to me).
    • done, this one is connected to the prior fix.
  • For this part, becoming the first entry of a series, of the lead, I think it is a perfect opportunity to link to the Lumines article since I do not think the actual series is currently linked in the lead. I would link it in "a series". I would also make sure the main series article is linked in the body of the article. And by "the body of the article", I mean the rest of the article after the prose. I am not sure what the real term for it is to be honest.
    • done
  • I would link port in the lead and the body of the article.
    • done
  • I have a question about this part, A sequence of 2×2 blocks varying between two colors. Do you think it would be beneficial to explicitly say what these two colors are in the prose?
    • The colors change between levels.
  • This is another nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. When I first read this part, "Challenge, Time Attack, Puzzle, and Vs mode", I thought the capitalization of "Vs mode" looked off. I checked the source, which says "Versus mode" instead. I know that both mean the same thing, but I think it would be better to say "Versus mode" instead to just stay consistent with how it is represented in the citation (and how it is likely represented in the game itself).
    • done
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: The maximum score in Challenge Mode is 999,999 points. What happens if a player reaches this limit and continues to score points? I am guessing that it just would not register, but I would be curious if you knew. I do not think it needs to be specified in the prose, but it was just something I wanted to ask you.
    • Correct. it will simply stay at 999,999.
  • For this part, The game's subtitle "Puzzle Fusion" reflects that the game's music is essential to the game, I would avoid repeating "game's" twice in the same sentence.
  • I would add a citation at the end of this part, which was developed in a year by a staff of four people, to really clarify what is being used to support this. I am assuming that Citation 7 is the one used to support it, but I think it is best to make it absolutely clear to readers.
    • done, I actually found a different source that says 6. so I'll use that.
  • I would link Walkman. It might also be worth linking headphone jack (which should linked in both in the body of the article and the lead for consistency if you decide to do so). I would also link casual gamer, dance music, and techno in the "Development" section as I think these links would be helpful for readers.
    • done
  • I am not entirely sure what "Dream Machine" means. Since it follows the Walkman quote, I am not sure if it is another type of media player, or if he is just saying that it was his ideal console for the game. Some clarification here would be greatly appreciated.
    • done, I opted to be more direct and replaced it with "ideal device"
  • I was rather confused by this sentence: After choosing to develop games for the PSP, Mizuguchi was inspired to make a puzzle game with music. The previous parts led me to believe that Mizoguchi purposefully chose the PSP to develop the game because he already wanted to make a puzzle game with music and he chose the PSP because of the headphone jack. But this sentence makes it seem like the concept was developed after the console choice. Could you clarify this for me?
    • I changed it to merge with the initial comment so it doesn't cause confusion.
  • For this part, and the concept of Lumines was used instead, shouldn't Lumines be in italics or is it referring to something in the game itself?
    • I don't know how I missed that.
  • I am uncertain if the first sentence of these two are necessary: Mizuguchi recalls hearing the song "Shinin'" while looking at the stars; it inspired him to ask Yokota to use the theme of a show with music and visuals. Earlier in the paragraph, information about Mizoguchi hearing and being inspired by this song is already present. I think the "looking at the stars" part is an unnecessary detail, but I can see a rationale for including him talking to Yokota. I might just remove the first part.
    • Mizuguchi's timeline of when he heard the song during game development can get confusing based on reliable sources and his own word of mouth. But I'll adjust that soon.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful so far. I have read up to the "Release" section. I do not see any major issues. I find the prose to be very engaging and it is really great that you were able to find so much information on the development as I honestly would not have expected that much from a puzzle game like this. Let me know if you have any questions. I will read through more of the article tomorrow and add more comments then. Apologies for doing this piecemeal. I just want to make sure I do a thorough review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the responses so far. Let me know when everything has been addressed. Also, please do not use the "done" template as its use is discouraged for FACs. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I believe I addressed the final concern. Is there anything I didn't address yet?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing all my comments so far. I will complete my review by the end of today or tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of the "Release" section, there are three sentences in a row with "released". I would encourage you to change up one of these instances to avoid repetition.
  • I would revise this part, It's due to these updates, to avoid having a contraction as they are not allowed in a Wikipedia article.
    • done
  • There are several instances of "released" in the "Soundtracks" section and I would add some variation.
    • done
  • This sentence, Multiple reviewers praised it for its combination of music and visuals and was described the game as addicting., has an instance of citation overkill as it currently uses five citations. I would either bundle the citations or find a way to avoid having so many citations.
    • i'll find a way to break it down.
  • Tetris and tile-matching video game are both linked twice in the article when they should only be linked on the first instance. I would avoid any duplicate links in the article.
    • done
  • I am a little confused on how citations are attributed in the prose for the "Reception" section. There are instances where the author is named directly in the prose, but other instances where an author is not named in the prose. I would be consistent with either way.
    • done
  • The "Reception" section includes negative reviews for the game, but these are not discussed in the lead. I would encourage you to briefly bring up the negative critiques there.
    • done
  • I do not think the "See also" section is necessary. Mondo Grosso is already mentioned in the prose, and I am not entirely sure how Eri Nobuchika relates to this game so I would instead clarify that in the prose.
    • done.
      • I do not see Eri Nobuchika referenced in the article at all now? Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Eri NObuchika is an artist, but she only performed some of MOndo Grosso's songs that were included in the article. I couldn't find a way to add her in seamlessly. If you think that is important to add, I can look into it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • While I do not think it is required for a featured article, I think it is always nice to have the citations in numeric order.
    • I decided to move the refs down on the reflist to make It easier to edit.
  • I have two questions about this part, an exploit was discovered that allowed for custom firmware to be installed. Was this "exploit" ever corrected? Also, wouldn't this be considered a bug more so than an "exploit"?
    • Based on the information. it doesn't sound like a bug, but a hack. But i added a second ref that clarifies.
      • Thank you for the explanation. Was this ever addressed though? Did they (if possible) find a way to stop this hack as it does seem pretty major? Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This should be the rest of my review. I will re-read through the article once all my above comments are addressed to make sure I did not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) I think the reception section is one of my weakest points. But if you see anything that could improve it, let me know.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • For the citations, I would add translations for the titles in foreign languages. I am not sure if it is required or not, but I think it would be helpful.
  • done
  • Avoid having words in all caps in any of the the citations' titles unless it is an acronym. For instance, I would type out "Best Handheld Game" for citation 64.
  • done

Apologies for adding to the review. I just wanted to bring up two points about the citations. Other than that, this is my full review and once everything has been addressed above, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: I believe I addressed everything to the best of my ability. let me know if it can be better or missed something..Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about the prose in the "Reception" section. It is rather repetitive in certain areas, and I think would benefit from further revision. I would encourage you to look at this essay (Wikipedia:Reception) if you are not already aware of it.
    • I've reviewed the essay before and thought I did a good job implementing the advice given last time. I'll revise it once again. One of the hardest aspects about Lumines is that the majority of the reviews can be extremely straightforward. The majority of the reviews are treating the combination of the music and gameplay as a single feature rather than separate aspects. There's no story mode, or lore aspect. I managed to find three common factors in the reviews (for the PSP): Common comparison to Tetris and tile-matching video games, using words like "addicting" or "Zen" to describe the game, and praise for the combination of Audio and visuals. If you have additional specific advice on Reception, that would be appreciated.
      • Reception sections are very hard to write. Here are some specific things to watch out for. For instance, there are two sentences in a row that have When reviewing the PS2 version and When reviewing the mobile version, so it is a little repetitive there. I would add more sentence variety as a majority of the sentences appear to be written like "X publications said Y opinion". The paragraphs themselves are well-structured around a specific theme, but I would look at the sentence structures in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I will use the second paragraph of the "Reception" section as an example of this "A said B" repetition. Aside from the topic sentence, all the sentences start with the publication name and then go into their opinion about the game. This gets rather repetitive quite quickly. I know that it cannot be avoid completely, but I think vary the sentence structure would make this paragraph more engaging rather than reading like a list of critics and their opinions. For another instance, this repetition of sentence structure is present in the fourth paragraph, and is particularly noticeable when two sentences in a row start with IGN. I am not suggesting you change everything, but I think it would be beneficial to go through each paragraph in this section to see if you could add some variety to the sentence structures. Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, you use "didn't" three times in the "Reception" section. The article should not have any contractions unless they are part of a quote, and none of these three "didn't" instances are part of a quote. I would look throughout the article and remove any other instance of contractions (that are not part of quote). Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I also have a rather nitpick-y remark, but it is something I noticed while re-reading this section. At the end of the third paragraph, you use "criticized" in two sentences in a row, and I would change out one of these instances to avoid unnecessarily repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I hope the current changes suffices. I varied the sentence structure a bit more. If you need me to make anymore adjustments, please feel free to add to your review. I do more better when I have an idea of how to fix it. So if you have any potential suggestions, they always help me.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Below are some specific examples that could use further improvement. I appreciate that you put in more sentence variation, but unfortunately, I do not think this section reads particularly well. Here are some examples:

  • This part, stated that if they were removed, it wouldn't be half the game it currently is, still contains a contraction, which should be removed. The wording overall is rather awkward and would benefit from revision.
  • In this part, thought the audio was more superior, "more superior" is not correct. It should just be "superior". It is also not clear what Eurogamer is saying the audio is superior to. Are they saying the audio is superior to the gameplay? More superior to what? Clarification here would be helpful.
  • For the first paragraph, I would move the IGN review to the bottom so it goes from the positive reviews and ends with a mixed one. It seems a little off to transition from Eurogamer's positive review to IGN's mixed review and then flip back into the positive reviews.
  • For this part, GamePro opined it reaches the rank of Tetris and Bejeweled., "opined" does not seem like the best word choice here. I would replace it with something else.
  • I appreciate how the second paragraph ends with the negative reviews (i.e. GamePro and Pocket Gamer), but I would use some sort of transition to make it read better.
  • This part, they helped place the game among the top ranks of mobile games, is rather repetitive and I would revise the first instance of "game" to avoid this.
  • This sentence, Despite being well-received, a common criticism from reviewers was the absence of an online multiplayer feature., is not grammatically correct. The beginning phrase "Despite being well-received" is being used to describe the next part, which in this instance is "a common criticism", and that does not make sense. This part could use further revision.

Unfortunately, I think the prose in the "Reception" section falls short of FA quality, and it would benefit from a comprehensive copy-edit. The rest of the article is very well-written, but after re-reading this section in particular, I still have issues with the prose. I will not oppose this FAC, but I will stop my review here and hopefully other editors will discuss this further. This may just come down to my inexperience with video game articles. Apologies for ending my review here. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll address as much as I can and go from what you provided. It's a shame you decided to end your review with the belief of it falling short of FA quality even after I address your concerns. I also want to note that this isn't necessarily a video game issue. Lumines: Puzzle Fusion (along with its sequels) is one of the hardest articles I have ever worked on. How much information can be found on a tile-matching video game? It's almost like getting Tetris into a featured article. It's a challenge for sure, but one I will try to overcome. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Check that all images include alt text
  • File:Lumines.jpg has an incomplete description - for example there is no information on source
  • File:Lumines-roundabout-screenshot.png needs a much stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Cover image needs a more expansive purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It was replaced with png version. But i believe the purpose suffices now. what do you think?

Comments for prose, from ShooterwalkerEdit

Going to give this a review, and see how far I get. Stay tuned. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The game was praised for integrating gameplay and music, noted for being addicting to play, and was nominated and awarded "Best Handheld Game of 2005" by multiple outlets." -> "The game was praised for integrating gameplay and music, and for its addictive gameplay. It also received several nominations and awards for "Best Handheld Game of 2005" by multiple outlets."
  • "The ports were not given the same amount of praise as the original; the mobile phone version was commended for introducing new features but was criticized for its poor sound quality, while the PS2 version for lacking content from the original, or lack of new content to earn the Plus in its title." -> "The ports received less praise than the original: the mobile phone version was commended for its new features but was criticized for its poor sound quality, and the PS2 version was criticized for removing content from the original."
  • This is generally well written and off to a good start.
  • "A square is created when a group of 2×2 blocks of the same color is created on the playing field" -> you use the word "created" twice in the same sentence
  • the "time line" might be confused with timeline, and might need be defined in the summary of the gameplay
  • "which was developed in a year by a staff of six people" -> this fragment doesn't flow from the last part of the sentence. Might be easiest just to make it into two separate sentences
  • "Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a Tetris game with music but issues including licensing meant it was not possible at the time and the concept of Lumines was used instead" -> "Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a music-heavy Tetris game, but licensing issues meant this was not possible, leading him to create a new concept for Lumines."
  • "He discovered "Shinin'" by Shinichi Osawa (Mondo Grosso) during a summer camping trip in Okinawa, inspiring him to request Yokota to implement themes of a show with music and visuals and requested Osawa to include four tracks that would be sequenced with the theme of a party beginning at sunset and ending at sunrise." -> this sentence is quite long and could probably be split into two shorter, clearer sentences
  • "original version and introduces Arcade mode" -> "original version. It also introduces Arcade mode"
  • "The WildTangent and Steam versions include a mission mode and skin edit mode that was introduced in Lumines Live! and the Steam version has 21 unlockable skins and a portion of Time Attack, Puzzles, and Missions" -> you should split this sentence too
  • This section is well written, but appears to be entirely sourced to primary sources and WP:VENDORs. Are there any secondary sources that have covered the release of the soundtrack?
  • "if they were removed" -> not clear what they are suggesting would be removed. maybe just rephrase this whole sentence.
  • "The game and its ports were recurrently compared to other tile-matching video games by reviewers with Tetris being the most common" -> "Reviewers frequently compared the game to other tile-matching video games, particularly Tetris."
  • " GamePro opined it" -> "GamePro opined that it"
  • "The port, Lumines Mobile for cell phones was also well-received by critics" -> "The phone port Lumines Mobile was also well-received by critics"
  • "but most noted the overall quality outweighed it" -> "but most felt this was outweighed by the game's quality overall."
  • "complained the way" -> "criticized the way"
  • "Pocket Gamer, in particular, criticized both the visuals and sound, describing the on-screen visuals impair the background artwork and deduced the sound doesn't do the Lumines concept justice" -> "Pocket Gamer, in particular, criticized that the on-screen visuals impair the background artwork and concluded that the sound doesn't do the Lumines concept justice"
  • "The lack of Lumines II features was not considered a flaw according to Eurogamer due to it intending to be a port of the original, and not a sequel." -> "Eurogamer did not criticize its lack of features from Lumines II, as it was a port of the first game."
  • "but not for those who already played previous titles" -> this is sort of implied from the rest of the sentence and can be removed to keep things concise
  • "Hardcore Gamer praised the music remaining to be exquisite, with multiple being among their favorites" -> this sentence is unclear. Multiple what? Favorite among what?
  • "GameSpot noted the switch version of the game isn't the best-looking game in the series but looks better than the prior handheld releases and is compensated with cleaner animation with less slowdown" -> "GameSpot noted that the Nintendo Switch version of the game looks better than prior handheld releases due to its cleaner animation, but is still not the best looking game in the series."
  • "Nintendo Switch version was also praised by Eurogamer, describing it as euphoric, immersive, and compared the rumble feature to Rez's trance vibrator" -> "The Switch version was also praised by Eurogamer as "euphoric", comparing the rumble feature to Rez's trance vibrator."
  • "Not every song was considered a hit according to Nintendo Life" -> "Nintendo Life felt that the songs varied in quality"
  • I am wary of overuse of the word "addictive", which isn't necessarily a good thing. But I recognize that this was a buzz term 15-20 years ago, and if that's what the sources say, that's what they say.
  • "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion won several awards, including the 2005 Spike TV Video Game Awards for Best Handheld Game, GameSpot's 2005 PSP Game Of The Year, Electronic Gaming Monthly's 2005 Handheld Game Of The Year, Game Informer's "Top 50 Games of 2005" list" -> "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion won several awards, including the 2005 Spike TV Video Game Award for Best Handheld Game, GameSpot's 2005 PSP Game Of The Year, and Electronic Gaming Monthly's 2005 Handheld Game Of The Year. The game also appeared on Game Informer's "Top 50 Games of 2005" list."
  • "half a million" -> "half a million sales"
  • "including emulators" -> can remove this to improve flow
Sequels and Follow-Ups
  • "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion was followed by several sequels, becoming the first game in the Lumines series" -> "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion became the first game in a series, as it was followed by several sequels."
  • "the same new modes" -> same and new seems like a contradiction, and there's probably a clearer way to say this
  • "Lumines II specifically also offers pre-existing videos from famous music artists such as Black Eyed Peas, Gwen Stefani, and Hoobastank and a Sequencer mode" -> "Lumines II specifically offers a Sequencer mode, and also offers pre-existing videos from famous music artists such as Black Eyed Peas, Gwen Stefani, and Hoobastank."
  • Even though two titles were developed at the same time, you don't need to pack their release into the same sentence, especially since they were separate releases. It gives you an chance to write a clearer summary of each game, instead of mixing two different games into the same sentence
  • "VS" -> did you mean "versus"?
The article is in good shape and could be on its way to FA with a little more work. Let me know if you have any questions, and we can just keep working through it. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker: I was able to apply 90% of what you requested. The other aspects in the reception I was wary of because of Aoba47's review. Although coming to the conclusion that it isn't FA quality. The advice was still given to avoid "X said Y" statements. I'm not sure what made it fundamentally flawed to the point that it can't be worked on. So I made an effort to made sure to mix up the sentence structure to instead "REviewer X said Statement Y" I would use "Statement Y was also made by reviewer X". If it repeats. Since Aoba47 finished their review, do you believe there's any advice I should follow that still applies?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I also want to add that the reception paragraph for "Lumines Plus" is the hardest for me to revise. Not sure how to organize it concisely and cohesively. So If you have any advice on that specific paragraph. I would greatly appreciate it. I know it doesn't look amazing right now and i'm willing to revise it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Admittedly the prose could still use some work, but I'm willing to give it all one more pass to help you get it there. There are many sections of the article that are WP:FA quality, and with patience, the other sections can match it.
Second pass
  • "He described the PSP as an "interactive Walkman" and considered it the ideal device due to it being one of the few handheld video game consoles with a headphone jack at the time, allowing it to be played with high-quality sound anywhere." -> "He described the PSP as an "interactive Walkman" and considered it the ideal device for his game, due to it being one of the few handheld video game consoles with a headphone jack and high-quality sound."
  • "Mizuguchi wanted to develop a challenging, audio-visual puzzle game that was less daunting to players than his previous titles Rez and Space Channel 5 to attract casual players." -> "To attract casual players, Mizuguchi wanted to develop an audio-visual puzzle game that was less daunting to players than his previous titles, Rez and Space Channel 5."
  • "Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a music-heavy Tetris game, but licensing issues made it not possible at the time, leading him to create a new concept for Lumines." -> Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a music-heavy Tetris game, but challenges with the license led him to instead create a new concept."
  • "Yokota experimentally constructed a rhythm beat-by-beat in time with the movement of the game's timeline bar." -> "Yokota experimented with musical rhythms that matched the speed of the game's timeline bar."
  • "Yokota initially thought the game would be limited to techno and dance music, and had doubts about the project because of the lack of musical variation" -> "Yokota initially thought the game would be limited to techno and dance music, and worried that the project lacked musical variety."
  • "Nakamura demonstrated solutions to the problem because he was capable of constructing a rich variety of songs built on a deep understanding of the game design" -> "Nakamura was able to overcome this problem by constructing a rich variety of songs, based on a deep understanding of the game design."
  • "Both Nakamura and Yokota swapped ideas to make the necessary adjustments to the development." -> I'm not sure this sentence says anything that isn't obvious. I suppose what makes this interesting is that the composer had a real impact on the game's development? I'd try to rephrase.
  • "In March 2018, Enhance Games, the studio founded by Lumines: Puzzle Fusion producer Mizuguchi, announced Lumines Remastered[b] for Microsoft Windows, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 (PS4), and Xbox One for release in June 2018." -> This might be easier to read as two sentences. (e.g.: one sentence about the release, another about the studio's foundation and history)
  • "that was originally downsampled " -> "that were previously downsampled"
  • "the visual effects were remade and certain blocks were redesigned" -> "certain blocks and visual effects were redesigned"
  • "Mizuguchi felt it was appropriate to test Lumines with this haptic gameplay feature" -> "Mizuguchi felt that the haptic gameplay feature would add something new to Lumines."
  • "if they were removed, it would not be half the game it currently is" -> the way this is phrased makes it sound odd. If you removed the music and visuals, I'm not sure it would be a game at all.
  • "Eurogamer thought the audio was superior, calling it "the real star of the show" due to additional beats implemented in the gameplay" -> "Eurogamer thought the audio was superior, explaining how the player's actions build the musical elements to a crescendo, making it "the real star of the show"."
  • " GameSpot praised..." -> "GameSpot also praised..." or "Similarly, GameSpot praised"
  • The four stage analysis of IGN is a little wordy and confusing, and doesn't really summarize their opinion of the game. I would look somewhere else to find their main point.
  • "GamePro proclaimed it reaches the rank of Tetris and Bejeweled." -> "GamePro proclaimed that it reaches the rank of Tetris and Bejeweled."
  • The first paragraph of the later releases section feels out of place, and the second paragraph would be a better way to start it. In fact, I'm not sure you need to bring up Tetris again at all.
  • "The phone port Lumines Mobile was also well-received by critics Many reviewers complimented the new features introduced." -> The phone port Lumines Mobile was also well-received by critics, who noted the game's new features."
  • PS2 should maybe be the full Playstation 2
  • "However, praised the addition..." -> "However, they praised the addition..."
  • "The absence of new features was disappointing to IGN and believed the "Plus" moniker did not describe the game's content." -> "The absence of new features was disappointing to IGN, who argued the "Plus" moniker was misleading."
  • "The lack of Lumines II features was not considered a flaw according to Eurogamer due to it intending to be a port and not a sequel. Instead, they were more critical of the missing songs from the original, and the inclusion of new tracks making the game too long to play." -> "Eurogamer was more critical of the missing songs from the original, and felt that the new track selections made the game too long to play."
  • "GamePro did not find the game fun at all, claiming the music would break concentration on the gameplay." -> "GamePro did not find the game fun at all, claiming that the music distracted from the gameplay."
  • "Hardcore Gamer praised the music remaining to be exquisite, with multiple songs being among their favorites." -> on further reading, I don't think this is the best summary of what they said, and could be rephrased with something more clear and impactful
  • "totaling over half a million" -> "totaling over half a million sales"
  • "The games were followed up with Lumines Supernova," -> "The games were followed by Lumines Supernova,"
  • "Another sequel titled Lumines: Touch Fusion was made for iOS devices; this game has all of the features of the original except for the Versus modes, and players use touch controls to move and rotate blocks." -> "An iOS game called Lumines: Touch Fusion was made for touch controls, with all of the features of the original except for the Versus modes."
  • "The following sequel titled Lumines: Electronic Symphony" -> "A follow-up titled Lumines: Electronic Symphony was"
I know that's a lot, so just do your best. The article is coming along. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

2020 FA Cup FinalEdit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

World's oldest association football cup competition, the 2020 edition, notable for 0 fans (thanks COVID), a red card, a penalty, and one side ending with nine players. Classic stuff. As ever, I'll be working my socks off to address any and all actionable concerns raised here and thanks in advance for your time and energy. Also, thanks to Anarchyte who gave the article a good going-over at GAN, always appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 15:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Nikkimaria thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Accolade (company)Edit

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a historic video game developer and publisher. They are of major importance in the early game industry, featuring veterans from highly notable peers such as Atari and Activision. They went on to create several notable franchises, especially in sports. Things get shaky in their final years, and the most detailed sources prefer to focus on their golden age. But there are enough reliable sources to explain their decline and overall fate.

I'm nominating this after a few rounds of work and review. The previous FA-nomination(s) failed. I became busy during the first nomination, which was closed with some suggestions I didn't get to at the time. I have since incorporated the feedback, then sought a peer review for even more feedback. I got ahead of myself with the second nomination, but third time is a charm.

The article is comprehensive, well-researched, well-cited, neutral, and stable, using images in compliance with fair use. I feel optimistic that this article is close enough to the Featured article criteria that I can work on any remaining issues through this process. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Image licensingEdit

- is appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Politely pinging a few editors who reviewed the first edition.
You'll find that I addressed all of your comments from the first nomination. Happy to keep working on new suggestions, and trying to save time for all of us by not re-treading the same ground again. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


Despite only having one header, it manages to be highly comprehensive and well-written. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Panini!Edit

Staying true to my promise, Support. Good Job! Panini!🥪 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Panini!. A bare "Support" doesn't carry much weight. I assume that your support is on the basis of your feedback during the article's first nomination, but if so specifying this and providing a link helps out the coordinators. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, right! I've made a comment about this at User talk:Shooterwalker, disappointed in the archiving of the previous nomination. I reassured I would give support based on my initial thoughts and reactions prior. Sorry for not mentioning that! Panini!🥪 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo LuisEdit

Unique FAC, as it is just one section, but eh, at least it's comprehensive. These comments might help:

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
* "(renamed as Infogrames North America, Inc. in 1999)"-- this is later stated in paragraph 3. Is it needed here?
  • I usually like to have brackets after the game stating its year. For example, Star Control (1990).
  • "and experienced strong sales"-- I don't think "experienced" is the right word. "saw" sounds better.
  • "subsidiary called "Infogrames North America""-- why quotations?
  • "rebranded as Atari SA"-- should this be bolded?
  • "when Hong Kong-based"-- link Hong Kong
  • "Artech also created the flight simulator game"-- flight simulator is the typical devices used by airlines to train pilots. The game version is amateur flight simulator, but the combat one is combat flight simulator.
  • "cost of $80,000"-- which dollar specifically?
  • "series with 3D polygon" --> "series with three-dimensional (3D) polygon"
  • "Accolade expanded the" --> "It expanded the"
  • "This marked the end of Infogrames North America as a separate company and what was left of Accolade as an entity." Just wanna ask clarification regarding the no citation here.
  • "under Atari SA. [48]"-- space between punct and ref.
  • "a California video game" --> "a Californian video game"

In addition, I suggest having a list of games table, like Thatgamecompany does. Considering the history already covers it all, the prose is not needed. After all my comments got resolved, I'll support. GeraldWL 03:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The most confusing part of this topic for readers is the corporate stuff. A few notes on those:
  • The "renamed" part in the first sentence is because people do search for Infogrames North America, which is the name of Accolade after it had been changed. That said, if it's enough to have the bolded part in the third paragraph, at the end of its life, I could be talked into removing it. Trying to satisfy a lot of different editorial opinions here.
  • Atari SA is Infogrames Entertainment SA. Inverting the principle above, it's a different corporate entity, and a different article, and thus isn't bolded.
  • There was a consensus that the uncited statement at the end is needed, because it objectively summarizes the other sources without making any novel claims. You could remove this sentence and just leave it at the previous sentence, which says "Infogrames had merged Infogrames North America into Infogrames Inc". But people have a hard time understanding what all these corporate renames and restructurings mean. This last part is added for clarity: it means Accolade was merged, renamed, then slowly dissolved into raw assets for another company. It's gone.
I added some dates, and hopefully people don't have too many different opinions on that. There was previously a list of games that was removed as part of a previous peer review / FA, and split into List of Accolade games. This was after painstakingly formatting the table and citations for FA quality, but it's another area where tastes vary and I'm getting conflicting advice. I appreciate all your comments and hopefully that addresses all of them. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications — and apologies, I did not see that "See also" section. The article looks nice by now; last stuff I would ask is have all the dollars consistent to US$, and add {{Main|Sega v. Accolade|''Sega v. Accolade''}} at the top of "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)". Once that's resolved, I'll support. GeraldWL 01:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Good suggestions. Should be all done now. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! To finalize, I italicized the hatnote and added upright to the image. Glad to support this article. GeraldWL 01:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Shooterwalker (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Your welcome. This is a very unique FAC, and I do learn some things from here, also important since I'm also planning to have several articles (earliest on the line is Living in the Age of Airplanes) to have a FAC at someee point. If you want to and have the time for it, may I suggest reviewing a peer review I just opened for that article? It can help a lot. GeraldWL 01:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Link20XXEdit

Putting this here as a placeholder, will leave comments soon. In the meantime, if you could leave comments on a peer review of mine, it would be appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright I gave the article a basic read-through and the only comment I have is admittedly pretty nitpicky. In the section "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)", the hatnote below the image looks very poor for me as a mobile reader. Could it be moved above the image perhaps? Link20XX (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
That's an easy fix. Done. Anything else? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Nope. Looks good to me. Happy to Support. Link20XX (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Shooterwalker (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominatorEdit

I count support from Shadowboxer2005, Gerald Waldo Luis, Panini!, and Link20XX. Panini! had previously reviewed the article at the last FA, and led to several improvements. buidhe has returned to once again review the images and licensing, with support.
I'm paging a few editors from previous reviews who might want to check back in. @Heartfox: previously reviewed this article for accessibility, and @Nikkimaria: previously reviewed the sources, and hoping they can confirm that the article still passes their scrutiny. I'll also page @The Rambling Man: and @Indrian:, as they previously reviewed the article and might want to check back in too. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Route 34 in IowaEdit

Nominator(s): –Fredddie 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is my finest highway article to date. It talks about changing highway policy over the years and how that affected the highway as it is today. It even initiated the creation of a federal law regarding handling Native American remains found during highway construction. –Fredddie 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Drive by commentEdit

Just curious, is there a reason why we use "U.S." throughout the article rather than "US"? Since the standard abbreviation for US Highways is "US #", it looks like we mix abbreviation types, which goes against MOS:US. Thrakkx (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a project-wide issue that's bigger than this one article. Personally, I prefer U.S. to US, so I could make those changes if required. If you notice, U.S. is always used as "U.S. Highway X", while US is always "US X". So at least that's consistent. –Fredddie 02:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
After consulting with another editor on Discord, I decided to change the article to use U.S. –Fredddie 03:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't intend for you to make any changes; just wanted to know if the WikiProject dictated this notation. Thrakkx (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:USSH is the relevant guideline here. It was created after a contentious ArbCom case about 15 years ago; a couple of the editors who argued in that case are still around. The abbreviations were added about 5 years ago as a matter of turning a de facto practice into de jure. Could it be updated? Probably, but that's another discussion. –Fredddie 01:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a comment, but the standard abbreviation for a United States Numbered Highway as used by the vast majority of state departments of transportation omits the periods. (I think only one uses the periods in their press materials.) The last two editions of The Chicago Manual of Style also omit periods in the abbreviated name of such highways. We've had discussions about following CMOS to omit the periods in the full name without any consensus at revising WP:USSH to retitle the articles, and for many states, the full name follows the article title. The best sources on styling seem to dictate reversing this change. Imzadi 1979  02:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

While I'm here, I went ahead and reviewed the article for accessibility, and I see no issues. Thrakkx (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): User:Rodney Baggins, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the sport of snooker. After a series of other FAs on snooker tournaments, myself and Rodney have tackled the main game. The article goes into depths about the history, how it has become a worldwide game, the rules, tournaments and the stature of the sport. I hope you enjoy reading, and let me know any issues you might find. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Rodney has fixed the SANDWICH problem, and I am working on replacing the specific images. There is one from the national gallery that I think is ok. For now, I've commented them out of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
None of the early players (Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, John Spencer, Ray Reardon) have fair-use images on Commons which is a real shame. The images used in their individual wiki articles have only been authorised for use in that one location. Same applies to Neville Chamberlain (although I'm not convinced that his image is legitimately used in his article...) – Is there any way we could approach any of the image originators to request permission to put one of these in the main Snooker article (obo Wiki organisation)? In the meantime, I've added a picture of Steve Davis into Important players section, as it looked a bit odd showing JUST Ronnie O'Sullivan. I'm also not keen on seeing History section as just a sea of text with not a single image. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not sure how much a photograph of a famous player adds to the article. Snooker isn't one of those sports (unlike say marathon running) players' physique or appearance is closely related to their performance. I think it might be better to look for free images of people playing the sport in the past. You could try looking in old snooker publications published before 1926 to find public domain images. (t · c) buidhe 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I suppose Bill Werbeniuk would be a good example of why the antithesis of that is true, although generally you do need to be pretty fit to play snooker. We do have some poor quality images, such as one for Joe Davis, as Australian copyright is a bit different, and I'm not sure if something like [1] hits the public domain barrier or not. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
There's an image of Chamberlain in the Illustrated London News for 4 May 1901 available via the British Newspaper Archive. Would a clipping of that be acceptable? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLooseEdit


  • "several variations of the game were devised during this time" - is snooker really a variation of billiards, as stated by Boru, or of the other games mentioned?
    • I don't think we've commented on snooker at this time, just that there was lots of billiard games that were popular. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • The text is "In the 1870s, billiards was popular among British Army officers stationed in Jubbulpore, India, and several variations of the game were devised during this time. One version, which originated at the Officers' Mess of the 11th Devonshire Regiment in 1875, combined the rules of two pool games: pyramid pool, played with fifteen red-coloured balls positioned in a triangle; and black pool, which involved the potting of designated balls" - with the "One version", doesn't this suggest that it's a variation of billiards? Boru says this, so it's acceptable, but others (e.g. Everton's History, Ch.5) make the link between the pool games and snooker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Perhaps change "billiards" for "billiards and other cue sports"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure if it's worth including, but pyramid pool and black pool could have multiple players.
    • Feels like a tangent to me. Just need to clarify what bits they take from those games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Probably is tangential for this article, but the more players, the higher the stakes and Everton notes the early version of snooker as a game with "variety (and a variety of monetary forefits)" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "1882 when its first set of rules was finalised by British Army officer Sir Neville Chamberlain" - isn't there a bit of doubt about this? I'd suggest slightly weakening the statement. (Shamos refers to snooker's origin in India as a "popular legend".)
    • My copy of Shamos' book just says that he thinks it's a myth that he came up with the game, not that he published the first set of rules. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that there were originally four pool balls, and other rules changed over time.
    • My biggest issue with this, is Shamos' book just says that they used four and then six pool balls, but not whether that was six balls, and also the six colours and white, or if it was just those balls. I'm not sure how you could play the game with four balls, and the item doesn't go into depths on this, but something like The Art Of Practical Billiards: For Amateurs (1889) might do - but I don't have a copy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
      • So, I found an online copy: [2]. The article mentions 15 red balls, and then six pool balls (not four, like the reference used in Shamos' book). The only difference is that the blue and pink were swapped. For 1889, this is incredibly similar to the rules we currently use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The first official snooker tournament was the 1908 American Tournament, held between 1907 and 1908 in London and won by Charles Dawson when the sport was used as an extra feature to billiard matches." - "first", "official"? - what's the basis for this from the source? "won by Charles Dawson" - not verified by source.
    • I've gone ahead and removed this. Many sources talk about the first English Amatuer competition being the first official tournament, but this one predates it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
      • It's a shame to see it go, but a source is needed. I even checked the 1907/08 copies of The World of Billiards but didn't find any reference to it being the first. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Billiards Association and the Billiards Control Board merged" - not verified by source.
  • Billiards Control Board - wasn’t it the Billiards Control Club?
  • Consider adding the years the two organisations that amalgamated to form the were founded.
  • organised by Joe Davis" - worth expanding slightly, I think
    • With what? Remember, we are covering an overview of the subject - not every detail will be suitable for the main article. I think the fact he ran the event covers it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "moved the game from a recreational pastime to a professional sporting activity" . Not sure about this phrasing. It remained a recreational pastime too. How did he "move the game"?
  • What makes Cues n Views a reliable source?
  • "Snooker then went into a period of decline through the 1950s and 1960s, with little public interest in the game beyond those who played it" - not verified by Sydney Morning Herald source.
  • "this failed to attract attention and was very short-lived" - not verified by sources.
    • I have removed both of the above and replaced by a source specifically mentioning that Davis though the sport was in decline. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Snooker quickly became regarded as a mainstream game in the United Kingdom" - I'm not sure this is really verified by the source. What part(s) of the source are you relying on for this?
    • Added an additional source stating that it became a mainstream game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "ranking tournaments" - might be worth explaining what these are, or just omitting "ranking"
  • "conclusion" seems like an overlink.
    • I'm not sure it matters, but I've removed anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Snooker tournaments have been adapted to make them more suitable for television audiences" - not verified by source.
  • "the top players earning several million pounds over the course of their careers" - is there a source that is a bit more specific?
    • How much more specific would you like? I think that source covers that there is lots of money in the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There's no mention of anything outside the men's professional game after 1926. Consider adding something that will at least acknowledge the amateur game here. (It does get coverage later in the article). You could also consider mentioning the Women's Professional Snooker Championship.
    • I've added the main world titles for women and amateurs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


  • The references for the para starting "The cloth on a snooker table.." are both commercial sites, and don't verify all the info there.
    • I'll take a look and reword for what better sources say. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Some table men" ?
  • Most of the para beginning "Snooker accessories include chalk for the tip of the cue..." is not supported by the source stated.
  • "using the ends of their cue sticks" - yes, but consider omitting.
  • "The objective of the game is to score more points than one's opponent by potting object balls in the correct order" - Is it? I'm not sure that the rules say this.
    • I'm not sure I understand what is the issue with this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Governance and tournaments

  • "founded in 1968 as the Professional Billiard Players' Association" - there's a lot of sources with wrong info about this, and I'm aware we're interested in verifiability not "truth" but the PBSA was founded in 1946, not 1968.
  • "annually since 1927 (except during World War II and between 1958 and 1963)." - not in 1967 either. Twice in 1970, and not in 1971. Maybe slightly tweak the wording rather than list exceptions. I won't suggest that you go into detail about World Professional Match-play Championship v World Championship.
  • "as of 2019 no such tour has been organised" - source is from late 2018, not 2019.
  • "Players Tour Championship in 2010 and returned as the Challenge Tour in 2018" – source is from 2004….
  • "the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of WPBSA" – contradicted by source used.

Important Players

  • "In the professional era of snooker, which began with Joe Davis in the 1930s and continues until the present day, a relatively small number of players have succeeded at the top level." - not verified by sources
  • "retiring unbeaten" – he retired from the championship, not from all tournaments.
  • "Undefeated in World Championship play, he was only beaten four times in his life, all of these defeats coming after his retirement and inflicted by his own brother Fred Davis. He did lose matches in handicapped tournaments, but on level terms these four defeats were the only losses of his entire career" – can probably be simplified. The "Undefeated in World Championship play" point has been made in the previous sentence.
  • "the next dominant force was his younger brother Fred Davis" - not supported by source used.
  • "By 1947, Fred Davis was deemed ready by his brother to take over the mantle, but lost the world final to the Scotsman Walter Donaldson" – not supported by source. Is “Scotsman” required?
  • Could mention that Pulman won in 1957.
  • "John Pulman was the most successful player of the 1960s, winning seven consecutive world titles between April 1964 and March 1968 when the World Championship was contested on a challenge basis" – not supported by source used.
    • Changed soruce 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Unlike previous decades, the 21st century has produced many players of a similar standard, rather than a single player raising the bar. Ronnie O'Sullivan has come the closest to dominance since 2000" – source is basically a list of winners. IMO it does not support this content.


External links

  • Consider removing the EBSA link, or adding other continental associations.


  • Equipment - billiard table, not snooker table.
  • Wikilink or gloss equipment terms.
  • Consider adding scoreboard to equipment list.
  • Venue - needs citing, or perhaps better to omit. (There was of course the outdoor Snooker at the 1960 Summer Paralympics.)
  Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


  • There are a few duplicate links.
  • Book refs 117, 118, 120 are missing page numbers.
  • Newspaper refs 16, 119 are missing page numbers.

1999 Football League Second Division play-off FinalEdit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...), ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to believe these days that the noisy neighbours in Manchester were ever forced to endure the indignity of relegation to the lower depths of English football, but only two decades ago, they were suffering just that. This article is about the play-off final which secured their return to the second tier, at the expense of the still-not-so-glamourous Gills, one of the last to be hosted at the old Wembley Stadium. It's a co-nomination with ChrisTheDude, and we'll endeavour to address each and every actionable item that's brought up as soon as practicable. Cheers in advance for your time and efforts in reviewing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good to me (t · c) buidhe 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Frozen IIEdit

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Promoted to Good Article by Pamzeis, and Chompy Ace and Wingwatchers

This article, a Good Article, is about two princess who sought to uncover the origin of Elsa's magical powers.

Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Added Wingwatchers (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages as it can slow down the page load time. This is in the FAC notes on the top of the FAC page. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review by Aoba47 (pass)Edit

Addressed comments
  • File:Frozen 2 poster.jpg: Everything looks good here. It has a clear and complete rationale, appropriate ALT text, and the source link works and goes to the appropriate image.
  • File:Frozen2 Elsa Hairstyle Animation Development.jpg: The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box is not complete. There are two areas that have "n.a." and those should be both filled out. I also think the following explanations, "It's too complex" and "I will respect and follow all the rules noted above", are not particularly well-written and I would expand on them with something stronger. I would also make the source link for the image not just a bare URL. The link for the post is a good example on how to avoid this.
  • Hopefully, done. Pamzeis (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that the article does not use any images from the Wikimedia Commons. For instance, both directors (Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee) have images that could be incorporated into the "Development" section.
  • Added an image of Del Vecho, Lee and Buck. Pamzeis (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. It seems fine by me, but I think it would be best to get an editor who is far more experienced in image policy to look at these two examples. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Bilorv:, Can you help with that? Thanks Wingwatchers (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    The How to Geek article isn't really applicable because "the photographer generally owns the copyright" is only the very most basic rule and photos of copyrighted material are more complicated. It sticks out to me that the photographers doesn't actually own these products—the photo is of a shelf in a private store (presumably), but that likely doesn't change things. I think images like these are often acceptable but I would ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if the file is appropriately licensed. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Aoba47:, the image violates c:COM:PACKAGING. I nominated for deletion and removed it from the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the update. I had a strong feeling that it was not appropriate. The images in the article should be fine now. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope this image review is helpful. If I have time, I will try my best to do a review of the prose, but I am not sure at the moment if I will be able to commit to that. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to add some images about the research trips from Commons but was reverted due to the lack of reliable sources. Disney has not yet disclosed the exact destinations, so I can't help with thta. Thanks for your review. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Wingwatchers: I found a source that states they visited Norway [4]. Also, in "Journey to Ahtohallan" from Into the Unknown: Making Frozen II, I think they state they visited Norway, Finland and Iceland in 2016. Pamzeis (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Unfortunately at this point I feel the article falls short of the FA criteria on several points.

  • The prose would benefit from a comprehensive copy-edit for clarity and flow. Examples include "which were collaboratively rendered by multiple animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its level of comprehensive difficultness", "from steps by steps", "on the following 22nd"
  • The article also needs some editing for MOS issues - eg "4-note", inconsistent capitalization (eg sometimes "enchanted forest", sometimes "Enchanted Forest"), and easter-egg links.
  • Parts of the article are difficult to follow for those without subject knowledge. For example, what is a "scene prevention"? A "Snowgie"? "Archived sound"?
  • Other parts are otherwise confusing. For example, Scandinavian and Nordic are often used synonymously - what are these terms being used to mean? Also the lead states this is the story of two princesses, but isn't one or the other queen for most of the movie?
  • As per MOS:FILM, was a Themes section considered? Also note that guideline's discussion of review aggregators
  • Some of the sources used are of questionable reliability - eg Daily Mirror
  • Some of the sources aren't appropriate for what they are citing. For example, "Frozen 2 was localized through Disney Character Voices International into 46 languages by its original theater release, while the original was translated to 42 languages. Following the success of localized versions of the first film, which led to the release of a complete set album featuring all the official versions of "Let It Go" released at the time" is all cited to an Amazon record for the complete set - which is sufficient to prove that the complete set exists, but not some of those other details. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
To be completed. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you disclose the location of each issue is located? Thanks. @Nikkimaria: Wingwatchers (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, where is "scene prevention"? A "Snowgie"? "Archived sound" and Easter-Egg? The theme is preferred, nut not required, same with a film article who has been already awarded featured status, Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "scene prevention" is in the lead: The first completed scene prevention was exhibited at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival in June 2019.
  • "snowgie" is in the plot section: In a post-credits scene, Olaf visits Elsa's ice palace and recounts the events he experienced to Marshmallow and the Snowgies.
  • "archived sound" is mentioned a few times in the cast section: Hadley Gannaway and Livvy Stubenrauch (archived sound) as young Anna, Mattea Conforti and Eva Bella (archived sound) as young Elsa, Archived sounds are used in the Ahtohallan scene for Tudyk as the Duke of Weselton and Santino Fontana as Hans, a Prince from the Southern Isles who tried to take over Arendelle.
  • An "easter egg" is a link that "require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on" (WP:EASTER)
Hopes this helps. Pamzeis (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. That clarifies :) Wingwatchers (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

El Camino: A Breaking Bad MovieEdit

Nominator(s): Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, a sequel film to the popular television series Breaking Bad. This thoroughly researched article discusses the lengths that director and writer Vince Gilligan took to revisit a story that he concluded six years beforehand, the ideas that he used and discarded for his script, the measures he took to keep the production a secret, as well as the means that Gilligan and his production crew took to capture a certain look for the film.

I had tried nominating this a year ago, but was unable to gather enough peer reviews to get the article promoted. I decided to wait a little bit longer and be able to complete the page with the appropriate sections and photos before nominating it again. At this point I do feel the page is complete, thoroughly researched, and well-sourced to the point that it deserves a second look to be listed amongst this website's best.

Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass the article's images were cleared during the last FAC, so I'm only checking the images that have changed. Of these, the main issue I'm seeing is File:Todd's Apartment El Camino 1.png and File:Todd's Apartment El Camino 2.png. I can see that the apartment has been the focus of critical commentary, but I don't think the fair use images really show clearly dark and light aspects so they're not adding much. I think it would not harm reader understanding to remove them, so I don't see that WP:NFCC have been satisfied here. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: I felt that since there was a clear contrast in lighting between the two images, that it would show the difference. But since you feel that these do not fit the the criteria, then I have removed them. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support by BilorvEdit

Alright, I thought this was definitely FA standard the last time and up to a couple of wording changes and nitpicks that I'm suggesting below, I think it has only improved—in some cases due to new information or developments. The new "Themes and style" section is a very good addition. "Production" now has more detail from more references, without going overboard—it's a long article (in WP:SIZERULE's liminal state with 45 kB of prose), but I don't believe it's too long.

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
* "The film continues the story of Jesse Pinkman ... while the plot centers on the events that immediately follow Breaking Bad's finale" – This makes it sound like the "story of Jesse Pinkman" and the plot are two separate things. Maybe change it to "... throughout the series to become kingpins of an Albuquerque crystal meth empire; it centers on the events that ..."
    • I changed it to "throughout the series to become kingpins of an Albuquerque crystal meth empire, and centers..." if that works. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Yep, looks good. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Galbraith is described as "a vacuum cleaner store owner who relocates people running from the law and gives them new identities" – but it's not necessarily just people running from the law, right? Walter White wants his help initially more because of other criminals than law enforcement, if I'm remembering rightly. I guess you could say he relocates criminals or just relocates people.
    • Done
  • There's a few too many "would be" and "would" instances than I think is correct. I'd prefer at least the following to be in past tense (example given for the first one):
    • "The Alexa 65 would be used in conjunction" – just "The Alex 65 was used in conjunction"
      • Done
    • "The film's color palette would be graded with DaVinci Resolve"
      • Done
    • "As the Alexa 65 camera would be too large to carry while filming"
      • Done
    • "Cranston would indeed appear in El Camino"
      • Done
    • "representatives for AMC, Netflix and Sony Pictures TV would all decline to comment"
      • Done
    • "The livestream would be watched by over 3.5 million viewers"
      • Done
    • "Chemistry, the advertising agency behind the promotion, would later submit the campaign"
      • Done.
  • Would the sections "Cinematography", "Set design", "Exterior locations" and "Secrecy" fit as subsections within "Filming"? It's rare to see eight subsections (under "Production") with no subsections within that.
    • @Bilorv: I saw that American Beauty, Fight Club and The Grand Budapest Hotel, all featured articles and the latter of which was promoted relatively recently, had seven sections in their production sections without any subsections. Previously I had "Set Design" and "Exterior locations" combined as "Sets and Locations". Perhaps I can recombine these so it doesn't get too overboard? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah it's not a deal-breaker, but I thought that the four subsections I listed are all part of the filming process, so this would make logical sense independent of the number of subsections. But otherwise, if you choose to keep it as it is then that's fine too. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Bilorv: I noticed that few other featured articles have subsections, so I decided against having them in this one. Thanks again! Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There are some reference formatting inconsistencies:
    • Netflix shouldn't be in italics in the first reference (mark it as a publisher, not a website/work). The same applies to Directors Guild of America, Producers Guild of America and International Press Academy in later references.
      • Done
    • Link the works (Screen Rant, The Hollywood Reporter etc.) on every mention (or alternatively, on just the first).
      • Done
    • Screen Rant should be written consistently as this, not Screen like on the first occurrence.
      • Done
    • Penske Business Media doesn't need to be mentioned in the IndieWire references where it is, for consistency.
      • Done
    • "International Press Academy Editors" don't need to be in the "last" parameter—just remove the parameter. The title of this reference should also be rewritten in sentence case ("International Press Academy – The 24th Annual Satellite Awards").
      • Done.
  • Newsweek is not generally considered to be a currently-reliable source (see WP:RSP). I imagine others have commented on Jane being the deliverer of the final line, but if you can't find a substitute then referencing the film itself would be acceptable.
    • @Bilorv: I've tried searching for any other sources that specify this as the final line of the film and that Jane delivered it, but none have. I saw in the Reliable Source guide that we can review each article on a case-by-case basis for Newsweek. Well, since this is essentially a movie review - would it be possible just to leave it in? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Alright, fair enough. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (No action needed.) Just noting that there's a Forbes contributor source, which are usually treated as self-published sources (see WP:RSP)—I see this particular contributor is a respected journalist for a number of uncontroversially reliable sources, so I think we can trust that the interview is not fabricated.

Hope these comments are helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm now happy to once again support promotion to FA. — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: do you need to change the subheader as well to support (as opposed to "Comments by Bilorv"), and is that needed for if this gets promoted? Asking curiously. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
No, the mods simply search for the word "support" in bold. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the co-ordinators read the comments and see what criteria they refer to (e.g. images, prose, sources) and how thorough they are (e.g. a "support" with no comments from a new user wouldn't count for much); it's promoted if there's enough support (usually including at least one review checking images/sources) and any opposition is countered by other reviewers supporting based on the same part of the article. But I might as well change the header to "Support". — Bilorv (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from HorsesizedduckEdit

I would say that criteria 1a and 1b are fulfilled. Excellent quality, and leaves little to be added. Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: does this have your support then? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I support it. By the way, I didn't get notified of this ping at all, and my username was botched on the signature. What's the deal with that? Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Horsesizedduck: Not sure of why you didn't get pinged, but the botched signature was a misstep of my finger. My apologies. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47Edit

Addressed comments
  • I am not sure if this part, and centers on the events that immediately follow Breaking Bad's finale, from the lead is necessary. The first sentence already says that this film is an epilogue to the series so this feels unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Done
  • I am uncertain about "while" in this part, while Aaron Paul reprised his role as Jesse Pinkman. From my understanding, "while" is generally used as a transition to emphasize a contrast, and I do not see a contrast here between Vince Gilligan and Aaron Paul. I think a different word choice would be better.
    • Done. Replaced it with a semi-colon.
  • If possible, I would reword this part, making the film one of his final film appearances, to avoid saying "film" twice in such a close proximity.
    • Done. Replaced "film" with "it"
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance. I do not think "first" is needed in this part, Gilligan first began considering, as "began" already cover this so it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Done.
  • If Albuquerque is going to be linked in the body of the article, I would link it in the lead for consistency.
    • Done. I just removed the duplicate links.
  • In the "Themes and style" section, there is a sentence with four citations. I would avoid that if possible as it reads like citation overkill.
    • Done. Good point. Moved the other citations further down.
  • There are a few duplicate links throughout the article. It seems common to link character names in the plot summary, cast list, and on their first instance after that, but if items like Albuquerque and Chevrolet El Camino should be linked multiple times in the article. My main issue is with Albuquerque, which is linked at least three times in the article (i.e. in the plot summary, the "Filming" section, and the Cinematography" section and that seems like overkill to me).
    • Done. Removed the duplicate links. Let me know if you see any more.

These are my comments so far. I have only read through the lead thoroughly right now. I have a few comments on other parts of the article, but I have only done a quick read there. Hopefully, this is helpful. I just wanted to post at least something for now. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you. All of your suggestions have been addressed. Look forward to seeing your other edits. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the prompt responses. I look forward to reading the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe this part, While El Camino's plot focused on Jesse Pinkman, should be in the present tense. The same comment goes for this part, the film was about Jesse transforming from a boy to a man. I believe they both should be in present tense as they are referring to what is happening in the film itself.
    • Done
  • Apologies in advance if this is super obvious. I have a question about this part, Breaking Bad was often categorized as a modern Western. What is the difference between a "modern Western" and a "neo-Western"? The lead identifies this film as a neo-Western, but later on in the article, it is described as a modern Western.
    • They are really the same term. Just movies with traditional Western themes, but take place in a contemporary setting. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would clarify the "many" in this part, Many noted the duel at the end of the film between Jesse. I am guessing that you are referring to critics, but it is always best to be as clear as possible.
    • Done
  • I would link neo-Nazi on its first mention.
    • Done
  • I would avoid using "flop" in this part, Gilligan stated that he likely would not have been able to had Saul been a flop, as it is far too informal for a Wikipedia article. I would go with something like "unsuccessful".
    • Done
  • This part, Upon pitching his idea to Sony Pictures Television, the studio behind both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, the executives, is not grammatically correct. If you read it literally, it says the executives are pitching the idea not Gilligan so it will need to be revised.
    • Done
  • For this part, and said that he had been "begging" Gilligan to release it, the "begging" quote seems unnecessary. I would instead paraphrase it.

These are my comments up to the "Music" section. Apologies for the piecemeal approach for my review and thank you for your patience. I am stopping here as it is a little after midnight for me now so this seem like a good place to pause and post further comments. Just for clarify, I will only be focusing on the prose as a source review for this FAC has already been done. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: second round is now finished. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would avoid sentence structures like this one, with Porter citing the scenes with the compound, Ed Galbraith and Jane Margolis as examples. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I have received and seen notes in FACs to avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence structure completely.
    • Done
  • I would revise this sentence, Among other Hollywood tributes, the cast and crew of Breaking Bad paid tribute to him., to avoid repeating "tribute" twice if possible.
    • Done
  • The prose in the "Reception" section can be quite repetitive. For instance, a lot of the sentences in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection begin with X critic of Y publication. I would vary the sentence structure to keep the prose engaging. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is a good resource for this kind of thing.
    • @Aoba47: Done. This was the most difficult, and I removed some references since the reviews seemed repetitive. If you have any other ways to improve this section let me know. Aside from that, all your suggestions have been addressed. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The Breaking Bad (season 5) article is linked twice.
    • Done

I believe this should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed above, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Great work with the article!

I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Some Dude From North CarolinaEdit

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. If I do not post any comments in a week, please ping me. My goal is to either post my review over the weekend or at the early part of next week by the latest. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The "award" column (see this example). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: gotcha. I have made the edits. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I normally suggest linking nominees every time they are listed.
    • Done
  • Could a "date of ceremony" column be added?
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Albuquerque Journal with "|url-access=subscription".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Esquire with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Forbes with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Time with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • "Ddvid" → "David" and "|last=Matt Miller" → "|last=Miller |first=Matt"
    • Done and Done.
  • Wikilink Dave Itzkoff and sort categories in alphabetical order.
    • Done and Done. For the latter portion they are sorted in the wikiedit but do not appear sorted on the main page. Guess wiki has its own way of sorting things. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Great work – support. 👍 Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7Edit

Article looks FAC-worthy to me. Only nitpick I could find is that the "e" in "Easter egg" should be capitalised.

Done. Thanks for the tip. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Source review - passEdit
  • All sources look okay.
  • Referencing style is fine
  • Spot checks: 26, 30, 68, 81, 94, 124, 137, 105, 155 - all good

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

Looks sound comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2017 Africa Cup of Nations FinalEdit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the FIFA World Cup, football's greatest prize, each continent has its own prestigious tournament for national teams. In Europe we've just completed one, the UEFA Euro 2020. And in Africa, the equivalent competition is the Africa Cup of Nations. This article is about the final of the 2017 edition of that tournament, which featured 7-time winners Egypt against 4-time winners Cameroon. As with similar articles, there are details about how each nation reached the final, as well as some background information and reactions. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Note that I have another FAC currently open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977)/archive1, in which I'm a co-nominator, (and more feedback on that one is certainly welcomed!) while this one's a solo nomination. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the speedy check!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Generally looks pretty good, but some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  • the CAF (CAF)— Two problems with this; why is it ‘’the’’ CAF? We normally have EUFA, FIFA etc without the definite article. Secondly, it seems very odd to have (CAF) indicated as the abbreviation of CAF, which is already an abbreviation.
    Not sure how it happened, but that's just an error. It was meant to say "the Confederation of African Football (CAF)", and I've now amended it thus. I assume the is appropriate when using the fully spelled-out name? But I do agree it should just be "CAF" elsewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • they represented the Confederation of African Football (CAF)— still in the lead, we again have (CAF), at least this time as an abbreviation of the full form, but why repeated, and why is the full version left until the second mention, instead of in para 1?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In “Background”, we have Confederation of African Football (CAF) again, beginning to look like overkill for an obvious abbreviation.
    I think here it does belong, as we usually treat the lead and the body as separate entities and acronyms are introduced afresh in each. I've now amended it so we have one full title in the lead and this one in the body, with just "CAF" everywhere else.
  • Egypt appeared in their 23rd tournament... Cameroon appeared in were appearing seems more appropriate to me
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 1. Is there really nothing better than Twitter for this? I know it’s their official account, but we try to avoid generally unreliable sources if possible. Incidentally, I note that that on that page they don’t put the before Confederation of African Football, let alone CAF.
    I have replaced it with a better one. Thanks Jimfbleak that's all your points for now, happy to look at anything else you find. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks better now, and I can't see any major issues arising from the other two reviewers below, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Support 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.

  • To avoid confusion - is it worth saying "association football" on first mention? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • the CAF (CAF) - huh? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, major 🤦 there. Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Before mentioning how the two teams progressed, perhaps mention the format of the event? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • substitute Nicolas Nkoulou - this could be re-written to avoid the two links next to each other Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Confederation of African Football (CAF) - again? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, go figure. Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • can we link the 1957 event on the first mention? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • four groups of four with each team playing the other three group members once in a round-robin format. - could probably be a bit more succinct, maybe "four round-robin groups consisting of four teams. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • four quarter-finals, two semi-finals and the final - do we need to specify this? Aren't single-elimimation tournaments always like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    No. I've removed that.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (3rd among African nations), while Cameroon were 62nd (12th among African nations).[7 - could we maybe say "Cameroon were the 12th highest ranked African team (62nd in the world), as the rankings for Africa are important to this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a couple duplicate links, such as Gabon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    The Gabon links are actually different - the first points to Gabon the country, which hosted the event, while the second points to the Gabon national football team. Are there any others?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Not anymore. Although I do wonder if we need to link to the country of Gabon Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Benjamin Moukandjo free kick - could we reword to "a free kick by Benjamin Moukandjo" to avoid the adjacent links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Senegal had the better of the game[according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Reworded, and an additional note about Cameroon's first chance added with attribution.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • again and substitute Moussa Sow - could we reword to avoid the adjacent links? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Link BBC Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    BBC Sport now linked earlier.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • On a poor-quality pitch [according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Attributed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • allowed their opponents to come at them - seems a bit casual - is this a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. Quotified.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I'll have a look there very soon, thanks Lee Vilenski. Looking forward to some more comments from you here as and when you can.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Lee Vilenski: I've looked at your second tranche of points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to support for prose and MOS integrity. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Echo the comments above that "the CAF (CAF)" looks ridiculous and there is no reason to explain the acronym twice in the lead
    Yep.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would merge the two-sentence final paragraph of the lead onto the one before
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In the background section, numbers less than 10 should be written as words
    True, although there's always that caveat about "comparable amounts" being written the same way. Since most the numbers are low, I've flipped them all to words, including sixteen, four, two etc.
  • "had won only ever" => "had only ever won"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In the route to the final section, the little tables make it look like there were first, second and third rounds like in the FA Cup, but there weren't. All those matches should have the round shown as "group"
    Do you mean just "Group", with no number? I've done that for now. Having "Group 1" would seem strange, because that could be the name of an actual group.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "the goal was discounted" - the usual term is "disallowed"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Overlinking of substitute
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, in the match section, numbers less than 10 should be written as words
    In this case, wouldn't the number of minutes qualify for comparable values clause, as per MOS:NUM? 2 minutes, 7 minutes, 22 minutes, 59 minutes etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is "attackingly" a word?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks @ChrisTheDude:, looking forward to any other points you have.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

I reviewed this at GAN with a view to it heading to FAC, so was a little stricter than the normal GAN reviews. Since then the minor tweaks made in response to the comments above have assured me that the article is now suitable to be promoted to featured status. Good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The weather given is for the airport quite some distance from the stadium, correct? Any idea how closely the two generally match? Do any of the sources note the weather at the stadium at the time of the match?
  • ESPN is a publisher not a website. Ditto CNN, check for others
  • FN6 should use article title
  • FN9: what's the purpose of |quote= here?
  • The About page for seems to be broken - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    It is published by Backpage media,[5] which is as far as I can tell a reputable South African media outlet, providing services to agencies and corporates and suchlike. The website certainly seems to be under editorial control. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in when/if publication location is included
  • FN36: publication title formatting doesn't match other instances. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd (American football)Edit

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the other George Floyd, the American football player. He holds several records at Eastern Kentucky University. The article just passed a GA review so I'm looking forward to hearing constructive comments. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Sdkb

The elephant in the room here is that Floyd shares a name with the other, vastly more well-known Floyd, so even given the disambiguator in the title, it's surprising not to see a hatnote. Could someone more familiar with disambiguation than me comment as to whether or not a hatnote linking to George Floyd or {{Other people}} would be warranted? Some pageview data comparing average monthly views of this page before and after May 2020 might help with the decision. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: in general we should not have such hatnotes, as in theory readers shouldn't end up here by accident when they're searching for any other George Floyd. WP:NAMB is the relevant guideline here, with the rationale that with the "American football" disambiguator in the title, people are unlikely to end up here by accident. I think there are occasional exceptions to this, for example if a lot of people thought that the other George Floyd was an American football player (or perhaps he was? I've never heard anything to that effect though). But on balance I think it's preferable not to have one here, since it's not needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Update: I've just looked at George Floyd, and it seemed he did play football in high school and even in college for a couple of years. You learn a new thing every day! So perhaps there's a weak case for a hatnote. But clearly he's not primarily notable for that, and wouldn't have an article on his football or basketball record alone...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The article already has an unambiguous title. A hatnote wouldn't make sense unless there is another George Floyd that is a football player. (t · c) buidhe 09:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Image licensing I don't think these images are freely licensed. The copyright notice on the publication as a whole covers all articles and images printed in it except advertisements, see US copyright office 2207.2. You would have to show that the newspaper issue did not have any copyright notice. (t · c) buidhe 09:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    Just adding on to that: in response to @Sdkb: I think [6] makes it clear that there is at least some confusion. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    Given that and the fact that the other Floyd did play football, I'd lean toward including a hatnote. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    As another drive-by comment, I'll echo the others and say no, a hatnote is still not needed. The other George Floyd is not notable for his high school & community college football career. For comparison, there's lot of usage of (writer) as disambiguation, but hatnotes are not required if the other articles merely cover people who wrote something ever; it is only required if they are known as writers. Same here. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: I'm looking for that now. I don't see a copyright notice on any pages for File:George Floyd playing for Hernando High School, 1977.jpg. The only time the term "copyright" appears is on page 44 for the term "Dunkel Sports Features" and on page 41 in a story and on page 32 in a story, and for a repeat. Ditto for File:George Floyd Latches Onto the Ball.jpg and File:George Floyd for EKU, 1980.jpg. I also oppose a hatnote per Amakuru and Buidhe above. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Just searching for the word "copyright" may not turn up a copyright notice. See here for an example of US newspaper copyright notice. It's usually printed small and does not legally need to use the word "copyright" to be valid. Also, because of the small size I expect OCR would often have difficulties with it. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Granted. But I don't see that either looking at the pages. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
          I'm no expert on copyright law, but wouldn't the copyright be held by the Eastern Kentucky University, rather than by the newspaper, since they've credited it as such? Therefore you'd need to check for a copyright notice in any publications issued by them which use that photo...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
          I've removed that image. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • EKU is a publisher, not a work.
  • FN23 is missing agency. Ditto FN35, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Went through the article & addressed, addressed each article individually, also added some authors. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Cyclone BerguittaEdit

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This tropical cyclone went mostly under the radar when it existed in January 2018, but it caused significant impacts in Mauritius and Réunion. It was part of an exhausting cyclone season for Réunion, where they were hit by five cyclones (Ava, Berguitta, Dumazile, Eliakim, and Fakir) in four months. This article relies quite a lot on local media (mostly in French) as many English news outlets failed to pick up on this system. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HorsesizedduckEdit

The lead is quite large, wouldn't you say? I will see about improving it. Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For a more complete impression, the article actually appears stunning. No doubt there's FA in here. There may just be some copyedit work to be done. Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Images are freely licensed. Vaticidalprophet 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricane NoahEdit

Placeholder NoahTalk 19:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC); JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a pterosaur only definitely known from jaw fragments, but which has been historically important for the understanding of the group. It was one of the largest pterosaurs known when it was named in 1851, and one of the first members of the group to be depicted in sculpture, but its appearance was unclear until more complete relatives were discovered in the 1980s. We have summarised the historical literature about the animal here, which also means the article gets into some complicated, 19th century taxonomy, so parts of it may be difficult to understand, so we are open for any suggestions that would make it more approachable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review: licensing looks OK, but many of the images are too small to see easily. For example, "Holotype snout tips of P. fittoni, O. brachyrhinus, and O. enchorhynchus" should be scaled up so it is more accessible. You might consider cropping the right half (diagram part) of the images so that the fossil image can be displayed larger. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's much more to see on them, though, but I've scaled it up a bit. But I disagree with cropping the diagrams out, they're exactly what's needed for people to notice that they're anything but just brown rocks. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Very comprehensive, some nitpicks though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Your geographical unit for the European finds seems to be England, whereas two London-born people are referred to as British, rather than English. Is this consistent?
Forgot this one, I kept it "British" for the people mentioned because I couldn't be sure which were specifically English and who not. I think it would look strange if I only write English for some of them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure I’d bother with the country in Kent, England or Texas, US.
All the sources make a point out of this, so I think it's important to include, also because the same formations can stretch across state boundaries, counties, etc (which was also demonstrated with the map-issue below). Or do you mean only in the intro specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ’’premaxillary ‘’— link in lead
Linked to premaxilla. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Removed the older link, as it was now duplinked in he intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • with proportionally large skulls, with long jaws and tooth-rows, often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws. ‘’ —the multiple “withs” make this harder to follow
I think this has already been fixed? It's currently like this if I'm not wrong: "with proportionally large skulls, long jaws and tooth-rows, and often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws." JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems it refers to the similar sentence in the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Removed in intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The teeth at the front ... . Their necks ‘’ —subject of “their “seems to have been lost
Changed to "the" instead of "their" to avoid adding more words. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ’’made of dark stone ‘’ —namely?
Specified to "iron-framed concrete". FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ’’wastebin ‘’ bit of an easter egg, write in full I think
Well, the problem is the source only says "wastebin", which the familiar reader would know is equivalent to the linked term wastebasket taxon. I'm not sure how free I am to change the terminology of the source here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What is your criterion for red-linking names?
In this case I think it's because David Unwin is notable enough to get an article, no one has just come down to it yet... FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Kimolia (Κιμωλία), which means "chalk", and pteron (πτερόν) which means "wing". —Second “which means” seems redundant
Changed the second one to "meaning" so it varies a bit. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ’’the front of the jaw in C. dunni, while in C. cuvieri ‘’— Italics needed
Italicized. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ‘’and less than 180°)’’ —is this needed?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In Palaeoenvironment, you say ‘’The holotype of C. cuvieri was found in Kent, England ‘’, but the stratigraphic map says it was found in the area depicted, which is Cambridgeshire, nowhere near Kent. Am I missing something?
Ah, nice to get an actual English person to look over this then, I'll see if we can find an alternate map. This here map was from an article that actually covered C. cuvieri, though... FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed the map and moved the worldmap down in its place. It did show the same formation, just in a different area of England. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
All looks good, I'm happy to leave the wastebin, see if anyone else picks it up. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, the wastebin issue can possibly be handled more elegantly... FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Par 2 sent 1 in the lead, just for brevity you should just say "Cimoliopterus is estimated to have had..." if both species are estimated to have had about the same wingspan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit more complicated than that, which is why the wording is somewhat convoluted. It is elaborated on under description. The problem is that one writer stated they were similar in size, but then proceeded to give a smaller estimate for C. dunni than had been given for C. cuvieri before... FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Cimoliopterus is distinct from related pterosaurs in features..." this sounds weird because it's a pretty obvious statement. Maybe something like "Cimoliopterus is most notably distinguished by..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Said "can be distinguished from related pterosaurs" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Others can weigh in, but I feel like the 2nd par is too descriptive and technical for the lead, and the lead is overall pretty big for an article this size. I feel like we can just leave it at a long, crested beak (bill? snout? whatever) with recurved and protrusive teeth, size, wingspan, and hair and membrane. Palatal ridges, tooth sockets, and comparisons with other taxa seem too much   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, we need to know what distinguishes it from similar pterosaurs, and what distinguishes the two species from each other. Otherwise every intro description about most pterosaurs could just be the same, which is pointless. As for length, there are MOS guides for that at WP:lead length. But I have removed the following text, which was probably too general for the intro: "The necks were proportionally long, the torsos relatively small, and the forelimbs were proportionally enormous compared to the legs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Par 3 sent 1 and 2 really belong in Par 1 with the rest of the taxonomy discussion. Also, you say it was classified into Ornithocheirus twice   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
That is higher level taxonomy, which is covered in the classification section, so the intro follows the order of the article itself in this regard. I don't see where it says it was classified as Ornithocheirus twice, it says ornithocheiran the second time around, which is a higher level taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It was only classified as an ornithocherian when it was placed in Anhanguera and Ornithocheirus. Therefore, mentioning ornithocheiran is redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It is still considered an ornithocheiran. You may be confusing it with ornithocheirid, which is a narrower group which it is not considered part of today (by Brazilian researchers at least, British researchers still largely follow the ornithocheirid scheme, but see also the cladogram based on Jacobs 2019). There is generally still a deep division between the pterosaur classification schemes used by Brazilian versus British palaeontologists, and it will probably not be resolved any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Par 3 sent 3 and 4 are the longest-winded way of saying they were adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Shortened to "This kind of pterosaur was probably adapted for long-distance oceanic soaring". But that these two species evolved in this particular way needs to be spelled out, I think. "Adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic" probably isn't understandable to most readers, though it works well as condensed for more familiar readers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "While some have suggested the premaxillary crests were used to stabilise the jaws while submerged in water during feeding, they may have been used as display structures instead" the way this is worded, it implies the former were probably wrong   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It probably is, as elaborated in the palaeobiology section. But this is a less strong way of saying it, which is more neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "is considered confusing" this is like when journalists have to write "allegedly" in the titles to avoid lawsuits   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Changed to "has been described as confusing", as multiple sources state this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "and with the full length of the foot on the ground" you could also just say "feet flat on the ground"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Said "foot flat on the ground", as it is only one foot. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Preparation in palaeontology is used this way. See for example these Google Scholar results:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


Will review over this coming week. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't stay up late on a work night, but I drank three glasses of sweet tea earlier, so here I am still awake.

Hope you didn't begin seeing pink pterosaurs in your exhaustion! FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The species was since assigned to various other genera, including Ornithocheirus and Anhanguera." - maybe it's just me, but "was since" doesn't seem well for some reason
Tried with "subsequently", any better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
That works
  • "has been described as confusing" - by whom?
Added "by modern pterosaur researchers", or do you mean more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
that works
  • "C. cuvieri has a low snout compared to Ornithocheirus and also possesses a forward-facing first pair of tooth sockets, unlike that genus." - maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but since Ornithocheirus is a wastebasket taxon, can you really compare it to that?
Good point, it refers to the type species of Ornithocheirus, which is the only definite member of the genus. I've now stated in the history section that the genus is now restricted to that species, should make it clearer what is referred to in later mentions. Added "which they restricted to its type species, O. simus". FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Does it add anything to the article to have two very similar depictions of the holotype when it still had teeth?
The first one is interesting because it was the first published depiction, and the second is unique in showing further views (back, front), and close ups of the teeth. They're also very far from each other, so are used to illustrate different aspects (history for the first one, anatomy for the other). FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "At less than 1 millimetre (0.039 in) " - this feels like false precision on the inches conversion to me, since inches are generally only rarely measured down to the .001 precision, and it's not an exact number anyway
Think I got rid of it by adding sigfig=1. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ready for the Classification section. Will try to finish this off tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • "in addition to the species O. sedgwicki (now considered the type species of Aerodraco or alternatively a species of Camposipterus" - Aerodraco sedgwicki is mentioned later but spelled sedgwickii, is the single-i spelling a typo or how it was originally spelled? It's also spelled sedgwickii later when referring to C. sedgwickii, so that same query applies there
It depends on the sources, but originally and today, it was sedgwickii. I think the problem is because 19th century writers like Owen thought they could simply "correct" names they thought were wrong, which is not accepted today. Hence it was referred to as O. sedgwicki during its time under Ornithocheirus... FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there nothing to say about classification between Hooley 1914 and Unwin 2001?
Not really for higher level classification, hence the sentence "O. cuvieri and many other English pterosaurs were kept in the genus Ornithocheirus for most of the 20th century" under history. What else happened in between with the various species is covered under history, but it was mainly changes of names. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Cimoliopterus is unlikely to be paraphyletic (an unnatural group)" - is this consensus? Or does it need attribution, as it looks like almost everything for classification about this genus is open to discussion
Added "according to Myers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • When you cite Witton's blog, recommend author-linking Mark P. Witton to make it clear that he qualifies as a subject-matter expert.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Aussiedraco (of Albian age) " - link Albian
Done, an earlier mention with link must have been snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It's in a category about Albian age life, but the only mentions of the Albian period is to compare it to some life that happened to be in the Albian (along with a varmint from a different period)
Removed, not sure how that was added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013). "Taxonomic review of the Ornithocheirus complex (Pterosauria) from the Cretaceous of England"." - citing a range of over 100 pages is pretty long. This may need specific page number citations
I've broken it up like some of the book sources, with individual page ranges. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Since all it is used for is to list other fossils from the same formation, and not to cite novel hypotheses, I think it should be fine. It is most likely just a summary of other papers anyway. But I can try to find the cited articles instead if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, probably okay for non-controversial information like that, given that it's from a respected research university. Hog Farm Talk 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " Csiki-Sava, Z.; Buffetaut, E.; Ősi, A.; Pereda-Suberbiola, X.; Brusatte, S. L. (2015). "Island life in the Cretaceous - faunal composition, biogeography, evolution, and extinction of land-living vertebrates on the Late Cretaceous European archipelago"" - page range of over 150 pages; probably needs specific page numbers
Fixed, the online version is not divided into pages, so I had a look at the PDF version. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. While I looked at the sources some, this is not a full source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There should be answers to everything now, Hog Farm. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Not an expert enough to strongly assess 1b and 1c, but I saw nothing that stood out as a possible issue. Did not check image licensing. Hog Farm Talk 06:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, articles like this surely need to be checked by non-experts for accessibility too! FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or ParrotsEdit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Edward Lear is today better known for his nonsense tales and limericks, but he was a gifted artist, painting commercially while still a teenager. This 1832 parrot book, although financially a failure, established his reputation as one of the leading nature paintings of his day. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe thanks for review. One thing about an FAC for an old picture book is that there are lots of free images! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I'll have a look soon. Perhaps this could be a good kind of article to group images in small galleries like in for example quagga? Now they kind of form a wall on the right of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Galleries force a particular pixel width so they should be avoided for the same reasons as multiple image templates. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Buidhe, yes, I never use galleries if I can help it, and I think you lose thinks to the sections. The Commons link at the bottom makes all 42 plates readily available anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it could be made possible to use something like the upright parameter, which doesn't force a particular pixel size, as is possible with regular images. Not something to apply here, but I'll see if I can bring it up somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a solution might be implemented at some point:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "on the authority of Aristotle" Perhaps good to introduce him as "the ancient Greek polymath" or some such, to show it was even very dated information by that time?
  • "and Lear's main contributions to the development of bird painting" This is your first mention of Lear outside the intro, so his name should be spelled out and linked here.
  • "had a successful three-year voyage" When?
  • "was outdated by 1839" Outdated in what way?
  • I've made it explicit that it was more than ten years later, and that other expeditions had taken place in the interim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Spell out and link Lear's name first time it's mentioned in an image caption?
  • You spell out some names again after first mention, wouldn't last names be enough? This includes Anne Wentworth and John Gould, perhaps others.
  • Done, except where necessary to distinguish from Elizabeth Gould Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Plate XLIII from Samuel Pepys's hand-coloured copy of Francis Willughby's Ornithology[1]" Give date for context?
  • "and Gould eventually produced 68 plates for the book, acknowledged by Gould. He also produced at least ten plates for Gould's A Monograph of the Ramphastidae, or Family of Toucans." Am I misunderstanding something here, or should the first "Gould" be "Lear"?
  • Sigh... I must have read that a dozen times... fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Lear's macaw, Anodorhynchus leari was named by Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1856. Bonaparte had identified it as a new species from Lear's accurate painting in his book." Could benefit from specifying that it was identified as another species in the book, which only seems to be mentioned in the image caption?
  • "who was known for the quality of his reproductions of fine art." Only stated in the intro.
  • Done, I've moved the relevant text out of a footnote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Was there text in the final book?
  • Support - Looking good to me now, nice someone is looking after the books. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, I enjoy doing the books if I have adequate sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


  • 175 copies shouldn't be a number to start a sentence, see MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • I've never really seen the logic of that, but tweaked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • the teachings of the church do the sources say Christian church?
  • Both sources do, and given that we are talking about 17th century Europe, it could hardly be otherwise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets (1753–1824) what does the year-range mean here?
  • HMS Blossom, commanded by Captain Frederick W. Beechey had add a comma after Beechey.
  • Lear painted 12 plates of birds and two of mammals for The Zoology of Captain Beechey's Voyage, probably in 1829, when he was aged 17, or 1830, but long delays by another contributor, the keeper of zoology at the British Museum, Edward Gray, meant that the book was more than ten years out of date by 1839, when it was finally published, with several other expeditions having taken place in the interim. sentence is way to long.
  • plates to Gould for £50 you convert into current currency in other places but not here, why?
  • He also produced at least ten plates no need for "also"
  • Now Lord Derby, he used the grounds of the ancestral home, Knowsley Hall add a comma after "Hall"
  • Lear's macaw, Anodorhynchus leari no need for first comma
  • Refs 38 and 40 need periods after the final pages for consistency. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from CasliberEdit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Early ornithologies... - odd use of the word, why not just, "Early (scientific) works on birds..".?
  • I made these changes, otherwise nothing to complain about really, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from EdwininLondonEdit

With the caveat that I am not in expert in the field, I have the following comments. I found the prose easy to read and had to work hard to find any nitpicking comments:

  • north west North America --> I think it is one word, northwest. At least it is in wind directions.
  • , and printed by Hulmandel, and --> stylistically not the prettiest sentence. Any chance of a rewrite?
  • Like Lear, Walton often --> is there a reason why you use Walton? Should it not just be Like Lear, Ford often ..?
  • Sheer stupidity and the fact that his first name looks like a surname led me to this, fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

None of these prevent me from giving my Support for this nomination. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

Will conduct one. Hog Farm Talk 06:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Sources were all reliable
  • Didn't catch any significant formatting errors
  • Spot-checked several sources and didn't find any issues with copyright violations, source-text integrity, or close paraphrasing.
  • quick check didn't turn up any key literature that is missing

Pass on sourcing Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

1964 European Nations' Cup FinalEdit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, as we head toward the final of the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament, there's no better time to take a look back at the "good old days" of the Soviet Union, the involvement of Franco and Khrushchev, and all overseen by an Englishman. Proper pre-Brexit "soccer" fare for one and all. As always, I will be delighted to address any constructive comments as soon as practicable, and thank you in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks buidhe. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Commments from valereeeEdit

In the 2nd para of the lead: The referee for the final was Arthur Holland from England and the match was played in front of an attendance of 79,115 spectators. It's a run-on as is, and maybe just needs to be recast into two sentences as they aren't really related. Probably attendance > audience or possibly crowd if the reason for choosing audience was to avoid too-close para? —valereee (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, in so far as we never call attendance at football match an "audience". And actually, of course the sentences are related, both being about the final. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Same para: With six minutes of the match remaining, Pereda beat Anichkin and played in a cross which Viktor Shustikov failed to clear, before Marcelino headed the winning goal inside the near post. I feel like the comma in the section I've bolded is an awkward choice. Maybe recast? —valereee (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree, when I read it out loud, the comma there makes a good, natural pause. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • "It was the second UEFA European Football Championship final" - technically it was the second European Nations' Cup final. Can it be reworded to something like "the second final of what is now called the UEFA European Football Championship"?
  • "the previous tournament winners Soviet Union" => "the previous tournament winners the Soviet Union."
  • "crossed for Chus Pereda who scored, to give Spain a 1–0 lead" => "crossed for Chus Pereda, who scored to give Spain a 1–0 lead"
  • "the semi-finals and final taking place in Spain, between 17 and 21 June 1964" - that comma kinda makes it read like everything up to that point took place in that five day period. Any way to reword?
  • "The home side took an early 2–0 with goals" => "The home side took an early 2–0 lead with goals"
  • "Spain's semi-final opposition were Hungary, who they faced" => "Spain's semi-final opposition were Hungary, whom they faced"
  • Luis Suárez was playing? Wow, he's much older than I thought :-D
  • "Amancio diverted into the Hungary goal" => "Amancio diverted it/the ball into the Hungary goal"
  • "took the ball past Eduard Mudrik and after making a one-two with Lapetra, before crossing for Pereda" - this doesn't seem to be gramatically correct
  • "after suffering defeat against West Germany and Argentina and failed to progress" => "after suffering defeat against West Germany and Argentina and failing to progress"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments, I've had a shot at addressing them all, let me know what you think and if you have anything else I need to address. Re: Suarez, yes I was going to use that as a quirky DYK but felt the Franco/Khrushchev angle was more encyclopedic! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.ZEdit

  • "The match was contested by Spain and the previous tournament winners the Soviet Union." Isn't there a comma missing between winners and the? "tournament winners, the Soviet Union."
  • "There they faced Northern Ireland, with the first leg taking place at the" -> comma after there
  • MOS:Caps No need to write Euro's in all caps in the references
  • Looks really good!--Lirim | Talk 07:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Lirim.Z hi, and thanks for your comments! I think I've addressed them all, please let me know if there's anything else I can do? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Read through it again and couldn't find any flaws. Great article. Lirim | Talk 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from AmakuruEdit

  • "UEFA's top football competition for national teams" - sort of obvious I suppose, but should this be cited? And is "top" a proper encyclopedic adjective in this context?
  • "Spain had refused to play against the Soviet Union in the quarter-final" - Easter Egg link, should probably have "the quarter-final" as the link text.
  • Route to the final tables - the scores are wrapping in an annoying fashion, with just the final (H) or (A) on a new line. Either wrap the whole second leg, or widen the column so that it fits on one line.
  • "where they faced Romania" - prefer "in which"
  • "There, they faced Northern Ireland" - similar thing, I know you can use this type of wording but it still sounds slightly wrong to treat a round of the competition as a location
  • "Their goalkeeper, Bobby Irvine..." - might be useful to say "Northern Ireland's" as the last "they" you mentioned was Spain
  • "Bobby Irvine, twice denied Amancio Amaro before he opened the scoring..." at first I read this as Bobby Irvine opening the scoring.
  • "Marcelino scored his side's fifth goal after taking a deflection off Hurley" - sort of sounds like Marcelino himself deflected off Hurley here, rather than the ball being deflected
  • "it was to no avail" - sounds a bit like an WP:IDIOM
  • "10 yards (9.1 m)" - too precise
  • "the final tournament which they themselves would host" - was this as a result of their being in the event themselves, or was it preordained? (The background section could probably have covered that aspect in brief).
    Well all sources say that Spain were the hosts of the final tournament. They don't say when this was made official or why. That is already noted in the Background section. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    Chipping in momentarily just to say that all the tournaments held under the original format (only four teams qualified) were hosted by one of the final four, so we can presume that the host nation was only decided once it was known who had qualified (either that or it's a monumental coincidence :-D). But I'm afraid I can't shed any light on what the actual selection process was. So not really any help, I'm afraid, but I just thought I would point that out for info :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Soviet Union's European Nations' Cup campaign saw them receive a bye in the preliminary round" - why was that?
    Sources don't say why but it was presumably to get the odd number of entrants down to a binary number for knockout purposes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "and as such, their first match" - doesn't really need to say "as such" probably, could just say "and their first match..."
  • "The first competitive match between the sides took place at the Central Lenin Stadium in Moscow on 13 October 1963" - it sounds like you might be talking about some earlier match than the one in question here. Make it clear that this was the first competitive match
  • "There, they faced Sweden" - hmm, there again
  • "There they faced Denmark"
  • The summary feels very short compared to previous section - the final isn't described in much more detail than any of the other games. I guess you're going to tell me that's all the information your sources have though...
    Yes indeed. This was covered in scant detail in contemporary press, I have all the books I can find on the subject. If you can find anything I've missed, please point me to it. And to be fair, the previous section is covering 12 games with 37 goals and one period of extra time while this section covers 1 game, 3 goals... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    I did add some more detail from Kier's book which I had forgotten about (because I've been working on a couple of these) so hopefully that's beefed it up a little. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • That's about all for now. I'll have another look after you've taken a deco at this tranche.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru I've taken a stab at those, unless I've commented I've pretty much blindly followed your suggestions...! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, jolly good. That satisfies my concerns now, happy to support. Good work as ever.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review — PassEdit

  • #1: Contributors and last edited date can be added—see links on the left. Link not archived.
  • #37: Link not archived.
  • Bibliography: Publisher locations missing.

Boy, nothing much to see here. This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique hey, thanks for those comments all of which I have now addressed hopefully. Let me know if there's anything else I need to address. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Bibliography: "Glanville, Brian (1993) [1973]. The story of the World Cup." Should that be an upper case S? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    My copy uses three approaches: STORY, story and Story. I don't really mind. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinatorsEdit

@WP:FAC coordinators: with three supports and image/source review passing, can I nominate another article? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert KaskeEdit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

On a bomb-shattered Pacific island in the waning days of World War II, Robert Kaske read a story about two professors so engrossed in their conversation that by the time dusk turned to dawn, they had forgotten where they were. The story led Kaske to abandon his intentions of a business career; he instead made his way to Cornell and founded one of the preeminent medieval studies graduate programs in North America, credited with producing the backbone of the discipline's next scholastic generation.

This article began as a stub intended to give context to the author of a source cited in another article, then quickly grew. It is well-written (if I do say so myself), comprehensive, and thoroughly researched. Significant effort went to tracking down source material—be it Kaske's short stories published as a student, or even the 1974 photo used in the article, provided by the photographer from the original negative. The article reviewed a thorough good-article review in May by Chiswick Chap, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7Edit

How unusual to see and article on an academic. Have written many myself, but in general don't take them to featured. Article is in good shape; some suggestions:

  • Suggest linking sophomore, junior, senior, Jesuit, magna cum laude, Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, PhD
    • Done.
  • "the school newspaper" The Xavier University Newswire?
  • World War II: the narrative is a bit jumbled chronologically here, and might give the reader the impression that he returned from the Pacific before the war ended. The 819th Tank Destroyer Battalion departed San Francisco for Hawaii in March 1944, and went to Peleliu in February 1945. You can read more about its history here
  • I thought about using that source, but wasn't sure about it, given that the source and author are unclear. It might be the same source noted in a footnote to Kaske's Festschrift, which says "The Modern Military Field Brance of the Military Archives Division of the National Archives and Records Administration provided a brief 'History of the 819th Tank Destroyer Battalion' and some other material concerning the 819th." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we add the title of the PhD to article and the infobox? (Military service can also be added to the infobox using the module parameter with infobox military person)
  • Done. Also trying to pin down the end date of Kaske's service (1945 or 1946), and a good source showing his promotion to First Lieutenant. Oddly, Find a Grave seems to have found a source for the latter, but I can't figure out where that site got it from. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we know the name of his PhD supervisor?
  • Add df=y to the infobox date parameters to harmonize the article's date format
    • Done.
  • I think "Pennsylvanua" is a mispelling
    • Fixed.
  • Is Winston (Wink) Locklair really likely to get an article in the future?
    • I'm not sure whether Wriston Locklair is likely to get an article, but I think he is likely notable enough for one. He was apparently well regarded as a critic before he joined Juilliard, and has a number of obituaries, including by The New York Times (link) and The Charlotte Observer (link). He's also frequently mentioned as an influence on his nephew, Dan Locklair. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I was just curious, given that George R. Coffman is red-linked in another article. I personally don't red link much. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Carol Vonckx, an English scholar who herself became a professor at Cornell" Yeah, in 1992.
    • She was teaching at Cornell since 1963 but only became a full professor in 1992.[9] In the meantime she may have been an associate, assistant professor etc. In American academia all ranks of professor are called "professor", and full professor is the highest rank at many institutions. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
      Well she was lucky to get a job at all, given Cornell's anti-nepotism rules. I suspect that her career progression was slow. But she was a renaissance historian, not a medievalist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

All good. Great work here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, Hawkeye7. A couple responses above if you're interested. In response to your first comment, there are a couple other articles on academics I've brought here, e.g., Caroline Brady (philologist) and John Richard Clark Hall, and a couple others probably in the pipeline—mostly ones (like Kaske) of authors I cited and created a stub about, then went back to build out. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Kaiser matiasEdit

I'll go through this in the next day. Looks like a neat article so far. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Comments below:

  • "straight-A student in high school" just in consideration for our non-North American audience, would it be better to use something like "top student" or something like that? I'm not opposed to the wording as is, just thinking out loud here.
  • I think some nuance gets lost in the change to "top student" or similar, as a top student could still conceivably get some non-A grades along the way. But I've linked straight-A in case clarity is needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "He was commissioned a second lieutenant even before graduation..." This comes out of nowhere, so it may be worth noting the year he started his studies at Xavier, so give context, especially as the dates of his MA and PhD are listed shortly after. I'd also drop the "even" here, as it seems superfluous.
  • In the "Early life and education" section, is it necessary to link Latin? Seems like a common enough thing to leave out.
  • The relevant guideline says to avoid linking "major examples of ... languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)". Latin probably falls into that category, so I've removed the link. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "won the Latin contest" Is it "the" Latin contest, or "a" Latin contest? The former suggests to me that it's the definitive test out there, which I don't think is the case here. I'd lean towards using "a", or a qualifier ("won the school's Latin contest", for example).
  • Per the source, "The achievements of young Robert during his high school and university years are better documented [than his early years]. He attended Elder High School, an all-male institution established in 1923 as the first of Cincinnati's interparochial high schools. In a curriculum not overburdened with frills, he completed four years of English, Latin, and religion without a grade below A, worked on the school newspaper and the yearbook, won the Latin contest, and played baseball." I assume the author got the information from the school yearbook, which I haven't yet been able to find a copy of. I've gone with your approach of saying he "won the school's Latin contest". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 1938 Kaske also matriculated at Xavier University..." I don't think the "also" is appropriate here. I get why it's used, but think you could reword it to simply say something like "After graduating from Elder High, Kaske matriculated at Xavier University. The year is implied that way, and it flows neater, to me at least.
  • I was never in love with that sentence either. Changed to "After graduating from high school, Kaske matriculated at Xavier University". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "the name of the column meant 'So what?'" Should qualify it meant "So What?" in Latin.
  • "During a leave ... he took out a marriage license, served as a best man at a Thanksgiving wedding the next day in Cleburne, Texas, and married in January." This is a little unclear to me. From what I understand he took out a marriage license to get married himself, then served as a best man on the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday, to be anachronistic), and then had wedding in January. Is that accurate? I'll wait to hear back before looking at ways to clear it up.
  • That's pretty much what it meant (although I had meant the first wedding was on Thanksgiving itself, not Black Friday), but looking at the sources again, I see that I mistakenly dated the first wedding by the date of the newspaper article, not by the date referred to in the article. I've now reworded the sentence to "During a leave at the end of 1943, while stationed at Fort Hood, he served as a best man at a wedding in Cleburne, Texas, took out his own marriage license a week later, and married in January." --Usernameunique (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Kaske left Washington University in 1957..." Was this due to his contract expiring, or some other reason? Curious if it can be clarified, but I understand if that's not possible.
  • The sources tend to glance over this period, and don't discuss the reasons for his leaving. My guess, given Kaske's subsequent jumping around and his comment about publishing himself out of paradise at UNC, was by 1957 he had established some bona fides, and figured he could move up the academic ladder and/or head to a place with a more established program. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "'Parris Island of medieval studies'": Having done graduate studies in history (albeit more modern, and more interdisciplinary), I can sympathize with that description for his program. That sounds intense, though I can see how it led to such a strong crop of future scholars.
  • The publications section is quite lengthy, so I wonder if it would not be worth splitting that off into a stand-alone article/list (something like Bibliography of Robert Kaske?) In place leave the summary that's there, but as it stands the publications take up roughly two-thirds of the page on my computer, which is excessive.
  • The bibliography of a scholar would seem to fit naturally into his biography. His Festschrift, after all, includes both. And given that dozens of his works are cited throughout the article, it would be a bit of a messy divide; dozens of works would be listed in both this article and the standalone bibliography. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Overall a solid article, and you do a good job of showing how Kaske impacted the academic world, which can of course be a challenge. I don't see anything major to address here, so look forward to giving it a final review, and likely support. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much for the thoughtful comments, Kaiser matias. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

1986–87 Gillingham F.C. seasonEdit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a full and detailed account of the exploits of the English football (soccer) club Gillingham during the 1986-87 season. I was 14 years old at the time and followed the team's ups and downs with the passion which only a 14-year-old fan can exhibit :-) I actually created this article way back in 2011 but then didn't really touch it again until, inspired by the excellent work done by Kosack with current FAC nom 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season, I decided to expand this article and managed to take it from 2K to 58K. Your comments will be very gratefully received and acted upon as swiftly as possible...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

Addressed comments

This is very outside of my comfort zone, but since I have worked with ChrisTheDude in the past, I would like to review this and at least try to broaden my Wikipedia horizons somewhat. Hopefully a completely unfamiliar perspective will be helpful. Please ping me in a week if for whatever reason I have not posted any comments. Have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - very much looking forward to your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would encourage you to add ALT text to the Tony Cascarino image. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC) done
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: Before the season began, a series of wranglings took place involving the club's board of directors. By "wranglings", are you referring to something specific for football or the more general meaning (i.e. dispute; disputation; quarreling)? There is not wrong with the current version, but if I am being honest, I do not think I have ever seen that word used, but that could just be a cultural thing as I am American. Is this a common word to use here? done - changed to "disputes"
  • For this part, and the club paid semi-professional club Welling United a fee, I think it may be helpful to add a link to the semi-professional sports articles for "semi-professional". It is probably obvious to most readers, but as someone who is not familiar with sports really at all, I was uncertain of what this meant. done
  • Throughout the article, I notice some minor spacing issues, which are mostly just additional space between the end of a sentence and the start of a new one. I have fixed some of these. I know this is a pain, but I'd look through the article to see if there are any other ones. I am not sure why these spacing issues happened in the first place. done - didn't spot any others
  • For this part, but failed to agree personal terms with Reading, I am not really sure what is meant by "agree personal terms", but again it could just a cultural difference. done - changed to "failed to agree a contract" - basically it means that he and Reading could not come to an agreement on the terms of his contract (presumably wages, etc)
  • Would a link for league table be beneficial? I believe the first time this is mentioned is here, left Gillingham in fifth place in the league table. done
  • I would link goal scorer on the first instance, especially since other positions like captain and winger get links. - not done - goal scorer is not a position, it just means a player who scores/scored a goal. Any player can be a goal scorer and potentially a team's top scorer. Quite early in one season in the 1970s, Mancester United's top scorer was their goalkeeper :-) Goal scorer redirects to attacker, which I personally think is debateable and potentially confusing......
  • In this part, due to heavy snow in the south of England, would it be beneficial to use a link to the Southern England article? done
  • For the Tony Cascarino image, I would add the year that it was taken for further context. done - couldn't narrow it down to a specific year, even though it's my own photo :-)
  • The sources require a subscription to view the articles. I would recommend that you either take clippings of these sources, which do not require a subscription to view, or modify the citation to clarify that a subscription is required to view the source. done
  • I have a question about Citation 49 and Citation 71. They are both referencing books, but the full citations are put in the references section while the other books have the full citations in the bibliography section with the last name, publication year, and page number put in the references section. I would revise this two to match the others.
    • I've done one, but I can't format the other in the same way because I don't have a page ref (I only have access to the Google Books version, which doesn't show page numbers). How should I treat this one?
  • I would just have the last name and the publication year without the page number since it is not available. I have done that in past FACs without an issue. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC) done
  • For Citation 71, I would hyphenate the ISBN number as you have done for the other ones too to be consistent. done
  • It is not required for a FAC, but I would encourage you to archive web citations (like citations 32 and 62) to avoid any future hassle. I do not think the or Gale citations need to be archived.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Again, I am completely unfamiliar with this subject as I do not think I have watched any sports game all the way through. Despite that, I still found the article to be engaging and I did not have any trouble following the actual information. A majority of my comments are focused on the prose, with a few about the citations at the end. Once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. I hope you are having a great start of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Aoba47: - final point addressed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience with the review. I support this FAC for promotion. I think you have done a wonderful job with the article. Everything is very clear and engaging even to someone like myself who is not really knowledgable about sports at all. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. I am just glad that I could look at something outside of my comfort zone to at least try and help. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your support, and I will certainly endeavour to take a look at your FAC over the next few days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I am just glad that I could help at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

  • Both home and away kits are blue and white. What happened when they played away at teams like Carlisle? Is there a ref for those shirts by the way?
    • The away kit only had a bit of blue on it, not enough to cause an issue when playing Carlisle. Where would a ref for the shirts go.....?
  • "voted back" could be link, I assume, to Re-election (Football League)?
  • "the play-offs for" link those.
  • 'and hope that two" well, that actually had to not win, not just Gillingham "hoped" they'd not win. You know what I mean, this just seems a little unecyclopedic.
  • "both rival teams", "two other teams" enigmatic, any reason?
  • "in the final." there's an article for that.
  • "replay at a neutral venue," link both replay and neutral venue.
  • "Gillingham also reached" Perhaps go back to "During the season" or something as we're firmly parked at the end following the previous para.
  • "the highest number of appearances" -> "the most appearances".
  • Cascarino scored 14 goals in 17 non-Division Three appearances? That's remarkable.
    • He was a legend, and no mistake :-)
  • "southern section" but the table says "Semi-final (southern region)" was it section or region?
  • "1986–87 season " put season inside the pipe.
    • Done as far as here. More tomorrow...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • All those suggestions I made for links, do them all in the main prose too.
  • "team gained promotion from the Fourth Division in 1974.[1] " maybe add "as runners-up"?
  • "In the preceding 12 seasons" preceding which season?
  • "and 1984–85 seasons" again, seasons inside pipe.
  • Apply that hereafter...
  • "Gillingham had finished fifth and missed out on promotion by two places." I wonder, it may be worth noting why fifth missed out on promotion that season yet fifth got them into the play-offs in the subject season...
    • I would say that is already covered by the bit that says "At the start of the season, the Football League had introduced a new play-off system, under which the teams which finished just below the automatic promotion places in the Second, Third, and Fourth Divisions would have the opportunity to compete for one further promotion place", no...?
  • Is "winding-up order" something all our English-speaking brethren understand?
  • "win the championship of the Second Division" curious phrasing, I'd just have said "win Second Division" or worst case "win the Second Division title"
  • "team warmed up for " touch colloquial, maybe "prepared"?
  • "for which Tottenham Hotspur of the First Division provided the opposition" -> "against First Division side Tottenham Hotspur".
  • Newport is an AFC btw.
  • "the Welsh team" many readers won't know Newport is in Wales. Indeed, there's a Newport not a million miles from me.
  • "against Bristol City in" overlinked.
  • "scored in a 1–1 draw and then scored" scored scored... repetitive.
  • "came at the hands of" maybe just remove "the hands of" as that's a bit unencyclopedic and a shade anthropomorphic.
  • "another Saturday off" -> "another Saturday without a game" and here's a question, do our readers all know games mainly take place on Saturdays?
  • "100% home record in the league, having won every game played at" saying almost the same thing twice, I'd just say they won every game played at home at Dean Court in the league thus far.
  • Link sent off.
  • "consecutive days, but a draw " but?
  • Fulham is overlinked.
  • "in 3rd place" third?
  • "more than 4,000 more than" repetitive.
  • "to this point" that point.
  • Link hat-trick.
  • "against Brentford on " overlinked.
  • "to 6th in the" sixth?
  • "sustained an injury" any information on that?
    • Sorry no, can't find anything on what sort of injury it was
  • "before returning" only a month loan? Did Shearer recover in that time?
  • "out of favour again" was he out of favour before? Is that why the time between signing and his debut was extended? Sounds odd to sign someone and them immediately be out of favour?
  • Ah, Shearer came back in March, that's only four weeks, not such an "extended period"?
  • "score a hat-trick, scoring three goals" maybe replace "scoring" with "with"?
  • "on Easter Monday, drew" interesting, you avoided "Boxing Day" and "New Year's Day" but Easter Monday is a thing...
  • "from Brighton & Hove Albion during" overlinked.
  • "began the month of April" no real need for "the month of" is there?
  • Link foul.
  • "against Bristol Rovers on 25 April" overlinked.
  • "the league table, " you link that here?
  • "teams finishing third, fourth, and fifth in the final league table" what about the team from the league above playing to stay in their division?
  • "defeat Bolton Wanderers on the last day of the league season and hope that both Bristol City and Notts County failed " all three overlinked, and again "hope" isn't what needed to happen.
  • Avoid semi-colons for bold text/pseudo-headers.
  • Partial league table needs WP:ACCESS code, e.g. col/row scopes.
  • Indeed, I would copy one of the magic tables from the playoff final articles as it has hover-over abbreviation explanation and is fully screen-reader savvy.

That takes me to "Play-offs" which is obviously my favourite bit, so I'm saving that and subsequent sections. I think there's enough to be getting on with. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all done (I think). For ease, you can see all the edits I made re: the above, here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Some of us like to link "relegation" as well as promotion, while it technically results in overlinking, the terms are so distinct that it could be considered useful to our readers.
  • "with three clubs from" which ones.
  • "scored a hat-trick after" overlinked.
  • "score(d)" is used twenty times in these two paras, can we mix up the prose a little?
  • "into the second leg.[54] In the second leg at" repetitive.
  • "second round, the team played" last team mentioned was Kettering.
  • "from a penalty kick but" link.
  • "of the First Division.[65] " overlinked.
  • "This was the highest number of goals conceded" -> This was the most goals conceded?
  • Link round-robin.
    • Done as far as here, not my wife needs the laptop. Back later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Worth noting in the stadium image captions when each picture was taken.
  • "No player appeared in only one game" bit factoidy.
  • "only added two " 2.
  • Could crop that Kite image, it's a bit odd (but I know it's the best we have).
  • Player stats table, the competitions could be linked to the season competition (where available) rather than the generic competition articles.
  • " gain promotion Cascarino" comma before Cass.
  • "star player" is this encyclopedic tone?
  • "represent the Republic of Ireland at" overlinked.
  • "season beat Southend United 8–1 and" overlinked.
  • Strictly, the 11v11 link doesn't show the relegation zone for the 87/88 season table...
  • clips aren't subscription only, anyone can see them I think...
  • "On Film..." could use a non-breaking space before the ellipsis. Same for ref 73.
  • Gale does need subscription though.
  • As does BNA.
  • Check page numbers are present where available e.g. ref 37 is p. 26.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all of that lot done now, I believe. Sum total of diffs is here for your perusal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
All good for me, thanks for addressing my pedantry, gets my support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from EdwininlondonEdit

I'll make a start:

  • first sentence: I would argue that the first sentence should at least say which division they played in (see 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season)
  • fifty-fifth season --> in the body you have 55th
  • voted back into the League --> are you sure about the capital L? Doesn't look right to me
  • was an ever-present --> is this okay as a noun? I've only ever seen it as an adjective

Just been told there is football on the telly, so taking a break and back for more later ... Edwininlondon (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Done the first three. And yes, ever-present can be a noun. See, for example, this BBC story, the first sentence of which is "Newcastle United youngster Kelland Watts says he hopes to be an ever-present at League One Plymouth Argyle." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A bit more. Not much I could find. Just these nitpicking ones:

  • Partial league table: there is an argument to be made to show position 6 and 7 as well
  • why is Swindon bold in this partial league table?
    • Because I copied it from the article on the play-off final and forgot to unbold them :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • the starting XI --> I guess you're trying to avoid repetition of "starting line-up", but XI is a bit too cryptic I think.
  • Source:[28] --> Can [28] not just simply move to the table's header Player statistics[28] ?
  • Bibliography: usually we have the publisher's location as well

That's all I could find. I applaud your ability to write neutral prose despite being a lifelong fan. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - all done, and thank you for your kind words! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nice work. I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from AmakuruEdit

I promised you a review on your last FAC, and never got around to it, so making amends here!

Background and preseason
  • "Paul Taylor continued in the role of assistant manager" - this makes it sounds like we already know he was in this role, but it is in fact the first mention.
  • "first team trainer" - maybe hyphenate, assuming he's the trainer of the first team, rather than the earliest of the team trainers.
  • "Mark Weatherly took over as team captain, replacing Keith Oakes," - did he replace him before the season began, or only when Oakes left the club?
  • "Four days later, however, following a showdown meeting..." - I'm not sure you need "however" here. I'm not really sure what it's howevering.
  • "The directors then issued a statement to Gillingham supporters stating that the club's finances were now under control" - then and now? I think maybe the now can be removed.
  • "the winding-up order had been withdrawn" - was a liquidation order actually issued then? I'm not a legal expert and don't know much about this, but it seems from [10] that the winding-up order actually means the deed is done. That page says: "Once a winding-up order is made, the Official Receiver becomes the liquidator". Did that happen at Gillingham? If so, it's unclear to me how it gets withdrawn. Maybe clarify this if you have the info available.
  • "The most high-profile signing" - according to whom? This should probably either be attributed, or qualified with some objective measure on which it was the most high profile.
  • "most notably defender Mel Sage" - ditto
  • "Colin Greenall, a highly-rated defender signed from Blackpool" - there should be an off-setting comma after "defender"
    • Changed, albeit not in quite the same way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "a game in which Cascarino was sent off" - this is the first mention of Cascarino in the body I believe, so should give his full name and link
  • No issues that I can see.
  • For Fulham (H) 4–1 you only give three scorers.
Partial league table

I feel like some sort of indication as to who was promoted and who made he play-offs would be useful. In a MOS:ACCESS compatible way of course, perhaps a notes column at the end, as wee see at 1986–87_Football_League#Third_Division.

  • "to give Gillingham a two-goal lead" - clarify that this is on aggregate.
  • "youth team manager" - perhaps hyphenate

That's about it. Looks good otherwise. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead (forgot to look at this yesterday)
  • "Gillingham faced Swindon Town in the final. The two teams drew 2–2 on aggregate in the final" - two instances of "the final" in close succession is repetitive.
  • I'd also prefer "the final" rather than "the final".
  • Looking at 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season, I see it has an overall summary of won/drawn/lost during the season in the lead. Is that something you could include here?
  • Otherwise looks good.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I am off on holiday now until 2 August. I am not taking my laptop and hate trying to edit on my phone, so I doubt I will be on WP while I am away. If there are further comments here, I will address them when I get back. Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The carillon is an Old World musical instrument, emerging from centuries-old, interconnected traditions of bell-ringing, time-keeping, metalworking, and more. It is one of the only musical instruments that you cannot play in private—everyone in earshot must bear witness to your performance. There are fewer than 1,300 carillons worldwide according to the most generous counts; it is fascinating to learn about an instrument where the population is a critical component to its existence. One of the biggest struggles for those who love this instrument is to spread awarnesss of it. My teacher calls the carillon "the world's longest and best kept secret." What better way than to have a high-quality, encyclopedic article freely available for all!

Since its creation in 2002, this article has not been in the best shape. I've been working to improve it since January of this year. I am grateful for Aza24, who was particularly picky during the GA nomination, for Gerda Arendt, who gave me plenty of advice in both the formal peer review and informally, and for Twofingered Typist, who did great copyediting work. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to this review. Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Twinkle_Twinkle_Little_Star_on_the_Netherlands_Carillon.ogg: what's the copyright status of the arrangement? Ditto File:Luksemburgo,_katedralo_dNS,_kariljono,_1.ogg, File%3AJingle_Bell_Rock_played_on_the_University_of_Michigan_carillon.webm
Comment: for the second file, I cannot recognize the melody. It sounds like an automated melody before an hour strike or an improvisation—not sure. For the other two, I realize the music is not in the public domain. However, I will attempt to get permission from the rightsholders before we remove the files. I think Commons has a process to document that.
I realize that the Jingle Bell Rock video is absolutely not free to use—a little embarrassing. I marked it for deletion on Commons and uploaded a different Creative Commons-licensed YouTube video. The music in this video is composed by Matthias Vanden Gheyn—guaranteed in the public domain. I am still going to reach out to the rightsholder for the Twinkle Twinkle Little Star recording. Thrakkx (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Last update: the recordings currently in the article are way more trouble than they're worth in terms of licensing. I looked through Commons and found this file (File:Fixed Pattern of Distant Stars by Tiffany Ng and Jen Wang.ogg), which has its own template explaining that every component of the recording is properly licensed with CC-BY-SA 4.0. The source link is dead, but I found another source confirming the terms of the license. I will go ahead and use this one recording and keep the new video. So, everything listed in this image review (except the pending OTRS) should be solved. Thanks. Thrakkx (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • File:O_Canada_and_God_Save_the_King_instrumental_1927.ogg: links are dead, and what's the status of this work in the US?
Comment: I searched the website of the dead link to no success. The Canadian public domain reasoning given by the Commons uploader checks out according to quick research. For the U.S., I don't think it enters the public domain until January 1, 2023. I've never seen this happen on Commons—is it allowed?
No - Commons only allows files that are free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I see, then it seems it will have to be removed. This is surprising to me, given that the file has been on Commons since 2008. Is there a process to have someone more qualified at Commons do their own invesgiation? Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
You could either post to commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, or nominate it for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Earliest_Carillonneur_Picture.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Church_bell_cutaway.png
  • File:Comparison_of_two_carillon_transmission_systems.jpg: is there a link to the original source? What were the terms of permission for adaptation?
Comment: There is no link. I am personally connected to the author, and received his written permission via email to combine and use two images from his 1993 thesis (which is cited in the article sources) under the license with which I uploaded it.
Can you submit that permission to OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Working on that now. Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Stolen_Bells_during_WWI.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I am not sure. I uploaded it to Commons because I believe this image is in the public domain according to Ukrainian and U.S. law since this was captured in 1915. Thrakkx (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Public domain in the US is generally based on date of publication, not creation - being captured in 1915 doesn't in itself make the image free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Then it seems this image will have to be removed, since I cannot find evidence of its publication date. Apologies. Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • Carillons with 23 to 27 bells and 35 to 39 bells are classified as two-octave and three-octave carillons, respectively. Players of these instruments often use music written specifically for the limited ranges." Is this footnoted?
Whoops, added.
  • "" the Committee for Public Safety published instructions for extracting the copper from bells." This is, I assume, the same thing as the melting down for cannons noted at the end of the paragraph? If so, why say it twice?
Comment: I mention this to explain why the French wanted to remove bells from village towers. How about this wording?: After publishing instructions for extracting copper from bell bronze, the Republic sought to dismantle local carillons to reduce its copper shortage. That way, this sentence explains why the bells were removed and the end of the paragraph explains what the copper was used for.
  • " bellfounders installed 43 carillons in North America, namely the United States and Canada." Why do we need to mention North America given that Canada and the US are mentioned? Obviously there are other parts of North America but they don't seem involved here.
  • DId nothing of significance in the history of the carillon occur between the late 1940s and 1999?
Comment: Most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons.
  • " Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" " is at least double-linked
Comment: It is linked twice (three times if we include the image caption, but as far as I'm aware, that one doesn't count). This was brought up in the GAN. My justification for the second link is that it is part of quite a bold statement: ...the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" remains the most sought-after educational program for the carillon in the world.
  • I would suspect the American public is most familiar with the Netherlands Carillon near Washington, D.C, since it is often visited on tourist trips through Arlington Cemetery. Possibly some mention could be made of it.
Good point; done. I replaced the Springfield, Illinois carillon in the gallery with the Netherlands Carillon.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; let me know if you have more. Thrakkx (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Seems good, though certainly not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from GerdaEdit

  • Support per my comments in the peer review. I may go over the article once more after more changes, but that will perhaps result in comments, not in no support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aza24Edit

  • Happy to Support per my GAN review and look through just now. A thoroughly researched and informative article. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7Edit

  • Like Wehwalt, well outside my my field of expertise. There is one within earshot, but I haven't heard it lately; it think it is down for maintenance. I made a minor change. Looks fine to me. No issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The National Carillon in Canberra – one of three carillons in Australia! Thrakkx (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported in the text. For example, the lead states the instrument "experienced a peak in the mid-18th century"; the text has a much broader range for this peak.
  • "Tremolos offered a solution to a Romantic-era limitation of the carillon: its inability to reproduce sustained notes expressively" - source?
  • What makes TowerBells a high-quality reliable source? Essential Vermeer?
  • Several entities are entered in work title fields in the citation templates that would be better described as publishers - eg WCF. Please check throughout.
  • FN36: are there any independent sources supporting this claim? Ditto FN89
  • Check that page ranges consistently use "pp" rather than "p", and be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • How are you ordering entries in Internet?
  • Why so many External links entries?
  • How does Swager meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • The website for the North American Carillon School appears to be dead - is there any more information about this publisher?
  • DeepBlue is a repository - it should be credited using |via= if at all, and the original publication information (if relevant) should be included in full. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Singer BuildingEdit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago, having undergone an excellent GA review from Eddie891 and a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist. The previous FAC nomination failed due to a lack of activity, as Heartfox and Edwininlondon were the only users who commented. I believe it is up to FA quality now, and I hope the nomination gets more comments this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Image reviewEdit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7Edit

Just some comments and questions:

  • "Below the water level, the ground was saturated with groundwater, making it unfeasible to dig the cellar conventionally." So how was it dug?
    • This is addressed in the next paragraph. Caissons were used to excavate the soil. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the building's first few months, the elevators were involved in at least two deaths" Do we know how?
    • One was decapitated and the other was crushed to death. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Singer Building was the tallest in the world for a year after its tower's completion, surpassing Philadelphia City Hall.[141] The record was surpassed..." Do we have to use "surpass" twice in adjacent sentences?
    • Fixed.
  • "This law was superseded by the 1961 Zoning Resolution." What did it mandate?
    • I added a short description. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think the double-conversion of US gallons into litres and imperial gallons is necessary; litres should suffice. The same goes for weights into tonnes and log tons; US and metric should do, but it's not an issue for me, and your personal taste is fine.
    • Nope, you have a good point. I have set it to convert only to liters. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Let's hope that you get some more reviewers this time.! (The coordinators should also take Edwininlondon's support from the previous review into account.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

When completed, the building had a large lobby, 16 elevators, 410,000 square feet (38,000 m2) of office space, and an observatory. - "large lobby" - looks odd here (how large is large anyway?) - measurements would be better...
I reworded it. Strangely, there were very few mentions of the lobby's dimensions. By the time the Historic American Buildings Survey got to it, the building was already being demolished. Epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
which was built nearly simultaneously. - why not, "which was being built over the same time."
As built, the original Singer Building was faced with stone and brick. - is "As built" necessary?
Err...what does "rusticated" mean.....
Suggest linking Rustication (architecture). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise looking on-track Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks. I've addressed all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


Will take a look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The endnote for the record height note in the infobox doesn't seem to be working
    • I finally figured out what the problem was. The infobox uses the {{ref label}} template by default, so maybe this will have to be fixed in {{infobox building}} later. In the meantime I linked to a ref. Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Jno. Williams, Inc. - is this the right link for the redlink in "Whale Creek Iron Works provided ornamental iron while Jno. Williams Inc. provided the ornamental bronze"
  • "In addition, the water level was 20 feet (6.1 m) below the Singer Building" - maybe this is just words having slightly different meanings in the world of rural agriculture I was raised in, but isn't the water level the height of an open water body, like a river or lake? While if I'm reading this right, its the level of groundwater, which would be the water table. This may just be me overthinking this.
  • "Over the Singer Building's existence, its lighting system was changed at least five times,[2] The copper ornamentation on the tower's dome was restored in 1939" - this appears to be two separate sentences separated by a comma, not a period, unless it's suppose to be a semicolon
    • Fixed.
  • Unsure why 1968 was chosen as the demolition date in the infobox - destruction started in 1967 and finished in 1969
    • Fixed.
  • Sources are all reliable for what they are citing
  • From a quick glance, the images look fine.

Good work, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them all now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Comprehensive support against WP:FACR - I saw no major issues and checked all criteria except for #1f, which I'm willing to AGF on based on past experience with nominator. Hog Farm Talk 23:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Support 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.

  • Singer Building (also the Singer Towe - (also known as)?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it worth stating up front that the building is demolished with dates? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I arranged it chronologically here (based on the order of the sections). If stating the important dates in the first para is better, I could do that too. Epicgenius (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it not a Façade? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I think either variant (with or without the cedilla under the "c") is correct. Or, at least, my spell-check system does not seem to flag it as an error. Epicgenius (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It was the tallest building for a year - probably worth mentioning which took the title from this building. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • Singer Building, the Bourne Building - Singer and Bourne Buildings? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • Facade is also in body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • This ties in to what I said above about my spell-check system not flagging "facade" as an error. Again, it could just be me. Epicgenius (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Link limestone Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • 15,000 U.S. gallons - are U.S.gallons different to other gallons? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • , "Ten - no need for caps. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed.
Additional comments
  • Very little to critique here. I don't often pass articles on first pass, but I found very little here. Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

If you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Question from nominatorEdit

@WP:FAC coordinators: I had a question about the source review. As Hawkeye mentioned above, a source review was performed during the first nomination and the article has had only relatively minor changes (almost entirely in response to FAC comments) between the first nomination and now. Does that source review count, or do we need a new one? Epicgenius (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It needs a new one. Of course, the original source reviewer may feel able to provide this, with whatever changes to the earlier one they feel appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will ping Edwininlondon to see if they're interested in revising their earlier review or performing a source review. Epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Operation GrappleEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the British nuclear tests in the Pacific, where the first British thermonuclear devices were detonated. It is part of the Good Topic on British nuclear weapons. If successful, it will be the twelfth article in the topic to achieve featured status, and the whole topic will become featured. It wasn't my first choice for a FAC nomination, but I do think it is a worthy and interesting article in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There are some sections such as Grapple Z series, Grapple Series, and especially Preparations that are very long, harming readability. I would advise splitting into smaller subsections. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TkbrettEdit

I'm generally not a contributor to military history articles, but I'm a big fan of your work, so I'll give this one a go. Tkbrett (✉) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I've gone as far as the end of the Preparations section and will carry on tomorrow. Thoughts so far: the prose is fantastic; there's nothing unnecessarily ostentatious and it is exceedingly readable. That said, I think that adding subsections to the Preparations section would greatly improve readability given its length.
    I'm dubious of the claim that subsections improve readability in any way, and they cause problems with the layout. Anyhow, I have divided the section into subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In July 1954, the Cabinet decided to develop the hydrogen bomb. It is somewhat implied by the last sentence of the previous paragraph, but I think it would be helpful to add why the Cabinet felt it necessary to proceed with an H bomb.
    Yes, that is the argument. Tightened the text. The point is that Cabinet officially made the decision; in the UK decisions are more often taken by Cabinet subcommittees. There wasn't much discussion though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should have specified, I was referring to the sentence in the lead.
    I'm not sure how to handle this. had a go at it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Looks good to me.
  • I think tamper can be piped to neutron reflector.
    I should have a go at rewriting those articles. Last time I got only as far as revising the section on the Discovery of nuclear fission, which I made into a separate article. The tamper is not a neutron reflector. Its main role is to hold the core together for a shake or two longer thereby increasing the yield. By using a depleted uranium tamper which fissions from fast neutrons, the tamper also increases the yield that way too. About 30% of the yield of the Fat Man bomb used at Nagasaki came from fission of the natural uranium tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. The tamper disambiguation page led me to this misconception.
    I think there was some confusion when the neutron reflector article was written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Truman, Attlee and Eden aren't introduced or linked to.
    Linked. Added descriptions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The bombs would be detonated with a clockwork timer rather than a barometric switch. This meant that they had to be dropped from 45,000 feet (14,000 m).: I'm not clear on the connection here. Why does the use of a clockwork timer mean they had to be dropped from 45,000'?
    A timer means that it will explode after a certain amount of time. If you want it to explode at a certain height, you have to drop it from a corresponding height. An alternative would be to use a barometric fuze, which uses an pressure altimeter to guess the altitude. Better still would be to use a radar proximity fuze. The over-engineered Fat Man used all three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Using out high school physics, if the timer is set for 20 seconds, and want the bomb to explode at 12,000 m:
    g ≈ 10 m/s2, so we have
    Ah, understood.
  • Can Taylor instability be piped to Rayleigh–Taylor instability?
    Already linked to it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've looked through this article quite carefully again but I haven't found any obvious areas for improvement. This is a very well written and well researched article. Despite its technical nature it manages to convey information to the non-expert without any dumbing-down of content. For these reasons I'm happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ValereeeEdit

  • The lead sentence reads Operation Grapple was a set of four British nuclear weapons test series...the combination of set and series stopped me. It's a set of a series rather than a series of tests or a set of four series of tests? —valereee (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    A set of four series of tests. A nuclear test series is a group of sequential nuclear tests. Each test involves a separate detonation, but the tests in a series are usually related in purpose. As the lead says, there were four series: the first consisted of Grapple 1, 2 and 3 in May and June 1957; the second of just Grapple X in November 1957; the third of Grapple Y in April 1958; and the fourth of Grapple Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 in August and September 1958. Changed to "Operation Grapple was a set of four series of British nuclear weapons tests". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "and the restoration of the nuclear Special Relationship with the United States with the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement." with/with. Can this be rephrased to avoid?
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Temperatures are high, averaging 88 °F (31 °C) during the day and 78 °F (26 °C) at night, and humidity is very high, usually around 98 per cent." Why the present tense given that the rest of the passage is in the past tense and you're relying on a 1960 source?
    No reason I can recall; switched to past tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Air Commodore Wilfrid Oulton was appointed task force commander on 6 February 1956,[41][20]" refs out of order. Is this intended?
    No, adjusted order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " the Panama Canal, passing through the narrowest locks with just inches to spare." All the locks of the original Panama Canal were and are, as far as I can tell from a google search (and my own knowledge, having passed through on cruise ships several times) the same size. Does your source say otherwise?
    It says: "She had just a few inches clearance on each side as she passed through the narrowest part of the locks." Having never transited the Panama Canal, I had misunderstood the source. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " It was ultimately joined by four more RFAs, Fort Constantine, Gold Ranger, Fort Rosalie, Wave Prince and Salvictor.[52]" But you list five ships.
    That was interesting. I have corrected it. Added an extra paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " the Republic of Fiji Military Forces." Fiji was not independent until 1970 nor a republic until 1987. Were these forces called that then?
    Fiji Defence Force. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "the tests were denounced as a hoax intended to deceive the Americans into resuming nuclear cooperation;" This is a bit unclear. Denounced when? And by whom?
    In the 1990s. Added some names, but they don't have articles. The London Review of Books article is in the sources. One thing I've discovered over the years is that by adding retrospect, it is often possible to reconstruct events in a form that makes more sense than what actually happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Fijian Navy our article on same says that it was not formed until 1975.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "nightly radio programs" Should this be "programmes" if this is British English?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, who gave verbal approval, and a handful of officials.[120]" This would be Macmillan, but you do not say so (the last UK PM referred to is Eden) and when you finally refer to Macmillan, you do not link or say who he is.
    Well spotted. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by DumelowEdit

Hi Hawkeye7, It's been a long time since I studied any nuclear physics but I've taken a non-technical read through and make the following comments on the prose. I've only got down to "Grapple series" so far but will complete the review later - Dumelow (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Read through and comments now complete - Dumelow (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "In November 1952, the United States conducted Ivy Mike, the first successful test of a true thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb. Britain was therefore still several years behind in nuclear weapons technology", this suggests to the reader that thermonuclear devices were more modern or desirable but not why. Maybe "more powerful" or something would help here?
    Changed as suggested, but the reason is in the next sentence: the maintenance of great power status required that Britain also develop the thermonuclear weapons. I didn't want to get too deeply into this here because it is covered in the main article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "A Cabinet meeting 27 July accepted this argument, and directed the Lord President to proceed with the development of thermonuclear weapons." missing "on" before date
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire was directed by William Penney, with William Cook as his deputy." The article for the AWE states it was known as the "Atomic Weapons Research Establishment" until 1987
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Testing of the boosted designs was carried out in the Operation Mosaic tests in the Montebello Islands in May and June 1956" the only British weapon you've previously described as boosted is Orange Herald, but presumably this wasn't tested this early. What weapon was tested? Or was it non-detonation testing?
    The tests involved detonations. Orange Herald was a boosted weapon, but the important point was that it had an oraalloy tamper. Re-worded to clarify this.
  • Also: "This was a sensitive matter; there was an agreement with Australia that no thermonuclear testing would be carried out there" You've previously only described Green Bamboo and Green Granite as thermonuclear and neither of these were tested until much later.
    Correct. The weapons tested in Mosaic were boosted, not thermonuclear. But this sort of detail was secret back in 1955. Added: the devices tested in Mosaic were not thermonuclear to make this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "which was larger than the 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) limit on tests in Australia" this is presumably a different limit to the 2.5x Hurricane limit you mention in the previous sentence, as this would be 62.5 kilotonnes?
    Correct. The two PMs had agreed (perhaps unknowingly) to lift the limit slightly. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "HMS Narvik would reprise the role of control ship it had in Hurricane; but it was also required for Mosaic, and had very little time to return to the Chatham Dockyard for a refit before heading out to Christmas Island for Grapple" Would "it had also been required for Mosaic" be better, as this was a past event?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • RFA Fort Constantine, HMS Messina seem to be plausible redlinks. Potentially J. E. S. Stone also (he only reached brigadier but was a CBE)
    Red linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Narvik would have to spend long periods of time at Malden," I don't think we've said Malden was to be the site of the bomb test yet, last time it was mentioned it was still a toss up between it and McKean.
    Moved the bit about Malden up higher. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "By the end of April, 31 of the men, and all the women and children had been taken to Fanning Island by RAF Hastings" you've only mentioned the full name of the aircraft in a caption previously so I missed it and was momentarily confused, perhaps expand to Handley Page Hastings and link?
    I see its named in full and linked in Grapple series, so this just needs moving up the article
    Moved up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Grapple series
  • "The yield was a very disappointing 300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ), even less than Short Granite." We've previously stated that the Short Granite test was also 300 kilotonnes so either there's a rounding issue or it should be "about the same as Short Granite"?
    Whoops. Should be 200 kt of TNT. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "chalked up" strikes me as a bit colloquial
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "sports such as soccer" football in British English, never soccer. If absolutely necessary (I don't think so in this case as a misunderstanding is not going to change anything important) "association football".
    Changed to "football" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Grapple X
  • "Rear Admiral Patrick from the US Navy, and Brigadier General John W. White from the USAF" Do we know Patrick's first name? Also probably both redlinkable
    Goldsborough Serpell Patrick. He already has an article. Red-linked White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Created a new article on White at John W. White (general) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Grapple Z Series
  • I don't think the location of the Pendant and Burgee tests are not explicitly stated, were they above Christmas Island itself? Likewise locations of Flagpole and Halliard, which were presumably somewhere off the coast?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "This was the first live drop of a British nuclear weapon using blind radar technique" I am not sure I understand this bit. Does it mean it was aimed by radar alone?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The British decided to adapt the Mark 28 as a British weapon as a cheaper alternative to doing their own development, which became Red Snow." Link Mark 28 to B28 nuclear bomb
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Other weapons were supplied through Project E, under which weapons in American custody were supplied for the use of the RAF and British Army." Repetition of "supplied" maybe replace the second one with "provided" or similar?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " Under the Mutual Defence Agreement 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium was sent to the US in return for 6.7 kilograms (15 lb) of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium between 1960 and 1979, replacing production of the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire, although much of the highly enriched uranium was used not for weapons, but as fuel for the growing UK fleet of nuclear submarines." Feels like a very long sentence
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose. One follow up question: you say the 1960-79 supply of American enriched Uranium "replaced production from the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire". Capenhurst is still producing to this day (I think), for power station use, was it not producing anything in this period or just not for nuclear weapons? - Dumelow (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It produces enriched uranium for power stations but no longer the highly enriched uranium used for weapons and nuclear submarine propulsion. (Hill, An Atomic Empire, p. 99) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

All paras have at least one citation at the end, and the article is closely cited throughout, there are no formatting issues, with one exception (see below) all necessary ref fields are there to enable verification, the sources all look reliable to me except fn 62 and 63 (given what they are citing is very mundane orbat information, I think they can be given a pass), and the MA dissertation mentioned below. The only outstanding queries are:

  • The London Review of Books cite (Dombey and Grove) uses page numbers, but the linked online version doesn't have page numbers, thus there should probably be an issn for the hard copy referred to.
    Added ISSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, McIntyre's MA dissertation is questionable. Has it been shown to have had significant scholarly influence? If not, it is probably not reliable.
    What a shame. Moved to the Further reading section Replaced with references to Arnold & Pyne. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pringle's Guardian article is used as a ref, so should be dropped from the EL list.
    Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

All good then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Transcaucasian Democratic Federative RepublicEdit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A second nomination here. I had this nominated a few months ago, but due to some personal events was unable to address comments and it was closed. I'm now back and ready to go, and addressed comments from the first nomination. That said, the TDFR was a month-long state that existed in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution in the South Caucasus. It was a union of the three main ethnic groups there, and was never a viable state, spending its entire existence negotiation an end to the Ottoman Empire's invasion. With that in mind, it's not a conventional country article, as the TDFR was not a conventional country, and is more a history of the events at this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review pass per the last FAC. Glad to see this back here! (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking through (both sets, as the case has been). And glad to be here again and ready to follow through. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I believe I reviewed the entire article last time around, but it's a bit difficult to get an overview of the changes without point by point responses. Would it make sense to copy my points from the old FAC here so you could comment on them, or have they all just been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I worked to address everything you noted before, but if you see anything not done please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Few more things below, repeating some of the older points. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • German Empire is now linked twice in the intro.
This seems to have somehow disappeared, not sure how... FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As last, does O.S. have to be linked at every mention?
For the dates, that is something I wanted to get the opinion of reviewers on. I'm fine going with either using the OS/NS mention each time, or only once; not sure if there's a standard for that here.
Hmmm, I don't have strong feelings about it, just looks a bit funny. Maybe someone else will chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I do agree, and like I said I'm not committed to the style as is. I do have the note about the dates (currently note b), which may be enough, but I'm also familiar with the issues of dates in this era/topic and realize others aren't, so didn't want to just go with it until I gather some feedback. It is clunky though. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Still some names and places left that could be linked in image captions?
Believe they are all linked now. If there's something I'm missing please let me know.
Maybe also Caucasus and British Army? FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, linked those. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "However they were concerned that the local population, who were mostly Muslims" is/was the Caucasus really majority Muslim?
That refers to the people of eastern Anatolia, who at that point would have been majority Muslim.
  • "however there were three major local groups: Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, while Russians had also established themselves after the Russian Empire absorbed the area." Linki each ethnicity here at first mention outside the intro?
Thanks, thought I had that done already. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this looks good now, and I've double checked all my points from the previous FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, both for supporting and reviewing (twice, as it is). Kaiser matias (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I will have another thorough view tomorrow or so. Had a cursory glance and I noticed you edited the first sentence of the body. Looks much better now IMO. Also, I just added two notes (one in the lede, one in the body) which I believe are pretty important in helping our readers obtain a better understanding of the situation's complexity. Feel free to remove one if you think a single mention is sufficient. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and I agree that is something worth noting. I did remove the second note though, as I think it's sufficient to have once in the lead. Looking forward to your comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


  • The first sentence has decreased in quality since I reviewed this at GAN. "included territories of the present-day" is a lot less specific, and feels somewhat misleading considering in some cases it was almost all of the territory.
Agreed, and that was not a change I made, and one that does make it weaker. I've re-worded it to note it included most of the three states mentioned
  • Is there a way to shift the mention of the First World War to earlier in the lead, to contextualise "peace talks with the Ottoman Empire"?
I reworked it a bit, let me know if you think that will do.
  • Is the German support for Georgian independence due such emphasis in the lead? The article text seems to suggest the only intervention they made was to have a meeting at an embassy, with the final point being Von Lossow consulting with the government.
No, I think that can be cut.
  • A sentence reflecting the legacy section would help the lead reflect the entirety of the article.
  • Is the new note [c] "Now the capital of Azerbaijan" needed? That's a long line to draw through time, and the city is wikilinked. If the note mentioned it became the capital of the immediately subsequent independent Azerbaijan it would fit the context, although I'm still not sure it would be necessary.
That was somethign @FunkMonk: noted in the previous FAC: "State what country this is in today, as with Georgia?". I do think it is worth noting that it is in a different modern country than Tbilisi is, as it further shows the ethnic diversity of the region.
  • The phrase "which would not be subservient to Russia" seems a bit odd in the context of its section. Later it says "the Commissariat did not want to act independently of Russia". Should it specifically be not subservient to the Bolsheviks?
It should, thanks. Changed the wording.
  • "sporadic attacks by Armenian militias on the Muslim population", is that sporadic attack on the Muslim population in the TDFR or in the Ottoman Empire? If in the TDFR, were these attacks actually happening, and if so did they have any domestic impact given the composition of the TDFR?
It was occupied Ottoman territory; clarified.
  • The Establishment section is where the article suddenly switches from referring to the groups in the Sjem by ethnicity, to referring to them by party name (Dashnaks/Musavats/Mensheviks). Is there a reason for this switch? For Dashnak especially, I don't think a casual reader would instantly recognise it is a contraction of Dashnaktsutyun. The section also includes "the Georgians leading the debate", using ethnicity, making it internally inconsistent too. If it is important to refer to the party names here, perhaps they could have the ethnicities as adjectives, at least in this period of initial use?
It's a bit confusing I'll agree. For the most part each party did represent one ethnic group (Menshevik for Georgians; Dashnaks for Armenians; Musavat for Azerbaijanis) and are almost used as synonyms in sources, with some exceptions of course. I'd argue that for the political discussions that followed (and come up at this point), party identity was a more important qualifier, and it would be incorrect to not note that. But at the same time I agree it should be made clear, and switching without clarity is not good. I'll work on this, but if you have any thoughts I'm open to that as well.
  • "the Ottoman issued an ultimatum to the defenders in Batum" is an instance of "the Ottoman" that should be fixed.
  • "Both sides thus invited observers". Is the "thus" accurate there? If so, how does it specifically relate to the decision not to have the central powers present?
Not really; I changed the wording, but I think it can be better.
  • As mentioned above, if German intervention was so crucial, it does not come through to me in the German intervention subsection. Perhaps there is some historiography on the matter?
I don't think it needs more expansion at this point; the mention of it in the lead was added later on, and I don't agree that it fits here. For the article on the Georgian Democratic Republic it should get more coverage for sure (and I'd like to tackle that in the future), but I'm comfortable with it as is in this article.
  • "effectively ending the conflict for good.[96] However Armenia continued to fight" feels like a contradiction. If the fighting shifted to Georgia and Azerbaijan, I'm not sure it is correct to say they "continued" to fight, as the previous fight was with the Ottoman Empire. "continued" also contradicts "for good".
Agreed; I changed the wording to make it less contradictory.
  • "Under Bolshevik rule the three successor states would be forceibly reunited within the Soviet Union as the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, this would only exist between 1922 and 1936 before being broken up again into three union republics." This is quite a long sentence, could it be split at the comma? Further, not sure the "only" is applicable here, 14 years is not that short a time compared to one month.
Good point. I also added the Soviet states that were created on the break-up; feel that is worth mentioning.

Let me know if these comments/questions make sense, best, CMD (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed everything, and have two queries of my own (about Baku, and the ethnicity/party designator). Let me know if you have anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


  • "lived state in" link "state", it has masses of different meanings.
  • "declared independence" is there a link for that?
  • " a Provisional Government took" this is captalised but it's not the formal name so I'd expect it to be in sentence case.
  • "the Ottoman Empire, who had invaded the region, in March 1918, " too many clauses, maybe "the Ottoman Empire in March 1918, who had invaded the region, "
  • "in the War" again, sentence case.
  • "to continue on" no need for "on".
  • "Georgian Democratic Republic " our article calls it the "Democratic Republic of Georgia". Which was the correct formal name in English?
  • "to it's short" its
  • "towards their own " who is "their" here?
  • "A Caucasian Viceroyalty " what does that mean?
  • "the administration was reformed" which administration?
  • "city of significance" in what sense?
  • Which version of English is this article? I see "theatre" and yet I see "recognized", "jeopardized" etc.
  • "Armenians, launching the Armenian genocide by" repetitive, and for me "launching" a genocide" is a weird way of putting it. Perhaps "commenced"? Or "initiated"?
  • "Grand Duke Nicholas" piped to a redirect which is a little odd.
  • "yet he was forced to resign his post" why?
  • "acroynm, Ozakom[e] on" comma before the footnote.
  • "in Petrograd[f], " horrible, put the footnote after the comma.
  • "with soviets (councils).[24]" reads odd, perhaps make a footnote to explain what lower case soviets mean.
  • " Menshevik Noe Jordania, " this is a sea of blue, as a non-expert I had no idea there were two links there.
  • "was not able to govern strongly" why not?
  • "comprised some ten different" why "some ten"?
  • "Sovnarkom[h]).[36]" again, horrible markup. Maybe just chuck [h] before [36].
  • Link Anatolia.
  • " 2 March, however" feels like two sentences.
  • "a former Russian general now following " now??
  • "Trebizond Peace Conference" appears to be capitalised.
  • And why "finally"?
  • "the October Revolution central" comma after Revolution.

Takes me to "Formation". More soon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

1989 World Snooker ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the sixth world snooker championship won by Steve Davis, and, to quote Clive Everton, "such was his dominance that it would have been impossible to predict with confidence that he would never win the title again." John Parrott won only three frames in the final, against Davis's 18. Thanks in advance for any suggestions to improve the article. I'm able to provide copies of offline sources on request. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing is acceptable (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Support 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.

As I did the GA review previously, you can see previous comments there.

  • WPBSA isn't used again in the lede, so no need to state the acronym. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel like the winner/defending champion is more integral to the event than the qualifying round. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning how many total participants there was. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel like something mentioning that there was four sessions in the final, and Davis won so well that there was no final session. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it "World Championship" or "world championship"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The breakdown of prize money for the 1989 championship - I feel the 1989 is implied Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Qualifying matches took place at Preston Guild Hall from 22 March to 4 April 1989,[21] for 126 players, 16 of whom reached the main stage, where they met the 16 invited seeded players - could probably split into two sentences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we add that the qualifying matches were best of 19? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Three-time champion John Spencer lost 1–10 to Steve Duggan, who in an earlier round had eliminated another former champion, Fred Davis.[10 - could we reword this to celebrate Duggans wins, rather than the champions losses? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • quarter-finals could do with a bit more commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I've expanded this slightly, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of these other than around the Meo/Reynolds controversy. I could add some more match progress/frame score info. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


  • "The winner received..." seems odd to say it like this since you've already named the winner...
  • "These competitors in the main tournament... The top 16 players in the world rankings automatically ..." feels like you're saying the same thing twice.
  • Image captions all look like complete sentences so need full stops.
  • "imposed by the WPBSA for" overlinked.
  • I would link beta blocker.
  • "In the final round" qualifying.
  • "played Steve Newbury" do we need to repeat first names if the surname is unambiguous?
  • It may need rewording to avoid a sea of blue but I imagine we should link "fluked".
  • "third to 20th" third/twentieth or 3rd/20th.
  • "7-10" en-dash.
  • "match-ball pots" what are they?
  • "the FA Cup semi-final" you can link the actual FA Cup edition.
  • " Nottingham Forest F.C. and Liverpool F.C.." drop the F.C.'s which helpfully removes that double full stop.
  • "Hallett compiled a 133 break when 2–12 behind, and lost " and feels odd, "but" might seem better.
  • "re-spotted black" explain/link for non-experts.
  • I note you link yellow (ball) but not the other colours/red? (Oh, apart from pink)
  • Links are already at "slightly touching a red ball", and "match-ball pots on the black". Green, brown and blue aren't mentioned. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " best-of-35 frames " hyphen between 35 + frames.
  • " in-off" again, jargon needs link/explanation.
  • "equal Ray Reardon's total" first name again?
  • "Snooker historian Clive Everton" well he was a player first... Indeed he played in this tournament!
  • We're spoilt for choice for decriptions of Everton. He was a leading billiards amateur from the early 1950s, has been a journalist/editor since at least the mid-1960s (I think he had articles in The Billiard Player even in the 50's), a TV commentator, and author. His book The Story of Billiards and Snooker was published in 1979, about two years before he became a professional player. I used "snooker historian" as that's the role the quote is in, but happy to add a note that he played too. How about something like ",who played in the qualifying rounds of the tournament," ? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't see the utility in repeating the frame scores on either side of the table summary, I think that's just plain confusing.
  • I think it would be worth mentioning the referee in the prose, not just in the table summary.
  • "19 century breaks in the" overlinked.
  • ""by Stephen Hendry" overlinked.
  • I would put a colon after each century score list, looks a bit odd without.
  • "by Darren Morgan" overlinked.
  • ISBN formats should be consistent.
  • Ref 5, BBC News not linked?
  • Ref 39, isn't that BBC News?
  • Ref 8, no need for wpbsa.
  • Some works are linked more than once, some not at all, what's the strategy?

That's all I have at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review, The Rambling Man. I have some work to do on the last of the points above, but in the meantime would appreciate your feedback on the following:
  • The rewording of the part that previously included "match-ball pots"
  • How to describe Clive Everton in the article
  • Suitable template for the final. I also really dislike the two sets of scores, but that seems to have been accepted in other articles that have been through FA.
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Liberté-class battleshipEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This article covers a group of four French battleships built in the early 1900s, as part of a large naval program aimed at countering German naval expansion. They were nearly repeats of the preceding République-class battleships, but with an increased secondary armament to keep pace with developments abroad. One of them, Liberté, was destroyed in an accidental explosion in 1911, but the remainder saw action during World War I and were discarded in the years after. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

All the images used are in public domain and are properly captioned. There are no issues with the images. Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has attracted little interest. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll post some notices and see if I can't scare up any reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


I'll review this. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  • "as he correctly determined that their shallow belt armor would render them vulnerable to flooding from hits above the belt that could dangerously destabilize the vessels" - is there a way to move the clauses around? I'm presuming that it's the flooding that could destabilize the vessels, but the current phrasing suggests the above-waterline hits themselves did the destablizing
    • Reworded
  • "At an economical cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ships could steam for 8,400 nautical miles (15,600 km; 9,700 mi)" - is this range for normal or full load of coal?
    • That I don't know, Jordan & Caresse don't specify, unfortunately.
  • Infobox gives dates built as being from 1903 to 1908. Shouldn't the start date be 1902 because that's when Liberte was laid down?
    • Good catch
  • "Early on 25 September, while it Toulon, Liberté was destroyed by an accidental magazine explosion that killed nearly three hundred of her crew" - I think you're missing a word in here
    • "It" probably should have been "in" or "at" - Zawed fixed it already.
  • Sources all appear to be reliable

Anticipate supporting, this looks like it is in very good shape. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; did not check against others. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


This looks to be in fairly good order. I have only a few nitpicks for consideration:

  • Perhaps make it explicit that the first two ships of the six were of the République class? It's implied but may not get picked up by the casual reader.
    • Good idea
  • In the final sentence of the design section, the phrase "entered service" is used twice in relatively close succession, suggest rephrasing one of them
    • Fixed
  • In the 2nd paragraph of the general characteristics section, is the "foremast" the same as the "forward mast"?
    • Yes, switched the second to "foremast"
  • In the infobox, the Built field states 1903–1908, but the construction details in the Ships section, says Liberté was laid down in 1902.
  • Striking the above comment, HF has picked this up as well. Zawed (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, this looks to be in good shape. Zawed (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to Support. Zawed (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


Checked on the prose only. Looking good, only a few minor comments some of which might just be my personal preference, so feel free to disagree or ignore! - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Is Fleet Law of 1900 worth redlinking as a realistic target for a new article? We have articles on the German laws
    • And the Naval Defence Act 1889, for instance. But I don't know about the French law; the British one is pretty widely recognized for its impact (setting the famed two power standard and ordering the first of the pre-dreadnought type battleships) and the German naval laws obviously played a major role in the Anglo-German naval arms race (which was a contributing cause of WWI). In the French case, however, I don't know that I've seen it discussed in a wider context, and it didn't really factor into German planning (Tirpitz was of course focused on the Royal Navy). All that is to say, I don't know that an article will ever be written on it, but I suppose a redlink doesn't hurt anything, so I could go either way. What do you think?
I tend to err on the side of adding redlinks in case it inspires somebody to have a go, but happy either way (and it's not really an FAC matter)
  • Seems a bit strange to say the class was required as part of the expansion of 1900 and then to talk about design beginning in 1897. Perhaps mention that the new class was based on a design Bertin had been working on before?
    • I dunno about this - in between the authorization and design work beginning is the bit about Bertin becoming the DCCN in 1896 and his advocacy before then. I suppose it makes sense to me that ships are generally designed and then the navy asks for money to build them. But I think even without that knowledge, it should be easy to follow the section, since Bertin is the one driving the process.
Fair enough. Probably just my ignorance of naval construction, I had assumed "authorised" meant "authorised to start any work on the class" rather than "authorised to put a design already completed into construction"


  • "Coal storage amounted to 900 t (890 long tons) normally and up to 1,800 t (1,800 long tons) at full load. At an economical cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ships could steam for 8,400 nautical miles (15,600 km; 9,700 mi)" is that at the normal or full load of coal?
    • That I don't know, unfortunately - Jordan & Caresse don't specify
No problem


  • "The ship's main belt armor consisted of two strakes of cemented steel that was 280 mm (11 in) amidships" Presumably the 280mm is a combined thickness of the two strakes?
    • No, they weren't layered, one was above the other (because French armor manufacturers couldn't roll plate wide enough to cover the full height)
Oh, I see. You helpfully link strake, but I ignored it! No issue here
  • "Forward, it extended all the way forward to the stem" maybe just "forward, it extended all the way to the stem"?
    • Good idea
  • "The trunks down to the magazines were covered by 84 mm (3.3 in) above the main deck and 14 mm (0.55 in) below, where it was behind the belt." Do we know what this armor was made of?
    • Clarified

Service History

  • "Most notably among these visits was a voyage by the 2nd Division ships across the Atlantic to represent France at the Hudson–Fulton Celebration in the United States in 1909" is "most notable.." better?
    • Yes, I think so
  • "She participated in bombardment of Ottoman coastal fortifications there in November" perhaps "in the bombardment"?
    • Good catch
  • "The 2nd Squadron ships were then sent to Greece to put pressure on the neutral but pro-German government; they sent men ashore in December to support a coup launched by pro-Allied elements in the government, but were compelled to retreat by the Greek Army." This is December 1916 according to the lead but follows a sentence talking about 1915 so the reader assumes that year
    • Fixed


  • "The French ultimately intervened in a coup that overthrew the Greek king and brought the country into the war" The main body text only mentions the coup of December 1916, that the ships of the class participated in, which was unsuccessful. Though does state the Greek king was forced to abdicate in June 1917 the implication is that this was only under French pressure rather than direct action
    • Added a bit more detail in the body
Yes, this clears that up well. Thanks
  • "Following the Allied victory, Justice and Démocratie were sent to the Black Sea to monitor German forces as they demilitarized Russian warships they had seized during the war," the main text just says "to oversee the demilitarization of Russian warships that had been seized by German forces during the war", not that the demilitarisation was carried out by German forces
    • Done
  • "The other two ships remained in commission until 1920, when they too were deactivated" main text states that Justice was reduced to reserve in 1920 and decommissioned in 1921. It only mentions that Démocratie was struck from the register in 1921
    • Clarified (I think)
  • " All three were sold for scrap in 1921 and broken up in Italy." main text only states that Vérité and Démocratie were broken up in Italy and does not explicitly give a year for their sale.
Works for me
Support on prose - Dumelow (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

All the sources are reliable, and exactly what you would expect on a class of French pre-dreadnoughts. I haven't done spotchecks, but AGF given Parsecboy's long history at FAC. The only minor thing I could see was fn 17 should be pp. not p. A couple of details that might be worth adding are that the Danton class were a development of the Liberté class. Ref is French Battleships 1922-1956 by John Jordan and Robert Dumas, p. 9 [11] and that the Liberté class continued the general trend towards a heavier secondary battery. Ref is Navies of Europe by Lawrence Sondhaus, p. 123 [12]. Couldn't find anything else pertinent for a class article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PM - the details about the heavier secondary battery is already mentioned (see the last para in the design section), but I added a line about the Dantons. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note IIEdit

This could do with a prose review by a non-MilHist editor. I have put it on Urgents in the hope of attracting one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Content review by MoisejpEdit

OK, I can do the requested non-MilHist prose review.


  • "the first two of which were the République". Should this be "the first two of which were the République and the Patrie"?
  • Yeah, something is missing there - either that or add "class" to the line (and I opted for the latter, to avoid the issue that it might not be immediately clear that Patrie was a member of the Republique class.)
  • By the way, these two ships are wiki-linked in Service History near the bottom of the article, but République is not wiki-linked in Design. Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "as he correctly determined that their shallow belt armor would render them vulnerable to hits above the belt that could cause flooding that would dangerously destabilize the vessels". Just double-checking that "correctly" adds value to the sentence. Does the sentence imply that before he was able to implement his plans, some vessels did become flooded due this flaw—and if so should this detail be added to the text? (Or if no vessels ended up suffering this fate, are we sure that he was correct?) Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, he was most certainly correct - the French battleship Gaulois was badly damaged by Ottoman shellfire in 1915 (and very nearly sank), and the French battleship Bouvet rapidly capsized and sank after hitting an Ottoman mine the same day, also a result of the stability problems Bertin identified. I don't know that it really needs to be mentioned here, as it seems to me to be a bit of a tangent.
  • If the reader wonders "How do we know he was correct? Was there an instance of this problem?" then that's distracting. Details in the text shouldn't result in more questions than they answer. My suggestion is if you just remove the word, the reader is left wondering a lot less. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "13,600 metric tons" vs. "15,000 t". Also various mentions of "metric tonnes" vs. just "t" in infobox, General characteristics, and Machinery sections. Moisejp (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • "t" is the abbreviation for metric tons, there isn't a US-specific one
  • Parsecboy, sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand they're the same, but if it were me I would have been consistent about choosing one or the other to use. I guess it's not a deal-breaker though, if you disagree. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

World War I:

  • "The ships of the 2nd Squadron steamed to Algiers, escorted a convoy of troop ships carrying some 7,000 men until they were relieved midway to France by the dreadnoughts Jean Bart and Courbet." Should this be "and escorted" or possibly "escorted by" or "escorting"? Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • There is something wrong there - changed to "Algiers, and then escorted..."

My only other comment is—and I'm not sure if this is usual for warship articles—the Design section seems to take up two thirds of the main text, but most of the section does not seem to be represented (summarized) in the lead. Maybe there are too many small details about the design, and it's therefore hard to summarize? Perhaps just a couple of sentences along the lines of "Features of the ship class included..." with a small number of examples could be one way to do it? Well, that's just an idea. If you have good reasons for not adding any more of this section to the lead, no worries, I'm happy to trust your judgment. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less it - there's not a good way to summarize the technical material. There already are a couple of lines about the ships' armament (and what set them apart from the Republiques) - I suppose I can add a bit about their top speed.

I support but I have left two comments that I gently urge you to consider. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Parsecboy, just checking you've seen the source review and other comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was on vacation last week and didn't have the time to get to any of it. Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

2014 World Snooker ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Really good event this one. Let me know what you think :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Logo Snooker-WM 2014.jpg is well above threshold of originality
  • Otherwise the licensing looks OK
  • Other images should be clearly labeled as not being taken at this particular competition (t · c) buidhe 23:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I've gone through the article and added alt and labelling the years and such. I have removed the offending image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

  • I got a whole heap of duplicate links, rather than list them all here, perhaps better for you to use the tool to identify and resolve them all.
  • "Neil Robertson compiled.." link 'im.
  • "Mark Selby won the event to capture..." mildly confusing as your previously mentioned "event" was the previous year's world championship...
  • ""tournament, a 140 and" comma after 140.
  • " A qualifying tournament..." feels like this ought to go in chronological order in the lead.
  • Lead feels a touch light, perhaps include how those not going through the qualifying tournament made it in there?
  • "The World Snooker Championship features 32 professional players..." should have noticed this before, perhaps it's worth clarifying that this was the rule in effect at the time of this particular tournament, as I imagine previous tournaments (and who knows, perhaps future tournaments) won't be in the same format.
  • "As of 2020 Stephen Hendry is the" comma after 2020 and presumably we can now make that 2021?
  • "the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." as you use WPBSA in the infobox, I would add the initialism here.
  • "was held at the Crucible Theatre, first held..." held.. held repetitive.
  • "ranking event of" events.
  • "sponsored by sports betting company Dafabet" you said in the lead it was the first time so that should be covered and expanded upon in the body, e.g. who previously sponsored it and for how long?
  • "Six-time champion Steve Davis..." caption is a complete sentence so use a full stop, and check the others.
  • "a match he needed to win " who?
  • Six-times vs six-time vs two-time... consistency.
  • "play at the event" main event?
  • "failed to play at the event for the first time since ... failed to play at the event for the first time since..." repetitive.
  • "Six-time runner-up Jimmy White" as you already said "runner-up" could you say "finalist" or something different here?
  • "1997 champion" no link?
  • "O'Sullivan defeated Hull 10–4." merge this tiny sentence into the previous one.
  • "and later 10–2" well, he won 10–2...
  • "a record number he jointly" no need for number.
  • "North Anston" wouldn't "Rotherham" (linked) make more sense for our global audience?
  • "best-of-25 frames matches" -> "best-of-25-frame matches"
  • "Ronnie O'Sullivan trailed..." no need for Ronnie unless there are two O'Sullivans.
  • Indeed, what's the strategy on repeating first names here?
  • "won frame 20 by" maybe "won the 20th frame by" to avoid mixing frame numbers and frame scores.

That takes me to "Quarter-finals", hopefully some of this is useful. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  • "best-of-25 frames matches" -> "best-of-25-frames matches" (the "best-of-25-frames" is the adjective...) and apply similar throughout.
  • "due to the length..." I guess you mean due to slow play?
    • You could say that, but the sources don't say that. There's a few different reasons why a session might run long. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mark Selby and Alan McManus.." Selby gets mentioned four times in three sentences which is a little jarring.
  • I wouldn't split the Dale/Hawkins QF across paras.
  • "O'Sullivan lead at 10–2," -> "O'Sullivan led 10–2,"
  • General: while there's no doubt the factual material here is on point, I wonder if there's any critical commentary that can be drawn in, e.g. did anyone do particularly well, badly, surprisingly? Was there any bad behaviour? Any criticisms of playing surfaces, conditions, tables, refereeing? Any reactions from outside the two finalists?
    • So, there is *sometimes* comments about the tables and how they play, but they are generally kept on the downlow. Nowadays the cloth is very, very good, and rarely has issues (although this years there was a little bit of commentary about this). Nothing from the 2014 event that I could find. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Brendan Moore.[98][99]" no full stop.
  • That table is odd, repeating the frame scores on both sides and just bolding alternatively. Why do we need to do that in a two-player match, isn't it obvious that one score was O'Sullivan's and the other was Selby's?
    • Yeah, I think I probably need to swap it out for {{32TeamBracket-WSC2-v2}}, might take me a little bit, as there's quite a bit of work involved. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Didn't take as long as I thought, but as infuriating as I thought. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Alfie Burden appears to be piped to a redirect back to itself.
  • "100 Neil Robertson..." etc, I think a colon would be useful after each list of centuries.
  • Check refs for sources in titles, e.g. ref 12.
        • I mean, sure, but we should still get consensus if possible, even if we don't need to be uniform. I've made the changes as per this request, but also opened the floor to see if it's suitable across the board, and what the feelings are at WT:SNOOKER#Century lists punctuation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What's the strategy on publisher/work linking? I see multiple ESPN linked, but things like Bleacher Report (which isn't italicised in our article) and The Guardian not linked every time.
    • I'll remove the links. I don't particularly like them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Support for prose from ShooterwalkerEdit

Going to take a shot at the prose. I don't have a lot of familiarity with snooker championships, but I can for sure comment on the grammar and readability. Expect more comments soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Working through my comments now. Feel free to push back on any of these. If I'm asking, it's because you may have a good reason for something being the way it is, and you can use judgment to decide where changes are appropriate.
  • The first sentence is always really important, so you can explain what it is to the reader and not confuse or lose them. I'd ask if you really need to bring in the other title, let alone explain that the alternate title is driven by sponsorship.
  • "Crucible and the tournament was..." -> "Crucible. The tournament was also..." (break into two sentences for readability, rather than two fragments joined by "and")
  • Otherwise looks pretty good.
  • "The 32 players for the event" -> "The 32 players" or "These 32 players" (you already established that these are 32 players for the event)
  • Is it that important to know where the first championship took place, let alone who won?
    • I think it's relevant to get across that this isn't a championship that took place once. This is almost 90 years of play - so a bit of colour stating what happened in the first event is suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it perhaps more relevant to know where things stood in 2014, rather than where things stand now in 2021? Some of these details are more important for the broader World Snooker Championship, where I'd expect this to focus more on a historic moment in 2014.
    • I get what you mean - thing is Hendry has won the event the most times since the 1990s, so I generally just use an up to date source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Related, there is an irregular mix of tense here. It being a past event, you might just want to use "was" in most instances.
  • It feels like there might be some redundancy between the format subsection and the prior section – the location, it being in use since 1977, the number of participants. I actually like how it's written in this section better, and it's more clear.
  • "The total prize money for the 2014 World Snooker Championship was raised to £1,214,000 from the previous year's £1,111,000." -> "The total prize money for the 2014 World Snooker Championship was £1,214,000, a raise from the previous year's £1,111,000."
First round
  • "The first round was played as best-of-19-frames" -> "The first round was played as a best-of-19-frames over" (this seems more grammatical, but ignore me if this is more of a term of the game)
    • Should have been "as best-of-19 frame matches, held over two sessions". Else, "as the best-of-19-frames". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "In his first round match he was defeated 9–10 by debutant Michael Wasley and so failed to set a new record for tournament wins in a season" -> perhaps a comma to organize this a bit.
Second round
  • "as best-of-25-frames" or "as a best-of-25-frames"? Likewise for the first sentence in the next two subsections.
  • "throughout both of the first two sessions" -> feels a little redundant. "throughout the first two sessions" would suffice
  • "McManus played Doherty and won six frames in a row from 4–3 ahead to lead 10–3 and later won 13–8" -> probably needs a comma
  • "completed seven of the scheduled eight frames in the first session of their match due to the length" -> is this a common thing? did they run out of time?
    • Yeah, it's not uncommon, but reasonably rare. Matches are generally played starting at 10 AM, 2 PM and 6 PM. If you overrun, you might not finish. The big deal is that then your later sessions need to be even longer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "take the led 12–11," -> "take the lead 12–11,"
  • "O'Sullivan lead at 10–2," -> "O'Sullivan led at 10–2," (a reverse of the last lead/led issue)
  • "O'Sullivan himself last achieved this feat in 2004 when he defeated Anthony Hamilton 13–3 in the quarter-finals and Stephen Hendry 17–4 in the semi-finals.[78] That year, O'Sullivan won the championship one frame into the final session.[79]" -> this feels like a tangent, and might be summed up in one sentence with less detail
  • "Selby had previously reached the final in 2007, when he lost to John Higgins.[82]" -> similar thing that breaks the flow. Could be as simple as rephrasing to ", his first time reaching the final since 2007." It helps keep the reader grounded in 2014, instead of jumping all around.
  • "This was the first time that Moore had presided over a World Championship final.[85] In the first session on Sunday afternoon, O'Sullivan took a 5–3 lead, which he extended in the evening session to 8–3 and 10–5, before Selby took the last two frames of the day to leave O'Sullivan with a 10–7 overnight lead." -> this might work better as two shorter sentences
  • "I want to congratulate Mark on a fantastic tournament. He's been the best player over 17 days, that was tough he had me in all sorts of trouble. In the end I was numb as he was too strong and tough" -> this isn't totally grammatical, and might need a comma. You could also shorten it to focus on what you feel is the important part.
  • The rest of it looks generally good. Some minor grammatical issues but this is within striking distance of featured quality prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this Shooterwalker! All seems reasonable, bar for a couple of points I'll address. Give me a day or two and I'll have this done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I have addressed/changed all of the above Shooterwalker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Very close now. A few lingering comments:
        • Now that you've gone with the construction "the best-of-X-frames", you should change the other instances. (Usually the opening sentence in each sub-section).
        • "Selby and McManus only completed seven of the scheduled eight frames in the first session of their match due to the length" -> your explanation on this review page made more sense to me than this did in the article, and it's probably because "length" is ambiguous as a measure of space/distance. It took me a little bit to understand what you meant, and I'd make it clear you mean time. For example "of their match due to running of out of time", or even better, "of their match as they ran out of time".
        • Watch for other reviewers who have an opinion on some of the background section. I do feel like what happened in 2021 is a tangent, but if I'm the only one, then it's nothing I would insist on changing.
      • With those, the prose will be in excellent shape and very readable. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, cool. I've covered those two points. Happy to keep it open, but bare in mind we currently have 7 other World Snooker Championship articles at FA with similar background. Happy to get a consensus though :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree and it's probably best to wait for other reviewers. I fixed a typo for you, and otherwise it looks great. Happy to support. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review - BennyOnTheLooseEdit

Source Review

  • Reliability - sources all look OK. Quite a few WPBSA (therefore non-independent) sources but these are used for supporting non-controversial information.
  • 11 - missing publication date
  • 12 - missing publication date
  • 29 - missing author
  • 32 - missing author
  • 33 - missing publication date
  • 34 - "Hull"?
  • 38 - missing publication date
  • 39 - missing publication date
  • 42 - missing website
  • 46 - move reference to after "set in 2009" (so that "Crucible record" is supported)
  • 49 - "|author=WalesOnline" should be removed; "|work=walesonline" is there
  • 51 - missing publication date
  • 56 - missing author
  • 59 - add "agency=Press Association"
  • 63 - missing publication date
  • 64 - add "agency=Press Association"
  • 66 - add "location=Glasgow"
  • 73 - add "agency=Press Association"
  • 87 - link redirects to the live page for me; the live page doesn't verify the info.
    • Wow, that's poo. I think they've moved the URL! Slouthing cap on.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 88 - mising author
  • 90 - mising author
  • - one of the four has an author. Make consistent.
  • - looks like source is in English, not Norwegian.
  • "Stephen Hendry is the event's most successful participant in the modern era, having won the championship seven times" - source doesn't quite state this. It has seven wins for Hendry as the record, but not the "modern era" mention.
  • " replacing previous sponsors Betfair" - not verified by source used.
  • Main draw: Are all three sources quoted needed for "Below are the full results from the event"?
    • They all cover the draw - don't see an issue by putting citing this more than once. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Other comments

  • Typo "tournamnet" in lead
  • Background: "who had won the 2013 event to win" - change either won or win to avoid repetition.
  • Qualifying stage centuries: "The highest was a 139 by both" - I suggest removing "a" or using alternate wording.
    • Covered these three points - most of the source stuff seems easy enough, I'll work my way through when I'm next on PC.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've now covered all issues raised above BennyOnTheLoose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your responses. Ref. 7 is an incomplete citation. Spot checks were generally fine, with any exceptions noted above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • citations still inconsistent in terms of lower/mixed case and italicisation.
  • "Snooker World Championship 2014: 'The Rocket' Ronnie O'Sullivan holds" - incomplete title.
Hi Benny, from an abundance of caution, can I just check that this is a general support as well as a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild, yes, I'm satisfied that the FA criteria are met. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Types RiotEdit

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My first FA was just promoted. To celebrate, I figured I'd nominate another one! This article is about a riot that occurred in York, Upper Canada, (now Toronto) that destroyed William Lyon Mackenzie's printing press. The event started the downfall of the Family Compact, the ruling clique of Upper Canada, and its civil trial was described by a modern historian as "the most important debate in Upper Canadian legal history". Thanks to all who reviewed and offered advice on the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from WingedserifEdit


  • Can the sentence beginning with "During the riot" be broken up into 2 or 3 sentences? I'm worried about the complexity of the nested clauses.
    • Done
  • "negative personal stories" feels awkward to me. Could it be changed to a shorter term or a more specific one like "libel"?
    • Libel refers to the story being untrue or made-up. However, we know some of the articles in the Swift editorials described true events. I agree that this is awkward but I don't know how to fix it. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • What about something like "criticism", so "described negative personal stories about them and their families" —> "criticised them and their families"? —WS
        • Done, with some minor copyediting. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Should "Conservative" near end of lead be changed to "Tory" (& maybe wikilined), per the implied preferred usage near beginning of Background section?
    • Done.


  • "He published articles under the pseudonym "Patrick Swift" that questioned the Family Compact's ability to run the colony." —> "Under the pseudonym "Patrick Swift", he published articles that questioned the Family Compact's ability to run the colony." For less ambiguous order of clauses.
    • Done
  • Delete comma after "with syphilis", so "wrote" isn't separated from the subject of the sentence (ie, "He")
    • I deleted an "and" so that it reads more like a list. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah, but "wrote negative comments" doesn't have the same subject as "being sexually active, infected with syphilis". I also think I didn't realize my suggested solution would also create some ambiguity. What about this?: "He accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of being sexually active and infected with syphilis, and he criticised their personal appearance." —WS
        • Done
  • "Many rioters testified they were" —> "Many rioters testified that they were"
  • The Colonial Advocate's printing press was located at the northwest corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street. – Is there a source for this?
    • Raible 8-9, cited later in the paragraph, verifies this. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


  • Attorney General's – The 's should be outside the wikilink
    • Done, fixed it in another place, too. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • walking in single file, – Delete comma after "file" to not separate the two dependent clauses
    • Done
  • Is everything in the 3rd paragraph after "Upset by the situation" citeable to ref 17?
    • Yes, and I verified it today again, just to be sure. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Insert comma after "arrived at the printing office"
    • Done
  • "He reported Elizabeth" —> "He reported that Elizabeth"
    • Done

Civil trial

  • Are all the details about the jury selection process WP:DUE? They don't seem necessary to me and could be abbreviated.
    • I think so too. I removed the jury selection process. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Are all the sentences of the first paragraph of the "Arguments and jury deliberations" section citeable to ref 38?
    • Yes
  • newspapers at the time did not think the instructions were noteworthy. – Could we get a quote from a contemporary article or a secondary citation to support this?
    • The source says, "Before the jurors retired, they were charged by Chief Justice William Campbell...but the press thought it 'unnecessary to report'" The quote is sourced to a letter from 1830.
  • "during the deliberations, and Jacob Boyer" —> ""during the deliberations. Jacob Boyer". To avoid run-on sentence.
    • Done
  • Should the "Civil trial aftermath" section just be an "Aftermath" subsection? Feels odd to break it off from the rest of this section.
    • Agreed, done

General comments

(Full source check not done)

  • There are a couple places where more variation in sentence structure would help readability. For example, the first paragraph of "Arguments" with "Bidwell argued", "Bidwell stated". Similarly, the verb "showed" is used many times near the end of the "Legacy" section.
    • Done
  • Since so much of the article is cited to the 1992 Raible book, I tried to find out more about its publisher Curiosity House but couldn't find much. Is the book a trade nonfiction or was it peer reviewed?
    • This book might be a trade nonfiction book. However, I still think it's a high-quality source. Chris Raible has published numerous articles on William Lyon Mackenzie in academic, peer-reviewed journals, including in Ontario History [13], Canadian Bulletin of Medical History published by University of Toronto Press [14], and the Canadian Historical Review, also published by U of T Press [15]. This book was reviewed in academic journals, including The Bibliographical Society of Canada, published by McGill University and Urban History Review published by U of T Press [16]. It was cited in peer-reviewed journals like "“Lawless Law”: Conservative Political Violence in Upper Canada, 1818–41" (cited in this wiki-article), "‘In Search of the Phantom Misnamed Honour’: Duelling in Upper Canada" published by the Canadian Historical Review [17], and "The Role of the Agent in Partisan Communication Networks of Upper Canadian Newspapers" in the Journal of Canadian Studies [18]. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi, thanks for doing all the digging on this. Looking at the two academic reviews, they do praise Raibel but it's a bit qualified: Urban History Review says the book has a narrow focus on the historical events and doesn't provide much social context [19], a concern that's mirrored in the BSC review [20]. I just checked and the current article's Background and Legacy sections don't use the Raibel source much, which I think is a good idea. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
        • As I was writing this article, I was aware that it was referencing Raible a lot, so whenever another source verified similar information I used the other source as the reference. Raible's book is the most detailed description of this event which is why he is referenced a lot. I will replace Raible with other sources as they are discovered or published, both during and after this FAC has concluded. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

All said, this is an interesting, well-written article; thank you so much for your work to get it this far. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I addressed everything. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Wingedserif, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I still have two unanswered concerns about wording/grammar (one for the lead and one for "background"; count me as a weak support until then), but otherwise everything else has been resolved. —Wingedserif (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Wingedserif, I must have missed those because of my busy schedule at the moment. When I response to those concerns I will ping you. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Sorry it has taken me so long to address your follow-up comments Wingedserif. Let me know if there are other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
          • No worries, Z1720, thanks for doing all those! I did notice one thing while reviewing them, however—the article seems to combine spellings from different dialects of English (eg, there is "sympathise", "emphasised" but also "organized", "criticized"). Would you mind switching all those spellings to be consistent, and then marking the Talk page with the variant of English you wrote the article in (eg, Template:Canadian English / Template:British English)? —Wingedserif (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


Will look at this, although it'll probably be later in the week because I'll be traveling for work some. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking so long to get to this. Been having to travel a lot for work this week. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The background section could include a little as to who Mackenzie was - his full name isn't even given in this first section of the body
    • I didn't give his first name because it was in the lede, but I have now added his full name to the background section. Do you think it's important to outline that Mackenzie was a reformer, and thus his political alignment was opposite of the Tories? Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I think a short (can this be condensed into a shorter paragraph) introduction to this would provide some needed background as to why Mackenzie and the Family Compact were opposed 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The modest amount awarded to Mackenzie surprised Mary Jarvis." and "Robert Stanton of the Upper Canada Gazette decried the large settlement Mackenzie received, believing the damage to his printing press was exaggerated" - recommend considering attributing the views of the size of the settlement to the individual people more directly, as currently it's in Wikipedia's voice saying that it was both modest and large, when it looks like the implication is that Mary Jarvis thought it was small and Stanton thought it was large.
    • For Mary Jarvis, I specified that the amount was in her opinion, for Stanton I removed large because the rest of the sentence implies that he thought the amount was too large. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " William Botsford Jarvis, the sheriff of York, was ordered to arrest the men immediately and hold them for bail" - worth noting that he was Samuel Jarvis's cousin?
    • I don't think so. William's relation to Samuel did not influence the arrest. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I notice the article cites Raible pretty heavily - the Google books preview of Schrauwers refers to Romney as "now-classic".
    • Romney gave the first modern-day account of this event. Unfortunately, the academic article is behind a paywall and my local library would not get a copy of the article for me because of COVID. Restrictions are being relaxed recently, so I hope that going to the library in person will get me a copy, but there's no guarentees. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • That's unfortunate. It looks like I can probably access volumes III and IV of the series from a local library, but not the volume that the Romney article is in. Hog Farm Talk 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mackenzie stayed away from York immediately after the riot because friends advised him his life might be in danger" - According to Schrauwers, Macauly said Mackenzie left to avoid arrest for debt - do other sources give this weight, or can it be dismissed as smear tactics by Macauly?
    • Historians and scholars are unsure and disagree about why Mackenzie left York in the days before the riot and where Mackenzie went. Mackenzie claimed he was trying to get more business for his paper, the Family Compact said it was because Mackenzie was trying to avoid some debts he owed, and other scholars think he might have just been on vacation. It's too much speculation to include, imo. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Schrauwers discusses some economic factors related to the Bank of Upper Canada and Henry John Boulton being associated with the Types Riot. Is this due weight to add?
    • I'll take a look later today. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "and he remained popular for several decades" - body says years, not decades, which has a somewhat different implication
    • Changed to years in the lede to align with what sources say. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I found this very interesting to read. Hog Farm Talk 04:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am also very busy in real life, so I will get to these comments next week. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Hog Farm that it's taken me so long to get to this. Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've honestly taken longer to get to stuff in the past. A couple replies above. Hog Farm Talk 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator commentEdit

Well over three weeks in and only one weak support. Unless there is further movement towards a consensus to support over the next few days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I'll try to be the third reviewer before long. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Link names in image captions?
    • I checked MOS:CAPTION and I am unsure if they should be linked or not, especially because they are wikilinked in the article text. I decided to do so because it gives more information to the reader, instead of having to look for the link in the article text. If I am wrong, please post below with the link to the policy/guideline where this is stated. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I don't see any recommendations against links in captions, and I always add them and recommend others to do so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Anglican church in article.
  • Link William Lyon Mackenzie at first mention outside intro.
  • "Many rioters testified that they were retaliating against the Swift columns.[8] Raymond Baby, one of the rioters, claimed some were present to attack Bartemas Ferguson, one of Mackenzie's employees, because they believed Ferguson was Patrick Swift.[9]" Since the article body should be able to stand alone without the intro, this comes out of the left field in "background" where it is now, since the riot hasn't been presented yet, and the text appears to be out of chronological order. Could this info perhaps be moved to later in the article or something?
  • "corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street." Any articles to link?
  • A lot of people are named without introduction/context. Could their occupations perhaps be given? Otherwise it is difficult to figure out what and why their roles were as they were.
  • "The men may have been dressed as indigenous people" This claim needs to be attributed in text, then. Who stated it and where?
  • "Samuel Jarvis, the first defendant named in Types Riot civil lawsuit" named in the Types Riot civil lawsuit?
  • "Campbell gave instructions to the jury before they began their deliberations. Mary Jarvis, Samuel Jarvis's wife, thought the instructions favoured the defendants, but newspapers at the time did not think the instructions were noteworthy." But what were the instructions?
  • "the meagre amount of five shillings" Meagre sounds like WP:editorializing.
  • "includes the violence of Reform meetings in the 1830s" Anything to link?
  • "He also used the event to show electors he was part of a group of citizens who struggled to reform the political system of Upper Canada" Was he ever elected?
  • As noted by another reviewer, you should stick to one spelling, preferably Canadian English, and make it consistent.
  • "Mackenzie's editorials in the Colonial Advocate newspaper, which questioned the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada and criticized them and their families, which offended the rioters." The repeated "which" is a bit jarring, is the first "which" even needed?

Battle of Byram's FordEdit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

With 8 successful FACs under my belt, I'm now taking the bold step of taking an article straight from GAN to FAC. I'm confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness, but apologies in advance for the prose, which may be even worse than normal, as there have been fewer eyes on it.

At least to me, this is a two-day battle that feels kinda like a hodgepodge of two different actions: the first day as an extension of the Battle of Little Blue River, and the second as an extension of the Second Battle of Independence. But historians have treated this as a separate event, so here we are with the third Price's Raid FAC. Confederate cavalry pushes Union cavalry and militia across the ford on Day 1, while Union cavalry trailing the Confederates push across the ford on Day 2. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Source review pass, sources look good, no source checks done (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • is The Big Blue Battlefield Park separate from the NRHP listing? (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: - I can't quite tell with certainty. Official stuff for the park doesn't mention the NRHP, while the NHRP nomination form doesn't mention the park but could well be older than it. There's a number of references to the "Big Blue Battlefield" being on the NRHP, but I'm not sure if that's referring to the park or other parts of the battlefield. This says yes but it's unreliable and cannot be used. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

  • Infobox: Template infobox military conflict says "Ranks and position titles should be omitted."
    • Removed
  • "Union Victory": why the upper case V?
    • I have no idea
  • "The Battle of Byram's Ford," Why the comma?
    • Forgot to remove that when I rewrote the opening sentence; gone now
  • " Union forces led Price to". Optional: → ' Union resistance led Price to'.
    • Gonna stick with the current wording, as Price didn't really try to attack either place so I'm not sure "resistance" is the best word
  • "Price's army reached Texas". Mention when.
    • Added in the lead and the body
  • "took long enough to reach Jefferson City" → 'took so long to reach Jefferson City'.
    • Done. I have a reluctance to use the word "so" leftover from an elementary school teacher who forbid the class to use the word "so"
  • "the Union garrison could be reinforced, growing from 1,000 men to 7,000" → 'the Union garrison was reinforced from 1,000 men to 7,000'?
    • Done
  • "Eventually, Confederate pressure on the Union center led the Union troops". if we are still talking about the Little Blue, maybe 'these Union troops'?
    • Done
  • "6 miles (9.7 km)" Looks like false precision to me. Similarly elsewhere.
    • Rounded on the several with miles/km. I think it's okay with the acres later on because those are exact figures.
  • "He then formed a plan". Delete "then".
    • Removed
  • "the units sent to Kansas City had suffered from severe straggling". This is getting a bit specialist. Maybe rephrase or expand a little?
    • Does changing the whole sentence to "As not all of the Kansas State Militia was fully mobilized, and the strength of those units that had arrived at Kansas City had been reduced greatly due to men lagging behind on the march, Curtis had around 5,000 men in his force, which was known as the Army of the Border." improve this somewhat, or do I need to take a crack at simplifying this?
It looks good to me. I might replace "lagging" with 'falling', but that is just personal preference.
  • "with only a "strong skirmish line"". I think you can lose the quotes.
    • Done. I'm not entirely sure what my rationale for adding the quotes was.
  • "The Union soldiers had abandoned a number of axes at the ford, which allowed the Confederates to clear the obstructions". The Confederates were attempting to force a blocked ford without having the tools to clear it! Really?
    • The source (Sinisi) specifically notes that that the Confederates needed to use the captured axes. The Confederates did have axes on the raid because they'd used them earlier, but my guess is that they must have left them in the rear with the wagons. Would it be too unfair to note that this was a cavalry expedition led by a general who was too fat to ride a horse effectively and had to be hauled around in an ambulance wagon for much of it?
Ha! Leave it then. I'm not sure why I was surprised at a commander launching an all out attack on a ford knowing that he won't be able to clear it if he succeeds, but I was.
  • "the unit and cannon were completely overrun." Does "completely" add anything?
    • Nope, removed
  • "the 12 foot (3.7 m) to 15 foot (4.6 m)[91] or 15 foot (4.6 m) to 20 foot (6.1 m)". This is not helpful to a reader. Perhaps footnote it?
    • Footnoted.
  • "had heard rumors from stragglers". A wikt link for "straggler"?
    • Done. I'm slightly surprised there's not an enwiki link for the term
Yeah. We could do with a glossary of common military terms, similar to those for cricketing or nautical terms.
  • "Seeing Shelby's command disintegrate, Jackman withdrew in the face of Sanborn's brigade. The collapse occurred at about 14:00." Possibly switch the order of these sentences?
    • Done
  • "Price's wagon train was to make its south by taking the Harrisonville Road south". I am not sure why "south" occurs twice.
    • Rephrased
  • "was very incomplete". Is "very" needed?
    • Not really. Removed.
  • "after the campaign ended". Consider deleting this.
    • Removed

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Gog the Mild: - I think this is all done. I'm sorry you had to deal with my rough prose. Hog Farm Talk 04:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries - look at the state in which some of my drivel arrives at FAC. Nice account. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "A combination of Confederate and pro-secession Missouri State Guard forces" Is there a distinction between the two? I thought they pretty much overlapped?
    • It's a weird case where the MSG was fighting along with Confederate troops and sometimes under Confederate officers, but were actually fighting for the Missouri government, not the Confederacy
  • "to the southwestern Missouri" Why definite article?
    • I'm not entirely sure. Removed.
  • Some more names and terms could be linked in image captions?
    • Added a handful
  • "and order to collect available cavalry and move towards Kansas City" Ordered?
    • Fixed
  • Link Official Records of the War of the Rebellion?
    • Linked. And italicized since it's the title of a printed work
  • Missouri River is linked twice in the article body.
    • oops. Corrected.
  • Link Ford (crossing) somewhere? Not a term I'm familiar with (outside another article I reviewed).
    • Linked
  • "Brown ran at least 90 minutes late, and when Pleasonton arrived, he placed Brown and Colonel James McFerran, the commander of the 1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry, under arrest." For being late? The cause and effect is not entirely clear here.
    • Clarified the official reasons. Sources imply that Pleasonton was a little too happy to can Brown because he didn't like it, and McFerran had also hid out behind the lines in his previous battle, but the relative merits of the arrests are probably undue material here.
  • "and begin firing into the Confederate flank" Began?
    • Corrected
  • "was to make its south via the Harrisonville Road" Make it south?
    • Was missing the word "way"
  • "Sinisi considers Lause's figures to be too high, and prefers estimates from researcher Bryce Suderow of 510 Confederate and 361 Union losses for all fighting on the 23rd.[126]" Why give Suderow's estimate through Sinisi, and not just that estimate itself? Then you could end the sentence with Sinisi agreeing with it.
    • Sinisi state's that Suderow's work is unpublished and it probably isn't really due weight on its own or directly citable to itself, and the usability of that figure comes primarily through Sinisi agreeing with it. I'm open to other ways to phrase it, though, FunkMonk. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Could perhaps note that Suderow's estimates are unpublished, but not a dealbreaker for me. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
How does "Unpublished research by Bryce Suderow estimates losses of 510 Confederates and 361 Union soldiers for all fighting on the 23rd. Sinisi considers Lause's figures to be too high, and prefers Suderow's numbers." sound?
Good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the solutions for the more complex issues seem sufficient to me, nicely done. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

  • I noticed a few refs in the lead for alt names, ("Battle of Big Blue River[2] and the Battle of the Blue[3]) was...") any reason why those alt names are only mentioned in the lead and not in the main prose? I thought the should summarise the article but not contain facts that don't appear in the article.
    • I've added the alt names to the aftermath section, and moved the refs to there from the lead
  • The location is referenced in the infobox and stated as Jackson County yet that's not in the lead, why not?
    • Because the sources don't make a point of noting that the battle was in Jackson Co., as the county lines were not significant to the fighting. Kennedy states that it was in the county, but Kennedy also provides the county or parish for every battle listed in that book. Essentially, I'm only including that because I feel like I need to have a location in the infobox, and that's about the most useful location I can think of, as the Byram's Ford redlink isn't going to provide a reader who doesn't already know where the redlink was any information. Suggestions on how to better deal with this are welcome
  • Why is it the only fact in the entire infobox with an inline citation?
    • Because it's the only fact in the entire infobox that isn't cited elsewhere, and I think it's best to keep infobox citations to the minimum necessary
  • " 2nd Kansas State Militia Infantry Regiment " State isn't in our article's name for this, why is it here?
    • Don't have access to Monnett at the moment, but checked the other three I view as the principal sources (Lause, Collins, Sinisi) and all three use "2nd Kansas State Militia Regiment" or "2nd KSM", so the "State" is standard in sources. Adding the "infantry" in the article is needed for the MILHIST unit naming MOS, I believe. (As an aside, I've noticed that a number of ACW-adjacent articles have names that don't align with what modern sources use; I've had to start a fair number of RMs).
  • "garrison could be reinforced" could he, or was?
    • Was. Changed.
  • "not armed or only poorly armed" why "only"?
    • Removed
  • Our article is at Department of the Missouri.
    • Changed the mention to Department of the Missouri. Collins and Lause use "Department of Missouri", but Sinisi, which is the best of the three, uses "Department of the Missouri" and Collins quotes a period letter that uses "Department of the Missouri", so I think going with that title is supported enough by the sources to add the "the"
  • "stand at the Little Blue" -> "stand there"
    • Done
  • What's a "signal officer"?
    • Source just uses "signal officers" without any elaboration. I can't find an equivalent link, I'm not sure how to explain it since the source is a bit vague, and the officer's role as signal officers isn't vital to the meaning of the sentence, so I've just removed the word "signal".
  • "Also at 11:00" are we certain of these precise timings? Wouldn't "around" be better?
    • Yes, around would be better. Added
  • "found Hinkle's Ford.[56][57] Hinkle's Ford was" repetitive.
    • Merged the second sentence into the former and done some rephrasing, so the repetition is gone
  • "1865 depiction of..." avoid starting even fragments with a numeral.
    • Done
  • "led to two decisions: Grant decided ": repetitive, perhaps "Grant elected to" or "Grant chose" or something slightly more engaging.
    • Went with elected
  • Is there a link for wagon train?!
    • Yes. Linked in both the lead and the body
  • "continued 4 miles (6 km) south of the place" of the place? why not "continued 4 miles further south" or simlar?
    • Went with "further south"
  • "Unpublished research by Bryce Suderow ..." is that notable enough for an FA?
    • Normally I'd say no, but Sinisi (who is one of the very best sources for this subject, IMO) says it's the preferable estimate, and Suderow has published a book about another battle in this campaign through an academic publisher, so I think it's okay for this specific circumstance
  • "the dual defeats" no need for "dual"
    • Removed

Nothing much more to report. Mostly queries rather than issues. Close to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: - Thanks for reviewing! I've tried to reply to all. Most are done, although I've got a bit of a query on your thoughts for handling the Jackson County one. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, two responses above, only one needs potential action, but it's not breaking any FA criteria I'm aware of so take it as you find it. Happy to support at this point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

I reviewed this at GAN, and am pretty thorough there, but given it hasn't been to Milhist ACR and the extra eyes it would have got there on military technical aspects, I have quite a few comments:

Lead and overall
  • in the lead, the alternative names don't need to be cited if they are cited in the body.
    • You may have been looking at an old version - I removed the cites addressing TRM's comments
  • also, the link at fn 3 refers to Battle of the Big Blue, not Battle of the Blue. Also Battle of the Big Blue River and Battle of the Big Blue are almost identical and I'm not sure the second one is justified in the lead. It also seems to me that the NPS is a far better source than Kansas Memory.
    • Replaced with a source that refers to this specifically as "Battle of the Blue". My OR I won't include is that "Battle of the Blue" is primarily used in Kansas-related sources and seems to focus on the destruction of the 2nd KSM.
  • I have a fundamental question about whether this is in fact two or more battles, and the overall schema of the related battles: Big Blue 22 October, Independence, Big Blue 22 October and even aspects of the Battle of Westport appear inter-related and overlapping. The commanders and forces on the two Big Blue days are different, and the scenes of the two sub-battles are also different, one being the ford and the other Potato Hill, with Westport then also apparently involving the ford. It is interesting that Kansas Memory specifies that the Battle of Byram's Ford occurred on 22 October, and doesn't mention the second day, while the NPS does. This overall confusion seriously impacts on the lead, as what is part of this battle and what is part of other battles is not as clear as it needs to be.
    • The overwhelming consensus of high-quality sources treat this as a single battle (I don't know why, I personally would be tempted to divide this up among the other actions). In particular, the ending stage of the rout at the end isn't clearly delineable between Westport and Byram's Ford. If this happened in one of the World Wars, everything between Little Blue River on Oct. 21 and Westport would probably be considered a single battle, but for some reason, this is very subdivided in sources. I've tried to clarify the dividing line between Second Independence and Byram's Ford in the lead, and I'm open to suggestion on how to accomplish this better
  • suggest "did not secede – despite allowing slavery – as it was politically divided."
    • Done
  • suggest "the Confederacy had essentially no chance of prevailing in the war"
    • I think it's significant to keep the difference between military and political here - a battlefield victory was out of the question, but there was thought to be a decent chance of the 1864 US election leading to a peace party winning and electing a truce
  • suggest "Smith decided to attack the Union forces within his area of responsibility"
    • Done
  • suggest "Price's army took so long to reach Jefferson City that the Union was able to reinforce the garrison from 1,000 to 7,000 men."
    • Done
  • suggest "Brigadier Generals Egbert Brown, John McNeil and John B. Sanborn, and Colonel Edward F. Winslow"
    • Done, although I do like my oxford commas
  • suggest "Sanborn temporarily commanded the formation until Pleasonton took up his position on October 20."
    • Done
  • it would help a lot if the rough distances between Curtis' force and Pleasonton's force and Price's force were included at the bottom of the second para of the "To the Big Blue River" section. In fact, a local map would help a lot in understanding the dispositions ("five miles east of ...", "ten miles southwest of ..." etc). In the absence of such a map, this sort of textual description of the various locations and directions is needed. The Map No. 1, for example, shows the road from Kansas City and Westport to Independence and two fords, as well as several other landmarks that could be used to help the reader, and from which better physical descriptions could extrapolate. A more detailed explanation of where the forces were with respect to various landmarks would be very helpful. Here are some examples: "ordered Blunt to move (in what direction and how far) to Warrensburg", and "Price was only 20 miles (32 km) away (in what direction) at Waverly", there are plenty of examples of where more information is required about locations and their relative position to places and other troops.
    • I'll see what I can do. The sources aren't great about providing distances (Lause in particular has been criticized as being almost incomprehensible in geography to a non-Missourian).
    • I've also added a pushpin map indicating the relative locations of Jeff City/KC/Warrensburg/Lexington/etc, although it's a little sketchy because a bunch of those places are crammed in a relatively narrow geographic window
  • "Blair's brigade was sent to Kansas City" but then he appears as Curtis' left wing
    • Bit of a messy situation. Technically detached and under Deitzler, but Deitzler didn't do hardly anything and Blair did more. But despite being nominally a separate wing, I noticed doing a re-read of Lause that he briefly notes that Blair essentially functioned as another brigade for Blunt, so I've added that
  • "Pleasonton's division was encamped 6 miles (10 km) to the east of the Little Blue" comes out of the blue. Last we heard, he was at Jefferson City. When did he start chasing Price westwards?
    • I've mentioned that his division converged on Price while it followed the Missouri
  • It would be helpful to describe the extent of the Big Blue along which the sides were arrayed. Map No. 1 is unclear, but it looks as if it included the Old Independence Road in the north with what looks to be a unit deployed there. How far south? Hickman Mills?
    • Clarified using Collins - 15 miles from the Missouri to Hickman Mills
  • was the ford at the extreme northern end of the Union line located on the Old Independence Road, or between it and the Missouri River?
    • Three main sources I have access to right now (Collins, Sinisi, Lause) don't mention the Old Independence Road by name, except for an appearance in a map in Sinisi. I can compare Sinisi's map and Lause's description of the Union line and be pretty confident that the extreme northern one was one the Old Independence Road, but it takes some hardcore SYNTH to get there, so I can't really add that to the article.

Down to Battle, but at this point I'm quite concerned that the text doesn't provide enough detail about dispositions and movements. That is making this a bit of a grind. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

John ThirtleEdit

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known Norwich artist whose paintings are accomplished depictions of his home city and the surrounding Norfolk countryside. My third member of the Norwich School of painters at FA? Amitchell125 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

An interesting article. I know Norwich quite well and even know a little bit about Norwich painters but Thirtle is new to me and I am pleased to have made his acquaintance in such a clear, well written and beautifully illustrated piece. A few quibbles:

  • Lead
  • We have "frame maker" in the text, "framemaker" in the references (which can't be tampered with) and the OED prints the term as "frame-maker". I generally stick with the OED's prescriptions, but I don't press the point.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "whilst continuing to paint" – I'm never sure what "whilst" has got that a plain "while" hasn't, apart from one extra letter, but again I merely mention it.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "He produced relatively few works" – relative to what or whom?
Text deleted (the point is made elsewhere in the lead). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "has deteriorated due to the fading" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Family, early life and apprenticeship
  • "St Saviour's Church, Norwich… a churchwarden at St. Saviour's" – does St have a full stop after it or not? Better to be consistent.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Artistic career
  • Second para – John Crome and Norwich School of painters are given duplicate blue links
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Marriage
  • "Thirtle married Elizabeth Miles of Felbrigg, from a minor landowning family in north Norfolk,[5] and whose sister Ann had married" – the "and" jars a bit. You could smooth the sentence by replacing "and whose" with a semicolon and then "her".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "There were likely no children produced from the marriage" – an unexpected, and not especially pleasing, Americanism, where in normal English usage we should say "probably" rather than "likely". And perhaps it would be less wordy to say just "The marriage was probably childless".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Secession from the Norwich Society of Artists
  • The Twelfth Exhibition of the Norfolk and Norwich Society of Artists – do we usually italicise the titles of art exhibitions? (Question asked from the starting point of complete ignorance.)
Sorted. I'm not entirely sure about italics here either, but other articles don't seem to have them. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Later life
  • "He is known to have suffered from tuberculosis" – Wikipedia has developed, I know not why, a convention, not seen in any other work of reference I know of, that at first mention in a paragraph a pronoun won't do, and it must be the person's name.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Technique
  • "Cotman, who was his brother-in-law" – you've already told us that.
Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 39 – link seems broken. I suggest adding the page number (p. 11) and removing the url.
As I can access the link as a member of a public library, I've added the page number, kept the url, and added a subscription template. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Margarie Allthorpe-Guyton" – she was Marjorie Allthorpe-Guyton earlier in the article
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "We went on to paint" – I imagine this should be "He went on …"
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Art historian Derek Clifford" – a pity to introduce a clunky AmE false title this late into an otherwise impeccably BrE article.
Sentence amended, and Clifford should have been introduced earlier on, so I moved it up a bit. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Use of indigo
  • "a cheap form of indigo that sold by a local dealer" – is the "that" intended here?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Legacy
  • "Thirtle was praised for his work in the local press" – might be less ambiguous to say "Thirtle was praised in the local press for his work", or even "The local press praised Thirtle for his work".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Norwich Mercury" – but The Times earlier on has its definite article capitalised and italicised (quite rightly)
Done, but see Illustrated Daily News (FA); New York Herald Tribune (GA) to understand why I'm not quite convinced The Norwich Mercury now looks right. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair point: there is no one right way in these matters (as witness the eccentric practice of the paper I read every day, which calls itself the Guardian (lower case article and no italics). Tim riley talk 10:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "but the exhibition forced to close" – was forced to close?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are my few quibbles. I'll look in again, with a view to supporting, all being well. Tim riley talk 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, there's just one (about the newspaper) that might need discussing. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It meets all the FA criteria, in my view (and I thoroughly enjoyed reading and reviewing it). Tim riley talk 10:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • #13 — Why not cite the original dictionary entry instead?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #16 — I'm a bit confused by the cite. What does "T. National Portrait Gallery" mean?
"National Portrait Gallery: British picture framemakers, 1600–1950 – T" is what is says on the web page. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Got it. I've added a link to National Portrait Gallery, which hopefully makes the separation a bit more obvious. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #39 — This is long out of copyright. Is there no freely available version online? Also, The Times can take a link.
Link added. I've never been able to find a free online version of The Times, unfortunately. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
With Gale's newspaper databases, I've had some luck with right clicking on the papers, opening the images in a new tab, and then playing with the URLs to cut the page to size. It's a process, but can work. See ref #2 at George Sidney Herbert, for instance. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
It worked (thanks for the tip). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #40 — Ashmolean Museum can take a link. ", Oxford" is probably not needed, given that the next line is "University of Oxford".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #52–53 — Why are the dates and page numbers in the title fields? Mention of the need for a subscription should be added.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Come to think of it, The British Newspaper Archive isn't the publisher. It should be in a "| via = The British Newspaper Archive" parameter instead. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Clifford 1965 — Publisher location missing.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Dickes 1906 — Assuming "London, Norwich" means that offices are in both locations, perhaps "London & Norwich" (or just pick one)?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hamlin 1986 — Why initials rather than a full first name?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Moore 1985 — Perhaps "&" rather than "/"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these, all sorted now. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, I'm signed off. Amitchell125, I left two comments above (though ended up addressing the second myself). Something to keep in mind if you are able re The Times, but not a requirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aza24Edit

  • Looking through now Aza24 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If he is "known for frame-making" (per infobox) surely he should be designated a "frame-maker" in the lead, like his teacher?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Likewise with the above, perhaps a line could be added about his manner of frame making to the lead—maybe that he often made them for his fellow Norwich School colleagues?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A minor point, but you might considering altering the second paragraph of the lead so there's not three sentences in a row that begin with "he", "his" and then "he".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "cannot be confirmed by documents" sounds a little awkward. I presume you're saying there are not enough surviving documents, but it comes off as there are a lot of documents, but they don't have the right information—would suggest rephrasing the sentence.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • wondering why "and was an" can't just be "as" if he worked these positions in Elephant Yard
Text amended, whilst still making it clear his role as churchwarden was not an occupation. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • why "carver and gilder" and not "carver, gilder..."? If he was just a leading carver and guilder, you could add the "as well as" to separate the occupations from picture dealer and printmaker—the current double and with commas just seems odd
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "This painting seems to have been unusual"—maybe "The subject matter" instead of "This painting", since the painting it self isn't unusual
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • More later... Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "He continued to produce " maybe vary word choice since you have "continue" right before this sentence
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Any year for Devil's Tower – Looking towards Carrow Bridge and/or Old Waterside Cottage, Norwich?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I changed "and was criticised for..." to "but was criticised for..." but honestly not sure which makes more sense
Your edit looks fine imo. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The only other thing is I wonder if "Technique" might be a little narrow of a section name, what about "Style and technique"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to supporting Aza24 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Aza24—All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
A great read, happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

  • "lesser extent) John Sell Cotman" why not just Cotman?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is Indigo capitalised?
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure we don't need to link "education".
Crikey, agreed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "carver, gilder" what are these?
Links added to explain these occupations. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mr. Allwood" maybe times have changed but I was taught that no full stop was required on abbreviations which have the first and last letter of the word...
Mmm, MOS:POINTS allows me to keep it in, so I will. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "exhibited five paintings at an exhibition" repetitive.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "c.1803–1808," shouldn't that be c. 1803 – 1808?
Sorted (3 times). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • If you're relinking terms linked in the lead then watercolour needs relinking.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "as Vice-President of the Society" why all the capitals?
Capitals taken out. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "married John Sell Cotman" again, why do we need his first names this time?
My force of habit, no-one calls him anything else. Cotman it is. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "excellence". " shouldn't that full stop be inside the quote?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "light effects;[43]" something missing or that should be a full stop.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "of buffs, blues and grey-browns" you previously only linked buffs. I would be consistent.
Only 'buffs' should have been linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "for art historians[2] that " why can't we just put that ref at the end of the sentence.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "as purple and brown madder" you link purple (which I think is a common word) but not brown madder which I have never heard of...
Madder is now linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "natural indigo pigment" you mentioned indigo in the previous section but didn't link it there.
Now linked correctly. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorted (I hope). Amitchell125 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Beard needs en-dash in year range in title.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Added. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise nothing much to complain about, seems as comprehensive as it can be given its opening caveat that not much was known about him! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

High praise indeed from The Rambling Man! Many thanks for the above comments, all of which I think are now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
All good, nice work, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ModussiccandiEdit

  • " his first exhibited works that were not landscapes " I find this sentence difficult to follow. Could it be that the word "his" should really be 'he'?
  • "He was probably a founder member" would 'founding member' be more elegant?
  • "After he developed to become a landscape artist" the juxtaposition comes across a bit clunky. Maybe just 'became'? Or something else entirely, like 'developed an interest in' etc.?
  • "He exhibited only once outside Norwich, at the Royal Academy in 1808" you could add that the Academy was in London.
  • "created a superb rendition in black and white" one would think that these are the words of the Searle (2015). I feel a bit queasy about having 'Wikipedia's voice' praising the picture in this way. Maybe quotation marks could be added or something along those lines. Do tell me if I'm being too pedantic about this.
  • "equivalent to over £120,000 in modern currency" it would be more informative to replace "modern currency" with the year of the estimate.
  • "This unfortunate reddening" seems editorialising (MOS:EDITORIAL).
  • "should not have found time for a single drawing" this same quote is used earlier in the article. Was this by intention?
  • Regarding images: would it be possible to provide a date for the picture of the mother and for Crome's Woodland Scene?

These are my comments on an interesting and well-written article. I will support promotion to FA once you've had a chance to reply to the above points. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Trisomy XEdit

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 02:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Trisomy X is one of the more common genetic syndromes you probably haven't heard of. Affecting one in a thousand women, the highest estimates for how many know they have it are around 10%, and it goes down a lot from there. It helps that the presentation is so variable -- how often do people get their chromosomes tested when they have no symptoms at all? And yet, sometimes those 'no symptoms at all' are the result of an entire extra chromosome. Fantastic how the human body works.

This is the main article of a series I've been working on extensively over the past few months. It's the first article I've taken to FAC; a previous article in the same series has gone through pre-FAC PR, which I've leaned on heavily while writing this to keep the article tight, accessible, and educational. I'm as happy with it as I can ever be with my own writing (you know how it is) and only a little crippled by self-doubt. I hope you find this an enjoyable and educational read on a sparsely-written topic, which I've gained the confidence to say is perhaps now the most comprehensive piece on the subject available to a general audience. Vaticidalprophet 02:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by User:NeopeiusEdit

What an excellent article this is! I shall be doing a text review, enjoying all the while. My first suggestion is, in the lead:

*"Beginning in the 1960s, cohort studies following people with sex chromosome aneuploidies from birth to adulthood found that people with these disorders are often mildly affected, fitting in with the general population, and that many cases never come to diagnostic attention."

How about "...and that many cases never came to diagnostic attention." to keep the tenses consistent and also to avoid simply duplicating the last sentence of the first paragraph (i.e. this sentence is about the historical context, not specifically just about the disorder.)
Tenses fixed. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You blue link aneuploidy, but it's such a fundamental part of the article, I'd define it both in the summary and when it first appears. It was only when I got to the end of the article that I saw the definition was notated -- I'd put it in the text proper (ditto karyotype). Indeed, the problem with notes is they're essentially invisible -- they definitely shouldn't be used for fundamental definitions but rather (if at all -- I kind of hate notes in WP articles) for anecdotal asides not critical to the piece.
    This, I think, might be more in the realm of personal disagreement. One consideration I've used while writing that's similar to the mobile one (i.e. "most readers know this but most writers don't") is that logged-out editors have a gadget similar to navigation popups turned on by default -- assuming the leads for the given articles aren't terrible (that might be worth checking...) they can see the definitions of bluelinked terms simply by hovering without having to follow to the next article. I've used annotations because the definitions worth giving are somewhat long, and I worry it would distract from the text to give them in full. I recognize the concerns about notes bleeding into the references; I use {{NoteTag}} for them to try minimize this, as it stands out a lot more than a more subtle marker does. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


  • Your first paragraph sort of throws people into the deep end and is highly jargon-heavy. I recognize that difficult terms are blue-linked, but as someone who writes abstruse articles (spaceflight, primarily) it's good to simplify. Down syndrome is an example of a more approachable article.
    Broadly simplified. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Physiological is jargon-heavy but you do a good job of parenthetically explaining things. One exception is "Endocrinological research in trisomy X is sparse, but implies a high luteinizing hormone response.[6][22]"
    Simplified that section. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In the summary and in Physiological, I'd make it clear that 46, XXX is "normal"
    Clarified. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Polysomy is a word that could use a quick explanation in the text. It's fundamental.
    Explained. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


*"Though intellectual disability is rare, it is more prevalent than in the general population, occurring in about 5–10% of females with trisomy X[3] compared to approximately 1% of the broader population.[26] Although the average is depressed, some women with trisomy X are highly intelligent,[27] and some patients in the medical literature have acquired advanced degrees or worked in cognitive fields.[25]"

Though followed by Although. A bit awkward.
Switched out for 'while' in the latter use. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Epilepsy in sex chromosome aneuploidies generally is mild,"
How about "Epilepsy in sex chromosome aneuploidies (like trisomy X) generally is mild,"
Ah, this was poor wording on my part -- I was trying for 'in general'. I've reworded to "sex chromosome aneuploidies as a whole". Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Autism spectrum disorders are more common in trisomy X, occurring in approximately 15% of patients[28] compared to less than 1% of girls in the general population.[32] Adult women with trisomy X appear to have higher rates of autistic symptomatology than control women.[33] "
This confuses me. Are these two sentences redundant? (it was my understanding autism lasts a lifetime; it doesn't disappear with adulthood).
It is indeed a lifetime experience, but our research, unfortunately, focuses overwhelmingly on autistic children. I wanted to express that we know about autistic adults here too, rather than the all-too-common mistake of assuming autistic children and autistic adults are "basically the same", and I've reworded to hopefully clarify. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Executive dysfunction is more prevalent amongst those with trisomy X than the general population.[25][28]"

I went to Executive dysfunction and that didn't help me understand the sentence, either. :) Explanation, if you could.

Gave a quick explanation -- it's an inconveniently vague term sometimes. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


* "The psychological portrait of trisomy X is not entirely clear, and appears to be complicated by a more severe phenotype in postnatally than prenatally diagnosed groups.[20]"

Delete the comma after clear or add "it" before "appears" (dependent clauses generally don't take commas)
Done. Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Dysthymia and cyclothymia are more common than in the general population.[3][6]" I'd perhaps use more general terms and/or say "Mood disorders such as persistent depressive disorder and cyclothymia (similar to bipolar disorder but with lesser extremes)..."
    Re-worded as Dysthymia and cyclothymia, milder forms of depression and bipolar disorder respectively (a bit of an oversimplification but, I think, one I can get away with here). Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Compared to control women, women with trisomy X average higher schizotypy, reporting higher levels of introversion, magical thinking, and impulsivity.[25] Approximately one-fifth of women with trisomy X report clinically significant levels of anxiety.[28] Women with trisomy X are often "late bloomers", experiencing high rates of psychological distress into early adulthood, but by their mid-thirties having stronger interpersonal bonds and healthy relationships.[25]"
I cite these sentences as good models. The first introduces a hard word but follows it up with context that makes it accessible. The latter sentence is utterly free of advanced jargon. :)
  • "schizophrenic women are more likely"
link schizophrenia
Linked in the following sentence. Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The study of mental health in trisomy X is impacted by an apparent gap in severity between prenatal and postnatal diagnosis. "
How about "The severity of mental health issues associated with trisomy X appears to correlate with whether or not the condition is diagnosed before or after birth."
Reworded as The study of mental health in trisomy X is complicated by the fact girls and women who were diagnosed before birth seem to be more mildly affected by those diagnosed after. Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Mosaic Forms

* "The simplest form of mosaic trisomy X, with a 46,XX/47,XXX karyotype, has an attenuated presentation compared to full trisomy X"

I know what you mean by attenuated, but since it's just a fancy word and not specifically a medical term, perhaps this sentence construction is overly abstruse. :) "The simplest form of mosaic trisomy X, with a 46,XX/47,XXX karyotype, generally presents lesser symptoms than full trisomy X" for instance.
Have simplified 'attenuated' to 'milder', which I think loses a bit of nuance but nonetheless is slightly more readable. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Although the general profile is milder than that of a non-mosaic 47,XXX karyotype, 46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is associated with a higher risk of chromosome anomalies in offspring than full trisomy X; some writers have recommended screening during pregnancy. The increased risk of abnormal offspring in mosaicism has been hypothesized to be a consequence of oocyte abnormality in 46,XX/47,XXX women not seen in full 47,XXX.[3][41][42]"
How about "Although the general profile is milder than that of a non-mosaic 47,XXX karyotype, 46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is associated with a higher risk of chromosome anomalies in offspring than full trisomy X. The increased risk of abnormal offspring in mosaicism has been hypothesized to be a consequence of oocyte abnormality in 46,XX/47,XXX women not seen in full 47,XXX. Thus, some writers have recommended screening during pregnancy.[3][41][42]"
I mean, I like semi-colons, but sometimes they just make a sentence too long/awkward.
Rewritten a bit (Some writers have recommended women with 46,XX/47,XXX karyotypes undergo screening for chromosomal disorders during pregnancy as new last sentence). Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Non-mosaic Turner syndrome is characterized by failure to begin or complete puberty and primary amenorrhea, "
Non-mosaic Turner doesn't cause people to fail to fail to develop secondary sexual characteristics. :) How about "Non-mosaic Turner syndrome is characterized by failure to begin or complete puberty and development of secondary sexual characteristics."
Hm -- not sure what you mean here. I've flipped the order of 'primary amenorrhea' and 'failure to begin or complete puberty' in the sentence, does that work? Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It does work, but I just wonder if the word may be too sophisticated.

* "Turner's women with 47,XXX cell lines are more likely to be fertile than the condition as a whole"

Not sure what this sentence clause means.
Clarified to "women with non-mosaic Turner syndrome". Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


  • I wonder if this paragraph might be better suited before Presentation, analogous to the Background section in my spaceflight articles or Early life for biographies.
    WP:MEDMOS recommends putting Presentation first; there's a fair amount of leeway to shuffle the orders, but a condition's symptoms are the big draw of the article, so I'm inclined to keep them at the front. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This is my first medical article, so I wasn't sure.

Diagnosis and differential diagnosis

  • "As postnatal karyotyping generally occurs in the setting of clinical concern, postnatally diagnosed trisomy X tends to have a more severe phenotype than prenatal.[5][20]"
"in the setting of clinical concern" could probably be less abstruse. Also, this is somewhat duplicative of the passage at the end of Psychological (in which you imply the reason there's a difference in severity but never outright say it, as you do here.)
It's a bit duplicative, but there's a method to the madness. Most (~60%, I think?) of readers are on mobile, where they only see the section they've expanded to read and all the rest are collapsed by default. I'm more comfortable repeating content between sections than potentially losing context because the reader can only see the one. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
In that event, you'll want to repeat the implications of the difference in timing of diagnosis as well as the bare fact that it exists. :)

* You define karyotype testing. You might as well define differential testing, too.


  • "The children with trisomy X and Klinefelter's had their karyotypes disclosed to their parents, but due to the then-present perception that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality, the diagnosis in that case was hidden from the family.[75]"
In which case? You mean all the cases in that study? Or one particular case?
In the case where the children (in all the cohort studies, AFAICT) were diagnosed with XYY, the diagnosis was hidden from the family. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Can you clarify that? The issue is that case has multiple meanings (like "level" in Dungeons and Dragons ;) )

* " That same year, Nicole Tartaglia founded the eXtraordinarY Kids Clinic in Denver to study children with sex chromosome aneuploidies; around one-fifth of patients at the clinic have trisomy X as of 2015.[15] In 2020, "

"around one-fifth of patients at the clinic had trisomy X as of 2015." (past tense, particularly since you follow the sentence up with 2020.)
Tense fixed. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll be adding more as I read. --Neopeius (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you muchly! (Procedural note: I've shrunk the section header on this so it renders properly on WP:FAC.) I've adjusted the tense in the lead's last paragraph; the statement is still true, but you're right that it's a more historically-focused paragraph and so shouldn't necessarily jump around in tense. Will experiment a bit with the introduction in Presentation. Vaticidalprophet 03:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Have clarified the terminology in the first paragraph somewhat, with more introductory terms and definitions of the unavoidable ones. Vaticidalprophet 03:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Alright -- I have finished my text review! Really lovely piece. Just needs a bit of elaboration to make it more accessible to the lay person (I mean, I'm kind of a lay person with regard to biology, but my vocabulary is pretty unusual.) --Neopeius (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Responded to all the comments (the ones without written responses were fixed while you were typing). Vaticidalprophet 05:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Can you do me a favor and respond to those anyway just so I have an easily viewed record? I've struck out all the resolved issues. Thank you for being a most pleasant reviewee! --Neopeius (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Replies made. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Just two unresolved issues. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Have clarified 'clinical concern' with "such as obvious symptoms", which hopefully gets across the ideas more smoothly. The other sentence I think is as clear as it's going to be for now; the term is bluelinked to permit navigational popups, and it's not very jargony all told. Thank you for your comments and assistance! Vaticidalprophet 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I still feel the article is a touch too abstrusely written for the average consumer, particularly as the topic is not that esoteric, but I also recognize your style is your style. You have my support. If others bounce off the style, you may want to smooth some corners. --Neopeius (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure there are corners to smooth still -- all in good time :) Thank you so much again for your help and support! Vaticidalprophet 03:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Can we get a source for the info in File:XXX syndrome (male).svg?
  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 03:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    The nondisjunction images were made in 2011 by an editor who hasn't edited Commons or enwiki since 2014 (has some more recent nlwiki edits, but sparse enough I'm not confident a talk page message or email would find anyone). I've added a couple references to the caption describing the process in a way that fits with the image's depiction -- does that work? Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    OK, I think that's fine. I will AGF that they support the content of the image. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Don't see many medical articles at FAC, will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  • "Speech therapy is indicated for between 40% and 90% of girls with trisomy X.[25] Expressive language skills tend to be more affected than receptive skills" - Can a comparison to average rates of speech therapy in a control population be indicated?
  • " the resulting karyotype is generally mosaic, with both 47,XXX and other cell lines" - Don't think it's necessary to link mosaic here, as this section is immediately preceded by a lengthy discussion of mosaicism
  • epicanthic folds is linked twice in the diagnosis section; IMO its generally not useful to link a term multiple times in the same section
    • Both above unlinked. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Aha, actually -- I mixed up which you were referring to in the first. The use in "Causes" is not (yet) unliked, on account of the 'separate section' issue; a mobile reader only opening "Causes" doesn't know we've just been through a discussion of mosaicism, and so risks having the term lost on them. I self-confess to overlinking even within my framework of "we should link jargon generously so readers looking at isolated sections can follow", so there may be an argument for omitting it, but there's a real risk many readers will be introduced to that section without being aware of what's before it. I did unlink the use at the beginning of "Mosaic forms", though, because any reader looking at that is about to get into a big discussion of them better than that article/its navigation popup would give. Vaticidalprophet 01:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • " Marfan syndrome may be considered due to the disproportion between limb and torso length observed in both syndromes, as well as the joint issues." - Is the joint issues the hyperflexibility mentioned earlier? Or is this issues for Marfan syndrome? The use of "the" here makes it seem that a specific set of joint issues is being referred to, and I'm having
    • Ah, missed this one. Will tweak wording. Vaticidalprophet 04:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Data from the Danish Cytogenetic Central Register, which covers 13% of women with trisomy X in Denmark,[67] suggests a life expectancy of 71 for women with full trisomy X and 78 for mosaics" - Is there some sort of control number to compare this to? It's hard to determine the meaning of statistical samples without knowing what the control results are.
    • Added control numbers. I omitted them the first time around because they're presented in a somewhat odd way; there seem to have been two separate "control groups", one who died almost three years younger than the other on average, and I wasn't confident presenting the "all controls" data would give an accurate representation. Have added that now, though. Vaticidalprophet 02:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Are block quotes like that normal for medical articles? It seems kinda anecdotal to me
  • "Odle, Christine. "The story of Christine, born in 1967, dx shortly after birth". Triple-X Syndroom. Retrieved 23 May 2021." - What makes this source RS? Also, what part of the preceding is it intended to support? Because it seems to be referring to the Denver one and says that the program was cancelled shortly before the researcher died and implies funding was what ended it while the article suggests that it was the death
    • As regards both these points: they were both intended to tie more smoothly in with something I was absolutely certain I'd added to the society and culture section (sex chromsosome aneuploidies and abortion) and promptly found out I had not, which is now in there. The source you pick at is used for "what women with trisomy X think about the condition" purposes (which I think might be able to be expanded a little more -- will double-check some of the sociological studies), which as the section indeed mentions is more often in single-case informal descriptions than in widespread study, because there just isn't much written on the karyotype from a non-medical perspective. (It's also, to note a specific note, not self-published but rather vetted by a major trisomy X organization.) I've since cut the use of it for this statement, which I thought at first was interesting detail but on review is more extraneous detail. The blockquote I like -- it's a solid summary of "where the research is" presented in a way more understandable/relatable to general readers than the admittedly dense remainder of that section -- but I'm agnostic on precisely where it goes; there's a good argument for putting it in "Society and culture", where the abortion discussions it ties into are, and where the fact it's written from a sociological rather than medical perspective doesn't pose an issue. Vaticidalprophet 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • " though the latter in particular is now discouraged" - is it worth saying why without becoming undue detail?
    • The source is a bit sparse on this, just recommending it without reason. In context it's rather clear that the reason is "because searching 'triple x women' on the internet isn't exactly going to put results on trisomy X front and centre", but taking this from the source is technically OR. (On an amusing note on that, I hear so many stories of high school biology teachers accidentally searching 'xxx women' in front of a class of teenagers...) Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Not familiar enough with WP:MEDRS to really judge most of the sources
    • No worries -- better we have people reviewing topics they know their limits with than we have stuff languishing because people don't touch outside their comfort zones :) Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. Expect to support, but it'll probably be over fewer FACR components than normal because I just am too unfamiliar with the subject matter to assess MEDRS or comprehensiveness, for instance. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Getting to them all one by one. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Vaticidalprophet - Ping me when you're done, as I've got enough clutter on my watchlist that it's hard to keep track of stuff. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Hog Farm, should all be broadly addressed. Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Support to the extent that I'm familiar with the subject matter - not familiar with medical topics whatsoever, but nothing sticks out to me as running contrary to the FA criteria. Hog Farm Talk 04:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

I'm pleased to see another medicine article, and will happily do a source review.

Some of the reviews cited here are a bit older than we'd see at the typical medicine FA, but I'm guessing that's due to a paucity of existing sources. I'll take a look later this week, but if there's nothing more recent written in textbooks or journals I think we can safely assume those slightly older reviews still reliably represent medical knowledge.

Currently checking uses of primary sources...

  • It seems a bit odd to cite "Several factors can affect... with other chromosomes are present" to a retrospective study of 36 people in a niche journal (at least I think it's niche? I've never heard of it before but can't find much info on it...). Seems the same info could be cited to one of your more obviously reliable sources.
  • ref 10 is nicely contextualized.
  • ref 12 (increased enamel thickness and root length) is presumably not covered in other sources, and is contextualized as "... have all been connected to the condition", which seems fine to me.

... stepping away from the computer, but will be working on this in jumps and starts over the next few days. Feel free to respond to any issues as I go, or to wait. As you prefer. Ajpolino (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ajpolino! :) You're pretty right on the source limitations here (I remember you being pretty shocked by the ones at the tetrasomy X PR, heh); the Unique guide updated this year still uses Tartaglia 2010 and Otter 2009, as well as a few much older than those, as its major sources, and I'm broadly not expecting anything big and new to be published on non-Klinefelter sex chromosome aneuploidies until the eXtraordinarY Babies studies get into swing, which is a decades-off matter. Will take another look at my use of ref 4; it's mostly an attempt to contextualize early in the article something that gets discussed in fuller depth later (including with better studies) without following it with a million citations. Vaticidalprophet 04:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Ping to Ajpolino a week later just to check how this is going. Vaticidalprophet 13:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Finally got back to it today. All the other primary sources are explicitly called out as such in the text. The rest is to secondary sources. I won't pretend to know the field well enough to know each of the journals, but the ones cited here are from publishers with a reputation for running legitimate peer review operations. On the edge of that label are ref 58 from Bentham and ref 92 from MDPI. Each of those publishers has attracted some criticism for at-times uninspiring peer review. In general, I think their papers are fine to use with some added scrutiny. I'll leave you to look into it (and perhaps you already have) and decide if you trust each for the material you've sourced to them. I'll move on to verification spot-checks, which I believe is customary for first-time nominators (though now that I mention it I can't find that written anywhere...) Ajpolino (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I recall the custom being written too -- at any rate, thank you! Regarding the more borderline cases, I've had my eye on the Bentham source for a while and have been seriously considering switching it out, which I'll probably do. MDPI I'd probably drop in a more mainstream context, but animal cytogenetics is not a sexy field and it's really a miracle we have a literature review from 2021 on the matter. If it were supporting a different part of the article I'd be looking for a better publisher, but "flawed-but-not-actively-predatory publisher for a very niche matter" is one where I think the rest of it works out to acceptable. The authors are also published on similar topics in better journals, which helps. Vaticidalprophet 00:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks (numbers picked by

  • 3 (Tartaglia, et al. 2010) - The major source used in the article. [a-m, o, s, t, v, x-ab] all check out perfectly. Minor comments for the others:
    • [n] - This sentence A minority of patients... intellectually disabled patients has fairly confusing citations. The way it's written it appears as if this ref is for the end of the sentence, but I don't see either of the facts in that half of the sentence -- trisomy X patients mostly have partial seizures (if they have seizures) and that epilepsy/EEG abnormalities are more common in those with intellectual disability -- in the ref. Perhaps in Roubertie, et al. (currently ref 32) next to it? But I don't have access to that journal.
      • The focus on intellectual disability is in ref 32, yes (I leaned towards ending the sentence with both because I don't like cutting up with refs too much, and both focus on the partial-seizures part); if you can't access the full text, it's mentioned in the abstract (Although a specific electro-clinical pattern could not be defined, the epileptic phenotypes of these patients share many features; we suggest that the association 47,XXX/epilepsy/mental retardation may not be coincidental). Partial seizures do come up in ref 3 (Medical history should include questions regarding staring spells or atypical movements, since seizure disorders and electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities can be present in females with trisomy X and may present as partial or absence seizures. In these cases, EEG studies should be performed to rule out possible seizure activity). Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Not to split hairs, but I think either the text or the referencing (or my brain) is still unclear: "... and may present as partial or absence seizures." (source) vs "epilepsy or EEG abnormalities, particularly partial seizures..." (our article) are not getting across the same thing. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
          • This is one that does trip me up a bit. Source #3 discusses absence seizures, but I have no clue where it's getting that from, because more or less everything else (including the primary sources in it) overwhelmingly focus on partial seizures, and the other sources supplementing that one inline only discuss partial seizures. I think the balance of the evidence works out to focusing on partial seizures gives readers a more accurate impression of the literature. Vaticidalprophet 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • [p] (first par. of mosaic forms section)- not a big deal, but our current text implies that 45,X/46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is less common than the other mosaics. Best I can tell, the source doesn't make that distinction. Does some other source explicitly distinguish them as less common? I get that the triple mosaic genotype is probably less common than the doubles, but if none of the reviews explicitly comment on it, perhaps we're better rephrasing to avoid the implication?
      • If not less common, than at least less core, if that makes sense. It's a hard thing to dredge up explicitly-less-common sources for, as searches are pretty thrown off by complex mosaicism in autosomes and double-trisomies (e.g. 48,XXX+21 karyotypes). I've found a couple things explicitly calling it less common, but they're primary and often preprints. The wording here is a bit evasive/general, so there might be a direction it can be tweaked in to get the idea across even if those sources wind up unusable? Vaticidalprophet 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • [q] (The 46,XX/47,XXX subsection) - would you mind being more precise with the reference placement in this paragraph? It's a bit of a verification challenge. All this source says on the topic is that 46,XX/47,XXX happens, and that outcomes are better than 47,XXX.
    • [r] ("Between 3% and 15%... have a 47,XXX cell line") - Just a note this source says 5-15%, the other source's (Lim, et al. 2017) discussion says 3-4% so I'm assuming this is your compromise? Disagreeing numbers is a perennial trick for writing medicine articles, so I feel your pain. Just flagging this in case it's a typo and you meant to go with the 5-15% range. It's odd the sources have such a broad disagreement, but what're you gonna do.
      • It's a compromise, yeah. I might tweak it lower -- more sources lean towards the lower numbers than the higher ones -- but I'm not totally confident on that yet (only just beginning a rewrite of Turner syndrome) and so it's pending further reading in Turner-focused sources, because they disagree with each other here too. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • [u] ("Nondisjunction is related to... average maternal age was 33.") - I don't see the part about the cohort of women born in the '60s.
      • Huh, you're right -- I've certainly read this somewhere, but apparently not here. I suspect I might've been moving around refs at a prior point and accidentally cut where I got that from. Have cut the second line for now, pending its verification. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • [w] ("As trisomy X generally has... routinely performed for advanced maternal age.") - I don't see the bit about routine testing with advanced maternal age. But perhaps I just missed it? Hard to guess what section it would be in.
      • The routine testing here is that amniocentesis/CVS are routinely performed for pregnant women in that age range, and trisomy X is picked up on those tests; the tests are brought up a few times (e.g. Diagnosis during the prenatal period by amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling is common). Should "these are tests used in advanced maternal age" be cited somewhere else? It's a bit sky-is-blue within the field, so it isn't explicitly mentioned in literature at this level, but it'll probably be in patient-targeted stuff I can find relatively easy -- those things just won't tend to mention trisomy X specifically. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Ah I see. I think it's fine as sky-is-blue material then. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 4 (Butnariu, et al. 2013) - What a coincidence! This is one I flagged earlier. My opinion is that this should be replaced by a more reliable source. The claim it sources is basically that mosaicism can affect the trisomy X phenotype. Should be able to find that elsewhere.
    • Have moved ref 3 up to replace this, as it mentions it as well. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Phew! I've got 15 more numbers from the generator, but I'm going to sign off for the day. Will get back to this asap. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Given first replies -- will get back around to everything else. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 5 (Otter, et al. 2009) - [a-f, h, i, k, m-q] all check out. Notes on the others:
    • [g] "A minority[ref] of patients have epilepsy or EEG abnormalities..." - I'm confused as to what this is referencing. The source says "EEG abnormalities seem to be rather common" and doesn't give a sense of epilepsy prevalence. Could you clarify?
      • Have changed to 'a subset' and moved the ref around. I think the wording of this source is fairly intended to be read that epilepsy specifically is a minority thing, though (e.g. mentioning its relatively low prevalence in newborn screening samples). Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • [j] "behavioral issues in children with trisomy X... emotional maturity encouraging hard-to-reach expectations." - Could you clarify the source text this is based on?
      • It seemed that the physical phenotype (being the tallest but immature and somewhat clumsy girl in the peer group, sometimes with precocious puberty) and the behavioural phenotype (speech and language disorders, sensory-integration disorders and academic difficulties) could explain some social problems. Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I could be missing obvious subtext here, but I read the source text to simply mean that being physically and behaviorally distinct from your peers makes social life difficult. The article text describes a more complex situation. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    • [l] could you quote the source text for "Adult employment is generally in lower-skill pink-collar occupations"? It also cites Bender, et al. 2002 but I don't seem to have access to that. The only thing I see in this source is "The 47,XXX women most often find jobs that reflect their performance abilities." but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
      • Lower-skill employment comes up several times (They planned to take jobs requiring low academic and linguistic skills; These girls found unskilled labour after leaving school). The phrase in general is also backed up in the latter source. Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Time for another big reference! Will try to get these other ones done asap. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 21 Stagi, et al. 2016 - Checks out. Any reason to mention LH but not FSH? I only skimmed the source, but it seemed to imply both were elevated. Ajpolino (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 23 Cordts, et al. 2011 - [a&b] both look good.
  • 28 Black, et al. 2015 - I'm not sure where the 3% floor came from (maybe the other source?) but I trust your judgment here. This is always a hard kind of thing to cite.
  • 30 Grosso, et al. 2004 - Good.
  • 33 Maenner, et al. 2020 - Good.
  • 41 Neri and Opitz 1984 - I assume this is just to cite "Some writers have recommended... during pregancy"? If so, checks out.
  • 53 Graves, et al. 2009 - Good.
  • 55 O'Connor 2008 - Sure.
  • 57 Meazza, et al. 2017 - [a&b] good
  • 59 Otteson, et al. 2010 - I'm not really sure what this is verifying. It seems like the two preceding sentences "Pentasomy X, with... and short stature." are backed up by the source. Otteson et al only addresses the relationship between height and chrom. X copies.
    • That's valid, I must have brain-farted about whether the height thing was in the other source. Removed. Vaticidalprophet 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 65 Berglund, et al. 2019 - [a, b] Good.
  • 77 Tartaglia, et al. 2020 - Good.
  • 91 O'Connor, et al. 2011 - basically good, but pardon the quibble: maybe "trisomy X is strongly linked to infertility" is worded just a bit strong? The source says "In dogs, the few reports of trisomy X in the current literature had... either primary anestrus or infertility...".
  • 94 Prakash, et al. 1994 - I can't seem to access this one. The title just about says it all, so I'll trust your judgment on this one.

Alright, all done. Thanks for your quick responses, and apologies for my extreme slowness. I've got a couple of outstanding quibbles that you're welcome to consider. Regardless, I think this is a source review pass, and I'll happily support on the basis of that. If you need another prose reviewer or anything else here feel free to ping me. Ajpolino (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Prose reviewEdit

Just signalling that I see this is falling down the list a bit, so I'll give a review either tomorrow (Tuesday 13) or this weekend. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 23:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey Gog. I'm sorry – I just don't have the time anymore. There are no striking issues to me, glancing over the article. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 01:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem, ImaginesTigers; just so long as we know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2021 (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.

  • karyotype[note 1] 47,XXX, - could we move the note until after the punctuation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it a disorder, or an abnormality, as that's where we have the article chromosome abnormality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The article being at "abnormality" is pretty much coincidence -- there are many possible terms for "chromosomes doing something weird", none of which have a real claim to COMMONNAME. "Abnormality"'s connotations means it's losing some favour, and accordingly I'm not inclined to use it in the article. Vaticidalprophet 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • girls and women - surely women covers this. Happens a few times Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As the research focuses strongly on childhood manifestations and has relatively little adult data compared to many other lifelong conditions, I call it out a few times to contextualize. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • dysmorphic features change to [[dysmorphic feature]]sBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • increased height, with an average height around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in). - I don't really get what we earn from stating the actual height, considering the lede doesn't say how tall women generally are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • chromosome aneuploidy.[note 2] - considering we have a link, do we need the note? And if we do, can't we put this into the text? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Whenever I omit the footnotes, I get complaints about the language density. This is the best compromise I've pulled off -- expecting people to follow links to understand an article gets criticised, while putting it directly in the text is patronizing to people who do know. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • First diagnosed in 1959, - by whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • An introductionary sentence to the body would benefit here - something saying that Trisomy X is a chromosone abnormality etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • prenatally (before birth) and postnatally (after birth) - if we have to explain the words, could we not just say "both before birth (prenatal) and after birth (postnatal)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • might be worth changing "pinky finger" to "little finger" as that's where we have our article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Autism spectrum disorders - cut the link to just the first two words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • childhood onset schizophrenia - is onset required? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • are the different subsections of mosiac forms needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I originally wrote it without subsections, but found the Turner mosaicism stuff was so overwhelming it needed to be separated out. This does result in a couple of annoyingly short subsections, but that's as much as I can find on those variants. Vaticidalprophet 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There's an awful lot of duplicate links that need removing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The duplinks are intentional. There's a lot of WT:MED discussion about duplinking in medical articles, and more broadly in technical jargon-y topics in general. Many (most? all?) medical FAs have several. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The prognosis of trisomy X is, broadly speaking, good, - maybe I'm not medical enough, but "good comparied to what?" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The good news here, is that despite not being medical, or having interest in disabilities, I got through this article and understood most of what was being said - so I'm pretty happy. If you could fix up a few of the wording/formatting issues I had above, I'd be happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo LuisEdit

I don't excel in biology, so forgive me if I misunderstand something. I'll probably make comments more on prose stuff than the scientific bit. GeraldWL 06:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • "Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation"-- I'd remove "of trisomy X" here to avoid repetition. However, I see that this sentence has a better duplicate-- "As the symptoms of trisomy X are often not serious enough to inspire a karyotype test"-- so I don't think this sentence is needed.
    • Removed the repetition. Have not removed the sentence itself, as they have different contexts and this is such a core fact of the condition that it bears repeating. Vaticidalprophet 23:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The average IQ"-- it's encouraged to have the long version first, then bracket the abbr. So in this case, "The average intelligence quotient (IQ)".
  • "research on girls and women with the disorder" --> "research on patients"
  • I think para 3 can be merged with para 1, as it covers the same thing.
    • They don't. The first paragraph is "the lead of the lead" and summarizes quick glance "what is it, how common is it, why have I never heard of it if it's so common". The third paragraph is a relatively technical discussion of the etiology. Vaticidalprophet 23:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Women with trisomy X" --> "Patients"
  • "Minor skeletal and craniofacial"-- link craniofacial
  • "daily lives of girls and women with the condition." Condition or disorder? I think it should be consistent.
  • "Premature ovarian failure is defined" --> "POS is defined". Also do this for other following mentions of the condition.
  • "with an average intelligence quotient"-- add "(IQ) after that.
  • "and bipolar disorder respectively"-- link bipolar disorder
  • Link schizophrenia at "and schizophrenic women", remove it at "adult-onset schizophrenia is estimated".
  • "complicated by the fact" that
    • "That" is grammatically optional in this context; I dislike its overuse. Vaticidalprophet 06:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Some writers"-- what kind of writers? It should be more specific here.
  • "experience premature ovarian failure" --> "experience POF"
  • "where it occurs after conception. When nondisjunction occurs after conception, the resulting" -- > "where it occurs after conception; in this case the resulting"
  • "Chromosome aneuploidies"-- unlink.
  • There are more duplicate links throughout the article.
    • The duplicate links are intentional per my comment to Lee Vilenski; indeed, the TFA at the time of writing is a medical FA with plenty that were kept at FAC and are restored when they're removed. Vaticidalprophet 19:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The prognosis of trisomy X is, broadly speaking, good"-- what does good mean here?

More will come later.

The Great GatsbyEdit

Nominator(s): — Flask (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about The Great Gatsby, the literary masterwork by writer F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nearly a hundred years after its initial publication and commercial failure, the work continues to be one of the most widely read novels of our time. It remains relevant in the United States today due to its themes of class permanence, wealth inequality, and status concerns over immigration. Since its U.S. copyright expired this year, a slew of upcoming media adaptations are reportedly planned; thus, perpetuating the novel's cultural salience in the coming years. Following a haphazard FAC nomination in 2008, this article has been greatly expanded by a number of editors including myself. In the past year alone, many of its sections have been written from scratch while other sections have been extensively revamped and meticulously sourced.

This article has undergone an extensive GAR, a rewrite by the Guild of Copy Editors, and a four-month-long Peer Review. This article would not have reached its current stage without the collaborative efforts of many editors: Jason Quinn and JayHenry developed the article during its formative years and their work enabled the article to achieve GA status in 2013; Hobomok wrote the lead and adaptations section as well as spurred the article's GAR, and Twofingered Typist did a superlative job in copy-editing the prose. Additionally, Peer Review feedback by Buidhe, Eddie891, SandyGeorgia, Urve, and ImaginesTigers was especially helpful. ImaginesTigers, in particular, has been instrumental in shepherding this article from GAR to its FAC nomination. I look forward to reading your criticisms and undertaking your suggested alterations. Please note this is my first FAC nomination so I might make novice mistakes during this process. — Flask (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • File:F Scott Fitzgerald circa 1920.jpg File:Zelda Fitzgerald circa 1919 Retouched.jpg File:Edith Cummings Chicago 1920.jpg File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg File:Arnold Rothstein Chicago 1919.jpg when was the first publication?
  • File:Plaza Hotel New York City 1908.jpg NYPL actually says this item is copyrighted and it manages the rights [21] It would only be PD if you can show publication before 1926.
  • File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg Fails NFCC as there is no critical commentary on the drafting process, nor, I would guess, would that be DUE in this article.
  • File:Edmund Wilson.jpg Not PD as "The item you've requested has been digitized but is only available for access at NYPL. Please come visit us to see the item!"
  • The Great Gatsby trailer (1926).webm I would hold off on using this until next year because the argument on copyright notice only applies if you can be 100% certain that you are seeing the entire film including any copyright notices that may have been applied.
  • Other image licensing looks OK

(t · c) buidhe 20:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, buidhe. Thank you for your preliminary image review. In the case of several of those images, I will be adding the missing publication dates by tomorrow evening. (The Rothstein one was uploaded by me from a 1919 newspaper article in The Chicago Daily News.) I will also research the others to better determine their copyright status. — Flask (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
» File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg is in the public domain. The author, Edward Moran (1829-1901), died 120 years ago, and the painting was exhibited 135 years ago. Furthermore, the painting is held by the Museum of the City of New York. Today, I contacted Lauren Robinson, the Manager of Collections Licensing and Digital Assets at Museum of the City of New York. Within one hour, Robinson replied via e-mail officially confirming the painting is in the public domain:

"Thank you for your interest in the Museum of the City of New York. It is our understanding that the 1886 painting by Edward Moran (1829-1901), Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World (The Unveiling of the Statue of Liberty), is in the public domain according to copyright law in the United States. The Museum uses Cornell University Library Copyright Information Center's resource, Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, to make these determinations. Best wishes..."

Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. I can attach a screenshot of the correspondence if you wish. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
» File:Arnold Rothstein Chicago 1919.jpg is in the public domain. This photo of Arnold Rothstein was published prior to 1922 in a variety of newspapers amid the Black Sox Scandal. Specifically, the photo was published on the front page of the The Buffalo Enquirer on Wednesday, July 27, 1921. Vol. 77 — No. 296 (Source: Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
» File:Plaza Hotel New York City 1908.jpg has been replaced with File:Plaza Hotel New York City Circa 1910.jpg. The latter photo is in the public domain according to the Library of Congress. As explicitly stated on the Library of Congress website: "No known restrictions on publication." — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
» File:Edmund Wilson.jpg is in the collection of the U.S. Library of Congress, and the Library of Congress states it was distributed in 1946 by Doubleday & Company to newspapers and other publications as a publicity photograph. Photos that are freely distributed for publicity purposes fall under fair use. If this first rationale is insufficient, the photo was released without a copyright notice prior to 1977 as an inspection by the Library of Congress in 1996 found "no information on creator or on reproduction rights found with the image." Based on this information, this would be a rationale for public domain status. Consequently, I believe the licensing of the photo on Wikimedia Commons should be updated. I have contacted a Library of Congress specialist for final confirmation. Once I receive this confirmation, I will update the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. Please do not delete the image yet. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
» UPDATE: File:F Scott Fitzgerald circa 1920.jpg is in the public domain. The original photo was published in The Beautiful and Damned in March 1922 and the U.S. copyright has since expired. See The Beautiful and Damned via Internet Archive or The Beautiful and Damned jacket via Whitmore Rare Books. Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. — Flask (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
» UPDATE: File:Zelda Fitzgerald circa 1919 Retouched.jpg — I've removed this photo from the article since I have not received a response from the F. Scott Fitzgerald society, and I cannot seem to find a publication date. — Flask (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
» UPDATE: File:The Great Gatsby trailer (1926).webm — I've removed the clip from the article. Today, I contacted the Library of Congress which has a copy of the trailer in their AFI/Jack Tillmany Collection. Although the librarian stated they believe the trailer to be in the public domain, I would have to contact the U.S. Copyright Office and pay $100 to have this information verified. Rather than pay $100, I will just wait six months and re-add the trailer in January 2022 when the copyright for all films of that year has expired. — Flask (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
» UPDATE: File:Edith Cummings Chicago 1920.jpg — I've removed this photo from the article and replaced the image with File: Edith Cummings Vogue Photograph December 1923 Retouched.jpg.

, File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg — I will investigate these files tomorrow. There are thousands of photos of Cummings published in newspapers prior to 1925 so I might replace the image with one of those instead. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these enquiries! When LOC makes a file not visible as in the Edmund Wilson case, I assume it's considered under copyright or the copyright status is unknown. If they update to make it fully viewable, I'll accept it as freely licensed. Incidentally, if you're uploading files to commons it's best to use the most specific license tag. For example, if it was published before 1926 it's better to use {{PD-1923}} than {{PD-US}}. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I have now evaluated the remaining photos in the article, verified their publication dates, and updated their corresponding licenses on Commons. After consulting with ImaginesTigers, I expanded the critical commentary of the cover art's evolution and restored the Fair Use image (File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg). The image specifically illustrates the accompanying critical commentary which discusses the cover drafts. As the cover art is deemed to be among the most celebrated pieces of art in American literature, its visual evolution is of immediate relevance and importance to the article. Nearly every single biography of Fitzgerald discusses those same cover drafts, their provenance, and their evolution. Also, this is the sole Fair Use image to appear in this article. — Flask (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Images now look good, although now you risk giving undue weight to the cover art in the article with a lengthy discussion. One possible solution would be splitting to The Great Gatsby cover art and putting the fair use image(s) there. (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the article is better for having more information about the cover art. It’s described in as much detail as every other aspect of the novel, and contributes to its overall comprehensiveness. In essence, I disagree that it even approaches undue weight. Flask specifically notes the cover art's significance in every biography of Fitzgerald. I support it remaining in the article as is, though Flask should feel free to expand with an additional article if they think that prudent. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 00:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to give some more context, a quick search online will confirm the cover's significance. See for instance this recent Vox article about how nervous some artists have been about attempting their own cover (given its recent plunging into public domain). The cover's story is pretty engaging, but really not worth an entire article. It’s of appropriate depth and size, I think. Additionally, the cover art impressed Fitzgerald so much that he included its imagery in the novel. The eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleberg have become one of the novel's most well-known themes (which the subheading doesn't mention). That the green light was added later is significant, too. This article is going to be read by a lot of younger people and students, and its inclusion is well-founded when considered in that light. I don't understand how it could be considered undue weight; it’s a piece of famous cover art, not a fringe theory or pseudoscience (what undue weight is written to safeguard against). Even just the quality and variety of the sourcing indicates that. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 04:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Thank you for your reply. For practically any other novel, I would agree the inclusion of the cover drafts would be undue. However—as Charles Scribner III (1992) and many Fitzgerald scholars have noted—The Great Gatsby is one of the rare instances in literary history in which a novel's commissioned cover art both preceded a work and directly affected its composition. There is considerable scholarly evidence that many sections of the book—such as the billboard with the eyes of T. J. Eckleburg, the visit to Coney Island, the passages describing Daisy's face floating above the city, the ending scene about the green light at Daisy's dock, etc.—were all incorporated into the novel by Fitzgerald in reaction to viewing Cugat's cover drafts. Hence, the novel is one of the very few great works of literature which was directly influenced by its commissioned cover drafts rather than vice versa. For these reasons, I do not believe the inclusion of the cover drafts to be undue. In fact, I believe it is of vital importance to understanding the novel's development and, again, illustrates a historical anomaly in terms of literature. — Flask (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


I've read this article so many times that I'm not sure what remains. I've given probably a couple of thousand words of feedback at this stage, so you'll have to excuse my brevity with the knowledge that my due diligence has been done! Support. Great work (to all of you, but especially Flask). — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 19:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator commentEdit

Approaching the three week mark and only one general support. This nomination needs to attract more attention if it is to convince that a consensus to promote may be forming. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Can any Wikipedia editor review a FAC nomination? If so, I could post a neutral message on the article's Talk Page requesting that other editors review the nomination. — Flask (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
They certainly can. They don't even need to be registered! Although coordinators will weigh comments by what we perceive they bring to the discussion. Feel free to also post a neutrally worded request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and on the talk pages of any editors who frequently work in this area or whom you have reason to believe may be interested in reviewing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Hi, Gog. I realise that my review looks a little blunt, but please do consider my support the result of a very long collaborative process. If you have a look at the article's GA nomination, you can see that I reviewed the references very extensively back then (Flask asked for a thorough review given that FAC was the end-goal), then contributed during the PR too, so it isn't just a fly-by support! — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 21:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


Support from me. Haven't looked at it as attentively as I'd like, so can't provide suggestions yet. Regardless, the quality and care throughout the article is undeniable. Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: Thanks for taking the time to have a look! That said, Flask is a first-time FAC nominator, so if you're interested in seeing this promoted, a more thorough review would be invaluable to him and the article. The coordinators are unlikely to weigh a support very highly if it isn't explicit about the nature of the support. Any more comments, when you have the time? — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 17:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: Absolutely! Just trying to get more familiar with the article before putting forward suggestions. Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Small Question: what's the deal with the "monster of bitchery" in the gender relations section? I don't remember seeing that expression in the reference, though it is indeed conveyed... Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

From the ref: "Despite the tendency of critics to view her as a "monster of bitchery," Daisy has her own complex story, her own desires and needs" (p. 253). — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 13:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

To be more precise about my support: I would confidently say the article fulfills criteria 1a and 1b; the rest may be outside my ability to assess at this moment (though I would be surprised to find any major obstacle). Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


Will review, although I've never read the book. Hog Farm Talk 20:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks! It will be interesting to hear your opinion especially in regards to whether the article suffices for those who haven't read the book. — Flask (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Note a: "Nilsson posits that this period is among the most fascinating eras in U.S. history due to the cultural rebellion by American youth: "Youth in revolt didn't start at Woodstock, it began with Gertrude Stein's Lost Generation"" can probably be trimmed, as not quite on topic.
Done: Trimmed quote. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "While living on Long Island, the Fitzgeralds' enigmatic neighbor" - is it really best to describe him as a neighbor in unqualified fashion, since scholars are unable to prove the assertion?
Addressed: Rewrote informational note regarding Gerlach to explain why a lack of surviving documentation does not preclude his status as a neighbor. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Fitzgerald initially preferred titles referencing Trimalchio" - not sure that Trimalchio should be italicized, as names generally aren't italicized
Done: De-italicized Trimalchio. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The most laudatory review was by Edwin Clark of The New York Times, who felt the novel was a mystical and glamorous tale of the Jazz Age" - this is sourced directly to Clark's review. Is there a secondary source to support "the most laudatory review"?
Addressed: Removed the phrase "most laudatory review" since The London Times review was more laudatory than The New York Times review. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Inspired by Dan Cody's predatory mining practices," - unclear if Dan Cody is a character in the novel or a real person
Done. Rewrote phrase to be: "Inspired by the predatory mining practices of his fictional mentor Dan Cody" — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "and in 2013, Slate released a short symbolic adaptation called The Great Gatsby: The Video Game." - this is sourced only to the website that produced the adaption. Recommend using a secondary source to confirm that this is actually significant
Done. Added a secondary reliable source via Polygon which states it was later turned into a Steam game. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Sources look reliable
  • Image licensing looks fine, although I'm not an expert on that.

That's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thank you again for your feedback. I have attempted to address each of your points. Please let me know if you have further suggestions! — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, consistent citation style, and 4. Did not check others, and this review comes with the disclaimer that I can't really judge the plot summary as I haven't read the book. (had to read The Scarlet Letter in school instead; would have preferred Flannery O'Connor for American literature) Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Thank you for your review and for your support! I, too, am not a fan of The Scarlet Letter. I found Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables to be far superior as a work of fiction. Forcing young students to slog through The Scarlet Letter has likely harmed Hawthorne's literary reputation over the decades more than anything else. And, yes, Flannery O'Connor would have been a better choice as a school assignment than Hawthorne. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


Strong Support from me. While I contributed to the article, my minute additions amount to nothing in comparison to the work Flask has done here. As a whole, the page offers a lucid overview for general enthusiasts, high school students, and beginning scholars. In that way, in my mind, it does exactly what an encyclopedia article should do.

The article covers all general information related to the novel, which is helpful for anyone with a beginning interest in Gatsby or Fitzgerald, and it also goes deeper where necessary. For example, the Critical Analysis section does a superb job providing a review of the major areas of scholarly critique r/t Gatsby over the years, and it provides representative texts for those areas of study. I applaud such a thorough, clear literature review on just one topic, let alone the 4-5 topic areas Flask has put together here. The same could be said for any other section, such as "Writing and Production" or "Historical and Biographical Context," but I won't go long on this--y'all get the idea.

As someone who has taught and studied Gatsby, albeit not intensely, I would be happy to point students to this page so that they might dive into areas that one could not cover in a class session, or as a way to find other avenues of interest for further investigation through reading sections to pique interest and then engaging in some footnote chasing. I can also see this being of use to secondary teachers who might not be so familiar with the critical analyses of the book or its historical context, who could also use the page as a way to further background knowledge while creating lesson plans. In all, this is darn good work and I'm happy to have seen it take shape. Bravo, Flask! --Hobomok (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hobomok: Thank you for your kind comments! — Flask (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


(Update: after the completion of the edits discussed below, I happily support this article for FA status!) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I can tell a great deal of work went into this article and it will be a very useful FA for students -- this book gets assigned so much! I have taught this novel a few times, but learned valuable details about its context from this article. The major themes section is, especially, a feat of very informative, concise, and well-sourced writing about literary interpretation. I made a few very minor edits as I read, just little sentence tweaks if there was anything I needed to pause and re-read. Overall the prose is very polished and often quite vivid (though not excessively so for an encyclopedia). I have the following quite small comments as well:

  • Plot summary: the statement that "Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, and he were all Westerners unsuited to Eastern life" doesn't make sense to me. Is this about West Egg vs East Egg? That distinction hasn't been defined by the article.
Fixed. Altered word choice in several sentences and added explanatory note. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Characters
  • Same confusion, Nick "despairs of... Eastern life and returns to the West" -- is this about the East coast vs the Midwest?
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, why does Meyer Wolfsheim rate a listing in the cast of characters? It says he only appears twice, which is not really a claim to significance. I think either add a sentence explaining his relevance, or remove from the list and let the "Antisemitism" section mention the link between the man and the character.
Fixed. Removed Meyer Wolfsheim from Major Characters and move relevant information to Antisemitism section. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Writing and production: Given the discussion of the cover art's influence, it would be helpful for the "timeline"-y part of this section to mention when (at what stage in composition) Fitzgerald actually saw the art.
Fixed. Added specific date to Cover Art section. Also, thank you for adding the more specific phrase to the Writing and Production section. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Major themes: Race and displacement: The last paragraph of this section seems much less informative than the preceding. It says: "Because of such themes, The Great Gatsby arguably captures the perennial American experience as it is a story about change and those who resist it, whether the change comes in the form of a new wave of immigrants, the nouveau riche, or successful minorities. As Americans living in the 1920s to the present are defined by their fluctuating economic and social circumstances, contemporary readers can relate to Gatsby, which has contributed to the novel's enduring popularity." In general, I think this section is not as strong as the two previous -- "Class permanence" does a great job of stating not just that the book is about class but what it says about class, and "Gender relations" does a great job of mapping how and why the book's depiction of gender has been reassessed over time. So rather than just a vague statement that Gatsby is still relatable, I want to know-- is the book considered to have anti-racist tendencies since it aligns racism with its antagonist? If those were Fitzgerald's intentions, how much do they still 'hold up' a hundred years later?
Addressed. Rewrote final paragraph of Race and displacement to answer the question of whether scholars believe Fitzgerald's depiction of the racial and ethnic social conflict still has relevance using the Vogel and Gillespie sources. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Major themes: Technology and environment: Again you've got me with "the East" -- "In this context, Nick's repudiation of the East represents a futile attempt to withdraw into nature." Here it must be the East coast, right? If so I think the article needs some kind of orientation to this East/West lens of understanding the US. The distinction seems to align with what I'd call "East Coast" and "Midwest" (or maybe "Western frontier"?) but today "East" and "West" on their own evoke Western culture/Eastern World.
Fixed. Altered word choice in several sentences and added explanatory note. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Major themes: queer readings? I also wonder if there ought to be a section discussing queer interpretations of the novel, since it's a key way I often encounter the novel myself. I'm not sure that the article is actively incomplete without such a section-- it may be that I encounter queer readings of Gatsby so often because I don't study American lit but do study queer lit-- but since I encounter it as a fairly uncontroversial interpretation, it might be a valuable addition. I'd be happy to help write such a section.
  • Adaptations: other media: The jump from radio to games is a little jarring, though I'm not sure how to revise this. The mentions are appropriately short and shouldn't be split into two paragraphs. Perhaps I was surprised because the first sentence makes it sound like the whole paragraph will be a list of many radio adaptations, so I thought the sentence beginning "In 2010..." would be a 2010 radio production. This also may be fine since it's clear if one re-reads it.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Of all of these, I think only the Eastern/Western thing actually needs to be addressed before the article would actually feel "complete". The other notes would, I think, improve the article, but may also be a matter of personal preference. I will strongly support promotion once the article's references to "East" and "West" are clarified. Thank you for all of your incredible efforts here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Thank you for reviewing the article! I'll be implementing changes tonight based on your feedback. I agree the East vs West part is currently unclear, and I'll likely change West to Midwest for the sake of clarity. — Flask (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll toss in to both of you that I really like the idea of a section on queer theory for the novel (I've written one for Dracula), but that I'm not convinced the article needs new content. It'll be up to Flask to determine what amount of the criticism discusses the novel in the way. If it’s a sizeable percentage, then for due weight to be met then it should be included. If it’s minority criticism, I think it’s probably fine to steer clear of it, though. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: Thanks for weighing in-- I think you're right that there's a real danger in burdening the article with too much detail. I think it's a strength of the article, for example, that it doesn't have long sections trying to unpack the key images like the eyes, the green light, etc. I did a little looking, and I think the key scholarship goes like so:
  • Fraser, Keath. "Another Reading of The Great Gatsby." ESC: English Studies in Canada 5.3 (1979): 330-343.
  • Wasiolek, Edward. “The Sexual Drama of Nick and Gatsby.” International Fiction Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 1992, pp. 14–22.
  • Kerr, Frances. "Feeling" Half Feminine": Modernism and the Politics of Emotion in The Great Gatsby." American Literature 68.2 (1996): 405-431.
  • Froehlich, Maggie Gordon. "Jordan Baker, gender dissent, and homosexual passing in The Great Gatsby." The Space Between 6.1 (2010): 81-103.
  • Froehlich, Maggie Gordon. "Gatsby's mentors: queer relations between love and money in The Great Gatsby." The Journal of Men’s Studies 19.3 (2011): 209-226.
You will notice two of those are by the same scholar. But the one by Kerr makes me think there is something here: it says "It was in the 1970s that readers first began to address seriously the themes of gender and sexuality in The Great Gatsby; a few critics have pointed out the novel's bizarre homoerotic leitmotif. While many readers now acknowledge some sort of conjunction of gender, sexuality, and homoeroticism in The Great Gatsby, we have yet to explore these issues in a context larger than Fitzgerald's own psychology or the textual world of The Great Gatsby." (406) Kerr cites Wasiolek and Fraser for the "few critics" pointing out the "homoerotic leitmotif".
Most of the RS coverage, I think, will be from the late 90s. There are a lot of more recent hits for non-RS student work, though-- including honors theses and dissertations. So I find myself largely tempted by a section on queer readings because of the student connection, as discussed in Zaino, Karen. "Surfacing Queer Stories in the High School Canon." English Journal 110.1 (2020): 39-45. Zaino specifically discusses teaching Gatsby and how queer readings come up in class. (Zaino cites Wasiolek in support of reading Nick as queer.) Anecdotally, every time I taught this novel, at least one student Nick could be gay.
My current hunch is that queer readings are a minority criticism in published scholarship, but not a discredited criticism, and a common one among student readers. Whether that means it belongs in the encyclopedia, I am not sure. It might be nice to give students some starting places for the scholarship that does exist so they know they're not imagining this line of thinking, but encyclopedias are not just for students. Maybe it could be folded in to the "gender relations" section with a few sentences, and footnotes to these sources? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@LEvalyn: Thank you for your detailed response and for your research into potential sources. I think a queer reading section could be quite informative for the average reader, but it would need to be more than a few sentences in order to do proper justice to the interpretation. There is a wealth of information in authoritative biographies of Fitzgerald that could be used for the queer reading section. For example, Fitzgerald dressed as a woman while in college and attempted to seduce men at parties. While writing The Great Gatsby, his wife Zelda accused him of being a closeted homosexual. Soon after Gatsby was published, she accused him of having sexual feelings for Ernest Hemingway. Fitzgerald also had an intimate relationship with his Catholic priest Father Sigourney Fay that several biographers interpret as likely homosexual, and it is revealing that Daisy's last name is a homage to him. There is also the fact that Fitzgerald was interested in women such as Ginevra and Zelda solely in response to other men's interest in them. All of these biographical facts lend credence to a queer reading of Gatsby, especially in regards to Nick's feelings for the title character. My only concern, however, is whether another interpretation section would make the Critical Analysis too long. I shall reflect upon this while implementing your other suggested changes tomorrow. — Flask (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again @LEvalyn:. I have thought carefully on the question of adding the queer reading section, and I am still torn. On one hand, I believe it should be added as its own section. On the other hand, the article's size is currently at 122kb. Under Wikipedia's Article size guidelines, we are already far over the suggested length limit and have definitely entered the "Almost certainly should be divided" range. If we decided to add further interpretations, we would have to split the article. This might be something to do further down the road as there are a number of sections that could be split-off and expanded: 1.) Historical influences on The Great Gatsby; 2.) Critical approaches to The Great Gatsby; 3.) Media adaptations of The Great Gatsby, etc. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, Hamlet is 151kb and was nonetheless promoted as a Featured Article. So, unless other reviewers have objections, I could add the section this weekend. Is there any time limit on this FAC review? — Flask (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that's fine if that's the decision you make, but I would be careful what you're comparing it to. Hamlet was promoted in 2007. That's a long time ago, and the standards for FA have risen significantly since then. Additionally, it hasn't been reviewed yet over at WP:URFA/2020. (I might do that in a day or two.) Like I said, I don't really think it’s a big deal, but Hamlet might need to come down in size. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 03:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I looked more closely, and the article size rule is about readable prose size, which is typically much smaller than the size of the page itself. Using the Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget, it looks like the article is only 43.7kB in readable prose size, which is fine. (The gadget itself says 40kB, but doesn't count the character list; since that part is 583 words / 3714 characters, it adds another 3.7kB.) So, I think there is room in the article for a few more kB of prose. (Hamlet, meanwhile, is at least 68 kB readable prose size.) Looking at readable prose size has persuaded me that a queer themes section, albeit a brief one, ought to be added. If you would like any help with writing it, please let me know! I also appreciate all the other changes you've made so far -- I checked over them and they all look good! The explanatory note and wording changes really clarified the East/West distinctions and everything else is well-addressed too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@LEvalyn: Thank you. I should have a rough version of the section within the next two days or so after I do further research. I'll likely ask you to copy-edit or to supplement whatever you feel is pertinent or lacking in the section. — Flask (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@LEvalyn: I've added two paragraphs on Sexuality and Identity to the Critical Analysis section. If you wish to critique, edit, or supplement those paragraphs, it would be greatly appreciated. I included the biographical details since I believe skeptical or homophobic readers will be less likely to challenge or to vandalize the section if they are first confronted by bibliographical facts about the author which partly underpin certain interpretations. — Flask (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Flask: The new section was great! I was nervous about the idea of including biographical context, but I think you handle it well here. You found some great sources. Based on how often I saw Wasiolek cited I am tempted to add him to your footnote if scholars discussing the Nick & Gatsby relationship but the sources you found look great too. I made two minor tweaks to the wording and I think the section is good. Thank you for your research and careful writing in adding this! I am happy now to support this article for FA status. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@LEvalyn: Thank you for your support! I now added Wasiolek citation and cited the appropriate page numbers. — Flask (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from DMT BiscuitEdit


  • I feel like the novel's post-WW2 resurgence could be given more context; a mention of council should suffice, but it is mostly per discretion.
Added. Included more context in lead about post-WW2 resurgence and explicitly mentioned Council on Books in Wartime. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Although I understand they're not extensively used, I think citations [2] through [6] can be collected in a {{sfnm}} template, particularly becuase all but one come from the same source. I'm sceptical of the need for the quotes, moreso when considering fair use.
Fixed. Deleted most quotations but kept two which recurrently come up: The flapper definition is important as it establishes that—contrary to popular assumption—flappers were not part of the Lost Generation or Wartime Generation. And the sex one is important since it refutes claims by certain Gatsby commentators (such as Otto Friedrich's 1960 essay) that "petting" by flappers didn't involve premarital sex. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The note immediately after "accustomed" is rather jarring. Just place it up a bit. The sentence could be rewritten to fit better: "...provide for the lifestyle his fiancée had become accustomed to.[27][28][b]
Fixed. Moved all notations to follow punctuation. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Same as above: notes [e], [h], [i], [j] [k]. Same proposed solution(s).
Fixed. Moved all notations to follow punctuation. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Critical Reception

  • Perhaps worth mentioning in the Mencken caption that his criticism was an example of that Fitzgerald resented.
Done. Updated caption. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • praising the elegance of the writing → praised the writing as elegant, former could be seen as editorializing.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "eviscerated" → lambasted, less sensational.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "lamented" → despaired, as lamented was used rather recently.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "belated" - this does seem like an example of editorializing.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Critical analysis

  • For being a short ref, I don't see as to why [173] is repeated in the same sentence.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It's been said that Zelda Fitzgerald embodies the flapper aesthetic; would she not be a more fitting representation, particularly as the present example is a romanticised depiction?
Updated: I altered the image caption to state it is an idealized depiction. I feel the Ellen Pyle illustration is fitting since Fitzgerald's novel is intended to be a romantic idyll and not realistic. Also, it is one of the few illustrations of a flapper drawn by a woman, and I think gender representation is important especially since its for the "Gender relations" section. In regards to including an image of Zelda, this article originally had such an image, but it was removed as it was not verifiably in the pubic domain. The few photos of Zelda verifiably in the public domain on Wikipedia were uploaded by me (i.e., her yearbook photo and the car touring photo). Neither is high quality nor captures the early 1920s flapper aesthetic. There is the Gordon Bryant sketch, but his sketch doesn't capture the flapper aesthetic. Regardless, I think the Pyle illustration is preferable. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Satisfied with this rationale. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "tragedy" - same case as "belated".
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the nose of Wolfshiem – interesting statement – I feel like the context of Jewish nose should be mentioned, even if just in passing.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The caption doesn't really make it clear if the photo is of Wolfshiem or Rothstein.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Seem good.
  • Whilst trying to verify The Australian ref, the link failed to work. Could either be dead or wrongly implemented; either way, check it out. May be worth doing general archiving.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion Very good, nearing FA certainly. I've dogged on it a relative amount but the writing is, to borrow an archaic Wikipedia term, worthy of being dubbed: "Outstanding prose". DMT biscuit (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: Thank you for reviewing the article! I'll be implementing your feedback later tonight and/or tomorrow. — Flask (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@DMT biscuit: I've now implemented your suggestions. Let me know if you have further feedback! — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the article's current status; support.
@DMT biscuit: Thank you! — Flask (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


  • Generally seems very thorough & well-sourced. I think the cover art is exceptionally important here, & the extra emphasis is correct. Also not worried about length at present.
  • Nothing on foreign editions and translations, which I would expect in a FA on a book, or novel anyway.
  • Perhaps more later. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Thank you for reviewing the article. I'll insert some information on foreign editions and translations in the "Revival and reassessment" section tomorrow in my next edits. — Flask (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I've added a sentence about the many foreign editions and the number of language translations to "Revival and reassessment". Please let me know if you have any further suggestions! — Flask (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. seasonEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Cardiff City F.C.'s second season in the Football League and their first in the top tier of English football. The team started disastrously, losing their first six matches, but recovered to claim a creditable fourth place. The article follows the same layout as the previous season which was promoted to FA last year. As ever, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 08:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
  • Results listing shows three games against Newcastle in April - that can't be right, surely.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    Great spot, fixed that thanks. Kosack (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    No worries. I will do a full review in the coming days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


  • "The average league attendance during the season was 27,000" - this disagrees with the infobox
  • Western Mail should be in italics in the photo caption
  • "Wolverhampton Wanderers defender Dickie Baugh Jr.." - avoid double full stop
  • "Club officials estimated between" => "Club officials estimated that between"
  • "Tottenham received a blow early into the game" => "Tottenham received a blow early in the game"
  • "having proven a stubborn opponent [...], they" - there seems to be a single/plural disconnect here
  • The term "reverse fixture" might be unclear to people without in-depth football knowledge.....?
  • "a match that was described as "The most" - don't have a capital on The in the middle of a sentence (still applies even though it is a quote, I believe)
  • "Jimmy Gill who had been the club's top scorer the previous season scored" => "Jimmy Gill, who had been the club's top scorer the previous season, scored"
  • "On 31 October, club captain Keenor" - this is the first mention of him so his forename should be included (along with a wikilink)
  • "yielded only a point for Cardiff after losing 2–0 at home and drawing 1–1 away" => "yielded only a point for Cardiff, who lost 2–0 at home and drew 1–1 away"
  • "The team's victory over Blackburn during this spell saw an unusual debutant" - pedantically, was he a debutant? He had played for the club before the war.....
  • "the team's drew 1–1" - lose that apostrophe
  • "with their opponents already having secured the First Division title,[29] winning 2–0" - wording seems slightly ambiguous as to who actually won
  • "before beating the then relegated Manchester" => "before beating the already-relegated Manchester United" (as a football fan of more than 30 years I have never heard Man U referred to simply as "Manchester")
  • The term "brace" (to mean two goals) is used repeatedly but never explained or linked - any way to do so, as I don't believe this to be a common/well-known term
  • "Southampton who they had defeated" => "Southampton, whom they had defeated"
  • "The replay was held at Tottenham's ground White Hart Lane and such was the demand for tickets, " => "The replay was held at Tottenham's ground White Hart Lane and, such was the demand for tickets, "
  • "Gill and Len Davies each scored once, Davies' goal was his eighth" => "Gill and Len Davies each scored once; Davies' goal was his eighth" or "Gill and Len Davies each scored once, Davies' goal being his eighth"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I've actioned everything above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

  • Link the variant of football in the opening sentence.
  • Link promotion. Apparently there are sports where all the teams just get to recycle year after year after year....
  • "highest tier ... top tier" in the same sentence is a little repetitive.
  • "finished the campaign" repetitive.
  • "the FA Cup, Cardiff" I would link the specific edition.
  • "reached the fourth round" did they enter in the third? I.e. this feels a bit overblown if they only won one game to get to this defeat...
  • "During the campaign, 31..." last campaign was the cup run...
  • "made more appearances than" repetitive, maybe "played more times" or something?
  • "However, the league fixture against Tottenham recorded an attendance of 50,000 although ..." However although reads poorly for me. Also, is it Tottenham or Tottenham Hotspur?
  • "In the side's first season" in the Second Division...
  • " on goal average after" up to you, some others would suggest this needs explanation, perhaps a footnote explaining what it means. For me, I'm happy with a link but I know what it means already. Does a seven-year-old American child though??
  • For "top tier" you could link English football league system.
  • Link Manager.
  • "an agent acting" is there a football agent article?
  • Again, perhaps earlier, link the specific edition of the FA Cup.
  • "In the team's first match" new section, reiterate Cardiff.
  • "they met FA Cup holders Tottenham Hotspur" is the cup relevant to the league?
  • I think so, just to emphasise the jump in competition from Second Division to First Division competition I believe. Kosack (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "an extra 6-10,000 people" additional, not extra, and en-dash there.
  • Consider linking positions, like "defender".... that seven-year-old US kid is looking confused....
  • "Jack Page started" if not ambiguous, just use surname after already introducing him above.
  • As noted in the background section, his brother was also signed in pre-season so I've included his first name here. Kosack (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Tottenham received a blow early in the game as Jimmy Seed picked up an injury. Despite the setback, Tottenham proved" -> "Tottenham suffered a setback early in the game as Jimmy Seed picked up an injury but proved.."
  • "score board" one word..
  • "to use as " use it.
  • "club to approach local police to seek advice on crowd" they asked the police to seek advice or they sought advice from the police?
  • "reverse fixture five days later" no anchor for context on "later".
  • "with The Times describing" overlinnked.
  • "prompting manager Fred Stewart to" do you need to reintroduce him as manager and include his first name?
  • "was described as" by whom?
  • "a surprising turn of form" according to whom?
  • "an upset to" link upset.
  • "for £1,500" inflate.
  • Link transfer fee.
  • "for £500.[21] On" inflate.

Okay, that takes me to "November–May", let me know when you'd like me to continue. Incidentally, watching Wales v Denmark right now. Sad face. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review, I'm up to speed now and have addressed everything here so far. The less said about that game the better... Kosack (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "yielded only a point for Cardiff.." got me thinking, would be very helpful to have a footnote explaining that a draw was worth one point and (I assume) a win was worth two? Especially for our non-football readers...
  • "the teams drew 1–1 " at?
  • "with their opponents... , with..." repetitive run-ons.
  • Could link "relegated" (I know that's technically going to be an overlink, but still useful).
  • Avoid using the semi-colon markup for section headings.
  • "Source: [31]" no space before ref.
  • The source is generated by the table template so I can't edit it unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I actually did code it originally and another user arrived to turn everything into templates, so I just left it. I've reverted back now and used a more reliable source. Kosack (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Gotta pop out, more soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • "round, being drawn" -> "round where they were drawn"
  • "were praised for" by whom? The Times?
  • "was drawn against" add "away" here so we don't need to explain that The Dell was Soton's ground.
  • "victory in ... Their victory" repetitive.
  • Link "dribbled" (can you imagine what the seven-year-old American would make of that??)
  • "to finish past" perhaps "to strike the ball" or "to shoot" instead of the more euphemistic "finish"?
  • "all going close" + "to scoring."
  • "for Gill to convert" score rather than "convert"?
  • "headed in from a corner" link both.
  • Also link cross.
  • "winning goal.[36] The goal" repetitive.
  • Link referee.
  • What leagues were the Welsh Cup opponents each in?
  • "Davies' goal" s's (per MOS, which if you ignore, I won't be upset...)
  • "Player details" section could just be called "Players" and then use "Player statistics" as a table caption rather than a subheading.
  • "matches in all competitions" I know this is common parlance, but would "across" be less ambiguous than "in"??
  • "three less than" fewer.
  • "new club record for goals in a single season" perhaps "new club single-season record"? I don't think the repeat of "goals" is necessary.
  • "the 1922–23 season with " you've already linked it in this para.
  • " £63,000 for the campaign, £12,000" inflate.
  • Minor point, but I usually italicise Football Club History Database as it's a website.
  • I would expect ISBNs to be consistently formatted.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the rest of the review, I've addressed everything with one comment above. Kosack (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

Ok looking now...

In the FA Cup, Cardiff entered the competition in the first round and progressed to the fourth - sounds odd, why not "Cardiff entered the FA Cup in the first round and progressed to the fourth"
Club officials estimated that between 6—10,000 people broke into the ground err no, either "Club officials estimated that between 6 and 10,000 people broke into the ground" or "Club officials estimated that 6—10,000 people broke into the ground"

Otherewise looks in good nick....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for taking a look, I've amended both points above. Kosack (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review — PassEdit


  • Suggest changing title to "Citations"
  • #3 — Suggest linking The Times. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. And rather than linking to the landing page (which requires a subscription), you can link to the image itself—right click on the image, open it in a new tab, and adjust the URL as needed. See ref #2 at George Sidney Herbert as an example.
  • Linked The Times but the image idea is a little difficult in mobile editing. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you have a way to edit via a computer? It's not something to hold up the review over, it's just preferable to have an unpaywalled link. Separately, here and elsewhere, you haven't responded about retrieval dates for printed matter. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Not directly to hand I'm afraid. Also, the retrieval dates are quite common in this sort of use, every FA I have ever sent through uses them and there are numerous FACs ongoing right now doing the same. Kosack (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #3 — Is this reliable?
  • I'm assuming a ref has changed position since this the review as The Times is ref 3? So if you mean the Football Club History Database, yeah it's widely used here on Wiki and has gone through FA numerous times before. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #4 — "last updated" date can be used as the page date. Is this reliable?
  • I'm assuming this is England football If so, yes I believe it is, the site is maintained by Chris Goodwin and Glyn Isherwood who are both professional football journalists and have had books published in the past. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #7 — Same as #3.
  • Ah, I see what you meant now. I thought you were were referring to something else, linked now. Kosack (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #9 — Is this the same paper as Western Mail? If so, can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #10 — Same as #3.
  • #11 — Same as #3.
  • #13 — Sheffield Daily Telegraph can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #15 — Same as #3.
  • #16 — Same as #3.
  • #18 — Same as #3.
  • #19 — Same as #3.
  • #21 — Star Green 'Un can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
    Not addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #22 — Is this the same as the Athletic News? If so, it can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #24 — Same as #3.
  • #27–29 — Same as #3.
  • #30 — This should probably be in "Bibliography," with a short cite here, for consistency.
  • When a single page of a book is referenced, I typically include it as a direct citation as done here. If multiple pages are cited, I list it in the bibliography. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #32–36 — Same as #3.
  • #38 — Last updated date can be used as page date. Should this be "Reyes Padilla, Macario" or "Padilla, Macario Reyes"?
    Author name not fixed/responded to. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, Reyes tends to be a surname in my experience, so I included it there. Kosack (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #39 — Last updated date can be used as page date.
  • #41 — Is this reliable? Author missing.
  • The site's predecessor is formerly the official Altrincham website and the author Terry Rowley is a noted club historian. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #42 — This should probably be in "Bibliography," with a short cite here, for consistency.
  • Same as above. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #44 — Same as #3.
  • #45 — Is this the same paper as Western Mail? If so, can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.


  • Lloyd 1999 — Publisher location missing.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Thanks for taking a look. I've responded to all of the points above. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Kosack, a couple comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Addressed the remaining issues. Kosack (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Kosack, I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian BaleEdit

Nominator(s): KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Welsh-born English actor. Known for his work in films, including the Dark Knight trilogy, Terminator Salvation, American Psycho, and The Fighter, the last of which earned him an Academy Award; he has been noted for repeatedly gaining and losing weight for his roles. The article has seen a major expansion since its successful GA review, so here's hoping that one of the most physically gifted and versatile actors of his generation becomes one of Wikipedia's featured articles! KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

  • File:Ch Bale 02.jpg What's the evidence that the uploader actually took the photograph?
  • Currently there's a lot of headshots in the article. Would be better to replace some with group photographs or other images that show the subject in context for variety. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I've removed Ch Bale 02.jpg from the article. Since so many of the uploader's files have been kept after deletion requests, I though it was at least established that there was also no evidence of the contrary (i.e., the photos not being their own work), but I understand that this is not in line with the FA criteria. Regarding the other headshots, I've replaced the photos from the Public Enemies premiere and the American Hustle promo rounds with ones from the 2011 Oscars and the 2019 TIFF red carpet. KyleJoantalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • For a famous guy like Bale usually OTRS or being taken at a public event is required to show that the images are free, at least that's what I think is reasonable at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I'll keep that in mind. Thank you for the image review and comments, Buidhe! KyleJoantalk 05:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by BuidheEdit

  • You state that he "will play". This should be rephrased to avoid WP:CRYSTAL, such as saying that Bale has agreed to play these roles. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Replaced it with "is set to" and "is attached to". General question: is it still inappropriate to say "will" when a film has wrapped production? KyleJoantalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • IDK, I don't edit many film articles. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The section "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" is too long—should be split up. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" and "2013–present: Continued success"; added "2005–2011: Batman and dramatic roles", "2012–2018: Continued acclaim", and "2018–present: Recent career". KyleJoantalk 04:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
      • That's an improvement, although I would say 2005–2011 section is still probably longer than ideal. Keep in mind that a majority of readers will be accessing on their phones, where this section (on my phone, at least) is more than six screens long—more frequent section breaks would make it easier to read. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Adjusted the headings to encompass 2005–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2018, and 2018–present. You were right about the section breaks. The article seems to flow much better this way. KyleJoantalk 06:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now...will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  • He attended Bournemouth School but later said that he left school at age 16 - why "but" here?
    • I thought "attending" would imply that he finished school, but I've rephrased it: "He attended Bournemouth School, later saying he left school at age 16." KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Para 2 of 1986–1999: Career beginnings and breakthrough and para 2 of 2000–2004: Rise to prominence and commercial decline are a bit listy. I sorta get why but some other bits about the roles he did/motivation/or any anecdote might break the listy feel. THe article has 26kb of readable prose so size is not a worry at this point.
    • Added these sentences:
"Rebecca Milzoff of Vulture revisited the film in 2012 and found the cracks in Bale's voice during his performance of the song "Santa Fe" charming and apt even though the actor was not a great singer."
"Of Bale's performance, Ryder said that he captured a complicated component of the role."
"Bale said he found it refreshing to play Mandras, who was emotionally humane, after working on American Psycho and Shaft."
I hope these suffice! KyleJoantalk 05:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah this is good - didn't need much, just something to give it a bit of colour/depth. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • audio recording of when Bale went into a tirade on the film's set.... - I remember this...the wording here is slightly awkward. However I am having trouble thinking of a smoother alternative.
    • This was a struggle for me. Does this read better? "In February 2009, an audio recording of a tirade on the film's set in July 2008 involving Bale was released." I think it works because the sentence right after explains that it was Bale who directed the profanities. KyleJoantalk 05:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, not terrific but an improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • is there anything about which actors he was inspired by, and who has regarded him as an inspiration?
    • The "artistry" section lists Rowan Atkinson and Gary Oldman as those who have influenced him. Regarding the latter, I couldn't find anything in reliable sources. There have been actors, such as Amy Adams and Bella Thorne, who have praised Bale in interviews, but those have only been captured on video and not been written. This is why I thought it was important to include statements or quotes from the directors Bale has worked with on the "career" section because they at least convey some aspect of the industry's general perception of him. I hope the new bit from Winona Ryder also contributes to said perception. KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise pretty comprehensive. Reads well - there are a few run-on 'and's but alternative phrasing with subordinate clauses don't spring naturally so not sure they can be "improved" as such. Will read through again as I am not the best at picking up prose improvements. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Your copyedits were all appropriate, Cas Liber. That aside, I believe I've addressed the above points. Please let me know if there are other changes you believe would be suitable. Thank you very much! I truly appreciate the time you took to examine the article. KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, am happy with comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much again, Cas Liber! Have a wonderful weekend! KyleJoantalk 01:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from BettydaisiesEdit

My first thought is that this is a very, very well written article that manages to be pretty consistent in tone and wording throughout, an impressive feat for anything on this website. It employs summary style beautifully while still leaving the reader informed about the legacy and weight of each of his roles, and tells his life story in a digestable, interesting way without comprising the integrity of its status as an encyclopedia page. I really have very few suggestions: during the phrase "For Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March, recommended Bale" there's a small moment of 'recommended Bale for what?' before you move on to the next sentence; it might possibly be beneficial to simply add a "for the role of Theodore "Laurie" Laurence" or some other clarifying phrase, if needed.

This image also might be served a bit better with a crop, since the four others in the frame have little to do with the information in the body, but I can see it might be difficult simply given Bale's positioning in the picture. Also, the phrase "believed it marked the beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman in a great way" seems slightly simplistic given the sophisticated (but readable) vocabulary in the rest of the article, and could be replaced by something like "to critical praise/significant acclaim/etc." or other. Those are really the only things that happened to catch my notice, apart from the multitude of rock-solid positives and exemplary writing. Kudos to all, including KyleJoan of course, who worked on the article!--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments and unbelievably kind words, Bettydaisies. Regarding the image from the 2011 Academy Awards, the group setting adds the variety that Buidhe mentioned during the image review. It also shows Bale among his peers in addition to providing context to his win at that ceremony. That aside, I've rephrased the two sentences based on your terrific suggestions:
  • "For Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March, recommended Bale." → "In Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Bale played Theodore "Laurie" Laurence following a recommendation from Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March." The source only specifies that Ryder recommended Bale for a role, so I neutrally put together his portrayal of Laurie and the recommendation without directly correlating the two.
  • "Critics viewed the film positively and believed it marked the beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman in a great way..." → "Critics commended the film and deemed it an excellent beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman..." I hope this serves as a more polished summary of the sources.
Please let me know if these changes are suitable and whether there are any others you'd like to see! KyleJoantalk 08:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This look lovely! Thank you for the considerations + explanations. Best of luck with this nomination, and I fully support its candidacy.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear! Thank you so much again! KyleJoantalk 00:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsmanEdit

I casually read through this article a couple weeks back but was reluctant to show support because I didn't want to come off as just stamping nominations. It was a good read! I also have my own nomination for Jamiroquai here [22] if you're interested in reviewing. 😃 웃OO 07:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And I'll be sure to read the Jamiroquai article and see what I can offer. "Canned Heat" is a great song! KyleJoantalk 11:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "Known for his ... leading man status" - source?
    • There are three references in the article that verify this: The Guardian ("American Psycho, based on Bret Easton Ellis’s novel, established Bale as a leading man with a very sharp edge."),[23] Vanity Fair ("This was the part that took Bale from promising young star to leading man with range."),[24] and Vulture ("That rare child actor to evolve into an indomitable leading man, Bale is notoriously dismissive of celebrity.").[25] KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The infobox claims he has been active since 1982. What is the source for this claim?
    • His first acting role came at age eight per the The Guardian article above, which would be around 1982. If this is inappropriate, I could change the year to 1984, which is the year he performed in a West End play. KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
      • It was around 1982, or exactly 1982? If the former, suggest adding a {{circa}} to the claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
        • It would be the former, so I added the template. KyleJoantalk 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Associated Press is not a work title. Ditto BBC, check for others
    • Sorry about this! I made ABC News, Associated Press, BBC, BBC Cymru Wales, BBC News, CBS News, CNN,, Dark Horizons, Den of Geek, Digital Spy, IndieWire, Moviefone, MovieWeb, NPR, The Numbers, Reuters,, Rotten Tomatoes, UGO Networks, and Yahoo! Movies all publishers. KyleJoantalk 14:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, but unfortunately some of these are works - eg If it's helpful, for items that have Wikipedia articles you can look there to see whether it is italicized or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I made a work title. I believe all of the others are publishers. KyleJoantalk 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "While Harron had chosen Bale for the part, the film's production and distribution company, Lionsgate, originally disagreed and hired Leonardo DiCaprio to play Bateman with Oliver Stone to direct. Bale and Harron were brought back after DiCaprio and Stone left the project." - is there a better source for this?
    • Yes! I added The Guardian.[26] Thank you for reminding me that People shouldn't be used on its own for such loaded information. KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Dark Horizons a high-quality reliable source? MovieWeb? Den of Geek? ComingSoon? The Quint?
    • Dark Horizons garnered a Webby Award nomination in the Film category in 1999.[27] The website and the article's author, Paul Fischer, are both Rotten Tomatoes-approved as a publication and critic.[28][29] Entertainment Weekly called it "a must-read for industry execs, agents, and entertainment junkies alike."[30] Its content has been included in reliable publications, such as The Guardian and Rotten Tomatoes' editorial section.[31][32]
    • MovieWeb publishes its fact-checking and correction policies.[33][34] While the website is not Rotten Tomatoes-approved, the article's author, Fred Topel, is.[35] The Los Angeles Times specified it as a notable film database website.[36] Its content has been referenced in the New York Daily News, the editorial section of Rotten Tomatoes, Time, and Vulture.[37][38][39][40]
    • Den of Geek and the article's author, Ryan Lambie, are both Rotten Tomatoes-approved.[41][42] Its content has been cited by BBC News, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The New York Times, the Radio Times, and Variety.[43][44][45][46][47]
    • ComingSoon is Rotten Tomatoes-approved.[48] Its content has been noted by BBC America, Digital Spy, Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Vulture, and The Washington Post.[49][50][51][52][53][54]
    • The Quint's reliability has been compared to that of Rappler, a reliable source per WP:RSP, by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.[55] It publishes its correction policy.[56] The nonprofit organization the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network has certified the website's fact-checking branch, WebQoof.[57] KyleJoantalk 14:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Do you have a page reference for the Reuters citation? I'm having trouble locating that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that! The comparison can be found in the fourth paragraph of page 11. KyleJoantalk 03:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
          • I see there that they are comparable types of publications, but I don't see that they have been judged as having comparable reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
            • The report called The Quint and Rappler "international newsrooms combating disinformation through innovative reporting and storytelling". In addition to having referenced The Quint's reporting and fact-checking, Rappler published the study's conclusion about how both publications "combine a sense of mission and a commitment to journalistic values". The Quint's film industry-related reports have been included on Al Jazeera English and in GQ India, while its content in other topics has been cited by Reuters and the South China Morning Post. KyleJoantalk 05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
              • Again, I personally would read those report excerpts as considering the sites comparable in terms of their type and mission, not in terms of their relative reliability. But thank you for providing those additional citations, that's helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • FN180: as per WP:ROTTEN there are limitations around use of this source for works before the 2000s
    • I removed Little Women (1994) from the list of his top-scoring films on Rotten Tomatoes. KyleJoantalk 10:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, but if we are needing to omit part of his oeuvre because of this issue... why is the scoring a meaningful statement to include? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
        • The scoring is an indication of Bale's best-reviewed films, which reflects their critical merits. About Little Women, a New York Times ref in the "career" section verifies that it was "a critical and box office triumph", so its score meets the accuracy and effectiveness ROTTEN mentions. I only removed the film from the statement because I forgot about said citation, so I've re-added it. Aside from being meaningful, I believe the list is due for inclusion given that we've verified that the pre-2000 films garnered the same type of reception Rotten Tomatoes notes. KyleJoantalk 03:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
          • No, we've verified that that film garnered the same type of reception Rotten Tomatoes notes. We don't know whether other of his pre-2000 films might have showed up in the list if the site didn't have these limitations. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
            • My bad, I meant "pre-2000 film" in the singular sense. The source for the list is Rotten Tomatoes' editorial, which means that we're citing a news article that references the scores and critical consensuses rather than the scores and consensuses themselves. Initially, I could see how Little Women's score could be undue. But even if there is no New York Times article to verify the acclaim, "According to the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes..." is a biased statement of opinion, so the limitations do not apply here because we're merely presenting the editorial's findings. Any high-quality news article is similarly limited, so the attribution should be sufficient in the same way that it is for praises or criticisms. Variety's Kristopher Tapley said in 2017 that Bale's performance in Out of the Furnace was his best, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Joe Williams wrote in 2014 that Bale's work in Exodus was his career's most indifferent. Bale has appeared in several films after 2014 and 2017, but if there are no sources to contradict these opinions, then there's no use in pondering whether he may have done better or worse work after those years. Likewise, more comprehensive data possibly existing in other publications do not lessen the list's reliability and high quality. All of that said, would it be more appropriate to write "some of Bale's highest-scoring films" to give the list a tad less weight? KyleJoantalk 04:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
              • Yes. The issue I have with this isn't that RT is unreliable for what the RT site itself says; it's that, given these known issues about RT, does this give people a misleading impression, even with the in-text attribution, of what this actually means. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
                • That's completely understandable. I added "some of" to the sentence to counterbalance the ranking aspect, allowing readers to conclude how well-reviewed the rest of his films are themselves. KyleJoantalk 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatting of Further reading should match References. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Done! I believe I've addressed all of the above points, Nikkimaria. Please let me know if I need to provide more documentation or clarify anything. Thank you so much! I genuinely appreciate the thorough review. KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria and thanks for that. How is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No remaining objections. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you again, Nikkimaria! KyleJoantalk 02:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ShahidEdit

  • "leading man status" - this sounds like a very vague and unclear phrase. You could write "he has been a leading man in a range of film genres, and is a recipient of various accolades..."
    • Is this better? "Known for his versatility and physical transformations to play his roles, he has been a leading man in films of various genres. Bale is a recipient of many accolades..." I thought it would be less run-on-esque if the sentence was split into two. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bale secured a minor role in the television film Anastasia" - a) please specify the year b) do you know how he got the part?
    • Specified the year, but there are no details about how he was cast. There's not a lot of information about the film in the first place, and Bale's involvement seems the most notable for how its star connected him to Spielberg. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "then recommended Bale for Spielberg's" - "then" seems redundant, it obviously happened after the first film (you could switch it with "subsequently" which makes more sense).
  • "which was unsuccessful at the box office and with critics" - I'd add "both" before "at"
  • This might be just my own preference, but referring to him as "the actor" sounds very journalistic and unencyclopedic. It is particularly ambiguous when other actors are mentioned before. It might be my own problem so suit yourself.
    • Removed two "the actor"s that read the most unnecessary or ambiguous, as you mentioned. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ryder said he captured a complicated component of the role" - maybe you want to clarify what she meant (that he captures the cmplex nature of the part? Its complexity?), but I'd anyhow rather see what a critic might have thought of his performance instead of a co-actor.
    • Used "the complex nature" in the place of "a complicated component". I haven't found any review that highlighted Bale's performance, and I thought Ryder's take injected a nice change of pace from the regular critical reviews. It also provides the anecdote that Cas Liber suggested above. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "after DiCaprio and Stone left the project" - "had left" I'd say.
  • "He also had his teeth capped to embody the character's narcissistic nature" - how so?
    • Changed this to "He also had his teeth capped to assimilate to the character's narcissistic nature." Bale basically said that Bateman would be obsessive about his own aesthetic and that the character wouldn't feel right about having Bale's old teeth. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The film was released in April 2000, becoming a commercial and critical success as well as developing a cult following" - I'd change it to "The film was released in April 2000 to critical and commercial success, and later developed a cult following" (I think "later" is a key word in cult following as it happened in the years that followed".
    • Rephrased this to "The film was released in April 2000, becoming a commercial and critical success and later developing a cult following..." The commercial and critical success also did not come right away, so this phrasing connotes that bit but also specifies that the cult following came even later. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bale claimed he had not worked for a while because he hadn't come upon scripts" - hadn't - not contractions are allowed but then twice "had not" would be bad so please revise it.
    • Revised this to "...Bale claimed he had stopped working for a while because he did not come upon scripts that piqued his interest..." KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

More later, ShahidTalk2me 13:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments, Shahid! I've begun implementing some, and I'll respond to each point after I address them all. I look forward to the next batch! KyleJoantalk 15:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nolan himself chose Bale, who was still fairly unknown, for the role" - the use of "himself" clearly aims to imply something, but then it's a little POV - 'himself' as opposed to whom? And why is it important? I think it goes without saying that a film director would be the one to pick the star of a film. If you want to say he was impressed with Bale, say that. "Bale, who was still fairly unknown at the time, was cast in the role by Nolan because..."
    • Done! Rephrased this to "Nolan cast Bale, who was still fairly unknown at the time, because Bale had 'exactly the balance of darkness and light' Nolan sought." KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "He regained the weight he lost for The Machinist and built muscle, weighing 220 pounds (100 kg) to play the character. He also trained in weapons, Wing Chun Kung Fu and the Keysi Fighting Method." First, two sentences starting with "He", the first "He" should be changed to Bale (Nolan was mentioned in the previous sentence, too). Also, "to play the character" is repeated from the previous paragraph so I would suggest rewriting the entire thing to "For the part, Bale regained the weight he lost for The Machinist and built muscle, weighing 220 pounds (100 kg), and underwent training in weapons, Wing Chun Kung Fu and the Keysi Fighting Method."
    • Done! This suggested phrasing clarifies so much. That said, I kept the weapons training and whatnot separate to minimize the repetition of "and". I hope that's OK. KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Also, in 2005" - please refrain from overusing "also", "Later that year" would be good enough, and the next sentence "He had been a fan of Miyazaki's animated film Spirited Away".
  • "For the 2006 film The Prestige" - the sentence is too long, better to break it into two.
  • For The Prestige, you don't mention his part.
  • "The Dark Knight has been regarded as the best superhero film" - by whom? It's better to say "was cited by ... as".
    • The two sources cited say this in a way that reads like a neutral representation of an established consensus rather than each publication's personal view. Variety, in particular, says that the film is "widely regarded as the best in the genre", so it wouldn't work to attribute the view to Variety when the magazine is noting a universal belief. I could name specific critics from various reliable sources that share the notion, but it would overwhelm the paragraph, so the general statement seems more appropriate. In addition, since I did not find any source that contradicts this claim (i.e., another superhero film being universally regarded as the best), I thought the general statement was due. KyleJoantalk 09:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
      • How about "is regarded by critics as..." then? ShahidTalk2me 12:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "It captured the actor directing profanities at Shane Hurlbut, the film's director of photography, after Hurlbut walked onto the set during a scene Bale was filming with Bryce Dallas Howard and also threatening to quit the film if Hurlbut was not fired" - too long -> " "It captured him directing profanities at the film's cinematographer Shane Hurlbut, who walked onto the set during the filming of a scene acted by Bale and Bryce Dallas Howard, and culminated in Bale threatening to quit the film if Hurlbut was not fired."
  • "Actors Whoopi Goldberg, Terry Crews and Sharon Stone defended Bale attributing the incident to his dedication to acting; director Darren Aronofsky also defended him" - hmmm the list is a little redundant and reads like a court defense (and I'm sure there might have been others who condemned his conduct), although the essence it not. How about "Several colleagues in the film industry defended Bale, attributing the incident to his dedication to acting."?
  • "He added he and Hurlbut had completely resolved the matter and after seeing a rough cut of the film felt that Hurlbut had 'done a wonderful job'" - isn't that a bit of a stretch, it's just an incident on the film's set and it dominates the entire paragraph, while its value is quite gossipy anyway. I'd shorten it to "Bale publicly apologised in February 2009, calling the outburst 'inexcusable' and his behaviour 'way out of order' and affirming to have made amends with Hurlbut" (the compliment to Hurlbut is unnecessary anyway)
  • "Terminator Salvation was released in May 2009" at least let us know how the film fared after all the fuss. :) The sentence as it stands is not informative at all.
    • Ah, I see what you mean. Added "abysmal reviews". Interestingly enough, there's nothing about the film's overall commercial receipts, which probably means it performed adequately (i.e., not bombing but not exceeding expectations either). KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "During filming in January 2011, Bale, and a crew from the CNN television network, attempted..." - absolutely unnecessary trivia, in my view, and doesn't belong in the career section anyway (not that it belongs elsewhere considering it didn't even materialise).
    • I actually expanded this material and made it part of Bale's personal life. It seems his and Chen's relationship had more legs than I even realized. I think it adds context to his support of/work with nonprofits. Would love your thoughts on this. KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

More to come, ShahidTalk2me 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I believe I've addressed all of the above points. Please let me know if you'd still like to discuss some of them. Thanks again, Shahid! KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, all good so far. I'm reading the Artistry section now. I have a little question - the article looks very well sourced, but I have to note that a quick go through Google Books shows some substantial coverage of Bale, including entire books dedicated to him. Did you read some of them? Do you think they have any information that is otherwise missing in the newspapers/magazines that this article employs? Else it could be beneficial to list the major ones in the Further reading section. This isn't criticism, just asking. ShahidTalk2me 12:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting that you mentioned this because sourcing has been tricky, as Bale has not contributed much to the coverage surrounding him due to his reserved nature. There was even an interviewer that noted Bale requests that his profiles be in Q&A format so reporters can't paraphrase and narrate on his behalf. Due to this, I did browse some books. The biography by Harrison Cheung, which seems like the most notable book about Bale, is gossip-filled, as Cheung worked as Bale's assistant for years and said the two became estranged. While the biography by Matt Green seems more credible, I was not confident that it's a worthy further read since its first paragraph does not even say anything that is not verifiable via an already-cited Vulture piece. So to answer your question, I found the books available to be less comprehensive than the web sources cited. KyleJoantalk 13:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, let me read other parts of it before I can support it, ShahidTalk2me 14:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Shahid! Checking in to see if you had any other comments, qualms, or suggestions. KyleJoantalk 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional, general comments
  • "During his acceptance speech at the 76th Golden Globe Awards..." - I really don't get the purpose of this sentence, it's really vague and the readers just need to guess what he meant and what Liz Cheney meant. How about adding what exactly Bale thinks about Dick Cheney? There must be something more substantial out there.
    • There is an interview where Bale compared Cheney to Donald Trump, so I added the adjectives with which Bale described Cheney. That said, Bale never divulged his personal feelings about Cheney. I can't find the exact quote, but I remember him saying that he intentionally refrained from doing this to remain ambiguous about his stance on Cheney's politics. I believe this is why the "Satan" moment at the Golden Globes became the sensation that it did, as Bale essentially confirmed that he felt the same way about Cheney as Americans did. It was the closest thing to a tangible statement about Cheney that we got. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a few instances where I wish there was some additional information about his character other than just its name, including some context of the film's story in relation to the character, its trials and tribulations. I do understand why some rather unidimensional parts such as Batman would not require this sort of detailing, but the more complex roles he played do need to be elaborated on. For example:
    • What was the time period during which the story of Vice takes place? The film's article says "The film follows Cheney on his path to becoming the most powerful Vice President in American history" - wouldn't it be beneficial in Bale's article as well? We need to know what he plays, not just who he plays.
      • I don't know how accurate that quote about Vice is, as the film chronicles Cheney's life from the beginning of his political career until way after his career had ended. While his fame and power culminated in his involvement in the Iraq War, which is depicted in the film, it does not dominate the film the way the description leads you to believe. Due to this, I added a sentence about a general perception of Cheney, which I believe conveys a better sense of the character in a more appropriate way. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • "He then portrayed sports car racing driver Ken Miles in the 2019 sports drama Ford v Ferrari" - what is this film about? What was Damon's role? Isn't it relevant that Damon was there too? It doesn't require a lot of additional work - just like in Public Enemies you changed the introductoy sentence to "Bale portrayed FBI agent Melvin Purvis opposite Johnny Depp as gangster" which gives us valuable context, the same should be done here.
    • Going back, even in American Psycho - the duality of the role is missing, the fact that he was an investment banker who moonlights as a serial killer is an important plot element and description of his character, as it says a lot about the complexity of his character and lets the reader know it's not just about the regular villainous role (although imo, it is :)).
      • Done! I added that Bateman is "a stock market investor who is revealed to be a serial killer", as it would sound awkward to read that he works as somebody who kills people, which is a more apt description for a hitman. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Same for The Machinist - according to the film article, he plays "...a machinist whose insomnia and psychological problems lead..." - that is crucial information which explains why he had to lose weight, smoke cigarettes and drink whiskey.
    • Same for The Fighter - this is perhaps the most acclaimed performance of his career and yet we know nothing about his role. I see now he struggled with drug addiction, which explains Bale's weight loss (contrary to what's expected in the case of boxers) and that he is a retired boxer in the film who trained his younger brother. As is, the article says, "Bale's portrayal of professional boxer Dicky Eklund, for which...", I'd add - "Eklund, who/during [something about his part]..." to let the readers know more about this popular performance.
      • I see what you mean by this. This role definitely needed more weight, so I included the additional context accordingly. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Please apply this across the board where you see a role about which more can be said. This could really help readers respect his psychological rather than just physical efforts to play his roles. ShahidTalk2me 14:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe all of the other roles are pretty comprehensive as they are. The only one I went back and forth on was John Connor in Terminator Salvation, but then I realized there weren't any sources available that elaborated on Bale's process for the film because the coverage had been dominated by the outburst and the negative critical response, so I added the description "post-apocalyptic" to the genre to better illustrate the fictional setting. I hope this is sufficient. Thank you for the additional comments, Shahid! Please let me know if there is anything else I need to add or change! KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Great job! I support the nomination for promotion. ShahidTalk2me 10:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you again, truly! It's been a pleasure discussing this article with you. KyleJoantalk 11:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Solo ManEdit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the last known population of Homo erectus, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only other great ape FA is orangutan. There aren't any recent comprehensive books focusing just on Solo Man (there are a lot which briefly mention it) but the primary description of the anatomy is a lengthy monograph from 1951 (I've omitted the detailed discussions on individual bones for brevity), and there are a few literature reviews which I've relied upon especially in Research history.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

  • File:Solo Man reconstruction.png, File:Ngandong excavation.png, and the other images from this 1951 publication. How do you know copyright was not renewed?
The US copyright renewal database doesn't show this publication (or any publications by Weidenreich) renewed. The Commons links this website with the description "United States Copyright Office. Online database for all copyrights registered or renewed in 1978 or after. For works with copyrights from 1950 or after, the renewal will appear here."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I would think it's more likely for Anthropological Papers of the AMNH to renew copyright for the contents of their journal? (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean they clearly renewed a lot of their publications [58], including other works from 1951   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Did you look through all 201 pages of results or otherwise confirm that this issue of the Anthropological Papers of the AMNH was never copyright renewed? (t · c) buidhe 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I looked through all 201, yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Biface Extension.png What is the source of the information displayed on the map?
I can add one, would you prefer [59] or the doctorate thesis used on File:Carte hachereaux.jpg?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Either of these would appear to be a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 02:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


Going through WP:WIAFA point-by-point:

  • 1a: Is there no better way to present the various dating efforts than several sentences that read like "this year, then that year"? Otherwise nothing jumps out to me.
I'm open to ideas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I would probably use a bulleted list, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1b: That seems to be the case.
  • 1c: Can't really speak of this as ancient hominins aren't something I am familiar with. Sources seem reliable, although I wonder if that also applies to that by Teuku Jacob who has an ... interesting article. I see we mainly rely on modern sources, which seems reasonable if the discoverers all believed into questionable anthropological theories.
He really fumbled with floresiensis but he was a pretty established anthropologist I would say   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1d: The article spends a rather large amount of discussion on the discredited racial theories; also that hybridization view of Webb is a little odd if this is Homo erectus rather than Homo sapiens. Also, I wonder if the cannibalism aspect is getting a bit undue weight.
It was basically because if the hybridization thing was to be the explanation for the robustness of the Aborigine cranium, then why weren't the skulls of Southeast Asians equally robust? So Webb said it's because Solo Man also got to Australia somehow (I think it's at least implied by boat but I don't remember, and I guess also implied other populations were exterminated?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, but what about the cannibalism? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The Cannibalism section also covers pathology (even then it's pretty abridged) so it's really 2 sections in 1   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help to retitle the section to "pathology" then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It leans harder to cannibalism, because if it was straight pathology it would be like "Skull I has a 5x2 mm lesion on the left parietal bone" (and would consequently be a lot longer)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1e: That fits.
  • 1f: The "drop random sentences into Google" test yields nothing untoward.
  • 2a: I can't help but note that the extinction reasons are only discussed in the lead.
It was supposed to be "This caused the succession of the Ngandong Fauna by the Punung Fauna" but that's pretty vague now that I'm looking at it, so I added "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the tropical takeover"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2b: Seems OK save for the cannibalism aspect above.
  • 2c: Seems to fit.
  • 3: All images are well-placed and licenced. ALT text seems to fit.
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Qualified support here, in the sense that, since I am not an expert on prose or the subject matter, my support here should not be held any legitimate concern about either prose or subject matter raised from here forward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


I did a close reading of the article and found it well-written and understandable. My only concern is that the Paleohabitat section presents the Ndangdong Fauna, Kedung Brubus Fauna, and Punung Fauna as if they are formal concepts terms, but without any explanation or link. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I try to explain the relevant parts, like the Kedung Brubus Fauna is roughly 800 to 700 thousand years old and features large mammals, the Punung Fauna is consistent with tropical rainforest and namely includes humans, orangutans, and gibbons, and the Ngandong Fauna are listed and indicate an open woodland. The Kedung Brubus, Punung, and Ngandong sites don't have articles to link to   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • General comment: Using first names rather than initials is a lot more helpful when trying to figure out who someone is. "J. Allen," for example, isn't exactly a rare name.
My problem is I want to remain consistent with providing first name or not and a lot of times only the first initial is given, so I decided to leave it at initial for everyone   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • General comment: I'd recommend using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors. But up to you.
You mean instead of |display-authors=etal?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #1: Citing to the entirely of a 40-page article for specific information is pushing the boundaries of the identifying parts of a source guideline, which states that "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited."
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There's significant inconsistency in when "et al." is invoked. It's either after four authors (#6), three authors (#7, 9, 10, 13), two authors (#14, 19), or one author (#23).
I wasn't aware that needed to be consistent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
One of the featured article criteria is literally named "consistent citations". It's in bold, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend to not leave any authors out at all, and simply provide the names of everybody. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • #6, 22, 23: