Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

[edit]

Commenting, etc

[edit]


FACs needing feedback
view • edit
Die with a Smile Review it now
Alone (The Cure song) Review it now


Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy
Shortcut

Nominations

[edit]

Thuggee

[edit]
Nominator(s): Joko2468 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a phenomenon of highway robbers in early British colonial India that were suppressed by a British campaign in the 1830s. For well over a century they were thought to constitute a religious sect that sacrificed travellers to their Goddess (popularly Kali). The Thugs (from which we get the word) subsequently took on a life of their own in literature, and later film, perhaps most famously in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Historians have since revised this colonial-era portrayal, most notably in the 1990s and 2000s, with there being a general consensus among contemporary historians against the notion of thuggee as a religious cult.

I have been working on this article and in the broader topic area on and off for the past six months. The article recently passed a rigorous GA review by Amir Ghandi, who recommended that I nominate it at FAC. The historiography is a little muddled and tertiary material that could repair this lacking, so I've left some brief notes in the talk page explaining the judgements I made. Thank you for your time and consideration. Joko2468 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Planet Crafter

[edit]
Nominator(s): Monkegamer123 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Planet Crafter, a 2024 open-world survival game independently developed and published by Miju Games. Earlier this year, in March, I helped promote this game's article to GA status after the first peer review. I recently had a peer review on this article. I believe it meets the Featured Article criteria and welcome feedback for further improvement. Monkegamer123 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

In the peer review I called out a bunch of jargon words that needed to be explained. As far as I can tell, that has not yet be done. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the peer review, I’ve replaced or clarified the jargon in the lead and throughout the article. Terms such as open-world, survival, early access, downloadable content, terraformation, player character, Unity engine, Steam, GOG.com, biomes, and others are now either simplified or briefly explained where they first appear. Monkegamer123 (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Generally speaking, the more non-free images included, the stronger the rationale needed for each - the screenshots have very similar rationales, which don't make a strong case for both being necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Planet Humble image, added alt text to the remaining images (cover art and partially terraformed planet), and removed the fixed pixel sizing so the images use default thumbnail sizing. Monkegamer123 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

toby

[edit]

Heyo. I don't plan on doïng a full review, but I feel like the Gameplay section fails to comprehensively describe what the player is supposed to do. I understand the broad stuff; the player should "explore" and terraform the planet by modifying environmental features such as the atmosphere, temperature, and ecology, and requires players to manage resources as the planet develops. Apparently the player "constructs" machines that help with this goal. But the article fails to explain: how the player constructs the machines, what these machines are, the end condition of the game, how the player is supposed to acquire power for the machines, what happens if the player runs out of oxygen, what the "matter-manipulation gun" does, what happens when the player accomplishes terraforming the planet, how the player "manages resources"...

I could probably think of more examples, but I will oppose for now. toby (t)(rw) 21:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

National Sporting Club

[edit]
Nominator(s): Metalicat (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly forty years the National Sporting Club was the de facto governing body of British boxing, despite being a private Covent Garden dining club whose members watched in evening dress and were forbidden to call out during the rounds. It did more than stage bouts. Manslaughter trials brought after boxers died in its ring won the sport legal toleration in English law; it fixed the weight divisions and the in-ring referee that boxing still uses; and in 1909 it created the Lonsdale Belt, still the prize British champions fight for. The same pursuit of respectability also entrenched a colour bar that shut Black boxers out of British titles for decades. The club handed its authority to the new British Boxing Board of Control in 1929, but what it built, for good and ill, outlived it.

It reached GA after a peer review, and I have substantially re-sourced it since an earlier, premature nomination in January 2026 that was rightly archived on the grounds of it being a bin fire! Thanks to Vestrian24Bio for the GA review and RoySmith for the peer review. Metalicat (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • William_Howard_Robinson_A_Welsh_Victory_at_the_National_Sporting_Club_1919.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
  • The dead Bonhams link is now archived on the file (Wayback capture, 11 October 2025), with the Lewisham Local History and Archives Centre catalogue as supporting provenance. On first publication: the painting depicts the 31 March 1919 contest, is signed and dated 1921, and was reproduced in the British illustrated press and issued as prints (with a key identifying those depicted), and exhibited at the Arlington Galleries, London, in the early 1920s. Metalicat (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Phil_May_-The_Flemingo_(John_Fleming)_Bruges_1889.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:National_Sporting_Club_entrance_hall_and_staircase_illustration_by_Harry_Furniss.jpg, File:Jackson_v_Slavin_boxing_match_illustration_Harry_Furniss.jpg
  • 1897 audience sketch: confirmed as the plate "At the National Sporting Club" from London as seen by Charles Dana Gibson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897), viewable in full at Project Gutenberg (ebook 62738). Author Charles Dana Gibson (1867–1944); first published 1897.
  • Queen Alexandra photograph: traced to its first publication in the British press, Sporting Life, 29 June 1916 (p. 4) reporting Queen Alexandra's presentation of the British Sportsmen's Ambulance Fund vehicles at Marlborough House. The file is re-dated to 1916 and the source corrected accordingly. Metalicat (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review and the ce you conducted. I think I have rectified the above points. Metalicat (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales

[edit]
Nominator(s): MSincccc (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales (more commonly known in the media as "Kate Middleton"). It passed GA in November 2025 and received a peer review earlier this year.

My thanks to Noleander for his mentorship, 750h+ for a thorough GA review, Keivan.f, Gog the Mild and Nikkimaria for their advice and suggestions, and Gerda Arendt, Wehwalt, FrB.TG and Whonting for their comments at peer review. Thanks also to all who take the time to comment during this FAC. Best, MSincccc (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt

[edit]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • I participated in the Peer Review several months ago, and I think by the end of the PR the article was in fine shape, and near FA status.
  • I ran the copyvio tool and it reported one warning. But the warning is related to a garbage website that apparently copied text from the WP article in September 2025 (not the other way around).
  • Not sure boldface is needed here: Initially, the media reported her first name as "Kate", a diminutive of "Catherine".
  • Citations and sources look good: both in quality/reliability; and format/layout. "Show Ref Check" tool does not reveal any issues.
  • The article might benefit from an image gallery at the bottom ... but I'm not sure if Commons has many decent free-to-use images. To avoid any issues related to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH any pics in a gallery should show outfits/items that sources specifically commented upon. A gallery is not required for FA status ... this comment is simply my personal preference.
  • Prose reads well: several reviewers, including I, went over the prose during the PR.
  • I looked at the licensing info of all the images, and it appears valid. But I have not done a formal image review.

750h

[edit]

Comments from Jon698

[edit]

Whonting

[edit]

I recall flagging a few issues with TSI in the peer review and paused before running through the entire article, so I'll be paying attention to that here. Several of these were flagged by User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification. Feel free to push back where appropriate:

  • Where in the source is the lead image dress identified as partly "silk crepe"?
  • I don't believe The Telegraph source supports them meeting in 2001. It says they met in their first year, and graduated in 2005. Their first year would have run from from Sep 2001 to May 2002.
  • The proposal trip lasting 10 days does not appear to be supported.
  • The sources appear to support the proposal announcement taking place at St James's Palace rather than Clarence House
  • The Vanity Fair article states their relationship went public in Spring 2004, not 2002.
  • What in the source is supporting "Catherine's fashion received substantial media attention following the public revelation of her relationship"?
  • The People source says the sheer dress sold for $125,000, while the Telgraph source says the dress sold for £78,000. Can we establish the dress was sold for dollars? Otherwise this may just be a conversion by an American magazine for its audience, which should not be replicated in a BrEng article.
  • Many of these I think are fair and are getting picked up by the AI Source Verification tool. I don't think it's a good use of my time to reproduce the list of items it flags, so I hope you can use the tool and go through on your own. Ping me when you're done and I'll jump back in.
  • Suggest linking the Internet Archive copies of Moody 2013 and Smith 2011.
  • I have had a look over unused sources as well:

Whonting (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Whonting Thanks for taking the time to review this. I'll try to reply to them by tomorrow evening. MSincccc (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MSincccc. While you're working on this, I've noticed a few more things in the lead I'll raise now so you can knock it all out at once. Whonting (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead reproduces the 2002 going public error.
  • "since her relationship with Prince William became public" I don't get the sense that this happened until later from the article.
  • "Her style is often described as elegant" I flagged this in the PR and still see it here. My comment there: I see in the lead that Her style is often described as elegant, yet don't see descriptions of elegance in the body. What is being used to support this?
  • Is her outfits being "accessible" a reference to her reusing them? If so, I don't think that works as a summary.
  • My searches indicated that "Kate Effect" was much more common than "Kate Middleton Effect". On the Internet Archive for instance, "Kate Effect" produced 8 times as many results as "Kate Middleton Effect".
  • Is public admiration a reference to her influence on purchase habits? If so, state that plainly.
  • Likewise, is "has had a substantial impact on the clothing industry in the United Kingdom and beyond" a reference to the Kate Effect? Or are there other influences I am missing?

Whonting (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Whonting Thanks for the review. I’ve addressed the points above; please let me know if anything remains. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

T took part in the peer review and read the article once more now. I'd like a bit more lead, perhaps reflecting her choices, but am ready to support as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Gerda Arendt. MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Frances

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Frances, one of four hurricanes to hit the United States in 2004. Frances hit the Bahamas before hitting Florida, and both areas were hit three weeks later by another hurricane. Frances was somewhat forgotten in hurricane circles, as it was not the strongest US landfall of the year, but instead its impacts were widespread from floods and tornadoes. The hurricane produced one of the largest tornado outbreaks related to a tropical cyclone. Thanks to Timcigar12 (talk · contribs) with the tornado tables.

If any parts of the article are too technical, or boring, please feel free to call me out. I know the perception of hurricane articles, that all of them feel the same. Indeed, I've been trying to rectify that by merging a bunch of hurricane articles, including some featured articles. I'm trying to balance that by working on some more important storms, such as this retired storm that spawned 103 tornadoes, dropped nearly 2 ft (0.61 m) of rain, and caused nearly $10 billion in damage. I hope you enjoy the read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MCRPY22
Some notes
"Across the state, 4.2 million people lost power, with outages as far west as the Florida panhandle, where Frances made a second, weaker landfall. After moving through central Florida, Frances made a second, weaker landfall along the Florida panhandle." "second, weaker landfall" is used two sentences in a row.
Ack, thanks. What about "Across the state, 4.2 million people lost power, with outages as far west as the Florida panhandle. After moving through central Florida, Frances made a second, weaker landfall along the Florida panhandle. "
"At 00:00 UTC on August 25,}} Tropical Depression Six formed" Weird "}}" thing.
Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Frances continued through the southeastern United States, producing a prolific tornado outbreak." Is there any detail on why such a large outbreak occurred? Not like an in-depth explanation necessarily but this seems like it could be important to mention
"With a frontal boundary moving northward ahead of the storm, the plentiful moisture and wind shear produced intense thunderstorms in Frances' rainbands, leading to 103 twisters from Florida to Maryland." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Both Kennedy Space Center and Walt Disney World closed during the hurricane, the latter only its fourth time to date" I think the second part would be better as "the latter for only the fourth time to date"
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Seven of the deaths were traffic fatalities, and another five deaths were traffic accidents with downed trees" Feels a little clunky and can be misunderstood, might be missing something but I think it's better as something like "twelve deaths were traffic fatalities, five of them being related to downed trees"
Oh yea, good point. Changed to - "Twelve of the deaths were traffic fatalities, including five due to accidents with downed trees." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"This included dozens of homes that were destroyed" Looking at the sources, "dozens" here should be "hundreds" or maybe even "thousands," not sure.
There isn't a clear number of total number of destroyed buildings, other than the mobile homes per this source. As such, I changed this part to - "This included 99 mobile homes that were destroyed or unrepairable." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Frances's circulation flooded downtown Punta Gorda, after producing a negative 5 ft (1.5 m) storm surge" what is "negative storm surge?"
Changed to "On Florida's west coast, a storm surge 5 ft (1.5 m) flooded downtown Punta Gorda. " ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"There was one indirect fatality related to Frances in Alabama" What were the details of this indirect fatality? Is that known?
Ugh I've spent a lot of time trying to find out more info, but the TCR doesn't give anything other than an indirect death in Alabama. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"A NWS employee reported a tornado." -> "An NWS employee reported a tornado."
Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the back-to-back floods, Asheville began requiring that new buildings in potential flood areas be built at least 2 ft (0.61 m) higher. After the 2004 hurricane season, Asheville began keeping water reservoir levels deliberately low during hurricane season as a precaution." Is there a way to avoid using "Asheville began" twice like that while keeping it accurate? Would, "Following the back-to-back floods, Asheville began requiring that new buildings in potential flood areas be built at least 2 ft (0.61 m) higher and started keeping water reservoir levels deliberately low during hurricane season as a precaution." work? I understand if the sentence is too long. MCRPY22 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MCRPY22: Thanks for the comments, I think I got everything so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Tangerini

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Tangerini is an American botanical illustrator and curator who works for the National Museum of Natural History. Her illustrations have been featured in academic journals, floras, books, monographs, and museum exhibits. Along with this, she also curates botanical art collections and teaches classes and workshops on botanical illustration. Tangerini has had a long career, during which she has become a well-respected figure in her field. Even after sustaining an eye injury in 2005, she continues to work and over twenty years later, she has no plans to retire.

Thank you @RoySmith: for pointing out the valid issues with the article's prose during the first FAC. I greatly appreciate your patience and understanding with that. Thank you to @Crestfalling: for the absolutely wonderful copyedit that they have done. I also want to thank everyone who has helped with the article: @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy:, @Surtsicna:, @Aterbiou:, @Alaexis:, @Noleander:, @Camilasdandelions:, and @Nikkimaria:.

This article is very much outside of my comfort zone, so I am really grateful for every editor who has helped me along the way. I am glad that I was able to hopefully learn and grow from this project. I very much enjoyed working on this article, and I hope that in some small way I was able to help with the gender bias on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camilasdandelions

[edit]

Nice to see this article in FAC again! I just found some small issues:

  • "As of 2024, Tangerini was" (both lead and prose) -- I think "remains" would more fit than "was"
  • "Beyond a single botany night class" -> "Beyond a single night class in botany"
  • "She is also a member of the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators and helped plan the first of its annual meetings in 1979." -- The former is present but the latter is past tense, so it would go like this: "She is also a member of the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators, having helped plan the first of its annual meetings in 1979."
  • "Tangerini has published six articles in PhytoKeys, Harvard Papers in Botany, The Botanical Artist, The Plant Press, and The American Gardener.[37][note 3] In addition to writing for The Plant Press, she serves as the newsletter's illustrator." -- I don't think "In addition to writing for The Plant Press" is necessary here because you already mentioned it just before. So try smth like this: "She also serves as the newsletter's illustrator."
  • That's all I see! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Camilasdandelions: Thank you for your review. I have addressed a majority of your comments. I am uncertain about the suggestion about The Plant Press. I think that repeating the newsletter name would be necessary, since this sentence is directly after the names of five publications (and three of which are not linked/do not have an article). Although The Plant Press is identified as a newsletter in the endnote, I could see readers being confused about what is being referenced. I could simplify this part to something like, She also serves as the illustrator for The Plant Press, but I wanted to get your feedback before making this change. Thank you again. I appreciate your help, and I hope that you are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's better to keep it then! Thank you for addressing these and sharing your thoughts. Now I support your nomination. Best luck with your FAC :)! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support. If other editors have issue with that part, I would more than happy to revisit this and to try and improve it. Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi Aoba47, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review! Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Looks pretty good, but I'll add a few nitpicks here as I go along. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tangerini described her vision as her greatest asset while growing up... — "eyesight" might be better than "vision", which could be metaphorical
  • ...over 1,000 plant species.—I'd say "more than", but perhaps that's a BE thing?
  • particularly her ability to examine "something an inch from [her] face and see detail— I can do this because I'm very short-sighted in one eye, do we know if that's the reason for her?
  • That could be the case, but unfortunately, she does not go into any further detail about this. She only talks about how she had excellent eyesight when she was younger and does not provide any additional context. This article was more focused on her eyesight issues later in life, so that is probably why this does not get any real or substantial follow-up. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have duplicate links for Lyman Bradford Smith, American Society of Botanical Artists, Royal Botanic Garden, Sydney and Warren L. Wagner.
  • Tangerini observed that her perspective as a botanical illustrator often leads her to notice details that botanists overlook—perhaps lose "botanical" to avoid near-repeat?
  • I don't think we link countries, you've linked Guyana.
  • According to MOS:OVERLINK, countries should generally not be linked. However, this part of the policy does include countries listed under the following: In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: I could see some readers being unfamiliar with Guyana or wanting to get further clarifcation about it. I just wanted to explain my rationale for the link, but I can remove it if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN numbers for books?
  • Thank you for catching this for me as well. The books were admittedly a late addition, and for whatever reason, I had completely forgotten about the ISBNs. I have added them for both of the books. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jimfbleak: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate your help. I have addressed everything, except for removing the Guyana link. Just to be clear, I would be more than okay with removing that link, but I just wanted to explain my rationale for its inclusion. Feel free to push back against this. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

How am I three days late to this party! Comments will follow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "She has taught classes on botanical illustration since 1976 and curated the Smithsonian Catalog of Botanical Illustrations and the NMNH's Botanical Art Collection." Do we have any dates/time ranges on when she curated those things? Otherwise being paired with the other clause it kind of implies she was responsible for that stuff since the 1970s also.
  • That is understandable. Unfortunately, I do no have any concrete dates or time ranges for her curatorial work. The sources just say that she has done and is still doing these things. I have tried to break the sentence somewhat, but let me know if further revisions would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 in the lead is organized a bit oddly, in that it goes from an "as of 2024" injury, then back to 1976, then forward to 2005. I might suggest a fix by moving all the stuff about her career history to one para, then all the stuff that isn't a chronological history (tools, appearances, accolades) into the other.
  • Could you please further clarify this for me? Apologies for being dense, but I am a bit stuck on how to best approach this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have attempted to rearrange the lead in my sandbox, but apologies in advance. The lead is probably my weakest area in terms of writing article. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions or help with this. Thank you for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beyond a single night class..." I think you can cut "when she started her career as a botanical illustrator" as redundant
  • "Over the next three years, Tangerini developed the expertise to work more independently; rather than depending on Smith's sketches, she began conducting plant dissections herself, and instead of following examples of to-scale drawings, she started producing her own enlarged illustrations." This sentence feels a bit knotted up, and follows an equally long sentence. I suggest splitting off the first clause as its own sentence and revising the latter part to something like "Rather than depending on Smith's sketches and examples of to-scale drawings, she began conducting plant dissections and producing her own enlarged illustrations herself."
  • "After graduating from VCUarts, Tangerini returned to the Smithsonian as a full-time staff illustrator in the botany department" it's not clear from the earlier text that Tangerini left the Smithsonian to study at VCU, so "returned to" is a bit surprising for the reader
  • Thank you for catching this for me, as "returned to" is the wrong word choice here. Tangerini worked as a freelance illustrator while in college and after graduation, she was promoted to being a full-time employee. I have revised this part, but please let me know if further revisions would beneficial here as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat confused by the placement of "Artistic style and process" being before the rest of the "Career" section. It feels strange to interrupt the chronological history of her career with a section about her style (which covers the breadth of her career), and then go back to chronologically detailing her career. (I will continue the review in the order the article is presently in though)
  • That is a fair point. The current article structure was suggested during the peer review. The rationale was that this would help to organize the article like "process → achievement → recognition" by first introducing how Tangerini works (process), then what she has achieved from it (achievement), and then telling her impact or influences (recognition). There were concerns for both the peer review and FAC about the prose being too choppy and not being engaging, so I implemented this suggestion to hopefully address these concerns. I can change this if necessary, but I just wanted explain the rationale for this change. This article is very much outside of my comfort zone, so I am not as confident with how to structure and organize this information. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She then produces a sketch using a camera lucida to magnify and trace the subject." Suggest -> "Using a camera lucida to magnify and trace the subject, she produces an initial sketch." Mostly to ditch the unnecessary "then"
  • "perspective as an illustrator often leads her to notice details" does the source give any examples we could include?
  • The article does include an example, but that is tied to a different botanical illustrator, Margaret Mee. The source quotes Tangerini more so to highlight this dynamic between botanical illustrators and botanists. There is a paragraph later in the article about how Tangerini helped to discover a new plant species (Navia aliciae). Maybe this part would be more beneficial there? It could be included either in the prose or as an endnote. It would probably be better and clearer to tie this to a more concerete example. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also favors traditional" - ditch "also" here
  • "Nevertheless, she values the history of her craft" I think this comes off as somewhat editorial. Like it's implying adopting digital tools might make someone not value the history of their craft, you know? I would revise to maybe something like "Tangerini is interested in preserving historical drawing techniques and has a collection of instruments used by other illustrators, which she describes as "a little history of drawing that is slowly vanishing."" (I might also move this to before the digital tools sentence?)
  • "She often feels a sense of horror vacui, which she attributes as the reason why her illustrations tend to fill the page as much as possible." this is a bit knotted up in itself, and if you don't understand what horror vacui is, it'll miss for you anyway. Suggest something like "Her illustrations fill as much of the page as possible because of her dislike of empty space, sometimes called horror vacui." You could also do a pipe link instead and skip the Latin phrase.
  • I agree. The use of horror vacui comes across as rather pretentious to me now that I look back on it, but that could just be me. I agree with your suggestion, and I have implemented it into the article. I have used a pipe link instead, as I think that would be better for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

[edit]

Great to see this at FAC! Just as a disclaimer, I copyedited this article earlier for GOCE, which involved making some minor wording and organizational changes to improve the prose. In the interests of neutrality, I'll be doing a source review here. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 21:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 Source spotcheck looks good, with citations consistently verifying claims. As a whole, referenced publications are high-quality, and quotes and primary sources (interviews) are used appropriately. My only comment is that for The NMNH featured her work again in 2010 as part of a collaborative exhibition with the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators[1], should the last part instead be American Society of Botanical Artists? Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 22:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crestfalling: Thank you for the source review. I am glad that it is being done earlier on in the process for this FAC. Again, I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate all of your help with the article. Thank you for pointing out the error. I have corrected it in the prose. Apologies for that as it is a very silly (and glaring) issue. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article further. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem, it was a small thing and I'm confident in passing the source review now. I'm glad I was able to help, and will let you know if I find any suggestions for improvement, though everything looks good at this time. Best of luck on the rest of the nomination; I'm having a great start to my week, and wish you one as well :) Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Table
[edit]

This table lists 20 random passages from throughout the article (20.2% of 99 total passages). These passages contain 24 inline citations (17.4% of 138 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 21:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
and grew up in Kensington, Maryland.
3 a The Botanical Artist 2011, p. 6. ✅
and by high school, she had a portfolio consisting entirely of illustrations of horses and dogs.
4 b McNeill 2018. ✅
Tangerini lacked a background in biology when she started her career as a botanical illustrator;
5 e Saaty 2023. ✅
In a retrospective profile, Smithsonian magazine's Leila McNeill wrote that Tangerini entered scientific illustration through "a bit of luck (and a lot of skill)", with her early career being closer to an apprenticeship than the "formal college route" that would later become more common.
4 g McNeill 2018. ✅
her professors interpreted her horse paintings as possessing sexual undertones.
3 b The Botanical Artist 2011, p. 6. ✅
After graduating from VCUarts, Tangerini returned to the Smithsonian as a full-time staff illustrator in the botany department
13 a The Plant Press 2022, p. 12. ✅
14 a American Society of Botanical Artists A. ✅
her research methods include rehydrating specimens, examining them under a microscope, and dissecting the plants and their seeds.
15 b Robbins 2009. ✅
17 b Boser 2005. Offline, AGF since Robbins 2009 fully verifies
She also favors traditional tools, such as pen and ink, brush and ink, and graphite.
19 American Society of Botanical Artists A; Higgins 2020; McNeill 2018; The Plant Press 2022, p. 12 ✅
her work has also assisted botanists with field identification.
5 j Saaty 2023. ✅
and are held in the permanent collections of the Smithsonian Institution, the Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation (HIBD), and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden.
14 c American Society of Botanical Artists A. ✅
The NMNH featured her work again in 2010 as part of a collaborative exhibition with the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators.
26 Smithsonian Insider 2010. ✅
she has also traveled to observe flora in their natural environments. Her destinations have included California, Hawaii, and Guyana,
14 e American Society of Botanical Artists A. ✅
According to Smithsonian magazine, museums and botanical gardens often have only one or two illustrators due to a lack of funding.
4 l McNeill 2018. ✅
In addition to creating her own illustrations, Tangerini has contributed to the preservation and presentation of botanical art. She curated a NMNH exhibition of Mary Vaux Walcott's wildflower watercolors in 1990 and digitized a collection of cactus art by Mary Emily Eaton for the NMNH in 2009.
1 c National Museum of Natural History. ✅
33 Angell 2009, p. 28. ✅
Her other professional activities include designing the masthead for the newsletter The Bean Bag,
43 Gunn 1992, p. 2. ✅
4 The Bean Bag is an annual newsletter published by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Its target audien… ✅
She is also a member of the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators, having helped plan the first of its annual meetings in 1979.
47 Brooklyn Botanic Garden. ✅
Tangerini has been recognized for her role and influence within her field. She has been described as one of the best botanic illustrators
52 Barboza 2010, p. 4; Order Sons of Italy in America 2011; Robbins 2009 ✅
while Emma Saaty of Smithsonian magazine credited Tangerini with having "inspired a whole new generation of artists to preserve what is rapidly becoming an endangered field".
5 o Saaty 2023. ✅
Ulrich Boser of Smithsonian magazine referred to Navia aliciae as a type of "wild pineapple".
17 f Boser 2005. Offline, AGF
Tangerini has taught classes at the following schools: the Corcoran School of the Arts and Design, the Minnesota School of Botanical Art, Graduate School USA, Montgomery College, and Virginia Commonwealth University.
14 f American Society of Botanical Artists A. ✅

Hopeless Fountain Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

American singer Halsey released her sophomore album, Hopeless Fountain Kingdom, a concept album that reimagined Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet through a bisexual lens set within a dystopian purgatory. While it divided some critics over its stylistic experimentation, Hopeless Fountain Kingdom became a massive milestone for her, making her the first female artist to open atop the US Billboard 200 that year and spawning major chart-topping hits like "Now or Never" and "Bad at Love". I hope you all enjoy the article, and I truly appreciate anyone taking their time to review. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Romeo_and_juliet_brown.jpg: when and where was this first published?
@Nikkimaria Removed the second one, but I'm bit unsure with the first. Could you please clarify your question for this? It is used in various featured articles like Choral symphony, Fearless (Taylor Swift album), Love Story (Taylor Swift song) etc.. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has a tag stating that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1931." Under US copyright law, "published" has a particular technical definition. My question is, was that definition met before 1931 as claimed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria As I am not the uploader, I'm actually not aware of its publication history as well. I used it because it fits in the section and has long been used in other various featured articles without issues. Should I ask its publication information on Wikimedia Commons? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You could, but you're just using it to illustrate Romeo and Juliet rather than this specific painting, correct? If so, the simpler option might be to find an alternative image with clearer status; there are quite a few available. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would this file be fine? I'll apply the image to those featured articles either once you approved it. Thank you so much for your help. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That one would have the same question - was it published before 1931? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I guess so, as I assume a good faith, but I would like to be more clear on this too. As no one has asked nor pointed the image out for its publication in those featured article candidates before, I have no idea for this issue for now. Also I have looking for another images in the category you provided, but I failed since most of them said they were published before 1931 too (without clear evidence). Could you suggest me a good image for it? Thanks and sorry for bothering you.. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any of these would work: File:Romeo_and_Juliet_lobby_card.jpg; File:Tales_from_Shakespeare-1918-0311.jpg; File:Tales_from_Shakspeare_(1831)_p289_Romeo_and_Juliet.png; File:Lamb-p125.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Thanks a lot! I addressed it Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Hi, I'll leave comments here soon. 750h+ 14:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Hopeless Fountain Kingdom received generally favorable reviews from music critics, who often praised its ambition, conceptual scope, and Halsey's artistic development," => "Hopeless Fountain Kingdom received generally favorable reviews from music critics, who often praised its ambition and conceptual scope, and Halsey's artistic development,"
  • That's all I got on the lead, I will be back to dive into the rest later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Chris! I addressed it by writing "as well as Halsey's artistic development", since I wanted to avoid repetitive use of "and". Hope this looks fine to you! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speaking with the Paper magazine" - I think "Speaking with the magazine Paper" would be more natural language (that's how I would express it, certainly)
    I just trimmed it to "Speaking with Paper" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About the album's title, Billboard pointed out that it might be named after a real fountain" => "Billboard pointed out that the album might be named after a real fountain" removes a few words which to me seem unnecessary
  • "The main character is a bisexual[28] female named Luna Aureum, and her main love interest is male character Solis Angelus,[11][29] with references to female love interests in the songs "Bad at Love"[30] and "Strangers", featuring Jauregui who is bisexual" - is Jauregui mentioned in just the latter song or both? Is Jauregui one of the female love interests? There seems to be a tiny bit of context missing here
    I tried my best for addressing it: "in the songs "Bad at Love" and "Strangers"; the latter features Jauregui who is also bisexual." Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Halsey, a mid-tempo[37] pop ballad[38] "Bad at Love" " => "According to Halsey, the mid-tempo[37] pop ballad[38] "Bad at Love" "
  • That's what I got as far as the end of the "Music" section. Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amrom Harry Katz

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a barely known (in wider terms) engineer and scientist who from WW2 to modern times seems to have more or less guided major portions of our artificial satellite systems related to satellite imagery and their advancements. The ultra-majority of his work was for military and intelligence uses... but without those, we probably don't get many imaging advances and benefits of things like all this. So here he is. This is my first FAN, so apologies if I get anything wrong. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Image review

Hi, all set: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amrom_Harry_Katz&diff=1360161224&oldid=1360089211 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember

[edit]

RandomEdits Congratulations on your first nomination. I've had an initial readthrough earlier and I'll add some comments shortly, just leaving this as a placeholder. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A nice read overall, and pretty approachable for someone I had not heard of before.. Here's my initial thoughts.
Lead
  • Mostly good, but I would remove the nickname part as the sentence is already quite long and it's not particularly important compared to the awards.
Early life and education
  • Pedantic, but we go "Max (father) and Lena (mother). His mother was a homemaker and his father... Swapping these helps consistency. Alternatively these sentences could be combined; "born in Chicago to Max, a real estate property manager and Lena Katz, a homemaker.
  • For flow, it would be better to have the mention of his brothers before his education. Currently it goes family members -> moving/education -> family -> education
  • Katz attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for his graduate work This is pretty vague. What was his graduate work in?
  • Had a question on this one:
Katz attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for his graduate work This is pretty vague. What was his graduate work in?
So interestingly, last time I couldn't find anything really past this. Just that one passing mention in the New York Times. What do? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting - obviously Katz isn't my area of expertise but I couldn't find anything more on this either... In which case, this is fine to leave. You have a source directly saying "Mr. Katz was born in Chicago, grew up in Milwaukee, received a bachelor's degree in 1939 from the University of Wisconsin and did graduate work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." so we shouldn't weaken the point if there's no more details available. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Army Air Corps
  • One thing I noticed here and further, you make use of "Memorial address by Ondrejka" as the backbone for much of this article. While obituaries are not disallowed, we have to consider that by design they are going to eulogise the deceased person and present their best side. As such, while usable for basic claims, for claims like a "leading the charge in X", if possible alternative sources for many of these would be safer if possible. See WP:OBITUARIES.
  • For example "significantly enhancing reconnaissance imaging during World War II." is a strong claim, and is attributed solely to a eulogy speech. Other sources would be great.
  • Same with "leading the oblique aerial photographic documentation of the detonations." I believe it is fine to say he was involved using a eulogy speech as reference, but being the frontfather of the work is a stronger claim.
This should be fine in my eyes, but another reviewer might comment on this. I'd leave it for now and see what the next reviewers for now. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the tests, international journalists waited with nothing to report.[9]: 32  He arranged for friends at a U.S. airbase to send horseshoes and manure (shipped in dry ice to conceal the odor).[9]: 32  Simulated horse tracks were created by Katz and friends in the middle of the night, scattering manure along the trail, hoping to find reporters investigating a horse that did not exist.[9]: 32  I enjoy the story, but this is a bit anecdotal. Could this be more integrated or compressed? I would be hesitant to remove it outright. (You also use the same ref twice in a row)
Nice, looks good to me. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • used math to plan Far too vague. What exactly was he doing? What field of math?
  • Overall good, I am just concerned as mentioned about the obituary use and subsequent flattery. You could certainly have these sort of lines if alternative sources can be found. For example an article about a horse I am working uses lines like "she greatly shocked X" or "was considered a leading contender for turf-racing fillies" but these are attributed to independent sources.
RAND corporation
  • Katz and many of his colleagues were later recognized as founding figures in the establishment of the United States Intelligence community's new National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in 1960; the NRO's very existence would remain a classified state secret until 1992. Again, I'm quite concerned strong claims like "Founding father" are being given solely to the same eulogy speech. Are there any other sources that could be used here?
  • Katz told staff at the National Photographic Interpretation Center that RAND’s interest was sparked by a skyhook balloon that had "escaped" and subsequently overflew Europe and Asia undetected A bit wordy. Could this be reduced to "According to Katz, interest in RAND/RAND's interest was sparked by a...
  • The project evolved from WS-117L, also known as SAMOS, a cover for the development of the KH-7 Gambit reconnaissance satellites. I had to re-read this paragraph a few times - should this be "The project evolved _into_ WS-117L?" Or "the pair's work was brought into the fold of the wider project WS-117L"?
  • Katz was credited by Davies and William R. Harris for his role in bringing Boston University's Walter Levison, then bed-ridden in a hospital from a back injury, into their team, which led to panoramic cameras with longer focal lengths A meaty sentence. How about "Katz was credited by Davies and William R. Harris for helping recruit Walter Levison of Boston University. Levison, despite being bed-ridden in hospital from a back-injury, was able to held with the development of panoramic cameras with longer focal lengths.
  • Either way, you use 'panoramic cameras' twice in quick succession here.
  • but with cautions noted by him to never refer to it as Wordy, suggest "while cautioning them to never refer to it as"
Impacts on aerospace and intelligence doctrines
This looked good to me.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
  • a remark that left the president laughing Somewhat superfluous.
  • You use ref 21 twice in the same sentence.
  • Throughout his career, Katz served on and attended many international conferences, talks and summits related to Soviet Union–United States relations and the nuclear arms race between them, including the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, and the American Assembly. Very long run on sentence
Awards and legacy
  • I believe this is mostly fine, though I'll double check later. Certainly some strong claims being made, but from my glance through of the refs in this area they seemed to be accurate.
Misc
  • Is ref 38 correct? A link to the actual magazine might be better: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/app/uploads/2025/10/1167_November1967_LR.pdf
  • Not necessary, but when someone does your ref spot check, they may not be able to access newspapers.com as it's a subscription website. You should either mark the refs using it with a |url-access=subscription or use the website's clipping feature to generate a free-to-view url.
Yes, that should be fine as you've marked them as subscription needed. If you're interested in practicing clipping at a later date, you just need to click the clip button in the top right, drag and drop the box over your text, then hit save and then share for the url. The website also has an autoclip feature if it thinks what you're looking at is an obituary. I've clipped the four articles so you can compare results.
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-wisconsin-jewish-chronicle-katz-bros/200174653/
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-wisconsin-jewish-chronicle-amrom-kat/200174790/
https://www.newspapers.com/article/albuquerque-journal-u-s-reported-tight/200174937/
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-blade-obituary-for-amrom-katz/200174993/
RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me for the first round of comments, I think this is heading in a good direction. My only real concern is the obituary issue, and it might be worth checking with a more experienced biopic-reviewer to see if I'm being overly cautious or whether a bit of reworking/resourcing needs to be done. UndercoverClassicist is quite active and I bieleve has done a lot of reviews of academic/scientist biographies - he might be able to advise better than me here if you leave a message on his talk page.

Additionally, if you have time for a FA review yourself when you're not working on this, I have a FA about a horse up at the moment that could do with one more prose reviewer, but this isn't required as part of this review by any means! :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've started into your feedback. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sardonyx

[edit]
Nominator(s): simongraham (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Royal Navy destroyer that had an interesting life, laid down during the First World War yet survived to serve as an escort to the Normandy Landings in 1944. simongraham (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

This is an interesting read. My comments cover prose plus citation and Manual of Style formatting.

I have also made a number of small copyedits directly (typos, a couple of missing or misplaced commas, two British-English spellings, two hyphenations and a piped link); please revert any you are not happy with.

Thank you. Those look excellent to me. simongraham (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

prose points:

  • Lead: the destroyer was sent to Latvia, arrived just after the cessation of that country's war of independence, and returned to reserve soon after. The middle clause does not quite fit. Perhaps "...sent to Latvia, arriving just after...", or split it into two sentences.
    • Fixed.
  • Lead: The vessel was placed back in service in the 1930s, and it helped search for the missing submarines M1 in 1925 and M2 in 1932. The M1 search was in 1925, but the body dates the return to service to a recommissioning on 6 August 1931, so grouping the 1925 search under "the 1930s" reads as a contradiction.
    • Good point. Clarified.
  • Lead: Depth charge throwers replaced the torpedo tubes and all the main armament but the forecastle gun was removed. A little hard to parse. Something like "The torpedo tubes were replaced by depth charge throwers, and all the main armament except the forecastle gun was removed" would be clearer.
    • Amended.
  • Interwar service: the western front. As this is the proper name of the front, should the displayed text be "Western Front"?
    • I guess so.
  • Lead and Second World War: western approaches is lower case in both the lead and the body. If this is the proper name of the sea area, it should be "Western Approaches".
    • Again, I guess so.
  • Second World War: which subsequently called a wolfpack of four other boats. Slightly unclear; if U-47 summoned other submarines, "called in" may read better.
    • Amended.
  • Second World War: the escort groups are styled inconsistently: Fifth Escort Group and Second Escort Group are spelled out, but 8th Escort Group and 21st Escort Group use figures. Should it not be one style throughout?
    • Amended.
  • Second World War: the vessel was one of the popular with serving sailors. A word seems to be missing, probably "more" or "most".
    • True. Amended.

Citations, MoS and accessibility:

  • Burns (1988) and Howse (1993) carry the same Google Books identifier, id=fX2wCwAAQBAJ, although they are different books, so one link is wrong.
    • Yes. Burns was wrong but is right now.
  • {{GS|U-619||2}} has an empty year parameter where the other uses of that template supply a year; worth checking it still links correctly.
    • It does. There was only one U-619 so there is no need for a year.
  • The Times Digital Archive citations omit access-date while the Navy List and convoyweb citations include it; better one way or the other for consistency.
    • Added.

That is all for now. I have not assessed source content or images. Metalicat (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Metalicat: Thank you. These are all very helpful. simongraham (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose, and citation and Manual of Style formatting. Metalicat (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Agnosticism

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agnosticism is a position that questions the existence of God or the divine. It is often contrasted with theism and atheism and is typically understood either as a personal attitude that suspends judgment or as the general view that God's existence is unknowable. It is a level 4 vital article with close to a million page views last year. I worked on it as part of the Core Contest. Thanks to Vigilantcosmicpenguin for the GA review and to Metalicat for the peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Howardcorn33

[edit]

As I uploaded the above image, I am involved and will not be able to perform an image review. However, I would like to refer the future image reviewer to these references for why I believe the postcard is public domain. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Metalicat

[edit]

My second look at this article. Reviewing prose, Manual of Style and citation mechanics. The article is clear and well organised, and the structure makes a difficult subject easy to follow. A few points:

  • Lead: It overlaps with skepticism and fallibilism, which deny that knowledge or absolute certainty is possible. The "Skepticism and fallibilism" section is clear that fallibilism "rejects the conclusion that knowledge is unattainable", so it denies certainty but not knowledge. As written, the lead reads as though both views deny knowledge. Could the two be separated more clearly here?
    I changed it to "is related to" to avoid implying that they share more common ground than they actually do. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and body: the lead has nonreligious while the body uses "non-religious" throughout. Worth settling on one form.
    Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definition: in the etymology, the commas before the transliterations, as in ἀ-, (a-) and γνῶσις, (gnōsis), make the sentence read a little awkwardly. Would it be smoother without them?
    It's awkward because the comma is between the term and its transliteration. I moved the commas. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skepticism and fallibilism: which is a doubt toward knowledge claims. "Doubt toward" reads slightly oddly; doubt about knowledge claims may be more natural.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ancient and medieval: without extending this scepticism towards the existence of Allah. The article is tagged for American English and uses "skepticism" and "toward" everywhere else, so shouldn't this should read "skepticism toward"?
    Good catch. Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ancient and medieval, the Meister Eckhart footnote: (c. 1260–1328) omits the era marker that the surrounding medieval figures carry (Aquinas, Ockham, Maimonides and al-Razi all have "CE"). For consistency, either add "CE" here or drop it from the others.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations: the Rudolph 2013 Encyclopaedia Iranica entry is a web citation with no access date, while the other web citations generally include one.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in excellent shape and these are all prose and MoS level. I would be glad to support on prose, structure and the Manual of Style once these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metalicat, thanks for your comments and all your earlier help during the peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and thanks for the interesting read. Support. Metalicat (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a house in Madison, Wisconsin, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It is among the earliest examples of his Usonian-style houses for middle-class families, of which he designed more than 100 over the years. This house was built for Madison journalist Herbert Jacobs and his family, who lived there less than a decade before moving to another Wright-designed house. The house sticks out from its surroundings, with features such as a facade with boards and battens, a radiant heating system, and a modular floor grid. Many of the design features were widely used in other Usonian houses, and the popularity of the Jacobs House shaped Wright's later career and prompted people across the U.S. to hire him. Part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the house is still a private residence today.

This page was promoted to Good Article status last year after a GA review by Chipmunkdavis. After some additional copy edits and expansions, I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • It is really hard to appreciate the building without a plan (overhead) diagram. Can you create (or have someone create) a plan view? Doesn't need to be precisely to scale. I believe it is okay to create a new plan view provided the new figure is completely redrawn as a schematic or representative plan for illustrative purposes only. In other words: no need to replicate a copyrighted blueprint ... one can simply draw a new diagram from, say, Google Maps aerial view. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Pictorial_Representations_Architectural_Works
    • Following up on this: the article (correctly) has descriptions like "the western wing's southern elevation and the northern wing..." - so readers definitely need a plan diagram with compass showing NSEW, so they can relate the body text to the plan
    • Ditto for body text like "... to indicate that the street side was clearly ..." - the plan diagram should indicate which side of the plan is the street side.
    • Ditto for body text like ".. an extension of the bedroom wing's roof ..." - diagram should indicate which wing holds the bedrooms.
      • Noting that Noleander has graciously offered to create a map (below). - EG
  • Light fixture(s) near ceiling: in photo File:Jacobs First House - bedroom 01.jpg there are lights on a pipe near ceiling. I cannot find those described in body text .. am I overlooking it? Are those lights original? or added later? If original, the caption of that photo should mention them since they are peculiar.
    • I think these are later modifications. I haven't been able to find them in any of the usual literature about FLW, so they may not have been part of the original design (or, if they were, they weren't worth mentioning). Even the National Historic Landmark report, which usually describes a building's architecture in great detail (well, at least those from the 21st century do), doesn't mention the lighting bracket on the ceiling of that pic. - EG
  • Not needed: "The Pohle family hosted events such as a lip-reading class at the house." - Not encyclopedic, not helpful to reader, and source is a primary source (about Pohle), not a source about Wright or the house.
    • Agreed, and removed. - EG
  • More precise? "Wright's design eschewed large front windows; instead, the main or western elevation of the facade is a plainly designed sandwich wall."
    • "eschewed" can another word be used? Some readers may not know that word, or may think it means "discouraged" or "downplayed" when in fact it means (here) "deliberately avoided".
    • "... the main or western elevation of the facade is a plainly designed sandwich wall." Not sure what the use of "elevation" and "facade" is trying to convey. (a) What is the facade in this context? Is there a false wood wall fronting a hidden brick wall? If so: is there a gap between them? (b) Would readers get the point better if it was simply "... the main or western elevation is a plainly designed sandwich wall."
      • Essentially, elevation (architecture) is a portion of the facade that faces in a certain direction. So yeah, it is redundant.
  • Sandwich walls "The house's triple-layered sandwich walls consist of a central layer of vertical pine boards wedged between two layers of horizontal boards..."
    • Phrase "sandwich walls" is sometimes in quotes in the article (2 or 3 places) and sometimes not. All uses should have quotes or not. I don't think it would be encyclopedic to use quotes (see WP:SCAREQUOTE: "Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation,[d] may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression.").
      • Removed the quotes. - EG
    • I'm not sure if "sandwich wall" is a common phrase in English. I don't recall hearing it before. I see WP article Sandwich panel which is close, but not the same.
      • It is not. In fact, it's one of these phrases that Wright made up specifically for his designs. - EG
    • Consider adding a paragraph or sub-section into Sandwich panel article covering 1930's era sandwich walls, then linking to it?
    • Clarify terminology: "facade" vs outer layer of sandwich wall - the article mentions the "facade" a lot. Is that the same as the outer layer of the sandwich wall? In all uses? Doesn't the article say that some places the facade is brick? But brick is never the outer layer of the sandwich wall, is it?
      • Some of the sandwich walls are located inside. The outer layer of the sandwich wall is better described as the "surface", since it's not synonymous with the facade. - EG
  • Floor heating system: vague? "... the heating system did not provide sufficient heat during the cold weather, so it had to be replaced with a hot-water system" Earlier the floor heating system is described as a "radiant heating" system. But Radiant heating and cooling is a very broad term that encompasses many technologies: electrial; hot-water; sunshine (absorbed in day; released at night) etc. (a) What, exactly, was the technology of the original floor heating design? (b) When the system was replaced with a "hot-water system" was the new system within the floor, or not?
    • I clarified that the first system used steam and the second system used hot water. They both used the same pipes in the floor. - EG
  • ... in progress ... Noleander (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noleander, just a quick note regarding the map: Unfortunately I have no idea how to draw floor diagrams (otherwise I would include them in hundreds of articles). But it may be worth asking the Graphics Lab about it. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can draw it if you can give me an external link to a reliable source that shows the floorplan. Noleander (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I know Storrer, William Allin (1993). The Frank Lloyd Wright Companion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-77624-8. has a floor plan; I just need to see if it's digitized somewhere. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That book is online in Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/franklloydwright0000stor.
The Jacobs First house is on page 242 at https://archive.org/details/franklloydwright0000stor/page/242
I can take it from here. Noleander (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the initial comments Noleander. I replied to three of them, but will continue later (it's getting late for me). Epicgenius (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius - I created an SVG image and uploaded it to commons. I inserted it into the article in the Architecture section, but - of course - you can move it whereever you want. This is a first draft image .. I still have some tweaking to do, but I put it in early so other reviewers could reference it. Let me know if there are any specific changes you want. Noleander (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander, I just had a first look. Thank you very much for doing this. At first glance, it looks good; certainly matches up with other floor plans I've seen. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those other URLs ... they solve the mystery of how the outside walkway wraps around the lower-left corner between the entryway and carport. I'll incorporate that clarification within the next day or two. Noleander (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius - I updated the floorplan image of the house, and it is now fairly accurate. I'm not planning any more updates. If you want any specific changes, let me know (or, you can use Inkscape app to update the SVG file). If you have any future FAC nominations that need a floorplan diagram, I can draw it. Noleander (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander, thanks, I appreciate it. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Define? "... it was completed in 1937 and is cited as Wright's first Usonian home." Here, in the 2nd sentence of the article, 99.9% of readers will have no idea what "Usonian" means. So can the article here either (a) parenthetically define Usonian; or (b) replace "Usonion" with "low-cost home" or similar.
    • Usonian is a style, so I've clarified that. People wanting further information could click on the link or read further. - EG
  • Lead: Positive or negative? "When the house was finished, observers commented on its materials, proportions, and relationship to the surrounding landscape." Sentence is not too useful without a word like "favorably" or "admired" or "applauded" etc.
    • The commentary was more mixed than that (it was only later that the design was largely praised). I've clarified this.
  • Better wording? "... during the cold weather, so hot water began to be used instead." The 2nd half "... so hot water began to be used instead" sounds clunky. Maybe " ... so they converted the system to circulate hot water instead." or similar?
    • Done. - EG
  • Clarify "The house lacked screens to protect against summer heat..." A bit confusing. If that is referring to normal mesh window screens? If so, "protect against heat" is not the best wording ... consider " ... to enable ventilation in the summer" or ".. guard against insects when the windows were opened" etc. Or, if it is not referring to normal mesh, then details are needed.
    • Clarified. Yes, it is referring to window screens, but the house overheating during the summer was the specific complaint. - EG
  • Trim "Max W. Pohle, a dentist, had acquired the property by the late 1940s." Can "had" be eliminated?
    • Done. - EG
  • External link has URL named "Official website" which links to https://usonia1.com/ Even after clicking on that link, it is not clear who the owner/publisher of that website is. Is it UNESCO (big logo on that page)? Some F. L. Wright-related organization/trust? or the current homeowners? Readers will want some clue about who the publisher/author is of the website before clicking on the link. Can some words be added to the external link text to let readers know who the publisher/author is?
    • The website is actually run by James Dennis, the homeowner. He put his email and address (which to be fair is this house's address) in the contact section. - EG
  • Detail: "The house's floor plan is arranged around a 2-by-4-foot (0.61 by 1.22 m) grid ...." Consider adding detail that the concrete slab actually was poured with deep slots/joints on that 2x4 grid. And perhaps clarify that most of the house's walls were exactly on those joints.
    • Done. - EG
  • Floor coverings? The article says the kitchen floor was covered in wood; but I don't see what the rest of the house had. A later owner is ridiculed for covering the floors in carpeting. I guess that means the non-kitchen parts of the house were plain concrete? Maybe with area rugs? That makes sense, since the effectiveness of the in-floor heating would be diminished if there was a layer over the concrete. In any case, the article should say what the flooring of the non-kitchen rooms was.
    • The floor is indeed made of concrete. Wood is used in the kitchen as a surface finish, but the rest of the concrete floor slab is unfinished (i.e. the slab is the floor itself). I've made this a bit more clear. - EG
  • Ambiguous "Wright continued to refine the house's architectural features in his later work, devoting his later career to designing Usonian houses." A fast reader (or ESL) might wonder if that means Wright changed the Jacobs 1st house "later". Consider rewording to make it more clear e.g. "Wright continued to refine features from the house when using them in his later works ..." or similar.
    • Clarified. - EG
  • Ambiguous "Some of the house's architectural features were popularized after the house's completion." Not clear if that means the Jacob's 1st house specifically was popularized; or if the features were popularized in a general sense (without reference to the Jacob's house). I'm guessing the latter? Consider something like "Some of the features from the house were popularized when Wright reused them in his later works." or "Wright reused some architectural features from the house in his later works ... " etc
    • Clarified. Yes, the specific features were popularized - EG
  • Terminology: "thick" vs "wide" "that each board is 9.5 inches (240 mm) thick and that each batten is 3.25 inches (83 mm) thick ..." In the US lumber terms are long, wide, thick (from longest to shortest dimension) so I'm pretty sure "wide" should be used in this context.
    • Here, I used "high" because these boards and battens are laid horizontally. The width (the intermediate dimension) is the up-down dimension (i.e. height), while the length is the left-right dimension. - EG
  • Should supply page number (p=851) for chapter/entry within source: McCarter, Robert (2001). "Wright, Frank Lloyd". In Boyer, Paul S. (ed.). The Oxford Companion to United States History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Done. - EG
  • Uniformity of source/citation formatting? City/location is supplied for only about half the books. Inconsistent even within the same publisher:
    • The Frank Lloyd Wright Companion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Frank Lloyd Wright: A Biography. University of Chicago Press.
    • Done. - EG
  • That's all. Leaning support. Let me know when you've considered the above items. Great article! Noleander (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98 (6/18/26)

[edit]

Note: This was originally posted as a drive-by comment: Wright regarded thought the term "United States" primarily refereed to a political union… —> I have read this sentence four times, and still can’t parse the beginning. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98, that sentence is in the Usonia article, not here. I've fixed it. I'll unlink other unnecessary links in my nom statement to prevent confusion. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • No issues.
Site
  • No issues.
History
  • "Usonian houses tended to have open plans, geometric floor grids, in-floor heating, and a carport, and they lacked a garage or basement..."
  • "Herb was 33 years old and just beginning his career."[16][33] --> This sentence really seems inconsequential to the topic.
  • "The family had a modest budget of $5,000 (equivalent to $89,000 in 2024)[21][22][34] or $5,500 (equivalent to $97,000 in 2024) for their new house" --> I would better combine these two: "The family had a modest budget $5,000 to $5,500 for their new house"
  • "Herb reflected that he and Katherine had initially wanted a white-brick house in the Dutch Colonial Revival style."[22] --> Again, inconsequential detail.
  • What is a "sandwich wall"?
  • The family would use only the northern portion of the two lots and would be able to sell off the southernmost 55 feet (17 m) of the site, adjoining a street corner, if they wished. --> Did they, or didn't they?
  • Note b is just sort of sitting there out of place.
  • "and bequeathed his estate to his wife Ruth (with whom he jointly owned the Toepfer Avenue house) and his three sisters." --> Recommend replacing the parentheses with commas.
  • "By the late 1950s, a man named Leonard E. Sweet was recorded as living in the house."
  • "The house was also being included in walking tours of historic Madison buildings by the late 1960s."
Architecture
  • No issues.
Impact
  • No issues.

User:Epicgenius: Is there an image you Frank Lloyd Wright you could add to the article? The article is very well-written, as you can see from the small amount of comments I have above. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll look at these in the next few days. As for an image of Wright, File:Frank Lloyd Wright LC-USZ62-36384.jpg depicts him in 1926, a decade before this house was constructed (he was already in his late 50s back then). File:Frank Lloyd Wright portrait.jpg depicts him when he was much older, in his 80s. This house has enough images that an image of Wright is probably not necessary to understand the subject, but I can take a look into adding one of these images. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98, thanks again. I've resolved all of these except for the Dutch Colonial Revival detail, which I think gives a little context to the fact that they almost didn't have Wright design this house. For the Wright photo, do you have a recommendation for which image to use or where the image should go? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epicgenius: I would go ahead and use the picture that's at the top of the Frank Lloyd Wright article. He is such a central presence in this article – and the history of the this house – that leaving him out would seem like a glaring omission. He is much more tied to the story of this house than your usual architect. As far as where in the article, I'll let you decide, but I would suggest closer to the beginning that not.
That sentence about the Dutch Colonial house still sticks out. Looking at the paragraph, you could integrate it a little further back – for example, "The couple wanted to develop a residence where they could live with their newborn daughter, and although they initially wanted a traditional Dutch Colonial Revival house, they could not afford a grand house." You then go on to talk about the finances, which carries over into the next paragraph. As it is now, you start with the finances, then mention a Dutch Colonial house, then back to finances.
"The family would use only the northern portion of the two lots, giving them the option to sell off the southernmost 55 feet (17 m) of the site, adjoining a street corner." Again, did they or didn't they? You can't use "would" to narrate an event in the past. If yes, then it should be "The family only used the northern portion of the two lots, giving them the option to sell off the southernmost 55 feet (17 m) of the site, which adjoined a street corner." Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I've rearranged the sentences a bit and added an image of Wright near the beginning. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think my third paragraph right above your response was added mid-edit. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed that. Yes, I meant "the family used only the northern portion..." – Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jaguarnik (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... The last (incomplete) film of Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein. A biopic of Ivan the Terrible that was comissioned in 1941 on the behalf of Stalin but delayed due to the invasion of the USSR that year, the film had a troubled production and a troubled history. Part I released in 1945 and received the prestigious Stalin Prize. Part II, on the other hand, displeased Stalin and was banned in 1946, to be released only in 1958, years after the deaths of Stalin and Eisenstein. A planned third part was never completed. It's recognized by many as a great film, although not without some qualifications: the critic Roger Ebert called it a "Great" movie that had not gone through the stage of being a "good" movie.

I brought this article to Good Article status in 2024. I also brought this to a peer review and to FAC last year. Unfortunately I was not able to bring the FAC to completion then. Since then I've addressed the remaining outstanding comments from the previous nomination and I'm hoping this year the nomination goes smoothly. Interesting fact: if this nomination is successful, Ivan the Terrible would be the first Russian-language film to have a featured article on the English Wikipedia since Bezhin Meadow in 2008 (coincidentally also directed by Eisenstein). Jaguarnik (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Ivan_the_Terrible,_Part_I_(1944)_by_Sergei_Eisenstein.webm: could you elaborate on why this is believed to be PD? This description would seem to suggest the copyright would have been extended. Ditto the stills from the film.
    • I'm afraid I don't quite follow. What you have linked says that works made by individuals who died before 1952 are in the public domain in Russia. The author (Eisenstein) died before 1952, making his works public domain in Russia. If I am not mistaken, Part I specifically (unclear about Part II) should be in public domain in the US because it was in public domain in Russia on the URAA date ("The work is non-amateur cinema or television film (or shot, or fragment from it), which was first shown between January 1, 1929 and January 1, 1946." Part I premiered in 1945.). I have been careful to only use stills from Part I.
      • I'm referring specifically to the note at the bottom of the section: "Before 2008 Russian copyright legislation was based on the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (1993)[4] and copyright term was 50(54) years. In 2004 copyright term was extended to 70(74) years non-retroactively, and then in 2008 70(74) years term became retroactive (if 50 years term had not been expired till January 1, 1993)." Eisenstein died in 1948, so copyright would not have expired before 1993, and therefore this wording suggests the term would have been extended. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have experience with this so I do need to ask a few questions.
          1) Do I understand the retroactive copyright correctly as meaning that it counts from 74 years from Eisenstein's death? If so, then Eisenstein's works entered public domain in Russia in 2022. (Although I guess that's not relevant for the US status.)
          2) Would the 2008 Russian law affect the URAA status? In 1996 it was public domain in Russia and therefore it was in public domain in the US as well (non-amateur cinema or television film (or shot, or fragment from it), which was first shown between January 1, 1929 and January 1, 1946.") Would the status in the US change based on the Russian law? Jaguarnik (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sergei_Eisenstein_02.jpg: why is the tagging Russian when the given source is Dutch?
    • I'm not certain this is a Dutch photo, just stored in a Dutch archive, but because the origins of the photo are obscure, I would not know. The autotranslate tells me that the archive considers the photo to not be under copyright/royalty-free. I could replace the photo with a different photo of Eisenstein if this photo is problematic to use. I've switched the license per Howardcorn33's comment.
  • File:Queen_Elizabeth_and_the_young_Blount.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the license, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." The drawing itself is in public domain in Russia, because works made by individuals who died before 1952 are in the public domain.
Comment by Howardcorn33
[edit]

Support by Jon698

[edit]

Oooh, I would love to comment on this one. I once owned it on VHS. Jon698 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. "falsely accused of killing a gentile boy" -> Could Gentile be wikilinked
    • Done
  • 2. "behalf a film about the Russian tsar Ivan IV" -> Optional stylistic choice, wikilink Ivan the Terrible as this is his first mention outside of the lede and plot
    • Done
  • 3. "Stalin admired Ivan IV" + "Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, to play Ivan IV" + "According to the story, Ivan IV invited Fyodorov-Chelyadnin" + "While Soviet historians ignored religion in the life of Ivan IV or, in the case of Robert Wipper, describe the Church as an ally of Ivan IV" + "criticizing the characterization of Ivan IV" + "and the "conspicuously totalitarian" depiction of Ivan IV." -> Remove regnal number as is done for all of the other mentions of Ivan in the article. Keep the first use of Ivan IV in "who instead commissioned on Stalin's behalf a film about the Russian tsar Ivan IV" though.
    • Done
  • 4. "Casting for the film began in early 1942. Eisenstein invited Nikolay Cherkasov," -> Wikilink Nikolay Cherkasov as this is his first prose mention
    • Done
  • 5. "Mikhail Zharov, who had wanted to perform the role of Kurbsky, was instead offered the role of Malyuta. Mikhail Nazvanov was cast as Kurbsky in the summer of 1942." -> Wikilink Mikhail Zharov and Mikhail Nazvanov as this is their first prose mention. Their other mentions are only in the cast list or image captions
    • Done
  • 6. "played the role of Ivan's mother, Elena Glinskaya" -> Wikilink Elena Glinskaya as this is her first prose mention
    • Done
  • 7. "Eisenstein wanted his colleague, director Vsevolod Pudovkin," -> Change to "Eisenstein wanted his colleague Pudovkin," as Pudovkin has already been established as a director in paragraph two of the Development section
    • Done
  • 8. "Eisenstein began to consider Mikhail Kuznetsov for the role of Fyodor Basmanov" -> Wikilink Mikhail Kuznetsov and Fyodor Basmanov
    • Done for Kuznetsov but not Basmanov, because it is highlighted as a duplicate link (for whatever reason)
  • 9. "For the role of Vladimir Staritsky," -> Wikilink Vladimir of Staritsa
    • Not done, it is highlighted as a duplicate link
  • 10. "Therefore, Pavel Kadochnikov," -> Wikilink Pavel Kadochnikov
    • Done
  • 11. "He was also considered for the role of King Sigismund." -> Wikilink Sigismund II Augustus
    • Not done, it is highlighted as a duplicate link
  • 12. "The score for the films was" -> Change was to were
    • Not done, score is singular and "The score were composed" seems gramatically incorrect. I did change "films" to "film" however, it is one film project.
  • 13. This is a general comment across the article. Whenever a film is mentioned you should include (year of release) afterwards. See Aliens (film), The Shawshank Redemption, and Raiders of the Lost Ark
    • Added dates for Mashenka, Defense of Tsaritsyn, Battleship Potemkin and Bicycle Thieves, I will go back and add dates for other films in the article.
      • All films mentioned in the article have a date now. If I've missed any, please let me know.
  • 14. "and began to consider hiring him" -> Change to "and considered hiring him"
    • Done
  • 15. "Most of the production was shot in Kazakhstan" -> wikilink Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
    • Done
  • 16. You should change "writes" to "wrote" as some of the subjects are dead or it will future proof it for when they die.
    • Changed instances of writes and other similar words to wrote
  • 17. "The film also meant to show Estonians and Latvians fighting" -> wikilink Estonians and Latvians
    • Done
  • 18. "describe the Church as an ally of Ivan, Eisenstein depicts the church as traitorous" -> Church should either be capitalized or uncapitalized
    • Capitalized
  • Will continue with Release section
  • "and more emphasis on Ivan's accomplishments as Tsar." -> Make Tsar lowercase
    • Done.
  • This is just a stylistic choice. Could "Part I was screened for Stalin in December 1944 and premiered in Moscow on 16 January 1945." be the start of a new paragraph. The first paragraph would focus on the negative feedback from the Committee on Cinema Affairs while the second paragraph would focus on Stalin's support for it and the awards for the film.
    • That works. It might also be easier for readers to read two smaller paragraphs, rather than one large paragraph.
  • "Afterwards, despite receiving permission to revise Part II and begin work on Part III, Eisenstein did not work further on the film." -> Could this be rephrased to " Eisenstein did not work further on the film despite receiving permission to revise Part II and begin work on Part III." so that it flows more naturally
    • Done
  • "A year later, on the night of 10–11 February 1948, he died of a heart attack." -> Rephrase to "Eisenstein died of a heart attack on the night of 10–11 February 1948."
    • Done
  • "called the first part a "masterpiece of cinematographic art"" -> Change "first part" to "Part I" for consistency
    • Oh, I had planned to change that, but forgot. Done.
  • "Charlie Chaplin in 1946 called Part I "the greatest historic film that has ever been made"" -> Can this be the start of a new paragraph as this sentence and the following are the opinions of filmmakers while the previous ones are from critics
    • Done
  • Those are all of my comments

Support by Paleface Jack

[edit]
Support I have been watching this article for a while and have recently looked it over. Apart from minor copy editing issues, the article meets FA standards. Great job. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause

[edit]

Looks like an interesting nomination which I'll try to comment on during the next few days. Some items to get things started:

(1) The part 2 summary seems to suggest that much of the footage for part 3 was already prepared and ready for editing; how much is known about the details of what was left on the cutting room floor. How much unused footage remained after part 2 was released. Was it 10 minutes of used film, 20 minutes of unused film clips, or 30 minutes of unused film clips?

There are some screen tests remaining for Part III, maybe some footage, however filming was not complete. From what I remember sources don't comment on how much footage exactly was cut from the completed film, only that certain scenes had to be removed (which I've mentioned).
The deleted scenes which survive are included in the Criterion home release as special features. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Neuberger sources does indeed confirm that some footage of Part III survives (although other footage was destroyed). I have added a clarification to the article.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the Ivan 3 footage and related: [1] and here [2]. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The article mentions that complete film script was available. Was the 'complete' film script for part 1 only or for parts 1 and 2 and 3?

A published screenplay exists for all three parts, however the completed film departs in significant ways from the screenplay.

(3) Home media. This does not seem to be covered in the article. Multiple countries has done multiple editions for it. Has Criterion done a version of it? Have they done a Blu-ray version or 4K version? Not to mention the special features and all of the commentaries about the film which have been done over the years...

None of my sources comment on home media versions, and I strive only to use secondary sources. I have found that Criterion has done a version of it. There is also a Blu-ray version, and a VHS version, as Jon698 commented. However, I see in featured articles about films, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark and Fight Club, that they use secondary sources to comment on home media (and they have quite extensive sections covering the home media!). For this reason I did not add a home media section, as there is very little coverage and I did not think it would enrich the article.
My understanding here is that interviews from the special features on Criterion releases may be quoted on Wikipedia articles provided that the sources are clearly cited and fully identified. Here is the description from the Criterion collection of contents included which normally ought not to be overlooked: "Special features: disc 1: multimedia esay by Joan Neuberger; deleted scenes; drawings and production stills. Disc 2: multimedia essay on Eisenstein's visual vocabulary by Yuri Tsivian; new English subtitle translation." ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have access to these interviews, so there is no way for me to cite them. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are editing from USA or abroad, though its worth stating that the Criterion edition of this film is frequently available in local public libraries for free, or, they can often readily get a copy through inter-library loans for you at little or no cost. Here is the Neuberger essay: [3]. Here is a clip from Bordwell from the Criterion edition: [4]. Last half of this Neuberger interview is on Ivan here: [5]. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sources. I've seen the Neuberger essay. Everything written in that essay is explored in more depth in the Neuberger book This Thing of Darkness, so I haven't used it. The Criterion clip also doesn't state much of anything that isn't in the article already. The interview from Neuberger did have a fact also mentioned in This Thing of Darkness, so I've added it. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a way around a Home media section needing to be added to the article. See multiple Russian films on Wikipedia for examples: Andrei Rublev, Dersu Uzala, etc. Aside from the Criterion edition of Ivan, here is another one: "Ivan Groznyĭ (Motion picture). Part 1. / Иван Грозный (Motion picture). Part 1. Publisher, Date: Chatsworth, California : Image Entertainment, [1998], ©1998". Part 2 was released from the same publisher in the same year. A Home media section is needed in the article; there have been multiple releases. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't agree that it's a barrier to featured article status. Certain other featured film articles also do not have a home media section: The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), Persuasion (1995 film), Into Temptation (film) (2009), Greed (1924 film). I've also looked at the Andrei Rublev home media section and found it lacking, as it uses primary sources and it is preferred to use secondary sources.
However, I have found two articles from Cinéaste and Video Store Magazine covering the Criterion release on DVD. This is not enough for its own home media section, but I did combine it with the 2015 restoration as a section called "Other releases". Hopefully this is an OK compromise. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a good idea and the two sources you find are useful. Try to bring it into the article once you can pull the prose together. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added the prose and sources into the article. Let me know if it seems OK. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(4) The legacy of the film. It seems that major film directors have been influenced by the film and they have given interviews adn commentaries about it. Who are they and how extensive were their comments and interviews? What about other films that have picked up on the Tsar Ivan theme(s). It seems that there have even been comedic versions made indicating its very broad appeal at all cultural levels; isn't there a film with Ben Stiller having a confrontation with Ivan somewhere?

I've looked for sources covering the influence of Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible, but unfortunately there aren't really any sources covering the cultural impact/influence of the film. The few sources I found mention influence in passing and do not go into deeper detail. The directors' names are already in the article and they don't really go into depth on the influence that the film had on them, with the exception of mentioning that Tarkovsky and Askoldov's films have a few sequences that may reference Eisenstein's film. (There's also an interesting anecdote from former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that Ivan the Terrible inspired his interest in Russia, but I couldn't find a way to include it in the article.) I'm afraid I don't know the Ben Stiller film you mention, but Ivan the Terrible by himself is a well-known historical figure and it's possible Eisenstein's film didn't have any influence on that film + any other films with Ivan.
Scorsese and other seem to have done interviews; more later in the week-end perhaps. You may get a jolt if you can watch the clip from Ben Stiller in his Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, with special note for the scene when Ivan considers making a name change for himself among his fellow conspirators. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember, Scorcese said that he's inspired by Eisenstein's theories, but never mentions Ivan specifically.Jaguarnik (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Scorsese writes the foreword to this 2017 book title Eisenstein on Paper here: [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell in that foreword Scorsese does not directly mention Ivan the Terrible, only that Eisenstein himself was one of the great filmmakers. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to check Orson Welles and S. Zizek on this question of influences as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Welles was cold towards the film. I haven't been able to access the full review from Welles, but in his review for the film he wrote "What's wrong with the film, when it's wrong, is what goes sour in the work of any artist whose bent is for eloquence. The Tsar's beard, for instance, cutting like a mighty sickle through the hammer blows of the drama, isn't nearly as entertaining to the audience as it was to the director." Eisenstein was apparently quite offended by the review and wrote to him in response "Although I had an opportunity not to enjoy your nasty and somewhat “Kane”ish (and I read it: “Cain”ish) survey of the first part of “Ivan the Terrible,” I still bear the warmest sympathy towards your "citizen"... I just completed the shooting of part two of "Ivan the Terrible" — which will give you another opportunity for some lousy scribbling." (Sergei Kapterev, Sergei Eisenstein's letters to Hollywood film-makers) I didn't include it, because I don't have full access to the review and I felt that quoting every single individual's opinion on the film would be unnecessary.
I did, however, manage to find that Peter Greenaway and Volker Schlöndorff, both acclaimed directors in their own right, listed it in their top 10 films of all time, so I added that to the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked Zizek. Apparently in 2002 for Sight and Sound he named Ivan the Terrible as one of his top ten films of all time. However, I do not know if his inclusion in the article will enrich it, as he is neither a director nor a film critic. I do not think it is a good idea to list every single famous person who likes Ivan the Terrible (for example, I did not list the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, even though he also likes the film). But I will wait for your opinion.Jaguarnik (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Zizek is considered by quite a few film scholars to be the foremost living Lacanian film critic and a professor of philosophy. His opinions are notable for film theory. Here is a link you might like to look at which mentions Ivan as a top 3 film [7]. Interestingly, it looks like the Wikipedia article for Zizek does not mention Ivan; possibly they are using a different year for the Sight and Sound lists, which should be updated. Zizek has written 2-3 books (for example here [8]) about film theory and I'm thinking that it might be possible to find a chapter by him where he discusses Ivan. Separately, you might find useful this link useful about the ties to Stalin here: [9]. Clicking the 'read sample' tab on that book link will allow you to see the Intro and the interesting TOC. Separately again, the Welles-Eisenstein exchange you present above is remarkable; could you put it into a short form to be placed in the article (how many people know that Welles had an exchange of opinion with Eisenstein on Ivan). More later. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really say that Welles had an exchange of opinion with Eisenstein on Ivan, more that Eisenstein wrote a letter to Welles (the article doesn't indicate whether there was a response or not).
I've searched for more analysis from Zizek of Ivan the Terrible but my access to the sources from Zizek are limited, I'm afraid. I will add him as an admirer of Ivan to the article.
I did read the chapter from Stalinism and Soviet Cinema but as I've said below, the source restates most of what is already in the article.Jaguarnik (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Your citations seem thorough and I'm wanting to ask if you have been using Google translators for 'reading' the Russian books and citations about this film that are in the references section?

Russian is my native language, so I read them myself. When using direct (translated) quotations, I leave the original quote in the citation for verification. If any questions arise here about content from the Russian sources, I can provide specific pages and the Russian text. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is Ivan in pop culture at the level of the comedic: [10]. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From the technical literature, mostly available on-line:

(1) A Comparative Study of the Coronation Sequence in Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible and the Semiotics of Pier Wollen and Roland Barthes, IJASS JOURNAL, 2024.

(2) L. Kozlov, The Artist and the Shadow of Ivan [w:] Stalinism and Soviet Cinema, eds. R. Taylor, D.W. Spring, London–New York 1993, s. 110.

(3) Kevin Platt. “Allegories of Stalinist Historiography: Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible.” Ab Imperio. No. 4 (2007). 293-322.

(4) Roundtable Discussion: This Thing of Darkness: Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible in Stalin's Russia by Joan Neuberger (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2019). David Brandenberger. Новейшая история России [Modern Russian History], 2021.

(5) Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible, Indeterminacy, and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion, Kevin M. F. Platt, 2021.

(6) Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible and the History of Mentalités, Karen Petrone, Modern History of Russia, 2021.

There may be some duplication with your sources; let me know if the links are found from your site. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will review these sources in the coming days. I did look at #4 and #6, but it is just a review of Neuberger's monograph and doesn't offer any new information, so I have not included it in the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at #3. It has some interesting things that I've added to the article. I may add some more from it. #5 has the same problem as 4 and 6, being simply a review of Neuberger's monograph rather than an analysis of the film itself. Jaguarnik (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am skeptical of #1 because there are some significant errors in the text, for instance "Ivan the Terrible is a two-part epic biographical-style film, with the first part released in 1943... The second part of the film was shelved until 1985 and not allowed to be screened". The article does mention that Barthes used Ivan to illustrate one of his theories, which is interesting, but there's very little helpful information I got from the article. #2 is a fine source, but it mostly restates information which is already in the article. There is a quote from Mikhail Kuznetsov that I find interesting, which I might add in. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Part two
[edit]

Yes, add the Kuznetsov material for more coverage of sources in the article. The connection of Stalin as being personified in Ivan I think needs to go into the lede, either first or second paragraph. If that's how critics have interpreted the film, then it needs to be made apparent and prominent. If Russian is your native language, then your prose in English is good; I'm sort of assuming you did your college studies in an English language college. I'm somewhat surprized that no-one in the Russian film school, especially after the end of the USSR, did not take up the project of finishing Part 3, or considered doing a remake. Separately, the Welles review followed by Eisenstein's response is notable; if Welles disliked the film and Eisenstein defended it then this should be in the article. Did Eisenstein do a review of Citizen Kane; was the film of any merit to him? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Kuznetsov material. I will add the rest in the coming days. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Increase size of the Repin image a little, since the details are not apparent. Also, for the sources, the title formats all need to be in either prose format or Upper case format, one or the other, and not mixed formats. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you mean that all titles should either be uppercase or lowercase? It should be fixed now. The image has also been enlarged. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its still in mixed formats. For example, your first cite gives the title in prose format, "Bergan, Ronald (1999). Eisenstein: a life in conflict. Woodstock, N.Y: Overlook Press. ISBN 978-0-87951-924-7. Retrieved 16 September 2024." Your second cite gives the title in Upper case format: "(2012). "Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible and the Renaissance: An Example of Stalinist Cosmopolitanism?" All the cites need to be in one format or the other, your choice, though you cannot mix it up as currently is being done. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From Citizen Kane there is a passage and footnote which state: "Welles was influenced by the editing theories of Sergei Eisenstein by using jarring cuts that caused "sudden graphic or associative contrasts", such as the cut from Kane's deathbed to the beginning of the News on the March sequence and a sudden shot of a shrieking cockatoo at the beginning of Raymond's flashback". ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Kane was released in 1941, before Ivan the Terrible was ever filmed. Although it's possible that Ivan influenced Welles in other ways, but I don't have a source for it. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking the simpler question: Did Eisenstein even write comments about Citizen Kane when he saw it? Separately, did you look up the comment and citation on the 'shrieking cockatoo' above? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should include a comment in the first or second paragraph that Stalin was seen as a model for Ivan in the film. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mandurah line

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The second article in my upcoming trilogy of featured article candidates, the Mandurah line is a railway line connecting Perth with the neighbouring city of Mandurah. The Mandurah line went through a major route change during planning as a result of a change in state government, taking the line along a more direct route via the William Street tunnel (which I have already got to FA status). Construction took place between 2004 and 2007, and the line opened on 23 December 2007. The line was surprisingly cheap to construct, costing less than A$1.725 billion for a 71-kilometre (44 mi) line, and patronage has exceeded expectations, making the Mandurah line a very successful line. I've been working on this article since 2021 and I aim to have this be today's featured article on the 20th anniversary of the line opening next year. I await your review. Steelkamp (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

Have conducted a quick sweep of typos. Reviewing prose, plus one citation-placement issue I noticed. The article is very detailed and the structure is easy to follow. A few points:

  • Tunnelling section: the same Australian article, Rail link to cause 'many months' of traffic delays, appears to be cited twice in a row after the same sentence. One of those duplicate refs can be removed.
    • Done, I've replaced it with another reference.
  • Construction section: the sentence ending responsible for rail expansion, appears to need a full stop rather than a comma before the citation, as "The eight packages were:" starts a new sentence.
    • Done.
  • Lead: it says the Mandurah line was divided into seven major contract packages, while the body says construction was divided into eight packages and then lists packages A to H. I can see how this may reconcile, as package H was minor works, but it may be worth making explicit so the reader does not pause over it.
    • I've replaced "seven major contract packages" with "eight contract packages".
  • Cost escalations and opening: The first train south of the Narrows Bridge, a test train ran between Perth and Rockingham, ran on 9 November 2007.. This sentence is awkward because the middle clause has its own verb. Something like "The first train south of the Narrows Bridge, a test train running between Perth and Rockingham, ran on 9 November 2007" would fix it.
    • Fixed.
  • Patronage section: the sentence saying patronage reached a record high of 23,075,517 in 2024–25 cites a 25 August 2024 press release. That source cannot itself support a completed 2024–25 financial-year figure. The PTA patronage source may support the figure, but the 2024 press release should either be removed from that sentence or moved to a claim it can support.
    • I've removed that ref entirely as [11] is an adequate source.

Metalicat (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Metalicat. I intended on the structure being easy to follow! Steelkamp (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and the Manual of Style - criteria 1a and 2. Metalicat (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Gopal Mukund Huddar

[edit]
Nominator(s): — EarthDude (Talk) 15:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gopal Mukund Huddar, an Indian anti-colonial activist and anti-fascist soldier. Originally associated with the Hindu right, Huddar underwent a dramatic shift towards left-wing politics upon travelling to the UK, after which he volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War as a member of the International Brigades.

Though a fascinating figure who lived a remarkable life (an Indian anti-colonial activist who ended up in a Francoist concentration camp), Huddar has largely been forgotten by the mainstream and would be considered quite obscure today, and the available reliable sources I could find have not allowed me to piece together his full story, particularly his personal life after the 1950s. I have not previously nominated an article for FA, though I have some familiarity with the process from observation. After having this article promoted to GA and making further improvements and fixes, I believe it now meets all FA criteria and draws on all reliable sources I could find on this figure. — EarthDude (Talk) 15:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

It meets the three stated requirements. The image wasn't first published in the US, it predates the establishment of India's copyright relations with the US, and it was in the public domain in the home country (India) on the URAA date (images created before 1958 are only protected for 50 years before they enter the public domain, meaning this specific image should've entered the public domain in India in 1986). — EarthDude (Talk) 06:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The second requirement is that it was published before the establishment of copyright relations; if you don't know when it was first published, how do you know that happened? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yeah, I guess you're right. Should I remove the image from the article for now, until I can find out when it was published? — EarthDude (Talk) 07:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's another applicable tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the basic PD-US tag? The tag states that a media file is in the public domain in the US if it is published before 1931 or if it is published after that but with a lack of notice or renewal. From all instances of this image I can find, none give any copyright notice and most don't mention the author. Would that tag work here then? — EarthDude (Talk) 15:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Applicability of notice and renewal are both also dependent on publication date. What is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first online publication of the image that I could find is from this article, where no copyright notice is provided. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noemvriana

[edit]
Nominator(s): A.Cython(talk) 22:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an armed confrontation in Athens during World War I between the Greek royalist government and Allied (French and English) forces. Despite the events sometimes called "forgotten", Noemvriana contains a rich narrative: an almost civil war that scarred Greek society for decades, a monarch's abdication, an anathema of a prime minster, a French battleship bombarded Athens, naval embargo causing famine, and more, all of which led in the end for the Greek army to join on the side of the Allies significantly contributing to the war's end. This was my first (and only) FAC nomination back in 2011, and after more than a decade away from editing WP, I have revisited and improved the article. It has passed Guild of Copy Editors (Nov 2025) and A-Class review (May 2026) at the Military History project, reviewed by Hawkeye7 (+image review), Stikkyy (+source review) and Hog Farm. @Jimfbleak, Dank, and Nikkimaria: I also ping the reviewers of the first FAC (ancient history, I know) in case they are interested in revisiting this. Finally, I want to say that this nomination is not motivated by my participation at the WikiCup, so I will not seek points if this nomination is successful. Thank you in advance for your comments and time. A.Cython(talk) 22:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely procedural question, archive1 contains a link to archive2, which doesn't make any sense. Is it possible there was some other nomination which got deleted or something and messed up the numbering sequence? RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something that I am aware of. Please advise on how to fix this or whether I failed to follow the instructions. A.Cython(talk) 23:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't. That is automatically produced by {{featured article tools}}. This is usually removed on promotion/archival (example), but for whatever reason that didn't happen on archive1. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Done
  • File:Noemvriana_birds-eye_view.jpg: source link is dead
    • Done I replaced the source link with a new one.
  • File:Greek_GHQ_at_Hadji-Beylik.jpg: what specific book is this sourced from?
    • I do not know from which book the uploader used (Cplakidas has been inactive for more than a year). I removed it until someone with better skills can sort this out.
  • File:Map_of_the_Balkan_Peninsula_(5008561).jpg: per the tagging, the image description should include details on steps taken to try to identify the author
    • Done: added author based on publisher info
  • File:Triandria.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Paul_Bénazet_1913.jpg, File:Louis_Dartige_du_Fournet_1915_AC.jpg, File:Anathemavenizelos.jpg, File:AnatemaDeVenizelos25121916--constantineigree00hibbuoft.png
    • Done: added
      • All of these except File:Anathemavenizelos.jpg need date and place of first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please let me know if the changes made were sufficient (removed Paul_Bénazet_1913.jpg because I could not find any info when and where it was published). I added the date and place of first publication for the others based on the source information found.

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the image review, please let me know if I adequately addressed your concerns or I missed/misunderstood something. FYI images is my weakest skill... A.Cython(talk) 05:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'm reviewing from the perspective of someone with no knowledge of these events. Steelkamp (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Please let me know you have additional comments. A.Cython(talk) 04:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "former Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos" -> "former prime minister Eleftherios Venizelos" as per MOS:JOBTITLES because former is a modifier.
    • [AC] Done
  • "with the king advocating for Greek neutrality, which would favor the Central Powers. The Allies, however, demanded the demobilization of the Greek army to ensure Greece's neutrality." I'm a little confused, because it says neutrality would favour the Central Powers, but then the Allies also wanted to ensure Greece's neutrality.
    • [AC] Allies sought neutrality because after the uncondiational surrender of Fort Roupel. The Allies were convinced that the roylalist Greek government was not neutral and it was aiding the Central Powers. So when the Allies made demands, the Greek government protested that this would violate the neutrality of Greece. So neutrality was subjective to each side. I added a clarification.
  • Is there something that Hellenic army can link to?
    • [AC] Added
  • Likewise, is there a link for war-materials? And is that meant to have a hyphen there? (I honestly don't know)
    • [AC] Removed hyphen and added wikilink

Background

  • "Greece gained most of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, and other Aegean islands. Its territory and population were increased from 25,014 to 41,993 sq mi and from approximately 2.7 to 4.8 million, respectively." Maybe should mention from which country(ies) this territory was gained from. Was it the Ottoman Empire?
    • [AC] Added, yes it was the Ottoman Empire through the Balkan Wars
      • That's good, but "Greece gained the territories of Ottoman Empire: most of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, and other Aegean islands" needs some rewording for correct grammar.
      • "Greece gained most of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, and other Aegean islands." Is that also gained from the Ottoman Empire?
        • [AC] I need some coffee, I changed it.

Causes

  • "Allied General Sarrail" and "German General Erich von Falkenhayn" should be "Allied general Sarrail" and "German general Erich von Falkenhayn" as per MOS:JOBTITLES because they have modifiers.
    • [AC] Changed
  • "mob destroyed Venizelist newspapers: Nea Ellas, Patris, Ethnos, and Estia." Should that colon be there? I think it can be removed.
    • [AC] Removed
  • "the Chief of the General Staff, Viktor Dousmanis" -> "the chief of the General Staff, Viktor Dousmanis"
  • The provisional government was not officially recognized by Venizelos but Venizelos moved to Thessaloniki to assume command of the National Defence in October? It also seems like the Allies came around to supporting the provisional government, based on the quote from the British diplomat.
    • [AC] Yes, initially there was hesitation by the Allies in the idea of having two Greek governments to work with. Also the British were uncomfortable in intervening into another monarchy, compared to the French who had a republic. Venizelos was also against it once it occurred. However, failure in making progress through diplomacy, Venizelos's initiative and pressure from the French, eventually the Allies agreed to support the provisional government.
    • G. Leon pp. 389, 409–410 Finally, Venizelos wanted to secure Britain’s unqualified support before undertaking the serious task of establishing a provisional government, a question which had not been clarified at the end of August. These seem to have been the factors which made Venizelos critical of the premature action of the Defense Committee. ... Venizelos’ decision to lead the revolution and establish a Provisional Government pledged to fight agaist the Central Powers, immediately affected the attitude of the Allied authorities in Greece with regard to the negotiations with the King’s government.
    • I added a sentence to improve the narrative flow.
  • "hatred enemy" should be "hated enemy".

Constantine–Bénazet agreement

  • "the king suddenly agreed to some of the demands required by the Allies" -> "the king suddenly agreed to some of the demands made by the Allies" Seems like a more typical way to word this.
    • [AC] Done
  • "French Deputy Paul Bénazet". From Googling, it seems that deputy in this context means a member of parliament. I don't think that's obvious to all readers, so this should be reworded.
    • [AC] Done
  • "and began using Greek ships operated by French crews" -> "and began using Greek ships with French crews"
    • [AC] Done
  • "This action at Katerini met with some disapproval among the Allied circles and his own associates in Athens. Answering these criticisms, Venizelos wrote:" -> "This action at Katerini met with some disapproval among the Allied circles and Venizelos's own associates in Athens. Answering these criticisms, he wrote:"
    • [AC] Done
      • Good, but i've now realised that "This action at Katerini met with some disapproval" should be changed to "This action at Katerini was met with some disapproval".
        • [AC] Done

Last diplomatic efforts before the events

  • No comments

Battle of Athens

  • "and proceeded, with the help of the Reservists, to extensive arrests and reprisals against them." -> "and made, with the help of the Reservists, extensive arrests and reprisals against them."
    • [AC] Done
  • Mourelos is mentioned by surname before his full name is given.
    • [AC] Done
  • "imprisonments to 922" -> "imprisonments to be 922".
    • [AC] Done
  • "Karolidis characterizes the imprisonment". Should that be past tense? "Karolidis characterized the imprisonment".
    • [AC] Done
  • Seligman's full name should be given in prose.
    • [AC] Added

Aftermath

  • There's an inconsistency as to whether Noemvriana is italicised or not. In this section and the other parts of the article.
    • [AC] Done, I made everything in italic to be consistent, though not sure if it was the right choice. If it should not be in italic then I will remove it.
      • I think that's the right choice as per MOS:NONENGITALIC, although I'm by no means an expert on that part of the MOS.
        • I am not entirely sure because "Noemvriana" is a transliteration of "Νοεμβριανά", meaning that it is written with Latin symbols, not Greek. Nevertheless, I changed it in the main body except for the first sentence and at the infobox, so that this consistent with the article's title. Though a more experience editor could weigh in here. Let me know if this is sufficient.
  • "In June, they decided to invoke their obligation as "protecting powers" and demanded the king's resignation". TBH i'm unsure what "protecting powers" means. Can this be elaborated?
    • [AC] Yes. I added a explanatory note.
    • I also mention the following quote: Leon p. 316 ...the Allies did not fail to remind Athens, among other things, that it was due to the “‘generosity” of the Protecting Powers that the Ionian Islands were ceded to Greece under the condition stipulated in the first article of the Treaty of 1864 which guaranteed the Greek people a constitutional regime. The Protecting Powers, said the Allies, would rather not take advantage of their right according to the Treaty of 1864 to examine the constitutionality of the Greek Government (20 January). The forebodings implied in the Allied reply were clear.
  • "His son Alexander" -> "His second son Alexander". Given the rest of the sentence mentions the eldest son, I think this is good context to add.
    • [AC] Done
  • "considered pro-Germans" -> "considered pro-German".
    • [AC] Done

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Thank you for your thorough review as your comments have greatly helped in improving the article. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments. A.Cython(talk) 21:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just two more comments above. Steelkamp (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, hopefully I addressed them. A.Cython(talk) 20:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Great job, and an interesting read about a piece of history I had no idea about beforehand. Steelkamp (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, all this is educational for me in understanding what it takes to reach FA. A.Cython(talk) 02:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from VWF

[edit]
  • I immediately noticed something off in the chronology of "The Macedonian Front" which might need repair; The paragraph says that a major offensive began on 14 September 1918 and then says, "After the Battle of Skra-di-Legen, the Bulgarian Army gave up its defensive positions". Skra-di-Legen occurred earlier in 1918, so this sequence is backwards. I think the material should distinguish the Greek role at Skra from its role in the later Vardar offensive, or did I miss something? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for spotting this. The Macedonian Front took several years with several skirmishes between them, testing the defenses. One reason that took longer was that the Allies were not completely convinced of the Greek troops, in terms of training and experience. The battle at Skra was the first time where the Allies felt comfortable for a major offensive.
    I changed the text and added a source that provides additional info.
    Papaioannou p.20 Undoubtedly, the Anglo-French viewed the spring offensives of 1918 as a final rehearsal before the execution of the great Allied offensive on the Macedonian Front. The Allies were not yet fully convinced of the extent to which they could rely on the Greek forces. Therefore, it was deemed necessary for the Greek troops to be tested in real operations, experiencing the enemy's presence firsthand in order to gain “experience by being close to him” ... The complexities of the Skra heights terrain were undoubtedly known to the French Commander-in-Chief. After all, only a year had passed since the Allies' failed attempt to capture it (Vlachos, 2018). Therefore, the assignment of such a demanding operation would provide a prime opportunity for the Anglo-French to assess both the Greeks' fighting ability and willingness to fight, as well as the Bulgarian resistance (Falls, 1935). These observations were deemed critical for the Allies' ultimate decision regarding the potential launch of a major offensive in Macedonia later that year.
  • So, the infobox dates the event from 1 to 3 December but the lead says that riots began "the next day" after the Allied evacuation and "lasted three days", you know, that wording can imply an endpoint later than 3 December. Does the infobox covers only the armed clash? Or both the clash and the ensuing reprisals? Then align the lead as well as the battle section and casualty figures. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the end-of-war chronology, that last "The Macedonian front" paragraph compresses the liberation of Serbia, the movement into Hungary, the collapse of Austria-Hungary, into a very quick sequence. Don't you think it needs a date-by-date check? The present wording, especially at "By October 1918, the Allied armies had recaptured all of Serbia", seems too broad to leave unexamined. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added two sources, the page range is slightly larger in one of them, but it covers the broad aspects. I also rewrote the text. I feel that an expansion here would hinder the reader as we are away from the main events of the article. Nevertheless, a curious reader can expand through the relevant wikilinks and the two sources provided.
Prose and neutrality

Let me first appreciate the prose, honestly I like it. But here are a few statements I have reservations about:

  • "The sudden approach of German-Bulgarian forces to the fort led to delays as the fort's Greek forces were not informed in advance, and they were ready to defend their position" I think that this is unclear, that is, were the garrison unprepared? or ready to defend? the sequence should be stated directly.
    • [AC] Rewrote it
  • "Bulgarian soldiers immediately began to forcibly round up the Greek population into large cities … and then capture these cities with the concentrated Greek population"... hum, this is grammatically difficult and obscures the historical claim if you ask me. I think you should separate occupation, displacement, deportation into distinct statements.
    • [AC] I broke it into two sentences
  • "The Allied commanders failed to assess the situation, disregarding Greek national pride and determination …" this one reads as authorial judgment; it could be framed as the assessment of a historian or replaced with neutral description of their intelligence failure and assumptions.
    • [AC] Rephrased
  • "Supposedly, only the royal army escorts saved them from being murdered …", "Supposedly" is not encyclopedic attribution if you ask me. Write either "George F. Abbott claimed that …" or just remove it.
    • [AC] changed per your suggestion
  • "The French and British violations of Greece's territorial integrity …", "Violations" is a legal and political characterisation. Attribute it to the royalist view or use neutral wording such as "Allied actions regarded by many royalists as infringements of Greek neutrality" or something like that.
    • [AC] The Allies transferred and landed the Serbian troops at Corfu (Greek territory), which they occupied even though no such permission was granted. The word violation appears in literature WP:RS so its use is justified. Nevertheless I changed it.
    • Koliopoulos and Veremis 2009 p. 82 Franco-British violations of Greece’s territorial integrity throughout 1916 contributed to the sense of offended honor of the Greeks and therefore increased Constantine’s popularity. (added emphasis)
    • Leon 1974 p.316 When the Allies finally informed Greece of the forthcoming occupation of the island for the concentration there of the Serbian army, they appealed to Skouloudis “in the name of humanity.” They promised that the occupation would be provisional and would in no way affect Greece’s sovereignty over the island. The Allied note was presented to Skouloudis on 10 January, just a few hours before the first French contingents landed. Two days later Skouloudis refused in one of his regular protests to give Greece’s consent to the concentration of the Serbian forces in Corfu, ...

I must say I twale you for this article's prose.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your kind words, I am not a historian but I try.
Just other random things
  • Kathimerini source is dated 18 November 2006 as date of publication, but its reference is manually set as Kathimerini|2009, might need to double-check.
    • [AC] Fixed
  • For sfnp, you used "Venizelos Foundation" but the source actually credits authors (which you used for the full reference), why not use the last name of the authors in the sfnp?
    • [AC] Changed
  • Markezinis, Spyros (1968) does not have any identifier
    • Added
  • You might want to add publication place to Edward; Cabrera, Marta García (eds.).
    • [AC] Added

[that's all from me]--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review and constructive comments. I hope I have adequately addressed all of your suggestions and concerns.A.Cython(talk) 23:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM, I am happy to support on prose and readability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Menches

[edit]
Nominator(s): Edward056686 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Menches, an ancient Egyptian scribe who lived in the Ptolemaic period, when Egypt was ruled by a Greek dynasty. A significant part of the article is about the so-called "archive of Menches", a collection of preserved documents from Menches' scribal office that were used to wrap mummified crocodiles. These documents are the only surviving evidence of Menches' life, so there is much that is still unknown about his life.

Kusma gave this article a passing review as a Good Article in April, and then I posted it at Peer Review in May where RoySmith and Michael Aurel suggested ways to improve it. If the article becomes a featured article, it would be nice for it to be the featured article on August 20 which is celebrated as "Menches Day" by UC Berkeley staff at the Bancroft Library. Edward056686 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I liked what I saw at PR, so back here for another pass.

  • In things like "Cleopatra III", it seems like there should be a {{nbsp}} between the two parts, but I can't find anything in the MOS which says so. Looking at, for example, Edward II, I see some of each. Perhaps you could research that for an authoritative answer?
    • Thank you for replying so quickly, and for reviewing this again. I'll probably add {{nbsp}} wherever appropriate just in case even if it isn't required.
  • Is there any information about how a piece of papyrus can be reused as writing material? Was it erased? Or just more writing squeezed into the margins?
    • Good catch, I added this information with a solid source.
  • Do any images of these papyri exist that could be used in the article?
    • They do, and I'm trying to see if some can be released under a Wikipedia-compatible license. Confirmed PD license and added image.

That's all I can see. Based on this quick re-read and my more in-depth examination when this was at PR, I'm happy to give this an early support on the prose, i.e. WP:FACR 1a (prose is engaging and of a professional standard) as well as 2a (lead) and 2b (appropriate structure). RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS, making August 20 for a front page appearance is not impossible, but it's certainly a tight deadline. At a minimum, you'll need to be proactive about keeping the review moving along by responding to comments quickly. RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot (incl. source review)

[edit]

Points not related to the sourcing:

  • This map of Egypt highlights the Faiyum, but the Faiyum is hard to see in the thumbnail because the map is so zoomed-out, largely because it incorporates Nubia. In general, this map is rather ill-fitting for an article on Ptolemaic Egypt: neither Memphis nor Thebes were capitals under the Ptolemies (who, of course, ruled from Alexandria), and Ptolemaic Egypt never controlled Nubia.
    • I added a zoomed in version of the map that shows Faiyum and Alexandria. There's a star symbol near Memphis in this version, but it isn't otherwise described as a capital.
  • Normal Wikipedia usage for quotation marks is double quotation marks, not singular, except when nesting quotations.
    • During the peer review, it was recommended that I use single quotations where indicated by MOS:SINGLE for glosses and definitions.
  • When "correspondence" is used to mean communication, I've only ever seen it as a mass noun, neither singular nor plural, similar to "mail". It sounds strange to speak of a single "correspondence" or of plural "correspondences". You may want to change to "letter" or "message" in some of these cases.
    • Fixed.

On sourcing:

  • The quality of sources is impeccable. While I can't access most of them, the ones I can access seem to confirm that the important points about Menches's life are all covered here.
    • Thank you for doing a spot check! I can provide quotations from any sources that you can't access.
  • The placement of citations is sometimes confusing. Wikipedia has never worked out an entirely satisfactory way of indicating how much text is covered by a citation, but my practice is to have one citation for part of a sentence, for a full sentence, or for a few sentences—but not one full sentence and part of another, or part of one sentence and part of the next. That avoids situations such as this, where Citations 19 and 20 cover the second sentence, but it's not clear what source the first sentence is drawing upon:
    "Menches applied to be reappointed as village scribe on May 25, 119 BCE. In his application to be reappointed,[19] Menches promised to rent 10 arouras (6.7 acres (2.7 ha)) of farmland from the royal government.[20]"
      • That seems like a reasonable solution. I went through the article and adjusted the citation placement.
  • As I said, I can't access most of the sources, but I did spot-check 15 citations to sources I can access. All of them check out except for 53b. Bliss says "some 1,094 texts (less than 5 percent of the total number of fragments) were either published in full, with translation and commentary, or briefly described". Multiplying 1,094 by 20 yields only 21,880, which is far less than 30,000 even when you allow for the upward rounding implied by "less than 5 percent".

A. Parrot (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

I have not much to say here. This was an excellent and very interesting read; the provided background information was very helpful. Just a few minor points:

  • One citation is just "BnF.". I think the title should be spelled out.
    • I expanded the citation.
  • "Hunt, Papyri Expert, Dead" (1934). – For this citation, shouldn't it say "New York Times (1934)"? I think this would be more helpful to the reader.
    • Fixed.
  • I'm unsure if the links to Google Books are appropriate. Those are not stable, and different people see different things (I'm not able to access the information through these links, for example). What do those links add?
    • The GB links have previews that show the information, but I have removed since they're unstable and not accessible to everyone.
  • Info box image caption: Application by Menches for the post of komogrammateus, 25 May 119 BCE – Here, I would add "village scribe" in brackets, as the reader may look at the infobox before reading the text so it has to be as accessible as possible. Or, maybe better, just replace with "village scribe" (in the first sentence of the lead, you also use just "village scribe".
    • Fixed.
  • These papyri were reused to wrap mummified crocodiles – maybe pipe-link to Animal mummy here (it has a section on crocodiles).
    • Done.
  • Not to be confused with Menes, Mensch, or Menches brothers – I don't think that there is danger for confusion with "Menes" or "Mensch", these are not very close. As for "Menches brothers", it should be an "other uses" hint instead, if kept at all.
    • Fixed.
  • The location of Kerkeosiris is unknown – I think this is a bit misleading. When reading this, I thought we had no clue about where in Egypt this village was located, but we do know it was in Faiyum, which is already a pretty constrained area. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed it to "the exact location".
  • Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aurel

[edit]

I reviewed this at WP:PR, and came away with a positive impression. I'm glad to see it here, and I'll get started on a review soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated Evolution

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a rock album by Devin Townsend that was well received by critics and had a little bit of commercial success. This article was nominated to GA in 2009 by Gendralman. This is part of an initiative where I adopt GAs that I think are close to FA status and make the improvements to get them promoted. For this article I added some sources, fixed up citation formatting, and posted it at PR where Noleander and Metalicat provided excellent comments. While a short article, it incorporates all reliable sources I could find. Thanks to everyone who reviews this. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Background
  • "These were resolved during the creation of the album Terria (2001)" → "These were resolved during the creation of Terria (2001)"
  • "reunited his extreme metal project Strapping Young Lad" → "reunited with his extreme metal project Strapping Young Lad"
Music
  • "was intended to be a musical contrast to Strapping Young Lad (abbreviated to SYL)" → "was intended as a musical contrast to Strapping Young Lad (SYL)"
  • "with elements of heavy metal music, ambient music, and experimental music" → "with elements of heavy metal, ambient, and experimental music"
  • "The album is more melodic and rock-based than SYL or Physicist, with a heavier focus on individual songs than Terria." → "The album is more melodic and rock-based than SYL or Physicist, and places greater emphasis on individual songs than Terria."
  • "Townsend, pictured in 2001" → "Townsend in 2001"
  • "Songs such as 'Storm', 'Suicide', and 'Sunday Afternoon' were noted as 'less frantic and more mature'" → "Songs such as 'Storm', 'Suicide', and 'Sunday Afternoon' were described as 'less frantic and more mature'"
  • "than songs on Townsend's Infinity album" → "than those on Infinity"
  • "Townsend's goal was for the album to be commercially viable, making his existing style more concise and accessible but avoiding pop music characteristics." → "Townsend aimed for the album to be commercially viable, making his existing style more concise and accessible while avoiding pop characteristics."
Release
  • We could link to independent record label and album art.
  • "on Townsend's independent label, HevyDevy Records, on compact disc" → "on Townsend's independent label HevyDevy Records on compact disc"
  • "It was distributed in Canada by HevyDevy, in Japan by Sony, and in Europe and North America by Inside Out." → "It was distributed by HevyDevy in Canada, Sony in Japan, and Inside Out in Europe and North America."
  • "a 3-track EP" → "a three-track EP"
  • "only placing for one week" → "remaining on the chart for one week"
  • "also placing for a week" → "also remaining on the chart for one week"
  • "After the release of Accelerated Evolution, Townsend toured with The Devin Townsend Band, at times separately from Strapping Young Lad and other times sharing the bill." → "Following the release of Accelerated Evolution, Townsend toured with The Devin Townsend Band, sometimes separately from Strapping Young Lad and at other times sharing the bill."
  • "After playing two release shows in Vancouver in July 2003," → "After two release shows in Vancouver in July 2003,"
  • "This was followed by a North American tour with progressive metal band Symphony X through November and December 2003." → "This was followed by a North American tour with the progressive metal band Symphony X in November and December 2003."

MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception
  • "They stated that the album blended different genres of music" → "Critics stated that the album blended different genres"
  • "The review on Blabbermouth.net stated that" → "The review from Blabbermouth.net stated that"
  • "Thomas Hatton, in writing for Treble Magazine, said that" → "Thomas Hatton of Treble wrote that"
  • "listeners would need to replay the tracks repeatedly" → "listeners would need to replay the tracks"
  • "to distinguish the various melodies playing at the same time" → "to distinguish the overlapping melodies"
  • "Xander Hoose of Chronicles of Chaos compared the album favorably to SYL" → "Xander Hoose of Chronicles of Chaos compared the album favourably with SYL"
  • "saying that Accelerated Evolution’s songs had more variation and were more layered, multi-dimensional, and memorable." → "writing that Accelerated Evolution’s songs had greater variation and were more layered, multidimensional, and memorable."
  • We could italicise the magazine titles.
Lead
  • "the first recorded with his backing group The Devin Townsend Band" → "the first recorded with his backing group, the Devin Townsend Band"
  • "The album, written and produced by Townsend, is a mix of musical styles such as alternative rock, hard rock and progressive metal." → "The album, written and produced by Townsend, blends alternative rock, hard rock, and progressive metal."
  • "assembled a group of Vancouver musicians to perform with him on the album:" → "assembled a group of Vancouver musicians to perform on the album:"
  • "sometimes playing in a joint billing with Strapping Young Lad" → "sometimes sharing the bill with Strapping Young Lad"
  • "its blend of genres and influences, its musical accessibility, and its large-scale rock production style" → "its blend of genres, accessibility, and large-scale rock production"
  • "placed in the French and Japanese sales charts for one week" → "appeared on the French and Japanese charts for one week"
Bottom line

Metalicat

[edit]

One thing I missed in the PR:

  • Lead: the album placed in the French and Japanese sales charts for one week, but the body and chart table give only the peak positions, nothing on duration. Either "one week" is supported and should appear in the body, or it should come out of the lead.
That’s all from me. Support. Metalicat (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On prose and MOS the article reads cleanly to me. Happy to support once point above rectified. Metalicat (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • I recently did a Peer Review on this, and the article was practically FA-quality at the end of that review. So, I'm not sure what else needs to be done, but I'll go through it again, here.
  • Prose "...while also completing the production aspects for the album." reads awkwardly. Why not simply "... while also producing the album" or "... and also producing the album"
  • It seems strange that he had two groups, and he recorded two albums simultaneously, one per group. Then he went on a tour, and both groups performed together on tour, with him as the lead of both groups. Very strange. Is there any commentator that remarked on that? Offhand, it would seem like he is diluting his creative energies .. not focusing. Of course, artists frequently shift gears, genres, moods ... but it is normally done sequentially.
  • Some sources compared the two albums, and I think I included that in the article ("The album is more melodic and rock-based than SYL" and "Xander Hoose of Chronicles of Chaos compared the album favorably to SYL...") Many of the comparisons were made to help describe the albums, so I extracted the info that described AE and left out the info about SYL as off-topic. The two groups sometimes performed together on tour; sometimes Townsend performed with another band or just by himself/with the DT Band. Unfortunately, a lack of sources reviewing the album means there isn't much to add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose "...said that the album's wall of sound characteristic would take time to be ..." (a) the word "characteristic" doesn't seem ideal. Consider: style, tone, approach, or technique. (b) Readers not familiar with "wall of sound" phrase may have a hard time parsing that sentence. It is easier in other sentence "..album in a wall of sound style that .." because it is a blue link. Consider linking again in "... album's wall of sound characteristic" which is permitted because it is a new major section, and the blue link may help some readers parse the sentence.
  • Changed to "style" because that is how it is used earlier in the article.
  • Inconsistent capitalization style: "'Even the most bizarre and ingenious of his ideas seem to hit the target': The Devin Townsend albums you should listen to... and one to avoid". All other source titles use Title case, so this one also should (WP articles should ignore how sources capitalize their own titles).
  • All the sources use sentence case ("The reluctant return of Strapping Young Lad", "Devin Townsend: "I found out about playing Damnation Festival on Twitter"). I found one instance that needed to be fixed. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose and MOS, other than above items, meets FACR requirements.
  • Can a source/cite be provided for contents of "Track listing" section?
  • I don't see any mention of what medium the album was released on: CD, Vinyl, both?
  • If it became available for purchase/download digitally at some point, that may be worth a mention; tho maybe not if no other music WP articles go into that sort of detail. Noleander (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources don't talk about a digital or download release: I think it was still a little bit before digital downloads were significant. I assume that, if it was uploaded to a digital download website (like iTunes) it wouldn't have been a noteworthy enough to publish the date it was uploaded. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose, citations/sourcing, and MOS. I also validated the images' free-to-use status (including the fair use justification of the copyrighted album cover in the SideBar). Great article! Noleander (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leafy46

[edit]

I'll give this a review soon. Immediately, though, something I notice is that the infobox uses the special-edition cover of the album, when the normal edition one is readily available online. Is there a particular reason for this? Leafy46 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Leafy46: The image is the one that was there when I started editing the article earlier this year. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two covers is the "Special Edition" text at the bottom of the image. I think it's fine to keep the current image. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I would suggest replacing the caption with something more like "The cover of the special-edition release of Accelerated Evolution; the original cover omits the words 'Special Edition'", since the fact that it contains the bonus EP feels irrelevant to the album cover caption. Though it really should be replaced with the original cover, per the specifications over at Template:Infobox album. Leafy46 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, based on this current revision. Leafy46 (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't forget to get rid of the caption too, after replacing the cover art
  • All cases of "The Devin Townsend Band" being used mid-sentence should have "The" uncapitalized, per MOS:THEBAND
  • The fact that all the members in The Devin Townsend Band are from Vancouver is mentioned in the lead but not cited nor mentioned in the body
  • Ditto for the fact that the album was recorded in Vancouver, not to mention that the city is linked twice in the lead
  • "In 2002, Townsend began work on his next two albums and reunited his extreme metal project Strapping Young Lad, which had been on hiatus for four years." — The source doesn't match the prose. First, it doesn't say that Townsend began work on these albums in 2002, nor that SYL reunited that year. Second, the source doesn't say that the source was coming off a four-year hiatus. And third, the source suggests that Townsend played a very passive role in the band's reunion, as opposed to the article's text saying that he was the one who reunited the group. This sentence should be fixed up to better reflect the source.
  • "He wrote and produced the band's first album..." — This should just say "Accelerated Evolution" instead of beating around the bush with "the band's first album", given that it hasn't been mentioned at all this section.
  • For the sake of flow, I would move the sentence "Townsend chose members of local bands..." one sentence back. This would keep the personnel information together in the paragraph, as opposed to being awkwardly broken up.
  • The fact that Townsend and Thingvold engineered and mixed the album is not cited, nor is the fact that Thingvold had previously worked on "many of Townsend's and Strapping Young Lad's albums".
  • Hard rock is suggested in the AllMusic review, but progressive metal is not. Genre labels on AllMusic should not be used per WP:ALLMUSIC.
  • I don't think that the source saying "Heaviness, ambience, humor, and experimentalism flow seamlessly..." makes the album have "elements of heavy metal music, ambient music, and experimental music". It's like claiming that a song is a folk song just because it's described as "folksy".
  • "Accelerated Evolution features more of Townsend's singing than his other albums released at that time." — I feel like this should be next to the sentence saying that the album is more melodic than SYL or Physicist, since it's pretty much saying the exact same thing.
  • Terrorizer (source #8) should probably be marked as dead.
  • "Townsend toured with The Devin Townsend Band, at times separately from Strapping Young Lad and other times sharing the bill." — Can you check if the source backs this claim up? I couldn't find anything about the two bands touring together in this way. "Sharing the bill" should also probably be swapped out for a clearer phrase.
  • Blabbermouth (source #14) also appears to be dead, and the citation appears to be malformed.
  • I'll give the 'Critical reception' section another read later, but the reviews from AllMusic and KNAC.com must be included in the section (per MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings templates, "The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system.")
  • I feel like laut.de (source #9) could be milked for more information? Given that it's a full review not mentioned in the 'Critical reception' section, and seems to address songs individually. I get that English sources are preferred to non-English ones, but given how little there seems to be about this album, I'm sure that this can be an exception for the sake of comprehensiveness.

Let me know when all these points are addressed. Because multiple points stem from inconsistencies between the article text and its sources, I don't expect this to be particularly quick yet it should be doable. Leafy46 (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ewuare

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ewuare (also known as Ewuare the Great; reigned c. 1440 – c. 1473) was the twelfth Oba ('king') of the Kingdom of Benin. Born Ogun, he was a son of Ohen who spent part of his early life away from Benin City before taking the throne after killing his brother Uwaifiokun and assuming the regnal name Ewuare. His birth and youth connects him by Edo traditions to the Ekoko n'Utẹ masquerade, the market woman Emotan, and conflicts involving the Ogiamiẹn lineage. Ewuare rebuilt and enlarged Benin City, extended its walls and ditches, reorganised offices of government, increased the importance of the Eghaevbo n'Ogbe ('palace chiefs') and Eghaevbo n'Ore ('town chiefs'), and is linked with the introduction of lineal succession through the title Edaiken ('crown prince').

Recently passed GA, I honestly have put in much research and editing work in improving the article. I'd be happy to address any concerns as it relates to the WP:FACRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

This caught my eye because I recently reviewed the related Ohen at PR. So let's see what this looks like. RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
[edit]
  • There is a {{Reign}} template which may be useful.
    • Okay, I used it now. -VWF
  • Born Ogun ... assuming the regnal name Ewuare Overly long and complex sentence should be broken up.
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • Ekoko n'Utẹ masquerade explain what "masquerade" means in this context.
    • Explained as "a palace masquerade performance involving masked dancers". -VWF
  • Ewuare rebuilt and enlarged Benin City, extended its walls and ditches, reorganised offices of government, increased the importance of the Eghaevbo n'Ogbe ('palace chiefs') and Eghaevbo n'Ore ('town chiefs'), and is linked with the introduction of lineal succession through the title Edaiken ('crown prince'). Another complex sentence. Maybe you don't need to mention all of these items in the lead, just the most important ones? Isn't increasing the importance of the chiefs part of reorganizing the government?
    • Yeah, fixed. -VWF
Background
[edit]
  • You want the main text to be able to stand along from the lead, so this should start off with "Ewuare was ...", similar to how the lead starts.
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • dates his accession to around 1440 It's not clear who "his" refers to.
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • in the Encyclopedia of African History Volume 1 A–G for the running text, I'd shorten this to "Encyclopedia of African History" and leave the details of which volume to the citation.
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • Social anthropologist Robert Elwyn Bradbury just "anthropologist" is enough, drop the "social"
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • These traditions repeatedly connect ... Ohen's paralysis I know about the paralysis because I've read Ohen but most of our readers will have no clue what you're talking about here.
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • There's a lot in Birth and parentage traditions which seem like they would be better covered in Ohen and only briefly summarized here. There's a lot of people mentioned and I'm having trouble keeping track of who's who.
Accession
[edit]
  • This starts out talking about an exile, but the first mention of it assumes the reader already knows about it. This needs a little background (one or two sentences) explaining when he was exiled, by whom, etc.
    • We do not know "by whom", but I have added an intro for clarity. -VWF
  • who helped hide him from agents of Uwaifiokun By this time I'd forgotten who Uwaifiokun was. Remind the reader here that this was his brother. Oh, looking back, I see "had already been expelled from Benin City together with his younger brother Uwaifiokun" way back in Dynastic context, but I had forgotten about that by the time I got here. I think the problem is there's so much intervening detail in Birth and parentage traditions that I lost the train of the main story.
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • Ogiefa punished Edo for helping Ogun escape, but after Ogun became Oba, he rewarded Edo with gifts. Who is "he": Ogiefa or Ogun?
    • Ogun, fixed. -VWF
  • Ogun's coronation as Ewuare followed Uwaifiokun's death. Again, I'm struggling to remember all of the names introduced earlier. How about "Ogun's coronation, taking the regal name Ewuare, followed Uwaifiokun's death" to remind the reader.
    • Fixed. -VWF
Reign
[edit]
  • The palace was rebuilt on a large scale at the site where it remained, oddly worded
    • Tweaked. -VWF
  • Major streets, including Akpakpava and Utantan, were improved. Is a map of the city available, or could one be drawn (see Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop)?
    • Map as of his reign? I wonder... I'll continue looking for; I am current searching for relevant images generally. -VWF
  • Junior grades provided messengers ... Does this mean junior grades of chiefs?
    • Yes, tweaked. -VWF
  • Under Ewuare, Freeborn Edo subjects became ... This does not appear to be the right Freeborn to link ("term associated with political agitator John Lilburne")
  • Direct rule was largely limited to an area of about 64 kilometres around the capital 64 seems like an oddly specific number to be described as "about". Is that actually what the source says?
    • In fact. The more distant conquests managed to maintain a degree of independence by paying tribute to Benin; others were subjected to governments modelled on that of Benin, with princes of the Ewuare dynasty at their head; only those within a radius of some 64 km of the capital were brought under the direct rule of Benin. -VWF
  • The Akure campaign illustrates the military and administrative practices associated with Ewuare's reign. this seems like an opinion which should be attributed rather than stated in wiki voice.
    • Tweaked. -VWF
Court culture and religion
[edit]
  • The annual Igue was linked Should be "Igue festival"
    • Fixed. -VWF
  • Ivory and wood carving are said to have received ... during Ewuare's reign, who said this?
    • Instead of attributing Egharevba, I just removed "are said to have". -VWF
Family and death
[edit]
  • forbade anyone [to] have sexual intercourse for three years ... the country was becoming depopulated Surely this could have been predicted?
    • Sure, tweaked. -VWF
Legacy and historiography
[edit]

(nothing of note here)

Overall, I found this a bit of a slog to get through. I don't think the writing is bad (although it's not scintillating); the bigger problem is the sea of unfamiliar (to me) names, many of which are similar to each other. This makes it hard for me to keep track of what's going on. Obviously, you can't do anything about the names being what they are, but I think you could help the reader in a lot of places by reminding them of characters who had been introduced earlier (son of, elder brother of, etc)

As a general comment, this could use more illustrations. Are there images available of the various people? As I noted above, the map workshop folks can help with providing maps if none already exist. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith Thank you for going through, and I am sorry it was a bit of a slog at first read. I hope my edits now address this. I think some of my replies above require your follow-up. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back at some point and give this another read (and if I forget please ping me) but I'll give other reviewers a chance to do their thing first. It's really great to see articles on subjects like this. It makes for a much more interesting encyclopedia than one that's just yet more cookie-cutter articles about the same old repetitive topics. RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

This is my first source review at the FAC level, if I overstep or missed something, please let me know. Before a spot check, a few observations.

  • The sources are mostly books from notable publishers, e.g., Oxford University Press and Routledge. So no trouble here.
  • Please keep the ISBN number format consistent, i.e., all with dashes or none (preferably with, I think).
    True, fixed. -VWF
  • The consistency issue also applies to dates, Asante has a full date, while the rest use only the year. Ogbeifun is a media source, which was not immediate apparent, perhaps separating the sources by type?
    Fixed. -VWF
  • For Curnow, Kathy (2017) the page range is 1–50, not 1–40
    Fixed. -VWF
  • Also, after you finish changes, keep the order of the citations in order from smaller number to higher, i.e., achievements.[8][4] → achievements.[4][8]. Alternatively you can merge them with Template:sfnmp
    This was actually fun to do, fixed. -VWF

Spot check

  • #4a (Good) it provides the information about the lack of contemporary documentation. I would suggest to include the 138 page since it includes the relevant info about fifteenth-century ruler.
    Added. -VWF
  • #4b + #8a (Good) provide the information about the reign of the king took place before the arrival of Portuguese
  • #4c (Good) provides the information about reorganization of the city into corporate wards.
  • #4e + #8e (Good) provides the information about the exclusion of slaves and foreigners from the palace etc.
  • #11 (Good) add the page 10
    Added. -VWF
  • #25 (Good) provides the story of the leopard and snake
  • #31 (Revisit) I found the relevant information and it checks out, but at a different page. Please double check the page as I might be looking at a different version/edition
    I presume you're referring to 31a, I checked again and it is correctly in page 134. -VWF
    [AC] I figured it out, I was looking at the digital version, which has a different pagination from hard copy. The scanned version found here confirms the statement.
  • #36 (Good) provides the attribution of titles to the king
  • #42 (Good) provides the information about the coral bead and red cloth as signs of royal authority
  • #43 (Good) provides a link between Ewuare and Osanobua and the story of sending men to visit the deity etc
  • #59 (Good) provides the story about the exclusion of women from power. However, it misses the reason, i.e., coronation, to travel journey to Uselu, which I think provides relevant context
    Ah, good catch, fixed. -VWF
  • #61 (Good) contains the analysis about the symbolism of masquerade etc...

Overall, a well researched article over a difficult topic due to limited contemporary written records. I did not detect any major issues. Nice work. A.Cython(talk) 02:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython: Thank you for the in-depth source review and the source-text checks. I have replied above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, so it is a pass. Nice article. A.Cython(talk) 20:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Chattri

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell, Hassocks5489

Another war memorial, but a different flavour to my previous nomination. This one commemorates an aspect of WWI that is largely forgotten in British history. Many thousands of Indians fought in France and Belgium in the early days of the war. Wounded soldiers needed somewhere to recuperate away from the front line, so Brighton's Royal Pavilion (an Indo-Oriental palace built for a bored prince and by then largely disused) was converted into a makeshift hospital. This monument, high in the hills above the town, was built in memory of those who did not survive, though it has had a somewhat uneasy history since it was unveiled in 1921.

Hassocks created the article and developed the skeleton a few years ago, and I've recently expanded it with some more research. I'm sensitive to the monument's position in imperial history and I've tried to describe the controversy as best I can and avoid taking sides. It's only ~2,000 words but I feel it's comprehensive. Thanks for taking the time to read it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Background
Indian soldiers in Brighton
  • Could we trim this sub-section's heading to "Background"?
    • I like the extra detail and I can't think of any MoS-based to lose it.
  • "among those to visit the pavilion during their stay were" → "among those who visited the pavilion during their stay were"
    • Done.
  • "Photographs were taken of the deceased, which were sent to their relatives" → "Photographs of the deceased were taken and sent to their relatives"
    • I'm not sure about this, but done.
  • The 21 Muslim men who died were taken to
    • How about "The 21 Muslim men who died were buried at..."?
      • I think it flows better as it is.
  • "one in the workhouse" → "one in a workhouse"
    • Unless we are referring to a specific workhouse.
      • We are indeed referring to a specific workhouse.
  • "despite the fact that" → "although"
    • I don't think "although" adequately conveys the uniqueness of the situation.
  • instilling Imperial pride
    • Lowercase "imperial"? Also, how about "fostering" in place of "instilling"?
      • I could go either way on this so we'll go yours.
  • "considered it to be of great importance"→ "considered it of great importance"
    • Done.
  • "near Patcham, high on the South Downs" → "near Patcham on the South Downs"
    • No worries with the present version. A suggestion lest "high" could be dropped.
      • I think I prefer it the way it is but I don't feel strongly about this one.
  • "ceased accommodating Indian soldiers" → "ceased to accommodate Indian soldiers"
    • Done.
  • dietary and religious requirements of the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims
    • Do we need the definite article before "Hindus"?
      • I think it's helpful. We're talking about these Hindus (etc) in particular, not Hindus in general.

MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc Thank you for taking a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I note the hospital in the Brighton Workhouse was renamed as the Kitchener Indian Hospital while serving as a hospital for Indian soldiers. It eventually became the Brighton General Hospital (the article mentions its use as a ww1 hospital). We may want to add those links and properly source. Erp (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Inception
  • We could link town centre and reimbursement?
    • Both of those are common English terms and neither is crucial to this article. I know I'm a lot more conservative in my linking than most people but I don't think either of those links would be helpful. Almost any term could be linked in an encyclopaedia with seven million entries but we should focus on the most important ones.
  • Jacob had worked extensively in India and was widely associated with the Indo-Saracenic architectural style and in particular was known for his use of chhatri, elevated domes supported on pillars.
    • How about "and, in particular, was known for his use of chhatri,"?
    • An alternative: How about "was particularly"?
      • Done (the first one).
  • Also, "chhatris" in place of "chhatri"?
    • I'm not sure about this. Our article seems to suggest the plural form is the same as the singular but it's not a term I was familiar with before I started researching this.
  • Funds were raised and Henriques completed his design by 1917.
    • Do we know who the funds were raised by?
      • The sources don't specify, other than the sharing of costs between the borough and the government. I would guess that the borough had to do some fundraising but that's speculation.
  • "soon after the last cremations" → "soon after the final cremations"
    • Done.
  • "were owned by Marquess of Abergavenny" → "were owned by the Marquess of Abergavenny"
    • Done.
  • "Jacob, 75 years old, declined the commission" → "Jacob, aged 75, declined the commission"
    • I think it flows better as it is.
  • "Henriques waived a fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses" → "Henriques waived his fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses"
    • Done.

MSincccc (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Design and setting
  • "...each has four brackets projecting from them." → "...projecting from it."
  • "from a path off a bridleway off the A27 Brighton Bypass" → "from a path off a bridleway from the A27 Brighton Bypass"
  • "which itself stands over three blocks of granite" → "which itself stands on three blocks of granite"
  • "The plinth is square, and stepped down..." → "The plinth is square and stepped down..."
  • "The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella." → "The Chattri is roughly umbrella-shaped." (a suggestion)
Unveiling
  • We could link to the British royal family.
  • "Edward, Prince of Wales presided." → "Edward, Prince of Wales, presided." (commas needed for the non-restrictive appositive)
  • "...was imperialistic and a 'symbolic performance'" → "...was imperialistic and constituted a 'symbolic performance'"
  • "and the exception to the law to allow the open-air pyre and to the construction of the Chattri." → "and to the exception to the law allowing the open-air pyre, and to the construction of the Chattri."

MSincccc (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @MSincccc. I think I'd want a source or a native speaker to weigh in on chattri vs chattris. And I don't think the royal family link is likely to add to the reader's understanding. Other than that, I think I've addressed your latest batch. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I note the article on Chhatri is not consistent. The intro uses same word for singular and plural but later in the article an 's' is sometimes added for plural. And the spelling variants are considerable. We might want to look for usage in recent scholarly articles. Erp (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Later history
  • "fell to the Borough of Brighton but the memorial was neglected" → "fell to the Borough of Brighton, but the memorial was neglected"
  • "no replacement was appointed and the cottage was demolished" → "no replacement was appointed, and the cottage was demolished"
  • "Previously, the names were spread between the Hollybrook Memorial" → "Previously, the names were split between"
Lead
  • "a chattri or chhatri (a word which means ‘umbrella’" → "a chattri or chhatri (a word meaning ‘umbrella’"
  • "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire and show that Indian troops were well treated." → "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and to show that Indian troops were well treated."
  • "At least one suggested that its neglect" → "At least one has suggested that its neglect"
Bottom line
Thoughts @HJ Mitchell? MSincccc (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size

Swein Forkbeard

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of kings of Anglo-Saxon England, although in this case of a Danish conqueror. Swein had the shortest reign of any king of England as he died within six weeks of becoming king. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tim riley, Mike Christie, UndercoverClassicist as the previous ping did not go through. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

―Howard • 🌽33 15:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Howardcorn33. I have made the changes to the coin image. Is it OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: you should separate the license templates using subheadings, such as ===Coin=== and ===Photograph===. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Howardcorn33 done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: the coin is public domain, not the photograph, so you have to place the CC BY template under ===Photograph=== and the PD template under ===Coin=== ―Howard • 🌽33 14:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Howardcorn33 is it OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Finally, the author section of the file info should have "{{Creator:Ola Myrin}}" instead of "{{unknown|author}}". If that's done, I'll consider the img review passed. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Howardcorn33 done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image review passed. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A.Cython

[edit]

An interesting article, but perhaps it should have gone through a GA nomination followed by a peer-review. Some observations from a quick read:

  • fix the Harv id error generated by duplicated sources, specifically the Sawyer 2004. Note you defined both right after ...at acknowledged Swein's overlordship. and in the Sources section, causing numerous error messages.
  • avoid subjective characterizations, e.g., very short-lived
  • I feel that the "Death" section should be a subsection of "Life" (death is the end of life); this would help reducing the total number of sections MOS:OVERSECTION; it is a bit confusing that the subsection on coins is part of Life section, but not his death. I am also uneasy with an Aftermath and Reputation sections. Can they not be merged into one section called "Legacy"? Similar thought about Early life (in Life section) but the Family related info is in a separate section. Given that the Early life subsection is only two sentences, merging appears necessary. Overall, some structural reorganization is needed here.
  • Death is not part of life and coinage is. The structure seems OK to me. It is the same as in my previous king FACs and no one has objected before. I agree that 'Early life' is very short but it does not fit into any other sub-section. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to have the lead with no more than four paragraphs and perhaps make it more engaging, as it reads as a brief list information statements lacking a narrative, i.e., why would I care to learn about this person. A.Cython(talk) 22:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ælfgar

[edit]

I think the article could be a bit more detailed about Swein's wife, especially since we have articles on both Świętosława (using a potential reconstruction of her name) and Sigrid the Haughty (focused on her portrayal in the sagas), neither of which are linked to here. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are both generally regarded as imaginary, and I did not cover it as I could not find a reliable source. I have now found one which makes a strong case that Swein's wife was not the widow of King Erik. I will edit accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ælfgar I have now updated to cover Swein's wife and Erik, and also added a note on Sigrid etc. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Drive-by for now:

  • Swein's name in manuscript C of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: should we clarify that this isn't just Swein's name -- what's pictured seems to be "Svegen [sp.?] cyning", or "King Sweyn".
  • Swein Forkbeard (also Sveinn Haraldsson, Sveinn Tjúguskegg, Sven Forkbeard, Swen Forkbeard, Sweyn Forkbeard, Swegen Forkbeard: six alternative names/spellings! A good case for MOS:LEADCLUTTER, I think.
  • Erik, King of the Svear in eastern Sweden: MOS:PEOPLETITLES keeps on giving: decap king here.
  • I am not clear of the rules here. You have not queried Swein was King of Denmark and you did not query Æthelred was King of England. Why is caps correct here and not in Erik, King of the Svear? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not the full sentence: it's Erik, King of the Svear in eastern Sweden. Presumably, his title wasn't "King of the Svear in eastern Sweden". To capitalise "King", we have to be using "King of the Svear" as a title, but to make the rest of the sentence make sense, "Svear" has to be separate so it can modify "in eastern Sweden" -- we can't have that cake and eat it too. One way around would be to separate the final bit: so "King of the Svear (a people of eastern Sweden)" or similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • was King of Denmark, from c. 986, overlord of Norway, c. 986 – c. 994 and from c.1000, and briefly King of England from December 1013.: using the commas makes the flow pretty impenetrable here (does e.g. "c. 986" point left or right)? Brackets would be better, but to be honest I'd suggest a complete rework: something like "was King of Denmark from c. 986. He was overlord of Norway between..."
  • Check punctuation, capitalisation, dashes etc in the bibliography -- there are a few mistakes.
It's mostly MOS:DASH and missing spaces. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hongwu Emperor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Hongwu Emperor, the first emperor of the Ming dynasty. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. (After three times without much attention and reviews, I hope this time it will be okay.) Min968 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jon698

[edit]

I would love to look over this article. I will be making some comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will be using Yongle Emperor for comparison in some parts
  • 1. The Yongle Emperor's lede mentions him being the the fourth son of the Hongwu Emperor in the first paragraph. Could a mention of Hongwu Emperor's low-birth be mentioned as well? Currently his only family mention in the lede is being orphaned.
    • Done.
  • 2. "a government of generals and Confucian scholars" -> Wikilink Confucianism
    • Done.
  • 3. "In 1344, during a plague epidemic, Zhu Xingzong's parents and one of his brothers died." + "Zhu then entered a local Buddhist monastery." -> These should be part of the same paragraph if you are going to use the word "then"
    • Done.
  • 4. "Zhu then entered a local Buddhist monastery." -> Wikilink Buddhism
    • Done.
  • 5. "The presence of Taoist and Buddhist secret societies" -> Wikilink Taoism
    • Done.
  • 6. "In 1352, when the Yuan army burned down Zhu's monastery after suspecting the monks of links to the White Lotus society, Zhu joined the rebels." -> Could this be reorganized to be easier to read like "Zhu joined the rebels in 1352, as the Yuan army burned down Zhu's monastery after suspecting the monks of links to the White Lotus society."
    • Done.
  • 7. "On 15 April of the same year," -> "of the same year" is unnecessary as the year has already been stated in the previous sentence
    • Done.
  • 8. "Zhu entered into a dispute over Hezhou, a city situated on the banks of the Yangtze," -> Wikilink Hezhou
  • 9. "In July 1355, the Hezhou rebels obtained a fleet from rebels arriving from Chao Lake" -> Wikilink Chao Lake
    • Done.
  • 10. "Zhu defeated the local Yuan commander Chen Yexian (陳野先), who surrendered to him, but Chen betrayed Guo Tianxu during an attack on Jiqing (present-day Nanjing) in September 1355." -> This could be shortened to "The local Yuan commander Chen Yexian (陳野先) surrendered to Zhu, but Chen betrayed Guo Tianxu during an attack on Jiqing (present-day Nanjing) in September 1355."
    • Done.
  • 11. "In January 1369, the main army, led by Xu Da, captured Taiyuan, while Köke Temür retreated to Gansu. In the spring of 1369, Ming troops also began to occupy Shaanxi.[76] They had fully captured the province by September 1369, but border skirmishes with Köke Temür's troops persisted until 1370.[77]" -> Does this need to be its own paragraph? It is continuing the story from the previous paragraph so shouldn't they just be one paragraph?
    • Done.
  • 12. "It remained unchanged until the fall of the empire, although additional provisions were later added." -> Just a technicality, but shouldn't it be dynasty rather than empire? Entirely optional change
    • Done.
  • 13. "The administrative structure of the Ming dynasty was modeled after the Yuan model" -> Could "modeled" be changed to "based" as "modeled after the Yuan model" feels awkward
    • Done.
  • 14. "restrictions on personal names" -> I think a wikilink to Chinese name would be useful since naming conventions in China are dramatically different from the west
    • Done.
  • 15. "the Sumatran Kingdom of Melayu" -> Wikilink Melayu Kingdom
    • Done.
  • 16. "attacking eastern Mongolia and Manchuria with another 50,000 soldiers" -> wikilink Manchuria
  • I have no more comments. BTW if you want, could you leave a comment on my FAC

ZKang123

[edit]

Will do a review.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The orphaned Zhu then briefly lived as a novice monk, begging for alms and gaining insight into common people's hardships, while developing a dislike for book-dependent scholars - suggest spliting. Also "then" is unnecessary
  • In 1352, he joined the Red Turban rebels, a movement that sought to overthrow Yuan rule, and soon proved his ability, rising to command his own army - "soon proved his ability" is also redundant
  • In early 1368, after successfully dominating southern and central China, Zhu chose to rename the Kingdom of Wu. He decided on the name Da Ming, which translates to "Great Radiance", for his empire, and designated Hongwu, meaning "Vastly Martial", as the name of the era and the motto of his reign. - Slight rewrite to: After successfully dominating southern and central China in early 1368, Zhu decided to rename the Kingdom of Wu to Da Ming, which translates to "Great Radiance". He also declared himself the Hongwu Emperor, meaning "Vastly Martial", which was also the motto of his reign.
  • but his attempt to conquer Mongolia ended in failure - but failed to conquer Mongolia
  • Lead is quite missing on his death and who succeeded him. Might mention the leadership struggle between his grandson and the uncle who overthrew him
    • All done.

Rise to power:

  • widespread opposition to the rule of the Yuan dynasty - also mention the Yuan was Mongol-led
  • and took control in order to establish order in the surrounding area - wont taking control already mean establishing order? Might just say "and established order in the surrounding area"
  • While Zhu was considered physically unattractive[24] and he began as a rank-and-file fighter, his exceptional leadership, decisiveness, martial skill, and intelligence quickly earned him significant authority. Might rewrite to: "Zhu began as a rank-and-file fighter. While he was considered physically unattractive, Zhu's exceptional leadership, decisiveness, martial skill, and intelligence quickly earned him significant authority.
  • Unlike other leaders of his time, Zhu had a small number of relatives who were appointed to important positions, at a time when family ties were crucial for ensuring loyalty and reliability need clarification: do the other leaders have more relatives appointed, or none at all? Because the way it's written seems ambiguous
  • The rivalry between Peng and Zhao escalated into a full-blown conflict. Guo was initially captured Guo was captured by who? And in this conflict, did he side with anyone, or remained neutral?
  • The local Yuan commander Chen Yexian (陳野先) surrendered to Zhu, but betrayed Guo Tianxu during an attack on Jiqing (present-day Nanjing) in September 1355. How did the local commander betray Guo? Like, just leave Guo to the Yuan forces and pulled out?
  • For the subsection "Southern campaigns and northern expeditions (1367–1382)" please be aware of WP:PROSELIST
    • All done.

More comments to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I've already reviewed a couple of these (Jianwen and Yongle), I might as well do this one as well. As is my wont with long articles, I'll attack this in sections over a few days. RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One general comment is that at 8700 words, this is getting into the area where reviewers are going to start complaining about the length. It's possible this is what dissuaded people from reviewing it the first couple of times it was here. Articles usually get longer during reviews; you'll need to be vigilant to keep that from happening. Look at every word and sentence and ask yourself if it's really pulling its weight or if it could be cut without loss to the overall article.

  • The article has been reduced to about 8202 words, approximately the same length as the Yongle Emperor article that was recently successfully nominated for FA. Min968 (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • The first sentence should state this this is in China.
  • Born in 1328 into a poor peasant family doesn't peasant imply poor?
  • in 1367 he formally recognized Han Lin'er recognized him as what?
  • At this point, I'm just one paragraph into the lead and I'm already struggling to keep up. We've got the Ming dynasty, the Yuan dynasty, the Red Turban rebels, the Mongols, the Kingdom of Wu, and the Song (dynasty, I guess). How are all these entities related to each other?
  • Zhu chose to rename his state What state is that? I'm guessing the Kingdom of Wu?
    • All done.
Early life
[edit]
  • had served in the Song army resisting the Mongol invasion explain to the reader what Song was. And who the Mongols were. These things may seem obvious to you, but many readers will know nothing about Chinese history and will quickly get lost.
  • wandered as a mendicant monk many readers will be unfamiliar with "mendicant" so that needs explaining.
  • people of eastern Henan and western Anhui Explain what Henan and Auhui are.
  • during which he learned to read, write, and study the basics of Buddhism this makes it sound like he learned to study the basics of Buddhism, which is not, I suspect, what you meant. He studied, he didn't learn to study.
    • All done.
Rise to power
[edit]
  • The harsh taxation policies, famine, and catastrophic flooding in the Yellow River basin, caused by inadequate flood control measures the harsh taxation was not caused by inadequate flood control.
  • counteroffensive and advance along the Grand Canal what is this grand canal and where is it?
  • There's lots of action here and lots of unfamiliar place names. A map really is essential. Enquire at WP:LAB/MAP to see if somebody can create one for you.
    • File:Red Turban.png, is it okay?
  • Guo submitted to Peng, while his four colleagues submitted to Zhao.[22] What does it mean to "submit" in this context?
  • Chen Zhaoxian (陳兆先), the nephew and successor of Chen Yexian, surrendered to Zhu with 36,000 troops. Who had 36,000 troops? Chen or Zhu? The wording is ambigious.
  • one division per prefecture. what is a prefecture?
    • All done.
  • Zhu controlled the southwestern part of Jiangsu, all of Anhui south of the Yangtze River, and the inland of Zhejiang. Again, confusion over where these places are. The only of these I've ever heard of is the Yangtze River, but I don't actually know where it is. This really needs maps to show this graphically.
  • By 1393, these territories had a population of 7.8 million. I don't have a feel for whether this is a lot. Is it 1% of the total population of China? 10%? 90%?
    • Done.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop here. I started this yesterday and got as far as I could before getting confused. So now I'm picking this up the next morning and not making any more progress. There's just too many people and too many events to keep straight and a jumbled narrative. As I said earlier, maps are essential. I would also suggest some sort of graphical timeline which could show the overlapping time spans of the various events. RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith Thank you for taking the time. Min968 (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to have been able to be of some assistance. I do encourage you to keep working on this. It's an important subject, but a hard one to cover due to the vastness of the topic. I see you mentioned File:Red Turban.png above. I don't think it's a great map from a graphical point of view, but more importantly, it's not really tied to the text. The right process is to write about the events you want to present to the reader, then generate a map which illustrates exactly those events, allowing the reader to use the textual and graphical presentations to support each other. As I mentioned, the folks at WP:LAB/MAP are good at this sort of thing and I highly recommend that you take advantage of their services. Producing the maps needed to properly illustrate all of these events is a lot of work, but for a topic of this importance at the FA level, it's an investment that's worth making. RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I just added a map, not sure if it's okay. Min968 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that map is it shows so much stuff, it's impossible to find the specific places that are referenced in the text. I know I'm being repetitive here, but I strongly encourage you to work with the folks at WP:LAB/MAP to develop maps which are customized to show the events you talk about in the text. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I have submitted a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Min968 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Eli Ravage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tartigradesinspace (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a comprehensive and well‑sourced biography of the essayist and biographer Marcus Eli Ravage, covering his life, major works, and the historical reception and the unfortunate misuse of his writings. Tartigradesinspace (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]

Some paragraphs do not have sources and are currently being nominated for both GA and FA at the same time. Min968 (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartigradesinspace: Per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Min968 and @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the comments. I have closed the GA nomination and am checking the sources for each paragraph. Tartigradesinspace (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguarnik

[edit]
  • Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead should not have any citations. Citations should be in the body.
  • It seems there's enough content about his name included in the article to make a separate section about it.
  • under Article 7 of the 1866 Constitution of Romania, Jews had already been excluded from Romanian citizenship; Ravage had therefore been stateless per birth, despite being born in the Kingdom of Romania. These kinds of notes need a source. Source has been provided, although ideally there should be one that says specifically that Ravage was stateless, so as to avoid accusations of synthesizing information/original research.
  • At the age of 14, he saw a relative return to visit Vaslui, who had settled in New York City. The importance of this is not immediately obvious. Did the relative inspire him to go to New York?
  • archival documents from his educational trajectory indicate that during the decade between his immigration and eventual naturalization, he used the surname Ravitch (together with the given name Max)[1][20][29][30][31] — WP:CITEOVERKILL; either remove some sources or use an Template:Efn to attribute it to multiple sources, something like {{efn|Attributed to multiple references:...
  • After meeting Jeanne Louise Suzanne Martin[3] in Saranac Lake, New York, Ravage married the Frenchwoman in 1915. better rephrased as something like "After meeting the Frenchwoman Jeanne Louise Suzanne Martin in Saranac Lake, New York, Ravage married her in 1915." or "Ravage married the Frenchwoman Jeanne Louise Suzanne Martin in 1915, after having met her in Saranac Lake, New York"
  • When I first read the article, several blogs were being used as sources. It seems they have been removed. For future reference, blogs are largely not considered reliable sources to use and should be avoided.
  • that he would adopt (or reclaim) the name Marcus Eli Ravage. I don't see how he can reclaim a surname that he had not used before?
  • with Ravage himself travelling across Europe as foreign correspondent, i.e. to Italy, Austria, Yugoslavia, and Romania, incorrect use of i.e (a synonym for "in other words").
  • Six years later, after learning of her husband's infidelity, Jeanne left with their three children for Ithaca, New York. Ravage's infidelity previously had not been brought up in the article. More context is needed.
  • There is some original research in this article. The section "Visual misrepresentation in digital media" in particular has too much original research. For instance, "The image likely originates from the German-language Wikipedia article on Eli Marcus.[s]" Then the footnote says "Photograph shown in the German Wikipedia article de:Eli Marcus; file metadata lists the source as Literaturkommission für Westfalen and an upload date of 7 September 2007. See: Datei:Eli_Marcus_1905.jpg (accessed 2 Oct 2025)." The Original research in articles is not permitted per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. It is also not necessary to document every single site that has mistakenly used Eli Marcus' portrait in place of Ravage's portrait.
  • Check the FA criteria at WP:FACR — "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate." The article is disproportionately focused on detailing how his work has been misrepresented, in comparison to his life and critical reviews of his work. The detail is too much.
@Jaguarnik Thank you so very much for the detailed and thoughtful feedback, I really appreciate it and find it helpful (especially since the earlier GA nomination had been open for several months now with little or no input). Criticism, even if sometimes harsh, allows for improvement. I have already implemented several points you raised, and I am still working on the remaining ones. Regarding your concern about disproportionate focus on the misrepresentation of his work, I have significantly trimmed the section on the visual misrepresentation by removing the biographical material on the unrelated older man whose image has been misapplied. The question is not wheither the various forms of misrepresentation belong to his reception history - they clearly do - but how much weight they should receive. In the current version - not counting the Works list - the section on the Nazi-era distortion accounts for roughly 20% of the article, plus around 5% from the now-reduced section about the newer visual misrepresentations. The remaining and much larger part already deals with Ravage himself: His biography, identity, recognition, and his actual reception/impact/legacy (namely the parts about his autobiography and about the original satirical intent of the 1928 Century essays). If this still is disproportionate, my next steps could likely be to expand the biographical and critical-reception section (namely with his other impactful books and articles) and if needed, trim the distortion sections further, but I would prefer to move some parts into a separate article on the "Welt-Dienst" (also translating material from the according German Wikipedia article [12]).Tartigradesinspace (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I will try to review the article some more if I have the free time.Jaguarnik (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • bartender (saloon factotum), I don't quite understand what saloon factotum means here.
  • After spending most of World War II in the United States, M. E. Ravage returned to France and ultimately settled in Grasse.[3] He died in 1965 at the age of eighty-one after a brief illness. Combine these sentences into one paragraph.
  • In comparison, the similarly titled autobiographical work The Making of an American... Ravage's book, by contrast, remove "In comparison".
  • Starting from his introduction to the original 1917 edition, Ravage confronted growing hostility towards immigration directly and (to use Robert E. Park's words) "began to write back". In my opinion, the sentence could simply end after "directly".
  • He juxtaposed this open promise with the exklusionary ethos of mono-ethnic nationalism, which he had witnessed first-hand, as a Romanian Jew, in Europe at the turn of the century. exclusionary, remove "open", remove "first-hand" as witnessing something already implies first-hand account. I would rephrase the end of the sentence as "which, as a Romanian Jew, he had witnessed at the turn of the century".
  • The "rocky road", as he envisioned it, toward realizing the democratic potential in the immigrant experience, sought to avoid both the pressures of forced assimilation and the risks of ethnic enclave formation within metropolitan settings...In his correspondence with Hamlin Garland dated 30 November (year unknown, cited in the #Works section of this article) The note is bad. The correspondence with Garland should be cited directly, or even better, a secondary source that analyses the correspondence of Garland and Ravage.
  • by exaggerating and pushing it to absurd extremes.[62][63][5][8][64] again, attribute to multiple sources per the comment above. Also, are all these sources necessary? One of them is about racism in Australia; I haven't read it, but it seems unlikely that such a source would go into depth on Ravage.
  • Tellingly, the Century had introduced him to its readers in 1917 with the remark: Remove "tellingly", it is not really a neutral word.
  • Stripped out of context, the ironic reversals can be misrepresented to endorse and affirm the very biases they were meant to critique (for example, by overdrawing Paul the Apostle as a covert agent of a Jewish influence), ignoring the fact that these essays also contain explicit rejections of common antisemitic conspiracy theories. The footnotes here are again bad. They should have interpretation from secondary sources of Ravage's essay, but they instead have your interpretation of Ravage's writing.
  • In the same year, the far‑right Montreal weekly Le Patriote – whose masthead featured both a swastika and a Christian cross – published distorted Ravage quotations directly referencing the Welt‑Dienst network as source, demonstrating its early transnational reach. I do feel like this would be better with a secondary source rather than citing Le Patriote directly.
  • General problem throughout the article that primary sources are cited to make a point, rather than secondary sources that would analyse Ravage/his work/distortion of his work.
  • Those unauthorized editions of Ravage's essays were part of broader propaganda efforts[108][109][110][111] and are now cited in scholarship as examples of ideological misuse.[64][112][96][95][113] Again please use "attributed to multiple sources".
  • Parallel antisemitic reframings of Jewish authorship[w] The footnote is unnecessary.

Unfortunately I can't review the sources as I don't know German; hopefully a different reviewer can assess the sources. Jaguarnik (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

George F. Durand

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent Victorian architects in southern Ontario. Durand came from a family of builders in London, Ontario, and his short life he was celebrated for his work. Although little about Durand the person has been written since his death, his works have been extensively discussed and been recognized under the Ontario Heritage Act and as National Historic Sites of Canada. This article represents a comprehensive overview, introducing Durand and giving a basic introduction to his works (and hey, pretty pictures!). I'd like to thank Whonting for the detailed GA review, which I think helped tremendously.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image review passed ―Howard • 🌽33 12:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support by A.Cython

[edit]

An interesting biography about a Canadian architect. Overall, the article is well-written and sourced. I only have some minor comments.

Hi A.Cython, and thank you for the review. I have responded above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I don't know if I'll do a full review or not, but for now I just want to note that the image gallery in the Selected works section should not be using hover for the captions per MOS:NOHOVER. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1986 New York Mets season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...the 1986 Mets, who dominated all year and had to play two extremely dramatic series to win what would prove to be their only title from those players. I remember it well, since I was at the division clinching (and on the field afterwards) and five of the seven postseason games at Shea (not including the famous Game 6 of the World Series) although I was at Game 7. Hard to believe it's been 40 years. Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander

[edit]
  • Puffery? "... in large part due to Jeff Pearlman's 2004 bestseller, The Bad Guys Won." Not sure the word "bestseller" here is helpful or encyclopedic.
No, the source specifically says "bestseller". It helps establish that the views about the Mets were widely disseminated in the baseball world in a way than substituting "book" fails to establish.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous? "[In the 1987 season] Just like in 1985, the Mets finished second, three games behind the Cardinals." I'm guessing that the Mets finished 2nd in 1985 and 1987; but were they "3 games behind the Cardinals" in both years? That would be quite the coincidence.
They finished three games behind the Cardinals in both years.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define inline "... the Mets had reduced their magic number to 2 ..." The wikilink is nice, but can the article go a step further and help readers understand it without clicking? Maybe a definition in parenthesis?
Done, although there is always a tension in baseball articles between using baseball language and explaining for the lay person who probably isn't reading the article anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complex sentence: "At the 1986 MLB All-Star Game in Houston, with New York 13 1⁄2 games ahead, there were five Mets including Gooden, who started and lost the game, plus Davey Johnson, one of Whitey Herzog's coaches." That is a tough sentence to parse. It has five commas. I think I figured out what is is trying to say, but people from non-baseball countries may be confused. Some readers may think "who started and lost the game" applies to all five rather than the intended Gooden. Consider simplifying or breaking into 2 sentences.
Done.
  • Slang or idiomatic:
    • "The Mets got on the board for off-the-field controversy, with ... " I'm not sure what "on the board" means. I'm from USA, but I've never heard that phrase before (? except maybe in a game show when a player initially scores points?)
Rewritten.
    • "The 1988 Mets ran away with the NL East,..." Readers with English as their 2nd language may not understand
Fine.
    • "...have become as known for their partying as for ..." That reads more like a tabloid sports column than the Encyclopedia Britannica .
The quotation is "The 1986 Mets are now known almost as much for their late-

night partying as they are for their late-inning magic, thanks to The Bad Guys Won, the 2004 bestseller by Jeff Pearlman. "

  • Box quotes: The article has five box quotes using template {{quote box}}. Per MOS:BOXQUOTE quote boxes are sort of discouraged because "Quote boxes are displayed in a stand-alone manner (similar to images) and are best suited to noteworthy or important quotations. They can create point of view or undue weight issues, because the quotations are not put in context or integrated into the text of the article. Therefore, they must be used with particular care." Preferred alternative is MOS:BLOCKQUOTE (template {{blockquote}}) which is embedded within the body text, and thus the body text can provide context/background/analysis. Quotes in a box on the side of the article might mislead readers.
    • Example: one of the box quotes is by Devin Gordon. Who is he? Why do we care? Is his opinion outlandish? controversial? proven wrong? proven right? Most importantly: Do secondary sources quote that particular quote from Devin Gordon? I.e, is it a famous quote? If not: that means the WP editor selected the quote on their own, with WP:SYNTH connotations. The box quotes are not a show-stopper for FA, but it's not too encyclopedic.
I have removed some of the box quotes, which I don't think are matters from which a lot of POV can arise.
    • Contrast with the inline quotes in the article which are excellent e.g. . Cardinals manager Whitey Herzog told sportswriters, "The Mets are the team to beat. Hell, they think they won the last two years anyway." ... these are within a paragraph, so the reader is provided with who/what/where/when context.
  • Emphasis on documentation, not the players/team? "Their conduct off the field, including the use of drugs and alcohol, has been detailed in books and later reporting." Seems odd to mention "... has been detailed in books and later reporting." Isn't everything about NY sports teams heavily documented? I would expect the encyclopedia's voice to be more direct and focused: "Off the field, the 1986 team was involved in scandals related to drug and alcohol abuse." or similar.
  • Repetition in Lead? The following are a bit redundant:
    • "...a powerful team that compiled one of the best regular season records in MLB history. Nevertheless, the team Cashen built won only the one World Series title, and only made the playoffs one other time. "
    • "The 1986 Mets have been described as one of the best teams in MLB history. Nevertheless, the failure to sustain the success has marred the team's legacy. "
    • "The 1986 Mets are remembered for their championship season, but also for the fact that despite the team's talent, they won only the one title. "
Each of these say "Great team in 1986, then they faded away".
  • Lead: More precise wording? "The 1986 Mets have been described as one of the best teams in MLB history. Nevertheless, the failure to sustain the success has marred the team's legacy." I'm not sure "Nevertheless" is the best word there .. it suggests that it is surprising that the Mets failed to repeat the 1986 success; but isn't that sort of common (a peak followed by a long ho-hum period?) After all, if there are 30 teams, a team can only win the WS once every 30 years. Maybe something like "The 1986 Mets have been described as one of the best teams in MLB history, but their inability to repeat (or sustain) that level of performance has marred the team's legacy."
I've rewritten the lead.
  • A bit contradictory: "The Mets failed to build on this triumph, and a series of mediocre seasons followed, though the Mets took the defending champion Oakland A's to the seventh game of the 1973 World Series." Is the 1973 season included in the "series of mediocre seasons"? Going to the world series doesn't seem mediocre. Consider clarifying.
The Mets won only three games more than they lost in 1973. They were the worst pennant=winner in terms of winning percentage in MLB history although that has since been broken. I'll clarify.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "the team"? The players that were on the team that one year? or any time during the 1980s? Doesn't the roster change every year? "The 1986 Mets are remembered for their championship season, but also for the fact that despite the team's talent, they won only the one title. Their conduct off the field, including the use of drugs and alcohol, has been detailed in books and later reporting." The paragraph begins with the players of a single year, then segues into the several years of the franchise (with an evolving roster). On the other hand, I cannot think of a way to improve it. In some places in the article "the team" means the 1986 team; and in other places "the team" means the Mets in general, from say 1980 to 1995. I'm not sure what my point is here :-)
I think "the team" in this context means the core of the championship team. The books, I think, would run this from 1983 or 1984, by which time most of the major pieces were in place, to 1990, at which point Davey Johnson was fired, or 1991, when Frank Cashen left.
  • I ran the Earwig copyright vio tool: all results are green/okay.
  • I like the colors used in the tables in the "Standings and game logs" section ... I gather blue & orange are the team colors? Nice touch. Is that a thing in WP sports articles?
They are the team colors. Yes, most similar articles I think have this or the analogue for the team at issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text: Missing for image with caption "The acquisition of Keith Hernandez was a key ingredient in building the 1986 Mets."
All done or at least explained, Noleander Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Looking pretty good. Leaning support. I'll make a second pass in the next couple of days. If 16 June passes and I've not posted, please remind me. Noleander (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass
  • No need for year? "During the 1986 Major League Baseball (MLB) season, the New York Mets won the National League East (NL East), the 1986 National League Championship Series (NLCS) and the 1986 World Series,..." could eliminate two repeated "1986"s as in "During the 1986 Major League Baseball (MLB) season, the New York Mets won the National League East (NL East), the National League Championship Series (NLCS) and the World Series,..." Note that the first feat "National League East" does not have year in current version, so why not omit from the other two?
  • Better word available? "The Mets bettered what was already a strong lineup by ..."
  • Can wording be tweaked to avoid awkward double "any" here: "... the Mets might not have signed any player anyway ...". In same sentence: "... but that their rivals refrained helped New York. is tricky to parse.
  • I'm getting a spelling error indication on "...had an onfield brawl ..." Google says "on-field" is better.
  • Confusing fact in 1986_New_York_Mets_season#Farm_system - the following phrase is at the bottom of that section: "LEAGUE CHAMPIONS: Columbia" I'm not sure what to make of it ... I suppose it is saying that the Columbia team in the table above placed 1st in their league in 1986. Maybe add a couple of words to it.
Thank you. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Noleander

[edit]
  • I examined the Commons page of all four images and the one MPG: all had valid licenses and/or free-to-use explanations
  • Alt text: missing from image with caption "Mookie Wilson's two-run at bat won Game 6."
Not a bar to FA status, provided no better images are available (perhaps for different players?) I did a quick search in Commons and did not find anything better (e.g. 285 × 421 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Darryl_Strawberry_1986.jpg )
Noleander. I did not find any better images. All individual images of the players are basically from the same set. I think we're up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

[edit]
  • I'd suggest adding alt text to the infobox image
  • "The Mets' 25th season in the National League, they improved from a 98–64 record in 1985" is a little clunky. Maybe change it to something like "Playing their 25th season" or "In their 25th season"?
  • "The team briefly contented in the second half of the strike-marred" -- I assume "contented" is supposed to be "contended"?
  • [[Season_(sports)#Off-season|offseason]] doesn't need an underscore
  • "...with Gooden pitching poorly in a no decision.." has a double period
  • "Ahead by 91⁄2 games at month's end, [56] The Mets went..." -- Did you lose some info before the ref? It seems to just cutoff since there is a space between the comma and ref.
  • "The remaining brawl on the Mets' fight card occurred at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium" -- Maybe instead of "fight card" use something like "The final on-field altercation of the season"
  • "The night after the All-Star break concluded, still in Houston, the Mets defeated Nolan Ryan and the Astros, 13–2, then several Mets went out to a local nightclub and there was an altercation with the Houston police, and four Mets were arrested." -- Split this into 2 sentences. Maybe after 13-2.
  • "The Mets finished second the next two years. but by then few 1986 Mets remained" -- Should be a comma before but instead of a period unless you want to convert it into two sentences.
  • "New York City threw a parade for the Mets the day after Game 7, two million fans attended" -- Change the comma to a semicolon or rewrite to something like "...the day after Game 7, which two million fans attended"

Mostly just minor things. The article seems to be in pretty good shape in terms of prose. -- ZooBlazer 01:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've gotten to everything. Thank you for the review. Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Happy to support -- ZooBlazer 16:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven articles in this series: the men's, women's, pairs', ice dance, and team events; plus the qualification article, and this one. It was promoted to GA in February. The women's and team articles have already been promoted to FA, the ice dance article is on its way there now, and the qualification article is currently at FLC. Pinging User:Rhain who did the GA review for this one. This article covers the skating events overall, and as such, includes some of the same prose that was used at the women's and team event articles regarding the Kamila Valieva scandal. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguarnik

[edit]

Hello, I don't know much about figure skating, so my review is just focused on the prose. Hopefully I can be of some help.

  • "After nearly two years of litigation, Valieva's scores were stricken," - this seems like incorrect use of stricken ("suffering severely from the effects of something unpleasant", according to Cambridge Dictionary). I'm not certain either that litigation is used correctly here, unless they took her to a court of law?
  • It should probably be "struck". And yes, they went to court.
  • "and the newly tabulated results awarded the gold medals to the team from the United States." a nitpick, but results can't award anything. The prose says that the ISU awarded gold to the US. Also, this could be shortened to "awarded gold to the US", since by the context it's evident that the US received gold for the team event, no?
  • Reworded.
  • "Valieva's results from the 2022 Winter Olympics were ultimately vacated." - is vacated used in this context? I only found vacated victory, which doesn't fit in this context. The official announcement from the Olympics says "Her results have been disqualified", maybe disqualified would fit better here?
  • That is about a legal decision though. Do sport results fall under legal decisions? I don't know enough about it to say, but it sounds odd.
  • They spent two years in court over the matter.
  • "On 30 January 2024, the ISU, among other actions, subtracted Valieva's points" - what other actions?
  • They cancelled her scores from three events (the 2022 European Championships, the Olympic team event, and the Olympic women's event; they reallocated the medals from the European Championships, as she had originally won the gold medal there; plus a final determination of the Olympic team medals. I'm not sure they were actually reallocated, because they had never been originally awarded.
  • "without changing any other scores, and re-allocated the medals" - spelled just as "reallocate", according to Cambridge
  • I think my spellcheck hates me. Fixed.
  • The ROC flag next to Kolyada and Semenenko's name links to Russia, even though elsewhere athletes with the ROC flag are labelled not under Russia but "Russian Olympic Committee".
  • I could not figure out how to display the flag without the "ROC" after it, so I just deleted it.
  • "The American and Japanese teams finally received their medals" - again a nitpick, but "finally" here does not sound impersonal, I feel it should be removed.
  • The team article goes into some detail about the detrimental effects that two-year delay caused, making "finally" appropriate in that context, but since is just the summary article and doesn't include that, I've removed it from here.

No other comments for now.Jaguarnik (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaguarnik: I apologize; I was in the middle of addressing your feedback yesterday when I got yanked away. I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything I missed, or if you have additional feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments were addressed, yes. The article looks good otherwise; once other issues brought up by other users are addressed, I would Support for prose. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

Figure skating is a long way from my usual patch, so these are a non-specialist's comments on prose, internal consistency, and the MoS, plus some incidental source spot-checks.

  • In the Background section, could Under a ban imposed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in December 2019 be checked against its citation? The Dunbar AP piece reports a CAS ruling of 17 December 2020, which halved on appeal the four-year ban WADA had imposed in December 2019, and the Reuters citation elsewhere in the article agrees ("halved to two years by a Swiss Court last year", writing in 2021). Should this read December 2020, with the WADA ban and the later CAS ruling presented as the two separate steps they appear to have been?
  • I have rewritten this as Under a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in December 2020...
  • A consistency question on the Russia/ROC designation, which matters more here than in most articles. The lead introduces Shcherbakova as representing the Russian Olympic Committee but Valieva as of Russia; the champions montage caption has Anna Shcherbakova of Russia; the team event qualification table flags the team as RUS where the entries and medal tables use ROC; and the controversy section has strip Russia of their medals. Could one convention be applied for all 2022 references?
  • The qualifications table uses the ROC flag and designation. I am really tired of placating Russian word games with regards to their athletes. Here they're the Russian Olympic Committee; in PyeongChang, they were Olympic Athletes from Russia; in Milan, they were Individual Neutral Athletes (from Russia); in 2021, they were the Figure Skating Federation of Russia. The bottom line is, they're Russians. Saying ...a sample submitted by Kamila Valieva of the Russian Olympic Committee is unnecessarily wordy, especially since reference is made to the ROC two sentences later.
  • Media outlets reported on Wednesday that the issue was a positive test: the bare weekday reads as newspaper idiom carried over from the sources; the date was 9 February per the citations. Giving it would also clarify the sequence with the cleared Valieva to compete on 9 February sentence that follows.
  • Changed to 9 February, which it should have been in the first place.
  • In mid-November, the WADA requested that CAS take up the review: should the year be given? The NBC citation dates it to November 2022, and the sentence sits at a jump forward in the timeline.
  • I don't think so, since we're still in the same year. Additionally, there is reference to In January 2023... shortly thereafter, plainly putting "mid-November" in 2022.
  • Beginning with this season: relative time that will read oddly in future; would Beginning with the 2021–22 season, keeping the link, work?
  • A good suggestion.
  • A question on under suspension from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) since 2015 for its years of serving solely to hide the positive doping results of Russian athletes. The 2015 Newsweek citation supports RUSADA being declared non-compliant that year, but the Dunbar AP piece cited in Background notes that RUSADA's earlier expulsion was lifted in September 2018, before the 2019 non-compliance ruling, which suggests the suspension was not continuous from 2015. None of the three citations I read uses "solely", which is also a strong characterisation in the article's own voice. Could the sentence be recast to the sequence the sources describe, with the characterisation attributed or tempered?
  • I'm not interesting in wading into the tall grass with this, so I just removed the "since 2015".
  • On Witold Bańka wrote that "the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) did not meet a WADA-imposed Nov. 4 deadline to deliver a verdict": the cited NBC piece introduces this as its summary of a tweet ("Banka tweeted that WADA took the Valiyeva case to CAS after..."), so the quoted wording may be NBC's prose rather than Bańka's own. Is the quotation his verbatim wording? If not, would indirect speech, or the wording of the tweet itself, be safer?
  • I can't remember whether I examined the original tweet (which I can't find now), so I have rephrased it slightly: President Witold Bańka wrote that RUSADA did not meet a WADA-imposed deadline to deliver a verdict on Valieva's case.
  • A small comprehensiveness question on Qualification: the prose explains the 144 quota spots, but the infobox gives 148 competitors, and the reconciliation (the additional-athlete quota used by Germany, Italy and Ukraine to complete their teams) lives only in table footnotes. The arithmetic does work; would a sentence in the Qualification section making the mechanism explicit help readers who would otherwise have to derive it?
  • I added the following: Ten nations were cleared to compete in the team event, although three nations had to use "Additional Athlete Quotas" to complete their teams.
  • On 19 February 2021, it was announced that Russian athletes would compete under the name of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) at the 2022 Winter Olympics: the Reuters citation explicitly extends the flag-and-anthem ban to Beijing 2022, but its ROC-acronym announcement is framed for Tokyo ("Russian athletes will compete under the acronym ROC at the Tokyo Olympics this year"). Is there a Beijing-specific source for the name's use at these Games, or should the sentence be reworded to reflect that the announcement concerned Tokyo, with the arrangement carrying over?
  • Slightly rephrased along with a source that specifically includes the 2022 Winter Olympics.
  • The champions montage defines alt text for images 2, 3 and 4 but not for image 1 (Nathan Chen); the image reviewer will likely ask.
  • That's definitely weird; I'm usually good about those. Maybe it somehow got accidentally deleted? Either way, it's been fixed now.

That is everything I have. Happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood any of the above. Metalicat (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metalicat: I appreciate you taking the time to examine my article, and your feedback is definitely thoughtful and insightful. I will take some time today to go through them, and will let you know when I have finished. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaguarnik & User:Metalicat: I have also carried these edits over to the other articles in this series, as they all share some of the same prose. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bgsu98, that all looks good, and your reasoning on "mid-November" is fair.
  • On the RUSADA sentence: the recast reads well, but the three citations attached to it (Newsweek 2015, ESPN 2016, USA Today 2016) all predate RUSADA's September 2018 reinstatement and December 2019 re-suspension, so they cannot verify under suspension from the World Anti-Doping Agency as of February 2022. The BBC piece from December 2019 already cited in Background covers the suspension actually in force at the Games; would swapping that in, or trimming the clause, work?
  • On Russia/ROC, the prose voice is your call and I will not press it.
Once those are settled I am happy to support Metalicat (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Cambridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): MCE89 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th-century Australian author. Ada Cambridge primarily wrote romance fiction and was a massively popular writer in her day. In the decades after her death her work was widely dismissed by literary scholars and critics as formulaic and superficial, but more recently it has attracted greater scholarly interest for its sometimes radical and satirical themes. Many thanks to @Thebiguglyalien for the GA review, and thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to look at the article :) MCE89 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

―Howard • 🌽33 10:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Howardcorn33! Both issues fixed. MCE89 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: I would consider the image review passed but it seems you're still looking for evidence of publication of the family photo prior to 1989. In that case, ping me again if you do indeed find such evidence. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the infobox caption should have the dating of the photo in question, that is, c. 1912. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a clear answer on when the photo was taken — my guess based on her age is that it was likely taken several decades earlier than 1912 (this photograph was verifiably taken sometime between 1913 and 1917 for comparison), but the 1912 newspaper article was the earliest evidence of publication I could find. MCE89 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the caption is simply "Ada Cambridge" then it's redundant info as the top of the infobox already says that, so you can just omit the caption if you prefer that.
In any case, I consider the image review passed. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]
  • She wrote around 25 novels, two memoirs, and five volumes of hymns and poetry Per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures"
    Fixed. --MCE
  • middle-class family in Wiggenhall St Germans, Norfolk I would add the country (I'm not sure if UK or England is correct).
    Done, went with England. --MCE
  • Around 1845 or 1846 Is there some reason to believe it's not exactly one of those two years, in which case "In 1845 or 1846" seems better.
    One source says "around 1845–46" and the other just says "when she was still a baby", so I think stating that it was in 1845 or 1846 would be going a bit further than the sources allow. --MCE
  • at least two of Cambridge's siblings died within a few months I'm not sure what the MOS has to say about this, but when talking about a person's family, I tend to shift to using their first name to avoid ambiguity, so "... two of Ada's siblings ...". Likewise for While Cambridge's parents in the next paragraph.
    Done. --MCE
  • largely poorly educated that's an awkward phrase.
    Changed to "the majority of whom were poorly educated". --MCE
  • she received a limited education ... Despite her limited education rephrase to avoid repetition.
    Done. --MCE
  • took an interest ... encouraged her interest avoid repetition
    Done. --MCE
  • She became a district visitor—women in the church Better would be "a woman in the church ..." to avoid the abrupt switch from singular to plural.
    Good point, done. --MCE
  • She published her first volume of hymns I'd drop the "of hymns" here; it's obvious from the context.
    Done. --MCE
  • followed this with a second volume drop "a second volume"
    Done. --MCE
  • She appeared in biographical dictionaries of hymn writers that makes it sound like the appearing happened at the same time as the publishing. Perhaps "She has appeared ... where she is described as ..."?
    Specified that she'd begun to appear in biographies of hymn writers by the late 1860s. --MCE
  • Her works were included in several major hymnals.[17] Same comment about tense. I think you want "have been included"? Not sure about that, but try it.
    Yep that works, done. --MCE
  • You use kilometers in some places and miles in others. Pick one and be consistent. I'm not sure if the MOS strictly requires it, but you can use {{convert}} to get both.
    Converted the miles to kilometres. --MCE
  • her four-year-old son died of scarlet fever This is Arthur Stewart, right? Best to refer to them by name.
    Specified. --MCE
  • George's stipend was reduced from £300 to £250 in 1879 Do we know why?
    Added that this was due to a widespread economic depression. --MCE
  • You should use {{inflation}} to convert all these various monetary amounts to current day.
    Done. --MCE
  • Ada had become too frail to write this is kind of an abrupt way to start a paragraph. Perhaps tie it back to the previous events with "By this time, Ada had become ..."?
    Added. --MCE
  • In 1919 she offered a volume of short stories to the publisher Angus & Robertson since you've previous said she was too frail to write, presumably this was some previously written volume which had never been published? Are the details known?
    Added that some of them were versions of serials that she had previously published in newspapers. --MCE
  • She published her last essay, "Nightfall", in 1922 Same issue here. Was Nightfall written despite her frailty, or had it been written earlier? And likewise with the Anzac Day poem?
    The sources aren't entirely clear, but I've qualified the first sentence of the paragraph as "become too frail to write substantial new works", which I think matches the intent of the source a little better. --MCE
  • maintained her positive reputation into the 1930s I'd add "after her death, maintained ...". This can reasonably sussed out from the context, but it's better to make it more obvious, I think.
    Agreed, done. --MCE
  • Writing for an audience largely composed of women This is a little awkward. Having previously covered what happened after she died, now she's back to writing?
    Rephrased to hopefully smooth this over a little. --MCE
  • Her biographers Margaret Bradstock and Louise Wakeling Bradstock is mentioned in a fair number of wikipedia articles, consider making that a redlink and/or adding her to WP:WOMRED
    Good idea, redlinked. --MCE

Overall, this is well written and provided a fun and interesting read. Most of my comments above are just nits. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review RoySmith! I've responded to all of your comments above, but just let me know if there's anything I've missed or that could be improved. MCE89 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on WP:FACR 1a (prose is engaging and of a professional standard) as well as 2a (lead) and 2b (appropriate structure). RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

A pleasure to read, and an author I knew nothing about. Australian literature is well outside my patch, so these are a non-specialist's comments confined to prose, the MoS, and the article's internal consistency.

  • The most substantive point: Hugh and Kenneth are both introduced as the fourth child. Coleraine has Ada gave birth to her fourth child, Hugh Cambridge, on 14 August of the following year, and the next subsection has On 3 January 1880 Ada gave birth to her fourth child, a son named Kenneth Stuart. By the article's own sequence (Arthur, Edith, Vera, Hugh, Kenneth) the 1880 birth should read her fifth child, which also squares with the infobox's five.
    Oops, yes, that should say fifth. Fixed. --MCE
  • Related to RoySmith's query about naming the son who died of scarlet fever: when you add the name, the dates may need a second look. The article has him born in March 1871 and dying about two weeks before Vera's birth on 26 April 1876, which would make him five, just past his birthday, rather than her four-year-old son. Does Tate give "four", or does one of the dates need rechecking?
    Good catch — I think Tate must be wrong, as she says that he was born in March and died on 10 April four weeks before his fifth birthday, which obviously can't be the case. My other source says he was born in May so I've just gone with that. --MCE
  • The bibliography lists A Black Sheep (1889) and A Marked Man (1890) as separate novels, but the body says the latter was serialised under the title A Black Sheep, so one work appears twice. More generally, could you note what dating convention the list follows? A Little Minx is dated 1885 (its serial year) yet the body counts it among six books published from Williamstown in the mid-1890s, while My Guardian is dated 1878 (its book year) though serialised in 1876. A short headnote, or consistent use of book dates with the duplicate removed, would settle it.
    This is a bit of a tricky one because Cambridge wrote lots of books that were to varying extents based on her previous serials, so all of the sources end up giving a slightly different number for the total number of books that she wrote. I've added a note that the bibliography is based on what was compiled by Bielby & Hadgraft and changed some of the dates to match that list. --MCE
  • Three scholars are quoted by bare surname before (or without) being introduced. Tate regards Materfamilias as one of Cambridge's best works comes two sections before Her biographer Audrey Tate; themes that Roe describes as "quasi-feminist" precedes the Legacy introduction of Jill Roe; and Barton is never given a first name or descriptor in the body at all. Could each get an introduction at first mention?
    Fixed. --MCE
  • A small lead-versus-body question: the lead has resided in a series of rural parishes until 1893, but Sandhurst is described as a town of 50,000 that was one of the colony's major centres and Beechworth as a large goldfields town. Would a series of parishes in country Victoria or similar fit the body better?
    Good call, that's much better. Changed to "parishes in country Victoria". --MCE


Please ping me once you're done. Metalicat (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Metalicat, appreciate the review! I've responded to your comments above, let me know what you think of those changes. MCE89 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s all my points addressed. Support on prose, MoS and consistency. Metalicat (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Biography (Early life)
  • "During the 1850s the family moved to the town of Downham Market" → "During the 1850s, the family moved to Downham Market"
    Done. --MCE
  • "a missionary college that had been established to train men to join the clergy in Britain's colonies" → "a missionary college established to train men to join the clergy in Britain's colonies"
    Done. --MCE
  • We could link to boarding school and to Rector (ecclesiastical).
    Linked both. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biography (Life in Australia)
  • We could link "standard of life" to Standard of living, and to stipend.
    Done the second, not sure about the first. --MCE
  • Isn't it the "Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria" or is Botanical an alternative?
    You're right, fixed. --MCE
  • and the new Public Library.
    • Do we need "new" here or could it be dropped or rephrased?
      Changed to "newly-constructed". --MCE
  • "In February 1871, Ada published" → "In February 1871 Ada published" (since we consistently drop the comma)
    Done. --MCE
  • "the first of her five children, Arthur Stuart" → "the first of their five children, Arthur Stuart"
    Done. --MCE
  • "St. John's Anglican Church in Ballan" → "St John's Anglican Church in Ballan"
    Done. --MCE
  • "She gave birth to a daughter named Vera Lyon two weeks later on 26 April." → "She gave birth two weeks later, on 26 April, to a daughter named Vera Lyon."
    Done. --MCE
  • The parish that George was now responsible for spanned more than 160 kilometres, forcing him to spend much of his time separated from Ada as he conducted his ministry in the remote parts of the district.
    • Could this sentence be trimmed, if possible?
      Yep, trimmed. --MCE

I have read till the end of the Yackandandah and Ballan sub-section. That's all from me for today. An interesting read so far. MSincccc (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biography (Sandhurst and Beechworth)
  • "The strain this placed on George's clergy stipend forced Ada to increase the pace of her writing." → "The strain this placed on George's stipend forced Ada to increase the pace of her writing."
    Done. --MCE
  • "on 14 August of the following year." → "on 14 August the following year."
    Done. --MCE
  • "based on the serial that she had published two years earlier." → "based on the serial she had published two years earlier."
    Done. --MCE
  • "They attempted to raise cattle on their land before abandoning the plan and instead leasing the land to a corn farmer." → "They attempted to raise cattle on their land before abandoning the plan and leasing it to a corn farmer."
    Done. --MCE
  • "She suffered a breakdown soon after and became housebound; she eventually departed for a retreat" → "She suffered a breakdown soon after, became housebound, and eventually departed for a retreat"
    Done. --MCE
  • "between July and November of that year." → "between July and November that year."
    Done. --MCE
  • "The following year Ada published one of her most popular works, The Three Miss Kings, as a serial" → "The following year Ada published one of her most popular works, The Three Miss Kings, as a serial"

MSincccc (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biography (Williamstown)
  • "particularly due to their sons' expensive school fees." → "particularly because of their sons' expensive school fees."
    Done. --MCE
  • "Three of these were based on serials that she had previously published in newspapers." → "Three of these were based on serials she had previously published in newspapers."
    Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biography (Later life and death)
  • whether Ada accompanied him to Tasmania is unknown.
    • Drop "to Tasmania" for flow?
      Good idea, dropped. --MCE
  • We could link to reminiscence.
    Yep, linked. --MCE
  • "some of which were adapted from her previously published work" → "some of which were adapted from her previously published works"
    Done. --MCE
  • "By this time while Ada had become too frail" → "By this time Ada had become too frail"
    Fixed. --MCE
  • "remained concerned about her finances and pursued the republication of her other works in her final years." → "remained concerned about her finances and pursued republication of her other works in her final years."
    Done. --MCE
  • "She wrote to Robertson in 1923 that she hoped to leave some money for her daughter, who was also struggling financially." → "She wrote to Robertson in 1923 hoping to leave some money for her daughter, who was also struggling financially."
    Rephrased slightly differently. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Writing (Fiction)
  • We could link to Ethical dilemma.
    Linked. --MCE
  • "including the reduced emphasis placed on one's manners" → "including reduced emphasis on one's manners"
    Done. --MCE
  • "contains an assortment of both religious and secular poems" → "contains a mix of religious and secular poems"
    Done. --MCE
  • "The poems criticise the ways in which social structures" → "The poems criticise how social structures"
    Done. --MCE
  • "expects that she may not survive" → "expected that she might not survive"
    Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy
  • "Cambridge was one of the few" → "She was one of the few"
    Done. --MCE
  • Link "doyen" and "Anglophile"?
    Added a wiktionary link for doyen and a link for Anglophile. --MCE
  • "One of the catalysts for this re-evaluation of Cambridge's writing" → "One of the catalysts for this re-evaluation of her writing"
    Done. --MCE
  • "Cambridge was one of the few Australian writers of her era to depict emotional and romantic relationships, and her works were particularly widely-read by women." → "Cambridge was one of the few Australian writers of her era to depict emotional and romantic relationships, and her works were particularly widely read by women."
    Fixed. --MCE
  • "In the 1970s a resurgence of interest in women's writing" → "In the 1970s, a resurgence of interest in women's writing"
    Done. --MCE
  • "This shift in her reputation has been attributed to the emergence of a nationalist Australian literary genre beginning in the 1890s" → "This shift in her reputation has been attributed to the emergence of a nationalist Australian literary genre that began in the 1890s"
    On second thoughts I've dropped "begin" completely. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lead
  • By 1893 when the family moved to Williamstown in Melbourne,
    • A comma after "1893"?
      Added. --MCE
  • She wrote around 25 novels, 2 memoirs, and 5 volumes of hymns and poetry during her lifetime.
    • MOS:SPELLNUM says Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
      I changed these all to digits based on a comment above regarding WP:NUMNOTES, which says that Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if some of the numbers would (or could) normally be written differently. Happy to spell all three of them out if you think that would read better though. --MCE
  • "which placed it at odds with" → "placing it at odds"
    Done. --MCE
  • where she and her husband resided in a series of parishes in country Victoria until 1893.
    • How about "lived" in place of "resided"?
      Done. --MCE
  • "had begun to publish" → "had begun publishing"
    Done. --MCE
Bottom line

Dam

[edit]
Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about dams, important civil engineering structures that many of us depend on every day for our drinking water or electricity. The size is about 9,400 words – 5% larger than the 9,000 goal of WP:SIZERULE – but perhaps warranted since it is a Level 3 Vital Article. Thanks to Pokelego999 for the Good Article review, RoySmith and MSincccc for Peer reviews, ARandomName123 and Jack Frost for help at WP:RX, Anne drew for the Veracity citation management tool, and WikiMedia employee RAdimer-WMF for help obtaining resources. Noleander (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Etymology
  • The English word dam is found in Middle English, and traces back to the word dam in the Germanic languages Middle Low German, Middle Dutch, and Old Norse.

MSincccc (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Society and culture

"led to international conflicts over sharing transnational rivers"

  • Some analysts have predicted that water supply may be used as a weapon in future conflicts.
    • "Supplies" in place of "supply"?
  • In contrast to these conflicts, Itaipu Dam (1984) on the border of Brazil and Paraguay is an example of international cooperation.
    • Could we move this to the main text for flow?
  • Most of these dams are on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, which flow downstream into neighboring nations, Syria and Iraq.
    • A suggestion.
  • "The regulations of most nations typically do not specify" →

"The regulations of most nations do not typically specify"

MSincccc (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did all the above except (a) did not add comma here: "neighboring nations,"; (b) did not change "Britain's RAF" → "the RAF" because readers will want to know what country did the bombing (without clicking on the link) and there are several RAFs. Regarding "Were all ~1,600 fatalities civilians?" sources say about 1,600 civilians killed (sources do not say if any military personnel were killed, but the context suggests it was zero or - at most - a few). Noleander (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dam failure
  • A large number of dams failed during the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly embankment dams.
    • Would "especially embankment dams" read a little more naturally than "particularly embankment dams"?
  • The earliest known dam failure occurred around 2600 BCE, when the Sadd el-Kafara dam in Egypt failed around the time it was completed, due to a flood that severely damaged the dam structure.
    • Two uses of "around" in the same sentence?
  • The movement caused the dam to crack, and the resultant flood killed several hundred people downstream.
    • "resulting flood" instead of "resultant flood"?
  • "Designers failed to fully understand the geology of the valley, and built the dam in 1959—then the tallest dam in the world at 267 m." →

"Designers failed to fully understand the geology of the valley and built the dam in 1959—then the tallest dam in the world at 267 m."

    • It removes the comma before "and".
  • The resulting flood killed over 2,000 people downstream.
    • "more than 2,000 people" in place of "over 2,000 people" for consistency with MOS:NUMERAL wording preferences?
  • Potential factors included: weak foundation soil that subsided, irregular settling of the dam structure, fault lines under the dam, a nearby oil field that was depleted of oil then later re-pressurized, and the act of emptying and filling the reservoir.
    • Could we insert a comma after "depleted of oil" to make the sequence easier to follow?

MSincccc (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Implemented all of the above except: kept "particularly" since it seems more professional than "especially". Noleander (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earliest known dam failure occurred around 2600 BCE, when the Sadd el-Kafara dam in Egypt failed about the time it was completed, due to a flood that severely damaged the dam structure.
    • Doesn't "earliest known damn failure...failed" feel a bit repetitive? How about The earliest known dam failure occurred around 2600 BCE, when Egypt's Sadd el-Kafara collapsed near completion during a severe flood or similar? MSincccc (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Noleander (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Operation
  • "After a dam is completed and becomes operational" → "After a dam begins operations"
  • "to ensure that it continues to fulfill its purposes" → "to ensure it continues to fulfill its purposes"
  • "surveilling the dam" → "monitoring the dam"
  • "stresses that act on the dam" → "stresses acting on the dam"
  • "These stresses have the potential to damage a dam by…" → "These stresses can damage a dam by…"
  • "decreasing the amount of water that the reservoir can hold" → "reducing the amount of water the reservoir can hold"
  • "is correspondingly reduced" → "is reduced accordingly"
  • "Sediment enters a reservoir in the form of soil suspended in river water" → "Sediment enters a reservoir as soil suspended in river water"
  • "the water velocity slows down" → "water velocity decreases"
  • "sediment settles to the bottom" → "sediment settles at the bottom"
  • "Sediment can also enter a reservoir from wind-blown soil" → "Sediment can also enter from wind-blown soil"
  • "construction work near the water" → "construction near the water"
  • "Roughly half the sediment of the world's rivers is trapped by dams—about 8 to 16 km³ per year." → "Roughly half of the world's river sediment is trapped by dams—about 8 to 16 km³ per year."
  • "implement strategies to reduce the amount of sediment entering" → "implement strategies to reduce sediment inflow"
  • "Some sedimentation can be reduced by planting vegetation" → "Sedimentation can be reduced by planting vegetation"
  • "if it poses a safety hazard, if the dam no longer fulfills its original purpose" → "if it poses a safety hazard or no longer fulfills its original purpose"
  • "natural water temperatures are restored, and animal habitats are restored" → "natural water temperatures and animal habitats are restored"

MSincccc (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did all of the "Operations" items above except: (a) kept "completed and becomes operational"; (b) kept word "surveilled" because that is a specific, valid technical term within the field of dam operations - seems useful to let readers know that the term is used in the dam industry. (c) "if it poses a safety hazard, if the dam no longer ..." that part of a list of 4 things, and the list already has "or" between the 3rd and 4th items. I realize it is a bit of an awkward sentence, and it can probably be improved ... but putting another "or" between 1st and 2nd item doesn't seem right. I'm open to suggestions. Noleander (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
  • "roller compacted concrete (RCC) which" → "roller compacted concrete (RCC), which"
    • A comma after non-restrictive clause.
  • "and their upstream edge is sealed" → "...upstream edges are sealed"
  • After the design process is complete and the site and structural type have been selected
    • "Are selected" in place of "have been selected"?
  • "to expose bedrock before building the dam." → "to expose bedrock before the dam is built."
  • "to immediately drive on top of it after it is placed" → "to drive on it immediately after placement"
  • "permits use of aggregate" → "permits the use of aggregate"

MSincccc (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Auxiliary structure
  • How about "Power plants" instead of "Power plant" as a sub-section heading?
  • Those factors will determine which turbine style is optimal: Francis turbine, Pelton turbine, or Kaplan turbine.
    • Are there only three major styles that are followed?
  • "run water through a generator" → "run water through a turbine connected to a generator"
  • "severely affect movement and breeding." → "severely affect fish movement and breeding."
  • "which are structures that provide a controlled release" → "which provide a controlled release" (trims minor redundancy)
  • "those factors will determine which turbine style is optimal" → "these factors determine which turbine type is optimal"
  • "leads to a tunnel that discharges downstream." → "leads to a tunnel discharging downstream."
  • "ensuring that the water shoots away from the dam structure, to minimize damage" → "ensuring that water is directed away from the dam structure to minimize damage"

A few comments to proceed. I've enjoyed my reading so far. MSincccc (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Design
  • China did not participate in discussions leading to the treaty, and later built many dams on the river, including Xiaowan Dam and Nuozhadu Dam.
    • Do we need the first comma or could it be dropped?
  • In 2020, Ethiopia built Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile, in spite of opposition from Sudan and Egypt.
    • Could this sentence be moved down so that it appears after the 1995 treaty is discussed?
  • "...for landfill" → "...for fill material"
  • "The dam—and the water it impounds—will exert" → "...exerts immense forces" (maintains present-tense consistency)
  • "Large amount of excavation" → "Large amounts of excavation"
  • "...and the location of construction materials" → "...and construction material sources"
  • "...how much it varies within a year and from year to year." → "...how much it varies within a year and between years."
  • "an embankment dam structure is often the optimal choice" → "an embankment dam is often the best choice"

That's all from me for today. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Thanks for the excellent suggestions. I've implemented all of the above. Regarding the question: " ... Francis turbine, Pelton turbine, or Kaplan turbine. Are there only three major styles that are followed?" The sources indicate that 99.9% of all hydropower turbines use those three styles (or variants thereof). Apparently there are a handful of small dams that use some obscure turbine designs, but the sources do not think they are worth mentioning. Noleander (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • We could delink "Almansa Dam" in the footnote.
My preference is to include links, even if duplicated, in image captions and footnotes. That way, readers can browse thru images or footnotes and fully understand them (via links) without having to hunt thru body text for links. Noleander (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the late 18th century, the process of designing dams began to transform from an empirical practice – based on experience and trial and error – into an engineering discipline rooted in science.
    • How about explicitly naming the engineering discipline? A similar phrase exists in the lead.
The discipline is civil engineering, but that specific field was not defined/established until the late 1700s and early 1800s. Using the term "civil engineering" in that context (dams in 1700s) might mislead readers into thinking that "civil engineering" was well-defined in the 1700s. Better is generic term "engineering" which conveys the science/rigor aspects without suggesting that "civil engineering" was named and defined. Noleander (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I learnt something new today. MSincccc (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dam was still operational in 2026." → "The dam remains operational."
I think that change is discouraged by Wikipedia:As of, which says that articles should not refer to "now" or "present time", since that quickly becomes wrong or out-of-date. Better is to name the current year (when article is written). Noleander (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dams in India were typically earthen dams" → "Dams in India were typically earthen structures" Avoids repetition.
Done. Noleander (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and—as of 2019—only 23%" → "and, as of 2019, only 23%"
Done. Noleander (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Important figures that contributed to this evolution included..." → "Important figures in this evolution included..."
Done. Noleander (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did (or replied to) all of the above. Noleander (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is this the best place for the History section? It currently appears after the sections on uses and environmental and societal impacts.
Best, MSincccc (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The History section was originally near the top, after Etymology section. A Peer Reviewer suggested moving it lower after Types section, because the History section was difficult to understand if the types (Gravity etc) had not yet been defined. So, I moved History after Types and Uses sections, so that History section would be more understandable (for readers that read the article from top to bottom). Noleander (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense—placing it after Types improves readability.
Would an order like Etymology → Types → Uses → History → Environmental and socio-economic impacts work? MSincccc (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Noleander (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Environmental impacts
Done. Noleander (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concrete dams are responsible for putting large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" → "concrete dams release large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (more precise, scientific phrasing)
Changed to "... are responsible for releasing large amounts... ". The word "responsible" is important because the dams themsevles do not release the CO2; the CO2 is released long before the dam is built, when the cement is manufactured, perhaps thousands of km away from the dam. Noleander (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Submerged plants and some riverine fish will die, and perhaps become extinct in that locality." → "...may die and become locally extinct."
    • Or is death inevitable?
Changed to "... locally extinct". The sources suggest that death is inevitable for those fish species that require flowing river water; and for all land-based plants/trees that become submerged (apparently, the sources feel a plant species either lives underwater or on ground, but not both). Noleander (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the dam is operating" → "after the dam begins operation"
Done. Noleander (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if a large number of trees are submerged underwater." → "if large numbers of trees are submerged."
Done. Noleander (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Terrestrial animals that lived in the valley will lose habitat." → "Terrestrial animals in the valley will lose habitat."
Done. Noleander (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done or explained. Noleander (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Types
  • "Dams include rockslide dams, volcanic dams, and beaver dams" → "Dams include rockslide, volcanic, and beaver dams"
  • "which is constructed from compacted natural materials—rock, clay, sand, gravel, and soil—to form a broad, mound-like barrier" → "constructed from compacted natural materials such as rock, clay, sand, gravel, and soil, forming a broad, mound-like barrier"
  • "they are classified as either rockfill or earthfill" → "they are classified as rockfill or earthfill"
  • "A beaver dam is a structure built by beavers across a stream" → "Beaver dams are structures built by beavers across streams"
Lead
  • "arch dams use a curved concrete wall to redirect the force of the water outwards into the surrounding valley walls" → "arch dams use a curved concrete wall to transfer water pressure to the surrounding valley walls"
  • "about 20% of the world's arable land is irrigated by water from reservoirs impounded by dams" → "about 20% of the world’s arable land is irrigated using water from dam reservoirs"
  • "Dam outlets are structures which permit the reservoir to be partially drained" → "Dam outlets allow reservoirs to be partially drained"
  • "The most visible part of a dam project is the barrier that retains water" → "The most visible part of a dam is the barrier that retains water"
Bottom line
  • Noleander Hence, we arrive at the end of a journey, where I don’t see anything beyond minor stylistic tweaks and am left with only awe at the quality of the prose. More on that later, that's all from me. I look forward to your response.

MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Thanks for the compliments. Did all of the above, although in a few of them, I tweaked the suggested wording a tiny bit. Noleander (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All's well then. Happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • Beaver dam not mentioned? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack - You have no idea how much time I spent debating whether to include beaver dams :-) All major sources about dams limit their scope to man-made dams, so – based on WP:PROPORTION – I omitted beaver dams. But it is an easy matter to include. What is your recommendation? Noleander (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have an entire section titled "Rockslide dams", which are also a type of natural dam. When I enter "rockslide dam" in Google Scholar, I get 659 hits. When I enter "beaver dam", I get 59.400 hits. I guess that both can be classified as "natural dams" (term gives 6550 hits). Why not calling the section "Natural dams", and comprehensively covering all sorts of natural dams (beaver dams, rockslide dams, dams of glacial ice, etc.), to meet the comprehensiveness criterion? I understand that engineering books on dams like to omit the beavers, but this article is not just about human-made dams, is it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack - Okay, I'll add it. Like I said, I was on the fence about it, and I was hoping to get some feedback on whether to include it. Thanks for the push. Noleander (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack - Done. I added a new paragraph (based on two new sources) and a new image. They are in the section Dam#Natural_dams. Noleander (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dam are classified by their structural type: embankment, gravity, buttress, and arch. Other forms include composite dams and rockslide dams. – Shouldn't we first classify in "natural" and "human-made"? I don't think that "composite dams" and "rockslide dams" can even be compared.
Done. Changed to "Human-made dams are classified by their structural type: embankment, gravity, buttress, arch, and composite. Natural dams include rockslide dams, volcanic dams, and beaver dams." Noleander (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A typical zone pattern is a clay center – is this the "impervious material" mentioned in the previous paragraph? It is not clear to me how to connect the information provided in both paragraphs.
The first paragraph (that introduced the concept of an impervious layer) includes the sentence "If an impervious layer is included, it may be made of clay, cement, or asphalt." That should help readers when they encounter "A typical zone pattern is a clay center ..." in the next paragraph. Noleander (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cost of concrete is much higher than dirt or rocks – "Dirt" was not mentioned previously. So why do you compare with dirt?
Done. Changed to "The cost of concrete is much higher than earth fill used in embankment dams, so gravity dams are generally more expensive." Noleander (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Done. Noleander (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have a major concern with the structure. I would have expected first-level sections on Environmental impacts and socio-economic impacts. But currently, the environmental impacts are a third-level heading, within "Impact assessment", which is a subheading of "Design". So you are talking about impact assessment before you detail the actual impacts? Aren't the impacts themselves much more relevant for an encyclopedia (which should be broader than just engineering) than the design or assessment procedures?
  • Similar thing with the socio-economic impacts. Instead of a dedicated first-level section on this, you cover some of it in a section "international disputes". The focus is on international disputes rather than the actual issues (water conflict), and the section does not seem to clearly state what precisely the issues are and what causes them. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack - Those are great suggestions. In my first draft, I had those sections at top-level ... but later moved them down to reflect the outline structure that some sources used. Changing those topics back to top-level (with more detail) makes sense. I'll get started on that, and ping you when done. Noleander (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Status update: I'm still working on the improvements to the "Impact" material. Lots of progress so far. Should be done sometime tomorrow. Noleander (talk) Noleander (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack - I made major changes to the Dam article to address the issues you raised above. The changes were:
    1. Created a new top-level section Socio-economic impactss
      • Put all existing socio-economic impact material into the section (so it is no longer buried within the Design section)
      • Add some new socio-economic impact material, including the Akosombo Dam as an example, and impacts to societal traditions and rituals
      • Added a new graphic showing a positive impact: namely, clean hydropower generation growth over time
      • Added a couple of new citations
    2. Created a new top-level section Environmental impacts
      • Put all existing environmental impact material into the section (so it is no longer buried within the Design section)
      • Add some new environmental impact material
      • Improve the introductory paragraph to be more sensible
      • Added a couple of new citations
    3. Water scarcity and international conflicts
      • Generalized the original "international conflicts" section to emphasize water scarcity as a co-equal topic
      • Section is now titled Water scarcity and international conflict
      • Section has a new introductory paragraph that discusses water scarcity in a high-level way, without reference to dams, then segues into how dams relate to water scarcity.
      • Section retains brief discussions of four major dam-related international conflicts between upstream/downstream nations; but this material is at the end of the section, so it does not dominate the section.
    4. Design section
      • This section still contains material defining the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but it is now a single paragraph that only discusses the EIA's role within the design process. All material that listed & discussed the various impacts (environmental, social, etc) was moved into the new top-level sections.
    I believe that addresses the concerns you expressed. Noleander (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Break for editing purposes)
[edit]
  • Environmental concerns not mentioned in lede?
Done. Expanded from "Organized opposition to dam projects emerged in the modern era, including protests in the 1870s against Thirlmere Dam in Britain." to "Organized opposition to dam projects emerged in the modern era, focused on environmental and social impacts such as loss of plant and animal habitat, reduced water and sediment flow, degraded landscape aesthetics, submergence of cultural sites, and forced relocation of human populations." Noleander (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond structural issues, dams also present political challenges caused by water scarcity, population growth, and the impacts of climate change. – I can't follow. Do you want to say that dams can cause or intensify water scarcity? How is population growth related to dams?
I removed the two sentences from the Lead section that were attempting to summarize the Water Scarcity & International Conflicts body-text material: I don't think the Lead has sufficient space to provide proper background or context for that complex material. Trying to shoe-horn in it may lead readers to become confused, which is not a good way to start the article :-) Noleander (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A saddle dam raises the height of a saddle (low point) in the ridge surrounding a reservoir. Saddle dams supplement a primary dam, and are built at the same time. They are only needed if the ridge surrounding the primary dam's reservoir contains a low point which is below the primary dam's water level. The saddle dam will prevent overflow when the reservoir is filled. – There seems to be some repetition and redundancy here. Could be more concise.
Done. Condensed to: "If the ridge surrounding a dam's reservoir contains a saddle (low point) below the planned level of the reservoir, a saddle dam must be built to fill-in the low point." Also, added a new fact from a key source: "Saddle dams should be designed with the same level of detail as the primary dam." since the source suggests some dam projects under-prioritize saddle dams. Noleander (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A dam is a structure that impounds or restricts the flow of water – This definition includes dikes and levees, no? But this article seems to be about "true dams" only, or at least focuses on them? If so, I wonder why you cover cofferdams and diversion dams in detail but not levees; aren't the latter much more common and important? If levees have to be covered, I think there are major omissions also in the history section.
Done. Removed the paragraph on diversion dams. Yes, the intention of the article is to cover only "true dams". Therefore, dykes and levees are excluded. Cofferdams and diversion dams are borderline cases. I removed the diversion dams paragraph. I suggest keeping the cofferdam paragraph because many of the major sources on dams talk extensively about cofferdams, if for no other reason than cofferdams are frequently used during construction of a dam. But, I can remove the cofferdam paragraph if you think it should be removed. Or, I can move that paragraph into the Dam#Construction section. Noleander (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The problem remains that the article definition (the first sentence) does not exclude dikes and levees. So the scope of the article is not clear to the reader. The Wiktionary definition is more precise. Maybe add "placed across a flowing body of water" to the first sentence? I am also wondering if the "Etymology" section could be expanded into a concise "Definition and etymology" section. There, a precise definition could be given or quoted, and this could be contrasted with related structures like dikes and levees, so that the article scope is entirely clear to the reader (it wasn't for me when I read it). Maybe it could also mention that the English word "dam" is also used for the reservoir itself. This would clarify the terminological basics, and I think it would be useful. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this now. Adding formal definition(s) to the Etymology section is a good idea, and I'll do that. To that end, I've posted a query at WP:RX to get the OED definitions; results there usually appear within a day or two. I believe that an attempt to define the word in the lead could backfire, since so many qualifiers and exceptions would be required to make it precise. Better is, as you say, to put the various definitions in the Etymology section (and broaden that section name). The Etymology section immediately follows the lead, so readers don't have to go far. Examples of confusions that may arise trying to define in the lead: some true dams (e.g. most tailings dams) do not block flowing water. And the use of "dam" to mean reservoir/lake is very regional (South Africa, Australia, and portions of UK) ... all that can be explained with proper context in a broadened Etymology section. I'll post another note here when I have updated the article. Noleander (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claude-Louis Navier developed the theory of elasticity in 1826 – It is unclear what the relevance of this theory is in the context of dams.
Done. I removed that sentence. It is relevant to the history of dams, but providing sufficent context would involve adding more (kind of boring) material, with very little benefit to the reader. Noleander (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earliest known dam is Jawa Dam, built around 3000 BCE near Amman, Jordan. This embankment dam was part of an elaborate irrigation system and was 28 m (92 ft) thick[l] and 5.5 m (18 ft) high. – I checked the sources here and I think the claim that the dam was used for irrigation is not supported. The Britannica says it, but that's not a great source. The cited book says it was used as water supply for the town.
Done. Changed from "... irrigation system..." to "... water supply system ..". Noleander (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total number of dams – of any size – in the world in 2019 was estimated at 2.8 million. – Maybe it's worth specifying "human-made dams"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submerged plants and some riverine fish will die, and perhaps become locally extinct – "perhaps become locally extinct" is an understatement. Gezhouba Dam in 1981 mainly caused the extinction (not only locally) of the Chinese paddlefish, for example. Three Gorges Dam was a major contributing factor to the extinction of the Chinese River Dolphin. Such examples could be mentioned.
Done. Added "Around 2010, the Chinese paddlefish became extinct primarily due to construction of Gezhouba Dam, and the Baiji river dolphin became functionally extinct following construction of Three Gorges Dam." Noleander (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Though animal names such as "baiji" are written in lower case in Wikipedia (a practice I don't personally agree with since they are proper names, but it is as it is). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed baiji to lowercase. Noleander (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I think the environment section is very general without examples, when compared to the rest of the article.
... in progress. Researching new sources now. Should be done by 25 June 2026. Noleander (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2005, NASA scientists calculated that the shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the total length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[113] A study published in 2022 in the journal Open Geosciences suggests that the change of reservoir water level affects the gravity field in western Sichuan, which in turn affects the seismicity in that area. – I wonder if we can do without that section. Is there a secondary source stating the relevance of those cited studies for the topic in general?
You may have been looking at a different article when you saw that material; it is not in the dam article. Noleander (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dams provide significant benefits to a community – They not always do, so use "can"? For example, tailing dams do rarely provide benefits to the local community.
Done. Noleander (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hetch Hetchy Dam (US, 1923) completely flooded a scenic valley in Yosemite National Park. – Already mentioned earlier; there must be another good example?
I removed one of the two redundant sentences about Hetch Hetchy (the one in the History section) because that section already has a good example of a dam (Thirlmere) that was opposed due to impact to landscape. I kept the Hetch Hetchy sentence in the "Social impacts" section where the reader will want more examples. Noleander (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • if not saved by an international rescue effort – As the original location is flooded, "saved" is a bit too much and misleading in my opinion. I suggest to write "relocated" instead.
Done. Noleander (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water scarcity is a major global issue affecting countries such as China, South Korea, India, Belgium, South Africa, Algeria, Jordan, and Rwanda – Why single out these particular countries? Are these more affected than others?
Initially, I did not list any countries ... but that made the paragraph too vague. To make it more engaging, I went to the main source (Chellaney) and they singled-out about 12 countries. I put all 12 into the article, but it was too list-ish, so I pruned it down to eight, representing a variety of locations around the globe. The goal is to give the reader a sense of the extent of the issue (all around the globe) as well as the unexpected nature of some places. E.g. Belgium might be surprising to some readers, and help them understand that water scarcity is not solely a desert nation issue. Noleander (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The causes of water scarcity are complex and include population growth, climate change, urbanization, eating habits, rising living standards, and increasing per-capita consumption – You write that eating habits cause water scarcity, and link that to obesity. First, when eating habits cause water scarcity, then car washing, gardening culture, and usage of LLMs cause it too. I don't think it makes any sense to make such a statement here. Also, eating habits that negatively effect water availability are not necessarily linked to obesity. More generally, I think you forgot to mention that the causes of water scarcity may be dams. I would just remove this sentence entirely.
Done. Removed the sentence. Noleander (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some rivers are often dry when reach their delta, including Indus River (Pakistan), Colorado River (US), and Yellow River (China). – Here, again, I checked the source, and I think the statement is inaccurate. The source says "the drying up of the Colorado, Yellow, and Indus river deltas", which does not necessarily mean that the deltas become completely dry. I don't think the Indus delta may be completely dry, although water flow is much reduced.
Done. Changed to "Water withdrawals from some rivers are so extensive that river flows are severely depleted before reaching their delta, including Indus River (Pakistan), Colorado River (US), and Yellow River (China)." Noleander (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the international conflicts need to be shortened to be in proportion with the rest of the article. You still give the international disputes more room than the actual problems caused by the dams.
Done. Trimmed about 30% or 40% of the text. I'm reluctant to trim much more, since the sources seem unanimous in their predictions that water shortages will soon be the source of very major global conflicts in the next century; and dams will play a critical role in these disputes. Noleander (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • and identifying any faults – Is Fault (geology) meant here? If so, wikilink.
Done. Noleander (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Will comment. On first glance (sorry to toot my own trumpet) can there be any mention of the Iron Gate, the earliest surviving or functioning arch dam in the world? Citations in that article, or mentioned by Britannica: "the forerunner of the modern curved gravity dam was built by Byzantine engineers in 550 CE at a site near the present Turkish-Syrian border." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll add a sentence about the Iron Gate dam. It is mentioned in Schnitter's A History of Dams (page 79) which is sufficient. Noleander (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 - Done. Noleander (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Well, been a while since I helped improve Hoover Dam, but I'll take a shot here.
  • "about 20% of the world's arable land is irrigated by water that originated in reservoirs impounded by dams." Yes, but the water doesn't originate there, most of it has flowed downriver some length of distance.
Done. Changed to "... about 20% of the world's arable land is irrigated by water from reservoirs impounded by dams." Noleander (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, you discuss hydroelectricity twice, once saying a bit loosely that it is the dam that generates the electricity, once more clearly that it is electricity within the dam. Can this be compacted to a single reference?
Done. Reduce duplication in Lead by removing one of the sentences that said "some dams generate electricity". Noleander (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of the lead has a topic sentence that dams are often part of a larger project. Yet much of the paragraph is about things that are really for regulating the dam and water flow through it, such as the spillways. Perhaps have less about things that provide function (such as overtopping prevention) that any major dam must have in some form and add something about things that are part of a larger project or which mitigates the harm a dam does, such as fish ladders and perhaps roadways.
Done. Changed that lead paragraph from beginning with confusing "Dams are part of a larger project ... " to begin with more appropriate wording: "The most visible part of a dam project is the barrier that retains water, but most dams contain additional structures that perform important functions."
  • Anything to be said in the lead about dam removal?
Done. Added new sentence to Lead: "A dam may be deliberately removed for various reasons: if it poses a safety hazard, if the dam no longer fulfills its original purpose, to restore fish migration routes, or to improve the health of downstream rivers by improving sediment flow." Noleander (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the valley walls must consist of strong rock." You told us that two paragraphs ago.
Done. Removed the first of those two redundant statements. Improved wording of second instance. Noleander (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest when there are famous examples of each type of dam you discuss that you mention them even if you prefer not to depict them.
Done, I think. I added a sentence to each of the four "dam type" sections (arch, gravity, etc) that lists 3 or 4 notable dams of that type. Let me know if I interpreted your suggestion incorrectly.
Regarding "... you prefer not to depict them. " I would love nothing more than to add more images into the article, even galleries. But I got pushback when I tried that in the bridge FA nomination, so I don't want to take that risk again. Noleander (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see references to people from over 2,000 years ago as "engineers". Was there such a thing then?
Done. Removed that word so it now reads: "An early dam in China – built by Sunshu Ao around 580 BCE – impounded...". I got the occupation "engineer" from the article Sunshu Ao, but it would confuse readers. Noleander (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To evaluate these concerns, developers are required to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that documents the consequences the dam (and its reservoir) will have on communities and the environment" Is this true everywhere?
Done. Changed to "... developers in many countries are required to prepare an ...". Some sources imply that all countries have it, but 100% of countries seems dubious. Noleander (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several articles are linked multiple times often in close proximity. I note Aswan High Dam and Three Gorges Dam.
Done. Noleander (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusually heavy rainfall upstream may cause the reservoir to overflow. " Perhaps "might" for "may". It should be made clearer that this is a situation that is worked against so it doesn't happen.
Done. Changed to "Unusually heavy rainfall upstream might cause the reservoir to overflow, which could lead to significant damage to the dam structure or even total failure. To mitigate that risk, spillways must be large enough to safely transfer the overflow downstream." Noleander (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by means of conveyor belts, buckets" perhaps make clear that household buckets are not meant.
Done. Changed to "The concrete is delivered from the concrete plant to the dam structure by means ... concrete buckets ..." including link to Bucket_(machine_part)#Concrete_bucket. Noleander (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To detect stresses, permanent sensors are placed within and around the dam." Are these the instruments referred to in the section on construction? If so, should consistent terminology be used?
Done. Changed "sensor" to "instrument" so terminology is uniform. Noleander (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very impressive work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks for the suggestions, very helpful. And congrats on the Hoover Dam FA ... I had no idea you were involved in that! Noleander (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Gordon Dam 2001-01-31.jpg You say in the caption that the double curve shape is a recent innovation, but that is sourced to a 1994 source, which makes me wonder how useful the word "recent" is to the reader.
Done. Changed caption to "This arch dam in Tasmania is curved in both the vertical and horizontal directions". Noleander (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dam Usage Pie Chart.svg Is alt text called for here? Similar File:Dam Type Pie Chart.svg and File:Khajoo bridge esfahan (1).jpg
Done. Added alt text for those three images. For the two pie charts: alt text states the names & values of all the slices. Noleander (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Abernethy Bridge Project June 2023 (52956248522), enclosed column.jpg Alt text does not end with a period as do the other alt texts. Also File:Lake Parramatta,New South Wales.jpg
Done. All alt texts now uniformly end with period.Noleander (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Noleander (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp

[edit]
  • Are there any examples of volcanic dams or blast-fill dams?
Blast-fill dams are exceedingly rare, less than ten, all in the former USSR. I mentioned them in the body text because they are so interesting; but naming specific sites might mislead readers into thinking they are more significant than they are. Volcanic dams are more common, so I added a new sentence (with cite): "Volcanic activity about 13,000 years ago created The Barrier, a lava dam in Canada, which impounded Garibaldi Lake." Noleander (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Steelkamp (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and releases it downstream into the river during the dry season" -> "and releases it downstream during the dry season".
Done. Noleander (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and more than 80% of the world's reservoir water storage capacity is used to generate hydropower." -> "and more than 80% of the world's reservoir water storage capacity was used to generate hydropower." Also, can an "as of 2006" be added to this sentence? Otherwise one might assume the "As of 2022" from the start of the sentence applies here as well.
Done. Noleander (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then during the dry season (when it is typically hotter and electricity is needed to run air conditioning systems)" TBH I think that's dependent on the local climate. Many places are warmer in the wet season.
Done. Added words to qualify that situation: " In some climates, hydropower dams can act as an annual ...". Noleander (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the electrical grid needs more power (for example, on a cloudy day) the water can be released to power the dam's generators to create hydroelectricity." -> "When the electrical grid needs more power (for example, on a cloudy day), the water can be released to power the dam's generators to create hydroelectricity."
Done. Noleander (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A pumped-storage capability can also be used in a 24-hour cycle" -> "A pumped-storage capability can be used in a 24-hour cycle".
Done. Noleander (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a polygonal embankment that encloses the tailings on all sides" I'm wondering why the embankments are polygonal, and not curved.
Done. Removed the word "polygonal". That word does not appear in the sources, tho from the images I've seen, most tailings dams are polygonal (probably because it is easier for the earth-moving machinery to dump/compact in a straight line). Noleander (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, tailings dams usually incorporate special protective measures to ensure that materials from the tailings do not contaminate the water supply outside the dam". Can short examples of these protective measures be given?
Done. Added "Protective measures include foundation grouting, liners (clay or membrane), drainage blankets, and under-drains." Noleander (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Global statistics section, I'm wondering how the number of reservoirs can be so much larger than the number of dams.
Unfortunately, the statistics for dams and reservoirs are not uniform or consistent across the sources, so the article cannot present a solid set of uniform data. Regarding the specific question you ask: the explanation is in the adjacent citation #155 "Lehner 2011, pp. 494, 496–497. Value 16.7 million includes all "impoundments" larger than 0.01 hectares. The count of reservoirs includes those created by all types of barriers, not all of which are dams." I'm not entirely satisfied with that explanation; apparently the reservoir count includes tiny dirt berms created by farmers and ranchers - yet those are not counted as "dams". But the sources do not clearly explain this. Noleander (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concrete dams are responsible for the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which contribute to climate change." May clarify that "the construction of concrete dams is responsible for the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which contribute to climate change."
Done. Noleander (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put into the atmosphere" -> "emitted".
Done. Noleander (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the earliest dams built by the Romans was also their tallest: Subiaco Dam. It was built around 60 CE and was 40 m (130 ft) tall and 13.5 m (44 ft) thick." -> "One of the earliest dams built by the Romans was also their tallest; Subiaco Dam was built around 60 CE and was 40 m (130 ft) tall and 13.5 m (44 ft) thick."
Done. But kept colon rather than semicolon. Noleander (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including Proserpina Dam, which impounded 6 million m3 of water. The dam was still operational in 2026." -> "including Proserpina Dam, which impounded 6 million m3 of water and is still operational as of 2026."
Done. But worded "was still operational" to make it timeless. Noleander (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "16 km (9.9 mi)" -> "16 km (10 mi)"
Done. Noleander (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Noleander (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • For interlanguage links, Template:Interlanguage link should be used, which displays a red link to the English Wikipedia page, and a link in brackets for the interlanguage link.
Done. Noleander (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cancel any benefits" How about "outweight any benefits".
Done. Noleander (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have some more comments later. Steelkamp (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Thanks for the excellent suggestions. I implemented all of them except "In the Global statistics section ..." for which I provided an explanation. Noleander (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "experienced an annual flood cycle that deposited nutrient-rich soil in the valley lowlands; but after damming" -> "experienced an annual flood cycle that deposited nutrient-rich soil in the valley lowlands; after damming"
  • "Aswan High Dam (Egypt, 1970) would have submerged the Philae and Abu Simbel temples – if not relocated by an international rescue effort." -> "Aswan High Dam (Egypt, 1970) would have submerged the Philae and Abu Simbel temples had they not been relocated by an international rescue effort."
  • " Itaipu Dam (South America, 1984) inundated the renowned Guaíra Falls." You could use "Brazil and Paraguay" instead of "South America".
  • "Danjiangkou Dam (China, 1974) required the forcible relocation of 383,000 people." -> "Danjiangkou Dam (China, 1974) required the forced relocation of 383,000 people."
  • " Three Gorges Dam (China, 2003) resulted in the resettlement 1.4 million people." -> " Three Gorges Dam (China, 2003) resulted in the resettlement of 1.4 million people."
  • "Many dam projects require extensive modifications to the local infrastructure." -> "Many dam projects require extensive modifications to local infrastructure."
  • "In 2020, Ethiopia built Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD)" It seems wrong to say it was built in 2020 when it must have taken years to build.
  • "how much precipitation falls each year" -> "annual precipitation".
  • "Studies are performed to determine how much water flows through the dam site in an average year, how much it varies within a year and between years. -> "Studies are performed to determine how much water flows through the dam site in an average year, and how much it varies within a year and between years."
@Steelkamp: Thanks for these useful notes. I implemented all of the suggested changes. Noleander (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal

[edit]
Nominator(s): GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal is a country in Southwestern Europe. It is a unitary republic comprising mainland Portugal, located on the southwestern of the Iberian Peninsula and bordered by Spain to the north and east, and the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean. The country has a population of over 10.7 million, and Lisbon, its capital, is the largest city. Portugal's internal waters and territorial sea together account for two-fifths of its territory, and its exclusive economic zone is Europe's largest, while its terrain contains a diverse range of landscapes and regional climates. Thanks to all the editors who have taken the time to review and improve the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding the last part of the introduction, your recent update, in my view, has maintained rather unmeaningful info like "multilateralism, peace, and European integration". Looking at other country pages, I propose the following phrase: "With a stable foreign policy shaped by its colonial and diplomatic history and location, Portugal is part of multiple international organisations and forums." I'll await feedback. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tuesp1985, done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the First Republic and Estado Novo content, what do you think of adding this image organization? (Don't know how to show it in the discussion, sorry)
{{multiple image
| alt2 = Black-and-white portrait photography of António de Oliveira Salazar
| alt1 = Black-and-white photograph of José Relvas proclaiming the Republic together with several formally dressed men leaning over the balcony railing of Lisbon City Hall and looking down onto a square surrounded with buildings.
| total_width = 390
| caption1 = José Relvas proclaiming the republic on 5 October 1910, at Lisbon City Hall
| caption2 = António de Oliveira Salazar, dictator 1932–1968
| direction = horizontal
| image1 = Proclamação República Portuguesa.jpg
| image2 = Official portrait of Salazar from General Directorate of Security HQ (no watermark).jpg
}}
Tell me what you think. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree per WP:GALLERY: "In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text. Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article... Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text... Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that because of the size of the Proclamação República Portuguesa image, it becomes rather stretched, but I can't find a way to "cut" the image using image formatting tools, per WP:MONTAGE. I believe that because of Salazar's impact in recent Portuguese history, an image should be added, but, I agree that I cannot find a way to fit the image alongside the current one.Tuesp1985 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article already includes an image (indirectly) related to the Estado Novo and by extension Salazar. The current choice is more representative of Portuguese history as it covers other events beyond that period, and, as the article demonstrates, images depicting a single individual are reserved for Portugal's founders. Apart from this image, I see no need to replace any of the article's images, especially after it has already passed the media review. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's settled then. In another point, this part of the Art and architecture content seems very confusing: "Over time, foreign and native influences, together with developments in manufacturing, have led to the creation and development of a number of crafts that are typical of Portugal, the most notable of which being the azulejo, talha dourada, and Portuguese pavement, which formed the basis of some Portuguese architectural styles, such as the Pombaline style."
I would rephrase it in another way: "Over time, foreign and native influences developed distinctive architectural styles, such as the Manueline and Pombaline styles, but also notable other forms of art typical of Portugal, namely the azulejo, talha dourada, and Portuguese pavement." What do you think? Tuesp1985 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I again propose adding this small addition to the Iberian Union and Restoration content: "(...)who was the de facto ruler after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, a disaster of deep upheaval for the kingdom.(...) Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tuesp1985, the "a disaster of deep upheaval for the kingdom" needs an up-to-date, high-quality source to support it, consistent with the standard used for the rest of the article's sources. If you can provide one here, I would gladly add that info to the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one fine?: The 1755 Lisbon Earthquake: The Catastrophe and the Reconstruction. "A disaster that shook the kingdom" is also fine by me. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have already taken care of that one for you, Tuesp1985. I hope this can earn your support as well! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good source as well, but I did not come across it while writing the article. Also, in case it is useful, I have generally found MDPI, Springer, and similar publishers to be good places to look for sources, especially through Google Scholar, at least when writing for Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Library can also be helpful, since it provides access to several paywalled scholarly content providers. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info on source search. The addition you made is better, however, I would stil put it like this: "(...) a natural disaster that shook the kingdom and recognized as one of the most devastating ever." What do you think? Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tuesp1985, done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]
  1. File:Flag of Portugal (official).svg: OK
  2. File:Coat of arms of Portugal.svg: OK
  3. File:Hino Nacional da Republica Portuguesa.ogg: copyvio - The performance of this composition dates to 2012 per the Commons page, therefore the claim in the licensing section that "it was first published before 1 March 1989" is incorrect and it is still considered copyrighted. Remember that compositions and performances carry separate copyrights.
  4. File:EU-Portugal_(orthographic_projection).svg: needs alt text
  5. File:EU-Portugal with islands circled.svg: needs alt text
  6. File:Roman Temple Evora Portugal 02.jpg: OK
  7. File:Estatua de Vimara Peres, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG: per here, the statue was erected in 1968 and its sculptor died in 1990, but this is not an issue as Portugal has FOP. You will have to add the C:Template:FoP-Portugal template to the Commons page, however.
  8. File:D. Afonso Henriques - Compendio de crónicas de reyes (Biblioteca Nacional de España).png: OK
  9. File:Portuguese Carracks off a Rocky Coast RMG BHC0705.tiff: do not use TIFF files for display in Wikipedia per c:COM:TIFF. Consider using this file or this file instead.
  10. File:Coroação de D. João IV.png: needs alt text
  11. File:Sessão das Cortes de Lisboa.jpg: this was not released under CC0 but is instead a scan of a 1922 painting by Brazilian painter Oscar Pereira da Silva (died 1939). Brazil is life + 70 so it's public domain there, therefore you should replace the license template with {{PD-art|PD-old-70-expired}}
  12. File:Proclamação República Portuguesa.jpg: OK
  13. File:Ondanks een verbod wilden leden van de Portugese Maoïstische beweging MRPP op 31, Bestanddeelnr 927-7289.jpg: OK
  14. File:Portugal topographic map-en.svg: needs alt
  15. File:Koppen-Geiger Map v2 PRT 1991–2020.svg: needs alt
  16. File:Miradouro da Cascata do Arado.jpg: OK
  17. File:António José Seguro 2026-04-21 (cropped).png: needs alt (also I'd personally suggest adding {{Extracted from|21.04.2026 - Reunião privada com o Presidente da República Portuguesa, António José Seguro - 55222243703.png}} to "other versions")
  18. File:Luís Montenegro, 2025.06.26 (01) (cropped).jpg: this is not a work of the European Commission but rather of the European Council, which are separate EU institutions, so the given license template is incorrect. Looking at the copyright page for the source, it is stated that "Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted." Commons requires that all files be freely derivable, but this is vague on whether all derivative works would be permitted. I would recommend you select an image with a clearer permission such as this or this. Also needs alt.
  19. File:Lisbon, Belém Palace.JPG: OK
  20. File:Palácio de São Bento (Assemblée nationale) (9307363528).jpg: OK
  21. File:Regions and Intermunicipal Communities of Portugal.svg: needs alt
  22. File:Portuguese embassy map.png: needs alt
  23. File:NRP Bartolomeu Dias F333 in Hernesaari as seen from Verkkokauppa in Helsinki, Finland, 2023 April.jpg: OK
  24. File:Polícia Judiciária (Portugal) headquarters, Lisbon 04.jpg: OK
  25. File:Lisboa June 2014-14a.jpg: OK
  26. File:Ameixial - cork store (13532168205).jpg: needs alt
  27. File:Vehículos en el puerto de Setúbal, Portugal, 2019-05-24, DD 01.jpg: needs alt
  28. File:Alqueva dam.JPG: needs alt
  29. File:Puente de Don Luis I, Oporto, Portugal, 2019-06-02, DD 29-31 HDR.jpg: needs alt
  30. File:Genísio04.jpg: OK
  31. File:Universidad de Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 16.JPG: needs alt
  32. File:Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra em 2025 - Foto 02.jpg: needs alt
  33. File:Feira de Barcelos (05Set) 040.jpg: unclear? Per c:COM:TOYS, small statues or models of animals do indeed receive copyright protection and the Barcelos Cockerels in the photo do seem to fit into that. The FoP of Portugal would furthermore not apply as these aren't permanently fixed to a particular location, so it is possible that one would need the permission of the manufacturer. However, these particular models do not appear especially distinct from other Barcelos Cockerels. If we assume that the design of the specific roosters in the photo do not warrant separate copyright from the general design of the rooster, then we need to know when that general design of the Barcelos rooster model first originated. According to the best source I could find on the matter,[1] the originator of the modern commercial clay Barcelos rooster with decorations is disputed between João Domingos da (Silva) Rocha (a.k.a. Domingos Côto; died 1959) or the pair Emídio do Parral and Francisco do Monte (death dates unknown). Nevertheless, this same source states that these roosters were available at least by September 1931. Given the disputed circumstances of its origin, I am willing to believe c:Template:PD-anon-70-EU applies to the model, but others may disagree.
  34. File:Lagos40 kopie.jpg: OK
  35. File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: OK
  36. File:Camões, por Fernão Gomes.jpg: OK
  37. File:Amalia Rodrigues, Bestanddeelnr 922-1813 (cropped).jpg: OK
  38. File:Entrudo de Vila Boa de Ousilhão 26.jpg: needs alt text
  39. File:Funchal (Madeira, Portugal), Rua Dr. Fernão de Ornelas, Nata 7 - Fernão Ornelas -- 2025 -- 1205.jpg: OK
  40. File:Cristiano Ronaldo Portugal.jpg: needs alt text

―Howard • 🌽33 13:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Great investigative work on the Barcelos Cockerels, Howardcorn33. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GumballNine1Nine additional media review:
Finally, I forgot to mention that Portuguese FoP law still requires attribution to the sculptor, so I believe you should add something along the lines of "1968 statue by Barata Feyo (1899-1990)." as a second sentence to the description. ―Howard • 🌽33 08:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The new photo, from the Senhora da Agonia festivities, seems misplaced as there's the Holidays and festivities content bellow. Don't see any issue regarding maintaining an image of the Galo of Barcelos, maybe this one File:Thornton2012-053 (8114900101).jpg? Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the potential copyright pitfalls above, but it's inconclusive. Personally, I wouldn't withhold it from passing FA for having image of the Galo of Barcelos. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Barcelos' city hall owns all commercial rights of the Galo de Barcelos, so this image of a replica of the Galo in a square of the city should have no problem: File:Barcelos L1180558 (25188818226).jpg. What's your view? Tuesp1985 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuesp1985: Where did you receive the idea that Barcelos city hall owns the commercial rights to the Galo of Barcelos?
As for the sculpture itself, given that it appears to be permanently fixed in a public place, I would say FoP-Portugal does indeed allow it (although, we would need to give credit to the author). ―Howard • 🌽33 19:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Found this news from 2021: ""Galo de Barcelos" is already a registered trademark owned by the municipality.", with the report adding "The Barcelos Rooster is now a nationally registered trademark in the name of the municipality and prevents third parties from "using any identical or similar sign on identical products or services"." Tuesp1985 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trademarks are separate from copyright and are therefore not a limitation for our purposes per c:COM:Trademarks. Given that the article makes no mention of copyright, I believe it's safe to assume that copyright is expired. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am a layperson when it comes to copyright law, but the article appears to attribute the modern design of the Barcelos Cockerel to Manuel Gonçalves Torres, who died in 1987, and to date it to the 1950s. In any case, in response to Tuesp1985's concerns about the new image, it depicts traditional Portuguese clothing and filigree, including the Coração de Viana, another well-known Portuguese symbol. Personally, I think it's a better choice than an image showing a row of similar Barcelos Cockerels. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant about the being a registered trade mark, sorry about the confusion. About the image, maybe this one is better: File:Viana do Castelo, Portugal (4922364383).jpg, and instead add to the caption "Women using traditional clothes from Viana do Castelo region". I'll await feedback. Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The women in the image are facing to the right, so under MOS:PORTRAIT the image would need to be placed on the left. However, doing so would displace the title of the next subsection. I would make that change if the people in the image were facing to the left. About the caption, I'll keep it unchanged as well per MOS:CAPOBVIOUS. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but on the caption, I would remove the Romaria de Nossa Senhora da Agonia link and put something like this: "In Viana do Castelo, women traditionally wear family heirlooms during festivities." Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Howardcorn33, done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GumballNine1Nine: I consider the media review passed. ―Howard • 🌽33 10:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ribeiro, Carlo (2025). "O Galo de Barcelos". Património Cultural Imaterial: 20 anos da Convenção para a Salvaguarda do PCI (in Portuguese). Publicações do CIDEHUS. doi:10.4000/14415.

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Welcome to FAC. It looks like you are relatively new to Wikipedia... Congratulations on improving such a huge and important article, quite the feat! This is this your first nomination here at Featured Articles, correct? I ask because that means the source check needs to be a little bit more detailed than normal.
    Thanks for your kind comments, Noleander! And yes, this is my first nomination of an article at Featured Articles, although I've previously made a successful nomination within Featured Content for a picture. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility: The guideline WP:ACCESSIBILITY says that WP articles should be available to blind or visually impaired readers. Within that, MOS:COLOR says "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information ... Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text ..." See also WP:COLORMAP. The Climate map used in the article is not compliant: it uses color-coding as the only way for readers to connect the legend to the regions in the image. Fortunately, the image is SVG format, so it is an easy matter to edit the image with an app like Inkscape and add text labels over the regions in the map. Let me know if you want instructions on how to do that.
Done. (Updated foreign relations map) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text: most images have excellent alt text. The alt text of Amália Rodrigues photo is missing. Sometimes alt text can be omitted if the caption is appropriate. See MOS:ALTINCAPTION but even that says the atl text should be "|alt=Refer to caption" if caption is sufficient.
    I've double checked, and the image of Amália Rodrigues already has alt text. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template you are using {{CSS image crop}} requires the alt text field "Alt". You are using lowercase "alt". Noleander (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple adjacent citation superscripts: "... in European politics and culture.[56][57][58][59] " Two or three superscripts in a row is pretty common, but if you start getting to four, it is time to look into WP:CITEBUNDLE. Bundling will keep all the cites, but display a single superscript footnote to the readers. Four consecutive superscript numbers is ugly and interrupts the reader. It is easy to convert to bundling if you use the bullet technique described in WP:CITEBUNDLE. Personally I use the {{Multiref}} bundling technique, but that takes a bit more work. Although, now that I look closer, it looks like the article is already set up to use sfn/harvnb/sfnref style cties, so shifting to use {{Multiref}} should be easy.
    Done. Thanks for the advice. Moxy had very kindly demonstrated {{Multiref}} in the article before, but there were no short citations at the time, so I didn't realize that the template was incompatible with {{sfnp}} (an unfortunate mistake, now that the article has almost 400 instances of it.). I've eliminated the rows of four superscripts by distributing the citations throughout the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most cites do not have quotes from sources. But a few do e.g.
    • Reilly (1998), pp. 80-81, Chapter 3: Toward a Concert of Christian Princes: "In October he invited Afonso Henriques to a conference at Zamora. The Leonese monarch wished not ... " and " Casimiro (2020), pp. 1–17, "In the Early Modern age, Portugal was among the first European..."
What is the rationale for including quotes in a few cites? Normally, quotes are not included. I've seen quotes used effectively in a few articles, usually when the material the cite is supporting is controversial, and the quote prevents future edit warring, and helps future editors. Is that why the quotes are used in this article? Quotes in cites are not prohibited, but WP:FA expects very strong consistency throughout the cites, and it seems odd to have quotes in a few.
Yes, you nailed it. I added the quotes to prevent edit warring, which had already happened on the article a few weeks ago. As the article's recent changes concerning the first quotation show, its inclusion was warranted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher = "Self-published" e.g. " Statistics Portugal (9 August 2024). "Statistics Portugal - Data Base - Indicator 0008856". self-published. ..." The markup is:
          |title=Statistics Portugal - Data Base - Indicator 0012437
         |author=Statistics Portugal
         |author-link=Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Portugal)
         |publisher=self-published
         |url=https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&indOcorrCod=0008856&contexto=bd&selTab=tab2&xlang=en
That cite (and others like it) doesn't seem quite right. The "author" field should be empty (meaning unknown/anonymous); and the "publisher" (and/or "website") field should be Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Portugal). There is no need to display "Self-published" ... I've never seen the phrase Self-published" before in WP cites. Maybe the phrase is okay, but to me it means an individual author published a work themselves (with the implication that they could not find a reputable publisher).
  • Continuing the above comment: It looks like there are about 40 cites where the author is unknown/anonymous, and in most of those, the article inappropriately uses the "author" field to hold the publisher name (when "author" should be empty); and uses the "publisher" field to contain "self-published" (when "publisher" should hold the publisher name). If you look at template documenation for {{Cite web}} or {{cite report}} you'll see they are pretty clear that the "author" field is supposed to be a human being. The template documentations says: "To cite a report with no credited author ... [use] ... |author = <!-- not stated --> "
  • Continuing the above: if you are uncertain how to display sources that have an unknown author (that is, the "author" field is empty or missing in the cite template) you can look at example FA articles. One example is Bridge#Unknown_author which uses the {{sfnref}} template to handle anonymous sources.
    Thanks for giving the reference to the article. On the "author" field, perhaps I'm mistaken, and if so, I'll promptly make those changes. However, the documentation for both {{Cite web}} and {{Cite report}} states in the description of that field that it may be used for an organizational author: "author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person; for the latter, prefer the use of 'first' and 'last'..." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that guidance you quote is not quite applicable. An organization like Statistics Portugal is, I presume, a rather large bureaucracy. That guidance is addressing the situation where Statistics Portugal assembles a team of, say, four people to write a report. Then the name of that (small) team could be placed in the "author" field. Does the source identify an authorship team (or committee) by name? If not, the article should use the anonymous author approach (i.e. leave author field empty) that is used in many Featured Articles. Noleander (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • P vs PP issue p. 12,28. You can run a tool called "Show Ref Check" to find such errors.
FYI: the "Show Ref Check" tool is at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js Noleander (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to restate chapter name in the short cite: e.g.
    • Short cite: Joor (2016), p. 57, Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland from a Dutch Historical Perspective
    • Linked source: Joor, Johan (26 January 2016). "Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland from a Dutch Historical Perspective". In Planert, Ute (ed.). Napoleon's empire : European politics in global perspective. War, Culture and Society, 1750–1850. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
The long source contains all the necessary information. In the short cite, you only need the page # 57. The chapter name & number (" Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland..") should not be repeated in the short cite. This issue is in several cites.
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page # typo: pp. p111–p118.
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uniform capitalization style of source titles. Cites use a mixutre:
    • Title case: "Epigenetic Effects of Healthy Foods and Lifestyle Habits from the Southern European Atlantic Diet Pattern: A Narrative Review"
    • Sentence case "Ocupação do Litoral do Alentejo, Portugal: passado e presente"
WP:CITEVAR etc say that article should use a uniform capitalization style (and should ignore the cap. style sources use for themselves). It is okay to use one cap style for book titles & another for journal article titles.
FYI: there is a tool that will ensure that all source titles use same capt style: User:ZKang123/TitleCaseConverter. Noleander (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass
[edit]
  • Lead section: has a lot of blue wikilinks. MOS:LEADLINK says "Too many links can make the lead hard to read. In technical articles that use uncommon terms, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary. ... Most Featured Articles contain about 12 to 25 links in the lead, with an average of about 1.5 links per sentence, or one link for every 16 words." The Lead of Portugal looks a bit like a WP:SEAOFBLUE with far more than 25 links ... maybe 40? MOS:LEADLINK says "technical" articles may need more links, but this is a geography article, not one on quantum physics. Removing blue links from the lead is not too harmful to readers: they will see the same links later, in the body text.
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: " A participant in the Age of Discovery, the kingdom made ... " Is there a better word than "participant"?
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portugal is part of multiple international organisations ... " Member of?
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portugal was used to refer ... " .. was referred to ... ?
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neanderthals roamed the southwestern Iberian peninsula until 37,000 years ago, and a hominin tooth has been found at the Nova ... " Is hominin before or after the Neanderthals? Are Neanderthals part of hominins?
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portugal was devastated by the Black Death, as with the rest of Europe. " maybe "as was the rest of Europe"
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "The Portuguese Carracks Off a Rocky Coast painting displays Portuguese vessels of the Discovery Age during the 16th century." It might help readers to add some links into image captions, which is a permitted exception to the "don't duplicate links" rule. E.g. here Age of Discovery.
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power, and by the mid-16th century ... " That is a rather important statement, it is just casually tossed in there as a preface. Consider elaborating, at least with a footnote.
    • Also: was it truly the first global colonial power? I suspect that colonialism has been going on for 1000s of years. Maybe qualify with "European colonial power" or similar.
I tried to access the sources for "first and last" fact, and could read one of the three (L'Estoile) but I could not find word "first" or "last" in that source. The abstract for source Schriffl does not include "first" or "last", but it does sort of say it was the last European colonial power. Can you post quotes here from those sources that clearly state that P was the first colonial power in the world? And the last colonial power in the world? Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here is the relevant quote from page 12 of Veracini: "The most violent colonisers are those who cannot rely on favourable terms of trade – they seek tribute. Portugal was the first and the last explicitly colonial power; it defended its colonial empire until the bitter end because it would have been unable to profit from neocolonial arrangements." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for that quote. Questions: (a) are there any reliable 2ndary source that say that there are still colonial powers in existence in the 21st century? (b) Would readers benefit from some elaboration of what "explicitly colonial power" means? In other words what was the source intending to convey with the words "explicit" and "colonial powers"? (c) If there are sources that say colonialism is still happening in the 21st century, should the article include that fact somehow alongside the "...last colonial power" so readers get a fuller picture? Noleander (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On question a) and c): According to the best source I could find on the matter, colonialism ended during the 20th century, after its precise meaning had been defined at the Bandung Conference in 1955, according to the article: "Bandung recognised the particular, racialised nature of colonialism that remained from the international model of the nineteenth century, which had judged (and continued to argue) that certain territories were unfit for self-rule on a racialised standard of civilisation grounds. It was this racialised legitimation of the rights to sovereignty that was the major norm to be overcome for the post-colonial world. This separated the question of colonialism from the question of Soviet involvement in Eastern Europe, in which states maintained their own domestic communist parties that were not excluded from participation in the socialist world on racial grounds in the same way that the post-colonial states had been. This framed the opposition to racial discrimination as central to the post-colonial world’s opposition to, and definition of, colonialism. It also made ‘self-determination’ the only legitimate model of international sovereignty, and, importantly for the pluralist post-colonial coalition, self-determination need not necessarily be expressed in the form of a parliamentary democracy but could rather be expressed through the ruling cadre of the state having some form of organic link to ‘the people’, be they elected or not". On question b, the source does not elaborate on what it means by 'explicit'. My understanding is that it refers to Portugal being the first and last widely recognized country to hold territories with the kind of colonial dynamic discussed in the previous article. However, I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on all of this in a country article; a link to the Colonialism article should be sufficient. Over to you, Noleander. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1498, Vasco da Gama reached ... " There are four consecutive sentence that start with a year "In 14xx ..." (or similar). Best to vary wording. Two in a row maybe okay, but not four.
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Port. wikipedia: 1 December [pt] The red followed by a mysterious "pt" footnote may confuse many readers. Suggest use an alternative technique, there are a few - see H:FOREIGNLINK, that provide a direct blue link to the Port. WP article.
    According to H:FOREIGNLINK: "The best practice is to use the template {{interlanguage link}} which gives both a redlinked English link and a German blue link, but hides the German link if the English redlink turns blue when the article is created.". However, if the red links are a sticking point, I'm more than willing to follow your suggestion GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".. with a lot of social and political tension... " phrase "a lot of" is a bit vulgar. Consider a more professional wording.
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Portugal comprises a mainland territory located on the... " Two things: (a) "mainland" doesnt need to be stated, I think by default land is presumed to be on the mainland, and only islands need to be qualified. (b) "territory" is not ideal in this context since it also can mean a specific kind of colony/protectorate/province. Consider a synonym.
    Done. Removed the word 'territory' and kept 'mainland', since that is the terminology used by the source and it also supports the corresponding reference to mainland Portugal in the lead, in line with MOS:LEAD. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The country covers a total area of 156,597 km2 (60,462 sq mi), more than two-fifths of which consists of territorial sea and internal waters." I've never seen a country's size stated as including ocean areas. Unless that is a WP convention, I would expect a wording like "The country covers xxxxx km2 and yyyyy km2 of territorial waters."
    This issue was raised by Whonting during the peer review, when the Geography section had too many statistics, so I removed some of them, including the separate figures for land and water area. As for the country's size including ocean areas, this is explained by the source discussing the legal status of Portuguese territory: "Within its fundamental principles, the 1976 Constitution devotes Article 5 to 'territory', identifying the country's geographical basis in both its land component—the area defined on the European continent and the archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira—and its maritime component, comprising territorial waters and the seabed." That is the basis for including ocean areas. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for 156K km2 "total area" seem to be Portuguese government sources, which are essentially primary sources. Are there any 2ndary sources that have that figure for "total area"? I think a lot of countries try to influence fishing rights by making exaggerated claims to waters, but WP editors don't need to take those values blindly. The {{Infobox country}} template defines field "area_km2" as "Land area of the country in square kilometers". (emphasis added). By emphasizing the 156K figure, the article gives the impression of being written by fanboys of Portugal  :-) WP editors need to rely more heavily on independent, secondary sources. I see List of countries and dependencies by area repeats the 156K figure (again sourced to Portuguese government) but that list also identifies a UN document available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/dyb_2022/ - and that UN source uses the 92K figure. CIA FactBook also gives 92K for "total area" archived here. To be clear: the article can state the 156K figure, but the body text should attribute that value to the Portuguese govmt; and the 92K figure should be given equal billing, based on secondary sources (such as UN and CIA). Questions: Has the WP Geography project every had an RfC on this question of creating a uniform WP-wide definition of "total area" of countries? What do reliable sources other than Portuguese government give for "total area" of the country? Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first question: no, not that I'm aware of, on the second question yes, there's a secondary source that says the following: "The dimensional characterization of maritime spaces is carried out on the basis of their geospatial breadth. The geographical reference point for measuring the breadth of maritime spaces is the baseline. In general, this line follows the orientation and shape of the coastline and consists of two variants: normal baselines and straight baselines. Normal baselines coincide with the coastline at the lowest low-water mark. Straight baselines connect conspicuous points on the coast and adjacent islands, in accordance with rules defined in UNCLOS. Portugal defined its baselines in Decree-Law No. 495/85 of 29 November 1985.
Internal waters are located landward of the straight baselines and may be classified as maritime internal waters or riverine internal waters. The geographical area corresponding to riverine internal waters is 654 km². The area corresponding to maritime internal waters is approximately 6,508 km². This figure is equivalent to about 7% of the national territory.
The territorial sea lies seaward of the baselines and may extend up to 12 nautical miles from them. The area of Portugal’s territorial sea, which extends up to 12 nautical miles, is approximately 50,957 km², of which 16,460 km² correspond to the mainland, 23,663 km² to the Azores archipelago, and 10,834 km² to the Madeira archipelago. This figure is equivalent to about 55% of the national territory.
According to UNCLOS, in the territorial sea, coastal states extend, with certain exceptions, their full sovereignty. This sovereignty extends to the airspace above it, as well as to the seabed and subsoil of this sea." (page 113) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not making myself clear. I understand that Portugal, by law, defines its sovereign territory to include a lot of ocean waters, and they publish an area of 156K. My questions are about how this article should present the "area" of Portugal to readers. Yes, the article should certainly mention the 156K figure published by the P. government. But there are two issues: (a) The Sidebar template documentation says that the "area_km2" field should contain "Land area of the country in square kilometers". Those kind of guidelines are important, so that readers of the encyclopedia can compare apples-to-apples. Do you see that definition of "area_km2" in template documentation? (b) Government laws/policies/publications can be biased. The encyclopedia also needs to present other viewpoints (per WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:PROPORTION, WP:RS, etc). Do you agree that there are some secondary sources, unaffiliated with Portugal, that state that the "total area" of Portugal is around 92K? Noleander (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Area: "km2" I'm pretty sure WP:MOSNUM says to use km2 ... that is, km{{sup|2}} .
    All instances of powers of unit symbols are already superscripted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raises more questions than it answers: "Wildfires remain a serious challenge in Portugal, where 99% of the cases reported by law enforcement in 2024 were of unknown origin." That seems hard to believe. Is it arson? Firebugs? Lightning? Cigarettes? How in the world in 2026 could a country only know how 1% of wild fires start?
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation error on cite "Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo – Direção de Planeamento, Estudos e Estatística (2025), p. 2. " Error message is: "Harv error: link from CITEREFAgência_para_a_Integração,_Migrações_e_Asilo_–_Direção_de_Planeamento,_Estudos_e_Estatística2025 doesn't point to any citation."
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using organization/publisher name in "author" field (see details of this issue above in pass 1): "Eurostat (9 April 2026). "Population on 1 January by age, sex and broad group of citizenship". Eurostat. doi:10.2908/MIGR_POP2CTZ. Retrieved 25 April 2026." Error: Missing first name for: Eurostat; Missing archive link;
    Done. The archive link is missing because the page is incompatible with archiving, which results in a broken archived version. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm spent. Ping me when you've considered the above, and I'll continue. Noleander (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. On the first global colonial power issue, Portugal by the 1500s had colonies in basically all continents, the Americas, Africa and Asia. Other previous empires did't achieved that global scale. Also, regarding the wildfires and the line you are referring, I agree that it's rather misleading. According to the latest reports, 84% of wilfires are caused by "arson", which includes illegal use of fire as well as uncontrolled use of fire. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding: "Portugal by the 1500s had colonies in basically all continents, the Americas, Africa and Asia. Other previous empires did't achieved that global scale." That's fine. But the article should provide that sort of clarity & detail. Noleander (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I hope this has addressed your concerns so far, Noleander GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I have two follow-up questions regarding "total area" value and the "first and last colonial power". Details above. Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hope those answers satisfy your questions, Noleander. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a queasy feeling that the article is not as neutral and objective as a Featured Article should be. Two issues I see:

  • The article misleads readers on the size of the country. "The country covers a total area of 156,597 km2 (60,462 sq mi), more than two-fifths of which consists of territorial sea and internal waters." That figure comes from the government of Portugal, and includes about 1/3 ocean water. Readers of the article want to know the land area. Any interpretations of area that include vast amounts of ocean should be presented in a parenthetical manner. Several independent, secondary sources state Portugal's area to be 92K km2 (and the InfoBox now shows that value, thanks for that change). But the body text (green quote above) still cherry-picks a government figure designed to enlarge the country's territorial claims. This article is a geography article, not a mouthpiece for the Portuguese government. This could easily be remedied by re-casting the green sentence above as: "The country's land area is 92K km2, although Portuguese law defines the country's size as 156K km2 which includes about 64K km2 of ocean waters"
  • The article misleads readers on colonialism: "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power...". Although the Veracini reliable source has "Portugal was the first and the last explicitly colonial power ..." the article drops the word "explicitly" and omits the fact that the source is using a limited definition of colonialism (namely "modern colonialism" which is European colonialism from about 1400 to 1980). Other reliable sources define colonialism as reaching back to antiquity, and extend it into the present time (e.g. China and the Uyghurs). Other sources state that Spain was the first European colonial power. This can be easily remedied by recasting the text to: "Historian L. Veracini states that Portugal was the first and the last explicitly colonial power..." or "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power in the era of modern European colonialism" or "Portugal's colonial empire lasted longer that most European nations: from 14xx (location A) to 19xx (location B) ... " or similar.

Because of those two issues (and the apparent reluctance of the nominator to remedy them ... see conversation above) I'm not confident that the article is properly respecting WP policies and guidelines such as:

  • WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY - Relying on governmental law/policy for the size of the country, rather than independent geographers
  • WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES - Based on the above issues, a reader might get the impression that editorial choices are not being made in an objective and neutral fashion. The above examples are two sentences out of several hundred in the article: are other sentences also skewed?

I will not support or oppose this nomination. But I don't feel comfortable with the accuracy and neutrality of the material as it stands today. That said, the article has strong foundation and a lot of excellent work has gone into it. Noleander (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, all of those issues have now been addressed. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have also double-checked the rest of the sources to see whether any others were similarly skewed in relation to the sentences they support. I did not find any comparable issues elsewhere in the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You also raised the point about relying on governmental law or policy sources for the country's size rather than on independent geographers. All governmental sources previously used for area figures have now been replaced with secondary sources. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim riley

[edit]

Booking my place. I'll reread the article and, I hope, comment here today or tomorrow. Tim riley talk 14:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not much from me. I reviewed the article at GAN and thought it excellent. I said then and still think it is brave to try to cover a huge subject like this in a single article. The more detailed subsidiary articles are certainly a good thing and I think the nominator has got the essence of the topic into less than 8,000 words, which strikes me as very good going indeed. Little to add since. I've made a couple of minor tweaks (spelling and MoS). It doesn't bother me but there are multiple duplicate links that we could do without:

  • Iberian
  • Visigoths
  • Suebi
  • Minho
  • Douro
  • Ferdinand I of Portugal
  • temperate maritime
  • Selvagens Islands
  • mainland Portugal
  • president of Portugal
  • constitution of Portugal (twice)
  • Savage Islands
  • Terceira Island
  • Guarda Nacional Republicana
  • Portuguese financial crisis
  • Algarve (twice)
  • Lisbon metropolitan area
  • First Republic Estado Novo
  • OECD
  • Madeira (twice)
  • Portuguese language
  • Portuguese poetry
  • Age of Discovery
  • fado
  • Carnation Revolution
  • Azores
  • São Miguel Island
  • Lisbon

It would be nice to see these duplicates pruned, but they don't stop me assessing the article as of FA standard. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I think it will grace our front page and be of inestimable value to our visitors.Very happy to support. – Tim riley talk 17:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review, Tim, and thank you for supporting the article for FA. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • Portugal's exclusive economic zone extends 1,727,408 km2 (666,956 mi2), making it the largest in the European Union and the tenth-largest in the world. – I am surprised about this claim. In our own list (Exclusive economic zone), the country is on place 21 worldwide, not the tenth-largest?
    I have checked where the tenth-largest in the world claim came from. The article states that "Portugal boasts the largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the EU and ranks as the 10th largest in the world, spanning over 1.7 million km².". It cites two sources for this. One of them, source 41, does repeat the claim that Portugal's EEZ extends over more than 1.7 million km²: "Portugal’s maritime region encompasses three sub-zones, continental Portugal, the Azores and Madeira, together covering an area of more than 1.7 million km².". That source, in turn, appears to rely on another source (source 12) where the tenth-largest in the world claim may have originated. However, that source describes Portugal as probably having the 10th-largest EEZ only if the proposed enlargement of its maritime area succeeds: "With the convention on the Law of the Sea, mainland Portugal, with an emerged area of 89,015 km², extended its jurisdiction to an area of 327,667 km². However, benefiting from Madeira and Azores archipelagos, emerged areas respectively with 801 km² and 2,346 km², the total Portuguese EEZ extends up to 1,727,408 km², i.e. about 1.6 % area of the Atlantic Ocean and approximately 1.25% of the entire oceanic area under countries jurisdiction. Mainly due to the Portuguese islands, EEZ of Portugal is the largest in Europe (although not the largest from Europe since, due to the overseas territories, French EEZ, with more than 11 million square kilometers, and the United Kingdom, with nearly 4 million square kilometers, are clearly larger). If Portugal succeeds in the claiming to the enlargement of this area, the territory under national jurisdiction will be expanded to 3,027,408 km², i.e., will extend over an area 32.8 times greater than the whole emerged territory, 2.9% of the Atlantic Ocean and more than 2% of the entire ocean area under the jurisdiction of countries, i.e., probably the 10th largest EEZ in the world, after Brazil." Since the 2024 article still uses the same figure for Portugal's EEZ area, it can be assumed that this enlargement has not occurred. I will therefore remove the part stating that Portugal has the tenth-largest in the world EEZ. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the country's size, Portugal exhibits a diverse array of geomorphological landscapes as a result of its long geological evolution, shaped by two Wilson cycles, its position relative to plate boundaries, and climatic variability that produced distinct morphoclimatic zones. – This doesn't really say much. Try to be more concrete. "Despite the country's size" – despite its large or small size? I think this part is not needed. Does this mean other countries hadn't had a long geological evolution? You never even talk about geologic history anywhere? I suggest to remove this sentence, or replace it with concrete facts.
    The source from which I added that claim to the article states the following: "Despite small area, the Portuguese territory presents a great diversity of geomorphological landscapes. This diversity is mainly due to a long and complex geological evolution that includes two Wilson cycles, to the central geographical position the territory had regarding the plate boundaries in both cycles and to the climate variability responsible for the distinct morphogenetic environments.". I will rewrite the sentence to include your suggestions. However, I don't see how the sentence Despite the country’s small area, Portugal exhibits a diverse array of geomorphological landscapes as a result of its long geological evolution, shaped by two Wilson cycles, its position relative to plate boundaries, and climatic variability that produced distinct morphoclimatic zones implies any conclusion about the geography of other countries. It is not comparing Portugal with any other country; it is simply stating that Portugal has a wide variety of geomorphological landscapes despite its small area. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I swapped that sentence for some more concrete details on Portugal's geography. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continental Portugal is over three-quarters forests and the remaining is agricultural. – This can't possibly be true and is not supported by the source either.
    You're right. The source states, in Portuguese, that "forest is the main land use in Portuguese territory and wildlands cover about 70% of the country". The first pie chart shows the country is 24% agricultural and 5% settlements. I've corrected the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the predominance of agricultural land use further accentuates the torrential nature of the river regime during periods of intense precipitation – not sure what this means
    I've changed the sentence. It now reads: "The small size of the catchments, the slopes' steepness, and deforestation accentuates the torrential regime of the rivers during periods of intense precipitation causing erosion problems and floods". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portugal has a diverse variety of regional climates for a country of its size – Does this statement include the islands? If so, is the total geographic extent considered, or just the land area (in which case, I don't think the statement makes any sense)?
    It's just Portugal's land area, since the source doesn't cover climates over the oceans. Curiously, until recently oceans were ignored in climate classification, unlike land areas. The first modern, detailed map showing climatic types for both oceans and continents — calculated using the revised Köppen system — was only released in 2024. There's still a gap in the understanding of climates over the oceans. Thankfully, I've found a source that covers this topic and I'll add some info from it to the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the trajectory of a polar front – why "a polar front", not "the polar front"?
    It was a typo, it now reads "the polar front". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the influence of the stable atmospheric conditions that bring milder weather during the summer. – this is quite unspecific and I'm not sure what it means. You get stable atmospheric conditions whenever the polar front moves away? Also, if the summer weather is "mild", and Portugal is one of the warmest countries in Europe, how is "mild" defined?
    I've updated the sentence. It now reads: "When the polar front moves northward, Portugal comes under the influence of the Azores High bringing atmospheric stability during the summer". Hope it's clearer now. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portugal is one of the warmest countries in Europe – Shouldn't this general information (and the temperatures) right at the beginning of the climate section?
    I've removed that sentence. In the source it's stated that "Portugal is also cooler than the rest of Mediterranean Europe, on average, as the larger and deeper Atlantic Ocean absorbs energy. Therefore, Portuguese summers are more similar to those along the central and northern California coast, while the remainder of the region is more similar to the Baja Peninsula of Mexico." (p. 288). GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate change is projected to raise average temperatures in Portugal by as much as 4 °C (39.2 °F) by 2100 relative to the 1970–2010 average, with likely consequences for the country's energy supply, particularly by diminishing electricity generation capacity. – As if energy supply were the only, or even the most serious, consequence of climate change in Portugal?
    I should've put more thought into that sentence when I wrote it. I've updated the sentence, it now reads: Climate change is projected to raise average temperatures in Portugal by as much as 3–4 °C (37.4–39.2 °F) by 2100 relative to the 1990s–2010s average, with impacts in water, ecosystem, agriculture, health, and security. The updated temperature values for Portugal come from sources covering the mainland, Madeira, and the Azores. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 3rd most diverse hotspot of flora in the world. – I would be super careful with superlatives. I don't think this is generally true, and it strongly depends on how it is measured, so I fear this is misleading at best, and probably just wrong. I do not think the Mediterranean Basin has more species than the Andes region, for example.
    I've removed that claim. The new sentence is: Portugal is located on the Mediterranean basin, a biodiversity hotspot. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eucalyptus, cork oak, and maritime pine together make up 71% of the total forested area of continental Portugal – Eucalyptus is an agricultural crop imported from Australia. These are plantations without any conservation value. Mentioning them in a section called "Biodiversity" is quite misleading (Eucalyptus is in fact a major problem for biodiversity).
    Several sources list Eucalyptus as part of Portugal's forests: 1 2 3 4. Although, as you pointed out, it's considered a non-native species, I'll be sure to mention that in the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence now reads: "Native species such as holm oak, cork oak, stone pine, and maritime pine make up 72% of the total forested area of continental Portugal". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portugal has 73% of the freshwater fish species endemic to the Iberian Peninsula, the highest proportion for any region in Europe. – This does not make any sense. Of course, a country like Germany will have 0% of the species endemic to the Iberian Peninsula ("endemic" refers to species that "only" occur in the Iberian Peninsula to begin with). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the sentence to make it clearer: "Portugal and Spain together have the highest proportion of endemism in Europe among freshwater fish, with 73% of the freshwater fish species being endemic". This info comes from the source which states: "The Iberian freshwater fish fauna has the greatest European percentage of endemism (73% of the species) because of its long-term geographical isolation, which occurred during the last glaciation, the Mediterranean climate and the high number of different river basins." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is an example of successful coexistence between human communities and nature. – Is this really a fact that can be presented in Wiki Voice? It reads like an advertisement without actual information value. Who decides whether something is a "successful coexistence", and what does this even mean?
    Removed that fact from the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 20% of the total number of extant species in continental Portugal are exotic. – This is wrong. The source only speaks of vascular plant species, not extant species in general.
    The sentence now reads: "Over one-fourth of the total number of extant plant species in continental Portugal are exotic", per the source which states (in Portuguese): "The flora of Portugal lists a total of 3,915 species (both native and exotic). Of these, 2,875 species (73%) are indicated as native to mainland Portugal. The remaining 1,040 species (27%) include all the introduced species found in mainland Portugal, as well as the native and exotic components of the flora of the islands (the Azores and Madeira)." (p. 604). GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portugal is the 2nd country in Europe with the highest number of threatened animal and plant species.[138] – Can you give me a hint where the source is making this claim?
    It's on Table 5: number of threatened species in each major taxonomic group by country in Europe. (I've updated the rank from 2nd to 4th) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mammalian species of Portugal such as deer, Iberian ibex, wild boar, red fox, Iberian wolf, and Iberian lynx were once widespread throughout the country – "Deer" is not a species but a family, and deer still seem to be widespread throughout the country.
  • Oppose for now – sorry but just based on the "Geography" section, I have serious concerns about overall article quality and accuracy of information. I think this needs a throughout facts check, which might still be possible during this nomination as it's still early days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Jens' comment "I would be super careful with superlatives." It is safest to avoid words like "largest", "first", "most", "earliest". Superlatives can be wrong from the outset; and even if correct at the time of writing, they can quickly become erroneous as time goes by. Also, superlatives can often be a kind of bragging. I observed similar issues in my review above, where the "area" of Portugal was overstated; and where the country was described as the "first" of something. I got a vague sense that the article was subconsciously bragging about Portugal. Sometimes these superlatives can be remedied by simply changing "most" to "one of the most", or "earliest" to "an early", etc. As Jens says, it is early, and there is plenty of time to rectify such issues. Noleander (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My essay on the topic of superlatives may be of some use here. RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Zero Dawn: The Frozen Wilds

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 07:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently helped get Horizon Zero Dawn to FA, so I figured it made sense to attempt to do the same with its lone expansion pack. Courtesy pings to @Vacant0 and Nub098765: who both left helpful comments for the peer review. -- ZooBlazer 07:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Just in case, I'll take another look at the article before voting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Set concurrently with the main campaign, the narrative follows Aloy" → "Set concurrently with the main campaign, the expansion follows Aloy"
  • "Development of The Frozen Wilds focused on exploring the culture of the enigmatic Banuk tribe, drawing heavy geographical inspiration from Yellowstone." → "Development focused on the culture of the Banuk tribe and drew heavy geographical inspiration from Yellowstone."
  • "The Frozen Wilds was Zero Dawn's only expansion pack and was released for PlayStation 4 on 7 November 2017. It was later released with the base game to Windows in August 2020 as part of Horizon Zero Dawn Complete Edition, and released again in October 2024 for Windows and PlayStation 5 via Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered." → "As the game's sole expansion, The Frozen Wilds launched for PlayStation 4 on 7 November 2017. It was later bundled with the base game for Windows in August 2020 as part of the Complete Edition, followed by a PlayStation 5 and Windows remaster in October 2024."
  • "The expansion adds a fourth branch to the skill tree, which introduces various quality-of-life abilities focused on inventory management and traversal while riding machines as mounts." → "A fourth branch added to the skill tree introduces quality-of-life abilities focused on inventory management and mounted traversal of machines."
  • "Overall, The Frozen Wilds features a difficulty spike compared to the base game, with an encounter design that forces the player to adapt their combat strategies and encourages the heavy use of the new Banuk arsenal." → "Overall, the expansion features a steep difficulty spike, featuring encounters that force players to adapt their strategies and utilise the new Banuk arsenal."
  • "When designing the Banuk's culture and clothing, the team prioritised functionality" → "The team prioritised functionality in the Banuk's culture and clothing, ensuring"
  • "Audio lead Bastian Seelbach and the sound design team focused on ensuring the new Daemonic machine variants possessed distinct auditory cues that differentiated them from the machines in the main campaign, matching their aggressive, fast-paced attack patterns." → "Audio lead Bastian Seelbach's team designed distinct auditory cues for the Daemonic variants to match their aggressive, fast-paced attack patterns and differentiate them from base-game machines."

That's it from me. Seems to be well-written. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments @Vacant0! I implemented your suggestions with a few minor changes for some of them mixed in. Let me know if you have any additional issues with the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Support from me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the Russian Wikipedia has this article listed as a Good Article. Have you checked that article out? Have you incorporated some elements from that version? Or do you think that this version adequately summarises the entire articl perfectly? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it, and depending how accurate auto translate is, there was not a lot of info to incorporate, but I did add a little more details. -- ZooBlazer 17:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, good to know. My support still stands. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

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

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. Is there a specific reason why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horizon_Zero_Dawn_The_Frozen_Wilds_screenshot.jpg is aligned to the left? According to MOS:IMAGELOC, right-side alignment is the default. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 Thanks for doing the review! The image is to the left because when it is to the right (at least on my screen), it gets pushed under the infobox and almost out of the gameplay section as well. -- ZooBlazer 08:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. However, in that case the text is stuck in the middle between the image and the infobox, which violates MOS:SANDWICH. Having the image pushed down a little further is probably the lesser evil here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 Hmm, I figured it was fine since it was a similar situation with Horizon Zero Dawn and no one said anything during that review. Oh well, I moved it. -- ZooBlazer 08:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesn't look great, but yeah it's a MOS:SANDWICH issue. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the better alternative. That takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody should have said something, so you lucked out. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 Just letting you know I added File:Aerial image of Grand Prismatic Spring (view from the south).jpg into the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The image works fine (own work, CC BY-SA 4.0). Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

[edit]
  • I made some copyedits as I was reading: feel free to revert if not helpful
  • Lead check: I couldn't find in the article body where "and an advanced 3D cloud rendering system" was mentioned and cited.
  • Infobox check: most of the people mentioned here are not mentioned in the article and are not cited. These include:
  • Mathijs de Jonge is not mentioned in the article body as the director.
  • Lambert Wolterbeek Muller is not mentioned in the article body as a producer
  • Jan-Bart van Beek and Misja Baas are not mentioned in the article body as artists
  • Joris de Man, The Flight, Niels van der Leest, and Jonathan Williams are not mentioned in the article body as composers
  • There is also no mention that this is a single-player game: in the "Gameplay" section, it might be worth mentioning that the player controls Aloy during this expansion (some expansions cause a player to control a different character). This mention would also imply that it is a single-player game.

Please ping when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Your copyedits looks good. I have addressed your comments, so let me know if there is anything else to clean up. -- ZooBlazer 20:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • I've visited the Cut twice already, so I guess I should comment.
  • The Cut - Is capitalization of "The" correct? Sources seem mixed on it.
    I checked the game's captions and "the" is lowercase, so I updated that. -- ZooBlazer
  • Potential high-value links: rendering to Rendering (computer graphics), art direction to Art director
  • The studio also overhauled its motion capture technology to produce more natural cinematic dialogues, and designed the new machine species with erratic attack patterns to subvert established player expectations. - Feels a bit clunky, probably because of the two conjunctions. Worth splitting? Also, "dialogue" could be misread as "vocal interactions", whereas further down you use the more accurate "dialogue sequences" (the mo-cap helped with non-vocal elements).
  • striking visual design - Striking is a value judgment, whereas "visual design" would be more neutral.
  • base game side activities - Base game is a compound adjective here. I'd use "base-game"
  • Hearing rumours of these dangerous new machines, - I'd nix "these", as Aloy only learns of the corruption after reaching The Cut (also, having your precedent in a different section is jarring)
  • a Spirit - As a generic noun, "spirit" should not be capitalized. I'd nix the capital for "the Spirit" as well. (Though I don't recall how the subtitles treat this "spirit")
    I left it since the game capitalizes Spirit -- ZooBlazer
  • Because the tribe lacks the ability to farm - Lacks the ability, or cannot due to the climate? Given that, in the game's setting, both are possible - I seem to remember that only the Carja developed effective farming technology - this distinction may be necessary.
  • Oseram - Assuming the reader hasn't read the article on the main game, having this as an adjective leaves its meaning unclear
  • McCaw likened Gildun's personality to John Candy in the film Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987), - Candy's personality, or his character's?
  • NPCs - You use the term in full above, but don't define the acronym
  • Paragraph starting The Frozen Wilds was announced during E3 2017. This goes from technical innovations and production to announcement and release. They should definitely be split. Personally, I'd change Reception to #Release and reception, move the announcement into this new section (and then move the sales data, as thematically similar, into the same section).
  • The narrative of The Frozen Wilds received a divided reception - I think "Response to The Frozen Wilds' narrative was mixed." would flow more easily.
  • integrating the DLC's story can feel awkward depending on when - You haven't introduced the term DLC yet, or even used the full-form. I'd swap "DLC's" for "expansion's"
  • although the expansion's core narrative doesn't quite match the impact of the original story - Per WP:CONTRACTIONS, doesn't should be does not
  • General note about #Reception: I'm seeing a mix of past and present tense. Personally, I'd go with a consistent past tense
  • exact standalone sales figures - "Exact standalone figures" implies they released general standalone figures, which are not provided here. I'd nix "exact"
  • add-on - Given the broad spectrum of potential add-ons (expansion packs, skins, etc.), I want to confirm that the source does indeed say "add-on" rather than "narrative DLC" or something more specific.
    The source uses "PS4 Add-ons" for the category. -- ZooBlazer

Overall, this appears to be in good shape! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the review! I think I addressed everything and responded to a couple of your comments just to clarify a couple of things. Let me know if there is anything else to address. -- ZooBlazer 23:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "As Zero Dawn's sole expansion, The Frozen Wilds launched for PlayStation 4 on 7 November 2017" This feels like odd phrasing, especially the first phrase. I might cut the "As" or rephrase if you are saying something about how it was marketed.
  • "Because the tribe's harsh climate" I might say the region's harsh climate
  • "Following the release of the base game, the development team analysed fan feedback to identify which quest structures resonated most with players, leading them to redouble their efforts to focus on meaningful character interactions, populating the expansion with more complex non-player characters (NPC) that Aloy could build deeper relationships with.[20]" Is it worth mentioning if Gildun was among these?
  • "the bear-like Frostclaw and Fireclaw." I would imagine both are bear-like but you could be unambiguous.
  • "Guerilla also" (several variants) it has an odd feeling to ascribe intent etc to a corporate name. Could you consider alternatives like "the developers"
  • "Tech-focused critiques commended the expansion's technical performance," This has a repetitive feel.
That's it, but this is not my area and I know little about such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt Thanks for the comments. Everything should be addressed now. -- ZooBlazer 18:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98 (6/16/26)

[edit]

I feel like I’m an expert on this video game series, so I should probably do this one, too. Keep in mind, the last video game I played was Qbert on my Atari 2600… Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

$#@%! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98 Are you still interested in doing a review with your new expertise of the series? -- ZooBlazer 18:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having done the GA reviews for a handful of the articles in this series, I had to double-check to see if this had been one of them, but it was not. I know User:PresN is a top-notch editor, so I am confident that the prose here will be of high quality.

Lead
  • "Set concurrently with the main campaign, this expansion follows Aloy as she travels..."
  • "Integrated into the base game, this expansion raises..."
  • "Guerrilla upgraded the proprietary Decima engine to feature dynamic snow deformation, interactive water rendering, and an advanced 3D cloud rendering system." --> What in the heck is "snow deformation"? Also, you have "rendering" linked in its second usage, and not its first (a mere six words earlier).
Gameplay
  • "The Frozen Wilds is a single-player experience that adds a new region integrated into the existing open world..." --> Recommend a slight rephrasing, "The Frozen Wilds is a single-player experience that adds a new integrated region to the existing open world..."
  • "These machines are corrupted variants that have more health, increased elemental resistances, and are immune to overrides."
  • Is "Control Towers" a proper noun?
    Yeah, the game treats it the same as all the other machine species. -- ZooBlazer
Synopsis
  • "an active volcanic mountain" --> Isn't that the same thing as "an active volcano"?
  • Are CYAN and HEPHAESTUS meant to be in all-caps?
    Yep -- ZooBlazer
Development
  • What's a delver?
  • "with whom Aloy could build deeper relationships" --> I think that should be "with whom Aloy can build..." since your prose describing the in-game action is all in the present.
Reception
  • No issues.

User:ZooBlazer: Let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 I think everything should be dealt with. The only thing I kept the same, besides name capitalizations, was not changing instances in the lead to "this expansion". At least to me that makes it almost sound like there are multiple expansions, and also "the expansion" can be interchangeable with "the game" or "the DLC". Let me know if there is anything else that I need to do. -- ZooBlazer 22:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

This table lists 11 random passages from throughout the article (19.3% of 57 total passages). These passages contain 18 inline citations (21.2% of 85 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
Gameplay
A fourth branch added to the skill tree introduces quality-of-life abilities focused on inventory management and mounted traversal of machines.
6 a gamesradar.com web.archive.org Good Source no. 6 doesn't seem to say anything about this, but source no. 7 plainly does.
7 eurogamer.net web.archive.org Good
The expansion introduces three new machine species: the Scorcher, Frostclaw, and Fireclaw.
11 b vg247.com web.archive.org Good
12 a blog.playstation.com web.archive.org Good Source no. 12 doesn't say anything about the Scorcher. Since source no. 11 mentions all three, I'd remove source no. 12 from this statement.
Development
Mathijs de Jonge served as the expansion's director, while Lambert Wolterbeek Muller acted as lead producer. Jan-Bart van Beek and Misja Baas oversaw the art direction.
14 a Guerrilla Games (7 November 2017). Horizon Zero Dawn: The Frozen Wilds (PlayStation 4). Sony Intera… Good I cannot access the actual game, so I'm going to AGF on this, and surely these credits can be verified by any number of other sources if need be.
For the expansion's overarching narrative, lead writer Ben McCaw cited the science fiction film 2010 (1984) as a primary source of inspiration.
18 playstationlifestyle.net web.archive.org Good
The expansion introduced several new machines, including the Frostclaw and Fireclaw, both of which are bear-like. The concept for a bear machine was pitched for the base game but was scrapped due to time constraints. When reviving the idea for The Frozen Wilds, animators referenced footage of polar bears and red pandas to create the machines' distinct bipedal and quadrupedal movements, while the sound team mixed synthetic noises with the grunts of walruses and seals for their vocalisations.
12 b blog.playstation.com web.archive.org Good
The dynamic snow technology introduced in the expansion was so successful that it was eventually retrofitted into the base game's environments for Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered (2024).
26 ign.com web.archive.org Good
The Complete Edition was subsequently released for Windows on 7 August 2020, and Remastered, which also bundled the game and its expansion, was released for PlayStation 5 and Windows on 31 October 2024.
30 theverge.com web.archive.org Good We've had this discussion before. You can't use a source dated July 3rd to verify an event that didn't happen until August 7th. You need something dated August 7th or later.
31 rpgfan.com web.archive.org Good Ditto.
Reception
The expansion's visual enhancements and world design were highlighted by critics. Reviewers cited the wintry landscape of the Cut as a visually impressive and substantial addition to the open world.
2 d gamespot.com web.archive.org Good
3 b eurogamer.net web.archive.org Good
Writing for GameSpot, Peter Brown admired the environmental lighting and the colourful hues of the snow.
2 e gamespot.com web.archive.org Good
Additionally, reviewers enjoyed the new side quests, stating they were challenging and offered better rewards than those in the base game.
1 e gameinformer.com web.archive.org Good
3 c eurogamer.net web.archive.org Good
Conversely, other critics described the central plot as underwhelming, writing that the condensed mystery did little to meaningfully expand the universe or push the overarching narrative forward.
1 f gameinformer.com web.archive.org Good
2 g gamespot.com web.archive.org Good
3 d eurogamer.net web.archive.org Good
The release date thing is pretty common in media like video games and films. Most of the time these kinds of articles use a ref announcing a release date (when available). There is not typically a need to change the source later unless the date is changed. -- ZooBlazer 22:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death on the Nile went through, like, a half-dozen projected release dates before it actually released. You can't use a source that was printed before the event that it's supposed to confirm actually took place. If other articles do that, then they should be corrected. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The other articles have nothing to correct because that has been how things have been done for many years. Just some examples of other video game FAs that use date announcements as the ref include: Older FAs like The Last of Us (video game) and Grand Theft Auto V, a fellow expansion pack, Fallout 4: Far Harbor, and a more recent expansion FA like Splatoon 3: Side Order, but to get this dealt with, I will add on an additional ref to the 2 announcements. -- ZooBlazer 23:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bgsu98 Everything should be addressed now. -- ZooBlazer 23:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources no. 27 and 28 also predate what they are supposed to be confirming. Now, if one of the @FAC coordinators: wants to confirm that it is entirely appropriate to use a source giving a projected release date to verify the actual release date, then I'll drop it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no other sources posted on the day of or after its release and there are no sources that discuss a release delay, I would consider it acceptable. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @FrB.TG I can probably find a review for the initial release. For the other releases, they are all various bundles (Horizon Zero Dawn + this DLC), so I don't know if it's a problem if The Frozen Wilds isn't name dropped in those articles that may happen to have the release mentioned.
    The only articles specifically about the release dates are the ones from when the dates were first announced (the refs currently being used). -- ZooBlazer 17:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:ZooBlazer: There can't possibly be a lack of sources that verify a release date, even if just in passing, after the fact. "DEVELOPER released their latest GAME yesterday, and it has already set a new record for blah, blah, blah", etc. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bgsu98 It is actually tough for (formerly) ref 28. There was not a ton of coverage about the Complete Edition since it was only a month after The Frozen Wilds released. Managed to find one. I did bundle a review with ref 27 though. -- ZooBlazer 17:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]

Sachertorte

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sachertorte, a famous Austrian chocolate cake from the 19th century that is still very popular today. Improved to Good Article status in April 2025, the article has since been considerably improved, with the addition of more news sources, journals, and books (both English and German ones). The article was peer reviewed by several editors in late 2025 and early 2026. I appreciate the work that @Whonting: has put in to the article by helping me rewrite the article and improve the clunky prose the article previously had. This is my shortest FAC yet (tied with Smash Hit), though I think it's complete.

Some of you might look and see that the Hungarian version is a FA, though there's several problems with it. It heavily relies on low-quality sources that might not even be reliable and there's unsourced content, therefore it would not meet our FA standards. Our version heavily relies on books and reliable news outlets, both English, German, and other. Hopefully you'll enjoy it reading it and maybe I'll make you a bit hungry. :p Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support by ZKang123

[edit]

Will take a look.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The cakes themselves had the same basic ingredients—butter, chocolate, eggs, flour, and sugar—but exact recipes were kept secret. Shouldn't it be but the exact recipes were kept secret?
  • In 2007, it was reported that Hotel Sacher made approximately 360,000 Sachertorte a year. It sells its cakes worldwide. I must presume "it" in the second paragraph refers to Hotel Sacher? Might combine to In 2007, it was reported that Hotel Sacher made approximately 360,000 Sachertorte a year and sells them worldwide.

Description:

  • Cloake concurs A little essay-like here. Might just say "Cloake adds that: while complaints..."

History:

  • "the memory of the nonagenarian inventor or the promotional efforts of his hotelier son" Might clarify a little in-line who is who (e.g. "the memory of the nonagenarian inventor [Sacher] or the promotional efforts of his hotelier son [Eduard]"
  • By 1888, Sachertorte... In 1894, the definition of ... The following year, the dish... A little WP:PROSELIST there. Suggest shifting the date clause a little
  • So began a series of legal disputes over which could be named the original Would say "Hence" instead of "So" and shift this to the next paragraph.

Modern consumption:

  • In 1999, Hotel Sacher opened the Original Sacher Torte Manufactory in Vienna, since the bakery in Hotel Sacher was too small for the demand Slight rewrite to: Hotel Sacher opened the Original Sacher Torte Manufactory in Vienna in 1999 since the bakery in the hotel was too small for the demand

These are all my comments. Quite well-written in fact.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

I'll come at this as a general reader with no background in Austrian confectionery or the German sources, so treat the below as queries rather than anything authoritative. Enjoyable read, and the geographic-reputation framing is a nice touch. Mostly small things.

Lead and Description

  • the unhyphenated Sacher torte is also common is a little confusing, because Sachertorte is also unhyphenated. The three forms seem to be hyphenated (Sacher-Torte), closed (Sachertorte) and spaced (Sacher torte), so the spaced form Sacher torte is also common would read more clearly.
    • Done.
  • "Elisabeth Gürtler, the director of Hotel Sacher" is present tense but cited to a 2007 source. Is she still in post, or should this be dated or past tense?
    • It seems like she is no longer the director.

Taste and texture

  • This section leans fairly heavily on direct quotation (Die Welt, Maier-Bruck, Grigson, Cloake and Krondl in quick succession). It reads well, but paraphrasing one or two might vary the texture, with an eye on 1a.
    • I've tried to paraphrase what I was able to.
  • Two small prose nudges: Several explanations have been put forth reads slightly oddly to me (put forward or "offered"), and the author Rick Rodgers reports German recipes are often mistranslated would sit better with a "that": reports that German recipes are often mistranslated.
    • Done.

History

  • The one I'd most want your eye on. Several citations are to Krondl 2015 at pages 36, 287 and 405 (the line on Sacher's age and apprenticeship, and the Linzer torte sentence), but the source list defines Krondl 2015 as the Oxford Companion entry at pp. 588–589. Those pages fall well outside that span. They may belong to Krondl 2011 (Sweet Invention), or be other Companion entries needing their own short-cite anchors; either way the short citations don't resolve cleanly as they stand.
    • It seems like this error was on me when I was creating {{sfnm}} templates. I'll fix it now.
  • In Hotel Sacher v. Demel, the dispute over ownership remained complicated as Eduard had connections to both: which Eduard, the founder or Eduard Jr.? A clarifying word would help, as both appear.
    • The source says Eduard, not Eduard Jr., so I've specified that.

Modern consumption

  • The McDonald's Japan material (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018–2021, each separately cited) is quite granular. I wonder whether it could be condensed to a sentence, partly on weight against the rest of the section.
    • Done.
  • Minor consistency: the article alternates between "Sachertorte" and "the Sachertorte".
    • Done.

Sources

  • The Becker 1992 journal citation is missing a page range.
    • Done.
  • A few web and news citations lack archive links (the 2007 Sydney Morning Herald, and a couple of the Japanese McDonald's sources); worth archiving before this closes.
    • SMH and Gigazine for some reason cannot be archived with IA. I've archived Entabe.

I can't speak to the German-language sourcing. The cake looks delicious! Metalicat (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. All my points are fixed. Support. Metalicat (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whonting

[edit]

I have spent a fair amount of time with this article and its sources and I am confident in the article's writing and research. As far as I can offer a support in that capacity I will. I'll note for anyone wondering why the article doesn't have an image of Sacher, this will be able next March when Template:PD-old-assumed becomes available. Whonting (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reconrabbit

[edit]
  • Why not "Apricot jam [...] sponge, and also between the layers in multi-layer versions"?
  • Konditorwaren 2013 doesn't mention non-Apricot spreads, so I assume this is in Rodgers 2002
  • "Nicola Humble, who credits perceptions to the cake being served without whipped cream" - maybe "dry perceptions" or perceptions of dryness, as Humble decribes the cake w/o cream?... even though dry is stated over and over before this, which might be a reason to assume the adjective is unnecessary

That's all I have to remark on. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Yes, non-Apricot spreads are in Rodger 2002. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination has my support. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering (prose)

[edit]

Made some simple changes right in-article, feel free to revert/alter any you dislike.

  • early-to-mid 19th century is mentioned a few times but I don't see any early-19th dates. Just say mid?
  • which defines Sachertorte as made from a batter of butter, flour, eggs, sugar, and at least 15% chocolate by weight what about the apricot?
  • attributed the reputation to a lack of appreciation a lack of appreciation of what?
  • In general, I think you're over-attributing comments. Naming everyone like this makes it sound like there is some kind of major dispute that necessitates being so specific. If there is such a dispute, the article does not really get that across. So which is it? For example, you could have a line like "Defenders of the Sachertorte have suggested that its poor reputation among its critics may be a result of poorly translated recipes[fn] or of the cake being served without whipped cream[fn]." This maintains appropriate attribution without implying there's some kind of Sachertorte-based pamphlet war going on.
  • training under the prince's chef Chambellier this name is either important enough to wikilink (redlink if you have to) or it's not important enough to include.
  • in another, legendary account rephrase - not clear whether you mean "legendary" as in "apocryphal" or "famous, and positively so"
  • By the 1930s, the cake had become globally known this doesn't make any sense, given that the previous sentence says it was already globally known in 1895.
  • By 2022, Demel had switched to making its Sachertorte in two layers. lol.
  • Sachertorte is popular in Vienna and other regions of Austria by this point this goes without saying.

In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. What do you think about the reception now? I've tried rewriting it as best as I could. I'm happy to hearing more suggestions regarding that part. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: ? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

I'll comment as I read - delicious topic, running as a Christmas tradition in the family. I'll look at the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • I don't know how to say in the first sentence that the number of layers may be one.
  • I see too many "also", such as "also a key component" right after optional components.
  • I suggest to begin a new para for the Hotel Sacher method.
  • "Elisabeth Gürtler, the former director of Hotel Sacher, also recommends ..." - "also" to what?
  • "The high butter content means Sachertorte ..." - perhaps a bit too colloquial (but I don't know, English not being my native language)

Taste and texture

  • I don't read many articles about food, but if this was music, I'd expect first a more factual description of taste and texture, before critical assessments come in. How about moving the section, with a different title, to after History where we learn that it was intentionally "masculine"?

to be continued --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Modern consumption

  • I'm not happy with the header but don't know a better one.
  • I suggest to first mention 2007, then 2014.
  • I don't know if the almost quirky ending on a price in Japan (while no prices were given for Vienna and other places) is a happy one, but you decide.

General

  • Of the images, I think only the lead image is really good.

Lead, infobox

  • I think the infobox should have some date even if unsure.
  • I wonder if we could have the basic ingredients before the legal issues.
  • "In 2007, it was reported that Hotel Sacher made approximately 360,000 Sachertorte a year and sells them worldwide." I believe that the worldwide sales are fact, not something suggested by a 2007 paper.
  • I think "well-balanced" as the only way to say how it tastes is too little.
  • I miss saying that it is regarded as something special, a Christmas treat and/or gift.

That's all, - thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by David Fuchs

[edit]

Not sure I'll be able to do a proper review, but wanted to flag something:

Music Box (Mariah Carey album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 14:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Songbird Supreme released her third album, Music Box, in late 1993. While it was released to mixed reviews from critics, it eventually became Mariah's bestseller and one of the best-selling albums in history, with over 28 million copies sold worldwide. It included global chart-topping hits such as "Dreamlover", "Hero" and "Without You". Retrospective reviews of the album have been much more optimistic of the album, with some critics regarding Music Box as the album that made Carey the legend she is today. Enjoy the read! 750h+ 14:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Background
  • "did not match the critical or commercial success of her debut, with much lower sales" → "did not match the critical or commercial success of her debut and had much lower sales"
  • "progession" → "progression"
    • Or does the source use "progession"?
  • Afanasieff helped co-write four other tracks—"Anytime You Need a Friend", "All I've Ever Wanted", "Just to Hold You Once Again", and "Music Box"—on the album with Carey.
    • Drop "on the album with Carey"?

MSincccc (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Composition
  • Link "ballads" on first mention in the body?
  • We could link to Soul music and Gospel music.
  • Primarily consisting of ballads, Music Box is a pop and R&B album, with elements of genres like soul, gospel, dance, and jazz.
    • Drop "genres like"?
  • emotive ballads like "Never Forget You" and "Just to Hold You Once Again" and pop–dance tracks like "Dreamlover" and "Now That I Know".
    • Could we insert a comma after the second "and"?
  • as it lifts from a minor key into a more major one.
    • "More major" feels a bit unidiomatic.
  • maintaining a balance with an ease that allowed them to move smoothly over the keyboard and subtle guitar.
    • Do we need the phrase "with an ease"?
  • “The Rartities” (in the Slant citation title) → “The Rarities”

MSincccc (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: done. Looking forward to any followups! 750h+ 15:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Release and promotion
  • The second disc contains the 2009 re-recorded version of "Hero" from The Ballads,
    • We already have "The second disc includes an extended version of "All I Live For"..." earlier.
  • "captured in the one-hour television special Here Is Mariah Carey."

→ "captured in a one-hour television special, Here Is Mariah Carey."

  • "Netherlands" → "the Netherlands"
  • It marked Carey's seventh number-one on the Billboard Hot 100.
    • Drop hyphen?
  • "Critics had a positive response to the song" → "Critics responded positively to the song"
  • In addition to the Music Box Tour, Carey promoted the album through appearances on American and European television, where she performed various singles from the album.
    • Drop "from the album"?
  • "1993 performances included" → "1993 performances included"
Apologies @750h+. I meant "Her 1993 performances included". Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disc three presents her full 1993 concert at Proctor's Theatre in New York,
    • We could drop "in New York" here since we have linked it on first mention.

MSincccc (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: done, except for dropping the hyphen in "Carey's seventh number-one" (this is fine here) and I'm kind of confused what you wanted me to change for your comment "1993 performances included" → "1993 performances included". 750h+ 09:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • "Music Box received generally mixed reviews from music critics upon release." → "Music Box received mixed reviews from music critics upon release."
  • "pointed out the lyrics as the album's main weakness" → "pointed to the lyrics as the album's main weakness"
  • "Troy J. Augusto for Cash Box" → "Troy J. Augusto of Cash Box"
  • "said that it is 'all technique'" → "said that it was 'all technique'"
  • "mismatch between Carey's vocal ability and its material" → "mismatch between Carey's vocal ability and the material"
  • "better than most in the music industry." → "better than those of most in the music industry."

MSincccc (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc, done, looking forward to follow ups! 750h+ 01:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
  • "After being dethroned by" → "After being displaced by"
  • "and a peak of 505,000 copies..." → "and peaked at 505,000 copies..."
    • within the sentence, it wouldn't be grammatically correct
  • "Outside of North America..." → "Outside North America..."
  • "marking six weeks at the top." → "for a total of six weeks at number one." (avoids repetition of "at the top")
  • "Four weeks later, it again reached number one, where it remained for an additional two consecutive weeks..." → "Four weeks later, it again reached number one, remaining there for an additional two consecutive weeks..."

MSincccc (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. 750h+ 09:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrospective commentary
  • "Chan wrote that opined that it showed off" → "Chan wrote that it showed off" (fixes a duplicate verb)
  • "writing that the album signalled the emergence of her as a ‘pop savant’." → "writing that the album signalled her emergence as a ‘pop savant’."
  • "While describing the album as..." → "Describing the album as..."
  • "According to Nickson, ‘Music Box’ was..." → "Nickson wrote that ‘Music Box’ was..."
  • "In a less positive retrospective review" → "In a more critical retrospective review"
  • "lyrics that created a ‘very personal statement’." → "lyrics that formed a ‘very personal statement’."

MSincccc (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "the most album's successful song internationally" → "the album's most successful song internationally"
  • "In the lattermost country" → "In the United States"
    • I would, but the repetition ("United States" being a few words before)
  • "On release, Music Box saw generally mixed reception" → "Upon release, Music Box received generally mixed reviews"
  • "The album spawned five singles; the first two" → "The album spawned five singles: the first two"
  • "who collaborated on a series of projects that concluded with Butterfly (1997)" → "who would continue collaborating through Butterfly (1997)"
    • I rephrased this slightly because they worked on projects outside of Butterfly, like Daydream
  • "topped the charts of fifteen countries" → "topped the charts in fifteen countries"
  • "remains Carey's bestseller" → "remains Carey's best-selling album"
Bottom line

Comment by RD

[edit]

I have a question, there is a gigantic list of links to reviews (mostly contemporary ones) in the article's talk page. Have you gone through them to see if there's anything worth mentioning? They all seem reliable sources at first glance. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've used a few, but they're largely biased reviews, which I can't really use anywhere but the Critical reception section. I used some in that and the Composition sections. 750h+ 09:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi 750h+, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. Some fields of the non-free use rationale of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Music_Box_Mariah_Carey.png say only "n.a.". They should have some text. This use seems to be a standard case, so you can probably just copy-paste the fields from a standard non-free use rationale template. Is there a specific reason why https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whitney_Houston_(cropped3).JPEG is aligned to the left? According to MOS:IMAGELOC, right-side alignment is the default. I can't access the source of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whitney_Houston_(cropped3).JPEG . Is there an archived version we could add as a secondary source? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: much thanks for these comments, and I've applied all of these, but the Whitney one. Annoyingly the source doesn't work (even when archived) so I've replaced the image. Hopefully the licensing is fine here. 750h+ 11:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The new image is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whitney_Houston_2000.jpg (CC BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr). I'm not sure about how to handle cases where the original image is not available anymore, but the new image avoids that problem. That takes care of the remaining concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camilasdandelions

[edit]

Support -- I've just made some minor tweaks here. Best, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 16:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 01:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This table lists 7 random passages from throughout the article (5.3% of 133 total passages). These passages contain 10 inline citations (4.5% of 220 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 01:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Source review is all good, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 01:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
Critics have noted that the album showcased two different types of songs: romantic, emotive ballads like "Never Forget You" and "Just to Hold You Once Again", and pop–dance tracks like "Dreamlover" and "Now That I Know".
20 a newspapers.com ✅
21 newspapers.com ✅
One of the album's more emotional songs, the song gradually builds with each verse, growing in intensity until it finally breaks through, both in the lyrics—realizing one's inner power—and in its production, as it lifts from a minor key into a more triumphant one.
38 a Nickson 1998, p. 108. ✅
The eighth track "Just to Hold You Once Again" features elements such as a gospel choir, and, with its climactic progression, a key change near the end. The song is about the confusion following a breakup, with the narrator questioning the separation.
43 c Nickson 1998, pp. 109–110. ✅
27 c billboard.com ✅
19 f billboard.com ✅
and "Hero" on The Jay Leno Show.
60 youtube.com ✅
Retrospectively, critics have underscored the significance of the album in Carey's career. Rolling Stone's Tim Chan wrote that with Music Box, Carey became the "people's pop princess, ruling radio with hit after hit, while soundtracking weddings, proms and parties alike".
111 a rollingstone.com ✅
Writing for Billboard, Andrew Hampp rated the album 80 out of 100 and opined that it is one of the "strongest albums in her catalog", with the best hits-to-filler ratio of any other pop album.
19 j billboard.com ✅
The Latin American edition includes the bonus track bonus track Héroe.
152 b dutchcharts.nl web.archive.org ✅

Lacy (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 07:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Pride Month, which is also the month that a new Olivia Rodrigo album will be unraveled. This time I would like to present you "Lacy"; equal parts jealousy and adulation, Rodrigo wrote this song while craving an espresso... I mean, puff pastry. Though it began as a poem that Rodrigo eventually converted into a full piece, this folksy song is widely considered a standout on 2023's Guts by critics. It also has a pretty celebrated cover version by Noah Kahan. Should be a fun read. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 07:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "It became available as the album's fourth track on September 8, 2023, when it was released by Geffen Records." - I think "It became available on September 8, 2023, when the album was released by Geffen Records." is fine. The fact that it's track four is super trivial.
  • "A folk-pop and indie folk song with influences of theatrical folk" - is there a link for "theatrical folk"? I've never heard that term.
  • Theatre music might be the closest thing? Although it contains a very limited mention of folk music itself, and I am a bit hesitant to link it due to the author not referring explicitly to what is described there
  • ""Lacy" originated from a poem she wrote for a class assignment. The song chronicles Rodrigo's obsession over the beauty of a female figure of the same name and her envy and self-hatred." => ""Lacy" originated from a poem that Rodrigo wrote for a class assignment. The song chronicles her obsession with the beauty of a female figure of the same name and her envy and self-hatred."
  • Also, "of the same name" could be taken to mean that the female in question is also called Olivia, which is clearly not what you mean
  • "Upon liking the poem, Rodrigo transformed it" => "Liking the poem, Rodrigo transformed it"
  • "Nigro provided production and vocal production, and he engineered the song with Dani Perez and Chris Kasych. He plays drums, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, and synthesizer." - the tenses should be consistent here
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

zzz plant

[edit]

Hi, I really enjoyed reading this article, puff pastry and all! I have some comments from a prose review, organized by subsection below. Please feel free to disregard those that you don't agree with or have already been discussed elsewhere. Zzz plant (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, Zzz plant. Since this seemed quite thoughtful and thorough, I was wondering if you had a view with respect to supporting or opposing promotion. But no pressure either way. Hope all is well.--NØ 03:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! And sorry to leave you hanging, I will look over it again and get back to you within the next day or two. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
[edit]
  • "A folk-pop and indie folk song with influences of theatrical folk..." would try to reduce the number of "folk"s here, three feels like a lot for one clause
    • " with influences of theatrical folk" was removed, which fixes. but if "with theatrical influences" is supported I think that could be a swap instead. seems like a fitting adjective for the song - Z
  • the detail about it originating from a class assignment feels like it belongs with the info about her writing it with Dan Nigro
  • "The song chronicles her obsession over the beauty of a female figure named Lacy and Rodrigo's envy and self-hatred." I feel there's too many "and"s here. suggest something like "The song explores Rodrigo's envy and self-hatred as she becomes obsessed with the beauty of a female figure named Lacy."
    • was changed, flow looks good now - Z
  • "They perceived potential LGBT implications in the song's lyrics." I'd soften this to "some", unless all critics felt this way
    • this was done, resolved - Z
  • I'd swap LGBT for LGBTQ throughout the article- to be consistent with Wikipedia's own nomenclature + sources (Out.com refers to LGBTQ+ themes and pride.com talks about queer readings)
    • this was also done, resolved - Z
Background and promotion
[edit]
  • I wouldn't mind a smidge of background about Rodrigo before getting into her first album release
  • I would say that would fall slightly out of the scope of this article, in keeping with FACR #4. I do think Rodrigo's biography and Sour being wikilinked in the very first sentence should help curious people.
  • fair enough, I see some FAs with more background on the subject and some with less. I've struck - Z
  • "Sour's producer, Dan Nigro, returned to produce every track on it." the specificity of "every track" feels weird to me, I would just say he returned to produce the album
    • this was simplified, resolved -Z
  • "...because they received stronger reactions from her audience during live performances." suggest "...because they received stronger audience reactions during live performances."
  • Nothing technically wrong, but I would be inclined to leave in the current wording.
  • ok, all good -Z
  • "She was required to write a poem during a homework assignment." this feels slightly overexplainy of what hw is, I would condense the first + second sentence into something like "While attending poetry classes at the University of Southern California in 2022, Rodrigo conceived "Lacy" as a class assignment." before then going into the charming kitchen counter anecdote
  • While I see where you are coming from, I think there is some use in mentioning it is a homework assignment, lest someone think there was a kitchen counter in the classroom...
  • Oh sorry if I was unclear- I only think this specific part "She was required to write a poem during a homework assignment." is a bit overexplainy -Z
  • Oh, right. I understand it better now. Modified as suggested.
  • "...during a Tiny Desk concert in December 2023." maybe worth glossing that this a NPR thing?
    • this was done, resolved - Z
  • "She sang it while wriggling on an upraised dais before several dancers emerged from under it to perform choreography..." "wriggling" and "emerged" makes the text feel like it comes from a biology textbook imo. and dais feels a bit jargony, would platform make do?
  • I am not sure I agree. "Wriggling" and "emerged", based on the online dictionaries I have consulted, seem appropriate in this case and are also not informal. I am comfortable with the amount of information the dais article provides for understanding the concept, and thus lean towards retaining the source wording with the wikilink.
  • I definitely understand wanting vivid active verb, so I've struck that part of my comment. but if you keep dais, I would gloss it. Ideally, we don't want a reader to have to navigate away from an article in order to understand something about it. - Z
  • Alright. Switched out "dais" for platform.
Composition
[edit]
  • "Mikael Wood of the Los Angeles Times believed the song has an indie folk sound reminiscent of the work of Abrams." I know you mentioned Gracie earlier in background but I would consider including her first name; I thought initially because of the context that this was saying it was reminiscent of the work of one of the song's producers/mixers/etc.
    • this was done - Z
  • "Rodrigo initially sings in a sarcastic tone and delivers her vocals with a contemptuous whisper." I would soften slightly out of wikivoice. I also find the organization here a bit off- I would perhaps put the "reminiscent of (xyz singer)" commentary together. right now it goes similar to Gracie Abrams, analysis of vocal tone, similar to Lana del Ray
  • I have followed the typical organization of Genres -> Instrumentation -> Vocals (vocal layering in this case). The Abrams and Lana comparisons do not appear conjoined as the former is of the genre and the latter is of vocal layering. Regarding softening the phrasing, contemptuous feels like an already softer paraphrase of "scornful". Are you asking to attribute it to Billboard?
  • Thanks for explaining. While I understand the logic, in practice I don't think it quite comes across clearly. Because both Abrams and Del Rey are contemporary aesthetic comparisons, separating them with a single sentence about a fingerpicked guitar feels like a disruption. I think this para would benefit from some "landmark" phrases would guide the reader through the shift from broad genre, to specific instrumentation, and finally to vocal technique. and about contemptuous, yes I think that's a interpretive/subjective descriptor of vocal affect - Z
  • Moved some stuff around and attributed for contemptuous.
  • "Later in the song, she changes almost every line from the first hook ..." heh? I'm a bit lost here
  • All the hooks differ in lyrics - verse 1: Skin like puff pastry, verse 2: I'm losin' it lately, outro: It's like you're out to get me
      • I think this could be a tad clearer, maybe something like "Each recurrence of the hook alters the lyric, culminating in Lacy being called "made of angel dust"."
  • "Mendez II..." including the generational suffix with the surname by itself sounds very weird to me. I wouldn't refer to Martin Luther King Jr. as "King Jr."
    • this is still Mendez II - Z
      • It's Mendez II where his full name is used and changed to Mendez where using only with the surname.
Critical reception
[edit]
  • "Nylon included the same line in its list of Guts's impeccable lyrics..." this reads to me as saying in wikivoice that the lyrics are impeccable
    • was fixed with quote marks -Z
  • "Some critics praised the intensity of Rodrigo's performance and the production of "Lacy". The Independent's Helen Brown believed she sang with vigor, similarly to Tori Amos, and Wood thought her "breath [sounded] almost uncomfortably hot on the microphone"." for me there is kind of a mismatch between the topic sentence and the critic opinions that follow- I don't instinctively know that Brown or Amos are praising her; you can think someone performs with vigor or their voice sounds uncomfortably hot but have a negative opinion overall
  • organization-wise, the third para's reason for being separate isn't super intuitive to me - I feel like we talked about critics' ranking of the song/its lyrics already at the end of the first para
  • It works to me. The lyrical praise from Nylon and GQ works to drive home the summary statement of para 1 about the lyricism. Both surfaced on album release day. The third para is retrospective-esque (not really but you get the point); the citings there surfaced in an interview, in an all-time discography ranking, and a year-end list. It works as a coherent narrative and can be a growing paragraph as more Rodrigo discography rankings surface in the future.
  • oh, I didn't even pick up on this being a retrospective section. para 1 and 2' ("lyricism" and "performance/production") group by what aspect of the song is being praised, so P3 grouping by what kind of source/format the praise came from feels like a less reader-relevant distinction. in practice this means Wood's "majestic" comment and Willman's remarks are thematically closer to the lyricism and production praise in paras 1+2 than they are to each other: they're separated from content they resemble and grouped with content they don't, which I think is why it feels odd to me. - Z
  • yes that looks good, the organization feels much more intuitive to me / I can immediately tell why the paragraphs are grouped
Commercial performance
[edit]
  • I'd rework one of the first two sentences to avoid two sentences with "issued" verbiage in a row
  • "...the Official Charts Company declared it her 19th-biggest song in the country in February 2024." if this is saying it was Rodrigo's 19th biggest song just for that month, this seems trivial to the point of maybe would consider cutting it.
  • Nope, they are saying it was her 19th biggest song of all-time as of that month.
  • The current phrasing to me reads like a snapshot of her performance during that specific month. I would suggest something like "...the Official Charts Company ranked it as her 19th-biggest song in the UK in a career retrospective compiled in February 2024." that said, I wonder if this is a detail worth mentioning. given she had only released two albums (24ish songs total) by February 2024, ranking 19th essentially means "Lacy" was one of her lowest-performing charting tracks at the time right? -Z
  • With limited space occupied by commercial performance in the article overall, I found the song's inclusion in a ranking like this a due mention. Since our article clearly mentions she only had two albums at this time, the way I view it, readers are free to draw the conclusion that this is actually one of her worst performing tracks from the sentence. I used "as of" wording to clarify on the first part as "career retrospective" feels a bit misleading and wordy for a career just two albums in imo.
  • fair enough, keeping is a reasonable judgement call. although I preferred the original "ranked" to "declared"
Noah Kahan cover
[edit]
  • "On the other hand, Eli Ordonez of NME thought the cover had influences of country music." I'm not sure I get why this is "on the other hand", it feels like a complementary opinion to the previous or at least not a disagreement
    • fixed by removing transition phrase -Z
Credits and personnel
[edit]
  • Chappell Roan doing background vocals for this song is quite a fun fact, is that discussed at any more length in the sources? I could see a mention in composition if yes
    • "To add different tones, Chappell Roan provided background vocals upon Nigro's request." is a *great* add in composition! -Z
Thanks a lot for the review, Zzz plant. I have either made the changes or left a comment explaining wherever I have a difference of opinion.--NØ 16:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, just finished a fresh listen-through- left two extra comments as optional food for thought but I'm ready to support on prose. Thanks so much for working with me here, and excellent work on the article :-) Zzz plant (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camilasdandelions

[edit]
  • I just found that most of magazine citations are cited by {{cite web}}; you should change them to {{cite magazine}}. This also applies to {{cite news}} (|newspaper=) as well.
  • Hope I have done this correctly...
  • Just a time sink since it displays the same thing to the reader. Anyways, every source cited here is an online url and not offline so there is no factual inaccuracy in saying website.
  • MOS:OL, it is a commonly known everyday word.
  • States and entered ➡️ States, entering
  • Should pictured in 2021 be italicized? (I've seen plenty of people opposing at this)
  • It should be, as it is a way of emphasizing the part in the parenthesis isn't necessary for understanding the rest of the sentence.
  • envy that I was feeling" ➡️ envy that [she] was feeling"
  • the album title ➡️ the album's title
  • The current wording seems ok in both cases to me.
  • On August 1, 2023, she revealed Guts's tracklist ➡️ On August 1, she revealed tracklist of Guts
  • The current wording seems ok in both cases to me.
  • It is not redundant. Just "August" following "June 2023" could be referring to August of any subsequent year.
  • released on September 8, 2023. ➡️ released on September 8.
  • It's the first mention of the month in this section so I don't see why this change would be beneficial.
  • It was recorded at Amusement Studios in Los Angeles and Electric Lady Studios in New York City.: Does this belong to the song's "Composition"?
  • It is relevant to introduce the following sentences, which do belong
  • bass and synthesizer can be wikilinked imo (drum is common and idk abt electric guitar, it's up to you; also synthesizer is wikilinked in end of the paragraph so you should unlink this)
  • according to Beats Per Minute ➡️ according to Beats per Minute
  • Rodrigo describes her through comparisons as someone who possesses "skin like puff pastry" and "eyes white as daisies": You should attribute who wrote this quote
  • These are song lyrics so the "Rodrigo describes" at the beginning of the sentence functions as the attribution
  • Ref 64: |url-access=limited
  • Sputnikmusic should not be italicized
  • puff pastry: "since ➡️ puff pastry: "Since
  • Wikilink puff pastry
  • 2020 album Folklore ➡️ 2020 album, Folklore
  • Swift released two albums in 2020, so the comma would not be correct
  • Yup, due to the existence of Folklore and Evermore, "2020 album" is not enough to convey what is meant.
  • I still don't think "adding comma" means that Folklore was her "only" album released in 2020. Commas in appositive constructions don't automatically carry that meaning. If the concern is that "2020 album" is not specific enough because she released both Folklore and Evermore that year, then that's a separate issue from whether a comma is grammatically acceptable. Could you point to MOS that says a comma here would imply uniqueness or be incorrect in this context? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Billboard Global 200 . ➡️ the Billboard Global 200.
  • Section name, "Personnel", seems enough.
  • Credits and personnel is apt. We don't just list the crew of a studio but also lyricists who are credited with writing the words.
  • No, as I have already mentioned, the "songwriter" credits do not belong to the crew of a studio and are just credits for people who wrote the lyrics without any affiliation with the personnel.
  • I am aware of your interpretation of this but the general guidance at MOS:HEADER does not mandate specifically removing the song title from captions. Looking at existing FAs and all precedent, it is unpopular to do this. This article also discusses multiple versions of the song, adding further utility to noting which version's charting is being tabulated.
  • No, almost everyone just seems to disagree this is something helpful to readers and that is fine. I have gone through the last five song FAs promoted and am inclined to keep the song title in the caption in line with that soft consensus over one outdated sentence in a guideline. These captions exist for accessibility purposes so we want to be thorough. With discussion of several live performances and a cover, the mention that it's the original studio track charting is relevant.--NØ 00:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that some FAs keep the song title does not override MOS:HEADER. Unless there's a specific accessibility concern that requires repeating the title, the guideline still advises not to put redundant wording in headers and captions. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are all addressed. Regards.--NØ 15:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Has the sampled timepoint in File:Olivia Rodrigo - Lacy.ogg any particular relevance? Interesting that there is no cover in the infobox. ALT text and image placement are fine. What makes Beats per Minute (website) a reliable source? Is Pride or Rachel Kiley a noteworthy reviewer? Everything else seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. The song's production is pretty static guitar strumming, but I believe the sampled part is where the layered harmonies are most audible. Rodrigo's version of "Lacy" is not included on any commercial single with a cover and is just an album track. Beats per Minute has an editorial team, was found reliable by a WP Albums discussion, and is used by review aggregator Metacritic which is cited widely across Wikipedia over several FAs. Rachel Kiley is a published author in reputed publications like Out magazine and Daily Dot, and the commentary regarding LGBT topics used here seems within her purview and an essential inclusion for comprehensiveness about the lyrical interpretation. Hope the explanations are satisfactory and the reviews pass, Jo-Jo Eumerus.--NØ 16:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik

[edit]
Nominator(s): frankiethey/them (t • c) 02:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this article is about Andranik Ozanian, or just Andranik. he was an Armenian military commander and statesman whose legacy had a very profound impact on the Armenian national liberation movement. frankiethey/them (t • c) 02:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Image review from Nikkimaria

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size Done
  • Suggest adding alt text Done
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images - there are likely too many images overall for the length of the article Done
  • File:Antranik.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Done Ditto File:Andranik_fedayee.jpg, File:Andranik_on_a_horse.jpg, File:Armenia_delegation_United_States_1919.jpg, File:Andranik_Military_Council_of_Goris_1918.png, File:Andranik_Ozanian_Jaques_Bagratuni_Hovhannes_Katchaznouni_United_States_1919.png Done
  • File:1904_Map_of_Mush_and_Sasun.png: what is the author's date of death? Done
  • File:Zoravar_Andranik_in_Sophia_1912.jpg needs a US tag, and what is the author's date of death? Done
  • File:Antranik_volunteers_during_Balkan_War.jpg: what is the status of this work in its country of origin? Done Ditto File:Andranik_Ozanian_1918.jpg Done
  • File:Andranik_Caucasian_Campaign_circa_1914-1916.png: source link is dead, missing a US tag Done
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_Zoravar_Hayots.jpg needs a US tag and a source Done
  • File:Andranik_wedding_paris_1922.jpg needs a US tag, and which of the French rationales is believed to apply? Done
  • File:Cimetière_du_Père-Lachaise_-_General_Antranik_Toros_Ozanian.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work Done
  • File:Andranik_L'Image_1919.png: source link is dead Done
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_poster.jpg is mistagged. Done Ditto File:Legion_dHonneur.jpg Done

Oppose pending significant cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: these issues have been solved. frankiethey/them (t • c) 15:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text still missing from lead image
  • File:Andranik_on_a_horse.jpg needs author date of death, and per the UK tag, "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was" Done
  • File:Map_of_Sasun_by_Alexander_Kalantar.pdf needs an author date of death Done
  • File:Zoravar_Andranik_in_Sophia_1912.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death Done
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_Caucasian_Front_1916.ogv: when and where was this first published? Done
  • File:Andranik_in_America_1919.jpg: when and where was this first published? Done

Comments from Jon698

[edit]
  • Looks like an interesting figure. I will make some comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping: Jon698 hi Jon, thanks for stopping by. i appreciate your interest in the article. i have fixed all of the formatting issues (and removed some images, due to there being too many) in my ability. since you mentioned you'll be reviewing, would you be willing to help apply the fixes to commons? (i'm blocked there) they are listed above. frankiethey/them (t • c) 16:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, can you list what specific edits you want? Jon698 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks! i listed a bunch of issues that im currently unable to change (due to a commons block), but i have laid out how to fix them. these are commons-related image tagging and licensing stuff. here they are:

    File:Antranik.jpg was replaced with File:Andranik Ozanyan.jpg, which can be tagged with PD-Bain (it's part of the Grantham Bain Collection) and US-expired, because it was published/created "between ca. 1915 and ca. 1920".
    Done here - Jon698
    File:Legion dHonneur.jpg is a 2d scan of a certificate from the early 1900s. therefore, the US expired and 100-old tags can be added to it
    The bigger issue is that there is no source for this document. You will need to find one or else it can't be in the article. - Jon698
    File:Andranik_wedding_paris_1922.jpg: the first French rationale applies. the author is identified as the studio photographer Abel Minassian, whose career spans the first four decades of the 20th century (making him deceased well over 70 years). since the photo was taken and published in Paris in 1922 (b4 1931), it is automatically public domain in the US under US-expired, too.
    Done here - Jon698
    File:Andranik on a horse.jpg this file was published in London in the 1914/1915 volume of the periodical Ararat: A Searchlight on Armenia (via HathiTrust). the work is automatically in the public domain in the US under US-expired (international, b4 1931). UK-unknown (as it was published anonymously over 70 years ago in the UK) alongside US-expired can be added to it.
    Done here - Jon698
    File:Zoravar Andranik in Sophia 1912.jpg: this image was published in the US in 1919 in John G. Moskoffian's book Independence for Armenia: An Appeal to the Congress and the People of the United States of America. it was published prior to January 1, 1931; it is automatically in the public domain in the US under US-expired, which provides the missing US tag. since the photographer is anonymous and it was published over 70 years ago, it is also in the public domain in its country of origin, so Bulgaria-anonymous applies too, and old-70-anonymous. frankiethey/them (t • c) 16:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no special tags for Bulgaria in those categories so no edit is required. - Jon698
  • 1. I'm fine with "commonly known as General Andranik" being kept in, but I don't see why "or simply Andranik" is there. We don't do that for Julius Caesar for example.
  • 2. Remove wikilink in "an Armenian military"
  • 3. Wikilink Bulgarian Armed Forces for "Bulgarian army" in lede
  • 4. Change "under" in "Armenian volunteer battalion under the Russian Imperial Army" to "within"
  • 5. "withdrawal left Armenian forces critically isolated" -> remove critically
  • 6. "Despite a resolute defense of Erzurum" -> remove resolute
  • 7. "Today, he is venerated as a national hero" -> Remove today or change to "In modern Armenia"
  • 8. "His paternal ancestors had migrated" -> Remove had
  • 9. "Andranik lost his mother when he was just one year old and was raised by his elder sister, Nazeli." -> Does the source only state that his lost his mother? If it says that she died then you should use the phrase "His mother died" which is more clear
  • 10. " worsened under the reign of Abdul Hamid II" -> Wikilink to Abdul Hamid II as it is his first mention in the body
  • 11. "are named after Sultan Abdul Hamid II" -> Remove wikilink to Abdul Hamid II as his first mention was earlier in this section
  • 12. "then the largest city of the Caucasus and a major center of Armenian culture at the time" -> Remove "at the time" as that is already implied by "then the" at the beginning
  • 13. "upon him by Sultan Abdul Hamid II" -> Remove wikilink to Abdul Hamid II for same reason as #11
  • 14. "in the Mush-Sasun region of Western Armenia" -> Wikilink to Western Armenia as this is the first mention in the body
  • 15. "the geopolitical situation in Western Armenia continued to deteriorate" -> Remove wikilink to Western Armenia
  • 16. "The Great Powers remained largely indifferent" -> Wikilink to Great power
nice catches, i fixed these, except "simply Andranik", because Andranik falls into the rare category of historical figures who is actually more commonly known by a single name, unlike Julius Caesar. in Armenian culture and historiography, he is universally referred to by just his first name, "Andranik". Caesar is a family cognomen, not a first name, whereas Andranik achieved mononymous status where the first name alone instantly identifies him uniquely. and the article does say andranik a lot, which "simply Andranik" helps explain. frankiethey/them (t • c) 18:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachy1621: I have done all but one of the Commons edits you requested. Please see my response to the image relating to his Legion of Honour certificate. Jon698 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
thanks :) i will move forward with the suggestions you brought up. frankiethey/them (t • c) 15:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17. Remove ultimately from "The council ultimately adopted Hrayr's conservative"
  • 18. Remove meager from "irregulars against a meager force"
  • 19. "Leon Trotsky noted that the conflict" -> Remove Leon as his full name has already been used
  • 20. "Following his departure from Persia, Andranik traveled to the Caucasus" -> Swap his and Andranik as his proper name should be used first before pronouns when starting a paragraph
  • 21. All mentions of Abdul Hamid II after the first wikilink should call him "Abdul Hamid" and also not include his title
all done frankiethey/them (t • c) 15:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22. "With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Andranik left his quiet life in Bulgaria to return to Russia" -> Remove "quiet life" or change it to "retirement"
  • 23. "he spearheaded this unit of approximately" -> Replace "spearheaded" with "led"
  • 24. "The subsequent Armistice of Erzincan" -> Remove "subsequent" as that is already implied by coming after the previous sentence
  • 25. "Following a desperate attempt to defend Erzurum against" -> Remove "desperate"
  • 26. "in San Francisco in an unsuccessful attempt to regain his health" -> Replace "regain" with "improve"
  • 27. "In early 2000" -> Remove "early" and have "In early 2000" be the start of a new paragraph
  • 28. "In 1965, Andranik's 100th anniversary " -> Change to "In 1965, the 100th anniversary of Andranik's birth"
  • These are my last comments. I will wait for others to express their opinions before I give my support or opposition. Jon698 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    all done. many thanks for your help frankiethey/them (t • c) 07:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping: Jon698 as a (hopefully) final request, could you add Alexander Kalantar's death (October 20, 1913) to File:Map of Sasun by Alexander Kalantar.pdf? on his armenian wikipedia entry, his date death is sourced with the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, as you can see here. here's the citation for it[1] and thanks for your help again :) frankiethey/them (t • c) 02:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "ՔԱԼԱՆԹԱՐ Ալեքսանդր Հայրապետի (Kalantar Aleksandr Hayrapeti)". Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (in Armenian). Vol. 12. Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia Publishing House. 1986. p. 382.

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Moore (1973)

[edit]
Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of nuts to think that, just two years after the war on drugs began, the United States came one vote away from near-completely stopping it in its tracks. But that's exactly what this case was. Raymond Moore was, as heroin addicts go, not the most remarkable of guys. Police found him in a hotel with fifty capsules coming out to less than a gram of pure heroin in a few grams of mixture. He was convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to six years. On appeal to the highly influential United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he argued that he was an addict, and so he had no choice; because there was no voluntary act behind it, he argued, he should not be punished. The Court of Appeals ruled against him 5–4; although there was no majority, the five judges against generally doubted that he had no choice and doubting that future courts could reliably tell addicts from fakers.

Despite a fierce split in that court and in academia, the five judges won the war resoundingly; the holding of Moore is the holding of basically every court in America and a couple other countries, too. The Ninth Circuit tried to reopen that door for homeless people and got smacked down by the Supreme Court. This case was a wild ride, one that I didn't initially think could be a GA, much less an FA; but the research rabbit hole kept on giving more and more fascinating debate, and I'm really happy with how this article's turned out, in the end. I welcome your feedback :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
@Nikkimaria: Added alt text; Peachy1621 fixed the px sizes (thanks!). Is this good as a source? I tracked down what I think was the document referenced at upload and it didn't seem to have the image. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
done, by the way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MCE89

[edit]

A few suggestions from me:

  • the narrow view of Robinson was adopted by the Supreme Court — possibly worth adding the year that this was adopted and/or a link to the relevant case here?
  • ...connects the debate to the American public's attitudes on whether criminal punishment should reflect utilitarian or retributive values — I think this could possibly use another sentence of explanation. At the moment it feels like this relies on the reader doing a fair bit of work to fill in what "utilitarian" and "retributive" are referring to, and how they link to differing views of addiction and criminal responsibility
  • withdrawal symptoms if they stop using — Given that the sentence is about alcoholism, I think "drinking" would probably fit better than "using" here
  • present and work similarly — "Present and work" feels a little redundant, I think you could simplify this to something like "are also present" without losing meaning
  • Judge J. Skelly Wright, dissenting in this case... — This sentence seems a bit out of place in the legal background section, possibly worth moving to the section about the appeal?
  • Since the act makes no mention of whether or not the law... — The article goes from talking about "acts" in general to a specific act here, but it's not totally clear to me which act is being referred to
  • drug addicts are most often not charged with possession — Is the intended meaning here that most charges against drug addicts are for crimes other than possession? I think this phrasing could be interpreted in a few different ways (e.g. you could also read this as saying that the majority of drug addicts are never charged with possession, or that drug addicts are usually not charged with possession after they've been caught with drugs)
  • Suggest adding a link to Necessity (criminal law) over necessity defenses in state courts
  • I think you could drop the clause rather than clarifying it, since it probably goes without saying that their failure to reach a consensus wouldn't have clarified the debate
  • The sentence beginning Unlike most courts after Powell... is quite long and a little difficult to parse, you might want to consider splitting it into two
  • Is the link to the dab page rehabilitate at the beginning of the section "District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals" intentional? I don't know whether Rehabilitation (penology) or Drug rehabilitation would be the better link in this context, but I'm not sure linking to the dab page is the best solution
  • Not really an issue, but I don't think you need both ref 35 (Barrick 1974, p. 224; Sankin 1974, pp. 397–398.) and ref 36 (Barrick 1974, p. 224; Sankin 1974, p. 398.) in the same sentence
  • I'm not usually a stickler for avoiding stranded prepositions, but I think that was the only issue the Court formed a clear majority on would read a little more smoothly as "that was the only issue on which the Court formed a clear majority"
  • "was still closer the narrow view" -> "was still closer to the narrow view"
  • This is a purely aesthetic suggestion that you are completely free to ignore, but the framed and unframed pictures of Wilkey and Leventhal side-by-side look a little mismatched. Possibly worth swapping the image of Wilkey for a cropped version like File:Malcolm Richard Wilkey (cropped) 2.jpg that doesn't include the frame?
  • Is it worth adding a mention of what happened after the sentence was remanded to the trial court?
  • "as much evidence as need to decide" -> "as much evidence as needed to decide"
  • no deterring effect — I think deterrent effect is the more common form
  • affirming the narrow view of Robinson for good — Is "for good" needed here? I'm also not sure it's something that can be stated with certainty — while it's obviously highly unlikely, I assume that the Supreme Court could theoretically reverse itself at any time and adopt a broad view of Robinson
  • ...but still make a willing choice in addition to use drugs — Should this just be "...but still make a willing choice to use drugs"?
  • Boldt also criticizes Wilkey's "strength of character" argument as vague, writing that it does not sufficiently define the term, and criticizes it as inconsistent — Suggest changing the first part of this sentence to "Boldt also criticizes Wilkey's "strength of character" argument as vague and inconsistent..." to avoid the repetition of "criticizes"
  • ...writing in a chapter of a 2016 book called Addiction and Choice... — Suggest simplifying this to "in the 2016 book Addiction and Choice"
  • It looks like footnote f is missing a citation

Overall a very interesting article, and these are all pretty minor points. Just ping me when you've had a chance to look through these suggestions :) MCE89 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89: Thanks for a very comprehensive review! I'm pretty sure I got everything one way or another, but please tell me if there's anything I missed or could still improve on. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, support. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

Will endeavor to take a look at this. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • " that was 4–7% pure" - Personally, I don't know what this means, and a quick cmd + f on our heroin article does not help me out. Is there any where we can link?
  • "addicts would be in violation of the Eighth Amendment" I think a brief gloss might be helpful here so unfamiliar users don't have to click away
  • Since we have no article on it, a brief gloss of what the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act was might also be helpful here
  • It doesn't really feel to me that the second paragraph of the "Factual background" section fits where it is, it might benefit from coming later. For instance, you contextualize mens rea in the subsequent section, but mention it here. On second thought, maybe it would make more sense just to put the factual background section after the legal context?
  • "The World Health Organization and American Psychiatric Association have recognized addiction as such since the 1950s" in my reading the source here is specifically about alcoholism, not addiction more broadly
  • I don't really see how the three sentences beginning "While there were still major open questions at the time of Moore and afterward are directly relevant here. What would be lost if they were cut? I get that this is the approach Boldt uses (alcoholism --> (drug) "addiction), but why do we?
  • "The addiction defense finds some support in the legislative history of the acts criminalizing possession; the history does not endorse the defense, but it also does not rule it out." This paragraph really confused me from the first sentence onward. Can't we just say that the acts don't say anything about the defense, and maybe how some have interpreted it? My impression is that some people found support in the acts, not that some support was definitely found there, as the topic sentence implies to me
  • why is Fingarette given so much space in the background section? As far as I can tell he didn't really make this argument much (and certainly wasn't well known for it) until the late 80s ([14]), 15 or so years after this case. So to me it isn't really proper background here.
  • "In Robinson v. California" I'd suggest putting (1962) in the article body
  • "They also were shy about" "shy" feels to me like a strange word to use here. Surely something like "reluctant to" is more standard English?
  • "raised concerns about whether the defense would be manageable in practice" the meaning of this is a bit unclear to me
  • " in his view, a person turns to drug use when their "strength of character" is not enough to overcome their cravings" doesn't this just rephrase the first half of the sentence, and the sentence that comes after it? I'd cut
  • "Despite Moore's fractured and narrow ruling, other courts have generally followed the lead of Wilkey's plurality opinion" Is a 1999 source sufficient to support this claim, which implies that it goes to the present day?
  • "the Ninth Circuit partially reversed the trend" I don't really get which trend this refers to. The rest of the para was talking about drug possession, and now we are talking about homelessness?
  • "The Washington Lawyers' Committee – finding no success in this case" given all the legal trends discussed, I feel "this case" could apply to several different cases (I suspect that it's Moore, but might be safer to just use the name)
  • Do Martin v. City of Boise and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson fit in the Reaction#in the courts section? They are definitely responses to Robinson, but Goodman (2024), the source for both of them, doesn't mention Moore in relation to them at all, and only cites the case once, as far as I can tell.

That's a first pass for me. I didn't have time to read the "in academia" subsection yet. Interesting stuff. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eddie891! I've made edits according to what you've suggested, here are my notes on what I didn't quite do:
  • The source doesn't explicitly say what NARA does, and the most I'd want to say is that it authorizes courts to put drug-charge convicts into treatment, which is I think already inferable from the text.
  • The way I tend to write is to have one thing lead to the next – like, I'd rather people keep reading because "what is mens rea?" than get bored because "why do i have to read four paragraphs on mens rea before anyone explains why it's relevant?"
  • I think the background on alcoholism is good because it sets up the main tension of the case, between free will (the basis for legal culpability) and addiction.
  • I used the 1999 source only to verify that it was Moore that took the lead; the length of the trend itself has a source as recent as 2018.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Line

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you try to combine three rail projects together? Well, you get an odd rail line that intersects itself without an interchange. The Downtown Line is one of the most complex projects in Singapore, which involved requiring to divert the Singapore River, digging to a depth of 43 metres, while also dealing with the bankruptcy of a major contractor. The project ended up costing S$21 billion. Still, it remains one of the more reliable lines on the network compared to the Circle Line (Singapore). ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Icepinner

[edit]

Marking my spot. Really glad to see this on FAC! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History
[edit]
  • "The BTL and the northern half of the ERL were subsequently incorporated into the Downtown Line (DTL)" I'm aware that the development of the DTL is incredibly murky, but is there a reason why the merger took place?
  • "fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang, Upper Bukit Timah, and Bukit Timah" I think you should wikilinks for those places
  • "the Downtown at Marina Bay" do we have a specific wikilink for this? Possibly Downtown Core?
  • "would serve Jalan Besar, Bedok" add wikilinks for them?
  • "minister Raymond Lim announced that LTA" should be "the LTA"
    • Fixed.
  • "would run 16.6 kilometres (10.3 mi) from Bukit Panjang" would link Bukit Panjang to the MRT/LRT station page; the LRT part of Bukit Panjang existed before the DTL was conceptualised
    • Done.
  • I hate to bring this up, but you have multiple paragraphs that start with "on date X, Y event"; I was told for Bartley MRT station's GAN that doing so would limit engagement with the reader. I'm aware that it's an inherent limitation with using newspapers or a mix of sources in general, but I would try to rearrange the beginning sentences of some paragraphs.
    • I understand.
  • Any information on when the LTA announced the number of stations for DTL1?
    • It's in 2007, but would be too complicated to clarify.
  • "the New Rail Financing Framework" perhaps provide a brief explanation of what the NRFF is?
  • "Businesses along the line interviewed by Today" would link Today (website) here
    • Done
  • "by Channel NewsAsia" would add a link here
    • Done
  • "Ridership on the DTL increased to 470,000" is this for weekdays only?
    • Seems to be weekday
  • "Slated to begin operations in 2035, DTL2e" "DTL2e" is used, but never defined
    • Fixed.
Network and operations
[edit]
  • "Sengkang and Punggol LRT lines" LRT is used, but never defined
    • Added as footnote.
  • The "interchange" column in the stations table has uncited information (ex: Tampines station's transport connections) that did not appear previously within the article
Infrastructure
[edit]
  • "The DTL's rolling stock consists of 92 three-car trains with four doors on each side of the carriage. An initial order for 73 Bombardier Movia C951 trains was placed for S$570.7 million (US$392.4 million). In March 2013, the LTA ordered an additional 15 trainsets from Bombardier for S$119.2 million (US$95.3 million)" where did the extra six trains come from?
  • Footnote f: "A joint venture between Bombardier and CNR Changchun Railway Vehicle Company." link CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles for CNR Changchun Railway Vehicle Company?
    • Fixed.
  • "The trains are also equipped with regenerative braking" perhaps link Regenerative braking here?
    • Done.
  • "from CSR Zhuzhou Electric Locomotive Co. Ltd" we seem to have a link at CRRC Zhuzhou Locomotive
    • Done.
  • "Gemac Engineering Machinery" we seem to have an ILL at zh:中国国家铁路集团
    • Done.
  • "providing stabling, maintenance, operational and support facilities" other lists in this article has an Oxford comma, but this one doesn't; this should be consistent
    • Fixed.
  • "for maintenance materials, equipment and spare parts" same as above
    • Fixed
  • "originally awarded to Westinghouse Brake and Signal Holdings" would link Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company here
    • Fixed.
Culture
[edit]
  • " Stevens station, which has a depth of 34.22 metres (112.3 ft), has a stacked platform arrangement" would link Split platform here
    • Fixed.
  • "To reflect its location near Fort Canning Park" would add a link here
    • Fixed.
  • "as part of the Art-in-Transit programme" would link here
    • Done.
Lead
[edit]
  • "the line serves 35 stations, all of which are underground" this is repeated in the body, so I'm not sure why there is a citation here...
    • Fixed.
  • "At 41.9 kilometres (26.0 mi), the DTL is the longest fully underground and automated MRT line in Singapore" any way to include this in the body per WP:LEADCITE?
    • Fixed.

Finished initial review. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at again:
  • "Singaporean government would proceed with three new rail projects:" "proceed" implies that they already looked into building them, so I'm wondering when studies were conducted for the BTL and ERL.
  • Usually they would have studied it before announcing they plan to build the line
  • "from Millenia (now Promenade)" is the name change covered by any of the citations? If not, we need a citation for said name change, I believe.
  • Added.
  • "including an additional station in Jalan Besar" any reason why they decided to add the initial station?
  • No reason was stated.

@Icepinner: replied.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:
  • "most reliable MRT line by mean kilometres between failures (MKBF)" do we have an article on this? I think this a term largely coined by the LTA based on a cursory Google search

And... that's all I have. I trust that you will address the above comment, so I will support this nomination in advance. Prose is sufficient for FAC and looks even better now! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

A few prose and consistency points. Had the pleasure of using this line to get around Singapore last month!

Lead
History — Planning
  • "The 40 km (25 mi) line would be built in three stages with 33 stations and was expected to be completed by 2018.": the operational figure given in the infobox is 41.9 km. If 40 km was the early planning estimate, "The line was planned at approximately 40 km" would make that clear.
  • "as accommodating higher-capacity trains was found to increase project costs by 30 per cent": found by whom? If LTA studies, "as LTA studies found that accommodating higher-capacity trains would increase project costs by 30 per cent".
History — Construction
  • "the 400 workers affected were reassigned or deported": could you confirm the source uses "deported" rather than "repatriated"? The two carry different meanings in Singaporean labour-law context.
    • The source says: More than 400 workers had been stranded by Alpine’s sudden collapse. The LTA worked with the Ministry of Manpower to help them too, by finding

new jobs for them or making arrangements to send them home. I think "repatriated" is the more accurate term.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alpine Bau paragraph: was DTL2's completion delayed only by the bankruptcy, or were there other contributing factors? The current phrasing implies the bankruptcy was the cause but doesn't quite say so.
History — Opening
  • "In interviews with Today, some businesses along the line expressed hopes of increased footfall but anticipated that the bulk of their patronage would continue to come from weekday office workers and regular weekend customers.": recommend trim to "Businesses along the line interviewed by Today expressed hopes of increased footfall."?
  • "Nevertheless, commuters interviewed by Channel NewsAsia praised the added convenience brought by DTL3.": "Commuters interviewed by Channel NewsAsia welcomed the added convenience of DTL3." avoids the editorial "nevertheless".
History — Extensions and new stations
  • "Following petitions from nearby residents advocating for the station's opening": the three citations are letters and opinion pieces. Were there formal petitions, or published calls? If the latter, "Following published calls from nearby residents for the station's opening".
Network and operations — Service
  • The MKBF paragraph gives figures of 8.15 million, 4.12 million, 2.787 million, and 8.131 million train-km across different periods and measures. Leading with the 12-month moving average (8.131 million in 2024 down to 2.787 million in 2025) and giving the quarterly figures as illustration would read more cleanly.
  • "the line's total travel time is 69 minutes": end-to-end Bukit Panjang to Expo?
Infrastructure — Rolling stock
  • "with features such as an ergonomic curved seat design and perch seats in the gangway for wider standing space": does the source describe the seats as "ergonomic", or is that the article's word? If the latter, "with features such as curved seats and perch seats in the gangway" is safer.
    All of my points have been addressed. Support. Metalicat (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reducing overall weight and electricity consumption by about 2,000 MWh per year": does the 2,000 MWh figure refer to electricity consumption only, or to both? A small rephrase would resolve it.
    • Source states: The train also has regenerative brakes that recover energy, and lightweight converters that make it lighter than other trains in Singapore. This means that it uses less electricity. Fleet-wide, this results in about 2,000 megawatt hours of electricity savings each year, which is enough to power about 430 four-room Housing Board flats for a year.

Metalicat (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size

Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave a review tomorrow. 09:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason why there are citations in the lede? Are those claims disputed?
    • I thought claims like "longest" would need citations in the lead.
  • 56 citations are categorised as "reliable", while 77 are categorised as being "government". 45 unknown. Most articles seem to have a a mix of reliable secondary sources and primary government sources so we should follow the precedent that have been applied to other GAs/FAs in this category.
  • "Coloured blue on the rail map, the line serves 35 stations, all of which are underground." → "Coloured blue on the rail map, the line serves 35 underground stations".
    • Fixed.
  • "The BTL was planned to be a fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang, Upper Bukit Timah, and Bukit Timah to alleviate traffic congestion along the Bukit Timah and Dunearn Road corridor." Bukit Timah seems to repeat a lot in this sentence. Is it possible to cut it down, like: "The BTL was planned to be a fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang and the Upper Bukit Timah district to alleviate traffic congestion along the Dunearn Road corridor"? Tell me what do you think.
    • Rather leave it as such for now because these are place and road names.
  • "studying further extensions to the DTE, including an eastward extension to Kim Chuan Depot and a westward extension linking the line to the BTL." extension, extension, extension → "studying further additions to the DTE, including an eastward branch to Kim Chuan Depot and a westward link to the BTL."
    • Fixed.
  • "To construct Telok Ayer station, a temporary viaduct was built along Cross Street to replace the lanes closed for the station's construction." tautology → "To facilitate work on Telok Ayer station, a temporary viaduct was built along Cross Street to bypass closed traffic lanes."
    • Fixed.

I'm going to take another look later, even though I do not see any other major issues within the article. Most of my concerns are related to the History section. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article another look and did not spot any other issues besides those from yesterday. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: Did the above fixes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]
  • I made some edits to the article. Feel free to revert if not helpful.
  • There are some sentences that, as a general interest reader with no knowledge of this before reading the article, I think might be too much detail for an article like this; some of these sentences made me think "Why should I care about this?". I've listed these sentences below, and perhaps can be considered for deletion:
  • "The DTL was hit by a 15-minute disruption on its opening day." Why is this significant to mention? Did this have something to do with the operations, or create some sort of backlash? If not, maybe delete it.
  • "A public preview for DTL2 was held on 5 December." I feel like this is routine of a station rail line opening and not significant to the article: in 100 years, will the reader care that there was a public preview of the station rail line?
  • "Those interviewed by The Straits Times said that the new extension had significantly reduced their travel times." Why should the reader care about what random people think? I think statistics about travel times are more important (and quantitative).
  • "In September 2017, religious leaders from the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) visited the DTL3 stations and offered prayers for workers and commuters." Why is this significant?
  • "The DTL3 open house was held on 15 October." Same as the above open house.
  • "On 30 December 2016, fares on the DTL were lowered to match the other lines with a "purely distance-based approach"." Per MOS:ATTRIBUTION, the person/organisation providing the quote needs to be stated in the article prose.
  • "Bridget Tracy Tan, June Yap, Patrick Chia, and Hanson Ho.": Is this June Yap? If so, wikilink.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I was the first reviewer at Talk:Downtown Line/GA1; though I do not intend to participate in the FA process, I'd like to point you to the GAN as at least one of your queries (that of including the delay on opening day) was read and rejected by the nominator over there ("not all openings are smooth sailing") Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: Delays of a couple minutes on a mass transit line are pretty routine, so I am still unsure as to why this is significant for the reader to know that this happened on opening day. Either this should be removed, or its significance explained in the article (were officials worried about this delay? Was this the first of a regular pattern that emerged later?) Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720
    Done: rm'd interviews on reduced travel times, interfaith prayers, wikilinked June Yap
    Partly done: rewrote fare decrease, though attribution appears to have already existed in the following sentence
    Not done: opening day disruption, open houses
    Note: For the "not done" parts, I disclose that I perhaps had a COI towards retention as the first of two GA reviewers (the other is Epicgenius); feel free to implement them yourself if you find that I was giving undue weight Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: If I omit about the disruption, other reviewers might say everything was too perfect and smooth sailing. And the MRT network also has its fair share of breakdowns, much to everyone's chagrin, especially a few times on the DTL. As for the open houses, I still consider them part of the line's history. People in hundred years might wonder actually if we actually did open houses. (also why does Wikipedia have an article on wedding cakes?) And the IRO bit might be trivial, but still interesting as it highlights Singapore's racial and religious diversity.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZKang123: When this sentence was omitted, did other reviewers say everything was too perfect? If not, then I would suggest that we have that discussion if it comes up. Unless something of significance happened at the open house, I do not think it should be included as it is a pretty routine thing to do. I don't think readers are going to wonder about it if it is not included, as why would they even think about an open house taking place? If the IRO is in the article to highlight Singapore's racial and religious diversity, then the article needs to explain how this event showcased that and why this IRO visit was significant. Most readers for this article want to know information about the Downtown Line, and the racial/religous implications will need to be explained if the sentence is included: readers will not pick up the implication that it highlights Singapore's diversity from this sentence alone. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I won't let the open house comment above hold up the FAC: happy to give additional thoughts if another reviewer comments on it. Editors may also consider adding additional images to sections that have the space to add them. Possible images could include: a map of planned extensions in "Extensions and new stations", a picture of Gali Batu Depot in "Depot", an image of an aspect of the signalling system in "Signalling" (like the control panel for the GoA4 automation, the CBTC moving block system, or a diagram of how it works. I wasn't able to find an image, so this might be harder to fulfil), and an image of the tactile system used in the stations for "Station facilities". Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's illegal to photograph train depots here, so its addition here would be a bit questionable, especially for FAC Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I shall take a look later this week. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius you good? The review wasn't here that entire week and it's already the next Friday Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 22:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, unfortunately I am not. I've been swamped with work lately and haven't been able to devote much time to this. I do have the list of sources I'm checking, so I'll try to take a look over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Welp
Thanks for the review Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check
[edit]

This table lists 19 random passages from throughout the article (9.9% of 191 total passages). These passages contain 30 inline citations (10.6% of 283 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
The BTL was planned to be a fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang, Upper Bukit Timah, and Bukit Timah to alleviate traffic congestion along the Bukit Timah and Dunearn Road corridor. The ERL was planned as a loop line to complement the East–West Line (EWL), serving residents of eastern Singapore, particularly Tampines, Bedok, Marine Parade, MacPherson and Kaki Bukit.
6 b mot.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY
7 b straitstimes.com web.archive.org checkY
Through a public poll, the station names of DTL1 and DTL2 were finalised in June 2009.
28 eresources.nlb.gov.sg checkY
30 megalodon.jp exclamation mark  → checkY The names are given, but not the fact that the dates were finalised on that date
it would serve the development of the Downtown at Marina Bay, a planned business and financial hub.
13 b app.lta.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY
The line was projected to serve about 500,000 commuters daily.
24 b megalodon.jp checkY
The affected private properties slated for acquisition included a Shell petrol station along Upper Changi Road East, two parking lots at Bencoolen House, part of the food court at Peony Mansion, 15 landed properties along Merpati Road and Jalan Anggerek, vacant land behind Kaki Bukit Techpark and the Techview Building, as well as an empty plot next to Plaza by the Park.
33 b app.lta.gov.sg web.archive.org Question? Checks out. Might be too close paraphrasing to the source.
36 b eresources.nlb.gov.sg checkY Verifies some info; the rest is verified by 33.
Various instruments were used to monitor the live tunnels to ensure the construction of the DTL tunnels did not impact train operations.
58 a constructionplusasia.com web.archive.org checkY
57 b Feng 2017, p. 48. checkY
Businesses along the line interviewed by Today expressed hopes of increased footfall, but anticipated that the bulk of their patronage would continue to come from weekday office workers and regular weekend customers.
72 todayonline.com web.archive.org checkY
Daily weekday ridership on the DTL increased to 470,000 in February 2018.
87 lta.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY
The contract for Xilin station was awarded in March 2016,
95 straitstimes.com web.archive.org checkY
Slated to begin operations in 2035, the DTL2 extension (DTL2e) is to include an additional unnamed station between Sungei Kadut and Bukit Panjang.
113 a lta.gov.sg web.archive.org Question? → checkY The source says that DE1 is at Sungei Kadut Avenue (which, to be fair, is unnamed) and mentions a new underground station at DE2. However, it doesn't say that DE2 is called Sungei Kadut; I think the source is saying that DE2 is also an unnamed station in Sungei Kadut.
On 30 December 2016, the Public Transport Council (PTC) lowered the DTL fares to match the other lines with a "purely distance-based approach". The PTC said it was intended to minimise commuter confusion.
120 straitstimes.com web.archive.org Question? It verifies the general gist, not the exact quote. Maybe remove the quotes and rephrase as "lowered the DTL fares to match the other lines, which use distance-based fares"?
121 ptc.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY However, see directly above.
before turning west to Downtown station.
134 b lta.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY
An initial order for 73 Bombardier Movia C951 trains was placed for S$570.7 million (US$392.4 million).
152 a app.lta.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY Verifies the contract number.
153 a app.lta.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY Verifies cost.
154 bombardier.com web.archive.org Question? The amount is rounded up to S$571 million, but it verifies the cost approximately.
The trains are fitted with load sensors that detect passenger weight. This data is used for the Passenger Load Information System, which displays crowding levels in each car on LCD screens at station platforms.
164 straitstimes.com web.archive.org checkY
165 todayonline.com web.archive.org checkY The archive does not seem to work. Ironically, the original link does work.
166 railjournal.com web.archive.org checkY
and multifunction vehicles from MERMEC.
173 lta.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY
The signalling contract was originally awarded to Westinghouse Brake and Signal Holdings for S$287.5 million (US$197.7 million) in November 2008.
153 d app.lta.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY
5 d railwaygazette.com web.archive.org Question? The amount is rounded up to S$288 million, but it verifies the cost approximately.
Platform screen doors (PSDs) along the line were installed by Westinghouse Signal (Invensys Rail Group), supplied by Faiveley.
196 b Cooke & Han 2010, p. 546. checkY AGF as I can't access this
202 faiveleytransport.com web.archive.org checkY
According to Paul Fok, the LTA's Group Director of Infrastructure and Design Engineering, the station designs reflect the heritage and culture of their surrounding areas where possible.
211 a Feng 2017, p. 150. checkY
The CD stations are Bukit Panjang, Cashew, Hillview, Beauty World, King Albert Park, Sixth Avenue, Tan Kah Kee, Geylang Bahru, Bedok North, Bedok Reservoir, Tampines West, Tampines, Tampines East, Upper Changi, and Expo.
203 b scdf.gov.sg web.archive.org checkY

More to come in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 30: ce'd to say that the finalisation was announced, instead of conducted, in June 2009. See the original publication date of reference 29 (which is in that exact month).
Ref 33: not sure. De-clopping efforts could make the sentence deficient.
Ref 113: we know in our hearts that it's Sungei Kadut but, yeah, the site doesn't say that, IAR doesn't work, and a citation specifically added to make that point might be WP:SYNTH... Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other source comments

[edit]
  • In some citations, Land Transport Authority is in the work parameter, and in others it's in the publisher parameter. This should be consistent.
  • In some citations, CNA is spelled out, and in others, it's abbreviated. This should be consistent.
  • Ref 29 (LTA (12 November 2016). "LTA Wins Top Accolade at International Tunnelling Awards". Land Transport Authority (Press release)) - The author parameter is not needed here.
  • Ref 56 (Christopher Tan (29 October 2014). "Downtown Line 3 Taking Shape as Singapore River Diversion Comes to Completion". The Straits Times.) - This should be "Tan, Christopher", with |first=Christopher and |last=Tan
  • Ref 86 (Farhan, Noor (21 October 2017). "Commuters Hail Convenience as Downtown Line 3 Opens". ) is missing a work or publisher.

Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

[edit]

'Support. I'm a big fan of transport infrastructure, and considering I have an FAC of my own, I figured I should review. My first impression is that there are a ton of duplicate Wikilinks. If you're editing on a computer, check the option to "Highlight duplicate links".

Infobox
  • "Malay: Laluan Pusat Bandar" - source? I notice the Chinese and Tamil names are sourced
    • Added sources. The "citations" are footnotes, but I added for these. - Kang
Lead
  • The Downtown Line (DTL) is a medium-capacity Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line in Singapore. - I think this is weak as far as opening sentences. The article never explains what "medium-capacity" is, despite referring to it twice in the article. And I don't mean linking to Seating capacity since that isn't specific either. But just "The Downtown Line (DTL) is a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line in Singapore" might be too basic. Maybe that it's the longest fully underground line in the country? Alternately, that it was the 5th MRT line could work as an opener.
  • "Coloured blue on the rail map, the line serves 35 underground stations." - these seem like separate ideas. The part about underground stations would make sense if it followed that it was the longest underground line. And likewise, you could combine "Coloured blue on the rail map, the DTL is also the longest automated MRT line."
    • "Medium-capacity" refers to the subway line having three-car trains rather than six-car trains, compared to the higher capacity rail lines such as North East Line. I've rewritten to be clear that it's a rail line part of the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit system, and shifted the other infomation accordingly.
  • "Operated by SBS Transit, it runs from Bukit Panjang station in the north-west of the country towards Expo station in the east, making a loop around the city centre (Central Area)." - I suggest adding a "while also" to the last part for grammar purposes.
    • Fixed.
  • "Stage 2, which spans from Bugis to Bukit Panjang, commenced operations in 2015 despite the bankruptcy of Alpine Bau, which was the main contractor for three stations on the segment. " - I suggest splitting the bankruptcy part into its own sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • "Hume, an infill station between Hillview and Beauty World, began operations in February 2025." - I suggest adding a wikilink to "infill"
    • Fixed.
History
  • "by 30 per cent" - any reason you say "per cent" vs %?
    • No particular reason. Changed all to "%".
  • "The 12 stations of DTL2 were announced in July that year. A two-storey building at Halifax Road and two strips of land at Upper Bukit Timah Road were gazetted for acquisition." - "gazetted"? I'm assuming this is some kind of eminent domain?
    • The government gazettes the land for acquisition. Like, designated.
  • "In November 2008, the LTA awarded the contracts for the line's signalling, communications systems, and rolling stock." - I hate to play dummy here, but would you mind linking "signal" here, since it's the first time in the article that the term is mentioned?
    • Did so.
  • "Following a public poll with 3000 respondents, the names of the DTL3 stations were finalised in August 2011." - I suggest adding the DTL3 station names to when you mentioned names previously (this part):
  • "In June 2009, the LTA announced that the station names of DTL1 and DTL2 had been finalised through a public poll."
  • Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.
  • I was recommending having the same sentence identifying when the station names were finalized. Something like "Based on a public poll, the LTA announced the station names of DTL1 and DTL2 in June 2009, followed by the names of DTL3 stations in August 2011." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the bankruptcy, the DTL2's completion date was delayed to mid-2016" - except it was in December 2015. Either you are missing a "projected completion date" here, or just change it to when DTL2 actually opened.
    • Changed to "projected".
Network and operations
  • "The line operates between 5:30 am and 12:46 am. On weekdays and Saturdays, the first train leaves Bukit Panjang at 5:30 am; the last train leaves Expo at 11:40 pm." - what about Sundays?
    • Thought it would be trivial to add about Sundays and public holidays. But I added a footnote; the start time is just different.
  • On 30 December 2016, the Public Transport Council (PTC) lowered the DTL fares to match the other lines with a "purely distance-based approach". - did the PTC say this quote? If they didn't, who said it?
    • They said it.
  • "The fully underground 42-kilometre (26-mile)[f] DTL runs from Bukit Panjang in northwestern Singapore to Singapore Expo in eastern Singapore via the Central Area.[8][133] Beginning at Bukit Panjang" - you link Bukit Panjang twice. Maybe don't mention Bukit Banjang the first time around? Also, can you write it in a way that doesn't say "Singapore" three times in the same sentence?
    • The first Bukit Panjang refers to the locale. The next Bukit Panjang refers to the terminus. Also, I removed the third instance of "Singapore", but I retained the first two mentions. Unfortunately, the second instance is the place name and I'm following the source.
  • "2H 2026" - I noticed this in the table, and the writing just seemed a bit off to me. I was thinking, maybe write it out as "second half of 2026?" Or even "late 2026"? It's already June 20th, 2026, so the second half of 2026 is only 10 days away. Is there any update on when the extension is opening?
Infrastructure
  • "2,000 MWh per year" - link Megawatt per hour? Ditto Ghz
    • Fixed.
  • "The Tai Seng Facility Building is a two-level underground structure measuring 52 metres (171 ft) wide and 295 metres (968 ft) long, housing maintenance, operations, and staff facilities for DTL3." - I suggest splitting into two sentences.
    • Done
  • In the event of total failure of automatic train operation, a "creep mode" allows the control centre operator to move the train to the next station under CBTC protection. - why the quotes on "creep mode"?
    • It's a function or mode the system calls it.
  • Is "Civil Defense" worth linking to Singapore Civil Defence Force, when you mention that 15 stations are designated CD shelters?
    • The Civil Defence shelters are under the SCDF.
  • Little India station adopted a "flowing" fabric theme reminiscent of the Indian sari to reflect the vicinity's heritage. - why does the image have "flowing" in quotes, but the body of the article doesn't?
    • Removed the quotes.

In all, the article is well-written, and makes me want to visit Singapore and ride the MRT! A lot of my comments were a bit nitpicky, so hopefully nothing is too difficult to address. Good work so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I notice the Chinese and Tamil names are sourced"
Misunderstanding lah; the "sources" are romanisations and no one bothered to add citations to any of the three names
The Malay name doesn't need a romanisation because it's in the Latin alphabet Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 22:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Responded.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support now! I replied to the one comment about the names, but that's too minor to hold me back from supporting. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest J. King

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Fleet Admiral Ernest King, the second most senior US Navy officer in World War II. This nomination is the result of the recent drive to upgrade vital articles and this is a level 5 vital article. Unfortunately, I was unable to nominate it in time owing to other commitments. I already worked on Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, the most senior naval officer, but this article was more difficult. King has three biographies, all fairly good, but coming to grips with King requires an understanding of the United States Navy. I hope I have been able to do it and King justice. The article had passed an A-class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

Metalicat

[edit]

Reviewing as a non-specialist; the points below are general observations and questions rather than specialist objections, so please push back where I have misunderstood.

Lead

  • The final sentence of paragraph 3 was hard for me to follow: On the Combined Chiefs, King advocated means to attain speedy victory in Europe First in order to execute the final reconstruction strategy for global stabilization through the central Pacific War maritime offensive in Asia. I struggled to parse "final reconstruction strategy for global stabilization" as a non-specialist. Would something like On the Combined Chiefs, King supported the "Europe first" strategy as a means to swift victory in Europe, with the central Pacific maritime offensive to follow as the path to victory over Japan work? Open to a different formulation if I have misread the underlying claim.
    I think is is too easy to misread. I have changed it to "On the Combined Chiefs, King advocated a speedy victory in Europe under the "Europe first" strategy, a maritime offensive in the Central Pacific, and assistance to China in Asia" which I think is clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Europe First" appears in the lead and the War in Europe section but is not wikilinked, and the capitalisation differs from the Wikipedia article at Europe first (lowercase). I would suggest wikilinking on first mention and matching the lowercase form with quotation marks: the "Europe first" strategy. - If this is indeed the correct way.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never preoccupied with land operations, King stood out as the paramount voice in advancing the naval view of global strategy. "Paramount" reads strong in Wikipedia's voice; if this is paraphrasing a specific historian, in-text attribution might help.
    Deleted "paramount". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • King hoped to find adventure, seeking orders to the cruiser Cincinnati: the participial structure was slightly awkward to me; King hoped to find adventure and sought orders to the cruiser Cincinnati would split it cleanly.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he upset many superiors by being cocky, perhaps excessively confident, and certainly uninterested in fitting in...: the "perhaps excessively confident" parenthetical reads as an authorial hedge rather than source-attributed characterisation. Is this Buell's or Kohnen's own qualifier, or is it Wikipedia's?
    Buell: "In addition to his drinking, King's tempestuous behavior repeatedly provoked his senior officers. What King regarded as forthrightness, they regarded as stubbornness, belligerence and arrogant insubordination." Two examples follow, including the one with Rodman.
    Kohnen: "Drunk and missing his cap upon appearing at the quarterdeck with his collar undone, the executive officer on Cincinatti, Lt. Cmdr. Hugh Rodman, threatened to see King Dismissed from the service. Rodman barked a series of insults, which prompted King to respond impertinently"
    I had originally wrote: "Bouts of heavy drinking led to King being put under hatches, and a forthright and arrogant attitude bordering on insubordination led to adverse comments in his fitness reports" but another editor changed it to the text above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

  • King was the last to continue this tradition.: last what? Last serving officer? Last to do so in the US Navy? A couple of extra words would help.
    The source says: "paradoxically, a very junior officer who was a fervent Anglophobe -- was the only one of them who persisted all his life in wearing that affrontive jacket pocket hankie memento." Re-worded. (The hands in packets stance in the image is also in emulation of Beatty.)Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the infobox portrait with that of David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet

  • Legend has it that King said: "When they get into trouble, they call for the sons-of-bitches.": "Legend has it" is informal; An often-repeated story holds that King said... or similar might fit Wikipedia voice better.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dauntless cost paragraph: the Roosevelt quotation about "Saint George" needed a footnote or aside for me to realise this referred to Marshall. A non-specialist might miss it.
    Added name in brackets. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Chiefs of Staff

  • King had thirty-two official meetings with Roosevelt at the White House in 1942, but only eight in 1943, nine in 1944 and just one in 1945.: striking statistic, but the article doesn't tell the reader what to make of it. Was this a function of the JCS structure, of changing presidential attention, of King falling out of favour, or of wartime travel patterns? Even one sentence of interpretation would help.

Relations with the British

  • Such a characterization failed to reflect the historical understanding and deeper commitment King demonstrated as a strategist...: this reads as Wikipedia voice doing rebuttal work; attributing it explicitly to Kohnen would strengthen the framing.

That is what I have. Happy to be corrected on any of these. A very interesting article. Metalicat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Image caption "King stands behind Roosevelt at the Octagon Conference in Quebec in September 1944." Some readers may not know what Roosevelt looks like; and even those that do have to pick 1 of 2 people who are kinda behind Roosevelt . Consider "Standing 3rd (4th?) from left" or similar.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When he examined the war plan in the safe, he found it was for a war with Mexico." - Some may read "the war plan" to mean the ship's current, valid plan. Consider rewording to "When he examined the safe, he found an old plan for a war with Mexico." or similar.
    I was the current, valid war plan. Just not for the right war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... had Willson retired in August 1942 due to heart conduction " Is that supposed to be "a heart condition"? Even if the source says "conduction" (meaning an electrical issue with the heart) no reader will know that, so consider a wikilink or more understandable term.
    Changed to "due to a heart condition". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source details? Patterson, William H. Mr. Science. p. 365. Can more details be added (e.g. publisher name? external link?) so curious readers can track-down the book?
    I cannot find this book. Removed the quote, replaced with something I can source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this big quote essential for the article?
    He expounded on the theory that America's weakness was representative democracy: "Historically, despite Washington's (and others') experienced and cogent advice to make due preparations for war, it is traditional and habitual for us to be inadequately prepared. This is the combined result of a number of factors, the character of which is only indicated: democracy, which tends to make everyone believe that he knows it all; the preponderance (inherent in democracy) of people whose real interest is in their own welfare as individuals; the glorification of our own victories in war and the corresponding ignorance of our defeats (and disgraces) and of their basic causes; the inability of the average individual (the man in the street) to understand the cause and effect not only in foreign but domestic affairs, as well as his lack of interest in such matters. Added to these elements is the manner in which our representative (republican) form of government has developed as to put a premium on mediocrity and to emphasize the defects of the electorate already mentioned."
    That's a large paragraph. It looks like the source is a primary source: a work by King, correct? Meaning a biographer did not quote that passage? (1) The article should be in encyclopedia's voice, quote only if it is super important; (2) if no 2ndary source emphasiszes that quote, it is sorta OR for a WP editor to select it for special emphasis; (3) the article is rather large, so any quotes should be small, unless there is a compelling reason. Consider replacing the quote with a paraphrase in encyclopedia's voice.
    The quote is from King's essay. It is the subject of commentary in the secondary sources. Rather than quote them or editorialise in Wikipedia's voice, I chose to use King's own words. The problem is that what critics regarded as shocking twenty years ago now sounds more like common sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing: "Stories of and about the popular image of King often obscured the remarkable history underlying the pivotal events, which later shaped his command persona within the context of the U.S. Naval services in his era. Fidelity to the service also required fidelity within the context of the service monoculture. King's wife and seven children usually accompanied him to his various assignments ashore. King purchased several homes, along the way."
    1. I'm not sure what this is trying to tell me: "Stories of and about the popular image of King often obscured the remarkable history underlying the pivotal events" It's as if a key sentence after this have been deleted. Can some words be added to explain what was so "remarkable" and what "obscured" what?
    2. I have no idea what this is telling me: "Fidelity to the service also required fidelity within the context of the service monoculture." Can it be re-worded in plainer terms so lay reader can understand?
    3. So what? "King purchased several homes, along the way." Isn't that common for military personnel, at least ones that can afford it? Is the article trying to tell the reader that King kept ownership of all the home and accumulated a lot of real estate wealth? In any case, consider adding words to explain why this sentence is significant.
    Deleted this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went thru the article again, after the changes related to reviewer notes below. All looks good. Support on prose and MOS. Great article! Noleander (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by A.Cython

[edit]

Overall an excellent written biography of an important navy officer in WWII. I have some minor comments from a casual reader.

A.Cython(talk) 04:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I found King a difficult subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I re-read the article and overall I think it is in very good shape. Challenging biographies is something we should strive to write/improve and should not be a barrier to FA. The only remaining concern from my part is the order of citations, e.g., Wright.[49][50][45] and Standley's proposals.[64][65][62][66], but this can be tackled at the end after addressing all other pending comments. A.Cython(talk) 00:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "holding these two positions under wartime Executive Order." If you are saying that it took the executive order for him to be able to hold both simultaneously I might say "able to hold both positions by wartime Executive Order" or similar.
    We already said that and I don't think the Executive Order is worth mentioning in the lead, so re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had an older brother" Ernest or his father? The paragraph is about Ernest but the father is the last male referred to.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "valedictorian in the Class of 1897;" I think "of" instead of "in" is more common.
    Changed as suggested. You have become my go-to for American idioms. We don't have valedictorians in Australia; the class member with the highest marks is called the "dux". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only thirteen classmates in his year" I would say "only thirteen others in his class".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning that TR was a naval historian.
    I did not know that. Mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Graduates like King who went into the Navy had to serve for two years at sea before being commissioned as ensigns." Perhaps "Naval Academy graduates like King had to serve for two years at sea before being commissioned as ensigns."
    Changed as suggested. The point here was that if you chose to go into the Marine Corps instead you would be commissioned as a second lieutenant straight away. The British Navy was the same. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little unclear where he joined the Cincinnati. I see from our article on same that it was in the Med and then went east.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "promoted to ensign" or "commissioned as an ensign"? You mention a bit later that he had been a passed midshipman, maybe put that info here?
    Changed to "commissioned as an ensign".
  • "the prevailing wardroom culture of the era." Feels a little redundant?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asiatic Fleet is linked on second use, rather than first.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although his missteps as a junior officer required the approval of the Navy Retention Board." Maybe "although his promotion required the approval of the Navy Retention Board due to his missteps as a junior officer." A few more dates scattered in this section would be useful.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as chaired by the President of the Naval War College," Cut "as". I take it he would have been out had he not been promoted?
    Cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

""More soon. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "fleeted up" A bit jargony.
  • "10 USC Sec. 5942" Putting on my lawyer hat for a moment, and after consulting the "blue book" of legal citation, I would say "10 U.S.C. § 5942".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but his solo flying was eliminated by a naval regulation prohibiting them". I might change "flying was" to "flights were".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "blue laws were flouted". The most usual US blue law is restriction on Sunday trading. How do naval officers at a remote farmhouse violate that?
    In a dry county, it is a restriction on sale in any day of the week. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had many affairs" but before you said, "King from that point on remained faithful to Mattie". "That point on" does not imply a forward limit.
    I didn't write that earlier sentence. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Claude A. Swanson, the new Secretary of the Navy, recommended King, having been impressed by his work in the salvage of the S-51 and S-4, pressed the appointment for King to stand as Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, with the requisite Congressional approval pending for the permanent promotion to rear admiral on 26 April 1933.[61][62][63]" This sentence, which should probably be divided, is a bit unclear as well. What is the significance of 26 April 1933. I'm guessing he was appointed chief with his permanent rank still pending, but that's just a guess.
    Yes. Divided sentence. The practice in the US Navy is for senior officers to be appointed to a position with temporary rank, pending Congressional confirmation. King's assignment was a bit unusual, being due to the sudden death of his predecessor. These days, the confirmation process takes a lot longer than it used to, but until recently it was exceedingly rare for an officer not to be promoted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mairzy Doates

[edit]
Nominator(s): RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, after my work on the Japan Cup, I return with an article focused on the first winner of that race, a "second-rate mare" that briefly stood on top of the horseracing world and caused a lot of embarrassment for the JRA. Compared to that article, this one is a 'breezy' 1500ish words. I'd originally been focusing on another JC winner but as it turns out there was a few sources to read through on Mairzy Doates, and the article kept growing. This is my first major attempt at a biographic article, so hopefully it all passes muster.

Sadly as you can imagine, this isn't a horse that exactly has the same level as coverage as Secretariat. For example the trail after her retirement is stone cold, not unsurprising for a broodmare that didn't perform exceptionally well. It's only by good luck I recently managed to find a death date for the poor horse, every source and archivist I'd consulted/spoke to turned up blank until then, so questions like why Mairzy Doates ended up in France when she died don't appear to have ever been recorded (presumably a private sale). As such, I'm afraid the answer to reviewers' questions like "Do we know why Z did X" or "Can you expand on Y" is likely to get a "no"!

Still, we can at least follow her life from beginning to end, and I do think there's an interesting narrative surrounding her. From a horse with weak legs that did so badly in her graded race she was stopped early, to being taken in by one of the best trainers in the US and slowly beginning to rack up graded wins, to racing well enough to be a contender in G1 races but never quite pulling it off, to her final race where she both finally beat a long-time rival and surprised an entire nation to win the biggest payout of her career; it'd certainly has the right storybeats for a book. Hopefully you enjoy her tale too. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

I should say up front that I am not a horse-racing specialist, so I am commenting on prose, the MoS, citation consistency and the general criteria rather than on the sport itself, and I will leave the form-specific judgements to reviewers who know it.

A pass through by section.

Early life

  • Two years later in 1978, Arno D. Schefler ... purchased Mairzy Doates as a weanling: a weanling is a foal of its birth year, which would put the purchase in 1976 rather than 1978. Is the year right, or the term? Worth reconciling so the timeline reads cleanly.

Racing history

  • the Grade 3 Ruthless Stakes on 18 February: the article runs on {{Use mdy dates}}, so this is the odd one out; on February 18 would match, per MOS:DATEUNIFY.
  • raced once as a two year old: hyphenate as two-year-old when used as a noun (MOS:HYPHEN).
  • The Gamely Handicap citation (ref "GH80") is dated 5 May 1990, but the race was 4 May 1980; I take the year to be a typo for 1980.
  • making up for her withdrawal from the previous year's race with through a 1+1⁄4 length victory: with through looks like a stray word; perhaps just through.

Running in the Japan Cup

  • the Japanese Racing Association (JRA): elsewhere, including the lead, it is the Japan Racing Association, which is the body's actual name; the two should agree.
  • placating Schefler and Frankel: who is Frankel? The pair acting in this passage is Schefler and Fulton, so this may be a slip. In the same sentence, the races' organizers reads better as the race's organizers.
  • Her time was 2.25.3: times elsewhere use colons, and the race-record table gives 2:25 3/10; I would render this 2:25.3 to match.

Retirement

  • The block quote is attributed to Schelger, which I take to be a typo for Schefler.
  • before being transferring to stand in France: reads as before being transferred (or before transferring).
  • Hurstland Farm in Midway, Kentucky to stand: a comma after Kentucky, per MOS:GEOCOMMA.

Infobox and tables

  • The {{death date and age}} parameters give the birth as 25 May 1976, but the |foaled= field is 1 April 1976. The age of 22 comes out the same either way, but the two dates should match.
  • Date formats are mixed in the tables. The first row of the Honors table is mdy (July 17, 1982) while the rest are dmy, and the race-record table displays dmy (22 Dec, 1978). For an mdy article these all read as month-last; worth bringing into line.

An enjoyable read, and the narrative arc you set out in the nomination comes through. Metalicat (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Metalicat, glad you enjoyed the read! I should be able to take care of the above in a day or so. Your comments all look fine to me - just goes to show how easily your eyes start to skim over these sort of things after you reread the same text over and over! Happy to fix-up the dates too - I'd thought the use of the 'use mdy' template automatically converted the displayed dates for all readers as it does on my screens, but if that's not the case I'll alter those. I'll ping you when I'm done. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for waiting @Metalicat, I've made all the suggested changes! Nothing to shout out in the above bar changing 'weanling' to 'filly', and Frankel just being a typo for Fulton (I'm working on another horse's page where Frankel was that horse's trainer). Let me know if the dates still don't look right your end or if there's anything else, I should be able to get back to your more quickly this time! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After enough re-reads of your own work, the eye stops reading the words and starts reading what it expects to be there. I call it snow blindness!
Support on prose and the MoS. Metalicat (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Metalicat, much appreciated! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98 (6/14/26

[edit]

My apologies for the delay!

Lead

No issues at all!

Early life
  • Wouldn't it be "Hamburg Place Farm"? Not in this case I think, the name of the place is specifically "Hamburg Place". I've erred on the side of caution and removed 'farm'.
  • "Her sire was Nodouble, a multiple graded stakes winner who had retired to stud in 1970" --> I think this may be a personal preference, as "who" is generally used for people and "that" or "which" for objects, and I don't like thinking of animals as objects. Same with not liking to call animals objects - I usually use 'who' in my writing but must have missed this one. Edited now!
  • "Schefler had handed Mairzy Doates over to Horatio Luro" Done!
  • "a veteran horse-trainer with whom Schefler had become acquainted in the early 1970s" Done!
  • "where in training she had to be monitored closely due to the weakness of her ankles" --> Recommend slightly rephrasing, "where she had to closely monitored while training due to the weakness of her ankles" Thanks, was struggling with this sentence when writing this. Done.
Racing history
  • "Over the two months Mairzy Doates vied several times..." There was a 'next' here that's disappeared somewhere over the last few months. Even so, removed 'the'.
  • "for the race's entirety" --> "for the entirety of the race" Done!
  • "By December, at her final race of the year at the Busher Handicap" Done!
  • "The year after" --> "The next year" Done!
  • "Schefler wished to race Mairzy Doates on the West Coast" Done!
  • "Luro suggested that Mike Whittingham..." Done!
  • You have a   between Grade 1 in the fourth paragraph, which is a good idea, so you should use this in all other similar circumstances. Good idea - done
  • "In her following races, she subsequently achieved a triple run of graded victories; she repeated her previous win in the Yerba Buena Handicap with a similar large margin of victory..." --> Holy Run-on Sentence, Batman. Recommend splitting this unwieldy sentence up at the semicolon. Ah, it's my least favourite sentence of the article. I'd wondered if the semicolon would be enough... Changed the semicolon to a full stop, and made a new sentence after 'Grade 3 New York Handicap'
Running in the Japan Cup
  • Recommend renaming this section simply Japan Cup. Headers in wikipages once again providing my downfall... changed to 'Japan Cup'
  • "the same horse to whom Mairzy Doates had lost that year's Santa Barbara Handicap by a nose to" Done
  • "Since this was not possible on such short notice and may have caused objections from the Japanese jockeys..." --> Maybe consider replacing "caused" with something else, maybe "provoked"? Provoked works for me, changed.
Retirement
  • "Mairzy Doates died at the age of 22, on May 25, 1998" --> Recommend shuffling, "died on May 25, 1998, at the age of 22." Shuffled
  • "Many of her offspring did not race, and those who did rarely won" Oddly I think this used to be 'who', can't remember why it was changed. Fixed.
Legacy
  • "Led by a "second-rate mare" who set a course record" Wow, completely blanked on missing a few of these, apologies to Miss Doates. Done, again!
  • "greatly shocked the Japanese horseracing industry" --> Is it "horse race industry"? Also, my spellcheck says that "horseracing" is not one word. I think the phrase is nearly always 'horse racing industry', (google gives me 3,600 hits for "horse race industry" vs the million plus for "horse racing industry" so I'll keep that as is. 'Horseracing' is unfortunately my British spelling kicking in - space added.
  • "some in the JRA had anticipated that their horses would not be on par with the rest of the world"

User:RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: I made some minor punctuation fixes on my own. Items in bold above are grammatical fixes. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not examined the tables yet. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Bgsu98! I believe I've addressed everything now and have made all your suggested changes. Happy to make any more as required if you spot anything. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tables
  • Your tables have column scopes, but lack row scopes. See MOS:DTAB for details.
  • Personally, I would left-justify the contents of the tables, but that is just a personal preference.
  • I don't know why some of the information on the second table is in bold print, but bold cannot be the sole means of conveying information, per MOS:BOLD.
  • The formatting of the tables' headers appear odd (some of the contents are left-justified; some are centered), while all of the tables' contents are centered.

User:RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: Please let me know when you've had a chance to clean up these items on the tables. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bgsu!
  • Every table now has col scopes
  • I've left this as centered for now since it's how the other FA horses have their tables formatted.
  • The idea was to embolden the races MD won, since compared to the other FA horses her record isn't a string of victories. I've removed this for now, my attempts to make this stand out in other ways (added italics/underlines or colouring in the cells) looked a bit too garish for my tastes. Open to suggest here though!
  • Unfortunately I think this is an issue with sortable tables in general. Since the markdown adds an arrow to the end of each cell to show it's sortable, it nudges the rest of the cell's content. I don't think there's anything that can be done about this here...? (Edit: Actually, one issue I spotted off this is that the arrows weren't displaying correctly on some devices which didn't help with how the off centering look. fixed this now, hopefully that helps)
RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The rows need rowscopes (scope="row"). I went ahead and changed them for you. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bgsu, much appreciated! : D RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Memory of Theo Faiss

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Memory of Theo Faiss is a curious piece, about a curious series of events. In 1914, seven-year-old Faiss was discovered crushed to death under an unattended horse cart. Anthroposophical Society leader Rudolf Steiner, with whom Faiss's parents were connected, saw this not as an accident, but as a karmic sacrifice that would provide a spiritual sheath over the society's headquarters, the Goetheanum. Seven years later, Steiner's collaborator Edith Maryon created two versions of this relief. And, the following year, the Goetheanum burned down, possibly due to arson. The relief was then nearly forgotten: The first version was smashed into 13 pieces and only later reassembled, and Maryon's biographer was not even aware of the second version until 1991. The relief begets a number of questions: Why did Maryon wait seven years to make it? Why did she create two versions? Is it a backwards-looking commemoration, or a forwards-looking expression of uncertainty? For many of these, we have only educated guesses.

I created this article late late year—around the same as The Dance of Anitra, which recently appeared here. It was given a good-article review by Kusma in February; I've since given it a further tidying and secured a photograph of the first version of the sculpture, making the article ready for nomination here. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Lead images are missing alts
  • What is the copyright status of the reliefs themselves?
  • File:Edith_Maryon.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • This is presumably a studio photo, given the pose, lighting, and circular format (seen here); as such, we can infer publication by sale at the time of the photo. Raab says it is from around the time that Maryon met Steiner (~1912), meaning that it was most likely taken in England. Copyright would have expired 70 years later, as the work on an unknown author. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Background
  • Could we drop {{main article|Edith Maryon}} and link her in the article prose?
  • Also, how about introducing a link to Works of Edith Maryon in running prose, even though the "See also" works just as well?
  • Maryon was interested in the esoteric
    • Any links or footnotes which might explain "esoteric" in this context?
  • After a brief return in April to London due to health and finances,
    • Do we intend to say she was ill and ran out of money?
      • Yeah, though I'm not sure it's really needed here. The stint in London is (as discussed in the last paragraph of the section "Theo Faiss", her locations in 1914 are important given what happened with Theo and Albert Faiss that year), but I've removed the reasons for the return. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parents had lived in Stuttgart in 1904
    • How about "His parents..."?
      • "The" is used because the prior sentence refers to two people, two of whom are male. Though I think "His" would be grammatically sound, "The" avoids any confusion as to whether Theo's or Albert's parents are the subject of the sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could link to pneumonia.
  • "was interested in the esoteric at least as early as 1909" → "was interested in the esoteric by 1909"
  • "came back to Dornach" → "returned to Dornach"
  • "among other contributions while there," → "among other contributions,"
  • "rather than an accident of coincidence" → "rather than a coincidence"
  • I think both parts are important. Steiner expressly disclaimed the idea that Faiss died due to accident or coincidence; he claimed that the number of coincidences required to make the death an accident were too numerous and implausible, and that the only logical explanation was that Faiss was drawn to that spot as part of a voluntary/karmic sacrifice. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during which time he offered protection to the Goetheanum" →"during which he offered protection to the Goetheanum"

MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Raab suggests that the second version is the later of the two.
  • "suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner" → "suggested to depict either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner"
  • depicts is already used in the sentence's first clause (The bottom third depicts three individuals), so changing be to depict would be a bit clunky and (I think) technically change the meaning (from depicts people who are X, to depicts people who in turn depict Y). --Usernameunique (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner.
    • Do we need the commas here?
      • Not sure we can do away with all three—the first indicates a separation between two interpretations, and the second and third are dost separators. But I'm open to any suggested recordings you have. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second version of the relief is a variant of the first" → "The second version is a variant of the first"
  • "the guardian spirit lifting up the spiritual form of Faiss" → "the guardian spirit lifting the spiritual form of Faiss"

MSincccc (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
  • Could we avoid beginning multiple sentences with "To Von Halle"?
  • The lack of continued protection, however, is to von Halle why the Goetheanum was able to burn as it did at the end of 1922.
Provenance
  • At this point he became aware of a bronze version located in the Netherlands, although the owners (Dr. F. I. Steffelaar-Moulijn and Dr. W Steffelaar) did not know how it ended up there.
Bottom line

Crystal Drawers

[edit]

Review to come soon. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 15:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay, I’ve been busy with some personal issues for the past week, which has slowed down my editing altogether. I will try to do my review of the article tomorrow. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 01:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Crystal Drawers, hope things are okay on your end. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • “to commemorate Theo Faiss, a seven-year-old boy who” — Consider "to commemorate the seven-year-old Theo Faiss, a boy who" to streamline the sentence a bit
  • What do you mean by “which are seen in bronze and plaster”? Seen where? Also, I feel “two versions of the relief, one in bronze and one in plaster” would make more sense
  • Is the bottom being blank in the second version relevant enough to include in the Lead?
  • Could you combine any two of the paragraphs to make it only 3? Right now, they’re all quite short and I feel a combination of two would make it more readable
  • I'm struggling a bit to think of ways to do so. As it stands, the first paragraph is the overview, the second describes the relief, the third summarizes the various interpretations of the relief, and the fourth summarizes its significance. I'm not sure the benefit of combining paragraphs is that large, especially given the benefit of keeping the different topics separate. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "and in Geneva, and" — Could you change the second "and" to avoid repetition?
  • I feel like stuff about how old she was from 1899 to 1912 makes this Background section feel bloated, could you try to go back and ensure there aren’t any other unnecessary details included here? This is my main issue with the section as a whole, where the prose is good but the amount of context feels unnecessary
  • I've taken a crack at removing some details from the Maryon and Faiss sections. If you see anything else that you don't think is relevant in the light of the relief, feel free to point it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and came across an overturned furniture wagon.[14][24] Righting the wagon revealed the body of Faiss underneath." — Consider "and came across an overturned furniture wagon, with the body of Faiss underneath.[14]"
  • Done. There's a slight nuance here (explored in the article on Faiss), which is that the wagon was discovered quickly, but it took some hours to right it—Faiss's body was thus not discovered for some time. But we don't need to deal with that nuance here. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again for making you wait so long. Above are my comments for the Lead and Background section. When I get home later, I’ll review the remaining sections :) Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 16:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, Crystal Drawers. Thanks for the comments so far; response above. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crystal Drawers, is there any more to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gog. Yes, I will continue and finish the review now, and have started with the next section below. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 01:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Crystal Drawers. Responded to your new comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 02:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "based on stylistic characteristics, Raab suggests that the second version postdates the first" — I’m not sure I understand what you mean?
  • Changed to Raab suggests that the second version was made after the first. I know it sounds a bit like saying "the second version is the second", although I think Raab treated the first one first primarily because it was the only one of which he was aware when he began writing, so it's still important to clarify that the second version is, indeed, suggested to have been made later. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A woman, likely Faiss's mother," — It’s already been established twice beforehand that it might’ve been his mother, does it not to be stated again?

Themes

  • Why do a lot of sentences have 3 citations? Are this many needed? It’s a little distracting to see so many in a row
  • The main reason is that a number of von Halle's works discuss Raab's interpretations, but disagree with them and put forth other interpretations. She also has a number of books/articles that discuss the relief, which are all cited here. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Faiss's outstretched arms suggest that he is ready for sacrifice; he is to be" — In previous sections, the semicolon has a space before and after it, but it doesn’t here. Could you stick to one?
  • What does "documentary value" mean? I feel like some over complicated terms are used that either aren’t elaborated on or are linked to another article, forcing the reader to abandon what they’re reading to go to something else, which is generally discouraged
  • Raab says Seltsamerweise ist in keinem der Nachschlagewerke – außer in Christoph Lindenbergs Chronik und im Werkverzeichnis – des für den Bau in geistiger Hinsicht so wichtigen Lebensopfers von Theo Faiss gedacht. So gewinnt diese Reliefplastik auch einen dokumentarischen Wert. Google translates this to Curiously, none of the reference works – with the exception of Christoph Lindenberg's chronicle and the catalogue of works – mention the personal sacrifice made by Theo Faiss, a sacrifice of such spiritual significance to the building's construction. Thus, this relief sculpture also acquires documentary value. I take this to mean that he considers Faiss's death under-reported in some quarters, and that the relief thus helps to fill that gap. Frankly, however, I'm a bit unclear about the distinction he's making by referring to "reference" works, since there are a number of works other than the two he mentions which do discuss Faiss, and of which he was aware when he wrote that sentence. (I'm also unclear what "catalogue" he means. Is there one of Maryon's works? If so, I'd love to find it, but I haven't been able to yet.) Given all that, I've reworded this part to Beyond the specific event depicted, Raab terms the work the "true monument" to Faiss and his death. He states that the work serves as a reminder of both Faiss and his sacrifice, and serves a dual role as a memento mori. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance

  • All looks good

Reywas92

[edit]
  • Similar to points raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dance of Anitra/archive1, the Background section is excessively long and makes up more than half of the article – ~1177 words vs. ~985 words in the following three sections. The WP:FACR criterion #4 says the article must "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate". I see you also recently created Theo Faiss, which is almost entirely a copy-paste of this section. If that is going to exist as its own article, this one needs to be trimmed substantially, making proper use of summary style instead of being a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. This article does not need the full text of the eulogy's mantram or most of the details, and/or the Theo article should be merged back.
  • The genesis of the article on Theo Faiss is no secret; the edit history reads "text largely copied from In Memory of Theo Faiss", and it was done due to Kusma's comment during the good-article review that there is too much detail about Theo Faiss here. I'm open to, and have thought about, cutting down the mantram, given the amount of real estate it takes up. At the same time, we have to remember its importance to the relief, which Raab suggests is the sculptural embodiment of the mantram (note the guardian angel in both, and the beseeching figures in the first version, which echo the mantram's mention of imploring love and entreaties). Perhaps for that reason, the mantram it was specifically identified as an item to keep in that good-article review. If you have specific suggestions about what could stand cutting here, however, please feel free to make them. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general matter, "The best distance between the material and the citation is a matter of judgment." This is also mentioned in the WP:When to cite essay, two sentences before the portion that you quote. Just because a cite per sentence is not required does not mean that it is not permitted, and there are good reasons to go the extra mile. Among other reasons, doing so makes clear which sources/pages support which information, and helps protect text–source integrity as additional edits are made. It's worth noting that in some professional settings (including my own) citing every sentence is routine; it is no big outlier, and it is my practice in every article that I write here.
To take your specific example (Raab pp. 250–253 is cited eleven times in eleven sentences in the Description section), this isn't strictly correct; six different different pages or ranges are used (e.g., 249–251, or 249 and 251, or just 253). Too, not all of the information in this section is uncontested; Raab and von Halle have different interpretations of who the bottom figures in the first version are, making precise citing important. At the end of the day, however, having one or two cites at the end of each sentence is hardly out of the ordinary, and nothing like the extreme examples (such as fifteen cites) used in the essay WP:OVERCITE. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Description, Themes, and Provenance section contains dozens of footnotes, numbers 50–84 used 73 times. But these are all simply Raab pp. 249–254; von Halle 2010 and 2011a, b, c (which are the same piece, translated and split/duplicated into multiple issues); Sam 2007 p. 10 (which I can't access online); and Steiner. Except von Halle 2010/11a and 2011b do not mention Maryon's artwork, nor does Steiner, being a primary source that predates the artwork. The only sources that discuss the article's subject are a few pages of Raab's biography of Edith Maryon, a portion of von Halle's essay, and one page by Sam 2007! This page feels more like a ref bomb bloated by background and heavily reliant on one source (Raab) rather than a notable topic and featured article.
  • Stating that von Halle 2010/11a ... do not mention Maryon's artwork overlooks the rather glaring fact that Maryon's artwork literally provides the cover art for the book. von Halle includes a long discussion of the relief and its meaning, which should be obvious from the fact that her books are cited throughout the "Description" and "Themes" sections. You've also truncated the page range for Raab, who spends a substantial portion of a chapter on the relief. Put simply, the only reason to question notability would appear to be by misreading of the sources (or by not reading them; Raab and von Halle 2010 are not available online, and only a chapter of von Halle 2011a is). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, I did not realize that the 2011a link was only one chapter of 2010. I'd recommend linking the 2010 book here in the citation even if the text is not available online. The relevant chapter in Raab appears to be at 249-254 based on the citations, and other pages appear to reference other material. In the Description section von Halle is only cited in conjunction with Raab, but I did read the discussion of its themes in 2011c with the help of Google Translate. I obviously don't think the page should be deleted, but it does seem unusual for an FA to really only have two sources go into depth on the subject while the numerous other sources only provide background, largely by or about Rudolf Steiner (another interesting read). — Reywas92Talk 19:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. I'm not sure what the link you're suggesting is; the ISBN is already provided. As for the number of sources, I don't see it as that unusual to have only a few treating the subject of the article in depth. Guilden Morden boar (two two-page articles; my own nomination) comes to mind, and I suspect there are many FAs on flora/fauna that rely on one main article describing them. In any event, there is no FA standard of "extra notability". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for Raab, the relevant discussion begins in a subsection that opens page 246. The first few pages provide background on Faiss, but literally the only reason they're included is because Maryon created a memorial to him. (If you want any of the sources, just email me and I'd be happy to send them over.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Reywas92. I'll respond in kind above, but, given your invocation of The Dance of Anitra, it's worth noting here that you have also spent the day deleting sources and cites from serpent labret with articulated tongue (which I recently nominated here), and dropping a long note on the talk page about its citations; seeing your username attached to this review on my watchlist, I was therefore pretty sure what tenor it would strike even before taking a look. Not quite sure what inspired this survey of my recent nominations (let alone ones that have passed), but I'm happy to have a good-faith discussion over the points you raised above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't "spend the day" doing that, it only took a few minutes. It was on the main page and although I found the topic and the article very interesting, it thought it was odd that so much was sourced to the Met's page on the piece and that the footnote was unnecessarily repeated consecutively. I deleted unnecessary redundant footnotes of the same citation to no detriment to verifiability, not sourcing generally. I was curious about Aztec art – I've been to Templo Mayor mentioned in the article – and saw these other pieces in your edits. These are fascinating topics to learn about and I come in good faith, but some of the style and sourcing here is unorthodox. — Reywas92Talk 18:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good, thanks Reywas92. Look forward to discussing above. You're luckier (or a better planner) than me—when I tried to visit Tepmlo Mayor last year I was dumb enough to not look at the closing time beforehand, and was met with locked gates. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Reywas92, checking again to see if you have further comments, or responses to the above. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Miscanti

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an extant lake in the Central Andes, and a major tourist destination. This is also a bit of an experiment of how well ChatGPT can suggest copyedits, since I took its suggestions for a last copyedit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is the benefit of the gallery?
  • Suggest adding alt text
Illustrating the landscape of Laguna Miscanti - many (even if informal) sources note its beautiful landscape, part of the reason why it's a tourist destination. What the images show exactly is not so important for the gallery, hence. Added ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a gallery to do that? If we have three pictures of just "hey this looks pretty", what additional benefit is gained from throwing in five more? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cut back the gallery a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Some preliminary comments. There are some WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[15]
  • As noted above, the gallery seems puzzling. WP:galleries states images should be incorporated into the text where possible, and in this case the article body is almost free of images, so I don't see the need of having a gallery when there is plenty of room across the article.
    Did the duplicate links. I don't think any of these images conveys a lot of section specific information, plus their purpose means that a gallery is the most suitable place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 22:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "(4.9228 ± 0.0077 sq mi)" - this degree of precision seems excessive and almost certainly implies a degree of exactness in the original measurement that isn't present
  • "enter Laguna Miscanti from the north, east and south[15] (Quebrada de Chaquisoqui[1])" - is this trying to indicate that the southern dry valley is Quebrada de Chaquisoqui? This isn't clear
  • "The water[d] is clear[20] and brackish,[e],[19]" - is there a reason for the comma between the [e] and [19]?
  • " Some water drains underground into to the 10 metres (33 ft) lower Miñiques" - I don't think this is grammatical ("into to the") and reads very stilted as well. Something like "Some water drains underground into Laguna Miñiques, which is 10 metres (33 ft) lower in elevation" might be better.
  • I think the number of endnotes (27!) is a touch excessive, and I don't think all of these are even needed. For instance -
  • "W.E.Rudolph in 1963 postulated that Miscanti and Miñiques were merely at an early stage of a process of salt lake formation. Salt accumulation increases the surface over which evaporation takes place, until the waterbodies dry up." (current note [f]) - do any more recent sources follow this? If this is just a theory from 60+ years ago that turned out to be wrong, I don't think it really warrants inclusion in the article. Sometimes sources just end up being wrong
  • "Charophytes and diatoms.[31]" (current note [g]) seems like something to just move into the article body as the body's phrasing of "organism remnants" is unclear to the lay reader and make more sense with linked referenced to show what type of stuff this is
  • "At the fault, ignimbrites are pushed over Tertiary rocks of the Quepe Formation." (current note [k]) - this is getting quite far from the actual topic of the article and I don't think is necessary for an article about the lake.
  • "and volcanic tephra layers[i].[33]" - isn't the practice to have punctuation before the notes and references?
  • "In the past, Laguna Miscanti more than twice as large as it is today" - missing a word?

I don't think the prose is quite there yet - it's choppy, with grammatical issues, and problems with punctuation and syntax placement. Part of the problem is honestly related to the sometimes-awkward placement of the large number of references and endnotes. A lot of this seems driven by a tendency to include every scrap of information, no matter how minute - for instance the endnote for the apparently isolated prediction by Rudolph from the 1960s. The FA criteria are "it no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and " It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate".

For instance, what about some of the following things to reduce the citation density?

  • "of Chile's[6] Antofagasta Region,[7]" - ref [7] shows an inset map showing the Antofagasta Region as part of Chile (and Laguna Miscanti as part of the Antofagasta Region), so is having an additional reference [6] to support it being in Chile necessary?
  • "which is accessible by a rough[13] unpaved road and numerous footpaths[14] leading to Laguna Miñiques.[15]" - is the existence of ref [13] just to support that the unpaved road is rough? I don't think that is a necessary level of detail, it's pretty much implied by the idea of an unpaved mountain road, and has a source from 20 years ago so even if it were no longer accurate (the local government improved the road so that it were less rough) we wouldn't be able to update that information, anyway.
  • "A road departing from the Paso Sico international road[b] goes to Miscanti,[11][12] which is accessible by a rough[13] unpaved road and numerous footpaths[14] leading to Laguna Miñiques.[15]" - and the more I think about this, the less I'm sure what this is trying to say. The first half of the basic sentence is saying that Miscanti is accessible by the road department from the Paso Sico road, but then we're told in the second half of the sentence that there's a rough unpaved road and numerous footpaths which are what get you to Miscanti. The phrasing of the second half of the sentence also is unclear if the "rough unpaved road" leads to Miniques, or just the footpaths. Running the relevant part of [14] through Google Translate seems to be saying that the "rough unpaved road" is the same road that branches off of the Paso Sico road, but in the article we're presenting these roads as if they were separate things.

I'm going to have to enter into an oppose for now based on the prose. I think the issue with the (not readily apparent) repitition of the road information is a pretty good indication of the sort of issues which are here. Hog Farm Talk 23:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did resolve the issues here and several more, but I guess that this requires more than that? As usual, the problem is that while FAC isn't the place for extensive prose discussion, there isn't really any other (other than the ChatGPT advice) than actually works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding a comment, but ChatGPT and many LLM tools aren't really best judges for evaluating quality of prose, especially for isolated passages when the context is lacking.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is however better than nothing; also, I used ChatGPT to review the entire article text en bloc using a prompt that Esculenta wrote and which I put a copy on my talk page on, not isolated passages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Striking oppose for now as there have been significant improvements regarding the handling of the endnotes ... There are other things ahead of this on my to-review list but I will get back to this when I can. Hog Farm Talk 06:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miscanti is one of the largest water bodies of the Atacama Altiplano" - link to Altiplano as this is the first usage in the body?
    OK, although it's also linked in the first few sentences of the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cordon de Puntas Negras is the main source of Laguna Miscanti's water" - to most readers, I think this would imply that runoff from these mountains into the lake is the main source, but we've already been told earlier in the article that there are no streams into Miscanti and that most of the lake's inflow is from groundwater. So this sentence is rather confusing, unless it's a very roundabout way of saying that the Cordon de Puntas Negras water ends up as groundwater and then flows/seeps into Miscanti?
    Yeah, moved this up and recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "separating the Western Cordillera from the Cordillera Domeyko,[22][14] Volcanoes[22] including Lascar[51]" - should the comma after Domeyko be a period?
    Done and recast this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lakes Laguna Lejia,[22] Laguna Miscanti and Laguna Miñiques occupy basins formed by[23][13][22] the Pliocene and Pleistocene[18] reactivation[22] of the 100 km (62 mi) long[44] Quebrada Nacimiento[18] or Miscanti fault[45] west of Laguna Miscanti.[29]" - 10 citations associated with a single sentence is so dense that it affects readability. There is surely some citation placement optimization and/or rephrasing that can be done. For instance - is the [22] after Laune Lejia necessary if the following citation cluster also includes [22]?
    Merged them a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Depending on the season, it is brought by the summer monsoon, weather fronts or cutoff lows" - the link at cutoff lows is currently a redlink, is Cut-off low the link you are looking for?
    Yes, changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 18,000 years ago[14] during the Last Glacial Maximum, conditions became colder[63] and drier than present-day[64] and colder, leading to a total disappearance of vegetation[63] and a drying of the lake between 22,000 and 14,000 years ago.[65]" - I don't think we need to say twice within this single sentence that it was getting colder
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that you're later using CAPE I and CAPE II as abbreviations, is it worth noting when you mention the Central Andean Pluvial Event that this pluvial event is abbreviated CAPE, so that it's clear what CAPE I and CAPE II are?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and human resettlement at Laguna Miscanti took place about 3,400 years ago" - we were told earlier that Miscanti remained inhabited during the drought?
    Apparently population increased again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sparser[d] vegetation[40][14] known as "tolar" grows on the surrounding terrain. " - the link you currently have at tolar points to a Bohemian silver coin?
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two lakes are important breeding sites for flamingos[106] and horned coot.[107] Other birds found in the region include Anarhynchus alticola (Puna plover), Chloephaga melanoptera (Andean goose; aquatic), Fulica ardesiaca (Andean coot), Fulica cornuta (Horned coot)," - since we've listed the horned coot in the initial sentence, then it shouldn't be listed as one of the "other birds" that also lives there in addition to the birds of the initial sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that we can call a landscape "spectacular" in wikivoice
    On two minds, since it's hard to recast this one and the landscape value is quite important to Miscanti being a tourist destination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One report claims that the city of Antofagasta also draws from Laguna Miscanti.[129]" - is there any reason to think that this claim isn't just a simple error in a source, given that if I'm using Google Maps correctly, Miscanti and Antofagasta are hundreds of kilometers away from each other?
    Yes, the fact that long-distance water transport by pipeline is a thing in Chile and in arid regions more generally. Although there might be more direct government sources, but none on a quick glance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "remote vegetation"? A quick Google search does not enlighten me with anything that appears to refer to anything that would fit the context here
    Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the second pass. Hog Farm Talk 00:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus - I still don't think it's appropriate to call something "spectacular" in wikivoice, particularly something which functions as a type of tourist attraction. Although I'm willing to concede the point if other reviewers disagree with me. @FunkMonk: - all my other points have been addressed and I've gotten busy enough that I don't think I'll have time for further detailed line-by-line reviewing in the near term, so handing this one off to you per your comment in the coordinator's comment section below. Hog Farm Talk 21:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like "has been described as "spectacular" by" in-text attribution could work? FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, the thing about the adjective is that it's not just one person's opinion, but something mentioned among many sources both reliable and unreliable. I think attaching it to a specific person would be salami slicing. OTOH I suspect this line of argument could be used against any in-text attribution of widely shared opinions even when that's the normal way of doing so on Wikipedia. So - uncertain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I'm probably not going to do a full review, but I've taken the liberty of doing a bunch of copyediting for style, which I'll probably continue to work on. I'm trying my best to make sure I keep the right citations with the right bits of text, but I recommend you take a look to make sure I haven't inadvertently lost any. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few specific questions:

  • Why do you spell out meter, millimetre, kilometre, etc? Not to mention "square kilometres"? It seems like it adds a lot of extra bulk for no good reason vs the conventional abbreviations.
  • 1 millimetre per year (0.0012 in/Ms) Inches per mega-second? Seriously?
  • Why in some places do you have "/a", some places "per year" and in other places "/year"?
  • dropping to −10 – −20 °C (14 – −4 °F) I don't know what the right way to do this is, but what you've got now is hard to read. Maybe ask the folks at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for suggestions?
    Looks like between me and other users some of these convert artifacts are fixed now. Also did two small fixes of your fixes. Asked as recommended since I couldn't figure out a better way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Found an alternative option. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some places you put a comma in 4-digit numbers (3400 years ago the lake reformed) in some places not (13,800–9,700 years before present). Either is OK, but pick one style and use it everywhere.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • During former lake highstands We have a highstand which redirects to Raised shoreline, so possibly link this. On the other hand, I'm not sure that's really the same meaning, but take a look and see if it makes sense to do so.
    It's kinda sorta related, but raised shoreline is more for the tectonically induced seashore uplift rather than the water level drop. Is "highstand" clear enough for laypeople even w/o a link? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to revisit soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My plan was also to continue once Hog Farm's review had finished after the oppose was resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both and noted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Overall, it is a fine article. Only 2,300 words, so it shouldn't be too hard to resolve any issues.
  • I see that User:Hog Farm registered an "oppose" opinion based on prose. Prose is generally near-FA quality, but as reviewer User:Hog Farm said above "it's choppy, with grammatical issues". For that reason, I'll focus on prose and try to enumerate specific sentences/passages that need work.
  • MOS compliance is satisfactory. If I see any issues, I'll point them out.
  • Cites and sources look good: Uniform style & format. Sources are academic and reliable.
  • Vary wording " it retains spiritual and religious importance for the community. Laguna Miscanti is of scientific importance, ..." using same word twice is not quite up to WP:FACR "professional prose" standard.
    This one wasn't quite so easy to vary; how does my attempt to work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text not working in the three Gallery images
  • Better section title? "The lake" - Doesnt seem very encyclopedic. Reading the section suggests something like one of these may be better:
  • Two categores:
    • Lakes of Antofagasta Region
    • Lakes of Chile
First one is a sub-sub category of the second one. Cat guidelines say only use the sub-sub category, not both.
  • Details missing in source: Valero-Garcés et al. 1996, p. 3. Fullerton Moreno, Daniela; Piera Medina, Ziller (2017). Saberes arquitectónicos: las formas vernáculas del altiplano (PDF) (in Spanish). p. 30. Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • NO NEED TO SHOUT! External links title all caps, no bueno: G, Tomas Vila (19 August 2010). "GEOLOGIA DE LOS DEPOSITOS SALINOS ANDINOS, PROVINCIA DE ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE". Andean Geology. 0 (2). ISSN 0718-7106
  • I'm not a fan of putting several superscript cites through a sentence: "The Holocene brought a more stable,[74] warmer and drier climate to the central and south-central Andes which caused the lakes to shrink. Miscanti became hypersaline[67] as water levels dropped by about 10 m (33 ft).[75]". This is legal by WP guidelines, but ugly, and slows-down reading. I do this sometimes in my own articles: but only 2 or 3 times in an article, and only when I cannot avoid it.
An alternative approach is to put all the cites at the end of the sentence add add a 1 or 2 word note to each of them identifying which fact they represent. See Template:Sfn#Adding_additional_comments_or_quotes for instructions. Example:
<ref> {{harvnb|Valero-Garcés|1996|p=1}}. Holocene stable. </ref>
This is not required for FA, but moving the cites to the end will make the article appear much more elegant and attractive.
Whereas I am a great fan of attaching citations as immediately as possible to the text they support as this makes reader confirmation and/or elaboration much easier. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Gog's approach, but am open to arguments otherwise on e.g sentences with many fracture-inducing citations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - it is a matter of taste; and there is no accounting for taste :-) Like I said, not a bar to FA status. I'll continue with some prose suggestions within the next day or two. Noleander (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm also a fan of "put the citation directly adjacent to the stated fact" style. To me, it's a bummer when I read a sentence with multiple citations clustered at the end and I have to sort through them all to find the one I'm looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass
[edit]
  • I'll focus on identifying any prose issues that might not meet the WP:FACR "engaging and professional" standard.
  • "...is a brackish water lake ..." would that be better as "... is a brackish lake ..."?
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are no streams at Laguna Miscanti,..." a bit unclear. Should it say " ... no streams feeding into L M"?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear ".. there are two springs in the bays adjacent to the peninsula.." I'm having trouble picturing that in my mind. Are the springs underwater (within the bays)? Or are they on dry land on the short, by the bays?
    Sauce isn't particularly clear enough on this distinction. I suspect on land, but it's not even OR it's my speculation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... this groundwater supply ... may explain why the lake persists year-round." If it is in an arid climate, shouldn't the scientists be 100% certain that the underground water supply is a key factor for the lakes year-round existence? By saying "may explain" it raises more questions than it answers.
    Yeah, upon thinking, the source explicitly rules out other possible explanations before saying this. The other source argues otherwise re: climate. So I'll go ahead and establish the groundwater point as definitive, and leave the climatic one as "unclear". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider identifying Salar de Atacama as a salt flat (e.g. in parenthesis after) in one of its uses.
    Done, but I must ask for an exemption from MOS:SEAOFBLUE as it's otherwise unclear or awkwardly worded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highstand" - I'm not sure what that is (tho I can guess). Can you wikilink it (or define parenthetically)?
    Put an unsourced parenthetical in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "it"? "It is part of a larger fault system, ..." Does "it" here mean "Quebrada Nacimiento fault" from prior paragraph? Or Lag. Miscanti itself? If the former, perhaps this sentence should be in the same paragraph where "Quebrada Nacimiento fault" is identified.
    Spelled it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the Climate section specify the Köppen climate zone that the lake is within?
    Perplexity AI found a source, so added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing: " ... during the so-called "Bolivian Winter" ..." Article should not state a very confusing fact like that without explnation. Why is it called the "Bolivian Winter" when it is within the S. Hemisphere summer? Suggest either explain that odd name, or omit it.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: "...of the dry period depends on the site, ..." consider semicolon or period after "site".
    Semicolon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing link? "...Chara globularis meadows cover most of the lake floor." I realize that lake experts may use the word "meadow" to refer to that underwater algae; but the meadow article linked there is only about land-based meadows, correct? If so, should remove that link. Or add a paragraph to meadow discussing underwater algae-type meadows.
    Moved link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phrasing is unclear: "Tourism is an important economic activity in the region, regional tourism is of national importance." Looks like a few words are missing somewhere.
    'fraid that I am hitting ESL limits here. Can't fix this without a suggestion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source title ALL CAPS: Bolados García, Paola (November 2014). "LOS CONFLICTOS ETNOAMBIENTALES DE "PAMPA COLORADA" Y "EL TATIO" EN EL SALAR DE ATACAMA, NORTE DE CHILE: PROCESOS ÉTNICOS EN UN CONTEXTO MINERO Y TURÍSTICO TRANSNACIONAL".
    Decapped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus - There are still some sources that have titles in ALL CAPS. Can you look thru all the sources and find those and fix them? More generally: the capitalization style (Sentence case vs Title case) should be the same for all sources (and ignore how the sources capitalize their own titles). It is okay to use one capitalization style for books titles and another for journal titles. That uniformity should be implemented & validated for all sources before nominating at FAC. Noleander (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Other sauces decapped. I wonder how to fix the issue with 58, how does one point to the supplementary material in the sauce? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus
    • More ALL CAPS: Niemeyer, Hans F. (1980). "HOYAS HIDROGRÁFICAS DE CHILE: SEGUNDA REGIÓN".
    • For cite #58 with error "Unknown parameter |loc= ignored" simply move the "loc" text (such as "Map") outside the Cite template as in:
    {{ cite journal
    |last1=Sarricolea
    |first1=Pablo
    |last2=Herrera-Ossandon
    |first2=Mariajosé
    |last3=Meseguer-Ruiz
    |first3=Óliver
    |title=Climatic regionalisation of continental Chile
    |journal=Journal of Maps
    |date=30 November 2017
    |volume=13
    |issue=2
    |pages=66–73
    |doi=10.1080/17445647.2016.1259592
    }} Map.
    Noleander (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still seeing several obvious citation layout issues, such as:
  • All upper case title: "ETNOGRAFÍA DEL SURGIMIENTO Y DESARROLLO DEL TURISMO..."
  • All upper case title: "NEW SOUTHERN MOST RECORDS OF ELIGMODONTIA PUERULUS ..."
  • Red error message re {{cite journal}} template: "El reúso de agua residual tratada en América Latina y el Caribe: 10 estudios de caso": 11. doi:10.18235/0004515. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Inconsistent capitalization styles (both Sentence case and Title case) in journal article titles. e.g "Mining Development and Environmental Injustice in..." and ""An updated list of the butterflies of..." Need to pick one or the other and use for all journal article titles.
    I think I got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear what the rule is for deciding whether a source appears in the "Sources" section (and uses sfn/harvnb templates) vs sources that only appear in the "References" section (and use plain "ref" in the markup). What is the rule? Is it applied uniformly? Readers would probably be happier seeing all sources listed in the "Sources" section (and all using sfn/harvnb templates). Using 100% sfn/harvnb is not required for FA, provided that a sensible rule is used that defines which use sfn/harvnb, and that rule is applied uniformly.
    The logic is that citations where I use only one page get ref and those with multiple sfn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is asymptotically getting closer to FA quality.
  • The prose style seems satisisfactory to me. I know a reviewer above said the prose was not quite FACR quality, but this is a science/geography article, so it is okay for the prose to consist of rapid-fire, short, factual sentences. Some lake articles may have interesting human histories (Lake Geneva, Lake Victoria, Lake Michigan, etc) ... but this lake does not have much human-interest history. So the prose will be more like an article on Sodium hydroxide than an article on Napolean.
  • I see a reviewer or two mentioned the image gallery. I think image galleries are great for this type of article: on a topic where visuals are critical to its understanding ("a picture is worth a thousand words") ... in contrast to abstract topics like, say, Cognition. WP is competing against LLM/AI like Grokipedia, and those competitors do not (yet) include images, so WP articles should take more advantage of images, IMHO. Although I do think the images in the gallery should be thumbnails with captions.
  • Leaning support ... provided all citation/source issues listed above are resolved. I'll come back to this review around 24 June 2026 (remind me if I don't post then). Noleander (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Third pass
[edit]
  • Article is looking good. But the closer I look a the image gallery, the more it bothers me. Above I said: "I think image galleries are great for this type of article..." and I still believe that. The WP image use policy permits galleries in some articles: "Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., Lily),...". I think this lake article fits with that class of articles, provided suitable images are available. But the gallery in this article is not consistent with WP:Image use policy that says:
  1. "... a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." The Laguna M article has plenty of body text sections that have no images yet. The gallery images could be placed there instead.
  2. "Images should be captioned to explain their relevance to the article's subject..." The gallery images do not have captions.
  3. "Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject ... while avoiding similar or repetitive images..." The three images in the gallery now are nearly identical (all from the same vantage point). Multiple images from the same vantage point might be okay if they were trying to illustrate something encyclopedic such as: (a) seasonal variations in the lake; or (b) variations in the size/shoreline of the lake; etc.
Based on the above, it seems that the gallery should either be:
a) Improved with a wider variety of images (with captions); or
b) Eliminated: and perhaps move one of the image up into the body text
Other than the gallery, the article is looking good. Noleander (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp

[edit]
  • "It has an area of 12.75 square kilometres (4.92 sq mi)". Seems based on the body that the lake's surface area varies quite a bit. Maybe this can be left at "It has an area of about 13 square kilometres (5 sq mi)".
  • Also the surface area given in the infobox is higher than the range given in the body.
  • "Maximum depth is 10 m (33 ft)" -> "The maximum depth is 10 m (33 ft)".
  • "and brackish[a],[13]" Comma should be before the footnote. Same with ""Bolivian Winter"[d],[60]".
    I tend to put footnotes after the term, since citations already go after the punctuation and this creates ambiguity about what is what. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:REFPUNCT says that footnotes should go after punctuation. Steelkamp (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a lava flow dividing the otherwise flat bottom into two basins." Is this referring to the lava flow separating the lake from Laguna Miñiques?
    Apparently not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During former episodes of maximum water level (highstands) Miscanti overflowed into the Pampa Varela basin" -> "During former episodes of maximum water level (highstands), Miscanti overflowed into the Pampa Varela basin".
  • "reaching lows of −10 to −20 °C (14 to −4 °F) during the night" Can daytime highs be mentioned?
    Apparently the source doesn't give them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The annual evaporation rate of 2 m/a (6.6 ft/a) vastly exceeding the average precipitation of 200–250 mm/a (7.9–9.8 in/year)." Does a mean annum? I don't think that's a well known abbreviation, so I would spell out annum in full.

I'll have more comments later. Steelkamp (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got these except as commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and drier than present-day" -> "and drier than the present-day"
  • "About 18,000 years ago[14] during the Last Glacial Maximum, conditions became colder[63] and drier than present-day,[64] leading to a total disappearance of vegetation[63] and a drying of the lake between 22,000 and 14,000 years ago." The Last Glacial Maximum 18,000 years ago caused a drying of the lake 22,000 years ago?
  • "Researchers divide this humid interval into two phases," -> "Researchers divide this humid interval into two phases:" (change the comma to a colon)
  • "coincides with the drought although Miscanti itself remained inhabited during that time." -> "coincides with the drought, although Miscanti itself remained inhabited during that time."
  • Can flamingos and horned coot be linked?
  • I'm wondering why the Andean gerbil mouse is not listed with the other mammals.
  • "Tourism is an important economic activity in the region,[113] regional tourism is of national importance." -> "Tourism is an important economic activity in the region;[113] regional tourism is of national importance."

That's all I have. Steelkamp (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alone (The Cure song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Leafy46 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024, the Cure released their first new song in sixteen years. This is that song. Robert Smith said that he was merely searching for the "right opening line for the right opening song," and he found the inspiration he needed in the Ernest Dowson poem "Dregs" to write one of the bleakest, most electric songs of the band's career. Needless to say, it was a hit with fans and critics alike.

I would like to thank Arconning for their review of this article over at GA, and RedShellMomentum, Camilasdandelions, and Ippantekina for their comments at PR. This is my first ever FA nomination, and I'm hoping to beat the 15% with this article. By no means is this a plea for sympathy when it comes to getting this article across that finish line, though, and I eagerly await any comments which come up :) Leafy46 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass

[edit]

Hi Leafy46 and welcome to FAC! I'll review the media files. The article contains the following:

Both are non-free files with valid use rationales and sufficiently low quality. They are placed in appropriate locations, are relevant, and the image has an alt-text. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Hey, thanks a dozen for the media review! I wish you well for your own open FAC right now :) Leafy46 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 04:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This table lists 3 random passages from throughout the article (4.9% of 61 total passages). These passages contain 3 inline citations (3.2% of 95 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 04:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: Source review is all good, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 04:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RedShellMomentum: Thanks for your help on this article's peer review, and for your support here :) Leafy46 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
"Alone" has a length of six minutes and forty-eight seconds.
7 a music.apple.com ✅
and The Skinny's Lewis Wade listed "Alone" as a standout on the record, alongside "And Nothing is Forever".
20 b theskinny.co.uk web.archive.org ✅
In his ranking of Songs of a Lost World, Al Shipley of Billboard placed "Alone" at No. five (out of eight); he wrote that the track did not sound like a lead single, yet proved the record as a whole would appeal to fans over chasing radio success.
4 c billboard.com web.archive.org ✅

Camilasdandelions

[edit]

Thanks so much for reviewing this article! I have made changes to all your points above, except for the places in which I've left comments. Please feel free to respond at your convenience, and let me know if you have any other comments regarding this article. Leafy46 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above issues are all that I could find, as you wrote the article very well! Let me know if all of them are addressed. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that should about do it (removing the 'Credits' from 'Credits and personnel'). Everything should be addressed, thank you again for taking the time to complete this review :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you eiter, now I support the article. Also if you don't mind, I'd like to receive your comments for my recent FAC, since there's no prose review provided yet. Best luck with your FAC! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]
  • Optionally, have you considered reuploading the artwork in the PNG format? There seems to be a soft consensus/preference for that among users who generally upload artworks
  • I took a look over at WP:IUP#FORMAT for guidance on this, and it says that for images in the wrong format, one should only reupload it in a converted format if it decreased the file size. In this case, the PNG seems to be a larger file than the existing JPEG file at the same size, and I don't want to decrease the image size too much more since it's already 300x300. This might just have to stay as is. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the lead is kind of small but is "three minutes and twenty-one seconds" still slightly excessive detail for it?
  • You could move the last sentence of the first lead para before its preceding sentence. Production cannot chronologically follow the surfacing of critical opinions and ought to have occurred before it. I would also suggest a sentence split instead of the use of semicolon there: ""Alone" begins with several minutes of instrumentals before Smith sings. Music critics opined that the song's lyrical themes include mortality and environmentalism."
  • Done. The reason I used a semicolon was the connect the facts that Smith began singing and the song's lyrics, but it makes a good amount of sense to leave them separated too. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was released as the lead single for Songs of a Lost World on 26 September 2024, being the first new material that the band released since ..." - "Material" is a bit odd-sounding, so how about "It was released as the lead single for Songs of a Lost World on 26 September 2024, the band's first new musical release since"
  • ""Alone" received strong reviews from critics" - I prefer "positive reviews" over "strong" and have generally seen more common usage of the former. I mean a review that is negative is not "weak", right?
  • Link the Cure's article in the first line of the Background section
  • I am pretty sure the use of Musicnotes.com used to be discouraged in FAs. I would suggest removing it, but if you insist to keep it we can defer this to the eventual source reviewer.
  • I mentioned this above with Camilasdandelions, but I'm following the advice over at WP:MUSICNOTES which suggests that Musicnotes should be acceptable for basic information about the song so long as it is directly mentioned in the prose. I'm alright deleting it if you insist on it (or if there is some more-modern discussion somewhere which shows this consensus?), but I feel like it adds a good amount of information to the article. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is worth introducing Disintegration as "their eighth studio album" upon the first mention
  • "Critics added that the song resembled tracks on Pornography (1982) and Bloodflowers (2000)." - Again, I would say something like "on their previous albums Pornography (1982) and Bloodflowers (2000)". The layperson coming to the article from Wikipedia's main page is not going to know these are previous albums from the Cure
  • "Three days later, the full track premiered at noon" - "Three days later, the full track was premiered at noon" - It didn't premiere itself
  • It is not clear why the April release of the Four Tet Remix appears after the June remixes. Usually this would be in chronological order?
  • Why not just say "number" instead of "no." everywhere in the Release section's second para? Also, "Release and commercial performance" seems like a more apt section title given the pretty even split here
  • "McCormick similarly described the song as "gripping" despite its sorrowful mood" - A little confused by the use of "despite", as I don't see any reason a sorrowful song cannot be gripping.
  • I've swapped the order of it to "sorrowful yet 'deeply gripping'", reflecting the "yet" used in the source itself. It still *kinda* has the meaning of 'despite', but it's a lot softer here and matches the source. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have a similar comment about "no." instead of "number" everywhere in the third paragraph of Critical Reception as I did for the Release section
This is actually really well done. Was fun for me to read through while watching the performance of Olivia Rodrigo and Smith's new song, lol. Ping me once my review is addressed and would be happy to support.--NØ 17:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Hey, thanks so much for signing on to a review here! I loved the Olivia Rodrigo/Robert Smith duets when the two did "Friday I'm in Love" and "Just Like Heaven", but I haven't yet had a chance to listen to their new collaboration and am super stoked. I've addressed all the changes above, with some notes where necessary; thanks again for the review :) Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.--NØ 02:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

Soon. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: Just a quick nudge here! In case it's slipped your mind, is all. Leafy46 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry. I've still been out of it on-wiki. I won't be available tomorrow but I'll see what I can do next week. λ NegativeMP1 06:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MFTP Dan

[edit]

Officially, I don't feel comfortable offering an outright support, as I've not much to say in terms of how this could be improved towards meeting a quality product, beyond the following already-corrected issue. I made a brief mention on my personal talk page regarding the second paragraph of "Background" being too short and abstract after being solicited for assistance by the nominator. In truth, I think Leafy addressed the actual problem I had with the area without me saying it – we now see what the song was supposed to be about. Quite commendable, the context that was added, considering what little I offered on my talk page and said I'd respond to more here. Officially, I will state that after looking at this from top to bottom, I have no objection to promotion. mftp dan oops 22:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has by my count picked up only one support. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it may be archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... pardon? I've received supports from both Camilasdandelions and MaranoFan (not to mention the successful image/source reviews), which is at least two. There is also an active note from Negative above to review the article soon. Don't you think it's a bit preemptive to go around threatening to close the FAC for inactivity? Leafy46 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not a coordinator, then don't comment threatening to close the FAC for a reason that makes no sense. There absolutely is some movement towards wanting to promote here and there will definitely be so if I end up supporting. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image, source, accessibility and media reviews usually get a "pass" or a "fail", not a "support" or "oppose", although we coordinators are not fussy so long as the intent is clear. Yep, two clear general supports for promotion. That said, it is five weeks in, so I will add it to urgents to see if that stirs up a bit more interest. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RandomEdits

[edit]

Saw this in the Urgents, based on my initial readthrough I can review. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching this as someone familiar with the band, but not too much and haven't heard the song.
Most of my comments have turned out to be mostly suggestions as to how to slightly improve phrasing and the like, as it turns out. The actual content looks very good to me and after NØ and Camilasdandelions' reviews there isn't much work that needs to be done!
Lead
  • All good.
Background
  • However, the album was never released. Similarly, the band considered creating a new album to commemorate their 40th anniversary in 2018; however, it never materialised. A slight retweak to remove the quick repeat of 'however' would help with the flow of the paragraph.
  • The band created three albums' worth of material in 2019, with eight tracks from those sessions being finished in 2024 to become Songs of a Lost World. Iirc this was the only sentence in the article that required a second-read, and uses 2019 quickly after the previous sentence did too. Perhaps a stronger sentence break, like, "In 2019, the Cure once again began recording new music under the working title Live from the Moon. During those sessions, the band recorded enough material for three albums; eight tracks were later completed in 2024 for Songs of a Lost World.", could help? Main thing here is just removing the second "in 2019" really.
  • I've previously been advise one word quotes like "interesting" don't require quotation marks, but this might be personal preference.
Composition
  • "Compared" is used four times in this including the sample box, could a little more variation be added?
  • Three minutes and 21 seconds" is arguably a bit too in-detail a note but as a one-off this is fine.
  • Perhaps also borrows imagery from the Ernest Dowson poem Dregs" could be made "borrows from Dowson's Dregs as you introduced the poem only a few paragraphs earlier.
Release and commercial performance
  • Various publications listed "Alone" in their lists of that week's best songs: Consequence, where Jonah Krueger praised its production despite writing that the band was retreading its past sounds and themes; Stereogum, where Tom Breihan opined that it was both ambitious and elegant; Under the Radar, where Mark Redfern stated that there was "no other choice" for the best song of the week; and Uproxx, which included "Alone" in a list of that week's best indie music Even with the use of semi-colons, this feels far too much for one sentence for me. Considering the glowing reception of the piece is already very obvious from the rest of the piece, I would be tempted to cut some or all of the quotes here. ie just "Consequence, Stereogum, Under the Radar and Uproxx all listed "Alone" in their lists of that week's best songs.
  • In general really, there is a lot of praise here, and this is by far the most dense section. I wonder if all the examples are really necessary. By the third or fourth "X said Alone was 'absolutely amazing' " I felt further examples were redundant, so my eyes wast starting to skim the text by the time I got to the second paragraph. Are there of these reviews that could be trimmed or removed? Even just shortening the longer sentences like "Petridis concurred that Smith's voice changed little from his earlier output; however, he commented that Smith nonetheless "sounds very different indeed", having strayed from the earlier, nihilistic attitude towards death he portrayed in songs like "One Hundred Years"." to "Petridis agreed that Smith's voice had not changed much, but commented that Smith nonetheless had strayed from his nihilistic attitude towards death in earlier works" would help a great deal here.
Tables
  • All look MOS compliant to me.
Misc
  • I think unfortunately all the archive.today links are required to be replaced if possible. There weren't too many, so I went ahead and moved these to web.archive/ghosttoday.
Overall this is looking very good and well on its way to FA status. My main concerns are really just the, imo, excessive praise in "Critical Reception". Let me know your thoughts on this area, as the rest is very strong.
Additionally, if you have time for a FA review yourself when you're not working on this, I have a FA about a horse up at the moment that could do with one more prose reviewer, but this isn't required as part of this review by any means! :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review :) I'll take a look into things, but as for your latter point I will say that there isn't much negative criticism I could extrapolate to balance out the 'Critical reception' section that way. Hell, Billboard ranked "Alone" in the bottom of half of their ranking of the album, and as far as I can tell the review contains no negative points whatsoever. However, I'll see about trimming the section down a bit; I'm still new to FA, myself, and I'm trying to find the right balance between comprehensiveness and keeping the prose engaging. Leafy46 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chimacum Creek

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a number of articles on Pacific Northwest streams and rivers recently, and this is the first I've brought to FAC. This is a fairly large creek in western Washington, running through a rural farming region on the Olympic Peninsula. Like many PNW streams, it was dredged and channelized in the early 20th century, threatening the ever-important salmon population. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

[edit]

I am being so good and doing my review right away and not letting the ADHD win

  • "the East Fork Chimacum near the community of Chimacum" I think you need a comma here between Chimacum and near
    • Added.-G
  • "In 2024–2025, a monitoring station near the mouth of the creek reported..." this is nitpicky but right now you're saying that the reporting was done in 2024–2025. I might revise to something like "For the 2024–2025 water year". Dealer's choice idk
    • Done.-G
  • Suggest embiggening the Geology lead image as the text is very tiny and unreadable at current size, even with 10% zoom to account for my ancient eyes
    • Done.-G
  • "such as hummocky terrain and kettles" comma after kettles to close the clause
    • Done.-G
  • Maybe throw in an image of one of the fish for the biology section, just to be fun?
    • I wouldn't want to include a picture of a fish that's not actually from the creek.-G
  • "Forest restoration projects were made" idk if "made" is the word. "carried out"?
    • Done.-G
  • Do any sources discuss why beavers were removed? Also, I might swap "formerly" to "once", it just sounds nicer
    • Clarified.-G
  • I might suggest adding at least one more subsection to History; having just one near the bottom makes it feel oddly balanced
    • Done.-G
  • "before briefly reopening" "before" is unnecessary here
    • Done.-G
  • "entered a period of decline" could probably be trimmed to "declined"
    • Done.-G
  • "Reed canarygrass was introduced" do we know why/how?
    • Clarified.-G
  • "By the 1950s, a USDA report" since the report is dated to 1955 by the source, I'd just say that
    • Done.-G
  • "The previously prevalent livestock farming" since you haven't previously established livestock farming as prevalent, might reword to "Livestock farming, once prevalent, has declined..."
    • Done.-G

That's all I got, a nice tidy little article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

I've just written a few creek articles, admittedly on the other side of the country, so might have something to add here. WIll do my best not to duplicate PMC's comments above.

  • In the infobox you list the basin as 37 sqmi, but in the article it's 33-37. Why the discrepancy?
    • Fixed it. Sources disagree on the size.-G
  • Washington Department of Ecology mentions and East Fork and West Fork, while I think you refer to what here we call the West Fork as the Main stem (which, by the way, I think is worth linking). Do other sources call it a/the West Fork? Here we also have the east fork attributed with about 1/3 of the stream's flow, while in our article we say "a little under a fifth"
    • More to the point, I think you can do a bit more with the source. We have 20 years of data for the creek's flow in this source, including mean flow rates for different months. Maybe it's worth including some broader trends, as opposed to just the one year?
      • Sources call it different things: Gatley et al. 2015 calls it the main stem (see p. 6), Bahls and Rubin 1996 say 'West Fork' (see p. 2), Jones et al. 2013 says the basin consists of Chimacum Creek and its tributary East Fork Chimacum Creek (see p. 2), while the 2024 Drainage District Analysis says West Chimacum Creek (CHI) and East Chimacum Creek (ECH) comprising the primary waterways. (see p. 4). I brought discussions of flow to the Flow section and expanded it a little, including the discrepancy between sources. But to your second point, I'm unsure how to present that. I feel like averaging out many years would veer to far into OR, but I don't know how much raw data would be helpful here. Could you give more specifics about what you think we should add? -G
        • I think it would be worth clarifying the different names, maybe in an explanatory footnote. I guess you're right on the mean flow, I suppose I misread the yearly mean as a 20 year mean. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we cite in the article that the agricultural land is particularly fertile, as you mention in the lede? (I don't think that land being used for agriculture necessarily establishes that by itself
    • You're right; removed that.-G
  • "Much of the land in this area was purchased by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Recreation and Conservation Office" I would say something like "Federal/US Fish and Wildlife Service" - my impression based on rest of article wa that we are talking about a Washington FWS
    • Clarified.-G
  • Surprised to see no mention of pesticides/fertilizers/pollution- often a concern on water quality in agricultural areas. Anything on this?
    • Milked a bunch of stuff on water quality from the 2024 Jefferson County Conservation District, realized I completely forgot to add that.-G
  • Is the creek still stocked? You mention some historical instances, but nothing today.
    • I can't seem to find mention of it. -G
  • "The mainstem discharges out of the small Delanty Lake" Source doesn't seem to speak to the lake's size, to my eyes
    • Good point, removed the adjective.-G

Just some preliminary comments, will give the article a proper read through over the next couple of days. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still think it would be worth linking main stem
    • Done.-G
  • You say "The mainstem creek (also known as West Chimacum Creek) originates from a series of springs and ponds in the forested hills" and then say "The mainstem discharges out of Delanty Lake" which, to me, contradict each other somewhat. Does it originate at the lake or from a series of springs and ponds? If the series of springs and ponds mentioned in the first para here are the creeks and lakes mentioned in the second para, why is the first part even necessary?
    • Rephrased this.-G
  • Odd to me that we get the elevation of the East Fork's origins, but not the West
    • Been trying to find that statistic to little luck.-G
  • "draining the broad Chimacum Valley" What is 'broad' supposed to mean in this context?
    • Removed.-G
  • " decreasing annual precipitation" relative to what?
    • Clarified.-G
  • you say "The valleys of both creeks have thick, poorly-drained soils", but this source says "much of the agricultural land is along the relatively flat areas of the Chimacum Creek valley and the Leland Creek valley where soils are typically quite permeable" (3-61), which to me contradicts the idea of poor drainage
    • I'm just repeating what the USGS says: The valleys of Chimacum Creek and East Fork of Chimacum Creek, portions of the Tarboo Valley, and other glacial depressions are characterized by thick sequences of poorly drained soils rich in organic material. Poor drainage doesn't necessarily mean the soil isn't very permeable; it could just be very saturated with water. Nevertheless, the word sequences might be the key here; added that.-G
  • "with less than an inch of rain per month during July and August." is this an average? A record low?
    • Clarified.-G
  • "Concentrations in downstream areas has declined over time, but continues to violate safety standards." This feels like something worth having an "as of" at the end, especially if there hasn't been testing in the past decade, as seems to be the case?
    • Fair, clarified.-G
  • "During this period, many testing stations on the main stem showed temperature levels that violated the state guideline of 60.8 °F (16.0 °C) during the summer,." Stray comma, but I also don't get what this means. What is the guideline for?
    • Water temperature; clarified.-G
  • I think I read something in a source about the flow of the river varying widely, to the point that in the summer no water flows into the west fork from Delaney Lake ([16]) that I think would be worth adding.
    • Oh, good catch; added.-G
  • "and an unidentified species of minnow" I am a bit confused why you include this, if "are also known to inhabit the creek" already leaves room open for potential other fish that we don't know about.
    • Fair, removed.-G
  • I get the sense that the decline of chum was in the 1980s, rather than 1990s based on this source?
  • I generally don't think that "expatriated" extends to non-human subjects; particularly when not in the context of countries

Some more Eddie891 Talk Work 16:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Huh, I've seen it papers, but you're right it seems uncommon. Reworded.-G
  • I still would suggest putting the alternate names of the beginning of the mainstem (west fork etc) in a note (ie: "Also known as X, Y, Z") - Unless you think there's a good reason not to?
    • I feel an EFN is unnecessary and hard to source (as no source specifically discusses the name of the creek) but I just added a parenthetical 'also known as'. - G
  • The report on water quality goes into some more depth about the trend of water temperature than we do ("The temperature trend from 1998 to 2013 showed a decrease of 1oC (1.8 oF) on Chimacum Creek's main stem and a decrease of 2oC (3.6oF) on the east fork" from the abstract. Not sure we need to go into the actual temp numbers, but the trend seems relevant
    • added.-G
  • The sentence beginning "Efforts to restore riparian forest conditions began in the 1980s and 1990s." feels like it should now sequentially come after we talk about the end of the summer chum? That's certainly how the cited source treats the history
    • Fixed.-G
  • I still don't understand the "guideline" for water temperature. The cited source seems to put it in the context of salmonid habitat, but we don't mention anything about that, so I'm not sure what to make of it from our article.
    • I feel it might be unnecessary, esp. as the source expresses doubt whether its actually a good gauge on salmon suitability. Removed that.-G
  • I am generally a bit unhappy with the Biology/Hydrology sections. I think, this is because what we are talking about is largely the *current* Biology/Hydrology of the creek (in part because there just isn't much information about the historic conditions), but we keep doubling back and qualifying the history of parts and it ends up feeling like there's a bunch of history in these other sections (but inconsistent, and imo somewhat duplicative, history). And the history section itself covers a lot of the biological/hydrological history (ie restoration projects)! I'd vote to move what isn't in the history section already there, and cut the rest. For example: In the biology section, "Driven from the area by forest clearing and trapping during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, beavers were reintroduced to the watershed in the 1960s, and became prevalent as trees spread along the creek." -> "Beavers are prevalent along [portions of?] the creek", and in history mention the reintroduction/driving out. So, the question here is whether you have considered doing this. Perhaps you have and decided that it did not make sense, but I'm curious to hear why, if that is the case.

Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. (Hopefully) Final comments. I think the article flows much better now!

  • "The group was devastated by diseases and massacres before Euro-American settlement" In the lead you say that this devastation came from "surrounding groups" - I don't really see that reflected in the article. I do see Gibbs attributing many deaths to attacks "many years prior" but can we explicitly tie these to their devastation (there's a difference between many deaths and total devastation, if that makes sense)? And what about the disease? Did that come via the other tribes, or Europeans? Any sense of what that looked like? Not sure that you can say it explicitly, but I worry the current phrasing opens us up to interpretations along the lines of "oh, the Europeans came and nobody was left so... nothing to see here". Again, if the sourcing doesn't offer more, no worries, just wanted to raise the point.
    • Changes seem fine. The Chimacum were devastated right at the line between the protohistorical and historical periods for the region, so there's a lot that's unclear about them. The source does mention it in the context of broader disease epidemics so I reworded it there to note that it was specifically part of the epidemics of Old World disease. That spread without direct European contact, but they may have been contacted anyway due to the fur trade; I don't think we can say for certain how it got there. As for the massacres, I reworded to note that the groups that attacked them were indeed surrounding indigenous groups such as the Makah, Snohomish, and Suquamish. -G
  • In the after colonization section- I think there's some duplication that is unnecessary. For instance "The Irondale ironworks and adjacent industry deposited large amounts of fill material over the creek's estuary, resulting in the loss of the creek's lagoon and spit...The creek's delta historically featured a spit and a small lagoon. These were covered by several acres of infill in the 19th and early 20th centuries." These are referencing the same thing, no?

Pretty much it from me! I made a few minor changes that I think would be uncontroversial, but of course feel free to revert them if you disagree. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Done.-G
  • File:Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2549).jpeg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Mouth_of_Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2548).jpeg, File:Klallam_people_near_canoe.jpg, File:Man_in_horse-drawn_carriage_on_bridge_over_Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2550).jpeg
    • Oops, the Washington State Archives ones should have been PD-US-Unpublished; fixed this. The description states that "Klallam people near canoe.jpg" was published by a local postcard company c. 1914.
  • File:Map_missoula_floods.gif: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Some preliminary comments. There seem to be some WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.-G
  • "The main stem creek (also known as West Chimacum Creek) originates the forested hills" originates in?
    • Fixed.-G
  • Link unincorporated community. As a non-American, I have no idea what this means.
    • Done.-G
  • "filled in by several acres of added material in the 19th and early 20th centuries, although habitat restoration in 2006 cleared most of this fill material" what is "added material"? And doesn't "added" go without saying since you begin with "filled"?
      • Fixed.-G
  • Link basic.
    • Done.-G
  • Link salmon.
    • Done.-G

@FunkMonk: Thank you; got to all these. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I'm not sure if the fill sentence had to be completely removed (seems relevant), I see you later down say "deposited large amounts of fill material", so maybe it could just be reworded and restored? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was in response to Eddie's request that things be rearranged to be more chronological. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Fraser Glaciation in the caption.
    • Done.-G
  • Could explain what alluvial means in parenthesis.
    • Done.-G
  • "Western settlement" Earlier you say " Euro-American settlement", which would seem more appropriate? Technically, the settlers came from the east of there, also...
    • Fair, done.-G
  • "derives from the name" Do we know what the name itself means?
    • Sadly, the sources don't seem to say. It may be unknown.-G
  • "a faulty hydrant released" and "a culvert failure" what were these associated with? A faulty hydrant where?

Source review - support

[edit]

Sour review incoming either later this evening or sometime tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the credentials of Daryl McClary? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sounder commuter rail/archive1
    • While HistoryLink is a tertiary source, it has editorial review and cites its own sources. I consider it appropriate when used to cite something like dates; it seems analogous to citing a local newspaper. For his credit, McClary seems to be an otherwise obscure local historian and journalist.-G
  • Other sourcing is almost entirely governmental reports of a type which look acceptable for what they are being cited for
  • The link for the Polenz file is a direct link to a .zip file which doesn't do anything? In fact, I'm a bit confused of what the nature of this source is in general. It looks like this has the same publication information as what we're citing, but then there's a bunch of stuff cited to different pages within "Geologic Map of the Center 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Jefferson County, Washington" which not only sounds like it matches the linked file but would surely be a map that doesn't have discrete page numbers?
    • Geologic survey maps are usually a two part thing; they have both a map (cited as 'map' in the sfn) and a corresponding report which explains each section of the map and gives it sources. I couldn't just link to the map .pdf itself, so I had to link to a download with both the map and its corresponding report.-G

Spot checks:

  • " By the early 2000s, much of the land surrounding the last mile of the river's course before its mouth was public ownership, managed by community-owned easements such as the Jefferson Land Trust." - source indicates "While much of the habitat in the lower mile is public ownership or protected by conservation easements through the Jefferson Land Trust." I don't think the current phrasing is quite right - an easement isn't an ownership right, it's just usage rights or restrictions and the source doesn't indicate the relative amounts of public ownership vs easements so we don't know the relative proportions to say that "much" is specifically publicly owned, rather than a mix of both
    • Fair; reworded.-G
  • "Euro-American settlement in the area began during the 1850s" - OK
  • "The riparian (riverside) areas of the watershed were covered by conifer forest, with trees such as spruce, cedar, hemlock, and fir." - OK
  • "Prior to colonization, the lower reach of the creek and the Chimacum Valley was a network of forested swamps with many beaver ponds, meandering river channels, and crabapple shrubs" - OK
  • "Chimacum Creek has the largest watershed of the Quimper Peninsula, approximately 33 to 37 square miles (85 to 96 km2)" - mostly OK, but neither source provides a range. One says 33 sqm and the other 37; would it be more accurate to present this as an or statement (or even relgate the varying sizes to a footnote)?
    • Fair enough.-G
  • "There are five small lakes in the basin—Anderson, Beausite, Delanty, Gibbs, and Peterson" - OK
  • "with less than an inch of rain per month on average during July and August" - OK
  • "A small area of estuary and intertidal wetland is located at the river's embayment into the ocean, on the last 0.2 miles (0.32 km) of its course" - is "estuary and intertidal wetland" equivalent to "salt marsh and lagoon" from the source?
    • A salt marsh is a type of intertidal wetland, and a lagoon in this case is a form of estuary, but you're right those are more specific, so I reworded.-G
  • "Many of these are salmonids who spawn in the creek, including coho and chum salmon, as well as steelhead trout and cutthroat trout" - OK
  • "The plant closed in 1911, briefly reopening in 1917–1919 due to heavy demand for steel during World War I" - OK
  • "with about 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) of farmland in the watershed" - OK
  • "The last dairy in the valley closed in 2015" - source says 2016'
    • Oops, fixed.-G
  • "As the climate warmed during the end of the Vashon Stade" - close paraphrasing; the only difference from the source is the substitution of "during" for "at". I'm not convinced that it is not possible to rephrase this in a way that avoids the issue
    • Rephrased.-G

Some issues on the spotchecks noted; questions on formatting for one source and potentially reliability on another. I searched for major sources ommitted on Google Scholar and a couple of academic databases - is this USGS document about groundwater in the creek's basin of any use? Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Knew Too Much (collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the slow march of McQueen towards FT, I present to you a shorter article on one of his lesser collections. Hot on the heels of the theatrically beautiful runway show for It's Only a Game, here McQueen confused his critics with a hard turn towards commercial appeal and obvious referentiality. The collection was not without hits: critics appreciated the sleekly tailored retro designs and youthful knits, but in the face of, well, everything else he ever did, it simply pales in comparison. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • Please add alternative text for the images so that the article is more easily accessible for readers.
    • Done!
  • Would a link for secondary education in France be helpful for secondary school? I know that education systems can vary from country to country, so I was not sure if a link would be beneficial for readers who may be unfamiliar with a secondary school, particularly in the context of Paris.
  • Apologies as I know that I bring this up often in FAC reviews, but I would be mindful of using the following sentence construction, with disagreements mainly centering around the benefits and drawbacks of McQueen's more commercial turn. In FAC reviews, I often see editors discourage the sue of the "with X verb-ing" wording. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I point this out just because the frequency in which this comment in raised in the FAC space.
    • Have tweaked
  • I have a question about this sentence: It was called the "Novak" after actress Kim Novak, who frequently appeared in Hitchcock films. Did Novak really frequently appear in Hitchcock's films? I know that she is in Vertigo, which is objectively iconic, but I am struggling to think of other Hitchcock films with Novak. I could just blanking on the obvious ones though. That is why I get for starting a review right after a day of work lol.
    • No, you're right, I'll tweak it
  • Did McQueen ever give a reason for why he left the show without greeting the audience? I doubt that he did, since I would imagine that this would be in the article if it was known, but I thought that I should ask to double-check anyway.
    • Unfortunately no; I think he was just in an extra snitty mood for this collection.
  • I have a comment for the following sentence: Despite the lack of McQueen's usual theatrics, many reviewers were pleased with the 1950s-inspired tailored silhouettes and glamourous evening wear. This sentence uses five citations, and I would recommend doing something like citation bundling to avoid any concerns with citation overkill. I believe that this is the only case of this in the article, but I would mindful of this if there are any other instances.
    • Whoops, I meant to slap these into a bundle and forgot, thanks for the reminder.
      • You are all good. It is easy to miss something like this. I believe that this is the only instance of this in the article. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this review is helpful. I will be focusing primarily on the prose, aside from the stray image comment that I had at the start. I have only done a quick skim through the article so far, and I will read through everything more thoroughly when I have the time. I did watch the fashion show on YouTube, and I actually really enjoyed the staging and the clothing, but that probably shows how basic I am lol. Please let me know if you have any questions about anything, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the collection is actually quite elegant, and there's nothing wrong with the staging in and of itself. I think had it been presented at Dior or Chanel or another classy kind of fashion house, nobody would have questioned it. It's just that the whole thing lacked the nasty edge McQueen was known for. Anyway, not germane here; I've made your suggested changes and look forward to any others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I agree. If it was a Dior of Chanel show, I think that this would been more praised and well-remembered. I do like the Rear Window comparison in particular. I would be interesting if a show ever dialed that up, like having models walking through windowed areas and positioning the audience more as voyeurs. But, then again, that is not a particularly great way to showcase the actual fashion lol. I will look through the article tomorrow if that is okay with you. I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the sexually reserved wording for this part, a stereotype of the attractive but sexually reserved women who led Hitchcock's films. While the Hitchcock Blonde is more reserved, sexuality is still a key component to her character, and Hitchcock has said that he believes that female characters with this more reserved quality are actually more sexual and erotic. Maybe replace "sexually reserved" with just "reserved" or a different word entirely, like "aloof", to be more accurate? Obviously, this would need to be supported in the citation.
    • Hmm. I've swapped to "romantically aloof".

This is my only remaining comment. Once this has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having an excellent end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I do have one outstanding comment, but it is admittedly more on the minor side, so I do not want this to hold up the FAC in any way, shape, or form (that and I am stepping away from Wikipedia). Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, I know you've mentioned on your talk page that you're retiring, but I hope you know that I have always (and will always) appreciate your comments and your time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSK

[edit]

Saving a spot, will do a prose review soon. msk 19:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Man Who Knew Too Much (Autumn/Winter 2005) is the twenty-sixth collection by McQueen for his eponymous fashion house. Should this be linked as eponymous fashion house instead?
    • Nobody can ever decide. I'm something like 20 FACs in and I keep getting told put it in, take it out, put it in, etc etc. So I'm sticking with what I've got, lol.
  • including a red one with a voluminous mermaid skirt that evoked the designs of Charles James. Is this elaborated upon in any sources? Same for the following sentence.
    • Unfortunately no to both. Bethune and Watt are fashion writers who I think are assuming the viewer knows James' work, which is basically big lovely classy 1950s ball gowns. I tweaked to say "a designer from the period" so the connection is more obvious, how's that? As for the Monroe dress comparison, there's not much more to say other than to point out that McQueen was doing a copycat version of a famous 1960s glam dress in a collection based on 50s/60s glam.
  • McQueen earned praise for successfully updating classic styles with modern details while avoiding overwrought retro fashion clichés like flicked hair and cat eye glasses. "overwrought retro fashion clichés" comes off a bit strange in wikivoice, though I'm not entirely sure how to change it.
    • I'll admit I suffered on this one a bit so I'm happy to take suggestions. This is the cleanest phrasing I got to without pulling direct quotes or sounding even less formal (at one point I had "throwback" in there instead of "retro").
      • @Premeditated Chaos: There seems to be a source-text mismatch here, Menkes says "it was to his credit as a brilliant stage manager that his Hitchcock theme never got out of hand i give or take those flicked up hairstyles and eye glasses suggesting secretary as a career summit." I read it as "The Hitchcock theme never got out of hand, *except* for those flicked up hairstyles and eye glasses".msk 17:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh, yeah, you're right. I went back to double check that it wasn't an OCR issue with Gale (the same source is also on ProQuest) and nope, it's my error. I've changed it to "or successfully updating classic Hitchcock-esque styles with modern details, avoiding an overly referential approach", drawing on Menkes' statement that the theme never got out of hand and Ings-Chambers saying that the modern details "ensured you were never merely treading a time warp".
  • Hair was bouffant or backcombed. make-up was restrained, ... "Make-up" isn't properly capitalized; additionally, what does "backcombed" or "bouffant" mean?
    • Fixed the caps. I've clarified that "bouffant" is a very period style, and "backcombed" adds volume. How's that?

Thanks for the review, hopefully that all seems reasonable. I did re-add the second Charles James link per WP:DUPELINK as it's two sections down so a reasonable dupe in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, support msk 23:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zzz plant

[edit]

Hi! I found this very engaging to read and would like to offer some comments from a prose review standpoint. Please feel free to disregard those that you don't agree with or have already been discussed elsewhere. Zzz plant (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
  • I must say the lede feels a tad thin- I get there's not as much commentary on this collection, but I think with just a few more sentences it could provide a more robust roadmap for the reader. for ex, the lede for La Dame Bleue did a lovely job giving me a taste for what imagery to expect ("Draped gowns contrasted the tailored designs, drawing on McQueen's time at Givenchy...). besides the # of day/evening looks I don't get a sense for of general aesthetic before I read the body.
    • Yes, you're right, the lead was quite sparse. I've added some detail, how's it looking now?
      • That looks great- flows nicely and gives readers a preview of the visual vocabulary of the collection before they get into the body.
  • "It took inspiration from the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the films of Alfred Hitchcock; its namesake is Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)." is there a way to get rid of the Hitchcock repeat? Maybe like "Named for Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), the collection drew inspiration from his films and the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s." or "It took inspiration from the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the films of Alfred Hitchcock, taking its name from the director's 1956 film The Man Who Knew Too Much."
    • Resolved this in the process of enlengthening
  • would suggest rephrasing to avoid two sentences starting with "Critical" in close proximity
    • Done
Reception
[edit]
  • "Although she admired the skilled tailoring, The Wall Street Journal fashion editor Robin Givhan felt the tightly tailored clothes were too restrictive to be worth the trouble of wearing." suggest removing/replacing or attributing "skilled", and trying to remove the repeat of "tailor-"
    • Dropped the second "tailored" and cheaply swapped to "admired the tailoring as skilled" to attribute, but can adjust further if necessary
  • "Susie Rushton at The Independent called McQueen's decision to send out glamorous evening gowns in lieu of a theatrical ending a "commercially savvy move"." - this feels oddly placed to me: the reception section moves from critics complaining about commerciality into Rushton saying the evening gowns were commercially savvy, but the relationship between those ideas could be clearer. is it agreement? contrast? a partial defense? I also don't instinctively know why it would be commercially savvy.
    • It's meant to continue from the previous sentence, beginning "Others disagreed with the consensus...", using Rushton as an example of disagreement. Normally McQueen would do some kind of big bombastic theatrical finish, like having a model in a white dress getting splattered with spray paint. Very cool and artistic, but you can't buy the dress in question, so it's not particularly business-friendly. Here, he just closes out with pretty dresses that you can buy for a nice price - much better for the bottom line.
  • "In her 2015 book Gods and Kings, Dana Thomas called it a "soulless exercise" indicative of McQueen's late-career malaise, and mentioned it only to opine that it was a "far more literal" interpretation of Hitchcock than The Birds had been." there's a few too many "it"s going on here in my view, suggest replacing the first one with "the collection"
    • Done so and have tweaked the sentence to be a little less snide (it was definitely snide)
  • I would combine all the retrospective reception into one larger para. right now the topic sentence "The mixed reception persists in retrospect." feels off- two fairly harsh takes and one faint praise doesn't feel like mixed reception, but once you read the next para it comes together.
    • Fair, I've done so
  • "Others disagreed with the consensus, feeling the lack of theatrics put the focus back on the clothes." this is a nice landmark, but my feeling is that "consensus" could mean the overall mostly positive reception, or the narrower criticism that McQueen had become too commercial. would suggest something like "Other reviewers defended the restrained approach, arguing that the lack of theatrics put the focus back on the clothes."
    • I like that, done
Analysis
[edit]
  • I would consider glossing "diffusion line"
    • I've added "lower-cost", is that enough to get the gist, do you think? I tried to figure out a way to explain it in more detail but it makes the sentence a bit awkward.
      • yep I like that. don't need to overexplain, but enough context that the gist is conveyed.
  • “Film theorist Alistair O'Neill focused on the collection as it related to Hitchcock. McQueen referenced several of the director's films throughout his career, exploring what O'Neill called "representations of femininity and how they are challenged through transformation scenes" - I wonder whether this quote could be paraphrased unless the wording itself is important. The following sentences seem to give the more collection-specific analysis.
    • Hmm, yeah. Done.
  • "In an essay discussing fashion and mental health, Isabel Formica Jakob described the collection..." this mini para feels quite out of left field to me; it doesn't feel integrated with the rest of the prose.
    • Yup, sometimes this happens when I have a piece of analysis that's interesting enough to mention, but where nothing else touches on the topic.
      • I get that, it just feels pretty jarring. the section has been discussing why the collection lacked theatrics and then Hitchcock analysis. Suddenly we get this and as a reader, I'm left thinking: wait, are we now talking about McQueen's mental health? waste in the fashion industry? it's sourced and interesting, but I don't feel the article quite prepares the reader for why it belongs there. I wonder if some type of transition or topic sentence could be helpful.
        • I expanded it slightly, as much as possible; unfortunately she doesn't really get as deeply into this collection as I'd like. I considered getting into McQueen's later lash-out against waste in fashion (The Horn of Plenty), but as the author didn't mention it explicitly, that feels borderline synth-y.
Legacy
[edit]
  • I think the Novak handbag deserves a bit more space in the legacy section given its stated significance in the lede. this mini para just feels a bit orphaned, like an after(or before?)thought compared to the detailed info that follows about editorial shoots and auction prices.
    • Very sadly, that's all the detail I could find about it.
      • :( ok the only thing I would adjust then is explicitly conveying the best-seller for the brand in the body to reflect the lede
        • Done
  • I wonder whether the shorter paragraphs in “Legacy” could be consolidated a bit. At the moment the Novak bag, Vogue editorials, Savage Beauty/Sarah Jessica Parker, museum holdings, and auction records each sit in separate blocks, which makes the section feel slightly listy. I think I would possibly integrate the Novak/editorial/celebrity material in one para, the museum/exhibition material in another, and the auction material last.
    • I condensed the museums/exhibitions into one, but I don't think the handbag info goes with the editorial info, so I've left it separate.

Hi Zzz plant, sorry it took me a bit to get back to you, thanks very much for your review! I've made the majority of suggested changes and replied otherwise. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi no worries! I will circle back to this article in the next few days. (I went on a bit of a FAC prose review spree and neglected to consider that everyone would reply to me at about the same time oops) Zzz plant (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No rush my dude! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is looking good! A few replies above Zzz plant (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me so long to respond again, I got caught up in some IRL stuff and then felt bad about my open GAN reviews, figured I should fulfill my commitments to others before replying to stuff directed at me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'm happy with the tweaks and support on prose. Zzz plant (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 and image review (pass)

[edit]
  • I'm not seeing a formal image review above, so here's one from me
  • I've checked, it was built in 1875 by Gustave Eiffel, who died 1923, so we're clear on both publication date and death of creator grounds. I have added the appropriate tags to the Commons image and sized it down a bit.

I don't know too much about McQueen, but here are some comments from me.

  • old-fashioned way feels like a value judgment rather than a neutral encyclopedic phrase (contrast "retro" and "retro chic", which would be read more positively)
    • I don't think old-fashioned is necessarily negative, and it's less slangy than "retro" (which I have used, but tried not to overuse). I couldn't find another suitable synonym.
  • Some of the eveningwear referenced famous gowns of the era, such as the dress worn by actress Marilyn Monroe when she sang "Happy Birthday" to President John F. Kennedy in 1963. - This could be read as saying that Kennedy was president of Britain in '63. Most readers probably wouldn't make that mistake, but the United States hasn't been mentioned yet.
    • Ehhhh...I think you'd have to have a nearly deliberately ignorant reader to make that mistake.
  • Critical reception ... have - Is "reception" plural (or collective singular) in BrE?
    • No, that was an error
  • British fashion designer - Standard note about false titles (x2), though I personally think either manner works - and at least the article is consistent.
    • Yup, I'm aware and I hate the clunky additional "the"
  • Throughline - Perhaps link Through line?
    • Mm...I think this is unnecessary
  • The Birds (Spring/Summer 1995), was named for Hitchcock's 1963 film The Birds. - Worth refactoring to avoid repeating The Birds?
    • Swapped to "was named for Hitchcock's 1963 film of the same name", how's the link placement?
  • It was inspired by the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s, particularly as interpreted by costume designer Edith Head for Alfred Hitchcock thrillers like its namesake - You have two potential precedents for "its" in this sentence: the collection and the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s. Personally, I'd use "the collection's namesake"
    • I wound up revising this whole bit since I hated the sentence anyway
  • Not an FA criterion, but is the reference ordering [25][13] deliberate?
    • Nope, fixed
  • in an old-fashioned way, - Same comment as above.
  • sixties - Feels a bit colloquial, especially as you use 1950s as an adjective below
    • Yes, error on my part, swapped for 1960s
  • is a clear homage - Personally, I'd nix "clear" as a potential weasel word
    • Isn't it kind of the opposite of a weasel word? It doesn't hedge or obfuscate.
  • mermaid skirt - Worth a redlink?
    • I don't think it adds much
  • worn by actress Marilyn Monroe when she sang "Happy Birthday" to President John F. Kennedy in 1963 - Same as above, this presupposes that the reader knows Kennedy was the President of the United States
  • iconic - Another unattributed value judgment
    • Tweaked
  • Critical reception for The Man Who Knew Too Much was mostly positive - This is inconsistent with the lede, in which you treat "reception" as plural.
  • classic Hitchcock-esque styles - "Classic" gives another unattributed value judgment
    • I don't think it's a value judgement, I mean "classic" as in "distinctive, serving to identify" here.
  • Critical reception for The Man Who Knew Too Much was mostly positive but Despite the somewhat negative reviews - "Mostly positive" to "somewhat negative" feels inconsistent. And then "Mixed" below.
    • Reception for this collection is pretty inconsistent; I think "mostly positive with some recurring criticisms" sums it up reasonably well. Even the mostly positive reviews had some complaining to do. The retrospective view is especially odd: many of the retro authors "remembered" that everyone hated it, but when I actually went back to include the newspaper reviews, it was actually more balanced. I did revise "Despite the somewhat negative reviews" to "Despite critical complaints about the commercial nature of the collection".
  • Not going do to a detailed source review, but mind capitalization (contrast [53] and [58])
    • 58 was capped because it's a journal article, I generally caps those as major works; have sfn'd it and moved it to the ref section so it's more consistent with other journal articles
  • [73] (Doyle) has a CS1 error message.

Overall, quite solid - as one expects from a PMC article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi coords, is it okay if I nominate a second article, since this one is mostly just waiting on a source check? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heard Island and McDonald Islands

[edit]
Nominator(s): MCE89 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an uninhabited Australian territory in the southern Indian Ocean. Home to a 2745-metre volcano and some of the world's largest penguin colonies, it has often been described as one of the most remote places on Earth. I've recently rewritten the article as part of The Core Contest, and it has received a GA review from Marshelec. Many thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review. MCE89 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay for me to nominate another article? This one has three prose supports and has passed a source review. MCE89 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Kerguelen Islands and mackerel icefish are WP:duplinked.
    Fixed. --MCE
  • "Heard claimed the island for the United States" was he American himself then?
    Yes, now specified. -- MCE
  • "one was led by the Swiss geologist Edgar Aubert de la Rüe" since you mention his nationality, you could mention it for the few other people mentioned throughout the article. And perhaps even nationalities of the ships for context.
    Done. --MCE
  • "In 1854 Captain William McDonald sighted the McDonald Islands aboard the ship Samarang. A party of sealers led by Captain Erasmus Darwin Rogers" As above.
    Also done. --MCE
  • Link sealers and perhaps whaling.
    I think both of these are already linked on first mention. --MCE
  • "19th century drawing of Heard Island" why not use the exact year, as present on the file page?
    Good point, done. --MCE
  • "After Britain's transfer of the Australian Antarctic Territory to Australia in 1933, the Australian government began preparing to take possession of Heard Island and the McDonald Islands" perhaps too far off the scope, but why did the UK willingly transfer possession?
    Added a sentence on this. The reasons are somewhat complex, but a high level it was because Australia's geographic position made the claim to its sector of Antarctica more defensible, and because Australia was better placed to manage the territories logistically. --MCE
  • "Four species of breeding penguin on Heard Island" perhaps add "the" at the beginning to make clear there aren't others?
    Done. --MCE
  • The McDonald Islands article is short and pretty much unsourced, holding little unique info. Any reason why it doesn't just redirect here, like Heard Island does?
    I think I agree that it should just redirect here, but oddly enough it's a level 5 VA so I can't really try a bold BLAR. I might open a discussion to see if anyone’s opposed to redirecting it. --MCE
I think that would be worthwhile, now that article is just a dead-end WP:content fork to unsourced information. So it shouldn't be a too controversial proposal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it might go without saying, I wonder if the article should explicitly state the islands are named after the respective persons mentioned in the article who saw them first.
    Good idea, done. --MCE
  • First you say "Various non-native species have been present on Heard Island in the past, including dogs, sheep, and a rat, but none have established a presence on the island." but later you say "A non-native grass, Poa annua, has significantly expanded its presence on the island" and "Three of the invertebrate species found on Heard Island are not native to the island", so what is meant here? They introduced themselves?
    It's a fair question, I realise now I've explained this a bit clumsily throughout the section. I've clarified that first bit to "non-native animal species have been brought onto Heard Island by humans in the past". I've also tried to make the language on this point a bit more specific throughout the section. --MCE
  • I think the caption of the Heard Island cormorant image could specify it's unique to the island, as that's a pretty significant fact.
    Done. --MCE
  • You start the mammals section with "There are 26 species of marine mammals in the Heard Island and McDonald Islands region, including the southern right whale and the pygmy blue whale", and then after some text about various other species, you return to "Seventeen species of cetacean have been observed". Why are cetaceans not listed together?
    Grouped these together. --MCE
  • "Southern elephant seals are the most common mammal species on Heard Island.[84] A 1999 study estimated that the population of elephant seals on Heard Island declined" I don't think you need to repeat Heard Island in the second sentence.
    Removed. --MCE
  • "its largest fish is the southern sleeper shark, Somniosus antarcticus" why give both common and scientific names for some species but not most others?
    Removed the scientific name here. --MCE
  • "Some of these, including several species of beetle and a species of weevil, are found only on Heard Island" I think it would be relevant to name some or all endemic species in the text.
    On second thought I've removed this sentence, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned by any of the higher-quality sources about the invertebrate fauna and I suspect Valentine is using some outdated studies here. --MCE
  • "The island is home to very few winged insects" technically all the beetles you mentioned just before that have wings as well, so perhaps "flying" or such is meant?
    Yep, changed to "flying". --MCE
  • "The islands are home to one non-native plant species, Poa annua, which is believed to have been naturally introduced from the Kerguelen Islands by seabirds." Isn't that a natural introduction then, like most other non-endemic (or any species) there?
    It is, but the sources all describe it as a naturally introduced but non-native species. My understanding is that this is because it was naturally introduced from the Kerguelen Islands where it's an invasive introduced species. --MCE

Image review

[edit]

CMD

[edit]

This is interesting work, my immediate thought when thinking about what this article might need to be at an FA level is comprehensiveness. There's some high-level sentences that tantalise that further information is out there (eg. "Brief scientific expeditions to Heard Island took place in 1874, 1902, and 1929, with their observations limited to the north-western side of the island"), and the article is not facing space constraints. There's no explicit mention of territorial waters, which at the least partially inform the reserve boundaries (I think this is what is implied by "fishing is prohibited within the waters nearest to the island", although the actual shape of the reserve is not so simple). I don't see an explicit mention that the Australian EEZ abuts the French one here, although the close location of the two territories is mentioned. The article also doesn't mention the massive continental shelf claim (2004 proposal, 2012 proclamation). It may be worth grouping Structures under Governance, and perhaps add current research and keep fisheries there, to create a consolidated Human activity section. CMD (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @Chipmunkdavis! With regards to your first point about the 1874, 1902, and 1929 expeditions, I'm not sure there's too much else to be said on those — I've added a sentence saying that one of the expeditions was forced to stay a few days longer than planned due to the weather, but beyond that my sources don't have much to say about them. If there's anywhere else you noticed that you feel may be lacking detail, definitely happy to work on filling in any gaps. It's a good point regarding the maritime territorial claim — I've added a paragraph going over that more explicitly, including a mention of the extended continental shelf. I've also reshuffled the sections to create a "Human activity" section per your suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

[edit]

MSincccc

[edit]
History
  • Could we link to "British government"?
    Added. --MCE
  • The first confirmed sighting of Heard Island took place in 1853 when the island was sighted
    • Could we avoid the use of "sighting...sighted"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Could we drop "ship" when we use "aboard"?
    Done. --MCE
  • "conducted a range of research" → "conducted research"
    Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Human activity
  • "The islands and the surrounding waters are a strict nature reserve" → "The islands and the surrounding waters form a strict nature reserve"
    Done --MCE
  • The territory is uninhabited by humans.
    • Could we drop "by humans"?
      Dropped and integrated "uninhabited" into the previous sentence. --MCE
  • The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 acts as the main legislative framework for the environmental conservation of the territory.
    • How about "serves as" in place of "acts as"?
      Yep, swapped. --MCE
  • There are typically about 1–3 vessels harvesting Patagonian toothfish, primarily using longlines, and about 2–5 vessels harvesting mackerel icefish,
    • Could we avoid repeating "harvesting"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Australian civilian and military vessels have conducted patrols in the waters surrounding the islands to deter and respond to this illegal fishing.
    • Drop "this"?
      Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geography
  • are located in the southern Indian Ocean
    • Drop "located"?
      Done. --MCE
  • A 2021 study estimated that the age of two samples of lava taken from the volcano sat at around 11,100 and 23,900 years.
    • How about "was around" in place of "sat at around"?
      Done. --MCE
  • A 2025 glacier mapping study identified around 30 glaciers in total.
    • Drop "in total"?
      Done. --MCE
  • "Another of the island's glaciers" → "Another glacier"
    Done. --MCE
  • Flows of lava with lengths of 250–2000 metres (820–6560 ft) have occurred an average of roughly once per year since 2008.
    • Could we drop either "average" or "roughly"?
      Yep, dropped average. --MCE
  • terminate in moraines; these moraines are primarily composed of
    • Could we avoid repeating "moraines"?
      Dropped the second. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity
  • although it is likely that there are others present that have not yet been recorded.
    • Drop "present"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Due to their harsh climate and conditions, the islands have relatively low species diversity.
    • Could we do without"conditions" here?
      Dropped the clause. --MCE
  • The majority of the flora species on Heard Island are non-flowering plants
    • How about "The majority of the flora on Heard Island" or "The majority of the plant species on Heard Island"?
      Went with the second. --MCE
  • Due to the harsh climate, the insect population declines by more than 95 percent from its summer peak during the winter each year.
    • "Each winter" in place of "winter each year"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Fur seals were likely eradicated or nearly eradicated
    • Could we avoid repeating "eradicated"?
      Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and everything I had missed out till now
  • Could we link to "Australian government" and "Nature reserve"?
    Done. --MCE
  • It is located about 4000 kilometres
    • Could we drop "located" here?
      Done. --MCE
  • the territory is composed of a group of sub-Antarctic volcanic islands that lie on the Kerguelen Plateau
    • Do we need "group" with "composed of"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Heard Island and the McDonald Islands are known for their harsh climate and conditions,
    • Drop "conditions"?
      Done. --MCE
Bottom line

Michael Aurel: source review (passed)

[edit]

Nice to see another Australia-related article here. I'll swing by soon and do the source review. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following is one content-related matter I wondered about when going through the sources. I'm not doing a prose review, so I've put it at the top:

  • Do we discuss the individual islands which make up the McDonald Islands? As far as I can tell, we only mention McDonald Island and Flat Island in this sentence: Between 1994 and 2004, McDonald Island grew from about 1 square kilometre (0.39 sq mi) to 2.5 square kilometres (0.97 sq mi) and became joined to the nearby Flat Island by an isthmus. We don't seem to mention Meyer Rock, nor do we seem to mention Needle Island or South Island (although judging by this source the last two might not actually be islands?). There may well be good reasons for this, but it did surprise me a little, given that the McDonald Islands seemingly comprise a small number of islands.
    Good point, added the names of the three islands explicitly. --MCE

Survey

I've looked over the sources cited in the article, and all of them seem to be reliable. The bulk of the sources are articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, with some books and scholary reports mixed in. There are a handful of websites and online articles, all of which seem to come from reputable organisations. Four news articles are included, but they are only used in one sentence about contemporary politics and the newspapers are reliable. Just one query:

  • Who is the Alan Kerr cited in the article? The source appears to be a government report of some kind; the contents don't look unreliable, but I wasn't able to verify that the author is a qualified scholar.
    Kerr was a public servant for the Department of External Territories who wrote the book as what seems to have been a quasi-official history of Australia's territorial acquisitions. He wasn't a scholar per se, but the book is reasonably well-cited [19] by scholars, and the one scholarly review I can access is positive (Alan Kerr’s monumental work unearths a fascinating story of little-known aspects of Australian history. It is not intended as light bedside reading, although the snippets of parliamentary debate will amuse many. Rather, it is a most valuable reference work, a significant contribution to our constitutional history and an indispensable resource to those researching the constitutional background to the external territories.). --MCE
    Wonderful. That works for me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have much of the important scholarship: the roughly 900-page Springer book is present, and probably a majority of the articles I came across were already cited. I did find a non-trivial number of sources that weren't, though. Unfortunately, I don't have the requisite knowledge of the article's subject or of the relevant fields to provide any hugely insightful commentary. As such, I'll need your assessment of how much of an omission the below represents, if indeed you think it represents an omission at all.

These are the sources I found which seemed most useful. Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this, this is great! I've replied to a couple of points, and I'll have a read through the rest of the additional sources you've suggested and see what might be worth adding from them over the next couple of days. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Most of the above seems as though it's been churned through, so I'll take a look at the bibliography and formatting:

  • In general, the citation scheme is consistent. Books, scholarly articles and the like are in the bibliography, whereas websites and news articles are given amongst the citations. Some full citations for scholarship are included in the "Citations" section, though. Is a particular standard being followed? My guess is that we give the full citation in the "Citations" if we only cite one page or page range from the work, but we include it in the bibliography if we cite multiple? But Slip & Burton seems only to be cited once (Slip & Burton 1999, p. 38), for example, so is this standard only being applied to books?
    My approach was that any paginated source longer than 2 pages went in the bibliography, and anything shorter got a long citation. There are a couple of scholarly sources (e.g. Greenslade 1998) that were only a page or two, so I just went with long citations for those. --MCE
    Ah, makes sense. You're consistent, so that's perfectly fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whinam, Jennifer; Shaw, Justine D. (2018) would normally go after Whinam, Jennifer (1989), as the latter has the earlier date and a co-author.
    Fixed the ordering here. --MCE
  • We exclude the location in most of the citations for books, but we seem to include it for Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998) and Greenslade, Penelope (1998).
    Removed. --MCE
  • As far as I know, the general recommendation is to use the ISBN found in the book itself. For books published before 2007, this will be a 10-digit ISBN unless you're viewing a reprint. Citations for which this might be relevant are Mills, William James (2003), Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998), Greenslade, Penelope (1998), Carney, Gerard (2006), Scott, J. J. (1990), Shaughnessy, P. D.; Shaughnessy, G. L.; Keage, P. L. (1988).
    Switched all of these to 10-digit ISBNs. --MCE
  • "Heard Island and McDonald Islands". The World Factbook (2025 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency. – Are we treating the CIA World Factbook as an online source or a print source? If the former, I'd probably include a retrieval date; if the latter, I'd probably include an ISBN or something along those lines.
    Expanded to a full web citation. --MCE
  • Regarding doi:10.1657/1523-0430(06-084)[THOST]2.0.CO;2 (inactive 12 May 2026) for Thost, Douglas E.; Truffer, Martin (2008): you could simply include a direct link to Taylor & Francis's website (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1657/1523-0430%2806-084%29%5BTHOST%5D2.0.CO%3B2), as the whole thing seems to be free to access there.
    Added the URL. I'm not sure what's going on with the broken/inactive DOI, but it seems to possibly be something to do with the punctuation inside the DOI? I've removed it again for now, but it seems to keep getting added back during citation bot runs. --MCE
    For what it's worth, I think you can vanquish the bot using "{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}". – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few places where title case should probably be used, as it's used elsewhere: "Australian Antarctic Program completes landmark Heard Island and McDonald Islands Campaign", "Australian Antarctic Program heads to Heard Island", "Protection and management – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Human activities – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Location and geography – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Climate and weather – Heard Island and McDonald Islands".
    All fixed. --MCE
  • Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998). "The Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". Single quotes for quotes in quotes, I think.
    Done. --MCE
  • Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (2000). "Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". – Same as above.
    Done. --MCE
  • Whinam, Jennifer (1989). "Structure and Oristic Composition of the Heard Island "Pool Complex" Community" – Same as above.
    Done. --MCE
  • We seem to link "Commonwealth of Australia" in most places, but not in Kerr, Alan (2009).
    Linked. --MCE
  • Shaughnessy, P. D.; Shaughnessy, G. L.; Keage, P. L. (1988). "Fur-seals at Heard Island: Recovery from Past Exploitation?". In Augee, Michael L. (ed.). Marine Mammals of Australasia: Field Biology and Captive Management. CSIRO Publishing. doi:10.7882/RZSNSW.1988.014. ISBN 978-0-9599951-4-5. – Seems to be missing page numbers.
    Added the page range. --MCE
  • Just noting that we have Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998). "The Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". from the book Heard Island Wilderness Reserve: Reports on Natural Science and Cultural Heritage Research in the citations, and an identically named article by the same authors from Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania. Are these the same article, or are there some differences between the two?
    The first is a shorter version/abstract of the latter, but it turns out the claim that I was citing the 1998 paper for is also in the 2000 article so it probably makes sense to just cite that instead. Removed the 1998 one. --MCE
  • If you don't combine the two citations mentioned in the previous comment, note that Estelle Lazer can be linked in the 1998 work.
  • You could link Europa World Year Book.
    Linked. --MCE
  • Link Richard Arculus.
    Linked. --MCE

All in all, the bibliography and citations are fairly immaculate for an article with this number of sources. I'll round off the review with the spot checks soon, hopefully tomorrow. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

As of this version of the article.

  • 2a & 3a: All good.
  • 1b: Unfortunately, I don't have access to Mills' book. Would you be able to supply a quote? Thanks.
    The quote from Mills is: During the next twenty-five years, more than 100,000 barrels of elephant seal oil were obtained by American sealers, who also compiled a fine map of the island. It looks like I mixed up some citation placement here though — the first sentence of the paragraph is actually supported by McIvor 2007: The first landing at Heard Island was by a sealing expedition in February 1855, and over 40 vessels made more than 100 voyages to the island in the following three decades seeking oil from Southern Elephant Seals Mirounga leonina. Now fixed. --MCE
  • 8a: Fine, I think.
  • 1c, 10a, & 11: Schmieder and Budd verify the first part. I'm guessing that their observations limited to the north-western side of the island is coming from Mills?
    That's coming from Budd: Scientific observations were made—at the northwestern end of the island only—by the Challenger expedition in 1874, by the Gauss expedition in 1902, and by Aubert de la Rue and the British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE) in 1929 --MCE
    Yup, no problem. Not sure how I missed it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 & 14: Beck more or less covers it. I've read through the relevant pages from Dodds and it's not clear to me where the relevant part is. Australia is mentioned a few times on p. 47, where Dodds is saying something a bit different to the article, and the only other mention is on p. 49, where it's part of a quote. Let me know if I'm missing something.
    Removed Dodds, agree that it's not really needed. --MCE
  • 10d & 17b: The first part's all good. Regarding the second: the article has seven ANARE parties, each of which spent 12–14 months on the island and the source has The wintering parties usually left Australia in late December or early January, and returned some 15 months later. Is our claim in some way factoring the time taken to get there and back?
    That's coming from the table on Schmieder p.85, which has Continuous occupation by 7 wintering parties, each of 9 - 14 men for 12 - 14 months. --MCE
  • 24 & 25a: All good.
  • 35: All good.
  • 43b & 46a: No problems with the EEZ part, but I'm struggling to find the Reserve's area. Constable et al. say that The Reserve now covers 71,200 km2 of the Australian EEZ, but they were writing in 2024, so perhaps that figure's out of date? I wasn't able to find the 381,000 figure on IUCN's website, though I'm not entirely confident that I'm looking in the right spot.
    The IUCN source has The site forms part of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) Commonwealth Marine Reserve that was declared in October 2002 and extended in 2014 to 71,000 km2 to incorporate additional marine areas of high conservation value. This Reserve is being managed pursuant to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014-2024. In January 2025 the Australian Government expanded the Reserve to include additional 310,000km2, so I was using this for the 71,000 + 310,000 = 381,000 sqkm claim per WP:CALC. I see now that [20] says explicitly that the area is about 380,000 sqkm though, so I've swapped that in instead. --MCE
    I was Ctrl+F-ing for "381", which explains it. This is all good, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47: All good.
  • 56: Assuming I'm reading the source correctly, this is fine.
  • 69, 70, & 71: All good.
  • 73: All good.
  • 81: A bit picky, but the source only says that the artefacts were brought to Australia, mentioning that the blubber press is in a museum, whereas the article says that the artefacts removed from the island were taken to museums in Australia.
    Tweaked the wording to specify that the blubber press is what's in the museum. --MCE
  • 4d, 82c, & 87a: All good.
  • 94: All good.
  • 101 & 100b: They're definitely talking about relevant information, but it's not clear to me what the exact parts are that verify the information in the article. Could you perhaps quote those bits?
    Quilty p.4 has Throughout the history of the Plateau (fig. 4), over 115 million years, it is likely that vegetated islands have stood above sea level. Volcanism probably was active through all this time somewhere on the Plateau. and Fox p.36 has The Kerguelen Plateau is a Cretaceous large igneous province (LIP) produced by voluminous basaltic eruptions in response to the formation of the Kerguelen hotspot during the separation of the Indian, Australian, and Antarctic Plates and the subsequent formation of the modern Indian Ocean. The Kerguelen hotspot is understood to be the key driver of volcanism on Heard Island. I think together those support the overall claim that volcanic activity on the plateau has created various islands, which include Heard Island. --MCE
    Yep, those were the parts I thought we were referencing. I'm still not completely certain about this one, but I'm happy to attribute my lingering uncertainty to a lack of knowledge in the field. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 83f, 98b, 111: All good.
  • 98d, 114: No problem regarding the website. For Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang, I think we should be citing p. 2685 rather than pp. 2677–2679? Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang give a slightly different number and slightly different years than the website; personally, I'd follow the former source.
    Fixed the page number and changed the claim to match what's given by Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang. --MCE
  • 115 & 116: All good.
  • 60c & 120: All good.
  • 125: The source says that Glaciation on Heard Island may have occurred as early as the Miocene, whereas the article has Heard Island has been covered by glaciers since the Miocene epoch. I think we need to retain the uncertainty. Otherwise, this one's fine.
    Oops, good point. Fixed. --MCE
  • 43h & 95b: Both sources verify that it has low species diversity, but I don't think (unless I'm missing it on the website?) either specifies that this is Due to their harsh climate and conditions.
    Removed, I think I was reading a bit too much into the source there. --MCE
  • 147: All good.
  • 154 & 155a: No problems, although the cited page of Scott & Kirkpatrick isn't adding much. Not a big deal, but the linked version on Figshare seems to have different pagination (it goes from p. 314 to p. 328) to the version given by Taylor & Francis, which confused me for a moment.
    Removed Scott & Kirkpatrick and the link. --MCE
  • 161 & 162: Fine, I think.
  • 164b: I don't have access to Valentine, so I might need a quote.
    Here's the quote: The petrels dominate, with 7 breeding species and another 15 or so species recorded in the area. The wandering albatros — the world’s largest, with a three-metre wingspan—has been recorded breeding on the island, but numbers are low. The much smaller and more abundant black-browed albatross also breeds on the island. As with most remote subantarctic islands, the coastal shelf provides extensive breeding areas for the seabirds. --MCE
    Thanks. No problems here, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 39d & 169: Schmieder mostly covers the sentence, though he doesn't seem to say that it's the world's largest colony (even though this wouldn't be surprising!). He's also talking about Heard Island and McDonald Island; the article only specifies the former, unless we're treating the latter as implicitly included? As far as I can tell, the UNESCO website doesn't mention Macaroni penguins.
    Changed "Heard Island" to "Heard Island and McDonald Islands". I'm not sure how the "world's largest colony" claim got in there - I definitely remember reading it somewhere, but I must have cited the wrong source and you're right that it's not in the UNESCO one. Removed for now, but I'll have another look through my sources and see if I can track down where I got it from. --MCE
  • 171: All good.
  • 178: All good.
  • 183: All good.

That's all from me. There are a few quibbles and queries about verification, but most are pretty minor and there's clearly nothing major to be concerned about. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89: I'm happy to sign off on this one. There are a few sources left over in the "Survey" section which you can use if you please, but I think by now the article well and truly has all the important scholarship. I have ample evidence to say that this one's good to go, so I'll let others jump in and provide their comments on what is clearly a high-quality piece of work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review, appreciate it! And apologies my slowness in getting to the rest of those suggested sources - I've finished going through them now and have incorporated most of the remainder. MCE89 (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson

[edit]

It's good to see a vital article getting this attention. I'll make points as they occur to me.

1. The map in the infobox is primarily a map of Australia. Naive readers might suppose that the big red islands (Australia and Tasmania) are the islands in question. I shall try replacing it with a map that is better focussed on the H&M islands, being specifically designed to show their location on the globe. Note that there are multiple versions of that with different coloration. See Maps of Heard Island and McDonald Islands for the full selection. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good call, that map looks much better! Thanks for making that swap. MCE89 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: I agree that the map should be focused on the islands, and a globe is the best way to show its position. But I think it should also highlight Australia in a different color, as the position relative to the mainland is relevant information. Following a color scheme used for other articles, it could have H&M in red and Australia in beige. Perhaps we also add an inset? I can create this map image if others support it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: That sounds great to me. I definitely don't have the skill to make something like that, but would be very happy with swapping it in if you're willing to make a new image :) MCE89 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

zzz plant

[edit]

Hi! Very nice work, and happy to see attention on a vital article. I have some comments organized by section below. Please feel free to disregard anything you don't agree with or has already been discussed elsewhere. Zzz plant (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
  • "The islands are uninhabited and have been described as one of the most remote places on Earth." - the number agreement sounds off to me (plural subject are one of the?), suggest something like "The territory is uninhabited and has been described as one of the most remote places on Earth."
    Good idea, done. --MCE
  • the second para feels a bit date-heavy to me for a lede
    Trimmed out a few of these dates. --MCE
  • "About 70 percent of the island is permanently covered by glaciers, while just 5 percent is covered by vegetation." I'm extra sensitive to repetition bc I use a read-aloud software, but I would suggest something like "About 70 percent of the island is permanently covered by glaciers, while vegetation occupies just 5 percent." I also wonder about "permanent", given the stated effect of climate change later in lede.
    Oh I like that much better, done. Also changed "permanent" to "year-round". --MCE
History
[edit]
  • I'm surprised the narrative starts as late as 1853- have these islands never been inhabited or visited before European the stated trips? if sources allow, I would consider adding a sentence affirmatively stating that there was no known human activity prior to this point.
    Made it more explicit that there is no evidence of human visitation prior to the 1850s. --MCE
  • cut between first + second para feels a bit odd to me- we end on sealers arriving in 1855, and then break, and then we're back to sealers being there in 1855
    Changed the first part of the second paragraph to Sealers continued to occupy the island over the following decades to connect it to the previous. --MCE
  • "A British company was allowed to lease the islands in 1926, but by 1930 it was no longer exercising its lease. The British government felt that Australia's proximity to its Antarctic possessions would provide a firmer claim to sovereignty, particularly over sectors of the Antarctic continent, and would reduce the logistical complexity of administering the territories." I got a little lost here, it took me a few reads to get the cause-and-effect of private company's lease vs. sovereignty. I think this could be clearer.
    Reworked this paragraph a little to make this clearer, how does that look now? --MCE
    much better, nicely spells out their motivation without getting too caught up in the weeds - Z
  • the ANARE research station bit is quite interesting. do we know why the government took the initiative to set that up / maintain it?
    Added a sentence on the motivations. --MCE
  • "Beginning in 1950 the ANARE parties on Heard Island..." I get the sled dog thing is new, but weren't they already doing the weather stuff before?
    Switched the order of these sentences. --MCE
  • "On 26 May 1952, two members of the ANARE party were killed during an expedition after one was swept away by the waves and another froze to death during a storm." obviously very sad, but I feel the article does not quite explain the significance of this- did it affect later operations or the station's closure?
    Not really, I think you're right that it's probably not necessary. Cut. --MCE
  • "The island was the site of the 1991 Heard Island feasibility test, which tested whether transmission of acoustic signals through the ocean could be used to study changes in ocean temperatures." suggest replacing "tested" with "investigated" to remove repeat
    Done. --MCE
  • "The Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve was established in 2002 and was the world's largest marine protected area at the time." even a smidge of background/significance would help this land with more impact. I feel like we're starting to drift a bit proseline-y in this section
    Added a sentence on the motivations for the establishment of a marine reserve, and tried to rework this paragraph a little for readability. --MCE
  • can anything else be said about the voyages? I'm curious if bird flu confirmation was the sole purpose of their visit
    Added a sentence about the purpose and activities of the voyage. --MCE
Human activity
[edit]
  • "Despite these restrictions, some unauthorised landings on the islands are known to have taken place." - this feels a bit like a breadcrumb. it leaves me just wanting to know who made these landings and why (lost sailors? poachers?) If these incidents are notable, it would be great to add brief context. if sources don't say or they aren't significant, it might be better to remove to avoid leaving the reader hanging
    I'm very curious about this as well, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find out anything else about them. I've expanded on this a little to say that the frequency of illegal visits is unknown and that they've been identified as a potential biosecurity risk. --MCE
    I searched a bit and couldn't find details either. well, the article can't report what the sources don't say. - Z
  • "At the time of the tariff imposition, there had been no known visits to the islands by humans in approximately ten years." did the bird flu voyage of 2025/2026 happen after this?
    It did, made that clearer. --MCE
  • I'm not sure about "generated" for an exclusive economic zone; to me it sounds like the islands are producing something rather than the zone just spatially surrounding them
    Changed to that surrounds the islands --MCE
  • "Australia signed a treaty with France in 2003 to enable cooperation in surveilling and patrolling the waters around the islands, as well as the nearby Kerguelen Islands." I'd consider adding a duplink for Kerguelen Islands, it's been a bit and lots of things have been mentioned since then. I'd also maybe make clearer that it's a French territory.
    Done. --MCE
Geography
[edit]
  • "The islands have been described as one of the most isolated places on Earth..." feels a touch weasel wordy, I would attribute opinion
    It's a tough one to attribute because I could add at least a few dozen sources that all use the same descriptor. I've changed this to The islands are considered one of the most isolated places on Earth, which I think the sources support and is a little less weasel-y. --MCE
    yes, that looks good. definitely don't want a list of every single academic who thinks it's one of the most isolated places on Earth! Z
  • worth glossing "spit"?
    Yep, done. --MCE
  • "...volcanic activity resumed on the islands during the 20th century." feels a bit breadcrumby, if there was an explosion or major lava flow(s) I think that's worth mentioning.
    The volcanic activity has been somewhat continuous, but I've added a mention that there were more significant eruptions in 1992 and 1997. --MCE
  • "There have been just two recorded successful human landings on the McDonald Islands, which took place in 1971 and 1980." this feels very out of place to me among all the volcanic info, I think it could fit better in Human activity section
    Done. --MCE
  • I feel like the ordering in this section isn't the most intuitive. we go from volcanoes to weather back to the most important volcano
    Fair point, I've moved the "Climate" subsection to the end right after "Glaciers" so that the geology/volcano information is grouped together. Let me know what you think. --MCE
    that works, I could also maybe see climate being at the beginning of the broader section but since the volcano info is so critical to this topic I think you've made the right call - Z
Biodiversity
[edit]
  • "Various non-native animal species have been brought onto Heard Island by humans in the past, including dogs, sheep, and a rat..." - one singular rat stands out to me. do the sources mean like a pet rat, or rats generally? a brief clarification may help avoid an unintentionally comic reading.
    Just one rat — the source says that in 1953 a rat escaped from the ship while they were unloading cargo, and that the ANARE party eventually chased it down and killed it. Changed the wording to at least one rat. --MCE
  • "...while the sub-Antarctic fur seal has been seen breeding on the island on occasion." suggest "...while the sub-Antarctic fur seal has been occasionally seen breeding on the island." to avoid the double "on"s
    Done. --MCE
  • second para of mammals subsection feels a little number/date heavy.
    Trimmed out some of these specific numbers/dates to hopefully make it a bit more readable. --MCE

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "Due to climate change, Heard Island has seen rapid melting of its glaciers and other environmental changes in recent decades." As the lead is a summary of the article I expected to see an expanded version of this in the main article. It is probably my eye sight or wits going, but I can't - could you point me towards this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Gog the Mild - that’s summarising these sentences at the end of the “Climate” section: Climate change is believed to be the main driver of glacier retreat on the island, although volcanic activity has also been suggested as a potential contributing factor. Climate change has also led to significant changes in the island's vegetation due to the creation of new ice-free land, lagoons, and lakes, in combination with the discussion of glacier retreat in the “Glaciers” section. MCE89 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be. That doesn't work for me. Bear with me. Glacier retreat - climate change is a factor (albeit the main one). Vegetation changes - its (only?) climate change. Summarised in the lead as "Due to climate change". Do you see the issue? If the lead said something like 'Largely due to climate change ...' Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild That makes sense - changed as suggested. MCE89 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Die with a Smile

[edit]
Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk), CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) and Sricsi (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most popular songs of 2024 by Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars. It was highly praised by critics received several awards, inducing two nominations at the Grammy Awards and one award at the same certainty. Furthermore, the music video was also praised by critics and received various awards nominations. This article received various comments during the first FAC nomination which were included. It was also submitted for a peer review in order to receive more comments and other issues to be addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

[edit]
  • "American record producer and songwriter D'Mile recalled that Mars "had the hook, at least the lyrics or theme to the hook, about being next to someone if the world was ending". He was unsure, however, how to develop it further and held the idea for a year before its release." You could merge these statements with a semicolon, and consider revising into "He was, however, unsure"
  • "American record producer Andrew Watt was invited, alongside Gaga and Michael Polansky, American entrepreneur and venture capitalist, to hear the song at Mars's studio." For a parallel structure, consider revising into "American entrepreneur and venture capitalist Michael Polansky"
  • "Regarding their collaboration, Gaga highlighted Mars's skill, musicianship and forward-thinking. Mars described the collaboration as a privilege and said her contribution added a distinctive element to the song." These could be merged with the Oxford comma preceding and
  • Writing and recording section reads dull due to repeated use of stative verbs for attribution, e.g., said and noted. Please vary sentence structure and length to improve flow and provide rhythm. Also, you may have to paraphrase that opening sentence to minimize direct quotations
  • "In June 2024, Mars told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he hoped to collaborate with Gaga on a song or join her onstage during her Jazz & Piano residency in Las Vegas. On August 8, Hits Daily Double's "Rumor Mill" reported speculation about a possible collaboration between the two artists, allegedly titled "Die with a Smile" and expected to be released later that month." These seem beyond the scope of the Release section
  • "Die with a Smile" is a pop, pop-soul, and soft rock song, that evokes the emotional style of a sentimental ballad. with influences from country music." Please fix erroneous punctuation marks
  • "According to the sheet music published by BMG Rights Management on Musicnotes, "Die with a Smile" was composed in the key of A major with a slow tempo of 52 beats per minute in 6/8 time signature." Since this is a technical fact about the song, in-text attribution is unnecessary.
  • "Lyrically, it is an intense love declaration in which the narrators' feelings for each other against a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario, Gaga has described as an "apocalyptic love song". Kinda confusing. Please revise so you can also fix a punctuation error.
  • "The chorus emphasizes the desire to be "next to you" if "the world was ending" or "our time on Earth was through", framing the relationship within a sense of urgency." How about, "The chorus conveys a sense of urgency in the relationship with its emphasis on the desire to be "next to you" if "the world was ending" or "our time on Earth was through"?
  • "Capital's Abbie Reynolds described the song as a reminder not to take love for granted, noting lines such as "Nobody's promised tomorrow" and "I'ma love you every night like it's the last night." How about, "Capital's Abbie Reynolds described lines such as "Nobody's promised tomorrow" and "I'ma love you every night like it's the last night" as reminders not to take love for granted"? The verb "noted" should only be used to describe facts, not opinions.
  • "while Billboard Argentina noted its focus on "finding happiness and peace amid adversity" Ditto
  • "Talking about the lyrics, Gaga further added "What has been added before" to begin with?
  • Critical reception needs some work to minimize problems highlighted on WP:RECEPTION regarding the "A said B" structure. Also, "Many reviewers praised the vocal interplay" is MOS:WEASEL, unless ofc you can provide reliable, high-quality sources for this.
  • "In her interview with the Los Angeles Times, Gaga disclosed that..." disclosed is a word-to-watch, and LA Times is neither italicized nor wikilinked
  • ""Die With a Smile" reached the number one spot on the Billboard Hot 100 for the chart dated January 11, 2025, after selling 6,000 copies, reaching a 59.7 million radio audience, and getting 27.1 million streams." How about, "After selling 6,000 copies, "Die With a Smile" reached the number one spot on the Billboard Hot 100 for the chart dated January 11, 2025, garnering 59.7 million radio listeners as well as 27.1 million streams"?
  • "Die With a Smile" not only was the longest-charting song with a female lead but also the longest-charting duet ever in the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100" is borderline POV. Please revise the statement in a detached tone.
  • "Following the release of Mayhem, various journalists discussed how "Die with a Smile" functions within the album. Gaga has described Mayhem as an intentionally eclectic project that moves between contrasting sounds and moods before ultimately resolving in love, framing the album as a complete experience rather than a strictly cohesive genre piece." Second sentence feels misplaced, as it doesn't support the argument the opening sentence is making. While we're at it, the section where these are placed also suffers from the A said B structure affecting the Critical response section. Please revise to improve flow and readability. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: I have addressed comments to the best of my ability. Please take a second look and thank you so much! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"It was characterized as a romantic, lightly apocalyptic slow dance and positioned within both vintage and modern pop sensibilities, and characterized by polished production and accessibility." The verb characterized is used twice. Please vary. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thank you for the quick fixes on the article as well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the changes. I give my support. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 22:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This table lists 9 random passages from throughout the article (4.8% of 187 total passages). These passages contain 15 inline citations (4.3% of 350 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 22:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the source review. Since this review concerns source quality, I would appreciate your view on an unresolved sourcing disagreement between me and the co-nominator. The article currently includes a New York Post year-end list entry. My concern is not that the source is formally prohibited: I am aware that WP:RSP says the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage. Rather, my concern is that "marginally reliable" is a weak basis for evaluative critical material in a Featured Article candidate.
In this case, the source is being used only for a year-end list entry in a table, not for a substantive point discussed in the prose. I therefore do not think its encyclopedic value outweighs the source-quality concern. The New York Post is also a conservative tabloid with a weaker reputation than the music and entertainment publications normally expected in high-quality music articles. Given that FAC should reflect the best available sources rather than the minimum allowed by RSP, I think it should be removed, especially when stronger and more established music journalism sources are readily available.
The co-nominator's view is that RSP permits the source for entertainment coverage, so it can be used here. Could you please weigh in on whether the New York Post is appropriate for this use in an FA candidate, particularly for evaluative year-end-list material? Thanks! Sricsi (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan, CHr0m4tiko0, and Sricsi: Source review is all good, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, any of you may leave comments there if you wish. As for the NYP source, if RSP permits the source for entertainment coverage, then it should be somewhat fine. RedShellMomentum 08:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review, left some comments on yours. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
Gaga and Mars interacted on social media before confirming the collaboration and announcing that the song and its accompanying music video would be released on August 16, 2024.
6 b variety.com web.archive.org ✅
15 billboard.com ✅
16 uproxx.com web.archive.org ✅
"Die with a Smile" opens with Mars taking the first verse and Gaga the second, after which both vocalists play off each other for the remainder of the track.
45 usatoday.com web.archive.org ✅
Jake Viswanath of Bustle compared the song's lyrical perspective to Gaga's 2011 single "The Edge of Glory",
19 c bustle.com web.archive.org ✅
Following the release of Mayhem, critics examined the role of "Die with a Smile" within its structure. The song was frequently regarded as an effective closer, with its cinematic and reflective tone seen as providing a coherent conclusion to the record.
78 readdork.com web.archive.org ✅
79 elle.com web.archive.org ✅
It spent five non-consecutive weeks at the top of the Hot 100, becoming Gaga's first song to spend more than one week at number one since "Born This Way" in 2011, and Mars's third song to top the chart for five weeks or more.
95 billboard.com web.archive.org ✅
Other countries in Europe where it reached number one were Croatia, Greece, and Portugal.
128 a tophit.com ✅
129 a ifpi.gr web.archive.org ✅
130 a portuguesecharts.com ✅
In its first week, it garnered 75.1 million streams across various platforms and sold 31,000 copies, debuting at number two on the Global 200 chart. It was Gaga's first top ten hit and Mars's third since the chart's inception in September 2020.
148 billboard.com ✅
In 2024, Mars performed a solo piano version of "Die with a Smile" as part of a medley. He first sang it during the Brazil leg of his Bruno Mars Live tour (2022–2024).
183 cnnbrasil.com.br ✅
184 billboard.com.br web.archive.org ✅
In December 2025, Norwegian musician Sondre Lerche released a version of the song as part of his annual tradition to cover a pop song during the holiday season, in partnership with producer Matias Tellez and the website Stereogum.
208 stereogum.com ✅

Camilasdandelions

[edit]
  • Archive all sources
  • Do not use double quotations in citations |title=
  • Ref 1 is alive btw
  • Ref 19 {{cite magazine}}
  • [[Interscope Records|Interscope]] ➡️ [[Interscope]] (MOS:NOPIPE; also in Release history section)
  • Musically, "Die with a Smile" is a sentimental ballad
  • France by SNEP ➡️ France by National Syndicate of Phonographic Publishing (SNEP)
  • demo can be wikilinked
  • He was, however, unsure: Is he D'Mile? or Mars?
  • pitching an early version of the song for Lady Gaga's Harlequin (2024) or for the film Joker: Folie à Deux (2024), in which Gaga stars. The former project is a companion album to the film. ➡️ pitching an early version of the song for the 2024 film Joker: Folie à Deux in which Lady Gaga stars, or her companion album to the film, Harlequin (2024).
  • chord can be wikilinked
  • American entrepreneur and venture capitalist Michael Polansky: MOS:SOB
  • Should left and right be italicized? I've seen some people are against to this in their reviews
  • Remove blockquote and just use double quotations, or trim it to wikivoice a bit.
  • Gaga and Mars interacted on social media before confirming the collaboration and announcing that the song and its accompanying music video would be released on August 16, 2024.: Too long, split this
  • cover art can be wikilinked
  • platforms by Interscope: Why not Interscope Records
  • streaming: Target music streaming service (also in Release history section)
  • inclusion on Mayhem. ➡️ inclusion on Gaga's seventh solo studio album, Mayhem (2025).
  • song,[35][36][37] that evokes ➡️ song[35][36][37] that evokes
  • Reviewers at Entertainment Weekly and Vulture noticed similarities to 1960s and 1970s pop ballads as well as Gaga's earlier work on Joanne (2016) and her single "Shallow" (2018) from the A Star Is Born soundtrack.[38][52] The Irish Times likened the track to James Bond theme songs and to Gaga's collaborations with Tony Bennett,[a][54] while NME compared its "soaring" chorus to Bruno Mars's Silk Sonic project.[39] The New York Times further connected it to Mars's early material, influenced by wedding songs and reminiscent of Jason Mraz.[37] Clash remarked on the song's slow, echoing guitar chords similar to shoegaze music. It blends Lee Hazlewood's traditional songwriting with dreamy sounds similar to Slowdive.[55]: Why suddenly the authors' names disappeared?
  • It was dubbed as a romantic, lightly apocalyptic slow dance and positioned within both vintage and modern pop sensibilities, and characterized by polished production and accessibility. ➡️ Dubbed as a romantic, lightly apocalyptic slow dance and positioned within both vintage and modern pop sensibilities, the song was characterized by polished production and accessibility.
  • Reviewers highlighted the song's style ➡️ Reviewers highlighted the style of "Die with a Smile"
  • The Critical reception (including Comments on the song's placement within Mayhem) section never mentions the authors nor their publications. Thus there's a lot of same structures like "It was [...]ed ~~", which would make readers little bit bored.
  • The track was included in several ➡️ "Die with a Smile" was included in several
  • Critics' year-end rankings of "Die with a Smile" ➡️ Critics' year-end rankings
  • A lot of use of "it" in Commercial performance, which should be addressed
  • {{Multiple image}} is really needed here?
  • on the Billboard Hot 100 ➡️ on the US Billboard Hot 100
  • after Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson
  • It debuted at number nine on the Canadian Hot 100 ➡️ "Die with a Smile" debuted at number nine on the Canadian Hot 100
  • In the United Kingdom, it entered the UK Singles Chart at number seven ➡️ In the United Kingdom, "Die with a Smile" entered the UK Singles Chart at number seven
  • IFPI Switzerland ➡️ IFPI Switzerland
  • Nordic countries, it reached number ➡️ Nordic countries, "Die with a Smile" reached number
  • performing "California Dreamin'": Use {{-"}}
  • setlist of The Romantic Tour (2026) ➡️ setlist of the Romantic Tour (2026)
  • Cover versions and Accolades are relatively short, so intergrate them.
  • shared a cover of the song ➡️ shared a cover of "Die with a Smile" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Camilasdandelions I'm still addressing the issues, just to let you know that {{multiple image}} makes the article more engaging and not so dense when reading it. Other comments such as "Remove blockquote and just use double quotations, or trim it to wikivoice a bit" were not fully addressed since it makes the article more interesting and keeps the reader engage when reading it, monotone can become too much at a certain point.
    I will not merge "Cover versions and Accolades" since the latter section is quite "large" on the table and the text is just a summary of its highlights. They are a fresh "break" on the massive text on the entire article. The "critical reception" has been addressed using different stylistic preferences, let me know your opinion after reading it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't feel the multiple image template is really necessary, especially putting the artists' images. Why don't you put Michael and Janet Jackson's photo instead? Also the Accolades part you explained is fair, but I don't agree "Cover versions" to be independent section since it is composed of only one paragraph. I suggest you to expand or merge it to the appropriate section. I'll also leave additional comments soon. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 16:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be done with the issues, unless stated other wise, let me know if I missed something. Makes no sense putting Michael and Janet Jackson's photo, since they are only mention because of Gaga's achievement. Nevertheless, I'm willing to remove it keeping the information, if you think that makes the article better.
    We agree on that, so we will keep it the way it is. Merge it to the appropriate section? Which is? I can't expand when there is no info about it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I multiply stated, I don't think the multiple image template is necessary. And for the Cover versions, just merge to any section then name it "XXX and cover versions" like that. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the Cover versions section should be merged solely because it is one paragraph. It is a discrete topic, separate from live performances, reception, chart performance, or accolades, and merging it into another section would create an artificial hybrid section. The paragraph also covers several notable professional covers across 2024–2025, so it is not an empty or trivial section. Unless there is a specific issue with undue weight, sourcing, or organization, keeping it as a standalone subsection is clearer for readers. (And for comparison: "Dance in the Dark", a featured article, has a separate Cover section even though it discusses only one cover, by Rina Sawayama.)
    Regarding the template: what is the specific concern? The images illustrate Gaga's stated inspiration for the song—the Carole King and James Taylor collaborations—so they are connected to the writing and recording discussion, not random decoration. I do not see a policy-based reason why the template itself is inappropriate. Sricsi (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user meant Gaga and Mars' picture on the commercial performance? There isn't an appropriate section to do so with it, its not just merge because its smaller than the other sections, that's not appropriate reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well, for those specific images, I am not strongly attached to keeping them. The caption connects them to the Hot 100 achievement, but the images themselves only show the artists generally, so they may come across as decorative rather than especially informative. I can see arguments for both keeping and removing them, so I would not make the decision here. Sricsi (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Camilasdandelions are you talking about the images in the commercial performance? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions That has now been fixed, please let me know what other changes you would like to see implemented in order to get your support. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here're the additional comment:
  • "the single was released via digital download and streaming platforms by Interscope Records." I've seen some reviewers encourage nominators to turn passive into active, so it would go like this: "Interscope Records released the single via digital download and streaming platforms".
  • "the track was sent for adult contemporary radio": I've seen multiple people pointing out this that they couldn't understand the meaning of "sent". I recommened you to change this to "serviced" etc
  • Ref 83 (MusicOMH) link died
  • "The single became Gaga's sixth chart-topper and Mars's ninth. The single spent five": Dup "the single"
  • I'm not big fan of "Commercial performance" section. The section feels somewhat list-like, repetitive, and too specific. What you've written in this section is reliable, so no issues with this; but much of it consists of chart positions1, chart positions2 and thrn certifications 1, certifications2.... ((e.g.) It also reached number two in Sweden, number four in Denmark, and number thirteen in Finland. In the Baltic countries, the single reached number one in Estonia, number three in Lithuania, and number two on Latvia's streaming chart. In Germany, the track reached number five, while in France, it reached number eight. Other countries in Europe where it reached number one were Croatia, Greece, and Portugal. The song received several certifications on the continent, including a diamond record in France by the National Syndicate of Phonographic Publishing(SNEP), six times platinum in Portugal by the Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa (AFP), and four times platinum in Greece by IFPI Greece. which makes me highly bored. Try summarazing these.
Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Camilasdandelions: I tried my best on the last one, please let me know how it feels now. Thank you so much! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I still see some issues in this section:
  • "After selling 6,000 copies, "Die with a Smile" reached the number one spot on the Billboard Hot 100" -- You already called this chart "the Hot 100" before, since you already mentioned its full name in the first sentence. I don't see any reason to write its full name again..
  • This also applies to the second paragraph ("duet ever in the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100", "dropped off the Billboard Hot 100", "the 2025 Billboard Hot 100").
  • "hit in Hot 100" -> "hit in the Hot 100"
  • "Mars's ninth. It spent" -- I would use semi colon for this part, since the sentence feels like it's cutting off too much, and it's naturally read.
  • "In Ireland, the track also" -> "In Ireland, "Die with a Smile" also"
  • "In the Netherlands, the single debuted at number 19 and then climbed to the top in its fifth week" -- I would add "on Single Top 100", since I was confused between this chart and Dutch Top 40 chart.
  • Remove "Moreover," since you already used "also"
  • "Belgium, the song reached number one" -> "Belgium, "Die with a Smile" peaked atop"
  • "Among the Nordic countries, "Die with a Smile" reached number one in Norway in its third week, making it Gaga's fifth number one hit in the country and Mars's second. It also reached number two in Sweden, number four in Denmark. In the Baltic countries, the single reached number one in Estonia and number three in Lithuania. In Germany, the track reached number five, while in France, it reached number eight." -- I would use different wording for this
  • "In Germany, the track ..." -> "In Germany, "Die with a Smile" ..."
  • "Die with a Smile" enjoyed widespread commercial success -- Question, is "enjoy" suitable in here? I would just use "met" because the single itself cannot "enjoy" something...
  • I just found one issue in "Music video" section. "Billboard and Variety described the video as having a retro Nashville-theme." -- Why not mentioning their authors?
  • I'll stop here. Commercial performance section needs significant work because it is still somewhat repetitive and in list-like format. I would recommend some copyedits for this, but after those are addressed I may believe it is not that big problem to be FA status.
Camilasdandelions (✉️) 07:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All address. I believe you will have more. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You forgot:
  • "Die with a Smile" dropped off the Billboard Hot 100 in its 60th week, ... The single topped the 2025 Billboard Hot 100 Year-End chart"
  • Replace archive.today with Wayback archive URLs
  • The only section I'm unsatisfied is only Europe subsection, but I'll just do copyedit for you. Please share your thoughts if you disagree with something..
Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only replaced the word "hit", thank you for the c/e. Let me know what else to do and address. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to replace all 95 archive.today archive URLs to wayback URLs. I'll be glad to support the article after you addressing it :) Sorry for taking a long review. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Take as long as you need, I already let another user that has been doing that known to do so also because of a different review. I might need to change some stuff on the last two paragraphs of the Europe section. The C/E is fine, its just the sources I would rather have them on the end of the sentences and not splinting countries. Let me know your thoughts, I have done that on the third paragraph. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has by my count picked up only one support. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it may be archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two supports so far. Furthermore, we are waiting for someone to explain to us some of their comments so we can addressed them the best way possible. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to FAC's urgent list. Hopefully, someone reviews it within the next few days. Otherwise it would have to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RandomEdits

[edit]

Placeholder - Saw this in the urgent column, should be able to start reviewing this this evening!

(As one initial thought, I think unfortunately it's required to update all the archive.today links to other archiving services...) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, done my initial readthrough. Certainly an interesting song to read about - I liked the song but hadn't really appreciated it had become that popular.
The article is in a good position overall. To focus on improvements; my initial thought when reading is that this is, I think, one of the longest song FACs, though I'm admittedly new to music FAs. I picked five songs at random from the Music FA pile, all fairly modern songs, and they were all 1500-3500 words, while this tops 5000. This by itself isn't a problem as it's well under the recommended max length of a page, but it does make me wonder if some of details could be trimmed for a tighter reading. Might be worth a more experienced music reviewer weighing in on this, but there were times in this that I felt the prose veered into overly-detailed.

"Live performances" is definitely the section I felt this the most, as it's mostly just a list of every performance ever done of this song, and since several of these appeared to be routine performances I found a bit dull to read thought. There's also just a lot of extra detail that I didn't feel was necessary to my understanding of the song - the clothes Gaga wore at the Superbowl rendition and Wiltern Theatre for example, could be excised entirely (I'd keep the wedding sentence though).

I also wondered if we could shorten "Commercial Performance" by a good amount since we have the chart tables later on conveying much of the info already. Currently it's fairly repetitive, a long list of repeating variants of "The song debuted at position X in this chart. It then reached position X, and stayed there for 3 weeks. It went platinum and was Gaga/Mars' first act to Z." The song is a smash hit globally, but I think I could be convinced of that with half the examples here! "Cover versions" has a similar problem in that's a long list of "X covered this" but admittedly this is less of a concern to me as it's one paragraph and other FA music pages have this issue.

To give an example of what I was thinking, here's a quick rewrite of "Music Video" which I believe conveys the same info as what is currently there, in about half the words (491 vs 269) This was done fairly quickly so there may be some bits you feel need adding, but hopefully it conveys what I'm trying to get at.
-----------
Die in Smile's music video premiered on Gaga's YouTube channel alongside the song's premiere. Directed by Mars and Daniel Ramos, the video depicts Mars and Gaga performing on a retro television stage, dressed in the outfits from the single's cover art; Gaga in red tights and a Dolly Parton-inspired hairstyle, Mars in a blue suit and white cowboy hat. Accompanied by a live band and surrounded by faceless mannequins, they perform for a black-and-white camera before the video ends with a heart-shaped frame around them.
Gaga stated the video portrays her and Mars as a veteran television variety-show couple, and was inspired by similar acts and programs. In the video, Gaga's character smokes a cigarette just before her first verse, which Gaga said was because she "wanted to create the semblance of a character who had something to say. And it's slightly subversive — like, you're talking about the world ending and I'm having a cigarette. There's something kind of dark about it."
Critics described the video as retro and with a Nashville-theme, drawing comparisons to duos such as Elton John and Kiki Dee, or Sonny Bono and Cher. Fashion writers highlighted its 1970s Western styling, particularly Gaga's blue minidress designed by Ashley Eva Brock and Mars's blue suit, reminiscent of Dolly Parton and Porter Wagoner's duets. Reviews for the video were mixed, with Exclaim! dubbing it as "unapologetically schmaltzy" while The A.V. Club found it visually unremarkable. The video surpassed one billion YouTube views in April 2025, and was nominated for Best Music Video and Video of the Year at the 2025 iHeartRadio Music Awards and MTV Video Music Awards respectively.
-----------
I will start doing a more detailed deep-dive ala 1994 guy above (and also see if I can help out with the archive issues - I think most of the archive.today's original links are still up so it should be a fixable issue!) tomorrow. If you have time for a FA review yourself when you're not working on this, I have a FA about a horse up at the moment that could do with another prose reviewer, but this isn't required as part of this review by any means!
RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of most of this during the weekend. Thank you in advance! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CHr0m4tiko0 Can you address this? You have been replacing them all. Thanks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently replacing the archive.today links. There are 74 remaining, and I expect to finish them within about a week due to Wayback Machine's rate limits. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CHr0m4tiko0 considering the amount, it might be worth seeing if you can automate the process a bit with https://fixarchive.toolforge.org/ . At a quick glance it appears most of the remaining ones already have web.archive links ready to go if you're happy to mass merge them in through the website. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: I have tried to fix every issue to the best of my ability and took your suggestion in the MV section, with minor changes. One of the other nomiantors will change the rest of the archive.today links. Please let me know of any other significant modifications in order to get your support. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mario great to hear, I should be able to get back to you tomorrow on this! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. It's mostly looking good. While I raised concerns about the length previously, which this is still unusually long for a FA song piece, I couldn't really spot anything that looked like it should be outright removed. So with that in mind...
Lede
  • I think this is one of the rare times in these review were a lede undersells a point; " "Die with a Smile" achieved great commercial success" feels appropriate considering the amount of records it broke.
  • You use three billion here but 3 billion in "International" down below.
Fixed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Background and development
  • According to American singer-songwriter James Fauntleroy, Mars initially considered pitching an early version of the song for the 2024 film Joker: Folie à Deux in which Lady Gaga stars, or her companion album to the film, Harlequin (2024).[3] The former project is a companion album to the film.[4] Same face repeated twice here?
  • Do we know why Mars didn't end up pitching the early version?
No, Mars never really spoke about the track like the rest of the composers. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone unfamiliar with music development, what is a normal number of versions (for "few than usual")
It varies. I know that for Mars is usually ten according to an interview given by D'mile. However, Mars himself did 18 different versions for "Versace on the Floor", this depends on lot on producers, engineers, etc...
  • It'd be worth mentioned what Gaga's upcoming album was called.
  • was "blown away" by the track that later became "Die with a Smile" I'd cut everything after track - we already know it's DwaS, and you've used "later become" earlier.
Fixed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little sceptical of including the last sentence; Mars and Gaga are hardly going to start criticizing one another just before dropping a new song together, so this reads as including promotional material. This also applies somewhat to the previous sentence.
Do you want me to remove the last sentence? The one before that could have been her genuine reaction to it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Writing and recording
  • Gaga said that what first drew her in was the concept of a song about what we would do if the world were ending. This could benefit from a slight rephrasing - it's very similar to Mars' quote "about being next to someone if the world was ending" a few paragraphs above.
  • Gaga later affirmed that, although the title evoked associations with Joker: Folie à Deux I might be missing something due to Google Translate, but I didn't spot in either ref 12 or 13 where Gaga said this - the articles writers definitely think there's a connection, but not Gaga.
Fixed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • Gaga and Mars interacted on social media before confirming the collaboration. I would remove this sentence, it doesn't add anything.
  • A rough date for when the duo announced the song would be worth including to give a sense of time.
  • On August 19, the track was serviced for adult contemporary radio and hot adult contemporary radio by Interscope. The label also sent the song to contemporary hit radio on the following day. Three "Contemporary radio"s on one line! Do any of these have alternative names?
No, they are all contemporary, however I twinked with the word radio. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaga's performance at the Superbowl is dropped in without any context here; this is the first time it's mentioned in the article's body and we're already moving on to its version's release. While this is covered in greater detail much later, a sentence here to lead into this more seamlessly would help.
  • Andrew Watt stated that, once completed, the song was intended for inclusion on Gaga's seventh solo studio album, Mayhem (2025).[31] Now we have the released album and know the song is on it, this feels unnecessary to include at this point. I'd remove this sentence and lead the paragraph with "Although Die with a Smile was initially promoted as..."
Fixed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Composition and production
  • Nothing to note here. This looks good to me.
Critical Reception
  • I would say that, while nothing here is oppose-worthy, this is my main area of concern. There's a good amount of repetition across the three paragraphs ("Reviewers highlighted", describing the song as "lightly apocalyptic", starting a sentence with "Industry commentary" etc). The first two paragraphs appear to roughly covering the same ideas; both the first two paragraphs overlap in covering style, with the second paragraph additionally covering other areas. The third paragraph is fine. I will leave ref checks on this to others as I'm not familiar with the ref requirements for Critical reception sections to fairly comment.
[I've skipped Commercial performance as it looks like you're discussing this with Camilasdandelions]
[Music video / live performances already covered]
Cover version
  • On September 24, 2024, Filipino singer Julie Anne San Jose shared a cover of "Die with a Smile" on her social media accounts, performing vocals, guitar, piano, and drums. Is this a notable interpretation of the song, or just one of many social media covers that happened to be by someone famous?
Seems quite relevant to me since the performer as she not only singed, but also played instruments. On top of that, she is also actress, has spent a decade in the industry and very famous mainly in the Philippines. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the reasoning for which covers you included critical reviews for and which you didn't?
It was what was available at the time. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
  • Looks good
RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed several things you pointed, but the Critical Reception section, let me know your thoughts on the others. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

[edit]

I support just like I did the first time around, and felt that it rose to the standards of a featured-quality song article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endometriosis

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When people talk about the gender bias in healthcare, endometriosis is often the first disease that is brought up. It causes tissue like that of the endometrium (the tissue that bleeds during periods) to grow outside of the uterus, for instance on bowels or in the lungs. Even thought endometriosis is common (10% of reproductive-age women), individuals wait an average of 5 to 12 years for a diagnosis, and can experience years of intense pain in the meantime. Treatment does not always work, or can stop working over time. Research funding is relatively low.

The article received a lovely review from IntentionallyDense, a great GA review from Strange Orange and an incredibly detailed pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. I'm looking forward to further comments. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

A well researched article: I have a few comments on the prose:

There are many examples of "outside of", which should just be "outside" as it is a preposition. I know the former is used in the US, but it this article there are examples of the latter too. The former are:

  • grows outside of the uterus
  • Lesions outside of the pelvic region
  • also provide an explanation for endometriosis outside of the pelvic region
  • allows endometriosis to continue growing outside of the womb.
  • endometrium-like tissue grows outside of the uterus
  • Lesions outside of the pelvic region,
  • but also provide an explanation for endometriosis outside of the pelvic region
  • This weakened response to progesterone allows endometriosis to continue growing outside of the womb.
    All replaced

Here "The likelihood of symptoms returning after surgery is highly variable, with studies reporting recurrence rates anywhere between 6% and 67%." I find these with+participle expressions rather ugly. Can we say "and studies have reported"?

I've used a semicolon instead to link the two sentences without with. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here "In terms of surgery" - does this mean "regarding"?

It does, have replaced this with a new introductory sentence to be more concrete: "Surgery to remove endometriomas can help with fertility"

Here "The disease does not always worsen over time; in studies that track people over time" There is "over time...over time"

Removed the first 'over time'

Do we need some punctuation here, "It forms at or close to the location of the surgical cut"

I've instead replaced 'close to' with near. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Graham Beards (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here "In contrast, animals like rodents and non-human primates with an estrous cycle, in which the endometrium is reabsorbed rather than shed, do not develop the disease." While rodents do not develop the disease naturally, they are widely used as models of the disease. (See Zeng Y, Hang F, Peng C, Zhao L, Ou S, Luo L, Liu B (June 2024). "Research progress in rodent models of endometriosis". J Reprod Immunol. 163: 104219. doi:10.1016/j.jri.2024.104219. PMID 38422807.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)). Perhaps this should be said? Graham Beards (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the word naturally, and a sentence on animal models to the research directions section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have to use the word "patients" in the citations, we avoid it in our articles as we are not meant to write from a physician's perspective. Graham Beards (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Not sure why this slipped through. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The word "endometriosis" is being used with two different meanings. First as the name for the disease and then, wrongly, for the endometrial-type tissue. This is giving rise to odd phrases such as in the Lead where it says "Endometriosis can return after surgical removal." What is returning the disease or the tissue? Clearly it's both but the wording is confusing nonetheless. Another example is "treatment consists of the removal of endometriosis". The following might be useful in this regard.Graham Beards (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're absolutely right about the second example, and I have changed that and will give the article another read to see if there are similar mistakes. In terms of 'recurrence of endometriosis', it took me a while to figure out why papers use this terminology. A new review seems to explain this: return of endometriosis is measured in two ways: the return of lesions (usually determined from imaging) or the return of pain after surgery. When talking about both, papers use phrasing like I've used in the article. The JAMA review I cite most is usually quite precise in distinguishing between pain recurrence and lesion recurrence, but uses recurrence of endometriosis too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it in most places, but kept it where sources where referring to recurrence in general, rather than one definition over the other. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include a section on emerging tests including blood, menses and saliva? Graham Beards (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Epidemiology section is too weak for a FA, and I think the rest of the article is below the standard for a medical FA to be honest. This review might be useful regarding the epidemiology: Harder C, Velho RV, Brandes I, Sehouli J, Mechsner S (December 2024). "Assessing the true prevalence of endometriosis: A narrative review of literature data". International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: the Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 167 (3): 883–900. doi:10.1002/ijgo.15756. PMID 39031100. This, and the concern I raised about terminology above, leave me little choice but to Oppose promotion for now. Graham Beards (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on the weaknesses of the epidemiology section. I know I'm always on the summary style side of the summary style / comprehensiveness trade-off and happy to add more, but maybe there are further weaknesses? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the paper I cited? Graham Beards (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few yellow flags that make me hesitant to include that paper. For one, it states in the abstract that insurance companies argue that prevalence numbers are low. Do these companies actually confuse diagnosed prevalence rate with overall prevalence? In most diseases there is a gap between the two, and the paper does not further support this claim. The paper at some point says that this mpdi paper found a prevalence of 0.05%, which is an extraordinary claim they should have double checked (it's 5%, formatted at 0.05 in places in the original paper). In another place, the paper says 44 656 per 1000 people have endometriosis. I've sent an email to the editor expressing my concerns.
I talk about the onion somewhat, in the sense that I have the estimate of overall prevalence, and the estimate of people diagnosed with laparoscopy. Keen to hear other suggestions or broad strokes about how to improve the article further. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract goes on to say the insurance companies are wrong. My concern that the section is too short, i.e. not comprehensive and only consists of a dozen or so stubby sentences, is not countered by pointing out a couple of typos in an otherwise excellent review (which I offered as an example). Graham Beards (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to expand that section, of course.
There are good elements of the paper. I like the discussion about why Germany is different (now outdated, as Germany has also made the change to imaging for diagnosis). But the yellow flags are such that I do not feel confident using it. For instance, the paper says it computes a pooled prevalence for clinical studies, but instead simply computes a median without weighting in any sense. I initially tried to reproduce a pooled prevalence weighted on population after I noticed that the biggest studies they cite have very low prevalence values compared to their 'pooled prevalence'. Just like the biggest study (the 5% I mentioned before), the second-biggest study is also incorrectly reported (as 0.88% instead of 1.5%). The value 0.88 does not seem to be in that paper. I don't see this as a high-quality reliable source with this many errors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try with this paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12958-025-01483-z. I trust the numbers, but the paper gives very little context surrounding these numbers. For instance, it says that endometrioma prevalence is highest among the subtypes but doesn't discuss to what extent that is because it's easiest to see on imaging. I think the context about staging is useable without having missed caveats, as well as how prevalence differs by modality of diagnosis. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC), amended 18:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like a reliable source. Graham Beards (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the epidemiology section and given it another copyedit. I've had another look at sources I missed, and have added some more content to the formation section as well, which allowed me to apply summary style more aggresively elsewhere (still a net expansion, but now with fewer unnecessary technical details). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Graham Beards: I was wondering if you feel like your concerns have been addressed? Or do you have remaining concerns you'd like me to work on? Based on comments below, I have added additional details to a few other sections to be more comprehensive. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My concern about using "endometriosis" to mean both the disease and endometrium-like tissue remains. Graham Beards (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did I overlook some further instances of this? I thought I had caught them all.. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example in the lead image where the endometrium-like tissue is labelled "endometriosis". Graham Beards (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over all the images and image captions now, and they should be more precise now. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 15:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to Support now. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Toadspike

[edit]

I'll gradually add to this when I have time.

  • The first paragraph under "Other factors" is quite complicated in terms of sentence structure.
  • I've simplified the last sentence, I hope you don't mind.
    Thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to do with the first sentence; it's not bad, but I had to read it twice to understand what it was saying, and a grammar purist might not like opening with "Because".
    I've changed it to "Most women with retrograde menstruation do not develop endometriosis, so other factors must also contribute to its development". Better?
Awesome, thanks.
  • The "as is done" in the second sentence feels ungrammatical and is at any rate confusing (what is done, "develop"?). I suggest putting the cancer reference at the end of the sentence, so the reader doesn't have to jump between subjects. "For endometriosis to develop, its cells must evade destruction by the immune system, attach to a surface, and promote the formation of new blood vessels, similar to some cancerous tumors." (I've thrown in "destruction" as well to make it clear why the immune system matters – laypeople may not know that the immune system attacks abnormal cells.) There might also be another way to phrase this, like "Endometriosis can only develop if ..."
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how I feel about angiogenesis being mentioned in this sentence but not linked, only being linked later on.
    I sometimes put the MOS aside if I can put the link in a more pertinent place. I think I resolved the MOS issue somewhat by linking from the caption, which is truly the first place in the section and I think we're okay with double linking from captions? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice that link. All good then.
I added it after your comment :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any good link targets for the other two list items. Unfortunately we don't have a good article on immune evasion, best I could do is Cancer immunology or the redirect immunosurveillance. (I discovered how poorly this topic is covered on Wikipedia back in January...) For "attach to a surface", maybe Cell adhesion? Whether you add any of these links is up to you on account of how poor the choices are.
    I don't know enough about the technical details to feel confident adding these links. It seems like immonusurveillance is mostly used in cancer research, but the term does pop up when I google 'endometriosis + immunosurveillance', so the redirect might be one of those with a possibility for a broader article instead of section link. Best to leave them out?
Sounds good, as I said I won't push for it.
  • "Endometriosis lesions require estrogen to grow" – the source says estradiol. The distinction isn't hugely relevant, since estradiol is the main form of estrogen, but for the sake of accuracy it may be better to write "estradiol, the most potent form of estrogen" or "most abundant" or similar.
    Instead, I've added another source that talks about estrogens being required for growth. There's some worry that the estrogens in contraceptives might stimulate growth too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks.
  • I realize "clearance" is the term used in the source, but that feels like jargon, and there's really only one way cells can be "cleared": by killing them. I think a clearer term like "destruction" would be better here.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, please replace "plays a key role in" with something more specific...
    Having looked at the paper I'm citing and a few others, I'm struggling to find something more specific. I've made a different change, as sources seem to talk slightly more about angiogenesis in the development and progression than in maintenance (e.g. [21][22] (only development/progression) [23] also maintenance), vs the cited source who just says maintenance. I'm happy to make it less specific and cut the second sentence as too technical and merge the para with the one above. What kind of information are you looking for? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Plays a key role in" says nothing about the relationship between the two terms, other than that they are connected in some unspecified yet important way. I wish it were abolished entirely, but unfortunately it's common in science writing, where incentives are set for authors to puff up their discoveries as much as possible without making claims their evidence does not support. Here, it could mean that more angiogenesis increases the formation and maintenance of endometriosis, or it could mean that more angiogenesis impairs said formation and maintenance. (You might think this is silly, but there are diseases like macular degeneration where more angiogenesis is harmful to the tissue being supplied, and at any rate the reader shouldn't be required to jump through these logical hoops themselves.) Toadspike [Talk] 13:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you're after the direction! That is supported by the sources (more angiogenesis = likely more endo). Overall, sources leaned towards more cautious wording, so changed the wording to 'is a likely driver'. I've also removed the next sentence which was too complicated and didn't add enough. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of serial commas isn't consistent. They're mostly absent, but this section has one. It's best to pick one and be consistent. I prefer using them for clarity, but if you choose not to that's also okay. (MOS:SERIAL)
I've now done them all.
  • "There are multiple possible causes of pain" – I suggest appending "associated with endometriosis". Though this is certainly true of all pain, that's not the point of this article.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest replacing "gold standard" with something more specific, like "preferred option". I had a long rant here, but I accidentally deleted it and won't bother writing it out again. Suffice it to say this is another phrase I wish were abolished from medical writing entirely.
    Well, it's the option with the highest accuracy, but not the preferred option in many cases anymore. Why is it problematic?
  • I'm wondering if "stroma" could be replaced with something like "connective tissue". Slightly more comprehensible, but longer. Up to you.
    If I click stromal cell, it is described as if these cells are connective tissue precursor cells. But stroma (tissue) talks about it as connective tissue. I'm a bit confused. Happy to explain this better once that confusion is resolved. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The real definition is "tissue that is not functional", which is kinda messy and much broader than just connective tissue. This paper [24] uses the alternative "supporting tissue", which seems a lot better. What do you think? Toadspike [Talk] 21:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation added. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ureter of the urinary system" – dunno if you really need "of the urinary system". There aren't any others, and it doesn't provide that much additional clarity to someone who doesn't know what a ureter is.
    Replaced with a longer more specific explanation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 probably shouldn't link to a "manuscript" [25], which I'm guessing means a preprint that hasn't gone through peer review.
    That's the accepted manuscript; a way for unis to make knowledge free despite paywalls. The doi link leads to the final manuscript. Given I rely so much on this source, I want other to be able to access it too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if we need the word "representing" in the lead. As source 89 is geolocked to the UK, I can't see if this is an independent number or one derived from the "10% of women of reproductive age" statistic.
    It's a derived number, from WHO in 2023. NICE says that "Endometriosis is estimated to affect approximately 10% of women of reproductive age, translating to around 190 million women and girls globally". There's likely more, but the number of people with endo post-menopause is so uncertain that I (and most sources) prefer to not try to include those in the headline figure. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toadspike: did you have any further suggestions for improvement? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke Sorry for the delay, I've been extremely busy recently. I should be able to finish up by Thursday. Toadspike [Talk] 16:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7 June continuation
[edit]

I've finished my prose review and will dump everything here. Feel free to push back on anything you disagree with. Everything should be in the order of the article. Lead:

  • In the lead, pain medication is listed before hormonal treatments, but in the body the order is reversed. Hormonal treatments also seem to b supported by better evidence. I suggest swapping the order in the lead.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if "a birth control pill" would be better than "the birth control pill", as there are many pills.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lesions" should probably explained on first use.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if we could put a number to "endometriosis can return after surgery" (how often?), but the number given in the body (26%) doesn't seem definite enough for this. The current wording makes it seem rare, though – if you can find a better wording that reflects the fairly common frequency, that would be nice.
    I've added it comes back fairly commonly. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subtypes:

  • The second sentence mentions three or four subtypes, but the following list has four. Is here any less-confusing way to frame this?
    If there is, it beats me. It took me like half an hour to get to this sentence.
  • The C-section scar in the image has a yellow arrow pointing to it. Might be worth adding "(yellow arrow)" to the caption after the word "scar".
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation of endometriomas is a little confusing. For one, the list above calls them "ovarian endometriomas", but here they're not specified as "ovarian". It might also be helpful to reiterate that these are a subtype of lesion. (Or maybe this is a reading comprehension issue on my end.)MDPI
    I've simplified as endometrioma in the list definition, instead of ovarian endometrioma. Sources mostly use the shorter form, and appreciate that specifying as ovarian endometrioma in the definition might imply there are non-ovarian endometriomas. I find the word lesion to apply to endometriomas weird, but that might just be me not having a good intuition what that bit of jargon means. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might reverse the order of "old menstrual blood" and the dark brown color – since the old blood creates the color, it might make more sense to explain it first.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the muscular layer" bothers me slightly ("which one?") but it seems this is standard terminology. Oh well...
  • "appears as nodules" reads awkwardly, probably to do with the singular "it" combined with the plural "nodules". Maybe "forms nodules" would be better?
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fallopian tubes between the ovaries ..." – it may be worth mentioning that they're not actually attached to the ovaries directly and there's a big opening there, which is presumably how the blood flows into the abdomen.
    Not really mentioned in sources I don't think, so the images will ahve to suffice unless you know of a source. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work? [26] I'm guessing it's not often stated because it's basic anatomy, but this review discusses its importance. "despite a large body of evidence supporting the retrograde menstruation theory (i.e. the implantation of endometrial cells/fragments refluxed through the fallopian tubes during menses on to abdominopelvic structures)", "at the time of menstruation, the uterus, the fallopian tubes, the cervical os, and the menstrual effluent can be viewed as a hydraulic system consisting of a cavity, three outflow ports, and a viscous liquid". Several other quotes as well. Toadspike [Talk] 10:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the three in that quote. There's only two fallopian tubes? Bit hesitant to make the mechanism section longer still, as it's already quite a bit longer than typical medical FAs. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are two fallopian tubes and one cervix, which gives three possible exits for endometrial cells. I do think this is rather important. Without it, retrograde menstruation as a cause of endometriosis doesn't make any sense. With this fact, it is intuitive. If you insist on not increasing the length, you could cut the two sentences on animals down to "Furthermore, only animals with a menstrual cycle develop endometriosis." (There are less drastic options as well.) Toadspike [Talk] 20:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it was already there sufficiently clearly, but have added "and exit" to stress the point more. Made the end less explicit to save words. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure it helps much, though now that I look at it, it would probably be easier to have more anatomically accurate images than to try to explain this in words. All of the images at Fallopian tube that are not computer-generated do this well; the two currently in the "Mechanism" section appear to perpetuate the myth that the Fallopian tubes are directly attached to the ovaries with some kind of hermetic seal. Toadspike [Talk] 19:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to do some Inkscaping, but only the lead image is easily editable and that one shows a small area of non-overlap. I can make that larger. Is File:Scheme female reproductive system-number-full-cropped.svg the most accurate? The drawings show the fallopian tubes completely apart from the ovaries, which I imagine doesn't happen naturally? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does a good job. "The drawings show the fallopian tubes completely apart from the ovaries" – yes, that's correct. The two structures are not directly attached to each other at all, except that they happen to be on two parts of the same ligament – the broad ligament of the uterus, dark gray in the file you've linked – and the ovarian fimbria (one extension of the tube) usually touches the ovary, but is not firmly attached to it. Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the lead image to make this clearer. Does that work? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and symptoms

  • "amount of pain is only weakly related ..." – some of the sources I read said it's inversely related, as in more pain is indicative of an earlier stage, while later stages often have less pain. Is this something you saw as well? If so, is it supported by sufficient evidence to mention here?
    I have seen a source say there is no relationship, and I've seen sources say that new lesions are more painful. Note that the stage doesn't have a great correlation with how new the lesions are. Lesions sometimes shrink and you can likely switch between stage 3 and 4 multiple times. THat is: stage 4 might still be quite active. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that stage != recency. If you've seen both, maybe the other claim (new lesions are more painful) is worth mentioning? Not really sure, since both claims are a bit iffy... Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "follow a cyclical pattern" – I recall some sources specifying acyclic pelvic pain as especially indicative of endometriosis and helpful for differential diagnosis, presumably as most other menstrual-related conditions have few symptoms outside of menstruation. Is this worth mentioning?
    The BMJ has quite a few differentials that also present with chronic pelvic pain (like interstitial cystitis, adenomyosis, pelvic inflammatory disease). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of the lengthy "Some individuals ... feeling like", maybe "The pain may feel like" is sufficient.
    Done, not entirely sure about it though. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦
  • I would combine the sentence about period pain with that sentence. "lower abdomen, while the pain with periods may feel dull and cramping". Up to you. The period pain sentence feels mildly contradictory with the previous sentence; maybe emphasizing "period" over "endometriosis" would help there.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jumps between different areas of symptoms in the next two paragraphs are a little jarring. For example, after three sentences about bowels, we jump to spotting, followed by three sentences about infertility. I was left wondering what infertility has to do with bowels... One possible solution is to put a paragraph break before "About a quarter", and another before "Endometriosis around scars". Another solution is to have clearer topic sentences listing the broad areas (bowel, infertility, thorax, other). But if you think there's no nice way to solve it I'm also fine leaving as is.
    I've split the infertility bit into a separate section. Not done so for extrapelvic endo, as a split would be a bit more random there and leave quite a short paragraph. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦
  • I've made some copyedits myself. One was to specify "rheumatoid arthritis" instead of just "arthritis". I would've done the same for lupus (SLE), but as our article is at the title "Lupus" I'll leave it as is.
    I tend to go for the common name, but I imagine that there is osteoarthritis too.. Thanks :). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Risk factors:

  • "Studies attribute 50%" – I'd replace both uses of "50%" with "half" here, as the study isn't so specific with its numbers ("approximately 50%").
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be possible to explain "environmental factors" in some way that lay people would understand. I think most people assume it means, dunno, the trees give you endo or something. In reality a lot of "environmental factors" are things people can themselves influence or control, such as diet.
    Done, hopefully not too repetitive with the below. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism:

  • "Cells in the peritoneum" – which cells? I assume endometriotic cells?
    Well, no, as they aren't endometriosis before the transformation. The source says "Metaplasia theory [27], proposed by Iwanoff and Meyer in 1942, states that there is a species of cells, located in the mesothelial lining of the ovary and the peritoneum, that is able to differentiate into endometrial cells under certain conditions." Any suggestions for clarifying? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang... very mysterious wording there. Maybe adding the word "unidentified" would help, as in "Unidentified cells in the peritoneum"? That way the reader would know there isn't a specific cell type we have in mind. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The source implies but did not state sufficiently clearly for me to add that word. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 15:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "weakened response to progesterone" – I was confused as to how progesterone resistance would help endo grow, since it's the drop in progesterone (and other hormones) that causes menstruation, not the progesterone itself. I checked the source and I'm still not fully confident I know the answer to my question, but it seems the main relevance of p. resistance is that it causes therapy to fail. I think rewording this sentence to focus on therapy failure might be an improvement.
    That feels off in a section about the mechanism? The source is focused on treatment, so it might be an odd choice, but it does talk about pathophysiology in saying "In endometriosis, attenuation of progesterone response enables the endometriotic cells to continuously grow and survive after translocating to the foreign environment. In terms of logic: To detect a drop, you need to be able to detect high levels first, right? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I took another look and I agree that it doesn't really fit here. What really bothered me, though, was that the source is primarily about therapy failure and doesn't really explain why progesterone resistance is necessary even outside of treatment, or how progesterone would prevent endo growth or destroy endo. There's no source-text integrity issue, but if you have the energy finding (and citing) a source that actually explains this would be nice. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked quite deep the first time, so I'm not confident a second look will lead to better sources. I think the explanation is that it's about net growth, rather than continuous growth? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 11:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Claude explained to me that progesterone causes decidualization of the endometrium, which somehow slows the growth of endometriosis. This seems to be backed up by more reliable sources as well. My curiosity has been sated. :) Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis:

  • See my comment about acyclic pain from above.
    I think that's the same as chronic pelvic pain, at least mostly, which is mentioned first. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diagnosis takes an average of five to twelve years" – I would prefer if this were worded more clearly as an observation of the current overall situation, rather than an immutable fact. I don't want people reading this and thinking "if I go see a doctor now, the diagnostic process requires five years, so I won't get any help until then".
    Not entirely sure how to signal this. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How about replacing the whole sentence with "Studies in Western countries show that diagnosis tends to take five to twelve years from the onset of symptoms." I hope it sounds less like a requirement this way. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assessment", "assessed" – I would prefer if it were made clearer that this is a real human asking the patient questions. It's not some abstract idea, nor is it a pen-and-paper exam like in school.
    Again, not quite what to say here and whether this is needed. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was a bit rushed at the end and didn't explain this well. I worry that the average non-medical reader will not understand what an "assessment" means here, and "The initial assessment further assesses" sounds especially awkward. Maybe something like "Medical professionals should ask about risk factors and evaluate symptoms, including symptoms of deep endometriosis or endometriosis outside the pelvis. They should also ask about possible complications, like depression. [The trauma sentence is fine and can go here.]" The JAMA source cited is specifically making recommendations to primary care physicians in Figure 4, which I assume is where this came from, so the "should" wording seems justified. The longer "are recommended to" could also work. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Drive-by, but I would be strong in favour of "are recommended to" (and saying {{by whom}} and therefore {{where}}) -- Wikipedia is not a textbook and it's not our business to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike the recommended kind of wording. Instead, I've replaced the awkward assessed with 'includes questions about'. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a physical exam cannot detect superficial peritoneal endometriosis" – I'm skeptical of the very absolute wording here. I'm speculating here, but I'm not sure why an extremely large lesion that hasn't infiltrated other layers, and is thus still "superficial", couldn't be palpated in an exam. Also, the source says "a pelvic exam cannot identify superficial peritoneal lesions" (emphasis mine) – since the same source says superficial peritoneal endometriosis can be outside the pelvis ("abdominal or pelvic viscera"), this distinction may be important. (It may also be that the source is using "pelvic exam" very broadly.)
    I've changed to pelvic exam. The 2022 BMJ paper says something similar: "An abdomino-pelvic examination may help to identify ovarian and deep disease", but doesn't use the negative. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a big ultrasound fan, I'm a little sad you removed this sentence [27] :(
    I think it said the same as the MRI sentence, but that from the ultrasound perspective. I'm also a bit sceptical about 'no contraindications' as we don't use them for sexually inactive girls. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characteristic ground-glass appearance" – I don't think this image shows the ground-glass appearance very well. Normally it refers to a much brighter (more echogenic) texture, more of a mixture of gray and white. You see this in the example used in the cited paper (Figure 2 A), which appears largely gray. You are welcome to mention the ground-glass appearance in the prose, but I don't think it should be in this caption.
    Replaced the image with Fig 2A (yay for CC-BY). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cropped the trichromatic MRI image to just the one relevant to endometriosis.
    Thanks. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could "clinicians" be replaced with "doctors"? Probably clearer.
    Removed altogether. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ovarian cysts (also called chocolate cysts) are typically dark brown." – I don't think all ovarian cysts are endometriomas.
    Changed. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can sometimes be distinguished from endometriosis in an MRI" – the ultrasound source [28] (footnote 45) is fairly adamant that ultrasound can do this too: "Adenomyosis uteri has sonographically well-defined criteria (MUSA) that allow for detection with high sensitivity and specificity: MRI is not superior to a differentiated experienced ultrasound examination" and "No diagnostic superiority of MRI could be found, so transvaginal sonography is recommended as a first-line method due to its better availability and lower costs". I think this is worth mentioning.
    Changed to that source and the JAMA source. Now talks about enlarged uterus on physical exam + ultrasound instead of MRI. Might email BMJ later, they were responsive before when I pointed out a mistake in the ME/CFS primer. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Management:

  • I've reworded the opening sentence about progestins, because I was concerned that "hormonal suppression" (suppressing endometriosis using hormones) is too easily confused with "hormone suppression" (suppressing hormone levels in the body). This version also explains how progestins work. I hope you see this as an improvement.
    Thumb up. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest moving "Evidence is limited." earlier in the aromatase inhibitor paragraph, as that seems more important than e.g. how they should be used and by whom.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's all up to the Pain medication heading. Toadspike [Talk] 02:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Surgery to Society and culture:[reply]

  • "It is unclear what the effect of surgery is for pain relief in cases of superficial peritoneal endometriosis" – could we reword as "It is unclear if surgery for superficial peritoneal endometriosis relieves pain"? I think that would be shorter and clearer.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The abdomen is filled with gas" – I suggest "is expanded with gas" or "is inflated with gas", since the abdomen increases in volume.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excised (cut out completely)" – I'd reverse to "cut out completely (excised)". Unlike some other instances, the simpler term covers the meaning of the medical jargon quite completely here, so there's no real need to hide it away.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lesions became worse" – could this be more specific? As you've noted, the lesions can expand or proliferate without worsening symptoms. Does this refer to symptoms worsening or lesions growing? (I don't think I have access to this source, so I can't check myself.)
    I think the word lesion already makes it clear that it's not about symptoms? The original text "In prospective studies of repeat surgeries, lesions progressed (in 29% of cases), regressed (in 42%), or were static (in 29%)." In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Of women with chronic pelvic pain, endometriosis is found in around 28%. Of women with infertility, 25% are diagnosed" – this is tricky. The easy part is that "diagnosed" shouldn't be there – the source says "is observed in". The harder part is that the source says "of women presenting with" chronic pelvic pain or infertility, not of all women with chronic pelvic pain or infertility. This is an important distinction. It doesn't tell us about the prevalence in the whole population, or even in people who, say, come to the hospital because of dysmenorrhea, but also have fertility problems. It is a very specific wording that we ought to reflect.
    Those are two interesting distinctions I hadn't thought about. If it's observed, isn't it diagnosed? There's not 'must have symptoms' element to the criteria. Or is it that there could already be a diagnosis? Could 'presenting with' be paraphrased as 'seek help with'? I've changed to "Of women seeking help for chronic pelvic pain, endometriosis is found in around 28%. Of those seeking help for infertility, that number is 25%." Does that work? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think my concern about "observed in" vs. "diagnosed" was overblown – in hindsight, the main case where this would matter is a retrospective study where they might be applying different diagnostic criteria than those used by the doctors at the time, so the researchers might "diagnose" a disease where the patient was never given that diagnosis. In the context of endometriosis primarily diagnosed via laparoscopy, that doesn't make much sense. Anyhow, I like the new wording, thank you. Toadspike [Talk] 10:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded the next two sentences. (I've done other rewording as well, but because this one is both more drastic and one I'm less confident about, I'm pointing it out in case you have objections.)
    LGTM. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One early recommendation to prevent and treat endometriosis was pregnancy" – is it worth mentioning here that this is actually a protective factor? ("Other risk factors are ... not having had children.") Often the assumption, at least for me, is that these historical treatments are wrong unless otherwise specified.
    I don't want to be too positive about this, given that it's a highly sensitive topic and some doctors still say "you should become pregnant", despite there being no direct evidence this helps when you have endometriosis already. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, I missed that distinction. I guess an explanation that pregnancy might actually be preventive, but not treat endo would be too long, and you're probably not a fan of footnotes... In that case we can leave it as is. Toadspike [Talk] 10:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning that diethylstilbestrol is now basically banned for being toxic. A half-sentence on the end of the current one would do, like "... upon withdrawal; it was later found to cause cancer and birth defects." [29] seems like a satisfactory source; I have a PDF of it if you need access.
    • That's a 1999 source. I'm sure it's still fine, but I prefer to use more recent sources per WP:MEDDATE. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not much has changed in the last 30 years. This 2017 paper covers the various problems DES caused in detail [30]. If you want something even more recent, you might have to accept an MDPI paper [31]. There are many other papers covering DES in relation to specific diseases, but I think a broader source is more appropriate here.
        • The MDPI source doesn't mention endometriosis; I don't have full access to the 2017 source. There is one source (Endometriosis, a modern syndrome) about endo that talks about it: ".. In his series, five patients became pregnant after stilbestrol was discontinued. With today's knowledge, the offspring of those pregnancies should have been followed very closely, although second generation clear cell vaginal cancer has been usually attributed to use of DES in pregnancy, not before it", which seems to indicate a weaker connection to stillbirth and cancer than the generic sources. (User:Toadspike, not sure if it's you or replytool, but did you know there keeping the indenting style consistent is better for accessibility? MOS:INDENTMIX). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          • This isn't really about endometriosis, though. I am trying to point out that there are reasons other than "severe risks upon withdrawal" that nobody would be prescribed DES for endo today which Karnaky wouldn't have known about in 1948. I don't want readers getting the impression that DES is a great endo treatment as long as you never stop taking it. That the source briefly mentions the now-known dangers of DES only shows that this information is due for inclusion, not that we should chain ourselves to the single issue with DES that they gave. The "DES mothers" section of the first source I linked mentions associations with/risk increases in the women who took DES themselves for menstrual irregularity, infertility, various complications of pregnancy, cervical dysplasia, breast cancer, among others.
            Re: Indent format – Thank you for the information. I've been told off for this once before and really should know better. The format you use (*:) displays weirdly for me on mobile. The bullet point in front of the first comment disappears, instead appearing beside the reply, which makes it hard to find the start of each thread. There is also some weirdness with the reply tool, which is why I'm writing nearly all of my replies here without it, but I don't know if that's to do with the wikitext or if it's just the reply tool being wacky. I am trying the other acceptable format (**) for this comment, and will check if it causes the same issues on mobile tomorrow. After much trial and error it seems I have gotten it to work without displaying additional bullet points (a common sight at AfD). Toadspike [Talk] 23:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            So all these sources are about DES exposure in pregnancy, which makes it tricky to add from an OR perspective. It might be that taking DES in pregnancy has a different effect than outside of pregnancy. I've been trying to find other sources, but most sources that describe DES and endo describe it as a putative risk factor for endometriosis (like, in utero exposure might maybe increase endo risk for DES daughters). I see where you're getting at with the current text not feeling sufficiently strong on the topic. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            That is a good point. I'm wondering if there's any way to reword this sentence so that it doesn't imply that DES is a great endo treatment as long as you never stop taking it. Unfortunately the Wiley PDF viewer is on strike, so I can't help you much at the moment... Maybe a solution is to point out that high-dose testosterone and estrogen (which includes DES) had severe side effects which do not only appear on withdrawal. Seems to be covered by the existing Barbieri source. Toadspike [Talk] 21:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            Good catch! It now says " but was associated with severe side effects, including risks upon withdrawal". In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm intrigued by uterine suffocation being in italics in the image caption instead of quotes. Not sure if the MOS has guidance on this or if it's down to personal preference. /shrug
    It's not really a word as word, so replaced with quotes. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering if there's a less clinical way to say "adverse mental health outcomes", but I can't think of one.
    Replaced with poor. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From Society and culture to the end:

  • "are generally not covered" – "often" may be more accurate than "generally". I couldn't find which part of the source supports this claim, so if you could point me to that I might be able to think of a better wording.
    "Despite its prevalence, research suggests that medical curricula devote limited time to menstrual health disorders, leading to knowledge gaps among primary healthcare professionals".. I think weakening this with generally is okay, but let me know if you disagree. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If I'm reading it correctly, that sentence is cited to [32]? It doesn't seem to mention medical education at all, except maybe "Focus groups with GPs, also in the Netherlands, reported that lack of knowledge and training about endometriosis was a potential barrier to referral" (about another study entirely). I'm also concerned about the geographic scope of this claim – Dixon et al., 2021 is a series of interviews in England, and given it interviewed practising GPs it could at best draw conclusions about medical curricula about ten years before the study was conducted (so, 2011?). The way the claim is phrased in the review and the Wikipedia article has no geographic or temporal limitation.
I think we would be much better off restating one of the better-support claims from the review, such as that primary care physicians need to be better educated/informed about endometriosis and menstrual issues (without specifically calling out (undergraduate?) medical education), something it says repeatedly and cites to a variety of sources. (The review doesn't criticize gynecologists at all, and only mentions other specialists once when suggesting more interdisciplinary work.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it, and highlighted limits with referrals to specialists in some countries In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endometriosis has direct and indirect costs, which include loss of work days, direct costs of treatment, symptom management, and treatment of other associated conditions such as depression or chronic pain." – the direct costs seem to be listed after the indirect costs here, which is a little confusing. I suggest making it clear which is which. I also don't think treatment and symptom management need to be listed separately. Maybe this works: "Direct costs of endometriosis include the cost of treating the disease, while indirect costs include the loss of work days and treatment of associated conditions such as depression or chronic pain."
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "absence from work" and "did not work" are different. (Similar to the difference between employment rate, which accounts for the size of the labor force, and unemployment rate, which only includes people looking for work.) The Sweden source says "32% of the women reported absence from work because of endometriosis", which is extremely different from the current wording. The Puerto Rico source specifically says "20% reported being unable to work because of pain", which it separates from missing work for other reasons, such as treatment. However, it isn't clear if "unable to work" means complete withdrawal from the workforce, or any level of absence from work (as in the Swedish study). The original source isn't clear [doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.017], but it suggests complete withdrawal is more likely, as it gives another number comparable to the Swedish one "Those patients who admitted missing workdays (n = 64, 60%) reported a mean of 2.8 days per month (SD ±3.7 days), equivalent to 33.6 days per year, because of being “unable to perform physical activities.” Yearly, patients missed work an average of 19.3 days (SD ±19.3 days) because of treatments, surgeries, and recovery. These absenteeism rates are higher than those reported for other pain conditions such as headaches, arthritis, and back pain (39)." The 60% number is quite dramatic.
The simplest solution is rewording to: "Some women are unable to work due to endometriosis: a survey of Swedish women with endometriosis found that 32% missed work because of the disease, while a survey of Puerto Rican women with endometriosis found 20% were unable to work due to pain."
A more drastic overhaul would be: "Endometriosis impacts many women's ability to work: A survey of Swedish women with endometriosis found that 32% missed work because of the disease; a survey of Puerto Rican women put that number at 60% and found that 20% of women could not work at all."
  • I cannot find the 20% in the original source, so I'm hesitant to continue to use that one. The review says 60% is over 2/3, which makes me uneasy, but alas. Have taken your final wording without the 20%. I may have read too quickly, but it seems to me that the primary source only asked questions about missed work to the subset of women that are in employment. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke The footnotes in the review are messed up. In that paragraph, footnote 5 links to [33], which has these numbers. The rest of the paragraph is cited to footnote 1, which was a survey with more subjective questions [34]. I agree that the review is...a bit sketchy. Another weird bit is that its explanation of "an average of 19.3 work days" fails to mention that these are per year, and its placement right after "2.8 days per month" implies this number is also per month. 19.3 days per month would be massive! Toadspike [Talk] 09:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see! Have added the 20% back with your suggested text. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United Kingdom, one researcher has estimated that one in six women with the condition end up leaving the workforce permanently, with the economic impact stated, as of 2026, to be £12.5 billion for healthcare costs and workforce implications." reword: "In the United Kingdom, one researcher estimated that one in six women with endometriosis leave the workforce permanently, with economic losses of £12.5 billion from healthcare costs and workforce impacts as of 2026." But...this is a news source. I'm a little surprised to see a lower-quality source used for similar information to that provided by a high quality source in the Puerto Rico example earlier. Has Lucy Whitaker published this estimate anywhere?
    I missed that recent addition to the article. Have removed it, as I cannot find the numbers and one Western example is enough. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "endometriosis got significantly less funding than 9 similar conditions" – I changed "comparator" to "similar" here, but I'm not really sure either is true. The researchers seem to have picked the nine "other non-malignant disorders" [35] simply as a rhetorical device; the fact these disorders are mentioned for the first time in the Discussion section, rather than under Results, seems to support this. I think it might be better to simply state the conclusion of the paper, which is that it is substantially underrepresented among EU-funded research projects. ("Reasons for this substantial underrepresentation of endometriosis among projects funded at EU level are difficult to completely elucidate" and "the findings presented herein suggest that, compared to other conditions, health funding dedicated to endometriosis research at EU level is not aligned to the burden attributable to the disease in Europe")
    I've changed this back. Similar implies that the diseases have similar characteristics, which I'm not sure they have apart from the fact they are non-malignant. Comparator simply means that these were chosen as a comparison. If I remember the study correctly, they didn't immediately quantify the disease burden in this comparison. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that the wording I suggested may not be great either, but I remain concerned that we are restating a rhetorical device rather instead of relying on the well-researched conclusions of a tertiary source. It might help to convince you if I point out the flaws in that paragraph. 1. Among the three "gender-related autoimmune diseases" listed is psoriasis, which has a fairly even gender distribution (unusual for an autoimmune condition). This is a basic error. 2. If the authors intended this as a rigorous measure of endometriosis research funding, they would have totalled the amount of funding each project got (not hard to find, e.g. [36], and listed for endo projects in their Table 1) instead of merely counting the number of projects. The crude method they chose does not support the main claim of that paragraph, that "other non-malignant disorders were found to have received considerably more funds" – what they actually found was that "some other non-malignant disorders had considerably more projects funded". 3. The choice of comparator conditions is also questionable. For instance, "dermatitis" isn't one condition, but a symptom found in a wide variety of conditions. Depending on how you slice it, it could have a prevalence several times that of endometriosis (about 100x for one type [37] – most estimates for atopic dermatitis are closer to 10x). Is it then so bad that "dermatitis" had three times as many projects funded as endometriosis did? Maybe "dermatitis" is really the underrepresented disease here! Sarcasm aside, I implore you to replace this sentence with information the authors used serious effort, quality evidence, and rigorous statistics to craft, rather than this throwaway remark about some fun numbers they found while plugging terms into their search engine. Toadspike [Talk] 23:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The weak language I put in the article (or intended too), was because the paper does not give a good justification of why these conditions were chosen. I would have wanted a DALY comparison. When you say tertiary source, would you like me to replace this source altogether or just make an even weaker statement from this source (I'd describe it as primary or secondary, not tertiary). I can put an even weaker claim in: "Between the 1980s and 2023, there have only been ten research projects funded by the European Union research program specifically dedicated to endometriosis". The only in there is still based on relative importance, and might feel non-neutral? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: does that proposed wording work for you? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new wording is okay. If we're talking only about number of research projects funded, that is something they actually looked at, so it makes sense to include. If you want, the 15.6 million euros figure could be added as well.
If you have a better source, not necessarily about the EU, that might be a good idea. This paper seems to have simply totaled the amount of funding for endometriosis research and unilaterally declared that it's too little – I'm certain it is, but aside from the sketchy search results, their data doesn't really show that. But if there's nothing better, then this sentence works. ("tertiary" was a mistake, please ignore that.) Toadspike [Talk] 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search for sources published since I wrote that section, and unfortunately this is still the best. Changed the wording to the above. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the "Research funding" subsection should be moved from the "Society and culture" section to the "Research directions" section. The "Research directions" section could then be retitled to "Research". Putting it at the start of a section would give more prominence to this subsection, which is probably due, as it is one of the main aspects of endometriosis discussed in the media. (I assume the idea behind the current position is that low research funding is a result of social/cultural effects? While probably true, I feel like the root cause of a problem shouldn't outweigh the problem itself in deciding how we categorize it.)
    Wiser people than me have argued that a section called 'Research' is a cruft attractor, and that's why MOS:MEDORDER settled on research directions. So I've done a compromise solution, where I'm still using the research directions subheading. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Toadspike [Talk] 10:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than saying "A priority area of research", cited to an article titled "Biomarkers of endometriosis", I suggest simply stating that a lot of endo research is focused on biomarkers. (40%, in the EU research source cited above.) Calling it a "priority" doesn't feel neutral, given a lot of experts, including in the EU research paper, seem to be skeptical of biomarkers or the effort being poured into finding them.
    I've replaced with "key". In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "key" is sufficient. It essentially means the same thing as "priority", and does not address my concern that this source essentially has a conflict of interest and should not be used for claims of importance – those claims would require a citation to a broader review of endometriosis research, not just a review of biomarkers. If you're looking for a one-word fix, maybe "major" would be acceptable (as it refers to the amount of research being done, rather than its importance). Toadspike [Talk] 20:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MicroRNAs might be most promising, but levels are not consistent among studies, making them a challenging target." – I do not think the first clause is sufficiently supported by the source, which merely says "conflicting results despite the promising data" and "Although these microRNAs look promising"; the latter accolade is also awarded to stem cell–related markers, and later we get "numerous promising markers". I'm not certain "levels are not consistent among studies" is correct, either: The original is "many studies on miRNAs and endometriosis suffered from limited consistency and offered conflicting results despite the promising data", which might mean that individual studies are not internally consistent. Finally, "making them a challenging target" feels like science-funding-speak and not the ideal wording for anyone outside biomedical research. I strongly advise dropping this sentence, perhaps replacing it with a list of other approaches if desired, rather than overly emphasizing any one approach.
    Replaced with a sentence cited from a review that came out after I last searched for relevant sources. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Most of the earlier stuff has been fixed already. Once these last few things are addressed, even if that means providing a convincing counterargument to my suggestions, I will be happy to support. Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC) The remaining three points – fallopian tube anatomy, side effects of diethylstilbestrol, and how to describe the EU research funding study – have been addressed to my satisfaction. I am happy to support this FAC. Thank you, Femke, for all of your hard work on this article. Toadspike [Talk] 21:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Pic caption "Clockwise from the top left is superficial peritoneal endometriosis, deep infiltrating endometriosis, a ruptured chocolate cyst and a mass of scar endometriosis encircled in red next to a caesarian section scar." That seems to have the pictures out of order - perhaps the final two are flipped?
    Fixed in a way that makes a bit more sense on mobile. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "John A. Sampson" suggest wikilinking name here, in addtion to existing link in body text.
    Done + explanation of why there is a photo of the guy
  • Warning for a cite: Consider changing "pages=108129 " to "article-number = 108129" to eliminate a cite tool warning.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

YuniToumei

[edit]

Hi Femke! Good to see such a vital and underdiscussed topic brought to FAC. I'll review this over the coming days. More comments to follow. YuniToumei (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deep endometriosis often appears as nodules: I suggest linking Nodule (medicine) at first appearance
  • Some individuals have no symptoms: It would be interesting to quantify this. What percentage of women experience no symptoms? Is there any good data on this in recent publications?
    The omission was intentional, as we don't really know. Some sources say the prevalence of endometriosis among asymptotic women is about 2 to 10%, implying that asymptotic cases could make up almost none to 80% of cases. There is large uncertainty on prevalence of endometriosis among post-menopausal women too, who often do not have symptoms anymore. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that's good then. Let's hope the science turns up some better numbers soon. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those going through assisted reproductive treatment, endometriosis is found in about 30% to 50% of women: I'm concerned that there is a reasonable chance an unknowing reader could misinterpret this sentence to mean that assisted reproductive treatment could be causal to endometriosis. Do you think you could rephrase to resolve this ambiguity?
    I've changed it to 'among women going through', to stress it's about the group not the treatment. Does that work? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better, although it doubles the word "women" at the end of the phrase. I was about to suggest making the temporal relation explicit by saying something like "Among women going through assisted reproductive treatment, 30% to 50% were found to have pre-exisiting endometriosis". However, I have a concern about the sourcing. I looked at the citation in the cited review (25, Bulletti 2010), and in that paper the review cites, I cannot find the figure 30–50% in relation to assisted reproductive treatment. That figure instead appears as "30 to 50% of women with endometriosis are infertile", which in turn is cited to a 1951(!) paper which I cannot access. Do you think the review's statement is reliable nevertheless? YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the statement (there was a similar statement elsewhere to a higher-quality source anyway). I will double check other statements from the source and probably remove it for all statistics and mildly contentious claims. This is the second error in statistics found in the source. They were helpful in correcting the other error, but two makes me question the rigour of fact-checking. Let me know if you'd like me to replace the source altogether. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now removed other statistics from that source too. They were supported by the cited sources, but the cited sources were primary and possibly not the best to make a sweeping statement. Will keep the rest unless there are objections. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, looks good to me. YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • endometriosis is linked to cardiovascular disease, particularly in those who have had the uterus and ovaries removed as treatment: Clarify as treatment for what? Could be interpreted that it's treatment for the cardiovascular disease
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased risk of developing ovarian and thyroid cancers: I suggest linking Thyroid cancer
  • when extra tissue divides the vagina into two sides is this implying a Uterine septum? If so, I suggest adding a link.
  • endocrine disruptors—chemicals that interfere with hormones, such as estrogen: I'm guessing that a confusion here is much less likely, but it could theoretically be misconstrued such that estrogen is understood as one of these endocrine disruptors. Though if you don't think that is likely, feel free to leave it as it is.
    I've removed the comma before 'such as estrogen'. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence supporting the theory comes from retrospective epidemiological studies: I suggest linking Retrospective cohort study
  • involving white blood cells: I suggest linking White blood cell
  • a bimanual exam I suggest linking Bimanual exam, perhaps as Pelvic examination#Bimanual examination. The former is a redirect to the latter, although interestingly not to the specific section (yet).
    Done and redirect fixed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "chocolate cysts" is introduced in the Subtype section and reused in the MRI caption, but not reused or re-explained in the Keyhole surgery section. Since this procedure is where one would encounter those, it might be worth name-dropping them here again when you discuss the color of endrometiosis lesions?
    It's a bit too much to explain it twice so close together. Would it be better if I move it down from the image to the text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think so. To me, the term is a surgical one first and foremost, i.e. a description based on what one can see with one's naked eyes. MRIs don't typically record color, so I'm unsure why the cysts would appear chocolatey there. I'd probably just refer to them as ovarian cysts in the image caption. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • if symptoms improve (‘empirical treatment’): I suggest linking Empirical therapy
  • The ENZIAN system: The Enzian system was amended to the newer #Enzian system in 2021 to include lesions with peritoneal, tubary, and ovarian localisation. What is the rationale behind referring only to the older system in this article?
    Mostly sources; I can't yet make a a clean statemment about how good the #ENZIAN system is. I can note the update after the more general statements, but prefer not to for summary style. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine by me then. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether hormonal contraception: I suggest linking Hormonal contraception
  • includes the hormonal coil (intrauterine device): Shouldn't this be "the hormonal coil (an intrauterine device)" since hormonal coils aren't the only type of IUDs?
  • implant under the skin: I suggest linking Subdermal implant
  • or those with uncontrolled hypertension: I suggest linking Hypertension
    Done all the link suggestions, for the other comments see my replies. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Femke I've replied to some comments above. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the edit hist, you seem to have gone for serial commas? I've added a few you seem to have missed. Feel free to undo any I might have mistakenly added.
    You and Toadspike are angels. Thanks for fixing them!
  • Alternative hormonal treatment can be tried if the pill or IUD are not effective.: "if the pill or an IUD"?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symptoms typically start in adolescence or early 20s and tend to improve after menopause. This is due to the decrease in estrogen levels, which often aggravate the symptoms of endometriosis.: Do you think it's clear enough that "this" only refers to only the last clause of the first sentence? And do you think that it's clear that "which" refers to the sinking estrogen levels, and not to estrogen itself? I am aware that in the latter case the conjugation of "aggravate" makes it clear that it is linked to a plural word, but I'm wondering if someone reading quickly or being ESL might trip up over this.
    I've simplified and merged the two sentences to make this clear. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • describing malignant tissue: I suggest linking Malignancy
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • During operations, he observed that endometriotic lesions would bleed in sync with a woman's menstrual cycle: How did he observe that? Did he operate on the same patient across her cycle?
    I don't think so. The source says: "His original observations occurred during surgeries on women who were menstruating when he found that the peritoneal lesions were bleeding similarly to the eutopic endometrium". So more likely a comparison between women. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I was confused by how he would observe it "bleed in sync", but I guess given the original phrasing in the source, that's fine. YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • had masculinizing side effects: I suggest linking Masculinization
    Done.
  • because taboos about sex before marriage: "because of taboos"?
    Done
  • and cannot be used on its own.: "cannot" is ambiguous, it could imply e.g. a physical reason for which the biomarker cannot be applied by itself. Maybe you could rephrase this to make it clearer that the marker is not enough evidence when used alone.
    I've added the word 'so' to clarify it's related to the facts it's not specific enough. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That was good, it seems to have slipped out again in a subsequent edit. Was that intentional? YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit conflicted with myself. Now fixed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Research directions section, is there any research being done towards the pathogenesis of endometriosis that might be worth discussing here?
    I've added a few research direction around how to study the pathophysiology (studying the molecular differences between lesions, animal models and their limitations and the growing use of organoids). Paper came out this month :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, looks good! YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Femke Giving this another readthrough before supporting and ran the article through Earwig. I checked the 10 most similar sources, and almost all are good. There is just one to fix: Vaginal ultrasound is inexpensive, easily accessible, has no contraindications, and requires no preparation.: Earwig found this to be a verbatim copy of a sentence in source 43.
    That's the public domain 'utterance' the note talks about at the bottom of the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I missed that. That completes my review :) Support. YuniToumei (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

[edit]

Thank you for bringing such a substantial topic to FAC. I'll make some minor copyedits as I go.

  • Possibly you have already considered this. But it seems to me that "Mechanism" should be the first subsection - that is where the condition is fully described. The Subtypes section assumes some prior knowledge that later sections provide. Perhaps it could even be a subsection? That section also has less linking than I'd expect in the first part of the body (endometrium, pelvis, cysts...).
    The mechanism section is quite technical, which probably explains why WP:MEDORDER places it so late. The subtypes section could be moved and it took me a while to decide on where it should be. For me, explaining where these lesions can be makes it easier to describe symptoms later. Where do you think it fits as a subsection. Added more links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, as to MEDORDER. For subtypes, I might locate it under "signs and symptoms" or possibly even "mechanism" - but the bigger quibble is the one below, with respect to the bolded subtypes not including others mentioned later.
    I'd like to get the locations of endometriosis, and the jargon for those locations/types, out of the way as soon as possible. It's difficult to talk about symptoms when you don't yet know where the endometriosis can end up. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point I just noticed: the article does not use the term Endometrioma at first mention of the definition, leaving that term undefined - is it used for any associated lesion, or only a subset?
    it's defined in the list definition in subtypes. I've now also linked upon second mention (first one is bolded). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section also covers the definition of deep endometriosis twice, slightly differently.
    The idea was the give the definition as a list definition, and tell more about it in the text. I've shifted some text for the list into prose to make that work a bit better. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see other names for subtypes, namely thoracic and scar, and relationship between that classification and the one above isn't immediately clear
    I've reworded to clarify these are subsubtypes of extra-pelvic endometriosis.
  • The cited source sticks to "lesions" rather than "spots", and personally I find "spots" confusing, in that it creates the possibility of something other than lesions
    Changed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is something of a personal preference. But I wonder at the use of the bulleted list for symptoms, because a) most of those are, in brief, "pain", with additional qualifiers that are discussed in subsequent prose, that actually seem quite important to understanding the symptoms as presented, and b) arguably some symptoms are not listed (cough, bloating).
  • Can you find a way to elucidate "cyclical" in the symptomatic context? Is it simply "recurring", or is there more nuance than that?
    It's in line with the menstrual cycle. The article now explains this as "Painful symptoms can occur anytime during the menstrual cycle, but are usually more intense during menstruation; in other words, they follow a cyclical pattern". Did you overlook that, or should I tweak this to be more explicit (change "they follow a cyclical pattern" to "the symptoms are cyclical"). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly I was looking at an older version, or I may have missed it altogether - but this addresses the concern.
  • You mention cooccurring IBS in symptoms, but not in Concurrent conditions
    mentioned there too now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: "For instance, endometriosis shares a genetic underpinning with migraine, headaches, neck, and back pain." this is an unintended overstatement, surely. Suggest "...shares a genetic underpinnings" or something more qualified. I haven't read the source but if all associated genetic markers were shared it'd be huge news.
    I've made it more explicit: "shares some genetic risk factor". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked a second sentence, looks okay now.
  • re: "local transformation of peritoneal cells into endometrial-like cells (coelomic metaplasia)" I confess I don't fully understand this.
    removed the jargon altogether.
  • "Evidence supporting the theory..." but the previous paragraphs say "theories"...so which one?
    With a merging of paragraphs it should not be clear that this refers to the theory of retrograde menstruation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you perhaps explain " Müllerian remnants"?
    explained and removed the jargon. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling a bit with the structure of "formation" in general. I think you want to divide this by theory or factor, with all evidence to follow in that paragraph; and I might suggest dropping the level four titles, because that separation isn't obvious to me
    Removed one long sentence that wasn't fully necessary and broke the flow. Merged related paragraphs, and removed the subsubsection headings. The old logic was: where do these errant cells come from Vs what else need to go wrong for endometriosis to form. Better? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, much. I attempted a slightly further reorganization. Let me know if there's an issue with it.
  • "A health history and a physical examination may lead a health care practitioner to suspect endometriosis" I think this sentence doesn't say very much; in what way is this different from any other condition?
    For some conditions, you would just get a test (e.g. a COVID infection) without a detailed history taking. For others, you might need a health history and a test (non-endemic infections), for yet another category (mental health conditions), you'd get a history and a questionnaire. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough but it still feels a bit non-specific - examination in people with unexplained pain, perhaps? Or can it be suspected from an examination with no prior symptoms?
    Good point. Upon rereading sources, this wasn't quite accurate. I've added a new sentence about the type of symptoms that might lead one to suspect endometriosis. Health history and exam come after. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there is a shift away from requiring surgical confirmation" I think you want "has been a shift", and also, is it possible to give this a date?
    Changed to has been. I don't think so without going into the weeds, as this differs by both endometriosis subtype and by country. The JAMA source gives one example of a guideline that now recommends this from 2024, weakly implying that the previous guideline didn't recommend this. NICE and the 2022 BMJ source do not touch on the question. this 2023 paper highlights another guideline (from 2022), again implying that a previous guideline may have put more emphasis on surgery for diagnosis. The Global Burden of Disease study still uses surgical confirmation to define endometriosis worldwide prevalence and is seeing slowly declining numbers as a result (fewer people are diagnosed that way). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you should then not imply a temporal shift, and simply say that many organizations recommend a diagnosis without a surgery, because of delays? This appears to be supported by the source
    There has been a temporal shift, and the JAMA source makes this explicit: This shift in diagnostic approach reflects awareness that requiring surgery for diagnosis may delay treatment. The article Graham Beards suggested for the epidemiology section for instance talked about Germany not having shifted yet; they seem to have been a holdout and changed their guidelines last year. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 5-12 years from onset of symptoms, but 1-4 years + up to 9 years doesn't quite get us to 5-12...
    I was about to reply that this is perfectly possible. These are the averages of various studies, and the 9 year was not found in the same study that found the 4 years. Upon rereading the paper, I suspect they may have made a mistake. Their figure 2 has a maximum of 8, not 8.6 years for the wait time after first seeking help with symptoms to diagnosis. The 8.6 (which I rounded) could come from 3 other papers who are all labelled as 'overall diagnosis time'. Did the figure describe these 3 papers correct or the surrounding text? Unfortunately, I've not been able to figure that out. One paper corresponded to the figure, one paper seems to have a broken paywall (can't click the button), and the third has the numbers in a very different format and requires full data access to check. I'm happy to change this to 8 years, as I do trust figures more than plain text.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be a change for the better, and supported by the source. I have no issue with presenting mildly differing estimates from different studies but then we ought to be describing them as estimates.
  • The mention in source 1 of a lack of validated blood or genetic markers seems worthy of mention, possibly dated to the source
    I've added it in (at least teh blood test, I don't think we ever expect a genetic test). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material about a "trauma-informed approach" I'm not certain about; it's both jargon, and also not specific in any way to endometriosis
    there's two reasons I want to keep it in: first is that not validating pain (but normalising it) is identified as one if the key reasons for delays in treatment. The second is that there are often traumas to deal with, including from being dismissed by previous healthcare professionals. Open to alternative wording. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more general point; you often write "women" in reference to people who have endometriosis, but also note specifically the diagnosis is not limited to women (text mentions men and girls who are not yet of reproductive age). Is this something you could work into the epidemiology section?
    I've added a meta-analysis about the prevalence of endometriosis among trans men into the section. The other two groups are very small: I found a number of non-MEDRS papers that claimed to have found the 17th or 18th cis man with endometriosis (can't all be true). As for girls, I could not find a number, bit I suspect it's equally small. Will keep my eyes peeled for a further statement I can use from a MEDRS source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skimming source 31 (Pasalic et al) I think there's perhaps a bit more there you could add on the pros/cons of each staging system
    I've instead expanded the explanation of stages, which I believe is a bit more important. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I find it odd to have the history section near the end of an article. But then I do not work on medical topics.
    I'm following WP:MEDORDER, which does put history near the end as more of a background section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, I defer to our collective wisdom.
  • "The various hormonal options to treat endometriosis have comparable efficacy." This is an affirmative statement I'm uncertain about, given the subsequent qualifiers.
    I've removed one of the subsequest qualifiers (dienogest possibly working better than injections), as I think I misread the source. The word comparable is a function of research: there are differences seen in the efficacy but even the difference between the most and least effective hormone isn't statistically significant due to moderately small sample size. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if you can find a link for first-line therapy?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cystectomy" is mentioned in the treatment section for infertility, but not in the surgery section
    I've moved the jargon up, to introduce it at first mention. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The estimate of 190 million is cited to NICE, but is identical to that from Zondervan et al 2020, which is using a World Bank estimate from 2017 - at this point, 9 years old. I wonder if a more up-to-date estimate is available, and if not, we should at least supply the date of the estimate.
    These zombie numbers are frustratingly common. Sources published in the last five year either give this number or the previous one on the WHO website (176 million). Based on the World Population Prospects report and relying on WP:CALC I've updated to nearly 200 million. That number corresponds to either 2024 or 2023 (report says 2024, but I believe it's 2023 because all their data files go up to 2023). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe specify that GnRH agonists are hormonal medications of the sort described above?
    They're introduced under the heading hormonal medications, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further barriers come from outdated standards..." barriers to what? treatment, I presume, but it's a bit ambiguous.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest presenting the cost estimates as estimates, given all the unknowns of incidence?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Mostly prose suggestions, but I did read several of the major sources and found no omissions (allowing for WP:SS), and I didn't immediately find anything omitted in a sweep for sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much User:Vanamonde93! I hope I've addressed all you comments, but let me know if you'd like to see further changes. Your questions about understandability led me to find a new source from IQWiG (the German NICE), which I've used to expand both the diagnosis and formation section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I looked at the source cited above as the rationale for opposing promotion, and I'm not convinced that it meets our bar for inclusion. I agree that a reader may have many questions after reading this but that's a reflection of the state of knowledge about the condition, not of our article's coverage thereof. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • backward (retrograde) menstrual period flow – a bit difficult to understand (how can a period "flow"?). Maybe write "backward (retrograde) flow of menstrual fluid"?
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endometriomas – This quite central term could be explained.
    Is the list definition not clear here? I can omit the word Ovarian in front of endometrioma, as the name endometrioma already implies ovarian, but that might make it more difficult. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endometriosis most commonly affects the ovaries – This paragraph seems to be quite general or introductory. So why not move it to the beginning of paragraph?
    Would you like to move it to the start of the section? Towards the end of the paragraph, it is quite detailed, which make it a less suitable first paragraph for the section in my view. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pain has been described as dull and cramping in nature,[11] and can interfere with daily activities, such as school, work, or participating in social events – Before you listed different painful symptoms, here it is only "the pain".
    I misread, this seems to be about the period pain in endometriosis only. Reorganised the paragraph to clarify. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • with endometriosis often experience fatigue – mentioned for the third time already
    Removed the sentence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endometriosis can also involve symptoms like constipation, diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and rectal or abdominal pain. This is sometimes caused by endometriosis on the bowels, but can also be due to concurrent irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). – I assume these are not in the list because they are not "common symptoms"? But why is bowel movements discussed here again?
    These are all slightly different symptoms. Where do you feel there is redundancy? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do mostly worry about the structure in that section, which seems confusing. Why are some symptoms included in the list and others only in the text? You write "About a quarter of women diagnosed with endometriosis experience infertility"; so clearly, infertility is a rather common symptom, but it is not in the list of "common symptoms"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone over the bullet points in other sources aimed at a general audience, and most include infertility, so added it too. Including that made for an awkward overlap with the first sentence, so I've deleted that one, and reshuffled the bullet points up. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoracic endometriosis – why is this term not mentioned in the Subtypes section?
    It is mentioned, but in the most common classification it is not one of the subtypes (instead a subsubtype of extrapelvic endometriosis)
  • Why is the section called "subtypes", rather than just "types"?
    Types feels awkward to me. The type (of disease) is endometriosis I imagine. The literature does not use a standard wording for this. Some say subtypes, some say classification.
  • Eighty genetic regions – Had to click on the link to understand that you are referring to loci here. "Genetic regions" is very vague. I would provide the actual term here too.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • One image caption as a "Needs update" maintenance tag for some reason.
    That was a bot edit; have cited the updated review, to be good to our bot overlords.
  • The lesions behave similarly to the endometrium. They grow in the first half of the menstrual cycle and break down during menstruation. The shed tissue however has nowhere to go, and stays close to the lesion. This causes inflammation, cysts or the formation of adhesions, which cause organs to be bound together – This is quite insightful, and general. It's the type of information that I would expect in the lead or introductory sections, but it is currently the last paragraph under "formation", I would place this much earlier.
    I've added a sentence to the lead, and incorporated it earlier in the mechanism section. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • and damage to nerves might also occur due to surgery – Not sure that's needed, doesn't this apply to any surgery?
    Clarified that this is specific to endometriosis surgery. There is a debate whether surgery is useful for the most common form of endometriosis (superficial lesions). Trial results expected later this year. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis takes an average of five to twelve years from the onset of symptoms. – This and the following: For which country or countries does this apply? Does the "average" include data from India and China, for example?
    The only studies included were from Western countries (Australia, Europe, NA). Can't find another review that details this for India or China unfortunately.
    But shouldn't it be mentioned for which geographical areas this does apply? Without specification the reader has to assume "worldwide", which is clearly not the case? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "normal scan"?
    Reworked that paragraph, without the jargon and better flow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a transvaginal ultrasound – Whats the difference to just "vaginal ultrasound"? You use both variants.
    Made it consistent: it's both the same. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • to severe (stage IV)[56] – dot missing
    Fixed.
  • hormonal coil (an intrauterine device) – the explanation might be too technical to be of help to describe the term
    Changed to IUD. Want to keep two different common terms as they're known by different names in different places. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ablation technique may better preserve the number of remaining viable eggs (the ovarian reserve), compared to cutting out the endometrioma – That was already mentioned earlier at some point?
    Removed earlier mention. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Infertility" section does not seem fit in the article structure? The subsections in "Management" detail the different treatments, but "Infertility" is not a treatment but a condition. As a consequence, the section seems to repeat a lot of info already mentioned in the other sections on the treatments.
    Changed the structure into pain and infertility management, with all the previous headings now subheadings of pain. There's very little on the treatment of other symptoms like fatigue, and this is how JAMA and BMJ structure it. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disease does not always worsen – If a higher percentage actually improves, this sentence seems off. Writing "the disease does not always improve" seems more logical, but it might just be removed as redundant.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The likelihood of symptoms returning after surgery is highly variable – This was also covered earlier, why here again?
    I moved the previous mentions to this section, and reduced overlap. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earliest references to what may have been endometriosis are from Ancient Egypt, nearly 4,000 years ago – More detail would be great here. What symptoms were described? How do we know about this?
    The source does not give more detail. Upon reflection, I've decided to take it out altogether, because the 'may' in 'may have been endometriosis' was doing too much heavy lifting. The source says it's tracing back mentions of pelvic pain throughtout the ages, and then talks about Ancient Egypt and the concept of the 'wandering womb', but does not directly say that the text in Ancient Egypt was about pelvic pain. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the observed that endometriotic lesions would bleed in sync with a woman's menstrual cycle. – This makes much sense but when reading the other sections, it was not clear to me that the lesions produce menstrual blood themselves. Maybe this could be explicitly mentioned much earlier in the article; at least for me it would have been a very useful information.
    Here, I'm struggling a bit with a paucity of sources. The closest that we have is Informed Health, which says "In endometriosis, this kind of tissue grows outside of the womb, too, "behaving" in the same way: It builds up in the first half of the menstrual cycle and is then shed again. But the shed tissue can't simply leave the abdominal cavity, like your period does. It stays near to the endometrial implant.". The shed tissue is similar to menstrual fluid and contains blood. There a few issues: (1) I think the Informed Health source may not be sufficiently precise. In quite a few lower-quality sources, I'm seeing statements that not all tissue sheds. Some tissue is progesterone resistant for instance; progesterone makes the endometrium "bleed" (2) the historical source isn't a MEDRS source, so I don't quite think it can be used elsewhere in the article. I've contacted the Informed Health website editors to confirm whether that statement is correct and potentially get a small correction and will look for other sources in the meantime. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A further search didn't lead to too much new information; sources typically don't talk about this. I've got no response from Informed Health. I've weakened the claim from Informed Health because I don't think it's universally true. I'm now just saying the tissue can shed, rather than it sheds in sync with the menstrual cycle. I've added an explanation of what the endometrium is so this point is clearer, but without claiming it always behaves the similarly. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Endometriosis can return after surgical removal." Removal of what?
    Of endometriosis lesions; I think that should be clear from the previous paragraph? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment is misplaced. It should be at the end of the previous paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want both prognosis sentences after treatment? It makes sense to put it there, but it will create a disbalanced paragraph length. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be in the relevant place. A shorter paragraph is not important. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reorganised the lead with prognosis in the treatment paragraph; Reworded for flow and to stop the paragraph from being too long. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endometriosis in men may arise from leftover embryonic tissue which develops into the female reproductive system in women, but normally disintegrates during male embryonic development." I am not clear what you are saying here. Leftover tissue develops into the female reproductive system? Is this leftover from a previous female embryo?
    Is this clearer: "Endometriosis in men may arise from leftover embryonic tissue which would normally disappear in male development, but forms the female reproductive system in women"
  • "To detect deep endometriosis more reliably, the ultrasound is extended to look at the back of the pelvis for detection in locations deep endometriosis is often found." This appears ungrammatical unless I am misreading it.
    I've simplified and reshuffled.
  • I still cannot make sense of "to look at locations deep endometriosis". Maybe "to look at deep locations; endometriosis"?
What about "To detect deep endometriosis more reliably, the ultrasound is extended to the back of the pelvis towards locations where deep endometriosis is often found." I can also make a bit more wordy by saying "deep infiltrating endometriosis". In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surgery is an option when medical treatment is insufficiently effective". Surgery is a type of medical treatment. Maybe "Surgery is an option when other measures are insufficiently effective". This comment also applies to the use of the term below.
    Fixed twice. Calling drug treatment medical treatment is jargon and shouldn't be in there. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ablation should be linked.
    Done + fixed related redirect. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stage I endometriosis is most common, found in 17% of included women in a meta-analysis." What does "included women" mean?
    This is a perhaps awkward way of signalling to readers that this is a biased sample. As endo likely only occurs in about 10% of women, having 17% of women with stage I is weird. The problem with that source is that they don't reflect much on the numbers, so I can literally say this is a biased sample. Curious if there is a better way of saying this implicitly. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You could change "included women" to "endometriosis sufferers" or similar, but it is still puzzling. The stages only add up to 30%. Are the stages of the other 70% not known?
    I've applied WP:CALC and recalculated it as a percentage of women with endometriosis. Before it was the percentage of overall women included, a biased sample that likely included populations of people with infertility or pelvic pain rather than the general population. P.S. For accessibility, could you ensure that the indenting is consistent. If something starts with a *, continue the indenting as *:, not :* per MOS:LISTMIX. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lead "Some have no symptoms, while for others it is a debilitating disease." Symptomless endometriosis not covered in the main text, unless I have missed it. Do some of the 10% have no symptoms, and if so how many?
    It's covered in the symptoms section that some women have no symptoms. We don't know what percentage, as few women with symptomless endo have a diagnosis, and you can't easily do a big population study with diagnostic surgery to figure this out. Maybe we'll get an answer about the ovarian and deep endometriosis subset with recent advanced in imaging. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any figures on women with known symptonless endometriosis? If they are included in the 10% then the figure is misleading since as you say the total with the condition must be much higher. If possible, I think all figures should exclude those with no symptons. You may already be doing this but it should be spelled out.
    I'm following sources, which include people with asymptomatic endometriosis in the rough estimates of 10%. Where do I say that the total with the condition is much higher? That would be inaccurate. We don't have any reliable data on the percentages. As the article states, many women only discover they have endometriosis when they struggle with fertility. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proportion of people with asymptomatic endometriosis included in the 10% is important, but you obviously cannot give it if the sources do not have it.
  • Ref 11 should have a field: language=German.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your headings for the references are confusing. I suggest "Sources" (as a heading not a sub-heading) instead of "Books, reports, and monographs".
    This is only the subsection of long-form sources, not all sources. Iirc, the pre-FAC reviewer objected to a subsection called "Sources". In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the reviewer's point, but I do not agree. It is a list of sources, although an incomplete one, and the current heading is unhelpful to the reader. Also, if you are having sub-sections, they should all have sub-headings and the first should be headed 'Citations'. In my opinion, it is better to have a source section covering all citations or no source section at all and everything covered in the citation section, but this is of course your decision.
    The advantage of keeping it as is, is that future editors can immediately see what kind of sources should be added to that subsection. That is: longer-form sources like reports, books and monographs. Choosing a more general section heading can lead to the style diverging. I'll follow the initial reviewer here. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your decision, but you should have a sub-heading of 'Citations' below the heading 'References'.
    That is a choice, and there are plenty of FAs and FACs that go for this style: e.g. Climate change, Portugal. Pushing back here because I disagree, but also because I think too much time at FAC is spent on citation formatting, which is not that important in the grand scheme of things. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate change like Endometriosis has a mixture of citations which are in the source section and those which are not, but it has a sub-heading 'Sources'.
  • What does "This article incorporates text in the public domain as a Swedish government "utterance" by URL§9" mean? This implies some of the text is not specifically referenced, which is not allowed for FAC.
    There was a single sentence copy-pasted from a Swedish gov document. I've removed it (it was the sentence saying that ultrasound is cheap), as I'm already saying that MRI is expensive later. Couldn't figure out how to adjust to add the utterance text to the specific citation it applied to either. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete the "External links" heading as that does not apply to Commons. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good article. The sub-heading 'Books, reports, and monographs' is confusing as it is unclear that it is a list of sources of some of the citations, but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Noleander

[edit]
  • Validated:
    • File:202503_Endometriosis_with_annotation.svg
    • File:Superficial peritoneal endometriosis.png
    • File:Deep_infiltrating_endometriosis_A.png
    • File:Scar_endometriosis_after_caesarian_section.png
    • File:Characteristics_of_endometriosis.webp
    • File:Endometriosis_cells_types_and_innvervation.jpg
    • File:Endometrioma_ground_glass_appearance.jpg
    • File:Trichromatic_Color_MRI_of_ovarian_cysts_(cropped_for_endometrioma).jpg
    • File:Endometriosis_of_the_ovary.jpg
    • File:Mirena_IntraUterine_System.jpg
    • File:Blausen_0602_Laparoscopy_02.png
    • File:Trotula (BM 1896,0511.244).jpg
  • Questions:
  1. File:Perforierte_Endometriosezyste.jpg - Uploaded by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hic_et_nunc but comment says author is "gloecknerd". Probably not the same person? Commons page says the image is "Public Domain" but does not contain any statement or message from the author. Contrast with image File:Mirena_IntraUterine_System.jpg where the same uploader is also the author (no issues with that image)
    gloecknerd is Hic et nunc's old username. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:Endometriosis,_abdominal_wall.jpg - Uploaded by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Patho but author is "Ed Uthmanf". Probably not the same person? License is ostensibly Public Domain, but I'm not seeing any proof that author provided PD license. There is an external link given: https://web2.airmail.net/uthman/specimens/index.html but that is a dead URL. It would have been nice if the contents of that link were replicated in the Commons page.
    I've added the archived website, which indicates PD. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:InVitroFertilization.jpg Commons page says: "US Government Owned Photo", which is an odd phrase to use: it should say the photo was taken by US govmt employee as part of their govm't job. So that is suspicious. Also, URL to source of photo is dead: https://www.cdc.gov/art/key-findings/icsi.html
    So, here I'm least sure. I've added the archive link. It's on a CDC website, without any extra information. Can I assume that images follow the standard free government licence? I imagine they'd have to explicitly say it's under a different licence than the rest of the website? Or not? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File:John_A._Sampson.jpg This image is using template Template:PD-US-expired which, I believe, requires proof that the image was published (in some book, newspaper, etc) before 1931. I don't see the proof of publication in the Commons page. External link in the commons page is https://books.google.de/books?id=oOMtsFlgoqkC&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false but that is a modern textbook.
    I looked into this in response to a message on Discord. The image was published as early as 1930, which makes PD-US-expired correct. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images are okay. Four images (above) require some more clarification. Can you look at those images and let me know if more information is available to clarify their free-to-use status? Thanks!
  • Alt text:
    • Caption: "The light red cyst in this trichromatic color MRI is an endometrioma." - that alt text is "Four MRI images of ovarian cysts. The MRI image distinguishes fat, water, blood, and blood products and therefore shows the endometrioma in a unique colour." Which is not correct. That image was cut-out of a larger image that did have 4 images.
      Fixed. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several of the alt texts mention colors e.g. "yellow-white abdominal wall with dark spots". The alt text is aimed at blind or visually impaired users of WP that are using screen-reader apps, and naming colors is not super useful within alt text. Not a show-stopper for FAC, but in future articles, consider focusing on the shapes & textures that relate to sense of touch (irregular, round, smooth, rough, etc).
      I've fixed it for that one. To me colour can make sense as many folks with screen readers or slow internet connections do have a sense of colour. But will keep in mind to only include it when it really adds value. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text missing from image with caption "Assistive reproductive technology like IVF can help with fertility in endometriosis."
      Added. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. Ping me when you've considered the above. Noleander (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. Rationales provided for the four "questionable" images are all satisfactory. Pass this image review. Noleander (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Disclaimer: This is a topic which has to be assessed against the rigorous WP:MEDRS rules which I am not an expert of. 74, 118 and 127 might not be medical claims but I am not sure that NPR and Guardian are the best source for them even so. Same issue with VICE. Why does Guardian needs an ISSN anyway? I am not sure that doi:10.1073/pnas.1516047113 is a MEDRS-compliant source, seems a bit too primary research. Ditto doi:10.1080/0167482X.2020.1822807, doi:10.1002/sono.12521, doi:10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.7.745 and doi:10.1186/s12958-025-01421-z. Source formatting seems consistent but I didn't check that closely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments Shushugah

[edit]

~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

USS Anzio (CVE-57)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Stikkyy (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

USS Anzio was one of the fifty Casablanca-class escort carriers built for the U.S. Navy during World War II. She had a distinguished, but unheralded career during the Pacific War, supporting the island-hopping campaigns and hunting submarines. This article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review, and I believe that it is now ready to undergo the FAC process. This is my first FAC nomination, so robust scrutiny is both warranted and welcome. I disclose that I am registered in this year's WikiCup, although I have not been a very active participant. Stikkyy (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by JacobTheRox

[edit]
  • All 11 images are in the public domain because they were produced by in-service navy officials.
  • The last image hangs over into the next column for me, which then makes the table thin. Consider adding a {{clear}}.
  • I removed the last image, it didn't seem to be adding much.
  • All captions correctly formatted
  • Correct grammar in alt text "An aircraft carrier at sea with both aircraft elevators are depressed."
  • No other issues I can find
  • Image review is a  Pass

Other comments by JacobTheRox

[edit]
  • Currently your end has:
Lvl2 "Notes"
Lvl2 "References"
Lvl2 "Sources"
Lvl3 "Online sources"
Lvl3 "Bibliography"
Semi-colon "Military documents"
This makes no sense to me – the use of a semi-colon as a section header is proscribed and if bibliography is for books, shouldn't it be its own lvl3 anyway? And why is it called "bibliography" while only including books, not "Book sources" to match the other headings?
  • The cost is only in the infobox; please add it to the actual prose itself. I would also add {{inflation}} with it so we know how much it is today.
  • That is all for now, I look forward to hearing your response.
  • P.S. My article Robert Jacomb-Hood is at FAC at the moment; please do consider dropping by!
Should all be resolved, I'll get around to your FAC ~soon. Stikkyy (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A.Cython

[edit]

An interesting article of an aircraft carrier during the WWII. As a non-expert on the era, I only have some minor comments.

  • where her aircraft were replenished perhaps aircrafts?
  • Aircraft is the plural form.
  • another group of an estimated 30–50 Japanese planes were "were" → was (you are talking about a single group)
  • in-between remove dash
  • was attached with "with" → "to"
  • hardpoints which could mount "which could" → that
  • wikilink: torpedo bomber first appearance is at the end of "Design and description" section, consider moving it
  • wikilink: squadron (at "Design and description") → squadron
  • wikilink: West Coast as it can ambiguous in its meaning (though it is clear if one reads the text), e.g., West Coast is a disambiguation page
  • Perhaps splitting "Okinawa and post war" into two sections? The section felt a bit too long (6 paragraphs).
    • The same applies for "Typhoon Cobra and Iwo Jima"
  • Consider moving the two figures below the infobox per WP:SANDWICH: a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween im­ages, in­fo­boxes, or sim­i­lar tem­pla­tes hor­i­zon­tally op­po­site each other.
  • For clarification, are you referring to the two images under "Gilbert and Marshall Islands" or the action report images?

A.Cython(talk) 00:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your points. Stikkyy (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti

[edit]

Swinging by after Stikkyy's hard work on the FAC I nommed. I'll make a few comments here and there over the next couple days. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The caption for the photo Anzio in Shanghai's waters says it was the first American carrier to visit the city. This is not mentioned in the body and is unsourced in the caption.
  • Info moved to the body, backed by DANFS.

Pbritti, are you still planning on conducting a review? Stikkyy (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Another courtesy ping, it's OK if you're just busy elsewhere. Stikkyy (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Stikkyy: Deepest apologies. I've had extremely little time to devote to thoughtful editing and I'm incapable of providing an FAC-quality review. My best wishes on the rest of this review. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Parsecboy

[edit]

Some general comments to start:

  • The box is too bloated; remember that the point of the box is to summarize the topic of the article at a glance. There's a tendency to assume that because a field exists, it must be filled. What, for example, is the significance of including Martha Richards Fletcher? She's not a notable individual, and the reader is not helped to understand the ship by this detail. Similarly, the laundry list of engagements and operations is excessive.
  • I've cut out some content.
  • There are too many images and they are not well arranged; on my display (which is admittedly fairly wide), there is a lot of white space between the last two sections of the article. The Turkey Shoot maps could be put into a gallery to save space, for example.
  • I arranged the action report images into a gallery, do you think that I should keep trimming?
  • This looks much better
  • There are a few dupe links
  • Are you referring to the wikilinks? I've removed one duplicate, but I think that it's OK to have items wikilinked once in the lead, and then again in the body.
  • The Babcock & Wilcox boilers are still linked twice, once in the design section and again in the construction section
  • Good eye, is there a tool that could help me with spotting these?

Design/Description section:

  • The first paragraph assumes too much background knowledge on the reader. Why is the Battle of Atlantic and "the U-boat threat" relevant to this ship?
  • Cut
  • No, I meant it needed more explanation, not to be removed. We do want to put in context around why this ship was built, and the Battle of the Atlantic was one of the main reasons the Navy ordered scores and scores of escort carriers. Take a look at SMS Prinz Heinrich (currently at at FAC, if you'd like to review it), which provides a good bit of detail on why the ship was built and what it was intended to do. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a background paragraph, but I don't think that I can add too much to this–the escort carriers were born out of the necessities of WWII, and became obsolete just after it, so there's not really any predecessors or successors to draw comparisons to.
  • This looks good, along with a minor tweak for clarity. Nice work on the article!
  • It is stated that the expected complement is 27 aircraft, but then lists a breakdown that amounts to 30 - are 3 of these spares? And if so, this should be explained. Note the table at the bottom provides a maximum air group of 27
  • Specified, Chesneau & Gardiner were referring to a 1943 air group while Ross was listing a 1944 air group.

Construction:

  • The {{inflation}} calculator should use the US-GDP parameter instead; the government does not buy warships the same as you or I buy milk and bread ;)
  • Done

Service history:

  • There are cases where the text strays onto other topics. A couple of examples:
    • "702 men, including Rear Admiral Mullinnix, were lost with Liscome Bay, which remains the deadliest sinking of a carrier in the history of the United States Navy.[22] With the death of Mullinnix, Captain Roscoe Leroy Bowman, the commanding officer of Corregidor, temporarily took charge of Carrier Division 24" - what is the relevance to Anzio here?
  • Cut
    • A beacon was dropped at the submarine's approximate location, and Lawrence C. Taylor, guided by the beacon and her sonar, let loose a full Hedgehog barrage at 11:40. This triggered two massive underwater explosions about 1,000 ft (300 m) below the surface that knocked out power to Lawrence C. Taylor's sonar and caused her some engine room damage. Robert F. Keller followed this up with another Hedgehog barrage, but this proved to be unnecessary, as the former contents of I-13 surfaced. - more excessive detail that could effectively be summarized as "the destroyer Lawrence C. Taylor sank the submarine."
  • Also cut

Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: I've responded to your points. Stikkyy (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Should be done, I'll get to your FAC soon. Stikkyy (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Compliance with MOS meets FA expectations.
  • Citation format/layout/uniformity meets FA expectations.
  • Prose, overall, is professional and meets FA quality criterion.
  • Bold text: "...receiving the hull symbol CVHE-57. .." I'm not familiar with navy articles ... is the boldface correct?
  • USS Anzio (CVHE-57) is a valid redirect, but if it's just the hull symbol, maybe it's not needed.
  • Air pressure: "At the height of the storm, Anzio recorded a reading of 28.88 in Hg (978 mbar) in pressure and encountered winds that reached an estimated 120 kn (140 mph; 62 m/s; 220 km/h)." Readers will be familiar with wind speeds IRL; but for the air pressure, 99% of readers won't have any idea of the significance of "28.88 in Hg". Consider (a) removing that fact; or (b) explaining its significance in body text or footnote.
  • The anemometer was blown off, so the barometer was the only accurate instrument for assessing the height of the storm.
  • Per MOS:CAPFRAG captions:
    • "The view from Coral Sea, 17 June 1944." probably should not end with a period. Needs a verb to have a period.
    • "A TBM-3E Avenger lands on Anzio, 20 May 1945". Should have period.
    • "Anzio in Shanghai, 1 December 1945." probably should not end with a period.
  • Not all readers know that word: "... word that she was renamed to Anzio, after the eponymous battle, ... Consider removing "eponymous" replacing with link to the full battle name. Currently, it looks like the author of the article is trying to show off their vocabulary :-)
  • Not my intention, I swear! :)
  • Cite for data undelying images: Coral Sea's action report depicting the engagements from 17–19 June Readers should not have to click thru to the image page in Commons to discover what the source is for those images. Consider putting a cite/source in this article for the source of those images.
@Noleander: Thanks for the review, I've addressed your points. Stikkyy (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Noleander (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

zzz plant

[edit]

Hi! Nice work on the article. I'll do a prose review. Feel free to push back on anything you don't agree with. This is not my area of expertise so also take my notes with a grain of general reader salt :-) Zzz plant (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
  • would tweak one of two first sentences of second para so it doesn't echo the [In month year] pattern
Design and description
[edit]
  • "During the first six months of the Second Happy Time, over 2,000,000 tons of shipping were sunk off the Eastern Seaboard by German submarines." I'd put this in active voice, like "German submarines sank over 2,000,000 tons of Allied shipping off the Eastern Seaboard in just six months."
  • "The 1942 escort carrier program had already called for the conversion of twenty-four hulls into escort carriers, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed that more were needed to stem the loss of shipping." suggest "The 1942 escort carrier program had already called for the conversion of twenty-four hulls, but President Roosevelt believed that more were needed to stem the loss of shipping."
  • "declared that he desired" feels unnecessarily wordy, would suggest simplifying to something like "backed" or "selected"
  • similarly, "Although Kaiser wished to build not less than a hundred of the design, an order of fifty ships was placed." suggest something like "Although Kaiser proposed building at least a hundred ships, the Navy ordered fifty."
Construction
[edit]
  • this section does read a bit dry and sparse on details. if sources allow, a bit more color here would be extremely helpful. was the ship launching ceremony reported in the papers? and with the renaming, I assume naming a ship after a recent big victory would be quite a morale boost, but it sounds more like a simple bureaucratic move from the text.
Gilbert and Marshall Islands
[edit]
  • "...began, commencing..." reads repetitive to have synonyms next to each other
  • "sortied" I think a wikilink could be added here
  • "Just 76 hours later, Tarawa and Makin had both been captured." Tarawa wasn't mentioned up until this point?
  • "Furthermore, the three escort carriers of Carrier Division 24 were plagued by accidents that killed four airmen and six deck personnel..." feels a bit breadcrumby, as I read I just want to know more- what kind of accidents?
  • Noles p.66, p.78, p.82 capture some of the accidents on Liscome Bay in detail, but the causes of the accidents (engine failure, engine failure, tail hook malfunction respectively) seem disparate (hard to capture in summary style), and not of particular interest to an article about the carrier itself.
  • I believe 23 should either be spelled out or reworked to avoid a figure at the beginning of a sentence, per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • what is the Coral Sea's war history document? If this is an official document of some kind I feel like it should be capitalized and/or italicized in full
  • at beginning of last para there are three "conduct-" in close proximity, would try to swap/remove at least one
  • "En route on 25 February, Coral Sea and Corregidor were both recalled to Pearl Harbor." because of the bombing? or were they just generally called back as a matter of routine
  • Almost certainly because resistance on Eniwetok was collapsing, but the (primary) sources don't say that.
Solomon Islands and New Guinea
[edit]
  • I don't feel a strong sense of continuity/transition between the end of the last subsection and the beginning of this one. I'm not really sure how we ended up here
  • "Her aircraft commenced strikes on D-Day, 22 April, but found little opposition." I'm not sure I fully follow this- I would have guessed finding little opposition during a military operation would be a good thing, but the "but" to me implies it's a negative or unexpected outcome?
Mariana Islands
[edit]
  • "...Coral Sea arrived at Kwajalein on 8 June, which served as the staging point..." it sounds like the date is a staging point because of the placement, suggest "...arrived on 8 June at Kwajalein, which served as..."
  • assumed Kantai Kessen was a person until clicking link, I think this could be solved by glossing briefly as something like "Imperial Japan's naval doctrine"
  • the narrative in this section is particularly strong; there's dates/times but it still feels like a very cohesive and engaging story
Typhoon Cobra
[edit]
  • "Anzio held sea trials off the California coast before setting off for the western Pacific on 16 September with 71 aircraft and 200 passengers embarked." this is a pretty dense topic sentence, and to me "passengers" kinda implies they were not involved in the military operations described, which seems strange if true.
  • "slim pickings" sounds informal to me
  • "By the next day, a 2 mi (3.2 km) wide oil slick covered the area." if sources permit, it would be nice to make it a bit clearer that this strongly implies the submarine was destroyed
  • "Accentuating the crisis, as the weather continued to deteriorate on 18 December, Admiral Halsey made a series of blunders that maneuvered his fleet directly into the typhoon's core." this feels a bit wordy, would simplify to something like "As the weather continued to deteriorate, Halsey made a series of blunders that steered his fleet directly into the typhoon's core on 18 December." also, fwiw I'm very curious as a reader what kind of blunders he made!
  • "When Halsey called off the search..." would swap for "By the time Halsey called off the search..."
Okinawa
[edit]
  • "...radio traffic was fielded to mimic Halsey's fleet..." fielded feels like a strange verb choice here, is this military-specific vocab?
Post-war
[edit]
  • "She sailed for Guam on 19 August, where she unloaded VC-13 and took on Composite Squadron (VC) 66." Idk what unloaded means in this context, and it feels weird to define an acronym after it's already used (if they refer to the same VC?)
  • first para has four Septembers in four consecutive sentences which feels a bit repetitive
  • maybe the sources don't explain so I'm not suggesting synth, but if context exists it would nice for narrative to briefly explain why the ship went through some of these post-career milestones: decommissioned, mothballed, redesignated, then struck
  • Decommissioned and mothballed because they couldn't support modern aircraft, particularly jets. Converted to helicopter carriers, based on the example of Thetis Bay, if they were ever going to be put back into service, it would be with helicopters (which does neatly align with FDR's original intention), since the Bogue-class was more economical for aircraft transport. Struck because they were no longer useful.

@Zzz plant: I've responded to your suggested changes. Stikkyy (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzz plant:, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, I'll get back to this one tomorrow! Zzz plant (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just have a few more comments from a second read-through. Zzz plant (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After an overlay at Pearl Harbor..." should this be layover?
  • would remove "Unfortunately" per MOS:EDITORIAL, suggest something like "However, the rendezvous point lay directly in the path of Typhoon Cobra"
  • "...while Anzio was taking on aviation fuel from the Cimarron-class oiler Caliente, a pair of fuel tanks ruptured..." is there a way to re-word this so it's clearer which ships had the ruptures?
  • "Anzio's ship's history records her crew's claim that she was the "only ship to relieve the entire Task Force 38."" couple things: the double possessive trips up the flow and "records" can be read as a plural noun rather than verb, suggest something like "The ship's history documents (or recounts? notes?) the crew's claim..." I also wondered about MOS:CLAIM- is it meant to signal doubt, or is this more of a colorful perhaps tongue-in-cheek characterization? to my uninformed self, it sounds unlikely that a smallish carrier could literally replace a full fleet.
  • I'd consider swapping whence for where. whence is correct but it sounds notably more formal/archaic compared to the rest of the prose
  • post-war section is going in the right direction - adding that Casablanca-class carriers had become obsolete helps explain decommissioning/mothballing - but the flow still feels a little compressed. I would try to smooth the sequence out. and wonder if "On the 19th, she headed to the West Coast to join the Operation Magic Carpet fleet, arriving at San Francisco on 30 September." could be glossed, I was familiar with the operation's concept but it doesn't instinctively track to me that for a mission to retrieve a bunch of American military personnel, they'd be arriving in SF. and the para break between that and the follow-up feels a bit odd.

@Zzz plant: Thanks for the input, can you take a look at the result? Stikkyy (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The post-war section looks great- engaging and clear narrative for a general reader, "why"s well-integrated with "when"s. I made one small verb tense adjustment, but feel free to revert if you disagree. I support on prose. Zzz plant (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Conways is actually a collection of individual chapters written by a variety of authors. The US chapter is written by Norman Friedman.
  • The DANFS articles on CG-68 and CVB-42 are signed at the bottom. He should be added as the author to both cites. More after dinner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

USS Missouri (1841)

[edit]
Nominator(s): GGOTCC 15:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first American warship named Missouri. While the most obscure USS Missouri, this frigate brought the Navy kicking and screaming into steam era, and both established and legitimized the roles of engineers throughout the fleet...before one of them dropped a wrench, destroyed the ship, and nearly got everyone killed. Regardless, Missouri and her sister are officially considered to be among the most impressive early engineering feats in US naval history, at least according to the Navy in 1937 and a mosaic which depicts the six ship classes that hold the title. I was also motivated to write this article after meeting the US Navy's Curator of Models. We worked together to identify a bunch of old ship models, and we had to rely on Wikipedia to identify some of the most difficult. Since the US is shockingly underrepresented in the list of FA/GAs on Wikipedia, I wanted to change that and improve the copy+pasted entries from the US Navy's website with legitimate articles. Additionally, this ship holds a special place in the lore of US Navy engineers. Now that I am finally in college, this article feels appropriate for my first FAC and second A-class.

GGOTCC 15:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Paddlewheel_frigate_USS_Mississipi_abeam.tiff is missing a publication date
  • File:Caleb_Cushing.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
@Nikkimaria Thank you for the review! I added the publication date (1853), author's death (1896), and rescued the link. GGOTCC 04:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TIFF files are not to be used for display in wikipedia articles, please see c:COM:TIFF. Consider converting the file to a png or jpg. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC: given that you have not uploaded a PNG conversion, I have done it myself at File:Paddlewheel frigate USS Mississipi abeam.png. Please replace the TIFF with the PNG version. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33 Hello, thank you! I was looking into ways to convert the image without having to redownload it and upload it again, but this would do! GGOTCC 18:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

[edit]
  • Can you specify which Congress ordered it? I'm pretty sure it would've been the 25th United States Congress
    • I am not sure if any of my sources specify, but I will check
  • Under "Development and design", [Secretary of the Navy] [James Paulding] is an MOS:SOB violation
    • Done
  • "Brooklyn" -> "Brooklyn, New York" for consistency
    • Done
  • "Washington D.C." -> "Washington, D.C."
    • Done
  • "Norfolk to Fayal in the Azores" where are these places?
    • Specified Norfolk Virginia and Fayal Island
  • Under "Service history", [ship of the line] [HMS Malabar] is an MOS:SOB violation
    • Done
That's what I found ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 20:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, @Olliefant:! GGOTCC 20:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 21:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A.Cython

[edit]

Overall, a great article. I enjoyed it as it is also related with the societal resistance to new technologies.

Prose

  • Three steamship were → Three steamships were
  • officers that outlined → officer who outlined
  • main difference between the ships were change "were" → was
  • an audit lead by change "lead" → led
  • axillary power and → auxiliary power, and
  • which was already add comma before "which"
  • A boat from Gibraltar crewed by convicts and → A boat from Gibraltar, crewed by convicts, and (add commas)
  • US Navy Charles Copeland, and were built → US Navy, Charles Copeland. They were built
    • Thank you! I made these changes or redid the prose to flow better.

Other

  • 568,806 is this today's money? If not wouldn't be useful to have a note to the corresponding value of today's money? see example
    • Good point! I added the inflation template in the prose.
  • routine maintenance.[17] is the citation needed here since it also at the end of the paragraph
    • The two sentences ("Captain John T. Newton... routine maintenance") are cited to ref 17, while last sentence ("Her arrival marked...when she arrived") is cited to ref 17 and 15. I did not want to overcite as ref 15 is only for one part of the last sentence.
  • Her chief engineer Her? not clear
    • I swapped it to mention the ship's name
  • Range 20 days of coal Range typically means distance, I do not know what 20 days means in terms of distance. I found it a bit confusing. A.Cython(talk) 03:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am open to changing this, but none of the sources provide a range, as the frigate was never intended to have a maximum distance like later warships. Instead, everything focused on the number of days the engine could be kept running.
    • Thank you for the feedback, @A.Cython:, it is much appreciated! How does everything look now? GGOTCC 04:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Support: Thank you for the making the changes and providing a clarification about the range. I am not an expert on ships, so I do not have strong feelings about it. Happy editing! A.Cython(talk) 14:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I reviewed at GAN and did a source review at ACR so I might not have much too add, but I will take a look. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • " disrupted the traditional conservative zeitgeist throughout the Navy" - this is a bit nit-picky, but I'm of the view that it's generally bad for readability to be including obscure words that we have to link (here zeitgeist) when there are plenty of other, more plain speech, words that can be used which will actually be more understandable to the majority of readers
    • I am a bit surprised to see "zeitgeist" considered obscure, but I see your point. I swapped it with mindset.
  • "named after the Missouri river. " - shouldn't "river" be capitalized? "Missouri River" as the name of the place is a proper noun, and using Missouri as an adjective here doesn't really make sense because a lot of the river isn't in Missouri
    • Capitalized the R
  • I believe the correct form is "Paixhans" not "Paixhan"; this isn't a plural, rather the designer's last name included the trailing s
    • Good point, thank you
  • "and cost US$568,806 equivalent to $17,752,252 in 2025." - I'd put the inflationary conversion into parentheses to improve reading clarity
    • Done. I forgot I can do that outside of the template
  • " known as the "Dark Ages"" - known as this by whom?
    • Several of my books use the term, but I removed it and reworded the sentence.

This is my third time reviewing the article, so I'm not surprised that I don't have much to add here. Hog Farm Talk 00:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting for the content review part. Hog Farm Talk 01:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Some books have publisher locations; some don't, even when available. There should be consistency.
    • I am going through each ref and seeing what else can be added
The first one I checked showed a missing location which is available - Kinnamann 2022. (Wilmington)
  • Several works lack identifiers when they are available. Eg the ISBN for Dulles is 9780404022167, the OCLC for Bennett & Weir is 1435130402 etc.
    • Same as above
  • "an engine producing 9 knots". An engine doesn't produce speed. Suggest rephrasing.
    • Changed to 'output' in both instances
Which gives "an engine that output 9 knots". Save objection, an engine does not output speed (eg knots).
Developed?
  • "... the three masts were located unevenly on the hull. Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, they were inefficient while under sail." With the information spread over two sentences it is not clear that you mean that the masts were inefficient. (I assume that is what you mean?) And how can a mast be inefficient? Suggest rephrasing.
    • How is "Due to the position of the engine and funnel, the three masts were located in unconventional locations on the main deck. Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, the design was slow while under sail"?
  • "Below the gun deck was the berth deck." Which was what? Bearing in mind that MOS:NOFORCELINK states "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
    • I added a clause defining the berth deck
  • "800 tons of coal for 20 days of steaming." At what speed? And is it known what range this gave the ship?
    • In this era, the unreliability of steam engines made it hard to measure speed and range in the modern sense. As a result, the period of time a steam engine could be operated was the goal. I can check again, but none of my sources specify.
  • "Below the berth deck was the tween deck and hold". Is this two separate decks, one split into two parts, or one named "the tween deck and hold"?
    • Two decks. I reworded the sentence to separate the two
  • "Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship USS Mississippi." Is it known in what way her interior was superior?
    • The source only specifies a rug and headboard in the captain's quarters, but also generalizes about the entire ship. A previous comment during the A-class review removed both examples for being very limited in scope and requiring knowledge about what was normally in a captain's quarters, but I can re-add it.
  • "During the trials". During what trials? They have not previously been mentioned. And what are "trials"?
    • The trial run with Mississippi mentioned in the previous sentence. Should this be more clear?
  • "and did not return until next April." Return to where?
    • Added mention it was regarding Washington DC
  • "the Home Squadron, which complained about". A squadron cannot complain. A person can, such as the commanding officer or the senior supply officer. Or, in more general terms 'complaints were made' or 'which elicited complaints' or similar. Were these formal complaints made to someone? Or more in the way of intra-squadron grumbling?
    • How is "which elicited complaints"?
  • "with unclear terms and protections." What are "protections" in this context?
    • I reworded the sentence to emphasize terms of service and job security, although the source referred to protocols protecting the engineer's jobs
  • "the US Consul to Gibraltar and the governor of Gibraltar, Sir Robert Wilson." 1. Why the lower-case g but an upper-case C? 2. This reads as if Wilson held both positions.
    • Changed to upper-case Governor. I added a comma, but am unsure how to further designate the consul and governor being two different people.
  • "The men planned to stay ashore". What men? Only one person has been mentioned as going ashore to this point.
    • Cushing and Newton, mentioned in the previous sentence. Is this unclear?
  • "Her arrival marked the first powered crossing of the Atlantic by an American warship and was applauded by British sailors when she arrived." This would fit better as the second sentence of the paragraph.
    • Great idea!
  • The paragraph commencing "At 7:50 pm" uses "then" five times. This is not flowing prose.
    • I removed most of the uses of "then".
  • "To protect the ship's alcohol amidst the chaos, a sentry was posted outside the storeroom." To protect it from what? Catching fire? How would posting a sentry do this?
    • The source does not say. I'd assume it was to prevent the seamen from pillaging the spirits, but I am not sure at this point.
  • "Cushing traveled East on land to reach China." Why the upper-case E?
    • Changed to lower case
  • "Missouri's chief engineer was also court-martialed and was suspended for one year, although only eight months were served before he was relieved." I don't understand this - "relieved" usually means relieved of command, but how could this happen if he were suspended from service?
    • I tried to not repeat two things in a row, and has changed it to, "although only eight months were served before the punishment was likewise remitted."
  • "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, steam engines were only to be used as axillary power, and that every use needed a justification." 1. "that doesn't make sense in this sentence. 2. "every use" of a steam engine, or every one fitted in a naval vessel?
    • I am confused on your comments. What does not make sense? The Secretary of the Navy only had authority over naval vessels. I reworded the sentence to, "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every use of a steam engine aboard warships required justification, as they were intended only for auxiliary power in an effort to prioritize sail." Does this work?
  • "The Steam Navy of the United States states there were three boilers, while The Destruction of the U.S. Steam Frigate Missouri at Gibraltar and The Old Steam Navy states there were four; the latter specifies that the boilers were arranged in pairs." This needs appropriate citations.
    • Would I need citations if it is the three sources cited in that sentence?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that looks good. I have a couple of comebacks, but unfortunately real life means that it may be a while before I can get to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, do you have any further comments? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I notice this is still listed as needing comments, so will chip in a few, trying not to step on Gog's much more knowledgable toes above:

  • Being very nitpicky, note A needs a citation.
    • Done
  • Her introduction helped legitimize the role of engineers and disrupted the traditional conservative mindset throughout the Navy: I'd like to know a bit more about this, even in the lead. I don't immediately see how "her introduction helped legitimize the role of engineers" would have worked -- did they advocate for it? Have a lot to do with building the ship? Presumably lots of them were needed to operate it?
    • While I believe the issue is addressed in my response to the next point, Missouri was involved in a scandal that lead to an engineer-lead engineering corps
  • Similarly, "disrupted the traditional conservative mindset" -- I'm not a huge fan of "traditional" (as a wise person pointed out, all traditions are invented, and usually more recently than we think). Presumably the US Navy wasn't a particularly conservative institution in 1794, and that's only 50 years previously. I'm reminded of the British military joke that the Army has traditions, but the RAF is only old enough to have habits. More seriously, I note that the "traditional" idea isn't found in the body, where we present this as the result of a few specific senior officers having a conservative outlook (any names? Paulding wasn't an officer).
    • Both of these points are very enlightening. I changed the lead to focus on the modernization of the Navy rather than the mindset.
  • spilled turpentine ignited a fire: did the turpentine ignite the fire? As we find out later, it was the turpentine that was ignited, by a lamp.
    • Reworded to "spilled turpentine ignited"
  • Despite an international firefighting effort, her captain judged it futile: this isn't quite grammatical (what's the antecedent of "it"?). Suggest "An international team attempted to fight the fire, but her captain judged the effort futile..." or similar.
    • Good idea!
  • Per WP:ISBN, we should use the ISBN-10 printed on the book rather than calculating a 13-digit one for those who don't have them: that's most books published before 2007.
    • Think I got them all
  • Endash, not hyphen, in title of Canney 1990.
    • Done
  • who vowed to never, "See our grand old ships: as we're running the sentence straight into the quote, I don't think we want the hyphen or the capital letter (the latter is normally used when the quotation is a full sentence -- this isn't).
    • Fixed
  • the floating battery Fulton.: would "floating artillery battery" help clarify what this is? I was at first picturing a very large device to store electricity.
    • "floating battery" is a specific technical term. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but is there any way to pad it out with anything that might help the non-expert understand it? Google Books has plenty of hits for "floating gun battery", "floating artillery battery", and similar. "No" may be a perfectly good answer here, and to be honest it's not particularly important given the context that the reader understand exactly what sort of ship we're talking about.
        • Changed to "floating artillery battery"

UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC) More to come. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first group was composed of line officers who outlined the capabilities they would like in the vessels: similar to "floating batteries" above -- I know that "line officers" is a term of art, but it's also pretty obscure and open to misinterpretation (something to do with telegraphs? Ropes?). Is there a way to rephrase or buttress it? Unlike the floating batteries above, here it does matter that readers understand what these people did for a living.
    • I am thinking of a better term. A line officer is an officer in charge of a combat unit. Compared to officers that may be engineers or surgeons, "line officer" identifies their role clearly. The sources do not mention who they were, so I can not name them.
      • You could keep it and do e.g. "line officers (that is, officers serving in combat roles)", or paraphrase to something like "officers serving in combat posts". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to line (combat) officers, but I do not see the need if it is wikilinked.
          • MOS:NOFORCELINK: if we can, we should avoid having readers follow links to find out information necessary to understand the article. Primarily, it's best to have all the information necessary to understand a piece of text within that piece of text; a lesser but important concern is that some people print articles or otherwise can't follow the links at all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Excellent point. How is adding "(naval officers who lead warships)"? GGOTCC 07:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Would that not imply that they commanded them -- is that accurate? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, that is a better word! Thank you GGOTCC 06:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Is it definitely true (and supported by the source), though -- were all of these people the commanding officers of individual ships, as opposed to either more junior combat officers or commodores/admirals commanding larger formations? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          That is a very good question. None of the sources specify who the line officers were besides nor the positions they held. The only person named was Matthew C. Perry, who played a role in both roles and related bureaucratic proceedings as he was managing a shipyard at the time. This confusion was a factor in why I initially only used the term "line officer". Do I also need to cite the definition now that it is in the article? GGOTCC 06:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          We need a definition that matches the term in the source. If the article defines it, we can use their definition or paraphrase an equivalent; if it doesn't, we need to define it based on what the term is likely to have meant to the author. What we can't do is give it a definition that's more restrictive or different to what the source actually allows us to say, and "line officer" does not generally mean "commanding officer of a warship": all of the latter are line officers, but not all line officers are the latter. In terms of citing that definition: in most cases, we allow uncontroversial definitions to go uncited (there's no specific policy for this, though), and sometimes expect citations when the term is very obscure or being used in an unusual way (for example, when arguing that it had a specific meaning in a specific time period). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          I have no reason to believe the source uses a different definition, but at this point, including the definition seems to do more harm than good. GGOTCC 01:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Then we need to rework: we can't have a phrase that is opaque and necessary and still meet FACR 1a. If the way we've constructed the article makes an explanation unwieldy, we need to revise that construction. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          AH! The Steam Navy of the United States uses the term "commodores" . This is a rank of senior officer. Would this term work better? GGOTCC 02:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Sounds good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Great! I just added it now. Was there anything else? Thanks for all the help, UC! GGOTCC 02:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • engineers and constructors who analyzed the officers' request and developed specific instructions required to build the duo.: requests, surely?
    • This was brought up during the A-class review. I think request is correct as it was one description for the ships, but the description contained multiple points. I am not that sure myself.
  • ocean-going steamships equipped with 10 guns, provisions to supply a crew of 200 for two months, and enough fuel to power an engine producing 9 knots (17 km/h; 10 mph) for 20 days: if we're doing 9 and 10 in figures, we may as well do 2 (MOS:NUM).
    • Done
  • Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, they were inefficient while under sail: this seems a bit confused: the masts were inefficient when the ship was under sail? Surely we mean simply that the sails didn't power the ship very efficiently?
    • Good idea, I reworded the sentence to make it clear that the sails were inefficient due to the mast locations
  • the engine located amidship: the link here is to amidships. Is there a difference? The latter seems to be more common.
    • In my experience, Americans spell it with only one S, as I pronounce it as "amidship". There is no difference beyond spelling,
  • double return copper boilers: compound modifier: double-return.
    • Done
  • Missouri's engines were designed by principal engineer of the US Navy Charles Copeland: this is clunky with such a long title: suggest "the principal engineer of the US Navy, Charles Copeland".
    • Changed to "Missouri's engines were designed by Charles Copeland, the principal engineer of the US Navy"
  • She was laid down at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York sometime: comma after New York to balance the one before. The same, later, with and sailed to Washington, D.C. for a trial run and ran aground off Port Tobacco, Maryland on 1 April. There are a few more.
    • I believe I have gotten all of these
  • She was laid down at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York sometime in 1840 and launched on 7 January 1841 and cost: a bit breathless with the "and ... and"
    • Removed two instances of 'and'
  • US$568,806 (equivalent to $17,752,252 in 2025: round for sig figs.
    • I can not see an option to add sig figs for the inflation template. Am I missing something?
    I see, thank you! I have done that just now. GGOTCC 06:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • for a trial run along with Mississippi: when was Mississippii built and commissioned? We say this for Missouri, but I can't find it for the other ship. We should at least mention that it was built first, and I think it would be good to give the date of commissioning somewhere.
    • I added more information on their construction, and a timeframe for when Mississippi was commissioned
  • to transport US Minister to China Caleb Cushing to Alexandria, Egypt, as the first part of his voyage to China, where he was to negotiate a trade treaty with the Daoguang Emperor: I may not be a great geographer, but I'm struggling to follow the logic here. Was he due to get the train from there, or wait for another ship? We might say something like "en route to China" rather than calling this part of the voyage to China.
    • I changed the mention to, "trip for China". Per the article later on, the plan was to take another ship from Suez to reach China. For some context, the US lacked major ports in the Pacific, so it was easier to sail around the world with easy access to ports and coal.
  • The crew then manned pumps, hoses, and bucket brigades: I'm not sure you can man a bucket brigade: I think you have to form or organize one.
    • Changed to organized
  • To protect the ship's alcohol amidst the chaos: this is a bit mealy-mouthed: presumably his job wasn't so much to protect it (prevent damage to it) as to prevent the crew from taking advantage of the chaos to steal it?
    "A sentry was placed over the spirit room." from this article while discussing the crew's response without further elaboration. Since a sentry guards against unauthorized access, I assumed it was to prevent sailors from stealing the alcohol for themselves. GGOTCC 06:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be tempted just to cut "to protect..." and amend "storeroom" to "the room where the ship's supply of spirits was stored" ("alcohol" could theoretically be stuff for wound-cleaning that nobody would drink; "spirits" can't). "Storeroom" clearly isn't right, since the source doesn't say that the ship had only one of those. That way, we don't need to go beyond the source or set ourselves up for difficult questions we can't answer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea! I will do that now GGOTCC 01:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the afternoon of 25 August: I would restate the year here, as we're starting a new section that's fairly likely to be one that people click down to from the ToC.
    • Done
  • as Missouri's crew was pushed towards the bow and stern.: I think were works better here, as we're talking about individual people rather than a group acting (or being acted upon) as a coherent whole.
    • Done
  • Congress budgeted $60,000: inflate, as we did before.
    • Done
  • steam engines were only to be used as axillary power, and that every use needed a justification: their every use or every use of them. Can we explain exactly what we mean here: did he issue an order that captains needed to justify their use to... whom, exactly? Or simply that did he create doctrine that sails should be used unless there was a good reason to turn on the steam engines?
    • How is "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every use of a steam engine aboard warships required justification, as they were intended only for auxiliary power in an effort to prioritize sail."
    Hmm...I struck that mention and replaced it with, " Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every warship was ordered to be fitted with sails and the development and use of steam engines were severely limited." How is this? GGOTCC 07:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely an improvement. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note C could do with references.
    • I will remove it entirely
  • Note 4 and 19 (possibly more too): check capitalisation and punctuation in title.
    • Fixed
  • Personal preference, maybe, but I would capitalise the first letter of e.g. "Newspapers.com".
    • I removed the Newspaper.com mentions entirely
  • Note 1: year only in the date field. Ditto for Note 8?
    • This issue was for every time I cited Steam Navy, which I now fixed
  • I notice Bolton's first-hand account in the Further Reading -- we haven't mentioned him at all in the article. Should we?
    • While one of my sources refers to Bolton's account and includes a summery, nothing else mentions Bolton's role or the book. Nothing besides his description of events is that notable IMO, and the other sources already provide that information.
  • Thank you for the insightful feedback, @UndercoverClassicist:! Sorry for only getting back to you now, I had finals to get through. I believe I have incorporated all of your feedback. GGOTCC 01:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

Just a prose pass alongside the existing reviews.

  • Service history: The engineers were paid less then their civilian counterparts — "then" should be "than".
    • Fixed!
  • Development and design: In the stern was the officer's quarters — should be "officers' quarters" (plural possessive, as the quarters housed multiple officers).
    • Thanks!
  • Development and design: In front was the engine located amidship — "in front" of what? The preceding sentence describes the stern. "Forward of the officers' quarters" would be clearer, and would avoid the colloquial "in front".
    • I added fowards

Spot-checked the Naval History and Heritage Command (DANFS) source against the article's claims about the commissioning date, grounding off Port Tobacco, deployment to the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic crossing. All supported. No other concerns beyond what Gog and UC have already raised. Metalicat (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Metalicat, thank you again for the review! Just to confirm, do you support the nomination? GGOTCC 14:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @GGOTCC:. Support on prose, structure and the Manual of Style.
One small thing remains from my third point, which RoySmith has also picked up: Forwards was the engine located amidship still reads awkwardly, since "forwards" and "amidship" pull against each other and it is not clear forward of what. Forward of the officers' quarters was the engine, located amidships or similar would resolve it. Not a condition of my support, just worth tidying alongside Roy's comments. Metalicat (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Metalicat! I made the change now. Since RoySmith's feedback is so detailed, I am going in order to make sure I do not skip any, but fixed this one since it was raised twice. GGOTCC 02:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

[edit]

Aza24 requested my thoughts on some of the sourcing of this article, particularly the heavy reliance on the 1912 Proceedings piece by Farenholt and potential institutional connections between the USNI and the Navy. I thought it would be best to respond here so that the comments are more visible for FAC reviewers and coordinators:

The 1912 source is from Proceedings (magazine). Naval History Magazine is a similar thing from the same publisher, but with a somwhat different focus. Naval Institute Press is also part of the United States Naval Institute. The Naval Institute is officially independent from the US Navy, although it does have some ties to the Navy. It has published some quasi-official works such as Morison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II but is an academic source. I would only be considered about the independence from the subject for a USNI work if the author had a close connection, or the work was discussing a recent or then-current topic (for instance, Morison with WWII being too close to the events to really be able to discuss certain classified matters, or potentially embarassing matters such as the possibility that Norman Scott (admiral) was actually killed by friendly fire). In this case, from quick searches I can't find any connection between Farenholt and the discussed wreck; this should really just be treated like any other older academic journal article. I haven't immediately seen anything that would indicate detailed significant scholarly coverage of this wreck since then other than the Cressman article.
The book by Howard I. Chapelle is also older (originally published in 1949) but represents a major piece of scholarship). My go-to work for early US naval steam technology is Canney, which is appropriately relied upon. Canney notes "The most telling evidence of this inattention is seen in the paucity of literature on the subject of early naval steam vessels compared to the numerous books on both the sailing ships of the navy and the modern steel warships." Canney goes on to describe Bennett 1896 as "The nearest approximation to a study of the ships of the steam navy" but also states it has "serious shortcomings". Canney seems to view those shortcomings as being related to a perceived lack of comprehensiveness, insufficient focus on the ships' "sailing qualities, hull designs, or construction" as well as the "small format and primitive photographic reproduction methods", rather than issues with factual accuracy. (all quotes from p. xix). I am not familiar with Kinnaman's biography of Lenthall or Vernon Press but didn't see any obvious red flags during the ACR source review.

My one question would be regarding the inclusion of Weir as a co-author for the Bennett book - from what I can tell, Weir's participation is limited to the suspected production of an older satirical piece called "Uncle Samuel's Whistle and What It Costs" included by Bennett as Appendix C. Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hog Farm, thank you for the wonderful input! I'll throw in my two cents as well, although it is finals week and I am pressed for time.
The United States Naval Institute (USNI) is independent from the US Navy, although they do overlap. Currently, USNI resembles a think-tank for conferences, essays on naval policy, news site, and book publisher. In my opinion, USNI's book publishing arm is the most extensive and reputable publisher for American naval history. As a member myself, Proceedings is a collection of essays. Even today, authors are very critical of naval policy and Proceedings is no means a propaganda arm, with USNI News often being one of the first to report on the latest naval screwup.
Somewhat recently, Naval History was stood up as an independent magazine and contained historical articles that would have previously been published under Proceedings. While I do rely on the historical articles from USNI, I have found no significant faults in the text. Missouri was destroyed nearly 180 years ago, and there is not a significant number of modern sources on her destruction as they would all ultimately repeat the same claims.
Ammen C. Farenholt wrote his 1912 article when he was a surgeon, and there is no reason to believe he would be biased in describing the events. The ship was destroyed more than 70 years prior, and I struggle to imagine someone wanting to suppress information about the event. Even if that were the case, none of the other sources differ in the cause of the fire or related events. To address @Aza24:'s concern, the only sources from the US government I cite are:
  • The Evolution of Ship Naming in the U.S. Navy, which defines the meaning of "USS"
  • Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered, which is used to mention what was the last sailing warship in the Navy
  • The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), which I wrote an essay on here. While DANFS is biased, I primarily use it to discuss the location and task of the ship, which the source excels in as it is drawn from government documents.
GGOTCC 21:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the well reasoned thoughts above. The rationale for the 1912 source's independence is well heard. However, I am still a bit concerned about its age.
Do no better sources for the 1912-sourced content exist? I can understand when old sources are used in one-offs, maybe out of necessity. But to see nearly nine references covering large swaths of text, all from a source 100+ year old? That is difficult for me to understand. Aza24 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Cressman's An Ornament to the Navy was published 100 years later in 2012, and also by USNI. I also cite this profusely, but Farenholt is more detailed in how the crew responded to the fire while Cressman gives more context to the ship and the cleanup efforts. In fact, several sections are only cited to both, and I struggle to find a more modern source that includes the same details. I believe Farenholt used A Narrative of the Last Cruise of the US Steam Frigate Missouri for some of the details, but that book was published in 1844 and was a first-hand account of the accident. I am not drowning in modern, reliable, sources about a 180-year old naval accident, hence my reliance on more dated articles and books. GGOTCC 02:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 do you have any further comments or queries? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator's explanations make sense to me. Aza24 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Clarify: "She was assigned to the Home Squadron, which elicited complaints about her high cost to coal and operate." Can you add some words to tell the reader: Who was complaining? Why was the high cost of coal significant here? If there is something significant behind the complaint, then elaborate on it.
    • The source does not elaborate, but the coal of coal was relevant as she was one of the first steamships to deploy (and thus need to be supplied with goal). I would search for anything that gives more details.
  • ".. to witness a test run of Missouri with her new funnels. The trial was a dismal failure, and Thompson successfully blamed..." Consider expand "trial" to "trial run". Lay readers may get confused and think a legal proceeding was involved.
    • Good idea, I switched the terms out
  • Quote not needed: "While otherwise similar, Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship USS Mississippi." In general, most text in any encyclopedia article should be in the encyclopedia's voice. Quotes should be used sparingly, and only for good reason. Consider replacing that quote with prose in the encyclopedia's voice. Alternatively: if that quote is special somehow (e.g. spoken by a very important person) then explain to the reader why the quote is important (e.g. name the speaker).
    • I am quoting the book, but I will put it in enclopedic voice.
  • Suggest add link to Caleb Cushing in image caption: "Caleb Cushing; his voyage to China was the motive for Missouri to sail to the Mediterranean." Not required for FA. But many readers glance thru articles, and some focus on images: may as well help those readers quickly find more about the subject of the photo.
    • This is done for an earlier image, so I see no reason not to
  • Ditto for caption " ....The crew of HMS Malabar (left) ..." link to HMS Malabar (1818)
    • Done
  • Inconsistent use of publisher location/city. (Did another reviewer mention that above?). RefCheck tool shows 8 books name city, and 13 do not. All books (or none) should have the city.
    • My understanding was to list the city when the information is known, but I do not object to removing it all.
  • Source Dulles, Foster Rhea (1930). The Old China Trade. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. p. 194. ISBN 9780404022167. has an inconsistency: year is 1930, but books did not have ISBNs back then. The book has had a few reprints/editions over the years. The reprint/edition identified in the article should be the precise one the nominator read. If you read the IA edition at https://archive.org/details/oldchinatrade00dull then year is 1930 and ISBN should be blank/omitted. If you read a post 1970 reprint/edition, then an ISBN can be included, but you need to update the year to the reprint year (and also specify "orig-year=1930"). I see a 1974 reprint at google books with ISBN 9780356047553. Which is weird because 13 digit ISBNs did not arrive until 2007.
    • Struck the ISBN
Looks great! Support on prose and MOS. I have not scrutinized images or sources. Noleander (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stikkyy

[edit]
  • Per Template:Inflation, For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich, the US-GDP or UK-GDP indexes should be used, which calculate inflation based on the gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States and United Kingdom, respectively.
    Thank you for fixing the issue, Stikkyy! Your implantation makes much more sense than the documentation. GGOTCC 02:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paulding only became Secretary of the Navy in mid-1838, casting him as the face of the anti-steam resistance seems a bit unfair?
    • I do not see how? He was Secretary when Missouri was ordered, and his opposition played a part in Congress's push for modernization.GGOTCC 02:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • James K. Paulding was the Naval Agent in New York in 1824–38, a civilian role, not a commissioned one. I read the section, and it seems to me that it's trying to give me Paulding as one of the conservative senior officers, when he wasn't for most of the 1830s. If Paulding was the impetus for Congress ordering Missouri, then that seems like a factoid worth including in the article. Stikkyy (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        You make a fair point. While I believe that Paulding counts as a, "conservative senior officer", the wording should be more clear. Do you think Another opponent to steam power was James Paulding, the Secretary of the Navy, achieves this more effectively?
Yeah, I think that would be better. Stikkyy (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! I just made the change now. Thanks again! GGOTCC 02:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC: Looks good, save for the quibble above. Stikkyy (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speeds could be reconciled, listed as 9 knts in infobox and body (for 20 days), 10 knts in body, Copeland says she reached 14 knts top speed during trials but 8 knts cruising?
    • Thank you for pointing this out; I added the cruising and top speed to the infobox.
  • How is 26–27 August calculated? As I read it, she blows up on 26 August and her wreck burns for six hours after that, not enough to reach 27 August even in Auckland.
"At about 8:05 [on the 25th], a boatswain's mate on the gun deck spotted flames emerging from the forward hatch and yelled, 'fire!' " ... "At about 2 am the next morning, Missouri's forward magazine detonated, obliterating the bow as the wreck continued to burn for another 6 hours." Does that explain things? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's not 27 August, is it? Stikkyy (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It now says 25-26 August GGOTCC 02:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the Legacy section should be tied specifically to Missouri.
Hi Stikkyy. I am not sure what you are getting at here. Any chance you could unpack that comment a little? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph is talking about Constellation and the (delayed) adoption of steam ships by the Navy, with little direct connection to Missouri. Stikkyy (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I forget where it is written, but a FA should give the reader a wider understanding of the topic at hand. Previous reviewers have mentioned an abrupt end, so I figured a paragraph focusing on the Navy's continued quagmires with steam engineering would be beneficial. GGOTCC 02:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I won't press on it. Stikkyy (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stikkyy (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Stikkyy (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Let's see if we can move this off the bottom of the pile ...

  • In the lead, ordered by Congress in an attempt to force the fleet to modernize ... part of an effort to force the Navy to modernize Avoid repetition about forcing to modernize.
    • I removed the second phrase and focused more on the controversy with Thompson in the lead section
  • Another opponent to steam power was James Paulding The use of "another" implies another person. Here you're comparing "conservative senior officers" to "James Paulding, which really doesn't work.
    • Stikkyy raised a similar issue. Would "An additional" be better phrasing?
  • specific instructions required to build the duo I don't think the use of "duo" is wrong per-se, but it seems like an odd word choice. Maybe "build the two ships"?
    • Since "two ships" is repeated several times, I changed it to "vessels"
  • equipped with 10 guns, provisions to supply a crew of 200 It would be good to compare this to a traditional design. How many crew would it take to man a 10-gun sailing ship?
    • This is a good point. While none of the sources on Missouri draw a comparison, I added a footnote comparing her to the brig Truxtun of 1842. The answer is 80
  • enough fuel ... for 20 days It seems odd that you would carry 2 months of provisions for the crew but only enough fuel for 20 days. This could do with some explanation.
  • and a barque rig with 19,000 square feet (1,800 m2) of sail This is confusing. I thought they were building "ocean-going steamships", but now it sounds like they're doing some hybrid sail-steam design? This needs explaining.
  • After the two boards met, they agreed to only build two steamships I had to search backwards to understand the "only build two" reference, so I suggest reminding the reader here that Congress had wanted three.
  • enough space for the engines, coal stores, and provisions Ah, I was wondering what fuel they were using. I think you should mention earlier that they were coal fired.
  • all ten guns were kept on the open gun deck You link to Gun deck which says that only enclosed decks were called gun decks. It might be worth a quick explanation about the discrepancy.
  • The hulls were made of live oak Why was this particular kind of wood used?
  • In the stern was the officers' quarters, "were", plural.
  • Forwards was the engine located amidship if it was "forwards", it wasn't "amidship". Perhaps you mean "forward of the officers quarters"?
  • In front of the engines was the enlisted quarters again, "were", plural.
  • I'm curious about the location of the engine. I would expect it to be mounted on the lowest deck of the ship, for stability reasons. Is there anything which explains why it was not?
  • 10-foot (3.0 m) stroke and 62-inch (160 cm) deep cylinders I don't understand what a "62-inch deep cylinder" is. How do you get a 10-foot (120 inch) stroke in a 62 inch cylinder?
  • The engines turned two 28-foot (8.5 m) tall, 11-foot (3.4 m) wide paddle wheels that developed 517 indicated horsepower I'm not an expert in these things, but to me it makes sense that the engine is developing that power, not the paddle wheels, so this is kind of confusing.
  • There were 21 paddles on each wheel; every paddle had a length of 6 feet (1.8 m) and a width of 3 feet (0.91 m). I don't get how this works. If the paddles are 3 feet wide, how can the wheels be 11 feet wide?
  • Construction of the ship was awarded to Samuel Hartt at his shipyard where was this yard? Was it part of the New York Navy Yard, as the following sentence suggests?
  • (equivalent to $16,790,000 in 2024) this would be easier to read as "$16.8 million"
  • a top speed of 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph), although she cruised at a speed of 8 knots are these under power alone, or a combination of sail and power?
  • She was eventually freed and reached ... Move this sentence to be immediately after the one about running aground.
  • Of the 200 crew, do we know how that broke down to people tending the machinery vs people tending the sails? Or did the same crew handle both?
  • Thompson successfully blamed Haswell for the poor performance good to see that transference of blame was as much a part of history as it is today.
  • to transport US Minister to China Perhaps just an accident of how the line was broken on my screen, but I originally read this as transporting somebody to China. Could it be rephrased to make this more clear?
  • She then sailed from Norfolk, Virginia, to Fayal Island in the Azores, where she coaled before proceeding. It would be good to state the distances of these legs (in nautical miles) and the average speed she made over the voyage.
  • The entire ship's complement of 384 reconvened on Malabar previously we were told she had a "complement of 226 sailors and officers".
  • At about 2 am the next morning you don't need to say both "am" and "the next morning".
  • the sailing sloop was built as a cheap and economical replacement for the sailing frigate USS Constellation. I had to read this a few times to understand that new ship was replacing an older one of the same name. I'd be explicit about that.

OK, that does it for a first reading. RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't usually comment on reference formatting, but what you've done is kind of weird. You have, for example, four entries in your reflist for Canney, Donald L. (January 1, 1990). "Harbor Batteries to Frigates, 1815-1840", each one citing a different page. You've done the same for a few other sources. I don't know if that's strictly disallowed, but it's certainly unusual and WP:IBID suggests not doing that and gives three acceptable alternatives. My personal preference is {{rp}}, but lots of FA authors use WP:SFN. RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats...a great question. I certainly agree that short citations would be better, but my experience with previous GA reviews is that I should not change the citation style at will. This is the citation style the article had before I started editing, so I stuck with it. (I am just replying here as I work on the above feedback). GGOTCC 04:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1360839511"