Wikipedia:Featured article candidates Information

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Fallout (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 ( talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Fallout is a role-playing video game released for the PC in 1997 by Interplay Productions. It was a critical success and was praised for its unique setting and gameplay. The game was quite pivotal in the history of role-playing games, as it was one of the games credited for renewing interest in role-playing video games when the genre was dying off in the West. It spawned a series that still remains famous and successful to this very day. The current year is 2022, making it the 25th anniversary of Fallout. I plan to make this today's featured article on October 10, 2022, to celebrate this anniversary. I have worked on this article since April 2021 and made a successful good article nomination in July 2021. I returned to improving this article further in March 2022 upon realizing that this year is the 25th anniversary. It has received a peer review and a copyedit from WP:GOCE. I now believe it is ready for a featured article candidacy. Feel free to leave down any comments pertaining to the improvement of this article in preparation for featured article status. Lazman321 ( talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Image review—except for the one I removed, the images look OK ( t · c) buidhe 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comment about comprehensiveness from Shooterwalker

I made some comments at peer review, and this article has come a long way in terms of its writing. But thinking about the comprehensiveness requirement under WP:FAC, I think the legacy section omits the influence of this game on other games. For example, Assassin's Creed Odyssey cites this game as an influence on its open world design (which is impressive considering the decades separating the two games). There's even more influence on contemporaries like Neverwinter Nights 2. A game like this has almost endless influence, which can be a daunting task to document and verify. But I think with a little bit of effort you could cover the broad strokes.

  • One strategy is to use the search engine at WP:VG/LRS to look for sources that are about other games, but decide to name drop Fallout.
  • Another strategy is to check the Wikipedia articles listed under "what links here", and look for articles about other games that might have a verifiable link to Fallout.
  • One last strategy is to check the List_of_video_games_considered_the_best#cite_note-183 and look for comments that further describe how this game is influential. This article already mentions them in the context of awards and accolades, but I think the same sources also have something to say about the game's influence on the RPG genre and the whole medium of video games.

I don't know if I will have time for a more thorough review, but based on the peer review, I think the prose is well on its way. Shooterwalker ( talk) 23:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Done: I have added more games to the legacy section. Your second suggestion was really useful for including more games that were influenced by Fallout. I would have never thought to use it, so thank you. I didn't include Assassin's Creed Odyssey however. This is because the interview listed in the article seems to be talking about the series as a whole rather than the original game; the in-source mention linked to Fallout 4. I wanted to mostly include games that were either influenced by the first game itself or the classic games. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Fair point about Assassin's Creed. The one-sentence list is a decent start, I think that readers would be interested to know where the influence is between these games. For example, was it the open world level design? Quest design? Skill system? It deserves at least a full paragraph, to really drive home what aspects of Fallout are part of its enduring influence. Especially if someone like Warren Spector had something to say about Fallout directly. Shooterwalker ( talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Comment: If you are asking me to go through each game and describe how Fallout influenced them, I don't think that's necessary. There already is a paragraph in the legacy section dedicated to what aspects of Fallout were influential, which I think is sufficient. Besides, most of the sources do not mention how Fallout influenced them exactly, including the Warren Spector source. Detailing the ones that do would probably be adding undue emphasis on trivial details. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

DWB (Placeholder)

I'll aim to look at this in the next few days. Anyone else that wants to jump in before me feel free. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Quick comments from Spy-cicle

Unfortunately I will not have the time to undertake a full review though I do have a few quick comments.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Is there a specific reason why there is no gameplay screenshot?
  • I am not sure why what appears to be the WP:OFFICIAL name Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game and retronym Fallout 1 are tucked away in an efn. I can understand why tucking away minor stylisations may be worth putting away in an efn (e.g. Red Dead Redemption 2) but putting the official name is an efn seems to be against MOS:LEAD.
  • The official name does not appear in the body once as well.
  • Per WP:VGBOX "art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture." The current box art uses logotypes could probably be replaced with a logoless one [1].
  • Chris Jones is linked in infobox but is a redirect
  • Citations should be cited in order (e.g. [10][18][24] not [24][10][18])

Oppose from Ovinus

The article seems reasonably comprehensive (although I know little about video games) but the writing needs a thorough copyedit. In particular, there's a fair amount of flowery language (e.g., "became incredibly successful, both critically and commercially"; "the first game in the series to sell incredibly well was Fallout 3"; "which contained multiple possible settings to play with") and vague language (e.g., "the inhabitants will be immersed in dilemmas"). I would suggest going back to peer review, and I would definitely review in-depth there. And since it's a relatively popular article, I'd be willing to undertake a copyediting effort in due time, if you would like that. But I can't support the article in its current state. Ovinus ( talk) 06:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Herman the Archdeacon

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about a man who did not have a Wikipedia article until recently even though he was important enough to have an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article. Once I got into it, I found him a fascinating character. Mike Christie and Tim riley have given helpful feedback at Peer review. Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Support. Another fine article; I didn't have much to say at the peer review and have nothing to add now. How many Anglo-Saxon kings do you have left to bring to FAC, by the way? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Many thanks Mike. There are 9 Anglo-Saxon kings to go and 3 Danish. However, that includes Alfred the Great, which I have so far copped out of as it is such a mammoth project. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Image and source review—pass
  • Heavy reliance on Licence, but it looks like that's the main source that exists. I assume that the page numbers in Roman numerals are citing the introduction. No source checks done.
  • "Herman the Archdeacon... was probably born in Germany." The first sentence of an article usually summarizes the subject's importance. I would shift the birthplace information to the second paragraph and then add a paragraph break before "Herman was a colourful character". ( t · c) buidhe 22:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Herfast came into conflict with Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds Abbey over" - comma needed after Abbey
  • "Lanfranc, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent an" - need a comma after Canterbury
  • "sent an angry letter to Herfast, demanding [....] and concluding by demanding" - any way to avoid using "demanding" twice in the same sentence?
  • "according to Licence, "was to" - there's no closing quote mark later in this sentence, so it's unclear where the direct quotation ends
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Support from Tim riley

The few quibbles I had were thoroughly dealt with at the peer review, and on rereading the article I can find no more to carp about. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. A good read, well and widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive (as far as a layman can judge) and pleasingly illustrated. I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 20:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Shaylee Mansfield

Nominator(s): Pamzeis ( talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Shaylee Mansfield... she hasn't been around for very long and is probably younger than most of us. So Mansfield began appearing in viral ASL videos as a child and received some media coverage. In 2016, she starred in a viral Disney Parks ad. She became an actress after appearing in films like Noelle with Anna Kendrick and Feel the Beat with Sofia Carson. She has also made a request to Instagram that garnered coverage from Slate, MIT Technology Review and CNET. And finally, this year, she became the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the voice actors in an animated production... at 12 years old! This article passed a GA review earlier this year by Mujinga and was peer reviewed by Aoba47. All (constructive) comments welcome! Pamzeis ( talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


  • "As of 2016, Shaylee attends a deaf school" - 2016 was six years ago, so this should be in the past tense
    • Done
  • "Because of the earlier relationship between Mansfiled" - spelt wrong
    • 💀
  • "the first-such credit" - that hyphen should not be there
    • Removed
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Thank you so much! Pamzeis ( talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


  • "ASL" is not repeated again in the lead. Do we need to define the acronym?
    • Removed
  • "Mansfield has a younger sister named Ivy, who is hearing" — I feel the wording is a bit odd, though I am not sure.
    • Assuming you're talking about the bit after the comma, it's not odd to me and is the same as saying "who is deaf" (grammatically, not in definition). I googled the phrase and found a few reputable sources using the phrase
  • "E! said: "We can't" — Optional suggestion. A cable channel does not say, though it issues statement.
    • Revised
  • Citations for Filmography? Most of the films are mentionned and cited in the prose, but Role needs citations. It would be better, I think, if you could add citation for individial films (as done in various other filmographic FLs)
    • IMO, it's not necessary except for uncredited roles, but I added refs anyways.

Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Responded to your comments :) Pamzeis ( talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Very happy to support this article! Do you know any other FA promoted when the subject was this young? But that should not be an issue. In my opinion, this article meets WP:FA?#1e. If you have time and inclination, would appreciate your review for any of these articles. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 16:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thank you for your help! Pamzeis ( talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Bryce Dallas Howard

Nominator(s): BattleshipMan ( talk) 15:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about an American actress and filmmaker, who is the daughter of director Ron Howard. She is most famous for her role as Claire Dearing in the Jurassic World trilogy. It has potential to be FA candidate. I did some edits on it to help improve it and I had WP:GOCE clean up the grammar and flow of it had it FA criteria. BattleshipMan ( talk) 15:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review

Everything looks good here for the most part. I'd just recommend adding ALT text to the images in the body of the article, expanding the caption for the infobox image, and re-examining the dead source/author link for the one image mentioned above. Once that is all done, this would pass my image review. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I'm no picture expert, but I think you're right about what you said about the images on that article. Someone will need to do that. BattleshipMan ( talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

I have some concerns about the article’s comprehensiveness. There are aspects of her public image that are missing in the section. For example, Howard has been occasionally called an “it girl”. I would also like to see some information about the reception to her acting overall and her working method. Such commentary is not always available, especially for young actors, but given Howard’s experience industry, I assume there is some.

I am not sure if these points are worth opposing over, but it’s definitely something that needs to be addressed if this FAC is considered for promotion at some point. Since this nomination is relatively new, I think this research can be done within the scope of FAC. I don’t expect there to be a section with large paragraphs in Howard’s case. I might help you later find some sources regarding this as and when I have more time. FrB.TG ( talk) 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I hope you will have to time for everything you just said. BattleshipMan ( talk) 18:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I wouldn't entirely rely on me for this though. Given that you are the expert on Howard's biography, it's likely that you would find (or possibly did find) such information more easily than me. My time on Wikipedia these days is limited and almost exclusively devoted to expanding another actor's article. FrB.TG ( talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Daglish railway station

Nominator(s): Steelkamp ( talk) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This is about a small railway station in Perth, Western Australia. With not much changing about it since it was built in the 1920s, it is quite a short article. With eight railway station good articles, I figured I must get at least one as a featured article, to make sure I'm getting the structure and everything else right. I have used the feedback given to me by my eight station good article reviews to improve this article to hopefully make this my first featured article. I look forward to receiving feedback Steelkamp ( talk) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

To address some comments I will probably receive, I will say this:

  • There are no patronage figures more recent than the ones presently in the article.
  • The government has not yet announced a specific date for the opening of the Airport line.

Steelkamp ( talk) 14:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review—pass ( t · c) buidhe 06:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

  • Coords given in title line and infobox are unnecessarily precise. Suggest using something like -31.9518, 115.8134 (conversion into DMS is fine)
    • Done.
  • Island platform can be linked
    • Done.
  • operated as a parcel's office - "parcel office"? Maybe in Australian English it would be "parcels office"? Not sure, but in any case I don't think it's possessive.
    • Source is inconsistent between parcels office and parcel's office, so I chose parcels office.
  • Suggest piping "accessible" to Accessibility (i.e. handicapped-accessible) given that it is ambiguous
    • Done.
  • Could use a footnote about when "peak" is
    • I've linked to peak hour, which I think hour or rush hour is sufficiently understandable to readers. I won't want to go more specific than what I've done because: A. timetable changes that happen every few years could slightly change the start and end of the 10 minute frequency period; and B. I don't want to violate WP:NOTGUIDE by having the service information too detailed; and C: 10 minute frequencies start in one direction before the other direction.
  • Pipe "public holidays" to Public holidays in Australia
    • Done.
  • Suggest removal of comma after 4.9km/3mi
    • Done.
  • It is between Railway Road to the south-east and Stubbs Terrace to the north-west. - This reads as a bit confusing to me.
    • Reworded that sentence.
  • Last comma in first paragraph of "Description" is extraneous
    • Done.
  • Fremantle should be linked
    • Done.
  • What is a "platform face"?
    • Changed wording to platform edge, hopefully it is clearer now. The reason I make the distinction between platform edge and platform is because the PTA numbers each platform edge as its own platform. So this station has a platform one and a platform two. You can see what I mean by looking at the infobox image.
  • "Bitumen" should be "asphalt" as I understand it, but there are apparently ENGVAR differences there; From what I understand it's still "asphalt" in Australian English?
    • Done, it appears you are right.
  • Suggest piping pedestrian subway to Subway (underpass)
    • Done.
  • Is the number of parking spaces in the lot necessary information?
    • I think so. It conveys the sort of station it is. A station with 58 bays is different to a station with 500 bays. It implies that the station is more walkable than a large park and ride station.
  • We have mentioned the lack of tactile paving three times now, once in the lede and twice in the body. Suggest removing one, probably the first one in the body as it's not placed with other accessibility-related info
    • Done.
  • Suggest de-linking siding in favor of linking "turnback siding" to the more specific pocket track
    • Done, didn't know that was an article.
  • ...has capacity for five trains per hour, and so an additional turnback will be needed... - Suggest removing the "and" after the comma
    • Done.
  • Premier James Mitchell, Minister for Railways John Scaddan, and Mayor of Subiaco Walter Richardson - There are three Seas of blue here
    • I've changed this so there is no longer a sea of blue there. The source only actually mentions Walter Richardson by name so I've removed the names of the other two there.
  • "Northwest" is not hyphenated, but in other places in the article directions like this are hyphenated.
    • Done.
  • station's parcel's office - Same question as above
    • Done.
  • Services on the Fremantle line were restored on June 23 per our article on the closure, so suggest "It re-opened on 29 July 1983 after services on the Fremantle line were restored."
    • It appears that article was wrong. I couldn't find any sources which say 23 July, but I could find many that said 29 July. Other than the ones in the article, there are these: [2] [3] [4]
      • Interesting - I see you've corrected the article. Thank you!
  • served by the Airport line when that opens -> "served by the Airport line upon the line's opening" or something similar
    • Done.
  • Same suggestion as above for peak footnotes and linking public holidays
    • See above comment about peak.
  • If night service is only half-hourly or hourly, suggest including that in the lede as service info is presumably some of the most important for travelers at the station today
    • Done.

Overall a solid article prose-wise. Best of luck on your first FAC! AviationFreak 💬 21:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Thanks for the review AviationFreak. I've addressed all your comments. Steelkamp ( talk) 06:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • This looks good, and I was definitely getting a bit close to NOTGUIDE with the footnote suggestion. All concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Support on prose.


  • "who was a mayor of Subiaco, member for the electoral district of Subiaco and premier of Western Australia in the 1900s" - I would change "a mayor" to just "mayor" to be consistent with the other two (both in the lead and body)
    • I decided to do the opposite and changed "member for the electoral district of Subiaco, and premier of Western Australia" to "a member for the electoral district of Subiaco, and a premier of Western Australia". This is because it wouldn't be grammatically correct to write that Daglish was member for the electoral district of Subiaco.
  • Tactile paving is linked in the lead but not the body
    • Done.
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Thanks, let me know what you think after the changes I've done. Steelkamp ( talk) 17:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments Support from TAOT

Hi Steelkamp! Thanks for nominating this article. I will leave you some comments within 24 hours. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • In general, please check for compliance with MOS:DATECOMMA. For instance, Opened on 14 July 1924, should be Opened on 14 July, 1924.
    • I believe that only applies for MDY dates, not DMY dates. See examples at MOS:DATE.
  • There is a car park on both sides of the station, Should this be "There are car parks on both sides of the station"?
    • I agree. Done.
  • Nice work on the photos. Overall this is very well done. I will add a few more nitpicks but overall you are quite close to FA status at present with this article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Airport line, Perth gives a starting date of "By 30 June, 2022." I suggest being more specific in this article than "the first half of 2022" as we are already 5 months into 2022.
    • There have been recent reports of delays. Now the government is saying it will open "later in 2022". I have changed the article accordingly.
  • The Public Transport Authority (Western Australia) was formed in 2003. Who owned the station before that time? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Added a footnote.
  • Rail yard can be linked.
  • Daglish station underpass entrance is not a very descriptive caption. I suggest expanding upon it a bit more. Not something I am dead set on being a requirement for FA but I believe it's worth considering.

That's all I have. Happy to support once these two comments are addressed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Ok, what do you think now. Steelkamp ( talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I can't think of anything else. Happy to support at this time. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Cedar Hill Yard

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This is my second nomination of this article. My first nomination last year, while garnering 3 supports, was failed over text-source integrity concerns, and my reaction to this was less than ideal. I gave it 4 months to cool off, and have since performed a major check for this issue and made numerous corrections. The article itself is about a rail yard in Connecticut, which once held the title of the largest such facility in the United States east of the Mississippi River. Today it is much smaller, but remains the largest rail yard in Connecticut. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • It appears you forgot to transclude this to the main FAC page. I did that. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    That's what I get for starting a FAC at almost midnight my time. Thank you for catching that! Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments from AviationFreak

  • Classification yard is linked twice in the lede (once as "humps"). Check article thoroughly for other duplinks.
    This is true, but the link written as "humps" is to a specific section of the article. Not sure how best to handle this. Hump yards probably deserve their own dedicated article but that's a project for another day. Does this still count as a violation of duplink? If so, I can remove it, but I believe retaining it provides relevant information to the reader. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    This is fine to my eyes - DUPLINK is written in terms of "generally", and I think IAR would be well-applied here as it is legitimately beneficial to the reader. AviationFreak 💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • To my eyes some of the commas in the article are extraneous (e.g. last comma in the first paragraph), but I am personally particularly picky about this and not even sure that my reading is the "correct" one. Wouldn't worry about this unless other editors say anything.
  • Our article on Selkirk Yard states that it was built in 1924 and was merely rebuilt in '68.
    Yes, the rebuilding in 1968 was what led to Cedar Hill's decline. All mentions which implied it was newly built have been edited accordingly. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Why were the Mott Haven workers striking?
    You mention this right below, but the claim is that they were striking just because other workers were striking at Mott Haven. The strike did indeed end within 2 days after it began Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    My question concerns the actual Mott Haven strikers themselves though - Why were they striking? I thought it might be helpful to have a phrase about why the strike took place to begin with. AviationFreak 💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • ...beyond sympathy with the Mott Haven strikers. - This should be "sympathy for the Mott Haven strikers."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest linking Switchman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest linking Brakeman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest linking Flagman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Love the inflation templates, but for values this large (especially when spelling out "million" for the original value) I would recommend using {{ Format price}}. Documentation on this here.
    I spent about 15 minutes trying to figure this out and I have had no success. I could just write them in plain text, but that loses the ability to quickly update the inflation end year in the future. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I can't get this to work properly. It seems so silly that I can't figure out something this simple but here we are. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • no fewer than seems overly editorialized to me
    Yeah, I can see how that could come across that way. I've removed that phrase. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest changing ...allowed for fewer workers... to "...required fewer workers..."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Specify whether 91,000 t is long or metric tons
    That's metric tons. The conversion template uses "t" for metric tons. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • ...resulting in the hills... -> "...creating the hills..."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Hyphenate battery powered
    Done. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • the entire United States -> "in the United States"
    Word removed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Is the detail that the towers were labeled A through D really necessary?
    Probably not. Ironic that I'm the first to delete things from articles for being too much detail. I've removed this detail and merged the sentence with the one following. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Link PA system - Odd to me that suckh a system would be called public address when it's used for apparently private communication, but I see that's what the source says
    Linked. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly why they say public, but that's what the source used. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • U.S. Senate can be linked
    Good catch. Done. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • ...New York governor Malcolm Wilson... is a sea of blue. Suggest something like "...Malcom Wilson, then the governor of New York..."
    I see what you mean about sea of blue. I could change it to "Despite a directive from Malcolm Wilson, the Governor of New York, in September of that year to reopen the bridge, the bankrupt Penn Central failed to do so." but I'm not a huge fan of how this sentence reads now. Would "Governor Malcom Wilson" with governor piped to Governor of New York work? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • department of transportation can be linked
    Replaced with Connecticut Department of Transportation. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Connecticut Department of Transportation really ought to be linked
    This has been done. Specifically where it just said "the state's department of transportation" I specified we are talking about CTDOT. No reason to link to both the concept of a department of transportation and specifically CTDOT in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Gotcha. The first use of the phrase was lowercased when I reviewed and I figured you could link to both the concept and CTDOT if you wanted to. This works fine though and tbh I think most readers either know or can infer the function of a DOT as a concept. AviationFreak 💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest linking Railroad ties
    Linked at first mention in the body. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Risley's Bridge is brought into the article without much context; if it is just a bridge in Berlin, CT, suggest just saying "a bridge"
    I suppose naming the specific bridge isn't necessary. I've changed it to just "a bridge". Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest linking trap rock
    Linked. It's such a commonly known term in this area of CT that I forget it's not common in most places (fun fact, the image used in the trap rock article is in New Haven, Connecticut, but a few miles from Cedar Hill Yard). Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • ...illegally disposing the mercury... -> "...illegally disposing of the mercury..."
    Done. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest linking lead paint and asbestos
    Both linked. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The proposed Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel in New York City would result in more usage of Cedar Hill Yard. - This probably needs attribution
    One of the sources definitely directly makes this connection, I need to go through and check which one and then attribute it in-text. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    The "Rail Freight In The Housatonic Region" reference is the one that gives this idea. On page 28 of the PDF: "Advocates for the project in Connecticut suggest that Cedar Hill Yard in North Haven is well positioned to provide intermodal services to take advantage of this new connection, as intermodal sites in New Jersey are operating at capacity, and there are limited sites in New York available for new facilities." I've added a citation from this to the following sentence, as it supports both sentences. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Sorry to hear about the bad experience at FAC earlier with this article. I had a similar experience; hope this nom goes better! AviationFreak 💬 22:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review

  • File:New Haven Alcos at Cedar Hill 1949 postcard.jpg, File:New Haven EF4 locomotives at Cedar Hill Yard 1964 postcard.jpg — how is it known that the first publication of these images was without copyright notice?
    User:Pi.1415926535, the uploader of these images, will likely have the answer to this question. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    For postcards that aren't an obvious reprint of an earlier postcard, it's vanishingly rare for it not to have been the original publication. I can count on one hand the number of times I've found a postcard where the photo had been previously published. While it's difficult to perfectly eliminate any possibility of previous publication for any images under this license, I see no reason to suspect previous publication (and thus license issues) with these specific images. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Other image licensing looks ok ( t · c) buidhe 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


Ref Text cited Probable ref text Comments/Fixes
6 "In 1914, the New Haven added electrical catenary to the yard as part of its electrification program; operations with electric locomotives began in October of that year." No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Nothing tying this event to 1914 or October
25 "Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated by a New Haven Railroad spokesperson to cost up to $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed" No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Cite 25 was also used. From the AP; the wire service should be mentioned. Integrity good
4 "The strike came to an end on November 23." I am paywalled out, but things seem good
42a "Penn Central was merged into Conrail in 1976, along with many other bankrupt or troubled railroads in the Northeast, making Conrail the yard's new owner beginning in April." "Since April, ConRail [...]" Article does not mention the conrail creation
42c "Conrail also rebuilt and reopened several tracks in the yard that had been out of service due to their unsafe condition, a consequence of deferred maintenance." deferred maintenance is not mentioned
42d "The railroad projected it would spend over $3 million (equivalent to $4,800,000 in 2021) on repairs between the two yards; Conrail's Northeast Region general manager told a local newspaper that "By the end of the year, 30,000 more ties will be installed in Cedar Hill and Hartford Yards and an additional 34 miles (55 km) of tracks surfaced". Good
42e "In August 1976, Cedar Hill averaged 34 TOFC loads per day, and Conrail projected this number to double upon the completion of a clearance raising project for Risley's Bridge in Berlin, Connecticut." Good
8a "The New Haven Railroad purchased approximately 500 acres (200 ha) of land in the Cedar Hill area in 1917 in order to construct a new classification yard." Good
8b "Construction began the same year." Good
47 "With the line abandoned, the key link between Cedar Hill Yard and the rest of the country was severed." I don't see a connection to the yard here

10% spotcheck -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • I will look into cite 6 which appears to have been an error on my part. The dates I listed are right, but I used the wrong cite to support them.
    I actually am not sure where I got the October 1914 date from. I haven't been able to find a source that says exactly when it was completed, but I have a source in July 1915 that refers to the electrification in Cedar Hill Yard as "recently completed", so I have changed the text to say it was completed by July 1915. I also found construction on the electrical catenary began in 1913. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Re cite 25, the Associated Press is already listed as the agency.
  • Re cite 42a, it's a pretty widely known fact that Conrail succeeded Penn Central but I will add a cite that directly states this.
    This has been done. The existing "Conrail at 40" reference supports this and I have added it next to cite 42a. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Re cite 42c, it is true that deferred maintenance is not directly mentioned but it's a pretty obvious conclusion based on the information within the source in question. I could remove the deferred maintenance part of the sentence but that would also remove context (that being the New Haven and Penn Central didn't properly maintain the yard due to financial problems).
  • Re cite 47, it is true the source does not directly make the connection. The preceding parts of the article however do illustrate that the bridge and the Maybrook Line were of importance to Cedar Hill Yard. I believe there are one or two existing sources which also directly make the connection between the bridge being abandoned and a decline in traffic at Cedar Hill Yard, I will take a closer look and add an appropriate citation here. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    The "Rail Lawyer predicts fight over freight" source directly links the closing of the Poughkeepsie Bridge to Cedar Hill Yard. I've added it here to supplement citation 47. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Like I'm Gonna Lose You

Nominator(s): N Ø 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which features guest vocals from John Legend. She almost didn't include it on her debut major-label studio album until being convinced otherwise by her uncle. When it was ultimately released as its fourth single, it revitalized the album's commercial momentum and became Trainor's third top-10 single from it, also reaching number one in Australia, New Zealand, and Poland. Since its first GA review in 2016, it has been a rocky road for this article. I rewrote it recently and think it fares well with regard to the FA criteria. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.-- N Ø 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


  • The following part, soul love ballad, is a WP:SEAOFBLUE to me. I would unlink love song to avoid this, and I do not think this link is particularly beneficial since it is a very well-known concept that would be understood by a majority of the article's readers. I would do this for each instance of these links throughout the article.
  • I tried some alternate wording here.
  • I still do not think the love song link is entirely necessary, and I think saying "a soul ballad" is better than saying "a ballad in the soul genre". Aoba47 ( talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • For this part, singing the song in a candlelit room, I would just say singing in a candlelit room to avoid the repetition of singing/song.
  • Done.
  • Removed size.
  • For the Legend image, I would clarify in the caption what year it was taken.
  • Clarified.
  • Done.
  • That makes sense.
  • The classic link seems unnecessary to me.
  • Removed.
  • I'd vary the sentence structure of the third paragraph of the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section as there are three sentences with starting with "Trainor/She..." and the prose could be re-worked to be more engaging.
  • I reworked the prose a bit. It is necessary to distinguish where we are talking about Trainor's verse vs. Legends so this type of sentence structure is unfortunately inevitable.
  • That's a fair point. Thank you for addressing this for me. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I would avoid this sentence construction, with the latter commenting, as I have seen repeated notes in the FAC space to avoid using "with X verb-ing".
  • Rephrased.
  • I would re-examine the "Critical reception" section's structure. I know I've suggested WP:Reception to you a few times so apologies for sounding like a broken record, but I do find it to be an incredibly helpful resource. I'd more clearly organize this section by topic and while I see bits and pieces of this, this section does not strongly back up the critical consensus brought up in the lead. I'd think further revision would be beneficial for this.
  • Apologies, I too observe this as something I struggle with. I tried to organize it into thematic elements with para 1 being general positive commentary on the song, and para 2 about Trainor's vocals and about if it suits her.
  • No need to apologize. These sections are notoriously hard to write well. It looks better to me, but I will do a more thorough read-through later this week. I am uncertain about the "eulogized" word choice as I always associate that with deaths and funerals (i.e. delivering a eulogy) so I am not sure if that is the best choice for this part. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, you use "deemed", and I would avoid that as it does make the prose somewhat repetitious.
  • Changed to "found".
  • When I first read this part, She dueted with Matt Prince during the show in New York City, my immediate question was who is Matt Prince? I am guessing he is a singer of some sort, but further clarification would be helpful since he does not have a link to support him unlike the other artists mention in the same sentence.
  • So true. Introduced as "American singer" now.
  • I am uncertain about this part, she was steady while singing its towering notes and did not struggle. It is currently being presented in Wikipedia's voice, and I would instead more clearly attribute in the prose who is describing the performance in this manner.
  • Attributed more clearly now.

I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article later in the week. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thank you, this is tremendously helpful as you always are. I do remember you telling me that this is your favorite Trainor song so I hope it will be an enjoyable read for you :) -- N Ø 06:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. It is flattering that you remember that this is my favorite Trainor song. It may be simple, but I am a sap for these kinds of love ballads. I do enjoy this song and others like " Like You'll Never See Me Again" which explore similar themes. I will look through the article again later in the week, but I do not imagine that I will have much to add beyond this. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • For this part, They wanted Trainor to record, I would clarify the "They" as it is not immediately clear to me. Is it referring to Epic Records as a whole or the specific people mentioned earlier (i.e. L.A. Reid, etc.). I think further clarification would be beneficial.
  • Specified it is Epic now.
  • Christina Milian did a cover of this song for Resort to Love, but I could not find any third-party coverage. Could you find anything about this? If it was not covered by a third-party source, I would not include it as it is not notable enough then. I just wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • It seems the cover did not make any record charts or draw coverage in reliable secondary sources. We could point a reference to soundtrack credits but I have doubts we can demonstrate notability and thus WP:WEIGHT for its mention.
  • Agreed. Thank you for checking into this. It seems like this largely flew under the radar, probably because the film did not seem to get a lot of attention in the first place. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • This is likely a matter of personal preference, but I'd put Credits and personnel adapted from Title album liner notes. at the top of the section. I've seen it like this more often in other articles, and I think it would be beneficial to establish at the start of the section where this information is being supported.
  • Agreed and fixed. Honestly I have no idea what made me not do this in the first place, lol.
  • It happens. I have seen some articles use this structure, but I've seen more articles put it first. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Billboard Hot 100 is linked twice in the "Charts" section. Once in the weekly table and a second time in the year-end table. It seems odd since the other items in the year-end table are not linked a second time so it is not entirely consistent. I'd imagine it would only need to be linked in the weekly table.
  • Good catch.
  • I decided to remove this altogether.
  • Has there been any retrospective reviews of this song? I could not find any when I did a brief search, but I was curious if you had any luck with that or if this kind of articles are just not written for this song.
  • Personally I could not find anything. Sad since it is one of her most lasting hits.
  • Thank you for checking into this. It is interesting that Trainor does not receive the same retrospective reviews or lists as other artists. There are of course retrospective articles written about specific songs (such as "All About That Bass" and "Dear Future Husband"), but others seemed to have fallen out of popular discussion (at least in terms of published articles). Aoba47 ( talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. My review is based primarily on the prose, but I could not see anything obviously wrong with the images, media, or citations. Best of luck with this nomination and thank you for putting up with my nitpicks lol. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

All should be addressed now. Thank you so much, Aoba47. Personally I found all of your suggestions reasonable. Hope you have a great week ahead!-- N Ø 18:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 ( talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

I meant to assess this sooner but got sidetracked. Sorry for that. Anyway, here are some comments:

  • For File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (Official Single Cover).png, try to avoid using Discogs even for file sources when that site is full of user-generated content. Can the artwork be found anywhere outside of that or the YouTube link? If neither Meghan or John shared it on their social media, then your best bet is a music retailer or streaming service.
  • The original uploader pointed a link to a blog where it is no longer found. I have eliminated the Discogs link and cited the record label.
  • To be blunt, I always get suspicious of potential fabrication whenever seeing cover art without any accompanying URL to help prove authenticity, so getting one from Epic would help. Someone might otherwise think you're trying to cover up how a piece isn't actually the official artwork used. In this case I know you didn't just pull this out of nowhere or create it on your own, but no links at all is never a good solution. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • It seems Epic published it on the Italian radio site so I added that too. Its use in the official audio is a pretty solid proof of its authenticity though, in my opinion.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 12:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thanks a lot, SNUGGUMS! :) -- N Ø 12:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

  • "debut major-label" → "major-label debut"
  • I do see how your suggested wording makes sense too but I prefer to use the former since "debut major-label", "second major-label", "third major-label", etc. can be a consistent wording format on articles for her future albums, while the other sounds weird with other numbers.
  • Something about the tense from "attaining" within "attaining 5× Platinum certifications in Australia and Canada" doesn't feel right. Maybe go with "and attained" when the sentence begins with "It peaked at number one".
  • Done.
  • Commonly recognized terms like "single" and "music video" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • "it was not in keeping with its doo-wop sound" reads awkwardly; you'd be better off with something like "it did not keep with the album's doo-wop sound"
  • Changed.
  • I'm not convinced the exact album release date is particularly relevant here
  • Gonna have to disagree since that is the date the song first became available to stream or buy. Essential information in my opinion.
  • "an unlikely pairing to perform a love duet" doesn't really convey how much Jeff Benjamin enjoyed this track
  • Fixed. :)
  • Amended.
  • "reached number 99 in the United Kingdom, earning a Gold certification" should have an "and", plus I'd change "earning" to "earned"
  • Agreed.

Thankfully there aren't any glaring issues that I could find. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thanks for reviewing as well, SNUGGUMS. Do let me know if there's anything else!-- N Ø 04:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
My pleasure, and I support after making one minor change here to follow the numerical sequence you allude to for future albums. Your mileage may vary on this but I personally think it reads less awkwardly than "debut major-label". SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments by Speatle

  • Lead looks fine.
  • Her uncle, Burton Toney, forced her manager to hear it: "You need to hear this song, she didn't show you this song, you need to hear it." Is the quoted stuff really necessary?
  • Removed.
  • Ref 13 doesn’t need to be cited three sentences in a row, just cut it to the last one.
  • Done.
  • Trainor wrote it after having one of "those nightmares that your brother or sister or boyfriend just dies", following which one is relieved to find them still breathing… per MOS:CLICHE this should be changed to “still alive”.
  • Agreed and done.
  • Music critics including Gittins and Newsday's Glenn Gamboa thought "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" sounds like a "classic"; the latter commented that it will serve Trainor throughout her career which will surely last long. Last five words probably aren’t needed.
  • Removed.
  • Elysa Gardener of USA Today deemed it proof that she is most appealing when she is not cunning and agitational. Trainor hasn’t been referred to in a while, so replace the first “she” with her last name. Also, tense problem. “is” should be changed to “was”.
  • Both done.
  • Some critics like Gittins and Sims praised Trainor's vocal prowess on "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", while others thought its subdued style did not suit her. The latter felt that the song was the "most refreshing" on the album, and found its focus on her voice a welcome change from the production-heavy nature of other tracks. This could mean either Sims or the song’s critics. Make it clearer.
  • Done.
  • Wow. That was both shorter and longer than I expected. My I-90 review had 10+ bullets while this one only has 8.
Thanks a lot for the comments, Speatle. It is much appreciated!-- N Ø 12:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments by Dugan Murphy

Though I just authored my first music article ( Oshima Brothers), I am still largely inexperienced in this end of Wikipedia. Having said that, I'll read through the article and type out some comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • It doesn't seem necessary to me to repeat in John Legend's photo caption what is said in that section about his guest vocals. I recommend changing the caption to simply " John Legend in 2008" or something like that.
  • WP:CAPTION recommends that a caption be succint but still "establish the picture's relevance to the article"
  • I'd say something similar about the music clip caption repeating information about the song's genre and Trainor's musical style. If you decide to keep that info in there, definitely change ", where" to "in which".
  • Likewise with this caption, we need to give readers context of what they're supposed to be hearing. I will take your wording suggestion.
  • Is it worth redlinking Big Yellow Dog Music? When I search for the phrase, I see it coming up in lots of other articles.
  • Personally I haven't done this on my other FAs and don't see how it would be particularly useful.
  • I am likewise remiss to redlink things, but I thought I would raise the question anyway, especially because this article is well outside my knowledge area. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Maybe it's because I don't read many articles about music, but "sonically in the same vein" sounds awkward to me, and perhaps unnecessarily verbose. I recommend changing "served as the follow-up singles, which were sonically in the same vein and" to "served as similar follow-up singles" or something simpler like that. Just an idea.
  • Changed to "sonically similar". I think it is helpful to specify if the similarity is sonic or lyrical.
  • The use of "serviced" sounds odd to me. Is that industry jargon? Sounds to me like it should be "sent".
  • Changed to "promoted" since "sent" would cause repetition in the following sentence.
  • I had to read "following which one is relieved" a couple times to figure out what was being said. I think that should be reworded for clarity.
  • Does "after which one is relieved" work better according to you?
  • Not really. My mind first reads "which one is" instead of "following which" or "after which". What do you think about adding a comma after "which"? I've read it so many times that I'm not longer a good test subject, but I think adding that pause ought to clarify. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Done.
  • Same sentence: I think it may be worth changing "Trainor wrote" to "Trainor said she wrote" or something like that to make it clear who is being quoted, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Done.
  • The sentences that begin "Trainor sings about how" and "In his verse" include quotes, but it's not clear who is being quoted. That information should be in the text of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Actually it is quoting the lyrics, which is already expressly implied. It is standard practice that these objective things not be erroneously credited to just one critic. I would suggest checking out composition sections on some other song FAs to get a hang of it.
  • Re-reading it now, I see how the text makes a clear reference to the lyrics. After the previous paragraph's discussion of critical interpretation, I guess I was stuck in that mindset in the second paragraph. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Maybe I'm being silly here, but shouldn't "Legend talks" be "Legend sings"?
  • Changed. This works too.-- N Ø 17:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I'll read through the rest and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 17:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • "Trainor performed 'Like I'm Gonna Lose You' at the American Music Awards on November 22, 2015, in a medley with 'Marvin Gaye' (2015), her collaboration with Charlie Puth." After reading this sentence a couple of times, I was still unsure what Puth's role was. Did Puth sing Legend's role in the duet? I recommend rewording to make that more clear.
  • Clarified.
  • Credits and personnel: using a standalone sentence fragment to introduce two lists with bold headings seems like it is against the MOS, but I can't point to what the rule would be. I think I would probably make it a full sentence. But then, all that sentence does is express what is already said in the citation, so then I would be tempted to remove the sentence fragment and move the citation to the headers for the two lists since you probably don't want to repeat it after every single list item and you certainly don't want to put in the section header. What is your thinking here?
  • I converted it to a similar sentence as FAs " Shake It Off" and " Blank Space" which I frequently refer. Should be OK now.
  • There is at least one sentence (last sentence of the lede) with an Oxford comma, but also one (last sentence of the first paragraph of Live performances) without. I believe if you add the comma where it is missing that the article will be consistent.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed.

I really appreciate the global coverage of the commercial performance section. I don't know how common that is for music articles. Not having much experience with music articles, this one certainly seems comprehensive to me without being overly detailed. And the lede section does a good job of comprehensively summarizing the body without too much detail. I didn't spend too much time looking at the sources, but at a glance, they look reliable. I certainly appreciate that everything in the article is cited. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments and compliments, Dugan! Everything should be addressed now.-- N Ø 17:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Sure thing. I'm happy to support this nomination based on every criteria but the media, which I didn't check on. Ping me if I'm needed for anything else on this nomination. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Israeli citizenship law

Nominator(s): Horserice ( talk) 01:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about the history and law of Israeli citizenship. This continues the series of nationality/citizenship law articles I have been steadily rewriting. This article obviously covers a sensitive topic so please point out any areas that may not be sufficiently neutral. Thanks, Horserice ( talk) 01:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Added for both photographs.
  • File:Emblem_of_Israel.svg needs a US tag
  • Done.
  • File:British_Colonial_passport_for_Palestine_issued_by_Albert_Montefiore_Hyamson_in_1929.jpg: it would seem in this case that the first copyright holder would not have been the State of Israel but rather the UK? Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • My guess is that since Israel is the successor state to Mandatory Palestine and Israel continued to use British copyright law until 2008 that the original uploader assumed that it was more appropriate to use the Israel template rather than the UK one. I've added the UK template but left the Israel one in for now.
Sorry for being unable to address comments more quickly. Horserice ( talk) 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

1990–91 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Do you like reading about the exploits of mediocre football teams? Then you will love my 13th nomination of a season from the history of English football club Gillingham, as they spent a season achieving little of note other than damaging everyone's eyes with one of the ugliest playing kits ever seen in English football. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene

  • Good job on making the home kit in the infobox!
  • "long-serving goalkeeper ended" ==> I think a comma is missing between "goalkeeper" and "ended"
  • "In the spring" ==> I would avoid seasonal references
  • How did the Gillingham fans actually react to their team's home kit?
  • "biggest away win since 1968" ==> biggest away win in the league or overall?
  • That's all I have. Nice read again, Chris. Eem dik doun in toene ( talk) 08:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
@ Eem dik doun in toene: - thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Support - Eem dik doun in toene ( talk) 09:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Siege of Guînes (1352)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Just when you thought it was safe to visit FAC after I had declared that there would be no more of my Edwardian Hundred Years' War articles, I find one down the back of the sofa. A fairly typical event from this conflict, of which enough has survived into the modern sources to reconstruct reasonably well. The article passed GAN in September 2021 and ACR the following month. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Image review—pass ( t · c) buidhe 20:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

What a pleasure to have an encore! A few quibbles and cavils from me, as usual:

  • Background
  • "set at an exorbitant 80,000 écus" – I'm not sure about "exorbitant", which is a matter of opinion, perhaps? I'd be happier with some less judgemental indication of size, such as huge, enormous or (if it was) exceptionally high.
If you prefer I could quote the source: '- according to the modern historian Jonathan Sumption a "prodigious" amount' -. But this seems a long-winded way of saying the same thing and what I have seems to me to be a reasonable paraphrase.
I don't press the point, but "prodigious" need not imply "exorbitant", or vice versa. A fiver is not a prodigious sum, but being charged it for an ice-cream in a tourist trap is exorbitant. As you have a source for "prodigious" you could simply replace the one ten-letter word with the other. Tim riley talk 12:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Would that not raise plagiarism issues? Prodigious is not that common a word. "Whopping"? "Stonking"? Gone with "extremely high".
One word is not either plagiarism or close paraphrasing; in fact, putting single words or short phrases in quotes is discouraged in MOS as scare quoting. ( t · c) buidhe 17:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • English attack
  • "dereliction of duty at the behest of Charny" – I think I'd put a comma after duty, to make it more immediately clear that the execution rather than the dereliction was at Charny's behest
You want more commas! My gast is flabbered. Added.
  • French attack
  • "French forces in the north east" – Ssilvers caught me out on this in the recent FAC of Arnold Bennett. Like you, I had it (or to be strictly accurate "south east") as two words, but the OED prescribes a hyphen.
I care little. "South east" is an entirely acceptable usage.
  • "Shortly after Charny abandoned the siege, leaving a garrison to hold the convent." – I had to go back to the start here; the full stop came as a surprise: I was expecting to learn what happened shortly after Charny abandoned the siege, leaving the garrison. For clarity, I think I'd make this "Shortly afterwards Charny abandoned…" If you were feeling kind to your American readers you could even put a comma after "afterwards".
Fair point; "wards" added. I rarely feel kind towards my American readers where commas are concerned. [5]
  • "English tower at Fretun" – Oh, come on! One of the joys of Eurostar is seeing the station signs at Calais-Fréthun and knowing you're headed to Paris in time for lunch. "Fretun", forsooth! I know you've blue-linked to Fréthun, but I mean, really!
The source - Sumption, not an author I would care to cross citations with - is quite clear that it is spelt Fretun. As is the Israeli Medieval-warfare specialist Harari. As is The National Archives. I am afraid that you seem to be outvoted Tim.
Hmm. But let it pass. Tim riley talk 22:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "fortifications on all of the access routes" – not sure why "of", here.
Me neither. Expunged.
  • Aftermath
  • persuaded that another round of warfare may leave him" – seems to me, as a past event, to need "might" rather than "may".

That's all from me. A vivid and enjoyable article, as one expects from the respected Gog FA Factory. I'll look in again when you've had a moment to consider the above, not very earth-shattering, points. – Tim riley talk 19:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Tim riley: Just a pot boiling frippery, but I did enjoy putting it together. I am pleased that you enjoyed it too, and I appreciate the review. All points addressed above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Happy to support and let my minor quibbles pass. I take Ceoil's point about the judgment of the Milhist experts, but I can only comment as a layman, and I find the article balanced, widely sourced, splendidly illustrated, and a cracking read. To my inexpert eye it meets the FA criteria good and proper. Tim riley talk 22:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments from Ceoil

Not finding much baffling or to complain about, and agree with comments above that it is vividly written (eg "after six years of an uneasy and ill-kept truce")

  • Lead: say what the Pale of Calais was
I may be being slow here, but doesn't the sentence "the English expanded their enclave around Calais ... forming what became the Pale of Calais" do this. I am not sure that adding "- the Engish-controlled enclave around Calais" would help.
Fine. I was thinking in terms of poignance of the word pale in the context of The_Pale#History. Ceoil ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Would like to see Siege of Guines (1558) created at least before if/when this goes to mainpage
I am inclined to agree. If I ever forget and nominate this for TFA before that has happened, please feel free to remind me.
  • and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison - personally is implied
Hmm. Ok.
  • promptly' had Raoul executed for treason - promptly doesn't add much, we know the timeline, and the sentence would be more impactful without it
  • Why the second comma - By coincidence, the English Parliament was scheduled to meet, with its opening session on 17 January.
Cus the last seven words are a subordinate clause. If I had omitted "with its opening session" it wouldn't need a comma. As it is it does, because of grammar. And this from an editor with a deep dislike of unnecessary commas, per Lynn Truss.
  • These are very trivial; like Tim, will revist in a few days with ay (prob) or nay (unlikely). Reason for holding off is that at 1700 words, waiting for milhist people to cover off on comprehensiveness. Ceoil ( talk) 21:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I umm'ed and ah'ed over whether to bring this to FAC, as it is slight. But as far as I can see it is both notable and contains all of the information extant on the siege. I sought Hog Farm's advice here in advance.
Thanks for the copy edits, although I have tweaked a couple.
By the bye, what does "tw" mean in your edit summaries?
  • Hi Ceoil, nice to see you opining on one of mine again. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Slight isn't an issue afaic as trusting on cromprhensivness. "tw" = tweak, no issues with the reverts. I had only intended to scan the lead but got sucked in by the story (we didn't learn about the 100 yr wars in 1980s IRL). Any roads, points addressed, Support. Ceoil ( talk) 21:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thanks Ceoil. And "I had only intended to scan the lead but got sucked in by the story" has left me well chuffed. (The history of the 100YW can make things like A Game of Thrones seem unimaginative.) Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments from Harrias

  • The lead and the infobox seem inconsistent regarding the time span: "May to July 1352" in the lead, "January–July 1352" in the infobox. I understand the discrepancy, as the castle was captured by the English in January, but that wasn't part of the siege, so having both as May to July feels best here.
You are, as usual, quite right. Changed.
  • "The siege was part of the Hundred Years' War and marked the resumption of full-scale hostilities after six years of an uneasy and ill-kept truce." Similarly, this could do with rephrasing slightly to emphasise that it was the English taking of the castle in January which prompted the resumption of full-scale hostilities, not the subsequent siege to attempt to retake it.
No; the English capture may have been the spark, but the French move was what marked "the resumption of full-scale hostilities". The English attack was a run of the mill small-scale breach.
Hmm, okay. "The resumption of hostilities caused fighting to flare up in Brittany and the Saintonge area of south-west France, but the main French effort was against Guînes." had suggested to me that it had already started before the French move, but I guess there is a difference between a "resumption of hostilities" and a "resumption of full-scale hostilities". Nevertheless, it feels like the lead is either telling a slightly different story, or at least, spelling the story out plainer, than the main body. To support the "full-scale" comment in the lead, could you make it clearer in the aftermath section that the actions describe count as "full-scale hostilities"? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Strain as I might I am unable to see the discrepancy you perceive between the lead and the main body. No doubt this is my being too close to the article, but is there any chance you could help me out by unpacking how you are reading it a little more. When you suggest amending the aftermath, do you mean the first or second paragraph? (Or both?)
Simply put, I just can't see where in the main body of the article it is demonstrated that this siege marked the resumption of full-scale hostilities. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The infobox also uses the number of 115 for the strength of the English forces, but doesn't mention that additional forces harassed the French from Calais.
  • "..but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355." This feels odd in the background section, given that it happened after this siege. I wonder if it would be enough just to state "..but was repeatedly extended."
Hmm. I see your point. Done.
  • "..been set at an extremely high 80,000 écus, more than Raoul could afford." I'm not sure about "extremely high" here. It feels a bit 'pop history'. It was more than Raoul could afford, isn't that enough? If it being more than he could afford was the point, then " the intentionally high.." might be better.
I had a disagreement with Tim over this. What I am trying to do is convey two, to my mind separate, points made by the sources. Firstly that 80,000 ecu was an unusually large sum for the time and place for a ransom. Sumption describes it as "prodigious". Secondly, that Raoul couldn't afford it. If I simply state that it was a large sum it, perhaps, leaves the reader thinking "Well, Raoul was a leading noble, perhaps John was right and he was a pro-English traitor. Similarly, if I go with just "unaffordable" a reader doesn't know if it was actually a reasonable, or even small, sum, but Raoul had gambling debts or whatever. Happy to discuss nuances of wording, but my preference would be to inform a reader of these nuances.
Just read into the sources to get more background on this. In Sumption (1990), he quotes that Edward bought Raoul from Sir Thomas Holland for 80,000 florins, while in Sumption (1999), he says that Edward set the ransom "reputed to be 80,000 ecus". Two questions: firstly, are florins and ecus equivalent? Secondly, do you have anything else to back this up, because at the moment the source says "reputed", whereas the article makes it sound like a known fact. Unless there are more source to back this up, I think we need to soften the tone. As an interesting aside, and conjecture that we can't use in the article, was it normal for the King to buy up prisoners, or do we think he specifically did it with the plan to get Guines out of Raoul? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "..and it seems that.." Editorial voice shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. If this is someone's opinion, then attribute that inline. If it is the commonly held view, then just state it as fact.

Otherwise the prose looks good to me.

  • A big one this: in the "Kaeuper, Richard W. & Kennedy, Elspeth (1996)" reference, you're missing a space after the comma in the location: "Philadelphia,Pennsylvania".
Insufficient blank space in my articles is a common complaint.
  • In "Livingstone, Marilyn & Witzel, Morgen (2004)" no need for the "(published 19 November 2004)", you already have the year of publication, that's enough.
Sorry, not sure how that snuck in.

That's it from me. Nice work, as always. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Hi Harrias. How delightful to be the beneficiary of one of your all too rare contributions. Thank you. All addressed. Does this also count as a source review? Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
@ Gog the Mild: A couple of replies above. I wouldn't feel happy calling what I've currently done a source review, but it wouldn't take much more for me to expand it into one. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Battle of Lalakaon

Nominator(s): Constantine 18:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about a battle that took place in 863 between the Byzantine Empire and Melitene, one of the frontier emirates of the Abbasid Caliphate, which marks a real as well as symbolic turning point in the Arab-Byzantine wars. The Byzantines managed to encircle and annihilate the forces of Melitene (Malatya), and kill its ruler. This set the stage for the century-long 'Byzantine Reconquista', and also allowed the Byzantines to bring Bulgaria more firmly into their cultural orbit. The article is not very large, but quite complete. It was promoted to GA and A-class several years ago, but I never got around to nominating it for FA, so it is long overdue. Any suggestions for further improvement are of course welcome. Constantine 18:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Image review—pass ( t · c) buidhe 19:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Carlton Town F.C.

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro ( talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about Carlton Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team competing at the eighth tier of the English football pyramid. I've long wanted to write-up a local team (in-part inspired by the Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. entry), and I hope I've done this one justice. The article passed GA requirements last month and has since featured on DYK. After re-reading (again), I think the article's ready for FAC comments. Thanks! Curlymanjaro ( talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed.
      • Not quite - lead image still uses that. Suggest also scaling up some of the uprights. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        • Fixed.
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
  • File:Carlton_Town_FC_logo.png: second source link is dead
    • Fixed.
  • File:ArthurClamp.jpg: if the photographer is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    • Removed this image to cut down on clutter. I can't prove anything, but presuming the photographer was an adult of 18, and the latest this photo could've been taken is 1915, he'd have been 95 in 1992.
  • File:SneintonFC1926.jpg: the given US tag relies in part on the image being PD in country of origin on the URAA date, but there's also a tag indicating that it may not be PD in country of origin - that is contradictory
    • Fixed.
      • Nothing seems to have changed here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        • My apologies, fixed now I believe.
          • Since this is to be moved to Commons, it would be helpful to specify why the image is believed to be PD in country of origin. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • File:SneintonCricketClubandGround1920.png: is this CC or PD? Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • PD, I believe. Fixed.

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene

Interesting article and it's great to see "lesser-known" football clubs being nominated at FAC.

  • "Sneinton Football Club, the club's" ==> Club ... club's is a bit repetitive
    • Replaced with "its".
  • Is the ref in the lead really needed, since it's supposed to be a summary of what's said in the article?
    • Removed.
  • "It was most recently promoted in 2006–07 from" ==> maybe: "It most recently won promotion in 2006–07 from"?
    • Done.
  • "The team enjoyed success in its first season. Finishing" ==> it's quite a short sentence, so it might better to merge it with the following one.
    • Done.
  • The team is plural, so "they" should be used instead of "it". (e.g. "The team enjoyed success in its" ==> "The team enjoyed success in their")
    • Done.
  • Did anything noteworthy happen between 1950 and 1965?
  • a valid promotion, it duly topped, comfortable League, unimpressive League ==> all sound a bit too journalistic to me.
    • Fair comment. "Valid promotion" is included since Carlton finished in a promotion spot at the end of the previous season but had it denied to them because of a technicality. "Duly" because they rebounded from this, after a big investment, so that they could achieve what they had actually earned in the previous season. I realise I might be digging myself into a bigger journalistic hole here, but I've deleted "comfortable" and replaced "unimpressive" with "poor". Hope that suits.
  • "Improved year on year" ==> who stated this?
    • The club, I think. Deleted!
  • "establishing a record" ==> establishing a club record?
    • Done.
  • Perhaps mention Vardy's stature when talking about the 2008–09 playoff semi-final? E.g. "future England international Jamie Vardy"
    • Done.
  • I believe there's a bit of recentism in the history section as the last 20 years cover about as much text as the previous 75 yrs.
    • This is a very valid criticism, one which I've wrestled with quite a bit. The truth is that the club spent the years between 1947, after the second reformation, and the football-pyramid-entering 1995–96 season in massive obscurity, even locally speaking. Looking through contemporaneous articles on the British Newspaper Archive, Sneinton very rarely gets a bespoke mention week-to-week. We're talking the most parochial of the parochial divisions for the most part. There are entries I've found which chart its league position on a given week, along with all the other teams, but that indicates very little about general performance and might lead to mischaracterisations. My other defence is that more recent events tend to have better coverage online, although with a small club such as Carlton, even this can sometimes be tricky.
  • "Central Midlands Football League", "Northern Counties East Football League", et cetera ==> which tiers do these leagues belong to?
    • Clarified (I hope).
  • Why are the honours and tournament tables collapsed?
    • Just my preference, I'm open to reversing that if you prefer.
  • I'm missing info/sections about Carlton's crest/colours, supporters/rivalries, records. Eem dik doun in toene ( talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Alas, me too. I can describe the crest and colours but sadly have no historical background with which to buttress it, so the section would just be a restatement of the infobox (which is fine - let me know). According to my sources, I've virtually nothing on fans and rivalries, which is a shame (I'm questioning whether sources even exist on these). Tournament records are in a (collapsed) box at the bottom, and the record attendance is described in the section covering the ground at which it happened.

Really appreciate you looking at this @ Eem dik doun in toene: I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Curlymanjaro ( talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Curlymanjaro, no problem and thanks for the clear explanations. I understand it can be quite a task to find enough/the necessary info. I still think the history section from 2002 can be trimmed down a bit to make it all more balanced. About the collapsed tables, I would uncollapse them as most people will check out the club's honours, and it will save a click. I would also make a crest/colours section then, even if it'll be short. Eem dik doun in toene ( talk) 08:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Thanks, @ Eem dik doun in toene: what do you reckon to the improvements? I had to get slightly creative with sources for Carlton's rivalries, but since these are informal affairs at a low level of competition, I hope that's acceptable. Curlymanjaro ( talk) 17:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Support - I think the article looks better now! I'm not sure if the FM Save ref is "acceptable" but that'll come up at the source review I reckon. Good luck with this nom. Eem dik doun in toene ( talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Texas A&M University

Nominator(s): Buffs ( talk) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about Texas A&M University and has sought extensive feedback since the previous nomination as advised to include literally every listed FA Mentor, a FAC peer review for over a month, and addressed each and every point brought up in the previous FAR/FARC/FAC. If there is something missing/in error/inappropriate/etc, please feel free to point it out and I will rapidly address any shortcomings. While I still contend that the previous discussions were prematurely closed, I still jumped through all the hoops as requested.

Other discussions not mentioned above

Thank you for your consideration Buffs ( talk) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

Largely per my comments in the peer review. I was concerned by the nominator's dismissive and at times rude responses to some of them, and it's a shame they weren't addressed. In short, I'm concerned that:

  • The article does not cover the experiences of women and students from a minority background (it's noted only in passing that the uni went from an all white male institution to a very gender and ethnically diverse institution)
    Those experiences aren't very different than the average student in any educational setting. Moreover, this is an article about the University, not the student body. I responded to this criticism in the peer review and you chose not to further reply or work with me further on it. Complaining that I didn't address it is very misleading.
  • There is an over-emphasis on the experiances of the minority of the student population who live on campus
    That is the subject at hand: the school. What students do that is unaffiliated with the university seems to be an inappropriate addition to the article as it is outside the scope of the article.
  • It is incurious about some of the more unusual aspects of the university, most notably its militaristic flavour and range of rather old-fashioned 'traditions', and this isn't critically discussed.
    There are other wikilinked articles that do discuss this in more detail. Per WP:SUMMARY there is not enough space to discuss such points in any significant detail.
  • The article contains boosterism, and is not neutral.
    Which ones are not neutral? How would you suggest retaining such information while remaining neutral? Buffs ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Their early efforts led to HHS awarding the school and affiliates the responsibility for coordinating the nationwide production of the approved vaccines for mass consumption" - I'm struggling to see where this is supported by the citation, which seems to attribute a more modest role to the 'CIADM' (helping coordinate the approval of vaccines, with some vaccine production also taking place on-campus) and notes that there is an equivalent body in Maryland that was also involved with COVID vaccines. Nick-D ( talk) 03:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Removed the entire paragraph. While it was a big deal at the time, WP:RECENTISM probably made it seem bigger. Buffs ( talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
As for your "intro", I would ask you to remain WP:CIVIL calling me "rude" and "dismissive" is inherently uncivil and completely unnecessary. I responded to your comments and you chose not to reply. Buffs ( talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
You are continuing to be rude and dismissive towards me, and your response to Sdkb below is worse. Nick-D ( talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
If you have a complaint about my behavior (in any way), this is not the forum. All of my responses have been to address what you suggested, queries for more information, or an explanation as to why I disagree with your assessment. That is a simple discussion, not "rude" or "dismissive". Buffs ( talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • @ Nick-D: Can you provide examples of what you think is missing with coverage in the available high quality sources? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Please see my comments in the peer review, but as some examples:
      • There is almost nothing on how women or minority ethnic groups entered the university and their experiences
      • The material on the Lawrence Sullivan "Sul" Ross statue is poorly written, and never explains the concerns some people had about its presence on campus - the focus is on the views of the university administration (a common flaw throughout the article)
      • The research section reads like PR for the university, and fails to critically consider the issue of the university's research strengths and weaknesses. Nick-D ( talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Oppose by Sdkb

There is some extensive history here, given the rather arduous 5-month-long FAR, but I tried to approach this with an open mind. Here are my comments, beginning with the lead:

  • "Fall 2021" violates MOS:SEASONS—not all readers are in the northern hemisphere. Recommend "fall 2021 semester" throughout the article to remedy. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    MOS:SEASONS states "Referring to a season by name is appropriate when it is part of a formal or conventional name or designation". In the United States, There are generally two semesters separated by Fall and Spring. This terminology is determined by the US Dept of Education and, as such, is the conventional name for the semester. Buffs ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • As previously raised at the FAR, I'm highly skeptical that being a space grant institution is important enough to warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead, and that the land/sea/space factoid there is anything other than boosterism. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Mentioning it's a land and sea grant school, but omitting it's a space-grant school in the lead seems like an unnecessarily omission. Given that it's the only one with all 3, that's of note, not boosterism. Buffs ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • As previously raised at the FAR, why is sports in the very first paragraph, rather than with the rest of student life in the last lead paragraph? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    As explained, the most publicly facing/exposed portion of the school is its athletics program. As such, it's (appropriately) in the lead. If you want to argue about placement within the lead, that's pretty much semantics and I'll move it where ever you want. Please clarify. Buffs ( talk) 14:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I don't think the Carnegie Classification needs an "as of" attached, as it's not the sort of thing that changes year to year. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I don't disagree, but others have complained, so it was added. No one can possibly address such opposition (some want it added and others want it removed). I'm happy with either one, but this sort of standard is impossible to achieve if this is the feedback. Buffs ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • A comma is very definitely needed after "and scope"; I've gone ahead and added it. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    appreciated, thank you. Buffs ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The same text, "Corps of Cadets", is linked twice in the lead, once to the specific link and once to a general article. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    fixed Buffs ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The A.M.C. abbreviation is introduced twice. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    It is mentioned twice in the lead, once for clarification as to what the abbreviation AMC stands for and second for what A&M stands for...two different things. Buffs ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Why isn't Traditions of Texas A&M University linked in the sentence Many students also observe various university traditions which govern conduct in daily life and sporting events? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Point taken, added. Buffs ( talk) 14:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Senior military college" is uncapitalized in the infobox and at its own article, but capitalized in the lead prose. To what extent is it a formal title? This should be consistent. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Fixed. Buffs ( talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • If being a senior military college is important enough to go in the type parameter of the infobox, why is it left until the end of the lead? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I felt it was a good point to conclude it on. You seem to be assigning importance and emphasis based on where things are mentioned in the lead (beginning = more important, end=less important). WP:LEAD has no such requirement. It states "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic".
  • The student body is discussed mainly in the last paragraph of the lead, except for the factoid about being the largest, which is put way up top. I'd recommend against splitting like this, especially given the boosterism concerns. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The infobox has discrepancies in the establishment year. It's explained in a footnote that both 1871 and 1876 can be considered the establishment year, but 1876 is used for |established= whereas 1871 is used for the former names field. We need to be consistent. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    That is not a discrepancy. The institution was given the name "the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas" in 1871 under Texas law. Omitting that fact would be misleading. The inconsistency is clearly explained and is a function of the ambiguities of the term "established". Added an additional note with the exact same references. Buffs ( talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • As previously raised at the FAR, two references shouldn't be needed to support |established=, as this information should be in the body and thus isn't needed in the lead at all per WP:LEADCITE. They're both from the university, one appears to be a dead version of the other, and the quote isn't needed when there's also an explanatory footnote. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    No one voiced such objection in the linked review. As for "there don't need to be two references", extra one deleted as requested. Buffs ( talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The explanatory footnote for |established= notes on the 1876 date for the seal This is not a discrepancy, as though |established= has 1871, but it has 1876. It needs to be rewritten. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Very vague, but ok. Done. Buffs ( talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • |academic_affiliations= is only for affiliations that provide essential definition of the institution. What makes e.g. CONAHEC qualify for that? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Dropped CONAHEC. Are you looking for a justification of each inclusion? Buffs ( talk) 15:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • There was a missing space between the parentheticals in the infobox; I've corrected this for you as well. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Thank you. Buffs ( talk) 15:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Why are years given for the student counts but not the faculty counts in the infobox? I can see arguments for/against, but both are equally variable, so we should be consistent. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Ok, added. Buffs ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Main Campus" is capitalized in footnote 2 but not in the rest of the article. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Fixed. Buffs ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Unless "Midsize City" is some sort of formal term, "city" should not be capitalized in the infobox. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Fixed. Buffs ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Annual budget is missing from the infobox. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    There are dozens of parameters that are not used in this infobox. Such inclusion is generally determined by consensus, but no parameter is specifically required. Is the annual budget somehow required to be in the infobox? I looked at all the SEC schools for additional examples (at a glance, other schools seem to have a similar percentages with a bias toward smaller schools including it and larger schools excluding it). Less than a third include it in the infobox. Two more mention it in their article, but do not have it in the infobox. Schools are generally ranked by their total endowment, not their annual operating budget. Buffs ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Given the number of issues in this important section alone, and that several were previously raised at the FAR and went unaddressed, I have to oppose at this time. I would suggest that the nominator first review the extremely extensive feedback that has been generously provided to them by others and address the outstanding issues. They should then go over the entire article to comb it for possible errors or improvements—it is evident that they have not done this, as several issues above would have been easily spotted during such a review. After that has been completed, the GAN and GOCE processes can provide further feedback. Only then should this be brought back here, ideally alongside a mentor. I'm sorry to have to land here after the nominator has put in so much effort on this article, but FAs need to represent our best work, and this article is regrettably not there yet. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Outside of actual technical problems (capitalization and commas for example...such feedback is appropriate and quite helpful as were the corrections [THANK YOU!]),
As for the rest, it is very difficult to read it as anything more than condescending remarks:
  • "I would suggest that the nominator first review the extremely extensive feedback that has been generously provided to them by others and address the outstanding issues.
    I have literally gone through and "addressed" 100% of the outstanding "issues". Some of that "addressing" includes asking for clarification and/or explaining why it shouldn't be done. A great example is when one person asks for more references and another asks for me to trim the number of references, it is completely impossible to address both points to everyone's satisfaction and a discussion should ensue. That doesn't mean such concerns were "unaddressed". Despite repeated requests on my part, such discussions never happened. "Addressed" means changes were made OR a response was given.
  • "They should then go over the entire article to comb it for possible errors or improvements—it is evident that they have not done this, as several issues above would have been easily spotted during such a review."
    Of the 17 points you brought up that were "new" (not in the previous FAR), literally all were present in previous versions. The idea that they would have been "easily spotted during such a review" is laughable considering no one in the past year has spotted them in five separate reviews (including yours). Of the 3 points that were allegedly repeats, I replied to your space grant points during the previous review and you offered no further objections. Furthermore, the source you cite as your rationale for removing such references ( WP:LEADCITE) states "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Making demands for me to follow your personal preferences despite policy which contradicts you and pretending I haven't done anything when you haven't replied in almost 6 months is more than a little disingenuous and feels maliciously misleading.
  • "Only then should this be brought back here, ideally alongside a mentor."
    I've literally asked every single FA mentor. Most couldn't be bothered to reply and none were willing to serve in such a capacity...this is another example of an alleged point that wasn't accomplished, but is impossible to actually achieve. By this logic, the article will never achieve FA status, but not due to quality.
You claim points from the FARC/FAR/etc were "unaddressed", but I have literally responded to every point you brought up. In many you claim were "unaddressed", I asked for further clarification and you/others did not respond.
WP is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere. This interaction feels much more like an adversarial interaction or a circus where I'm a caged tiger expected to jump through every hoop tossed in my direction regardless of the validity of the concern or contravening policies of WP. I'm certainly willing to discuss and come to a consensus on such points, but the idea that everyone coming to FA must acquiesce to the whims of all other editors without consideration as to whether it is a valid point is antithetical to WP's functional procedures. Asking questions/voicing concerns/explaining my rationale about such points is not hostility, but clarification and part of the consensus process. You need to be willing to discuss such points rather than "do X" and anything short of caving to your demands means it "wasn't addressed". Buffs ( talk) 17:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Nominator(s): AviationFreak 💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This filibuster is the longest ever conducted in the US Senate. As this is the article's second nomination, sending pings to buidhe, Hurricanehink, AryKun, Kavyansh.Singh, Hog Farm, and ChrisTheDude who left reviews at the previous nomination. I have completed a source-prose integrity table, which is on this nomination's talk page, as that was the primary concern at the last nomination. AviationFreak 💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Spot check

  • "An agreement among the Southern senators to not stage an organized filibuster had been reached in Senator Richard Russell's office on August 24, four days prior to Thurmond's speech." — checks out; as for "four days prior to Thurmond's speech", it is basic maths (we have his filibuster date cited)
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with a reading of the election laws of each of the 48 states" — mostly checks out (doesn't mentions "1957", though)
  • "During the filibuster, Thurmond sustained himself on diced pieces of pumpernickel bread and small pieces of ground steak." — checks out
  • "Most Southern Democratic senators opposed the filibuster, despite its popularity among their constituents, because (as Richard Russell put it) the South had already secured a compromise in the bill which would be jeopardized by a filibuster and there was not enough support to prevent a cloture vote anyway" — mostly checks out, but rather than "oppose", "did not join" would be more accurate.
  • "The filibuster failed to prevent the passage of the bill, and further failed to change the vote whatsoever." — checks out
  • "Thurmond's filibuster has been described by historian and biographer Joseph Crespino as "kind of a urological mystery"." — checks out (even the historian part "For historians, the most puzzling aspect ... says Crespino."
  • "Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor to him for a few minutes, and Thurmond was able to use the restroom while Goldwater made an insertion to the Congressional Record." — checks out

Of the above spot-checks, I found one minor trivial issue. Rest all fine for these seven casesKavyansh.Singh ( talk) 05:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Changed "opposed" to "did not join". AviationFreak 💬 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

Note: I supported the first FAC

  • "The bill in question worked to make voting more accessible to African Americans.", "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind." — Repetition?
    • Changed "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind" to "and has contributed to Thurmond being referred to as a Confederate" (referenced in body) as I felt that "His filibuster is widely seen as racist today." would be a pretty stubby sentence
  • "the bill passed the Senate less than two hours after Thurmond's conclusion" ( emphasis added) v. "The bill passed two hours after Thurmond finished speaking"
    • Removed "less than"
  • "alongside the Eisenhower administration" — first time mentionning Ike in the prose, so should have his full name (Dwight D. Eisenhower administration would work, I think)
    • Done
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
    • Done
  • "and was signed into law by president Dwight D. Eisenhower" — if you agree with my third suggestion, this should then be "President Eisenhower"

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 06:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

@ Kavyansh.Singh: I've completed these suggestions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak 💬 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Support. If you have time and inclination, would appreciate if you can review any of these. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Royal necropolis of Byblos

Nominator(s): el.ziade ( talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about a group of shaft and chamber tombs that housed the remains of Bronze Age Gebalite Kings. A chance landslide in the early 1920s uncovered the first of the underground tombs. Some of the burial chambers that escaped looting contained a great number of funerary goods; among these were ornate royal Egyptian gifts bearing the names of Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs. Inscriptions found in the tombs allowed the identification of some of the buried Kings. The most important of these finds was the famed Ahiram sarcophagus. The story of the re-emergence of the ancient city of Byblos/Gebal, and the subsequent discovery of the royal tombs, is reminiscent of Indiana Jones movies.

I have spent long hours searching archives and drafting this piece, and I have covered good ground so that it not only informative, but also compelling. The article underwent a thorough GA review, which made it significantly better, and I am very grateful for AirshipJungleman29's time and effort. I am hopeful, with your guidance, to drive the article to 'featured' status. el.ziade ( talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Coord note -- Hi Elias, I don't think you've been to FAC before, in which case welcome! Some house-keeping... It looks like you have a peer review open for this article, and you need to close that now that the FAC has been opened. Also, as a fresh nominator, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we as all newbies to jump through, as well as the regular source review for reliability and formatting; that can take place in the course of the overall review here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Hi @ Ian Rose , it is true that I edit sporadically, but I have 4 FAs under my belt already. Some guidelines may escape me since I am not here often. I welcome any feedback that will help improve the article. I will try to close the peer review, I haven't had many comments there. el.ziade ( talkallam) 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Ah, changed the name too... Okay the spotcheck is not a necessity. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Yes, the name change is confusing, it seemed liked a good idea then 😅. I had the pleasure of working under your guidance before, and I am looking forward to this review too. el.ziade ( talkallam) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Image review
  • File:Byblos View.jpg, File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg probably not freely licensed, nominated for deletion on Commons
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png what's the source for the info on the map?
  • The Montet maps and photograph; according to Internet Archive's scan these publications were in 1928 and 1929, after 1927 as indicated by the tag. Since it was published in France it would also need to be public domain in France to be kosher on Commons, which it does not seem to be if Montet created these sketches since he died in 1966

Other images look ok ( t · c) buidhe 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Not a source review
  • Article is well structured and length is reasonable. However, I noticed a majority of the citations are from the 1920s. Are there more recent sources that could be cited instead? I realize stuff like "The longer inscription is carved on the font (typo for front?), long edge of the lid" are not likely to change over time, making the datedness less of an issue, but, for example, it would be best to cite a more recent source for the number of grave goods recovered.
  • akg-images is not a high-quality reliable source in my view

( t · c) buidhe 08:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thank you for your usual meticulous work Buidhe below are my comments.
  • Concerning File:Byblos View.jpg, it's a real shame to see it go. There are no replacements. As for File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg I am not oppose it's deletion, I have already replaced it in the article.
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png: it's derived from the map in the early 1920s letters from Montet to Cagnat a copy of the Image on JSTOR. Shall I add this bit of info on commons?
  • Montet's maps and photographs are sourced from the Internet Archive open source library, IA states that it respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. I believe we are safe in this regard, is there something else we can do? These images are fundamental to the understanding of the article. I can upload them here under a fair use label if this prevents them from being lost. Please advise. The copyright term in France was +50 years after the death of the author at the time of the publication of the above-mentioned works.
  • I will try to find more recent sources to add to the early 20th century ones. But mind you these are seminal works and are still authoritative. el.ziade ( talkallam) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Currently the copyright term in france is life + 70 years, including works that were published before the change came into effect. I agree that Internet Archive usually only shows full text for out of copyright works, but I don't think that's something we can rely on to determine copyright status. I've expanded the image description for File:Cimetiere royal.png. ( t · c) buidhe 19:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I’m quoting a legal website pertaining to intellectual rights protection of sketches: «  Si le “dessinateur” a effectué quelque chose de visuellement très simple : par exemple un fond de carte faisant apparaître les frontières et le réseau hydrographique d’un pays. Ce “contenu” ne peut pas prétendre à la protection par le droit d’auteur. Il n’est qu’une information (plus exactement, une somme d’informations), donnant une représentation rudimentaire de la réalité. Le fond de carte nu n’est pas une œuvre originale, il n’a pas d’auteur. Ce fond de carte n’entre pas dans le champ du droit d’auteur ; il peut donc être repris sans problème. »
[ If the “dessinateur” has done something very simple visually: for example, a base map showing the borders and the hydrographic network of a country.  This “content” does not qualify for copyright protection.  It is only information (more exactly, a sum of information), giving a rudimentary representation of reality.  The bare basemap is not an original work, it has no author.  This base map does not fall within the scope of copyright;  it can therefore be resumed without any problem. ]
In archeology
«  En élaborant ces dessins, ces relevés de fouilles, ce rapport de fouilles, l’auteur du dessin élabore des archives de recherche qui sont des archives publiques…  À l’instar des règles applicables à un fond de carte très simple et à une carte originale protégée (le fond de carte peut être utilisé sans demander d’autorisation mais il convient d’en indiquer la source par honnêteté intellectuelle ; la carte originale ne peut être reproduite ou réutilisée qu’avec l’accord de l’auteur), on peut appliquer le même raisonnement à un histogramme ou à un graphique. Si le graphique est très simple et fait apparaître quelques données en abscisse et en ordonnées, il constitue une représentation brute, non protégée par le droit d’auteur. Si l’histogramme ou le graphique sont très élaborés (ombre, couleurs, bref, de l’infographie qui donne à la représentation un caractère créatif original), ils sont originaux, donc protégés par le droit d’auteur. »
[ By developing these drawings, these excavation records, this excavation report, the author of the drawing develops research archives which are public archives… Like the rules applicable to a very simple background map and a protected original map (the background map can be used without asking permission, but the source should be indicated for intellectual honesty; the original map  can be reproduced or reused only with the agreement of the author), the same reasoning can be applied to a histogram or a graph.  If the graph is very simple and shows some data in abscissa and ordinate, it constitutes a raw representation, not protected by copyright.  If the histogram or the graph are very elaborate (shadow, colors, in short, computer graphics that give the representation an original creative character), they are original, therefore protected by copyright. ]
source el.ziade ( talkallam) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I had to google translate because I didn't have the time, but you guys get the picture. el.ziade ( talkallam) 16:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


  • Nice to see some more Lebanese history here, especially during these hard times. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • On the above note, I think the intro could mention explicitly that this is located in modern day Lebanon.
    done, thanks FunkMonk el.ziade ( talkallam) 06:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Location of Royal necropolis" The royal? Add the and remove capital r?
It's the template Wallah it's not me lol. Fixed it.
  • You mention an acropolis only once, in an image caption, could be mentioned and linked in the article body if it's important?
Linked it in the infobox, I think it's enough there.
  • "Main article: Byblos" followed by "Byblos (modern Jubayl)", is the "main article" really necessary when you can just link the first word of the paragraph?
No problem
  • "derived from the Canaanite Gubal" Link Canaanite.
  • Link more unlinked terms in the infobox and first mentions in image captions?
Sure, done
  • "that has been inhabited, and continuously used" Why not just say "that has been continuously inhabited", means the same?
yes *smh*
  • Link Bronze Age?
  • Link Ramses II.
  • Link Phoenicia.
  • Images are a bit clogged up in the lower right of the article, perhaps use some horizontal multiple image templates instead, like in for example quagga?
All done except for the images, will get to these later. el.ziade ( talkallam) 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
On second thought, do you mind if I don't change the layout? I am not fond of large blocks either, they are disruptive in an article where all the images are of the same size. Please don't ask me to alternate right and left too :( el.ziade ( talkallam) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House

Nominator(s): Epicgenius ( talk) 02:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.

This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

These might be a tad nitpicky as the article overall looks very well-polished, but here's what I've got so far:

  • 55 Wall Street is linked twice in the body, once as the "Merchants Exchange" building (should it be Merchants' exchange?)
    • I removed the duplicate link and added an apostrophe. You're right, it should be possessive. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Our article on Columbia says that she is the female personification of the US, not a personification
  • Since 50 short tons is the same in both long and metric tons, is there perhaps some way to simplify the conversion?
  • Lintel is linked twice in the body; Only found this by chance, the article needs more thorough checking for duplinks (also entablature and George Gustav Heye Center)
  • To me, The primary figure of each group is female and flanked by auxiliary human figures seems to imply that the female figures are not human - Maybe clarify with "...of each group is a human female and..."?
    • That is a good point. I worded it this way because the previous sentence says the female figures are personifications; by definition, a personification is a representation of a human. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • eight carved keystones, which contain carved heads - Suggest removing the first "carved"
  • Same thing as above with tonnage conversions for seafaring nation statues
  • Suggest linking Great Seal of the United States for United States' coat of arms
  • There were elevators in each corner... - Did something happen to these elevators?
    • Oops. I meant to say there are elevators in each corner. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Suggest linking Ionic order
  • I may be missing something with both this and the elevators comment above, but The northeastern corner contained the cashier's office... - What happened to the cashier's office? When was it removed? What exists there now?
    • This is addressed at the end of the paragraph: "The former cashier's office has been incorporated into the Heye Center's museum store." I don't know when the cashier's office was removed, but it presumably occurred in 1973 when the Customs Service moved out. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Since most Rotundas appear to be circular (at least from the pictures on our article), may be worth noting that this one is elliptical (I assume the measurements of 85 by 135 feet are the minor and major axes of the ellipse, in a geometric interpretation)
  • ...which are bonded using Portland cement. - Are the layers bonded to each other using this cement or are the individual tiles bonded together using the cement? If the latter interpretation is correct, suggest using "grouted" instead of "bonded".
    • Both. The layers are bonded to each other, and the individual tiles are also bonded. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Wainscoting is linked, but is used in prose (without a link) earlier on. This may be an issue that exists with other terms.
  • The outer portion of the fifth story was initially used for document storage since the windows overlooking the fifth story were small apertures within the entablature - Why does this arrangement make the space more suitable for document storage?
    • The windows were quite small, so that story would not have been usable as offices. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • If a dollar amount is available for the customs collector's salary in the House's heyday, it would be great to have that in the article alongside an Inflation template
  • Suggest using Inflation template(s) for dollar values throughout - Not necessarily every mention, but at least for values that are important to the rest of the paragraph/section (e.g. The appraisal estimated that it would cost $1.96 million to acquire land at Bowling Green.)
    • I have now added inflation to all significant dollar values. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Should "federal-government buildings" be hyphenated? Not sure if the guideline calls for it in this particular context, but it is unhyphenated elsewhere.
  • A jury of three men - I only think of "jury" as being a legal term, would "committee" be a better term here?
  • Suggest linking United States Bicentennial
  • Standardize whether punctuation appears inside or outside of quotes (to my recollection it was always outside up until the last section, but this probably warrants another check).

Overall a very comprehensive and well-written article! Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. AviationFreak 💬 19:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

@ AviationFreak: Thanks for the detailed comments. I have addressed all of your concerns now. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thank you, it looks great! Support on prose. AviationFreak 💬 16:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review by PMC

Since this is the first time I've done an image review, I'm going to note every image so that my work can easily by checked should a coord feel the need. At this time, I have no concerns as to the copyright status or origins of any of the images.

  • Infobox image: building is public domain due to age, own work photo
  • Roof detail: own work and appropriately licensed
  • Asia sculpture: sculpture is PD-old, created 1903-1907, photo own work
  • Sculptures of seafaring nations: created when the building was, so PD-old, photo own work
  • Lobby and rotunda images: own-work photos of interiors too old to be copyrighted
  • Rotunda murals: all paintings are PD due to age, and all photos are PD due to being taken by federal government employees
  • Merchant's Exchange drawing: PD-old
  • King's Color-graphs: PD-old as the book was published 1910.
  • The version here looks a little pink compared to the scan - not sure which is more correct; that may be worth looking into.
  • 1912 image: book verifiably published in 1912, PD-old
  • 2008 building exterior: as infobox image, own work and building too old to be copyrighted
  • 2013 entrance: own work of PD building exterior
  • Interior detail images by Rhododendrites: own work of PD-old designs
  • The images are used judiciously - there is no over-cramming of unnecessary images.
  • I see one instance of sandwiching when my browser is set to my typical width of 1500px - the Asia sculpture and the "Sculptures of seafaring nations" images.
  • I'm curious about the choice to include a gallery of all the rotunda paintings but only including one of the Four Continents sculptures.

Overall another example of your excellent work in the topic area. I look forward to supporting on the basis of image use. ♠ PMC(talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

    • @ Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the image review. Regarding the Four Continents sculptures, I just added the other three images using Template:Multiple image. I also moved the "multiple image" template to the top of the section to avoid any sandwiching at all. Epicgenius ( talk) 21:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      • Everything looks good to me. I'm happy to support based on excellent image use. ♠ PMC(talk) 06:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Saint Vincent Beer

Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about a pre-prohibition brewery run by monastery that generated quite a bit of controversy. I went through a GA review by Kusma and then a peer review by Ceoil and SandyGeorgia. After doing another read over, I think it is ready for you all. Thank you to my reviewers for getting it to this point. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review for the lead image, if all you did is cropped a public domain image and added some lines and text, these modifications are certainly below the threshold of originality in US law to enable a copyright claim; compare the examples at c:COM:TOO US ( t · c) buidhe 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Whatever c:COM:TOO US means, that you don't put into graspable, actionable, English, nor does the policy page. But public domain? Ceoil ( talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
@ Buidhe: I think it is just subject to copyright protection because it " possess[es] some creative spark". I made creative decisions by choosing what to label, what not to label, the wording of the labels, and the placement of the labels based on my decade of experience as a professional cartographer. I would agree with you if just labeled the ruins. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


I do like beer and monastery history so great to see this. Am re-reading, and while inclining towards promotion have things to say. Ceoil ( talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Maybe the "Beer Fuss" and "golden age of Saint Vincent Beer" don't actually exist outside of the imaginations of the brewery's promotors
  • A lot of the sentences are staccato, eg "Wimmer agreed to close the tavern but sought to retain the brewery.[1] O'Connor refused to make the community that Wimmer founded a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3] "
  • There are many instances of jarring alliteration, eg " pointing to the permission" etc
  • started pressuring the monastery to stop" - began to pressure
  • Watch capitalisation - Saint Vincent Archabbey, Seminary, and College
  • Zurcher skewered the archabbey for brewing Saint Vincent Beer instead of joining the temperance movement, - the placement of "skewered " here is baffling and hints at a calculation that is not explained. Also for brewing Saint Vincent Bthe beer
  • I think this is almost good to go, after you meet my demands. Ceoil ( talk) 10:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    @ Ceoil:
    • Lamendola, Oetgen, and Klein all speak of the "beer fuss" as a thing. Klein is the most attached to the idea of a golden age. Lamendola refers to it as the "so called golden age." Oetgen makes no mention of it. I do get your point. The archabbey would be considered to be nanobrewery today due to how little beer was actually produced.
    • I fixed that section.
    • Alliterations are awesome! I went looking for weird wordings
    • Fixed
    • Fixed
    • There isn't a deeper meaning. Switched to the more common "criticized"
    -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


  • Lead The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 and had peaked to a demand of around 1,110 barrels by 1891. - say why early on why it became popular (luck, taste, well placed backers, etc)
  • Lead external sale by 1900 - to where and what proportion was this consuming total output
  • There is is lot more context in the articles's body than the lead of the article re the closure, maybe expand the lead, eg who is Aurelius Stehle
  • but Michael O'Connor, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, objected to monk ownership - on what legal and presumably moral grounds
  • I relocated The drink was a young dark, hoppy Bavarian-style beer.[5] Its grain was harvested ... as best as could, but is still a stray factoid as currently placed; can you better place in narrative
  • The actualities, reasons and wider drivers of the unlinked "Beer Fuss" are not made clear. Ceoil ( talk) 01:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
@ Ceoil
  • None of the modern sources nor the newspapers from the 1800s make a claim as to why it was popular
  • This is not mentioned in the sources
  • expanded
  • added that he was a temperance movement person
  • expanded
  • expanded
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Happy with overall FAC feedback work and expansions. Support with non-deal breaking suggestions:
    • Is "Monks and Their Decline in 1898" a book or a pamphlet - the lead indicates that it was solely published to stop the beer, but it had a 88 pages, which indicates a diatribe
    • the monks continued to produce the drink for internal consumption - for their own consumption
    • where beer was brewed in abbeys - begs questions; was it from an earlier or contemporary recipe, how many abbeys, were they producing for "external" (maybe "selling" is better, as on 1st read of lead I thought international vs. domestic sale) production or just drinking it all themselves. Appreciate sources may be thin, if so ..."using a recipe used by a number of abbeys". Ceoil ( talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


Claiming myself a spot, comments sometime this week. ♠ PMC(talk) 16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Technically I'm still within my week. Here we go.

  • It feels unnecessary to call it an alcoholic drink, then call out the style of beer in sentence two. To me beer is a common enough concept that you don't have to explain it in an article about a type of beer. Unfortunately there aren't any comparable FAs to compare to, so it's possible I'm nuts and the granularity is necessary.
  • The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 feels redundant. The first sentence in para 1 already mentions the start date, and this restates that in more words without adding any additional information.
  • Francesco Satolli, the Apostolic Delegate to the United States. He wrote to Archabbot Leander Schnerr asking for the brewing to be stopped. Something wonky has happened here. Also, when?
  • When did Zurcher write his book?
  • What's The New York Voice, and when did it decide it hated monks and beer? What was it accusing the abbey of anyway?
  • the monks continued to produce the drink for domestic consumption - Assuming you mean the monks kept making the beer to drink for themselves, the phrasing "domestic consumption" doesn't really work, as it most often refers to the consumption of goods in the country they were produced in.
  • I feel like the background section gets ahead of itself by describing Wimmer as the founder of the first Benedictine monastery in the United States but not mentioning that the St Vincent was that monastery. It oddly implies that there was another one first.
  • The dates in the background section don't match the lead. The lead says brewing started in 1856 and that Pius IX allowed for commercial sale in 1858. The background section says that they were brewing by 1849 and got permission for production and sale in 1852.
  • Not sure the second paragraph belongs in the Background section, as it's a description of the beer and some critical response to it. Actually, I wonder if background/early years aren't better off merged into one section.
    • I have never found a good place to put this information. Back to its own section, I guess -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Early years
  • This section says the brewery was built in 1856, but the previous section seems to say there already was a brewery. Please clarify, unless I've misread something.
    • The 1849 brewery was in Indiana, PA and did not produce St Vincent Beer. Sources skip over what happened to that brewery. I retooled the sentence -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • was publicly condemned form - I assume that's supposed to be "from the movement", but "by the movement" would be more correct, I think
  • Link to Temperance movement in the United States?
  • "more mild" - milder
  • "who sell alcohol" - I think it should be "who sold alcohol", or maybe "who were selling"
Beer Fuss and Decline
  • When did The Voice release their article, and do we know what it claimed?
  • The monks, however, continued I'm not sure "however" is necessary, although it's also not a hill I'll die on if you like it as a matter of style.
  • The following year the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified making it illegal to produce alcoholic drinks and starting Prohibition. This sentence is a bit awkwardly worded. Prohibition in itself is the ban on producing alcohol, so it feels redundant to say it again. Perhaps "and beginning the Prohibition era"?
  • This is nitpicky, but this sentence "Officially, the brewery building was used for storage for the farm," should probably have a clarifying word like "Thereafter" or "Subsequently" to make it obvious that that was only after Prohibition came in
  • fixed -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Decline" says the ruins were demolished during the restoration of the gristmill; the lead says during the "removal of the gristmill".
  • Fixed leade -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

If you disagree with any suggestions, no problem, I'm open to discussion. ♠ PMC(talk) 02:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

All fixes look good, I am happy to support this nomination on prose. ♠ PMC(talk) 11:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Source review from Vami

Verdict: Pass. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


  • Citation [20] would more accurately draw from pages 129 and 130.
  • Citation [3] checks out but is needlessly repeated at This upset O'Connor who refused to grant the community that Wimmer founded status as a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed O'Connor's refusal to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3]
  • Citation [13] checks out.

X – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Fixed! -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Black Christian Siriano gown of Billy Porter

Nominator(s): ♠ PMC(talk) 21:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Actor Billy Porter's star had been rising since his 2018 breakout role in Pose. He spent the 2018/2019 awards season tearing up the red carpet, culminating in the two fashion moments that stamped his name on fashion history for good: the silver suit with fuchsia-lined cape worn at the 2019 Golden Globes, followed up by the black velvet tuxedo ball gown he wore to the 2019 Oscars. The tuxedo gown is widely regarded as a groundbreaking moment in Oscars history – he is the first man to have worn a gown on the red carpet – and it remains one of Porter's most memorable looks. ♠ PMC(talk) 21:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Two tiny things

  • Purcell 2013 needs an access date
  • Grady 2021 has a date inconsistency

For the coords, I did the GA review to my FAC standards. Part of that, I did one of my source reviews. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Support -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Support from Vami

Comments starting... Wednesday. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 21:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

ok tomorrow, after cinco de mayo festivities – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
back, with stuffed llama♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I can't find much to comment about - good job!

  • Speaking to Vogue in 2019, he said "This look was interesting because it's not drag. I'm not a drag queen, I'm a man in a dress." [...] saying "I don't understand why my putting on a dress causes this much strife in your life." [...] stating "If you don't like it, don't watch it" [...] saying "I don't think any man has ever worn a gown on the Oscars red carpet before." Should be a comma between "said"/"stated" and the quotation.
    • Done
  • Since 2019, Porter has become a household name as a fashion icon I'm not so sure about the present-tense here; it's not very durable in the encyclopedic sense, and the rest of the paragraph uses past-tense. I'd have written this as "Following his appearance at the 91st Academy Awards, Porter became [...]".
    • Done, your wording is much better.

X – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Thanks for the review Vami! ♠ PMC(talk) 02:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments from Sdkb

Starting with the lead...

  • for his breakout role in FX drama Pose Should there be a "the" before FX? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • It feels awkward putting a "the", but it's not a hill I'll die on if you or other reviewers feel strongly about it.
  • 2018/2019 awards season Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, I'd suggest changing to 2018–19 film awards season. I note that 2018/2019 appears allowed per MOS:SLASH. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Fixed both links
  • Link to Fashion journalism over fashion press, perhaps? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Changed to "fashion journalists" and linked
  • It cemented Porter's status as a household name This is a strong statement for which I'll be looking for strong sourcing in the body. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • I didn't want to overcite it, so there's 3 citations in the first sentence under "Legacy," but that's cherry-picked - lots more that I didn't cite in that sentence (but are elsewhere in the article) have similar phrasing.
      • As a side note, as of Vami's review, I have reworded it to "Porter's status as a celebrity and as a fashion icon." But I still think the overall sourcing substantiates it easily. ♠ PMC(talk) 02:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Porter has described the outfit as a piece of political art intended to drive a conversation about men's fashion and masculinity, for which it has received both praise and criticism from fashion writers, academics, and the general public. My thoughts on this might evolve once I read the body more deeply, but at first glance, this reads as both bothsidesish. Perhaps clarify that it was mostly conservatives doing the criticizing and add a little more overall on the reception to the lead. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Amusingly (to me anyway) I was trying to avoid pounding on the cliche of "evil conservatives hate gays." But some cliches are unavoidable, I suppose. I reworded on this basis, but not sure how much more about the reception I can add to the lead without repeating myself and/or getting to the point of no longer being a summary.
    • As always Sdkb thank you for your comments, I appreciate them. ♠ PMC(talk) 04:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      Apologies for the delay here. I'm still planning to continue with my comments, but have just had a very busy week, so leaving this as a placeholder. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      Not to be a pest but - are you planning to return? ♠ PMC(talk) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      Apologies again. I might, but with everything going on currently, I can't guarantee I'll have space anytime soon. The coordinators certainly shouldn't read any reluctance into my absence—if others are at support, then go ahead and promote, and don't let me hold anything up. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


I am leaving this up as a placeholder. If I do not post a review by this time next week, please ping me. I am very happy to see this article in the FAC space. I keep meaning to work on fashion-related articles so I will use this as a reason to do that. I look forward to reading this article in the near future. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • While not entirely necessary, for File:Billy Porter Oscars gown on Sesame Street set.jpg, I would include an archived version of the source link in the WP:FUR box just to avoid any potential annoyance in the future.
    • Good thinking - done.
  • Have you considered using an infobox similar to meat dress of Lady Gaga? I actually prefer the way that the article currently exists (i.e. with just the photo), but I still wanted to bring this to your attention if you were unaware of it.
    • I am aware and have decided not to do so. For all that I like infoboxes in general, I don't feel that they add much to articles like this that don't really have a lot of "standardized" information.
      • That makes sense to me. Again, I do not like the infobox as I agree with your rationale, but I still wanted to make sure it was discussed. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I have a question about this part, criticism from more conservative commentators. Is the "more" necessary? It implies to me that those were praised him were more liberal (and while that may be true), I wouldn't be surprised if some people who identified as more conservative enjoyed or were indifferent about this outfit or if some people who identified as more liberal were critical of this outfit. I just may be too nitpick-y.
    • For those who commented publicly (both public figures and random social media users), reaction to the dress was pretty polarized along liberal/conservative lines. I can take out the "more", which just leaves "as well as criticism from conservative commentators". Should I go with "conservative-leaning"?
      • It is probably fine as it currently stands. I understand your point, and I think it should be fine. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • For this part, Pose, which has been called his breakout role, I would say something along the lines of "which critics have called his breakout role" to specify who has called his role this way.
    • Done
  • For instances like this, said that the outfit "changed everything for me.", I believe the period should be on the outside of the quotation marks as from my understanding, punctuation is only put inside quotation marks if it is a full quote. I've noticed a few other instances of this in the article.
    • Per MOS:LQ, WP uses "logical quotation," where the punctuation is included within the quotation marks if it was included in the original. In this case,
      • Interesting. Thank you for the link, and I will leave this for other reviewers to discuss if they wish to do so. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        • Whoops, I saved that without finishing my thought. In the case you highlighted the period was in the original, so I've left it. I did go through and double check the rest of the quotes for punctuation placement and I found some that were not MOS:LQ compliant, so those should now all be fixed now thanks to you.
  • For File:Christian Siriano (12927).jpg, it may be beneficial to include where the photo was taken in the caption (i.e. OZY Fest).
    • Done
  • This is probably personal preference, but for this part, Porter and his stylist Sam Ratelle approached the designer, I think it would better to say "him" instead of "the designer". I agree with Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, but it is an essay so it is open to interpretation.
    • I actually wound up rewriting the entire first two paragraphs of Design & development because I noticed structural problems; this particular issue is fixed, and the section is much better overall for you getting me to take another look at it
      • Very nice. I will re-read it sometime tomorrow morning before I go into work. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Sorry for being nitpick-y, but I have a comment for this part, week, with Siriano and Ratelle working up. I'd avoid the sentence construction that is "with X verb-ing". It is a note that I have received in the FAC space and I have seen in the FAC space. I do not have a strong personal opinion about it.
    • Tweaked, and no need to apologize :)
  • For this sentence, On social media, the dress was compared to a similar 1980s look by ball culture icon Hector Xtravaganza., I'd clarify who is making these comparisons. Was it just random social media users or was it fashion journalists, etc. who used social media to report on or discuss this?
    • Paper magazine says "the Internet quickly latched on to the idea that Porter...was paying tribute to ball legend Hector Xtravaganza." Looks like the House of Xtravaganza Instagram posted about it, although I haven't found any sources that say whether they posted it first and other people hopped on, or if other people were talking about it and their Insta picked up on it and posted.
      • Thank you for the explanation and the revision to this part looks good to me. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I have a question about attribution in the article. There are instances where the author and work are attributed (i.e. Erica Gonzales of Harper's Bazaar wrote) and other instances where it is just the work (i.e. Vanity Fair placed him on its). I would be consistent with one way or the other.
    • I honestly just do it to break up the monotony of "Vogue said this. Vanity Fair said that. Vox said this other thing." No particular criteria.
      • Understandable. This should not be an issue with me. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Were there any instances of black men criticizing this outfit? I'm just curious because there's a discussion on how this is "assault on masculinity" and a part of "the emasculation of black men" so I wondered if any black male journalists talked about it.
    • (It is a little rich to see conservative white women coming to the defense of black masculinity, isn't it?) The complaining from high-profile public figures like Lahren and Senator Rapert was reported on and therefore preserved, but most of the criticism was randos posting on social media and was therefore more ephemeral. I didn't find any RSes that reported any criticism specifically from black male journalists.
      • It is interesting to say the least. Thank you for the explanation and for looking into this point. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Sorry for the random question, but have any fashion critics (or critics in general) compared this outfit to how women used tuxedos as a way to initiate discussions on gender? People like Marlene Dietrich come to my mind.
    • Not a random question at all! The long and short of it is, not specifically, at least that I found. I did turn up a museum exhibit on nonbinary fashion that featured a photo of this dress and one of Dietrich's tuxes, so I put that in the article.
      • I appreciate it. I could not find any specific either when I did a very brief search. The addition looks good because it is interesting to read about how this outfit was displayed with others and I think that gives it more context if that makes sense. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • This is outside the scope of this FAC, but I am curious if there is a way to rename List of dresses so it is more immediately clear that it is a list of individual dresses? It could already be clear though and I think this list is very helpful.
    • I've boldly moved it.
      • Understandable. It is a good list, but I can understand why you'd remove it. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Apologies for some of the more nitpick-y points. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article one more time just to make sure that I've done a thorough job with everything. Just as clarification, my review is primarily focused on the prose. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • I will re-read the article tomorrow before I go into work. I do agree with Sdkb that I think it should be, the FX drama Pose, as I have always seen "the" used before the network in this context. It is a little strange because it is not the only or the definitive drama on the network, but that is from my personal experience. I would also specify the series that the season that the Bimini Bon-Boulash wedding dress appeared. Something like "a wedding dress worn by Bimini Bon-Boulash on RuPaul's Drag Race UK's second series" would seem more specific and helpful to me. Apologies for the delay. I do not imagine I will find anything else in my second reading. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Added the second season thing as well as the "the" for FX. And there's no need to apologize lol, you've been super on top of responding to me. Don't sweat it yo. ♠ PMC(talk) 04:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


  • "He wore jewellery by Oscar Heyman" - I suppose it's probably obvious that the "he" is Porter, but it's been a while since he was mentioned, and multiple other men have been mentioned since, so maybe change "he" to "Porter"
  • Done
  • "Ratelle confirmed that the resemblance was unintentional, but stated they felt" - does Ratelle use they pronouns? If not, who does the "they" refer to, exactly? Also it should probably be "stated that" not just "stated"
  • The full quote is in the plural ("we felt honored") referring to him and Porter so I unthinkingly went with the plural pronoun when paraphrasing. Tweaked.
  • "Porter described the jacket as a political statement" - surely it was the dress that did this? Or the entire ensemble? Not just the jacket?
  • I literally have no idea why I put jacket instead of anything else, lol. Fixed.
  • " Vanity Fair placed him" =? " Vanity Fair placed Porter"
  • Fixed
  • "Fashion critics have described the tuxedo gown as an iconic Oscars dress." - the last two words link to red carpet fashion, but literally the exact words "red carpet fashion" appear quite a bit earlier in the article, so surely the link would be better placed there?
  • Fixed
  • "CNN Style writer Marianna Cerini remembered his outfit" => either "CNN Style writer Marianna Cerini remembered Porter's outfit" or just "CNN Style writer Marianna Cerini remembered the outfit"
  • Fixed
  • "rhetorically asking if it could "change whole systems?" => "rhetorically asking if it could "change whole systems"."
  • Done
  • "A photograph of the gown was featured at "Gender Bending Fashion,"" => "A photograph of the gown was featured at "Gender Bending Fashion","
  • Done

Source review (pass)

I will leave a few comments in a bit. It seems like there's been quite a few prose comments (but not a source review) so I'll check the sources.

  • Guerillero actually did an FA-level source review when he did the GA for the article, but there's been quite a bit of revision and addition since.

Some formatting comments in general ( from this revision):

  • Be consistent whether you include ISSNs in newspaper sources. For example, the ISSNs of The Times and NYT are displayed in the article, whereas the ISSNs of Guardian and Los Angeles Times are not displayed even though these papers have ISSNs. There may be other sources where this issue exists as well.
  • I've added ISSN to every source that had one.
  • Also be consistent whether you include publication place in book sources. Ref 44 (How to Read a Dress: A Guide to Changing Fashion from the 16th to the 21st Century) has a publication place here, but it is the only book with a publication place.
  • I've added it to the reference for Gender(s), but the template documentation for the location parameter says to "omit when the publication name includes place," so I have not added it for Fashion on the Red Carpet, whose publisher is named for its location.
  • Check to see whether you are consistently wikilinking the names of newspapers/magazines/websites in citations. You generally should either choose to link them on the first mention only, on all mentions, or not at all. In this article, the use of wikilinks are inconsistent - for example, Paper (magazine) is linked in 2 of 2 citations, while Vogue (magazine) is linked in 1 of 3 citations.
  • The double-linked Paper magazine thing was actually an unintentional duplicate ref - not sure how it happened. The rest should be consistent with only the first instance being linked.
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • 25. Rosseinsky, Katie (February 25, 2019). "Billy Porter wins the Oscars red carpet with velvet tuxedo gown". Evening Standard.
      • See my response below which I think applies to this as well. I'm willing to lose this one if it's really a problem, since it's supported by other citations.
    • 35. Rekstis, Emily (September 21, 2021). "Wings! Feathers! Fringe! Look back at Billy Porter's most show-stopping red carpet moments". Us Weekly.
      • Gonna copy-paste my reply to Guillero from the GA - "Arguably an opinion piece, which tend to be given more leeway in my experience. Given that their primary line of business is to write about celebrity fashion, I think it's reasonable/within due weight to cite that it's their opinion that this is one of Porter's best looks."
    • 48. Petrarca, Marisa; Holender, Samantha (November 5, 2021). "Billy Porter Apologizes to Harry Styles for Slamming His 'Vogue' Dress Cover". Us Weekly.
      • Removed as unnecessary

I will leave a few more comments later. – Epicgenius ( talk) 20:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, Epic, hopefully the responses are suitable. ♠ PMC(talk) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    @ Premeditated Chaos, thanks for the responses. I'm glad that Guerillero did a source check during the GA - it doesn't hurt to have a second pair of eyes, though. I'm now convinced that refs 25 and 35 are fine and all the other issues are resolved. Spot checks of 8 sources did not reveal anything out of the ordinary, so I'll pass this source review. – Epicgenius ( talk) 13:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review

Image licences, rationales, ALT text and uses seem OK to me. I would probably recommend looking for a non-Daily Mail source, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talkcontribs)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've added the original Sesame Street Instagram as a source, but since Insta doesn't seem to cooperate with the Wayback Machine very well, I've kept the Daily Mail archive link with a comment as to why. (I also swapped the image for the Sesame Street Instagram one as it doesn't have a watermark). ♠ PMC(talk) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Apollo 6

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about... the final uncrewed Apollo mission. It didn't go quite as planned, but it went well enough. Wehwalt ( talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Image review—pass ( t · c) buidhe 21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Support by Constantine

I had a couple of read-throughs, and honestly couldn't find much to fault apart from a few nitpicks.

  • The CM used was CM-020 to 'The command module used was CM-020'
  • Introduce George Mueller's role
  • I am not sure how many readers will identify what unit g stands for. Link it?
  • the planned 11,989-nautical-mile (22,204 km) apogee everywhere else in the text, the SI units come first

Nice, comprehensive, and well-written article. Constantine 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thanks for the review. I've adopted your comments.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

Only have nitpick too.

  • "metres" should be "meters" in American English? (Yeah, I know, an oxymoron if ever was one)
Fixed (the usages, not the language).-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Got that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Apollo 6, the second test flight of the Saturn V rocket" Suggest "launch vehicle" instead of rocket to match the lead
Fine.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Should " Lunar Module Test Article" be capitalised?
I suppose it should be Lunar Test Article.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "a velocity of 36,500 feet per second (11,100 m/s)" For consistency, put the metric first for consistency
Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • " with the S-IVB third stage and Instrument Unit computer also arriving on March 17." Recommend dropping "also" to avoid confusion
Changed "also" to "both".-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • You use the abbreviation KSC without defining it
Fixed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Fixed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • " The thrust variations caused the Saturn V to experience ±0.6 g, though it had only been designed for a maximum of ±0.25 g" Use the {{ convert}} template to convert to m/s2.
Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Gen. Samuel C. Phillips" -> "Major General Samuel C. Phillips" GEN is the abbreviation for "General" and he wasn't promoted to that rank until 1973. (Major General is abbreviated as MG in the USAF. But don't.)
Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I think the article may be a bit too upbeat on the pogo problem being solved. It did occur on subsequent missions, although it was notr as serious. See [6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I've clarified to make it clearer that NASA felt it could be dealt with.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Source review

  • All sources are high quality.
  • I have removed a series of CS1 warnings generated by url-status cards without archive-url cards
  • And the format cards, as this leads to inconsistent capitalisation of "PDF"
  • Would prefer page numbers for sources 11, 13, 16, 18 and 25
    I did it for Brooks. I seem to remember you have an online source of page images for Moonport?
    You can download it from Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • fn 31 is only one page; use p. instead of pp.
  • Spot checks:
    • Confused by fn 30; think it should be the same page as fn 31
    • fn 18: the URL points to the wrong chapter, 20-4 instead of 20-3.
    • fn 9: Does not have the CM number; Suggest using fn 10 for the first sentence instead
    • fn 10, 11, 28, 31 okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

With the exception of the note above, I've done as you suggested.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Support from Tim riley

Only one minor drafting point, and I know not what you can do about it: there remains a stray European "metres" in the Objectives section because, it seems, of the use of a template.

This article is an excellent addition to the continuing series about NASA flights. It is a splendid read (the necessary technical details are clearly expounded and not overdone), has every appearance of being comprehensive, appears to be authoritatively sourced, and is surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've taken care of that spelling.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments from Ovinus

Article looking great, so I'll probably only have a few comments.

  • Consistent hyphenation of trans-lunar/translunar would be nice
  • "would not encounter that body" To be clear, you mean the Moon, right? I'd just say "the Moon" instead of "that body" per WP:ELEVAR

More to follow. Ovinus ( talk) 06:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Georges Feydeau

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 21:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

There are grander, posher French playwrights than Georges Feydeau, but he is by several kilometres my favourite. The last and greatest practitioner of French farce, he was, alas, yet another of those geniuses who made the world laugh but were quite tragic in their own lives. I have enjoyed returning to FAC recently after some years' absence, and I look forward to seeing what colleagues make of my latest offering. – Tim riley talk 21:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review
  • Works like File:Mme-Ernest-Feydeau-nadar-and-Ernest-Feydeau.jpg (and also File:Tailleur-pour-dames-1887.jpg, File:His-Little-Dodge-1896.png, File:La-dame-de-chez-Maxim-1899.png) that are at least 120 years old with unknown author can be uploaded to commons using PD-old-unknown, assuming that they are PD in the US. However, for the Feydeau US license tag, how do you know it was published before 1927? Also, this looks like two separate images that you stitched together. I would upload both separately and display them jointly with {{ Multiple images}} if necessary; for one, that would provide better quality.
  • File:Occupe-toi-d'Amélie-1908.jpg is also ok for commons since a quick google revealed that Yves Marevéry [ fr] died in 1914
  • File:Je-ne-trompe-pas-mon-mari.png if the author died in 1935 it should be OK for commons (1935+70=2005) ( t · c) buidhe 22:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Frustrating experience at FAC over the years has taught me to have as little to do with Commons as possible. I was forever using a Commons picture and being told at FAC it was not acceptable. So I steer clear as much as I can. If anyone wants to copy any files to Commons that's up to him or her, but I'd prefer a copy to be left in English WP for safety's sake, as I have seen too many local images uploaded to Commons and later deleted from the latter on some pretext or other. The publication date for the Feydeau images from the BNF are as given on the linked BNF site. The one of Ernest is "1854-1870", and of Mme Feydeau "1870-1890". The quality looks fine to me as it is, but if you wish to do as you suggest I have no objection. Tim riley talk 23:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes, you have to check the licensing of Commons images before using them because quite a few of them are sketchy or outright copyvio. It's quite hard to get an image deleted on commons and it usually only happens for licensing reasons, meaning that the image should never have been uploaded in the first place. These aren't good reasons to avoid uploading to commons however, because as it is if someone tried to translate this article into another language they wouldn't be able to use the images as they're enwiki only. ( t · c) buidhe 23:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    As long as the images are appropriately documented for use in this article I am happy to leave the possibility of their eligibility for and upload to Commons to anyone who is interested and knows the Commons rules and requirements. Tim riley talk 09:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Comments from User:Smerus

Excellent, I support this for FA and as usual have a few feeble quibbles which may or may not be worth addressing:

  • Early years. You translate Meilhac's comment as "your play is stupid, but it is theatrical". I have the sense that "scénique" doesn't quite mean "theatrical" here, but something more like 'evokes just the right spirit', or 'hits the spot' . Not that either of these are much better.
    • My French is not up to much (or indeed anything) but I think this is probably OK. The Dictionnaire de l'Académie française says of "scénique": "Qui se rapporte à l'art dramatique et, en particulier, à la mise en scène, au jeu des acteurs; relatif à la scène d'un théâtre, d'un opéra, d'une salle de spectacles", so I think "theatrical" is all right. Open to correction by Francophones, natch. Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • 1880s
    • "but, "what gaiety...." ". I suggest that "but, it enthused, "what gaiety...." " or something like that, would be more grammatically orthodox.
    • "from the Renaissance" I had to think twice here - how about "from The Renaissance" (or "from the Renaissance [Theatre]")?
      • I've fudged it and changed "the Renaissance" to "the theatre", which is not a verbatim translation of Le Figaro's prose, but is a fair representation of it, I think. Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • "vaudeville-opérette" - I don't think these terms are mentioned before, so maybe better " vaudeville- operette?
      • Excellent! Thank you. Duly pinched and inserted. Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Best, Smerus ( talk) 12:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Smerus, thank you so much for the support and excellent suggestions for polishing the prose. I am, not for the first time, in your debt. Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Gog the Mild

Placeholder, please nudge me if I don't get to it within the next two or three days. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "as a child he wrote his first plays" Pedants' corner: he could hardly have written his later plays as a child. I would delete "his first".
  • "In 1919 his mental condition deteriorated sharply". Maybe mention due to syphilis.
  • "His father, Ernest-Aimé Feydeau". It would be helpful to give his dates. You give them for his mother.
  • "and Feydeau later said that people could think Morny his father if they wanted to" It would be better to refer to him as Georges as you have just been talking about his father.
  • You refer to Gidel as "the biographer" and Pronko as "Feydeau's biographer". The first does not sound quite right to me. Maybe "In his biography of Feydeau, Gidel"
  • "French naturalist theatre". Is there an article you can link to?
  • "Feydeau was appointed to the Legion". Appointed to which grade?
  • "is a comedy about a man's strenuous efforts to be appointed to the Legion of Honour". You say this twice.
  • "For some, his late, misogynistic one-act plays were his finest achievements" Misogynism his greatest achievment? What do female critics say about this?
  • "The Comédie-Française admitted a Feydeau work to its repertoire for the first time in 1941". Why not in his lifetime?
  • "They took the production to Broadway in 1952, and the West End in 1956". Were productions which moved to NY and London in French? Were the actors bilingual?
  • The Era. This seems a bit vague as a source. Maybe link to The Era (newspaper) if that is correct.
  • "in mid-1919 his family, alarmed at signs of a severe deterioration in his mental condition". Who were his family at this point? His children?
  • Another first rate article. Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

1982 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC), User: BennyOnTheLoose[ reply]

This article is about the 1982 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Davis's first defence. Second nomination - let me know what you think! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Image review—pass ( t · c) buidhe 22:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Doing a prose review of the article. Side note, I have my own FAC up here, and I would appreciate any comments. Of course, while appreciated, you are not obligated to leave a response. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬 reach out to me
    📝 see my work
    11:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • "30 April and 16 May 1982 at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, England" --> somewhat awkward placing of commas, but that might just be me. I'd put a "located" between "Crucible Theatre" and "Sheffield" to alleviate that
    • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy and was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA)." --> There are a lot of "was"s in the first paragraph of the lead, which raises concerns about repetition. Plus this sentence could be reworded in such a way that the active voice is employed. "Embassy, a British cigarette company, sponsored the tournament, and the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) handled the organisation for the event", perhaps?
    • "It had a prize fund of £110,000 and the winner received £25,000." --> a comma before the "and" is missing
    • The lead's second paragraph has a lot of participle phrases. "having defeated Doug Montjoy..." "becoming the latest champion who was unable to defend his first world title..." "defeating Welshman Ray Reardon 18–15 in the final..." all within three consecutive sentences. I believe you can rewrite one or two of these sentences to avoid repetition.
    • "The World Snooker Championship is ... the official snooker world championship" --> this is just restating the title. We can rewrite this to "the official global (or worldwide?) tournament for snooker"
    • I'd rewrite the next sentence to "Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the sport was popular in the United Kingdom before being introduced to Europe and the Commonwealth" just to avoid having snooker appear in two sentences in a row
      • In view of that wording change, I'd also rewrite "the sport is now played worldwide" to "nowadays, snooker is played worldwide"
    • "governed by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA).[6]Thirty-two" --> space after the citation
    • "Thirty-two professional players competing in one-on-one single-elimination matches that were played over several frames." -> I feel like there is a verb missing here, because at the moment this reads like an incomplete sentence
    • " This was the first world championships" -> the verb is singular but the noun is plural
      • Many thanks for the detailed feedback. I've addressed the points above in the article, and hopefully fixed most of them. I've used a slightly different wording about it being the "official" championship, as there are at least two other world snooker championships: the IBSF World Snooker Championship and the World Women's Snooker Championship. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        • No problem! By the way, with regards to this sentence - "The World Snooker Championship is the official world championship of professional snooker. Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the cue sport was popular in the United Kingdom..." - this essay argues that elegant variation, such as the one used here "world championship of professional snooker... stationed in India, the cue sport...", diminishes clarity. This is because at first glance, readers will not be able to tell what "the cue sport" refers to, and would have to spend more time than necessary figuring out the answer to that question. Here you seem to be doing elegant variation to introduce new information about professional snooker, which the essay says is not always an ideal way to go about it, for the reasons already outlined above. A way to improve clarity would be to put "the cue sport" beside "professional snooker", replacing the term with the "it" pronoun, i.e. "world championship of professional snooker, a cue sport... it was popular in the United Kingdom..."
    • All of the sentences in the third paragraph for the Overview section are in passive voice. I believe the MOS prefers the active voice whenever possible, no?

More comments to come once I get around to reading the tournament summary. :) Please ping me whenever you get around to addressing these points, by the way! FAC pages really need a "subscribe" button in the same way talk page sections do...

Will have a look at these in a mo. You can watchlist FAC pages, btw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 11:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I will have a look at this article. The review above looks extensive already so apologies if I repeat something.

  • Is there a reason why newspapers that have articles are unlinked in the references?
  • "a score of 18–12 in the final the previous year" could be "a score of 18–12 in the the previous year's final".
  • "The first World Championship, in 1927, was won by Joe Davis in a final at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England." could be active voice.
  • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy." would sound better in active voice too in my opinion, actually this could be done wherever applicable.
  • "after which Knowles scored 67" - points?
  • "Knowles said he had been to a nightclub until 2:00 am that day" - maybe "been at/in a nightclub"? They sound more appropriate than "to" here.
  • "Higgins failed to pot the last red and conceded the frame" - last red what?
  • "Reardon, a six-times champion" - shouldn't this be "six-time champion"?
  • "he had not sufficiently recovered from a broken leg sustained in October 1981" - "he had not sufficiently recovered after sustaining a broken leg in October 1981"
Great work just like all of the other articles in this series. If possible, I would be really glad if you were able to contribute something at my currently active FAC.-- N Ø 11:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Hey Lee Vilenski are you going to address these and will you consider leaving comments at my FAC linked above? Hope you're able to see this.-- N Ø 01:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Hi MaranoFan. Thanks for the review. I've amended the article in response to most of your comments, except the one about linking newspapers. My understanding is that there should be consistency in whether types of source are linked, and not a presumption that all newspapers will be. But I'm happy to make this amendment if necessary. Regards. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about a star in the constellation of Aquarius (constellation) which is known to have 7 planets orbiting it in a resonance. About 3-4 of these could be warm and cold enough to support liquid water; there has been a lot of research on whether these planets might be habitable and the star system has drawn attention in the popular press and even popular culture. It is an important target for the James Webb Space Telescope. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Image review no licensing issues found, but File:TRAPPIST-1 system to scale.svg should have a source in the image description for the data presented on the graphic. Also, the first image in the body sandwiches the infobox, which is really long. Would it be possible to collapse parts of the infobox or reduce the amount of info you're trying to get across there? I noticed that parts of the infobox are not cited either inline or in the body. ( t · c) buidhe 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Posted a question about the data on commons:User talk:Cmglee. It seems like this is supposed to be the reference of many of the infobox data, but apparently they can't be collapsed so I've commented them out in the interim. I think perhaps they should be put somewhere else (with refs) but I'd like a second opinion on that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
@ Buidhe: Update: The information in that image apparently comes from TRAPPIST-1#Planetary system; added a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

I have no domain knowledge, so here are my comments from a layperson's perspective:

  • surface temperature of about 2,560 K --> perhaps this too should be expressed in relative terms to the Sun, as in its absolute form it will be meaningless to many
    I see, but I am not sure how meaningful "half as hot as the Sun" would be to laypeople. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and thus --> and thus repetition not particularly elegant
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) --> perhaps an introduction to these odd names could happen a few sentences earlier. Something along the lines of "initially three, then seven terrestrial planets around the star, named TRAPPIST-1b through h.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • in fact almost twice as old --> are you sure you need that "in fact"? sounds a bit colloquial to my foreign ears
    Yeah, that was superfluous. Cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is --> whereas in the lead I liked relative info over absolute, here I think we need both. I'd much prefer to know how many billions of years it has left, as well, how many left for our Solar system. Also include the age of the universe
    Added a source and this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • coronal mass ejections; these are eruptions of coronal material to the outside of a star --> I find that semicolon odd here, but also this explanation surprised me. Up until this point I had to click through to many technical terms I had never heard of (brown dwarf, photosphere, chromosphere, faculae, etc.) and I didn't mind. But "coronal mass ejections" I actually could kind of get directly from its name, and the explanation desn't add much even. I personally would favour seeing inline explanations of uncommon terms. I would not have one for coronal mass ejections.
    I actually decided to move this to a footnote for consistency reasons. I don't think we can explain all these terms inline without severely breaking the flow of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I agree that would break the flow. Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1b, TRAPPIST-1c, TRAPPIST-1d, TRAPPIST-1e, TRAPPIST-1f, TRAPPIST-1g, and TRAPPIST-1h --> bit more readable and still clear would be TRAPPIST-1b, 1c, ...
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • taking a few to about 20 days --> why a few and not something like "with orbits taking between 1.5 and 20 days"?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • distances of 1.7×106–8.9×106 kilometres (1.1×106–5.5×106 mi) --> that's a lot of symbols munched together. Perhaps better to split it up and say something like "ranging from x to y"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury --> perhaps for extra clarity something like "all of them much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury "
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • They are named in alphabetic order --> I would expect this to come a bit earlier, right after their names
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • exterior to planet h and is part of the planetary resonance --> link planetary resonance
    Done and moved footnote up. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • coplanar --> link or explanation
    There is a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Would a link to Coplanarity be ok? Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • caption Orbital comparison. should not have a full stop b/c it's a fragment, not a sentence. The next caption is a sentence, and should have a full stop. Check the others
    I have to confess that I am not entirely certain when a stop is needed or not, can you double check. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Done Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • similar to similar ratios --> duplication
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2 between each planet pair --> perhaps "neighboring planet pair"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The resonances and the proximity to their host star has led --> have led?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • making the matter of tidal locking more complicated and potentially more habitable --> not sure if this flows well, it now reads that tidal locking gets more habitable
    OK, no idea how that sentence was written. Rewrote it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets --> the previous elements in this semicolon separated list had a verb, why not this one?
    I think "cause" is a verb here? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Sorry, I did not make that very clear, so trying again: the "likewise it would influence .." but has a subject and verb, but the next bit "cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets;" does not have a subject on its own, and likewise the last bit "or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres" does not have a subject or verb. I would think that all semicolon separated fragments have the same structure. Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • ,[122] or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres --> should that comma not be a semicolon?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • cannot --> can not per MOS:CONTRACTIONS
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • compared to a Sun-like irradiation --> link irradiation
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Three or four[42] planets – e, f, and g[132] or d, e, and f --> why use bold?
    To highlight the letters. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I don't see quite which part of MOS:BOLD would allow for that. Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Switched to {{ em}} Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • glaciation --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Other factors are --> for what?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • kinetics, energetics --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Soon more. Edwininlondon ( talk) 13:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Magnetic and radiative effects of TRAPPIST-1 --> would be good to use the unfamiliar term radiative in this section, and link it
    Done. I do have one structural issue here, though - there is a discussion on mantle melting here despite the section itself saying that tidal heating is much more important. I wonder if there'd be a way to put all the mantle melting in one section without creating too many short paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Because of the higher wavelength --> 2 paragraphs in a row starting with because of
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Water-dominated atmospheres --> why is water linked?
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Oxygen-dominated atmospheres can form --> I expected each bullet point to have some statement about the planets' atmospheres, whether likely or not. And ideally each bullet point starts with such a statement, and then additonial context. Like the first bullet point
    There isn't the same information available for every atmosphere, so that wouldn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Because the exoplanet and the visibility of its atmosphere scale with the inverse square of the radius of its host star --> not sure I get this: what property of the exoplanet scales? or do you mean the visibility of the planet? And would it be better to use "an" instead of "the"?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • - in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water --> (in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • in fact, TRAPPIST-1 emits amounts --> do we need that In fact?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1 is moderately[23] to highly active --> in what way?
    That's the bulleted list. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Samara, Patsourakos and Georgoulis 2021 --> previously it was X et al. Consistency would be better
    The pattern is that 1-3 names get spelled out and 4+ get an et al. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System --> are those 2 capital S's really right?
    I think yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • common volatiles such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and water --> most of these were alreeady linked
  • overall, so many terms are linked multiple times, really check the whole article for this. See MOS:REPEATLINK
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    If you use the Highlight duplicate links under Tools in the left hand navigation, you can see which ones are still left to repair. Edwininlondon ( talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I think I got the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • 50% water by mass,[247] because of this --> this doesn't flow very well
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • favour the evolution of --> inconsistent with "could harbor": BrE or AmE?
    BrE. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • mix oceans and supply and redistribute nutrients[255] and stimulate --> a few more commas needed
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • carbon monoxide that are toxic to higher life --> I'm surprised by this fact. Higher life as we know it on Earth, sure, but any life?
    The source certainly thinks so, IMO incorrectly for the reason you say but we need to work with what sources claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • the identification of close by ultra-cold --> I would add a hyphen between close and by
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • drawing widespread attention in social media, streaming TV and websites[ba][280] and it received widespread --> duplication of widespread, and would it not be more logical to start with newspapers? I assume they covered it first and then the public reacted
    Done, but I wouldn't assume that order of events - newspapers take longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • In Isolation's single --> should In Isolation not be redlinked? or do you think it is not notable?
  • same with Leah Asher?
    I don't know any of these people/groups, the fact that they mentioned TRAPPIST-1 is documented by third-party sources but the people/groups themselves probably aren't. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • by the High Energy Stereoscopic System --> I assume by the people running the system, not some AI
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • in Namibia --> countries usually not linked
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Owing to its relative closeness to the Solar System, the small size of the star TRAPPIST-1 and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, the planets frequently pass in front of the star, the TRAPPIST-1 planets --> I don't think this is correct: you have "its" but the subject of the main clause is plural. The whole thing is not particularly elegant, maybe consider a rewrite
    Changed to plural but I don't see how to rewrite this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Perhaps something along the lines of "The TRAPPIST-1 planets are the most easily studied habitable planets outside of the Solar System, owing to their relative closeness, the small size of their host star, and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, they frequently pass in front of their host."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Future observations with observatories and ground-based facilities may allow future --> future duplication and are observatories not ground-based? And would you not get better observations from space telescopes? Ah, ok you mention that after the semicolon. Perhaps better to rephrase to avoid this at first reading
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Together with the discovery of Proxima Centauri b, the discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets and the fact that about three of TRAPPIST-1's planets are within its habitable zone has led to an upswing of studies on planetary habitability[299] and are considered prototypical for the research on the habitability of M dwarfs. --> perhaps a few commas to help the reader parse this?
    I don't think that's easy to do. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    What is the subject of the clause "are considered ..."? I'm not a native speaker so if you think this is grammatically correct then I trust you. It just doesn't look ok to my foreign eyes. Edwininlondon ( talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Actually, neither am I. I've done a small change there. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest,[177] and the star has been subject of detailed studies, including studies assessing the habitability of each planet,[98] including the possible effects of vegetation and whether an ocean could be detected by using starlight reflected off its surface. --> twice includng, and the beginning is a bit odd since that was already clear from the preceding bit. And mentioning habitability feels repetitive, given the previous sentence
    I've cut the habitability bit, but the preceding sentence is more general than TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I feel that "TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest" could be a good opening for the whole Scientific importance section. Where it is now is a bit jarring for me since by then this statement was already obvious to me from all the previous sentences. Edwininlondon ( talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    That seems like a good suggestion; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Spacecraft mission designs using present-day rockets and gravity slingshots would need hundreds of thousands of years to reach TRAPPIST-1. --> unsourced and would it not be better placed right after "by humans with current or expected technology"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Still a bit jarring for me: it goes from current and expected tech to theoretical and then back to current. I'd do the present-day before the theoretical. Edwininlondon ( talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Reordered. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • there is an unusual number of bullet point lists, but I think it is fine as I guess it falls under the exception of MOS:PARA
    Yeah, many of these things work better as lists than as paragraph(s). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I will look at the footnotes later. Edwininlondon ( talk) 18:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Footnotes a b and i need sourcing
    Sourced the first, the second is two mathematical formulae (gravity and logarithms) and the third is also an unit conversion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Tidal heating is heating induced by tides, which deform planets and heat it in the process --> should that "it" not be "them"?
    Yes and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • e.g carbon dioxide, is trapped within a "cage"-like assembly of molecules from another compound, e.g --> it's e.g. (twice)
    Deduplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I meant to say that e.g is misspelled twice: it is with a . after the g: e.g.
    Ah; did that fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • 10×1033 ergs (1.0×1027 J) --> should that not be written as 1×1034 ergs (1.0×1027 J)?
    Yes, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • 58495 times that of Earth --> 58,495 times that of Earth
  • tidal stress 22735 times that of Earth --> tidal stress 22,735 times that of Earth
    I am concerned that using the comma separators might make people think we are talking about decimals. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    MOS:DIGITS gives 2 options, commas or spaces. But it has to be consistent. In the 1st section you have commas: 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The discovery was sometimes the top news. --> a bit of an odd wording
    Recast this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Which however may not have time to reliably detect certain biosignatures. --> I'm not a fan of these kind of half-sentences. But I can't see anything in MOS that suggests it is frowned upon.
    The MOS isn't the one and only writing rule. I think a question here would rather be how to write the sentence otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Barkhale Camp

Nominator(s): Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

This article is about another causewayed enclosure in Sussex. There are about half-a-dozen of these sites in Sussex, and I'd like to get all of them featured; this is the fourth. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Image review—pass ( t · c) buidhe 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • "The enclosure was first identified in 1929". This one, or causewayed enclosures in general?
  • "At the time of the survey that identified the ditches". It may be helpful to add 'in 1929'.
  • Link National Trust?
  • I think "access ways" should be 'accessways'.
  • "bucket urn and a collared urn." Perhaps a footnote explanation for the non-specialists?
  • scraper, core and flake could all be helpfully linked.
  • "Trench V found 44 fire-cracked flints". I doubt that. Perhaps "In trench V were found 44 fire-cracked flints" or similar?
  • Link Samian ware.
  • Sources: should Curwen E. Cecil not go before Curwen Eliot?

Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

All done except the urns, which I'll have to think about in the morning, and the Curwens. Cecil's first name was Eliot (he was the son of Eliot Curwen) and because I know that I put him after his father, as one would if the name were spelled out. He never used "Eliot Cecil Curwen". Do you think the order should be swapped? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Footnote done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
It seems to me that as given E. should come before Eliot. If it was in full, then Eliot would go before Eliot Cecil, but it's not. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Yes, that's logical. Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I will have a crack at it but make a note of my lack of knowledge of this topic.

  • I think a more straightforward way of writing the lead's second para's last line may be "Peter Leach conducted another excavation before the clearance was completed and after the southern part of the site was cleared of trees in 1978, examining several mounds within the enclosure, and attempting to determine the line of the ditch and bank along the southern boundary."
    Rereading the source I realized I was making it sound more complicated than it was -- the NT planned a clearance, and Leach excavated the site before they started. I've used a variation on your suggested phrasing. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "The site is owned by the National Trust, and is a scheduled monument." - isn't active voice preferred?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • As someone unfamiliar with the topic, is Military terminology an appropriate link to be added for "military terms" here?
    I don't think so. What I'm trying to say here is that it's had to find a way to explain the causeways as a defensive military position -- "military terms" here just means "thinking about this from a military point of view". Is there a clearer way to phrase this? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "substantial labour would have been required, for clearing the land" - is the comma here necessary?
    Removed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Trackway redirects to " Historic roads and trails" - would it be the right link to add here?
    I don't think so -- this trackway is a footpath for walkers, rather than having any historic importance. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "found three distinct groupings of sizes, and Barkhale Camp lies in the middle group" - "groupings" and "group" are similar so maybe the second one could be done away with to make less repetitive.
    If I make it "lies in the middle one" or "lies in the middle" it feels vague to me. Would it be better to change the "grouping" to "group" to make the back-reference explicit? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I think that would be a good idea. I will leave this up to your good judgement.-- N Ø 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Couldn't the small sentence at the end of the Site section be incorporated into the para's first one? - "The scheduled monument is on the South Downs, four miles to the northwest of Arundel, in West Sussex;"
    I did this slightly differently. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Are none of the three links at Earthworks appropriate to link for the word here? What about linking "fortified settlements" to Fortification? I apologize if the answer is obvious.
    Good idea; I think the Earthworks (archaeology) link is the best for this purpose. For fortified settlements I'm hesitant -- this might be overlinking since this article doesn't really talk about fortifications specifically, it's just a passing mention. I'd like to see if other reviewers feel this would be a helpful link. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "this may be where Ryle's trench was placed." - if this is unconfirmed shouldn't it be attributed which writer speculated this?
    This is complicated. I was hoping to avoid having to directly attribute this (and it is cited, after all, so the reader can see it's in Leach's review article) in the hope that it was obvious and didn't need attributing -- after all, we know Ryle dug a trench, and this is the discovery of an earlier trench, so it's not an expert's insight. The reason it's complicated is that it's not really clear who first pointed this out. Leach says it in his 1983 paper, but that paper included a summary of Clipson's MA thesis, which in turn assembled material from Seton-Williams' excavation. So the suggestion could have been made by Leach, Clipson, or Seton-Williams. I really don't want to mention all that in the body of the article in order to explain what I hope is clear anyway. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "By 1978 the site was owned by the National Trust, which decided to clear the trees from the southern part of the site" - maybe change the second "site" to a synonym, or "of the site" could be removed. Since this is a new section you may also choose to change the first "site" to "Barkhale Camp" instead
    Good point; I did this a little differently. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • For the sake of transparency, I will note that I haven't looked at the sources.
A great article that could maybe just use a few more wikilinks for rookies like me.-- N Ø 05:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thanks for the review! Everything now addressed, I hope, with one question above. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I am satisfied by the changes and can now extend my support. In case you want to return the favour, I am a fan of your work in source reviews and could use one at my current FAC. Best of luck!-- N Ø 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thank you! As it happens I was thinking about doing that source review. If I don't get to it today it should be tomorrow. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

  • Hmm! I didn't know about this site Mujinga ( talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "height of 0.6 m, and a width of 6.0 m, though the ploughing is likely to have spread out the bank material. Leach concludes that the height was unlikely to have ever exceeded 1.5 m." above you have "0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) high" so I suppose here shoiudl be metres not m, and also converted
    Done; I think I got all of them. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Few of the flints were found in clearly stratified contexts, but overall the flint finds support the Neolithic date assigned to the enclosure" - don't think you need the second "flint", just "finds" reads ok
    Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • In the picture, "grey lines are banks" is confusing me. Do you mean the dotted grey line?
    I think I may need to change the colours here. Page 13 in this paper is the source; you can see he outlines the ditches and just draws lines for the banks. Any ideas for a better way to represent this? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Sorry I'm more confused now! Mujinga ( talk) 18:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Sorry! I've updated the picture and the caption (you may need to refresh cache to see the new picture, or click through to see it on commons). The picture now shows shapes with a grey dotted outline for the location of the ditches, and brown dotted lines for the earth banks. Does that make more sense? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes thanks that's much clearer! I would suggest labelling the track as well, just for clarity. Mujinga ( talk) 21:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • " through the enclosure ditch, was examined for land snails; very few were found, making it impossible to draw definite conclusions, but it was notable that all the species found were shade-loving" - were the snails if found going to help with dating the site?
    Snails in the fill can tell you about the environment at the time they were deposited there; if they're all shade-loving species it implies the sites was cleared from woodland; if they're open grassland species it implies the ditches were dug some time after the woods were cleared. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Ah ok thanks for the explanation. Some of that is prob worth saying then, since at the moment I'd still be wondering what the "definite conclusions" are about. Mujinga ( talk) 18:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes, good idea; done; I was able to use the explanation Thomas gives in his report to source something -- how does that look? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    looks good, I corrected a typo Mujinga ( talk) 21:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "K.D. Thomas" - "K. D. Thomas"? if that's the case, there's a few other ones in sources
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library)
  • In the infobox, I'd suggest saying near Arundel rather than "near Bignor" since Arundel is more well-known
    Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • That's all from me, thanks for an informative read! Mujinga ( talk) 15:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Thanks for the review; replies above. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Two more replies above. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Nice one, made replies and switching to support. Will be interested to read about the next causewayed enclosure when it pops up Mujinga ( talk) 21:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Thanks! Next is probably Offham Hill, which I'm still working on. The only other definite causewayed enclosure in Sussex is Court Hill, which doesn't have an article yet. There are two probable but unconfirmed candidate, Butts Brow and Halnaker Hill, but I don't know if there are enough sources for a full article on those yet. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • I will review this, but as a driveby comment I see there are no photos. Would any of the photos of Bignor Hill on Geograph at [7] be any good? Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I hadn't thought of looking under Bignor Hill instead of the site name; thanks. Found one and added it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I think you have linked to the wrong John Ryle. He was a physician and his ODNB article at [8] says nothing about archaeology.
    I can't put my hands on the relevant ref immediately, but I spent some time when I wrote the article making sure I had the right John Ryle, and I think the link is correct. He was a physician who lived very close to the site, and was not an archaeologist. I'll have another look tomorrow and see if I can dig out the references that convinced me. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear shortly before 3700 BC, and continued to be built for at least 200 years; in a few cases, they continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." Were these dates established by Gathering Time analysis of radiocarbon dates? If so you should say so somewhere.
    I've cited this to the introduction to Gathering Time and also to the earlier Creation of Monuments, which doesn't give those numbers in the text, rather in graphical form. The introduction to GT is more specific, but it doesn't really change the numbers from the earlier source, so I'm not sure it's right to make it appear as if those numbers were derived only from the 2011 source, when it's not a change to the earlier understanding, only a firmer basis for it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Looking again at this, I am unclear about the source of the dating. You say above that the dating is based on Creation of Monuments, but this is not spelled out in the text and not mentioned in the final section. Were the Creation figures based on new 2001 radiocarbon dates or were they a summary of the 1995 RCMHE figures? If GT could not get dates due to the acid soil then they were presumably just giving the dates found earlier. Were the Creation dates based on material which could be carbondated or was there a different basis, such as pottery, to the dating? Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    The Creation introduction has a chart with the X-axis labelled "calibrated years BC", showing, for a dozen different Neolithic cultural phenomena (e.g flint mines and cursus monuments), a line that shows when it begins to appear and when it disappears. The lines are solid in the middle and dotted at the ends to indicate the uncertainly. There are no gridlines on the chart but it's fairly easy to read off the numbers; the line for causewayed enclosures starts as a dotted line not long before 3700 BC and is solid from about 3700 BC to about 3300 BC, and dotted again to shortly after 3200 BC. The book was published in 2001. Then in Gathering Time (2011) we have "This book...using chronological estimates produced by Bayesian statistical analysis of hundreds of radiocarbon dates...establishes that these ceremonial areas...began in southern Britain in the late 38th century cal BC, and flourished principally in the 37th and 36th centuries cal BC.... Some causewayed enclosures went on to have a long history, the initial use of a few continuing into the 34th or 33rd centuries cal BC..." So GT doesn't significantly change the conclusions from the earlier book. I wanted to cite both because they reinforce each other, and the radiocarbon dating project certainly establishes the dates more definitely, but since this is an article about an individual enclosure, not the parent article about causewayed enclosures generally, I thought more detail wasn't necessary. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes I confused myself not distinguishing between general statements about causewayed enclosures and this specific site. Sorry about that. You say that GT could not get dating on the site, but maybe spell out specifically that no one has. Dudley Miles ( talk) 11:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I hadn't realized that I hadn't actually said that; good point. I've added a sentence in the section on Leach, since I can cite that to a direct statement by him. His estimated dates are less precise than the later sources, but since this is a historical section about the conclusions of the individual investigations I think that's OK. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "Clipson's thesis was itself never published". I would delete "was itself never published" as it would be very unusual for a thesis to be published, but it should survive and be available for study. Is it known whether that is true in this case?
    I deleted the phrase. I contacted UCL in March to ask about this, and was told it's available on microfiche only; I don't think I can say anything about that in the article since my source is just the email from the UCL Institute of Archaeology librarian. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • "1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in)" 4 ft 11 in is too exact as a conversion of 1.5 metre. It should be 5 ft.
    Fixed. I had to do it by hand; I couldn't figure out how to make the convert template do it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • " belonging to the "Park Brow – Caesar's Camp" group". What does "Park Brow – Caesar's Camp" mean?
    This is a categorization of pottery used by Barry Cunliffe in his Iron Age Communities in Britain. He describes the type, and I could reproduce that description, but there are several types included under that name, and since the Barkhale excavation source gives no more details I think I should perhaps just cut it. Or I could say something like "one of the Iron Age pottery types identified by Barry Cunliffe in 1974"? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I would delete it. It will mean nothing to readers and there does not appear to be an article you can link to in order to clarify. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I've deleted it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Another first rate article. Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)