Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are 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 Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

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.
  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

Shortcut
  • 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. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Shortcut


Nominations

Battle of Morlaix

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Another in my long running Lance and Longbow series, this article is about the first significant clash on land of both the Hundred Years' War and the Breton Civil War. A large French army attacked a smaller, possibly much smaller, English force and it ended badly. I am much reminded of Wellington on British cavalry 500 years later.

Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve.

This has recently been much expanded by me and is fresh from a GAN review by Serial Number Redacted so thorough as to approach the rigorous. All comments, concerns and complaints are welcome. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

HF

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:CarlosIdebritania.jpg needs a US tag

Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse

Nominator(s): Departure– ( talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about the collapse of a theater venue in Illinois which had been hosting a sold-out concert. This is my first FA nomination, and the article has been out for around a week; it was assessed as B class and I've significantly expanded it since then. I have around 98% authorship but from my spot checks everything's cited, no tags are present in the article, and it has a good mix of sources. I do cite a Facebook post but I believe it's acceptable as a matter-of-fact statement by the Belvidere Fire Department. Departure– ( talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments from EF5

I love to see this at FAC, and I'll neutrally give feedback:

  • Images need alt texts.
  • A second paragraph in the lede would be marvelous, or at least paragraph out the current one.
  • NWS -> National Weather Service for consistency.
  • Template:2023 tornado outbreaks should be added.

Will do a prose review soon, but these are my opening comments. :) E F 5 16:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done, thanks for the suggestions! Departure– ( talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Now that my anxiety is a little simmered down, a prose lede review:

  • Lede:
  • causing the ceiling of the theater to suffer a critical structural failure and collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel. Although not required, I'd suggest rewording this to say "causing the ceiling of the theater to cave in and subsequently collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel".
  • with over 200 in attendance 200 what? "people" or "concertgoers" should go after the "200".
  • and was determined to have had winds of 90–100 miles per hour (140–160 km/h) struck the theater, The "km/h)" should have a comma at the end and as a result the comma after the "theater" should be removed. While we're at this sentence, , causing the failure of the lower roof structure, with large amounts of debris falling into the venue should probably reworded to say ", causing the failure of the roof's lower structure; large amounts of debris fell into the venue as a result".
  • Multiple people were buried by debris caused by the collapse How many? It's best to be specific where possible.
  • which was met with a swift response per WP:PEACOCK, I'd remove the "swift", but that's just a suggestion.
  • one was pronounced dead at the scene and 27 were taken to hospitals by ambulance, out of a total 48 that suffered non-fatal injuries. As above, one what? While I do know that it's referring to, some readers may not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply
For the first claim, we have next to no detail surrounding the specific means of collapse, so saying that the ceiling caved in would come without RS media's support. The wind speed thing bypassed my spot checks when I rewrote the lede. Over 200 in attendance will be changed to over 200 in the venue; I'm using "multiple" because the figure was over 10 but was never specified and 48 injuries occurred. I believe the swift response thing is discussed in RS media, and it is known that debris from the collapse made it onto the stage so I can't say anything about specifics other than the fatality being a concertgoer. Departure– ( talk) 20:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply
I've gotten the above claims adjusted but the swift response claim will have to be verified by me later on. I believe the speed of the response was emphasized in the press conference, but if you see it in the lede but not the article that means I'll have to add it in the prose with a citation. Departure– ( talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually, no, it's already cited. Comments on the response were in the article, and are cited to Alicia Tate-Nadeau who my work here and on the 2021 Naperville tornado gave her her first links related to actual disaster response. Speaking of, this should be added to the disaster response project. @ EF5:, you're more familiar with the rating tool, could you do that for me? Cheers! Anyway the quote is [i]f it wasn't for the fast and coordinated efforts, on Friday night, we would have seen a more tragic outcome from events from today and it's cited to Pritzker's visit to Belvidere under the Aftermath section. Departure– ( talk) 20:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Done, good job! I'll take one last look tomorrow, and apologies if I did something wrong as I've never really commented on an FAC before. :) E F 5 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

1914–15 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

For my 37th nomination of a Gillingham F.C. season, we jump back 90 years from my most recent nom. This particular season took place against the backdrop of the first year of the First World War and the decision to play on was controversial. Following the football authorities finally giving in to public sentiment, the final game of this season would prove to be Gillingham's last game for more than four years. As ever, any feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

The Suicide of Rachel Foster

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois ( talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

As people say, second time's the charm. This article is about an Italian-made video game that received attention for its treatment of suicide and pedophilia. A walking simulator in the style of Firewatch, players control Nicole Wilson as she explores the Timberline Hotel, inspired by the one from The Shining. Years prior, her father Leonard had groomer her classmate Rachel Foster, and after this "affair" was discovered, Rachel killed herself. Despite attempt by the developers to treat the game's topics sensitively, most critics seemed to think they failed, romanticising the Rachel/Leonard relationship and forcing players to kill themselves in the ending. A sequel is in the works, so I guess we'll have to see if the developers took some of the criticism into account for creating The Fading of Nicole Wilson. Article has undergone some work since the previous nomination and has also been copyedited. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review and Support from Crisco

Comments by Jon698

  • This is included in the release section: "The Suicide of Rachel Foster was developed by the Italian studio One-O-One Games—using Unreal Engine 4—and published by Daedalic Entertainment.[9][7] It was directed by Daniele Azara and the music was composed by Federico Landini.[8]" Wouldn't it be more fitting to have this at the beginning of the development section? Jon698 ( talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Virtual Self (EP)

Nominator(s): Skyshifter talk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Third time's the charm!

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the past nominations' and PR participants ( LunaEclipse, Heartfox, Dylan620, and Dxneo) to participate in this nomination if they wish.

Skyshifter talk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Dylan620

My concerns from the last nomination and the PR have been addressed, and I am happy to support this time around. Best of luck with the FAC! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review for this article, but I hope that these comments are helpful:

  • This part, (releasing his debut studio album Worlds (2014), a deviation from his earlier sound), is unclear as there is not any context provided for this "earlier sound" or the sound for Worlds.
  • I am uncertain about this part, (The alias is represented by two characters created by Robinson). I understand that it is focused on the different tempos for the EP's songs and it does follow after sentences on the EP's genre and sounds, but the mention of the persona comes off rather abruptly. I wonder if there is a way to make this transition more smoothly.
  • Why is the persona used for this sentence, ( Virtual Self's visuals present cryptic messages and a mysterious atmosphere.), while throughout the earlier sentences reference Porter Robinson by his name?
  • For this part, ( Porter Robinson was initially known for his "aggressive" electro and complextro sound), attribution would need to be provided in the prose to clearly identify who is saying this quote.
  • I do see a fair amount of repetition in the prose. For the first paragraph in the "Background" section, "released" is repeated for ("In 2012, he released ' Language', his first song" and "Two years later, Robinson released his"), and the first sentence from that section has "with releases such as", which adds to the repetition. The second paragraph from the same section has repetition with "follow-up" and there is repetition in this sentence, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea, as he could not come up with new ideas or create anything he was satisfied with.) I would double-check the article for this type of repetition.
  • For this sentence, (It was acclaimed and had an impact on the electronic dance music scene.), I would clarify who is making these claims. Is it critics, fans, etc.? Clearer attribution would help, and it would avoid having this sentence be in passive voice.
  • I am uncertain about the use of the word "idea" in this part, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea), as this is referencing something Robinson himself thought. I just do not think "idea" works for something that Robinson himself is describing about his own music.
  • I am uncertain about this part, (Robinson realized that musical tropes from the early 2000s, albeit obsolete,). How can a "musical trope" become obsolete?
  • Going back to the repetition point from earlier, I would see if you could avoid saying Robinson's last name twice in this sentence: (In August 2016, Robinson released " Shelter", a collaboration with Madeon that Robinson believed to be successful.)
  • The last paragraph of the "Background" section comes off as a bit list-y with the dates, specifically with the repetition of the "In X year". I would see if there is a way to better and more cohesively represent this information.

Best of luck with this FAC. I wanted to leave these comments as I do notice issues with the prose in the lead and the little bit of the actual article that I have read. Based on what I have read, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA/FAC, but I am not going to oppose as I have not read the entire article. I hope that this is helpful, and I hope you have a great rest of weekend. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Aoba47, "I am going to oppose"? Missing a "not" based on the context...? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for catching that and notifying me about that. Apologies for missing that. I have revised my original comment to add that in. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song)

Nominator(s): N Ø 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Moving onto a (somewhat?) bigger hit from Guts to spice things up, here is "Obsessed" from the album's deluxe edition. The song was a major highlight from her Guts World Tour and a fan-favorite long before she finally got around to releasing it as a single. There is something about Rodrigo's music that can make one feel like an angsty teenager no matter how old they are, and this song is a good example of that! I am sure reading it will be just as fun as it was writing it. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here. N Ø 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

NegativeMP1

I'll review this one as compensation for failing to review Can't Catch Me Now when it was at FAC. I'll get to this when I clear out the backlog of other articles I'm reviewing at the moment, shouldn't take any more than a few days. λ Negative MP1 22:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Medxvo

  • "two minutes and 50 seconds long" - "2 minutes and 50 seconds long" / "two minutes and fifty seconds long"— MOS:NUMNOTES
  • "He plays guitar; St. Vincent plays guitar; and Garret Ray plays drums" - "played"?
  • "Obsessed" is also about insecurity, channeling the negative inner voice in teenagers' minds and their persistent obsessive and envious thoughts" - shouldn't there be an oxford comma here? otherwise it's kind of confusing
  • "described "Obsessed" as a "banger" ..... added that it was a "banger" like Katy Perry's song ..." - too many bangers here? :d
  • "Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'" - "Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'"
  • "It concludes with her cleaning up ..." - "The video concludes with her cleaning up ..."
  • "On the Guts World Tour, "Obsessed" appears ..." - "On the Guts World Tour (2024–2025), "Obsessed" appears
  • "the "most badass moment" ..." - "the show's "most badass moment" ..."
  • Why are we not including the certifications in the lead?
  • Check if you can use this source instead of the YouTube reference

That's all I've got, hope the comments are helpful. Best of luck! Medxvo ( talk) 17:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for the helpful comments! All of these should be addressed now. I hope you are enjoying the weekend.-- N Ø 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support. Medxvo ( talk) 15:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments

  • ""Obsessed" became Rodrigo's seventh song to reach the top 10 on the Pop Airplay chart and ninth on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart. " - given that these charts don't have "country-specific" names and you just named a load of different countries, maybe specify that these two charts are American.....?
  • "Dan Nigro produced every single track on it" - the word "single" is redundant and can be removed
  • "12 of the 25 songs recorded made it onto the standard edition of Guts" - probably not technically wrong but I always think that a sentence starting with a number written in digit form doesn't look great. Any way to reword....?
  • "St. Vincent played guitar" - link St. Vincent, who hasn't been mentioned at this point
  • "It later incorporates ripped guitars, warped vocals" - not sure what either of these adjectives means in this context, is there a link or an alternative explanation?
  • There is no relevant wiktionary entry on either, unfortunately. I have swapped out "warped vocals" for "distorted vocals", but replacing "ripped" with "shredded" like the Billboard Philippines source states might hurt rather than help so I have kept the current wording.
  • "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths described "Obsessed" as a "banger"" => "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths both described "Obsessed" as a "banger""
  • "it was a good song like Katy Perry's "I Kissed A Girl" (2008) and Charli XCX's album Sucker (2014)." - this wording is a little odd - the writer thought that "Sucker" (an album) was "a good song".....?
  • Not critical to this review, but bear in mind that the various present tense verbs describing her performances on the Guts tour will need to be changed to past tense once the tour ends
  • That is what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 17:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Hotline Miami

Nominator(s): λ Negative MP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

"No matter who you are, bearing too much weight... inevitably leads to the collapse of everything." - Don Juan

Hotline Miami is a lot of things. It's a highly influential and critically acclaimed indie game (considered one of the best games of all time, actually), a very successful title that put its publisher Devolver Digital on the map, a cult classic, a driving force being the rise of synthwave, and a lot more. It also happens to be my favorite video game of all time, which motivated me to put in the effort required to bring this article here today, starting back in April 2023. I've actually rewritten this article twice, once in 2023 (which led to a quickfailed GAN, not exactly my proudest moment) and again throughout this year. And this time around, I opted to use more high-quality sourcing, like academic sources and more retrospective articles commenting on all aspects of the game. And that time, it actually passed GAN (reviewed by Nub098765). Now, with the extra work I have done on the article since then, I believe that all high-quality sourcing about the game has been exhausted, creating what I believe to be the most comprehensive source of information on the game available. And with that, I believe that it should have little in its way from becoming a featured article. Its sequel passed FAC earlier this year, and I hope that here, the first game will be able to join it with a star of its own. I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. λ Negative MP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments from Pokelego

Disclaimer: I am reviewing this as part of a review swap with the nominator. Not leaving comments on Lead and Gameplay among other areas because I did not find any noticeable problems with them.

Synopsis

-Looks very good, but I feel Richter needs some elaboration since he comes out of nowhere and I have no idea what his actual role in the story is.

Themes and analysis

-Again, very well-done. My only major gripe is, again, certain characters are only brought up here like they've been brought up before; I have no idea who Don Juan and Rasmus are because they haven't been acknowledged before now. While I can infer their significance, it would be good to clarify that they're the masked personas and that the personas have different tints before introducing them.

Reception

-Could the GameSpot source be more specific? What aspects of boss fights were irritating and where did the reviewer feel the game slipped up?

-"instead "serving as a mirror to the player." I feel this quote is very good, but at the same time could potentially be confusing on a first read. Maybe paraphrase this one, if possible?

Legacy

-"Many of these similar narrative themes, gameplay mechanics, or soundtracks to Hotline Miami" I assume this is meant to be "Many of these include similar narrative..."?

Overall this article is fantastically well-written and I have very few overall issues. Patch up the above and I'd be happy to Support. I will do a source check at some point in the upcoming days as well. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 ( Talk) ( Contribs) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

All of the above should be addressed. Though with the GameSpot reviewer one, he himself was kinda vague, only pointing out the boss fights and something about the games dialogue that I don't think can be properly written into reception. Nevertheless, I've done what I could. λ Negative MP1 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Steele's Greenville expedition

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

This was a little-known operation during the Vicksburg campaign, not to be confused with the better-known Steele's Bayou expedition. Grant and Sherman sent Steele's division up to Greenville, Mississippi, and then down Deer Creek, destroying cotton and supplies along the way. Additionally, the operation served as a bit of a diversion of Confederate attention from the main show further downriver. Some historians have opined that this operation is evidence of shifting Union views on forced emancipation, the use of Black troops, and the application of total war. Ironically, Sherman, who has historically known as a proponent of hard war, objected to some of the actions against civilians during the operation. Hog Farm Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments from Graham Beards

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits, which I am happy to discuss. There are a few other expressions that I think can be improved:

  • Here "The naval historian Myron J. Smith and the historians William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel state that around 1,000 slaves were freed, while the historian Timothy B. Smith states that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville." Why do our US contributors always have to write "state that" instead of the simpler "said" or "say"?
  • Here "Both Sherman and Steele believed that Union troops had gone too far in behavior that affected civilians, rather than just targeted the Confederate war goals." Should this be "targeting"?
  • "Going forward" is such a cliche!
  • Here "although other operations such as Grierson's Raid also played a role in that." I think the "in that" is redundant.

I might have more comments later. Graham Beards ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

How You Get the Girl

Nominator(s): Medxvo ( talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about a song from Taylor Swift's 2014 album 1989. It was used in a Diet Coke commercial that stars the second-richest cat in the world, Olivia Benson, and has been performed in Swift's world tours since 2015. Fun fact—the choreography of the 1989 World Tour's performance was compared by several publications to Singin' in the Rain (1952).

I would like to thank Ippantekina, Dxneo, Gained, Heartfox, Brachy0008, and MaranoFan for being generous enough to participate in the PR and provide some constructive and helpful comments. Following the peer review, I believe the article is ready to be a FA, and I would appreciate any comment from everyone including the peer reviewers. Medxvo ( talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

support. article looks really great and as a final note, im really proud of you (and how you've helped grown the article). thanks for everything. =D brachy08 (chat here lol) 10:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks so so much, Brachy! This means a lot to me :)) Medxvo ( talk) 13:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
ur welcome =D brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Heartfox

  • "Some critics praised the song as catchy and energetic: they particularly highlighted the chorus and how the track combines acoustic and electronic elements" → maybe semicolon rather than colon? – the first statement doesn't really "introduce" the second
  • "It incorporates" → The record incorporates
  • "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe, who had produced her" → "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe; the pair had produced her"
  • "Swift sings in the outro of the song, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl". The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending." → "The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending. Swift sings, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl"."
  • "Reviewing "How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version)", critics praised the song's production and energetic sound; The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber deemed it one of 1989 (Taylor's Version)'s adrenaline-pumping and centerpiece tracks and Slant Magazine's Jonathan Keefe commented that the production "packs even greater heft" on the new version and considered it one of the tracks that validates the re-recorded album" → too much for one sentence
  • "reached number four on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart" → the date would be relevant
  • ""How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version) reached number 29" → missing last song title quote mark
  • suggest replacing E! with a better source of possible

Best, Heartfox ( talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ Heartfox: Thanks for the comments! I believe I've addressed all of them, let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Hope you're doing well :) Medxvo ( talk) 18:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. Heartfox ( talk) 21:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

NØ

Thanks for the ping! I will read through the article again during the weekend to make sure I did not miss anything at the PR. Just two comments for now.

  • The names and locations of studios in the infobox seem to be separated by brackets instead of commas on the other 1989 articles.
  • The sample caption does not need a period as there is no main verb.-- N Ø 19:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for noting these, should be done now :) Hope you're having a good day! Medxvo ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. N Ø 11:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Vanishing (song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox ( talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

"Vanishing" is the first song that Mariah Carey ever produced. I started this article about a month ago and I really like how it turned out. Thanks in advance for your comments, Heartfox ( talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Placeholder

Comments soon. Ippantekina ( talk) 02:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comma after "debut studio album"
  • This is kinda convoluted: "Vanishing is a torch song ... She wrote the ballad ...". I would suggest something like, introducing it as a song by Carey, and the second sentence elaborates on its nature ("It is a torch song with a balladic production")
  • "Situated in the gospel and traditional pop music genres" I'm all for phrasing variations but this reads kinda flowery for an encyclopedic entry. Maybe something more straightforward like "Categorized in the gospel and traditional pop genres"?
  • I notice inconsistent usages of false titles throughout: "American singer Mariah Carey", "the drummer Ben Margulies", "the American television program Saturday Night Live". Please be consistent throughout.
  • "Rather than release it as a single" releasing?
  • "A blues-inspired[17] gospel[18] and traditional pop record" I think "record" is often used for albums and not tracks. Maybe "song" or "number"?
  • I'm not sure if citing album liner notes for lyrics is the best practice, unless that lyric has been specified in album reviews or analyses.
  • I'm not sure if the hyperlink to oscillate makes sense because the link leads to an article about physics.
  • "Its straightforward composition" not sure what straightforward means in this context.
  • "Patrick Dillett performed engineering and mixing" I know the issue with sea of blue but can one perform engineering and mixing?
  • "Unlike "Vision of Love", Richard T. Ryan of the Staten Island Advance said" wrong subject here
  • "in which she exercised commendable discipline with her voice" err.. I get what this means but this reads lengthy. Can we make it more concise?
  • "Critics have viewed "Vanishing" as a standout track in Carey's discography throughout her career"
  • "Courier-Post contributor Jeff Hall considered the song her best work in 1993" does this mean that the song was considered Carey's best among her 1993 songs?
  • Which makes me notice.. is there not a release date in the Infobox?
  • The third paragraph of the "Critical reception" is full of "A said, B said, C said..." I suggest some more cohesion here
  • "Entertainment Weekly writer Sydney Bucksbaum and Billboard's Gil Kaufman considered the performance impressive" this adds little value to prose imo.

My review is exclusively on prose and that should be it :) Ippantekina ( talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Medxvo

  • I would be consistent with the WP:FALSETITLES. "recorded and produced by the American singer Mariah Carey" seems to be the only one with no false title
    Removed "the"
  • "I enjoyed doing that because it gave me more freedom to sing" - enjoyed doing what?
    I thought it would be known that this is referring to "Vanishing" as this is preceded by the phrase "Carey described "Vanishing" as her favorite track on the album:"
    It was quite confusing to me so I checked the source and it seems like she's referring to the acoustic elements not the song as a whole, but even Carey's sentence structure is confusing to me so I guess that's fine. I suggest double-checking, though
  • I think maxi single can be linked
    Linked
  • "according to Stephen Holden" - a comma before according to?
    Added comma
  • "in the book Soul Music A–Z" - "in the book Soul Music A–Z (1991)"?
    Added 1991

I believe that's all I've got. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo ( talk) 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Medxvo: Thanks for your comments, I have responded above. Heartfox ( talk) 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support. Medxvo ( talk) 07:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

James Scott (boxer)

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply

James Scott became the WBA's #2 ranked contender and defeated two #1 contenders for the Light Heavyweight Championship. He was named boxing magazine The Ring's light heavyweight champion. That's impressive enough as it is, but Scott did it while in prison.

Welcome to the bizarre story of a man convicted of armed robbery, and later of murder, who fought professional boxing matches inside the walls of Rahway State Prison in New Jersey. And make no mistake; he would likely have been a champion had the WBA not denied him the opportunity over his incarceration. James Scott's story is among the most unusual I've ever encountered, so much so it captivated me to leave my usual video game-related editing to research and tell this story. It speaks to the will of a prison inmate to stand out and show his talents, or as Scott called it, the "gold in the mud". Red Phoenix talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments

  • "After picking up boxing as an amateur" - I would personally say "After taking up boxing as an amateur"
  • "This led to Scott being offered to be managed by an architect" - this reads slightly tortuously. I would try maybe "This led to Scott received an offer of management from an architect"
  • Unless I am missing something, there's nothing to indicate when the whole thing with Russ happened. You say "While in New Jersey on a visit to the state on May 8, 1975, Scott was arrested and charged with murder and armed robbery." but had the murder only just happened? Or was it an earlier event which he was only arrested for in 1975?
  • "In one account, he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone" => "In one account, he stated that he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone"
  • "and called him "the Great Scott", his boxing nickname" - I think "and nicknamed him "the Great Scott"" is fine
  • "Muhammad offered $15,000 to Gregory for the fight, while Scott was scheduled to make $2500" - inconsistent use of commas in the numbers (here and elsewhere)
  • "However, he started to receive controversy on why he should be allowed to fight" - I think "However, he started to receive controversy surrounding whether he should be allowed to fight" would read better
  • "According to boxing promoter Bob Arum, the WBA had only then found out " - when is "then"?
  • "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, who he defeated by decision " => "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, whom he defeated by decision "
  • " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round, and the second knockdown occurring late in the second round" => " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round and again late in the second round"
  • "Scott also held an escrow account" - is there an appropriate link for whatever an "escrow account" is? I may be because I am not American but personally I have absolutely no idea what this term means
  • "There, Scott worked with kids" => "There, Scott worked with children" ("kids" is too slangy)
  • "after speaking with the trainers and kids from the boxing gym" - same here
  • Opponent column in the table does not sort correctly (it should sort based on surname, not forename)
  • That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi ChrisTheDude, and thanks for your feedback! I've addressed all of your comments, with a couple of exceptions. I did see one use of "$7,000" with a comma and I removed the comma. Per MOS:DIGITS, four digit numbers are acceptable not to have a comma, so I did fix the one time it was inconsistent. I also did not change the comment Murad Muhammad made about Scott's nickname, since Muhammad doesn't actually directly say he gave Scott the nickname; he says "we" but doesn't identify who else, so he's a bit ambiguous here. Aside from that, I mostly used your wording and got the table corrected to sort by last name. Let me know if you have any more feedback, and I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Red Phoenix talk 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

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

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt-texts. I'm not sure that the building in the second image is "blue-colored". I think the alt-text should be changed to something like "A white and pale green theater building". Phlsph7 ( talk) 10:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Updated per your suggestion. Thanks for the review! Red Phoenix talk 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks good. This takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 ( talk) 13:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Beverly White

Nominator(s): Jon698 ( talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about Beverly White, who was the longest serving woman in the Utah State Legislature. During her career she would sometimes be the only woman to chair a committee, held multiple leadership positions within the Democratic caucus, and was awarded as legislator of the year multiple times by multiple groups. She was also incredibly active in the Utah Democratic Party and the national party. Jon698 ( talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments from Steelkamp

As a biography and a politics article, I'm interested in reviewing this. Steelkamp ( talk) 02:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Lead

  • Three paragraphs in the lead start with the same word (White). Can this be reworded?
  • (off topic comment: I am surprised that the districts of the Utah House of Representatives don't have Wikipedia articles)
  • "She was educated at Tooele High School. She married Floyd White, who also became involved in politics. She entered politics with her involvement in the Tooele County Democratic Ladies Club and later became active in the Tooele County Democratic Party." This contains three sentences that start with the same word (she).
  • I would link Tooele High School and Tooele County in the lead.
  • "White first held office with her appointment to the Utah Board of Pardons by Governor Cal Rampton." I think a date for this should be mentioned.
  • "She was on the board until Rampton appointed her to fill a vacancy in the state house created by Representative F. Chileon Halladay's death." I think a date for this should be mentioned too.
  • I recommend linking whip (or a more specific link target if one exists).
  • "She died in 2021." This sentence can be removed, as her lifespan is already mentioned in the first sentence of the lead.
  • Can an image of White during her political career be used for the infobox instead.
    • I suggest adding a caption saying the year the image was taken, or published if the original date is not known.

Early life

  • "Her husband was elected to the city council". Is this the Tooele city council? Probably best to specify in the article.

Career

  • For both images in this section, I reckon the "upright" parameter should be used, otherwise the images are quite big. E.g. [[File:Calvin L. Rampton.jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=Photograph of Governor Cal Rampton|White was appointed to serve on the Utah Board of Pardons and in the [[Utah House of Representatives]] by Governor [[Cal Rampton]].]]
  • "She served as vice-chair of the Tooele County Democratic Party during the 1960s. She served as a delegate to the Utah Democratic Party's state convention multiple times.[3][4][5][6] She served as secretary of the Utah Democratic Party for sixteen years until she was defeated by D'Arcy Dixon in 1987." Should be reworded as that's three sentences in a row that start with the same word.
  • "She was the secretary of the Utah delegation at the 1972 convention.[14] She served as an uncommitted alternate delegate to the 1976 convention.[15] She was a delegate for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy at the 1980 convention." Same as above.
  • "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election Representative Allan Turner Howe" -> "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election, Representative Allan Turner Howe"
  • "as both of them were moved into the 21st district by redistricting." Is this strictly true that they were "moved into" the district, or did they both choose to contest the district? Would "as both of them moved into the 21st district due to redistricting" be better?

Political positions

  • The problem with the abortion paragraph is that it starts by saying White was opposed to abortion but the rest of the paragraph outlines ways in which she is in favour of it. I think the change in her views should be more explicitly mentioned.
  • "In 1977, the Utah state house voted 55 to 5, with White against, in favor of a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion." I think this sentence is quite confusing. How about "In 1977, White voted against a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion, while the state house voted in favour 55 to 5."
  • "and that anyone who would send them through the mail would be arrested." -> "and that anyone who sent them through the mail would be arrested."
  • "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling." I think a comma should be added like so: "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling."

That's all for my first round of comments. Steelkamp ( talk) 07:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Steelkamp: I have done all of your suggested edits except for three. I will have to look on Newspapers.com to see what specific city her husband was on the council and for a better image of White. White did change her political views over the course of her life. Would this be an acceptable changed? "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but was criticized by Nelson for her support of abortion rights during the 1990 election." Jon698 ( talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    What about something like this: "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but by 1990, she supported abortion rights". And then the thing about Nelson can be left chronologically. Steelkamp ( talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Steelkamp: Done. Jon698 ( talk) 14:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Just did the image and added where her husband was a member of the city council. All I need is your thoughts on that change in the abortion segment. Jon698 ( talk) 17:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment by Generalissima

Just a quick thought - if we're using a Fair Use image anyway, why not one of the much higher quality images from this article as opposed to a low-quality newspaper scan? Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 06:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

  • (Unsolicited comment) When using non-free media, we have a responsibility to use the "least un-free" option available: WP:FREER is the relevant guideline. There is a good argument that a scan from an old newspaper is no longer of any commercial value -- the newspaper company is no longer selling that paper, and very few people can access it anyway, so no business or publicity is lost. On the other hand, if we co-opt an image from the Salt Lake Tribune, that might mean that some readers (for instance, using Google Image Search) end up here rather than the SLT website, or else that we push them down the search-engine rankings, which would have very obvious commercial, advertising and publicity implications. Whether that argument is definitive or convincing here, I will leave up to others. UndercoverClassicist T· C 09:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Generalissima: Also all of those images are of her in her 80s-90s. The page was previously using one of the images from that article. Jon698 ( talk) 02:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think that using an image from when she was active in politics is best, but it's unfortunate that the current image there is low quality and I encourage you to find a better quality image. Have you looked in Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993? Its possible that there is a better image of White there which could be scanned. Steelkamp ( talk) 07:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)

Nominator(s): SchroCat ( talk) 07:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Fleming was an unwell man when he wrote The Man with the Golden Gun, and this affected his writing, cutting his energy from over four hours writing a day down to an hour or so. He died six months after writing it, and before it was published. This article has been through a re-write recently and I'm grateful to Tim riley for his subsequent peer review. (For those bored of reviewing the Bond series, there are only three more of them to go after this) - SchroCat ( talk) 07:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support on prose, which I cannot fault. (Thanks for an enjoyable read). Graham Beards ( talk) 12:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support. I peer reviewed the article and my few quibbles were dealt with satisfactorily. On a further read-through for FAC the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 00:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

SchroCat, my apologies for putting my oar in again, but I have just noticed that in the final sentence of your footnote h, you have repeated the opening words of the sentence at the end of it, which I don't suppose you intended to do. (Not, I need hardly say, that this affects my support.) Tim riley talk 13:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Well spotted, young man. Now deleted. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 13:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support as all of the suggested edits in the peer review were done and the prose is excellent. My edits to the page were just to add some archived links. Jon698 ( talk) 16:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments from Ian

Recusing coord duties to review (as if I could resist!), I've always thought Golden Gun gets a raw deal from critics; yes there isn't the rich detail but it moves like lightning and unlike Benson I find nothing robot-like in Bond, who has some cracking dialogue with Scaramanga, Goodnight, Leiter and co. Of course, being a perverse creature I also think Licence to Kill is sadly underrated... ;-) In any case my opinions are of as little account as sparrow's tears so onto the commentary:

  • It’s not often I read a lead section and find nothing I want to tweak – nice work.
  • wrote to her bother – "brother" I assume (or perhaps she did find it a bother)?
  • but also had two alternatives which he could offer: – perhaps trim to but also considered?
  • the novel was viable for publication – trim "viable" to "fit", which I think flows better too?
  • Similarly, Fleming used the name of the secretary of the Royal St George's Golf Club – I don't think "Similarly" is needed.
  • Benson considers the character to have different personality from the previous stories and is robot-like – aside from needing "a" after "different", I think "to be robot-like" might be better grammatically.
  • Successive sentences beginning "Benson also" – could we vary?
  • Amis thinks Bond's personality is rather like that in Moonraker – I wonder if Amis expands on that, as I've recently re-read both books and I'm not sure how he means it.
  • Black describes how the reference to the Gestapo serves as a frame of reference to readers – could we replace a "reference"?

Stopping at the end of Development for now. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Many thanks Ian: all done in these two edits. Looking forward to any more you may have. (ps. for all the holes and lack of "the Fleming effect", it's one of mine too: the (ridiculously forced) entry of Leiter is always a welcome edition into the books, too). Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 07:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Continuing with Style and Themes:

  • Within the text Benson identifies what he described as the "Fleming Sweep" -- tense change, should it be "describes"?
  • keep the storyline moving along at pace without the novel dropping -- "without the novel dropping" sounds odd to me, do we need it at all?
  • With The Man with the Golden Gun, Amis wrote of that the lack of the effect was one of "the deficiencies of The Man with the Golden Gun" -- "With The Man with the Golden Gun," seems superfluous.
  • In contrast to Live and let Die (1954) and Dr No (1958), where Jamaica was still part of the Empire -- "wherein"?

Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks Ian, all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 10:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Image and source review from PMC

Well, prose appears to be well and truly covered, so I'll put myself down for the fiddly bits. Hopefully tomorrow night if work isn't too busy. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

That's great - thanks PMC! I look forward to your comments. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 13:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Crisco

  • "it was not as polished as other Bond stories. Much of the detail contained in the previous novels was missing," - You already gave "The novel was not as detailed or polished as the others in the series," above, so this is redundant.
  • bordello might be worth wikilinking; Eton and diastema as well
  • Despite Plomer's original thought about the state of the manuscript, Fleming's publishers, Jonathan Cape, were concerned enough about the story to pass the manuscript to the writer Kingsley Amis to read on holiday, paying him £35 15 shillings for his thoughts and advice, although Amis' subsequent suggestions were not used by Cape. - Might be worth splitting
  • The sentence starting "Tony Hugill, the sugar planter mentioned in the book" might be overly detailed and benefit from splitting, especially given that it's connected to the next sentence with a semi-colon.
  • One of these was the poison gun used in the scene of the attempted assassination of M.
  • He begins the novel having been brainwashed by the Soviets, but is soon deprogrammed by the Secret Service. - You use "de-programmed" above.
  • Both characters use their criminal expertise in the service of communist Cuba and investing in casinos in Jamaica. - "Investing" should probably be "invest"
  • possessing three nipples - Maybe a link to supernumerary nipple?

Overall, very tight and an enjoyable read. No going out like a lamb here.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Aineta aryballos

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T· C 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about one of my favourite objects, in one of my favourite rooms, in the British Museum. Gallery 69 is a bit of an oddball, collecting classical artefacts and grouping them by theme rather than by time, place or culture: this little pot sits unassumingly in the case on "writing", alongside an Athenian voting token and a piece of bone inscribed with lines from the Iliad. Almost nobody gives it a second thought, which is sad, given that is both a fascinating archaeological find and a memento of a particularly vicious archaeological quarrel. It was (probably) originally owned by a high-class prostitute, (probably) called Aineta, (probably) depicted on its handle, though scholars disagree about just about everything it is possible to dispute about it. It was also the subject of one of the first major Greek trials for antiquities crime, and played a major role in the unmasking of Athanasios Rhousopoulos -- then a pillar of the Greek archaeological establishment -- as one of the country's most prolific and shameless patrons of grave-robbers. As ever, all comments and suggestions will be most gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist T· C 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

Hi Nikki -- done. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Iazyges

  • Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lead: made in Corinth between approximately 625 and 570 BCE you may desire to explain to the reader where Corinth is (as ancient greek objects were not restricted to geographic Greece), perhaps made in Corinth (modern-day Greece) or made in Corinth (ancient Greece), whichever is preferred; since it has already been introduced as an ancient Greek object, the modern-day Greece option may be preferred.
    • Good point. I've clarified this as "southern Greece" (frustratingly, Corinth is right on the borderline between what's generally called "central" and what's generally called "southern" Greece, but it's just about in the Peloponnese and plenty of sources go for "southern". UndercoverClassicist T· C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Body: Rudolf Wachter concurs with Rhousopoulos's assessment that the vase was likely a "love-gift", while Matthias Steinhart and Eckhard Wirbelauer wrote in 2000 that it is universally considered to have been a gift of some nature. Highly semantic, but I would re-arrange this. For one, Steinhart and Wirbelauer appear to be offering support to a vaguer statement, rather than harshly disagreeing, and for two, the Wachter source appears to have been published after, so I would flip them. Suggest Matthias Steinhart and Eckhard Wirbelauer wrote in 2000 that it is universally considered to have been a gift of some nature, while Rudolf Wachter concurs with Rhousopoulos's assessment that the vase was likely a "love-gift".
  • A secondary comment, Wachter is introduced by date in the "Decoration" section below; may wish to move the date introduction up here at the first mention, for consistency.
  • often known as "grave-robbers" I would suggest often referred to as "grave-robbers"; the "known as" construct comes off as a little flippant to me, but perhaps that's a peculiarity of American English.
  • their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums Since this is further mentioned below, I think a little more specificity on the committee could be helpful (here or in discussing Rhousopoulos's role in it). As it reads now, I think the average reader could draw three possible conclusions: 1) there were three sitting members of the committee (elected, selected, or appointed to terms), 2) many members of experts (and 3 would be randomly assigned to each case, such as judges in some legal systems), 3) or if you could collect any three experts you were good to go. I would presume the first is true, in which case I would add a short bit to explain the terms and system, such as perhaps their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts, [appointed] on a [term] basis, that the object was "useless" to Greek museums, or something similar, swapping out appointed for whatever other method may have been used, and [term] for whatever their term was.
    OK, what I can draw is... not a lot. It sounds like what happened was that, whenever someone wanted to export an ancient object, the state (presumably via the Ministry of Education, which ultimately held the reins on archaeological matters) convened a fairly ad-hoc committee of three experts, who were not always necessarily the same people, and who themselves often called on other experts, to make the judgement. We're probably closer to (2) in your framing than (1), which I think is probably the surface reading of what we've got anyway? It's difficult to be too categoric here, as I can't find a source which really spells it out. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    This comment was more aspirational than anything; if there isn't more to say I don't think there is a problem, but it would have been nice; I am all too familiar with sources refusing to be specific. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A neat little article! Thank you for your work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Happy to support the nomination. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you -- and for your helpful comments above. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments from Choliamb

A few minor points:

Text

  • The vase body, the neck and the handle were made separately and joined using a lathe. For "lathe" read "potter's wheel". (Tornio, the word used by Rhousopoulos's translator, is the normal term for this in Italian: see here, for example.) But even apart from that, the phrasing is a little odd. The pieces were not really "joined using a potter's wheel", which makes it sound as if the wheel was the tool with which the join was made; instead, the globular body and the disk-shaped mouth were each made separately on the potter's wheel and then the two pieces were joined together, presumably while still on the wheel, but not necessarily so. (The handle, of course, was also added separately, but it was just a strap of clay, not turned on the wheel.) What Rhousopoulos actually says is even less than this: he writes only that the body, the handle, and the neck with its disk were all made separately and then joined, and that traces of the wheel could be detected on the disk (sopra il quale si rintracciano vestigi del tornio, where the antecendent of il quale is disco).
  • Nine men are named, each on an individual line.. "Each on an individual line" is a very generous way of describing the meandering layout of the four names on the right side of the handle.
  • Is there some reason why the names of the men are not listed here? Yes, there's a drawing of the inscription, but even readers who know some Greek are likely to be baffled by the Archaic Corinthian alphabet, so providing the names (either transcriptions or transliterations) would be helpful.
    • I've stuck them in a footnote: none of the names other than Aineta and Menneas, as far as I can tell, have had more than a trivial discussion as to who these people might have been. There's also the question of the double consonants: see below. UndercoverClassicist T· C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • including a musician named Menneas. Just flagging this to be sure that Gallavotti really spells the name with two N's, since there's only one nu on the vase. (If he does, it's presumably because the form Μεννέας is well attested elsewhere: ca. 300 examples in the LGPN, vs. only 8 for Μενέας.)
    • I only have the citation at second hand (via Wachter), who writes it as "Men(n)eas", with a slightly opaque (to me) explanation: (or, again, 'expressive' Μεν(ν)εας: Bechtel, p. 312). Bechtel appears to be one of three 1920s German volumes about Greek dialects. He's earlier used this to argue that the name Dexilios could be Dexillios, so I assume his/Gallavotti's point is that there's a particular dialectical feature by which double consonants become/are written as single ones in particular contexts? From what I remember from a different source (Guarducci, possibly?), the argument is that Menneas (double n) is named as a musician on a different vase, and therefore that it might be the same guy. UndercoverClassicist T· C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
      • @ Choliamb: Did you see this bit -- have I got the right end of the stick here with the bracketed double consonants? UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
        • As I understand it (not really my field), the term "expressive" is used by linguists to describe certain morphological features, especially the doubling of consonants or entire syllables, that supposedly reflect the emotional state of the speaker. This is particularly common in nicknames (which linguists call hypocoristic names, because it sounds more fancy), and the idea is that they express affection or some other kind of intensification, rather than simply being the product of the regular processes of linguistic change. If you search for the phrase "expressive gemination" in Google Books, you'll find a lot of examples of doubled consonants explained in this way. The "expressive" explanation is not universally accepted; hence the scare quotes used by Wachter. The reference to Bechtel is not to Die griechischen Dialekte but to Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, which lists a bunch of names derived from the root μεν-, including both Μενέας and Μεννέας; it has nothing specific to say about expressive gemination. If you want my opinion, I don't think you need to mention the alternative forms with doubled consonants in the footnote at all, in parentheses or otherwise: just report the names as they are spelled on the vase. You don't need a source for this: simple transliteration is not OR, and your other Greek articles are full of transliterated words, phrases, and journal titles for which you cite no sources, which is perfectly fine. The fact that the spelling Menneas is generally more common across the Greek world than the spelling Meneas is irrelevant to this particular vase, as is the fact that the names on the vase have Doric spellings (to be expected in Corinth) rather than the more familiar Attic-Ionic spellings (e.g., Lysandridas and Kariklidas vs. Lysandrides and Kariklides). The only thing we know for sure is that these particular names with these particular spellings were expected to be intelligible to Corinthians of the late 7th–early 6th century BC, so in my opinion it's best to stick with what the vase-painter actually wrote rather than inserting hypothetical forms, however they might be explained. (But note that some of the transliterations currently in the footnote need to be corrected: for Eudokios read Eudikos, for Lysandrias read Lysandridas, and for Dexilios read Dexilos.) Choliamb ( talk) 15:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
          Thanks, Choliamb. I've corrected those translations and removed Dexillos. I'll try and dig into the sources (possibly via an RX request for the original Gallavotti article): if he emphatically thinks the dancer was Menneas, then I think we do need to keep the doubled n as a possibility (otherwise, we're implicitly dismissing his argument, since Meneas is not Menneas); if he writes "Men(n)eas" or similar, we can content ourselves with a single nu. UndercoverClassicist T· C 15:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • contrasted the vase with another excavated in Corinth in 1872, which showed three female names that she suggested were those of hetairai This is the pyxis 74.51.364 from the Cesnola collection, now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. But do we know that it was "excavated in Corinth in 1872"? I don't think we do, and Milne herself does not make this claim. "Excavated" is a euphemism for "looted from a tomb", since there were no controlled excavations in Corinth at this date, and the pencilled notation "Corinth 1872" on the vase itself could mean no more than that it was acquired by Cesnola or an intermediary in Corinth in that year. Antiquities from throughout the Corinthia passed through Corinth (in part because it was easy to sell to foreign collectors on ships that stopped briefly at the Isthmus), and I don't think there's any way to know that this particular pyxis came from a tomb at Corinth itself rather than one of the other settlements nearby, or precisely when it was discovered.

References

  • The way the five short articles published by Galanakis in 2012 are arranged here disgruntles me, for two reasons:
(1) They are referred to as Galanakis 2012a, 2012b, etc. in the notes, but in the bibliography they appear as Galanakis (17 October 2012), Galanakis (31 December 2012), etc. This seems needlessly confusing. You may reply that readers can always click on the link to discover that Galanakis 2012d in the note = Galanakis (30 November 2012) in the bibl, but that argument doesn't move the needle for me, and it's obviously irrelevant for anyone who makes the mistake of printing out the article to read later. In the author-year system of referencing, if something is cited as Galanakis 2012d in the notes, there should be a corresponding publication listed as Galanakis 2012d in the bibliography. I'm not saying the precise date should be removed, only that it should be placed later in the listing, not at the beginning.
I see the problem: the issue here is how the citation template works. "2012d" (for example) is listed in the citation, but the |year= parameter is overwritten by the template if the |date= parameter is also filled, and therefore not displayed. See reply on (2) below. UndercoverClassicist T· C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
(2) I understand that these five articles have been arranged alphabetically by title, but the result makes me seasick: the list starts in October, then jumps ahead to December, then back to November, and then back to October again. I'm willing to bet that most readers will not detect an alphabetized list here; they're just going to wonder why the principle of listing a given author's works by date of publication has been suddenly and conspicuously abandoned. Alphabetical order is conventional in such cases, but it did not come down the mountain with Moses: it's an arbitrary rule used when no other more rational sequence presents itself, and with a series of successive articles on related topics published by the same author in the same periodical in the same year, the most rational sequence is surely the order of publication. If you insist on alphabetical order no matter what, sooner or later you will end up with a situation in which Part Two of a two-part article is listed first while Part One of the same article, published six months earlier in the same journal, is listed second, simply because the titles of the two parts happen to be slightly different. That serves nobody's interest.
This actually becomes much easier if we implement the change I suggest above: rearranging which citation is 2012a, 2012b etc is a pain in the neck, but assigning them each to a specific date makes it a lot easier. I've gone and done that. UndercoverClassicist T· C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It looks as if you have cited Lorber only at second hand, via Wachter. But Lorber's book is available at the Internet Archive and his discussion, although brief, is worth reading and citing independently, especially for his comments about the letter forms and date. Although it's true that he places this vase in his group of Early Corinthian inscriptions, most of the comparanda he cites, both for the letter forms and for other vases with women's heads on the handles and inscriptions of the names of presumed hetairai, are Middle Corinthian. The distance between Lorber and Amyx is less than the distance between either of them and Payne, and I would like to see Lorber get a little more credit for laying out some of the reasons why the date of ca. 625 proposed by both Payne and Jeffery is almost certainly too high. But you can read what he has to say and make up your own mind.
    • I've added something here. I'm a bit confused, reading Lorber: Wachter says he calls it EC, but I can only actually see in Lorber that he says that Payne went too early and the letter-forms look sixth-century to him: in other words, there's no necessary conflict with what Lorber says and Amyx/Wachter's MC date, though Wachter implies that there is. Between Wachter and me, one of us is missing something -- there's a clear balance of probability here, but any help in seeing it greatly appreciated. UndercoverClassicist T· C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) It was me -- a wood/trees confusion: I had failed to see that the whole section was "transitional" (therefore could be no later than EC). UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • For Rhousopoulos's article in the AdI it would be much more convenient to point readers to the Hathi Trust or the Internet Archive, where the article can be linked directly and read page by page, rather than forcing them to download a giant ZIP file containing an equally giant PDF file and then dig through it to find the right page themselves.

Regards, Choliamb ( talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all these, Choliamb: sharp and well-taken as ever. I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling Lorber with Wachter's citation of him: would you be able to throw me a rope on that one? The rest straightforwardly done. UndercoverClassicist T· C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is genuinely confusing. The main reason Wachter says that Lorber assigns an EC date is because Lorber discusses this aryballos in the EC section of his book. (The heading for the section is on p. 18: "Die frühkorinthischen Vasen und Pinakes (Kat. Nr. 17–33)"; this includes Aineta, which is no. 28.) But since L. was chiefly concerned with pulling the date down from where Payne and Jeffery placed it, most of the parallels he cites, both epigraphical and iconographical, look ahead to the 6th century, and if you just read his discussion of the vase in isolation, with no knowledge of where in the book it appeared, you would naturally conclude that he considers it MC, not EC. The division between late EC and early MC is a judgment call, and while I don't have Amyx to hand, I doubt that he and Lorber would disagree very strenuously over where to place this vase stylistically. This is why I said that the distance between Payne and Lorber is more important than the distance between Lorber and Amyx. Putting the latter two into different periods and adding the corresponding date ranges (in Amyx's chronology) exaggerates a relatively small difference and makes it seem larger than it is.
I look forward to the next installment in your series on notable Corinthian aryballoi. The MacMillan has already been done, but the Pyrrias dance aryballos is still waiting for an article. It's a marvelous little vase, just as interesting as Aineta, and the inscription has generated a longer bibliography. Cheers, Choliamb ( talk) 13:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks: I've adjusted the language a bit to soften that distinction. UndercoverClassicist T· C 14:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support — Choliamb ( talk) 13:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Tim riley

Not much from me. A few minor points on the prose:

  • "and exposed the latter's widespread involvement in antiquities crime" – not sure why "the latter" as there isn't a former: wouldn't plain "his" do?
  • "a relatively rare successful use" – relative to what?
  • "deposited as a grave good in her tomb" – I am, as ever, open to correction but I don't think there is a singular of "grave goods" (or any other kind of goods any more than you can have a trouser or a mump) and more to the point neither does the OED, which dates the term to 1883 and says: plural: valuables deposited with a corpse in the grave. Chambers likewise offers only the plural form.
    • It's used in archaeological HQRS: see here, here, here and here, for instance. The plural ("it was deposited as grave goods") feels very wrong indeed, and we can't say something like "it was deposited among the grave goods" because we have no idea what, if anything, was deposited alongside it. UndercoverClassicist T· C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "the vase was likely a "love-gift" – unexpected Americanism: see current Fowler, p. 482, and these are the wise words of The Guardian style guide: In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
  • "sold the aryballos to the British Museum for 1,000 drachmae" – giving a present-day equivalent of the sum would be helpful here, if possible.
    • Straight inflation calculations don't help very much from this period, given the change in the cost of living. There's an EFN immediately afterwards which contextualises this as three times an upper-middle-class salary (at least, that of a university professor), which is my go-to when ballparking smallish drachma amounts in this period. It's particularly relevant here, given that Rhousopoulos was the one being paid (and, later, paying) that amount. The elephant in the room is that his academic salary was trivial next to his ill-gotten gains from antiquities dealing, but that's somewhat beside the point here. UndercoverClassicist T· C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "Efstratiadis had assumed the office in 1864, following the death of Kyriakos Pittakis" – "assumed" seems an odd word, suggesting some sort of coup. Presumably he was appointed to the office?
    • Perhaps: changed to "been appointed", though that calls for the question of "by whom", to which the answer is a definitive "dunno" (it would have been some mix of the King, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, but as far as I know the history of that decision is not recorded). UndercoverClassicist T· C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

That's my lot. Tim riley talk 12:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Tim. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist T· C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Fine. I'm not in the least persuaded about "grave good", but I don't press the point, and the article otherwise seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 13:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Tim -- very gracious of you. Remind me of this one next time I'm trying to crowbar some postmodern literary criticism into one of your nominations. UndercoverClassicist T· C 14:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Comments by Pendright

Lead

  • The Aineta aryballos is an Ancient Greek aryballos, made between approximately 625 and 570 BCE in the city of Corinth in southern Greece .
Close the space after Greece
Good spot: done. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Approximately 6.35 centimetres (2.50 in) in both height and diameter, it was intended to contain perfumed oil or unguent, and is likely to have been owned by a high-class courtesan (hetaira) by the name of Aineta, who may be portrayed in a drawing on its handle.
  • portrayed in a drawing -> or portrayed in the drawing - seems specific enough
"A" is better here: if we say the, we're begging the question, since we haven't introduced to the reader that there is a drawing. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<>Yes, but consider this: The body of the vase, its drawing, and its handle are a unit of one and are not severable. Pendright ( talk) 23:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. In any case, I think what we've got is perfectly grammatical and comprehensible, though of course individual preferences as to language will vary. UndercoverClassicist T· C 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
I concur with UC: the indefinite article is preferable here. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Description

  • The vase body, the neck and the handle were made separately and joined using a lathe.[4]
Add a comma after neck
This article is written in British English, where serial commas are optional and generally discouraged when the items in the list are short (see MOS:COMMA). UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<>I'm aware with the British point of view on the use of serial commads. As for the MOS though, it says, in a list of three or more items but its examples favor your point of view. Pendright ( talk) 23:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
All agreed that no Oxford comma is wanted, then. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rhousopoulos believed that the vase may have been a gift from her lovers to a high-class courtesan (hetaira) named Aineta, or perhaps deposited as a grave good in her tomb.[a]
  • lovers -> one of her lovers?
  • or perhaps it was deposited?
There were multiple lovers (at least nine, to be exact). I don't see the improvement offered by the second, or the problem it's trying to fix: could you explain a bit more? UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<>The first clause, in part, says, Rhousopoulos believed that the vase may have been a gift from her lovers - literally, this says to me, that one gift was gifted by many, which is nether clear or concise - thus my comment. Pendright ( talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
That is absolutely correct: one gift was given by nine, according to Rhousopoulos (and many others). It's not uncommon for people to band together to get someone a present: think of a retirement gift at work, for example. UndercoverClassicist T· C 06:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<>The sentence has two clauses: the first clause is an indepemdemt one but the second one is a dependent clause. -> In British English, a comma is used to join an independent clause and a dependent clause when the dependent clause comes first in the sentence; if the independent clause comes first, a comma is not typically needed - my addition makes it a independemt clause. Pendright ( talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
That may be so, but what we have at the moment is perfectly grammatical: there's no rule that every clause should be an independent clause. Adding "it was" would break the grammar of the sentence and require a rewrite, which doesn't seem to be necessary here. As above, there may be individual preferences at work here. UndercoverClassicist T· C 06:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
I should be sorry to see the superfluous "it was" added. There is no rule in the King's English that a comma is used to join an independent clause and a dependent clause when the dependent clause comes first (though I notice a couple of minor university sites advocating that American dogma). This spurious "rule" appears nowhere in Fowler (2015) or Gowers (2014).

'Decoration and date

  • However, he contrasted this with the decoration of the vase body, where, he judged, "we immediately find ourselves in unknown regions of Asia: magnificent, ... but strange and exotic".[11][b]
Why the comma aftet where?
"Where" modifies we immediately find..., not he judged..., so needs a comma to separate it. Compare "Peru is a country where, I believe, bears live in the jungle": I believe that wherever I am, not only in Peru. Compare "Home is a place where I believe I am safe": there, I believe I'm safe specifically when I'm at home. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<>>In British English, a comma precedes the word "where" when it introduces a non-restrictive clause, meaning it provides additional information that isn't essential to the sentence's core meaning. Pendright ( talk) 00:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see. That's not really what's going on here: we simply have indirect/direct speech, where it's completely normal (indeed, required) to bracket off phrases like "he said" with commas when they interrupt the quoted material. UndercoverClassicist T· C 06:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
In my view, people who pontificate about commas should refresh their memories of Gowers: The use of commas cannot be learned by rule. Not only does conventional practice vary from period to period, but good writers of the same period differ among themselves. ... The correct use of the comma – if there is such a thing as "correct" use – can only be acquired by common sense, observation and taste. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In 1979, Fritz Lorber argued that Payne's date was too early: he discussed the vase among those of the Early Corinthian period (620/615–595/590 BCE),[17] and wrote that the letter-forms show features, such as the serpentine form of the letter iota, characteristic of sixth-century inscriptions.[12]
and he wrote that the letter
Not needed; we have a perfectly good grammatical subject ("he") in the previous clause, and I don't see any ambiguity: there's no other person mentioned here that it could have been. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<>Correct, only if you drop the preceding comma— and wrote that the letter-forms show features clause can not stand on its own withou a subject noun or pronoun. Pendright ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
There's no need for every clause to be able to stand on its own: some do and some don't. Even then, "wrote" is syntactically part of the main clause: "he discussed the vase ... and wrote [subordinate clause]". That's perfectly standard English. UndercoverClassicist T· C 06:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with UC on this, as my immediately preceding comment may illustrate. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Inscription

  • The name Meneas (or Menneas) comes first in the list and is written slightly larger and more boldly than the others, and so seems to have been given particular prominence.[10]
and so it seems to have been given particular prominence.[10]
As with the Lorber comment, I don't see the problem or the improvement here. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<>Similar to the above Pendright ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Sale to the British Museum

  • In 1865, Panagiotis Efstratiadis, the Ephor General in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service,[h] wrote in his diary of the size and richness of Rhousopoulos's antiquities collection, marking the first time that Rhousopoulos's activities had come to official attention.
marking it the first time that Rhousopoulos's activities had come to official attention.
That doesn't seem to be grammatical: have you read making where marking is written in the text? UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
<> I have not, but I do believe I have a grasp of indepedent and dependent clauses whether in British or American English. Similar to the above Pendright ( talk) 02:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
And see above: but here I don't see that "marking it the first time that..." actually makes sense. I've certainly never seen it or similar in print, whereas "marking the first time that..." is a common phrase. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

This is it - Pendright ( talk) 19:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your time and your comments, Pendright. Replies inline above. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
@ UndercoverClassicist: I trust you'll not dismiss my responses without first consulting the related rules that apply - thank you. Pendright ( talk) 03:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your replies. I'm afraid I've generally continued to disagree: in the cases we have left, I think we're dealing with matters of personal preference rather than anything grammatically wrong in a clear-cut way. The article has already been reviewed by Tim riley, who is a skilled and elegant writer of BrE: if you still think there are errors here, he might be a good person to weigh in as a third opinion? UndercoverClassicist T· C 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply
We are indeed dealing with matters of personal preference here. I started to add detailed comments on each of the above points but ran out of steam when I realised that no grammatical rules are at stake. What we have above is our old friend "I'd write it this way and so you must, too". A personal preference for grapes does not entitle one to forbid others to eat plums. I hope these few comments are helpful. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review

Doesn't seem like there is much to say here. Is "The Colors of Clay: Special Techniques in Athenian Vase Painting" a high-quality reliable source. Is it just the titles of the sources, or do they seem to cover the sale of the artifact much less than the article does? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Ceoil

From the lead,.

  • What is an Aryballos, and why is it referred to in many paragraphs as "the vase" without specifying which vase... to put it another way, it would be useful to explain early on what Aryballos and their elements are....especially before you detail the various dimensions in the opening praa in the "description" section, which are...a barrage and exhausting without a grounding on the these things structure. When you say vase later, do you mean a part of the object or are you referring shorthand for the object as a whole.
    • This is true: I've added a bit to the body on this. I don't see how "vase" could be anything other than the whole object -- what's your thinking here? When talking about the spherical bit, the word is "[spherical/globular] body" in this article and any other source. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • illegal sale in 1865 can we say in lead why the sale was illegal and the grounds for Rhousopoulos prosuceation (rather than "an illegal sale
    • I'm not sure we can (or should), at least here. The reasoning is a bit complicated: it wasn't that selling it was illegal, but that selling it to someone outside Greece was illegal -- but not in itself, only if certain formalities hadn't been followed, and explaining those formalities itself requires us to sketch something of the complexities of C19th Greek archaeological law. What matters here (under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) is that Rhousopoulos broke the law: interested readers can go to the body to find out precisely how he did that. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • fined Rhousopoulos for selling the vase in contravention of Greek law - exporting the vase?
    • I'm not sure he strictly exported it (as in, loaded it on a ship and sent it to London), but he sold it to a buyer outside Greece without following the necessary procedures, and that was the crime. Compare "The singer was booed for singing a song against the audience's taste": we understand that singing that particular song was unwelcome, not that the audience disliked all songs. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Who is Yannis Galanakis.
  • The Athenian art dealer and a professor at the University of Athens Athanasios Rhousopoulos,[5] made the first scholarly publication - "professor at the University of Athens" could just be "academic", and are publications "made"?
    • I'm not sure it can: Professor is a senior rank (Athens used a variation on the German system, where most academics were not professors), and it's relevant that Rhousopoulos was a prominent, respected and powerful figure. "Publication" here is a gerund rather than a concrete noun: compare "made the first ascent of Everest". UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Later,

"provided their owners had secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums" - seems glib and a (frankly deliberate) misunderstanding/justification by an earlier British translator; can we give a definition of how "useless" was legally defined by the Greek courts. Ceoil ( talk) 00:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think it was defined, any more than the conventional meaning of the term. I would be utterly amazed, given the generally ad hoc nature of everything to do with archaeological legislation at the time, if a legal definition existed, and far more so if that definition was actually adhered to in practice. It's not a misunderstanding at all: the word in the Greek law is άχρηστον, which means 'useless' by any definition. The translator here, incidentally, is Greek. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Very interesting indeed, more later. Ceoil ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you, Ceoil. I note you've made a few edits, mostly very helpful: I've fiddled around with a few where grammar, EngVar, or sense required. Happy to discuss those if you feel the need. To get one thing in early: it's important to be clear when Rhousopoulos made the claims about the vase's provenance, as these predate his coming to the attention of the authorities as a likely criminal: if we just say "according to Rhousopoulos", we leave it possible that he made these claims after being required to prove that he acquired the thing legally. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

History of chocolate

Nominator(s): Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Chocolate today is a mix of cocoa powder, cocoa butter, milk solids and vanilla, lecithin and PGPR, perhaps some cheap fats depending on where you live. A few thousand years ago it was quite a bit different. This article has come about with the generous reviewing time of It is a wonderful world and Tim riley at GA and PR respectively, I hope it's an enjoyable read. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Passing comments only, but:

  • FNs 80 and 88 throw up error messages for me
  • "Today" as a section title fails MOS:RECENT

- SchroCat ( talk) 07:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Should be resolved. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 08:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Tim riley

I peer reviewed the article and raised a few points, all of which were dealt with satisfactorily. On rereading for FAC I have found nothing more to quibble about and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria: well written, full without being overfull, evidently neutral and balanced, well and widely sourced and nicely illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing it, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 14:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

It is a wonderful world

As mentioned, I passed it to GA. I am not familiar enough with the FA criteria to give a general support or oppose, but I will carry out the spot check:

Spot check

During this check I fixed some errors, and added some information to some of the references:

  • Added first name of first author to one of the books
  • Added location of publication to a few books which did not include it in the publisher name
  • Fixed P/PP errors and hyphen/en dash formatting mistakes
  • Added archive link to the web source

this script is very good for identifying these fixes. It is a wonderful world ( talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Reference numbers refer to this version.

[1]: no problems

[4a, b]: no problems

[5]: no problems

[41]: no problems

[58]: no problems

[122]: no problems

[125]: no problems

[126a, b]: no problems

[133]: no problems

[137]: no problems

[149]: no problems

[150]: no problems

[161]: no problems

Short note on comprehensiveness: I see this source isn't referenced, have you sifted through it? It is a wonderful world ( talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

I found no issues during the spot check, and very few in my recent more extensive spot check at GA. It is a wonderful world ( talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from NØ

Putting down a placeholder. I enjoyed reading White chocolate, so why not? :) My own FAC could use more reviews in case you are interested.-- N Ø 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

  • "It is unclear when what can strictly be considered chocolate was first drunk" - I found it a bit difficult to understand what is being said here upon first reading it. Is there a way to simplify?
    • I reworded the full sentence sentence: "Multiple cacao beverages were consumed, including an alcoholic beverage made by fermenting the pulp around cacao seeds, and it is unclear when a drink that can be strictly understood as chocolate originated."
      • Yep, that more than takes care of my concern. Thank you.
  • Psychedelic drug might be worth linking to
  • "Since World War I, chocolate has developed further, creating couverture and white chocolate" - Maybe add "been" between "has" and "developed". It reads a bit like the chocolate developed itself currently. It is also not clear who did the "creating" in the second part of this sentence, and it reads like the chocolate did it.
  • "This is considered unlikely as there is no clear reason why the 'sh' sound represented by 'x' would change to 'ch', or why an 'l' would be added." - Unlikely according to whom? Since there is just one source cited, it might be worth attributing if there is no larger consensus.
    • I'll walk you through my thinking briefly. The Coes gave opinions on several etymologies, initially in 1996. One of these was pretty influential (on cacao). Kaufman and Justeson wrote a paper, which is a crazy read because at times it goes into polemic. In it, they criticize a few of the Coes etymologies, but not this one, implicitly endorsing it. Further to this, the xocatl is dropped from the literature, and a different etymology has some consensus. I've attributed for now.
      • I will trust your expertise on this. The topic is way out of my domain so feel free to consider my suggestion optional.
  • "The decorations on these high-quality ceramics suggest that cocoa was a centerpiece to social gatherings among people of high social status." - "high-quality" seems to be in wikivoice currently
  • "Both cocoa beans and the vessels and instruments used for preparing and serving chocolate were given as important gifts and tributes" - "important gifts" sounds a little bit redundant, since I am not sure what would qualify as an unimportant gift. Do you mean to say it was given as a gift to important people?
  • "The Maya then removed the husks and pounded the nibs" - Is the plural "Mayans" or "the Maya"? There seem to be usages of both whereas it is probably best to be consistent. I am also seeing "The Maya peoples" used a few paragraphs below.
  • "The bean was used as a symbol for the human heart removed in human sacrifice, possibly as they were both thought to be repositories of precious liquids—blood and chocolate." - Avoid repeating "human" in close proximity if possible.
  • "It was served to human sacrifice victims before their execution." - Might be good to mention who was serving it
    • The source's source says "On the festival eve, cacao beverages were served to the individuals slated to be killed as sacrifices to the god to “comfort them”"
  • "Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés may have been the first European to encounter chocolate when he observed it in the court of Moctezuma II in 1520." - You later go on to say there is no evidence he was responsible for its introduction in Spain, so should this be attributed or has this fact been proven beyond doubt?
    • This is not contested. If you can find the energy to get access to it through the Wikipedia Library, there is a very romantic poem about chocolate by William Baer I love on JSTOR [1] which features this fact prominently, even if it gets (basically) all the history wrong.
  • "Chocolate was an acquired taste for the Spanish living in the Americas" - "people" would make sense after "Spanish" in this case to avoid confusion with the language, although this suggestion is in nitpicky territory. There is also "Spaniards" a few sentences later so you may change it to be consistent.
  • "Its earliest documented introduction to the Spanish court occurred in 1544 by Qʼeqchiʼ Mayan nobles brought to Spain by Dominican friars" - Did the Mayan nobles do the documentation or the introduction?
  • "Coenraad Johannes van Houten received a patent for the manufacturing process for making Dutch cocoa." - Repetition of "for" seems avoidable as "of" works instead of the second one.
  • "At the time however, there was no market for cocoa butter, and it took until the 1860s to be widely used." - Add a comma before however
  • "Quakers were active in chocolate entrepreneurship in the Industrial Revolution, setting up J. S. Fry & Sons, Cadbury, and Rowntree's." - The names at the end could be introduced as "companies" or "firms", whichever is appropriate, just to avoid any confusion.
  • "In the 2000s, consumption grew in Africa; in Nigeria for example" - Add a comma before "for example"
  • "In 2013 there were at least 37 bean-to-bar producers in the United States, increasing from one in 1997." - Add a comma after "In 2013"
  • "In 2005, a non-binding, voluntary industry agreement called the Harkin–Engel Protocol was created to address child and forced labor." - created by whom?
  • The absence of a close-up picture of an actual chocolate bar in the article seems worth bringing up. Surely one is available?
    • Uploaded one, just the one from the dark chocolate article.
Nice and well-researched article. Who doesn't like chocolate? Could not be me...-- N Ø 11:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
MaranoFan, I believe everything has been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 16:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Happy to support for promotion.-- N Ø 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Jens

  • Just a drive-by comment: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years – Is that really the case? This seems to equate chocolate with cacao, but, according to the article, the only evidence of actual chocolate is only in 600 BC? I was also wondering if the article title should be "history of cacao" instead, though I do like the current title. What is your stance here? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 23:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Reliable sources describing a history of chocolate treat domestication as the first step in the history. This is because we can't know when "chocolate" consumption began, as researchers will distinguish chocolate from alcoholic cacao drinks, and when we scrape out pottery we are getting evidence such as theobromine, which looks the same whether consumption was alcoholic or not. So we just generally characterize the history as going back 5000 years, even if we acknowledge we may be referring to pre-cursors.
My personal view on this reflects Sampeck's; that it's more accurate to refer to "chocolate" as one "cacao drink" recipe among many, which would resolve this tension quite well, if only acknowledging chocolate as originating around the mid second millennium. She is prominent in the literature, but her critique doesn't seem to have been taken up too much. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 23:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Hmm. May I suggest to make it clear at the beginning of the lead when the oldest known consumption of actual chocolate was? Otherwise I fear it is just misleading, and readers think that chocolate was invented 5,000 years ago, which is what the lead literally says, but which is not necessarily true. Furthermore, the lead goes like this: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years, when the cacao tree was first domesticated in present-day southeast Ecuador. Soon introduced to Mesoamerica, chocolate gained cultural significance as an elite drink among different cultures, including the Mayans and Aztecs. – So this says that "chocolate" was around "soon" after 3,000 years BC, which contradicts the article body saying that the evidence only supports 600 BC (which is very far from "soon"). Then, you have "Origin in South America", implying that chocolate was invented there, which is not necessarily the case. I think you should make this clearer so that it is not miss-interpreted. Maybe the section "Early pre-Columbian" could be renamed in "Early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao", to make clear that this is not yet about chocolate sensu stricto. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
I believe I've made these changes. I didn't rename the section "early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao, as it isn't that it's not about chocolate in the strictest sense, but that it may not be. I did rename "Origin in South America" → "Cacao domestication in South America" as that's a better summary of Lanaud et al (2024). Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 01:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
That works well, thanks! Will try to do a prose review soon. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 01:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the diagram
    • Done by 35%
  • File:Mujer_vertiendo_chocolate_-_Codex_Tudela.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Spanish-Unknown-A-Man-Scraping-Chocolate-69_20_1-739x1024.jpg, File:Cover_of_Philippe_Sylvestre_Dufour_book,_17th_century.png
    • Done
  • File:Pre-1928_advertisement_for_Cadbury's_Dairy_Milk_Chocolate.png: why is this believed to be pre-1928? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Rereading the source, I can clarify it further to between 1905-1906. Dairy Milk Chocolate was released in 1905. On page 37 of the source (Cadbury's Purple Reign: The Story Behind Chocolate's Best-Loved Brand) is the relevant quote: "The box labels for Dairy Milk featured rosy-cheeked dairymaids ferrying gallons of creamy milk into the kitchen, but with the punch-line, 'Rich Nutty Flavour.' However, this was a temporary lapse from the key insight that it was all about the milk, so advertising for Cadbury's Dairy Milk from that point on was solely focused on reinforcing the brand's grip on milk credentials. A year after launch, the label and advertisements were featuring a pixie skimming the cream off containers of milk in a dairy with the punch-line amended to say, 'Rich in Cream.'" I can clarify why I initially wrote pre-1928 if you think it's a relevant consideration. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 06:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments from Llewee

Interesting article. This set of comments covers the early sections of the article (excluding the lead) up to the end of "spread".-- Llewee ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply

  • "Consumption was restricted to adult men, as the stimulating effects were considered unsuitable for women and children." - If this is based on the accounts and images that exist from the time, could that clarified? Giving that its unknown whether commoners were consuming chocolate it seems unlikely that we know for certain that no women and children were.
    • I've attributed, the source says "Furthermore, until the mid-16th century, chocolate was only consumed as a beverage by adult males, since Mayan and Mexica/Aztec traditions held that chocolate was too “ stimulating ” for adult females and children."
  • "Chocolate was one of the two most important drinks to the Aztecs." - Could this be clarified? (e.g most valuable, most prestigious, healthiest)
    • I've added "It was a luxury," I'm not sure I can go much further from the sourcing.
  • "Although chocolate was not consumed in the same way as the elite among commoners, it was widely available across Mesoamerica at the time of the conquest" - Could more detail be added about how commoners consumed it? My impression from the early part of the paragraph was that it was exclusive to the social elite with a few exceptions?
    • Yeah. This is a really good question. Given the tension is reflecting some disagreement in the literature, I've attributed each opinion.
  • "An inferior gruel" - inferior to pure chocolate or inferior to other types of gruel?
    • To pure chocolate, clarified.
  • "despite the spice only being introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest" - the conquest is linked for the first time here though it and "Spanish invasion" have been mentioned previously
  • "The primarily male Spanish population was systematically exposed to chocolate through the Aztec women they married or took as concubines" - The use of the word "systemically" creates the impression it was some kind of deliberate decision.-- Llewee ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Removed.
  • "Spaniards, casta and Afro-Guatemalan women who couldn't afford domestic servants likely learned to make chocolate from their neighbors" - This is partly a reiteration of an earlier point but we seem to have moved from chocolate being an elite food in south america to being a food of the masses without much explanation.
    • Tell me if above changes are adequate for this text.
  • "and only in extreme cases did a man prepare it" - I think "unusual" or "rare" would be a better word than "extreme" here.
  • "there was controversy whether chocolate was both a food and a drink or just a drink" - The word "about" should appear between "controversy" and "whether".
  • "When chocolate was introduced to France is therefore difficult to pinpoint," - it is unclear what reason "therefore" is referring to.
  • "it would only be settled as beneficial by 1684" - who decided it was beneficial?
  • "taken from the Spaniards in 1655" - I assume conquered?
  • "in England chocolate was a commercial product" - was this different from elsewhere?
    • Yes, quite. Do I need to make this clearer, or were you just checking if I was implying something I didn't mean to?
  • "by the end of the 17th century it was compulsory to include it in British Navy rations" - While this was before the England and Scotland political union, it appears that the kingdoms' navies were integrated together in the 17th century so "British" is likely accurate. Perhaps link History of the Royal Navy (before 1707).
    • Oh, very good to know.
  • "spread to the North American colonies by the late-17th century" - I'd suggest linking "North American colonies".
    • What is a good link here? This includes Canada.
  • "was well established among the elite of late-17th-century Philippines" - I might be mistaken but I think there should be a "the" between "of" and "late".

Thankyou Llewee for these comments. I've actioned them unless noted above. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 17:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, I will answer these comments as soon as possible.-- Llewee ( talk) 21:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Fearless (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina ( talk) 02:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift when she used to be a country musician. Sweet like American Pie, this song will make you jump off your seat and dance! I believe this article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced for an FA :) Ippantekina ( talk) 02:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Aoba47

Moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/Midnights/archive1
 – Aoba47 ( talk) 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Aoba47: hey, thank you very much for the comments! I think this should go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Midnights/archive1 and not here. Ippantekina ( talk) 04:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Apologies for that. I have never done that before. I feel quite foolish for it. I will move the comments over there, but I will make sure to comment on this FAC to make up for my mistake. I am leaving this up as a placeholder for that purpose. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I would mention the retrospective reviews and rankings in the lead.
  • There is a bit of repetition in the first paragraph of the "Background and writing" section, specifically with these two parts, (" Taylor Swift wrote songs for her second studio album" and "Swift wrote songs about"). The second instance could be changed to something like "Swift based her songs on love and personal experiences", but that is just a rough idea so feel free to revise it in a different way.
  • The last part of this sentence seems overly wordy to me: (She first conceived the track while touring, when she was unattached romantically: "I wasn't even in the beginning stages of dating anybody.") The "unattached romantically" word choice along with the quote seem like a lot to just saying that Swift was single at the time of writing this song. I think something along the lines of "She was single when she first conceived the track while touring." would be more concise with losing anything.
  • I am uncertain on the information regarding the "best dress" lyric is organized in the "Music and lyrics" section. It is currently brought up at the end of the second paragraph and then discussed in different points in the third paragraph. When I first read this section, it came off as a bit unfocused and repetitive as the prose would bring up this lyric, seemingly move on from it, and then bring it up again. Why not discuss everything about this lyric together instead?
  • I would avoid using "meanwhile" in this context, (Amanda Ash of the Edmonton Journal, meanwhile, thought). Meanwhile implies that two actions are happening at the same time, and this sentence is using a source from 2008 and the previous sentence is using a source from 2024. I would just avoid using this transition in general as I do not think it really fits when discussing critical commentary.
  • For the "Release and commercial performance" section, why not put all of the chart information into its own paragraph? Right now, the U.S. charts are attached to the paragraph about the song's release as an official and full-fledged single and the international charts are put into their own paragraph.
  • For this part, (She sang the song donning a silver sparkly cocktail dress), I think it is best to avoid the "sang the song" phrasing when possible as it does come off as unnecessarily repetitive. That being said, it is difficult to not make this section come off as repetitive when there are only so many ways you can say that an artist sang/perform something so it is not a major deal for me. It may be best to change this instance to "performed the song" and revise the previous sentence to "also sang it" to avoid this repetition.
  • This is more of a nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I am uncertain about the "On a less enthusiastic side" wording. I think that "In a less enthusiastic review" would read better.
  • This is not a requirement for a FAC, but I would still encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death. I know from experience that it can be a real pain.

I hope that these comments are helpful. I do not notice anything major, and most of my comments above are minor and more nitpicks. Hopefully, this will inspire others to review this FAC. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Great work as always, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey @ Aoba47:, many thanks for taking time reviewing this article! Although it was not obligatory of you to make up for the Midnights PR, I really appreciate it :) I've addressed all of your points accordingly. Let me know if anything remains unresolved. Cheers, Ippantekina ( talk) 04:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Media review and support from Crisco 1492

  • Back when I was teaching, I'd usually use "When I was your age, Taylor Swift was country" as a joke. Happy to review

Media:

Prose:

  • Generally songs and other media articles include year of release in the first sentence.
  • footage from the tour were - Footage uses "was", generally
  • Is "character" the correct term when referring to something in a song? Persona is more commonly used in literary studies to discuss the narrative voice used in poetry, which seems like it would be more parallel to a song than the prose-oriented "character"
  • She pays attention to the details, such as how the pavement glistens in the moonlight after a rain, how her date "runs [his] hand through [his] hair", and how she gets excited and nervous anticipating a first kiss. - Is this the persona or Swift?
  • such as dancing in the rain in one's best costumes - Textually this is very similar to the song lyrics you just quoted. Perhaps a paraphrase?
  • On the Billboard Hot 100 chart dated November 1, 2008, "Fearless" debuted and peaked at number nine on the Billboard Hot 100,
  • Swift thereby became the first female artist since Madonna in 1998 to have two top-10 debuts in one calendar year - What was the first one?
  • which evaluated the impact of Swift's songwriting. - Doesn't make sense to me
  • Several critics have ranked the track highly among all songs in Swift's discography
  • tropes - Probably worth a link
  • to conjecture romantic whimsy - To "form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information"? I'm not sure this is the correct term.
  • other dramatized Fearless songs - How are the other songs dramatized?
  • It intermingles Swift's performances of other songs and behind-the-scene footage. - The video or the footage? Also, intertwines with is probably the better phrase

Operation Matterhorn logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about the logistics of Operation Matterhorn, the use of Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to attack Japan from bases in China during World War II. As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics off into its own article, since this was my primary interest. The challenges of conducting operations from remote bases in China supported only by air were formidable, and only partly overcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

I reviewed this article at ACR and can support. Matarisvan ( talk) 13:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Drive-by comment

In the second paragraph of the End of Matterhorn section, War Department should link to United States Department of War. XR228 ( talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Done. Normally disambigs get highlighted, but this was set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Serial B-29

Yo, acc. Worldcat, Haulman is 'Tannenberg Publishing: San Francisco, 2015'. Also I'm getting a 404 on Romanus, although that could just be me. No mention of the Burma Rd reopening? Nice article, cheers! SerialNumber 54129 14:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Aaargh. The Center of Military History has been moving stuff around, and the URLs have changed slightly. I have corrected them. And added a sentence on the reopening of the Burma road. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Nice one. It's a really good read, and provides interesting background on why the US wanted the British Empire to disassemble after the war. Cheers! Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Drive-by (for now) from UC

  • The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $51 billion today),: why not use the inflation template to get a dynamically updating year? Would seem both more durable and would reassure readers that the information remained in date (some Wikipedia articles are twenty years old). UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Anna Filosofova

Nominator(s): — Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about Anna Filosofova, an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Maria Trubnikova and Nadezhda Stasova. Among other things, Filosofova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. She outlived her colleagues and became widely acclaimed after the 1905 Russian Revolution. The article underwent a GA review from Rusalkii in March.

The other two women's articles made it to FA earlier this year. The three articles have very similar sourcing, so any reviewers who participated in those ones may be interested in this nomination as well. Reviewers from the Trubnikova/Stasova articles will already be familiar with some of the content and most of the sources. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Fixed
  • File:Анна_Павловна_Философова.jpg needs a US tag
  • Added

Source review

Indeed, I reviewed Maria, but pretty much missed out on Nadezhda. The Sistas are in: and at the frontline.

Formatting is mostly fine. ISBNs are inconsistently laid out, no need to link locations (if you insist on it, link all); likewise publishers; likewise works themselves. Authors are all established historians (Central European, Pittsboig, Northwestern, McGill, Princeton) or independent scholars with reputable publishers. A search of academic databases reveals no obvious omissions from the canon—except slightly surprisingly, no Clements, Carlson or Worobec who surely would've been good for a punt—and nothing that jumps out as outremer. A slender and well-presented article, traits reflected in the sources used. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 15:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: I think the ISBNs are now consistent, and I've delinked the publisher locations. Thanks for the Carlson theosophy source - very interesting and provided a couple of new details which I've added. I don't think there's much in the Clements source that isn't already covered, and Worobec is in the article already - a chapter from it by Ruthchild is cite #2. Thanks for your review thus far. :) — Ganesha811 ( talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Breton Civil War, 1341

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

In the beginning there was a happy little dukedom. Then the wise old duke died. And for 24 years afterwards everything went very badly indeed. This is the story of how it all began. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Michael Jones isn't the same guy as Matthew Bennett?
It took me forever to work out what you meant. Thanks. Fixed. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Also a little surprised not to see Jones, Michael, 'The Breton Civil War', in Palmer, J. J. N. (ed.), Froissart: Historian (Woodbridge, 1981), 64-81.

Cheers, SerialNumber 54129 18:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah ha. Several searches threw up nothing for "Breton Civil War", which surprised me. Of course, if I now add "The" I find it, but even so buried deep. And very little cited. Any hints as to how I could access an electronic copy? Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Gog, apologies—I didn't watchlist this so missed your reply. Yes Palmer'thing seems to be as rare as rocking horse teeth but luckily he republished it in a collection in 1988. Winging its way to you AWS. SerialNumber 54129 17:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Jens

Hi Jens and thanks for stopping by to look at this so promptly, and apologies for the idiocies you have had to point out to me. Hopefully they are now all satisfactorily addressed. Further apologies for getting wrapped up in some other reviews and leaving you at the back of the queue. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

  • At first, I was confused about the article scope, thinking that the article is a complete coverage of an event called the "Breton Civil War". But in fact, it seems to cover only the first year of a longer event. This would be clearer if "Breton Civil War" would be linked to the main article in the first sentence.
I have no idea why I had not already done that. Thank you. Done.
  • In the infobox, "Breton Civil War" links to War of the Breton Succession, which seems to be the main article. But is "War of the Breton Succession" just an alternative term for the Breton Civil War, or does it convey a different meaning? If the former, shouldn't be the title of this article under the same name, for consistency?
There is no requirement for consistency between articles. But I do think that there should be consistency in this case. To avoid repetition can I refer you to the last discussion of the article's GAN review, here, especially the n-gram (reproduced here).
  • Adding to the confusion is the "Campaignbox Breton War of Succession" below the infobox. This has "Initial campaign" bolded, which seems to indicate that's our article here (again, consistency? Shouldn't it be "1341" then?). It also has "Nantes" (in brackets) which links to "French defence" in the same article. Why have this Nantes in the box when it is not a separate article, why is it not "French defence" (the actual section in the article), and why does "English Invasion" (the other main secion in our article) does not appear in that box?
I am a little wary of campaign boxes, not least because other editors can be touchy about them. Another editor added "initial campaign". But it seems as good a succinct summary for the campaign box as anything. Perhaps you would prefer 'Campaign of 1341'? I don't think a bald '1341' would be very helpful to a reader. "Nantes" seems to be a historical remnant and I would be happy to take it out once we have agreed what the initial link will be called.
I am ok with "Initial campaign", I won't withhold support based on that. BUT I still think that the reader would benefit from more consistency here. Maybe you could also change it to "Opening events", to match the wording of the first sentence of the lead. Or, conversely, change the first sentence of the lead to "Initial campaign". You could even consider moving the article title to "Initial campaign of the Breton Civil War" or "Opening events of the Breton Civil War", which would be more descriptive ("1341" is less helpful for most readers as it doesn't indicate if these events are at the beginning, middle, or end of the civil war). These are just suggestions, but more consistency would have helped me when I tried to make sense of all of this initially. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 15:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
The lead now starts with "The initial campaign of the Breton Civil War took place in 1341 ..." I have removed "Nantes" from the CB. I suggest that once the FAC is over I set up a proper discussion regarding whether it should be renamed, and if so to what, and advertise it appropriately. Perhaps after a discussion on moving War of the Breton Succession. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.) – The gloss feels unnecessary; I would instead suggest simply A complicating factor was the Hundred Years' War between France and England, which had broken out in 1337.
You are not the only reviewer to think that. Already changed, although not precisely as you suggest. Suggestions for further improvements welcomed.
Wikipedia is famously an unreliable source. What other articles claim is beyond my control. Note that my sentence only "seems to suggest that it is a separate" war in 1341. Given that there was a formal truce in the 100YW for the whole year and that no English soldier set foot in Brittany that seems reasonable. If, in the lead, I were to start commenting on what was to happen in the future I may well get (even more) scope concerns. That said, how about if I tweaked the last sentence to 'The war was to last 24 years, frequently as a part of the Hundred Years' War.'?
Sentence looks good. Actually, initially, it was the category "Battles of the Hundred Years' War" in your article which made me think it is part of that war; I only checked the other article to confirm that. So it looks like that category is misplaced?
Sentence changed as discussed.
Category: IMO, yes. But on a quick skim every other article which is about or from the Breton Civil War is also a part of the 100YW. So we are likely in a mug's game trying to repeatedly explain to good faith editors why this one is the exception.
Fine with me. Not that I ever really understood the category system anyways. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In the lead: John refused to give way and Philip sent an army nominally commanded by his son to impose Charles. – I found this confusing, since this son has not been mentioned before. The lead also does not mention why it is so important that his son commanded. As the son has no further context here, I would suggest to just remove "nominally commanded by his son" from the lead.
Ok.
  • Charles of Blois was present when John arrived and was almost captured. – This is ambiguous; I first thought it was the other way around, that John was almost captured, not Charles of Blois.
Gah! Another case of my reading the meaning I wanted to find as I copy edited. Fixed. I think, I would be grateful if you could check.
  • "River Loire" – Since "River Loire", in a capitalised form, would be a proper name, I would have expected that the entire name is linked ( River Loire), or, alternatively, that "river" is not capitalised ("river Loire" or " Loire river").
River Loire linked.
Rest looks good! -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 15:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

  • File:Jan_z_Montfortu.gif needs a US tag
Done.
Nikkimaria, thanks for checking through this. I thought we were ok with French public statues and architecture? Per L122-5. Or is there a tag for that? Gog the Mild ( talk) 02:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
L122-5 extends only to non-commercial uses, which for our purposes is non-free. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Drat! Swapped for an appropriately tagged image from 1621. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply

UC

I concur with Jens that the title is confusing: "[Events of] 1341 in the Breton Civil War" would be clearer and follow practice in other articles. As written, it sounds as though it should refer to a discrete civil war that took place entirely in 1341. UndercoverClassicist T· C 11:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC) reply

That makes sense to me. I am happy to change it. The usual procedure is for this to happen as soon as the article leaves FAC - either archived or promoted - as the FAC bot gets upset if asked to process an article which changes its name mid-process. I undertake to so rename the article once it is out of FAC. Hi Jens, that work for you? If so I'll put a heads up on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Sure it does! -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Works for me too. UndercoverClassicist T· C 18:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • duchy of Brittany: gets a capital, when used like this as a proper noun.
Capitalised.
  • A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.): the bracketed sentence is, frankly, a bit ugly. Generally speaking, it's not great practice to bracket a whole sentence. Why not expand "the war" into "the Hundred Years' War", or add (which became known as the Hundred Years' War) after "France and England"? I'm not sure we need to know in the lead of this article that it lasted another century.
Done.
  • A truce was in effect, which was due to expire in June but was extended to June 1342.: I think we need to add "1341" for clarity here.
Done.
  • Rumours of this reached Philip: of his promises to make a treaty, or laziness about doing so?
Clarified.
  • Joan's claim was through her husband, Charles of Blois, a nephew of the King of France, Philip VI (r. 1328–1350): it becomes clear later that this meant Charles would become the Duke, but it isn't spelled out here. Do I have it right that Joan would strictly inherit the duchy, but Charles would then hold it jure uxoris?
Academics have written whole articles on issues closely related to this. My understanding from the sources I have read is that Joan couldn't inherit at all, being female, but there was an argument that this impediment didn't prevent her from passing the title on to her husband. Two of the sources I have read state that John had the stronger legal claim. Note that this is according to French law, Breton law was slightly different. Gah! This is defying easy summary, I could send you a page of Sumption who describes the situation fairly clearly. (Perhaps not surprisingly as he went on to become the highest paid lawyer in the UK and then a member of the Supreme Court.)
I'd be interested to give that a read, if you don't mind. UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
If you send me a blank email I will then be able to send you an attachment.
  • set up her two-year-old son, also John,: I think we need also named John or similar.
Done.
  • This was the start of the Breton Civil War which was to last 24 years.: comma before which, I think, though appreciate that this can be a contentious one.
It is indeed a contentious one. However, before getting here I had already copy edited the first bit away as a duplication of the opening sentence.
  • the Duchy of Brittany, while a part of the Kingdom of France for most purposes, was in many ways an independent principality: Can we indicate what at least the most important of these ways was? How do we square it being basically independent with the "most purposes" for which it was part of France?
This has been rewritten, broadly in line with wording suggested by Borsoka.
  • John had the better legal claim, but it was widely accepted within Brittany that Charles would inherit: any idea why?
Hey, this is summary style. Sources are vague, it would be stretching a bit to even say that the Breton nobility expected Philip to back his nephew. (As he eventually did.) John III had advocated for "anyone but Montfort" for most of his life, marrying Joan to Charles was largely to improve Joan's political and legal claim. These long held assumptions probably contributed to the expectation, but again it would be stretching to overtly say so. Sumption puts these next to each other, making it obvious what he thinks, but declines to spell it out. I don't know that the sources let us go much further than what the article currently says.
I might be able to have an informed view on this after reading the Sumption source you kindly agreed to send, but will reserve judgement for now, as I don't currently have one. UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • John, encouraged by his ambitious wife, Jeanne of Flanders,: my WP:GNL siren is going off here. We've introduced a whole plethora of men, all claiming a duchy, and the only one who gets labelled as ambitious is the wife? If we have reason to suspect that Jeanne was unusually ambitious by comparison with Charles and the Johns, we should give it: otherwise, this reads as negatively judging a woman for something that would be considered unremarkable or positive in a man. Advise cutting.
My response to this has twice disappeared, I assume because I had too many windows open. I'll try again.
It was meant admiringly, she is much admired by historians as an inspiring leader, but I can see how it looks. So cut.
  • He then successfully took control: advise cutting successfully as redundant: we would hardly think he unsuccessfully took control if it weren't there.
Hah! True. Done.
  • John moved on to an alternate plan: alternative, I think.
Oops. Corrected.
  • The caption alignment seems a bit odd on a few (Charles of Blois, Philip and the siege). It's best for accessibility to keep a consistent left margin, and I can't really see the thinking behind what we've done here instead.
I am not sure that I understand your point here. If it is about the captions being centred that is becouse IMO they are more readable and more aesthetically pleasing that way with no down side I can see and no policy nor MoS reason to prevent it. If you meant something else, apologies, I am having a slow brain week; perhaps if you repeated using smaller words.
It took me a while to realise that it was centre alignment: there's a little graphic that gets added to them, which means that in two-line captions, the first line looks as if it's left-aligned and the second looks like it's right-aligned. I think this falls under the heading of something that each of us would do differently, but you're welcome to do it your way just as I would do it my way. UndercoverClassicist T· C 14:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Leaving Nantes John secured Champtoceaux: I know the usual style here is to avoid commas with introductory clauses, but here I think there's a strong argument for one: as written, it sounds as if "Nantes John" is a place, or "Leaving Nantes John" a person. Generally speaking, commas are used after participle clauses in most varieties of English (I realise I've just inadvertently provided an example).
I have rephrased to avoid that unhappy commaisation.
Much better in several ways. UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • a brief, fumbled and pallid defence: I can work out what a fumbled defence (fumbling?) is, but what does pallid mean in this context? MOS:IDIOM applies, I think.
pallid: "Appearing weak, pale or wan". I would be happy to go with 'brief and fumbled' if you don't like pallid.
I think you can only really get away with "weak" in that sense for a person: at the very least, this is metaphorical language, and the MoS would advise something concrete (or just cutting that word) instead. UndercoverClassicist T· C 14:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Tweaked to "weak and fumbled".
  • Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, and the walled town of Dinan followed suit: given that there's a glossing clause on Saint-Aubin but not on Dinan, this would be clearer if the two were swapped around, or as Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, followed suit, as did the walled town of Dinan (I assume they're written in this order because they fell in this order?)
Done. (Yes.)
De-hyphened.
  • Originally due to expire on 24 June 1341 it was extended: again, I think we really need a comma here after 1341.
I disagree.
Very well, but in that case, can I suggest a more straightforward syntax: e.g. The truce was originally due to expire on 24 June 1341, but was extended on 9 June to 29 August, and on 10 August to 14 September. UndercoverClassicist T· C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Implemented.
  • it was extended to 29 August on 9 June, and to 14 September on 10 August: I think this would be clearer if the decision dates came before the deadline dates.
Done.
  • Attending on Philip VI it became clear that he had lost the French King's confidence: a few things here. We've got a dangling participle clause at the start, which should be reworked. Secondly, "king" should decap in this context per MOS:PEOPLETITLES ("French King" isn't a formal title that acts as a replacement for someone's name; it's a description of that person).
Dangly thing reworked. What has "formal" got to do with anything? Per MOS:JOBTITLE it is "a title [...] used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name" and so should be capitalised.
  • Philip found the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control attractive: a long gap between these two parts of the compound verb: not great for readability. Any possibility of working?
Of course. Does "the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control was attractive to Philip" work for you?
It does. Would it be too far to go even more straightforward: "Philip decided to bring..." or similar? UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
I have gone with my version. I am not wedded to that wording, but feel that your suggestion puts things a bit strongly.
  • The English army was disbanded for the winter and the fleet paid off. No sooner was this done than representatives: MOS:CLICHE, I think -- presumably it wasn't literally a matter of minutes.
Well now. With no news from Brittany the English royal Council approved a truce extension on or about the 2 September and started standing down the military. On 12 September, before messengers had reached all of the ships and men (ORing, probably before they were sent in many cases), the Breton emissaries spoke to Edward. On the same day the plenipotentiaries near Calais agreed the fine print and signed the binding extension. Edward promptly trouted himself and tried to have it both ways. (Philip of course was free to use troops as he wished within the borders of France.) So it wasn't so much "no sooner" as even before that. The extent to which some of the stand down was delayed deliberately until there was confirmation that the French had signed is unclear. I don't think the article makes too bad a fist of boiling this (which of course I have already boiled down for you) to summary style. That said, there must be close to an infinity of ways of expressing this, would you like me to try another one?
If I've got it right: would it be accurate to say something like "The fleet was paid off and the army disbanded; while it was still demobilising, messengers arrived..."? UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Changed to "Edward and his council agreed that the English army would be disbanded for the winter and the fleet paid off; while this was taking place representatives arrived from John announcing ..." Does that work?
  • Strategically Edward saw the chance to set up a ruler in Brittainy at least partially under his control which would greatly aid England's naval war as well as give a ready entry to France for English armies.: this one needs a look for clarity.
A little more detail added to give "Strategically Edward saw the chance to set up a ruler in Brittainy at least partially under his control; this could provide access to Breton ports which would greatly aid England's naval war as well as give ready entry to France for English armies."
  • Amaury de Clisson: the general practice in this article seems to be to Anglicise all names and titles: so Charles of Blois rather than Charles de Blois. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of that decision (which is within the writer's discretion, in my view), this is an apparent exception. Perhaps related: in her article, "Jeanne of Flanders" is named "Joanna of Flanders": is that discrepancy intentional?
Nope, I slipped with Amaury, corrected. I am not helped by the sources - I have just checked the four I used most, all are inconsistent, and inconsistent between each other. As this is the English language Wikipedia I usually go for the English spelling in articles if the sources permit it.
Isn't "Joanna" (or Joan) the English spelling, rather than "Jeanne" (just as we've used "John", not "Jean")? Looking around on Google Books, I've noticed a few going for e.g. "John de Montfort", which just seems silly, so I'm grateful for your much more sensible approach here. UndercoverClassicist T· C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Good point, changed to Joanna throughout. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • a 7,000-strong army together with a strong force: suggest fixing the repetition here.
That was sloppy of me. I can tell that it was 18 months since I was last at FAC. To lose it I have rewritten the first sentence and a bit of the section. [2]
  • Jeanne of Flanders was in Rennes, with her children, the duchy's treasury and a strong garrison when news of the fall of Nantes arrived: comma needed after garrison, as we have preceding commas in the list: as written, it is implied that she only had the garrison at the moment that the news arrived.
Added.
  • She acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively: is this bit of telling doing anything that the showing in the following sentence doesn't do better?
IMO, yes. It took Philip five months to send an army west against Brittany; John of Normandy two days to move a few men three miles to rescue Charles when he (Normandy) had overwhelming force. The contrast seems worth commenting on. And the showing sentences give no idea of how rapidly, decisively or aggressively they were carried out.
That's true, at least for rapidly, but it would still be better (in my view) to make it concrete: can we give a timeframe here, for example? UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Sadly not. In Brittany vagueness rules for about 9 months after the fall of Nantes. (The primary sources are a shambles until Northampton arrives at Brest.) Note the tweaking of this below - I pinged you in. Rereading the sources, I could lose "rapidly" now without feeling I am not capturing them. Would that be your preference?
The wording has been changed per the discussion below.
  • battle of Auray: capitalise Battle.
Done. But it will get reverted on the grounds that most sources don't. (Eg [3].)
Looking at the actual results on Google Books and filtering by C21st results gives the opposite impression: most do capitalise. There is however a large series of (pulp?) historical novels by G. A. Henty that have recent reprints but don't capitalise: I wonder if they're contaminating the ngrams sample? At any rate, the overwhelming practice in good sources is that "Battle of X" is capitalised when it refers to a discrete, recognisable battle as a proper noun. UndercoverClassicist T· C 22:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually it is not. This was thrashed out at some length at MilHist and the the old curmudgeons - among whom I definitely number myself - had to be bludgeoned with data and examples. But this is a side discussion, not least because capitalising battle is my personal preference and because I have already done so in this article. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks: I'll take that under advisement for the future (don't suppose you remember where that discussion was?) UndercoverClassicist T· C 14:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply
It will be buried in the archives. If you could nudge me once I have your and Jens reviews doone I will have a search.
  • recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy: typo in Brittany, and capital needed on Duke.
Both changed, although IMO "Duke of Brittany" does not comply with MOS:OFFICE: the first example there is Mitterrand was the French president.
  • Why is the location of the war given as "Province of Brittany" but linked to "Duchy of Brittany"?
It seemed more helpful to a reader than linking to Brittany where they need to scroll down a long way to find not a lot of information and "Main article: Duchy of Brittany".
Sorry -- what I don't understand is why the text says "Province" rather than "Duchy". Are you trying to avoid "Duchy" as a geographic rather than legal/political term? UndercoverClassicist T· C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes. I may be being too clever for my own good, so simplified to just Brittany. More reader friendly I think
  • Including a "result" in the infobox implies that the war finished: per the guidance on infoboxes (I forget exactly which bit of it), if we can't fill a parameter in a concise way that needs no further explanation, we should omit it.
The article is not about the war, it is about the war in 1341. I think you are looking for Template:Infobox military conflict, possibly "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say ..."
This may solve itself with the article title change, assuming that the infobox title also changes to "Events of..." -- in this case, the infobox will (correctly) say that the events of 1341 in the Breton Civil War had no conclusive result. UndercoverClassicist T· C 22:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
That was my next position, more or less. I think we agree on this. And apologies for how long it is taking to get my responses up: I have taken on a bit much on Wikipedia, have had a couple of minor RL events, and am finding some of your, and others, comments thought provoking.

I think that's my lot for now. UndercoverClassicist T· C 18:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi UC and many thanks for your input on thiis. I think I have finally responded to all of your comments. And had subsequent discussions around several. I will pick away at the rest of your replies and would be grateful if you could let me know when you have managed to look at all of my initial responses - obviously there is no rush on that. Gog the Mild ( talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
I think I've got to everything except Sumption, which requires me to do a bit of reading. Generally speaking, where you've made a change, it's solved the issue as far as I'm concerned. UndercoverClassicist T· C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Can I throw in another very nit-picky one: the short description is Start of the War of the Breton Succession, which implies (to me at least) that the "Breton Civil War" and the "War of the Breton Succession" are two different things. We generally say that we should refer to an individual thing in a consistent way throughout an article, and I think that applies here. When the name change comes through, it would probably be better set to "none" anyway? UndercoverClassicist T· C 21:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Good spot. Short descriptions are one of my blind spots. Changed. There were a couple of minor edits due to the article being a DYK today. I'll check through them tomorrow when things are stable again. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi UC and apologies for the lull. I have added a couple of responses above and have now covered all of your points I think. There have also been a few copy edits - partly me rereading and tidying up, partly due to the article recently having been a DYK. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Support: I haven't ben able to get to the article, but it's already clear enough that the article meets the FA standards. I think the change of name is still required, for the reasons discussed above, but agree that this should be done after promotion. UndercoverClassicist T· C 07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Tim riley

  • "his younger half brother, John of Montfort" – the OED hyphenates "half-brother", as does Chambers.
Wiktionary prefers half brother, giving half-brother as an alternative spelling. But hyphenated.
  • "well connected and militarily orientated" – according to the current edition of Fowler the verb "orientate" is "a pointless longer variant of "orient".
Hmm, rendered more pointful.
  • "an alternate plan – this use of "alternate" as an adjective is an Americanism. The English form is "alternative".
You are quite right. Changed. (I read too much SF.)
  • "there was only fighting at Brest – I'm not one of those pedantic souls who always insist on the logical placing of "only" rather than a more natural one, but here I really do think "there was fighting only at Brest" or "only at Brest was there fighting" would be better.
Tim, I rarely argue argue with you on this sort of thing, but really really? (!)
I don't in the least press the point. I thought, and think, it would be clearer my way, but I can't in conscience object to yours. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "Requests for assistance from Charles of Blois were ignored" – ambiguous: were these requests from Charles for assistance or requests from someone else for assistance from Charles?
Clarified.
  • "deliberations were liable to be long drawn out" – I have quoted before (will whoever shouted "ad nauseam" kindly leave the room?) the dictum "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", and so I merely mention that the OED uses two hyphens for "long-drawn-out".
I am with you and the OED there. Apologies.
  • "regarding John recognising Edward as king of France in exchange for Edward recognising John's claim" – would it be insufferably pedantic to point out that both "recognising"s here are gerunds – verbs in noun form – and so they should be "John's recognising" and "Edward's recognising"? Probably, but I'm doing it anyway.
A twofer, gerund-hog day.
  • "in the event of Philip deciding in favour of Charles" – another gerund in need of a possessive.
Haven't we been here before?
  • "Instead he commenced planning" – I know battles traditionally commence, but I think planning can simply be begun or started. In this context "commenced" is a touch genteel and refained.
Philip was a very genteel king. Changed to 'began'.
  • "allocated £10,000 for military expenditure" – is it even faintly practicable to give some idea of the modern equivalent of that sum?
Not in my opinion. My response to Matarisvan raising much the same comment two weeks ago was "I used to be an enthusiast, but these days I think it actively misleads a reader. So the £30,000 will come out as a bit under £40,000,000 today. Say the cost of a large luxury yacht or three main battle tanks. But that's not it. We are talking about the total government income of a medium-sized nation state and that just doesn't translate (IMO) when you run it through an inflation converter."
I was vaguely wondering about a comparison of the £10,000 with the annual royal income, if known, which I daresay it isn't. I'm wholly content to leave this in your hands for action or inaction as you think fit. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Tim, I read past your comment far too quickly and thank you for making me come back to it. Of course I can do that. Footnote added. If the MoS permitted, I would dedicate it to you. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Splendid! Thank you, dear boy: it puts the sum of money in context comprehensively. Bravo! Tim riley talk 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "the deaths of many of large force" – missing a word, by the look of it
Oops. Inserted.
  • "The Treaty of Guérande, recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy (Brittany, presumably) was agreed in 1365. John of Montfort died in 1345, still a prisoner in Paris – given the 20-year lurch backwards between the two sentences I wonder if "died" might be better as "had died".
It is ugly. Hmm. Moved up the paragraph into chronological order. (Better?)
Much, me judice. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 13:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply

As usual, many thanks, much appreciated. Changes here. You may be pleased to hear that the next is coming down the track - a proper lance and longbow affair. (It ends "Livingstone and Witzel suggest it is difficult to take lessons from the battle as "Charles ... was a military incompetent". However, Sumption states that the French behaved in the same wrong-headed way they usually did in battles of the 1340s.") Mind it has yet to survive SN reviewing it at GAN, pray for me. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply
I shall remember you in my orisons and will look forward to seeing the new piece at FAC in due course. Meanwhile after a final read-through of this one I am very happy to support its elevation to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria and has been a pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Borsoka

  • ..., while a part of the Kingdom of France for most purposes, was in many ways an independent principality. I think the sentence is unclear and does not reflect what the cited author, Sumption says. For instance, he says, "By 1328, the French Crown exercised practically no direct jurisdiction in Brittany". I would say that the dukes of Britanny were the French kings' vassals but ruled their duchy as independent monarchs, or something similar.
Would 'Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers' work?
  • Yes.
Thanks. Done. Cited to Sumption and Wagner.
  • Complicating the legal situation – which was unprecedented in Breton law – John III seems to have on separate occasions formally promised the succession to both John of Montfort and Charles of Blois. I would explain the situation with more details in a sentence, taking into account that the legal dispute is the core of the civil war.
I am seriously loath to put (much) more detail into this. I strongly suspect that putting additional detail in will cause less rather than more understanding. The dynastic origins of the war are background to this article and I am unsure that more the details there, and I assume in the background of every other article on the war, is appropriate. What is needed is a separate article.
  • Still, I would clarify at least in a footnote that Joan of Penthievre was the sole daughter of the Duke's full-brother, whereas Montfort was their half-brother.
Fair enough. I'll do that.
Actually, part of this, John of Montfort being a half brother, is already in the main article; I have added without I hope over-disrupting the flow, that "Joan was the only child of John III's younger brother". What do you think?
  • ... it was widely accepted within Brittany that Charles would inherit. I think this was not the case: the commoners mainly supported John, and Charles was supported by the clergy and aristocracy, according to Sumption.
Indeed. But I am not discussing who supported who, but who expected who to prevail; a different matter. To further quote Sumption "He [Philip] had certainly assumed like everyone else that Brittany would fall to Charles of Blois". Page 377 of the 1999 paperback.
I am not sure that the article clarifies who supported whom in Brittany, although it is about a civil war.
The sources are not that clear. Many of their divisions would require explaining (eg Breton speaking v French speaking), none of them were absolute, and almost all of them varied over time. I don't see that trying to communicate some of this is going to much help a reader, not least because it had very little effect on actual events.
I have added a bit to Background, [4] Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • ...encouraged by his wife, Jeanne of Flanders... I would write some words about this remarkable woman. Sumption says that "There is no reason to doubt the assertion of a well-informed chronicler that she was the principal author of her husband's plans in the summer of 1341".
I would like to. UndercoverClassicist, would you have any objections in principle to a sentence or so of background?
Not at all: the objection was to the unqualified/unexplained adjective "ambitious" rather than, in principle, introducing her. UndercoverClassicist T· C 20:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks. Done.
Can I raise an NPOV query on Modern historians ... describe her as heroic? (I'm taking as read that the cited sources actually say "modern historians describe..." or similar, rather than describing her with these adjectives). That's very high praise: I can't think of any other historical figure where we would be so unreservedly positive, rather than e.g. "Mandela is widely viewed as a hero in South Africa for his efforts against Apartheid" or "Lincoln is consistently ranked as one of the best US presidents", or "Mother Theresa is widely used as an exemplar of selflessness and moral behaviour". UndercoverClassicist T· C 08:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
I could put quote marks round "heroic", "energetic", "courage" and "stern realism" and attribute in line if that would help? If you are aware of any less flattering descriptions - I am afraid I am not - I would be delighted to use them to temper the praise. Obviously I could dial back the "very high praise" easily enough, but would that not fall foul of NPOV itself, by not accurately conveying the consensus of the HQ RSs?
Is it really the consensus of academic historians that she should be seen as a heroine? Again, I can't think of any historical figure for whom that's true: the best that the Joans of Arc of this world normally get is an acknowledgement that they were seen as heroic in their time, or have inspired others. Would you mind quoting some of the sources so that I have an idea of what we're working with here? UndercoverClassicist T· C 14:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Obviously I could, they are cited, but if you are that twitchy, I have no particular desire to defend their choice of words. Plan B would be to replace this with, say, 'Modern historians consider her to have been an energetic and effective leader, and she acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively. She sent the treasury west to Brest, recalled the field army and took command herself ...' which would also fit better into the flow of the narrative. Would that suit?
I'd be much happier with that -- the adjectives are much closer to objective/verifiable observations. UndercoverClassicist T· C 15:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks UndercoverClassicist, and it partially addresses your telling/showing point I hope. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Could the map also show Brest and Dinan?
Done.
  • I would clarify that Angers is in Anjou.
Have gone with "80 kilometres (50 mi) east of the Brittany border" as more directly helpful to the reader.
  • Do we know why the minders were appointed? Is "minder" the best term?
John of Normandy was 18 and it was his first command. The source has "but he was straitly supervised by [list of names]"; "minder" seems to cover this but I would be happy to consider any alternative you might suggest.
  • I would make it clear that he was 18 in the text. In this case, all will understand the context of the minders' appointment.
Apologies, either the wrong John, a faulty memory or poor mental arithmetic - he was 22. Sumption more or less says it because Philip was nervous and risk averse ("this cautious, troubled man.") Maybe "although Philip, nervous and half-hearted about resorting to armed force, allocated minders to oversee him and issued strict instructions"?
I would work for me.
Done.
  • Do we need a link to "siege"?
IMO, no. Removed. But we both know that someone is going to relink it before the end of the year.
  • ...was almost captured... Who?
Clarified.
  • John of Montfort had personally surrendered to John of Normandy. Repetition.
Rewritten.
  • ...was agreed in 1365 By whom?
Added.
There is not one in the book, I own a paper copy, nor on World Cat.
Two nominations and two reviews from you, thank you Borsoka. All of your comments are addressed above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 00:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
I must admit I am envious of this article. :) I have been planning to complete articles about medieval Breton history. I do not know why but Bretagne fascinates me. Borsoka ( talk) 05:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
I have been meaning to get round to the BCW for more than five years. But kept telling myself to focus on the main HYW. But after 18 months away from FAC the BCW seemed different enough to be fresh, but familiar enough to not be too much of a challenge. I have battle of Morlaix at GAN at the moment, with another couple I have done some work on and a half dozen I want to tackle over the next few months in my TO Do Box. And am trying not to get distracted by the articles about the wars of Henry IV I want to write.
We could collaborate on an article or two. Or split them between us?
Thank you for your magnanimous offer. For the time being, I am concentrating on reviews and some aspects of the history of the crusader states. Later, I would like to improve articles about individual Briton dukes. Borsoka ( talk) 03:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
That sounds interesting. I imagine Sumption could provide a sound framework for several. Give me a shout if you are hunting for a source, or what a second opinion on some text, or find one where you think collaboration might be appropriate. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • (Lead): ...Joan's claim was through her husband,... Was it?
No, of course it wasn't. Thank you. A recently requested addition where I clearly didn't engage my brain sufficiently. '...Joan's claim was exercised through her husband,...'?
Done.
  • (Lead): ...Charles was recognised... By whom?
The Parlement of Paris, which then begs several further questions and is already, IMO, too much detail for the lead.
  • (Lead): ... frequently as a part of the Hundred Years' War Perhaps "in parallel with the HYW"?
Is that not getting a tad OR? Unless you have a source?

Borsoka ( talk) 05:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Borsoka and apologies for the hiatus. Your remaining points now addressed. There have also been a few copy edits - partly me rereading and tidying up, partly due to the article recently having been a DYK. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review

Seems like we are using major historians as a source, and I've seen these publishers already, but I notice a lack of French or Breton sources. Are the ISBN and ISSN on "Rogers, Clifford (2004). "The Bergerac Campaign (1345) and the Generalship of Henry of Lancaster". Journal of Medieval Military History. II. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press: 89–110. ISBN 978-1-84383-040-5. ISSN 0961-7582." correct? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Rogers: oh, nice spot. I am staring at the title page wondering how that happened. You are probably ahead of me. The article was later collected into a book with those ISSN and ISBNs. But I actually used the Journal of Medieval Military History. Things should match now and apologies for whatever went wrong.
  • French and Breton: I can find nothing of any use in Breton. Several perfectly passable general histories in French - of the HYW or of Philip VI. Few as good as the English language sources, none better and none that I am aware of containing notable information not in the English sources. So, per WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance"), I haven't used any.
Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the swift and incredibly thorough review. My two responses are above, let me know if they still leave queries. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC) reply
My concern is that you get an article with WP:UNDUE weight being given to the English viewpoint if you use only English sources. Not all good sources are translated and that even researchers tend to focus more on their own/friendly countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Ceoil

  • Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers something explanatory is missing between "vassals of the French kings they governed". Vassals should be linked.
Vassal: it should, it is now, in both the lead and the main article.
Missing. Seems fine to me, and UC and Borsoka both ok'ed it before I swapped it in. A little reluctantly I have added a comma after "France". Does that help?
  • What are the "great men" of Brittany
I think it's fairly self explanatory. (And if a reader is a little vague I don't think it is going to interrupt the flow of their reading nor distract from their understanding of the situation.)
  • whereby he sided with French vassals of Philip in their disagreements with him. "whereby --> after which
I have gone with "by which".
Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Request for the coordinators

Hi @ FAC coordinators: as this is 16 days in and has five supports, image and (I think) source review passes could I have permission to nominate a second article? Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Tesla Model S

Nominator(s): 750 h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Second candidacy, following this one. About an electric sedan produced by Tesla, Inc.. Asking previous reviewers @ Epicgenius, Femke, and UndercoverClassicist: for a second review on this one. 750 h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

EG

Thanks for the ping. I looked at these changes and have only one additional concern:

  • Environmental impact, paragraph 2: "its 68 percent higher manufacturing emissions are offset within a few years of average driving" - Do we have a more specific time frame besides "a few years"?

This is not a major concern, so my support from the previous FAC still stands. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Not per the source, no. I'm assuming it means half-decade, but that's an assumption. Thanks for the support. 750 h+ 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Femke and UndercoverClassicist: pinging in case. 750 h+ 05:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Images are appropriately licensed, but avoid sandwiching text between images. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Drive-by (sorry...) from UC

May not have time for a full review, at least not in the near future, though I note the article seems to be in pretty good nick following its last round at FAC.

In the footnote for "Rollover", we have This means it has a 5.7 percent chance of rolling over.. That needs some more context to me -- is that a 5.7% chance of rolling over while parked on your drive, or while taking a corner at speed? UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Mount Edziza

Nominator(s): Volcano guy 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about one of the highest and most prominent volcanic peaks in Canada, as well as one of Canada's highest threat volcanoes. Like my previous FAC, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, it cites Jack Souther a lot because he was the only geologist to have studied the mountain in detail. The mountain has received some studies by other scientists since 1992, but they are small in comparison. With that being said, there doesn't seem to be much data regarding the retreat of Mount Edziza's glaciers. Volcano guy 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Provisional support by JJE

Spot-checked a bit too. Going to qualify that prose is often not my strong suit in FAC work and some overcomplicated sentences need to be spotted and cleaned. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Adding support, although I may revisit depending on Eewilson's prose notes. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Meaning? Volcano guy 05:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Meaning that I don't trust my own assessment of prose quality as much as some other people's, so I might reconsider if they find significant issues. Don't think that's particularly likely, though. For the coordinators, that means that this is a support, not a weak support or anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Generalissima

I admire your dedication to this volcanic complex. I'm gonna do a prose readthrough.

  • Lede is good. Only note is that you don't really give a description for what Ice Peak is, so it reads as an unrelated mountain rather than the southern peak of the mountain.
    Clarified. Volcano guy 18:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Under etymology: I wouldn't call those "misspellings", since they seem to predate a standardized spelling. I'd say "obsolete spellings" or something of that ilk.
    Done. Volcano guy 17:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Additionally, maybe we could move the native name of Ice Mountain/Tenh Dẕetle to this section, so all name-related stuff is right at front? I would rephrase this to something like "its Tahltan name Tenh Dẕetle, translating to "Ice Mountain" in English" rather than the reverse.
      Reworded. Volcano guy 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Geography and geomorphology is solid. As a rock, you could say.
    • "only one worthy of note" I realize the source might not say, but I wouldn't know if there were actually other ice caps or not on the plateau.
      Actually, the source directly states "Although nearly the entire area was ice-covered during the Pleistocene, only the glacier complex on Edziza Peak is presently worthy of note." Volcano guy 17:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think we need the "respectively" after listing the names of two ridges and two identically named creeks.
      Removed. Volcano guy 16:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Bit of sea of blue on "Drainage", where [Stikine River] [watershed] appears to be a single link [Stikine River watershed]. You could link watershed somewhere else, or create a Redirect with possibilities from "Stikine River watershed" -> "Stikine River".
      Created redirect. Volcano guy 18:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I'll admit my geology knowledge is limited, but this seems pretty intelligible to me; you do a good job explaining it.
  • The last paragraph of Hazards and monitoring seems to not match with the citations that well. For instance, the Canadian National Seismograph Network and its location is not mentioned at all, nor is the mountain itself! Is there any other sourcing we could use here?
    The source doesn't mention the name Canadian National Seismograph Network but it does mention the seismograph network in general. Also, the source claims no Canadian volcanoes are monitored sufficiently which means Edziza isn't monitored sufficiently either. I'm using common sense here. Volcano guy 17:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Optionally, I'd advise linking Tahltan at the beginning of the human history section since its quite a ways from its first mention.
  • Image captions which scan as full sentences should end in periods.
    I think I got them. Volcano guy 18:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Accessibility is a bit hard to read due to an excessive amount of road and trail names (many of which are quite similar). Do we need to list all of the lakes and creeks these trails pass by?
    Without the names it would be unclear which is what. Volcano guy 16:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Volcanoguy: That's my piece. Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 03:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Generalissima: I've responded to all of your points. Volcano guy 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks good to me IMO, Support. Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Eewilson

My review will be here, mostly source review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC) reply

It turns out I'm doing a prose reading and review as well. I have my notes in progress offline. I won't be able to do anything on this Tuesday because I will be out of town. After the prose review, I will do a source review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Prose review
  • Infobox
    Make it say what someone who can't see would need to know. Your photos have good alt text. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lead
    • Mineral exploration just southeast of Mount Edziza commenced in at least the 1950s where gold, silver and other metals were discovered. This mineral exploration was conducted by several mineral exploration companies into the early 1990s. – maybe a few too many "mineral exploration"s?
  • Location and climate
    • Mount Edziza rises from within the middle of the Big Raven Plateau, a barren plateau in Cassiar Land District bounded on the west by Mess Valley, on the north by Klastline Valley, on the east by Kakiddi Valley and on the south by Chakima and Walkout valleys, the latter two of which are separated by mountainous terrain. – Are the latter two Klastline Valley and Kakiddi Valley or Chakima Valley and Walkout Valley?
      Chakima Valley and Walkout Valley. Volcano guy 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
      Do something to make that just a little clearer, even if you repeat the names or add a sentence. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 02:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
      I've just removed it since it's not important. Volcano guy 17:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • The following sentence seems out of scope of this article and can be removed: This complex of shield volcanoes, stratovolcanoes, lava domes, calderas and cinder cones forms a broad, intermontane plateau at the eastern edge of the Tahltan Highland, a southeast-trending upland area extending along the western side of the Stikine Plateau.
      It's not out of scope if Mount Edziza is a part of it, not to mention the Big Raven Plateau is mentioned in the article which is a subplateau of the intermontane plateau. Volcano guy 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Instead of using "as well as" in consists of several upland summits as well as wide river valleys and deeply incised plateaus, replace it with a comma unless it changes the meaning.
      Done. Volcano guy 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Next part of this paragraph needs to be in summary style to fit the scope of this article; in other words, pick out the parts relevant to Mount Edziza and remove the rest. It is one of seven ecosections comprising the Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecoregion, a large ecological region of northwestern British Columbia encompassing high plateaus and rugged mountains with intervening lowlands. Boreal forests of black and white spruce occur in the lowlands and valley bottoms of this ecoregion whereas birch, spruce and willow form forests on the mid-slopes. Extensive alpine altai fescue covers the upper slopes, but barren rock is abundant at higher elevations.
      It's all relevant since the geography and flora of this ecosection surrounds Mount Edziza. Volcano guy 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Glaciation
    • Several small outlet glaciers extending down to altitudes of 1,700 to 2,000 metres (5,600 to 6,600 feet) drain the ice cap. – "extending down to altitudes" is confusing. What does this mean?
      Changed "altitudes" to "elevations". Volcano guy 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Satellitic features
    • about 2,285 metres (7,497 feet) in elevation – those numbers seem precise to be considered "about".
      Not according to the source. Volcano guy 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • The northeastern side of Mount Edziza contains The Pyramid – is this one of those situations where a proper name begins with "the" but we don't capitalize it unless it begins a sentence (E.g., "The Beatles" is "the Beatles", etc.)?
      No, sources capitalize it within sentences. Volcano guy 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
      See MOS:THECAPS in general – the would not be capitalized in running text – but this is an exception in that it is a proper name of a geographical unit ( MOS:GEOUNITS), so I believe the way you have it is correct per the MOS. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I'm wondering about the purpose of this section. Are all of the satellitic features a part of Mount Edziza? Or are they a part of Big Raven Plateau. Instead of a point on the map, is Mount Edziza actually identifiable by a large outline that would contain all of these features?
      They're all subfeatures of Mount Edziza, but since some of them are near the base of Mount Edziza instead of directly on it, they can be considered subfeatures of the Big Raven Plateau as well. Volcano guy 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
      I've retitled this section to make it clearer that these are subfeatures. Volcano guy 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
      I'm not aware of there being an outline for Mount Edziza. Volcano guy 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    • The elevations of all of these features are exaustive and actually exhausting to read. Are they necessary? Are they necessary in the prose or could they be relegated to footnotes?
      I don't see why their elevations shouldn't be mentioned in the prose when the elevations of both Ice Peak and Mount Edziza's summit are previously mentioned in the article. Not mentioning their elevations brings up the question "how high are these features"? Volcano guy 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
      I will look at it again tonight to see if it was just me last night, or if I have trouble with it tonight and can make suggestions. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 02:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Composition
  • Hazards and monitoring
  • Indigenous peoples
    • Most of this section is about the Tahltan people and the use of the volcano's obsidian. I'd like to see the term "Edziza obsidian" with wikilink used even earlier in the first paragraph, and for it to be more clear if "this obsidian", "this volcanic glass", "Pyramid obsidian", are all "Edziza obsidian" or just obsidian in general.
      I've mentioned Edziza obsidian a bit earlier in the paragraph but I don't see the need of making "Pyramid obsidian" more clear since The Pyramid is previously mentioned in the "Subfeatures" section and the Pyramid Formation is already described as a stratigraphic unit of Mount Edziza. Volcano guy 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    I had not understood that Pyramid obsidian was from the Pyramid. See if you can clear all of this obsidian up so the reader knows what is what. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Pyramid is part of the Pyramid Formation (see Pyramid Formation section) and does state that two obsidian flows occur on The Pyramid. Volcano guy 16:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    Changed "Pyramid obsidian" to "this obsidian". Volcano guy 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Mineral exploration
  • Protected areas
    • This small remnant of the recreation area lied east of Mount Edziza until 2003 when it was disestablished. – is "lied" correct grammar? Actually, I'm not sure you want any form of lay or lie here. Maybe just "was"? Also, "remnant" implies "small", and you already explained its size, so just remove the word "small".
      Done. Volcano guy 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Accessibility
    Are any of the named trails in this section horse trails? The section talks about horse trails and doesn't clarify, so the reader is sort of led to believe that those trails are horse trails. If they are not, or if it's unknown, clarify these are two different topics: horse trails and other trails. Alternatively, find out if horses are allowed on those trails. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 02:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well, the Buckley Lake and Klastline River trails seem to be the only trails into Mount Edziza Provincial Park from surrounding roads so they most likely can be used for horseback riding. The BC Parks website claims horseback riding is promoted in Mount Edziza Provincial Park and those two trails enter the park. Volcano guy 16:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

I may have more for prose, but my brain is done for the day, and I wanted to get this out to you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 04:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that WP:CITE says we need to stick to one citation style in an article ( MOS:CITEVAR?). I believe this means that (in addition to being consistent with cs1, cs2, Chicago, ALA, etc.) you should not combine shortened footnotes with list-defined references in the same article. If this is the case, pick one and modify your references accordingly, or find something that says I am misinterpreting (I have searched). I personally prefer sfn, but it's your choice as long as it's consistent. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 02:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply

My sense is that at FAC we accept such a style combination (sfn+list defined references) when some sources are paginated and others aren't. Whether we should accept it is a different question, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, I've seen both used in FA articles. Volcano guy 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply


Older nominations

Gusuku period

Nominator(s): Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC) reply

The Gusuku period corresponds to the early protohistorical period of Ryuykyuan history. It features the sudden migration of Japonic-speaking peoples into the archipelago, displacing the previous inhabitants of the Shellmidden period, saw the construction of a bunch of castles everywhere, the growth of an agricultural society, pirates, endemic warfare, and eventually the formation of the Ryukyu Kingdom. Previously, articles on this period on-wiki have conflated archaeological and historical sources with the traditional mythical narrative. I hope you all enjoy reading about this obscure period of history as much as I enjoyed writing it! Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC) reply

750h

Will review. Ping me if I don't get to this within seven days. 750 h+ 08:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification.

lead
  • Directly following the Shellmidden "directly" is redundant.
    • Done. - G
  • fortresses which this won't affect my vote since the other is still widely used, but it's generally preferable to add a coma before "which".
    • Done. - G
  • which proliferated across the archipelago would change "proliferated" to "increased rapidly" or something similar. Best to use words more understandable to a broad audience rather than large ones
    • Done. - G


background
  • capacity prior to the introduction ==> "capacity before the introduction" (conciseness)
    • Done. - G
  • the Ryuykus prior to c. 800 CE ==> "the Ryuykus before c. 800 CE"
    • Done. - G
  • agriculture in lieu of foraging ==> "agriculture instead foraging" (conciseness)
    • Done. - G
  • endemic warfare prior to the ==> "endemic warfare before the" (conciseness)
    • Done. - G
  • Due to their close proximity "close" is redundant. "proximity" does the work
    • Done. - G
emergence
  • peoples settled the Ryukyus should this be "peoples settled in the Ryukyus"
  • "Settling the Ryukyus" is grammatical; see constructions like to settle the Americas or to settle the British Isles in academic lit. -G
  • followed by the Okinawa Islands, the Miyako Islands, and finally the Yaeyama Islands. "finally" is redundant
    • I think finally is important here to note that these were done in order, rather than all three at once. - G
  • population of the Ryukyu Islands prior to the Gusuku "prior to" ==> "before"
    • Fixed. - G
  • divergence prior to the Gusuku "prior to" ==> "before"
    • Fixed. - G
  • or as evolution from a trade creole shouldn't it be "or as an evolution from a trade creole"
    • Fixed. - G
developments
  • Archaeologial examinations of sites at "Archaeological" is spelt wrong
    • Fixed. - G
  • period sociey is a topic "society" is spelt wrong
  • attributing the growth of a nobility and state i don't think article "a" is needed
    • Makes it so it can't be read as (nobility and state polities) instead of (a nobility) (and state polities). - G
  • You use "organization" (american english) in one part of the article but you use "metres" or "centimetres" (british english) in another part. you're going to need use you one type of english.
    • Fixed. - G
  • generally to the southwest so as to maximize sunlight remove "so as"
    • Fixed. - G
  • and surrounded with palisades. ==> "and surrounded by palisades."
    • Fixed. - G
  • with major bases on Kyushu and ==> "with major bases in Kyushu and"
    • Kyushu is an island, shouldn't it be on here? - G
  • port of call in the Ryukyus, and became a major center of piracy remove the comma


emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom

No problems here.

histography
  • mainly based off interviews ==> "mainly based on interviews"
    • Fixed. - G
  • two early 18th century versions of needs a hyphen between "18th"
    • Fixed. - G
  • dating to periods prior to the 16th and ==> "dating to periods before the 16th and"
    • Fixed. - G
  • began the 17,000 year rule hyphen needed between "17,000" and "rule"
    • Fixed. - G
  • Okinawa in name only, and that remove comma
    • Fixed. - G
  • written documentation prior to the 17th century ==> "written documentation before the 17th century"
    • Fixed. - G

Great work @ Generalissima:, thanks for the article. 750 h+ 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Arconning - source review

Marking my name down here. Ping as well within seven days^. Arconning ( talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Arconning: Pinging! Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 16:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks sources match what they are being cited for
  • No further comments, everything looks nice

Support from Crisco

  • Any reason for not including the image in the infobox, instead of below it?
  • Following the Shellmidden period, the Gusuku is generally described as beginning in the 11th century, following a dramatic social and economic shift over the previous centuries. - Following ... following
    • Fixed. - G
  • leading to endemic warfare and the construction of the namesake gusuku fortresses ... eventually leading to the construction of the namesake gusuku. - There is some very similar construction here in the lede, so some rework would probably not be amiss.
    • Fixed. - G
  • mid-Shellmidden ... Late Shellmidden - Not consistent in capitalization. Other examples: Middle Yayoi period
    • Fixed. - G
  • contemporary sources - Contemporary to whom? Perhaps clearer if there were a "since 19XX, sources have" phrasing.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Rice and millet agriculture spread to Sakishima by the 12th century. - This is the first mention of rice and millet, but you don't link them until the next paragraph ( WP:LINKFIRST)
    • Fixed. - G
  • Do we have a lang template for the loanwords in this article? (I ask for compatibility with screenreaders)
    • Added these. - G
  • slave trading - Is there a better link, focusing more on East Asia?
    • I was unable to find one.
  • Sho En - You spell the others "Shō"; why is Sho En losing the diacritic?
    • Fixed. - G
  • primary sources limited to foreign diplomatic and tribute records - tribute records were mentioned earlier; would be better to link there
    • Fixed. - G
  • Japan to development in the Ryukyus was challenged in the 1980s and 1990s as Okinawa's domestic development was emphasized, with historians such as Takara Kurayoshi and Murai Shōsuke emphasizing - Two uses of development and two uses of emphasiz(e/ing), with another emphasized in the next sentence. Might be good to rework.
    • Fixed. - G
  • the Gusuku Site is a specific archaeology site on Kikaijima. - You use a lower-case "s" in other uses
    • Fixed. - G
  • Overall, feels like the article is slightly overillustrated. I do like the images... maybe a use of {{ multiple image}} would work to combine some?  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

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

Most are own works, with one from flickr and two with an expired copyright. They are all either in the public domain or published under some version of CC BY-SA. All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations.

All images have captions. The caption "Shells of Turbo snails were prominent trade goods during the period" is a full sentence and needs a period. I suggest adding alt texts to "Katsurenjô (16).jpg" and "Book from the Ryukyu Kingdom (ca. 1600).jpg". All the other images have alt texts.

I agree with Crisco that, to make it visually better organized, the lead image should be included the info box, unless there is a good reason otherwise. The article has many images, but I'm not sure that this is a problem. Phlsph7 ( talk) 14:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Phlsph7: Implemented all the requested changes; thank you! Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 22:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the changes; that takes care of the concerns. Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Paul Hunter

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about one of the most talented snooker players of all time, who died sadly far too young. The previous FAC closed due to lack of responses. As ever, I am happy to answer any questions you might have. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

I will try and do a fuller review later, but a few points for now. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Ref formatting is inconsistent, e.g. some newspapers linked, some not. Some names not in lastname, firstname format. Ref 42 is lacking most details and is in all caps.
  • The CueSport book pages cited are for Steve Davis, not Paul Hunter. Should be pages 555 to 557. The source only covers up to the end of 2003–04, not the 2004–05 or 2005–06 seasons.
  • We haven't always been consistent about whether to include qualifying tournament wins in "Career finals" sections. I'd lean towards omitting the Scottish Masters Qualifying Event.
  • Unlike every other source, I think we avoid using "beat" (for defeated) in the text.
  • "the eventual champion Stephen Hendry" - can be "the eventual champion Hendry".
  • "Mark Williams" - can be Williams after the first mention, and perhaps doesn't need the second wiki-link.
  • Other players also currently have their full name after the initial mention, e.g. Peter Ebdon, Matthew Stevens.
  • "Hunter gained entry into the prestigious invitational Masters tournament." - I don't think "prestigious" is suported by the sources cited. Might be easier to find a source that says it is a "triple crown" event, instead.
  • "Fürth Grand Prix in 2004, which was later renamed in his honour, winning the final 4–2 over Matthew Stevens" - reorder to put the win before the renaming?
  • "in 2007, the amateur English Open tournament was renamed the Paul Hunter English Open" - looks from Turner's site like it was a pro-am tournament from 2007.
  • Yeah, well the sentence says that the amateur English Open event was renamed (which happened in 2007). I think we'd be confusing the fact if we explained that it also became a pro-am. The important bit is that it wasn't a professional event that changed name in my eyes. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Isn't there more that can be said about his appeal to the public, public image, playing style etc? Looks like the broadsheet obituaries have some coverage of these kinds of aspects.
Hi Lee, how are you doing with this? Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi! So I did look through quite a few obituaries, and they seem to all just go through the paces of his career. Quite a few mention that he was popular by the media. The only thing that really stood out was a piece on him being caught running through Blackpool beach naked.
this source says he was snookers first 'pin-up'. the Guardian talks about his good looks the independent says about him being "snooker's answer to Posh and Becks" and this source says about his talent and that he "transcended his chosen pursuit to achieve celebrity status". I'm just struggling a bit to put this into a coherent section.
I can't find anything at all about his actual style of play. Most items just say about how talented he is, and how he made centuries, but not how he played. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Does any of this help? "With his easy. fluent style and ponytailed or braided blonde hair, it was easy to see him as Snooker's golden boy ... He became a hero for clubbers, carousers and ravers who recognised him as one of their own [although he realised] there was an imbalabce between his pursuit of pleasure and devotion to his craft" (Clive Everton, "Paul Hunter: Denied His Golden Future", Snooker Scene, November 2005, page 4). Willie Thorne said "He lit up the stage when he played. He was a very flamboyant player".("Tributes", Snooker Scene, November 2005, page 7) "Throughout his all-too-brief career, Hunter was defined by snooker and the manner in which he handled its inevitable ups and downs. ... Hunter never questioned a refereeing decision and he never publicly complained about playing conditions or his opponent's luck. He played the ball as it lay." (Phil Yates, "Heartfelt tributes as man with the golden smile is mourned", The Times, 10 October 2006, page 80). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "Guided by Jimmy Michie and Johnson, Hunter made his professional debut in July 1995 at age 16" is a bit close to the source's "Guided by two seasoned snooker professionals — Jimmy Michie and the former world champion, Joe Johnson — young Paul made his professional debut in July 1995 when he was 16." but might be OK per WP:LIMITED
  • Refs 2 and 58: I can't see Sadie Gray as a byline for "Paul Hunter (obituary, page 1)". I can't see a byline on the scan of the printed version either.
  • Ref 5: wouldn't we noramlly credit the interviewer (Donald McRae)
  • I don't think that Hunter's middle name is referenced. The Telegraph obit would do for that.

EG

I'll leave some feedback later. Hopefully I'll have comments before the end of the week. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a look :) Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Lead:
  • Para 2: "In his memory, a tournament in Fürth, Germany, was renamed the Paul Hunter Classic and, in April 2016, the Masters trophy was renamed the Paul Hunter Trophy." - Not really an issue, but I find it interesting that you give the date when the Masters trophy was renamed, but not when the classic was renamed.
  • Para 2: "Following his death, Hunter was posthumously awarded the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award." - Either "Following his death" or "posthumously" is redundant, since "posthumously" means "after death". (Also, the sentence repeats "award" twice; I'd probably just go with "Following his death, Hunter received the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award.")
Early life:
  • "Leaving school at 14" - To further his career?
More in a bit. – Epicgenius ( talk) 17:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC) reply
EG ? Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Oops, I forgot about this. I was really busy last week, and I have an eye doctor's appointment later today, so I will return for more comments tomorrow. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Early life:
  • No comments here.
Early career (1995–2000)
  • Para 1: "world number six" - I know this means the sixth-highest-ranked player in the world, but it sounds somewhat informal (especially if you're using this or similar terminology in the article for the first time). Is there a way to reword this?
  • Para 1: "the last 16" - Similarly, I would clarify what this means, since it's the first time you use this particular terminology.
  • Para 1: "docked the entirety of the ranking points" - Why not just "docked all of the ranking points"?
  • Para 3: "successfully qualifying by defeating Euan Henderson." - I think "successfully" may be unnecessary, unless it's possible for him to have unsuccessfully qualified.
More in a bit. Given what I've seen so far, the rest of the review shouldn't take too long, so I apologize for the delay thus far. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
Cheers, I've covered the above. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC) reply
As promised, the rest of the review.
Masters champion (2001–2004):
  • Para 1: "After winning the championship, Hunter claimed he had sex with his fiancée when he trailed 2–6 between sessions, which had caused him to play significantly better" - I know you definitely didn't mean this, but for some reason I imagined Hunter having sex with his fiancee while he was literally holding the cue and losing 2–6, rather than having sex between sessions. Perhaps this could be "he had sex with his fiancée between sessions when he trailed 2–6".
  • Para 2: The second through fourth sentences all begin with the name "Hunter". I suggest changing at least one of these to a pronoun.
  • Para 3: "The BBC later broadcast the highlights of the match in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship when the event was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom." - Presumably the 2020 championship was postponed, so I would instead say "that event".
  • Para 5: "The event was later renamed in his honour" - Out of curiosity, was that event renamed posthumously?
  • Para 5: You use both "2004–05 season" and "2004–2005 season". Could this be made consistent?
Later years and illness (2005–2006):
  • Para 2: "which would be his last professional match" - I'd change "would be" to "was". Though WP:WOULDCHUCK is an essay, I would only use "would" if we were talking about a conditional statement (as I'm doing in this comment), or if the article briefly "jumps" to a future date before returning to the current timeline. Neither of these situations is the case here.
  • Para 3: You use "2006/2007 rankings" and "2006–2007 season", which should probably be changed as well.
Death:
  • No comments.
Personal life:
  • Para 2: Out of curiosity, when was that memoir published?
Legacy:
  • Para 1: "then non-ranking" - This should be "then-non-ranking", as the word "then" modifies "non-ranking" and thus, is a single phrase that should be hyphenated. (This might even be appropriate as an en-dash per MOS:ENBETWEEN, i.e. "then–non-ranking", but I'm not going to split hairs over that.)
  • Para 2: "In 2006, Hunter was posthumously awarded the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award – his widow Lindsey accepted the award on his behalf" - I think it may be more appropriate to use a semicolon instead of a dash, since these are two full clauses rather than an interruption of existing text, but that's just my preference and not a requirement.
  • Para 3: "11 year" - Similarly that should be "11-year".
That's it on my end. – Epicgenius ( talk) 15:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Merchant's House Museum

Nominator(s): Epicgenius ( talk) 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about a historic house in New York City, built in the 1830s for the Tredwell family, at a time when the surrounding neighborhood was an upscale residential area. The house remained in the family for almost a century, even as most of the family's wealthy neighbors moved away. After the last child died, the house became a museum in 1936, narrowly avoiding demolition. Despite being a relatively low-profile museum even today, the Merchant's House Museum was one of NYC's first-ever official landmarks, and you can still see many of the family's possessions on display there. Amazingly, unlike literally every other 19th-century residence in NYC, the house still retains its original design as well.

This page became a Good Article this June after a GAN review by several editors, for which I am very grateful. After some recent copyedits by Mox Eden, which I greatly appreciate as well, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius ( talk) 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Crisco

  • Several of the images could use a crop.
  • Is this biographic information on Tredwell best suited in its own section? Seems jarring to go from the site to biographic information.
    • I'm not sure. This paragraph is short because I wanted to provide only just enough context to introduce the house's original owner, since the article is about the house rather than Tredwell. I've reworded this to "The house was first occupied by Seabury Tredwell..." Epicgenius ( talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • photos of the interiors - Is "photos" used at this level, given its informality? Perhaps "images" or "depictions"?
  • 1930s to 1960s - Worth having an "adjusted for inflation" for the items in this section, given the years between each figure?
  • Staten Island - You link Manhattan and New York City, so I'd link Staten Island, The Christian Science Monitor, party wall, Chicago Tribune
  • it distributed another matching grant of $12,000 in 1972. The trust provided another matching grant of $35,000 in 1975 - Worth combining as " it distributed matching grants of $12,000 in 1972 and $35,000 in 1975?

More to follow —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comments so far, @ Crisco 1492. I'll work on your first point and have addressed the others. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • To the west and east of the house are party walls made of brick; these party walls were originally shared by the houses on either side.[57] - Perhaps "To the west and east of the house are party walls made of brick, which were originally shared by the houses on either side.[57]
  • 14-foot-tall (4.3 m) - would it not be 14-foot (4.3-m) tall?
    • Not really. The two are fairly similar, but the phrase "14-foot-tall" merely describes something that is 14 feet tall. By contrast, "14-foot tall" can mean that something is 14 feet and tall, but if taken literally, the 14-foot dimension might not necessarily be its height (most people would still understand it to mean "14-foot-tall", though). Epicgenius ( talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The rooms are connected to each other by an arched partition
  • ... an arched partition flanked by Ionic fluted columns, which shield a sliding mahogany door between the rooms.[76][124] The sliding door originally had silver-plated trim.[17] The bases of these columns are octagonal in shape, while the capitals are decorated with anthemia. - Seems strange to go columns, door, door, columns. Perhaps rephrase?
  • There is allegedly a secret passage in the wall between the two first-floor parlors, which leads up to a drawer between the second-story master bedrooms. - Seems like the rest of the paragraph confirms its existence.
  • Is the attic one of those small, almost crawlspace deals, or is it a full storey (I've lived in an old Victorian where the attic was basically another storey, with the ceiling about 80% of the height of the other storeys, hence the question)
    • It's basically a half-story with a lower-than-normal ceiling, although it does have some windows. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources that confirm this, so that's why there isn't any more detail about the attic. Epicgenius ( talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Old Merchant's House Inc. runs an online gift shop.[129] Old Merchant's House Inc. has an endowment fund - I'd recommend against repeating the name twice in succession
  • The items were broadly split into three categories. - Were or are? Just because they're no longer exhibited doesn't mean they've been deaccessioned.
    • Oops, good point. They still are divided into three stories.
  • The house also had a music box,[33][137] a grand piano made by Nunns & Fischer,[78] oil lamps,[35] cupboards with rare china, and brass doorknobs.[110] Toys and clothes are displayed on the upper floors.[123] - You jump from earlier collections/exhibitions to current ones and then back to the 1980s. Might be easier to follow if chronological. I'm also seeing a mix of current and previous exhibits in the next paragraph
  • In 1991, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and the Merchant's House Museum launched an educational program called Greenwich Village: History and Historic Preservation. The program ran through the end of the 1990s at the museum but eventually shifted its focus to the West Village.[140] - More repetition (program)
  • Several events are regularly hosted at the house.[81] The parlors regularly host music concerts - Regularly ... regularly
  • Over the years, the house has also hosted other events. It hosted a 1946 benefit for the American Friends of France,[144] though in 1956, the museum's operators prevented Alfred Hitchcock from shooting a movie there.[145] - "Though" doesn't seem to work here. Ironically, the Hitchcock bit works better with the next sentence.
  • Any dates on these plays? Terry died in 1928, and the title makes it sound like she was involved... but the house wasn't a museum yet.
  • More potential links: Vogue, Los Angeles Times, American Heritage, The Village Voice
  • The Christian Science Monitor - You use the Christian Science Monitor on first mention, and The Christian Science Monitor thereafter; I believe the second is correct.
  • "has been sadly altered" - Given the continued emphasis on the house's general intactness, are examples given?
    • I've reread this, and apparently this is missing some context. Meeker disapproved of the items shown in the museum; it wasn't that the interior architecture itself was modified. I've changed this a bit. Epicgenius ( talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Overall, article seems quite comprehensive.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Crisco 1492, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of the remaining issues now. Epicgenius ( talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede
Prose