Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

[edit]

Commenting, etc

[edit]


FACs needing feedback
view • edit
Ednyfed Fychan Review it now
Shalom Nagar Review it now
Yugoslav torpedo boat T8 Review it now
John Cecil Russell Review it now
Crusading movement Review it now
Manufacturers Trust Company Building Review it now
Rule of inference Review it now


Shortcut

Nominations

[edit]

The Black Pirate

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Black Pirate, a rousing, swashbuckling adventure film that is also historically important in that it is one of the earliest films made in Technicolor. Several months ago, I found the French-language version of the article much longer and more comprehensive than its English counterpart. Although I do not speak the language, I translated the French article into English via Google translate. Using that as a basis, I made extensive revisions to the text. What is now presented I would like to make a Featured Article. Can anyone offer advice on doing this? Jimknut (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm concerned that you machine-translated the article from a language you do not speak. Did you verify that the sources cited say what your English version says? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose on prose grounds. The standard isn't up to what I would except to see in an FA, I'm afraid.

  • By way of example, let's look at the second paragraph.
    • This is four sentences that are all sort of connected, but the prose lacks cohesion, so these just come across as being rather loosely connected; sentence two is particularly weak and leaves me with more questions than answers.
    • The verb choice is also questionable ("hesitated" suggests a short pause, rather than explaining a four-year hiatus).
    • The phrasing of "Fairbanks took financial risks due to the added costs and fragility of the film process" is rather awkward (what is the "fragility of the film process", and isn't any film a financial risk?)
    • And as you've already named Fairbanks in the first paragraph, there is no need to full name him at the start of the second.
  • The third paragraph has similar problems:
    • "To address these concerns": what concerns: this is a new paragraph, and is supposed to deal with a new point, so you need to either run this sentence on from the previous paragraph or reiterate what concerns were specifically addressed.
    • "His team": were they directly under Fairbanks's control? So far all we know is that he acted in the film and wanted a colour pirate film. There's no reference to him being a producer or having any other role.
    • "contributing to the film’s success": Was it a success? This is sprung on us through the slightly tortured logic that a simplified plot makes for a successful film.
    • "Fairbanks continued to deliver his signature acrobatic stunts.": continued? There's no reference to him having started doing any stunts, so I don't know what has been "continued". "Signature" is an unencyclopaedic abomination. It's fine for journalists or film/fan magazines, but let's not have the puffery in the lead of an FA.
  • That's just the two of the first three paragraphs. A skim of the rest of the article shows a lot of other problems.
  • You also need to be careful with apostrophes: there are lots of ’ that should be '.
  • I'm seeing way too many uses of "however" in the text – 26 of them, including at the start of paragraphs, which is something of a red flag.
  • A quick glance at the sources: I'm seeing error messages that show the following sources have not been used:
    • United Artists (1926a)
    • United Artists (1926b)
    • Behlmer, Rudy (1992b)
  • Belton, John (2018) has a piece of rogue coding ("r1=Giovanna")
  • I would expect to see some form of identifier (isbn or oclc) for all the works, not just Belton
  • Are none of the writers of these books notable enough for their own articles?
  • Are none of the books available through online repositories (Internet Archive or Google Books)?

I suggest you withdraw this and work on it further aware from FAC. At the very least I would suggest going through PR before returning and taking it through GAN would probably be a good idea too. Before all that, Nikkimaria's comment is germane. Do you have access to these sources? If not, make sure you get access. Have you done any additional research, or just relied on the French FA version? A very quick search at The Wiki Library suggests the latter, which makes this a fail under 1c of the criteria too. I suggest that before any thought of PR or GAN, you hit the sources to ensure this is in the area of an FA, as it falls rather short at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Macauley Island

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the Kermadec Islands, notable both for a volcanic caldera and large Holocene eruption that gave rise to it, and the ecosystem and the efforts taken to restore it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead

MSincccc (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History

MSincccc (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Novolin

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 02:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This might be one of the most bizarre video game concepts. In 1992 on the Super Nintendo, there was a game released about a superhero who has, and I'm not kidding, diabetes. And he has to save the also diabetic mayor of the city from going into shock so you have to fight sugary food aliens to help give the mayor his insulin. And since its release it was garnered a reputation as one of the worst video games ever made. And now I am nominating the article about it for FAC as I believe it meets the criteria. Feedback is always welcomed. GamerPro64 02:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cukie Gherkin

[edit]

Infobox

  • Perry Rodgers should be discussed in development; also, is there any info that can be cited on Rodgers' involvement?
  • Same with Kelly Kofoed and the composers
  • The programmers are also not mentioned; suggest removing them unless some significance can be shown.
  • Recommend adding platformer genre to "2D side-scroller"

Lead

  • Recommend changing the semicolon to a comma

Gameplay

"Captain Novolin is a 2D side-scroller. The plot of Captain Novolin has the titular hero setting out to save Pineville's diabetic Mayor Gooden from aliens and their leader Blubberman, as the mayor only has enough insulin for 48 hours" I feel these sentences ought to be tweaked to flow from the first to the second sentence a little better

  • "Captain Novolin can die if his blood glucose level goes too high or low" Is this a guaranteed thing (i.e., there's a point where the blood glucose goes too high or low where death immediately occurs)? If so, should be "will die"

Development

  • Suggest renaming to "Development and release"

Reception

  • Might be worth clarifying that "Super Prozac Brothers" isn't real; it might seem outlandish, but in an article about such an outlandish game, it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that such a thing exists
  • This section is my biggest concern with the article; firstly, the two sources used in the review box are not actually cited for anything more than the scores, which is frowned upon. My below notes will be to help address the issues.
  • [1] [2] These two sources discuss, in order, branding in video games and the worst Nintendo games, with Captain Novolin being touched on in both.
  • [3] [4] These are the review box reviews so you can cite the info
  • [5] Retro Gamer source that discusses "strange games"
  • [6] A source from OLD!Gamer
  • [7] Another contemporary review

Source review by Cukie Gherkin (0/25)

[edit]

TheBrickGraphic

[edit]

Hey! This game looks... interesting. Here are some initial comments after looking at the prose. This'll also be my first time navigating the FA process so apologies if I make errors or can't be extremely thorough. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
[edit]
  • As far as I can tell it isn't mentioned elsewhere apart from the lead that Novolin has diabetes, let alone type 1 diabetes specifically. Is there a source that outwardly confirms this, and if so can the detail be mentioned in Gameplay somewhere?
  • All images need alt text.
  • Minor, but I'd add more detail to the caption for the screenshot in gameplay, i.e., what the image depicts.
  • Perhaps swap "aliens" with "alien invaders" in Gameplay's first and second paragraphs respectively; I think this would read better.
  • As with what Cukie Gherkin said, "Captain Novolin can die if his blood glucose level goes too high or low." should be reworded. Unless there's a way for Novolin to survive having too high or too low blood glucose, you can replace "can die" with just "dies". As a suggestion, I'd also swap "blood glucose level goes too high or low" with "blood glucose level exceeds or depletes below a certain amount."
  • Do the points you get from both keeping blood glucose at a healthy level and answering questions mean anything significant? Or are they simply optional statistics?
  • "In addition, the game has a feature whereby a diabetic player can specify the frequency of their real-life insulin injections. What does inputting the frequency actually do in-game? Does it affect the bonus questions asked?
  • I'd suggest merging the Evaluations section into Reception, and thus segmenting the content into two sections. Something like "Initial release" for the latter and "Retrospective reception" for the former would be nice to establish more cohesive flow, since Evaluations discusses the game's critical response at the time of debut.
  • Matthew Williamson for GameSetWatch was negative towards the Captain Novolin sprite, saying that it took up one-third of the screen. I'd clarify in the prose itself that he criticized the size of the sprite.

Carlisle & Finch

[edit]
Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard of this company about 10 years ago when I was visiting a lighthouse museum and took some photos of the nameplates on a beacon light. When I got home, I looked up the manufacturer and was surprised to find our article talking about a company which made electric toy trains. It turns out it was the same company that made toy trains and searchlights for lighthouses, not to mention laundry machines and gasoline motors and a few other things. The most amazing thing to me is the book they published in 1906 teaching young boys how to build their own toy train layouts, complete with instructions on how to build an electric battery with some bits of lead, some glass jars swiped from mother's kitchen, and sulphuric acid. Not to mention how to tap into the house wiring to keep the battery charged. Ah, the good old days before we got namby-pamby consumer safety laws. RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Carlisle_%26_Finch_logo.png: source link is dead
    • I've added a link to a copy in archive.org.
  • File:Array_of_three_Carlisle_%26_Finch_19-inch_searchlights.png: why is this believed to be a NASA work?
    • It was done at the NASA Langley VSTOL Research Wind Tunnel, but no, I can't find a direct statement that a NASA employee pushed the shutter button. I'll remove the image for now.

Nikkimaria (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Joaquin

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 00:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first of four powerful hurricanes to hit the Bahamas from 2015–2019. Despite causing extensive damage and flooding in the southern Bahamas, all of Joaquin's fatalities curiously occurred at sea rather than on land: 33 from a cargo ship that sailed straight into the eyewall, and one from a capsized boat off Haiti. This passed a GA review by Hurricanehink a while ago, and after more tidying up I believe it's ready for FAC. Cheers, ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 00:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GiftedIceCream

[edit]

Review coming shortly. GiftedIceCream 15:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs 44 and 91 are duplicates.
    • Fixed. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Dates are consistent.
  • Minimum pressure isn't mentioned in the lead.
    • I actually don't see a way to fit it into the prose as is – doesn't help that the minimum pressure doesn't coincide with the maximum winds. I don't want to overload the lead (which is already on the long side) with meteorological data, hence just the mention of the peak winds. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "and at 00:00 UTC on September 28 the NHC assessed the system to have become a tropical depression"→"and by 00:00 UTC on September 28 the NHC assessed the system to have become a tropical depression"
    • TCR specifies "at" that exact time which is why I went with the same. Using "by" carries a stronger connotation that it could have reached that intensity slightly before midnight UTC. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "Forecasters at the NHC noted considerable uncertainty in the future of Joaquin, with forecast models depicting a wide range of possibilities.[14]" I recommend finding an image to support this claim.
    • There's figure 9 in the TCR (ref 2), but that only shows the cycle-to-cycle track variability (and not the disparities in the intensity forecast). I added "for both track and intensity" to clarify where the uncertainty was in. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "High sea surface temperatures—around 1.1 °C (2.0 °F) above normal[2]: 2 " define "normal".
    • The TCR (ref 2) doesn't state what the baseline was – presumably somewhere around 28.6°C for the period 1948–2015 based off Figure 4 on p. 28, but I wouldn't put a precise value in the article without one being explicitly stated. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "The NHC assessed that Joaquin became a high-end Category 4 hurricane with winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) by 12:00 UTC" I recommend adding pressure.
    • Done. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Stopping at MH for now. GiftedIceCream 15:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lead and MH. GiftedIceCream 15:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

[edit]

Since I already reviewed it as a GA, I'm going to focus on the images.

  • Check the licensing for the track map, it looks messy on the image page
  • The external video of "U.S. Coast Guard aerial footage of flooding in the Bahamas on October 3," should probably be at the end of the article, not linked in the middle of the impact section. It feels more like an external link.
    • {{External media}} is meant for the main body where it acts as a replacement for media that is otherwise unavailable on Commons. I placed it within the body next to the Bahamas impacts where I felt it'd be most relevant, but I can move the video down to #External links if it's more in line with WP:EL. --KN 23:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Two of the images (the infobox one and the one showing the SS Faro's position) link to NRL Monterey, and the loop was from a storm floater or other satellite imagery from when the hurricane was active, so the links don't technically link to the images/loops, but that's because they were uploaded from when the storm was active. Also, I should note that NRL Monterey used to have an archive of all previous satellite images. Unless I'm mistaken, that archive no longer exists. However, as all US-based satellite images are public domain (published by NOAA), they all follow the image use policy.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

[edit]

Lead

  • "It was also the strongest Atlantic hurricane of non-tropical origin recorded in the satellite era." This is repeated almost verbatim in the Meteorological history section. Consider varying the wording in one instance.
    • I decided to elaborate a bit on what "non-tropical" means in the meteorological history. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Meteorological history

  • "reaching Portugal on October 12. Joaquin's remnant then slowly moved southward along the coast of Portugal" — "Portugal" twice in quick succession. Easy prose fix.
    • Removed second mention of Portugal --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Preparations

  • "Residents on Mayaguana were advised to evacuate." — by whom? Adding who issued the advisory would strengthen this.
    • NEMA did – moved this behind the next sentence which introduces NEMA. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Impacts — Bahamas

  • "Nearly 7,000 people there were directly affected by Joaquin." — "directly affected" is quite broad. Displaced? Property damaged? A brief clarification would help the reader.
    • Elaborated a little. Hopefully this is better? --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "The effects of Joaquin were considered comparable to the destruction wrought by Hurricane Andrew in 1992" — who made this comparison? Attributing it (e.g. "Officials compared..." or "Local media compared...") would be stronger.
    • Looks like it was just that one newspaper, which I've mentioned by name. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Impacts — El Faro

  • "One body, presumed to be from El Faro, was spotted late on October 4 but failed to be recovered." — "failed to be recovered" reads slightly awkwardly. Perhaps "but could not be recovered" or "but was not recovered"?
    • I felt the alternative wordings didn't convey that an attempt was made to recover the body but was unsuccessful, but going back to reread the source it looks like the GPS locator they dropped on the body didn't work – so not sure how much of an attempt that constitutes at all. Switched to "could not". --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Impacts — Remainder of the West Indies

  • "Rain from the storm somewhat alleviated conditions from a record drought in Granma, Guantánamo, and Santiago de Cuba provinces, though many reservoirs remained below 30% capacity in the latter." — "the latter" is ambiguous here. Does it refer to Santiago de Cuba specifically or all three provinces?
    • Just Santiago de Cuba. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Impacts — United States

  • "a non-tropical low over the Southeast tapped into the hurricane's moisture" — "tapped into" is slightly informal. Perhaps "drew moisture from"?
    • Reworded and combined with the next sentence. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath

  • "Economists at the IDB postulated that the effects of Joaquin caused the Bahamian monthly gross domestic product to decrease by 2.8%." — "postulated" feels unusual for an economic estimate. "estimated" might fit better.
    • "estimated" is used in the next sentence, so I was going for some variety. Switched to "assessed" instead. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

General

  • Sourcing is excellent — good mix of NHC reports, academic journals, and news sources. Archive URLs are in place throughout.
  • Images are well chosen with proper alt text.
  • Well-structured article overall. Just minor prose tweaks as noted above.

Metalicat (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I raised have been addressed. This is a well-sourced, well-structured article. Support. Metalicat (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lamarr Wilson

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Lamarr Wilson, an unboxing YouTuber who passed away in late 2025 due to suicide; I believe this article meets all fa criteria. I’m also thankful for any comments on this article! TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

toby

[edit]

Heyo. I've never heard of this man, but I do hope this article passes as a way to honor him. Here's my prose review. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 22:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the comment, and all the problems listed down are fixed! TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike out my comments which you've dealt with. Thank you. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 23:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
done TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm just looking at the prose, I've noticed that the article uses some sources in the yellow according to WP:RSP: these include Newseek, Techcrunch, Times Now, The Daily Dot, and Mashable, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are others I haven't seen just from my quick skim. One of the FA criteria says that the sources not only have to be reliable but also high quality (this essay can help you understand). You're likely going to have to overhaul some of the sourcing when the source reviewer objects. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 20:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
thanks again and also i removed/replace all the sources and also i checked etika article to compare, and they used Daily Dot eight different times for way for big claims such as his suicide tweet, the keemstar interview and his arrest. my point is if FA reviewers accepted it for controversial claims its definitely reliable enough here for something common like Wilson giving commentary on YouTube subscriptions. and also Gematsu is reliable per here. also its an non-controversial fact and also reliable for this context internet culture and tech news TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link unboxing
  • ...had a combined audience of 3.5 million people Imo, this should say users rather than people as these numbers could be manipulated.
  • ...influenced his presentation style; specifically he used non-technical language to address general audiences rather than enthusiasts.
  • Starting his online career in 2008, Wilson created his YouTube channel -> Wilson created his YouTube channel in 2008
  • He initially posted vlogs before changing his focus to product testing -> He posted vlogs before transitioning to product testing
  • To be continued later...

1brianm7

[edit]

This is my first interaction with the FA process, so apologies if I get something wrong but I have at least two thoughts so I figured there’s no harm in adding them. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ok no need for apologies but updated the lede and also TikTok and instagram wasn’t notable except the fact that he moved to short form content including him socials and that his social media platform put him up to 3.5 million users so I think that it’s not needed. TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could consider adding TikTok and Instagram to the infobox, if RSes consider his following on them notable.
  • In the lede, I’m not sure I’m a fan of adding together the different platform numbers; one million followers on one platform is worth something different on other platforms. I’d recommend something along the lines of “over two million subscribers on YouTuber and over one million followers on Instagram and TikTok”

Bicentennial Capitol Mall State Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a public park in Nashville, Tennessee, adjacent to the Tennessee State Capitol that was created to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the statehood of Tennessee in 1996. While the park faced challenges in its early years, it has since been recognized as a unique and valuable outdoor museum that showcases the state's history, land, people, and musical heritage. My goal is to promote this article to appear as today's featured article on June 1, which will be the park's 30th anniversary and the 230th anniversary of Tennessee's admission to the Union. Bneu2013 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

[edit]
  • In the Infobox, [Nashville], [Tennessee], [United States] is an MOS:GEOLINK violation
    • Fixed.
  • Two MOS:LEADCITE violations
    • Are these the dates?
  • [CSX] [mainline] is an MOS:SOB violation
    • Fixed.
  • "recognizes Governors Ned McWherter and Don Sundquist" list the years they were in office
    • Done - let me know if you think my change is adequate.
  • "one of the park's architects" missing a period
    • Fixed.

"three Grand Divisions of Tennessee" which are?

    • Provided a brief description.
  • Under Legacy and events, link "Oktoberfest" on first mention
    • Done.
  • "in the Germantown neighborhood" link to Germantown Historic District
    • Done - also mentioned that the park borders this district in the Description section.
That's what I found ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 07:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JuniperChill

[edit]

While I'm not going to fully review this (and its my first time properly reviewing an FAC), I think, for the first paragraph outside the lead, some links should be changed. For instance, I don't think on-street parking should be linked as its pretty much self-explanatory.

And where it says "Nashville Farmer's Market", the link should be removed as I expect it to lead to the article about the farmer's market in Nashville, not about farmer's market in general (and Nashville Farmer's Market is a redlink). I also changed a couple of - (hyphens) to – (en dashes) to comply with MOS:RANGE JuniperChill (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill: - Cut the links as suggested. Also added en-dashes to citation page numbers. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill: - Do you have any more comments for this review Bneu2013 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bneu2013: Sorry, I forgot to reply earlier as I have been so busy with work/holiday since December. As I said earlier, I don't have much FAC experience although I have reviewed/nominated several GAs. But anyway, why are there hyphens linking imperial units, but not metric? eg "200-by-50-foot (60 by 20 m)". I think it should be consistent for both to have hyphens. I have also made an edit regarding MOS:TIME JuniperChill (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know. Must be something to do with the formatting of the template. I'll look and see if I can find out more. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I didn't know templates exist for converting metric to imperial. Its because i tend to do that manually, and I (kinda) know how to convert between metric and imperial units in my head such as 1mile = 1.6km. At other times, I Google it. Its a fair game, so I'm for now leaving it as it is. I'll wait until others have reviewed/commented on this FAC. JuniperChill (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd's pie

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 08:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a classic and hearty dish, familiar in Britain, France, the US and many other countries under various names and with various main ingredients. This is a co-nomination by three editors who have worked on the article: User:Macrakis, User:SchroCat and me. It was recently promoted to GA by another of Wikipedia's food buffs, User:Chiswick Chap, and we think it is now ready for consideration for FA. We look forward to your comments. Tim riley talk 08:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC); SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave

[edit]

Very excited to see this here. I would like to give this a full review at some point while it is here, although travel may delay those plans. For now, I note that the only source I see cited inline that relates Saunders / Sanders with cottage pie is Hughes 2017, which describes Saunders / Sanders as "a precursor of cottage pie". This needs the most attention in the lead, where it says Shepherd's pie/cottage pie was "formerly also called Sanders or Saunders." Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We also cite Maria Rundell and Eliza Acton for these old terms. Tim riley talk 10:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary sources and can't be used to cite interpretations. The only secondary source we apparently have that has analysed how Saunders or Sanders relates to Cottage pie identifies it as a distinct, earlier dish—at a minimum these multiple perspectives should be described, although we really shouldn't be overruling analysis performed in secondary sources with our own analysis or even putting our own on even footing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 18:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source now added - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, although Ayto too describes this as distinct if more ambiguously, a "forerunner of the modern dish". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 18:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are others which describe it as the prototype or forerunner. They're all more or less saying the same thing, but it's broadly in line with the article, that it's more or less the same dish. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean by the first sentence. I think fudging it a bit to say they are more or less the same thing is on the upper bounds of acceptability, but saying it was "formerly also called Sanders or Saunders" when sources describe Sanders/Saunders as distinct goes beyond what verifiability permits. If you still disagree, we can leave it for anyone else to weigh in if inclined. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Great to see more food contributors on Wikipedia. I'll review this over the course of this week. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]
  • Some inconsistency with hachis Parmentier, which is italicised in the main text, but not in the heading for the hachis section or the table.
  • Pióg an aoire doesn't appear to be an "other pie", so why no take it out of the table and add it as a name variation in the lead?
  • Can't do that as it then would not be mentioned in the main text, per WP:LEAD
  • I don't have access to OED, does it have an etymology for Sanders or Saunders? Chambers doesn't.
  • Antoine-Augustin Parmentier shouldn't be in "See also", he's linked in the text.

RoySmith

[edit]

Just a minor drive-by regarding the OED query above. It says saunders is a variant of sanders, for which it gives:

1827 To dress the same [sc. cold beef], called Sanders. New Syst. Cookery 51Citation details for New Syst. Cookery

1864 Saunders. Put a layer of mashed potatoes [etc.]. Englishwoman in India 128Citation details for Englishwoman in India

?1894 Sanders, this name is given to a preparation of minced beef or other meat. T. F. Garrett et al., Encycl. Pract. Cookery Division VI. 377/2Citation details for T. F. Garrett, Encycl. Pract. Cookery

Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Sanders, n.². In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved February 9, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3179986846

Thank you for this. I think the Rundell and Acton citations suffice, but we can add the OED one too if wanted. Tim riley talk 18:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Battle of Goodrich's Landing

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been a straightforward article to try to get to FAC. The fighting near Goodrich's Landing had three phases - the capture of two companies of a black regiment in an isolated position on an Indian mound several miles from the main position at Goodrich's Landing one June 29, a second phase later that day (probably) that involved the destruction of a number of government-leased plantations and a running fight between cavalry forces which was ended by the appearance of two naval vessels, and a skirmish the following day between the retreating Confederate raiders and some Union troops dispatched to the area to clean up the mess. Most coverage focuses on the first stage; there are both overtones and undertones of possible atrocities here; many of the details involving this battle are unclear. I may have had an ancestor who was in Tappan's brigade at this time. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

I chose to review this article because, according to the FAC and GAN statistics, the nominator has higher than a 5.0 review-to-nomination ratio. Thank you for reviewing articles at FAC! Non-expert prose review:

  • I made some copyedits. Feel free to revert anything unhelpful.
  • "returned hundreds of former slaves to slavery, and affected around two dozen of the leased plantations." What is meant by "and affected around two dozen of the leased plantations"? Is this supposed to read "which affected"?
  • "The historian Anne J. Bailey" is this perhaps Anne Bailey?
  • While the lead and infographic mention that fighting took place on June 29, it is not mentioned in the body (and therefore could be considered uncited). Perhaps add the date in the first paragraph of "Fight at the mound".
  • The rest of the lead is cited in the article. I also checked the infobox and it was all cited in the article.
  • Optional: consider putting the sources into two columns to reduce white space.

Please ping when ready for me to respond. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - I've responded to the above comments - ready for the following ones. Hog Farm Talk 01:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead

MSincccc (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • You could name “Walker’s Greyhounds” in the prose; for instance, in the sentence The Confederates, in support of the defenders of Vicksburg, used Major General John G. Walker's Texas division for offensive operations against Grant's positions along the Mississippi in Louisiana.

MSincccc (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle
  • “were sufficiently armed, having Enfield rifles” → "were sufficiently armed, equipped with Enfield rifles"
  • Walker provided instructions for armed Black troops to not be permitted to surrender,
  • while Parsons's men moved on after destroying the structures at the mound.
    • Were all the structures at the mound destroyed or is it unknown?
      • What I have to work with from the source is "Colonel Parsons had no desire to remain at the mound any longer than necessary. After firing the buildings and turning the prisoners over to the infantry, Parsons's cavalrymen resumed their raid". Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doing particular damage" → "causing particular damage"
  • while the historian George S. Burkhardt
Aftermath
  • "The Missouri Democrat newspaper"→ "The Missouri Democrat"
Bottom line
@MSincccc: - Thanks for your review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider adding the alt text to the images.
I've added alt text. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Barring that, I have no further suggestions. I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bneu2013

[edit]

Staking a claim. Will have comments soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Note that I like to do this section last, once I've had a chance to read over the entire article. So I may have additional comments here later on.

Background
Battle
  • Spell out "5 miles", per MOS:SPELL9
  • Suggest adding "wide" after 30-foot (9 m) or 40-foot (12 m); I'm pretty sure there weren't many forts 30 or 40 feet tall in the Civil War, but most people might not know that.
    • Well, I would think that the reference to "a 30-foot (9 m) or 40-foot (12 m) square fort" would make it clear that this is a length x width figure - a square mile is widely understood to not extend a mile into the air, or saying that a room is twenty feet square would be widely understood as being 20' length x 20' width with no reference to the height of the walls. Hog Farm Talk 22:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing Parsons's cavalry specific targeted properties that were under US government lease. Also, I'm not sure you need to add this to the article, but what exactly was the situation with this? Were these properties that were owned by the US government before the war broke out? If so, were they seized by the Confederate government, but returned to Union control before this point?
    • I've clarified that there was some general destruction, the government-proporties were particular targets. These were generally abandoned plantations that the government took over; I've noted this as well. Hog Farm Talk 22:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest moving link to "cavalry" to first non-proper name use in the article.
  • Suggest rewording "At the bayou, the cavalry encountered the Confederate force." To "Upon arrival, the cavalry encountered the Confederate force." Since the word "bayou" appears at the end of the preceding sentence.
Aftermath
  • Is it known how much longer Parsons's troops remained in the area, and where they went next?
  • I notice the infobox refers to the battle as inconclusive. I feel like this should be discussed here. Is this something that is pretty much unanimous among the scholars who have studied this engagement. Also, was this engagement considered such at the time? I know in a lot of inconclusive battles, both sides often initially claim victory.
    • @Bneu2013: - The scholarship on this battle tends to view this in the light of it being a raid which captured some stuff in the short run, but didn't do anything for Vicksburg. There isn't much in the sources regarding claims of victory. I've amended the result field in the infobox to read "See aftermath" with an intra-article link to the aftermath section. This is consistent with MOS:MILRESULT. Hog Farm Talk 23:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment Is it not common practice to include troop size and losses (sometimes even materiel) in the infobox? Just to give the reader a quick glance at the scale of the battle? Right now it seems to be buried in the final subheading. Mattximus (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: - this is not included because of the general lack of clarity for losses (especially among the Union forces) and the lack of good strength estimates. When stuff is this unclear, I think it's generally better to avoid putting it in the infobox which gives a sense of false precision or confidence in a number. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Camille

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a record-breaking Category 5 American hurricane that was the Katrina before Katrina. Hurricane Camille had devastating effects from the US Gulf Coast to Virginia, and it led to a variety of changes in how the US government handles natural disasters. I worked on the article with a few other users over the last year, so I am open to co-nominators for the FAC. I hope you all enjoy reading the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to co-nominate this one. I did a lot of the editing as well. Camille was a very significant hurricane, one of the strongest to ever hit the United States, and featured a one-two punch of a powerful landfall at the coast and devastating flooding inland. I am proud of the work we have done to improve the article. MCRPY22 (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HurricaneZeta

[edit]

I'll try to do what I can do -HurricaneZetaC 01:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image 4 should be tagged with the more specific c:Template:PD-USGov-NOAA as it comes from a NOAA technical memo.
  • Image 8 says it was taken by a United States Coast and Geodetic Survey employee, so it should be tagged with c:Template:PD-USGov-USCGS.
  • All other images are verifiably public domain.
  • Suggest adding alt text to all the images per MOS:ALT.
  • Hurricane Camille's precursor was from a tropical wave - from reading, wasn't the tropical wave the precursor? This would make "from" unneeded.
  • hundreds of structures required new roofs, estimated at around 90% of the buildings - "around" is redundant to "estimated".
  • Camille said in a circa 2014 interview. - MOS:CIRCA, "circa 2014" can be replaced with {{circa|2014}} and it can be rephrased to Camille said in an interview {{circa|2014}}.
@HurricaneZeta: - done! I never thought of the tropical wave thing, so I've probably done that on several articles lol. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source [47] - needs DOI, which is on the first page of it.
  • although there was no evidence of a circulation that day - I think "that day" is redundant to "By August 13" at the start of the sentence.
  • In the center of Camille, the hurricane's eye contracted - "In the center of Camille" could be removed, since the eye would be in the center and "hurricane" already refers to Camille.
  • recorded in a trash barrel near Massies Mill. - might be a me problem, but trash barrel wasn't immediately clear to me - maybe rephrasing to trash can or linking to Waste container would help? This is also in the lead.
  • I left it as "barrel" in the lead, because I don't think it's vital to link to waste container, but for the main part of the article, I linked as suggested, and went into more detail about how the barrel measured the rainfall (it was emptied before the rains started). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8] - add DOI
  • [35] - add DOI if there is one and/or ISSN, the ISSN is in the document but for consistency with the other citations it might be better not to add one.
  • [46] - does this have any identifiers?
  • [67] - add DOI
  • [91] - add DOI
  • [95] - add DOI
MCRPY22 - this is the only one I'm having difficulty with. Can you see if you're having any luck? If not, I'll get a replacement citation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink Found this with DOI. HurricaneZetaC 20:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • [106] - add DOI

@HurricaneZeta: - just checking if there were any other issues with the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, not any I could find, so I'll support on images and prose. HurricaneZetaC 18:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zzz plant

[edit]

nice work on the article! I have some prose suggestions for the lede and meteorological history sections. disclaimer that I have no specialized meteorology knowledge, so I will be commenting from that POV.

  • I didn't include Cuba in the overall fatalities only because I wanted to highlight Camille's effects in the US, where it was a much more significant hurricane than Cuba, especially since the next part mentions Camille being the costliest. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highest rainfall total was 27 in (690 mm), recorded in a barrel near Massies Mill..." do you need to specify barrel? I briefly thought barrel was some type of geological feature Zzz plant (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're the group that investigates hurricanes every season. They're linked upon the first usage, but do you suggest explaining further what their role is? Perhaps as a note? I can do that if you think it's needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. MCRPY22 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzz plant: - thanks for the review, especially as someone who doesn't have the most meteorology knowledge. The goal is to make the article accessible and understandable, so if there's anything else that needs clarification or changes, please let us know. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GiftedIceCream

[edit]
  • Seems like ref 42 and ref 73 are duplicated.

" Upon emerging into the Gulf of Mexico"

Looks like the URL for 42 is wrong HurricaneZetaC 15:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the NHC Storm wallet does not link to the documents properly, I will need to redo those references. MCRPY22 (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added a direct link for ref 42. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And 73. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon emerging into the Gulf of Mexico" When?
  • "After briefly weakening, the hurricane intensified as it approached the northern gulf coastline, reaching maximum sustained winds of 175 mph (280 km/h) and a minimum pressure of 900 mbar (26.58 inHg) as it moved ashore near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi." When?
  • "Instead, Camille continued northwestward and resumed its rapid intensification trend after leaving Cuba." This is the second time it was mentioned.
  • "Observations from the Hurricane Hunters indicated that Camille weakened slightly, dropping to Category 4 status late on August 17." I don't think weakening from a 175mph c5 to a c4 (at least 20mph) is slight.
  • "Camille subsequently re-intensified as it neared the coast." When?
  • I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not an exact time it re-intensified, it was after the Hurricane Hunters flight. Originally, Camille was thought to have stayed a Category 5, but the reanalysis shows the peak at landfall. The "re-intensified" was a process. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within 14 hours of moving ashore, Camille weakened to tropical storm status, as the track shifted to the north." This forces a reader to go back 4 sentences.
  • For what? The time reference is how long after Camille it moved ashore it had weakened to tropical storm status. I felt this was the best way for sentence flow to demonstrate the information, as the NHC technically discontinued advisories while Camille was still a hurricane. But I didn't feel it was a good way to start the paragraph by focusing on what the NHC did, compared to what the storm did (and how fast it had weakened relative to its landfall). Does that make sense or would you like me to change it still? 23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)♫ Hurricanehink (talk)
  • "The hurricane warning was extended westward, first to Biloxi, and later to Grand Isle, Louisiana, giving residents about 15 hours of notice before landfall." This forces readers to go back to MH.

I will review Impact later.GiftedIceCream 00:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review so far, GiftedIceCream, and replied to all of your comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support GiftedIceCream 20:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to say about Impact? MCRPY22 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bneu2013

[edit]

Overall looks good. I will have comments soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundations of Decay

[edit]
Nominator(s): λ NegativeMP1 00:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The Foundations of Decay" is the first (and only) song released by My Chemical Romance since their reunion. It's a six-minute epic that, while not the band's best work in my honest opinion, is still really damn good. I don't have much to say about the song itself beyond that for here though; it's definitely not something that would be everyone's cup of tea, and it's also very different from the typical music that ends up at FAC. This is also my first attempt at FAC in over a year.

For a brief overview of my journey with this article: I started editing it in late 2024 and got it to GA in December of that year. It was followed by a pre-FAC peer review in January 2025. I then slowly copy-edited it over the course of a year, not nominating it immediately to make sure it was as good as it could be. Now, I'm very confident that the article is complete content wise, and I think it is high quality enough to where it could earn the star. My Chem has been one of the main subject areas I've edited in for a while now, and "Foundations" was the first article in it that I worked on. If promoted, this would be the first FA on a My Chemical Romance-related subject. I am willing to do whatever it takes to get this promoted, and am open to all feedback. I am also open to doing review exchanges, if requested. λ NegativeMP1 00:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999

[edit]

I will take this on as part of a review swap. Expect comments sometime within the next few days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does "anthemic force" mean? I'm a bit confused by the quote here.
  • NPR needs italics.
  • "while Enis characterized it as their heaviest release" Could this be re-worded? "Heaviest" is a bit unclear in terms of meaning.
  • "In 2025, Moore ranked "The Foundations of Decay" as My Chemical Romance's fifteenth-best song, writing that the "wait for new music was well worth it" Is this bit really needed? Ranking fifteenth on a top fifteen listicle doesn't seem like a particularly important ranking to note. (Especially compared to the "overall song of the year" rankings.)
Overall this is put together very well and very well-written; I only have a few nitpicks. Once the above are addressed I am happy to support. If you still need a source review later down the line ping me and I'll be happy to provide one when I have some more time. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the above in one message:
  • I'm not entirely sure how "anthemic force" can be rephrased. Maybe "as akin to an anthem"? But even then, not sure if that's a big improvement. I guess anthemic could be wiki-linked to Anthem if that helps? Dunno what to do here.
  • Is NPR italicized? The article for it isn't.
  • I think "heavy" is common music terminology and I'm not sure how it could be made clearer
  • I see a reason for removal considering the year-end rankings, but it is still a source considering it one of My Chem's best songs. Also every other MCR song article includes listicles when possible (although that's generally due to being how most songs are retrospectively viewed)
λ NegativeMP1 03:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
-A hyperlink to anthem would work, yeah.
-My bad on NPR, was not aware it was usually not italicized.
-I would appreciate some definition of the term if possible, since as someone not really into music, I am largely unfamiliar with the term; alternatively, is it possible to hyperlink it?
-This is not a super strong need, but moreso a nitpick, so if you strongly believe the listicle should remain I have no issue. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added wikilinks for both 1 and 3. AFAIA, "heavy" in music generally refers to Heavy metal music or one of its associated terms or sub-genres, so I think this is an appropriate link. I think keeping the ranking is for the better, but if another editor thinks it should go, I can cut it. Thanks for your review! λ NegativeMP1 04:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to Support now. Fantastic work! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Crestfalling

[edit]

Hi, I'd be open to doing a review exchange. I'll be reviewing the prose. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 00:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crestfalling: Every comment you've posted in this review is now addressed. Also I'll try to review your own FAC before too long, this weekend hopefully. λ NegativeMP1 06:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 After fixing a bit of punctuation, I'm pleased to support promotion. The prose is clear and comprehensible, and the article is an engaging read that covers the topic in appropriate detail. Thank you for being open to exchanging feedback, and best of luck on this nomination! Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 23:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • Perhaps avoid repetition of "it was" in succession, e.g. change the second instance to "the song was"
  • "with elements from genres such as doom metal and arena rock" - generally, "such as" is used to illustrate a general pattern or trend, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Consider either mentioning what those other genres have in common, or else rephrasing.
    • Replaced "such as" with "like" if that helps any? Otherwise I don't know how
  • The part of the sentence starting from "its correlating events" reads a bit awkwardly, since it breaks up the clause's parallelism. Maybe it could be rephrased to "...history, legacy, and the events which played a role in its creation, including the September 11 attacks."
    • I reworded this further, but I think it's an improvement anyways.
  • "It also explores" - If this is referring to the lyrics, then it should be "they also explore"
    • 'It' is referring to the song.
  • Is there a better verb choice than "highlighted"? That's a fairly neutral verb, whereas I'd expect something like "praised" if it's summarizing positive reviews.
    • Replaced it with praised.
  • "Some publications..." - If there are any publications well known in the music world, then perhaps listing one would be useful to avoid sounding vague. Also, since publications is a countable noun, I think "several" is preferable to "some".
    • Replaced it with Several. If there's any publication of the three that listed it that would be worth mentioning in the lead, it's NME, but I don't think there should be specification, to keep it in summary style.
  • This is a small nitpick, but the close succession of "Global 200" and "Warner Records" makes it difficult to tell they're in separate sentences. The second sentence could be rephrased to start with "On May 17..." or something like that.
    • Fair enough, done.
  • Should "chart" be capitalized? Unsure of the convention here, but the wikilink seems to treat it like a proper name.
    • No, charts is generally not capitalized.
  • "reunion tour" is a bit of an MOS:EASTEREGG link, consider either capitalizing it (as the linked article does), or linking "2022-2023 reunion tour". The latter would also clarify that it wasn't included in the 2019 concert in their reunion tour.
    • Capitalized it.
Background
[edit]

Thanks, all points from the previous section have either been implemented or reasonably addressed. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 06:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "got back together" -> "reunited"
    • Done.
  • "more" -> "additional", since it's referring to an increase from something already specified, rather than comparatively.
    • Done
  • Suggest putting a comma instead of colon after "past studio albums", since it only lists two items.
    • Done.
  • "Gerald Way" -> "Way" for first sentence of second paragraph, since there's no need to disambiguate between the two Ways yet.
    • Fair enough, done.
  • "band itself" - could the "itself" be dropped?
    • "Itself" in this sentence helps clarify that the band entity itself is credited for songwriting rather than just the band members.
  • "depicts" -> "depict" (subject-verb agreement)
    • Done.
  • "mounds of flies swarming around" -> "mounds of swarming flies", or otherwise clarify what they're swarming around.
    • Done.
  • "It was used" -> "The song was used" (I do see your point regarding the essay linked above, but in this case the term clarifies that it's not referring to the previous video).
    • I can see that; done
  • capitalize "reunion tour" for consistency
    • Done.
  • "the first show of the tour marked the song's first live performance" -> "the tour's opening show marked its live debut", or something like that to make it flow easier.
    • I recall a comment somewhere (to either this article in the past or another MCR article) that said this wording made it seem like the song debuted itself live or something. I don't know how much of a valid concern that is or is not, but I do think the way it is now is technically more correct..
  • Remove comma after "Riot Fest"
    • Done.
Music
[edit]

Previous section looks good. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 06:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The New York Times described" -> "The New York Times characterized", perhaps? To avoid repeating the same verb in quick succession
    • Good idea, done.
  • "It opens up" -> "The song opens up", topic sentence of a new paragraph should generally avoid pronouns
    • Done.
  • "guitar breakdowns slower-paced moments" - there should be an "and" in-between
    • Don't know how that was absent, done.
  • "Shutler believed" -> "suggested" or "opined" or some similar verb, since "believed" is a bit vague in meaning and carries connotations of uncertainty/subjectivity.
    • Sure, done, although at the end of the day they're both terms that exhibit subjectivity.
  • "guitar breakdown to be similar to" -> "guitar breakdown as similar to"
    • Done.
  • "Maria Sherman of NPR compared it" -> "compared the song" (or track), to clarify it's not referring back to The Black Parade
    • Done.
  • "Sherman comparing their opening guitar" -> compared in what way? If he found it similar, then it should probably be stated, as "compared" by itself can mean finding two things similar or dissimilar
    • I think resolved?.
  • The sentence about Gerald Way wrestling his legacy should be rephrased entirely for syntax, since currently it mixes passive and active voice. I'd suggest "Shutler described the song's opening as... and viewed some of the lyrics...."
    • Also resolved I believe?
  • add comma after "September 11 attacks", remove comma after "that day"
    • Done.
  • remove comma after "optimistic and hopeful"
    • Done.
  • "described ending" -> "described the ending"
    • Done.
  • The sentences about Catholic themes/misogyny should probably be attributed to a reviewer, since it's somewhat subjective and almost all the other analysis of the song is given in-text attribution.
    • Done; also copyeditted a bit further.
  • "attacks to be similar" -> "attacks as similar"
    • Done.
  • "each lyric represented" -> "each lyric represents"
    • Done.
  • "believing" should preferably be replaced in both sentences, as mentioned above.
    • Done.
  • The quoted sections of the Hero's Journey should be italicized per MOS:WORDSASWORDS
    • I think I did this right?
  • "could be interpreted" -> "can be interpreted"
    • Done.
Critical
[edit]

Previous section looks good Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "praised the composition" -> "praised the song's composition"
    • Done.
  • "throughout its runtime, highlighting its latter half." -> "throughout its runtime and highlighting its latter half", avoid having two clauses beginning with gerund verbs
    • Done.
  • "it to be the band reinventing themselves" -> "it to be a reinvention for the band"
    • Done.
  • drop comma before "with "fire, urgency, and plenty of joy"
    • Done.
  • "describing it as "impeccable"" -> "calling it "impeccable" - avoid overusing "described"
    • Done.
  • "Enis described it" -> "Enis characterized it" - ditto. Any verb ("deemed", "considered", etc.) works, really, but engaging prose should generally avoid overuse of the same one.
    • Done.
  • "Peters writing that it" -> "Peters writing that they"
    • Done.
  • "he song" -> "the song"
    • Done.
  • "hadn't" -> "had not"
    • Done.
  • "time separated" -> "time apart"
    • Done.
  • "they further wrote" - author is a "he" link
    • Thank you for this, I wasn't entirely sure
  • "could've" -> "could have"
    • Done.
  • "their past works' reverence" -> "reverence for their past works"
    • Done.
  • For the quote "never bogged down with legacy", it should include ellipses to indicate that text was removed from the original source per MOS:PMC
    • Did I do this right?
  • "that was unlike" -> "unlike"
    • Done.
  • Consider adding a topic sentence for the third paragraph. It's not a big deal, but it'd just be a bit more consistent with the other paragraphs in the section.
    • Originally, I had something on the lines of "Some journalists deemed it a significant moment in the band's history", but I cut it because I felt it was a) a bit off, and b) kind-of a given since obviously a come-back song is going to be deemed significant. If you or anyone else has ideas here, I am open to it.
  • "said it was" -> "called it"
    • Done.
  • "their review" - author is a "her" link. Alternatively, it can be "a review".
    • Done.
  • "fifteenth best" -> "fifteenth-best"
    • Done.
  • "twenty-second and twenty-third best" -> "twenty-second- and twenty-third-best"
    • Is the extra dash after "twenty-second" correct? Latter part done.
  • "described it as a comeback" -> "called it a comeback", etc. per above
    • Done.
  • "expectations of older..." -> "expectations of both older..."
Commercial
[edit]
  • "and 1,900 digital sales" -> "and sold 1,900 digital copies" - "receiving" a sale sounds a bit awkward, so better to use a separate verb
    • Done.
  • "few hours of release" -> "few hours of its release"
    • Done.
  • "readers poll" -> "readers' poll"
    • Done.
  • Consider adding a paragraph break before the listings of its various chart positions.
    • Sure, done.
  • 2, 7, and 1 would be changed to written numbers per MOS:NUMERAL, which would require changing all of the chart numbers per the need to have consistency with "comparable values". That being said, I find it slightly silly that the MOS doesn't have an exception for ranking positions, so if you would like to WP:IAR, that's fine.
    • Done.
Personnel
[edit]
  • Looks good
Charts / Release
[edit]
  • Looks good

Medxvo

[edit]

Placeholder; will take a look soon. Medxvo (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Apple Music source indicates that the four individual members are credited as songwriters rather than the band as a whole. Am I overlooking anything?
    • I'm not fully sure what to do here considering that Tidal and Spotify credit the band itself for songwriting. Since we're using the Apple Music source here, I'll update it to the individual members, but it's an interesting discrepancy.
  • It would helpful to specify that "Fake Your Death" is a single in the lead, as "release" alone appears too vague, i.e., "first release since the single "Fake Your Death" (2014)"
    • Done.
  • "with elements from genres like doom metal and arena rock" - Is there a particular reason these two genres were chosen for the lead? I see that each of the "elements" genres has a single source, making them all equal. We should list them all or perhaps rephrase to "with elements from various rock and heavy metal subgenres", because that's what they have in common
    • I like the idea of the latter ("with elements from [...]"). I'll go with that.
  • "Its lyrics focus on the band's history, legacy, and the September 11 attacks, which resulted in the band's creation" - I think "Its lyrics focus on the band's history and legacy, as well as the September 11 attacks, which resulted in the band's creation" would be more grammatically correct
    • Done.
  • "Billboard Global 200" has a MOS:SOB issue. I suggest using a single link and italicizing Billboard with a pipe, like Billboard Global 200
    • Fixed.
  • The "Eden Project" should also be mentioned in the article prose not just in the lead. Also, they debuted the song live on May 16 (the first night at the Eden Project), not May 17, so this needs to be corrected in the lead and further explained in the prose
    • Not sure how I missed the Eden Project not being named in prose; done, and also fixed the date.
  • Not sure if the "basement punk" wikilink is useful when the target article does not mention anything about it
    • The fact that basement punk isn't discussed at that article is very interesting, but
  • I think drumbeat, distortion (music), and chorus (song) would be useful wikilinks
    • Links added.
  • "Shutler opined that the composition combined" - A bit confused why the Shutler source is added after the Sherman sentence and not here...
    • Moved.
  • "Billboard described the ending" - I believe including the author's name (Dailey) would be beneficial here, as other journalists' names are also mentioned in the Lyrics subsection
    • Done.
  • "Hero's journey" appears in quotation marks with a capital "H" in the sample but not in the prose. I recommend maintaining consistency
    • Fixed.
  • Ali Shutler's first name is mentioned twice in the article, while, for example, Hannah Dailey's first name appears only once. I also recommend maintaining consistency here. They should generally be referred to by surname only after the first mention
    • Fixed.
  • It would be useful to wikilink the Los Angeles Times in the prose
    • Done.
  • The chart positions seem like comparable values to me, so they should be all spelled out or all in figures per MOS:NUMNOTES
    • Adjusted to all be figures
  • "top 40 single" - "top-40 single"
    • Done.
  • The New Zealand Hot Singles chart is essentially a heatseekers chart and not New Zealand's national chart as the article suggests
    • Did not know that until now; does specifying that it was the New Zealand Hot Singles Chart help any?
      • Yes, looks much clearer to me.
  • "Credits adapted from the digital liner notes" is not a complete sentence and does not need a period
    • Fixed.
  • I recommend adding the missing archive URLs to avoid link rot
    • Running the Internet Archive bot on the article to catch any sources that may have been missing them. I don't remember how to add archive links to the chart sources
  • Some refs are missing the authors (12, 39) and the date (18, 19)
    • Done.

I think that's all. Great work on the article! Medxvo (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: Thank you for reviewing! I think I got everything. λ NegativeMP1 03:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Executioner and Her Way of Life

[edit]
Nominator(s): Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 06:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022, an anime adaptation of a Japanese light novel series, which had been lesser-known in the West at the time, became briefly infamous for killing off a decoy protagonist in the first episode then proceeding to follow the adventures of two girls and their desire to love and/or murder each other. Past the attention-grabbing premise, the show garnered positive reviews from critics for its mature themes, character writing, and LGBTQ+ representation in a certain genre sometimes criticized for a lack of it. After several months of on-and-off work, including a brief foray into learning basic Japanese, I'm pleased to present it here as my first FAC nomination.

I'd like to thank Xexerss for assisting with MOS fixes, Z1720 and Olliefant for useful comments at peer review, Tintor2 for helpful feedback on the prose, and AlphaBetaGamma and Z. Patterson for checking translations of Japanese-language sources. I also appreciate Aoba47's willingness to give feedback after I dropped by their talk page unsolicited, as well as Masem's FAC mentorship, where they indicated that this article was perhaps ready for FAC. Pings are just in case of interest in the topic, and I sincerely appreciate the help of everyone listed regardless. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 06:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FAs can be very hard to make so don't worry if it fails. I only made two FAs in my entire time in Wikipedia but I was lucky I was aided by other editors. I think besides prose comments, there are source review and image reviews. Tintor2 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I understand the process is quite rigorous and hope to handle it accordingly. On the topic of a source review, I'd like to briefly note for any prospective reviewers that I'm gone through all the article's sources and can explain the rationale for them being WP:HQRS, as well as provide Japanese-language quotes to support prose as needed. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 16:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make the comment less judgmental? For example, remove the clearly un-neutral attack on an entire genre? At the very least, you could add "often accused/criticized for" as an attribution (Even if we ignore complaints about the questionable quality of many isekai, there are plenty of queer elements or entire works in this genre, the executioner is not unique in this). Also, the mention of obscurity is Western-centric, since in Japan itself, the original LN was widely known as the first yuri, whose first volume won a famous award. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I use the word "known" in its sense of "generally recognized", as was mentioned in many of the sources used in the reception section, but I've changed it to be more clear. Regarding its obscurity, it had sold only 300,000 copies in Japan prior to the anime adaptation, which is unusually low for an work adapted by a well-known studio and that had also won a major award. Based on my research, even the impact of the anime adaptation in Japan was fairly limited, with minimal reviews from major outlets. Indeed, the anime never got a second season, the manga adaptation was axed halfway through the story, and the light novels sold only 100,000 additional copies in two years. I appreciate the attention though, because I do understand that a lot of articles here suffer from a Western-centric bias in regards to gauging popularity. I've made some wording changes, and I hope that addresses any concerns. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this work was never mainstream in the broad sense of hits like "I'm in Love with a Villainess" or genre hits in general, but it is known at least for its positive critical reception. So personally, I would add "little known in the West" because before the anime's announcement and premiere, this title was mostly known only among Western yuri or LN fandom. But at the very least, thanks for the attribution; I appreciate it. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've changed the wording to make it more clear that the lack of critical attention specifically was mostly in the West. Feel free to give any other feedback on the nomination summary or the article itself. Thanks, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

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

The images are relevant to the text and placed in appropriate locations. Both have captions and alt-texts. Both are non-free images with sufficiently low resolutions and valid fair-use rationales. Why does the rationale of the second image say "software or website" several times? As I understand it, the screenshot is from the anime, not from a software or website. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for doing the image review! That seems to be boilerplate text from the File Upload Wizard, and I've fixed the rationale to specify that it's from an anime. Let me know if there are any other concerns. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, that takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck by NegativeMP1

[edit]

I don't know how useful a prose or layout review would be here considering I don't know the standards of anime/manga articles on Wikipedia at all, so I'm going to do a spotcheck to the best of my ability. 2 5ths of the articles sources will be checked (so 40 out of the 90). Since I don't speak Japanese, I'm gonna have to use translation for a lot of these, and I will note it when I do. I'll try to get it started within the next few days. λ NegativeMP1 02:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the spotcheck right now. λ NegativeMP1 00:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on the spotcheck (sidetracked by a few other things, sorry), but in the meantime I want to ask about the reliability of the following sources:

  • The Geekiary
  • Biggest in Japan
  • Anime UK News
  • Okazu (seems like a blog)
  • Honey's Anime
  • Manga Book Shelf
  • Asian Movie Pulse

I have full intent to finish this spot check and post it, but before that happens, the reliability of these sources in the first place must be questioned, along with if they are high-quality sources for FA in the first place. λ NegativeMP1 02:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inquiry, appreciate the opportunity to explain why these sources are reliable.
  • The Geekiary is deemed a reliable source by WikiProject Horror. Per this comment, it's been used in various academic works, and has enough industry relevance to have interviewed major movie stars such as Orlando Bloom. In addition, it has a an "About" page which lists over 20 major media outlets (including BBC, Fortune, Polyon, Kotaku, etc.) which cited it, meaning it passes WP:USEBYOTHERS, as well as a brief note regarding its staff's qualifications.
  • Biggest in Japan is written by Richard Eisenbeis, an industry expert in anime and manga who has written for over 10 years for Kotaku and Anime News Network with thousands of articles across both platforms. Considering that his career has been spent reviewing anime and manga, I think it passes the "expert in a certain field" criteria in WP:RS/SPS.
  • Anime UK News has been discussed at WikiProject Anime and Manga (WP:A&M), where there was a general consensus that it was reliable due to being cited by other trusted sources and having a list of staff with bylines. They've also interviewed some decently high-profile figures in the anime and manga industry.
  • Okazu is run by Erica Friedman, an academic with over 20 years of experience analyzing yuri manga, including a published book cataloguing the last century of development in the genre that was the first ever English-language book to substantially address the topic. She's also written for other sources considered reliable, including Anime News Network, Animerica, Anime Feminist, and the Mary Sue. A full list of qualifications can be found in this link. I'll also note that Okazu is listed as a reliable source by Wikiproject Anime and Manga.
  • Honey's Anime Previous discussion at WP:A&M noted that they have editorial control and writers with significant experience in the industry; in addition, its editor-in-chief was a judge as the 2021 Crunchyroll Anime Awards, widely considered the main English-language accolades for anime. They've been cited by other websites, including Kotaku, Siliconera, Vice, and Anime News Network per this comment. In addition, the writer being cited, Brett Orr, has previous experience reviewing anime and manga, having written for other sources considered reliable by WP:A&M, such as Anime Corner.
  • Manga Bookshelf is listed as a reliable source by WP:A&M. Sean Gaffney wrote some of the first articles in the magazine Otaku USA, one of the first anime and manga-adjacent magazines to have widespread circulation outside of Japan, and the only remaining bimonthly one. He has over 19 years of experience in the field and thousands of reviews.
  • Asian Movie Pulse is run and organized by Panos Kotzathanasis, a professional film critic whose qualifications include writing for multiple film media outlets as well as being a member of FIPRESCI and NETPAC. The interview column of the site includes almost daily interviews with those working in Asian cinema; from a quick Google of the people mentioned there, a decent few seem to have made notable films. It also has seven sponsorships, which I think is fairly strong evidence that it's a professional source when it comes to the industry. Finally, it has partnerships with over a dozen Asian film festivals, including Singapore International Film Festival.
In sum, I think there's a strong argument to be made for the reliability and quality of virtually all of these sources, either through the organization's professional qualifications or by being written by industry experts. That being said, Anime UK News is probably the least convincing, so if you're of the opinion that it should be taken out, I'm open to that. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding; I couldn't initially find these listed at the Anime and manga RS page or elsewhere so that's why I asked. Thanks for clearing this up. I'll try to finish the spotcheck tomorrow or the day after. λ NegativeMP1 04:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks. Apologies for this being a bit late (I put it near the top but it might've gotten buried in replies), but if any specific Japanese-language quotes are needed (since it can be annoying to have to search through translated text for paraphrased information), just let me know. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check done, sorry for the wait. @Crestfalling: see above. λ NegativeMP1 03:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1 Thank you, and no worries, I really appreciate the thoroughness. Just going through the points in order:
  • Ref 1: MOS:A&M specifies that no more than three genres should be listed, so that's why the rest weren't included.
  • Ref 12a: The second part of the sentence should be cited to reference 10 (which is in the following sentence). I have just fixed that. The relevant part of reference 10 that supports "he included such themes anyway to facilitate character development" is the text 「殺伐とした容赦のない話を書きたい」という思いから本作を構想したと佐藤真登さんは語る...「殺伐とした世界にふさわしい主人公として〈処刑人〉としました。また、これはメノウを追い詰める設定でもあります。彼女は任務に忠実で、使命を完璧にこなす反面、自分のしていることをちょっと辛いとも思っている。強いけれど脆いんです。でも、脆いということは変わる余地があるということでもあるのです」 which translates to "Mato Sato explains that the work was conceived from his wish 'to write a savage, merciless story.' ... 'I made her an executioner as a protagonist fit for a brutal world. At the same time, this setting is meant to corner Menou. She is faithful to her duties and carries out her mission perfectly, but on the other hand, she also finds what she does somewhat painful. She’s strong, but fragile. And that fragility also means there is room for change.'”
  • Ref 12c: I think that the part about characterization isn't worded very well. I rephrased it to "Instead, he developed the narrative with conflict he believed they could overcome", which I think is better?
  • Ref 60: At the top of the article, it says GA文庫刊『処刑少女の生きる道（バージンロード）』がシリーズ累計30万部を突破した, i.e. "The GA Bunko series The Executioner and Her Way of Life has sold over 300,000 copies."
  • Ref 80: For the Adventure category of the awards, there were 10 nominees and the series placed 10th, so that didn't seem very notable. As for the Action category, placing out of the top 10 doesn't seem too significant. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 00:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping discourse

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I can nominate this article on an expansive and vitriolic internet argument which has spanned across websites, nations, and years. The "shipcourse" debate (whether people should make shipping fanfiction that contains disturbing themes, especially sexual violence) has gained a lot of academic attention. I hope you all enjoy it, and I await your feedback! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory pings for ZKang123 and Vortex3427 who helped with the GA, and Freedom4U who helped with the peer review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Pro-shippers often characterize antis as attempting. Is that sentence missing a word? I cannot understand it.
  • Oops! Forgot to finish that sentence. Fixed.-G
  • Consistency in section names: The "Viewpoints" seciton has two subsections: "Pro-shippers" and "Antis". I gather that "Anti" is shorthand for "Anti-shippers", which is fine for the body text. But for the section titles, consider using "Anti-shippers" (rather than "Antis") so readers (when they glance at the table of contents or sec titles) can grasp that the two subsections are parallels of each other.
    • Made this more consistent.-G
  • Cite p vs pp: p. 71–73. P/PP error
  • Fixed.-G
  • Cite consistency: A tool says that the "Location" field in the cite templates is used inconsistently. For books, probably best to use "location" for all or none.
  • Removed these.-G
  • Improve wording? The lack of censorship emerging from spaces such as AO3 ... The use of "emerging" is confusing. Could it be stated more directly: The lack of censorship in spaces such as AO3 ... or The lack of effective censorship in spaces such as AO3 ... or The lack of effective moderation in spaces such as AO3 ...?
  • Reworded.-G
  • Wording Significant age gaps in fictional relationships are a common target of the discourse. Does the word "target" pick a side? Is "subject" a better word?
  • Reworded.-G
  • Box quote: "Stories ... containing depictions of violence ... exist on the platform alongside child-friendly stories about the characters baking cupcakes cheerfully." MOS:BOXQUOTE says to use box quotes with care, because they are so visually prominent, they may mislead readers, due to the lack of context (that body text can supply). That quote is not too objectionable; but it has a confusing phrase "...exist on the platform alongside.." (emphasis added). What platform? Tumber? AO3? another? I suppose you could identify the platform by adding a parenthetical note inside the quote. Or perhaps that is an indication that the quote is not really suitable for a quote box.
  • Duration of discourse? Lead says Beginning in the mid-2010s ... but never mentions an end date. Some phrases in the article are present tense (e.g. Both antis and pro-shippers frequently describe themselves...) indicating to alert readers that the discourse is still on-going in 2025/2026. In any case, the Lead should tell readers when the Discourse ended, or if it is ongoing. Something as simple as a brief "The discourse was still on-going as of 2025." near the end of the Lead? I think the MOS discourages writing "... Still ongoing at the present time" since "present" could become factually incorrect in the future.
  • MoS discourages the use of terms like ongoing at all. Reworded to say "continuing into the 2020s" -G
  • Title of article is "Shipping discourse". To bestow FA status, I think the reviewers will need to know that that particular phrase is the best title. Is that phrase used by commentators/analysts/academics? I looked in the Sources section, and I do not see the word "Discourse" in any of the source titles. Can you provide some sources here (in this FA review page) that justify that particular article title? Or, if there are no sources that use that phrase, did the title originate in a discussion here in WP to determine the best title? If so, can you provide a link to the WP discussion?
  • Continuing with the phrase "Shipping discourse": if that phrase is formally used by analysts/commenators, then the article should mention the origin of the phrase ... perhaps a single sentence mentioning when it was first used by a major analyst. On the other hand, if the phrase is not specifically used by major analysts (i.e. the WP community chose that wording) then the article probably does not need to discuss it.
  • I'm not really sure if it's a sub-article or not, but academic discussion of shipping is so broad and common that this really just forms one very minor part of the broader phenomenon, so to much focus in the main article would be WP:UNDUE. This is the main discussion on the name that has yet transpired. Most authors don't name it. Urbańczyk uses it in passing, and Fazekas quotes a post which calls it "shipping discourse" (I can confirm that this is the dominant term for it on social media, but not on anything citeable). Two masters theses I was unable to cite also use the term. There are no actual sources of any quality that describe why its called "discourse" in particular; I can only speak anecdotally that it is a particularly widely-used word on that corner of the internet.
From other sources:
  • "anti-fandom discourse" (as in, fandom-discourse by antis) by Romano 2023
  • TWC Editor 2022 has one panelist mention offhand that it gets referred to as "The Discourse" in fannish spaces
Possible alternate titles could be "Anti-ship/pro-ship discourse" or even just "Anti-shippers and pro-shippers", but I think these would fail CONCISE. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the title of the article. I have a gut feeling that there is a better title lurking out there somewhere. The current title does not specify what the "discourse" is about. Is the discourse about plagiarism? style? grammar? What, specifically, is the subset of shipping that this article is focusing on? The Lead says "taboo and abusive" content ... can that be worked into the title? Maybe something like: Ethics of shipping fanfiction or Morality of shipping fanfiction or Abusive content in shipping fanfiction or Incest and abuse in shipping fanfiction? Is there a title along those lines that is consistent with the sources?
  • That's all I have for now. Leaning support (on prose & MOS, I have not checked images or sources). The remaining issue I see is the article title (see comment immediately above for details). Noleander (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we really should be looking for a better article title. The current title really is opaque. None of the suggestions above really excite me, but certainly "fandom" should be in there somewhere. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even, I agree that the current title is opaque. I have a few additional suggestions to add to Noleander’s:
    • Shipping ethics in fandom
    • Shipping controversies in fandom
    • Shipping debates in fandom
    I would also be interested to hear from Noleander, Roy, and others on how they find these alternatives. MSincccc (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe "Shipping" controversies in fandom? I don't know if the quotes are MOS-compliant, but at least that would make it clear we're not talking about Freight transport. I love how language evolves and re-invents itself, and slang neologisms are a big part of that. The problem with this particular one is that it's deceptive. Perhaps intentionally so, as a marker of who's in and who's not. I remember years ago reading an essay where somebody dissected what at the time was a bit of current slang, "the rents will pay for the za". Maybe William Safire? What made that different was not just that it was incomprehensible to outsiders, but that it was obviously incomprehensible, so at least you knew what you didn't know. Shipping appears to make sense, so you try to build a logical parsing around your misunderstanding and get led astray, which is much worse. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Claude to the rescue. The human brain is a strange thing. I can't remember where I left my car keys, but I can remember a 40-year-old Safire column :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a few requirements for a better title: (a) add a word like ethics/controversy/morality to pinpoint the kind of discourse; (b) qualify the noun shipping with modifier "fanfiction" or "fandom" to avoid the confusion about the unqualified word "shipping"; and (c) no WP:SCAREQUOTEs. Applying those requirements yields titles like:
    1. Ethical issues in fanfiction shipping
    2. Ethical issues in fandom shipping
    3. Controversies of fanfiction shipping
    4. Controversies of fandom shipping
    5. Sexual content in fandom shipping
    6. Abuse and taboos in fanfiction shipping
    7. ... etc...
    The word "controversies" is problematic (see WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:CRITICISM essays). Abuse and taboos in fandom shipping might be the most generic & meet all the goals. Noleander (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is it's not an article about abuse and taboos in fandom shipping, its a description to the debate over such topics. Titles like "Fanfiction shipping discourse" or "Anti/pro-ship debate in fandom" would be appropriate and accord to MOS. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the title Shipping discourse in fandom? MSincccc (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work. RoySmith Noleander Do either of you have objections? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly an improvement over what we have now, and I don't have any better suggestions, so go for it. RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the new title "Shipping discourse in fandom" ... but I'm still not getting it. Doesnt "shipping" always happen within the context of fandom? It is as if the new title is emphasizing that there is a broad "Fandom" world, and this article is about the "shipping" part of it.
My perception is that the title is weak because it is not identifying what the discourse is about. The essence of this article is taboo content of fictional materials written by fans. The common threads of these works are: unethical, sexual abuse, taboo, immoral, incest, child abuse, etc. Shouldn't the title contain one or more of those words?
To pick a random WP article on a controversy: Political views of J. K. Rowling. That title does not say Views of J.. K. Rowling or Discourse about J. K. Rowling. Instead, it tells the reader that the controversy is about her politics.
Also: the word "discourse": Is there any good WP article about a modern controversy that includes the word "Discourse"?
I still think a better title is something that identifies the critical essence of the article, such as
If I am the only reviewer that thinks the nature of the controversy should be included in the title ... I can let it go. But I'd like to see other reviewers confirm that I'm crazy :-) Noleander (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment, I honestly think something that includes anti/proshopping in the title is the best option. Ultimately that's what the article is about. Something like the aforementioned "anti/pro-ship debate" would best describe the article. Skyshiftertalk 20:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the article is not about "is shipping good or bad?", is it? Don't all sources agree that there is lots of fun, harmless shipping that is unobjectionable? Isn't the article focused on the morally grey aspects (involving minors, sex, incest, etc) that some consider unethical? In other words, the article is not "pros/cons of shipping" but rather about "pros/cons of unethical material in shipping", no? Noleander (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the terms antishipping and proshipping specifically refer to the discourse surrounding ethics in shipping. Skyshiftertalk 21:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I didn't know that. How about this for the article title: Ethics of fanfiction shipping. Noleander (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would work okay, if no one has any other ideas? Another possibility, to highlight that its about a specific controversy, could be "Shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction". Its important to note that WP:CONTROVERSY is only caution to represent sides in a controversy neutrally, and WP:CRITICISM cautions against having an article or section for having catch-all "controversies of (X)" that are just laundry lists of everything bad someone or something has done, not a specific, notable controversy. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like article, and I'm ready to 'support' for FA; but the title is really bothering me. If the title were either of the two most recently proposed ones: Ethics of fanfiction shipping or Shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, that would resolve my qualms. Regarding WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:CRITICISM, I believe this particular article may be an exception that proves the rule (because shipping is apparently characterized by a single, notable controversy (granted on a fairly broad range of ethical issues)) so I think the word "controversy" in the title is justifiable. Noleander (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking though, titles are not part of the FA criteria (as Naming Conventions are not part of the MoS and the title does not fall under the article's prose). I think finding suitable titles for articles is important, but it should not be used as the line to support or not support a FAC; I think the most proper place for this would be on the talk page after the candidacy is archived or promoted. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with that on two points. One, it is the reviewers' prerogative to decide what is important and what is not. But, beyond that, article titles are indeed part of the MOS. It's virtually the first thing discussed in WP:MOS. Quoting from MOS:AT A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic If a title is so obtuse obscure as to leave readers not having a clue what the article is about, that's a problem. And a MOS violation. RoySmith (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the current title is a recognizable and descriptive name. I don't wish to die on this hill, though, so I will change it to " Shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction" so we can hopefully focus on the article itself. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think newest title is much better, and readers will really benefit from it. I support this article for FA status. Noleander (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I included the term "fandom" was because RoySmith felt that it was vague if you didn't know what "shipping" meant. Unless there is another significant shipping discourse in fandom, I don't think we need to tack on more words on to it. But if we could get a consensus to drop the "in fandom", I guess we could add a prefix - I just really don't want the title to become unweildly long Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I find both "shipping" and "discourse" to be mysterious and while I think the current title is better than the original, it's still not great. I'm certainly open to better alternatives. RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Not a full review, just a couple of random comments:

  • The title had me totally confused, trying to figure out what "shipping" means. I finally found "derived from the word relationship" in the first sentence of Shipping (fandom) which explained it perfectly. Could you do the same here, please.
I initially had a similar concern, but decided the article handles it properly. The 1st sentence of the Lead has a link to shipping; and the 2nd sentence defines the term as "fan romance ... etc". First sentence is ... around the ethical implications of portraying taboo and abusive content within shipping fanfiction. So, in the end I decided to not comment on it in my review above. Not to say your suggestion is invalid ... I'm merely giving the nominator my perspective on the issue. Noleander (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what Noleander said; it's defined in the second sentence, and I think it's more important to use the first sentence to give an explanation to summarize what the article specifically is about.-G
I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that a clearer explanation be provided. Strictly speaking, you do define it ("the depiction of a romantic or sexual relationship between fictional characters") but until you catch onto the fact that "shipping" as a word is derived from "relationship", it makes no sense. Until I found that explanation at Shipping (fandom), I had no clue what any of the lead was talking about. RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the lede to make it more explicitly clear. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't normally venture into the esoterica of image licening, but I noticed File:Wikipe-tan and Adult Commons-tan Yuri.png says "Derivative work of File:Wikipe-tan full length.png", which I don't understand at all. I'm used to "Derivative work of" meaning "crop from", which this clearly isn't.

RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is the results of a Common deletion discussion; it's a derivative in the sense that it uses the CC-BY-SA character design first used by Kasuga in that image.-G

MSincccc

[edit]
  • Which variant of English does the article use?
  • Added the template.-G
  • “Academic opposition to anti-shipping have described" → “Academic opposition to anti-shipping has described"
    • Subject-verb agreement.
Done.-G
  • Fanfiction depicting underage characters in sexual contexts is characterized as child pornography by such antis.
    • Use "ofen characterized"?

MSincccc (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.-G
Lead
  • "Both anti- and pro-shippers draw from primarily LGBT fan communities" → "Both anti- and pro-shippers draw primarily from LGBT fan communities."
    • Reworded.-G
  • You could link "fanfiction" in the lead since you do so in the body.
    • Done.-G
Background
  • “can effect which ships are featured” → “can affect which ships are featured”
    • Done.-G
  • “a tagging system which allow authors” → “a tagging system which allows authors”
    • Subject-verb agreement.
    • Done.-G
  • “rules about warning for explicit content” → “rules about warnings for explicit content”
    • Reworded.-G

MSincccc (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emergence
  • "social media sites such as Tumblr and Twitter centralized" → “social media sites such as Tumblr and Twitter (now known as X) centralized"
    • A suggestion.
    • Twitter is still the more widely recognized name, so I think that would just be unnecessarily confusing
  • You could link "fan communities" to Fan club.
    • Generalissima I suppose you missed this one, or is the link unnecessary?
  • More than three consecutive sentences in the second paragraph start with "Tumblr".
    • Reworded.-G
  • although the current has not gained the prominence
    • I found the word "current" vague here. Could it be replaced?

MSincccc (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoints
  • The question of whether "fiction affects reality" is a central point of dispute between antis and the opposing camp of "pro-shippers".
    • Since quotation marks have been used, I suppose it's an author's viewpoint? You could name them.
    • Oh, not an authors viewpoint; I realized the quotes are unnecessary.-G
  • “Legal restrictions on such material varies greatly" → “Legal restrictions on such material vary greatly”
  • Fixed.-G
    • Subject-verb agreement.
  • “sexual material which includes fictional depictions of minors” → *“sexual material that includes fictional depictions of minors”
    • Fixed.-G
  • “artistic free-expression” → “artistic free expression”

MSincccc (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed.-G
Emergence
  • You could link "fan communities" to fan club.
    • I think the two are slightly different concepts; fan club implies more organization, while communities are kind of loose associations. -G
Analysis and criticism
  • “left wing movements” → “left-wing movements”
    • Fixed.-G
  • “pro-shipper's beliefs” → “pro-shippers’s beliefs”
    • Fixed.-G
  • “which sees as amount of regulation on works as a slippery slope”

→ “which sees any amount of regulation on works as a slippery slope”

    • Fixed.-G
Bottom line

sawyer777

[edit]

i promised Generalissima i'd do a review if she nominated this, so i'm bookmarking my place. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 21:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

serves me for dragging my feet... most of my suggestions have already been made by others!
  • in the "Emergence" section, the last 2 paragraphs are quite short and a bit PROSELINE-y. is there a way to either merge or expand them? particularly the bit about the tumblr porn ban and migration to twitter - that seems important enough to try to write more about if possible.
  • There's disappointingly little sourcing that connects the Tumblr porn ban to shipping discourse. I can't expand it without it turning coatrack-y. Looking at it, I wonder if describing the Xiao Zhan incident is needed for the article; it might work best as just a See Also. If that is done, the final paragraph would work better as a sort of end cap to the section.-G
  • i'd merge the first two paragraphs in the "Pro-shippers" subsection
  • Good idea, done.-G
  • is there anything more in the sources about DNIs? from my firsthand experience that's a pretty prominent part of shipping discourse culture
  • I threw in a little more context from Stanfill, but thats the only other mention of DNIs ive seen that connects it to the discourse.-G
  • i'd abbreviate Organization for Transformative Works to OTW after the first mention
  • Done.-G
... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawyer777: Responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
looks great! shame about the tumblr porn ban/twitter migration and DNIs... such core memories for young me. seeing as others have covered the sourcing and prose etc, i have no objections. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
upon re-reading and having no concerns: support on prose. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by Nick-D

[edit]

A few comments:

  • I agree 100% with Roy's comments about the need for this article to very clearly define what it's about in the first sentence and the first para. Both are rather unclear and - to be frank - lacklustre at present. This is an obscure issue, and the article's title doesn't do it any favours, so the first para needs to do a lot of lifting here.
  • More broadly, the lead is really unclear and hard to follow. It seems to have been written for an academic-type audience who is already familiar with this issue rather than a general audience. Some examples:
    • "The lack of censorship in spaces such as AO3 allowed for the portrayal" - this seems to be a reference to this material being published rather than portrayed
    • "Within fandom, the discourse is divided between "anti-ship" and "pro-ship" camps" - aside from being a statement of the obvious, this implies that everyone in 'fandom' has a position on the issue, which I doubt
    • "Fanfiction depicting underage characters in sexual contexts is often characterized as child pornography by such antis." - there are a range of other obvious issues with such material.
    • "Many countries ban such material under obscenity laws, although this faces frequent legal opposition." - this implies that such opposition is widespread, when in the English speaking countries such legal challenges would seem to be very rare.
    • "Pro-shippers oppose antis on a variety of stances" - clunky
    • "the rejection of notions of fictional abuse affecting reality." - over-complex
    • "Both anti- and pro-shippers draw from primarily LGBT fan communities, espouse progressive beliefs, and share similar demographics" - this seems to undermine the earlier implications that this is a debate across "fandom" and causes me to be even more confused about the definition of what the article covers. Is 'shipping' literature primarily aimed at/produced by LGBTQI people, or are these the main demographic who want to debate the issue? The first sentence needs to communicate this.
  • I think it would be nigh-impossible to define shipping, describe what the conflict is, and also include information about the participants' demographics all within the first sentence. It would also be very disjointed to immediately jump into that - the most important thing for understanding the discourse is what the argument is actually about, not who's having it. I did however reword the lede to be easier to read. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was being a bit over-ambitious, but this should at least be in the first para as part of defining the scope of this issue (e.g. so readers can understand the scope of this debate upfont). The edits have considerably improved the lead; I'd suggest similar edits across the article to convert the language to much plainer English. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Academic opposition to anti-shipping " - I suspect that this can be more clearly worded. The repeated use of 'anti-ship' and 'pro-ship' and variants thereof in the lead is a barrier to producing text that lay people can readily understand.

Image review - pass

[edit]

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

The images are relevant to the text and placed in appropriate locations. The have captions and alt-texts. The lead image gets the message across. However, it is not a particularly prominent depiction, which was also mentioned as an issue at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan. If there was a similar image that is the focus of a prominent discussion, that would be a better alternative. Are there any candidates that we could use?

  • Thank you very much for the review. There is no single image that was the topic of prominent discussion, and the characters subject to discussion more broadly are all copyrighted. Using old public-domain characters feels a bit inauthentic and silly (such as the image at Shipping (fandom)) so I commissioned the image as a way to have a "genericized" and minimally upsetting example of what the controversy is about. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ideal, but I think it works. A generic image is better than an odd one. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One non-image comment: I don't know much about the topic, but it strikes me as a candidate where a definition-like first sentence would fit well. Has this been considered? Maybe something along the lines "Shipping discourse encompasses discussions of romantic or sexual relationship between fictional characters." You are probably a better judge than me whether this or a similar characterization would be accurate. The following sentences could then specify the time period, context, and focus on taboos to provide the additional details. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Phlsph7 The problem there is that "Shipping discourse" is not a universal or particularly widely-used term in academic sources on the topic, its just a descriptive shorthand (and the other proposed titles are just longer descriptive titles). Having it use the term "shipping discourse" like that would make it seem like this was the standard, general term for this. We generally avoid including naming something if we have to use a purely descriptive name (for instance, Sudanese civil war (2023–present) doesn't use the term "Sudanese civil war" in the lede) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. I'm not familiar the sources on the topic so I'll leave the issue to the prose reviewers. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

[edit]

Citations

  • #22 — You could consider using "§" instead of "section" here, especially since "page(s)" is abbreviated "p(p)." But not a big deal.
  • Good idea.-G
  • #41 — This is the only non-short link. Is there a reason for this? Not all the cites have to be short (e.g., #16, #34, #48, #62, and #65 don't have page cites, so could have the full cites here), so it's surprising to see the inconsistency here. Also, you could add an archived URL—particularly important for terms of service, which are wont to change.
    • No real reason not to switch it over - done. -G
  • #64 — I would format this as {{sfn|Aburime|2022|p=136|ps= (citing {{harvnb|Mason|2020}}).}}. I realize how it's currently worked follows the workaround here, but (a) it's not needed (because the reason for the workaround—multiple sfn templates with the same author/year/page—isn't present here), and (b) the end result of the suggested formatting displays better.
  • Fair enough - done.-G

Bibliography

  • Alexander 2008 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. Is it "MacMillan", or "Macmillan"? Publisher location missing. ISBN can be hyphenated.
  • I prefer to use unhyphenated ISBNs; I made this consistent. I also have come to never use publisher location; it's often quite antiquated nowadays. MOS-wise, it's okay as long as its consistent. You're right its Macmillan though. I'm fine with the default name-list-style. -G
  • That is not an MoS guideline and so would fall out of scope of the FA criteria. I can change it if you really insist, but all my previous FAs have not used hyphenated ISBNs, and looking at last months' promotion log, a couple other examples like Sursock bronze also used unhyphenated ISBNs.-G
  • Would you ever unhyphenate a telephone number, a Social Security number, a (nine-digit) postal code, or a credit-card number? Doing so (at least according to ChatGPT, which helped with those examples) creates "an unreadable digit soup" that "feels almost hostile to the eye". In each of those cases, as with ISBNs, the hyphens help break up the number so it is easier to read, especially when one is trying to both read it and type it in somewhere; for those who know how to read ISBNs, too, the different blocks provide meaningful information. And, more simply, that's the way they're printed in the books. All that is to say, there's a benefit to including hyphens, and no benefit to removing them; the fact that it's a marginal issue and they're not required isn't a reason to decline to make an article ever so slightly better. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, i unhyphenate all of those things frequently. this is not in the FA criteria and therefore not a matter to insist on at FAC. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 11:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boyd 2020 — What makes this a reliable source? Can an archived link be added? You provide a retrieval date for Fazekas 2022, but not this one—I generally don't think retrieval dates are needed for printed matter (which I would take a published thesis to be), but it should at least be consistent.
  • Removed the retrieval date for Fazekas. As for PhD thesis reliability; I am definitely lean on the side of PhD theses being reliable, at least to a much higher degree than say, an online news article a la Romano 2023. PhD theses (by reputable universities, which all of these are) are subject to a great deal of scholarly scrutiny before acceptance; realistically, this is on the level of an academic peer-review, and certainly more than an online article. They often contain a great load of extra details and context that would never make it into an academic article or book. In hard sciences they are definitely more of a primary source, but in social sciences they are much more secondary—and oftentimes, they are the only quality academic sources that relay specific information, since most notably they do not have to necessarily be something that would be profitable for an academic company to publish books about. One of my previous FAs, Zhang Jingsheng, is a good example of where they can serve a good niche in that respect. -G
  • I was hoping less for a response about why PhD thesis are generally reliable, and more for a response about why these three particular thesis are reliable. Google, for instance, lists only 2, 22, and 1 cites for Boyd, Derecho, and Fazekas, respectively. With that said, I recognize that WP:THESIS differentiates between master's and PhD theses in terms of how to evaluate citation counts, and the latter two authors are now in seemingly credible positions in academia (Derecho; Fazekas; Boyd appears to not currently be in academia). The article also doesn't overly rely on the theses, and many (not all) of the sentences supported by cites to the theses are also supported by cites to other sources. All that is to say that, in this particular context, I think it's okay. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burkhardt, Trott, & Monaghan 2021 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter.
  • Ciesielska & Rutkowska 2021 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter.
  • Derecho 2008 — Same as Boyd 2020 re reliability.
    • As above with Boyd - G
  • Drouin 2021 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. Publisher location missing.
As above with Alexander -G
  • Fazekas 2022 — Same as Boyd 2020 re reliability.
    • As above with Boyd - G
  • Jenkins 1992 — ISBN not hyphenated. Publisher location missing.
  • Lievesley, Harper, Woodward, & Tenbergen 2023 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter.
As above with Alexander -G
Ooh, good catch. - G
  • Morimoto 2020 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. Publisher location missing.
As above with Alexander -G
  • Fiesler, Morrison, & Bruckman 2016 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. The page range of the chapter should be given here rather than the specific page you're citing, which is already in "Citations". Association for Computing Machinery should be linked. Is it the publisher? The location is missing.
Oops, don't know why the page range is broken. Linked the publisher.-G
  • Scodari & Felder 2000 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter.
As above with Alexander.-G
  • Stanfill 2024 — Publisher location missing. ISBN not hyphenated.
As above with Alexander.-G
See above response re ISBN. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • TWC Editor 2022 — What is "TWC Editor"?
That's what its credited as; spelled it out fully. I assume the editor position is shared between several individuals or anonymous for some reason or another.-G
Fair enough. I see now that they, too, suggest citing with "TWC Editor" as the author. I think either way (including it as the author, or leaving it anonymous) is thus fine. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valens 2020 — Is this a reliable source? Publisher location missing. ISBN not hyphenated.
  • Valens is a fairly reputable feminist writer on sex issues that gets cited a fair bit both on-wiki (see Mira Bellwether) and in scholarly discussions of queer sexuality. Tumblr Porn has 6 citations on Google Scholar, and was reviewed in a Duke academic journal.
  • van Monsjou & Mar 2019 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter.
  • Wang, Levy, Nguyen, Lerner, & Marsh 2024 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. The proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference has an ISBN; does this one not?

Overall

  • This is already nicely formatted, so the above tend to be nits. The one thing that did stick out is the three PhD thesis. I cite them now and them myself, but have rarely seen so many in a single article, so would be interested in hearing your reasoning. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Katipō

[edit]
Nominator(s): AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Katipō, New Zealand's only medically significant native spider. It is also one of the few invertebrates in New Zealand to have absolute legal protection due to the species being in decline. The article has had a recent overhaul and has been through peer review with Traumnovelle who made plenty of helpful suggestions. I believe it is now ready to recieve critique for featured article status. All advice and suggestions to improve the article would be greatly appreciated. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Here'll be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Arconning. I've added missing alt-text, added gbif/inat tags to the black katipo image and swapped out the steatoda capensis image for one that's better sourced. AxonsArachnida (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AxonsArachnida Pass Arconning (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Katipō, Birdlings Flat 7591, New Zealand imported from iNaturalist photo 373793836.jpg - CC BY 4.0
  • File:Black katipō (cropped).jpg - CC BY 4.0, an iNaturalist and gbif tag would work here.
  • File:Katipō, Birdlings Flat, New Zealand imported from iNaturalist photo 235879963 (cropped).jpg - CC BY 4.0
  • File:Range of black and red forms of Latrodectus katipo.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Katipō, Foxton Beach, New Zealand imported from iNaturalist photo 70319915.jpg - CC BY 4.0, missing alt-text for accessibility.
  • File:Rangaiika katipo.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, missing alt-text for accessibility
  • File:Steatoda capensis.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, source link is gone, please replace with an archived version or remove the image from the article entirely. + missing alt-text for accessibility
  • All images used in the article are relevant.

Source reliability/spot-check (pass)

[edit]

Hi, this is my first time reviewing for FAC., so I'll be sticking to just verifying source integrity. Please feel free to give feedback throughout and after my review. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crestfalling Thanks I've replied to your notes below. AxonsArachnida (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notes (I'll add to this as I finish the review over the next few days):
  • Sutton et al. seems to describe a silky sheen/appearance rather than texture.
    • Fixed.
  • Quote needed for Forster book
    • Page 174: "...juveniles and males are quite different in size and colour from the females. Amongst young spiderlings, males and females look alike and cannot be distinguished until about the fourth instar. Up to this point they are whitish with diagonal black markings on the side of the abdomen and perhaps a trace of red down the back."Page 174: "Only the female katipo is capable of biting humans and then only when it is adult..."
  • Patrick 2002 in the "Predators" section should cite page 19, not page 17, if I'm not mistaken
    • You're right. Fixed.
  • As far as I can tell, for the text "Much of the katipō habitat is also occupied by the exotic spider Steatoda capensis [...]" Patrick 2002 says that they can co-exist, but doesn't explicitly mention that the two species' habitats extensively overlap, other than noting they were found together during the survey. The "Figure 6" referenced in the text mentions one specific location. It's very possible that I'm missing something, but otherwise I'd recommend rephrasing a bit. @AxonsArachnida
    • Instead of rephrasing, I've added an extra reference page from the same source that clarifies on this a bit. "He found that there was a high degree of overlap in both food and space use, that S. capensis had a higher reproductive output, and that it replaces L. katipo following population crashes (natural or otherwise) of the latter.".

Current status: 32/32 checked citations verified, 0 failed verifications

@AxonsArachnida Pass for source spot-check. Additionally, the sources used are excellent, with the majority of the references from peer-reviewed journals or governmental sources, so source quality meets requirements as well. Good luck with the rest of the nomination! Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, it was helpful. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source table
[edit]

This table checks 28 passages from throughout the article (34.6% of 81 total passages). These passages contain 32 inline citations (34.4% of 93 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you the PDF for "Studies in preventive hygiene from the Otago Medical School: the katipo spider" if you'd like. It's a pain to get access to. AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appreciated, thanks. Feel free to just email via my userpage. Also, I noticed that the source table below doesn't render properly unless the nomination page is viewed directly (rather than through the FAC page), so just a heads up there. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 00:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
The katipō was reported as early as 1855 as the 'kātĕpo, but was not formally described in taxonomic literature until 1870 when Llewellyn Powell described it as Latrodectus katipo.[2][3] However, Swedish arachnologist Tamerlan Thorell later placed it in Latrodectus scelio, a previous name for Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spider).
4 wsc.nmbe.ch verified
In 1933 Urquhart's two species were later recognised to be the same as L. katipo by arachnologist Elizabeth Bryant and thus were synonymised.
7 wsc.nmbe.ch verified
The katipō is a member of the genus Latrodectus. This genus has a worldwide distribution with notable members such as Latrodectus mactans (black widow spider), Latrodectus geometricus (brown widow spider) and Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spider), the latter of which the katipō is most closely related to.
9 a sciencedirect.com verified
8 d wsc.nmbe.ch verified
It is a member of the family Theridiidae, which are commonly known as cobweb spiders or comb-footed spiders.
10 a doc.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
The red katipō, found in the South Island and the lower North Island, has a large black globular abdomen with a silky texture and a distinctive white-bordered orange or red stripe on its upper surface that runs from the beginning of the abdomen back to the spinnerets. The underside of the abdomen is black and has a red patch or partial red hourglass-shaped marking.
15 b doc.govt.nz verified
The katipō is most similar to its sister species Latrodectus hasselti. It can be distinguished from this species by the short setae (hair-like spines) of the abdomen, whereas on the abdomen of L. hasselti it is a mix of long and short setae. There are also minor difference in the shape of the female and male genitalia structures.
8 f wsc.nmbe.ch verified
As juveniles, the female and male are identical until their fourth instar, a developmental stage that occurs between moults. Before this, they are coloured whitish and have black markings running vertically down the abdomen. The abdomen also frequently has traces of red.
16 a Forster, Ray R; Forster, Lyn M (1999). Spiders of New Zealand And Their Worldwide Kin. Dunedin: Uni… verified
In the North Island it is found throughout the West Coast from North Cape to Wellington. On the east coast of the North Island it occurs irregularly, however, it is abundant on Great Barrier Island. In the South Island it is found in coastal regions south to Dunedin on the east coast and south to Greymouth on the west coast.
10 b doc.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
17 b ui.adsabs.harvard.edu web.archive.org verified
The katipō is restricted to coastal sand dunes near the seashore. It generally resides on the landward side of dunes closest to the coast where it is most sheltered from storms and sand movement. It can sometimes be associated with dunes several kilometers from the sea when these dunes extend inland for long distances.
10 c doc.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
This behaviour can be exploited by placing plywood lids in katipō habitat, which the spider hides under and can thereby have its populations easily sampled.
18 tandfonline.com verified
Katipō inhabiting dune grasses constructs its web in open spaces between the grass tufts, while katipō inhabiting areas of shrubbery do so on the underside of a plant overhanging open sand. It has been found that these patches of open sand are necessary for katipō to build its web as plants that envelop sand dunes in dense cover, such as exotic plants like kikuyu or buffalo grass, create an environment unsuitable for web construction.
19 a Griffith, James W (2001). Web site characteristics, dispersal and species status of New Zealand's k… researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz verified
Due to this, it has been demonstrated that the katipō is less abundant in dunes dominated by marram grass than they are in dunes dominated by pīngao.
20 a doi.org verified
Once it becomes an adult, the male begins to search for a female to mate with, possibly being guided by pheromones in female's silk.
19 e Griffith, James W (2001). Web site characteristics, dispersal and species status of New Zealand's k… researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz verified
The eggs hatch after 20–25 days and contain to develop within the eggsac where they remain until the second instar, at which stage they feed on the wall of the eggsac. After four to six weeks of incubation, during January and February, the juveniles chew their way out of the eggsac.
19 f Griffith, James W (2001). Web site characteristics, dispersal and species status of New Zealand's k… researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz verified
There is evidence of interbreeding between katipō and redbacks in the wild, with one specimen reported to have redback DNA in its maternal lineage.
8 k wsc.nmbe.ch verified
The proportion of females, males and juveniles in a population varies somewhat depending on site. As adults, the female is generally more abundant than the male, probably because the male lives on average 77 days whereas thr female can live for two years.
22 newzealandecology.org verified
Whether the prey is suspended, and how high, depends on how heavy the prey is. Earwigs caught in the web aren't suspended at all whereas slaters, which are much lighter, can be suspended at varying heights.
24 a bugz.ento.org.nz verified
The eggs of katipō have been observed being eaten by a small, undescribed native wasp from the family Ichneumonidae.
10 e doc.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
A number of factors have contributed to its decline; the major ones appear to be habitat loss and the declining quality of the remaining habitat. Human interference with their natural habitat has been occurring for over a century following European settlement. Coastal dune modification resulting from agriculture, forestry, or urban development, along with recreational activities like the use of beach buggies, off-road vehicles, beach horse riding and driftwood collection have destroyed or changed areas where the katipō lives.
10 f doc.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
Much of the katipō habitat is also occupied by the exotic spider Steatoda capensis (commonly known as "false katipō" in New Zealand) with both species being found sharing the same dune systems or even co-existing under the same piece of driftwood, suggesting that the two species can co-exist in similar habitats.
10 g doc.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
In 2010 the katipō was one of a dozen species of previously unprotected invertebrate given full protection under the 1953 Wildlife Act, noted as "iconic, vulnerable to harm, and in serious decline". Under the Act, killing an absolutely-protected species such as a katipō is punishable by a fine or even imprisonment.
29 beehive.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
It has been proposed that restoration of sand dune habitat, including the replacing of marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) with native dune plants, would provide more suitable habitat for the katipō to conserve their populations.
10 h doc.govt.nz web.archive.org verified
20 b doi.org verified
Antivenom is available in some hospitals to treat bites.
12 b Thatcher, Lucinda; Janes, Ron (March 2012). "Latrodectism: case report of a katipo spider (Latrodec… verified
It has been reported that only the female is capable of biting humans.
16 j Forster, Ray R; Forster, Lyn M (1999). Spiders of New Zealand And Their Worldwide Kin. Dunedin: Uni… verified
The most recent reported katipō bites (as of 2025[update]) were to a Canadian tourist in 2010 and a kayaker in 2012, both of which survived.
34 cbc.ca web.archive.org verified
35 nzherald.co.nz web.archive.org verified
Treatment is based on the severity of the bite, with only oral analgesics being needed in less severe cases or parenteral analgesics being used in more severe cases.
40 a biomedicalsciences.unimelb.ed… web.archive.org verified
Unlike some other antivenoms, it is not limited to patients with signs of severe, systemic envenoming.
31 b doi.org verified
In Māori tradition, katipō bite victims would be treated by bathing them in hot water or covering the bite wound in red ochre, which supposedly reduced swelling and pain. Alternatively they would also cover the victim in smoke.
36 b pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov verified

FM

[edit]
  • Perhaps you already consulted it, but the related redback spider is already an FA, so you could look at how it is written for possible inspiration.
    • Yeah I had a little look through that.
  • Link the term subspecies.
    • Done.
  • "However, Swedish arachnologist Tamerlan Thorell" you don't give nationality for other people mentioned.
    • I've added nationality for the other authors.
  • "when Llewellyn Powell described" you give occupation for everyone but the describer.
    • I found their profession (doctor) and added it.
  • "is from Māori for "night stinger"" from is unnecessary.
    • Fixed.
  • "to the Australian Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spiders)" no reason for randomly changing to plural in the parenthesis.
    • Fixed.
  • "that they were thought to be a subspecies." which was thought a subspecies of which?
    • Clarified.
  • "Further research has shown that the katipō are distinct from the redback" no reason for change to plural.
    • Fixed.
  • "having slight structural differences and striking differences in habitat preference" and genetic differences, surely?
    • Yep. Reworded.
  • "Eventually, it was conceded that L. katipo and L. atritus were separate from L. hasseltii" again, random switch to plural.
    • Reworded.
  • "The species was recently revised again in 2008." the term "recent" is meaningless in an article that might still stand centuries from now. You could argue that 2008 is already far from "recent".
    • Removed "recent"
  • "In this revision, L. atritus were" random plural.
    • Fixed. Seems like I struggle to get that consistent. In my head I always use a mix of both when thinking about species stuff, perhaps that's why.
  • While it might seem like it goes without saying, the etymology section should state explicitly if the scientific name Latrodectus katipo is derived from the Maori name.
    • Added.
  • The "Black katipō (cropped).jpg" image under Description could be left aligned so it doesn't clash with the cladogram above, and so that the subject faces the text, which is encouraged.
    • Done.
  • A large part of the latter sections of the article are empty of illustrations, is there nothing more useful on Commons, iNaturalist or Flickr?
    • I added another image to the "life history" section. For the "behaviour" section, the best I can find is this image, but it is a bit rough looking. For the "toxicology" section I tried to find an image of Latrodectus antivenom, but have been unable to find images with suitable copyrights.
That prey image is actually exactly like what I had in mind, I think it's pretty good! FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Added.
  • "The red katipō, found in the South Island and the lower North Island" could specify it's the female, as you do in the intro.
    • That whole subsection focuses on describing the female, so I don't see the need to repeatedly state that we're talking about the female.
  • "For the black katipō, found in the upper North Island" if the two types are divided by geography, I assume this would have affected them once being considered subspecies, which should be mentioned under taxonomy.
    • Added a line that clarifies upon this.
  • Link north and south islands at first mention instead of far down as now.
    • Done.
  • "There are also minor difference" differences.
    • Fixed.
  • Are there theories as to why they have these regional differences in colour?
    • None that I know of. Forster mentions that they are correlated with temperature, but doesn't actually speculate whether that's what causes the colour differences. I would assume that whatever pigment is needed for the red stripe needs warmer temperatures to develop.
  • While this seems to be UK/NZ English, you write for example kilometer instead of kilometre. Should be consistent throughout.
    • Fixed.
Got a stray e in there, "kilometeres"! FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Fixed.
  • "This behaviour can be exploited by" exploited by who? I assume researchers would be the only ones with an interest in this? Could be stated.
    • I added "researchers and conservationists".
  • "Katipō inhabiting dune grasses constructs its web" as you do elsehwhere, reads better as definite "the Katipō".
    • Fixed.
  • "necessary for katipō to build its web" likewise. Check for this throughout.
    • Added throughout text where reasonable.
  • "Katipō inhabiting dune grasses constructs its web in open spaces between the grass tufts, while katipō inhabiting areas of shrubbery do so" why the sudden change form singular to plural?
    • Fixed.
  • "tweaking theF web" the F was added in your last edits, seems a mistake.
    • Fixed.
  • "whereas thr female" the.
    • Fixed.
  • "some sites that were surveyed had only the adult female detected" overly wordy, could just be "only adult females were found in some surveyed sites" or such.
    • I went with your wording
  • Link pheromones.
    • Linked.
  • "one at a time one at a time" that's two at a time!
    • I have no idea how I managed to do that. Fixed.
  • "and contain to develop within the eggsac" continue?
    • Fixed.
  • "aren't suspended" contractions are discouraged, always check throughout for this.
    • Couldn't find any other examples of this.
  • "the tarsi of the hind legs" explain tarsi.
    • Added.
  • "and then administering a last long bite which ultimately kills the insect" so are they killed by venom or the bite itself? You don't mention venom at all in the context of prey capture.
    • It's not stated anywhere if its the venom or force of the bite itself. Presumably it's the venom as it is generally the case, but I've left it alone.
  • "are interwoven and are waterproof." the last "are" is unnecessary.
    • Removed.
  • "It has also been proposed that house mice, which are not native to New Zealand, may also prey upon the katipō." the last "may also" is redundant, as the first "proposed" already makes clear it's just a suggestion.
    • Reworded.
  • perhaps it would make sense to rename the "Behaviour" section into "Behavioue and ecology", and then make the oddly isolated "Predators" section a subsection of that.
    • That works for me. Done.
  • "replacing of marram grass (Ammophila arenaria)" link at first mention instead of here.
    • Done.
  • "much of the katipō habitat is also occupied by the exotic spider" you could state where it's from and when it was introduced for context.
    • Added.
  • "The katipō has venom that is medically significant in humans." The meaning of this could be explained. "Medically significant" may be specific medical terminology, but it is very vague to lay readers.
    • Added an explanation.
  • "The symptoms of katipō bites are considered to be extremely similar to that of L. hasselti." some odd plural/singular changes.
    • Fixed.
  • "Due to how few katipō bites are described, the general description for L. hasselti bite symptoms is given." I'm not sure why this is necessary, could just say "the following symptoms are recorded for bites" or similar, no need for a disclaimer,
    • Added.
  • "spread proximally from the site." explain proximal.
    • Changed this.
  • Anything on scientifically confirmed deaths or not? If not, state explicitly.
    • I've added "No deaths due to the bite have been recorded in scientific settings"
  • "It's one of" contraction.
    • Someone beat me to it.
  • "potentially, hypertension, seizure, or coma." I'm not seeing coma mentioned in the article body. The intro should not have unique info.
    • Removed from lead. Not sure where that originates from.
  • "Bites are rare, an antivenom is available, and very few deaths have been reported." apart from legends, the article body mentions no reported deaths? Should be consolidated so it isn't misleading.
    • Removed the bit about no reported deaths. Just the Māori legends and early european settler reports. Presumably many of them are true, but lets leave it until there are more robust reports.
  • "These two forms were previously thought to be separate species" wasn't it subspecies?
    • Depends on when you ask. Originally subspecies, then species. I've clarified on this in the taxonomic section.
  • "and red diamond-shaped marking" I'm not seeing the term "diamond-shaped" outside the intro.
    • Changed to "hourglass"
  • "The spiderlings" should use same terminology in article body.
    • Changed.

Support Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Prose: overall, the prose quality is professional and meets FA standards.
  • Manual of style: overall, the text meets MOS requirements, with a few exceptions noted below.
  • Image: Quality, appearance of images is overall good; with a few exceptions noted below.
  • Capitalization of source titles. Since summer 2025, all source titles within an article should use a consistent capitalization style. See WP:CITESTYLE. This article uses two:
    • Sentence case: "The behaviour and web structure of the katipo
    • Title case: "The Stereotyped Behavior of Sexual Cannibalism in Latrodectus hasselt
This article should pick one style or the other and use it for all source titles (and ignore whatever style the source uses for itself).
Made it more consistent.
  • Typo? ... plucking and tweaking theF web along with ...
    • Fixed.
  • Caption clarity: Female katipō with egg sac, and male, in a penguin box on Rangaiika Beach. Readers will want "penguin box" defined or wiki-linked to an explanation.
    • I just removed "penguin".
  • Typo: ... female's reproductive tract one at a time one at a time...
    • Fixed.
  • Alt text for images: the alt text exists and is okay, but consider improving the alt text in two pics: (a) the infobox pic; and (b) juvenile. Both of those simply say "a spider [location]". Better would be to describe the appearance a little bit (red stripe on back; mottled/variegated colors) to differentiate from other pics/species.
    • I fleshed these out a bit more.
  • Link needed: ... colonisation of their natural habitat by exotic spiders ... The word "exotic" is used several places in the article and readers will need to know the scientific meaning of that word.
    • Added.
  • Unexplained apostrophe? The katipō was reported as early as 1855 as the 'kātĕpo, but was not formally ... [boldface emphasis added]. The word 'kātĕpo is confusing: is that initial apostrophe part of some foreign language? Maori? Or is it supposed to be part of a pair of apostrophes, and the 2nd one is missing? If Maori, should the word 'kātĕpo be italicized there? I see italics for Maori words elsewhere in the article e.g. ... derived from the words kakati (to sting) and pō (the night). If not Maori, the apostrophe should be explained to the readers somehow (a footnote?) to minimize confusion.
    • The apostrophe wasn't meant to be there. Removed.
  • Color-coded map not suitable for visually impaired: The article uses distribution map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Range_of_black_and_red_forms_of_Latrodectus_katipo.png which runs afoul of WP guideline MOS:COLOR for visually impaired readers which says:
    • "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information, or for distinguishing elements such as links, templates, or table rows. Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text (for example, ✔ Approved), a colored table with an icon and text (for example, see table on the right), or clearly written footnote labels."
The map is using three colors (black/blue/red). For depicting three kind of distribution, the image should use either (a) line patterns (dot/dash/solid); or (b) gradients of a single color (Black / grey / white ). If a pattern is used, then any colors are acceptable (so the current red/black/blue could be retained). For details, see: WP:Coloring cartographic maps and ColorBrewer#Brewer_palettes. Sometimes updating colors in an old map can be difficult, but it looks like you updated this map last month, so that should not be a problem. BTW, I'd guess that 99% of maps in Wikipedia do not conform to MOS:COLOR ... but for WP:FA, maps should be exemplary.
I decided to do a bit of both. It's now a grey and black colour scheme (grey=red katipo, black=black katipo, with the area they overlap being dashed grey and black). I've updated the wikicommons file, but the page hasn't registered the change yet? Hopefully its gone through by the time you're looking at this again.
  • Color-coded line in cladogram diagram: The article has a cladogram, with a vertical bar on right side designating two groups. The cladogram is drawn via templates template:clade and template:cladogram. The colors of the vertical group-line are:
    • bar1=seagreen
    • bar2=chocolate
Per MOS:COLOR those two colors should be two shades of same color. For acceptable color choices see ColorBrewer#Brewer_palettes
I changed it to dark green and light green.
  • Cite checker is showing a warning about a cite: "year=2003-07-21 " should be "date=... " not fatal, but ..
    • Fixed.
  • Medical information: The "Treatment" section re spider bites has In Māori tradition, katipō bite victims would be treated by bathing them in hot water or covering the bite wound in red ochre, which supposedly reduced swelling and pain. Alternatively they would also cover the victim in smoke. That info is in the same paragraph as modern medical guidance. That is not consistent with the requirements of WP:MEDRS which applies to all articles:
" This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia articles, including those on alternative medicine. "
If someone were to get bitten and consult WP for medical advice, WP:MEDRS is very strict about medical guidance that WP articles can provide. Folk-remedies or out-dated notions should be placed in another section, or - at a minimum - another paragraph that has a a clear statement about the fact that the guidance is folk/oudated.
I've shifted it to paragraph 2 of the toxicology section where it talks about Māori legend.
Second pass
  • Grammar/wording: Due to their close relatedness, the katipō ... "relatedness" reads awkwardly. Maybe "Because they are closely related, the ..."
    • Fixed.
  • Colors look great in new map & cladogram: much better for visually impaired readers.
  • Wording Eventually, it was conceded that .. consider Eventually, it was concluded that ..
    • Fixed.
  • Ambiguity in wording: The katipō is most similar to its sister species Latrodectus hasselti. It can be distinguished from this species by the short setae.... [bold emphasis added] In 2nd sentence, the words "it" and "this" are ambiguous: readers will not know species (from 1st sentence) they mean (that is, there are two ways a reader may pair those words with the species). Yes, readers can perhaps figure it out from clues found later in 2nd or 3rd sentence, readers should not have to work hard to parse a sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • If publisher of journal is known, consider adding a "publisher=" field to the citation template of journal sources. This will display wikilinks to readers. Examples:
  1. Publisher Royal Society of New Zealand for journal "New Zealand Journal of Zoology"
  2. Publsiher Australian Medical Association for journal Medical Journal of Australia
Although showing the publisher is not required for FA status, the WP community needs to be cognizant of AI encyclopedias such as Grokipedia. Emphasizing the quality of sources is important to the future of WP. The publisher of a journal is critical to help readers know if the journal is reliable or not (peer reviewed, etc).
  • Added publishers where known.
  • Wording: The male's hunting behaviour is similar to the female's, although may not be as vigorous due to its smaller size. [emphasis added] Not clear what "vigorous" means in this context: Aggressive? Frequent? Dangerous? Powerful? Rapid? Does the source suggest a more precise term that may be helpful to readers?
    • The exact quote from the book is "Because the growth period of the male is much shorter and his ultimate size so much smaller, his feeding activities are not as vigorous. However, his hunting behaviour is very similar." I think "powerful" is a more accurate word?
  • Done. Excellent article. Leaning support. Ping me once the above are addressed/considered. Noleander (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noleander Thanks. I've gone through all this. AxonsArachnida (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Traumnovelle

[edit]
  • 'The katipō has venom that is medically significant in humans, although bites are uncommon due to the rarity of the species' and 'The incidence of bites is low as it is a shy, non-aggressive spider. Their narrow range, diminishing population, and human awareness of where they live means humans rarely encounter katipō. The katipō will only bite defensively. However, if the female is with an egg sac it will remain close by it and be more aggressive.'
These two sentences are repetitive, I would say the latter is the one to keep as it contains more information.
  • I reworded the first one to be less repetitive.
  • For the second reference you could include the URL [8] this is from the publisher.
    • Added (including archived link).
  • Bites from the katipō produce a syndrome known as latrodectism.
This is quite close to the source.
  • Ive reworded it to "Envenomation from bites of the katipō cause effects known as latrodectism"

Traumnovelle (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle for your comments and earlier peer review. I've gone over your comments here. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mallon

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Typhoid Mary" is casually bandied about, often in a joking manner, aimed at that friend or family member who passes on a cold or some other ailment. But there was a real person behind the name, a good cook, whose refusal to believe she was carrying the typhoid virus led to her being incarcerated for over a quarter of a century. This article has been through a complete rewrite recently and any vestiges of my British writing have been expunged by Ssilvers and Wehwalt; Tim riley was also most helpful at the PR. Huge thanks to all three. Any further constructive comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

May I list a couple of nitpicks regarding the bacteriology?

  • Here "infected up to fifty-seven people with typhoid fever". This is not really correct. One can't really be infected with the disease, one is infected by the bacteria, which cause the disease.
  • Here "an asymptomatic carrier of the Salmonella typhi bacteria" since bacteria is the plural of bacterium, we need to omit the definite article.

More general comments to follow (if I have any to offer). Graham Beards (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Graham. Those two points addressed and I look forward to any more you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article again this morning and I am pleased to add my support. Some readers might quibble about the incubation period given in the footnote, because it is so variable as to be of little use to epidemiologists. The World Health Organization says, "the incubation period ranges from 7-14 days on average, but can range from 3 days to two months, (my emphasis). But I am not suggesting any changes should be made to the article. Graham Beards (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That note was added in response to one of my comments. My goal there (which the current note satisfies) was to explain to the average reader that a guest becoming symptomatic 10 days after contact does indeed support the theory Mallon (or at least somebody at the house) was the source of contagion. If the specifics of the times are not correct, I'm all for updating them to more accurate values, but I also think it makes sense to use the values that were believed to be correct by the scientific community of the time (not necessarily what we know today) because those historical numbers explain the conclusions reached by the epidemiologists of the day who were working on the case. I suppose the note could give both sets of numbers, but I'm hesitant to turn a short footnote into a full-fledged exposition on the history of epidemiology :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]
  • I might link public health in para 4 of the lead, but otherwise this is a really elegant summary, well done
  • Sorry to do this, but I've nominated the bacteria image for deletion as a CV - it's obviously a digital photo taken of an existing image, presumably from a textbook based on the user's other CV uploads
  • OK. It's not too problematic as Commons has some alternatives which I'll add. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the original of this, which was on the CDC's website (see here), so I've uploaded the highest resolution version they have and added the correct licence. Given the other one if going through the removal process and could be seen as being tainted by a serial copyvio uploader, this has been done as a new, 'clean' file. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers, much better.
  • Up to Early career and nothing to remark on so far
  • Is the Leavitt quote necessary? I think you could paraphrase and condense that
  • "whether a cook would be the source" -> I would swap to "could", since the question is whether or not could have happened, which fits more with "could" as the past tense of "can"
  • "There had been no cases of the disease in Tuxedo Park" ever? or at that time?
  • "recommended Mallon's arrest to obtain samples of her stool from which tests could be made" -> feels a little awkward, I might revise to "recommended that Mallon be arrested to facilitate sampling of her stool for testing" or similar
  • "Once the door was opened she wasted no time." this part of the Baker quote isn't doing much, I think we can probably trim it, since the rest of the quote establishes that she was fighty and vulgar
  • "the organ where the typhoid bacillus is held in the body" - given the footnote that says removal didn't cure typhoid, I'm curious if this is a correct/current medical truth, or something that's since been shown to be untrue
  • Still to do. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is largely true (based on my very inexpert reading of some medical research papers). While the gallbladder is the primary and classic reservoir in a S. Typhi infection, it is found—albeit less commonly—in the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts and the urinary tract (according to this, at least). I'm sure Graham Beards will be able to correct any errors I've made! PMC: do you think this should be added to the article anywhere? I'm open to suggestions of where to pop it in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gallbladder is the primary, long term reservoir for the bacterium, which can survive high concentrations of bile that kill other bacteria. It isn't however the only site it which it can be found. Graham Beards (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could probably solve it by saying "the primary organ" (or "primary site") or something similar, in the main text, to indicate that it's not the only one, and then maybe expand slightly in the footnote for the curious
  • Do we know why the American would have paid for her lawyer?
  • It's only Leavitt's speculation (although it seems to fit all the known facts) that they were the source of funds. Given it's not grounded in solid facts, I'm not sure we should add more hypothesis as to the reason (although with newspapers, one presumes for the inside story and increased circulation) - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mallon came to public notice because of the case and the exposure she received in the New York American, which covered the case." kinda feels like the first mention of the case is redundant given the second
  • There are some black and white historical PD images of Riverside Hospital on the Library of Congress website. Although the color image is very pretty, it would probably be better to have one of the hospital in its original state
  • That's me up to Return to North Brother so far, back later
    Thanks PMC. Mostly covered, although I want to look into the gallbladder question a little more before saying/doing anything. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few gripes for the latter half of the article.
  • Suggest linking Middle-class values (admittedly that article sucks), and possibly expand a bit on what those values were (presumably stuff like respectability). If you aren't already familiar with the concept of middle-class values, the article doesn't tell you much about what she was failing to do.
  • Looks like that part of the book is adapted from an earlier article by Leavitt, included in U.S. History as Women's History. I haven't taken a deep read, but on a skim, I found some interesting discussion of a) Mallon's treatment as compared to another asymptomatic woman, Jennie Barmore, and b) the image that was constructed of Mallon as masculine, unwomanly, etc. On a tangent, there's also some mention of officials having concerns as to whether or not they would legally be allowed to keep her in quarantine on the basis just of lab tests, which isn't mentioned in the present article. Worth mining for details, I think.
  • I'm not sure about the comparative treatment history. I came across other comparisons with Mallon and went, on balance, with leaving out nearly all the individual ones, but referring to the meta picture (in the first paragraph of the Legacy and analysis section). As a summary article, I think this is probably the best path to take. In terms of the masculine and unwomanly view, this is also in the Legacy and analysis section (in paragraph two). I'm still going through that essay (I read it early in the research phase, but neglected it when I came across Leavitt's book), and will report back. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing more in the article about middle class values (or in any of the other sources I've found about Mallon), probably because it's a rather nebulous and subjective construct, so I've taken it out and reworded it to refocus on the core part of the meaning, which is one that's also covered by a couple of other writers too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did wonder if there was any more to be found anywhere about Mary's perspective on things. It's mentioned briefly that she didn't believe she was infected, but was there ever anything more?
  • That was her point of view until her dying day, as far as I can see. None of the sources refer to her giving interviews or leaving a biography or similar in which she outlined any change in her thoughts on the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, are there any modern analysts who agree with her confinement? We have a lot of perspectives that are more sympathetic to her, I'm curious if anyone remains a hardliner.
  • I think the thing is with the modern writers is that the outline both sides of the argument and say it's a moral question about the individual v the herd, without trying to answer that question. That's my OR summary of the situation as there isn't really a meta-summary that outlines how the historiography has changed in that respect. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I had left, hopefully it's of use to you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC - all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly looks good. Still waiting on the gallbladder as primary site update, hospital image swap, and I found a source that might be useful for some of the middle-class values/Mary's image stuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - went through all the motions of sorting bits out, then forgot to actually edit the material into the article! Hospital image now in, gallbladder info now in. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

(more to come)

  • Mallon worked as a cook for several families, four of whom contracted typhoid fever four people or four families contracted the disease? It sounds like the latter, but I'm not sure what it means for a family to contract a disease.
  • a guest became ill with typhoid ten days after he arrived to stay with the family how does ten days compare with the typical incubation time of typhoid?
  • came to the conclusion that the footman was the person those of us who watched Downton Abbey know what a footman is, but you should explain it for the rest of the readership.
  • According to Leavitt, this dish "would have been an excellent medium for typhoid infection".[5][15] Leavitt is a biographer/historian. How does that qualify her to say what would make an excellent growth medium? I assume she's really reporting what somebody else (qualified to make such a statement) said?
    She was referring to Soper's report, which I've now added, but the information was also covered by the other source that was there - (Adler & Mara 2016). - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leavitt believes that William Randolph Hearst's newspaper, the New York American ... That links to New York Journal-American which says it started publication in 1937. I'm guessing you want to link directly to the "New York American" section.
  • Her duties included general cleaning, washing bottles, recording results clarify that "Her" refers to Mallon, not Plavaska.
  • On December 4, 1932, she suffered a major one. She was transferred to a ward at the hospital and remained there paralyzed and bedridden was she bedridden for all 6 years before she died?
  • Between 1938 and the advent of HIV/AIDS need a year for HIV/AIDS.
  • The phrase Typhoid Mary is now a colloquial term for anyone who spreads disease Is that you saying that, or is it in Foss 2020?
    Neither. It's sourced to two things (the OED and Wawrzynczak), although I could have added another five or six sources if needed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it from me for a first pass. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks RoySmith, I think I've covered all these, but please let me know if any of them need tweaking or reworking, or if you have any other comments. Thanks also for the map - that was very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the text, you use "Salmonella Typhi" but in the image caption you use "Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi". That may be more technically correct, but for the purposes of this article, I'd just use the shorter name everywhere for uniformity. RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for poking my nose in, but I would like to see the full taxonomic name used at least once in the article, and the image caption is probably a good place. Graham Beards (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that while you know the rules for these names, most of our readers won't, leading them to wonder if the "Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi" mentioned in one place and the "Salmonella Typhi" mentioned in another are actually the same thing. The time spent sorting that out will just be a distraction from the main story, which is about the epidemiology and the societal norms of the early 20th century. The specific pathogen involved is really a bit player. Does knowing a longer name for it enhance the reader's understanding of the main subject, or does it just cater to a professional microbiologist's (perfectly understandable) desire to be scientifically rigorous? RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is encyclopaedic to include it at least once. I don't agree that "The specific pathogen involved is really a bit player." That these usually highly pathogenic bacteria can also be carried asymptomatically, albeit rarely, is a central theme of the article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The bacteria is referred to three times in the article: once in the lead (short version), once as an image caption and once in the Death section (both long versions). Would it be easier is I just changed the shortened version in the lead to the longer version, meaning we have accuracy and uniformity? - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be moving in the wrong direction: making the article less accessible to the typical non-expert reader. But, we've invested enough debate on this relatively minor issue, so I'll just leave it to your best judgement. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's no big deal and I will be happy to go along with the nominator's call. A suggestion: perhaps put "full name "Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi" as a parenthesis in the figure legend after Salmonella Typhi, (and note that the italics are important. Graham Beards (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    works for me. RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent - I've gone with that. - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks good now. Support on the prose. RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Roy, it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks Nikkimaria. Any thoughts on a workable tag for this one? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it'd qualify as PD-text. That said, the provenance seems a bit odd; are you confident both that this is genuine and that it is unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure it's genuine, but I'll hunt around to see if it's unpublished. I don't recall seeing it in any of the sources, but I don't pay that much attention of photographs in sources, so I'll go back over them all first as well as running other searches. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the sources and none have this in there, including Leavitt, the main source, which also has a lot of images from a wide range of sources. I've also done some reverse image searches. A few copies come up, but all are shown with upload dates after the Commons version. - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim Riley

[edit]

I had very little to say at the peer review and have still less to say here, viz:

  • You say in the lead that MM was was "an Irish-born American", but though the first part of that statement is substantiated in the main text, her status as a US national is not.
    Well spotted. I've gone back over a few of the main sources and none of them refer to her picking up US nationality at any point (I suspect it was a far more flexible and unimportant point back in those pre-ICE days). I've tweaked to "Irish-born", rather than just "Irish" to hint at the questionable or flexible nature of the status. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the legend to the map "resided" seems a bit refained instead of "lived"
  • The lower case in doctor Alexandra Plavska looks rather odd.
  • "the Plavska's home" should be "the Plavskas' home".
  • It wouldn't occur to me to blue-link "servant", "infection" or "symptoms", but I don't boggle at your doing so.
  • In the sources you are inconsistent about italicising (or not) the term "et al".

That's my lot. Nothing to frighten the horses. The article strikes me as comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced – from mainly modern sources – excellently written, and surprisingly well illustrated. And also rather sad to read, as is appropriate. Happy to support. – Tim riley talk 09:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim: all sorted. I'm grateful, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Seems like none of the sources I see here are unreliable or inconsistently formatted. I wonder though if there were contemporary government reports or the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at https://www.mcny.org/story/germ-city-epidemics-throughout-new-yorks-history (but at first read, I don't see anything there which you don't already have). If any "contemporary government reports" exist, MCNY is the kind of place that might have them in their archives. You should also check WP:NYCSOURCES for other possibilities. New York Historical Society, NYS Historic Newspapers, and NYC Municipal Archives are all worth checking. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, I've done most of those already, but there were some new bits, although there wasn't anything of use. Surprisingly searches of NYC Municipal Archives (https://nycrecords.access.preservica.com/) show nothing for either Mary Mallon or Typhoid Mary. MCNY has only two references, one in passing, one you've linked to. The NY History Soc again has very little. None of them come close to anything that isn't in published sources - not even little factoids or stories to give a little extra colour to the piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora Revolt

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mariamnei (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the second Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire, which took place during the reign of Trajan. Unlike the first and third revolts, which were centered in Judaea, this conflict was largely carried out by Jewish diaspora communities in Egypt, Cyprus and Libya.

This is my second FA nomination; my first, First Jewish–Roman War, passed recently, on New Year's Eve. This present article reached GA status in October 2024 following a review by @Jens Lallensack:, who encouraged me to take it to FAC. Shortly thereafter, @UndercoverClassicist: gave me helpful suggestions to improve the article before a FAC run, all of which I have since addressed. I look forward to the review process and hope this nomination will be successful. Mariamnei (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Francesco_Hayez_018.jpg needs a US tag for the artwork

Also I noticed in passing that some of the reflinks are broken - suggest fixing before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria All done now! I removed the px size from the lead image, added a PD-US tag for the Hayez painting, added alt text to all images, and fixed the reflinks (one source was missing from the bibliography, and another had 2008 in the sfn instead of 2006, as the bibliography uses correctly). Thanks. Mariamnei (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I've just added two more images to the article. Would you mind taking a look to make sure everything's okay? Thanks! Mariamnei (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama, so File:Colonne_trajane_1-50_rec.jpg will need a tag for the original work. Also I don't see that any changes have been made to the Hayez painting? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, could you clarify how I can tell whether I should add the original work tag myself, or if this is something that needs to be handled differently? I'm happy to fix it (or find another image if necessary), I just want to make sure I'm doing it correctly.
I'm also not sure why the Hayez painting is mentioned here, perhaps there's been a mix-up with another article (the First Jewish–Roman War or the Siege of Jerusalem, both use the painting)? The other image I added to this article is from Alexandria, Egypt. Thank you! Mariamnei (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Hayez painting I reference is included in {{First Jewish–Roman War}} at the bottom of this article. You should be able to add tags yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added two tags. This is a plaster copy of an artwork from the 2nd century, hope that clears things up. Please let me know if I got that wrong or if there's anything else. Mariamnei (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Its a fairly nicely written article in general with interesting attention to details. Some comments to get things started:

(1) Marcius Turbo, is linked in the lede, however, the first mention of his name in the main body is not linked; add the link and full name on first instance in main body.

(2) Marcius Turbo, was designated by Trajan, however, I'm not sure I'm reading enough about the Roman Empire as a whole during the Diaspora Revolt. Rome was under one of its finest and most competent Emperors, and it might be nice to see a little more about how important/unimportant the Revolt actually was upon the Empire as a whole. The section about "Impact on Trajan's Parthian campaign" is nice but very short.

(3) Again Trajan, is there any depiction in whole or in part on Trajan's column of the Revolt? It would be nice to gauge the significance of this event when surrounded by all the other historical realities which the Empire was facing at the time of the Revolt; was it relatively minor as perceived at the time, or was it a major issue for Trajan and Turbo.

It's quite difficult to say much about what Trajan and Turbo themselves thought beyond speculation. I haven't found any sources that mention their views on the matter, unlike for some other episodes at Rome's height. Josephus, for example, does comment on what Vespasian and Titus thought at various stages of their suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66–73. Trajan's Column was erected in 113 CE, two years before the Diaspora Revolt erupted, so it was already too late for the revolt to feature there. That said, I do mention a theory proposed by Martin Goodman (historian) in the section discussing the connection between the Diaspora Revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–136 CE. Goodman suggests that Hadrian, who succeeded Trajan, was affected by the consequences of the Diaspora Revolt and by the need to rebuild areas in Cyrenaica destroyed by the rebelling Jews. He argues that this experience may have led Hadrian to conclude that Jewish rebelliousness had to be resolved decisively; hence what Goodman terms a "final solution": According to Goodman, Hadrian—an activist emperor who preferred to impose reforms rather than merely react to crises—was acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of the Diaspora Revolt, as indicated by his post-revolt construction projects in Cyrenaica. Goodman argues that Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina was intended as a "final solution for Jewish rebelliousness": by permanently transforming the Jewish holy city into a Roman colonia modeled on the imperial capital, Hadrian aimed to prevent future Jewish uprisings. Even here, however, this remains pretty much mostly interpretive: the sources themselves do not explicitly state Hadrian's motivation in establishing Aelia Capitolina on Jerusalem's ruin; Goodman seems to search a way to explain what remains unclear - what exactly led Hadrian to establish a pagan colony on the ruins of Judaism's holiest city. Mariamnei (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Although Trajan in mentioned in Gibbon, there appears to be no mention of the Revolt. Is this a weakness in Gibbon's historical sources, or some other issue which keeps Gibbon from addressing the Revolt.

  • From what I've seen, there is not much about Trajan's reign in Gibbon's work. He seems to have summed up his term as emperor in just three paragraphs. Beyond that he is mentioned often, but very briefly, at least in the first volume of the series, together with other emperors such as the Antonines, or in relation to his architectural achievements. After all, Gibbon's work is named The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and in Trajan's time the decline and fall of the empire was yet to become a reality (quite the opposite, as you mention above, the empire was at its peak), so perhaps this is not why the work does not describe this period in detail. Mariamnei (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find a passing reference to the Diaspora Revolt in the work, though not in the section dealing with Trajan's reign, but in chapter XVI, in a more general discussion of Jewish uprisings against Rome: From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind. (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/g/gibbon/decline/cache/decline.pdf, p. 516). Mariamnei (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The term 'Trajanic revolt' which you mention in your lede does not appear in the Wikipedia article for Trajan; if it is a minor term, then does it belong in the lede. Other than your footnote 'b', there does not appear with a single reference to it in the main body.

(6) 'Influence on Jewish thought' is a section towards the end of your article; it seems to have to somewhat long blockquotes which I'm not sure needs to be that long. Also, Trajan and the Christian martyrs is a theme often taken up in the literature, but its not mentioned in this article. Is the assertion that Christians were or were not parts of the Jewish diaspora at that time. Your comment on Eusebius appears to state: 'Eusebius adopts a more neutral tone.[16] Nonetheless, his portrayal of the revolt is framed within his broader theological argument that Jewish suffering was a consequence of their rejection of Christ, a theme common in early Christian references to the Jewish–Roman wars.' I'm not sure what this means; is the article implying that there were no Jewish-heritage Christians in the Jewish diaspora?

@ErnestKrause:
  • On the block quotes: I'm a bit hesitant to trim them. Since these are short stories, cutting them down risks losing details that are important for understanding the legend. That said, if they feel too heavy for the main flow of the article, we could consider formatting them as quote boxes instead. That would let readers choose whether to engage with the full text without interrupting the prose, similar to how it's handled here. What do you think?
  • On Christians and the diaspora: I'm not aware of any ancient or modern sources that mention the participation of Christian Jews in the Diaspora Revolt. By the early 2nd century CE, most Christians appear to have been of non-Jewish background, so even if a Christian community existed in Egypt at the time, that does not necessarily imply that they were Jews, and that they would have seen the revolt as something relevant to it. The possibility that Jewish Christians were involved is possible but would probably be largely speculative. (By contrast, by the way, we do have explicit testimony for the later Bar Kokhba revolt: both Justin Martyr and Eusebius state that Christian Jews were tortured/killed by Simeon Bar Kokhba for refusing to participate in the uprising. Perhaps from this we can deduce that they wouldn't have participated in the Diaspora Revolt either).
  • When Eusebius and the other Church Fathers explain Jewish suffering as a consequence of the killing of Christ, it makes clear that in their eyes, "Jews" and "Christians" were distinct categories (though it does not preclude the continued existence of individuals or groups with overlapping Jewish and Christian identities, which probably persisted as a small minority). By the way, a similar theology already appears more than a century earlier in the writings of Justin Martyr, who lived in the mid-2th century CE, not long after the events in question (I don't mention him in the article because he addresses the First Jewish Revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt rather than the Diaspora Revolt). In Dialogue with Trypho he presents Jewish circumcision not merely as obsolete but as a sign of divine punishment, arguing that it was instituted so that Jews would "suffer that which you now justly suffer". For him, the Jewish defeat in the Jewish–Roman wars brought the covenant between God and the Jewish people to an end. So again we can see the strong differentiation. Mariamnei (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments to get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your extended comments on 3 and 4 above are fairly good; will any of that get into the article? Maybe expand slightly on your short 'Trajan's Impact' section? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know about the passages from Gibbon; I’m not sure they add anything beyond providing further examples of a view that treats Dio's descriptions of extreme violence by the rebels as historically correct, in contrast to more recent scholarship, which tends to see these accounts as exaggerated. As for the impact on the Roman Empire, I'll see if I can add anything beyond what's already there, perhaps drawing on scholarly biographies of Trajan and his era. Mariamnei (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Part II assessment comments
[edit]

(1') Your comments on Hadrian above are quite good and reflect your comments about him elsewhere in the Aftermath section of the article. The dating you present for rise of Hadrian and death of Trajan should come sooner in the Aftermath section (c.117AD) since there is quite a bit being said about Hadrian rather than Trajan. It might be nice to see Hadrian mentioned in the lede concerning all of this useful discussion in the Aftermath section.

(2') The main article which draws my attention on Wikipedia here is Christianity in the 1st century which covers quite a bit about comparative ethnic and religious origins. Paul and Barnabas are Jewish and speaking primarily to Jewish audiences; later Paul does take up the issue of Gentile circumcision with mixed effects. Is Eusebius the best source here, since his time frame seems much closer to Constantine and the conversion of the Empire than to the Diaspora Revolt. Possibly you could see if the relevant topics as discussed in the 1t century article I just linked is on point or not; I mean it actually comes to about a decade away from the Revolt itself and is chronologically quite close.

(3') Also, there are many second century references in Christianity in the ante-Nicene period about Judeo-Christian ties.

(4') You are correct to point out the relevance of Bar Kokhba as being almost at the same time period and sharing much of the same historical perspective. I'm not sure that Justin Martyr is definitive here on this issue, as the Ante-Nicene Fathers before Constantinople disagreed on multiple issues. Did any contemporary voice among the Ante-Nicene Fathers speak with authority about the Judaic roots of Christianity.

Interesting comments from your viewpoint in your other responses; the Hadrian material in the Aftermath section might be given more prominence in that section as shedding added light on this Revolt and its consequences. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(1') I've added a mention of Hadrian to the lead and brought his rise forward in the discussion of the aftermath.
(2–4') Following on your comments, I spent some time doing some additional research on how the Diaspora Revolt may have affected Christianity, and came across a few relevant sources. You're welcome to review that edit in the article, which now includes a new section on the possible impact of the revolt on Christians in Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diaspora_Revolt&diff=1337272242&oldid=1336732601. To summarize: There is no strong evidence for an established Christian presence in Egypt at the time of the Diaspora Revolt. It is, however, plausible that a Jewish Christian community existed in Alexandria, having received the Gospel from followers of Jesus in Judaea, and that this community was severely affected by the revolt. As for the outcome, I see two somewhat different opinions. One (Mélèze Modrzejewski) argues that the revolt marked an abrupt end to Jewish Christianity in Egypt, which was subsequently replaced by a pagan Christianity. Another (Pearson) suggests that, despite the catastrophe suffered by Jewish Christians, later Egyptian Christianity was nonetheless deeply influenced by the Jewish community largely eliminated in the revolt, through the adoption of texts (such as the Septuagint and the works of Philo of Alexandria), ascetic practices (possibly influenced by the Jewish Therapeutae), and communal structures. Eventually, the mixture of Hellenistic and Jewish thought with indigenous Egyptian culture led to the emergence of what we know as Coptic Christianity. Mariamnei (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Part III assessment comments
[edit]

The new section you just added is useful and well-written. I'm going to repeat some of the above and add a little since the article appears to be moving in a good direction.

(A) 'Trajanic revolt' in the lede is not used in the article appreciably. If you want to keep it in the lede using your primary source as Eshel, then you might need to elaborate on Eshel's preference for this term. This would justify its presence in the lede which you appear to like.

(B) The Hadrian material is rather well thought out; the impression being instilled is that the Revolt was of more impact to Hadrian than to Trajan, which is likely to be the case.

(C) I'm going to add that in the Wikipedia article for Church fathers that there is quite a bit there about the Alexandrian fathers of the church which included, by the fourth century prominent names such as Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD), Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria. I'm not sure how you are answering the question of where each of them came from if your belief is that either Gentile Christianity or Jewish Christianity had disappeared in Egypt. Where did those church fathers come from if not from remnants of early Christian or Jewish-Christian communities surviving in Egypt?

(D) Asking Wikipedia editors to accept a ten-sentence blockquote towards the end of the article is likely to cause stumbling blocks for you with other editors. I'm just not sure that those big block quotes are doing as much as you may be thinking that they seem to be accomplishing from your viewpoint. Ten sentences of block quotes do not even appear in the Wikipedia Talmud article or similar pages. Other than the Steinsaltz blockquote in the Talmud article (also very long), this type of quoting is not the standard usually used on Wikipedia.

My other concerns seem mostly looked at already. I'll look forward to seeing your comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ErnestKrause!
(A) I've just removed the term 'Trajanic revolt' from the article. I am pretty convinced by now that a single, passing mention by Eshel doesn't seem strong enough to justify presenting it as an alternative name in the lede. If the term appears again in the literature in a more developed or sustained way, I'd be very happy to revisit this, but at the moment I really can't see a strong reason to keep it.
(B) Agreed. I also feel that the article now gives Hadrian the correct weight.
(C) I don't think there's a contradiction with the Alexandrian Church Fathers. I'll explain: what the article now argues is that the Christian community in Egypt, at that time predominantly Jewish in background and character, was severely affected, and likely largely destroyed, during the Roman suppression of the Diaspora revolt, much like the wider Jewish population. When Christianity becomes more visible in Egypt later in the 2nd century, several decades after the revolt, it appears to be composed primarily of people of non-Jewish background. (Modrzejewski suggests a sharp break, while Pearson allows for the adoption of Alexandrian Jewish traditions and practices by the new Christian movement, but both seem to agree that this later movement was not of Jewish origin). That seems to align well with what we know about the Alexandrian Church Fathers you mention. Clement of Alexandria, the earliest among them, was not a native member of an existing Christian community in Egypt but a convert of pagan background who seems to have arrived in Alexandria from elsewhere (according to another Church Father, Epiphanius of Salamis, he was born in Athens; even if traditions placing his birth in Alexandria are correct, he could still have been of native Greek or indigenous Egyptian background). Origen belongs to the following generation, and his father also appears to have been Greek and of pagan origin (though by this time there could be a larger community of Christians in Egypt of a background similar to Clement's). Athanasius and Cyril are much later, from the 3rd to 5th centuries, centuries after the revolt, so not really relevant to this discussion.
(D) Thanks, that's a fair point. I agree that the block quotes are probably longer than Wikipedia norms. I'll look for a way to shorten the quotations and paraphrase the rest, so the narrative of the legend remains clear without taking up too much space. Mariamnei (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(D): Okay, I may have just figured it out; let me know your thoughts: [9] Mariamnei (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well that looks quite good. The article is well-written and well-researched; the cite section mostly uses established reliable sources which also look well-researched. Image review is under progress and I'm running out of positive things to say; then it should be a Support from me for the prose. Nice going. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • There is a good deal of WP:duplinks by the middle of the article, they can be highlighted with this script:[10]
  • That said, there are also a lot of terms that should be linked at first mention in the article body after the intro, some listed below, but perhaps a good idea to give it a thorough look yourself.
  • Link Mesopotamia.
  • Link Parthians.
  • Link Trajan.
  • Link Roman Empire.
  • "to Jews and Judaism in Egypt" Link the article about the history of Jews in Egypt and other places mentioned.
  • "during the "Jewish uprising,"" why quotation marks here and not elsewhere? Also, the comma should come after the quotes.
  • Link Galilee.
  • I assume Great Synagogue of Alexandria can link somewhere.
  • Link Judaea.
  • Link messiah in Judaism.
  • "The principal sources, Cassius Dio and Eusebius" do they have articles to link?
  • "references to the Jewish–Roman wars" is there an overall article about the wars to link?
  • Lknk First Jewish Revolt.
  • Link Josephus.
  • Large passages of the article go without illustrations, might there be more to add?
  • Unfortunately, I haven't found much. An image of ruins from Alexandria might work, though I've been a bit on the fence since I couldn't find anything directly tied to the revolt. Another option would be a relief from Trajan's Column in Rome, dated to 113 (just two years before the revolt) which could at least show Roman soldiers as they would have appeared at the time. The same column also has a relief depicting one of the Roman generals involved in suppressing the Diaspora Revolt, Lusius Quietus, though the entire thing depicts not the Diaspora Revolt but Trajan's Dacian Wars. What do you think? Mariamnei (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes to both, I think articles are much more interesting to read when accompanied by anything that sets a visual tone. Not that images should just be decorative, but I think your examples there are relevant to establish context. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I added two images. Please feel free to take a look! Mariamnei (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks spiffy! FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Replica of a Roman milestone found at Shahhat" name the museum?
  • "The Jewish uprisings erupted almost simultaneously across several eastern provinces of the Roman Empire" do we know how this was coordinated back then? I assume it would take pretty long for word to spread with the means at hand?
  • Unfortunately, that remains very unclear. I've made sure that would be mentioned in the article (under the "Uprisings" chapter): there is no definitive evidence of coordinated action among the diaspora communities in revolt.. We do know that Jewish communities across the Roman and Parthian worlds were in contact during this period, using letters, which in theory could have allowed for coordination around agreed future dates. Rabbinic sources also describe signaling methods, such as chains of bonfires used to announce the New Moon from the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem and all the way to central Iraq (as recorded in the Mishnah, redacted c. 200 CE), which suggests other possible channels of communication. That said, we don't have any direct evidence for what exact type of mechanisms were used in this uprising. Mariamnei (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between Lower and Upper Egypt." link both.
  • I'm somewhat puzzled by there being a quite long "The "Kitos War" in Judaea" section here, while there is also a Kitos War article. The section here almost indicates that it's uncertain that war even took place, while the other article seems more certain. So if there is another whole article, shouldn't the section about it here be a much shorter summary? Or is there something I'm overlooking about how their scopes overlap?
  • Actually, most scholarship from the past two to three decades treats the Kitos War in Judaea as part of its discussion of the Diaspora Revolt and raises questions about both its scale and its character (and sometimes over its existence). Archaeological evidence securely attributable to the revolt within the borders of Roman Judaea is extremely sparse, especially when compared with the First and Bar Kokhba revolts, which has led some scholars to suggest that, if unrest did occur there in parallel with the diaspora uprisings, it was limited in scope and quickly suppressed, leaving little trace in the archaeological record. I think that the current scope taken in this article to present the current state of knowledge on the events in Judaea is appropriate and in line with the major sources I have read on the revolt, so I wouldn't trim it.
  • By the way, the Kitos War article, by the way, does seem to contain some outdated interpretations of primary sources, along with a few other issues. It might be worth considering a redirect to the relevant section of this article, though there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Mariamnei (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would it perhaps make sense to merge that article into this one, if it's basically a hypothetical subset of the same conflict? As is, it seems the spin-off article is a WP:content fork that risks accumulating inaccurate information. And the section here is already sizeable, and could perhaps function better as our main coverage of that subject. FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I noticed Hebrew Wikipedia also has two separate articles, one for the Diaspora Revolt and another for the Kitos War, and thought there might be a good reason for it, but after looking more closely at the Kitos War entry there, it's actually comparable in length (or even shorter) than the section on the Kitos War present in this article. Given how the event is treated in the literature as part of the Diaspora Revolt, it would make sense to merge it here. Mariamnei (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, perhaps a merge suggestion should be added to that article once this FAC is over, and perhaps any relevant info found there but not here could already now be transferred here for completeness. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moved everything I could preserve from the Kitos War article (except a couple of statements without sources). All done. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Hadrian's accession to the throne following Trajan's death in 117 CE" as Trajan's death is described in the preceding paragraphs, I wonder if the bolded part is necessary to repeat.
  • Do we have any estimates of Jewish population numbers at the time? Must have been sizeable considering the impact of these events?
  • I'll see if I can find something. Scholars often caution against using estimates for this period, as they are highly speculative, but I may be able to find something. I'll let you know what I discover. Mariamnei (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeologist Hanan Eshel also points to a rise in nationalistic sentiment" among who, Romans or Jews?
  • "him to redirect his military focus from a campaign against the Barbarians toward the suppression of the Jews" I assume Parthians are meant here? You mention them later, but a bit unclear now.
  • Yep, these are the Parthians, but the Talmudic source actually uses "Barbarians," so I chose to stick with the original wording. To make it clear that this is a direct quote, I've added quotation marks around the source. Mariamnei (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a non-Jewish movement (so-called "pagan Christianity")" sounds intriguing, anything to link?
  • I don't think there's much to link! it's actually simpler than it sounds. It just refers to Christian communities in the that grew mainly among converts from polytheistic backgrounds (as most Christians were by the 2nd century), rather than Jewish Christians, since the first Christians were of Jewish background. Mariamnei (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything to link "ascetic Christian" to?
  • "during the visit of Septimius Severus to Egypt" state he was emperor?
  • "argues that the festival involved a ritual re-dramatization of the victory, portraying the Jews as Typhonians (followers of Set-Typhon) and their defeat as the triumph of Horus-Pharaoh" that seems extremely specific, is it based on anything or just speculation? Could be stated either way.
  • The original papyrus simply states that Oxyrhynchus held an annual festival commemorating the defeat, but it does not describe the ritual content or use any mythological language. So that is a reconstruction Frankfurter makes, drawing on other ancient Egyptian sources (including an anti-Jewish prophecy equating Jews with cosmic disorder) and Greco-Roman polemics that identified Jews as worshippers of Seth. Egyptians are known to have re-enacted mythic battles such as Horus vs. Seth. Changed the text to make this clear. Mariamnei (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final years of Trajan's reign." Could state he was emperor for clarity.
  • "including mass killings" doesn't seem to be explicitly stated outside the intro?
  • The body actually covers this, by mentioning the annihilation of communities, description of Turbo's suppression as a campaign of extermination against the population in the affected areas, and Clarysse’s use of "genocide" to describe the suppression, so I believe the use of 'mass killings' is consistent with these points. Mariamnei (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this time that the lesser-known and poorly understood Kitos War unfolded" this assumes it happened, but you also caution that it might not have, so perhaps the wording should be less certain?
  • Fixed. Changed to It was during this period that the lesser-known and poorly understood Kitos War may have occurred in Judaea, apparently involving unrest among the Jewish population in the province. Mariamnei (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kitos War – a minor revolt in Judaea at the time of the Diaspora revolt" as above.
  • "rebuild the destroyed Jerusalem as a Roman colony" pipelink its name here, as it seems to have an article?
  • "dedicated to Jupiter" only seems to be stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
  • The article seems to imply that Jews were almost eradicated from Egypt, but since a sizeable Jewish community later existed there, perhaps add a brief mention about returned Jewish presence in Egypt after these events?
  • Do you mean in the body or the lead? I guess the lead, since it already appears in the body. Added this at the lead's end: Jewish communities reestablished themselves in Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrenaica during the 3rd–4th centuries CE, though they never reached their former prominence. Mariamnei (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Depiction of the destruction of the Second Temple" perhaps give date of the painting for context.

Japan Cup

[edit]
Nominator(s): RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since late June or early July of last year, there has been a marked increase in the amount written on this website about Japanese horse racing, for reasons that are a mystery to all. As someone who's also fallen headfirst into the horse racing world recently, I'd like to present for consideration an article on the Japan Cup, the premier international invitational horse race in Japan. While still fairly young compared to many other big horses races ("only" 45 runs) there's still a rich history here that has been well covered by news reports and other sources, which I hope leads to an entertaining read. The article itself mostly focuses on the race's history and some of the knock-on effects that it's had on the world at large, as well as the challenges the Japan Racing Association has faced in keeping the race attractive to international racers.

The article went through GA review via regular FAC contributer Gommeh in November, and since this is my first FA attempt, SchroCat kindly helped me get the article into shape through the mentor scheme. Z1720 has also previously left some helpful pointers that I've tried to take into account as well, as did the friendly members of the Horseracing Wikiportal. As such, I hope this is an enjoyable read and I look forward to your comments! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Japan_Cup.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Tokyo-Racecourse_aerial_2019.jpg
  • File:Finish_of_the_1981_Japan_Cup.png: the tag in use here is for cases where the TV program itself, rather than an event shown on TV, is the subject of interest

Thank you for the speedy image review @Nikkimaria:! I believe I've addressed your comments below.

  • Every caption bar the 1981 finish has had the periods removed.
  • I've ended up replacing the logo picture with a slightly more modern version with a still-active official source (20 years to the day of the original upload, funnily enough). I'm just waiting for the resizer bot to do its magic.
  • For the aerial, it looks like the website migrated a few years back. I've updated the image description.
  • 1981 license: Thanks - afraid the free-use templates are all very new to me. If this tag isn't correct, I think the next best that fits is Non-free historic image, which I've changed it to. Happy to adjust if needed.
  • Katsuragi_Ace: Unfortunately you've not missed anything - since this was on wikicommons I'd assumed it'd been checked already. Alas, bottom of the page there's an "© 2024, Thoroughbred Aftercare and Welfare. All rights reserved" and I can't see anything on the website that goes against that. My original backup for this ran into a similar issue too, and there aren't many good CC images from this era... Since I think it'd be good to break up the text a bit this area whilst avoiding a third free-use image, I've replaced the KA pic a little lower down in this edit with File:Oguri Cap in Yushun Stallion station.jpg . File:Symboli-Rudolf2010.jpg could also be a viable option if pictures of the winners only is preferred, but either way I'm more confident either of there are free to use.
Changes mostly fine, but for 1981, the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary (eg Tank Man). If there is no other specific tag better suited to this case, {{non-free fair use}} would be better.
(Also, FYI, if you don't sign a message in which a ping appears, the ping will not go through - see the documentation for {{ping}}). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, thanks for the heads up, I'll keep that in mind in the future! I've updated the image's tag now as well. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Horse racing is a bit outside my normal range (if I may indulge my ego a bit, that didn't stop me from writing Fleetwood Park Racetrack) but SchroCat mentioned this, so happy to give it a look. RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like that you put some effort into writing alt texts for the images.
Lead
[edit]
  • Similar to races such as the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, Melbourne Cup and the Breeders' Cup I would add another "the" before Melbourne Cup to make it not visually run into the previous link, per WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • the Japan Cup is an international invitational event that's obvious from the context, so no need to say it.
  • extended to top-performing horses ... those who have won or placed highly in other major Group 1 races those two things may be not strictly the same thing, but for the purposes of the lead, I'd leave out everything from "particularly" to the end of the sentence.
  • The race is one of the world's richest, reaching a total prize purse of over one billion yen in 2023, with winners of the event frequently breaking national or international prize money records. Again, I think for the lead, I'd leave out the bit about breaking records. Different people have different views of how much detail should be in the lead. My personal opinion is I like shorter leads, i.e. summarize the most important points per MOS:LEAD. Some reviewers will want to see more detail, so I expect you'll get varying opinions on this.
  • one of the most attended races of the year hosted by the JRA, regularly reaching 100,000 people in attendance rephrase to avoid repeating the word "attend". Also, since it's held anually, saying "of the year" is redundant.
  • the JRA offers a large bonus to any horse that wins all three per my desire to have short leads, this seems unnecessary. It's fine to say it's part of the triple crown, but the fact that the triple crown offers a bonus is not one of "the most important points" in an article about the Japan Cup.
  • Despite a relatively short history compared to other horse races On the same theme, no need to say "compared to other horse races". It's a horse race, what else could the history possibly be compared to?
  • the race was dominated by foreign horses, with 14 of the first 25 races' winners coming from abroad I'm not sure that slightly more than half can be considered domination.
  • only one horse from outside of Japan has won the race I suspect this is going to be a theme for the rest of my review, but you can cut "the race". Everything in this article is talking about the race. That "the race" is the direct object of "won" is obvious from the context. Especially in the lead where you're trying to condense as much as possible.
Course
[edit]
  • The Japan Cup is held at the Tokyo Racecourse, situated in ... drop "in" says the same thing as "situated in" in fewer words.
  • At 2,400 metres long Drop the "long". It's obvious from the context that you're talking about the length.
  • This configuration means ... drop "configuration"
  • offering racers ample room to manoeuvre Drop "racers". To whom else could this room possibly be offered to?
  • as well as avoid being boxed in You've already told us about the room to maneuver. How does that differ from not being boxed in?
  • Speaking of boxed in, I added an {{anchor}} and linked directly to the anchor. You should do similarly for homestretch, closers, and any other glossary words you link to.
  • There are several undulations across the track, varying in size and length over the race's duration trim "over the race's duration"
  • The homestretch is one of the longest in Japanese racing at 525 m (1,722 ft), which often leads to dramatic late finishes to somebody like me who knows next to nothing about horse racing, it's mystery why a long homestretch should lead to dramatic finishes. And what is a "late finish"?
  • requiring the horses to conserve their stamina in the race two issues here. First, I assume the horses are just doing what the jockeys tell them to do, so something like "requiring the jockeys to conserve the horse's stamina" would make more sense. Also, drop "in the race" for reasons discussed earlier.
  • Despite the race starting in the homestretch ... notably more likely to win the race. that's a monster sentence which should be broken up.
Race history
[edit]
  • The elephant in the room here is the excessively long and complicated section headings. MOS:HEADINGS says Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles above which in turn says A title should be ... concise I'd certainly leave the year ranges out of the section heads, i.e. instead of "Origins and early years (1981–1988)", just "Origins and early years", or maybe even just "Early years". The first sentence of each of these L3 and L4 subsections could give the exact year range they're going to be talking about. I'd certainly do some major editing on "The rise of Japanese dominance and the origins of the Autumn Triple Crown" and "The beginning of the international win drought and homegrown legends"
  • From the race's conception, the motive behind the Japan Cup's creation ... The first part "races conception" says you're talking about the beginning. Then "the Japan Cup's creation" again says you're talking about the beginning. No need to tell the reader twice, especially since the L3 (Origins and early years) and L4 (The inaugural running) headings already tell the reader you're talking about the beginning.
  • the majority of races only allowing Japanese horses to compete, leaving Japan's horses isolated from the outside world I get what you're saying, but why couldn't the Japanese horses travel to races outside Japan?
  • As such, the Japan Cup offered a unique opportunity Not really unique, since only "the majority of races" in Japan excluded foreign horses.
  • The idea of "creating strong horses that can compete on the world stage" had been proposed by the JRA since at least the 1970s,[12] although efforts early in that decade to hold an international events collapsed because of disagreements between the JRA and other countries over the specific horses invited.[13] overly long sentence.
  • with invites being sent to trainers in Japan "invites" seems like slang to me. Perhaps "invitations"?
  • as part of a wider side I'm used to "side" meaning "team" in sports like soccer or rugby. It's not clear how that applies to horses. I see you use it again later: The disparity in the two sides' performance.
  • In the Japan Cup's second year the original entry restrictions were eased this is the first mention of any restrictions.
  • The French-trained Le Glorieux, trained by Robert Collet eliminate the word repetition, perhaps with "Le Glorieux, trained in France by Robert Collet".
  • Related to the previous, I also see we have an article about Robert Collet, so link to that. Alain Lequeux as well. In general, you should take every person (or likely notable thing) mentioned in the article and see if we have something about them that you can link to. Sometimes when I do this, I discover that something is mentioned in a lot of places but not linked to, in which case, I'd suggest either taking the time to create a stub, or at least just a redlink for now. Some people will object to redlinks in FAs. I'm not one of those people. PS, also search other language wikis, i.e. for these two gentlemen, had I not found their articles on enwiki, I would have tried frwiki. There's a dedicated template (whose exact name escapes me at the moment) for creating cross-language links for these.

(Taking a break for now, I'll pick up again next time with A decade of global competition (1989–1997))

  • Horlicks' win marked the beginning of a decade of several countries vying for supremacy in the Japan Cup, with no single nation remaining on top for long I'd drop the "with no single nation ..." part; that pretty much just repeats what was said earlier.
  • became the first Australian-trained winner, prevailing in a close finish I could go either way on this one, but you could drop "prevailing", as it basically says the same thing as "winner".
  • United States achieved its fourth victory in the Japan Cup through Golden Pheasant I think "with Golden Pheasant".
  • For the next three years, Japanese-trained horses triumphed in the event, although in each event an overseas horse placed second The first time you use "event", it means "The Japan Cup in general", the second time it means "A specific running of the Japan Cup". That's awkward.
  • The 1993 race also saw the only instance in the Japan Cup's history Just say "the Cup's history". Same comment for numerous other places in the article.
  • In 1996 the Irish horse Singspiel narrowly defeated his rivals by a nose "narrowly won by a nose"
  • defeating his compatriots Meisho Doto by a neck and Fantastic Light a nose behind in third. I'm not sure what you mean by "compatriots". But more than that, there's a weird mix of singular/plural here. Maybe "his compatriots Meisho Doto and Fantastic Light by, respectively, a neck and a nose behind in third"?
  • T. M. Opera O went on to win the year's Arima Kinen race; having already won the year's autumn Tennō Shō race as well you could drop both instances of "race". I would expect the name of the race to stand on its own, i.e. Kentucky Derby, not Kentucky Derby race.
  • an accomplishment popularly dubbed as completing the "Autumn Triple Crown." Just "... dubbed the Autumn Triple Crown".
  • closely defeated T. M. Opera O by a neck no need to say "closely"; that's implied by "a neck".
  • The race was held on the right-handed outer loop course, switching the race's direction and reducing its distance to 2,200 m is there some reason the new venue required those changes?
  • The 2004 edition saw Zenno Rob Roy, ridden by Olivier Peslier, led home another Japanese sweep "led home" is an odd construction.
  • the first mare worldwide to earn over $10 million in prize money everywhere else you talk about Yen. Why switch to Dollars here?
  • finishing two lengths ahead of the Japanese racehorse Authority drop "racehouse" as obvious from the context.
  • In spite of only recently switching from dirt tracks to racing on turf tracks just say "In spite of only recently switching from dirt to turf"
  • only making the switch to turf either "only making the switch" or "only switching to turf"
  • entered the race as the odds-on favourite "entered the race as the favourite"
  • quinox won convincingly ... as a commanding win for the horse. No need for both "convincingly" and "commanding win", they're the same thing. Also, no need for "the horse". The entire article is about horses, the reader can fill that in themselves.
  • The strength of Equinox's performance, combined with the overall depth of the field, led to two honours: Equinox was subsequently given ... no need for "Equinox was subsequently given", just state the two honors after the colon.
  • Running near the back of the racers for much of the race no need for "of the racers". Who else would he be near the back of?
  • Do Deuce surged forward in the race's final stretch drop "race's"; what other final stretch could there be?
Decline in international participation and performance
[edit]
  • Horlicks needed the use of a dressing mirror to help distract her what is a dressing mirror?
Purse and qualification
[edit]
  • with a reported US$282,600 as above, why the switch here from Yen to Dollars?

OK, that's all I've got, at least for this pass. Despite the large volume of comments I've made, I think this is is pretty good shape. It reads well, telling a coherent story from start to finish, with each section logically building on what came before. It does need some tightening up, though. In addition to my specific comments, you should read through it all yourself looking for places where a word or phrase duplicates something said earlier or is obvious from the context. These can all be dropped. Make every word pull its weight and if it's not, it's off the team. RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you greatly for the detailed review Roy! I'm glad you enjoyed the read overall.Now you've pointed it out I can see what you mean about the redundancy; I suspect part of this is me getting too close to the trees to consider the forest when I was working on this...
I'll start working through your suggestions tomorrow, and then go through and try to tighten things up a bit. I'll give you a ping when I'm done! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RoySmith, quick progress report! I've completed most of the changes you've suggested and am currently working on further tightening and hunting for suitable wikilinks. Unsurprisingly, most of the Japanese personnel have writeups over on ja.wiki, so the results table is certainly looking a bit more blue now. Hoping to be ready for the next round of review on Tuesday/Wednesday.
I think most of your comments don't need a blow-by-blow response, though I had a few responses for your questions:
  • Why couldn't the Japanese horses travel to races outside Japan? Good question - the short answer is that a select few actually did from 1950-1980, but they nearly all did terribly and it put off most trainers from trying. I've added a short note to the opening history paragraph on this (which let me add another ref I'd been wondering how to fit in for a while, which is always nice).
  • Why 2200m in 2002? Mundanely, Nakayama just doesn't have a 2400m config on their course. I've added a note for this as well.
  • Horlick's dressing mirror? Sorry, this might be a regional dialect - 'dressing mirror' isn't a horse term. The team genuinely just used a big mirror (like the sort you might have in your bedroom or near your wardrobe) they got from an antiques store, doused it in horse sweat, and put it in Horlicks' stable. An unusual trick, but it let Horlicks think she had a fellow New Zealand pal with her while she was getting used to Japan. I've changed this to full-length mirror and rephrased this sentence.
  • Why the switch to dollars for Vodka and Mairzy Doates? For both cases, it's because dollars were the values used in the source, so I thought sticking to this followed MOS:CURRENCY. Mairzy Dotes' one could be removed since it's more an aside than anything, but I think Vodka's shouldn't be changed since it was specifically the ten million barrier she broke that made news. I've added a yen equivalent to add a bit more continuity.
RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, looking forward to reading it when you're done. RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @RoySmith, I think this is finally ready for another go-through. I've tried to tighten everything up a bit as well as add more wikilinks where possible. There are a few more red links, for horses/trainers etc that I think theoretically reach notability and could have an article/stubs made of them - happy to have a look at creating those as a side project as I've ended up doing for Awad. I haven't linked every horse at the moment; there's some there that I don't think there's ever going to be enough to pass WP:GNG from my initial look in (for example, a horse "Mons" I mentioned at one point, has barely ever been reported on bar passing mentions and I couldn't find any noticeable results or stud progeny for him). Likewise the owners column; a good chunk of the remaining non-wikilinks had very little info available on them outside of "this person owned a horse once".
Hopefully the headers are a little better now too, but open to changing them more if necessary - wasn't surprised you called those out as they've been a struggle of mine to get right this entire project! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For now, just acking that I've seen this, but I won't be able to get back to it immediately. I've got a couple of other projects I need to make some progress on first (including, hint, hint, getting Carlisle & Finch out as a new FAC). Then I'll take a look at this again. Maybe tomorrow, maybe a couple of days. RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Roy, there is no rush on my end. Hope C&F goes well for you! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better. I did a bit more trimming of verbose headings and will try to get back for another full read sometime today. RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened up a few more headings and did a copyedit on the lead, cutting the word count by about 10%. My personal opinion is that the rest of the text could do with similar editing to make it tighter, but I'll leave that to you. I think the lead is where brevity is most important, so that's what I concentrated on. Writing style is subjective and what I think is verbose may strke other reviewers as just fine, so I'm going to leave it here for now and let others take a look. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, I'll keep chipping away at it for now; hopefully a few more eyes fall upon this one soon RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thriley (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an incident which occurred while Sinéad O'Connor was performing as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live. I believe it may meet FA criteria. This is my first nomination. Thriley (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave

[edit]

I'll have a look at this in the coming days. With a topic such as this, I will be paying particular attention to neutrality, with Wikipedia's amoral vantage in mind and the idea of WP:OPPONENT. Looking forward to working with you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Hoping this is the first of many! Best, Thriley (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thriley, I'll jump in after Crystal Drawers. Please ping me when ready. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 00:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

RoySmith

[edit]

I don't know if I'll do a full review (probably not, since this isn't a topic area I usually frequent), but I did take a quick look at the sources vis-a-vis what WP:RSN says and found some potential problems:

  • WP:FAROUT is considered generally unreliable
  • WP:SALON.COM and WP:DEMOCRACYNOW both got a "no consensus"
  • WP:PEOPLEMAG, WP:THEGUARDIAN, WP:RSPVULTURE, WP:ROLLINGSTONE all got "generally reliable" but with various caveats. Given that this is at WP:FAC and is a WP:BLP which touches on multiple contentious topics (religion, sexual abuse of children), I think we need to be looking for the strongest sources, i.e. those that don't require us to carefully evaluate if the caveats apply.
  • I can't find anything about Spin, but looking at what I can find quickly, I'm not getting lots of WP:HQRS vibes.

I would urge other reviewers who are more familiar with sourcing in this topic area to take a closer look. RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the Far Out source. The Salon piece might be useful- it was written by Jake Tapper in 2002. It's not citing anything independently. I'll attribute it if I use it for any expansion. The Democracy Now cite supports a sentence right now. I'll swap it was another source if one is available. The others I'm open to discussing if anyone has an issue with them. Thriley (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'll be honest here, regarding Democracy Now, "I'll swap it [with?] another source if one is available" is not the response I was hoping for. I was thinking more along the lines of "I'll delete the statement if a better source isn't available". In addition to religion and sexual abuse of children mentioned above, that particular source adds in LGBTQ, so it's really the trifecta of sensitive topics. Now that I look at it again, the headline also mentions Palestinians, so actually the superfecta. Even if this wasn't at FAC, this requires rock-solid sources. The default position should not be "It's OK because I can't find anything better". The default position should be "I'll only include it if I can find a really good source".
With that said, I dove into what the source actually says, which is AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Jamie Manson into this conversation, president of Catholics for Choice. Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston said that her actions on SNL, you know, ripping up the pope’s picture, were a “gesture of hate” and “neo-anti-Catholicism.” Law would later resign for covering up abuse in the Catholic Church. This is presented in the article as a direct quote of what the Cardinal said, when it's really a second-hand statement, i.e. Goodman (who is conducting an interview) saying what the Cardinal said. The original statement appears to come from: Franklin, James L. "Catholic Leaders Seek an Apology from NBC: [City Edition]." Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext), 09 Oct., 1992, pp. 84. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/catholic-leaders-seek-apology-nbc/docview/294726969/se-2, which quotes the Cardinal as saying ""There is a virulent neo-anti-Catholicism which is alive and flourishing", but not directly calling O'Connor's act "neo-anti-Catholicism". In fact, the Globe article explicitly says "Though he did not name her". This is not good enough. RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I meant that I will just remove the sentence and the source that cited it if I can't find a more reliable source for it. Thank you for checking for a source. Thriley (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do some spot-checking of sources.

  • On 3 October 1992, O'Connor appeared on SNL to promote her new album, Am I Not Your Girl?. She performed two songs, the first of which was her new single "Success Has Made a Failure of Our Home". This inspired two influential alternative rock radio figures in the studio to tell Glass, her record company executive, that they would be adding it to their playlists.[1] The source does not say that the reason for the booking was to promote the album. That's a reasonable assumption, but it's not what the source actually says. The source also does not say that Success Has Made a Failure of Our Home" was the first song performed. I'm sure there's some other source that says that, but this source doesn't. The source also doesn't say anything about being in a studio. These are all minor points, but three minor points in one sentence doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings.
  • For the second song, O'Connor performed an a cappella version of Bob Marley's 1976 song "War", wearing a necklace with the Rastafari star and a scarf with the Rastafari and Ethiopian colours.[5] The source does not say the song was performed a cappella.
  • The original lyrics are the text of a speech given by Haile Selassie in 1968; O'Connor replaced Selassie's references to the then-current political situation in Angola, Mozambique and South Africa with lyrics related to child abuse.[6] The source says "uses the words of a speech made by Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie" I interpret that to mean uses some of the words, i.e. selected quotes. "lyrics are the text of a speech" makes it sound like the entire song is exactly the full speech. That may be true (I have no idea if it is) but that's not what the source says.
  • Throughout the performance, she stared intently into the camera.[8] The source says "she stared down a “Saturday Night Live” camera". That's not the same as "Throughout the performance".
  • As she sang the final line, "we have confidence in the victory of good over evil", O'Connor held a photograph of Pope John Paul II directly in front of the camera, ripped it up, said "fight the real enemy", and threw the pieces of the photograph onto the floor.[9]. The source says "she pulled out the photo of the pope, tore it into pieces and tossed it on the floor". Nothing about holding it directly in front of the camera.

I'm sorry, I need to be a hard Oppose based on source-to-text veracity. None of these are hugely significant problems; I suspect all of the facts stated are indeed true, but the sources cited do not support them. I looked at six citations (five of them in five consecutive sentences, so it's not like I was cherry-picking which to examine) and found problems in every one. This needs a careful citation-by-citation examination to verify that each one does indeed support the facts claimed, and doing that is outside of the scope of WP:FAC. RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate. I should have picked through the article deeply before nominating. Happy to go through it and renominate it again if you think the problems are so extensive that a FA review is not possible. Thriley (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that would be for the best. It's entirely possible that I just happened onto an unlucky streak of five in a row and the rest is in better shape, but it is what it is. I feel particularly bad about this because my own first FAC was a disaster on the source verification front. It eventually got sorted out but to be honest, I think my source reviewer bent over backwards to help salvage a nomination which legitimately should have been kicked back for rework outside of FAC. I'd also suggest listing this at WP:PR once you've given it a going-over. Any additional problems can be resolved there in an environment which is much less intense than the FAC maelstorm.
On the positive side, I think the writing here is generally pretty good. It tells the story in a (to use the WP:FACR term) engaging style. That's a good thing. Fixing sourcing problems is relatively straight-forward compared to fixing a boring stilted writing style. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like a fairly straightforward nomination, which is what I was hoping for with my first nomination. I'm hoping this nomination continues even if it is slowed by the sourcing issues. Maybe a quick close and then renomination? Not familiar with the process here. Thriley (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Crystal Drawers helpful here and hope to see their reviewing continue. Thriley (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately how you proceed is up to you, but regarding "a quick close and then renomination" the process there would be to declare that you want to withdraw the nomination (see {{@FAC}} for how to draw attention to this) and one of the coordinators will close the nomination. I believe there will be a two-week delay imposed before you can renominate it. My personal experience with things like this is that the next thing you should do is to just walk away from this for a while to decompress. FAC is a stressful environment and taking a short break to get your head clear really does help. Then work on fixing the problems and list it at WP:PR. You'll also want to link it into {{FAC peer review sidebar}} which will draw the attention of experienced FAC reviewers who will be able to give you a more useful review. Once you think it's in good shape, you can relist it here. The second time around is exactly the same process as the first time, except that it'll be .../archive2 instead of .../archive1.
You might also want to jump in and start reviewing other FACs, especially on topics similar to your own. That'll do two things. One, it'll get you some practical experience seeing what other reviewers expect. Two, when it comes time to relist your own article, if you've reviewed somebody else's article they'll be more likely to want to take the time to review yours (either here or at PR). RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Drawers

[edit]

Interesting topic, I’ll add more comments by the end of the week. Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 20:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • "on the American television program Saturday Night Live" — I’m not really sure about this, but maybe "on the American television variety show Saturday Night Live" would help readers better understand why a segment like this would air on such a show
  • "throwing the pieces of the photo to the floor." — Consider "throwing the torn photo to the floor." as the word "pieces" is already used directly before this
  • I’m not an expert on this, but I’m not sure if the citations are needed for the lede
  • "It attracted criticism from the Catholic Church, and also brought criticism from the Anti-Defamation League" — Chage one of those uses of "criticism"
  • "For example, in 2020, Time named O'Connor the most influential woman of 1992 for her protest." — This feels unnecessary, ending it with the previous sentence makes more sense than giving undue weight to one opinion
I fixed the issues. Instead of variety show, I called it a live television sketch comedy show. I think it is important to establish that this was live TV in the first sentence. Thriley (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good, I’ll go through more of the article tonight and try to finish the review up by Sunday Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 16:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "who she said was disrespectful to women" — consider "who she felt was disrespectful to women"
  • "She had been criticized for refusing" — add a "previously" before "criticized"
  • Lot of uses of "criticized", "criticizing", etc, try to change a few
  • "Taoiseach (prime minister)" — I don’t think the (prime minister) in parenthesis part is necessary, the linked article for Taoiseach already specifies it’s a type of prime minister
MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies then. Thank you for letting me know, Gog Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 14:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal Drawers: Thank you for your helpful eye. Would you be interested in continuing your review of the article? RoySmith has found issues with its sourcing which will make this nomination take a while if it continues at all. Thriley (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I still plan on going through the final sections by the end of the night (it’s around 6:30 for me), so expect the review to be done in about 2 or 3 hours when I’m home Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 23:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No rush at all. Appreciate it! Thriley (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: That should be it from me. Comments on Background are right above this comment, and below you will find my thoughts on the rest of the article. I think the article still needs a little bit of work before it is FA quality, and so I will end my review here by neither opposing nor supporting, and rather just leaving you with my prose comments that I hope help you get the article to better shape. I’m sorry for this, I know that is probably disappointing, and I especially apologize for how long it took me to finish this up. But, I think you have a good basis for a FA here, a Peer Review might just help you get a better grasp on what makes a FA tick, though. If you ever nominate it at PR, ping me there and I’ll try to gather more thoughts, because I’d really love to see this be a FA one day :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 02:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Performance

  • "On 3 October 1992, O'Connor appeared on SNL to promote her new album, Am I Not Your Girl?. She performed two songs, the first of which was her new single "Success Has Made a Failure of Our Home"." — "New" is used twice in close proximity to eachother, please change one use -Done
  • "to tell Glass, her record company executive, that" — Isn’t Glass already introduced as such in the Background section? I think removing the ", her record company executive," part would be fine -Done
  • Why is Rastafari wikilinked twice? -Fixed
  • "The original lyrics are the text of a speech given by Haile Selassie in 1968" — I don’t understand what this is trying to say -Fixed
  • "directly in front of the camera, ripped it up, said "fight the real enemy", and threw the pieces of the photograph onto the floor" — Consider "directly in front of the camera, ripped it up, and said "fight the real enemy" before throwing the pieces of the photograph onto the floor" -Fixed
  • "whose lead singer, Bob Geldof, had shredded a photo of John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John on the British television program Top of the Pops." — Was this also in protest of something relating to Newton-John and Travolta? If so, it might be worth mentioning
  • A lot of direct quotes in the final paragraph, could you put some (if not most) in your own words?

Reactions

  • "NBC received more than 500 calls on Sunday[13] and 400 more on Monday" — Consider "NBC received more than 500 calls on Sunday, followed by 400 more on Monday" -Done
  • "nor did they invite O'Connor to perform on the show for the rest of her life." — Not a fan of the use of "rest of her life", change to "nor did they ever invite O'Connor to perform on the show again." -Done
  • "(with pointy noses)"" — This doesn’t add anything, I’d remove it -Done
  • Is there a reason "Holy" is in parentheses? I think the name is actually "Holy Roman Empire" so I’m not sure if putting quotes around it is correct -The quotes are used in O'Connor's own writing which this is taken from. I'd like to leave it in to further detail her state of mind at the time.
  • "saying "I look like I had a run-in with a lawn mower and that I was about as sexy as a venetian blind"." — I’m not sure this is needed -I'd like this to stay. It's Madonna, arguably the most famous woman living at the time after Queen Elizabeth.
  • Is there a reason it’s sometimes called "SNL" and other times "Saturday Night Live?" Make sure to stick with one throughout the article (unless you pick SNL, in which case you should use Saturday Night Live in it’s first mention only before sticking with SNL the rest of the article) -What is best practice? I know we tend to abbreviate, but I find SNL so ugly. Thriley (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "career, and reputation" — I think "public reputation" might be better wording
  • Lots of direct quoting here that could easily be put in your own words, I think minus some minor words that might require quoting this whole section doesn’t require much direct quoting
  • "O'Connor repeatedly said that she did not regret her act" — Replacing "said" with "asserted" might be better
  • "following a personal crisis stemming from the success of her 1990 single "Nothing Compares 2 U"" — Is there any info on what this personal crisis is? I’d advise against just dropping it there and not elaborating on what the crisis actually was (unless it isn’t public, I don’t know)
  • "The New York Times journalist Amanda Hess wrote in 2021 that "few cultural castaways have been more vindicated by the passage of time", and that the backlash was also "about the kinds of provocations we accept from women in music".[8] After O'Connor died in 2023, Glass wrote that she had been unfairly treated and had never recovered professionally from having been "totally cancelled"." — Both of these start with "[name] wrote that", could you change one?
  • "In 2020, Time named O'Connor the most influential woman of 1992 in its list of the 20th century's most influential women." — Wording here is kind of janky
  • "Reruns of the episode replaced the performance with the dress rehearsal, and previous documentaries such as "Saturday Night Live Backstage" would edit out her ripping the photo apart, though an exemption was granted in 2010 when Sinead O'Connor appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show." — No source?

Olliefant

[edit]
  • "appeared as a musical guest" -> "appeared as the musical guest" as SNL only has one musical guest per episode -Done
  • Also state the season and episode she appeared on in the lead -Done
Background
  • Link "New Jersey" -Done
  • SNL appears both with and without italics -Done
  • "On September 29, 1990, she was..." this would probably fit better under "Performance" -Done
Legacy
  • "The New York Times" the "the" should also be in italics as it's part of the name -Done
  • "an SNL Weekend Update" SNL isn't part of the title, it's just "Weekend Update" -Done
  • Also "Weekend Update" should be in italics -Done
  • "as Deion Sanders" who? -Done
  • Merge the last two paragraphs as neither is particuarly long -Done
Misc
  • Ref 20 has an error
  • Refs 2 and 7 should be marked as "subscription needed"
  • Ref 4 should link to Vulture
  • The citations using all capital letters shouldn't per MOS:ALLCAPS -Done
  • The page uses DMY dates when the correct format is MDY as the topic is American -Done
Thats what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 02:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny's Child

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 14:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Destiny's Child, one of the most well known popular music acts and influential girl groups. They helped bring girl groups back to the fore front of pop music at a time when boy bands were dominating and shaped the sound of contemporary R&B within the late '90s and early '00s, especially with their songs "Bills, Bills, Bills", "Say My Name", Independent Women", "Bootylicious", and "Survivor". If successful this will be my fifteenth FA. Enjoy the read! 750h+ 14:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Happy to review.

  • "In 1990, Beyoncé met LaTavia Roberson while in an audition for an all-girl entertainment group" maybe "while auditioning for" or "in an audition for"?
  • No prose issue up until 1990–1997. Ippantekina (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this review Ippantekina, looking forward to leading comments. 750h+ 06:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album's second single, "With Me" failed to reproduce the success of "No, No, No"" odd word choice imo.. maybe "replicate"?
  • "attempted split from Mathew," to split?
  • photo caption; "Michelle Williams joined the group as a replacement for Luckett and Roberson." but prose suggested that both Williams and Franklin were replacements, not Williams alone
  • "The Writing's on the Wall is often deemed Destiny's Child's breakthrough album, spurring their career and introducing them to a wider audience.[14][28]" I suggest moving this claim into the sales and chart success paragraph instead
  • I don't think a pipe to List of best-selling albums of the 21st century for "selling 10 million copies" is helpful
  • I don't think the whole quote from the MTV letter is necessary. A paraphrased summary sentence is just fine.

I've read up to "Legacy". Ippantekina (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: done, thanks. 750h+ 08:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: any other comments? just wondering 750h+ 14:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from MSincccc

[edit]
  • Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A red star with "DESTINY'S CHILD" written at the front (in the alt text)
    • You could consider replacing "at" with "on" in this sentence.
  • Williams smiling (also from an alt text)
    • How about mentioning the presence of the mic?
  • 20-year-old Beyoncé in a black top, photographed looking directly at the camera
    • Is the age relevant to the alt text? How about using it in the caption instead?

MSincccc (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also “Solange performing into a microphone” would be more idiomatic than “Solange performing behind a microphone”.
MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: done, thanks for this. 750h+ 06:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Passing the image review. MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Bottom line

Camilasdandelions

[edit]

Older nominations

[edit]

Manhattan Project feed materials program

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I had been thinking about since I began working on improving the Manhattan Project articles a decade ago. It fills a gap in detailing an important but often neglected aspect of the project, namely how it acquired the vital minerals, particularly uranium, and how it processed them to enable the creation of nuclear weapons. That story is not without drama in its own right, as it moves from Canada's Arctic region to the Congo in Africa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]
George Wood Beeler

Skimmed through it; very engaging read. I'll do a more in-depth review later, but a couple thoughts I had while reading.

  • Lieutenant Colonel G. W. Beeler in April 1946 It might be good to state when his term ended (presumably when the Manhattan Project became the (AEC)
    At the end of the war, Groves replaced reservists with Regular Army officers, largely drawn from the top of their West Point classes. George Wood Beeler Jr. graduated from West Point second in the class of 1933. He served on the staff of the Services of Supply and then the Communications Zone in the European Theater of Operations from February 1943 to January 1944, and then with its Advance Section (ADSEC) until August 1944. He was assistant general manager of the 2nd Military Railway Service until May 1945. He returned to the United States as a logistics planner with the War Department General Staff. He was seconded to the MED in May 1946 and served with it and then the Atomic Energy Commission until February 1947. He served with the Army staff from 1947 to 1949, and then with the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 1951. He transferred to the Field Artillery and assumed command of the III Corps Artillery at Fort Lewis, Washington. He died following an operation at Letterman Army General Hospital on 27 July 1951 and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He left behind a wife, Janet née Stocke (m. 1936), a daughter, Jane, and a son, George W. Beeler III. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not very familiar with what the Manhattan Project's purpose was after the war - was it just to produce more nuclear weapons? A sentence or two of context in Organization might be helpful.
    Mostly to keep the wartime establishment together until the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 could be passed and the Atomic Energy Commission could assume control, which occurred at midnight on 31 December 1946. This is a convenient end date for the Manhattan Project articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]

Sorry to say this, but at 11,000 words the article feels a bit oversized. I am confident that focusing on a specific aspect of the Manhattan Project would work just as well in under 9,000—perhaps around 8,000—words, without losing any of its substance. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to begin by acknowledging the considerable effort and research that have gone into this article. However, articles are generally expected to be between about 150 and 6,000 words, with exceptions subject to increasingly stricter limits at 8,000, 9,000, and ultimately 15,000 words. In practice, many editors treat the 9,000–15,000 range—what should be an exceptional exception—as the normal standard, writing essays rather than encyclopaedic articles. If this tendency continues to be encouraged through the promotion of such long texts to FA status, Wikipedia risks moving away from its role as an encyclopaedia and towards becoming a platform for essays. This does not match what readers expect, namely clear and concise summaries of specific topics. Some topics do require greater length. An article on Human history may reasonably exceed 15,000 words; WWII likely needs more than 12,000 words; and an 8,000–9,000 word article on the Manhattan Project as a whole would be acceptable. An article of around 11,000 words on a specific aspect of that project, however, is clearly too long. For these reasons, I oppose its promotion at this time. Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Image review

I took a look up to the end of the Uranium procurement section. MSincccc (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Gilbert Labine examining uranium ore at the Eldorado Mine located at Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories.jpg- PD-URAApresent, but US public domain rationale is missing.
  • File:Port Radium in 1936.jpg and File:Radium Queen at the Fort Fitzgerald docks, July 1, 1937.jpg- Same as the previous image.
  • PD-URAA is the US public domain rationale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I consulted Nikkimaria, who noted the following regarding PD-URAA:
    PD-URAA, which several of that article's images use, includes this statement: "there must be a statement on this page explaining why the work is in the public domain in the U.S. (for the first case) or why it was PD on the URAA date in its source country (second case). Additionally, there must be verifiable information about previous publications of the work." These are not clearly present in all cases. MSincccc (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    PD-URAA is the US rationale ie PD in the country of origin before the URAA date and PD-Canada is the Canadian PD rationale i.e. a photograph that was created prior to 1 January 1949. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I have no further suggestions. The article looks good to me. Hence, I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, Hawkeye. Really fascinating article on a topic I have no real interest in, but it kept me going to the end. It's long, but I think that isn't an issue on a topic like this - there's so much to get into and there isn't really any part that should be split off. Looking at WP:SIZERULE, this article can, I think, be justified by "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material".

There are a few typos to sort:

  • There are a couple of non-US spellings in there (reorganised, criss-crossed—non-hyphenated in AmEng, I think—signalled, volatilisation and aluminium x several)
  • "might actually be coming": not sure what the "actually" does here
  • "was lost.The ore": space needed

- SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected these typos except for "aluminium". MOS:IUPAC and MOS:CONSISTENT: "the international standard spellings aluminium, sulfur, caesium (and derivative terms) should be used regardless of the variety of English otherwise employed in the article." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well: you learn something new every day. In that case I'm happy to offer my support for this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only found out about this from John in April 2025 while editing this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Asay

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Canadian baseball player who was at one point one of the best women's players in the world. She tragically died in her 30s in a ski accident a couple years ago; afterwards there have been many tributes to her. Bloom6132 brought this to GA status in 2022, I added some additional sources in 2025 and Mike Christie gave some great comments in the PR. I look forward to your comments, and thank you for reviewing. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Early life
  • Was her bachelor's and master's also in forestry?
  • Source just says a bachelor of science without additional information. The source (her masters thesis) states that it was a Masters of Science in "THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Forestry)". I'm not sure if something else needs to be added, and if so how to phrase it. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She completed postgraduate studies at the University of British Columbia under the supervision of Suzanne Simard, obtaining a Master of Science in 2013[7] and a Doctor of Philosophy in forestry in 2020.
You could tweak this slightly to denote that both her postgraduate degrees were in "forestry". MSincccc (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Playing career
  • Under the subsection Brown University, consecutive sentences start with "she". You could consider changing it to "Asay" in a few of the places.
  • “the first edition of a major multi-sport games” → “the first edition of a major multi-sport event”
    • “Games” already implies a multi-sport competition.
Bottom line

Comments

[edit]

Great work. Here are a few comments:

Lead
  • For this sentence: "Asay died in a skiing accident in 2022; Baseball Canada retired her jersey number in her honour at a memorial game." - consider editing to something like the following for readability / flow: "After Asay died in a skiing accident in 2022, Baseball Canada retired her jersey number in her honour at a memorial game."
Early life
  • I edited the first sentence to include parents names and brother and removed comma after Columbia.
  • "Asay attended College Heights Secondary School in her hometown,[2] where she graduated with honours." - is the comma necessary? Reads fine without.
Playing Career > Brown
  • First sentence under Brown University - is the comma necessary after 2010? I'd also remove the semicolon and just have a new sentence for "She was a right-handed thrower and batter" for improved readability / flow.
  • Did she play only two years on the hockey team? If so, you could edit the first sentence to "Asay also played two years on the ... "
  • I'm unsure: while the source only lists two years, an undergrad degree is four and I couldn't find a mention of her going to a different university. I've decided to keep it ambiguous for now, and if other sources give more information I'll add it in. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Playing career > Professional baseball career
  • Would be great to see this section expanded a bit with her performance stats, how the teams did during the seasons, etc.
  • After some creative search terms, I found a couple more sources on her early hockey training, professional hockey career, and stats. These have been added to the article. I don't think there's more information to add, but I'll keep looking if I think of some new terms to search for. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Playing career > Ice hockey
  • This information seems more relevant for the ice hockey paragraph under Brown University. Move / integrate?
  • I added some additional professional hockey career info. Her post-Brown hockey career happened concurrently with her baseball career: I think it would be inappropriate to move the hockey career there. I am open to other suggestions on how to organise this information. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass
File:Amanda Asay 9283.jpg - released by wikipedian under cc-by-sa-4.0 license; exif etc. looks reasonable and no reason to suspect anything untoward about the uploader not holding the license.

This in the only "true" image in the article; licensing is appropriate as noted above but could use alt text. I guess the Canadian flag icon and bronze/silver medal symbols in the infobox could be considered images but there would be no issues with those. Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Alt text added. Commons doesn't have other images of her, and images from news sources are not publicly licensed as far as I know, so I don't think they should be used in the article when there is already a CC-4.0 licenced image. Z1720 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

What age do these height and weight estimates refer to? https://www.myprincegeorgenow.com/94962/news/sports/asay-rediscovering-scoring-touch-with-northern-penguins/ doesn't work for me. "The Prince George Citizen" and "Prince George Citizen News" are inconsistently named. Is Jaclyn Hawkins a reliable source? A bit uncertain where the date 7 January comes from in the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Height and weight: source doesn't give a date. Should this just be removed?
  • The url link works for me. Is it a paywall problem, a connection timeout, or something else? I archived the link with IA Bot.
  • I standardised all mentions to "Prince George Citizen" per Wikipedia's article on the source.
  • I don't see Jaclyn Hawkins used as a source. What is this referring to?
  • For her death day: the source was published January 10, 2022. The source says, "Asay...died Friday after an accident at Whitewater Ski Resort near Nelson." The "Friday" referred in this article would be Friday, January 7, 2022.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's Hawkins' website, Women's Hockey Life. For that URL it says "Sorry, you have been blocked You are unable to access myprincegeorgenow.com" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I removed "Women's Hockey Life" as the other, more high-quality sources verified the information. I added an archive link for the myprincegergenow url, so hopefully the information can be verified with that link. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by zzz plant

[edit]

a very nice article. I have some minor comments:

  • "Asay began playing baseball when she was five and played for Prince George East in Little League Baseball, playing in the boys league..." a lot of "play-" in one sentence, would try to find a way to get rid of one of them Zzz plant (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally, the professional baseball subsection doesn't seem the most intuitively organized to me- it's very brief (although that can't be helped if the sources don't have more to say) and doesn't follow a rough chronological order like the rest of the article Zzz plant (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The professional career happened concurrent with the Canada national baseball team. I split it out to prevent the section from getting too big. I'm open to other suggestions on how to organise this and not have too many paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Path to Rome

[edit]
Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of my great intellectual weaknesses is that I love the works of Hilaire Belloc, a cantankerous and shamelessly partisan curmudgeon, oft-criticized for his lack of fact checking, oft-lauded for his incisive attacks on Whig history, but maybe best known for his (possibly negative) influence on G. K. Chesterton. This book contrasts with his main body of work in that it is an absolute delight and filled to the gills with joy. Describing his 1901 pilgrimage on foot from the town of Toul to the Vatican, newer reprints of this book have subtitled it "A Portrait of Western Europe Before the World Wars" and for good reason. The tale also contains poetry, "enchanted cigarettes", praise of windows, horse slapping, verbal abuse, arguments with an imagined reader, divine intervention, imprisonment, and a perilous fight against a midsummer blizzard. This book was my "trench companion" during some difficult years of my life and I am pleased to make this my second FAC. My deepest thanks to Chiswick Chap and UndercoverClassicist for their wonderful suggestions and reviews. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_Path_to_Rome_(title_page).png needs a US tag, and the current tag appears incorrect - Belloc did not die until 1953, well under 100 years ago
  • File:ETH-BIB-Griesgletscher,_Nufenenstock,_Basodino,_Maggiatal_v._N._W.-Inlandflüge-LBS_MH01-005489_(cropped).tif needs a US tag. Ditto File:ETH-BIB-Villa_Bedretto,_Ronco,_Nufenenpass,_Griespass_v._O.-Inlandflüge-LBS_MH01-006141_(cropped).tif, File:Hilaire_Belloc_Low.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jon698

[edit]

@ThaesOfereode: I do not write about books on Wikipedia, but this does look like a fun article to read. I am also a fan of walking. Jon698 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review Jon698. I've responded to your comments below. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I toyed around with this a little while this page was still in the draftspace and one big problem was that this map doesn't cover basically any of the pertinent parts of France. And since he basically rushes through Italy, there's not much to pin there. I tried fooling around with country maps individually, but that got sort of unwieldy quickly (you can see how; I've preserved my attempts in my sandbox). Willing to take another look if you think it would really improve the article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • All nine images in this article have proper alt text and are in the public domain. Even with modern copyright terms of 70 years after death all of his stuff went into the public domain in 2023.
  • Could "encountering a unique statue of Saint Mary in the town he was born in" be changed to "encountering a unique statue of Saint Mary in his birthplace La Celle-Saint-Cloud"
  • "Belloc's mother tried desperately to convince him against going." and "reportedly had to beg his sister for" -> feel like they violate the spirit of MOS:NOFORCELINK. Could you change the sentences to be "Belloc's mother Bessie Rayner Parkes" and "his sister Marie Belloc Lowndes"?
  • "While visiting the town he was born in" -> same as above. Could you change this to "While visiting his birthplace La Celle-Saint-Cloud"
  • "Jerusalem with hundreds of Russians for Easter" -> Unnecessary to wikilink Easter as it was already linked to earlier
  • I usually see the Notes as its own sections on articles, but if it is a style thing for books or your own style then I have no issue with it being a part of the References section

Here Will I Nest

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1942 Canadian film Here Will I Nest based on a play written by Hilda Mary Hooke. It is a rather obscure film that is mostly lost, but it holds a momentous status in Canadian cinema as it was the first dramatic feature-length film shot in colour. The film was never given a theatrical release and was only shown in private showings, including one attended by Premier Mitchell Hepburn. Melburn Turner would later direct Canada's first feature-length colour film in French. A fire destroyed the film, but it was partially recovered without audio; a restoration used lip readers to dub the footage. Jon698 (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I believe that this is the most information that can be found about the subject due to its limited release and lost status. I have attempted to find The London Free Press'' review of the film, but have been unsuccessful. The length of the article should not bar it from becoming a FA as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/archive2 shows. Jon698 (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Levels (Avicii song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Levels" is one of my favorite EDM songs and was my first GA. I hope to nominate it for TFA by its 15th anniversary. Lazman321 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point, there's still a Peer Review open on this. Could you close it, please. RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did, already? Shortly before starting the FAC? Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was still listed in {{FAC peer review sidebar}} but I see a bot has taken care of that now, so it's all good. RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging prior GA reviewers still active @Kyle Peake: and @Shoot for the Stars:. Lazman321 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

@Lazman321: i'll review this. Ping me if I don't get to this soon. 750h+ 14:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown (cricketer, born 1887)

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English George Brown. He is considered one of the finest all-round cricketers to have played the game - whilst the modern day definition of an all-rounder refers to an ability to bat and bowl in equally good measure, Brown was not only able to do both of those things, but also keep-wicket. He had an extensive career in English domestic cricket with Hampshire between 1909 and 1933, ending his career as their third-highest run-scorer. He played Test cricket for England against Australia and South Africa in the 1920s, with his performances against Australia in 1921 drawing praise in what was a rather dismal series for England. His journey from obscurity playing for a mental hospital cricket team in Oxfordshire, to the heavy heights of playing Test cricket for England in the 1920s has proven interesting to research and write about; especially given his status as a professional meant he was less prominently documented than his amatuer peers. I hope this is an enjoyable read and welcome feedback. AA (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • Brown continued to play county cricket with Hampshire until 1933, after which injury forced him to retire and he then spent two seasons on the first-class umpires list.
    • You could split the sentence into two at "two seasons"; I leave it to you.
  • Brown appeared in 612 first-class matches, scoring over 25,649 runs,
    • Why use "over"? Are these not the exact figures?
  • You could introduce "John Arlott" briefly on his first mention in the text.

MSincccc (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket career (General)
  • How about renaming this section to Early life and cricket career of Early life and career
  • Playing style and statistics could be kept as an independent section rather than as a subsection under Career; I leave it to you.
  • Comment. I've opted to keep it in the "Cricket career" section, as I feel it is integral to that overall section and opinions of him being the greatest all-rounder of the time. AA (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about moving Umpiring to the Later life and death section as it came after his retirement from playing?

MSincccc (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've gone with a separate section and renamed it "Umpiring career". I thought about merging it in with "Later life and death", but there are several more personal life things that overlap around the same time as his umpiring career, and also pre-date it, that could muddy that section and affect the overall flow. Hope that's okay :) AA (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket career (prose)
Early life and career
[edit]
  • "George Brown was born in Cowley in October 1887." → "George Brown was born in Cowley on 6 October 1887."
Test cricket
[edit]
  • "Players only innings" → "Players's only innings"
  • and were looking to strengthen their batting for the Third Test
    • Do we need the link to "test" here?
  • “who his contemporaries had struggled against” → could be simplified to “whom his contemporaries struggled against”

MSincccc (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style and statistics
  • “thirteen man team” (if mentioned elsewhere) → "thirteen-man team"
    • Hyphenate since it is a compound adjective.

MSincccc (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments @MSincccc, much appreciated :) Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Umpiring career
  • Following his retirement from playing, Brown was one of four new appointments to the first-class umpires list ahead of the 1935 season.
  • He was omitted from the list of first-class umpires on 31 November 1936
    • November has only 30 days.
Later life and death
  • How about using the sentence:

Brown coached cricket at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst.

  • In 1935, he

, In 1931, the and In 2005,

    • The comma could have been omitted in this particular case as the article follows British English.
  • How about linking "Winchester" on first mention in the body?
Bottom line

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Done. I've removed the fixed px size. And my apologies for overlooking the infobox picture. I have found where it came from. It was published in The Boys' Realm in 1922. I've amended the file information to reflect this and added US-pd. Hope this is alright! AA (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is hosted on Commons, it will also need tagging for its country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Michael Aurel

[edit]

Hi AssociateAffiliate. I'd be happy to take a look at this. I'll hopefully give my review in the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a bit tardy here; I had meant to get to this earlier.

  • who played in seven Test matches between 1921 and 1923 and had an extensive domestic career in English county cricket with Hampshire between 1908 and 1933. – Would the second "between ... and" work better as "from ... to", perhaps? It sounds a little more natural to me than "had a career between ...".
  • Despite not being Hampshire's regular wicket-keeper, Hmm. The OED seems to give the word as "wicketkeeper", as do the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster. I would tend to lean in the direction of those dictionaries.
  • Comment. Although interchangeable, I wonder if the article on here, that is title "Wicket-keeper" needs to be renamed. Might raise this on the cricket project talk page. AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do notice "wicket-keeper" appears somewhat commonly in a Google Scholar search; "wicketkeeper" seems to be a little more common, though. In any case, this is hardly a showstopper (or a show-stopper, I guess), so I'll strike this point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He performed well against the Australian fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald and was described as "one of the few English heroes of the ill-starred 1921 Tests". – As I think this probably qualifies as an opinion, I'd consider specifying who said or wrote this (per WP:Manual of Style#Attribution: The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion).
  • He subsequently toured South Africa in 1922–23, – I think "subsequently" can probably be omitted here (as 1922 comes after 1921).
  • An aggressive left-handed batsman, for Hampshire he scored 22,962 runs from 539 appearances. His runs aggregate for Hampshire is only bettered by Roy Marshall and Phil Mead. – If we connected these two with a semicolon, I think we'd be able to get away with omitting "for Hampshire" the second time. If you think this might lead to ambiguity, you could instead write "for the county" or "for the team" the second time.
  • Done. Gone with your second option, as I can see this perhaps being ambiguious for other reviewers, from previous experience! AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems I didn't notice when suggesting this that we use "for the county" in the next sentence (He took 602 wickets for the county with his). Sorry about that: maybe switch the second "for the county" to "for Hampshire"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He took 602 wickets for the county with his right-arm medium pace bowling, that was delivered with sharp, late outswing. – "which was" sounds better here to me.
  • In the early years of his career, his bowling was said to have bordered on being genuinely fast. – Unless there's a reason to highlight the time difference between him doing the bowling and people describing it, I think we can write "his bowling was said to border on".
Hmm, it's possible this suggestion was missed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also add a link to Fast bowling, as otherwise I think this might sound as though we're using "fast" in the regular sense of the English word.
  • He was a renowned fielder, and by 1920 he was considered "the finest fielder in the world". – Similarly to above, I think this qualifies as an opinion, so I'd suggest adding attribution.
  • In his entire first-class career he took 567 catches and made 79 stumpings. – Hmm. Above we stated that he took 568 catches and made 78 stumpings; is there a reason the numbers are different? I'm also not sure we need to state this information again.
  • Remarking on his all-round capabilities, the cricket historian John Arlott would later write that he was "the most complete all-round cricketer the game has ever known". – I would probably omit "Remarking on his all-round capabilities", as this is already made clear by the quote itself.
  • Feel free to push back here, but we include three quotes in the lead, each of which calls him "the best" at an aspect of the game. This might be a little too much. I would probably preference the opinion of a historian over that of a teammate, for example.
  • Done. Yeah, on reflection, the comment by Kennedy doesn't hold as much weight to be in the lead. I have retained it later in the article, to allude to the high esteem his "part-time" wicketkeeping was held in by his contemporaries. AA (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his playing career, Brown settled in Winchester. There he became a publican and later a parking attendant. – These two sentences are quite short. I'd suggest combining them.
  • In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses. He died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77. – As above, I would consider combining these two short sentences.
  • Done. Merged. Though, I'm trying to word it, and each time I look at this it sounds "off": "In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses, with Brown dying in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77." AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses, and he died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77? Another option would be to combine them with a semicolon: In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses; he died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early adulthood he worked at the Littlemore Hospital near Oxford, – You could link Oxford, if you wanted.
  • It was while playing against Oxford University that he was observed by C. B. Fry, – I think this could be slightly shortened to "While playing against Oxford University, he was observed by C. B. Fry,"
  • He was then offered a cricket trial at Hampshire in 1906, – We did mention "cricket" above, so if we want to link to it, we should probably do so there. Also, by "Hampshire", do you mean the place or the team? If it's the latter (which is what the link suggests), would "with" work better, perhaps?
  • walking the 60 miles (97 km) from Oxford to Southampton hauling his possessions in a tin trunk. – Not sure this quite works: I'd add a "while" in front of "hauling".
  • With his medium pace bowling, he took 39 wickets at a bowling average of 25.03. – The second "bowling" can probably be omitted, as I think it's implied that this is his bowling average (rather than a different sort of average).
  • In just his second County Championship match, he claimed his maiden five wicket haul with figures 5 for 47 against Somerset; – I think "five-wicket" should be hyphenated here. Also, I'd add an "of" after "figures".
  • he took five wickets or more in an innings twice more during the season. – A bit picky, but perhaps do something like "he took five or more wickets in two further innings during the season", to avoid the repetition of "more"?
  • Not a big deal, but we do use "first-class" a fair bit in this section, especially as part of the phrase "first-class appearances". I'd consider cutting it in a few places.
  • In the same number of first-class appearances in 1910, Brown scored – I'd probably just go for "In 23 appearances", as some readers won't recall the number of appearances we mentioned in the previous paragraph (there are quite a few numbers in that paragraph).
  • averaging 22.56 and taking one five wicket haul. – As above, I think this should be hyphenated.
  • In the 1911 English season, he had his most successful season as a bowler, – I'd consider shortening this to something like "The 1911 English season was his most successful as a bowler" (this might require altering the position of the semicolon after this).
  • Done. I have reworded this section to read: "The 1911 English season was his most successful season as a bowler, taking 88 wickets at an average of 25.89. He claimed five or more wickets in an innings on five occasions and ten-wickets in a match once; he ended the season as Hampshire's leading wicket-taker in the County Championship, 20 ahead of Newman's 67 wickets."
  • Hmm. We have three sentences on his bowling in 1911, and include three different "x wickets in a match/an innings" statistics. I'd probably remove the sentence about the six-wicket hauls, as we mention he took five or more wickets on five occasions, which I think most readers will assume probably included at least one or two innings where he took 6 wickets. Let me know what you think.
  • Done. I did consider making note of his season best figures being 6 for 24 against Somerset, but in reflection, it doesn't really add much in the grand scheme, so have removed it. AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He ended the season as Hampshire's leading wicket-taker in the County Championship, 20 ahead of Newman's 67 wickets. – Unless I'm missing something, we state above that he took 88, but 20 + 67 = 87.
  • Done. Sorry, I should have been clearer. He took 88 wickets that season, but played for the MCC earlier in the season, with his bowling being used sparingly, resulting in him taking one wicket. The remainder were in the County Championship. Worth a footnote? AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brown was less prolific in 1912, scoring 630 runs at an average of 20.32 from 29 appearances, – This is probably an annoying one: we use the phrase "at an average of x" quite a lot in this section, and "at an average of x from y appearances" is fairly common here too. If possible, I'd swap some of these out for similar phrases like "averaging x" and "over y matches".
  • He did, however, play an important part in Hampshire's defeat of the touring Australians, taking four key wickets in the match. – I think "in the match" can be omitted here (as I don't think it would've been possible for him to take them outside the match).
  • for the second time and taking his career best bowling figures. – This should be hyphenated, I think. I'd also swap out "taking his" for "achieving", because we use "taking" quite a bit.
  • With the bat, he scored with 1,263 runs at an average of 25.26. – Spare "with". The "With the bat" also feels fairly similar to the first part of the previous sentence. Not sure what's best here: you could merge this information into that sentence, or it might even be appropriate to omit this information altogether, as we've imparted quite a few numbers to the reader at this point.
  • partnership of 325 runs with Cecil Abercrombie (165 runs); – A bit picky, but maybe write this out as "who contributed 165 runs"?
  • With the ball, he was Hampshire's second highest wicket-taker – "second-highest" should be hyphenated, I think.
  • He achieved his career-best bowling figures (8 for 55) against Gloucestershire at Cheltenham, – Hmm. Because we stated this in an earlier sentence, I'd see if the repetition can be removed: I think it works better here, where it's placed in context. I also think that some could interpret "taking his career-best bowling figures" in that earlier sentence to mean he took more wickets in that year than any other in his career.
  • a bowling display characterised by him eliciting considerable swing. – "a bowling display characterised by considerable swing"?
  • In the 1914 season, that was truncated in August by the outbreak of the First World War, – I think "that" should be "which"
  • but did not manage to score a century. – I think "manage to" can probably be omitted here.
  • With the ball, he took 54 wickets at an average of 27.85, but did not achieve any five wicket hauls. – Hyphenate.
  • Done. And removed "with the ball", a habit I have noticed I have fallen into. How else would he take wickets? Not with the bat, a boomerang, or any other object! AA (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the MCC President Francis Lacey confirming the cessation of cricket during the war, first-class cricket in England was suspended until 1919. – This reads a little more naturally to me if it starts with "The MCC President Francis Lacey confirmed ...", as otherwise it might sound as though it was decided in 1914 that 1919 was the year they would return to playing cricket.
  • Done. Now reads: "The MCC President Francis Lacey confirmed the cessation of cricket during the war, with first-class cricket in England remaining suspended until 1919."
  • Unlike many of his peers, Brown did not immediately sign up for service in the war. – I think this could probably be shortened a little: maybe "did not immediately enlist"?
  • In February 1915, he was made superintendent of a recreation hall built for troops near Southampton Docks – Hmm. Was the hall located near Southampton Docks or was it created for use by troops who lived near Southampton Docks?
  • Done. Ah yes, I can see that is ambiguous. Reworded to: "In February 1915, he was made superintendent of a recreation hall built near Southampton Docks which had been furnished by Hampshire County Cricket Club and was to be used by troops."
  • He would be conscripted in 1917, – "was", maybe?
  • He would be conscripted in 1917, though he did not see action. He was discharged in August 1918, on account of rheumatism. – As these sentences are fairly short, I suggest combining them.
  • After the conclusion of the war, Brown returned to a Hampshire team – If possible, I'd omit "the conclusion of".
  • a Hampshire team that had been greatly weakened by the deaths of several pre-war players in the conflict. – I think "pre-war" isn't needed here (as I don't think there was any chance of these dead players continuing their playing careers after the war!). I also think we could get away with omitting "in the conflict", as that's implied.
  • Upon the resumption of first-class cricket in 1919, Brown was selected to represent ... in July, – As we've stated earlier that first-class cricket resumed in 1919, I'd omit that here. Would just "In July 1919, ..." work?
  • represent the Players for the first time in the Gentlemen versus Players match at The Oval – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd give a very brief explanation of what this match was, and who made up the two sides.
  • Done. I have explained who played for who, and why (with a reference). As for the matches themselves, they were "exhibition" matches, loosely tied with selection to the Test team - i.e., someone performed well in this match, they could earn a call to play in a Test, though this was never officially their purpose, and at times the teams were quite weak, particularly the amateurs. AA (talk)
  • whilst later in the season he was chosen to play for the South against the Australian Imperial Forces. – Hmm. These two weren't happening at the same time, and I don't think there's a contrast between the statements, so I'm not sure "whilst" is the right word here. The best solution might be to split these sentences, after the explanation about the Gentlemen v Players match is added.
  • Done and comment Sentence split, I'll insert a brief explanation of what the context of the match was and who made up the teams in terms of "status". AA (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Across the 1919 season, Brown made 19 first-class appearances. In these, he scored – I think these could be combined: "appearances, scoring ..." (this might require tweaking the later part of the sentence).
  • he kept wicket in place of Sydney Maartensz, who was himself deputising for Walter Livsey who was still on active military service. – If possible, I'd avoid the double "who was": maybe omit the first and add a comma after "Livsey"?
  • Done. Though for some reason, the sentence annoys me. What do you think? "In the latter half of the season, he kept wicket in place of Sydney Maartensz who had been deputising for Walter Livsey, who was still on active military service."
  • Despite his bowling being used sparingly in the season (he bowled just 387 balls and took 5 wickets), – I'd go for something like "Despite the sparing use of his bowling". Alternatively, we could just start with "Though he bowled only 387 balls ...".
  • he was adjudged in August 1919 to be the best all-rounder in England. – I'd say who it was that made this judgement.
  • he made six centuries during the season, including two double-centuries in June. – Hmm, should "double-century" be hyphenated?
  • The first, an unbeaten 232, contributed to an innings victory against the – Hmm. By "innings victory", do we mean they won without needing to bat a second time? If so, I might spell this out a bit more, for readers without a cricketing background.
  • Done. Footnote added: " A victory by an innings refers to the team bowling last winning the game, having only batted one innings compared to its opponent's two, thereby winning by an innings and a number of runs." AA (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • against the reigning County Champions Yorkshire; – This reads a little more naturally to me with a comma before "Yorkshire".
  • the second, a score of 230, came against Essex in August in a drawn match – Earlier we said that both double-centuries were made in June. I'd make this consistent.
  • a record that would stand until 2011, when surpassed by James Adams and Michael Carberry. – "when it was", I think.
  • He would end the season as Hampshire's leading run scorer in the County Championship. – I'd write "ended the season". It might also be worth using his name again, as we've referred to other people in the previous sentence.
  • Brown ended the season with 26 wickets at an average of 30.96 in the County Championship. – As we ended the previous sentence with "in the County Championship", I'd omit that phrase here.
  • During the season, Brown made his second appearance in – As I think we're already temporally situated in this season, I'm not sure "During this season" is needed. If we know the month, noting that instead might be good.
Just one minor follow-up point: if possible, see if the "Brown ended the season" phrase in With Kennedy and Newman leading Hampshire's bowling attack, Brown ended the season with 26 wickets at an average of 30.96 can be switched up, as we use the same wording in the previous sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Now reads: "With Kennedy and Newman leading Hampshire's bowling attack in 1920, Brown only took 26 wickets at an average of 30.96." Though I am wondering if "1920" is needed. AA (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brown made his second appearance in Gentlemen versus Players match – "a Gentlemen versus Players match"
  • Gentlemen versus Players match at Lord's – I think this technically reads that saying this was the second such match he'd played at Lord's, whereas above we wrote that the previous match was held at The Oval. Something like "match, which was held at Lord's" might work.
  • Midway through the season, Accrington of the Lancashire League attempted to sign Brown as their professional for the 1921 season, – Is there a word missing before "for", perhaps?

This is down to the end of the "Post-war resumption" section. Everything here is in pretty good order, especially considering this didn't go through a GA review. Looking forward to your responses. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the first 3 sections, please find by responses above, with some queries. AA (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for your very prompt responses. Let's hope I can be just as prompt with the next part of the review! – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've responded to some other suggestions and ones I needed to get around to doing. AA (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on:

  • The match was played after England has suffered two heavy defeats against Australia in the 1921 Ashes series, – "had" works better, I think
  • Making his Test debut at Headingley, Brown made a half century – Maybe switch out "Making" for "On", so as to avoid two "make/made" words?
  • Brown made a half century (57 runs) from the middle order in – Hmm, should "half-century" be hyphenated? Also, I think I might have missed this above (so I'd check for it elsewhere, if you do think it should be changed).
  • In the Fourth Test at Old Trafford, he made 31 runs opening the batting in England's only innings of a rain affected match, – I'd hyphenate "rain-affected" here.
  • while in the drawn Fifth Test he made scores of 32 and 84 opening the batting, – As I'm not sure there's a genuine contrast here, I'd consider using "and" in place of "while".
  • in the drawn Fifth Test he made scores of 32 and 84 opening the batting, sharing in a partnership of 158 runs for the first wicket with Jack Russell in England's second innings – Some slight trimming might be possible here: would something like "in the drawn Fifth Test he opened the batting and scored 32 and 84, the latter as part of a first-wicket partnership of 158 runs with Jack Russell" work? I think the "second innings" part is implied this way.
I think this didn't fully make it into the article, so I've implemented the rest of the wording myself. Hopefully that's alright. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Arlott remarking how he had played well against the fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, – As this seems to be the first place we mention him in the body, I'd use his full name, link him, and include the short introduction ("cricket historian").
  • Done. Now properly introduced.
  • the fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, whom his contemporaries struggled against – A nitpick: "against whom his contemporaries struggled" sounds slightly more natural to me.
  • Brown made 28 appearances in 1922, scored 988 runs at an average of 21.18, whilst taking 17 wickets at an average of 34.94 – Nothing wrong with this sentence itself, but it reads quite similarly to the previous one: if possible, I'd try to switch up the wording a little.
  • He played in the team that opposed Warwickshire at Edgbaston in the County Championship in June, that resulted in an unlikely victory for Hampshire. – Hmm. The words "opposed" and "that" read a little awkwardly here to me: would something like "In the County Championship in June, he played in an unlikely victory against Warwickshire ..." work? I think the mention of his team can probably be elided (as it's been mentioned above).
  • Done. I've had a go at rewording his a little: "He played in an unlikely victory by 155 runs against Warwickshire at Edgbaston in the County Championship in June. Hampshire were all out (I've linked "all out" to End of an innings) for 15 runs in their first innings, with Brown one of eight batsmen to be dismissed without scoring]], and were forced to follow on 228 runs behind. I felt inserting "Hampshire" made it read more naturally than before, and added "all out" to repeat the use of "dismissed" twice in short succession. How does that read? AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hampshire were forced to follow-on 228 runs behind – I'd delink "follow-on", as it was mentioned above. Also, I wonder if "follow on" should have the hyphen when it's used as a verb? (This might apply above as well.)
  • behind; They performed better in the second innings, – Generally, I wouldn't use a capital letter after a semicolon. Convert to a full stop, maybe?
  • a partnership of 177 runs for the ninth wicket with Livsey, that was made in only 140 minutes. – "which" is better here, I think.
  • Brown's innings was crucial to Hampshire's eventual victory by 155 runs. – Hmm, this feels a tad redundant to me, as we said earlier that he was the top scorer, and we've mentioned that they won the match. The "155 runs" could probably be worked into an earlier sentence, if you wanted.
  • Done. Rejigged the "155 runs" and omitted the remainder. AA (talk)
  • Livsey broke a finger in the tour match against North Eastern Districts and so Brown kept-wicket. – Shouldn't be hyphenated, I don't think.
  • Brown's batting declined over the following three seasons, with him failing to pass a thousand runs in a season from 1923 to 1925 and his batting average not surpassing 23. – I think this can be compacted a little: something like "Brown's batting declined from 1923 to 1925, each season scoring less than a thousand runs and averaging less than 23", maybe?
  • Done. Now reads: Brown's batting declined from 1923 to 1925, scoring less than a thousand runs in each season and averaging under 23. Have used "under" to avoid a double use of "less". AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had his most successful season in the 1926 season, – Maybe "The 1926 season was his most successful"?
  • surpassing 2,000 runs ... His 2,040 runs from 31 matches ... Despite passing 2,000 runs, – I'd see if this can be condensed a little.
  • Done. Starting from "The 1926 season..." now reads: "The 1926 season was his most successful, scoring 2,040 runs from 31 matches at an average of exactly 40, with six centuries. Despite surpassing 2,000 runs for the only time in his career, he was not Hampshire's leading run-scorer in the County Championship; that accolade belonged to Mead (2,274 runs).". How's that? AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • His five centuries by July earned him a recall to the England Test team for the Fifth Test – I'd omit "to the England Test team" here, as I think that's implied.
  • of the 1926 Ashes series, however he injured his thumb making his sixth century of the season against Leicestershire immediately before the Test, – Not sure "however" quite works here: maybe go for a semicolon ("series; however, he injured")?
  • the Folkestone Cricket Festival, where he played one match each – Definitely a nitpick, but "playing one match each", maybe?
  • the touring party for the MCC's winter tour of India and Ceylon, that lasted from November 1926 to February 1927. – "which", I think.
  • Playing in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, – "the tour"
  • Playing in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, he scored 591 runs at an average of 26.86, and in Ceylon he played in two first-class matches, scoring 79 runs. – Could this perhaps be shortened to something like "He played in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, scoring 591 runs at an average of 26.86, and two first-class matches in Ceylon, scoring 79 runs"?
  • He scored four centuries and made his third career double century, – A bit of a nitpick, but maybe "scored four centuries, including his third career double century"?
  • In 1928, he was afforded a benefit match at the end of June against Surrey, – Assuming it's the correct link, you could add Surrey County Cricket Club.
  • Brown tore a ligament in the match; this kept him out of the Hampshire team for three weeks and limited his appearances to 18. – As the first part is fairly short here, I think this might work better without the semicolon ("match, keeping him out ...").
  • He made 27 appearances in 1929, – As we used "appearances" near the end of the last sentence, maybe write "played 27 matches"?
  • Brown found himself deputising for Livsey as wicket-keeper – I'd probably go for "Brown deputised".
  • he had returned home ill from a winter coaching engagement in South Africa and was subsequently invalided out for the entire season. In 32 appearances in 1930, Brown scored – Hmm. Let me know if I'm missing something here, but how did he play 32 matches if he was invalided out for the whole season?
    Oops, I've just realised we meant that Livsey returned home ill. Maybe write "after the latter had returned home ill", in case others read it the same way? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Haha, no worries. I went with: "Brown deputised for Livsey as wicket-keeper at the beginning of the 1930 season, after Livsey had returned home ill from a winter coaching engagement in South Africa and was invalided out for the entire season." AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • as wicket-keeping, he took 48 catches and made 16 stumpings. – "wicket-keeper"
  • He scored 1,032 runs at an average of exactly 24, and took 37 catches and made 13 stumpings keeping-wicket. – To me, this would read slightly better as a list ("24, took 37 catches, and ..."). I also think "keeping-wicket" could be omitted here.
exactly 24, took 37 catches and made 13 stumpings – Super minor, but we use an Oxford comma elsewhere, so I'd do so here as well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brown toured Jamaica with Lord Tennyson's thirteen–man team – Hyphen rather than endash ("-" vs "–").
  • In the 1933 season, Brown made 26 appearances, scoring 1,075 runs at an average of exactly 25. – Nothing wrong with this on its own, but the wording is similar to the previous sentence, so I'd see if it can be varied up a bit.
That's good, thanks. One more thought: to avoid the "scoring x at an average of y" phrasing, could we perhaps switch scoring 1,075 runs at an average of exactly 25 to scoring 1,075 runs and averaging exactly 25? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • His season was interrupted in June by a fractured skull that caused him to miss some matches. – As "season was interrupted" and "miss some matches" feel similar in nature, maybe go for something like "In June, he fractured his skull, causing ..."? Also, do we know the number of matches he missed?
  • Done and comment. Went with that wording. In terms of matches missed, he was out between 21 June and 12 July, during which time Hampshire played three matches. Would it be presumptive or WP:OR to assume he would have played in all three? He almost certainly would have, but would it be supposition? AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the source specifies that three matches took place in that time, I think we're in the clear to say that he "missed" them. If the source gives those dates, and these matches were occurring at very regular intervals (such as once a week, which the dates you've given would seem to suggest), then I think it's also fine. If not, I think there are ways around this (including opting for something "miss several matches", which is a little more precise). Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • retire from first-class cricket at the end of the 1933 season to play for Rishton in the Lancashire League, – I'd link Rishton Cricket Club
  • He was injured in an accident prior to the start of the season, with him not sufficiently recovering to play during the summer. – "and did not sufficiently recover" sounds a tad more natural to me.
  • He subsequently retired in September, alongside Kennedy. – I think "subsequently" can probably be omitted here. Also, you could connect this to the previous sentence with a semicolon, as it's quite short.
  • he was granted a testimonial in 1934 that raised £292, which was presented to Brown in December by Sir Russell Bencraft. – I think "Brown" could probably be replaced with "him".

This is down to the end of the "Later career" section. I'll hopefully finish up the rest tomorrow. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for another thorough review of those sections. Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is down to the end:

  • The cricket writer Bill Frindall later described Brown as – By "later", I think we mean that these comments were made after Brown's death? As this isn't entirely explicit, perhaps replace it with "in 1989" or omit it?
  • Summarising his all-round credentials, A. A. Thomson – This seems to be the second mention in the body, so I'd omit the link and initials here.
  • A. A. Thomson wrote he "could bat, bowl, [and] keep wicket". – Perhaps personal taste, but "wrote that" sounds slightly more natural to me.
  • He was adept at both hooking and driving the ball, in addition to his own shot – I didn't know what "hooking" was, admittedly. Maybe go for a link to wikt:hook shot or Batting (cricket)#Pull and hook? There's perhaps an argument that a similar link should be added to "driving", though that one might be more self-explanatory.
  • in addition to his own shot – the whip – that was a forward shot played to any ball that was fast and short. – "which" sounds a little better in place of the first "that", to me. Alternatively, I think "the whip – a forward shot ..." would work.
  • Conversely, E. W. Swanton theorised that Brown's approach was more a reflection of his mood on the day, as opposed to the state of the match, an opinion matched by Arlott. – "matched" basically makes sense here, though "shared" sounds a little more natural to me (and we also use "match" a few words earlier).
  • His physical strength also enabled him to bowl long spells. – Nothing amiss with the wording here, but "spell" might be a little cricket-ese. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a perfect linking option here: I don't think we can link to the specific "spell" entry at Glossary of cricket terms (only the section), and it's difficult to find the relevant definition at wikt:spell. Alternatively, you could give a brief explanation of the term in brackets or, if it doesn't change the meaning too much, rephrase this to something like "bowl for long periods of time".
  • Brown's bowling bordered on being genuinely fast, with him utilising sharp, late outswing. – I'd link outswinger. And sorry to slap you with the style guides, but I'd just write "used" (see, for example, Gowers on "utilised").
  • He would score a thousand runs or more in a season on eleven occasions. – "scored", maybe?
  • For Hampshire he made 539 appearances, scoring 22,962 runs; he has the third-highest number of runs for Hampshire in first-class cricket, behind Roy Marshall and Mead. – As we use "for Hampshire" a few times across this and the next sentence, maybe swap the second out for "the county"?
  • He made 37 centuries, all for Hampshire, alongside 96 half-centuries for the county. – Maybe "He made 37 centuries and 96 half-centuries for Hampshire"?
  • He shared in a three-figure partnership for every Hampshire wicket, except the sixth. – I don't think there's much chance of "every Hampshire wicket" being read as "every wicket in Hampshire", but the phrase does read slightly oddly to me, and it might be ideal to avoid another use of "Hampshire". If we appended this to the previous sentence, I think we'd be able to write something like "and shared in a three-figure partnership for each wicket, except the sixth".
  • He took 626 wickets at an average of 29.81 in his career, while for Hampshire he took 602 wickets, – As I'm not sure there's a genuine contrast here, maybe write "602 of which were for Hampshire"?
  • taking five-wickets or more in an innings on 23 occasions and ten-wickets in a match twice. – No hyphens here, I think.
  • drawing comparisons to Percy Chapman. – I think this could sound as though Thomson was the one making these comparisons. Something like "with E. W. Swanton comparing him to Percy Chapman" could work. It might also be worth noting Chapman's fielding ability, so it's a little clearer why this comparison is significant.
  • with the Hampshire Advertiser considering Brown to be "the finest fielder in the world" in 1920 – I'd use "him" for "Brown"
  • In his entire first-class career he took 567 catches and made 79 stumpings, – As "stumpings" was mentioned above, I'd recommend transferring the link there (the first mention seems to be he took 48 catches and made 16 stumpings).
  • He spent two seasons on the list, standing in 45 first-class matches. – As we mentioned it as the first-class list in the previous sentence, I think we'd be able to omit "first-class" here.
  • an experimental law was introduced in which the batsman could be dismissed leg before wicket (lbw) even if the ball pitched outside the line of off stump. – I fear this might be a little technical for non-cricket fans. Maybe add a link to Stump (cricket)#Part of the wicket? Another option would be to point the reader to Leg before wicket#Definition, which contains a good explanation of the concept.
  • In an opening match of 1935 County Championship between Kent and Leicestershire, Brown became the first umpire – I'd write "match of the 1935 ...".
  • Also, is "the" opening match correct here? If not, maybe write "In one of the first matches of the ..." or something similar?
  • Comment. Strictly speaking, yes, as it was one of the first round of matches in the County Championship. However, the wording you have used is much simplier and concise. AA (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not the first time that Brown had encountered legal troubles. – Hmm. I initially read this as saying that Brown himself was the one who had been in trouble. More broadly, this story seems a tad out of place to me, as chronologically it fits into the section above. You could try working it into that earlier section, but I understand it might seem out of place there too, given the title is "Cricket career". Another option would be to remove this altogether, if that seems appropriate (that his son-in-law was convicted for assaulting him doesn't feel as though it's super crucial information about Brown himself).
  • In 1931 the estranged husband of his daughter and several of his family members – This only applies if we keep this part: I'd clarify whether we're referring to Brown's family members or the family members of the husband.
  • Brown had a son, also called George, who served as a police officer during the Second World War – Maybe "Brown had a son, George"?
  • In his latter years, he overcame several illnesses that Arlott remarked "only his mighty constitution could have survived". – "which" works a little better here, to my ears.
  • He was subsequently cremated and his ashes spread over the County Ground in Southampton – I think we could probably omit "subsequently" here.
  • the presence of cricketing peers and family; family members present included his wife, Mabel, and his daughter. – I think this could be condensed a little: something along the lines of "the presence of cricketing peers and family members, including his wife, Mabel, and daughter" would work.

Everything here seems nicely done to me: the writing is clear and accessible, and the coverage looks comprehensive. I don't see any issues with the sources, which include print books, and seem to be reliable and appropriate to the topic. The above suggestions consist mostly of minor prose recommendations, and I see nothing substantial standing in the way of a support. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just come back from a long weekend in Moldova, shall get back to this! AA (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for a very thorough review. Please find above my responses to the last part of your review. Cheers, AA (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: Wow! That sounds like an enjoyable trip. Thanks for your collegiality during this review. Everything looks good here to me, so I'm happy to support. – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A thoroughly enjoyable trip, despite the -12°C temperature! Thank you for taking the time to do such an in-depth review. It's been very helpful and given me some pointers I've copied over to Dimitri Mascarenhas, who I hope will be an FA at some point in the coming months. Cheers again, AA (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Johnson (snooker player)

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Rodney Baggins [reply]

This article is about the unlikely winner of the 1986 World Snooker Championship, who was known for his carefree attacking play and his fancy shoes. After a largely unsuccessful year as champion, he reached the final again in 1987 but lost. He did win further, lesser, titles as a professional and retired in 2005. A survivor of seven heart attacks, he is still playing on the seniors snooker circuit. Rodney Baggins has kindly addressed the issues found at the first nomination. Thanks in advance for improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. I know very little about snooker so this should be considered a non-expert review. Hog Farm Talk 18:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson started off as a 150‍–‍1 outsider at the 1986 World Championship." - I think there needs to be some sort of gloss as to what this means. Is this gambling odds?
I added a wikilink to odds. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • " As an amateur, he became the British under-19 champion in 1971, defeating Tony Knowles in the final." - the article body does not state that he defeated Knowles in the 1971 competition (and the article at British Junior Snooker Championship claimed he defeated one George Crimes, sourced to an offline 1970s newspaper article)
Corrected the lead, added this into the body. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was the most significant win of Johnson's professional career up to that point" - should this be attributed?
As this derives from a newspaper article, I've removed it. This win isn't mentioned in Morrison (1987), Morrison (1988) or Williams & Gadsby, Paul (2005). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was Johnson's first televised match as a professional," - this is stated in a section which is referring to 1983, but earlier in the article is "Johnson achieved little success in his early professional career and gained a reputation for not performing well in televised matches." which I would assume to be referring to things before 1983 given that amount of discussion and career events between these two statements. Especially since he seems to have had world ranking points by 1983 which I wouldn't think would go with "achieved little success"?

Ready for the 1986 World Champion section; I hope to have time to continue the review tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has the reliability of Chris Turner's Snooker Archive been discussed at FAC before?
  • " "Johnson's world bid Comes to painful end"" - is there a reason for the odd inconsistency in capitalization within this source title?

Mostly through the article; I still need to cross-reference the timelines against the main article body text to check for inconsistencies. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Warrior

[edit]
Nominator(s): Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fictional alien species from the British science-fiction television series Doctor Who. The Ice Warriors are a reptilian race who hail from the planet Mars, and serve as recurring characters within the series.

Round two! I previously nominated this at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice Warrior/archive1. Though that was not passed, it has undergone some extensive work courtesy of reviews from other editors on the prior FAC, as well as thanks to a visit to the GOCE and additional copyedits from User:Olliefant. As it stands I believe I have addressed all of the major concerns from the prior FAC nomination and made sure it has thoroughly been gone over. Hopefully it will go better this time. Any and all comments are appreciated! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:DWE_Ice_Warrior_(20814233031).jpg: could you elaborate on why this is believed to meet UK freedom of panorama rules? It does not appear to be permanent. Ditto /File:Cardiff_Bay_-_Dalek_-_geograph.org.uk_-_5253753.jpg, File:Cyberman_based_on_The_Moonbase.jpg, File:DWE_S07_Ice_Warrior.jpg, File:DWE_S10_Ice_Warrior.jpg
For the Ice Lord image: Yes, the channel that's from is an affiliated and official channel associated with the series, so it should be authorized (So long as it is properly tagged, of course). For the other images, Doctor Who Experience has previously been discussed (Such as at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_34#Derivative work question and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Silence_(11030194386).jpg) and has been kept and used historically in articles in the past, so that hopefully should be fine, but if it is not, that would likely warrant a further, project-wide discussion given how widely images from there are used. The Cyberman image, I've discovered, actually is not from DWE as I thought it was, so I've replaced it with an image from there for the time being and nominated the OG for deletion (Since it instead hails from a very short-lived event). I've removed the fixed px size on the lead. Let me know if anything further needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing a strong consensus that this interpretation is correct in those links. What did you have in mind in terms of project-wide discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who about the topic, which is likely to get the active Who editors' attention. A potential discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television could also do for wider, non Doctor Who editor consensus as well, though I'm admittedly unsure of which WikiProject to center the discussion at, so I would appreciate your suggestion on that. Hopefully discussion will help finally settle this given it's been an ongoing discussion to an extent.
For the purposes of this FAC, I can temporarily remove the DWE images and replace the lead image with a fair use one while the discussion is ongoing? Granted I'm admittedly unsure of what to do for a situation like this, since it's a bit of a unique case I haven't run into before. I appreciate any advice in that regard. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine in terms of images. In terms of discussion, though, I'm not sure that's the best choice - what we really need is input regarding copyright status. WP:MCQ might be a better bet. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I can start an MCQ discussion. Should relevant Projects be notified as well?
Will get on images shortly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, unless the images need to be removed more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by more broadly? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have started an MCQ discussion. For the time being I've added a fair use image for the Ice Warriors, substituting the old Ice Lord one. This hails from the show's official website and is used for promotional purposes. I've subbed in a few other free images as well that should be non-controversial temporarily as well. All have ALT text added for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I fear it has been over a week with no response at the MCQ discussion. What should I do in regard to next steps? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to this article, the images currently present are appropriately licensed/justified, so the current status is fine as far as this nomination goes. Beyond this nomination, you could try pinging MCQ contributors or posting pointers to the MCQ post at WT:IUP or other relevant pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

[edit]

Prose review: I made copy-edits to the article while I was reading.

  • I think the first and second paragraphs, and the third and fourth paragraphs in "In spin-off media", need to be merged as one-sentence paragraphs make the format a little wonky.
  • "For the 1974 season," in the UK, aren't these called "series"?
  • In general, the "Reception" section follows the "X said Y" pattern that makes this section quite long and uninteresting. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION on ideas of how to avoid this sentence format.
  • "highlighted the use of the Ice Warriors in The Curse of Peladon as the episode's "ace"." What does being an episode's "ace" mean? This should be reworded in the article.

Please ping when the reception section is edited and this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-I have elected to merge the first three paras into one, as they are summarizing overall species appearances. The fourth para I left separate since it discusses a particular Ice Warrior character. This should pare down the para splits while keeping each section focused, but let me know if you disagree with this formatting.
-The seasons that aired in the show's original run are officially referred to as seasons, whereas those from the show's 2005 revival are officially referred to as series.
-I've reworded the "ace" line, let me know if it needs further tweaking.
I need a little time to workshop the reception and review your provided essay. I'll let you know when that's done (Hopefully in one or two days' time) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 addressed your reception concerns to the best of my ability. I've tried shuffling them around and rewording them to make them flow better, and made sure the topic sentences were more direct and focused. I'm not sure if this has addressed your concerns, so I would appreciate a re-read to see.
I've also elected to shift the fourth paragraph and shuffle its constituent parts throughout the article, which should help with making the reception feel less disjointed and boost the coverage in other areas. Let me know if this is good or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now think the first paragraph of the "Spin off media" is quite large. I suggest splitting this up into two paragraphs.
  • I still think the reception suffers from X says Y. Consider the last paragraph, where every sentence except the first follows this format. The section already seems like it is grouped into themes of appearances (first, second, etc.). The next step is to combine what two or more reviewers said about them. For example, if three reviews said that the IW were the best part of The Curse of Peladon, the article could say "Several reviewers stated that the Ice Warriors were the best aspect of The Curse of Peladon" and then cite all three reviews. The average reader doesn't care about the individual thoughts of a reviewer they have never heard of before: they want to know what reviewer's reception of the chracters were, and they want to be able to read the information quickly. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "season" is still used several times in the article, when I think British English uses "series" instead. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720
    -I have split off the bit of analysis on these spin-off appearances to its own paragraph; I am not sure if that resolves the problem of size or not, so let me know on that.
    -The season v series debacle was something I mentioned in my earlier response. For Doctor Who, seasons are used to refer to Classic era stuff (Things that aired in the show's original 1963-1989 run), while series are used to refer to revival era stuff (Things that aired from 2005 onwards). Take, for example, Doctor Who season 5, a 1960s season, vs Doctor Who series 5, a 2010s season; the naming helps to differentiate the two and avoid confusion. While traditionally series are used for British programs, seasons have historically been used for specifically Classic stuff, both in and outside of Wikipedia.
    -I've tried trimming and condensing commentary per your advice, though I've elected to keep some comments that are very noteworthy about the wider topic of the paragraph intact. This should hopefully help make it less "X says Y" than before, as it's gone down from 6 or so in the final paragraph to only 2 usages, for example, with the rest of the sources summarized with overarching commentary. I've tried doing trims on all three paragraphs per your suggestion, let me know if this is good and if anything more needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The reception section is a lot better, and all of my concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by NegativeMP1

[edit]

As part of a review exchange. Will be doing a spotcheck within the next couple of days; I will be checking 2 5ths of the article citations or as many as possible (if lower than the 2 5ths count due to print sourcing). λ NegativeMP1 00:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ran into a problem: The print sourcing here is a lot more abundant than expected. I could not check 2 5ths. I have checked what I can, but if this is deemed unsatisfactory, I may have to request page excerpts or another review may be required. Anyways, 21 sources were checked, which I guess is close enough:

Confident enough to say that this article passes the spot check. λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1 I have a physical copy of 34 if you need page numbers and quotes for it. I can also get any quotes from certain other print sources, such as the Complete History, if need be. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I was able to check a sizeable amount of the sources. I'm still comfortable labeling this a pass. I appreciate the offer though. λ NegativeMP1 04:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships is well on its way to Featured Article. The team skating event from the 2022 Winter Olympics is Beijing is one of the most notorious skating competitions in recent history. The concept is simple: ten of the most prolific nations in figure skating enter their best skaters in competition, skaters earn points based on how they rank in terms of results, and after two rounds, medals are awarded. Except that last part didn't happen. Just before the medal ceremony was scheduled to take place, the IOC announced that it was postponed indefinitely because the Russian women's skater had tested positive for a banned substance. Now, Russia was already on thin ice – no pun intended – for, *checks notes*, a history of systemic doping. Two years of litigation followed before the gold and silver medals were finally awarded at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. Anyway, there is a lot to this article: an explanation of required skating elements, an explanation of how skating events are judged, two rounds of skating with four events each, plus the rigamarole that followed. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written, the sources are properly formatted and archived where possible, and relevant photographs are used. I look forward to any and all constructive feedback and am willing to answer any questions. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Bgsu98, I can't see where coordinator permission to open a second nomination has been granted. Could you provide the diff ASAP, thanks. I would advice potential reviewers to hang fire for a little while this is resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a third support was logged on the previous nomination, which I assumed was the hangup there yesterday. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see. But that doesn't constitute coordinator permission. I had noticed The Dude's support but remained unconvinced that the nom had garnered enough support overall. However, it is marginal, so, sure, go ahead with this one. N'owt wrong with eagerness, but it can be overdone.
Potential reviewers, fire at will. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I was just going by what I had done with the last nomination. No disrespect intended, and thank you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And none taken. Well, only momentarily. I can see where you were coming from. I am always concerned about "thin end of the wedge-ism", which probably makes me a bit twitchy. You have hit a nice rhythm of nominating good quality articles over the past six months and it is good to see another. The best of luck with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskatingfan review

[edit]

Source review: I'm just checking to see if the URLs work, not checking to see if your sources support your claims, mostly because I know you're pretty good at that.

  • I suggest that you go through your sources and mark the access levels for all the subscription-required sources, like the Washington Post or NYT. Done.
  • Ref7: Ah you're using the color schedule! Such a valuable tool, but I hate using it because it's so hard to read. But anyway, because it's hard to find stuff, I suggest that you cite the page numbers, even though the document is just three pages. Of course, that means that you have to move the source into your Works cited section and perhaps use the sfn template for each ref. The team event is only on p. 2, so I added the page number to the citation; no need for any extra work, though.
  • Ref65: Ref doesn't match description. It's matching up for me?
Oh I see what happened, after going to the archived version. The page has several small articles and there's an anchor taking you there. Never mind. ;)

The prose looks good, up to the high quality we're all used to with these competition articles. My only issue is in the Results (final round)/Pairs section, 2nd paragraph: "...finished in fifth place after Knierim flubbed a triple jump as a single..." The word "flubbed" is too informal and peacocky. Picky, I know, but please re-word. Done.

Other than these few issues, this article continues to uphold the high quality of the series of Bgsu98's figure skating competition articles. Once these items are addressed, I will support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureskatingfan: All of these should be addressed. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay looks good. Enthusiastic SUPPORT.
Off the point, but why not bring it up here, anyway. After reading and reviewing this article, and after watching the first three disciplines compete during the team event today, I'm wondering if "Team Event—Figure skating" should be created. What do you think, pal? If you agree, I'm willing to take it on, at least before the 2030 Olympics. Thanks for your good and hard work; keep it up, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: I'm thinking it should be Figure skating team event (Olympics) or something similar, since this format is unique to the Olympics. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

@Bgsu98: Hi i'll review this. Ping me if i don't get to this soon. 750h+ 14:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Thank you so much, I appreciate your time! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Karma (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another FAC for a Taylor Swift song... I ran out of things to say lol ("Karma is the guy from the Chiefs"?). Looking forward to any and all comments regarding this candidature, Ippantekina (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • The song was written and produced by Swift, Jack Antonoff, Sounwave, and Keanu Beats; and Jahaan Sweet was a co-writer.
    • The semicolon is incorrect here. You can either use a comma or rephrase the sentence.
  • It features cosmic imagery and features her and Ice Spice in outer space.
    • Is there any way to avoid repeating "features"?
Critical reception
  • "deeming Ice Spice's delivery lacking of the" → “deeming Ice Spice's delivery lacking”

MSincccc (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • “US” → “U.S.”
Background and release
  • “singing onto a mic” → “singing into a mic” (image alt text)
Live performances
  • “fireworks flew on the stage” → “flew above the stage”
    • Incorrect preposition.

MSincccc (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done except "U.S." per MOS:US ("Some American style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), have deprecated U.S. and recommend US.") Ippantekina (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina Thank you for your responses. I have no further suggestions at the moment, but I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

Here'll be a media review from me! Arconning (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Taylor Swift feat Ice Spice - Karma.png - Fair use
  • File:Ice Spice Next Wav by Keinoflo uploaded by James Tamim V9 (cropped) 2022.png - CC BY 3.0, missing alt-text for accessibility
  • File:Taylor Swift The Eras Tour Midnights Era Set (53110031390) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Karma - Taylor Swift ft. Ice Spice (music video screenshot).png - Fair use, missing alt-text for accessibility
  • File:Karma by Taylor Swift.ogg - Fair use
  • All media used are relevant to the article with proper captioning, hold for other comments.
Passing image review. :) Arconning (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The lead only discusses the positive reception for the song, but the "Critical reception" section has a paragraph about more negative reviews, so this should be included as well.
  • The second paragraph of the "Background and release" section is quite repetitive, particularly with the amount of times that "released" is used. This is most apparent with the first three sentences. I would try to avoid this as it does make the prose less engaging as a result.
  • Is it really necessary to include when the Ice Spice remix was announced? I am just not entirely sure if anything would be lost by just including the remix's release date instead, as there does not seem to be anything particularly notable about the announcement date.
  • I have not kept up with Taylor Swift's personal life, so apologies in advance if this is obvious. I have a question about this wording: "alleged romantic linking with the English singer-songwriter Matty Healy". Is this relationship still just alleged? When I see people talk about it online, it seems like something that was confirmed, but I know that online discussions can fast and loose with facts.
  • I would link Hail Mary in the quote, "last-minute Hail Mary", to the Hail Mary pass article, as I could see some readers not being familiar with this type of jargon or slang.
  • I have a question about the inclusion of the following phrase: As listed in the liner notes of Midnights. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, as it can be beneficial to clarify where this credits are coming from in the prose. I was just curious about it as I do not believe this was done in previous Taylor Swift song articles (unless I am mistaken, and if so apologies in advance). What is the reason for including this phrasing?
  • Apologies in advance, as this is more nitpick-y than anything, but does the song establish a gender for the narrator? The song uses feminine pronouns for the narrator, which is understandable as a female singer is performing it, but I was curious about the choice for this.
  • There is some slight repetition in this part, featuring additional writing credits from Ice Spice and RiotUSA, features Ice Spice, with featuring/features. I would revise one of these instances to avoid this.
  • Was there any coverage about Ice Spice's lyrics for her second verse?
  • The quote, "sleekest, most flexible production tendencies", seems incomplete to me. I would instead say: Antonoff's "sleekest, most flexible production tendencies". The current phrasing just does not seem correct, at least to me.
  • The Rolling Stone source mentions how fans thought that "Karma" was something like to a "long-rumored lost album". Is there any further information on this or is this just fan speculation?
  • That makes sense. I had a feeling that was the case, but it caught my eye, so I just wanted to double-check about it. I completely agree that a Wikipedia article is not the place for random rumors and speculation. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another more nitpick-y note, but I am rather uncertain about "however" in this context: However, Billboard and USA Today named the remix one of the best songs of 2023. It is in the manual of style for words to watch, so maybe a different transition would be better?
  • I read the MOS and such words ("However") should cautiously be used because it can create a relationship where it doesn't exist. In this case, I think its use is justified as it establishes a rightful relationship between the underwhelming reviews and the year-end best-of lists. Ippantekina (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any of the critics comment on the song being "damage control" by Swift, or was this something that was just discussed on social media?
  • I am not entirely sure what this quote means, "covered the one area inside the mainstream that she was no longer really able to touch". Could you clarify this for me?
  • That makes sense. While Ice Spice is still around, she does not seem as mainstream, at least in comparison to this Taylor Swift collaboration. This and her Nicki Minaj collaborations ("Princess Diana" and "Barbie World" seem to have been her big moments (and that all happened roughly around the same time period. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be mindful of citation overkill, specifically with the last sentence of the "Commercial performance" section, which uses five citations in a row.
  • Are there any examples of the Easter eggs in the music video? I am just curious because I have not heard this song or seen its music video, so this seem rather vague on its own. Maybe, this could be further unpacked in an endnote, if you feel like it would be too cumbersome to discuss directly in the prose?
  • I always find it helpful to alphabetize the categories. I just find that it makes navigating them easier, but this is not a requirement by any means. It is just something that I wanted to bring up as a suggestion.

I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoba, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Ippantekina (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aoba, I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns otherwise :) Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I have left some replies above, but I am just agreeing with the changes and the edits that you have made to the article. The only outstanding thing left would be to add the Wikitionary link for Hail Mary, but that is a minor point, and it will not hold my review in any way, shape, or form. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review as always--super helpful comments :) Ippantekina (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grand People's Study House

[edit]
Nominator(s): - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a library in Pyongyang, North Korea. I believe the article should be featured due to the library's cultural and educational significance within the country. As always, I'm open to feedback! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Icepinner

[edit]

I'll be focusing on sources (2c and 1c of WP:FA?) for this review. It's a bit late here, but a cursory inspection of the bibliography reveals that only one of the sources, Song p. 19, is cited with an SFN/HARVCITE template, whereas every other book/journal article is cited using a {{cite [media]}} template; either convert them all to SFNs/HARVCITE, or convert Song p. 19 to be cited like the other sources. Other than that, I am concerned with the use of Lonely Planet; how does this meet the bar for "high-quality reliable sources"? I also note that Daily NK is cited, so to anyone interested in spotchecking, do be aware per WP:DAILYNK. More comments to come tomorrow. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made the refs consistent, and I'll get back to work once I'm at a computer - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:DAILYNK has this to say: However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of DAILYNK's RSP description, just pointing that out to anyone who stumbled upon this nomination. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 12:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
[edit]

Full disclosure, this is my first time evaluating prose for FAC, so do have some patience :) I do apologise in advance if the comments don't help, but we need to start somewhere. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's all I have, OpalYosutebito. Feel free to oppose any of my suggestions. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work (and maybe get back to you) once I'm at a computer - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Icepinner I'll get back to expansion with the ref ideas sometime tomorrow morning. I'm not feeling well and Internet Archive was being slow as hell on my end :( - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do get well; it's not fun to stress over review when you're sick (I learnt that the hard way a while ago). And yeah, Wayback Machine being slow is incredibly annoying. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 05:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding! I should get some rest before I say something robophobic! :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 05:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LastJabberwocky

[edit]

To date, I commented on three FA reviews:one of them failed (sorry) and two other comments weren't ideal to my eyes. That's said I'll try to add some miscellaneous comments. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been linking more and more authors, websites and publishers. I'm finding most of my sources through this custom search engine from the GA review - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I moved the coordinates up to the infobox :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the grammar and added architectural info to the infobox. While I'm okay with there being images, I'm not entirely opposed to the gallery being better integrated into the article or even flat-out removed - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref titled "네이버 뉴스 라이브러리" can be translated to english. Look for other similar cases
  • It's worth to reach out to korean wikiproject for help with finding sources. I still feel that there should be more coverage for us to discover
  • check whether we credit the authors in each source
  • link as many publishers/websites/journals as you can
  • prepare to defend inclusion of each picture and inclusion of a gallery :)
  • Consider adding architectural style and coordinates to the infobox
  • Do we know the name of architect and some people who worked on the library? If you find manage to find architect, they can be added into infobox
  • It is located in the centre of the capital, situated on Kim Il Sung Square by the banks of the Taedong River, and it is near the Juche Tower, further establishing a connection between the people and the Juche ideology. ----> It is located in the centre of the capital, situated on Kim Il Sung Square by the banks of the Taedong River and opposite of the Juche Tower. Both landmarks establish a connection between North Korean people and the Juche ideology.
  • Not an obligation, just keep in mind that FA people seem to discourage starting a sentence with a subordinate clause because it is rarely elegant. Like this one: Serving as a manifestation of leader Kim Il Sung's "spirit and wisdom",[9] the Study House was one of the few buildings in Pyongyang[10][11] that was constructed in a neo-traditional Korean style, having been built to resemble a chosŏnjip[12] at the insistence of Kim Jong Il.

I am supporting FA promotion based on prose assessment, quality of sources, and broadness. As it's author's only second nomination, it would be nice to have fresh eyes to perform a spotcheck. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/26/26)

[edit]
Lead
  • "...and opposite of the Juche Tower." --> The "of" is not needed.
  • Ideally, there should be no citations in the lead, since everything in the lead should be repeated elsewhere in the article. So what is currently source no. 2 should theoretically fit elsewhere.
  • "Staff members are then required to return the item right away." This is unclear, since the previous sentence refers to patrons not returning materials on time. Who is being required to return books on time?
History
  • "In 1973, the library was again renamed to the Central Library, and renamed to the Grand People's Study House in 1982" --> Those "to"s are not needed.
  • "Construction of the Grand People's Study House"
  • "students studying abroad were ordered to return to North Korea for the first time in 5 years to resume ideological education." --> That 5 should be spelled out "five".
Features
  • The photo caption does not need a period.
  • "having been built to resemble a chosŏnjip at the insistence..." --> Readers should not have to navigate to another page to understand the meaning of a sentence. Recommend something along the lines of "having been built to resemble a chosŏnjip – a traditional Korean house – at the insistence..."
  • "In each room and in every atrium..." --> Condense that down to "In each room and atrium..."
  • "The library is also decorated with chandeliers and paintings of Mount Paektu, which statues of Kim Il Sung are positioned in front of." --> Recommend slightly rephrasing "The library is also decorated with chandeliers and paintings of Mount Paektu, before which statues of Kim Il Sung are positioned."
Collection
  • "In North Korea, a library's size is determined by the number of books it is expected to store;[19][20] in this case, the Grand People's Study House can house up to 30 million books,[16][7][21] which include around 10,800 documents written by Kim Il Sung, including his "on-the-spot guidance",[22] but the actual collection size is unknown." This compound sentence was awkwardly written; recommend rephrasing as I have done.
  • "Kim Jong Il had been a regular donor to the Study House"
  • "and around 250 books related to agriculture, including new mushroom cultivation techniques and techniques preventing swine diseases" --> Is that last part really necessary?
  • "Alongside books, the chairmen..." --> That should be "chairman", yes? Also, is it capitalized? As in, is that his official title?
Operation
  • "Additionally, each librarian is classified into one of 6 grades based on their performance on a library certification exam." --> That 6 should be "six".
Courses and topics
  • "The library is the national centre of Juche studies..." --> As in an earlier example, readers should not have to navigate elsewhere to understand the meaning of a sentence. Recommend adding a brief explanation of "Juche studies", as that is not a term most readers will be familiar with.
Significance and reception
  • "over 10 million people have visited the Grand People's Study House annually" --> The progressive tense is not called for.
  • "and the library is a popular area for dates within the country" --> "Destination" is a better word choice than "area" in this context.
  • "In his two-part account of North Korean libraries, information and library scientist Marc Kosciejew[39] uses the conceptual framework of "library-as-place"" --> Citations need to go after punctuation marks or at the end sentences. As such, what is currently source no. 39 needs to be moved, probably after "library-as-place",

@OpalYosutebito: This was a very interesting article. Please let me know once you have had a chance to examine my feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm working on it right now! I'll have to cross some finished things out (not removing anything) so I don't get lost. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98 done! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My first suggestion under Collection still stands. If you don't like my wording, feel free to try something else, but this – "of which it contains around 10,800 documents that Kim Il Sung wrote, which includes "on-the-spot guidance", but its actual collection size is unknown" – doesn't work at all in English. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC) Never mind; it looks like you took care of it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very nicely done. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have two FACs up for consideration if you are so inclined: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1.

RoySmith

[edit]
  • originally known as the Pyongyang city library I'm not sure, but I think Pyongyang City Library should be capitalized as a proper noun.
  • After being destroyed during the Korean War, Kim Il Sung requested that the library be rebuilt Two point here. First, this makes it sound like Kim was destroyed, rephrase so it's clear it was the building that was destroyed. Second, tell the reader who this Kim guy is, i.e. "North Korean president Kim Il Sung ..."
  • and renamed the Grand People's Study House in 1982 make it "renamed once more as ..." or something like that.
  • Kim Il Sung advocated for North Korean-style architecture, which involved reviving elements of traditional Korean architecture, a practise that the North Korean government deemed essential for socialist architecture 3x repetition of the word "architecture" is awkward. Actually 4x with the next sentence.
  • Construction of the Grand People's Study House spanned 21 months we already know what building we're talking about from the previuos sentence, no need to repeat "Grand People's Study House". And again in the next phrase "the Study House's official guide states", just "the official guide states" is clear what it's talking about.
  • from universities in other provinces of the country just say "other provinces", the "of the country" is extraneous.
  • which also houses such buildings as the Supreme People's Assembly and the Korean Art Gallery "such building as" is just fluff.
  • In January 2023, a smaller replica of the library was located in the municipal city of Sinuiju I think "built" instead of "located".
  • The library towers 10 storeys "stories" is the more common spelling, but maybe this is a regional English thing?
  • In North Korea, a library's size is determined by the number of books it is expected to store is this not true for libraries everywhere?
  • but the actual collection size is unknown I'm sure the librarians know it. How about "not publicly known" or something like that?
  • the employer is then required "The borrower's employer ..."
  • The organisation of the Grand People's Study House is hierarchical, with the president at its apex This starts out sounding like you're talking about the organization of the building, then surprises us when it turns out to be talking about the organization of the staff.
  • Is "Grand People's Study House" the building or the entity which occupies it? You use the term interchangeably.

That's it for me for a first read-through. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OpalYosutebito I haven't seen any responses from you, so making sure you've seen my review. RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it! I'm so sorry! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support on the prose being well written and telling an engaging story. I am not familiar with the topic area so cannot comment on the sourcing or the quality of the research and am leaving those for a subject matter expert. I will note that the only other comparable FA I can find, Low Memorial Library, is significantly longer, but that may just be a reflection of the sources available. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by ZKang123

[edit]

I know I've said to not involve myself further in any FAC processes, but this is an intriguing FAC and I decided to take a quick look.

  • First, I'm a bit confused with the history. The library was rebuilt in 1954, but is that the same building as the current one? Or is the current one reconstructed again into the present-day study hall in the 1980s? (Since it mentions about the current building being built with Soviet assistance)
  • There needs to be consistency in source formatting; for examples Refs 12 and 13 quoting from Korea JoongAng Daily - use the work parameter instead of publisher (Ref 12). Similar for Ref 42
  • Most sources here seems to be derived from North Korean claims, especially refs 7 and 16 about the number of books it can store. Even those published by South Korean media mostly parrot those by North Korea, and we know North Korea itself isn't particularly reliable. Are there more independent verifications of its claims by higher quality sources?
  • For a very important building in North Korea, I felt this article still barely scraps the surface. I fear it might not satisfy FAC criteria 1b on comprehensiveness and 1c on well-researched unless you are sure you have found all the relevant literature on this library.

--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123 pardon the ping, but I found more potential references in the WP:KO/RS search engine. I've added them as ref ideas. I only ask that you be patient, since I'm in my last semester in college right now - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Salvadoran coup d'état

[edit]
Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 21:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the bloodless 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état, an important point in El Salvador's history that marks the end of the country's 48-year-long military dictatorship and the start of its 12-year-long civil war (debatable). I promoted this article to GA way back in 2020, and to be honest, it sucked. Last year, I completely rewrote the article to make it more informative with better sources. While I didn't take it to GAR, it passed an A-class review by WP:Military History, so it presumably still meets all the GA criteria. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 21:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "held peaceful demonstrations to combat the military dictatorship". Peaceful demonstrations being used to combat anything jars a little. Synonym time?
  • Changed to "oppose"
  • "after winning fraudulent presidential elections during the 1970s." If they were fraudulent, is it accurate to say that the PCN "won" them? Similarly in the main article with "The PCN won the next three presidential elections in 1967, 1972, and 1977".
  • Technically speaking, they did in fact win the election according to the official results. There is no data to the contrary showing the real results. So, while they did lose (certainly the 1972 election), that information is unknowable to my knowledge, and officially, they did win at the end of the day. 🤷‍♂️
Would you have problems with 'after claiming victory in fraudulent presidential elections during the 1970s'?
@Gog the Mild: I edited the two passages about those elections to read that they claimed they won and I mentioned in the second instance that it was fraudulent. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 01:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Political violence increased during Romero's presidency". It would be helpful to state when this commenced.
  • Specified between 1977 and 1979
  • "Romero surrendered when he was allowed to leave the country." Maybe 'Romero surrendered when it was agreed that he would be allowed to leave the country' or similar?
  • Reworded along the lines of your suggestion
  • "engaged in hit-and-run attacks against government buildings, committed kidnappings for ransom, and other terrorist attacks." Is it possible to avoid using "attacks" twice here?
  • "General Carlos Humberto Romero ... won the 1977 presidential election with 67.3 percent of the vote". Really?
  • Like I said earlier, he did officially win.
  • "as social cohesion continued to collapse". You haven't yet mentioned it starting to collapse.
  • Rephrased
  • "wanted to prevent a leftist revolution from occurring in El Salvador". "occurring"? Maybe 'taking power?
  • Changed
  • "since they also believed Romero had to be removed from power." Can I suggest that it was probably their leaders or commanders who so believed?
  • Added
  • "as factors in allowing such a revolution in El Salvador." Perhaps 'as factors which might allow such a ...' or ' ... which would allow ...'?
  • Changed
  • "In 1979, Viron P. Vaky and William G. Bowdler ... visited El Salvador on two occasions". Are the actual dates, or at least month, known?
  • McClintock only specifies in the months prior, so i rewrote it to that. I also found a note in McClintock where an Australian journalists claimed that Vaky and Bowdler in fact did not ask Romero to resign. McClintock thought it was notable/important so I also included this information in a note.
  • "It attempted to implement agrarian reforms in 1980". What is "It" referring to?
  • Specified

Impressive work. I look forward to supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the comments, and I left some responses. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In case it may be of some help I will post my boilerplate on how to find reviewers below:

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this during next week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vacant0, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was away for most of the previous week. I'll take a look at this today. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 1931, a military dictatorship had ruled El Salvador; since 1961..." → "Since 1931, a a military dictatorship had ruled El Salvador, and since 1961..."
  • Changed
  • "committed terrorist actions" – could you clarify what they actually did? what actions did they stage against the government? maybe you could name some?
  • added 2 examples
  • I haven't read other reviews, so I'm not sure if this was mentioned by someone else, but the article relies on a PhD thesis, which is generally not considered a WP:HQRS. I usually accept these sources at levels below FA (even though I've seen others complain even about their reliability on lower levels), but I'm not sure whether it'd be appropriate to include the reference at FA level. Is Ching a subject-matter expert? Was his thesis peer reviewed? I'm open to hearing feedback from other reviewers.
  • Per Furman Universtiy, Ching "is a specialist on El Salvador and has authored or co-authored numerous books and articles on Salvadoran history". I also used another source from Ching for this article: Lindo Fuentes, Héctor; Ching, Erik K. & Lara Martínez, Rafael A. (2007). "Remembering a Massacre in El Salvador..."
  • "The militant groups and mass organizations increased their membership..." → "Membership in militant groups and mass organizations increased..."
  • Changed
  • " as many supported reform," of what?
  • Specified social reform
  • "violated the human rights of "the conglomerate"" what is this supposed to mean?
  • I assume this is supposed to mean "the people" so I specified that in quotations
  • "According to political scientist Michael Krennerich, El Salvador has held free and fair elections since 1982." the source is from 2005. maybe look for a recent one that goes over the rule of the current president?

That's it from me. I did not spot any major issues as I assume that others already did before me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Thanks for the comments! Ive left responses and made edits. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 20:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the changes. I think that we can keep Ching in the article. Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Thanks for taking the time to review this!
  • Fixed
  • "far-right death squads operated in El Salvador that targeted members of these groups." while perhaps implied, could it be stated if these were in support of the government, or were working towards their own gains?
  • It was 50/50 on how aligned with the government the death squads were. Some were led by government officials, others were led by random dudes, so but I put "government-aligned".
  • Could the Militant and death squad activities section state the death-toll during this period?
  • I can't find a death toll for this period.
  • "In June 1977, the UGB declared all Jesuits had to leave El Salvador within 30 days or face "immediate and systematic execution"." why? You also mention persecution of clergy later, but could we get some context as to why?
  • Added background of why death squads also targeted the clergy
  • "Around May 1979, the United States government began to consider that Romero's removal from power was necessary to prevent the entire government from collapsing." but what was their role prior to this? The US of course have a history of supporting right wing South American regimes, but there is no mention of that until this point. Could be helpful for background context.
  • Added a little bit of background without going into too much detail to paint a picture that the US supported El Salvador's government to prevent a communist revolution, and that the US believed that if Romero stayed in place, a revolution would succeed so the US sought to preempt that with a coup.
  • You mention various coups and revolutions under background, but it can be a bit hard to follow without stating their alignments. Where they all alternating right and left wing, or was it more complicated?
  • Conservative should be linked at first mention, now it's only linked further down.
  • Fixed
  • Link oligarchy.
  • Done
  • Modern countries, like the US, are not necessary to link, and linking them is discouraged in the manual of style.
  • Removed
  • Link junta.
  • Done
  • The United States could be abbreviated as US after first mention if you want to save space. I can see you already do that some places.
  • Put in more abbreviations
  • Link human rights at first instead of last mention.
  • Fixed
  • "and later a third junta were later established" are two "later" necessary here?
  • Rephrased
  • "Romero left El Salvador to Guatemala via helicopter" wouldn't it make sense to mention under legacy what happened to him later? From his Wikipedia article, it seems he returned.
  • Added a brief statement of his return and death. Of the research I've done into Romero, I haven't found an exact date/year he returned to El Salvador.
  • Likewise, I think it would be of interest under Legacy to show what the state of democracy was in the country post-civil war (and today?).
  • I added how post-1982 elections were considered free and fair and that the FMLN was part of a 3-decade-long 2-party system with ARENA. I don't wanna go too much into post-2019 politics since it feels out of the scope of this article.
  • The article covers US support for the government, but was there foreign, for example Soviet, support for the Leftist opposition?
  • To my knowledge from rewriting Salvadoran Civil War in my sandbox, the USSR, Cuba, and Nicaragua (+ other minor players) started sending aid to leftist groups only after the civil war started. I added a brief mention of this in the legacy section that the FMLN was supported by those 3.
  • "agreed to led him leave" let.
  • Fixed

@FunkMonk: I've responded to your second batch of comments. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Is "Bernal Ramírez, Luis Guillermo & Quijano de Batres, Ana Elia, eds. (2009). Historia 2 El Salvador [History 2 El Salvador] (PDF). Historia El Salvador (in Spanish). San Salvador, El Salvador: Ministry of Education. ISBN 9789992363683. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 January 2022. Retrieved 27 August 2025." a reliable source? Sometimes government ministry-authored books are good sources and sometimes they are propaganda; I don't know about El Salvador. I presume that Social Text has cleaned up its act a bit since the Sokal affair? I am not sure that File:Colonels Jaime Abdul Gutiérrez and Adolfo Arnoldo Majano in 1979.png adds enough to the understanding of the article's topic to pass muster under WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bernal/Quijano 2009 is reliable since its information can be cross checked with other sources. B/Q is a good summary for stuff where lots of detail isn't needed. Beverley has a Wikipedia page and I don't see any critiques of his work just from reading that, so I assume his Social Text source is fine, and it's only used once. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 00:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98 (2/7/26)

[edit]
Lead
  • "The dictatorship was led by the National Conciliation Party (PCN) since 1961." Also recommend linking the first two sentences of this second paragraph together; perhaps something like: "A military dictatorship had ruled El Salvador since 1931; since 1961, it was led by the National Conciliation Party (PCN)."
  • Reworded
Background
  • I don't believe wikilinking El Salvidor is really necessary here, especially since most of this first paragraph is blue.
  • "Rivera was elected president of El Salvador unopposed in the 1962 presidential election.[14]" You could consider shortening "1962 presidential election" to "1962" while maintaining the wikilink.
  • Removed link
Presidency of Carlos Humberto Romero
  • "...the minister of defense and public security from 1972 to 1977" --> I believe that Minister of Defense and Public Security is a proper noun.
  • capitalized
  • "Claramount led a protest against the result at the Liberty Plaza in San Salvador (El Salvador's capital)" --> Unnecessary.
  • Removed
  • "In June 1977, the UGB declared that all Jesuits had to leave El Salvador within 30 days or face "immediate and systematic execution".
  • Added
Planning
  • "Plots to overthrow Romero began to form from March 1979..." "from" is awkward here; perhaps "around"?
  • Changed
  • "According to Michael McClintock, a staff member of the Amnesty International Research Division, "most of El Salvador knew a coup was brewing" by late September 1979." --> A minor nitpick, but wouldn't Most be capitalized here as the beginning of a quote?
  • This is the writing style I'm used to since you're just continuing the sentence, and you wouldn't capitalize "most" here
Romero's overthrow
  • "and that night, the international press reported a coup was in the process of occurring." --> The progressive tense reads awkwardly. Recommend rephrasing slightly something like "a coup was in progress".
  • Changed
United States interest in regime change
  • I'm thinking there is probably an appropriate wikilink for U.S. ambassador to El Salvador.
  • Linked
  • United States House of Representatives --> I would shorten to U.S. House of Representatives.
  • I'd prefer to keep it to overdo US
  • "and warned that El Salvador was the country in the region most likely to collapse."
  • fixed
Aftermath
  • "That same day, the members of the ERP and LP-28" --> I would remove the "the" unless every single member called for an uprising.
  • removed
  • "That same day, the members of the ERP and LP-28 called for an uprising in the city of Mejicanos and caused disorder in the streets." --> Actually, this whole sentence reads kind of awkwardly. Maybe "an uprise in the city of Mejicanos and disorder in the streets"?
  • Changed
  • You can use the template {{langx|es|Proclama de la Fuerza Armanda}}.
  • changed from lang to langx

@PizzaKing13: This was a very interesting article. Please let me know when you have had a chance to examine my comments and suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Thanks for the comments! I've edited the page according yo your comments. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 20:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some of my suggestions were just that: suggestions.
I have the following up for your review if you have time and are so inclined: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Soviet Figure Skating Championships/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Swiss Figure Skating Championships/archive1. Thank you so much in advance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Campbell (Final Destination)

[edit]
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the standout character from last years surprise hit horror film Final Destination Bloodlines. At a hiatus that lasted 14 years, the franchise made a strong comeback, with a 7th movie already in the works. Critics paid a lot of attention to Erik for a variety of reasons, including his role, acting, and death scene involving an MRI machine. Having looked at pretty much every source available, I believe the article meets the standards for FA. Hopefully it passes and other articles relating to the franchise can also be upgraded.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Drawers

[edit]

Prose review to come soon! Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 03:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal Drawers: Thank you! And don't worry. Take your time with it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All comments are now up, the article looks good, and most of my problems are only nitpicks, just let me know when you’re finished with them so I can support. If you ever want to review another FAC, any comments left at mine for Forget-Me-Now would be greatly appreciated, but, of course, no obligation Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 16:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. :D I think I've gone through everything. In some instances, I made word changes based on your comments, but not necessarily in the exact same place you wanted. Hopefully, it all looks good now. If I have time, I'll get into "Forget-Me-Now". I've known about Arrested Development for years, since Netflix first brought it back in 2013, but haven never gotten around to seeing it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the prose is well-written and understandable to someone who has no knowledge of the franchise (me :p). Good work! Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 17:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Erik Campbell is a character in the supernatural horror film Final Destination Bloodlines (2025)" — I'm not sure on this, but shouldn’t it be "character from the"?
  • "Lori Evans Taylor, and Jon Watts and portrayed by Richard Harmon" — Maybe include a comma before that last "and"
  • "being borne out of his mother's affair with another man." — Isn’t it "born"?
  • "his brother Bobby cancel out Death's list" — I’m not sure that "cancel out" is professional, suggest changing it to “nullify", or another similar word of your liking
  • "by a wheelchair that crushes and impales him." — "by" is already used just a few words earlier; to avoid repetition, could this use be changed?
  • "wanting to feature ones with layers to them instead" — I think "instead wanting to feature ones with layers to them" rolls off the tongue better.
  • "with the delay being due to the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike" — change to "with a delay due to the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike"
  • "by improvising his lines and actions or making suggestions to the production crew" — Putting "either" after "by" would make the sentence sound smoother imo

@Crystal Drawers: Thanks for the comments thus far. I've made changes to everything up to here.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Role

  • "being crushed by a garbage truck's compactor" — I'm pretty sure it's "garbage truck compactor" (without the 's)
  • "Death skipped Erik and pursued Julia" — Change to "Death skipped Erik and instead pursued Julia"
  • "Having had marital problems at one point, she had an affair with a neighbor named Jerry Fenbury, and Howard chose to raise Erik as his own" — Since this is directly connected to the short sentence right before it, you could probably just add a semi-colon between this and that one.
  • "Because Erik is not a descendant of Iris, he was not targeted by Death." — I don’t feel strongly about this, so if you choose to oppose this suggestion then that’s fine, but I don’t think this sentence is necessary. The previous sentence tells the reader that he is not a descendant, and I think, with context clues, it’s fairly obvious to decipher, and it comes off a bit redundant. But, like I said, I won’t hold you to this and I’m fine if it’s kept in

Development

  • "The horror franchise Final Destination began in 2000 and each film follows a" — Change to "The horror franchise Final Destination began in 2000, with each film following a"
  • "kill them in accidents" — Is accidents correct here? I thought death was purposefully killing them? If it’s only the humans who think it’s an accident, maybe change to "perceived accidents"
  • "producer Craig Perry stated" — The previous sentence used the word stated already, could you change this use?
  • "found out about Final Destination Bloodlines being in production through" — This is oddly worded, consider "found out about Final Destination Bloodlines' production through"
  • I’m not sure that lifelong is professional language, I’d either put quotations around it if it’s used in the source, or change it to longtime
  • How come some sentences call it "Final Destination Bloodlines" and others just use "Bloodlines"?
  • I don’t think misunderstood needs to be in quotes
  • Two sentences in the final paragraph of Characterization start with "Harmon", change one
  • "Busick also" is used twice, I’d also advise to change one of these to avoid repetition
  • "his "hubris" is what led to him being targeted by Death, despite not being a descendant of Iris" — The final part feels unnecessary
  • "Despite the difficulty of the stunts involved" — I don’t think you have to include involved, as the sentence has a better flow without it
  • "early on during production of Bloodlines" — Change to "early on during Bloodlines' production"
  • "featuring such as scene in Bloodlines" — Since Bloodlines is already used in the previous sentence, remove it for "the film", or any other variant to your liking
  • "When Erik is inside the machine, to film his spine getting bent backwards" — A bit long, consider "To film Erik's spine getting bent backwards in the machine,"

Reception

  • "Erik received a positive response from fans and critics" — Suggest adding "both" before “fans and critics"
  • "with Ridgely also describing him" — Could you swap "also" with "additionally"? Since the next sentence uses "also" as well, I think changing this use would help avoid repetition
  • " both highlighted Harmon as one of the best actors in the film" — Since Harmon’s name is used right in the sentence before, replace this usage with "him"
  • "Erik's eventual death scene involving an MRI machine was praised" — "Praised" is used a lot in this section, could you change this use to "commended"?
  • "Joe George of Den of Geek similarly described Erik's death — alongside Bobby's — as the sixth best death scene in the franchise.[43] George also viewed Erik and Bobby's love for each other as making their deaths "poignant"." — The source only needs to be used once, at the end of the second sentence
  • "Relating to this, Oller praised Harmon's chemistry with Joyner" — Bit of a short sentence, could you expand on why he enjoyed the chemistry?
  • "some incidents even leading to patients getting injured." — I think "some incidents have even lead to patients getting injured." rolls off the tongue better, but this is more subjective to my own preferences than anything

Image review

[edit]

Here'll be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Erik Campbell.jpg - Fair use
  • File:Zach Lipovsky on Collider Video.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Adam Stein on Collider Video.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Richard Harmon Wondercon 2016.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, alt-text is grammatically incorrect: "Richard Harmon wearing glassed"
    • Oops. Fixed that.
  • All images are relevant to the article, all images have alt-text for accessibility though I do have a comment regarding that.
  • Wondering why Richard Harmon isn't wikilinked consistently in the captions.
    • Thanks for the image review. :) I don't link Richard Harmon in the infobox image because the actor is linked right below in the "Portrayed by" area, so I thought it would be kind of repetitive to link him twice. Of course, if it's deemed necessary, I have no problem linking him there as well.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass Arconning (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Will try to review it on Saturday/Sunday (My day off). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I see no problems whatsoever. However, I would like to note that the image in the infobox isn’t that much interesting? I wondering if there is a better one. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I have participated in the first FAC, and I would be more than happy to help here. I will wait until all of the above comments from Crystal Drawers has been addressed. Please ping me when that happens, and I will be more than happy to go through the article at that time (or at least when I find a moment). Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Aoba47:. :) Your comment actually got me worried I'd forgotten to respond to all of Crystal Drawers' comments, lol. I have addressed them all and gotten a support. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your ping and for your message. Apologies for missing that. I was looking at the bottom of Crystal Drawers' comments, so I did not see that discussion at the top. Apologies again for overlooking that. I will post comments sometime over this upcoming weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. ;-) PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to a comment from the previous FAC, I believe that a fictional character article would need an image of said character. While I get the need to keep non-free media usage to a minimal, the reader should be able to see the character as they appear in their story (with full costume, hair, make-up, lighting, etc.), and an image of an actor would not be an adequate replacement for that. I do wonder if a fuller body shot of this character would be more beneficial to provide readers with a better sense of his appearance (maybe something like with this image)? The current headshot may be fine. I could just be overthinking it. I thought that I might as well ask.
  • Apologies again, as I am likely overthinking things, but I have a question about the following part from the plot summary: siblings died in the order that they were born. I wonder if "siblings are killed" would be a stronger and more active choice, because Death is actively hunting them down and killing them?
  • This is super nitpick-y, but for this part from the plot summary, some cleaning fluid spills on the floor and causes a fire, I do not think that "some" is needed here, as it is more of a filler word. I do have an additional comment about this part. It is established that Erik was not targeted by Death, until he intervened to try and save Bobby, so does that mean the fire in the tattoo parlor was just an accident? Is this addressed in the movie?
    • Erik's accident isn't directly addressed per se, but yeah, he was not being targeted by Death here. In an interview with Polygon, the directors discussed this scene and simply said that "Erik in unlucky"; or something like that.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that for this part, the sixth instalment in the franchise, the more standard American spelling would be installment. I have a similar comment for this part, previous instalments had impacted, as I think that it should be installments, rather than instalments.
    • Revised for entire article.
  • I am uncertain about "landed" in this context, that he had landed the role. I understand what you mean, but it may be too informal for Wikipedia, so a different word choice may be preferable here.
    • Changed.
  • Another more nitpick-y comment, but there are two sentences in a row that use "improvised" ("the directors asked Harmon to improvise his character's reaction" and "Harmon improvised various reactions"), so I believe changing the latter instance would help to avoid any potential repetition.
    • Changed.
  • The "Filming" subsection discusses the filming process behind Erik's nose piercing being caught in a chain, but this is not brought up in the "Role" section. Should this be briefly addressed there as well (to avoid any potential confusion)?
  • I am uncertain about the following part, Ben Inglis, physicist and manager at the University of California Berkeley Brain Imaging Center, and Max Wintermark, Chair of the Department of Neuroradiology at the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Center, spoke with The Today Show writer Sarah Jacoby. It is a lot of names thrown at the reader. I would remove the reference to The Today Show writer Sarah Jacoby entirely, as it is not really needed and it would be better to keep the focus on the two medical experts. On a somewhat related note, I do not believe that chair is capitalized in this context, but I would recommend double-checking this.

I hope that these comments are helpful. Let me know if you have any questions about anything. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. A majority of my comments above are minor and more nitpicks than anything else. I hope that you have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Aoba47:. I believe I've gone through everything. I tried uploading the image you suggested, but for some reason, I can't do it. I tried converting the image from webp to jpg, but nothing. I can simply upload a new file(name) and replace the current one.
Regarding the areas about the order of siblings' deaths and Erik's nose ring in the "Filming" section, I hope the current versions are better. Concerning the latter, I believe there was a reference to his nose ring in the "Role" section, but that got removed (alongside a few other things) for being too detailed and to shorten the entire thing. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. The change for the infobox image may not be necessary. I was just trying to think of a way to potentially respond to a point raised in the previous FAC and to think of a way in which the image could have a stronger justification. I think that the current infobox image is solid, especially because there is a nice contrast with the Richard Harmon image later in the article. I will go through the article again on Sunday. I doubt that I will find anything further, but I want to make sure that I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I have read through the article a few more times. Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope that you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

It seems like the sources are reliable (from major sources) and consistently formatted, although I didn't do any spotchecks. I seemed to remember that IndieWire occasionally hosts churnalism but maybe I am confusing it with another sauce? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't recall seeing anything like that being discussed regarding IndieWire. From what I've seen at the noticeboard, it is viewed as whole reliable, rather than marginally or occasionally. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve had no issues with IndieWire for my 2 FACs, I think it’s a generally reliable source Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 17:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

[edit]
  • Add Template:Use mdy dates
    • Done.
  • In the lead, [supernatural horror film] [Final Destination Bloodlines] is a MOS:SOB violation
  • In the lead and under "Reception", "scene stealer" should be in quotes
    • Done.
  • Under "Role", [garbage truck] [compactor] is a MOS:SOB violation
    • Done.
  • Under "Role" I think it should be clarified if Bobby lives or dies
  • Under "Characterization", delink "phone" as overlinking (this also fixes an MOS:SOB error)
    • Done.
  • Under "Filming", I think the images of Lipovsky and Stien could easily be one image, they are both cropped from the same source images. Is there a reason for them to be seperate?
    • That was how I found the images. I checked the original one, and the two are standing next to each other, so I just cropped it and uploaded that version instead.
  • Under "Filming", "For the scene where Erik discovers that Howard is not his biological father and that his biological father is a man called Jerry Fenbury" this flows weirdly with the double use of "biological father"
    • Yeah, it doesn't read well. Altered it.
  • Ref 36 should be marked as "subscription needed"
    • Done.
That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 08:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Olliefant:. Thank you for the review. I've addressed most of your comments. Regarding the lede, I'm not sure why the first sentence would be a SOB violation, as "supernatural horror film" is a single link that directs to the page with the exact same title. Should I change it to "character from Final Destination Bloodlines (2025), the sixth installment in the supernatural horror film franchise Final Destination"?
As for the "Role" section, I think I remember there be some extra detail about Erik's death and Bobby dying right after, but I was recommended to remove that is they pertain to things that occur after his death, so they're not entirely relevant. And to be honest, I don't think that Bobby dying or not has much to do with Erik's article or role in the movie.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that would be better. I think it's better to mention Bobby's death but it's fine either way Olliefant (she/her) 15:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant: Done. If it's all right with you, I think it would be more suitable to leave references to Bobby's death outside of the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 17:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Physella acuta

[edit]
Nominator(s): Barbalalaika 🐌 17:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For my first FA nomination I bring the world's most cosmopolitan snail. Physella acuta is capable of outcompeting many native snails outside its native North American range, granting it a great deal of research. It is also a critter most aquarists in the northern hemisphere inevitably meet. I'm extremely grateful to user:FunkMonk for his FAC mentorship, which brought this article to a whole new level. Looking forward to your inputs to make P. acuta truly FA! Barbalalaika 🐌 17:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Here'll be an image review from me. Arconning (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Blasenschnecke 01.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Physella acuta 01.JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Blasenschnecke 03.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Body and penial complex of Physella acuta.png - CC BY 4.0
  • File:Acute Bladder Snail (Physella acuta) in Japan.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, wikilink Akashi
  • File:A eutrophic lake, with excess algal growth.jpg - Public Domain
  • File:Clea helena.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • All images are relevant to the article, have proper captioning and alt-text for accessibility.

Comment from Tim riley

[edit]

The article looks to my layman's eye impressively thorough and authoritative, but I think I'd better leave others who are better informed than I in this area to comment. Looking through the text I see it is mostly written in BrE (millimetres, fertilise, colour, fibres, favour, behaviours, colonised) but a couple of American spellings have crept in: defense and mollusk. – Tim riley talk 13:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! I speak primarily BE, but some spellings do creep in since I'm not a native speaker. Those have been corrected. Barbalalaika 🐌 06:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Generalissima

[edit]

This isn't a strict requirement, but for the ease of reviewers being able to verify the sources, I'd highly recommend using a shortened footnote system such as SFNs for multi-page sources. Also, I'd shorten the lead; for an article this size, it should only be about one or two paragraphs. Very good article for a first try at FAC; I'll do a more in-depth review later. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I thought a time would come when I had to delve into SFN. This one will take a while, but I'll implement it.
During the GA review one comment was how information on P. acuta's ecology was missing, then the lead got longer. Now I admit I'm not sure how to shorten it. I was thinking reproduction and parasitism could be removed as they are not the "most important points" (MOS:INTRO), then I could merge paragraphs 2 and 3. But this information is precisely what was added after GA. Would you mind giving me some advice? :) Barbalalaika 🐌 06:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima (courtesy ping) - article has been SFNs'd. I hope I did it right, let me know if not! Barbalalaika 🐌 22:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rogers, Damborenea & Thorp 2020 links to nothing
  • Collado & Aguayo 2024 links to nothing
  • Ditto on Dillon et al. 2002 (You need to move "Jr." to after R. T. for this to link properly)
  • Ditto on Ebbs 2018
  • Ditto on Albrecht et al 2025 (you've misordered the authors on the sfn so it doesn't link; it should be Albrecht, Clewing, Seebens, Chibwana)
  • Ditto on Karmakar and Paul 2022
  • Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates doesn't list any authors and doesn't seem to be cited to
  • Van Bocxlaer et al 2025 doesn't seem to be cited either
  • There seems to be no consistent order to the list of references from what I can tell. I would put them in alphabetical order by primary author's last name.
  • Extremely minor but I would put the templates template:Refbegin and Template:Refend before and after the references list to make them look a little nicer
  • You left a ref tag in text on the first paragraph of Distribution.
  • The last sfn under Parasitism (Moreira et al 2024) has one too many authors listed, resulting in a malformed cite. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh I'm so sorry! I did everything in one go yesterday and at some point my focus started giving up.
    - All SFN link errors were fixed (including malformed cite)
    - Missing reference (Thorp and Covich) added
    - Removed Van Bocxlaer and genuinely don't know where that reference came from, it's not in the old versions either
    - Ordered reference list
    - Added Refbegin and Refend
    - Cleaned up ref tag remnant
    And don't worry about taking long to reply, completely understandable :)
    Barbalalaika 🐌 19:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Generalissima another courtesy ping - I've shortened the lead to the best of my abilities, but I'd appreciate it if you controlled the change in content (here's the latest version with the original lead). When you have time, of course! The core of most topics is still there, but I did remove the discussion on P. acuta as prey and its escape strategies.
    For now, I consider your comments addressed :) Barbalalaika 🐌 16:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I have unexpectedly had a lot of traveling to do the past work. The source fixes look good to me (though thanks to Gog for spotting a couple additional ones). Since you wikilink the IUCN, you should wikilink Tropical Fish Hobbyist and Practical Fishing. Cite 91, remove the "TFH Magazine" from the title and change the website name from www.tfhmagazine.com to Tropical Fish Hobbyist.
Also, nitpicky, but there's a couple times where you spell out a date in a cite (ie, "21 January 2026") , whereas you abbreviate it ("2026-01-12") in others. I'd suggest sticking to one.
Also, you're inconsistent on including access dates- personally, I would only use these for actual websites, and remove them from academic journals, where they're generally not as helpful. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot on my plate at work myself, don't worry about it. I appreciate all nitpicky comments, too :) Both the lead and the references are my weak points and I'm learning a lot with you.
- I believe I identified all date inconsistencies and formatted them all as "2026-01-26".
- Removed the access date from everything that's not websites, including PDFs.
- Wikilinked the aquarist magazines as suggested
Barbalalaika 🐌 17:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • with a pointed apex – I think it's fine (though not necessary) to introduce this term in the body, but in the lead, which should be as accessible as possible, I really would just change to "tip".
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite its cosmopolitan distribution, prevalence of parasitic infections within invasive P. acuta populations is often low – Why "despite"? Further down you say it's low because it is an invasive species.
Removed. The reasoning here had been "one could think that parasitism is a concern due to the species' global presence, but...". On second thought, that was original research. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • but one 2024 study detected Echinostoma (which causes echinostomiasis) in an individual from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. – In the lead, this really lacks context. You do not say why you single out this particular parasite, when in the body you have multiple. Also, should explain what this is.
Put some more emphasis on it being a human pathogen, with a little more explanation. Tried to be concise. Let me know if it doesn't suffice, although I may eventually remove the information to shorten the lead. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond Draparnaud – Link?
Done. I had removed that link since the lead already had one. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • and refers to the pointed shell – Although this seems likely, it is probably not covered by the source, which is a general dictionary. Did you come to this conclusion yourself?
Removed. That was a remnant of a version before I started working on the article and you're right that it isn't in the source. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • described in Central America – "in" or "from"?
in Central America -> from Central America. Good catch. Also changed in North America -> from North America since that's also true. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • until molecular and reproductive studies revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta. – When was this?
I moved "until the beginning of the 21st century" to the end of the sentence --> "until molecular and reproductive studies revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta in the beginning of the 21st century". Does this satisfy your question? The phrasing really was clunky before, with the specified time too far away from that snippet. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2025, MolluscaBase, the mollusk-oriented branch of WoRMS (World Register of Marine Species) – Mybe simplify this, e.g. just "WoRMS (World Register of Marine Species)" is enough?
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • They place P. acuta in Physella propose relationships to other physids as shown in – Can't follow this one.
Fixed. Definitely hadn't intended for the sentence to look like that. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albrecht and colleagues (2025), do they really say they that they place this species in Physella? The cladogram shows Physella as polyphyletic.
Oh no, that was my mistake. I don't know how I didn't see it before (I do know: end-of-the-year chaos). Physella is now resolved as it should be, and Stenophysa was also wrong and is now fixed. Additionally, I described the cladogram as "simplified" because it's an adaptation from the original one in the paper (figure 2). Barbalalaika 🐌 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article, all genus names should be in italics
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • vague descriptions in early works, which – "vague descriptions in early works that"?
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • which lead to morphological plasticity – Explain technical term? (A brief explanation in a bracket, or reformulate to avoid term)
Added explanation: "(variation in morphology in response to environmental conditions)" Barbalalaika 🐌 20:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shell of S. marmorata is longer and thinner – just checking, is it indeed thinner, or is it narrower?
Good catch. It's narrower. Changed. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finger-like lobes extend from the mantle on both sides of the body – Source 14 says 7 to 11 on the right and 4 to 6 on the left. I found this asymmetry quite interesting, something to add?
Sure! Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • male reproductive organs (c) including the penis (d). p = penis – You mention penis twice, but you also could write (c-d) to avoid this. However, what is the structure shown by (c) if not the penis?
I rephrased it like so, is this clearer? "Physella acuta's body (b) and male reproductive organs (c) with the penis shown separately (d). pg = preputial gland, pp = prepuce, ps = penis sheath". I removed "p = penis" since it really didn't add extra information that (d) didn't already show. (c) is the male reproductive system which consists of several parts, three of which I described explicitly in the caption since they were mentioned in the text. The penis is usually inside the prepuce (pp), which is why it's shown separately. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 160 - 180; 10 - 30%; etc: These should be dashes, and should be without spaces: 160–180, 10–30%, etc.
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the invasive carnivorous snail Anentome helena – "Invasive" always refers to an area but you do not indicate one; the species in not invasive where it is native.
Thank you for pointing that out. I decided to remove "invasive" because 1. it wasn't relevant to the statement and 2. upon reading further on the species, its status as "invasive" isn't well-established yet. Not a discussion for the present article. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the turtle parasites Krefftascaris spp. – I suggest to reformulate to avoid technical notation, e.g. "species within the genus Krefftascaris" or similar.
Rephrased. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are peaceful snails – What does "peaceful" even mean here?
Didn't find clarification from the source, so I removed that snippet. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Animal Diversity Web" is an encyclopedia written by students; I am personally not convinced this is a high-quality reliable source.
Thanks for pointing that out. I swapped the citation. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wethington, A. R. (2004) Family Physidae. A supplement to the workbook accompanying the FMCS Freshwater Identification Workshop, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Unpaginated, tab. 1. – Do we have any identifier (ISBN, DOI, url, etc.), or even a publisher, to allow readers to locate this?
Well observed. It is a PDF; I changed the template. It's linked now. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other sources also lack identifiers
All added. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 67 is a blog, what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
On this point and the one below, I'll see what information I can find in aquarist magazines. Source 67 specifically is one of the largest invertebrate retailers in Germany. I can't find mention of a similar category under WP:RS but I'm taking that it qualifies as a personal blog? Barbalalaika 🐌 15:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This source and the one below have been replaced by aquarist magazines, with the text rephrased accordingly. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This source and the one above have been replaced by aquarist magazines, with the text rephrased accordingly. Barbalalaika 🐌 16:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jens, thank you so much for the thorough review! Great observations. I have started implementing the most straightforward suggestions and will work on the remaining points gradually.
    Barbalalaika 🐌 07:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack courtesy ping - I have addressed your comments to the best of my abilities. Please let me know if anything missed the mark! Barbalalaika 🐌 16:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the species presents a high diversity of shell shapes which led to numerous false species descriptions before the onset of molecular phylogenetic studies at the onset of the 21st century. – I wonder why you decided to mention the authority (USGS) here but not for other information in the same section? Is this sentence controversial? I also wonder about your choice of "numerous"; this would mean there are numerous synonyms but only six are listed in the "Synonyms" list, not a lot for a species described in 1805. Is the list incomplete, or would "several" be a better choice of words? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't call it controversial. It was a stylistic choice which I now understand has no real place in Wikipedia - learning as I go. I removed the "according to..." part.
And thank you for bringing up the synonyms - the list in the taxobox is incomplete. These synonyms were already listed in the article when I started working on it. I had written a version of the list with all synonyms, which you can see in this old version of my sandbox. I decided not to use it because it was so long, and figured the original editor had a reason to select only some synonyms. Renaming the list to something like "popular synonyms" isn't possible I believe, since the parameters are fixed. Can I ask for a suggestion? Is it all right if I list all synonyms? Barbalalaika 🐌 17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ton of synonyms! How does it look if you only list species (without the variations)? They could be covered in a dedicated "Taxonomy of Physella acuta" article if someone wants to write that in the future). I think your current solution works, as the cited source seems to make the same selection – assuming that selection is actually well-founded and not just a random list of names that by chance have been entered into that database while the other synonyms have not? If that might be a problem, just removing the "Synonyms" list might be an option as well. Anyways, happy to support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the variations is a good idea, unfortunately it still left me with over 50 synonyms... so I'd personally leave the list as is. I wouldn't remove it because those are a very important aspect of P. acuta's taxonomy and some are still actively used.
To what source are you referring to? The source for the synonyms (Molluscabase) shows the entire list, I may be missing the selection you mentioned.
And thank you for the support :) Barbalalaika 🐌 18:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will review soon as a non-expert for the subject matter. To start with:

  • Is Collado & Aguayo 2023 what your citation to Collado & Aguayo 2024 should be pointing to? You also cite a Smith 2020 but it's unclear what source this is in the list of references, or if it's even one of those listed. Hog Farm Talk 18:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, I wrote the wrong publication year. Thank you for pointing it out. Smith (2020) came from the SFN template and must have been forgotten amidst all the coding. I deleted it. All fixed. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when Gog is done and I will do a full review here; I don't want to work at cross purposes with them. Hog Farm Talk 22:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm ping! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1817 Thomas Say independently described the same species in Pennsylvania, naming it Physa heterostropha" - it is supported by a ref later in the paragraph, but I think it's a best practice to have it clear what all is being supported by what. I think this sentence should be followed by references to both Say's description (what is currently cited) and the Ebbs Loker & Brant article, as Say would clearly have not known that he was independently describing acuta.
Will keep this in mind for the future! Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the structure of its subfamily Physinae remains unclear as of 2025." - the fact that this remains unclear can't be supported with a 2021 source; if nothing from 2025 explicitly states this it's okay to indicate the date of the most recent study explicitly covering this point
Noted; changed 2025 to 2021. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Shell Encyclopedia – conchological megadatabase iconographic overview on mollusks | ConchologyPHYSIDAE, Physella acuta | Conchology". www.conchology.be. Retrieved 2025-09-11." - I would expect a better source here. Not seeing that it specifically notes that the shells are thin? Would also expect to see a general review article of species than just picking the larget recorded value in a commercial shell directory
The reference for the thinness probably got lost amidst the edits. In any case, thank you for nudging me in the direction of a better source. Reference was changed (mentions a thin shell, length, and width). Barbalalaika 🐌 18:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It forms a high spiral of four to five whorls (complete revolutions)" - this is part of a section which has two sources. The Conchological Society actually indicates 5-6 whorls. Does the other piece support the 4-5 whorls?
No, it only mentions 5 whorls. Sorry about that. Fixed it to 5-6. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morningstar, D. (2021). "Acute bladder snail (Physella acuta) – species profile". USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Retrieved 2024-11-05." - citation information appears to be incorrect; the source lists it's author as C. R. Morningstar and W. M. Daniel, not D. Morningstar.
Great observation, thank you! Fixed. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The body is an important point of distinction from P. gyrina and S. marmorata:" - not seeing where the cited source mentions S. Marmorata?
It mentions the synonym, Aplexa marmorata (p. 72). Stenophysa marmorata is the currently accepted name. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the distribution section; more to hopefully follow tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The most cited hypothesis, proposed by Anderson (2003), " - where does the cited source indicate that this is the most cited hypothesis? I may be missing it in the source
It IS cited in many papers, but never mentioned as such, so that was a slip of WP:OR, sorry. I changed that formulation. Barbalalaika 🐌 07:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P. acuta has been reported in lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, ditches, as well as artificial sites such as sewage drains and irrigation systems" - isn't a reservoir an artificial site?
lol yes. Moved it to the back with the other related terms. Barbalalaika 🐌 07:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the source indicate how long these things usually live?
Pending -- Will search for it. I'll also double-check the information on sexual maturity. I can't find almost anything explicit in academic texts but a timespan of months seems like a lot for this invasive snail. Barbalalaika 🐌 07:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: We now have the lifespan for these majestic creatures. Had to remove the snippet about P. acuta laying eggs for "up to a year" - it didn't match other reports for its lifespan and every source that mentioned that pointed to a study which, to the best of my knowledge after reading it four times, doesn't mention that at all. Let me know if you feel it needs improvement!
And thanks for the support :) Barbalalaika 🐌 19:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species has only once been directly linked to a human illness, in 2024 when Moreira and colleagues recorded Echinostoma" - this definitely needs as "as of" date, as this is clearly something that is subject to future change
Good input, and the sentence was awkward anyway. Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 07:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to see the alternate names listed in the lead cited somewhere, especially given the Brazilian aardvark incident
I've sourced the commonly known names under Taxonomy and nomenclature. I picked only some illustrative sources to avoid WP:OVERCITE. I've also added one more common name. Let me know if it's too much or if maybe the information is better presented in another section. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass. Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting as a nonexpert. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • I count four p/pp errors in "Notes".
Fixed.
  • Collado & Aguayo is shown as 2023 in the cite, but 2024 in "References".
Fixed. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see Smith (2020) in "References".
Whoops, was a remnant from the SFN template. Removed. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burch needs an identifier. The OCLC is 20559611. :-)
  • As does De Kock & Wolmarans. 5878126523.
Thanks! I added both (Burch, De Kock & Wolmarans). Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, a balanced population in the aquarium". What is "a balanced population" and would 'a limited population' be better?
A balanced population may fluctuate but it doesn't grow out of control nor dies out. I changed it to "a controlled population", what do you think? Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until molecular and reproductive studies revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta in the beginning of the 21st century." Suggest 'until molecular and reproductive studies at the beginning of the 21st century revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta.' is both a little clearer and flows a little better.
Thanks! I implemented your suggestion. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "molecular phylogenetic". Could we have a brief in line explanation? Per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."
I switched the wikilink for a short definition of the kind of studies we're talking about. I thought it flowed better than wikilink + explanation. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They place P. acuta in Physella". "they" implies plural, but is - I assume - referring to "the [ie singular] taxonomic classification".
I was referring to the authors of the currently accepted classification. Changed "they" to "the authors", thanks for pointing out the unclarity Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the structure of its subfamily Physinae". I don't see Physinae on the cladogram; should I?
Thank you so much for pointing it out! Luckily Albrecht et al. discuss Physinae, so I can seamlessly integrate it. Barbalalaika 🐌 21:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
done. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the structure of its subfamily Physinae remains unclear as of 2025, leading to mixed acceptance of P. acuta's classification as Physella." Why? You haven't mentioned any connection between Physinae and Physella. You haven't said anything about Physinae at all. So how is a reader to understand why the acceptance was mixed.
Thanks for pointing that out. I introduced Physinae earlier in the text. Barbalalaika 🐌 21:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mixed acceptance". How can one have a mixed acceptance? Surely acceptance is acceptance?
lol, you're right. I rephrased it. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debates include the taxonomic relationships between Physinae members as well as the definition and number of physinine genera and species, all of which also affect the identity of P. acuta." Why? Or possibly I mean 'How?'
This snippet has haunted me for ages. I restructured the paragraph (shuffled some snippets) because I felt it improved comprehension. The sentence you mentioned now comes up earlier as "Debates include the taxonomic relationships between Physinae members as well as the definition and number of physinine genera and species, which in turn affect how individual taxa, including P. acuta, are defined and assigned. Consequently (...)" - please take a look and let me know if it needs a more thorough explanation. I feel I'm blinded by my biology background here. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shell is thin". Any measurements?
No, I've never found a specific measurement other than mentions of it being fragile and so thin it is see-through. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Update: I found one and added a brief discussion on P. acuta's shell thickness at the end of the first paragraph in the ‘Shell’ subsection. Barbalalaika 🐌 18:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before the onset of molecular phylogenetic studies." Is it possible to attach even a very rough date to this?
I completed the sentence with "... at the onset of the 21st century", matching the year of publication of molecular studies cited by USGS. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which enables it to take oxygen from the water or from the air." Do we need the two definite articles?
I felt the need for them since it's an aquatic snail and some readers could exclude the possibility of it breathing air. And, on the other hand, "pulmonary" could lead other readers to consider only air. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which cannot properly attach to their shells." I am unsure what you are getting at here. Is it that the rapid, clockwise rotations serves to prevent these predators from attaching to P. acuta's shell?
Yes. I rephrased it slightly for clarity: "... which cannot properly attach to the moving shell." - is this better? Barbalalaika 🐌 20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking μm.
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a vagina connected to the spermathecal duct (which receives sperm) opening to the outside." Just checking that it is the spermathecal duct which opens to the outside?
I've read through the reference again and can't find any mention of a female organ opening to the outside (although I vividly remember reading it). I removed the statement since it can't be supported anymore. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Been there. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Draparnaud's description happened during a time when USA and France had trade relations, with intense traffic between the ports of Mississippi and Bordeaux. After the Napoleonic wars, the American cotton trade switched to Britain". This is not really the case. Eg for the period 1793 (the start of significant US cotton exports - due to the invention of the cotton gin) to 1806 Britain imported more US cotton than France every year. So the hypothesis that P. acuta was present in France but not Britain in 1805 because France was importing more American cotton fails. And from 1815 French cotton imports increased hugely - admittedly not as much as Britain's. Suggest deleting "intense" and the sentence beginning "After the Napoleonic wars ..." (Any reason to believe it was introduced to Britain from the US and not France?
Oh,for this one I'll need some time. What I wrote is really all that the literature gave me, but I'll read through everything more carefully to see what I misunderstood or missed. Pending until I have a free evening. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible that you have accurately summarised what the literature says of course, even biologists can sometimes be a bit shakey on their economic history. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adults lay 50–100 eggs per week for up to a year after reaching sexual maturity ... Individuals reach sexual maturity after 17 – 18 months." Consider putting the second of these sentences before the first.
You mean the sentence on sexual maturity before the sentence on egg laying? I had chosen the current structure because the previous snippet mentions fertilisation and mating, and I thought mating -> egg laying -> egg description -> sexual maturity flowed well. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. I was thinking "Individuals reach sexual maturity after 17 – 18 months. Adults lay 50–100 eggs per week for up to a year after reaching sexual maturity". flowed a little better, but whichever you prefer.
I found a source describing the sexual development of the snail in a little more detail (and also correctly - months didn't make sense before) and now your suggestion makes more sense, so I applied it :) Barbalalaika 🐌 20:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as burying into the sediment". Maybe '... burrowing into ...'?
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it reduces predation risk from slow-moving snail predators in newly colonised regions." This reads as if the behaviour only reduces predation in "newly colonised regions". Suggest deleting "in newly colonised regions".
You're right, I think there's enough context from the previous sentence. Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reported infections include the turtle parasites within the genus Krefftascaris and the family Spirorchiidae". That first use of "the" means you are referring to all such turtle parasites. If that is not what you mean, delete the definite article.
Noted and done! Barbalalaika 🐌 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species was directly linked to a human illness once in 2024". Once in 2024, among other such occasions in other years; or only once ever and that was in 2024?
Only once and that was in 2024 (there's also a report from 2025 in Portugal, but that was published in MDPI, so I ignored it). I removed "once" (now "(...) directly linked to a human illness in 2024"). Barbalalaika 🐌
  • "a controlled population of P. acuta in the aquarium". "the" → 'an'.
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possible damages are limited by their size." "damages are" → 'damage is'.
Done. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • A last thought "in P. acuta individuals from public parks in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil." Consider deleting "individuals".
Thanks, done. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re the cotton trade, I understand why we want some idea of how P. acuta got to France, as that is where it was first recorded. But why are we singling out Britain - from all the other countries in the world - as the only other country where we give a hypothesis as to how P. acuta got there? Would the sourcing support something like 'The most cited hypothesis, proposed by Anderson (2003), links it back to eastern U.S. populations via the 18th century cotton trade. This view is based on the fact that Draparnaud's description happened during a time when USA and France had trade relations, with intense traffic between the ports of Mississippi and Bordeaux. Subsequently P. acuta's spread within Europe was likely facilitated by man-made canals[45][46] and waterbirds.[47] This hypothesis is based on circumstantial evidence and earlier as well as natural introductions have also been proposed.[44]

It's a fine little article and I look forward to supporting imminently. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS You may find this essay by Jens interesting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great reading, thank you! :) On that note, your userpage is also quite enlightening. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, User:Jens Lallensack|Jens]] is very on the ball. Yeah, Orwell is one of those writers whom I am more impressed by the more I read or reread him. And a couple of bits stolen from Richard Morgan, who I like to think would have got on with Orwell. Don't forget to ping me once you have addressed my comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AxonsArachnida

[edit]

Just some miscellaneous comments.

  • For the synonymy list in the taxobox, you could try making it collapsible. It's not a huge deal, it just saves a bit of space. Also the author
Done. I also added the title "selected synonyms" since, as mentioned to Jens in his review above, the actual list of P. acuta synonyms is gigantic (see this old version of my sandbox). I think it's too disruptive if users uncollapse it. Is this acceptable?
Can you clarify what you meant by the author? I personally don't think the describing authority under the binomial name needs collapsing. Barbalalaika 🐌 06:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't know how "the author" slipped in there. Ignore that.
  • Since 2021 molecular phylogenetic studies... -> Since 2021, molecular phylogenetic studies...
Done, thanks, that's one detail about the English language I didn't know about. Barbalalaika 🐌 06:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • before the onset of molecular phylogenetic studies at the onset of the 21st century. "Onset" is used twice in one sentence which is a bit awkward.
Whoops. Changed the second "onset" to "beginning". Barbalalaika 🐌 06:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is such a big pest species, there must be some information on how to control populations of them? If so it would be great to include information on that.
Very good thought. And done... ish. I'll revisit the snippet in the next days. I put it under "Distribution". A discussion of population control under "Predation", even if it's mostly biological control, didn't make sense to me. I could create a section "Human relevance" and put aquarium trade, population control, and ecotoxicology (pending) there. But I can't really see it making sense. So Distribution it is. Open for all critics! Barbalalaika 🐌 21:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, if you ping me when you're done Ill take a look! AxonsArachnida (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also seeing that it's been used as a model in a bunch of various ecotoxicology papers. it might be worth including a couple of those.

Overall it's very well written and is pretty ready for FA. These are just a few suggestions. AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Die with a Smile

[edit]
Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk), CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) and Sricsi (talk)

This article is about one of the most popular songs of 2024 by Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars. It was highly praised by critics received several awards, inducing two nominations at the Grammy Awards and one award at the same certainty. Furthermore, the song was later included in Gaga's studio album Mayhem as the closing track. Mars was one of the directors of the music video alongside Daniel Ramos. The video was also praised by critics and received various awards nominations. It was also submitted to the GOCE before nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leafy46

[edit]

Great song, I'll definitely take on a review here (especially with Bruno's new album possibly around the corner). Just an FYI that this is my first FA review ever, but I feel that I have enough experience with song articles in specific to do this one justice. Leafy46 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Conclusion

After lots of dedication on the part of the co-nominators, I am happy to offer my support for this article's prose, with no prejudice about its sourcing or media use. As previously mentioned, this is my first FAC review, but I'm sure that anything I missed will be found by a future reviewer and promptly resolved. I wish the first-time nominators here luck on beating the 15%. Leafy46 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going on a bit of a limb here. But would you like to be a reviewer or can you give any ideas how to attract more reviews? I have done 209 GA reviews up to this point, so I believe I have contributed to Wikipedia a lot. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support from RedShellMomentum

[edit]

Comments by Lazman321

[edit]

Expect comments from me within the next week. Might post them section-by-section. Will also consider doing spot-checks on the sources. Lazman321 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lazman321, and yes, spot checks and a plagiarism check would be very useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Background and development
Writing and recording
  • Consider moving information about the writing into the background section, given that section seems to also cover writing. Lazman321 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We discussed this with the previous reviewer who gave his first batch of comments. There were three sections regarding background and recording he suggested for us to trimmed it down to two sections, which we did. Now they are different. The first one is before they met to record it. So it speaks about Mars, D'mile and Fauntleroy how they created the track, etc. Mars shelving the song, bringing it back and then inviting gaga to the studio. The section below finds Gaga in the studio with Mars they further developing the song and recording it, how they interectac in the studio.
    In other words there is a before Gaga and an after Gaga. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Expect more comments soon. Lazman321 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Release
  • Consider moving it between the composition and the reception sections. No further comments here.
Composition and production
  • "...displaying the emotional style of a pop and soul sentimental ballad." to "...evokes the emotional style of a sentimental ballad."
  • "...sentimental ballad. Critics also noticed its country influences." to "...sentimental ballad, with Influences from country music."
  • The last part of the first paragraph feels like its rehashing the personnel section. Most of it can be cut.
  • The rest of the section is filled with "A said B" statements, relying on an excessive number of quotes. Please cut them down or summarize their key points.
I've partially rephrased the section - is it what you'd expect? --Sricsi (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • "'Die with a Smile' received widespread critical acclaim..." - But the section lists negative assessments, so is it really widespread?
The section does include some negative assessments, but that doesn't necessarily contradict "widespread critical acclaim". Even songs that are broadly praised almost always receive a few mixed or negative reviews. What matters is the overall balance of reliable sources. If the majority of professional critics responded positively, then "widespread acclaim" is accurate — as long as the article still includes the negative viewpoints to give a complete and neutral representation of the reception. The goal isn't to imply unanimous praise, but to summarize the general consensus while acknowledging dissenting opinions. --Sricsi (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reviewers also focused on the song's melodic and emotional qualities." - The quotes following this introductory statement do not focus on the "melodic and emotional qualities"
Reviewers also highlighted the song’s style, nostalgic charm, and overall appeal. - better? --Sricsi (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to "was met with critical acclaim" it still conveys the right message and it keeps everyone happy. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the holdup. I'll try to finish comments by Sunday. Lazman321 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem take your time, can't rush this kinda of reviews. Critical reception has been addressed. I cut some of the personnel section and I will leave the rest of the trim and the quotes to CHr0m4tiko0 and Sricsi. Its their strong suit and I'm sure they want to contribute with their expertise's. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
  • This has got to be the longest commercial performance section I have ever seen, especially for a single. I don't really have any notes on it at the moment, but if there's anything you can cut, go ahead.
I have improved the International section, cutting it down. The Americas one is very tricky to do so. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Music video
  • "Gaga revealed via Instagram alongside the song's announcement that its accompanying music video would be released simultaneously with the track at 9 p.m. PDT." - This sentence feels wordy and awkward. Please rewrite.
  • "...hairstyle eminiscent of Dolly Parton, whereas Mars wears a white cowboy hat." to "...hairstyle eminiscent of Dolly Parton, while Mars wears a white cowboy hat."
  • What is a "Nashville"? Do you mean Nashville-themed?
  • "...with the former publication adding "retro" as well." - This clause is not needed.
  • "while other outlets noted..." to "Other outlets noted that..."
  • "...and Cher and suggested it could reference the relationship..." to "...and Cher. Some suggested it could be referencing the relationship..."
I've addressed the comments regarding the MV section. --Sricsi (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that will be all for now. The rest of the article is almost entirely lists, tables, or timelines, with not much to critique. If I have time I might do some spot-checks. Lazman321 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! That was awesome! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lazman321: If time allows after the spot-checks could you give us your support? After checking what we what done? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by MSincccc and Nikkimaria

[edit]
  • File:James Taylor - Winterfest.jpg- The source link is dead.
  • The two images under Commercial performance are missing alt text.
  • File:Mayhem Ball - Die with a Smile (Las Vegas) cropped.jpg and File:Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars - Die With a Smile (music video screenshot).png- Same as the previous one.
No objection from me, but will leave to MSincccc to finalize the full review. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine from me as well. Passing the image review. MSincccc (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Jo-Jo Eumerus

[edit]
It's a pass with a caveat, not a support since I didn't review anything else about the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Rule of inference

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, serving as norms of the logical structure of valid arguments. This is a level-5 vital article with over 400,000 page views last year. Thanks to Brent Silby for the GA review and to A.Cython, HSLover/DWF, and MisterCake for the peer reviews! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I changed the template to PD-US-expired since it was published in the US before 1931. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen

[edit]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
[edit]
Definition
[edit]
  • Nothing really that needs to be changed; so leave it it as it is.

MSincccc (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Query
Formalisms
[edit]
  • “Deductive logic” currently redirects to deductive reasoning. These terms are not strictly interchangeable: deductive logic refers to the formal system or theory, whereas deductive reasoning refers to the process or act of reasoning.
    I moved the link to only apply to the word "deductive" to avoid confusing readers. An alternative would be to change the link target to Logic#Formal_logic, but we already link to the article Logic later. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In various fields
[edit]
  • You could move up the link to "logical reasoning"; I leave it to you.
    There is already one link earlier in the section "Definition". We could remove the link here, but keeping it may also be fine since it is quite relevant to the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line

ErnestKrause

[edit]

I'm finding several gaps in the article which I'll need to ask about to clarify:

Hello ErnestKrause and thanks for probing this article. My impression is that some of your points are more concerned with certain difficulties associated with proofs in the field of mathematics than with rules of inference per se, see my responses below. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The mathematical proofs which use quod erat demonstrandum appear to not be relevant to the article. It is often abbreviated as QED and might deserve some mention aside from just stating it is another proof method available.

Maybe you mean something different, but as I understand it, QED is not a type or tool of mathematical proofs but a historical Latin phrase used by some mathematicians to indicate where a proof ends. We could add a footnote to the paragraph on mathematics along the lines "Q.E.D. is a traditional abbreviation in mathematics placed at the end of proofs", but my impression is that it leans in the direction of trivia. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The term is usually read as "which suffices for proof", and this is the question that can be put on this article, namely, what are the conditions by which a proof by logical inference is deemed 'sufficient'. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The list of proof methods which are dependent on rules of inference seems to be more extensive on the list covered in the mathematical proof article on Wikipedia. Are you being overly selective in what you cover in this article.

The main topic of the article is rules of inference. Proofs are more complex entities (there is a paragraph on the relation between the two in the section "Definition") and proofs in mathematics are just one specific area. Our article covers applications to mathematics in the first paragraph of the section "In various fields". I added a short sentence to mention some proof types there. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could the lede make more explicit that the other proof methods are equally valid; that proof by inference is by far not the main option or preferred option of all the available methods of proof? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "proof by inference" and by "other proof methods" that are preferred. Do you know of a source that makes this claim? Proofs are made up of steps which are typically called "inferences". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The limits of rules of inference as reached in the Godel incompleteness theorem appear to not be covered at all. Godel is mentioned in the article sibling article links after this article, but it not covered otherwise at all in the article here.

Do you mean Gödel's first incompleteness theorem? As I understand it, it is less about rules of inference per se and more about limitations associated with certain axioms used in some mathematical systems. I think it says something along the lines: if you have a consistent formal system that encodes basic arithmetic then there are some statements in this system which you cannot prove or disprove. I could be wrong, but I don't think it tells us much about rules of inference like modus ponens or modus tollens. If you know of a source that explicitly makes this link, I would look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of inference are generally often when a hypothesis is put forward which might be proved or disproved. Then rules of inference are applied to either prove or disprove the hypothesis based on applying logical inference upon some set of axioms. Although this works for conventional hypothesis proof or disproof, the Godel theorem says that when a size of the hypothesis meets the constructed size of the proof method used in proving the Godel theorem then logical inference will fail to demonstrate truth or falsehood for Godel's construction. I'm fairly sure this is covered in all the basic sources on Godel's theorem such as 'Gödel's Theorem: A Very Short Introduction', A. W. Moore, which is fairly accessible. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(4) The equivalence problem of Rules of inference proofs and proofs of probability theory was solved by Kolmogorov as one of Hilbert's problems a century ago, but your article does not cover this. It seems at least to be touched upon in the mathematical proof article on Wikipedia, but not here.

Are you talking about Hilbert's sixth problem or Hilbert's thirteenth problem? I think Kolmogorov solved the 13th problem (related to 7th-degree equations) but not the 6th (related to physics and probability theory). I don't see a straightforward relation to rules of inference in either case. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the account given about applications in probability within the Wikipedia article for mathematical proofs.
I'm also certainly referring to the Sixth Problem which is summarized on the Wikipedia page for the list of Hilbert problems with the statement: "...partially resolved, depending on how the original statement is interpreted.[15] Items (a) and (b) were two specific problems given by Hilbert in a later explanation.[1] Kolmogorov's axiomatics (1933) is now accepted as standard for the foundations of probability theory. There is some success on the way from the "atomistic view to the laws of motion of continua",[16] but the transition from classical to quantum physics means that there would have to be two axiomatic formulations, with a clear link between them." You have no mention of the rules of inference as they relate to Probability theory, which is mentioned in both the mathematical proofs article and in discussions of Hilbert's Sixth as addressed in Kolmogorov's famous book on probability. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have a paragraph on many-valued in the subsection "Other systems". I added a sentence on probability logics there. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kolmogorov reduced probability theory to an axiomatic basis upon which rules of inference can be applied. See my comment about axiomatics below. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I responded below. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The method of proof by contradiction, reductio ad absurdum, appears to not be covered in the article. You do mention 'contraditions', but not 'reductio'. Is this the plan to keep it out of this article.

I added a footnote to the paragraph discussing the relation between rules of inference and proofs. It's also now mentioned in the paragraph on mathematics, see my response to (2). Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Better with footnote. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify some of this. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of comments
[edit]

Adding some further comments:

(1') There is the question of the basis of rules of inference as being dependent upon some axiomatic basis from which deductions are derived. For example, you first start with the basic Euclidean axioms, and only then do you go on to the rules of inference place upon those axioms for deriving proofs. That does not seem to be covered in this article.

If you mean that rules of inference require premises to reach conclusions, I agree. This point is covered in the article. Premises may or may not take the form of axiom schemes. Axiom schemes are explained in the paragraph on Hilbert systems in the section "Formalisms". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(2') Rules of inference are also connected with formal automata theory at a basic level in things like the 3-cnf problems and satisfiability problems which doesn't receive notice in this article as I read through. Was this done for a reason or did I miss something.

Computer science is covered in the second paragraph of the section "In various fields". There are many applications of rules of inference in this area but we only have little space to cover this topic, so I think it's better to leave the more specific applications to child articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(3') There appear to be implications of this topic for AI applications and LLM models. How closely related are AI applications to internal rules of inference upon which such application appear to depend upon. Similarly for LLM models, which seem to draw conclusion about the material they are discoursing upon. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AI, the more direct link is to expert systems since they use inference engines. This is discussed in the section "In various fields". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(4') There is a good deal in the literature about mechanical theorem proving and automated theorem proving which depends are great deal upon rules of inference being applied by computers; however, it doesn't appear to be covered in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated reasoning is mentioned in the lead and automated theorem proving is explained explicitly in the section "In various fields". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(5') Relationship to Scientific method and hypothesis testing as it related to rules of inference. It seems that the relationship is extensive in both of these. Procedurally, one collects data to prove a hypothesis and then uses rules of inference to prove one's case and scientific hypothesis as being true or false. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence on the empirical sciences to the discussion of non-deductive reasoning. Generally speaking, rules of inference belong to deductive reasoning while the empirical sciences characteristically rely on non-deductive reasoning. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those were two more comments for your review. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Items 3' and 4' added above. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ErnestKrause, did you have the impression that your main concerns were addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that BorgQueen and MSinnc are on board as yet in the above discussion; it might be nice to see more comments on this nomination. I've added item 5' above as well, and it might be useful to wait to hear from another editor or two as to what they think of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc supports the nomination. I don't think that BorgQueen intends to write a full review. I hope there will be more reviewers soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 I did take a look but it’s such a specialized topic that I couldn’t really understand what it was talking about. I’m being honest. ;-) BorgQueen (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, this topic is not everyone's cup of tea. I reached out to some editors, so hopefully there will be more reviews soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ErnestKrause, this is just to let you know that A.Cython also finished their review, see the comments below. In case you are interested in more opinions, there were several reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rule of inference/archive1, just before the FA review started. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third set of comments
[edit]

Your two pings bring me here with 3-4 more comments;

A) There still appears to be some gaps in the article which ought not to be there, for example, no mention of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica and the many times that its article discusses inference rules. It was a major book and adding it as a simple footnote or as a single sentence addition to this article seems like it would be inadequate.

As I mentioned earlier, I have the impression that various of your expansion suggestions overemphasize the importance of specific topics in mathematics. However, the concept of rules of inference belongs primarily to logic, not to mathematics. For example, the book "Principia Mathematica" relied on the concept of rules of inference to make important contributions to the foundations of mathematics, but I don't think it made important contributions to the concept of rules of inference. Just because A is important to B, it does not mean that B is important to A.
I have similar concerns regarding your suggestions about including detailed explanations of the Boolean satisfiability problem and the conjunctive normal form. It's quite possible that rules of inference are important for understanding these concepts, but rules of inference are central to any kind of deductive reasoning, so it seems arbitrary to include detailed explanations of these specific topics.
I had a look at the relevant chapters in Copi, Cohen & Flage 2016 and Hurley 2016: none of them support your expansion suggestions. For most part, they don't mention these topics at all. If they do, it is usually in very different contexts. This indicates that the suggestions would violate WP:PROPORTION. If you know of high-quality sources that explicitly support the importance of these topics to the concept of rules of inference at large, I can look into them. However, I don't want to engage in a substantial expansion without solid justification from the sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

B) Regarding the theme of learning from computer science, then there should be more stated about Boolean satisfiability problem and Conjunctive normal form both of which, I think, are more than just a single footnote issue, or a single sentence addition to the article. They are both highly dependent upon understanding rules of inference. 3-CNF remains a significant problem in computer science for solving P=NP but we are learning almost nothing about it in the current article.

See my response above at A). Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

C) The comment below from BorgQueen that the lede is not very reader-friendly should be taken seriously. If the article is to go to FA then it needs to be accessible to general readers, and also understandable to general readers, which BorgQueen seems to say is not the case in your current lede. The lede to the article for Principia Mathematica, although not peer reviewed, seems to meet the criterion of being reader-friendly, and it might serve as a model for adapting/modifying the current lede here. You could then return to BorgQueen to see if the lede is more reader-friendly and maybe convince them.

@BorgQueen: Sorry for dragging you into the discussion again, but it seems ErnestKrause interpreted your explanation about not writing a full review as a criticism of the lead. I'm not sure if that is the intended meaning. However, I'm open to improvement suggestions if you are concerned about specific passages in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause, BorgQueen explicitly said that she wouldn't write a review, so it's probably better to take her word for it than to try to find some hidden meaning in her expression. If you yourself have concrete concerns, I can look into them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 Sorry I was busy IRL. I do feel the entire article, not just the lede, is fairly opaque for lay readers, though that may be unavoidable given the nature of the subject. I don’t really have a strong opinion on it. BorgQueen (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The topic of the article is an abstract logical concept rather than a concrete landmark or an everyday object, so there is not much we can do about the topic itself. I can respond to more specific concerns about particular passages. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

D) In the lede, the title of the article is 'Rule of inference' however your first sentence uses the plural form "rules of inference" to start of the article; which one is it, the singular or the plural, which should be clarified in the lede.

The plural formulation is mainly for linguistic reasons: the idea can be expressed more concisely in the first two sentences this way. The current version is: "Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, ..." If we wanted to turn it into singular, we would need a longer and more reptitive formulation along the lines: "A rule of inference is a way of deriving conclusions from premises. The concept of a rule of inference is an integral part of formal logic, ..." Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from these comments, the article still needs to have a source review before further FAC evaluation. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A.Cython

[edit]

First time participating in a FAC review. I was invited by Phlsph7 since I also provided comments in the recent peer-review. I am not an expert on the topic but relatively distant familiar, but I will provide comments as a non-expert curious reader. If I overstep in comments as I am not being fully familiar on how a FA article should be, please correct me; thank you in advance. One final comment, I believe that this topic is essential for WP to have as top quality (with or without FA status, ideally the former) due to its fundamental importance even if this is not everyone's cup of tea.

Comments

  1. Now that I re-read the lead, I feel the third paragraph reads as a list of different definitions of logical systems. Why I understand that the different kinds of logical systems need to be mentioned as it is something that is explored in the main body, I feel that explaining all the definitions is not as inviting to a curious reader. Perhaps a rewrite is needed to provide a more engaging summary with perhaps emphasizing the value of these logical systems in everyday life/applications. A big picture summary is more appropriate in the lead than explaining the various logical systems. Perhaps this might require a merge with the last two sentence paragraph.
    I gave it a try: I added an introductory sentence, simplified the explanations of propositional and first-order logic, and removed some technical terms. See if it's better this way. Explaining the applications of formal systems above the fact that they codify reasoning may not be feasible for a concise lead discussion.
  2. His explanations of valid and invalid syllogisms were further refined perhaps a rewrite along the lines of "His explanations on the nature of validity in syllogisms". I find the phrase "valid and invalid" kind of awkward.
    I removed the expression "and invalid". In principle, we could also remove the term "valid" in this context to further simplify. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alternative methods include the use of truth tables, which applies to propositional logic, I think you want to say "apply"
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For instance, the rule of replacement in alethic modal logic... I think you need to add a couple of commas to help the reader; before "asserting" and before "also".
    I turned it into a relative clause instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It uses metavariables, which are placeholders that can be replaced by specific terms or formulas to generate an infinite number of true statements. The "which are" is not needed.
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "See also" section: not all dashes appear to have the same length, it feels off. The three entries have a dash generated by annotated link template, while the entry "Inference objection" has an explicit em dash, but the two dashes do not match.
    Ah ok, it seem the annotated link template uses the en dash instead. I fixed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Two references: "Boricic 2016" & "Demey, Kooi & Sack 2023" produce Harv errors meaning that the sfn (or something similar template) fails to find the appropriate target reference. Probably the sources were not included. Please fix this.
    I added the missing sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Make sure that straight quotation marks are used throughout the text per MOS:STRAIGHT, for example: The Subject of Logic: “Syllogisms” needs fixing. From a quick look most of them as straight, but double check. A.Cython(talk) 00:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @A.Cython: I fixed that one. I didn't spot any others. Thanks for reviewing the nomination! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding remarks

  • Support You have addressed my concerns. No matter how the votes fall (or whether mine even counts), you have done a great job in writing this challenging but essential topic in WP. Thank you! A.Cython(talk) 23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your helpful comments both here and at the peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Nearly four weeks in and just the single general support. I am afraid that unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I have already reached out to some editors who plan to review the nomination. However, finding reviewers and doing reviews can take a while with this type of topic, so lenience regarding timeframe would be appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

As usual, I have to question the Google Books page links - given that Google Books displays differently to different people, I think that either all page numbers should have such links, or none. Otherwise, I don't see anything else like unreliable sources, although I am not sure why some sources in the "Sources" section have page number ranges and others not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I have to mention the usefulness of Google Books page links for WP:Verifiability and inform readers about our earlier discussions of the pros and cons in other FA reviews. Regarding the page number ranges, I usually add them either for journal articles or book chapters. If I remember correctly, this was requested in another review a while back. Thanks for the source review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
Cycle-by comment
  • Before reading the rest of this please be sure you are sitting down and have a glass of water, or preferably Glenfidditch 12, at hand. Then note that in ref 29 the article defines "logic" by relying on Hintikka. Lord have mercy! Hintikka is singing a very lonely tune. To see that please take a look at the bok "What is a logical system" by Gabbay, Oxford 1994. The conclusion is that no one knows what logic is. Now you can drink your Glenfidditch. Mossakowski attempted a definition [12] but it is so complicated to be beyond reach of most people. By the way, if you guys manage to figure out what logic is as part of this discussion, please inform the editors of Logica Universalis for they do not have a clue, and they admit it. Unlike universal algebra universal logic never flew. Note that the G&B definition of instituition there assumes no definition for logic. Rightly so. But the good news is that the definition of inference does not need a definition of logic! I have not read the rext of the article and will take no position here and will make no further comments. But you probably got a hint about the level of research here. Good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input. It seems that the sources you cited are primarily about the meaning of the countable term "a logic", which refers to a specific formal system, but not about the meaning of the uncountable term "logic", which is the term used the passage in our article and denotes a field of inquiry. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Forget-Me-Now

[edit]
Nominator(s): Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 04:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?"

The above quote is from the classic Arrested Development episode "Forget-Me-Now", one episode that isn't usually on fans' lists of their favorite installments in the series, but it really, really deserves that spot. After working on successfully bringing another episode of the series, "The One Where Michael Leaves", to FA status in November, I decided it was time Arrested had another FA, which is where this magnificent episode comes in. The article just passed it's GAN, and I modeled it after the aforementioned other FA, including a tightly-written summary of the plot, a comprehensive production section that goes into both how Bob Loblaw’s character came to be and, interestingly enough, how the episode was captioned, a shockingly long Themes and analysis section that I spent probably the most time slowly perfecting, a short but sweet Release section, and a decently-sized corner decided to it’s critical reception. The article is at its best possible quality, and I believe it is ready for the final countdown! Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 04:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Olliefant:, the original reviewer of the GAN, in case they want to leave their thoughts Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 17:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Here'll be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Arconning:! I believe I should be done Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 05:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pass image review. Arconning (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Forget Me Now.png - Fair use
  • File:Scott Baio on RealTVfilms.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Henry Winkler in Baltimore.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
  • File:Casby and Pancks.jpg - Public Domain, the link needs to be on the exact page where the image is found
I've found another source that shows the image and explains that it's public domain, which should be good
  • Most images have alt-text for accessibility, first image is missing alt-text.
Added, thank you!
  • All images are relevant and have proper captioning.

Review by Cukie Gherkin

[edit]

Reserving - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: just a nudge Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 12:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Thank you so much for the review, I’ve tried my best to incorporate your comments, though there were some I didn’t understand/might not have done to your liking, and I left comments on them reflecting that. Thanks again, Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 17:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Apologies, but I’m a little confused by what you mean by this?

Lead

  • I reckon the characters should be linked even if they're linked in the infobox; while the infobox linking does come first on desktop, it doesn't come first on mobile.
Done
  • I'd mention Maeby by name (having not seen it in a while, I did not realize the girlfriend was Maeby)
Done

Infobox

  • Is there any sourcing re: cinematography/Greg Harrington?
Like for the other Arrested FA, I unfortunately wasn’t able to find a source for that information. If needed, I could remove it

Plot

  • "it hits the balloon bundle that George Sr. is using to float down to the ground, who falls and is swiftly caught by waiting police officers" did the medal hitting the balloon cause it to pop? How did it cause George to fall?
It hits the bundle, causing it to pop, and George Sr. falls; I added "and pops" to clarify this
  • "George Sr.'s crashing balloon fire catches on to the evidence that Michael had hidden in his nearby car, destroying it." I'm a little confused by this sentence and what it means
After the balloon pops, the pressure causes it to burst into flames, catching on to the evidence that Michael had previously asked Gob to destroy (as said in a previous paragraph). I tried to clarify this

Production

  • "who was created as a way to replace Barry Zuckerkorn, portrayed by Henry Winkler." Is there a reason why he left, or is it just that he had other things to do?
To my understanding, Winkler just kind of left the show and there’s not any information on why. In the season premiere, he is fired at the family's attorney, but I’m not sure if this is worth mentioning, since it doesn’t really relate to the real Winkler’s reason for leaving and is just the canonical reason for his departure; I could add this if needed
  • "Baio notes that this mirrored what happened behind the scenes of Happy Days, where he was brought on to replace Winkler." Is this Baio's interpretation, or an explanation of the intent behind Baio's casting?
An explanation of the intent, I reworded the sentence to clarify this
  • "His father would often joke about a man named Bob Loblaw—a pun on "blah blah blah"—and Tatham, remembering the name, suggested it to series creator Mitchell Hurwitz, who found it humorous." This feels like it would have come before writing it on the whiteboard; is that the case?
I believe it is, I reworded the sentence
  • Suggest splitting the Larry stuff into its own paragraph
Done

Themes and analysis

  • "Christopher C. Kirby, Jonathan Hillard, and Matthew Holmes, writing for a section in the book Arrested Development and Philosophy: They've Made a Huge Mistake" I think you can drop "for a section", as whether they did only a section or the whole thing does not really matter much
Done
  • I feel like this section could do a better job of clarifying what is the POV of the cited authors
I went back and reread the works used in this section to try to clarify more of the author’s thoughts without changing their words, but let me know if you feel more could be done

Release

  • Not sure if worth mentioning, but it did get a Region B Blu-ray release along with the rest of S1-3: [13]
This might be worth noting, but I cannot for the life of me find that information in the link you gave me. Is there another link you meant to paste, or am I going crazy? Nevermind, I found the SlashFilm article I believe you meant to link, and I included the information.

Reception

  • Change y!entertainment to Yahoo! Entertainment
Done
  • I feel like Lucille's line, if it's the best part, should be clarified what it is
I don’t know how I missed this because I went over the sources multiple times, but the Lucille line part seems to be from one of the rankings directly above it, not for "Forget Me Now", so I removed this part
  • Discussion of Bob Loblaw should be grouped together since they're relevant
Done
  • Inconsistent use of past vs. present tense
I tried my best to fix this, but I’m not sure if it’s all done, so let me know if more tenses could be fixed

I am comfortable offering my support now that my issues have been addressed (disclosure: made two edits, changing some usage of "note" per WP:NOTE and a minor edit to avoid repetition). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hello, Gog, how are you? The article has since gained a support. I know this is not much in the long run, but I was wondering if the possibility of archival in the next few days no longer stands with the support, or if I should continue to try and scout reviewers Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 18:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CD, I hope things are good with you. Sadly not. As a rough rule of thumb a nomination which has not garnered two substantive reviews leading to general supports by the three-week stage - or at least solid indications that this is likely to be shortly forthcoming - is liable to be warned and is unlikely to make it past the four-week mark without being archived. (I assume that I have posted for you before my standard hints on how to find reviewers?) It may seem harsh - and no-one becomes a coordinator in order to archive other editor's nominations - but the weeding out of nominations which don't seem to be attracting a consensus to promote is necessary at some stage. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, no issue if it needs to be archived soon, totally understandable and I can always nominate it again in the future. I’ll continue to review other articles and try to hopefully get one or two more reviewers for this (but I must admit, I am having fun reviewing other articles just for the fun of it) Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 13:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • "Forget-Me-Now" received positive reviews from critics, with praise going towards its humor and content; and has been featured on several lists detailing the finest episodes of Arrested Development.
    • You could remove the semicolon and split the conjunction or replace the semicolon with a period.
Done, thank you!
  • “praise going towards its humor” → “praise going toward its humor”
    • American English
Good catch, done
  • “academic analysis from both scholars and critics”

→ “academic analysis from scholars and critics”

Done
    • Also, doesn't "academic" already implies scholars?
I changed it to "thematic analysis"

MSincccc (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plot
  • "picking up Rita, but she is confused upon meeting them, still assuming Michael has no family" → "“picking up Rita, but she is confused when meeting them and still assumes Michael has no family"
Changed, thank you
  • “which he calls a "forget-me-now"
    • Capitalise to "Forget-Me-Now"?
Done!
  • the fire from the pressure of the balloon popping catches on to the evidence
    • You could drop the "on to".
Done
Production
  • It was Saunder's first and only writing credit
    • It should be "Saunders's"
Don’t know how I missed that, fixed
Release
  • Later, the series' first three seasons, including "Forget-Me-Now", was released on Blu-ray
    • "was” → “were” (Subject-verb agreement)
Done
Reception
  • "Murray felt the episode lacked a coherent narrative, but claimed the humor saved it from mediocrity." → “Murray felt the episode lacked a coherent narrative but said the humor saved it.”
    • A suggestion.
Done, only change I made was adding a comma before "but"
  • Bob Loblaw was voted as the "Best Character Name"
    • You could drop the "as".
Done

That's all from me for the prose. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: Thank you for the review, all comments have been addressed Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 17:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line
  • I have been through the prose and the images; I have not been through the sources. But the former two look good to me, hence I will support the nomination.
MSincccc (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/30/26)

[edit]

I will admit up front that I have never seen an episode of this show.

Lead
  • "as he plans to escape his confinement by an ankle bracelet." --> The last part of this sentence reads awkwardly. "home confinement"?
Done
Plot
  • "wired up to transmit video to him." --> You don't need the "up".
Done
  • "tries to force-feed Michael a forget-me-now." --> Recommend putting forget-me-now in quotation marks.
Done
Production
  • Why did Henry Winkler leave the series?
It is not known why, he just kind of did
  • "Winkler returned as Barry in the series' revival on Netflix." --> Since this actually happened, the use of the conditional is inappropriate.
Done
  • "Baio was given the role in the series through his agent, who was asked if he wanted to appear on the series." --> Redundant use "the series".
Done
  • "In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Baio said that when he was approached with the idea of appearing on Arrested Development by the series' producers, he suggested that his character could be first introduced randomly in Lucille's bedroom, or be tied up in her closet." --> Did either of those things happen? If not, this seems unimportant.
No, those are early suggestions. They do relate to the episode's production, as it was an early plan Baio suggested. I’ll keep it in for now, but I’m fine removing them completely if you want, just let me know
  • "The writers were conflicted on what to name Baio's character" --> "Title" is not appropriate.
Done
  • Dewikilink Canada.
Done
  • "remembering the name, wrote it on a blank whiteboard, a name which series creator Mitchell Hurwitz found humorous." --> That part of the phrase is both inappropriate and grammatically incorrect.
Fixed, thanks
  • "requiring the editors to use Audacity" --> Recommend slight rephrasing.
Done
Themes and analysis
  • Recommend putting forget-me-now in quotation marks.
Done
  • "simultaneously differentiating Arrested Development from other sitcoms through this" --> You don't need that last part.
Done
Reception
  • Recommend working the note into the prose and not leaving it as an add-on at the end of the article.
Done
  • "He stated that the episode..." --> The rest of this section is in the past tense.
Done

@Crystal Drawers: Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Hello, I have addressed the comments Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 20:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal Drawers: Just one more suggestion above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: Thank you, it has been added Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 20:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great... Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also have Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Soviet Figure Skating Championships/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1 if you are so inclined; the latter has received no feedback yet. Thank you in advance if you can help!

Source review (39/39)

[edit]

Opting to handle this - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • [14] Does not identify Tom Saunders as a co-executive producer (should attach citation 2 to this as well to clear up confusion)
Good catch, citation 2 says that he was a co-executive producer for the series so I attached it like you said
Hi Cukie Gherkin, is that it? Is the source review a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrapping it up today (for future reference, I use the header to indicate how many of the sources I've reviewed) - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine waiting, take your time with it, and let me know if you need any direct quotes for the book sources Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 17:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the EW and Reading Sound quotations, I will add the rest soon:
  • EW, "Unexpected Development": I said [to Arrested producers], I just want you to go into Jessica Walter's bedroom one morning and I'm lying next to her in bed. Or hanging in her closet tied up.'"
  • Reading Sounds, in a chapter about how television captioning was able to ger around issues: The first reenlistment scene from Arrested Development ("Forget Me Now"), presented as an annotated sound wave. Audacity was used to create the sound wave, which was imported into Photoshop and marked up with text. Each word in the sound wave is identified. Clear speech is visible in the demarcations in the sound wave. By contrast, gibberish is revealed through the lack of clear demarcations in the sound wave. Gibberish appears as a single wave.
  • Here is a link to the For British Eyes Only paper, the work used is on the pages labeled 71, 72, and 73: [15]
Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 19:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Above are most of the quotes for the sources, I’ll add quotes you can search with for the ones regarding “A State of” in a little bit; pinging just so you know where I am leaving the quotes Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 19:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes to search with for "A State of Arrested Development"
  • Gannon page 195: "This is tragically demonstrated in the episode "Forget-Me-Now" (3:3)"
  • Sabet 74: "On certain occasions, the use of language to imply Tobias' homosexuality is much more confronting and unrestrained than gentle signifiers"
  • Sabet 76 "A second incident occurs when Tobias dresses up as Lucille in order to help Buster deal with his dependence"
  • The one for Barton 238 is just a bullet list of episodes and their airdates, with the one used being: "Forget-Me-Now"...October 3, 2005"
Again, let me know if you want the full quotes in case searching with those doesn’t work Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 21:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't access the Entertainment Weekly, "Reading Sounds: Closed-Captioned Media and Popular Culture", "A State of Arrested Development: Critical Essays on the Innovative", or "For British Eyes Only:: Arrested Development and Neo-Victorian Television Comedy" sources. Can you please give me quotes to search for the respective refs so I can properly verify them if possible?
Sure, I’m out of the house right now but in about two or so hours I’ll be able to give you them
  • [16] I can't find this quote: "Hurwitz toying with the audience's expectations"
That seems to be an error on my part, the direct quote is "Hurwitz toys with audiences expectations", so I have fixed it to match this

Also, a comment: "While "Forget-Me-Now" is incongruous with the rest of Arrested Development for many factors" is POV, so should be attributed to Collins - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Sorry about the delay, resuming. Will also double back and check the sources I couldn't access - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • [17] This does not appear to verify 18-49 being the range they examine
Good catch, I changed it to just say "the target demographic"
  • Noticed issue: "Alia Shawkat and Jessica Walter" lacks an oxford comma, unlike other similar sentences
Fixed, thank you

After these are done, I can consider this concluded - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Cukie Gherkin:, both are finished, and I thank you again for both of your thorough reviews :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 22:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Sorry that it took so long to finish. Support - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

[edit]
  • I think more casting information is needed
I was able to add information about Theron’s guest appearance as Rita, but I couldn’t find anything on any others.
  • Can any info be pulled from the DVD commentary?
I’ve seen DVD commentaries be labeled as primary sources nowadays, and I believe it’s frowned upon to use them on FAs
  • Ref 6 is labeled "MEL Magazine", it should be just "MEL"
Done
  • Can something be added in release on how it compared to other episodes?
Sure, I’ve added information on how it was the second highest rated episode of the season behind "The Cabin Show"
Changed to "unconventional"
  • the cross dressing is mentioned in the analysis section but not the plot
I get where you’re coming from, but the cross dressing is a 20 second scene of Tobias and Buster having a little back and forth, it does not affect the plot in any way and it’s presence isn’t required for the Plot section
  • "to use Audacity—an audio editor—" -> "to use the audio editor Audacity" or something similar because I'm not sure emdashes fit
Good catch, done!
Sort of kicking myself for not noting these on my GA review. Olliefant (she/her) 07:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant: Thank you, Olliefant, always a pleasure. I’ve tried my best to incorporate all of your comments, but I’ve left replies on one’s that I feel wouldn’t really fit Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 11:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The DVD commentary would be primary but I don't think thats basis for excluding it. Adding a tidbit or two from the DVD commentary would comply with WP:PRIMARY Olliefant (she/her) 01:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still don’t really love the idea of including it, and I also don’t have access to it as I don’t own the DVDs. I’ll try to see if someone uploaded it to YouTube or something, but when i previously used DVD commentary (when I was updating the article for "Pilot"), I was told that such sources wouldn’t be good for a FAC, which is the main reason I’m unsure if I should Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 02:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then Support Olliefant (she/her) 02:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "a character created in order to replace Henry Winkler's character Barry Zuckerkorn." Suggest deleting "in order".
Done
The lists all contain paragraph long reviews of the episodes. I think "detailing" might be alright here, but I’ve reworded it to "highlighting" since that’s a bit more appropriate
Hello @Gog the Mild:, the source review has concluded, so I was just wondering if the article was good to go? Thank you, Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 23:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Intraproboscis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second attempt at FAN for this page. The first attempt was unsuccessful as the writing was considered inaccessible. I took all the recommendations from the previous reviewers and did my best to simplify an admittedly niche topic. I'm trying to go through every animal species alphabetically and get them to featured article status and this is #5.

This article did have an excellent GAN, and all suggestions from there and the first FAN were completed. Unfortunately, there is very little literature for this genus (it is all linked here), and the primary article which this is based on has an addendum published in the International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology, which some consider an inappropriate source (it is not considered predatory or in Beall's List, but it is owned by a publisher who also runs predatory journals). However, this addendum is absolutely critical to the article and I believe was allowed on exceptional grounds last round given the paucity of any information, and the fact it's an addendum to a high quality source. Mattximus (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander

[edit]
  • Size: the article is on a relatively narrow topic, so the article's size is correspondingly small: 1,602 prose words, which is appropriate.
  • The article has an appealing layout & visuals: including maps, a taxonomic tree, and informative images.
  • I looked at the prior FAC #1 on this article, and I see that the primary issue was that the prose was overly technical - aimed at graduate student level, rather than the general public. So, I'll try to focus on assessing that.
  • A source tool is highlighting one source as a predatory journal: but I see that was discussed in prior FAC #1, and the justification there (and also above in the intro to FAC #2) is adequate.
  • This source is missing ISBN ... if it is a book it should have it: Schmidt, Gerald D.; Nickol, Brent B. (1985). "Development and life cycles"...
  • The titles of sources listed in Ref section use various capitalization styles: e.g.
    1. Title case: "Human Acanthocephaliasis: a Thorn in the Side of Parasite Diagnostics"
    2. Sentence case: "New perspectives on Nephridiacanthus major (Acanthocephala: Oligacanthorhynchidae) collected from ..."
WP Guidelines suggest a consistent cap style is necessary (it is okay to ignore how the sources capitalize their own title). Suggest you pick one style & change all sources to use it.
  • Clarify: There are no known aberrant human infections for ... Can this be improved to tell the reader (via wikilink?) what "aberrant" means in this context?
  • Important terms are red-links: Acanthella (acanthocephala) and cystacanth. Normally, there is no problem with a few red links in a FA nomination, but these two seem like critical concepts for Intraproboscis. Readers will want either:
    1. Sub-articles on those two concepts so they can click the link & learn more; or
    2. Change those red links to the appropriate section within Acanthocephala article and ensure that those section(s) have an excellent description of the two terms; or
    3. Define the two terms here in Intraproboscis in a stand-alone fashion (and maybe remove the links entirely).
  • I left them as red links for any bold editors out there (they are red linked in the main acanthocephala page too), but I added a definition beside each one which should meet your #3 idea. Mattximus (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher field for sources: the book has its publsiher identified, but the journals do not. Not required for FA status, but consider adding publisher field to all journal sources: it helps the readers (and FA reviewers) assess the quality of the source. Ideally, the publisher field would be a wikilink so readers & reviewers can click and read about the publisher.
  • Source journals are not linked: e.g. Journal of Parasitology is a source, but in the citation it is not wikilinked to Journal of Parasitology article. Not required for FA status, but there are only a dozen sources in this article, so may as well help readers easily learn more about the sources.
  • Clarify Infestation by I. sanghae can cause intestinal perforation and death. Since two different hosts are named above in the paragraph, this sentence should specify which of the two hosts could be subject to perforation/death.
  • In taxonomic tree: are there two branches with the identical name: Gigantorhynchidae  ? If so, that doesn't seem right.
  • Should include binomial name of this animal immediately after its name: The black-bellied pangolin is a...
  • clarify There are no known cases of accidental human infection by I. sanghae. Can the word "accidental" be removed?
  • Alt text: The image in the InfoBox is missiing alt text, I think.
  • Alt text for all images: Consider tweaking the alt text a bit for images to make it more helpful for visually impaired readers. Ideally the alt text describes the content of the image in a way that helps a blind person imagine what the image shows. Examples: not so great: "A line drawing of an insect"; better: "A black and white line drawing, showing an insect with six legs, two antennae, three body segments, and a large stinger on its rear end."
Thank you so much for your time Noleander, I've responded to all your suggestions above. Mattximus (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, @Mattximus: - Sorry for not following-up ... I was waiting for nominator to remind me. The article is not FA quality yet, in my opinion. I'll post some more notes below. Noleander (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption wording: The black-bellied pangolin (left) is the definitive host of I. sanghae. The tree pangolin is the second host of I. sanghae discovered. - the "... discovered" at the end is awkward; maybe put "The second host discovered is ... " at start of 2nd sentence?
    Done Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording could be more direct? A survey of the medical literature published in 2021 did not list I. sanghae as infecting humans. Would readers benefit from simply stating a plain fact: I. sanghae does not infect humans. or There is no evidence that I. sanghae infects humans.?
    The current wording was suggested by another reviewer, who changed the wording from a suggestion from another reviewer. I don't have an opinion, but I'm not sure of the three reviewers which wording is the best. Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In scientific articles, it is assumed that all stated facts are supported by journal-based research. There is no need to preface a fact with the fact that there was research done (unless there are strange circumstances such as the fact is in dispute). Did the other reviewer explain why that preface was helpful to readers? And what, exactly, does the source say about "I. S. does not infect humans"? Is it a controversial fact? Noleander (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says nothing about I. sanghae as the source was written before the worm was discovered. The source is a survey of all known acanthocephalan infections, so the current phrasing was suggested to account for the absence of evidence of infection. I think originally my wording was something like "There are no known human infestations of I. sanghae." but the reviewer said I needed to cite the null, and suggested the present wording. Mattximus (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category: Category:Fauna of Africa - that is a very top-level category; can the article use a category that is more specific, e.g. instead put into Category:Invertebrates of Africa?
  • Cite for caption: Left: Anterior region of a female I. sanghae showing the retracted anterior proboscis, posteriorly positioned proboscis receptacle, and insertion... Could this include a cite so readers can click on the cite and find the source of this image? (rather than clicking on the image & navigating to commons, etc).
    Done Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS compliance is good. Once the above items are addressed, I can support on prose. Noleander (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Caught only one, so I must be blind. Are you supposed to link at the first instance in each section? If that's not the case then I can find many others as the host is linked in a few sections and the lead.Mattximus (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not related to the article itself, but I'm puzzled by "I'm trying to go through every animal species alphabetically and get them to featured article status and this is #5. Do you mean every acanthocephalan article? Otherwise you'll be doing these for a few hundred lifetimes!
I was debating whether to make an identical comment :-) Noleander (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's just a relaxing hobby of mine. Yes alphabetically, the first was "Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Apororhynchus" and then I just went from there one genus at a time. Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty ambitious either way! FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link proboscis in infobox caption and first mention in article body, where the term should also be explained in parenthesis. I see you link and explain it further down in the description where it intuitively might make more sense, but the reader will encounter it earlier.
  • The two last pangolin images seem to mess up the layout a bit, perhaps collect them into a double image template side by side so they don't take up so much space, like you did with the maps? Then the life cycle image could be left aligned, and the pangolins could be right further down.
I tried a different layout, would work better if they were of similar dimensions, but I think it looks less intrusive than before. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you randomly switch back between the genus name and the abbreviated binomial, and even the full binomial? Could probably just stick to the shortest option after first full mention.
  • "The type locality for I. sanghae is Dzanga-Sangha Complex of Protected Areas" shouldn't it be "the Dzanga-Sangha Complex" here and in the article body?
  • "with the only species, Intraproboscis sanghae, being necessarily the type species" overly wordy, you could simply say "containing only the type species Intraproboscis sanghae".
  • "extracted post-mortem from a 5-year-old black-bellied pangolin." Post-mortem what, the worms or the pangolin? If the latter, just say a dead pangolin.
  • "from the Sangha tribal region where specimens were collected." State what country this is in.
  • "was circumscribed and species I. sanghae was formally described in 2021" overly wordy without really adding much, could just say "was described in 2021".
This is how I originally wrote it, but another reviewer suggested splitting up the genus and species descriptions to what you read now using these terms (which I was previously unaware of!). Mattximus (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a parareceptacle structure and a uterine vesicle" very technical, needs explanation up here too.
  • "was formally described in 2021" but the citation says 2022?
  • "a parareceptacle structure in Archiacanthocephala" present this group, now it's mentioned out of nowhere.
  • "Several phylogenetic studies have been performed confirming its position in the order Giganthorhynchidae.[1][2]" several means more than two, but you only cite two.
  • "Similar comparisons have been conducted by Gomes et al. (2019) and Amin et al. (2020).[3][4]" if these are the additional citations, cite them in the article body as well, not just the caption.
  • In this case the last two made similar phylogenetic trees excluding Intraproboscis, but are needed to complete the tree, so they are included in the caption but not the main body which deals exclusively with Intraproboscis. Mattximus (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, combining different trees might go into WP:synth territory. what would be lost of you stick to following a specific published cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I just went back and remembered what I did here. The entire tree you see is from that one article (I did remove some species not relevant, but did not synthesize anything). And I added a few more that confirm the various relations between them. Mattximus (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and contains many fragmented nuclei" could be explained what this means.
  • "is encircled by complex tubules" Likewise.
  • "The tree pangolin (Phataginus tricuspis)" You don't seem to give the binomial for when the main host pangolin is first mentioned.
  • Considering how few specimens seem to be known, I think it would make sense if you under the taxonomy section also mention when and how it was identified from the tree pangolin and how many specimens etc. Also, how it was determined the worms in each host were the same and not different species. I assume it is related to "and was supplemented with a second sample which included both females and a single incomplete male"?
  • "I. sanghae parasitizes two species of pangolin: the black-bellied pangolin (Phataginus tetradactyla), the type host, and the tree pangolin (Phataginus tricuspis)." the links and binomials should already have been given at first mention in the article body, and are not needed down here again.
  • Done. I've removed links per your suggestion, but I do think it's useful for the reader who scrolled down to the Hosts section to be able to click on the hosts. But I'll follow your advice. Mattximus (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that's caused by" Contractions are discouraged.
  • "The cause of death for the sampled host was intestinal perforation." what pangolin species?
  • "There are no reported cases of I. sanghae infesting humans in the English language medical literature." Does the source say this specifically, or are you citing its absence?
Could perhaps be more carefully worded, the. Perhaps something like "a survery of the medical literature published in year X did not list it as infecting humans". FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while males seem to be smaller in all dimensions" why "seem"? Because only one male is known? Should be stated somewhere then if there is doubt.
  • I was recommended to use this word last nomination, because the only male sample is "incomplete" according to the reference (I do not know what that means and the article doesn't specify). Not sure what I can modify but I'm open to suggestions. Mattximus (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding an efn footnote to that sentence, which re-states what the source says about the single/partial sample. That way, readers curious about the word "seem" can click on the efn footnote and learn more. Just an idea. Noleander (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first discovery of a parareceptacle structure in Archiacanthocephala represents an important taxonomic and evolutionary bridge between different acanthocephalan groups. " As earlier, this doesn't explicitly state the relation with the articles subject.

Thank you FunkMonk so much for the time you put into reviewing this incredibly niche topic. I have completed all your suggestions and added a question/comment on any I could not complete. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, added some replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again FunkMonk! I think I've addressed all concerns? Please let me know if I missed something. Mattximus (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • As note a in the lead repeats information given in the previous sentence it seems redundant.
If you think it is necessary, leave it in and I will live with it. If you don't, take it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "trunk" at first mention in the lead.
  • "The life cycle of I. sanghae remains unknown; however, like other acanthocephalans, it likely involves complex life cycles with at least two hosts." It may just be me, but it seems odd that you use both "life cycle" (singular) and ""life cycles" (plural).
  • "These are then ingested by the definitive host". Could we have a brief in line definition of "definitive host" for readers who are not aficionados of parasite terminology.
  • Ooo this is interesting, it means the host where the parasites mature and reproduce, but the next words are "where they mature and reproduce sexually". Not sure how to rephrase to avoid repetition. Mattximus (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weell, this is the lead, so you could duck the issue with something like 'These are then ingested by the second host, where they mature and reproduce sexually within its intestines.' Or maybe 'These are then ingested, typically by a vertebrate. This is where the cystacanths mature and the adult worms reproduce sexually within the intestines and it is known as the definitive host.' or similar?
  • Could "monotypic" be explained in line. Or, better, translated into English.
Yeah, taking out monotypic actually, and a little weirdly, improves the explanation.
  • "... no neck, and a parareceptacle structure (a distinct sac-like structure adjacent to the proboscis receptacle) and a uterine vesicle ..." Does the first "and a" need deleting? Ans a comma placing before the second?
  • This is a bit of a weird one I'll admit, but I'm trying to make it so the last two are what is being referred to when I later write "both of which". If I make your change, then we don't know which two "both" refers to from the list. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"and a uterine vesicle (a thick-walled, spheroidal compartment between the uterus and the uterine bell, replacing the uterine bell glands and encircled by ducts of unknown function) which are both absent in Mediorhynchus." → 'and a uterine vesicle (a thick-walled, spheroidal compartment between the uterus and the uterine bell, replacing the uterine bell glands and encircled by ducts of unknown function); the last two of these are both absent in Mediorhynchus.
  • "an 18S rDNA analysis further confirms the status of Intraproboscis". Shouldn't "confirms" be past tense?
  • "that bridges understanding between different acanthocephalan groups". I don't understand this. (How can one bridge understanding?)
  • "the sampled male body is 94.25 mm long and 1.5 mm wide. The body wall is much thicker on the dorsal side compared to the ventral side and ..." This reads as if the male is thicker on the dorsal side etc. Is that what you mean to communicate?
  • "central Africa"; "Central Africa". Be consistent.
  • Caption: "The black-bellied pangolin (left) is the definitive host of I. sanghae." I suggest linking "definitive host".
  • I suggest linking "μm" at first mention.
  • "parareceptacle" is unlikely to mean much to readers who are not already familiar with the terminology of the description of parasitic worms.
Obviously not, and I overlooked your immediately prior explanation. Apologies.
  • "The reproductive system is compact and well developed". What does "well developed" mean?
  • I don't know, so I asked an AI (don't shoot!), and it said "A system that is not rudimentary, reduced, or degenerate, which is important in parasite taxonomy". It's the wording used in the text, and is not explained. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'fully developed'?
  • I don't know enough about these creatures to say that another one isn't more developed than this one, and this it can't be called "fully" if there is more to develop, if that makes sense. I'm happy keeping the wording from the source (as is now) or removing entirely. Mattximus (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as is then. Even if we don't know what it means!
  • Is the size of the eggs known?
  • "The distribution of I. sanghae is determined by that of its two known hosts." Suggest 'The distribution of I. sanghae is determined by that of its hosts, of which two are known.' or similar.
Ok - change it back if you wish.
  • "... is also a host. This host is native to ..." "a host. This host is choppy. Maybe '... is also a host. It is native to ...'?
  • "large portions of central Africa south of the Sahara desert". I thought that central Africa was, by definition, south of the Sahara. In which case "south of the Sahara desert" is redundant.
  • "The life cycle culminates in the formation of a cystacanth, a larval stage able to infect the host". The definitive or intermediate host?
  • "I. sanghae parasitizes two species of pangolin". Perhaps 'I. sanghae is known to parasitize two species of pangolin'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review Gog the Mild! I appreciate you taking the time. I've addressed all your concerns, however I did have quite a few questions/clarifications above when I was unable to complete your request myself. Mattximus (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses. Silence usually implies content. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, nudge. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog the Mild for the nudge. I did pose one question to you above, and the rest I believe is resolved? I also completed all changes from the other two reviewers. Thank you again for your excellent review! Mattximus (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Image source, licence and placement are fine, I wonder if the ALT text of the infobox image could be improved. Nothing remarkable on the sourcing, identifiers are the bots' job in my mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I improved on the alt text for the infobox. Mattximus (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the new ALT doesn't really describe what the image shows, just what it is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, you are referring to the top image, and not the map in the infobox? If so, I'm at a loss for how to improve the wording. Mattximus (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The top image, yes. Something like "Long tubular structure with an invagination (the receptacle) about halfway down its length"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added your wording, should be good now. Mattximus (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crusading movement

[edit]
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on the theoretical, institutional, economic and sociological dimensions of the powerful medieval and early modern movement that originated in the First Crusade. The military aspects of the Crusades and of other crusading campaigns are therefore treated only briefly, as they are the main subject of other articles (such as Crusades, Iberian Crusades, Albigensian Crusades and Northern Crusades). The article has undergone substantial revision in the past. Earlier versions relied mainly on encyclopedic entries and showed some issues of close paraphrasing, but these have been addressed: the sourcing has been strengthened with academic literature, and the text has received a thorough copy-edit. It has since been promoted to GA status and has benefited from detailed peer review. I would be very grateful for comments, suggestions, and further ideas for improvement during this FAC review, as I believe the article is now in a good position to benefit from further development. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

I reviewed the first (out of a total of six) GA nominations of this article, which I failed. I also reviewed it the last time it was at FAC, where I opposed. Those nominations were by another user who apparently has left Wikipedia. I am glad you took this over, and I am curious how it has developed. At first glance, the article looks more comprehensive and, at the same time, more concise. I will leave comments soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first sentence alone is quite long and throws a lot of information at the reader. Maybe you can split it, and simplify a bit by removing "at the Council of Clermont"?
  • I have rephrased it and omitted the reference to Western Christendom, as this is implied by the mention of the papacy. ([19])
  • Fear of damnation spurred reform movements – Add where the fear comes from?
  • where climate anomalies triggered famine – I think the link is too general; if it cannot be linked to the specific climate anomaly we are talking about here (the expected target for such a link), I would unlink.
  • a new military class of mounted warriors emerged. Known as milites – What is the difference between "milites" and knights? Can milites be linked to any article?
  • I would leave it as it is, since the text already explains that they were mounted warriors. Rendering the term as "knight" in an early-eleventh-century context could be misleading, and there is no appropriate wikilink.
  • c. 1140 – when using this abbreviation, I suggest the {{circa}} template, which gives c. 1140.
  • Sorry, I may be missing something, but the {{circa}} template is already used in the text.
  • depict Livonia – what is "Livonia"?
  • Rephrased and moved to a footnote. ([22])
  • Marino Sanudo Torsello, a Venetian writer, became a key crusading theorist,[193] and proposed a naval alliance against Aegean pirates, uniting Catholic powers with Genoese and Venetian island lords – When was this? Did he only propose this or did this result in an actual alliance? Is the alliance against pirates relevant enough to warrant inclusion to begin with (I can't find anything about pirates in his WP article)?
  • Rephrased (the plan merits mention in his article, but does not require detailed treatment here). ([23])
  • Grassroots crusading zeal later inspired mass movements known as popular crusades. – You just talked about the People's crusade in the previous paragraph; isn't that a popular crusade too?
  • In Iberia and the Crusader states, relations with natives followed the pre-conquest dhimmi model. – I believe this info is useless if "dhimmi model" is not explained.
  • Accounts on Christian experiences in the Holy Land on the eve of the Crusades vary.[note 23][212] Attacks on pilgrims likely shaped perceptions of danger,[213] though Asbridge highlights that interfaith violence mirrored broader political and social turmoil.[214] – I'm not sue what the point is here. Does it say that there was violence but Christians have not been suppressed based on their religion?
  • rejected the Christology of the Council of Chalcedon – Explain? What is this about?
  • Rephrased and explained. ([27])
  • Following the Fourth Crusade, successor states like Epiros and Nicaea led Greek resistance – Can't follow. Successor of what? What Greek resistance, against whom?
  • Despite occasional alliances between Crusaders and Rus' leaders, lasting control over Rus' lands was never achieved. – Rus come out of the blue, the only time there are mentioned in the article at all, so their significance is unclear to the reader. I think the Rus should at least be briefly introduced if this sentence is kept.
  • Rus' principalities introduced in a previous section. ([29])
  • As some tribes followed the Eastern Syriac (Nestorian) Church, fragmentary reports of Mongol advances revived legends of Prester John, a mythical Eastern Christian ruler viewed as a potential ally against Islam – Can't follow. Some mongols(?) followed the church; what does this have to with Prester John?
  • and detailed spiritual and temporal rewards,[note 39][338][339] and were read in – Too many "and"; just remove the first?
  • By "taking the cross", they pledged to follow Christ's call: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" – What is Christ's call, where is the quote from? Bible?
  • This reflected the 11th-century imitatio Christi ("imitation of Christ") movement – Lacks context, and the explanation is not very helpful (I could have guesst that "imitatio" means imitation, but I still don't know what this movement is)
  • crusaders – Term is sometimes capitalized sometimes not, should be consistent
  • Guibert of Nogent notes that Pope Urban extended protection to crusaders – Why "extended" What else was protected before crusaders got protected?
  • In 1107, the canonist Ivo of Chartres still called this legal treatment "new". Can't really follow here and the footnote does not explain it too.
  • The historian Peter Lock notes that launching "a crusade was no easy task and the time given for preparation was often short".– No easy task for whom? The pope, since he was the one launching the crusade?
  • Artifacts - what does this mean? Relics?
  • Missing word added and rephrased. ([38])
  • the earliest and weakest, fell after a failed alliance with Zengi's Muslim rivals, the Artuqids. – Fell to whom? Consider simplifying.
  • monarchs left Jerusalem under regents – Cannot understand
  • By the Mamluk advance, the Frankish East had fragmented into competing lordships and communes. – What is the Frankish East?
  • After the Lusignan dynasty ended in 1474, the island passed to Venice. – I don't know what the Lusignan dynasty is or why it is mentioned here. Is this sentence needed?
  • Yes, it is relevant: the end of a major state established as a consequence of the Crusades is a significant aspect of the crusading movement. Modified. ([42])
  • Demand for wheat, olive oil, and silk enriched the lords of the Peloponnese in Greece, turning the court of the Villehardouin princes of Achaea into a centre of chivalric life.[424][425] Under Angevin protection, Achaea survived the Byzantine revival until the Despotate of the Morea annexed it in 1430. Achaea's former vassal, the Duchy of Athens, was first seized by mutinous Catalan mercenaries, and later by the Acciaioli, a Florentine banking dynasty, but fell to the Ottomans in 1460.[426] Despite Ottoman pressure, Venice retained parts of its overseas empire into the 18th century. – I believe this could be drastically shortened/simplified. It's just historical events, not a discussion on the Crusading movement.
  • Despite Ottoman pressure, Venice retained parts of its overseas empire into the 18th century – Is this needed at all?
  • Yes, because Venice seized these territories during the Fourth Crusade, and their survival is therefore closely tied to the crusading movement. Rephrased. ([44])
  • but Polish incursions, and internal strife weakened – Remove comma?
  • That's it from me after a first read. Great work overall. My impression is that you tried to squeeze as much information into as little text as possible, but this also makes the article less accessible. For the examples above, you could maybe try to either prune non-essential information, or add necessary context, and explain crucial terms. Hope this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your detailed and well-grounded review. Conciseness and accessibility are indeed often competing requirements. I hope that, by the end of the FAC process, the article will have improved significantly in this respect as well. I intend to address the remaining issues you raised above shortly. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good to me now. Happy to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:BritLibRoyal5DVIIFolio067r.JPG needs a US tag. Ditto File:Ninety-Five_Theses_WDL7497.png
  • Done.
  • File:Rotunda,_Adomanan_de_locis_santis.jpg also needs a US tag, and the own-work tag is incorrect - under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright
  • Both fixed.
  • File:1099_Siege_of_Jerusalem.jpg needs a US tag and the source link is dead
  • Both fixed.
  • File:Double_page_from_the_Qur'an_manuscript_containing_the_opening_to_juz'_13_(DMA_K.1.2014.574.1).jpg: source link is dead
  • Source (a peer reviewed book) specified.
  • File:Egerton_ms_1139!1_fse005r.jpg: source link is dead, and I'm not sure this is a 2D work? It appears 3D from this view.
  • Source added. Yes, it is a 3D work.
  • File:Page_of_Lay_of_the_Cid.jpg is mistagged and is quite blurry
  • Deleted.

ErnestKrause

[edit]

Just from a brief glance here, its not clear that you have covered all of the primary sources starting with History of the Crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land. Where is the mention of Edward Gibbon and his two famous chapters on the Crusades; where is the discussion of Hume's reading of the crusades. What of the criticism of their viewpoints as covered in the linked article? If you are excluding all of these, then even such an exclusion should be discussed as relevant to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciate you taking the time to engage with the article. As a general point, I would note that there are a number of figures which are not covered in it. These omissions are not oversights, but follow directly from the article's scope: the article is not intended to be about the historiography of the crusading movement or individual crusading campaigns, but to provide a broad outline of the movement itself, introducing its principal features and directing readers to the relevant main articles (such as Historiography of the Crusades) for more specialised discussion. This approach is fully consistent with WP:SUMMARY style. For this reason, extended discussion of Charles Mills, Edward Gibbon and David Hume and their respective works belongs in the specialised historiography article rather than in a general overview. Moreover, according to the standard secondary literature, even a brief reference to them here would be open to challenge in light of WP:DUE. For example:
  • Giles Constable does not mention Mills in his concise overview of crusading historiography (Constable 2001); in The Oxford History of the Crusades Mills is mentioned only tangentially in the context of a 19th-century English translation of Tasso's Gerusalemme Liberata; and in Peter Lock's The Routledge Companion to the Crusades Mills's entry is among the shortest in the chapter "Brief Biographies of Crusade Historians".
  • Hume does not feature in Constable's or Lock's above cited surveys of crusading historiography, and is mentioned in The Oxford History of the Crusades only as one of the Enlightenment-era critics of crusading.
  • Gibbon receives somewhat broader treatment in these works, but, as Christopher Tyerman notes, the "chapters Gibbon devoted to the crusades … show a close dependence on previous writers, in part to engage and frequently to refute their arguments" (Tyerman 2011, p. 86). Nevertheless, Gibbon's possible role in popularising the numbering of the crusades might be mentioned briefly in the text or in a footnote, although it is not clear that this would be a consensual approach, given the broad scope of the article.
Finally, I would note that the article cited above on Mills's work is currently supported only by a reference to the work itself, and its notability therefore still needs to be established in accordance with the relevant guideline through independent secondary sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mills, I imagine, can be dealt with as a critic of Gibbon, however, its more difficult to just dismiss the relevance of Gibbon and his famous extended chapter on the Crusades here: [46]. Your article here already has a large Bibliography, though it would be questionable if you fully elide mention of Gibbon's importance to this question and to his important outline of separating Rome's influences from influences of Constantinople upon the Crusades. For Gibbon the discussion of the decline and fall of the empire has significant tie-ins with the Crusades. I'm not sure how you would think about the Crusades comprehensively in the absence of Gibbon's large outline and organizational apparatus. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Borsoka on this one. Gibbon is a 18th-century scholar. He could be, very briefly, mentioned in the "Historiography" section if he or his work is as important as the other figures mentioned there. Everything else should go into the Historiography of the Crusades article. This is a high-level overview of the crusading itself, not about the research history. We also have constraints on article length, and this article is already at the limit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Constable mentions Gibbon as a representative of Enlightenment-era anti-crusading criticism and as one of the first historians to enumerate the crusades. Lock’s treatment broadly follows this line. However, neither treats him as central to the interpretation of the crusading movement itself. For this reason, it does not seem necessary to include Gibbon in a general article on the subject. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • I reviewed the earlier Crusades FAC that didn't pass, so it's nice to see this up as a sort of spiritual successor. I wonder, though, what the history of this is and what relation there is to the first nominator Norfolkbigfish, who seems to have been blocked and to have had conflict with the current nominator? Not assuming any bad faith, I trust Borsoka's competences, I'm just genuinely puzzled. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your first comments. Yes, Norfolkbigfish was initially blocked for blatant plagiarism and later for sockpuppetry. I reported the issue at ANI several times. The case also highlights how difficult it can be to identify close paraphrasing and original research in reviews. Therefore, I hope I have ensured that there is no continuity between Norfolkbigfish’s text and the new text.
Ah, good to see these articles are being cleaned up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this also seems to be about economic aspects and other motivations, I'd assume there would be some discussion of looting and other forced acquisition of wealth (which I don't see at a cursory glance)?
  • There are only cursory references, such as a short sentence in the "Crusaders" section: "Most saw no contradiction between piety and material gain, such as booty." The "Women" section also mentions raids by both Christian and Muslim forces targeting women and children. The caption of one of the images (File:Horses of Basilica San Marco bright.jpg) also refers to the spoils of the Sack of Constantinople. Would you suggest adding an explicit sentence about looting?
I wonder if there was any theological justifications given for it in this context? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this seems to be about the ideology and background of the movement, I'd expect some discussion of the phrase Deus vult and any other such mottos and ritualistic concepts?
  • The phrase is linked in the "Justification" section. I deliberately avoided mentioning it in the text because not all primary sources on the Council of Clermont include it. Would you suggest mentioning it explicitly, at least in a footnote? The most common crusading rituals are mentioned in section "Taking the cross".
Personally I think it would be fitting to mention it in a footnote, but I'll defer to your judgement. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section about Jews only seems to cover relations with Jews in Europe, but as far as I gather they were also pretty complicated in the Middle East? Not that you should go into detail about this, but seems it could be more balanced, as you don't mention it at all.
  • The second and third sentences of the third paragraph deal with the relationship between Jewish communities and the Holy Land. Do you think this should be expanded?
Oh, I missed that, perhaps link Jewish pilgrimage? FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Muslims section seems to treat them as a monolithic group, whereas as far as I gather, the Crusaders had shifting alliances with some Muslim sects against others, etc.
  • I deliberately avoided mentioning the Shia–Sunni rifts because, ultimately, they played no greater role in the movement than conflicts between Sunni groups themselves (such as between the Seljuks of Aleppo and Damascus). The "First Crusade" section explicitly refers to "fragmented Muslim-held territories", and the last sentence of the "Muslims" section refers to "pragmatic Christian–Muslim alliances", with a footnote giving examples from both the Levant and Iberia. I would therefore avoid placing further emphasis on this point, especially since alliances between crusaders and their opponents (such as pagan Balts or Greek aristocrats) were not uncommon, as noted elsewhere in the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even without mentioning sects, I think it could be explicitly mentioned that Muslim factions also fought internally? Now it's only implied. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Crusades are commonly defined as religious wars waged by Western European warriors during the Middle Ages to capture Jerusalem." while it might seem like it goes without saying, wouldn't it be key to add "Christian" before "Western European"?
  • Link terms like pope and monastic?
  • "the Umayyads in Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), the Fatimids in Egypt, the Abbasids (nominally) in the Middle East, and the Byzantine Empire." mention what area was included in the Byzantine Empire too as you do with the others?
  • "leading to the sack of Constantinople and the creation of a Latin Empire in 1204" could add "there" after Latin Empire for clarity.
  • The term Holy Land is first mentioned and linked unusually far down the article considering how important the concept is. Could be mentioned and explained earlier? Perhaps near "Penitential journeys to Palestine held special value"?
  • Link pagan?
  • "Pagan" is a fairly common term, and I have not been able to identify a specific reference, particularly given that, in the context of the article, the pagans comprised several ethnic groups with distinct pagan traditions (Slavic, Baltic, and Finnic peoples). Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extensive piracy in the Mediterranean revived anti-Muslim crusading" link Barbary pirates?
  • I had this in mind while completing the article; my concern is that the term ‘Barbary piracy’ does not encompass Muslim piracy in the Aegean, which initially prompted these crusades. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally, miles Christi" is it intentionally spelled differently from "milites Christi" here?
  • "spent "most of his life in the sadle" Saddle?
  • Link Levant.
  • The sack of Constantinople is mentioned several times without much elaboration, but it only leaves one wondering what the theological rationale would have been, if any, and possible justifications for Crusaders attacking other Christians should be given here for context.
  • "describes them "a slice of" as a slice of?
  • You use both the names Nur al-Din and Zengi for the same person, would be easier to follow if you were consistent.
  • "Native clergy were readmitted at Eastern 1101" is something wrong with the wording here?
  • "Syriac (or Jacobite) Christians, mainly rural and Arabic-speaking" Aren’t/weren't they, well, mainly Syriac-speaking?
  • Link Christianisation?
  • Link burghers.
  • Perhaps right align the image under Mongols to prevent it clashing with the section header below?
  • Could a crusader castle be shown under Military architecture?
  • Could a map of the crusader states be shown under New states?
  • Any surviving artifacts that could be shown in relevant sections?
  • Anything that could be said about specific melee weaponry used under Command, strategy and troops?
  • I think the section already covers this topic, both explicitly—through references to spearmen and the Almogavars’ daggers, lances, and darts—and implicitly, by mentioning knights and light cavalry. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a Polish duke" Why not just name him instead of the pipelink?
  • "In Iberia, the Song of My Cid recounts the exploits of the Castilian noble Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar." since you give an audio sample, state it's language, as you do for other songs and authors? It's of course not a given that it's Castilian just because it says Iberia.
  • "warned of the threat of the "polytheists"" while you link to the trinity, I wonder if this could warrant elaboration in the article, at least as a footnote.
  • The link refers specifically to the article on the Islamic view of the Trinity. As the opening sentences of the linked article already explain the term in its relevant context, it could perhaps be unnecessary to elaborate on it further here. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as the tale of the warrior woman Dhat al-Himma—also reference the crusades" this makes me wonder, how were the Crusades/Crusading referred to in the languages of the time. What was crusading called by the crusaders? Some Latin term we could mention in the article?
  • "Scholars disagree on how the movement shaped interethnic relations." Why just specifically interethnic and not interfaith? Or is within Christianity meant?
  • Link war on terror.
  • "called the war on terror a crusade" Perhaps put "crusade" in quotation marks, as you do with "Muslim fundamentalists often label adversaries as "crusaders""?
  • "the argument of Riley-Smith that in Kingdom of Heaven, the director Ridley Scott conveyed a historical perspective akin to Osama bin Laden's.[530]" seems a pretty extreme view to include, unless you add the year of release for context, so it's clear this was during the height of the "war on terror", and therefore quite hyperbolic. Perhaps it would make more sense to make a general statement about criticisms the film faced during the Afghanistan/Iraq wars.
  • In the sections about events during the crusades themselves, it can be a bit difficult to follow what happens when, as dates are rarely given. I assume this is to prevent clutter, but perhaps you could consider giving dates to more key events.
  • Especially in the latter sections, I wonder what criteria that make the included text about the Crusading movement and not the crusades in general? Of course, there is perhaps no clear distinction between the two, but what would be the criteria for inclusion here and not, say, in the crusades article itself? Or to just leave much of it in the spin-off articles that already seem to exist?
From Architecture and down. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having considered the previous comment, I remain convinced that an article intended to cover the principal aspects of the movement as a whole should also address its impact on architecture, the arts, and literature, together with its legacy and historiography. I would therefore prefer not to reduce the article's scope. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Placeholder. Please ping me if I haven't got to this by February. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I am pinging. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A little confused by the "Enemies and contacts" section: it seems to be a catch-all box for peoples and cultures not actually part of the Crusading movement but with which the Crusades sometimes overlapped. Some subsections, like the one on pagans, do focus on how pagans interacted with the movement, but to take what I am most familiar with, the "Mongols" subsection is more a list of events than any societal analysis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for starting the review. Yes, this section is intended to give readers a broad, accessible overview of interactions between the crusaders and other major religious or ethnic groups. It is conceived in a similar spirit to the corresponding sections in Lock's book, which discuss contacts with Byzantines and Armenians, and it is also informed by other scholarship—most notably MacEvitt's monograph on eastern Christian groups and Jaspert's general overview of the crusading movement. While I hope that each subsection addresses this broader purpose of the section within its own thematic focus, it is important to stress that the nature of these interactions varied considerably from group to group. For example, pagan communities on the north-eastern frontiers of Western Christendom maintained longstanding economic and political relations with their Catholic neighbours and were ultimately conquered and integrated into Catholic Europe as a result of crusading campaigns. The Mongols, by contrast, were only tangentially connected to the crusading movement: their sudden emergence initially inspired hopes in Catholic Europe; they later became the target of relatively limited crusades; and although they intervened in Middle Eastern politics, they were eventually defeated by the Mamluks. The introduction to the section also explicitly notes the difference between the Mongols—as a suddenly emerging and hitherto unknown enemy—and other groups. I would be most grateful for any suggestions or comments on how this section could be improved. Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: may I ask if there is anything further you need from me at this stage? Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

That's a lot of sources, many not easy to spotcheck. That said, it sounds like they are reliable and consistently formatted. Apropos of nothing, given the geography I am always puzzled by attempts to interpret crusades as anything but a mostly religious matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: just wanted to ask if there is anything you need from me for your source review. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, unless folks want a spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your source review. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Cecil Russell

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A late-Victorian British cavalry officer who rose to prominence under Garnet Wolseley in the Third Anglo-Ashanti War. He went on to serve in the Anglo-Zulu War but the British defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana appears to have affected his mental health. He was accused of cowardice, perhaps unfairly, for his actions at the Battle of Hlobane and relieved of his duties; this doesn't seem to have affected his career too badly as he went on to command his regiment and retired as a major-general. The article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review - Dumelow (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Not sure why this hasn't had any attention yet.

  • You refer to Wolseley as "the general" in the lead but he hasn't been introduced as such. Suggest just introducing Wolseley with his rank on first mention.
Good point, done - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Equerry (Extra/in Waiting) a proper noun?
The source (London Gazette) capitalises it, as does the 2011 edition of Debrett's, but I am easy either way - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more inclined to treat it the way we treat ranks, but I don't feel strongly enough to press the point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the CVO really lead-worthy? Isn't that quite a common award for royal household personnel?
Trimmed out - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russell was educated privately as in at home or as in private school? If the latter, do we know which one?
The source only says "educated privately", I have not seen any mention of a school elsewhere (I would have expected an obit in an old boys' magazine or similar) so I suspect he was tutored at home but can't source it - Dumelow (talk)
  • More out of curiosity than anything else: was merit required for the purchased promotions or was it simply a matter of finances?
It's fairly complicated. There was a minimum period to be served in each rank and the requirement to pass (often basic examinations) but otherwise the offer of promotion was made to officers within the regiment in order of seniority. I think it is worthwhile including some of this in the article so have added some context in footnotes, let me know your thoughts - Dumelow (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sort of hint that he was well-connected and from a "good family" but some background on what those connections were/what the family was famous for might be helpful.
I've added a bit of detail in the main text and a footnote. He seems to come from reasonably distinguished but not exceptional stock - Dumelow (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if he did something in particular to impress Wolseley or was it just nepotism/personal loyalty?
David notes that Russell "was a member of the Wolseley Ring of talented young staff officers". I've changed the text in the article slightly to note that Wolseley recognised him for his performance on the staff - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how helpful the (very long) link on deputy assistant-adjutant and quartermaster-general is.
It's a strange term but common in this period in the British Army and could use explanation. I think a dedicated article would be good, but haven't the time to write one at the moment. Perhaps Staff_(military)#Brigade_level explains it better? - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "wiped out" twice in fairly quick succession.
Removed the second one as superfluous - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the rescinding of the local rank an important detail? If so, can we say why it was rescinded? Are the exact dates the letter was sent (or indeed who sent it) important?
Castle notes it as an example that "wheels were already in motion that would undermine him" before the events at Hlobane. I think it demonstrates that Chelmsford had already lost faith in him by this time. He notes that Russell was "furious" when he received the news. I have tried to expand on this a little in the article. It is important, I think, to retain the dates as word of this didn't reach Wood's column until after Hlobane and Kambula - Dumelow (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe gloss "nek" inline as well as the Wiktionary link?
Does "the saddle of land" already in the article help explain this? If not, I will take a look - Dumelow (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "saddle of land" is a very common term; Wikrionary's definition of "a dip between two peaks" is much more helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea what the operation was that he died while recovering from?
Unfortunately not, only what is stated in the Faversham Times - Dumelow (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need all the exact dates of promotions etc? In the last one in particular, Upon Prince Edward's accession to the throne as Edward VII, Russell was, on 22 February 1901, appointed, it breaks up the flow. I would suggest Upon Prince Edward's accession to the throne as Edward VII in 1901, Russell was appointed.
Agreed, have trimmed this one to "early 1901". It's probably a MILHIST thing that we like to include dates where we have them but this one is not particularly important. Happy to consider any others - Dumelow (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In quite a few places, you have a rank linked right in front of a name, eg Colonel Evelyn Wood (btw, that's not the first instance of "colonel" in the body). I know this is common in Milhist articles but can we find ways to reduce them, like moving the link to somewhere the rank is mentioned, like promotions?
I've always tried to link at first mention, but happy to consider this. I think it would only affect links to Colonel and Major-General, the other ranks are mentioned first in relation to Russell - Dumelow (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't done a proper source formatting review but no concerns about reliability.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow, Any thoughts or action on the above? - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, have been away for the week unexpectedly. I should be able to respond on the above later today - Dumelow (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've come back on all the above points now Harry - Dumelow (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of replies but no hills (or neks!) worth dying on so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, I have added a definition of nek into the text - Dumelow (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice Gog. Pinging Hawkeye7, Hog Farm, Peacemaker67 and Nikkimaria who were kind enough to review this article at ACR, in case there was any interest in looking at this again. I understand that everyone is busy and happy to try again another time - Dumelow (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SC
  • "Russell was promoted to colonel" You can just use "He" here.

That's the lot, and I don't see why this tiny point should hold up a support for this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, thanks for reviewing and for fixing the dashes (I despair of them!). My preference is to leave this one as "Russell was" to avoid a run of four "He was..." sentences, but happy to consider alternatives - Dumelow (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support from PM

I prose reviewed this comprehensively at Milhist ACR and also did the source review there. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

I previously reviewed this article at A-class and support its promotion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review: passed

[edit]

To follow - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Ref 13: pp. 50 -> p. 50
  • Ref 71: Daily Telegraph -> The Daily Telegraph
  • It's worth checking your capitalisation – some of your refs are in sentence case, others in Start Case
  • What's the logic with which sources are used inline (eg. Ref 5), and which are linked to works in the sources (eg. Ref 1)?
  • Anonymous: You should remove "Anonymous". You don't have authors listed for refs 80, 81 or 82 and these work perfectly well.
  • Laband: Barnsley, England -> Barnsley, South Yorkshire
  • Stapleton: Santa Barbara, US -> Santa Barbara, California
Range and reliability
  • All sources are reliable, high quality and appropriate
  • I've undertaken further searches but can't find any obviously absent sources, although I'm not a subject expert, so there is always a chance I have missed something.

- SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review SchroCat, much appreciated. I have moved the anonymous obituary into the general references; the logic is now that named authors are in the "Sources" list, anonymous authors, websites, newspaper articles are in the general list. I did toy with just having the "Sources" list for proper books but it would mean moving one of the principal sources (Castle) and I struggled with whether to call Hart's Army List a book or periodical. Happy to look at this again. I have fixed ref 13, 71 and the locations you've given above and tried to move everything to Title Case - Dumelow (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)