Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts 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 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 {{ tq2}}, and {{xt }}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed 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 WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines , nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominator(s): Cherfc (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cher, an American cultural icon whose career has spanned music, film, television, fashion, Broadway, and the occasional infomercial. I began working on it back in 2012, when my English skills were about as questionable as Cher's decision to star in Burlesque. Over the years, with the invaluable help of editors like GabeMc, Wikipedian Penguin, Noleander, SNUGGUMS and AJona1992, the article has gone through countless improvements and achieved GA status.

Thirteen years (and three failed FACs) later, I think the article finally has what it takes to meet Wikipedia's highest standards. While I've grown from a teenager fumbling with sentence structure to a Family Medicine resident with limited free time, my fascination with Cher hasn't wavered. I may not always be able to reply to feedback immediately, but I promise to address every suggestion thoughtfully.

This article has been extensively rewritten, expanded, and carefully trimmed down to ensure it provides comprehensive yet concise coverage of Cher's legacy. I'd appreciate your help in ensuring it meets FA standards and earns a place among Wikipedia's finest work. Thank you for considering this nomination. Cherfc (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got you, babe. It has been 13 years since I did an FA review, so if I have a mistake in the formatting here, anyone should feel free to edit my comments and adjust the indents, bulletting, etc.

• Wording: in general, for the whole article, I suggest reading it out loud. Sometimes that exercise can reveal subtle grammar or phrasing issues that are hard to detect when reading the written word.

Got it. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote #402 "Secondary sources stating that Cher is often called, nicknamed or known as the "Goddess of Pop"..." is unusually long. Consider moving it into a "Note" (you only have one Note so far) rather than in the References/Citations section.

Let me know if this is what you were going for or if further adjustments are needed. Cherfc (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• External links: consider making it 2 columns, if feasible, to be similar to preceding ref sections.

Done. Cherfc (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite tool shows that source "Zuckoff, Mitchell (2009). Robert Altman: The Oral Biography..." is not used a source for any citation. Normally that would go into a "Further Reading" section, but it would be peculiar to have such a section with only one source in it. No big deal to leave it as is.

The only use for this book was to source a lengthy quote from Cher in which she thanked Robert Altman for believing in her at the beginning of her film career. Since the quote was trimmed down and is no longer included, I decided to remove the source entirely. Cherfc (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cher is widely revered .." sounds odd. Maybe eliminate "widely"?

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding "Through her 1970s television shows, Cher became a sex symbol with her inventive and revealing Mackie-designed outfits and fought the network censors to bare her navel...." Two questions: (1) was she successful in displaying the navel? [edit: I see a photo is included with the navel in question; so perhaps reword text to: "... and successfully fought the network censors ...";] and (2) I know that there was a tv show where she would throw off a cape at the start to reveal her outfit ... is that significant enough to mention? Probably not.

Done. As for (2), while I think her entrances were bigger than entire careers nowadays, I'm not sure others would agree with me on this... Also not sure if there are sources describing her entrances specifically in a way that can be linked to the whole navel drama. Would've been cool, though. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wording seems imprecise: "Cher publicly endorsed global recognition of the Armenian Genocide....". Better may be "Cher has attempted to raise awareness of the Armenian Genocide... " or "Cher has drawn attention to the need for more awareness of the ... " or "Cher has made efforts to raise awareness of the Armenian Genocide..." something like that.

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wording: "Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself through various personas" Consider -> "Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself by adopting a series of personas..."

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wording: "The New York Times declared Cher as the "Queen of the Comeback"..." I think the grammar is wrong there. Maybe "The New York Times declared Cher the "Queen of the Comeback"..." or "The New York Times declared Cher to be the "Queen of the Comeback"..." Not sure.

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Typo: Fascinated by film stars, Cher's idolized Audrey Hepburn, " -> "... Cher idolized.."

Done. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing wording: "Cher's following releases kept her solo career competitive with her work with Sonny" (1) "subsequent" is probably better than "following"; (2) I cannot tell if this means her solo work happened AFTER the breakup of Sonny & Cher; or she was releasing some solo work at the same time as some S&C music. Maybe try to clarify that.

They did not break up until 1974. In fact, Cher's solo career started a few weeks (!) before her breakthrough as Sonny & Cher, and she maintained her solo career since day one. I thought this was already clear in the article, but maybe not. What would you suggest? Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I see no specific change. Noleander (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2023, Cher launched Cherlato, a gelato brand created with New Zealand ice cream company Giapo. The brand debuted in Los Angeles with a truck offering gelato made from local ingredients." I presume she has had many, many branding/endorsement deals thru her life. Is this one special enough to warrant being in the article? Is she part owner of the company? If it is not special, consider removing it.

She gave interviews saying how this has been a dream of her for five years and stuff. I don't know what to make of this either. Removed. Cherfc (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The section "Tours and residencies" is confusing to me. The words "tour" "residency" and "concert" all have specific meanings, no? Tour = same act in many cities. Residency = Same act many times in one city. "Concert" - A one-time, unique performance. The section seems to use the terms in a confusing way, e.g. the subsection "Concert residencies" contains " Cher in Concert" which is desscribed as a tour that visited many cities in several continents. The subsction title "Concert residencies" led me to think items contained therein would be all residencies, so the inclusion of a tour is puzzling. Ditto for other bullets in the other subsections.

The confusion arises because Cher performed two distinct types of concerts between 1979 and 1982, both of which began as Vegas residencies and later evolved into world tours. While there is no definitive record of when exactly she transitioned from residency performances to a world tour, here’s what we know:

1. She had a Vegas residency titled Cher in Concert from 1979 to 1982. The fact that it was a residency is well-documented, as her performances in Vegas were often used as a cultural shorthand for the idea of a "career slump"; and
2. Cher also refers to a concert series from the same period as The Take Me Home Tour, which she identifies as her first solo world tour. This tour also began in 1979 and concluded in 1982, visiting multiple cities across several continents.

What complicates the matter further is the apparent lack of clear differentiation between the concerts she performed as part of her residency and those performed overseas. It seems that Cher drew from two main performance templates during this time, adapting them based on her schedule, audience demand, or even her own preferences at given time—whether performing in Vegas or on tour. To address this, I’ve included both The Take Me Home Tour and her Vegas residency under the 1979–1982 section. The paragraph seeks to clarify their coexistence and evolution, acknowledging what Cher herself distinguishes as the Take Me Home Tour, a separate entity, while also hinting at the fact that the lines between the residency and the tour remain blurred in historical accounts.

As an additional note, the concept of a cohesive "musical era"—where an album is followed by singles, videos, and a corresponding tour—was less firmly established in the music industry during this period. Between 1979 and 1982, Cher managed an extraordinarily diverse career: releasing three solo albums, fronting a rock band and releasing an album with them (sometimes classified as a fourth Cher album from that era), maintaining her Vegas residency and touring globally—both solo and with the band.

Without clearer documentation, this period remains somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps the only person who could definitively clarify the distinction between the Take Me Home Tour and her residency performances is Cher herself. For now, the best approach seems to be acknowledging both as distinct yet interconnected aspects of her career, even though the exact boundaries between them are difficult to define. This ambiguity also makes it challenging to separate Cher in Concert into two distinct articles, as the available sources documenting Cher's live performances during this time often fail to specify whether they refer to the residency or the tour. Hopefully, this explanation helps make this complex period a little less confusing. Cherfc (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Image selection and layout is superlative ... probably one of the better photo collections in all of Wikipedia.

Really glad you think so—it's a great collection to work with! Cherfc (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now; more to come later. Noleander (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I look forward to it. Cherfc (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Fallout: New Vegas, a 2010 video game that is still quite popular to this day. A bit of history about this article. It got promoted to GA status back in 2013, but was brought up for a GAR in 2024. I decided to try and save it since I love the Fallout series, and gave it a complete overhaul (for reference, this is what it looked like before I made any edits). Since then, this has been a passion project of mine, slowly building it up to what it is today. I've scoured all available reliable sources, including digging through some old magazines, to try and find every little detail I can about this game. And at least for now, I think this is about as comprehensive as this article can be without delving too much into

did a lovely copyedit, and now I think this article is ready.

One last thing to note. The second season of the Fallout TV show is going to be set in New Vegas, so I'm sure more info about the game will come out as the season get's released. However, all sources seem to indicate that the second season won't be released until at least 2026, possibly even 2027, so for now I think we're good. Every now and again a new bit of info about the game's development trickles out but nothing substantial. Famous Hobo (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder. If you have a moment to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a spotcheck in the following days. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 11:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth re-recorded album by Taylor Swift. I opened a PR to try and improve the article, but got not much responses, so I decided to jump straight into the FA review (this time, i did a few FA reviews beforehand so i have a better understanding on the criteia) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Taylor Swift - 1989 (Taylor's Version).png has a clear purpose in the article, appropriate WP:ALT text, and a complete WP:FUR.
• Unfortunately, there are
  WP:SANDWICH issues with File:Taylor Swift The Eras Tour 1989 Era Set (53110043448) (cropped).jpg and the infobox, particularly with the latest skin
  .
  • moved to release section brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for addressing this point. I would be curious on your response to the audio sample question, and that should complete my review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      oh, for the audio file, haven’t… added the sample yet. how do i get a sample, do i crop the piece of music or do i get it from somewhere official? brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 23:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it is no big deal if you do not want to an audio sample. As I said below, it is more of a suggestion than a requirement. I just wanted to get a response to everything in my review. I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an audio sample be helpful for the "Music and lyrics" section? Maybe, a sample for "'Slut!'" could be helpful as it could be use to represent the album's overall synth-pop sound and its usage of synthesizers throughout. This is just a suggestion of course so feel free to disagree. I fully understand that sometimes an audio sample just do not fit. I have worked on album articles without audio samples for that exact reason.

I hope this review is helpful. I have only focused on the images, except for a question about a possible audio sample. My only concern is how the Eras Tour image causes sandwich issues with the infobox. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early pulp magazine. It was started as a companion to the more famous Weird Tales, but only managed 15 issues over four years. It included several stories by Robert E. Howard, including the first of his stories about Red Sonya, the inspiration for the comics character Red Sonja. The article is short but, I hope, comprehensive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

]

Oops. Thanks for spotting that; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was in small pulp format" - this doesn't mean anything to me as a description, is it possible to elaborate as to what this format actually is/was?
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2024 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Kyren Wilson won this event. Has deserved a big win for some time and bossed this event. Jak Jones was a qualifier but destroyed the competition until he ran out of puff in the final.

I look forward to any responses you have Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:2024_World_Snooker_Championship_cover.jpg: Meets free-use rationale- image has low resolution and no alternative image is possible
• File:Sheffield Crucible theatre.png: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:World Snooker Championship 2024 arena.jpg: CC0
• File:Fergal O’Brien at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-04 09.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Noppon Saengkham PHC 2015-3.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Neil Robertson at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-05 02 (cropped).jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Joe OConnor PHC 2017-1.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:John Higgins and Olivier Marteel at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2013-01-30 03.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:David Gilbert at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-04 02.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Jak Jones PHC 2016-2.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Kyren Wilson EuM 2022-3.jpg: CC BY-SA 3.0

All are own work, expect the non-free image, which is taken from the event website (and mentioned as the source, along with the organising body as the author). All images are correctly licensed, and the article seems to meet the FAC on a semi-comprehensive read, so a support from me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first Category 5 hurricane of the hyperactive 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Hurricane Katrina is a household name, but that was the second Category 5 of the season, and that was in late August. The season was already destructive and deadly by mid-July, which was unusual at the time. Now we take for granted that record-breaking hurricanes and freak natural disasters happen all the time. 2005 was a different time. For starters, it came on the heels of a bad hurricane season, when the likes of Hurricane Ivan devastated the Caribbean and the United States. I bring up Ivan because that storm hit Grenada, and then ten months later, so did Hurricane Emily. Ivan was a Category 5 in the Caribbean, so was Emily. And then Emily hit Mexico, twice. The hurricane was strong, and it had a lot of effects, setting up for a long, ruinous season.

As for this storm and why I think it should be a featured article - I'm trying to get the season to a featured topic (featured tropic, anyone?) by its 20 year anniversary. I have worked on the article for a while, adding onto the efforts of literally hundreds of editors who have worked on the article since the storm was active. Don't believe me? Check out what the article looked like when the storm was active. It was a different time, and there's been a lot of research since then, discussing the storm and its effects. I believe the article is well-researched enough to put it up for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Added, good suggestion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Emily_stormfloater_ir_0718_0645UTC.jpg: is a more specific source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped that image with another one that has a better source and is a better image in my opinion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this on Wednesday. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a look at the article and did some copyediting as well as grammar fixing. Revert them if you think that they're not constructive.
• Lede: Might be good to mention on what date it dissipated.
• Meteorological history: I'd propose splitting the paragraphs as they're quite large. Other than that, I did not find any major issues within this section.

I'll leave comments for other sections later this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Creston's music was widely performed during the mid-20th century, but today he is often known for his more unusual instrumentation. His Sonata for E♭ Alto Saxophone and Piano (1939) is a cornerstone of the instrument's classical repertoire and is an example of his efforts to help the musical underdogs. The article underwent a much-appreciated GA review by Aza24 over the holidays, with other pre-FAC suggestions attended to. I now submit it for your consideration. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor points on the prose:

• "several tonal centres" – as the article is quite rightly in AmE one might expect "centers" here.
• "benefitted from their provision of accompanists" – is "benefitted" with two t's usual in AmE? Fine if so. (In the King's English we spell it "benefited", but to each his own.)
• "finalised at a meeting" – not "finalized"?
• "Unaware to Creston" – odd construction: Creston was no doubt unaware but the fact was unknown rather than unaware to him.
• Notes b, c and d could do with citations.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments Tim, they should now be resolved. I had originally intended to write in BrE but I've switched the regional spellings as AmE does make more sense. I've removed [b] and [c], on second thoughts I don't think they are needed. [d] now has a citation to Slomski 1994. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All fine now, it seems to me. Happy to add my support for promotion to FA. Good prose, well chosen illustration, evidently balanced, and well and widely sourced. – Tim riley talk 21:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll review this one over the next few days. It will make a refreshing change to review an article on this sort of music rather than the sorts I usually work on articles about...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• " A recipient of a 1938 Guggenheim Fellowship for composition, part of his wide-ranging output was" - this construction indicates that "part of his wide-ranging output" was the recipient of the fellowship, which I presume isn't what you mean.....?
• "In Spring 1939" - don't think spring needs a capital letter
• " the LaBudde Special Collections at University of Missouri–Kansas City" => " the LaBudde Special Collections at the University of Missouri–Kansas City"
• That's what I got as far as the end of the history section - back to do the rest later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this first round of comments, Chris! They should all be dealt with now. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an appropriate link for "pantonality"?
• "as opposed to his baroque-inspired Suite." - is it correct to have a capital S here where it seems to be being used generically rather than referring to a specific piece?
• "The piano accompaniment to Creston's sonata also difficult" => "The piano accompaniment to Creston's sonata is also difficult"
• "Creston had previously expressed the original tempi were too fast " => "Creston had previously expressed that the original tempi were too fast "
• Note d needs a full stop
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think these should now be done. I've not linked pantonality as I can't seem to find an article on-wiki that fits how Creston uses the word. I have also kept the capitalised "Suite", but made it clearer that it is specifically that piece. Thanks again! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Chris! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 08:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a request for non-specialist editors on Discord.

• Any more recent details on recordings? 1980 was 45 years ago... surely there have been more since?
• Agree with Chris about the fellowship mention
• "Cecil Leeson has been the greatest stimulus for the enrichment of the saxophone repertory, and I am most for having been chosen a contributor to the repertory." - Is this missing a word after "most"?
• aside from the exceptions of Glazunov's - aside from the exception feels redundant
• In Spring 1939, - Per
  MOS:SEASONS
  , this should be "in early 1939"
• The New Music Group were chosen - I believe in American English "The New Music Group was chosen" is correct.
• Creston's manuscript is held by the LaBudde Special Collections at University of Missouri–Kansas City as part of a collection donated by his wife, Louise Creston. - Do we need to use Louise's last name here?
• despite Leeson's tour, he still - Who is "he"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for both reviews, Chris. These should now be done, see below as well. I've added some information on more modern recordings in prose, taking the example of Short Symphony and pointing to the table. I hope this works for you? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this looks good. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you kindly :) UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Carnegie Hall - Full (48155558466).jpg - Correctly licensed
• File:Cecil Leeson and Paul Creston.jpg - Correctly licensed
• File:Publicity photo of Paul Creston.jpg - Correctly licensed
• No file to actually link, but the excerpts total 33 seconds of a 13+ minute composition. "Performance" is done by MIDI, satisfying the requirements of
  fair-use rationales in such cases? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm not sure on this one. Looking at other FAs on in-copyright pieces (Short Symphony and Appalachian Spring), the standard seems to be an inline citation much like a quotation of prose. I found this comment from Nikkimaria: am I reading this right? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it seems to be; treating it as a quote rather than media makes sense, since technically there is no media being used. Media review passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as long as the quotations are brief. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in any classical composition up for FAC, and especially more recent ones, - thank you for offering one. I am reviewing offline, so things may have changed, - please ignore then.

Title

I wonder if the common name is Saxophone Sonata, in which case the first sentence could be

"The Saxophone Sonata , Op. 19, is a sonata for E♭ alto saxophone and piano composed by Paul Creston in 1939. It was ..."

The title in the infobox should follow then.

Not sure on this, per

WP:COMMONNAME

is policy for article titles, I think the use of the official name is fine and has better flow.

Infobox

Thank you for a detailed infobox!

• In this case of close collaboration of player and composer/player, I suggest to use the image showing both as a lead image, with links to the player in the caption, saying "(l.)" for him. The longish caption should - regardless of position - be integrated in the prose, but a year/range be supplied. If you want to keep the composer alone, I think the range is too broad, - something like c. 1950 would suffice. Any pic closer to composition time would of course be better.

  I'll split this one into a few points:

  "In this case of close collaboration of player and composer/player, I suggest to use the image showing both as a lead image, with links to the player in the caption, saying "(l.)" for him." Per

  MOS:SECTIONLOC

  , I think it fits best in background, which discusses their relationship in depth

  "The longish caption should - regardless of position - be integrated in the prose, but a year/range be supplied." Removed and not integrated as redundant the text at the bottom of the section. Range added.

  "If you want to keep the composer alone, I think the range is too broad, - something like c. 1950 would suffice. Any pic closer to composition time would of course be better." This image is from the Creston collection at UMKC and is the earliest I could find. I'm hesitant to change the range: c. 1950 could mean different things to different people, so a more definite range is superior.

• I'd drop first names when the same people are mentioned as performers.

  I think it's fine, FA examples with repetition of full name include Appalachian Spring, Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) and Short Symphony

• "13 minutes", and even "3 movements", the latter per my most recent GA review by Kyle Peake, as a number you will want to compare, - and we can probably skip "around" as redundant

  Skipped around, replaced with numerals for consistency with opus no.

• I'd drop the "official" in the infobox but have it in the prose.

  Used an efn similar to [c] instead

• I believe that for a piece related to all-American people, you better use their date format.

  Switched to MDY throughout, with regrets ;)

Lead

• I'll go into detail later - after reading through - but my first impression is that it has too much detail about the composition timing.

  Will await comments

Background

• "career composers" - it may be just me - not a native speaker of English - but I never heard that phrase.

  I'm using it as a modifier. My edition of the OED gives the entry "(before another noun) working with long-term commitment in a particular profession"

• I don't think that you have to repeat "American" for the saxophonist.

  Done

• I'd like to know the age of the two men when they met.

  Both were quite young, around 28 for Creston and 32 for Leeson. Not sure how to integrate this into the text?"

• I don't think the "recently" adds much to "lost".

  Agreed

• "Leeson was presented with Creston: pleased with his playing, the two began a partnership." - I don't think you can continue with "the two" if what preceeded it is only one, and even unclear who. Sounds like both were pleased with the other's playing ;)

  Switched around a bit

• "perceived as unsuited to art music and restricted as such to more mainstream musical genres" - I don't need "as such".

  Axed

• Lawson Lunde - do we know a bit about him?

  I believe he used to have an article, but it was nominated for deletion by another editor. I've at least added a nationality.

Composition and publishing

• I'd move the first paragraph to background.

  I don't disagree with the idea, but I think it progresses more naturally without a heading break. Open to defer if this is serious

• In it, avoid repetition of saxophone, and perhaps link "string" because it has several meanings.

  Linked and shuffled to avoid a blue sea

• In the second para, it remains unclear to me how he can be in the fellowship, and then the sonata be required to achieve it, or what did I miss? If it's the same Guggenheim fellowship, it should have full name and link the first time, and if not that be clarified.

  I'm not sure what you mean, it doesn't say anywhere that the sonata was a requirement for the fellowship. Are you possibly confusing it with the suite?

• Do we know more about the publishers (planned and actual) than the names? Location? Should one go to the infobox?

  If I recall correctly, Morris (1996) doesn't go into any more detail than name. I've added Shawnee to the infobox as most recent publisher

Performances

• I suggest to repeat the year 1940 for the first of the tour dates.

  Done

• "that Creston discovered the truth" - that makes it sound (to me) as if Leeson had lied about it.

  I think this is lying by omission, so discovering the truth would be correct. Thoughts?

• I'd add at least here if not in lead and infobox that the hall is in (well-known) Carnegie Hall.

  Done. On second thoughts, I've given precedence to the larger venue in lead and infobox.

• "St. Vincent's Hall, Elkhart, Indiana" - please link at least the town if the hall has no article.

  Town linked

• the two concerts with Abato: how about getting the name in front and then have the two locations?

  Attempted

Reception

• "Regardless, Creston, Leeson and their audience were all satisfied with the performance."[- unsure what "regardless" adds.

  True

• "The sonata's debut recording by Vincent Abato" - I'd mention that it was made, together with a date and possibly label, in the previous section, and also mention this player in the lead.

  I can see the point in a lead mention, but wouldn't this duplicate the information in the recordings section?

• "Several reviewers saw the sonata as being traditional and lacking some depth." - How about dropping that sentence and let the following reviews speak for themselves?

  I think this sentence helps topic grouping, per the points at

  WP:CRS

• I'd bring sooner for whom Melson wrote.

  Sentence inverted

• "James Lyons wrote negatively of the sonata's styling, criticizing it as incompatible ...", - how about simpler "James Lyons criticizes the sonata's styling as incompatible ..."?

  Probably redundant, yes

• wl TNYT

  Linked in paragraph above, probably too close?

• "Tim Page of The New York Times wrote that he considered the sonata underrated in a 1983 article", - how about "Tim Page of The New York Times wrote in 1983 that he considered the sonata underrated"?

  Yes, good catch

• do we know about Burnet Tuthill?

  Same Tuthill as linked prior, on reflection a duplink is needed

I

Thank you for the musical examples! Perhaps comment on the movement titles in English?

• perhaps give 4/4 as
  BWV 1#Scoring and structure
  (check throughout)

  Given common time and link, time signatures for all movements are in the list (not tabulated as I think there are two few elements to warrant a table)

• I would not use "crochet" and "semiquavers" in American context (check throughout)

  Ugh, I only looked for spelling errors when switching to AmE: thank you for catching!

• "in piano" - I'd say "in the piano", to avoid misunderstanding as a dynamic marking

  Did not think of that, thank you

II

• Perhaps have opening theme first, then form

  I'd prefer to keep it that way, as this keeps consistency with mentioning features of the movement as a whole first.

• try to have references in ascending order of numbers (check thoughout)

  Attempted to be tidy: done?

Style

• Suite should be linked (only) the first time

  Not sure what you mean, it's only linked once

• I wouldn't expect counterpoint in classical at all - rather Baroque

  That is what the source says, I note that Beethoven and Mozart are listed as examples in our article on the subject

• Here come the English titles - perhaps a little late? The remark about the missing key signatures would also make more sense before any musical example.

  Wondering if you see benefit in moving the whole style section before movements?

Tempi

• Perhaps explain that we speak here about metronome figures, not tempo markings?

  Isn't a metronome mark a kind of tempo marking? "Metronome: an apparatus for fixing tempo" (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music): my understanding is that tempo is the speed and the metronome mark a measurement of that speed, just a more precise measure than allegro or andante

• Perhaps repeat the three markings for easier comparison?

  Good idea

• "for each movement respectively" seems redundant at this point

  True

• I don't know why the 1976 exclamation is handled before the 1975 letter.

  Shifted

• The latter has an extra "that".

  Think this was dealt with before

Recordings

• Better say "movements I and II" right away, after we already know that the first full recording was not with Leeson.

  Done

Thank you for an interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copious comments, Gerda. I think I've addressed these now: unlike the other reviews, I've replied (in italics) and indented rather than write a long screed here. Several of these are replies to unfinished issues, like your comments on the lead. Thanks again, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for detailed replies, all taken (and next time, you can just indent instead of all the italics). I have two more things to settle before getting back to the lead. (Traveling.) Perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back (postponed one thing to tomorrow. I forgot that I wasn't done with the review when I ran out of power on the plane.

Recordings - part 2

• Nice to learn about Abato's position, but how about moving that to when he first played the piece?
• In the table: how about saying - instead of Performers - Saxophonist, Pianist, and dropping the brackets from the entries.
• Would there be players who have an entry in a different Wikipedia?
• I've seen Gramophone reviews online, any here?
• Is there anything in reviews that would enlighten further about interpretations, and thus the music?

Tempi part 2

• I suggest to continue the quotation after "fool". I missed that it was irony ;)

Lead

• I believe that for the lead, "Collaboration" is enough without details about it.
• similarly about composition history.
• "publication in 1940, although this date was missed due to logistical challenges brought on by World War II." - can we have the year it finally happened in lead and infobox?
• "Altogether, it presents a considerable difficulty for both players." - doesn't leave me happy ;) - The piece is kind of "acting" ("presents"), and what does "Altogether" add? Do we know why the composer made it difficult? ... to show virtuosity of both, perhaps?
• I understand by a footnote (that I had overlooked) that the hall was then called Carnegie Chamber Hall, and think that's a good name to use, perhaps giving the later name once. Just Carnegie Hall, as in the present version, seems misleading. (I have great memories of Jessye Norman and a pianist filling the big hall.)
• I suggest to sort the last paragraph differently: first the first recording, then the reviews, then further recordings and finally "Today ...". Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

• Sorry, in "⁵
  ₄, ...", the comma looks like a quotation mark to 4 instead of a separator, at least to me (similar to A and A'). Please find a different way, - perhaps a little table after all ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the main character from the

]

Support from Crisco and passed image review

• Article only has one image, File:EthanWinters.png. It has a valid FUR, meets minimum size criteria. I would probably modify the alt text to read "A person with a hidden face, wearing a jacket and carrying a gun". "Faceless" could be misconstrued as 'without a face' as opposed to 'with a face hidden' — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced

• Second and third paragraphs of the lede are awfully short... might be worth combining.

Merged

• In the expansion "Shadows of Rose" for Resident Evil Village, Ethan appears in a third-person mode and despite attempts to obscure his face, players could see it by performing certain actions. - Is it worth mentioning here that the 3rd person mode added to RE8 in a patch blocked his face as well?

Fair point at this. I decided to remove it.

• Oh? I thought it was good that it illustrates the extent to which players went to see his face. I was just wondering if the sources mentioned the third-person mode that was added with/at the same time as the DLC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I really apologize for misunderstanding again. This is a good suggestion! I added the third person mode info a tad bit that might help. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He locates her in Louisiana after being kidnapped by the Baker family. - Technically he finds her first, then he's abducted after she maims him.

Reworded

• The "Portrayal" section jumps between tenses. I'm going to massage it a bit.

Reworded

• The amount of blood and gore players as Ethan are exposed to in the Japanese version of the game, Biohazard 7: Resident Evil - Is "Portrayals" the best section for this?

Moved

• My apologies, I meant "Is Appearances the best section for this?" I've reworked a bit... what do you think? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about it moving it to portrayal lmao, I apologize as well for misunderstanding it. It looks better than. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Shadows of Rose DLC chapter, set sixteen years after the events of Resident Evil Village, - This is the epilogue of the game, rather than the DLC. The DLC has Ethan's consciousness still active in the mold, guiding Rosemary through the trap set by Miranda('s consciousness). Do any of the sources recap his role in this DLC better?

I'm having a bit hard time finding that, and I think it would be fine without the addition of this plot that shows in Ethan is still alive only in her imaginary stuff.

• Feels like that's a big piece of his posthumous characterization (i.e., Wikipedia:Featured article criterion 1b). TheGamer gives a bit — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Woodrich Fair enough. I was hesitating this Valnet source before, but I guess a single usage of hisdsource oesn't really harm anyway. Thank you. I already added it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw that you had cited TheGamer already, and as the article was posted after August 2020 it meets the VGRS point that "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable". ScreenRant had something as well, but that's still situational.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Others have cited Ethan as one of the worst protagonists. - Among gaming's worst protagonists, or among the series'?

Oops, reworded.

• Not sure #Analysis is beefed up enough to stand on its own. Perhaps work it into the reception section, then if more academics examine Ethan we can break it off? As it is, Stobbart's analysis enjoys an entire subsection on its own. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

• Chris Woodrich Thanks a lot for the copyedits and reviews. I think I've already dealth with it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, BP. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance as I do not have the time to do a full review, but I want to leave some comments to help with the FAC:

• I would avoid the following sentence construction: (with some praising his relatability). In FAC reviews, I have seen editors discourage the use of the "with X verb-ing" construction so I would revise that out here and anywhere else in the article. Another example is the following, (with Sato describing Village as the story of Ethan and "the entirety of who he is".)

Reworded

• There are
  sandwich
  issues with the quote box and the infobox. I am not sure the quote box is necessary, and it may be better to incorporate parts of the quote into the prose instead.

Done

• I am uncertain about the "an embodied presence" word choice for this sentence: (In Resident Evil 7: Biohazard (2017), players take Ethan's viewpoint as an embodied presence as opposed to an on-screen avatar.) I am not really sure what is meant by this. Do you mean "a disembodied presence" instead?

Replaced

• This sentence felt a little abrupt and random, at least to me, (The game's goal for players is to advance the narrative while keeping him alive with limited resources.), as I would think that this could apply to any of the Resident Evil games. The source provides further context for this by saying that previous Resident Evil games were becoming more action-oriented and Biohazard was a return to the original survival horror elements.

Expanded

• I think the "Portrayal" subsection is too short, and I would suggest finding a way to better incorporate this information into the overall section instead. I would also avoid the repetition as "voiced" for two sentences in a row. A way to avoid that could be the following: (Ethan was voiced by American actor Todd Soley for Resident Evil 7: Biohazard and Resident Evil Village and by Hidenobu Kiuchi in the Japanese versions of the games.)

Reworded, However I'm not sure what else I can add since Ethan only appears in 2 games sadly.

Apologies for not being clearer, but I think that instead of being separated into its own subsection, it could be integrated into the overall section. I know that other articles on Resident Evil characters have a dedicated subsection for this, but given that this character has only appeared in two games, I am not sure that there is enough to justify this kind of separation. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 gotcha. Thanks for the suggestion. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was uncertain what the following meant: (Tunisian model Yaya Chamki portrayed Ethan.) I was particularly unsure about the "portrayed" word choice. Looking at the source, it seems that Chamki was the model for the character. I would recommend saying either (Ethan's appearance was based on Tunisian model Yaya Chamki.) or (Tunisian model Yaya Chamki was the model for Ethan's appearance.)

Reworded

Apologies again for not being able to do a full review, but I hope that this still helps regardless. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 No problem, I've addressed your concerns. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A vicious episode from a vicious war fought 2,266 years ago. War to the knife indeed. This went through GAN in 2020 and ACR in 2021. I have recently done a little tightening up and hope that it will not be too embarrassing at FAC. All and any constructive comments will be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, Iazyges Pinging the ACR and GAN reviewers; it's been a while but it would be great if either of you felt like picking at the flaws I am sure still remain. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Mercenary_War_manoeuvres.svg: see
  MOS:COLOUR

• File:Illustrations_pour_Salammbô_Poirson_Victor-Armand.jpeg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A clear exposition of the topic, and plainly, to my thinking, of FA standard. A few very minor quibbles about the prose:

• "Hamilcar and fellow general Hanno" – a false title we could do without.

Cast out.

• "Initial manouevres" – spelling.

Picky.

• "squeezing taxes out of the newly conquered territory in order to pay for both the war with Rome and his own campaigns" – I'm not one of those reviewers who have to get their smelling salts out at the sight of the phrase "in order to", but I really don't see what "in order to" has got here that plain "to" wouldn't have.

You are completely right. Sloppy proof reading I reckon.

• "decided to wait until all of the troops had arrived" – Unclear what the superfluous "of" is adding to the sentence other than an unnecessary word.

The surplus of has been declared redundant.

• "The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa" – this is
  Plain Words
  on "Majority": The major part or the majority ought not to be used when a plain most would meet the case. They should be reserved for occasions when the difference between a majority and a minority is significant. Thus: "Most of the members have been slack in their attendance". "The majority of members are likely to be against the proposal".

Ah. Well, by all means let us be stylish.

• "Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry; unarmoured troops who would charge ferociously" – the punctuation has gone awry. Instead of the semicolon you need either a colon or (preferably to my mind) a dash.

Dash inserted.

• "Initial manouevres" – still misspelled.

I only see it once Tim. Are you referring to the ToC and the section heading?

I was. All now fine. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Utica and Hippo slew their Carthaginian garrisons" – "slew" seems a touch antiquated, and has nowadays a slightly comic Wodehousian air, as in "one of those fiends with hatchet who are always going about slaying six". Wouldn't a plain "killed" do?

Changed.

• "but despite the siege being lifted ..." – another gerund problem. Grammatically, "being lifted" is serving as a verbal noun and this should be "despite the siege's being lifted". As that doesn't flow well, perhaps "but although the siege was lifted..."?

That doesn't really flow either. I am probably trying to pack too much into the sentence. Does "The supplies seized from the Carthaginian camp relieved the rebels immediate problems, but little further food arrived, despite the siege having been lifted." work?

Almost. "rebels" needs a possessive apostrophe, and there's still the gerund problem: "...despite the lifting of the siege" would work. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Tim. It is extremely good of you to drop by a mere elephant and sandal saga. I am grateful for your erudition and all of your points above have been addressed. The last issue could do with your eyes on again if you would. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. On rereading I wonder about "envisages" in the image caption in the Siege section. Seems a slightly odd verb. Portrays or depicts might be more usual. Not sure the caption needs a full stop, either. I don't press either point and am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Clear, balanced, well and widely sourced, suitably illustrated (excellent maps) – meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at GAN in 2020 and at ACR in 2021, but I will see if I can find anything else to comment on. Hog Farm _Talk 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "and Hippo (modern Bizerte)" - the link for Hippo just redirects to the Bizerte article; I don't know if both are useful

Supporting; this is my third time reviewing the article for different content levels and I have nothing further to add. Hog Farm _Talk 01:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed this at GAN in 2021. Although there are no double links or duplicate refs (which I can only view as a perfidious attempt to put me out of a job) I will see if I can find something else to complain about. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I can find no further suggestions for the article; happy to support promotion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, that gave me a laugh. You sound upset. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome; I am of course pleased that my disastrous misfortune has brought you joy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you hadn't done such a good job in 2021 you'd be happier now. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from UC

• Per
  WP:GNL
  , we should not use "men" as a synonym for "soldiers", "warriors", "fighters", "troops" etc. See in particular The sources are not clear as to whether they carried towers containing fighting men: we surely don't wish to imply that the sources suggest they may have carried fighting women? There are other examples throughout. In this particular context, it would be a strong assumption to say that none of the Gaulish, North Africa, Iberian etc tribes represented in the Carthaginian forces had any women fighting for them.
• Polybius says that they too "quickly" surrendered: consider a rephrase: did P. say they surrendered more quickly than they should, or that they surrendered, as did the others?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are consistently formatted, and seem to come from prominent authors/publishers. Checked some reviews too and nothing questionable cropped up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mind is that which thinks, feels, perceives, imagines, remembers, and wills, encompassing both conscious and unconscious phenomena. It is relevant to various fields of inquiry, in particular, to psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy. Thanks to Jens Lallensack for the GA review and to Patrick Welsh for the peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging in our FA process.

Is this duplication needed:

"The mind is the totality of psychological phenomena and capacities, encompassing consciousness, thought, perception, feeling, mood, motivation, behavior, memory, and learning.[1]"

and

"The mind encompasses many phenomena, including perception, memory, thought, imagination, motivation, emotion, attention, learning, and consciousness.[15]

and long-term memory, which can store information indefinitely."?

The duplicated links certainly are not and there are others which need attention. As general rule, unfamiliar terms should be linked in the Lead and once more (only) in the Body.

Also, here "Some people are affected by mental disorders, for which certain mental capacities do not function as they should." Should this read "in which"?

-Graham Beards (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graham Beards and thanks for your comments! I found a way to reformulate the passage in the section "Definition" to make it less repetitive. I also removed the duplicate links found in the two passages you mentioned. As I understand it, the rule for duplicate links changed a while back to the effect that links to the same term can occur more than once in the body if they are in different sections and contextually important.

To my ears, "for which" sounds more appropriate, but I think "in which" could also work. I'll wait for others to comment before changing the expression.

I didn't get your point about the clause on long-term memory. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I got distracted earlier. My point was meant to be that I think the word "indefinitely" is too strong. I have problems recalling many events that occurred more than sixty years ago. With regard to overlinking, my main concern was those terms that were linked again just a few lines further on, (which I see you have reformulated). I still think some of the repeat links are excessive such as "soul", "vertebrate", "hallucinations", "intelligence" and "nervous system", but this is not a big deal. I still think "in which" is clearer. Lastly, (for the time being), I am having problems parsing the second sentence of the Lead; "The totality of mental phenomena, it includes both conscious processes, through which an individual is aware of external and internal circumstances, and unconscious processes, which can influence an individual without intention or awareness." Why the "it"? Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I weakened the formulation for long-term memory to clarify that this is not the case for everything it stores. I also removed more duplicate links and I changed the formulation to "in which". I reformulated the second sentence, I hope it is easier to parse now. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm looking forward to other reviewers' comments. Graham Beards (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few more comments on the Lead, (which I think is especially important to get right).

Could this sentence:

“Traditionally, the mind was often conceived as a separate entity that can exist on its own but is more commonly understood in the contemporary discourse as a capacity of material objects.”

Be simplified to:

“Traditionally, the mind was often thought to be an entity that can exist on its own, but is now more commonly understood as a capacity of physical objects.”

Done, but formulated a little differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And is this repetition?

“meaning that minds are certain aspects or features of some material objects”

“as a capacity of material objects”

I changed it to "capacity of other entities" to avoid the redundancy. A similar formulation without the "material" was criticized during the GA review, so I'm not sure if it is an improvement. Another option would be to just say "capacity". Your suggestion of using "physical objects" instead of "material objects" would also be feasible. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this phrase has a fused participle:

“with theorists discussing the possibility and consequences of creating them using computers”

Perhaps recast it thus:

“and theorists are discussing the possibility and consequences of creating them using computers”.

Done in a slightly different form. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the switching from singular to plural (mind – minds) inelegant, but I can live with it. Graham Beards (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, everything in the lead could be discussed using the singular only. But my impression is that for some points, the plural is better suited. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more to offer except my support. I think this article is a splendid accomplishment. (Perhaps the nominator might consider adopting Life, which has similar difficulties of definition). Graham Beards (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments to start, with some similarities of interests as expressed by Graham Beards above. The study of various identity theories and duality theories concerning the study of the mind over the centuries does not seem to address subjects such as Type physicalism, the Mind-Brain Identity theory, the issue of Mind-Memory Identity and Duality theories, or any mention of scholars such as Gilbert Ryle throughout the article. I've mentioned the first four or five items which seemed most pertinent to my first reading of the article, and thought to ask if you have thought about each of them to any degree? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE

. I found a way to mention Gilbert Ryle, but many philosophers are not mentioned by name for the same reason as the primary topic of the article is the mind and not the history of the philosophy of mind.

In our subsection "Mind–body problem", type physicalism and mind-brain identity theory are mentioned in the sentence Type identity theory also belongs to reductive physicalism and says that mental states are the same as brain states. If you mean "substance dualism" and "property dualism" by "Duality theories", they are discussed in the passage According to substance dualism, minds or souls exist as independent entities in addition to material things. This view implies that, at least in principle, minds can exist without bodies.[67] Property dualism is another view, saying that mind and matter are not distinct individuals but different properties that apply to the same individual.[68] I can try to add some extra information if you think they should be discussed in more detail. I'm not sure which major theory you mean by "Mind-Memory Identity". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comments

• There still seems to be some clarity that can be gained from more carefully drawing of lines between
  Philosophy of Mind
  and the current article dedicated to 'Mind' as a subject unto itself. Using the term 'Mind' as an umbrella definition for it being encountered in the Arts, on the one hand, and for it being encountered in the Sciences on the other hand is mentioned, but not developed. For example, the use of the word "Mind" in Anthropology seems significantly different from its use in Philosophy.

  One of the difficulties of writing this article was to balance the perspectives from different fields. This is explicitly addressed in the sections "Fields and methods of inquiry" and "Relation to other fields". Anthropology is discussed in the paragraph starting with "Anthropology is interested in". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The ambiguity of the term by itself is also evidenced within Philosophy itself. For example, Hegel's famous book on Geist in German has had its title translated into English in different versions as "Spirit" in one translation and "Mind" in another translation. It suggests a close interchanging of term 'Mind' for 'Spirit', which some agree with and many disagree with. (The book is otherwise titled "The Phenomenology of...".)

  As far as I'm aware, German doesn't have a term that exactly corresponds to the English term "mind", which is a challenge for translations in both directions. The second paragraph of our section "Definition" addresses terminological issues, including the term "spirit". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Before going into the science aspects of the term, another example from the arts and religion might point out its use in biblical phrases such as "To love God with all one heart, mind and soul." That seems a very different context which is not covered in the current form of your article which appears to lay claim to "Mind" without qualification. Your article title does not emphasize a specialized reading such as "Mind (science)" or "Mind (arts)". Is there a reason to present the article without qualification as if it is to be Wikipedia's all purpose article on "Mind".

  I tried to make it clear that there is no one precise definition that everyone agrees on, but you are right that this is a challenging point. There is significant overlap despite disagreements about the details, as is the case for most

  broad-concept articles. The sections "Fields and methods of inquiry" and "Relation to other fields" deal with the different approaches, including one paragraph on various religious perspectives on the mind (starting with The concept of mind plays a central role in various religions). Do you think that the discussion on religious perspectives should be expanded? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Under the heading of a broad understanding of Mind, it might be useful to make a short addition and to perhaps give another example or two of usage from the better known sources. I've given one example, though one or two further examples might be useful if they are from well known sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could add sentences like A well-known quote from the bible that uses the word mind is "To love God with all one's heart, mind and soul"., but without a proper context, listing quotes like this sounds like trivia. It could work if quotes were presented as examples to reinforce a different point rather than for their own sake. I'll keep the idea in mind in case I encounter appropriate examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Switching to the Science aspects of Mind under the Mind-Brain identity theory, then it might seem useful to compare Mind to the main modalities encountered in the study of the Brain as encountered in Science, Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, etc. Three or four main modalities of the Brain might be enumerated as Attention, Memory, Activation as in the Brain's executive system, and Language. The Mind-Brain identity theory then asks how Mind is related to Attention, how Mind is related to Memory, etc.

  It's possible that we are stumbling over terminological issues here. According to my understanding, the term "Mind-Brain identity theory" does not primarily refer to the study of the relation between mind and attention or mind and memory. As I know it, the term has a more limited meaning, referring to the theory that "states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain" ([1]) Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The points you mention are discussed in the article, but not in the context of the Mind-Brain identity theory. The different fields of inquiry are discussed in the section "Fields and methods of inquiry". The different modalities/forms of mind are discussed in the section "Forms". The relation between the mental phenomena and the brain is discussed in the section "Brain areas and processes". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No mention of Alan Turing in the article, though there is mention of the Turing test as a test of human intelligence and language capacity. Does he deserve mention? Should the article say more about Mind and the scientific measurement of intelligence (intelligence quotient's and other cognitive testing, etc)?

  I found a way to mention Alan Turing in the context of the Turing Test. That's a good idea about measurement. In the text discussing research methodologies in psychology, I added a footnote using IQ tests as an example. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The closest sibling article on Wikipedia appears to be the Philosophy of Mind article, and it might be useful to have this discussed at a more thorough level than just mentioning that Mind is related to the Philosophy of Mind as is currently done when you mention it next to Neuroscience near the start of the article.

  I changed it from "philosophy" to "philosophy of mind" to make this relation clearer. The terms "philosophy", "philosopher", and "philosophical" are used at various points in the article where appropriate to indicate the relation. Do you think that more such indicators should be added? Balancing here is a difficult issue, but I'm not sure that philosophy of mind is significantly more important in this context than psychology. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Its evident that significant time has been put into the article and it would be useful to know if the main editor is planning to differentiate future articles on Mind into a version for the Arts, and for the Sciences, etc. There is already the Wikipedia Philosophy of Mind article, and a number of other sibling articles which are closely related. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have concrete plans, but it sounds like an interesting project. For example, one could take the basic layout of the paragraph on religious perspectives on the mind as a blueprint and expand it into an article. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good. Anthropological and religious perspectives would further balance the material already covered in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comments Part 2

• Wouldn't the article benefit from a Background section to cover what previous generations of scholars have seen as the main merits of the study of Mind over the centuries in a short stand alone section. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since we already have a section for the different fields of inquiry, I added a few passages there to discuss the background of how each one evolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a further set of sibling articles some of which do not appear in your See also list. Are all of these subjects covered in the article. Possibly some might be added.

• I added the relevant ones that are not yet linked in the body of the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No Infobox or similar Navigation box in the article. Might one be adapted or used in this article to help navigate the many related sibling articles? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, I added a navboxes of the main fields of inquiry. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a review of the article writing and prose, from section to section. Fundamental concepts can be elusive and writing about them a challenge, so well done for producing a quality article.

The readable prose is 7,800 words which, in my view, is a little long on the long side for a technical topic in a general encyclopedia. As the sections are all distinct and of regular length, the total length is fine.

• Lead:
  • Traditionally, minds … contemporary discourse: This sentence was confusing for quite a few passes. If I've understood your meaning correctly, then try this word order: "more commonly understood in the contemporary discourse as capacities of material objects." I am also wondering if the sentence needs to be rendered into the singular, such as "The mind was often conceived": the switch into plural for this sentence only feels jarring.

    I implemented your suggestion and changed the sentence to singular. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some characterizations … transforms information: The word choice of "private" feels imprecise and unclear: private from whom? It's explained in a body section but clearer terminology would improve the lead.

    I added a short explanation. It's a little longer now but it should still be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • the development of the nervous system: Nervous systems as a concept are developing (evolving or emerging), is what you are saying, but the use of the singular makes it difficult to distinguish the nervous system of a given person from the concept of nervous systems. The second paragraph already jumps from issue to issue fairly rapidly, so it is easy in this lead to confuse or lose a reader through your grammar. I'd word this as "…the development of nervous systems…".

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good otherwise.
• Definition:
  • Not prose-related, but I would be careful about claiming that the study of the mind is part of philosophy. The Pashler source is correct that the ancient philosophers studied the mind, but I think that doesn't necessarily make it part of philosophy. As our article notes, many disciplines historically formed part of the work of the philosophers; modern philosophy is something narrower.

    I changed "philosophy" to "philosophy of mind" to be more specific about the relevant branch of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very good, otherwise.
• Forms:
  • It is a goal-oriented activity that often: Perhaps just "It is goal-orientated and often…"? Reminding the reader that thinking is an activity does not add much. This is already a very long sentence, too.
  • a symbolic process: Is it clear enough what 'symbolic' means here?

    I followed your suggestion and I also removed the part about the symbolic process to further shorten the sentence. This part is already explained in the last sentence of the paragraph starting with As a symbolic process, thinking is deeply intertwined with language... Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Theories of the nature of mind:
  • This view distinguishes … refers to a piano: These sentences (describing derivative intentionality) are difficult to follow. I think you are saying that the word or picture do not refer to a particular piano or a real piano, and perhaps you should edit refer to a piano for specificity.

    I reformulated the passage in an attempt to clarify derivative intentionality. I'm not sure if I succeeded since explaining it in a few sentences is challenging. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relation to matter:
  • Property dualism is another view … the same individual: Individual is used twice in what I took to be two different senses (firstly to mean an 'individual entity' and again to mean 'a person')… Consider another word for the first instance of it, e.g. "distinct entities".

    In this case, either interpretation works. I reformulated the sentence to use the same expression from the discussion of substance dualism to make it more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Monism is not really explained as there is only one, very brief, sentence on it. If I’m correct, metaphysical idealists and neutral monists are forms of monism, but the hierarchy isn’t made clear, and readers are left thinking that monism has been mentioned once and then the sentence on metaphysical idealists is a move onto something else entirely. The sentence on monism is intended to be a mini topic sentence but it doesn’t really function as one.

    I tried to better connect the sentences to make the connection clear. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-human:
  • The separate treatment of human and non-human minds is very welcome and helps to make the adjacent sections less daunting.
  • There are a number of redirect links in this section which could be retargeted, e.g. type identity theory.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mental health and disorder:
  • The paranoid personality disorder should not have a definite article.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout there is a lot of middle voice in this article, e.g. The hindbrain … the forebrain could have been "Many biological functions associated with basic survival are the responsibility of the hindbrain and midbrain". Middle voice can make the prose feel a little flat and unengaging. This article probably does not fail to be "engaging" in the sense of the FA criteria, but I think there was room to move even further up our standard for excellence. The content, structure, balance, and pace of the prose are all excellent.

The prose becomes very good within the more technical sections. This perhaps is because mind is such a fundamental topic, so early discussion of it can feel wooly. I am not able to offer any specific recommendations for improvement on this point. This is a challenging but accomplished article. Well done! arcticocean ■ 10:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arcticocean, I appreciate all the helpful comments! I'll keep your point about the middle voice in mind but it can be tricky to spot. Some of the difficulties in the early discussion come from the fact that researchers often don't agree on the details. As a result, one often has to resort to vague formulations or slightly complicated explanations to remain neutral. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). arcticocean ■ 21:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Minds were traditionally conceived as immaterial substances" I feel like this is more of an Abrahamic/Platonic concept than a universal "tradition". Lots of cultures or ancient thinkers leaned heavier into materialism. For instance, the Greek atomists believed that everything (including the mind) consisted of indivisible particles, and a lot of Asian traditions more closely intertwine mind with body Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I weaken the claim to not make it sound as if this was the only view. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the Forms section is essentially a list I wonder if making it bulleted might make it easier to digest? I didn't realize it's literally an expansion of the list in the first sentence until paragraph 3 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought about it but I'm not a big fan of lists and this would be a rather long list. I don't think a is necessary to get the main point across: to give the reader an understanding of diverse mental phenomena. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You could stand to wikilink more, like you could put {{Main|Theory of mind}} at the top of the Theories of the nature of mind section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found a few more wikilinks to add. "Theory of mind" is linked in the section "Relation to other fields" since it has a slightly different meaning in psychology than philosophical theories of the nature of mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mental capacities.svg: CC0 (nom's own work of a concept)
• File:Müller-Lyer illusion - simple.svg: CC0 (nom's own work of a concept)
• File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png: CC0 (other's own work of text over white)
• File:Gray726-Brodman-prefrontal.svg: Public Domain (recreation and slight highlighting of an image in PD due to age)
• File:Turing test diagram.png: CC BY 2.5 (modification of a CC BY 2.5 SA licensed image, which was someone's own work of a concept)
• File:OCD handwash.jpg: Public Domain (released into PD by its author)
• File:1206 FMRI.jpg: CC BY 4.0 (taken from a CC BY 4.0 licensed book, which is mentioned in source, and the publisher in author) (terms do not match, and a specific page would be better too) (update-) (fixed these two issues)
  • (image attributes WP Commons, which shows it was transferred from en.wp, with the original author releasing it into Public Domain- though this might technically make it PD too instead of CC BY 4.0)
• File:Braininvat.jpg: CC BY 3.0 (has been checked by a WP commons reviewer to be properly licensed, correctly attributed)
• File:Phrenology1.jpg: Public Domain (PD due to age)

Phlsph7, File:1206 FMRI.jpg is taken from a book, which has the terms "nclude on every digital page view the following attribution: Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/anatomy-and-physiology/pages/1-introduction", which is not followed. Also, a specific page number is not given which makes it harder to verify. You should use a different image, or upload/correct this one, as the book is available digitally.(edit-did it myself) I trust that you will do it, and a semi-comprehensive read of the page does not show me any more issues, so it's a support from my side. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoctorWhoFan91, thanks for the image review and for taking care of the licensing details of File:1206 FMRI.jpg! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a writing system (really, a set of systems) used continuously in some form for over three millennia, facilitating some of the most ramified literary culture and communications technologies in human history. While all writing we know of has its origins in symbols that represent units of meaning instead of units of sound, Chinese characters are the only such symbols that are still used; all other systems have been replaced with fundamentally phonetic writing. To those used to the latter, they represent evidence of how differently writing can function. Really, I have little idea if I'm writing this blurb correctly, so if it's not helpful please let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One hell of a first FA, Remsense! Image licensing first up, and I'll look over prose later

• File:Hanzi.svg good
• File:Evo-rì.svg good
• File:Evo-shān.svg good
• File:Evo-xiàng.svg good
• File:Compound Chinese character demonstration with 好.webm good
• File:Comparative evolution of Cuneiform, Egyptian and Chinese characters.svg good
• (all the individual character files good im not listing all of those)
• File:Shang dynasty inscribed scapula.jpg good
• File:Shi Qiang pan.jpg good
• File:姓解 Digidepo 1287529 00000014(2) (cropped).jpg good
• File:永-order.webm good
• File:噹噹茶餐廳2021年7月初的午餐餐牌-tweaked.jpg good
• File:This Letter written by Mi Fei.jpg good
• File:監獄體樣本.svg good
• File:Chineseprimer3.png good
• File:Tale of Kieu parallel text.svg good
• File:SecretHistoryMongols1908.jpg good
• File:Chenzihmyon typefaces.svg good
• File:ROC24 SC1.jpg needs a United States PD tag (PD-1996 works)
• File:CJK 次 glyph variants.svg good

Alright, just the one to fix for images Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

I've added commons:Template:PD-1996 to commons:File:ROC24 SC1.jpg, that's the one required fix right? Remsense ‥ 论 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Support on images then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the only place I could see to add an image would be a page from the Shuowen Jiezi when you describe it - I feel that'd be useful for understanding their traditional classification Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been mulling over this, and I think the issue is a scan of a definition wouldn't do much more for readers than show the visual layout. I was thinking maybe to use a quote box to provide a translated and annotated definition instead? Curious what you and others think of this. Remsense ‥ 论 07:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a review of prose and writing from section to section, skipping some sections. For this Westerner with no knowledge of other writing systems, this was an excellent treatment of the subject.

• Lead: Effective as a mini-treatment of the whole subject. The prose flows well. Technical language is only used where necessary and to convey a meaning that could not otherwise be expressed. All jargon has been wikilinked.
• Development: Good, especially where the writing deploys concepts in one paragraph (e.g. proto-writing) and then incorporates that into subsequent paragraphs. This style of prose carries the reader along well and is highly engaging. The one improvement needed was an unexplained use of the term 'encode', which makes it slightly difficult to follow the next few sentences.
• Classification: This is a long and highly technical section. The prose is good throughout, but the structure or hierarchy of the section becomes clear only after the reading. Clearer signposting (outlining what you are about to deal with at the outset) could make it easier not to lose the reader.
• History:
  • In general, I prefer belief systems to be described in English's equivalent of the inferential mood. Thus Wikipedia would say "God is said to have rested on the seventh day", not "God rested on the seventh day". The problem arises with On the day that these first characters were created … be cheated. While I appreciate that the immediately preceding sentence makes the context clear, please consider amending.
  • Otherwise good.
• Structure: The prose here is particularly good, and the images and media are deployed to good effect.
• Reform and standardisation: Good.

You should be very proud of this work. arcticocean ■ 12:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much both for the kind words and the points of critique. I think you're totally right about § Classification, and I'm thinking about what I can do. As regards the mood thing, it is something I've also thought a lot about. In the most general terms, I dislike the idea of accidentally editorializing or coming off as unduly cynical or reductive when presenting what are (often) meant to be poetic or otherwise non-literal narratives. It can feel a bit like putting unnecessary scare quotes around words, I suppose? My rule has always been to trust the reader understands the narratological context, but your critique is one I appreciate and haven't heard expressed this way before. Remsense ‥ 论 12:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). arcticocean ■ 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marking my spot. Ping if I don't comment by the weekend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to say that I am hugely impressed by this article: the clarity of its explanation and the level of polish are excellent, even forgetting that it is a first FAC. I am about halfway through: a couple of queries so far:

• leaving Japanese as the only major non-Chinese language still written using them: is it worth rephrasing slightly so that we don't imply that Japanese is always or usually written with Chinese characters?
• I'm not sure I understand the logic regarding giving (or not giving) the pronunciation of signs. In general, it's good not to make readers treat as text something which they can't vocalise. I assume that we don't give a pronunciation of 大鹿 because it might be different in different dialects/languages: but then we do give (部件; bùjiàn), which is surely dialect specific? Similarly, a few signs have Wiktionary links, but most don't: in general, I think the non-linked versions are more readable, and we don't generally link common words, but again this is more a question of whether there's an overarching principle in play.
• Make sure that transliterated Chinese names (like Shuowen Jiezi) go in transliteration templates, not simple italics, so that screen readers can parse them correctly.
• Per
  MOS:BIO
  , we don't generally include people's dates of birth and death in flowing text, though it might sometimes be appropriate to do so (e.g. if a source only dates a text to "the life of SoAndSo", it would be appropriate to write "the text was written during the lifetime of SoAndSo, who lived between 40 BCE and 43 CE").
• awareness of the 'six writings' model: this and similar should be double quotes (
  MOS:"
  ): single quotes should only really be used for glosses (e.g. "The Spanish word casa ('house')").

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a LGBT history and medieval history crossover for you guys. Bæddel and bædling are two obscure Old English nouns found in a couple of old glossaries and penitentials that refer to some sort of sexual or gender variance, but have absolutely no solid idea on what kind! If succesful, this FAC will be used for the WikiCup. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will ping Urve and Tenpop421 since they have looked over and given advice on the article previously; no pressure to review, of course! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• File:Julius_Zupitza.JPG: if the author is unknown, suggest instead using PD-old-assumed rather than life+70. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't believe in FAC, but the racial implication of cariar discussed by Wade (2024) is more involved than our summary of it suggests. Sayers is fairly similar in assigning some kind of racialized/socially stratified inflection of bædling. I haven't poked around but I'd be surprised if scholars haven't discussed these terms' influence on the journal baedan's name (as they acknowledge). I think, too, that there needs to be a more comprehensive discussion of these terms' relationship with pederasty; I know the Online Etymology Dictionary has glossed bædling as pederast, for example, though whether that's a reliable source I'm unfamiliar with. Urve (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah I wish I could through in a reference to the journal Baedan but none of the sources mention it so I don't think it'd be DUE. I added more context on cariar, and the stuff about the subaltern groups from Sayer. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but I think there is more to say re pederasty and our text's suggestion that only Bell theorizes baedling's connection to it is somewhat misleading. Frantzen, who you already cite, suggests that the suffix -ling may indicate young age. Sarrazin's article should be cited if you can find it (which may require a librarian's help since I can't make sense of the citations to it I've found). Frantzen's argument re: bædling's connection to an oppressed state deserves more mention. I wonder whether any of the 70s-90s pederasty/so-called 'youth liberation' magazines, which are NOT digitized, have any discussion about the term?

  "While in some of the extant sources bædling seems to have denoted a passive partner in gay sexual intercourse, the reference to bædlings having sex with each other complicates this as a strict definition". ... how? The sentence that follows doesn't answer that. In any case, Frantzen argues that bædlings may correspond to intersex person precisely because bædlings could have sex with both men and each other. Frantzen's citation to a TLS article seems worthy of mention, and for that matter, why not discuss other newspapers/magazines (especially the gay press) that seem to have commented on the term?

  Honestly I'd probably lean oppose on comprehensiveness if I believed in this process. Urve (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply by way of example, see for example Davoud-Oghlou. Urve (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, it seems beyond the bounds of DUE to dive into older material, especially 19th century works (which, if they're not being brought up in the modern scholarly literature, are probably not that helpful to begin with) or those 'interesting' periodicals of the 1960s/70s. I have searched for it in modern, more academically rigorous queer publications but have come up short beyond what I've cited. Until niche tumblr discourse gets academic coverage (and from what I have seen so far we're only a few years off from that), I don't think there's going to be room for coverage here beyond Old English philology.

  Now, that being said, I will try to incorporate a bit more from Frantzen. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Disappointing. It's undue to actually quote Sarrazin, cited in Liberman, but it's not undue to cite Wright and Meritt? Anything published in a gay circular is magically undue because it's not a 'modern, more academically rigorous queer publication' - an assertion based on, what, exactly? (I'm not talking about anything relating to tumblr; I have no idea what you're even referencing.) Urve (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's academic history. I have to either use professionally peer-reviewed sources, or self-publications by subject matter experts; and unless they were getting professional historians to write in the 70s underground periodicals I am not really going to be able to use those per

  WP:V. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

UC

A really interesting article. Brief comments for now:

• Suggest adding a pronunciation guide to the first sentence.
  • These guides now need to go into (round) brackets. Suggest that a respell would be helpful as well, since a reader who doesn't know how to parse æ in Old English won't be able to parse it in IPA either.
    • Good point, added. - G
• In the lead image caption, it would be helpful to translate homo delicatus.
• The body only talks about the OED in relation to its first edition, while the lead seems to imply that the citation and definition remain in the current edition.
• I think it would be helpful to give a sense of when the different scholars were writing: we variously quote people active today and those who died in the nineteenth century, without any real sense of which is which.
• Sayers's title defines "Bædling" as "sodomite": that would seem to clash with some of what we've mentioned in the article, and seem to be germane for comprehensiveness?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: There we go, got to all these! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more:

• Both terms are connected to effeminacy and adultery, although bæddel is glossed as hermaphrodite: it sounds here as if this is always the case, whereas I think from the body this is a particular feature of one such glossary.
  • Clarified. -G
    • In although bæddel is glossed as hermaphrodite in one glossary, "hermaphrodite" needs double quotes per
      MOS:WORDSASWORDS. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• propose alternate origins: alternative, when there's more than one.
  • Fixed. - G
• The Paenitentiale Theodori distinguishes men and bædlings: this text needs some kind of introduction in the lead, if only by date and rough geography. Likewise The Antwerp Glossary (many manuscripts/ancient texts are named for where they are rather than where they were made: cf. any number of Codex Oxoniensis manuscripts written in Constantinople).
  • Fair point! Clarified these. - G
• The term may have included people assigned female at birth who took on masculine social roles or to intersex people: missing the word referred between or and to, I think.
  • Fixed. - G
• While bæddel is generally associated with intersex people in the attested sources: is this quite right? We say that it's the case for the Antwerp Glossary, but I can't see any other examples here that explicitly link it with intersexuality.
  • Is a 'hermaphrodite' not inherently intersex? I added a cite from Wade about this just to clarify.
    • Yes, but that's in the Antwerp Glossary as well, isn't it? Do we have any other sources that explicitly link the word with intersexuality, as opposed to just being somehow unmanly? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  UndercoverClassicist Ohhh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it's only in the Antwerp Glossary. Rephrased Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• including molles 'soft person': molles is plural; the singular is mollis.
  • Oops! Thank you. - G
• During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scholars such as J. R. C. Hall and Ferdinand Holthausen have argued : needs to be a true past tense, as it's no longer the early C20th.
  • True. - G
• a 17th century Arthurian ballad in Scots mentions a Badlyng, which the scholar William Sayers identifies as "sodomite" in a 2019 paper: we seem to be talking about the person here, so identifies as a "sodomite" (I would link that term). Alternatively, "a word which the scholar..."
  • Fixed! - G

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you again for looking over this! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that strikes me while doing some pedantic copyedits: we don't actually give any sense of when, or for how long, these terms were used. If nothing else, could we explicitly say when Old English was spoken? I'd be interested to know if these terms cover the whole of OE, or if they pop up/die out at a known time.

• 'andreporesis, ie. man of both sexes' - ie. should be i.e.
  • Fixed! - G
• I'd probably link philologist on first mention
  • Good idea. - G

Honestly, all I've got. Makes sense, though to be fair my educational background is in literature with a dash of linguistics. Happy to support, as neither comment is all that major. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and unexpected article. I cannot presume to comment on the substance, but here are a few minor thoughts on the prose:

• blue links – I think some readers would be glad of links for "philologist" and "patronymic".
  • Added. - G
• "the exact meaning of the terms (and their distinction, if any) are debated by scholars" – I have never been sure whether to use a singular or a plural verb for a sentence like this with the main subject out of the parenthesis and a subsidiary subject bracketed off. It looks a trifle odd as it is, but would probably look just as odd with a singular verb. I merely mention it and will say no more.
• "citing German philologist Julius Zupitza" – clunky false title such as you avoid later in the text. (And is his nationality relevant here?)
  • Fixed. - G
• "alternate origins" (and alternate definition and alternate etymologies later in the text) – wouldn't "alternative" (indicative of a choice between two or more things) rather than "alternate" (of two things, each following and succeeded by the other in a regular pattern) be the appropriate adjective here?
  • Good point, added. - G
• "Bædling is likely derived from bæddel" – "likely" looks a touch strange here; one might expect "probably".
  • I am always caught offguard by this regional English variation - "probably" sounds pretty informal to my ears, but I've heard "likely" is only used in specific contexts in British English! Anyhow, since British English is def. preferable here, fixed. - G
• "a connection with eunuchs, which were commonly associated with the Byzantine Empire" – I wonder about "which" here. Eunuchs were people, after all, and might be thought to qualify for "who" rather than "which".
  • Good point. - G
• "leading philologists such as Herbert Dean Meritt ..." – I had to have two goes at this sentence. I took "leading" to be an adjective rather than a participle until the penny dropped when I clocked the comma rather than a stronger stop. I wonder if "causing" or suchlike might be less susceptible of misreading.
  • Fixed. - G
• "The 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and the OED Online continue to support Zupitza's etymology, dismissing alternate etymologies from Celtic words as "out of the question", while also suggesting a possible origin from bædan." – I can't comment on the 1989 print version of the OED but I have access to the OED's online version. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place but on the Etymology page for "bad" I can't find anything to justify "dismissing alternate etymologies from Celtic words as 'out of the question'."
  • Oops mistake on my part; that line is only in the 1989 print edition. Rephrased. - G

That's all from me. I hope there's something of use in some of these comments. – Tim riley talk 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tim riley: Thank you very much for your thorough review! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All now fine as far as I'm concerned (and some useful late additions too such as the "hermaphrodite" explanatory footnote). More than happy to support promotion of this excellent article to FA. It isn't lavishly illustrated – and I'm sure can't be – but the prose is clear and a pleasure to read; the article seems balanced and is well and widely sourced; it meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 20:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review.

• The caption of the first image, you need a cite for "Homo delicatus means a soft or effeminate man."
  • Added. - G

I have problems with this. The actual dictionary definition does not define Homo delicatus as an effeminate man. Instead you have a modern academic writing 350 years after the dictionary was published that when the term was used on a single, specific occasion 1,900 years prior to the dictionary being current it was understood to mean an effeminate man. Why should the dictionary definition mean what the words on the page means. Or change that part of the caption to something like 'It is believed that 1,900 years earlier Homo delicatus meant a soft or effeminate man. When effeminacy meant something rather different.

• Fair enough. I just removed the image since a) it's from a later time period than we're talking about here, and b) the other sources don't touch on that dictionary's definition for it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly more later. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "bæddel is defined as "hermaphrodite" in the two surviving glosses". "the two surviving glosses" implies that they were the only glosses to survive. Is that correct?
  • Yep. - G
• "The early medieval penitential Paenitentiale Theodori". "penitential" is unlikely to mean much to most modern readers. Could you add a brief in line explanation?
  • Good idea - added. - G

I'm not seeing it. Am I being slow?

Gog the Mild not slow - I just added the definition to the first mention of penitentials in the very first paragraph. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was looking at the "penitential" next to Paenitentiale Theodori. D'oh! And after the first use in the main article?

Gog the Mild Oops, got to that too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "early medieval" is a wide range, I understood the Paenitentiale Theodori to be more closely dated than that. And you don't date it at all in the main article.
  • The sources were vague about this so I went into another source about it by Fulk and added a footnote explaining it Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "No reference is made to the word in the late Medieval period". Perhaps insert a "known" or similar?
  • Done. -G

Nicely written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you very much! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one come back above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Fine as it is. Just one minor comment-"philologist" could be delinked but I suppose you consider it to be a non-common occupation (and hence linked it).
  • It's a bit borderline, but I prefer to air on the side of avoiding confusion with links. -G

Definition

• -

Etymology

• Writing in 1988, Richard Coates... Coates could be described as "the linguist" here for clarity and concision.
  • Done. -G

That's all from my end Generalissima. MSincccc (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• And responded! @MSincccc: Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Generalissima It is a fine article and was a great read. I would be happy to extend my support to its FAC nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an international team chess tournament in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Budapest, Hungary in September 2024. The article was reviewed and subsequently improved in the previous FA nomination, but it did not receive much traction by reviewers and was eventually archived without promoting the article. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "programmes run by FIDE Commission for Women's Chess" -> "programmes run by the FIDE Commission for Women's Chess"
• "Overall, India players won" -> "Overall, Indian players won"
• "The main venue of the Chess Olympiad was SYMA Sports" -> "The main venue of the Chess Olympiad was the SYMA Sports"
• "Despite that the event was not officially" -> "Despite the fact that the event was not officially"
• "Each city interested to host the event" -> "Each city interested in hosting the event"
• "unconditional support to the event." -> "unconditional support for the event."
• "and re-open the bid after the Belarusian" -> "and reopen the bid after the Belarusian"
• "half-way between the Puskás Aréna" -> "halfway between the Puskás Aréna"
• "were prohibited to leave the playing hall" -> "were prohibited from leaving the playing hall"
• "and President of Hungarian" -> "and President of the Hungarian"
• "In this regard, FIDE Commission for Women's Chess" -> "In this regard, the FIDE Commission for Women's Chess"
• "support for preparation of women's teams" -> ""support for the preparation of women's teams
• "In addition, FIDE Commission for Women's Chess" -> "In addition, the FIDE Commission for Women's Chess"
• That's all I've got, if these are dealt with then I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've improved the article in line with your suggestions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this back for another attempt. With fresh eyes I read the article again. My comments:

• current world number one Magnus Carlsen --> we have number 2 for Nakamura. Consistency needed. I would spell it out, so it's in line with "top ten"
• as "seminal moment in chess history" --> as a "seminal moment in chess history"
• I'm no specialist in hyphens and can't figure out
  MOS:HYPHEN
  , but I see "from the top ten players according to the FIDE rating list" as well as "who were both among the top-ten rated players in the world". Can both be correct?
• Dana Kochavi as a reserve player had the best performance of all players in the tournament with a rating of 2676 --> this was already mentioned in the previous paragraph
• warning messages by the IOC --> spell out IOC and link (remove later link)
• the Promotional activities paragraph seems excessively long. Perhaps break up and/or trim.
• CEO of Chess.com Daniel Rensch --> I believe his title is Chief Chess Officer
• the Sanctions against Russia and Belarus section seems disproportionally long. Would it not be better to fork this off into its own article? Or see if some of the background can be cut.
• one-two days --> one to two days
• winning less votes than Jorge Arias Bouzada --> winning fewer votes than Jorge Arias Bouzada

I'll do a spot check of sources tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additional review. I've taken care of all suggestions. As for the "Sanctions against Russia and Belarus" section, I moved much of its content to the newly created article documenting the concerns and controversies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck:

• #74 ok
• #52b does not seem to cover "even though they were not among the main pre-tournament favourites"
• #3 seems a personal blog and therefore not FA quality. Plus the relevant text seems to be copied from "Árpád Földeák's book on the Olympiads". #4 #7 and #10 therefore also need to be addressed
• #5 ok
• #14 ok
• #23 ok
• #58 source Guardian is missing
• #136 also missing source. Maybe check all references if any more need source
• #61 ok
• #59 does not seem to mention the points, so for 59a ref 52 needs to be added
• #36 is a bit too much of a straight copy paste of the source
• #38 ok
• #55 ok
• #50 title is given in Camel Case, unlike other titles. And it doesn't seem to cover the claim "Hungary's first team had the ninth highest pre-tournament average rating" Edwininlondon (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced OlimpBase with books as more reliable sources, made corrections in the other sources you noted and went through all references to check for missing parameters (there were few missing sources and one missing access date). Regarding the titles, only those by Chess.com are in upper camel case, whereas all others are in lower camel case. Do you prefer converting all to lower camel case?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only thing that matters is consistency. I would change the chess.com ones. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed them so all are now in lower camel case.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted a few more issues with the sources and fixed them (e.g. publisher should have been FIDE I believe, not Budapest 2024). Please check and revert if necessary. Overall, I believe this article to meet the criteria, so I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text shouldn't duplicate caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've shortened the alt text so that it doesn't duplicate the caption.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in the Central Andes, which plays a major role in the local culture and religion. The Inca build a sanctuary at the top, which also features a crater lake. PS: There has been a suggestion to move references to the end of sentences. I really prefer them to be the way they are, at least until the FAC closes; multiple references per sentence make it so much harder to verify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did a pre-FAC review on the talk page and I think the article is FAC-quality. I would suggest removing the sentence "Lascar erupts every few years", which seems unconnected to the article, but that doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All images are correctly licensed. Captions are correctly formatted. Some issues with ALT text:
  • Infobox image has no alt text

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "alt=Vegetation is sparse near the volcano" - Does not describe the content in a manner that helps people who need alt text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mm, this image is in the section on vegetation. Expanded a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose review to follow — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• current conditions at its lakes resemble those on former lakes on Mars - "Conditions ... on ... lakes" sounds awkward. Would an "of" construct work better?

  Just one word? Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Annual mean precipitation reaches 360 millimetres (14 in) decreasing to 200 metres (660 ft) at its base - Missing a comma after (14 in), by the looks of things

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Puna tinamou doesn't need to be capitalized, per the article

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Liolaemus audituvelatus, Liolaemus barbarae, Liolaemus constanzae, Liolaemus fabiani and Liolaemus puritamensis - As these are all in the genus Liolaemus, any opposition to abbreviating to L. on subsequent mentions?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a formal source review, but I see [41][19]; worth having a look to see if any refs are out of order.

  There are, but it's probably one of the last things to do before closure (in case edits during FAC rearrange it). I'll make a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The preservation of Inca ruins in the summit implies that it has been inactive for 600–1000 years - Could be misread as "summit has been inactive". Perhaps "The preservation of Inca ruins in the summit implies that the volcano has been inactive for 600–1000 years"

  Hmm. Technically speaking, this interpretation would be more volcanologically accurate than the source's; many volcanoes are active only in certain portions of the edifice. Still, this one has few flank vents; I'll change it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 70 metres (230 ft) long public square. - Missing the adj=on for this convert template.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Inca is pipelinked to Inka people; is that deliberate?

  No, corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The first documented ascent was by Severo Titichoca in November 1884. - Might be worth better qualifying this; the first documented ascent by a named individual, by a non-Inca, or...? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to think that "documented" is enough of a qualifier, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Looks good. Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "a crater lake which is among the highest" -> "a crater lake that is among the highest"
• "the Inca or the burial of an Inca king" -> "the Inca, or the burial of an Inca king"
• "cauri "mountain"." -> "cauri mean "mountain"."
• "Bolivia, Chile and Argentina," -> "Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina,"

  I don't think this comma is necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "across Portezuelo Chaxas mountain pass" -> "across the Portezuelo Chaxas mountain pass"
• "depth is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body" -> "deep is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body"

  Isn't here the noun correct? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "basement in southeast direction" -> "basement in the southeast direction"

  Kinda think that this might suggest the cuts are only southeast of the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping me when completed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042: Done except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a note for myself to put refs into numerical order. I'll do after this passes so that the order isn't scrambled again by edits during the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Chaxas (volcano) should be linked at one of the mentions

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Annual mean precipitation reaches 360 millimetres (14 in), decreasing to 200 metres (660 ft) at its base" - something has gone wrong here; I highly doubt that the volcano receives 660 feet of precipitation each year at its base

  Tyop fxdei. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the mountain vigorously defends against violations of its summit" - I think this should be attributed to whatever culture(s) held this belief; it's a bit of an odd thing to have in wikivoice

  The sauce does not explicitly name who holds this legend; I figure it's the local one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How about "and according to legend the mountain vigorously defends against violations of its summit;"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Figueroa, Oscar A.; Deruelle, Bernard (September 1996). LICANCABUR, AN ANDESITIC VOLCANO OF THE SOUTH-CENTRAL ANDES (PDF) (Report)." - has this source been formally published? If so, it should have a publisher listed

  It's something named "Third ISAG"; I dunno, a conference? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 22:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 17:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "Licancabur formed from Pleistocene ignimbrites". Nowhere in the article does it claim that Licancabur consists of Pleistocene ignimbrites. The only mention of ignimbrites at the volcano is "At the volcano, the basement is covered by ignimbrites" with no mention of the Pleistocene.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic history

• "Three generations of lava flows". Do you mean three lava flow units?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are no known historical or Holocene eruptions" contradicts with the introduction which claims the volcano has been active during the Holocene.

  Cut out that bit. Since the lake level highstands (presumably correlated to Lake Tauca) postdate the ice ages, it's probably still correct to say that it was active after the ice ages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What ice ages are you referring to? The ongoing Quaternary glaciation is considered an ice age. If you mean after the Last Glacial Period that's still during the Holocene. Volcanoguy 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, meant that we don't have any precisely dated Holocene eruptions. The date is about lake deposits, and it proves that Licancabur was active after that date, but it doesn't give a date for the eruption itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The GVP gives the last known eruption of Licancabur as "unknown". Surely that could be incorporated into the article somehow. Something like "Licancabur shows credible evidence of having been active during the Holocene, but the age of the last eruption is unknown." or "Although Licancabur shows credible evidence of having been active during the Holocene, the age of the last eruption is unknown." Volcanoguy 21:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I put something, but now there are two "activity"'s in a row. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and religious importance

• "the mountain vigorously defends against violations of its summit". How?

  Legend does not quite explain this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see to comment on. I've nominated Tennena Cone for FA. Volcanoguy 22:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, although I wonder if this might give the appearance of improper quid-pro-quo reviews; I recall these are contentious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, just saw this and thought I would add my two cents, having seen the discussions at WT:FAC about this in the past. It's not a problem in principle to link to one's own FAC, or for two people to review each other's FACs. The important point is that there's no obligation to do so, and as a result the system assumes good faith on everyone's part. Having an obligation would make it tempting to do vacuous supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review.

• "A 400–500-metre (1,300–1,600 ft) summit crater". 400-500 m deep, high, wide?
• "A 400–500-metre (1,300–1,600 ft) summit crater containing Licancabur Lake, a crater lake that is among the highest lakes in the world, caps the volcano." I am struggling to parse this. Perhaps break it into two sentences?
• "and it has been active after the ice ages." May be a little more comprehensible as 'and it has been active in the past XX thousand years'?

  Did something, although I dunno if

  WP:CALC lets us use the Law of superposition here to conclude that it was active during the past 13,000 years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "dated to 13,240 ± 100 BP". BP in full at first mention.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did these things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I brought this article to GA status over ten years ago. In past couple weeks, I've made some changes to it, including adding more information and sources. I now leave it to you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray – how can this possibly under debate, when there are nomenclatural rules? And nothing is mentioned later on that he might not have described it.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot from a specimen collected off the coast of Tasmania two years before his own classification – the key question (regarding priority of names) here is when this dolphin was described, right? Why is this not mentioned?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, – its the current name, not just "another", right?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• from stuffed skin – "from a stuffed skin"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons – this meaning of "though" is new to me, but I'm not a native speaker.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray in 1828 from stuffed skin and a single skull shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum. Gray first described the species as Delphinus obscurus and reported that the animal was captured around the Cape of Good Hope by a Captain Haviside (often misspelt "Heaviside") and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons in 1827. – This whole paragraph is a bit low quality. It doesn't really go in-depth about the first description (I would definitely look-up and cite the first description itself, too). Also, it says shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum and in the next sentence, repeats that very same information.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• before his own classification – "classification" should be "description"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• link "described" to species description

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The dusky dolphin was reclassified as Prodelphinus obscurus in 1885 by British naturalist William Henry Flower, before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, from American biologist Frederick W. True in 1889. – I feel this lacks context, and you did not even link to those genera mentioned, and do not explain what this means for its relationships.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 1999 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene indicates that the genus Lagenorhynchus, as traditionally conceived, is not a natural (monophyletic) group. – Related to my point above, clearly lacks context; you never explained how that genus was traditionally conceived, and you do not even mention which species it now contains, apart from the dusky dolphin.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 2006 finds that the dusky and the Pacific white-sided dolphin form the sister group to the (expanded) genus Cephalorhynchus. – Again, context: You have to explain what "expanded" means here, it is completely meaningless for me, even though I think that I know something about phylogenetics.

removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – But the two species are already united in the genus Lagenorhynchus? Why is a new genus name required to "accomodate" them?

Changed wording. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• are moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias – should explain what Sagmatias was, and why it fell in disuse.

The source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested – "suggested" means that these identifications are uncertain? Why is that?

Based on photography LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – The study is from 2006. Is this up-to-date?

Changed wording LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The following cladogram is based on Banguera-Hinestroza and colleges (2014) – "colleges"? Colleagues? Link "cladogram"? Is this a genetic or morphological analysis?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning oppose – I only went through the first four paragraphs, and just too many issues show up. Has this been at peer review? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been peer reviewed. That draws hardly anybody. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you now removed a lot of content instead of adding context. Thanks for adding the year of description for D. supercilious, but what I don't get: How can it be a "junior synonym" when it was named a year earlier? That would make it a senior synonym, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. I removed content that was clearly causing confusion and simplified it. The point is, genetic evidence does not support the traditional Lagenorhynchus species being one unique grouping. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still not clear to me. According to Synonym (taxonomy), the earliest published name is called the senior synonym, while the later name is the junior synonym. The earlier name cannot be the junior synonym. You give two sources for this; I could only access the first, which did not mention junior synonym here, but it does say that, apparently, the first description was based on several skins (so you took my suggestion without checking what the sources actually say), and it also speaks of several skulls, not just one skull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified further. The second source mentions the junior synonym. Please don't accuse me of not checking the sources. I checked the second source. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the inaccuracy with the skin/skins, and only wanted to say "don't trust what I say, always double-check with the source". Now you say "skin" again but shouldn't it be plural? Maybe "from stuffed skins with skulls", since the skulls were apparently inside the skins, and from the same individuals? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, could you look at it again? I make changes to the rest of the article and two other users have concluded their reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you address my concern about the taxonomy section not being up-to-date? For example, why show a 2014 cladogram when a much newer one [2] is available? You say that A 2019 study has proposed that the dusky dolphin, together with the Pacific white-sided dolphin, hourglass dolphin, and Peale's dolphin be moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias, but without information if that proposal was accepted or rejected by subsequent studies. The paper I just cited says "Lagenorhynchus, now included within the genus Sagmatias"; this seems to be uncontroversial by now, so why do you still keep it in the genus Lagenorhynchus? For example, the Inaturalist link in the taxon identifiers [3] links to the inactive taxon since they already moved to Sagmatias obscurus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because many post-2019 papers still use the traditional name, including cites 45 and 54. as well as this, this, this and this. I requested a new cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will take a look at the rest once time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi! im doing yet another FA review (i have no experience with animal-related articles, so extra points for that)

• However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826 based on a specimen near Tasmania. → However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826, based on a specimen near Tasmania.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested based on observations and on photographic evidence, including with a common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The teeth number between 108 and 144. Missing an is.

Not needed. You can use "number" that way in the present tense like "they numbered over 50 people" in the past tense

Clarified. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In Kaikōura Canyon, New Zealand, group size can reach 1,000 dolphins, while in Admiralty Bay, they peak around only 50 animals. Seems a bit inconsistent (dolphins and animals)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Whistling are is more common when dusky dolphins mingle with other dolphin species such as common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The dusky dolphin is listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international co-operation organised by tailored agreements. → The dusky dolphin is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international cooperation organised by tailored agreements.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extra period at the end of the sentence brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all properly licensed/free work. Missing ALT text tho

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly a good read, will leave the source review to someone else. for now, you have my support.

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Dusky_dolphin_size.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this diagram? Ditto File:Cetacea_range_map_Dusky_Dolphin.PNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed both. I already requested a new range map at Map workshop. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gray classified D. superciliosus as a junior synonym of his D. obscurus. Gray doesn't mention a "junior synonym" - but when citing Lesson & Garnot he marks the reference with question marks. See:

• Gray, J.E. (1844). "On the Cetaceous Mammals". In Richardson, John; Gray, John Edward (eds.). The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Erebus and Terror, Under the Command of Captain Sir James Clark Ross, During the Years 1839-43. Vol. 1: Mammals and Birds. London: E. W. Janson. pp. 13-53 [37].
• Gray, J.E. (1850). Catalogue of Specimens of Mammals in the Collection of the British Museum. Part 1: Cetacea. London: Trustees of the Britsh Museum. pp. 107–108.

I take this to mean that without a physical type specimen Gray cannot be certain of its identity. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these in Kaikoura, one of my favourite places on earth, in 2011, along with a couple of sperm whales. Also seven albatross species among the many seabirds. I fixed a couple of obvious typos as I read. I can't see many major issues, but some nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure in lead if "genetically" would be better preceding "very closely", leave it to you

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• with the most fit being able to catch her and reproduce.—not sure "with" is needed

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• link taxonomy,
  sister species
  , blowhole

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Its size can vary between populations—varies

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• high amounts of immigration and emigration.—amounts looks odd, perhaps occurrence?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They are generally coordinated hunters.—last subject mentioned was common fish species, so they isn't correct here

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful to readers to have Persistent organic pollutant in full rather than just the acronym

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 3 Spicilegia Zoologica is correctly italicised on the book title page, so should be Roman in the otherwise italicised book title

I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the first page of Grey's text, he has "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals." with the Latin correctly italicised, and for good measure in the preamble that follows he mentions two other texts with Latin names, both italicised. The convention is that when text is italicised because it's a book or journal title, anything that's already in italics should be printed plain, so it should be "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals.". Similarly, if the species occurred in a publication title, it would be reversed to "dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) " Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5 livraison, perhaps gloss at first use as (part)?

I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 12, ref 34, genus should be in italics in both

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No other queries, will support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The dusky dolphin has a discontinuous range" what exactly does the source say? I only have access to the first edition (from 1998) but I feel like it'd be more appropriate to juxtapose this with the subspecies unless something major changed in 17 years Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "They occur in apparently disjunct populations in the waters off..." LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was more getting at maybe, "the [dusky] dolphin has 3 recognized subspecies: [A] found in [1], [B] found in [2], and [C] found in [3]" and it's implied that, since they're different subspecies and the locations are pretty far apart, the range of the species is discontinuous. Since subspeciation is probably the focal point of any discussion of the fragmentation in global distribution Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, (there may not be but) are there any ideas how the species got to all of these places if they don't travel across open ocean? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did cross the open ocean in the distant past or they lived in the open ocean and became more and more adapted to coastal regions as this implies. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current classification. dusky dolphins from Argentina are considered to be the same subspecies as ones from NZ but not Peru. So no, I cannot described the range based on subspecies. It would be disjoined. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "but is not currently accepted" by whom? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By scientists. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get another source on posidonia, it's not on WoRMS (which you list as a source) and unless I'm mistaken this subspecies lives in exactly the same place as fitzroyi? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its listed on Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies and has an IUCN article. That's good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should remove WoRMS as a source since it doesn't support the sentence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But it was meant to be supplementary as it supports the other two. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "phylogenetically" really adds anything Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more than genetics is at play here, at least from what I'm gleaming from the article, since the dusky dolphin and Pacific white were placed into the same genus decades before population genetics became a mainstream idea. Is it that specifically these 2 species in the genus became understood as most closely allied because of genetics? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The genus Lagenorhynchus traditionally contains" what's meant by traditionally? It seems when it was first defined by Gray 1846, the dusky dolphin wouldn't be included for over 40 years? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spelling convention is getting confused, I see "colouration" and "behavior" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone emailed me about this a couple of weeks ago and it looked interesting enough to have a bit of a rewrite. It's another of London's 'footnotes to footnotes of history', which carries some interest for its odd and interesting (if not downright bizarre) content. This has been through a rewrite recently, mostly with additions of new sources published since it was originally written and has had a very fruitful PR too. Any further constructive comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text
  • No longer! - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Whipping_Tom.jpg: is the original source known?
  • There isn't much known about it, except that it was published in the early 1680s. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Whipping_Tom,_imagined_in_c.1679.jpg: the UK tag requires that the image description describe the research done to try to identify the author. Ditto File:Whipping-Tom,_imagined_in_1684.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now added. Thanks as always for your comments. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not much at present that I can suggest, but it is well-written for an FA-class article. Hence, Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had my say at the article's PR and on rereading for FAC all I can find to bleat about is that "It is not known who 'Skiping Ione' represents" should have "whom" instead of "who". And in the alt-text "holdsdown" should be two words. That's my lot. Glad you've got the miraculous Photo Workshop magicians on the case. Supporting. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your work at PR on this; I've amended your two new quibbles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we have a bit of a
  MOS:LEAD
  problem with the first body text section. The first bit of the body text really needs to (re-)introduce the fundamentals: who was "Whipping Tom" and what was he accused of doing? This happens in the second section instead.
• In the 1672 section, we have a single secondary source cited (Jones), and every statement of fact couched as his interpretation/suggestion. Is that the full extent of the first Tom's imprint on modern writing?

  Sort of, although the same information (interpretation/suggestion) is repeated in several sources. Pretty much all the modern sources are basing their info on the one line in the 1681 broadsheet and there is no other information that has been found (there are one or two who repeat the 'earlier attacker' info, but without directly connecting it to the broadsheet). - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it comes up in multiple sources, why do we couch it as purely Jones's conclusion? That makes it sound like it's just one person's speculation rather than the communis opinio. We could do something like "Following a suggestion made by Jones in 2010, the broadsheet is considered to refer to a second attacker ..." if we feel it's particularly important to keep his name in there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't say 'following Jones', as he wasn't the first. There are several that we know precede him, but it's not clear who considered it first (well, we do: the author of the broadsheet, but it's not clear after that). - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In which case, what's the rationale behind including his name at all, if it's a generally-held point of view (so it doesn't matter who, specifically, believes it) and isn't particularly Jones's idea? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I take it to be an opinion, rather than a hard fact. I may be wrong in taking that position, but that was my thinking, and as it's an opinion, I'm always happier if there's an inline attribution. If you don't see it as an opinion, I can take it out and see if anyone complains? - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're going to keep it as that, I think we need to include all (or at least a large number) of the people who hold it as an opinion. At the moment, we're presenting it as specifically Jones's opinion, but if I've read you correctly, there's nothing in the sources to justify that.

  On the other hand, if anyone has said "it is widely believed..." or similar, we can say that and cite it. Strictly speaking,

  WP:SYNTH frowns upon using the fact that multiple people say something to write "multiple people say...", but then I've seen that with footnotes to the effect of "for examples, see X, Y and Z", and wouldn't personally get too upset about it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  OK, I've gone with that way now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's really awkward to do that introductory work here, one option might be to fold the 1672 Tom's section into the one on the 1681, couched as something like "it is possible that another attacker, active around 1672, was also active..." -- after all, as far as I can see, there's no solid reason to say that the two Toms were definitely different people ("it's just the one Tom, actually...").

  While you're quite right to say that there is no solid reason, none of the modern sources have suggested that it could have been the same person. My guess was that the writer of the broadsheet knew it was not the same person (the previous one was dead or it's a different area, or a different modus operandi, etc).

  Let me have a think about this one: I would prefer to keep the chronological run through, bit I can't add any more info about the 1672 attacks because there just isn't any, so this may have to be the way to get the full details of the activity in the top section of the body. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, that's now been moved. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, UC. I'll get back to you about merging the sections - it's likely I'll go down that route, but need to think it through first. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. One query/quibble above. I'll give the rest of the article a look too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The historian Sarah Toulalan observes that the description of the attack is ambiguous: he "laid so hard up-on her backside" could be either construed as spanking or sodomy: this bit really sticks out to me. There's quite a big difference between the two: if we're saying here that there's a serious chance that we're talking about a rapist, I think we need to make a bigger deal of that, particularly in the lead. On the other hand, if the suggestion is that the term could be used to refer to sodomy, but probably doesn't in this context (indeed, it's difficult to marry that with "laying her across his knee"), we need to make that clear. At the moment it seems like we've dropped a grenade and then left it metaphorically ticking.

  It's tricky, as she doesn't really follow through on the idea or provide any clarity. After saying there is ambiguity in what happens to the maid, Toulalan says: "the description ‘lay’d so hard up-on her Backside’ could be either spanking, as the context suggests, or vigorous rear-entry intercourse". She then moves on to examine something else, so all we are left with is this one sentence. Any thoughts on how to deal with it? - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On the same note: if the original wording was "lay'd", why do we have "laid" in the quote then have to explain it with a footnote?

  I've updated the spelling for every quote from the primary sources (it's the usual 17th and 18th century method of random spelling), and it would have looked odd to just have one example with the original, while the others are in modern English. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine, so why do we have the footnote for this word specifically? Is it because of the double-meaning of "lay"? I think that needs a Wiktionary link (or even spelling out) if so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Partly because of 'lay', but partly because this is one of the few points in which an alternative meaning has been gleaned from the source. At all other points the source is taken at face value by all other commentators: this is the only point where an alternative is suggested, so I felt an additional clarity on the actual text was useful. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He attacked a large number of women, and some of his victims were left badly injured by the attacks: can we go into some detail here, without being gratuitous? We currently have He would approach unaccompanied women in alleys and courtyards at the east side of the city, bend them over his knee, lift their dress and spank them on the buttocks before fleeing in the lead, which makes this sound like an upsetting and humiliating act but with a flavour of "Carry On" lightness and silliness and little physical harm done: linking to an earlier point, "there was a man in London who used to smack women on the bottom" gives a very differently impression to "there was a rapist in London who used to leave women seriously injured." The tone/tenor of the lead and body don't quite seem in sync here.

  I've beefed up the lead a little to stress the injuries, sexual assault and the death. Is this enough, do you think? This hopefully takes away any suggestion of levity, but let me know if you think it needs more. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• small courtyards around Fleet Street, Strand, Fetter Lane ...: the Strand?

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We say explicitly in the lead, but not the body, that the 1681 attacks took place in central (then west?) London (we give the specific places, but not their overall geography). The map of London has been pushed down into the 1712 section, but seems to belong with the 1681 material.

  It could go into either section, as it has the locations of both main episodes. I took the practical view that the 1680s already has two images, while the 1712 one had none. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think putting it earlier would be useful, especially as it explicitly mentions the 1681 Tom but not the 1712 one. On another, more boring note, I don't think Hackney has moved, so "showing the location of Hackney" is better than "showing where Hackney was" (emphasis mine). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That was the fault of the caption then, I think. It was meant to show where both Toms were active, which it now does (again, we already have two images in the 1681 section and only the map in the 1712 one, so I'd rather not overburden the one section with three images, and have none in the second section). The Hackney location has also been tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That fix works as well; any quibble on it would be a matter of personal preference. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Although most sources describe there being two assailants, a letter in 1681 from Lady Anne Stowe to Catherine Manners, Duchess of Rutland, describes "a company of men, they say fifty or more, which are called Whipping Tom: has anyone commented on that? Are we talking about copycats here?

  There is nothing else about it that can be gleaned from the source it is in, and no-one else even mentions it. She may well have two stories mixed up, but there really is nothing else that can be taken from the source that brings any clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a lot of direct citations of the 1740 source at the start of the 1712 section, which worry me under
  WP:PRIMARY
  . I'd be happier if a secondary source were (also) cited to confirm that making a face-value read of the 1740 document is sensible (it could be fake, or have important context, or there could be differences of language that need to be considered).
  • @SchroCat: did you see this one?
    • Yes, but I did forget to say that I'd sorted it! There should now be a secondary source backing up the primary ones, unless I've missed any - give a shout if you see any more that need sorting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)
• He was arrested after seventy women had been attacked; his indictment was composed of:: this is pretty opaque if you don't know what an "indictment" is (literally rather than metaphorically), and it's not a particularly common word.

  I've linked it. Is that enough, do you think, or would you suggest rewording? - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He claimed that his plan was to attack a hundred women before Christmas, cease the attacks during the Twelve Days of Christmas, then resume the attacks in the New Year: would it be worth amending "Christmas Day (25 December)" per
  WP:POPE
  ?

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The legal scholar Christopher Hamerton observes that the reason Whipping Tom's history gained notoriety at a time when sexualised violence was common was due to "their very deviance that provided the engaging factor: I don't think we can do observes here: this is a subjective statement. More generally, the syntax is tricky here.

  "considers"? (Made a couple of other minor tweaks to improve the flow too). - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Works well. I still think this paragraph could do with some love for prose, but I'll need to have a look at what the sources are actually saying to be able to give a sensible suggestion as to how. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• later serious attacks ... in the 1780s by Lascar seamen: I know nothing about this, but I can't help but wonder whether there's a different angle to this one: it sounds uncomfortably like the age-old hysteria about (dark-skinned) men "coming over here" and threatening the innocence of "our" women.

  He doesn't go into further detail on this one, but as he was writing last year, I'm not sure that's what he's saying. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't look like it: I wonder if he's conflating different things (accounts of real sexual assault vs. racialised and sexualised stereotypes) together. However, if the general point is "sexual assault was in the Zeitgeist and people were eager to get agitated about stories of it), I'm not sure it's a problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hamerton also considers that there were some who saw Whipping Tom as a moral crusader, providing a form of social justice against dissolute women: We haven't given any hint, so far, that the victims could be seen as "dissolute". Is some context needed as to how a woman out walking alone at night would be perceived, at least some people?

  Still to do - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've covered this bit too - I've moved it into the right section and added a little background about his attacks also involving the local sex workers. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi UC, I think I've answered or acted on all your points, but I know you're likely to push back or want refinements on a few of them. Would you be able to strike out the ones you're happy with, just so I don't lose the ones that still need attention? Your comments are always so on point and useful, that I really want to make sure I cover them all and don't forget any. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Schro: will do. There's a few bits that I still find unclear or confusing, but a large part of the problem there seems to be in sources that are unclear or confusing, so I won't be able to contribute very intelligently until I've been able to look through the sources to find out what we're dealing with. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right on the sources being a little confused, some of them even on some of the basic points (lots of them, for example, state that Whipping Tom would cry 'Spanko'; only a couple point out that that text says that he made his victims' "Butt ends cry Spanko", which is rather different).

  If you want me to email anything through to you, please let me know and I'll sort it out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with UC - these are three criminals (four?) who shared the same nickname. A little bit of a recap and definition would not be out of place.
• The legal scholar Christopher Hamerton observes that the reason Whipping Tom's history gained notoriety at a time when sexualised violence was common was due to "their very deviance that provided the engaging factor". - Segueing from this, it might be worth having a bit of a run down on sexual assault in 17th-century London. It would help us understand Hamerton's observation, as well as contextualize the attacks in their social milieu.
  • I've added a bit from Hamerton; unfortunately while he is referring to both Tom's, he only gives examples from the 1700s, so I've moved the paragraph to the later entry. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks sharp to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, SC. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find these people, Schro. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I wish there was a 'Big Book of London Weirdos' I could use to find them, but in this case someone emailed me a few weeks ago about it. I'd never heard of them until then! - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love that you have enough of a niche that when people learn about weird things in British history, they know to alert you immediately. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a group of six historic houses in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Built at a time when the surrounding neighborhood was full of residences rather than office buildings, the Villard Houses have a very complicated history. The houses' developer went bankrupt very shortly after moving into his own residence there. Over the years, the residences have also been used by upscale New Yorkers, a church, and a publishing company. After nearly meeting an ignominious end in the 1970s, the houses became part of a nearby hotel. You can still see the elaborate interiors, which include various murals and sculptures. Or, if you're walking past on Madison Avenue, you can admire the imposing sandstone facades, which give the impression that the residences are all one massive mansion.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by Filmgoer, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit by Mox Eden (which I also appreciate) and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• dining room, and reception area in the south wing → dining room, and the reception area in the south wing.
• turned into office space for the preservation group → converted into office space for the preservation group
• occupying a site bounded by Madison Avenue to the west → located on a site bounded by Madison Avenue to the west
• The two palazzos had been Wells's favorite Renaissance buildings → These two palazzos were Wells's favorite Renaissance buildings
• they faced a similar courtyard at the eastern end → they overlooked a similar courtyard at the eastern end

The AP (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I am sorry but I am going to sleep now, I believe I have more to comment, please ping me when you made the changes [reply]

@TheAstorPastor, thanks for the initial comments. I've now fixed all of these. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius

• while the other houses each had a unique layout → while the other houses had unique layouts.
• Each bedroom was fitted with its own bathroom → Each bedroom included its own bathroom
• Aside from a guest room with medieval theming → Apart from a guest room with medieval theming
• tree boilers → three boilers
• journalist before taking over → journalist and later took
• could only occupy → could occupy only

The AP (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAstorPastor, thanks for these additional comments. I've addressed them all as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): DannyRogers800 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that this article has just been awarded GA status (thanks to @Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)), I am confident to nominate it as a featured article candidate. "Marching Through Georgia" is a prominent song from the Civil War era penned by one of America's finest composers, Henry Work. It was great fun working on this. DannyRogers800 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "One of few Civil War compositions" -> "One of the few Civil War compositions" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "commemorative song which would become the campaign's unofficial theme tune" -> "commemorative song that would become the campaign's unofficial theme tune" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Civil War; Journalist Irwin Silber comments" -> "Civil War; journalist Irwin Silber comments" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "On November 15 62,000 Union" -> "On November 15, 62,000 Union" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "was one of few wartime compositions" -> "was one of the few wartime compositions" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• If these issues are fixed then I support at least for the grammar and prose. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Very good suggestions; the errors should all be fixed. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a starter note, IMDB is user-generated and should not be cited. Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, although I'm not sure if the new citation for El Dorado is any good. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable secondary source cannot be found, I would remove the information as undue detail. Hog Farm _Talk 14:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the El Dorado reference entirely. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

• Don't use fixed px size

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Savannah_Campaign.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?

• File:"Marching_Through_Georgia"_by_Henry_C._Work_–_sung_by_Harlan_%26_Stanley_(1904).ogg: what is the author's date of death?

• File:William_T._Sherman,_c._1860–1870.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this criticism. I'll work on it later on today. DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captions have been and alt text has been added. Regarding px size, I had to keep the dimensions of the lead image and the March to the Sea graphics fixed as they would otherwise be too small. The rest have been arranged. Onto the media issues. The data on the map is not listed; I don't know if this invalidates it or not. The authors of the recording have all been dead for over 70 years: Harlan died in 1936 and Stanley in 1910. The Sherman portrait was adapted from another Wikimedia file; it was published some time between 1860 and 1870 and in the United States—that's all I know. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Penned at the war's eve and released on January 9, 1865" - how was thing song about 1864 penned at the war's eve?
• "and "The Song of a Thousand Years" consoled civilians at the height of Confederate progress in the Battle of Gettysburg" -- Are you sure you used the 2001 edition of Eicher? I have the 2001 hardcover edition of Eicher, and p. 501 which is one of the cites supporting this does not support any of this information. That page is about some of the earlier movements of the Gettysburg campaign and the relief of Joseph Hooker. Spaeth also does not support the height of Confederate progress bit.
• "After a series of minor skirmishes and just two notable engagements, at Griswoldville and Fort McAllister, the Union army moved into Atlanta on December 21" - do you mean moved into Savannah?
• "Many modern renditions of the song omit this stanza entirely" - unless we can have a more general source directly addressing this than just citing a a few modern versions that are avoiding the word "darkey", I would omit this
• "Today, it is nigh synonymous with the state of Georgia" - Is it though? The New Georgia Encyclopedia doesn't seem to be making a claim quite this strongly. Tribble has It is an irony of music history that the song which has taken the name of the state of Georgia around the world is heartily disliked by Georgians. which does support this a bit in the sense that it's saying that's why people outside of the US have heard of Georgia, but I don't think either of these quite support this sentence
• "Accordingly, Tom Dolan writes in a 1908 edition of The Jeffersonian: "Georgia will not forget [the march], nor will her Southern sisters be unmindful of the anguish of that relentless pillage."" - there are far better sources for the memory of Sherman's march in the Southern consciousness than a 1908 editorial in an obscure small-town Kentucky newspaper; I would replace this source and quote
• "In World War Two British troops stationed in India periodically chanted it." - are we sure this is right? Tribble has The British sang it as a marching song in India and included it in their Soldiers' Song Book in World War II which reads to me as if this is discussing two separate things. Likewise, Eicher has Japanese troops sang it as they entered Port Arthur and the British sang it in India; it was hugely popular during World War II, which again appears to be referring to separate things. The British were in India continually from the time Work's song was written until after World War II; it's not clear to me that the sources are stating that the India usage and the World War II usage are the same
• I'm not a fan of much of the military/nationalistic uses section. In order to demonstrate that these various parodies/alterations are actually significant enough to warrant discussion in an encyclopedia article, there really should be a secondary source to demonstrate the significance of this topic. Pretoria, Toivo, and Flanders are all only sourced to the original lyrics themselves. Especially with something that has been heavily reclaimed, altered, spoofed, or parodied throughout history, the use of secondary sourcing for such things is necessary to serve as a discriminating test between what warrants mention and what doesn't. This same concern apply to the mentions of the Stirling and Moore novels.

That's it for my first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 21:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look to these tomorrow, thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Fixed.

2) Fixed; removed "at the height of Confederate progress."

3) Fixed.

4) Fixed; couldn't find a concrete source.

5) Fixed; the sources don't back it up strongly.

6) Replaced Dolan's quote with one from Spaeth. However, I did not omit the source entirely as it does provide insight to the 1908 DNC incident; this context should constitute reliability, but perhaps I am mistaken.

7) Fixed; removed "In World War Two."

8) Fixed; all sentences referenced from primary sources have been removed.

besides making these amendments, I added a quote at the end of the "General analysis" section, and expanded the "Other uses" section (all additions are taken from Tome, a secondary source). DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made one phrasing change regarding the Gettysburg item - please look to see if you agree with this and let me know if you don't. I've also removed the Lansdowne recording from the external link as the video appears to have been removed from YouTube. I think I can go ahead and support; please let me know if you disagree with either of my changes. Hog Farm _Talk 18:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new phrasing is far more poignant and faithful to the source; I wholeheartedly agree.

Apparently, the Lansdowne recording is not up on several American servers. Instead of directing one to the original YouTube video, the new link directs to a reupload by some other creator. This should work.

Thank you for your constructive review, and I hope the article made for good reading! DannyRogers800 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we've got a

WP:ELNEVER issue as that uploader clearly doesn't hold the copyright to the work. It's especially problematic in this case as it looks like the original video is probably down in the US due to copyright concerns with the holder of the original copyright. Hog Farm _Talk 22:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Shit, you're right. Removed. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): NØ 16:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Get Him Back!", closing out the rock segment of the Guts World Tour. When this article was first created, I damn near started World War 3. But I am my father's daughter, so maybe I could fix it? "Get Him Back!" incorporates a similar mood transition to the songs from my last two nominations, and it also features some impeccable rapping skills in the verses. It reminds me of "In the End", although that song is older than Rodrigo... Considered one of the best songs of 2023 by several publications and having a great music video and performances, this should make for a good read. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 16:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I didn’t notice any glaring issues with the prose, however there were some minor ones I fixed myself. Good luck! 1989 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!--NØ 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "2024 concert tour" - "2024–2025 concert tour"
• "the last song" and "as an encore" seemed confusing and redundant to me, perhaps you can paraphrase the latter to "as part of the encore" to elaborate that there were more than one song during the final performance?
• "the Electric Lady Studios" - "the" can probably be removed here

• While both ways sound okay to me, I prefer to keep it since "Electric Lady Studios" refers to a specific, well-known studio.

• "elements from several songs" - "elements from several songs and musicians" .... Sleigh Bells and the Beastie Boys
• "Drivers License" - "Drivers License" (2021)
• "Billboard Hot 100" can be linked I guess?
• "top 10 single" / "top 10 song" - "top-10 single" / "top-10 song"
• I don't think there is a need for the ARIA abbreviation
• I think the Billboard 200 chart can be added before US and Canada since it's a global chart and also has a higher peak

• I place it to introduce the summary sentence towards the end of the section, which contains peaks from several different countries. I feel like that forms a satisfying transition for readers, if that makes sense, lol. The American chart coming after it does not form as much of a "story".--NØ 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification, this makes sense to me. Medxvo (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Good work on the article! Medxvo (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for another great review, Medxvo! I am glad you enjoyed the article. All done.--NØ 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the "squishy" lyricism source should be this one not this one
• Ref 21 (Blistein 2023) seems |url-status=live to me
• Refs 41, 116, and 188 (Kornhaber 2023), (Fragassi 2024), and (Petrusich 2024) have limited access
• Rolling Stone India

Medxvo (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all done.--NØ 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything seems good with both of the free-usage images (File:Olivia Rodrigo @ Theatre at Ace Hotel 10 09 2023 (53422493897).jpg and File:OlivaRO2150524 (62) (53726272662) (cropped).jpg). The source and author links are active, there is a clearly defined purpose in the article, and there is appropriate WP:ALT text. I do wonder if it is necessary to have two images of Rodrigo in the same article, but this was not an issue for either "All-American Bitch" or "Obsessed" (Olivia Rodrigo song) so it should be fine here. I would have suggested replacing the first image with one of Dan Nigro, but the free-use image available right now is not the best quality.
• As for the non-free screenshot (File:Olivia Rodrigo – Get Him Back! (Music Video Screenshot).png), the WP:FUR is complete and without any issues and there is appropriate WP:ALT text. The caption and the WP:FUR provide a clear reason for its inclusion. I could see how that screenshot would be helpful to further illustrate the clone concept in the music video, particularly since reviews focus on it. Everything looks good with this, at least in my opinion.
• The audio sample (File:Get Him Back!.ogg) has a clearly defined purpose and a complete WP:FUR. I appreciate that the caption is clear and fully lets the reader know what is illustrating and why it is included. I could understand how the sample would better illustrate these genres and this singing technique more than just reading it in the prose. As always, I appreciate the lyrics being included, as I find that it makes the sample more accessible and frankly more useful.

Everything checks out with my image/media review. I will read through the article sometime tomorrow and post a prose review at that time, but I thought it would be nice to get this out of the way. I have honestly not kept up with Rodrigo's music at all since hearing "Drivers License" and "Deja Vu", and it is mind-boggling to realize that was years ago now. Hopefully, that perspective will help with my review. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the image and media review. I look forward to your comments about the prose. I completely agree that these past few years have passed way too fast, honestly.--NØ 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help. I have a lot of memories of listening to her music at a Goodwill of all places, but I will not sidetrack this conversation with that tangent. I should have my prose review posted sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would avoid the following sentence construction, with the titular phrase conveying a double meaning, as it is encouraged to avoid the "with X verb-ing" phrasing in FA writing. This comment applies when this appears in both the lead and the article. I would check the article as a whole for this.
• This part, also commenting on Rodrigo's rapping, seems more tacked-on at the end of the sentence. I would either find a better way to incorporate into this sentence or make it into its own separate sentence.
• I believe the following sentence could be made more concise: Jack Begert directed the music video for "Get Him Back!", which was shot entirely on an iPhone 15 Pro Max. I would suggest cutting it to say (Jack Begert directed the music video for "Get Him Back!" entirely on an iPhone 15 Pro Max) instead. I have the same comment for how this sentence appears in both the lead and the article.
• This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I am unsure if "various" is needed in this part, depicts several clones of Rodrigo. The word choice makes more sense when talk about the amount of year-end lists earlier in the lead, but I do not think it really adds that much in this specific context, as "clones" already says there is more than one.
• Is it notable to mention the criticism that the Mean Girls trailer received for featuring this rather than an original song from the actual movie? It was covered by Rolling Stone, The New York Times, and GQ. While it is about the movie and its marketing, it is also about this song and its inclusion in the trailer. I was just curious if a brief mention would be beneficial?
• I am uncertain about the
  verse and bridge later in this section and chorus
  in the previous section (and in the lead) as it is an example of music jargon that some readers may be unfamiliar with.
• I am uncertain about these two parts, (according to Pitchfork's Arielle Gordon) and (according to Gordon), as a similar sentence structure is used for the same critic in the same paragraph so it seems a tad repetition. I think that the second instance could be changed rather easily to something else to avoid this. This is particularly repetitive when the next paragraph starts with the same "according to" structure.
• The "lost my mind" is a bit awkwardly placed as it is juxtaposed with the "she" right in front. I am not sure that quote is entirely necessary, and I wonder if it would be beat to just go directly to the comparison points instead by saying, (Patel heard elements).
• For this part, (and the work of Avril Lavigne), I would say something like "the music of Avril Lavigne", as I find "work" in this context to be overly vague. I have a similar comment to this part, (the work of Wet Leg) earlier in that section.
• For the Apple Music citation, shouldn't Olivia Rodrigo be linked?

I believe that should be everything from me. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. I hope that this was helpful and that you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing a review, Aoba47. I believe I have implemented all of your suggestions into the article. I am having a good week so far, and I hope yours is going well too!--NØ 05:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I trust that you will address ChrisTheDude's comments below. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "She performed the song on The Today Show and at the 2023 MTV Video Music Awards, which was positively received" - does the "which" refer only to the latter performance or to both?
• "He played [...] drum programming" - I don't think you really "play" drum programming. Maybe "and programmed drums"....?
• "compared its "stadium stomp" quality to its single "Boom Clap" (2014)" - it's a tiny bit unclear what the "it" refers to. Maybe "compared its "stadium stomp" quality to the song "Boom Clap" from the album"
• "Rodrigo returned to perform "Get Him Back!" afront a curtain" => "Rodrigo returned to perform "Get Him Back!" in front of a curtain"
• "and "Good 4 U", which recalls 1990s rock artists like Alanis Morissette and Gwen Stefani" - is it just "Good 4 U" that recalls this or the whole list of songs?
• That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude. Just made some changes.--NØ 10:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great work once again! BTW if you happen to have the time and fancy it, I have a nomination open which seems to be struggling to gain any traction. If not, though, absolutely no problem at all! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ", and the latter was positively received." could be "; the latter was positively received."?
• "ended up" is used closely in the same paragraph (second in Background and release) three times. Consider replacing one that it's not in the quote.
• Is there a reason why the Italian radio date is mentioned in prose but not the contemporary hit radio date?

• The magazine reporting the promotion to CHR uses the term "early adds", so I have steered clear of explicitly naming an impact date in the prose. Although, it is now common practice to still use these dates in release history tables.--NØ 19:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Programmed could be linked.
• "Patel heard elements" - this reads like a fact more than an opinion.
• As far as I know, "s's" should be consistent in "Bleachers's" and "Butthole Surfers'".
• Shouldn't the GQ and Nylon lists' authors be mentioned?

That's all I could say, everything else is great. I really enjoyed reading the article. This is my first time in a FAC review, so my apologies (and let me know) if something is not necessary here. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, CatchMe. This looks like a very good first review to me and your suggestions are reasonable. All done.--NØ 19:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this nomination based on prose. Awesome work! Thanks for the words, too. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a student stage performance that ran for all of two shows. Why is it important? Because one of the performers went on to become one of the PRC's leading drama theorists, and in part due to his influence the play was canonized as the country's first modern drama. The article provides a comprehensive review of the literature, including Ouyang Yuqian's essay that seems to have provided the main source of information for most subsequent studies. Through a friend at Waseda, I was also able to gain access to a contemporary review, which was nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Slave%27s_Cry_to_Heaven_playbill_(1907).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Slave%27s_Cry_to_Heaven_(1907)_party_at_the_Wilson_factory.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Slave%27s_Cry_to_Heaven_by_Chunliu_She,_June_1907.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Slave%27s_Cry_to_Heaven_(1907),_escape_and_the_death_of_the_slavers.jpg

They are all in public domain because of their age and are tagged accordingly. They are placed in appropriate locations in the article. They all have captions and alt texts. I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "the worker George is denied recognition" Did you mean George denied his recognition or his recognition was denied by others?
  • His recognition is denied, which is why the passive tense is used here; he was given an award, but his owner takes it away. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "raucous" can you replace that word? as a non-native speaker, I had to do research on what is this.
  • Not done. The source indicates that they escape under the cover of drunkards singing and women going to visit men, and there are few other words that indicate such a wild and disorganized noise briefly. Per WP:DUE, I don't think adding those details would help. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "but escape" maybe escaped?
  • Not done. "They are chased by" is in the passive voice (which requires verb 3), whereas escape is in the active voice (which, as this is written in the present tense, requires verb 1). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "able to reach the common person, without the educational requirements of the written word" I think a comma is unnecessary here.
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "thousand" should be with s
  • Not done. As seen at
    MOS:NUMERAL holds that all parallel measures should be written in the same format (i.e. spelled out). If this were an unspecified number of "thousands", that would make sense. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• maybe add a comma after "thousand in 1903"
  • Not entirely sure, but done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Lin drew parallels between the African-American slaves and the experiences of Chinese migrants in the United States" What do you mean by "parallels"?
  • In this case, "likened". I've changed it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Also unlike traditional theatre" missing comma
  • Not done. Also unlike traditional theatre is its own subclause. If the article had not discussed diversions from tradition in the immediately preceding sentence, I'd agree. In this case, the entire subclause is continuing the thought of the previous sentence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "The leading character, the slave George Harris," Is the leading character is George Harris also? Because it was written like the leading character and the slave are different person I think?
  • Reworked to avoid a false title. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "recalling that it had not lost money," is kinda awkward, maybe reword/rephrase it?
  • He doesn't say that it made money, which is why I stuck with the awkward phrasing. Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What is "packed house"? I apologize for my ignorance
  • A packed house is a somewhat idiomatic phrase that means "a sold-out theatre".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "prepared in 1957 by dramatists" comma after this.
  • Not done. "Dramatists including Tian Han and Ouyang Yuqian" is a noun phrase that stands on its own, meaning the same as "a group of dramatists that included Tian Han and Ouyang Yuqian" without being as verbose. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. Despite that other words are hard for non-native people to understand, I believe that the article is still written very well. Good job! Btw, if you have a moment to review also Ethan Winters, I'll appreciate it. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Bp! I've responded to your comments above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I don't think I have any issues left, so I'll Support this nom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my GA review, I checked cites 5, 19, 24, 29, 36, and 37 with no issues, which covered Liu 2006, Liu 2013 and Qi 2018. For this review, I will check all cites to Yu 2009, Liu 2007, and Liu 2009. The only sources I cannot check are Ouyang 1984 (in Chinese) and Asahi Shimbun (in Japanese). Neither of those raises red flags for me, especially since the material cited to Ouyang 1984 is in keeping with how Ouyang is discussed in English-language sources. Any notes/sugestions will be below. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the Asahi Shimbun newspaper article is quite old, it might be a valuable aid to verifiability if the citation included information about a particular archive which contains it, especially if it's been microfilmed or digitized. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really a source check question, but I wonder if the beginning of the Legacy section would benefit from a one-sentence explanation of xiqu vs huaju. Something like: "Black Slave's Cry to Heaven has been recognized as the first modern Western-style Chinese drama. [Modern Chinese drama, known as huaju, has X traits compared to tradictional opera, or xiqu]. Black Slave's Cry to Heaven gained this recognition based on a history..." In general, I think it's a strength of this article that it minimizes the jargon of theatrical history, so no need if you don't like the idea, but this seemed like a good place to set out that big-picture framing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Also not a source comment (sorry!), but you need either the comma or the "that" in Shouhua Qi writes, that "none... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi LEvalyn,
• I've added a hidden comment that the item came from the Waseda University Library in a digital format and is available upon request. I don't know if my friend would get in trouble, so I'd rather not put his name if I can help it.

I'm not entirely sure how useful it is, given that we have articles on civilized drama and huaju that go into the differences in detail. I have added a one-sentence summary about the continued emphasis on spoken, rather than sung, dialogue. Aside from MacKerras, Britannica and Oxford Reference both emphasize this point above all others.

Removed the comma.

Thanks for being willing to take another look, LEvalyn!. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden comment is a good idea, that makes sense! Your additions look good to me, and I take your point that the details are well-covered in their respective articles. I'll turn my attention to the actual source review now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a nitpick, but In commemoration of Black Slave's Cry to Heaven, several further adaptations of Uncle Tom's Cabin have been written and produced on significant anniversaries. isn't fully verified by just p. 2 of Yu 2009. Page 2 just says that two further adaptations were produced; it's p. 5 and p. 8 that confirm that each one commemorated Black Slave's Cry to Heaven and were timed on an anniversary. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to 5 & 8. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• George Harris was portrayed by Xie Kangbai, with Li Shutong in the role of Emily Shelby and Huang Nannan portraying her husband Arthur. Ouyang Yuqian took the role of an enslaved woman should be cited to p. 5 of Yu 2009. It also might read more smoothly if the names were fully parallel, always actor-role or always role-actor, instead of switching it up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Li Shutong served as stage designer should be cited to p. 3 of Yu 2009. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise, everything cited to Yu 2009 checks out: fully verified without close paraphrasing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• That concludes my source review! Very happy to support on sources once those page numbers are sorted out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Seems I lost track of the page number when writing out the Li Shutong sentence.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the fixes, looking great! It's easy to get mixed up by a page or two but all the big-picture important stuff with the sourcing was fine. Changing to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh, looking over my comments again, it looks like I didn't explicitly state it -- I also checked Liu 2007 and Liu 2009, which were both good, no notes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)