Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2022

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [1].

Venus in fiction

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a long while since I've been here. Anyway, hello again, old and new collegues. The article I bring to you is IMHO well written and comprehensive, having went through a GA review that was the most extensive and detailed in my decade+ history of GA reviews. The prose went through much copyediting, and me and the reviwer, User:TompaDompa, did a very throughout literature review. Now, let me be the first to point out a few issues.

First, the name (Venus in fiction). The article is about

Second. I do belive that the article is not comprehensive when it come to certain aspects, such as coverage of non-Western works Talk:Venus_in_fiction#Comprehensivness, video games (Category:Video games set on Venus...), board games (Onward to Venus), or works I personally consider significant (from Maurice Leblanc's fr:Les Trois Yeux to modern TV shows like The Expanse). Unfortunatley, we were unable to locate any sources that discuss them in this context. In general, it is not impossible some useful coverage exists in other languages, but there are realistic limits to what we can find (speaking for myself, I did a Polish-language query and found next to nothing). Several interwikis exist, but they are not helpful (they contain no sugestions of literature that we might have missed). As such, while I am concerned that the article suffers from some Western/English bias in coverage, as well from a form of anti-recentism (not enough weight given to the works from the last 2-3 decades), at this point I am ready to conclude that those biases are unavoidable, given our OR policy, as they represent common biases in accessible sources.

Third. Structure. The article is pretty much about literature. We have a section called 'Media' about comics and films. I wanted to add more - a section on anime and manga, a section in television, a section on video games, etc., but we did not find any sources discussing these other forms of media in this context (portrayals of Venus) in any depth.

I am looking forward to your thoughts, suggestions and constructive critique. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

What a fascinating article! It's good you discuss the concerns about bias and naming. I think it's ook for now and agree we can only go on the available sources. A few comments below

• The Pope book is mentioned here three times as Romances of the Planets, no 2: Journey to Venus but our page calls it Journey to Venus and the full title there is Journey to Venus the Primeval World; Its Wonderful Creations and Gigantic Monsters, so I wonder if you can resolve the confusion

• "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lists in its entry on Venus" - "on venus" seems redundant?

• "beautiful paradisiac or primordial planet" - maybe it's me, paradisiac reads funny, do you mean paradise-like?

• "The conception of Venus has abundant water was controversial" - something went wrong there? "having" maybe?

• "gave others a license for exotic natural or fanciful scenery" suggest "gave others a license to portray exotic natural or fanciful scenery"

• "half-naked sex-appealing blond sirens" don't think sex-appealing needs to be linked Mujinga (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga Thanks for the review, I was beginning to wonder if I messed up listing this at FAC and it was invisbile... :)

Regarding Pope's book, I used the name from SF Encyclopedia. The unreferenced but likely correct explanation in our article on JtV suggests that the Romances of the Planets is the series title. I will simplify references to this work in our article to just Journey to Venus, as the longer name (and/or series name) issue should be discussed in the book article, it is rather irrelevant for us.

Regarding the redundant phrase, I've changed it to "lists in this context".

Paradisiac. I have no preference for which synonym to use, honestly (paradisaic, paradisaical, paradisal, paradisiacal...). Feel free to adjust it to paradise-like if you think it sounds better (it certainly is simpler English, which is usually a good thing).

"The conception... Right. Rewritten, please see if it reads better.

Gave... changed as you suggested.

Regarding the link to sex-appeal, I am unsure (per

WP:BTW). If anyone removes the link, I won't restore it, but I am inclinded to leave it be for now. On that note, I am having second thoughts about the link to siren, it is very much a good term to link but here it is a part of the quote, and I think the cited author meant siren in the context of beautiful women, not necessarily the "Greek humanlike beings with alluring voices"... unlink? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the replies, I've made some edits, see what you think.I've changed it to "The idea of water on Venus" and "paradise-like". Also, per

MOS:LINKQUOTE I've removed the links from the quote. None of these changes are particularly major so I'm not fussed if you want to revert and in any case I'm changing to support. Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Coordinator comment - At close to a month in and only a single general support, this candidate is likely to be archived if substantial movement towards a consensus to promote is not made in the next few days. Hog Farm _Talk 03:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm Errr, so what's the treshold needed here? We do have an absolute majority, don't we? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ps. Would it be ok for me to solitic input on this from some other editors interested in this topic, or would it be considered canvassing? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A source review, an image review, and a minimum of three general supports are the requirement. You can ask for reviews if the requests are neutrally worded, the requests aren't made on a FAC page, and it's generally best to not offer qpq reviewing for reviews. Hog Farm _Talk 14:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm I'll see what I can do, but ,tTo me this sounds like FAC is a dying process, if we cannot find reviewers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from VickKiang

Just did a few very quick spotchecks.

• - Minor, small quibble: The lede mentions Sarah Zettel, despite her only being mentioned once in the body. Unsure if it's due to be included in lede?

• - For Treatments described sometimes as more "cerebral" or "mainline" included Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men (1930), Campbell's "The Black Star Passes" (1930), Heinlein's "Logic of Empire" and later works, C. S. Lewis's Perelandra (1943), Henry Kuttner's Fury (1947), A. E. van Vogt's The World of Null-A (1949), Jack Williamson's Seetee series (1949–1951), Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth's novel The Space Merchants (1952) and Isaac Asimov's Lucky Starr and the Oceans of Venus (1954), I'm unsure about the use of "sometimes". Perhaps a more specific wording would be better to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch?

• The SF is in quote, but shouldn't it be introduced first, possibly in brackets, as some readers might be unfamiliar with it?

More to come. VickKiang 07:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang My apologies, I missed your comments (do ping me in the future).

Regarding Zettel, I am ok removing her or not, I thought it's ok to mention her (Bova is mentioned twice in the lead). The problem is that most sources don't discuss the last two or three decades much, so we have very few examples of "modern" works and authors to mention.

I've removed the word "sometimes" as it seems simply unnecessary.

I am afraid I don't understand your last comment ("The SF is in quote"), could you elaborate? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was referring to some of the gaudiest romances of Genre SF are set on Venus- could we introduce SF as science fiction? Of course, this is totally optional and is a minor nitpick. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

• "Classic writers who set their stories on Venus included": I don't think "classic" is the right word -- particularly for readers who are not genre aficionados. Kline is not well-regarded now, and Stapledon was not widely known in the field at the time, which makes a generally applicable adjective harder to find. Perhaps just drop the adjective completely?
• 'A number of the earliest descriptions painted Venus as a beautiful, paradise-like or primordial planet, a view that was only in time modified by scientific findings. As observed by Carl Sagan in 1978: "A clement twilight zone on a synchronously rotating Mercury, a swamp-and-jungle Venus, and a canal-infested Mars, while all classic science-fiction devices, are all, in fact, based upon earlier misapprehensions by planetary scientists."' I think this would be better-placed at the start of the "Later depictions" section, where it can help with the transition.
• Several works are mentioned both in the first paragraphs of "Early depictions" and again in the subsections, including Burroughs Pirates of Venus and its sequels, and Lewis's Perelandra. The article (necessarily) has a lot of in-prose lists, which don't make for easy reading, so I would take every opportunity to eliminate duplicate mentions in order to shorten those lists.
• "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus": the source has (after talking about varied fictional settings of stories of Venus): "The other side of the coin was that there never grew up a consistent "Venusian mythology" comparable in power to the Mythology of Mars." I think what the source is saying is that stories set on Mars, because the settings were usually very similar, contributed to a coherent conception of a fictional Mars, whereas the freedom allowed to writers by the blanketing clouds meant that stories set on Venus used a wide range of settings, and prevented Venus having a similarly consistent image within the genre". I don't think the current wording says that -- it's compressed too far, to the point where it almost says "the lack of a common vision meant there was no common vision".
• "some of the gaudiest romances of Genre SF are set on Venus": "Genre" is only capitalized in the source because it's a link, I believe; I think this is a permissible typographic change that you can make without indicating it. And "SF", as we're also discussing at my current FAC, requires introduction as an abbreviation, or you could do square brackets: "some of the gaudiest romances of [genre science fiction] are set on Venus".
• "Scientific discourse on the prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on": suggest "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" -- it was the prospects, not the discourse, that dimmed, and the rest of the sentence makes it clear this was because of scientific progress.
• "The theme of romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus occasionally resurfaces": suggest "A romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus occasionally resurfaces": it's not the theme that reappears, it's the depiction of the planet itself.
• There's a conflict between the chronological and thematic organization. "Colonization" and "Terraforming" are both subsections within "Later depictions", but as the examples indicate these include examples dating from the era before conditions on the planet surface were understood.
• In the "Lifeforms" section, when you mention works that have been named before, I would just use the author's last name and skip the date where possible -- e.g. Pope should be dated as it's not obvious from context, but the sentence that starts "In the second half of the 20th century" doesn't need dates if they've been given earlier in the article.
• "the latter reimagining the portrayal as Venusians into "half-naked sex-appealing blond sirens" with supernatural or psychic powers": suggest "the latter reimagining Venusians, portraying them as "half-naked sex-appealing blond sirens" with supernatural or psychic powers.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Thanks for stopping by!

Changed classic to "Early science fiction".

"A number of the earliest descriptions" - not done. I see your point, but to me this looks good where it is. I won't object if someone moves it as it can fit in both places, it's a toss, really.

Regarding examples, they are examples of different types. For example, Pirates of Venus is mentioned in sources as an example of an early work about Venus, and as an example of work with the jungle and swamp setting. While the swamp and jungle is part of the early depictions, I am not convinced we need to mention it only once. Again, I won't revert someone removing the first mention (probably) but I don't feel the need to do it myself as I think it is informative to use such examples for all relevant cases.

To me, "less coherent mythology of Venus" is what the source says, succient and not the same as "no common vision". But I am open to suggestions how to rewrite it/expand it to be more clear?

Genre SF. I am nots sure if we need an article on this (https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/genre_sf), but yes, capitalization is not necessary - except it is in the quote, and we reproduce quotes as written. I am not opposed to changing it, in the quote, to [genre science fiction], but is this really a better practice than just quoting the source without changing its style?

"Scientific discourse..." - changed per your suggestion.

"The theme of..." - changed per your suggestion.

"There's a conflict between the chronological and thematic organization." Yes, some boundaries will be fuzzy, you could say the same about Venusian section, of later coverage of comics/movies. I don't think there is an elegant way to resolve it, not in a two-dimensial wall of text medium.

" when you mention works that have been named before, I would just use the author's last name and skip the date where possible" - fair point. There was some unnecessary repetition of such detail in several places, I've done a c/e pass for that. If I missed something, feel free to remove such duplication if you see it.

"the latter reimagining" - changed per your suggestion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the points you've addressed; I'll have a think about the others and come back to this, probably this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some points unstruck, but I don't expect you to address them; none of them prevent me from supporting -- they're matters of preference. Before I support this article for promotion I wanted to mention two sources that you might not have consulted: Everett Bleiler's The Early Years and The Gernsback Years. Both have a "theme index" section that links to summaries of stories; there are scores of references to Venus. I'm not certain any of it has to be included, because it's a completist index, rather than selective, so trivially non-notable stories are covered along with work by significant writers. Still, if you don't have access to a copy I can send you scans of the indexes and some sample pages to see if you think either book would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Z-library. For the first, the index on pages 921-922 seems to have some interesting examples and cursory commentary, and I'll probably be able to add a few tidbits from it to the article. The index for the second one seems more disorganized, and I am not sure if this book is helpful. If you have physical copies, can you check if either has a chapter on Venus? I don't think so, but sometimes physical can be better then CTRL+F checking, particularly as the scan can be corrupt have an OCR issue or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

PS. Added a new paragraph to the top of Venusian section, based on the examples/comments from the cited work (pages 921-922). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can send you the relevant index section from The Gernsback Years if you send me a Wikipedia email, but it doesn't look very different from the one you cited in The Early Years, so I don't think it would change the article much -- though I suppose citing this section too would be a benefit to readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent the index pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ReaderofthePack

• I'll take a look! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ReaderofthePack Just checking if you had the time to do so :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoot, I actually forgot all about this! I'll try to make some time this weekend! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot again! I'll do a quick review now. One of the things I noticed is that there isn't a list anywhere of the various works of Venus in fiction. This isn't really anything for the page in specific to fix, but it's something that could be useful in the future as a separate article. I suppose that you could link to the category within the article, but that just seems messy. As far as mentions in the article go, I think that the current amount is good. Sourcing-wise, I don't really have the time to go into the sourcing in-depth, but everything looks good offhand. I can see the argument for the page range in the sourcing section, but the presence of the pages in the body of the article allows for the sourcing section to give more of a streamlined, cleaner look. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  MOS:POPCULTURE. Note that this article was a gigantic, unreferneced list until I rewrote it. See how it looked before and let me know if I misunderstood what you are asking? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I see your point - I suppose that's not really doable. Thanks! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any merit to posting pictures of the surface of Venus? (There's some on Commons.) It looks like the depictions changed prior to the first images that came out in the 70s, but did those have any other impact on how Venus was depicted? If so, then this could be worth including in the article as an image. If not, then disregard. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ReaderofthePack It's a thought. Are there any images you'd like to suggested? Most of the "artists vision" stuff is copyrighted, and sciencey stuff is, well, just some images of clouds and such, AFAIK. I'd love to add a picture of "Venus in artists visions pre-50s and post-50s" but couldn't find anything better than what we have in the article now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This one isn't bad, but I see your point. A lot of it is the sort of thing that's exciting as far as science goes, but is just sort of "blad" when considering the article. Then there's stuff like this, which gives a view of the planet but doesn't really help illustrate the idea of "Venus as uninhabitable to humans". I admittedly thought we had some of the colored pictures of the landscape when I suggested this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

I've deliberated quite a bit whether I should review this or refrain from doing so. As mentioned in the nomination, I

There's no expectation that a GA reviewer should refrain from reviewing at FAC, though it's worth declaring that you were the GA reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I did the review for GA status in itself that gave me pause, but rather that I have had so much input that I could be considered a co-author of sorts. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, given the amount of reviewing work, yes, I think you can call yourself a second author here, by all means!) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I have already checked the article's sourcing up to this version (not just spotchecks—I've verified every single sentence) as part of the GA process. All sources are—as far as I can tell—reliable and otherwise appropriate for the content they are used for. I was unable to access Bracia Strugaccy by Wojciech Kajtoch (currently ref 9), but I'm willing to WP:Assume good faith there. I have checked the changes and additions that have been made to the content and sources since (i.e. up to this version), and noted the issues I found below.

• The WP:Featured article criteria mandate that citations be consistently formatted. To this end I was going to suggest restricting dates for books to year only, but you already implemented that.
• The sources that are not in English need to indicate which language they are in (currently done for some but not all of them) and provide the English translation of the titles (use |trans-title=). Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie, for instance, would be something along the lines of "Wanderers in the Sky: The World of the Planets in Astronomy and Mythology".
• The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should not include "SFE" in the title, but just the title of the entry ("Venus").
• The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should include the date (2021 or 2021-01-25 depending on if you want to treat it like a book or a webpage).
• The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should include the entry authors: Brian Stableford and David Langford. It's debatable if the editors (John Clute, David Langford, Graham Sleight) should also be included.
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy reference should provide the page range.
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy reference could optionally use this link to the Internet Archive rather than the current Google Books link.
• The Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie reference should provide the page range.
• The Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie reference should provide the chapter title ("Venus" or "Ein geplatzter Traum", depending on how specific you want to be about it) and use the |chapter-url= parameter rather than the generic |url= one.
• The link to Braccia Strugaccy should be removed—it's useless for verification. It also duplicates the |oclc= field, so it's unnecessary.
• The Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia reference should provide the page range.
• The Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia reference should provide the chapter title ("Venus and Venusians") and use the |chapter-url= parameter rather than the generic |url= one.
• David Seed is not the author of A Companion to Science Fiction, but the editor. The author of the cited chapter ("Science Fiction and Ecology") is Brian Stableford.
• E. F. Bleiler should be linked in the reference.
• Alexander Victorovich Fedorov should be linked in the reference.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Done except: 1) page ranges for books cited are provided in text body, using template:rp, which is why I removed any page ranges from the citation templates on purpose to avoid needless/confusing redundancy 2) Regading Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie, I believe this ref was added by you (or User:Daranios?), and it's in German, a language I don't speak. As such, I cannot decide which chapter title is better here, would you have a preference? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the page ranges, I suppose. I added the chapter title. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi TompaDompa, is this a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having now taken a quick look at the sources that have been added since (and fixed the lone outstanding issue myself): yes, the source review is a pass. Sorry about the delay. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• All images are public domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, or CC BY-SA 4.0 (the last one being fine for media but not for text per
  WP:CFAQ
  ).
• The images lack
  WP:ALT
  text, which need to be added.
• All images are relevant and the captions are suitable.
• With the possible exception of File:Fantastic adventures 194111.jpg, all images have decent image quality. That image illustrates Venus appearing in pulp stories, tropical climate, and exotic lifeforms. The first and last of those aspects are illustrated by other images on the page. I think it's okay, but it might be possible to find a better image.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good. The image review is a pass. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Either reduce the number of examples or elaborate on the details of individual examples anywhere more than (say) three examples are listed. We're supposed to summarize, not enumerate.
• The "Media" section feels really out of place considering the overall article structure. I would strongly suggest interspersing the examples throughout the text as appropriate rather than devoting a separate section to this (though there might also be some other solution I haven't thought of). The way it's currently done is conspicuous to such an extent that I find it to be a
  WP:WEIGHT
  issue.
• I would suggest adding
  WP:REDLINKS
  at first mention for all applicable works, though this is a matter of preference.
• This source (currently used as "Further reading") could probably be used to expand the article somewhat.
• "The idea of water's abundance on Venus" – Awkward phrasing.
• "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" – This should be rephrased. The actual likelihood of life on Venus was of course the same all along, it was scientists' estimation of that likelihood that changed.
• "Overall, the sentient inhabitants of Venus are most commonly portrayed as human, or human-like, although Everett Franklin Bleiler listed a number of exceptions [...]" – This is missing the crucial piece of context that it comes from Science-Fiction: The Early Years, which means Bleiler's observations only apply to early (pre-1930) science fiction.
• "winged, angelic people, dwarves, giants, archaic humans ("subhumans"), humans but wings and antennae, intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects [...]" – Two items in this list have internal commas: "winged, angelic people" and "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae". Either separate the items with semicolons or edit the set of items to avoid having items with internal commas.
• "It was adapted into a two-part English-language release" – I don't think that's correct. It seems like these were two different adaptations rather than two parts of a single adaptation. Specifically, from what I can gather, dubbed and re-edited versions with some new footage (cf. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!).

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Done unless otherwise noted below:

1) "We're supposed to summarize, not enumerate." That's subjective. I'll note that numerous other cited reference works, including encyclopedias, have no problem with enumeration. If you think in a particular case (work) there was deeper content (analysis) in a source we haven't incorporated, do let me know and I'll see about expanding the article. Otherwise, we are simply repeating an enumration as given in a RS on the topic.

2) Regarding the media section, there is no good way of doing this. Some sources focus on specific types of media. The solution is to wait for the apperance of sources discussing this in other contexts.

3) I support REDLINKS, but that begs the question of which works are notable to be linked, and which aren't.

4) Good find with [2]. I'll read it and see what can be incorporated in a near future.

5) "The idea of water's abundance on Venus". And so it begins, my experience with numerous reviewers at FAC. No disrespect to anyone, but this was rewritten following a request to do so by another FAC reviewer. You are welcome to restore the old version. I wash my hands from that (to me both variants sound ok).

6) "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" - likewise, this was rewritten following a request of another reviewer. Feel free to restore the previous version. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1: I agree with Espresso Addict that this is "not an example of our best prose. It feels very listy and not very analytical." Adding a brief description (even if it is not really analytical) goes a long way. One example of this that is already in the article is "Kuttner and Moore's "Clash by Night" (1943), and its 1947 sequel, Fury, describe survivors from a devastated Earth living beneath Venusian oceans."

2: I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

3: I would link all of them.

WP:REDLINK

says "Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." (emphasis in original), so the threshold for adding them should similarly be low.

5: I rephrased it to "The idea that water is abundant on Venus".

Some additional comments:

• "It was adapted into English-language as [...]" – This is ungrammatical and needs to be rephrased.
• "with supernatural or psychic powers" – Well, which is it?
• I don't see how mentioning Pathfinders to Venus is justified with the current sourcing. The cited sources are not remotely on Venus in fiction.

TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa I agree that descriptions are good, the problem is that most sources don't provide them, which raises the specter of OR, or adding even more citations for a few sentences of plot summary (which often is available in the blue linked link).

Re 2, to put it simply: there's no good solution, and I think the current headings/content division is fine. The main article focuses on books/short stories, and we have separate sections/paragraphs for comic books and film/TV. I don't see this as particularly glaring, although if someone does, they can rewrite it, moving the examples to other relevant section. I think it would be a lot of work for little gain.

Re red links, some (most) pass criteria (I just spent 10m+ checking all),

Garrett Smith (writer), Brenda Pearce [6], Bob Buckley (de:Bob Buckley), Rolf Garner [7], Charles L. Graves [8], James William Barlow [9]. The only link I removed was to Stephen L. Gillett

, the encyclopedia contributor, who is probably not notable yet.

"It was adapted into English-language as" - could you rephrase it? It sounds ok to me.

"with supernatural or psychic powers" - the source doesn't specify. Can't it be both? IIRC there was something about wheather control or telepathy, shrug. I'd argue that either can be described as both.

Re: Pathfinders to Venus - User:Espresso Addict asked for this to be added. I don't see a problem, it's a TV show that has some plot relation to Venus (travelling to it? visiting it? hard to say, but it's Venus in-sf-fiction related). Fiction being on TV screen. What's the problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding additional sources to be able to add details about the works is a problem at all, really. There are presently multiple instances where seven or more items are presented in succession without any additional details. That's only somewhat an improvement over a bulleted list. Adding details helps the reader get a better understanding of the topic, and makes the text a lot more pleasant to read (compared to a bare list) to boot. Plot details being available by following a link (many works currently lacking an article to link to notwithstanding) doesn't really enter into it. The alternative would be to remove some of the examples to reduce the "listiness".

I'll see if I can find the time to rework the "Media" section. Like I said, the way it's currently done conspicuous to such an extent that I find it to be a

WP:WEIGHT

issue.

The issue I see with the Pathfinders to Venus inclusion and sourcing can be viewed through several different lenses: the essay

WP:CARGO

says: "The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis."), but right now it's just mentioned as an instance of Venus appearing in fiction devoid of any particular context.

I have copyedited the things I suggested needed rephrasing.

Something I just noticed: "Ray Cummings' Tarrano the Conqueror (1925) or E. V. Lucas or Farley's The Radio Menace (1930)" – that should be "and" rather than "or" in both instances, right? I didn't want to change it in case there's something I'm missing.

Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and is ok, I'll change it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi TompaDompa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FACR 1a. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @TompaDompa I don't mind adding more detail, but again, I don't recall it being present in the sources. Other, academic, encyclopedias of sf that cover Venus are very happy with not providing detail (yes, they may be contrained by size, but we are constrained by OR and can't add details if it's not in the sources). Consider https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/venus : "Early Scientific Romances set on Venus include Gustavus W Pope's Romances of the Planets, No. 2: Journey to Venus (1895) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897). Fred T Jane's early Satire on the interplanetary romance was To Venus in Five Seconds (1897), and Venus was also the world visited by Garrett P Serviss's A Columbus of Space (January-June 1909 All-Story; rev 1911)" or from Stableford's Science fact and science fiction an encyclopedia: "The oceanic version of Venus was featured in Harl Vincent’s ‘‘Venus Liberated’’ (1929) and Clifford D. Simak’s ‘‘Rim of the Deep’’ (1940), but many stories in the science fiction pulps, including John W. Campbell’s ‘‘Solarite’’ (1930), John Beynon Harris’ ‘‘The Venus Adventure’’ (1932), and Stanton A. Coblentz’s The Blue Barbarians (1931; book, 1958) and The Planet of Youth (1932; book, 1952), imagined Venus as fundamentally Earthlike but warmer and cloudier.". What we have is perfectly in line, and in style, and in detail, of such sources.

    And while we could of course add detail from other sources (ex, from a work about that particular book, or author), you yourself say "if we are to cover something in an article on Venus in fiction, it should be covered by sources on Venus in fiction". So I am not sure how we can have the cake and eat it here, we are either violating your view PROPORTION, or POPCULT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no contradiction. Not every single detail about a specific example needs to come from a source on the overarching topic. For instance: if you use Pamela Sargent's Venus of Dreams as an example of terraforming Venus, citing the "Venus" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, it is perfectly reasonable to cite additional sources that discuss terraforming in Venus of Dreams to allow you to elaborate. And of course, there is always the option of reducing the number of examples listed.
    Entries in other, professional encyclopedias aren't always up to the standards we expect WP:Featured articles to meet. There can be issues in terms of length, depth, breadth, clarity, and so on. Matching them is not an end in itself if we can do better, especially when it comes to specialized and/or paper encyclopedias that have other considerations than Wikipedia does as an online general-purpose encyclopedia. TompaDompa (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TompaDompa, I'm concerned that what you're proposing would stray into synthesis. The SFE3 article, for example, generally restricts itself to listing examples, rather than giving details of exactly how Venus is represented in each case -- the Bleiler sources are unusual in that they do go into that sort of detail. If Sargent's Venus of Dreams is mentioned by a source but they don't go into any detail about the terraforming, I think we have two reasons not to go into detail ourselves -- we don't have a source that does so, and it would be hard to determine what is relevant to include. I could imagine a scholarly article about visions of terraforming Venus that compared e.g. Anderson's "The Big Rain" with Sargent and others, but without such an article I think it's very difficult to go beyond what the reliable sources do, which is mostly just to list examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It goes without saying that we cannot write anything we don't have the sources for. This specific example isn't really one where there is a lack of sources, however. Worldmakers: SF Adventures in Terraforming by

    WP:FACR 1b). Of course, this should not be viewed as a problem but as an opportunity to further improve the article by expanding it using this new source. I have started doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @TompaDompa While I think it's great to add more substance, I disagee with "we don't have to give seven examples when two or three would do the trick." This may be subjective, but I don't see a problem with listing all the examples other sources do. If they find it relevant, I think a list of examples is just as relevant as their description. Of course, both are best, but since many sources, like SFE, focus more on lists than the analysis, it means that the authors, many of whom are experts on those literary topics, decided that listing examples is MORE important than providing an analysis. We can criticize this approach, perhaps, but we cannot ignore it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having been able to read the entire chapter on Venus in The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters (through help from

To keep it short, I am sure your edits will improve the article, I just don't agree that it currently doesn't meet FA criteria, including in comprehensivness. I doubt the new source will allow us to add more then a few more details (names, examples, etc). A few percentage points of more details won't be a major difference. As for balance, it represents what's in the sources we found so far. I don't think UNDUE is violated in any place. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, would you be able to send me the chapter? I'd like to be able to evaluate the article for comprehensiveness in the light of the material in the chapter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RX. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Westfahl certainly mentions other works that are not mentioned in this article, but I think that's OK; these articles are forced to be very listy but we don't have to include everything relevant. I don't see any significant omissions. I've supported above and see no reason to strike my support, but I do think these points should be considered for adding to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, another point Westfahl makes (on page 165) that I think is important to include is that Venus does not really have much of a canon (for lack of a better word) of major works, unlike Mars. Anyway, I'm working on restructuring the article a bit to make it easier to expand it with additional material and more varied examples. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a sec, exactly how much of a restructure are we talking about? FAC is not the place for significant changes, if we're agreed a serious restructure is necessary then it will be best to archive this and work it away from FA. If I've misunderstood the extent of the changes you're talking about that's fine but let's work that out before beginning. N.B. It's past my bedtime so don't think me rude if I don't engage in any correspondence on this point for a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I was thinking along the lines of moving sentences between paragraphs and reordering paragraphs, mostly—not changing the core structure of the article (the main headings and such). TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'm not familiar with the Polish sources but as far as I can tell everything cited is reliable.

• You have one source cited using {{
  cite
  }}; these give slightly different output formats, so I would switch the citation one to cite book.
• The cite to the ESO gives the website title, "European Southern Observatory", but the other instance of cite web, for the SFE, gives the URL instead. These should be consistent.
• The cite to Fedorov doesn't cite a journal name.
• You have "YYYY-MM-DD" for dates that give the date, but "Month YYYY" for journal dates with only a month. I suppose this isn't technically inconsistent but it does look odd. Can we go with "May 28, 1978" or "28 May 1978"?
• You're inconsistent about giving publisher locations -- they're not compulsory but should be consistent, i.e. give them for all books or none.
• FN 6 appears to be missing part of the name of the first author.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie All done, and few other fixes for issues I've noticed. Note that I decided to remove the location names (mostly trivial metadata), and day/month dates for references (not generally used for books and journals in academia). I just left day month for the one-two newspapers and a montly newsletter cited, as I think it is more relevant for those types of media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK on all points except that it looks like there's still a location included in the citation to Kajtoch (2016). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was using some weird fields, missed it. Fixed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. I see there's another source review in progress above so I'll hold off marking this as a pass till that's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/151697?search-result=true&query=%22Kajtoch%2C+Wojciech%22&current-scope=&filtertype_0=title&filter_relational_operator_0=contains&filter_0=&rpp=50&sort_by=dc.date.accessioned_dt&order=desc&page=2

https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/25668?search-result=true&query=%22Kajtoch%2C+Wojciech%22&current-scope=&filtertype_0=title&filter_relational_operator_0=contains&filter_0=&rpp=50&sort_by=dc.date.accessioned_dt&order=desc&page=4

https://www.academia.edu/49862339/Wojciech_Kajtoch_Bracia_Strugaccy_II_wydanie

https://www.academia.edu/49861114/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%85_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%85_%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341286957_Wojciech_Kajtoch_Bracia_Strugaccy_Wydanie_drugie_uzupelnione_Stawiguda_2016_wyd_Solaris_s_570_ISBN_978-83-7590-248-8

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340255791_Vojceh_Kajtoh_Brata_Strugackie_ocerk_tvorcestva

Here's a this book

Wojciech Kajtoch 31.178.77.163 (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Espresso Addict

Driveby comments from a quick skim. I found the article fascinating but not an example of our best prose. It feels very listy and not very analytical. There is a lot based on the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The non-text examples at the end under "Media" feel very thin and might be better excluded althogether if sourcing is that sparse. Could do with a careful copy edit; there are numerous minor errors (eg hyphenation, italicisation, dash use) and redundant words (eg penned by) throughout. Some specific comments:

• Lead: "Works of fiction about the planet Venus have been written since before the 19th century." Really? The body has the first work focusing on Venus as 1865.

• Under "Early depictions: exotic tropics", "In time, Venus became one of the most popular planets in early science fiction, perhaps second only to Mars" very vague. Is there a reason for separating out examples not in English/French; there's no analysis of any difference in approach.

• Under "Ocean", what do "The two" and "the former" refer to?

• Under "Other" "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus" repetition. What is Stephen L. Gillett ? He is reffed again later but not even redlinked.

• Under "Later depictions: hostile inferno" is "dimmed" the right word? "Following a brief period of disinterest" disinterest is incorrect. Later same sentence "now known to be a rather hostile environment" is repetitive. Still later, "as pictured in" seems wrong for lit.

• Under "Colonization" need date for Wyndham to pin down subsequent decades. "Following emerging scientific evidence of Venus' harsh conditions, colonization of Venus" repetition.

• Under "Terraforming" "Other relevant woks"; aside from the unfortunate typo, introducing a list like that without analysis, particularly when there are often no wikilinks to explore, is frustrating.

• Under "Venusians" "humans but wings and antennae" missing something. "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects" is confusing/repetitive. The whole list here is very hard to parse. "Venusian society and culture has been described as both inferior and superior to human, varying from work to work." Bit of a pointless sentence. "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively," respectively misplaced, and the whole sentence seems tagged on.

• Under "Media" "Most depictions of Venus in fiction are literary" Literary seems an odd word here given the prevalence of pulp. "The Soviet film Planeta Bur (1962) was another movie from that time period." Pointless sentence.

Sorry for terseness, typing is painful right now. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Project Muse; there are 2577 hits for Venus & "science fiction" that might be worth a trawl (avail on library but needs a specific login). F'rex, The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader Telotte, J.P. (muse.jhu.edu/book/3715) mentions Pathfinders to Venus, a 1961 BBC television children's sf series but I don't see even a mention of television depictions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict Thanks for taking a look!

"The body has the first work focusing on Venus as 1865." Errr, 1656 is given?

But only as a minor subject.("touching on"); "The earliest use of Venus as the primary focus was Achille Eyraud's Voyage à Venus (Voyage to Venus, 1865)"

I am not sure if this is a meaningful distinction, but it is worth a third opinion. I'll ping GA reviewer User:TompaDompa, who, as he himself admitted, has previously verified every sentence and fact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would

cut the Gordian Knot and go with the phrasing I have used for e.g. Mercury in fiction and Mars in fiction: say that the planet has been used as a setting in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Espresso Addict I'd be fine with that? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there a reason for separating out examples not in English/French; there's no analysis of any difference in approach." This is an attempt to address

WP:SYSTEMICBIAS

.

I don't understand why WP:SYSTEMICBIAS requires these works to be separated out?

Best practices recommended by SYSTEMICBIAS suggest that we try to avoid such things as Anglophone bias present in most cited sources, and so the adopted paragraph structure, stressing what little the RS say about other languages, is, I believe, best for achieving NPOV in this context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"what do "The two" and "the former" refer to" - clarified (I hope)

OK.

"What is Stephen L. Gillett " - err, you ask, who? I can't find a bio of him aside from Goodreads here, but he has been invited (allowed? approved?) by Gary Westfahl to contribute to his encyclopedia. So, errr, we could describe him as "one of the contributors to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy" or specifically as the author of it's Venus' chapter (although he contributed more than one entry to the encyclopedia). He also wrote the book World-Building - Science Fiction Writing Series [10], at least, I assume that's the same person. He may or may not be this scholar.

Doesn't the Greenwood Encyclopedia have contributor bios? Or at least affiliations. Someone over at the Resource Exchange Board might be able to assist. Acc. [11], Stephen P. Gillett contributed articles on Alien Worlds, Comets and Asteroids, Mercury, Venus -- So possibly not Stephen L. Gillett?

In the book, he is signed as L. not P. According to [12] there is a section on editors and contributors, p. 1383, but I am having trouble finding this (maybe it's in another tome?. Ping User:TompaDompa who found the link to IA copy for help (I have to go AFK for now). Oh, and I wouldn't call him an academic, maybe a scholar, since the book is scholarly. Will do so in the next edit pass. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in volume 3. The relevant information is on page 1388. Given the mention of Reno, it seems this is indeed the same person as this one. Google Books likewise says "Stephen L. Gillett is a research associate at the Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno." about the author of the book World-Building. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now I've added a description to him as "one of the contributors to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy", which should give the readers sufficient context for now (red link...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else is available suggest describing him as an academic or scholar.

Re: "dimmed". I think so and none of the other copyeditors took an issue with that.

It's very unidiomatic in (UK) English, imo. "Waned" would be the usual way this would be expressed.

While I don't see a difference, I differ to your expertise and chanced this accordingly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "disinterest" - as above. Could you explain why it's incorrect as nobody else reviewing this article found it to be a problematic word?

See below.

Re: "now known to be a rather hostile environment" - I think this is a useful reminder to the reader why some authors became disinterested in this topic.

Think this whole sentence would benefit from recasting. It's a repeat of the end of the paragraph at the start of this section. One might even swap the two paragraphs ("A romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus" and "Following a brief period") to remove the need for the reminder?

An elegant solution, implemented swap (and removed the redunancy). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "as pictured in seems wrong for lit" - mhm, I changed to depicted, unless you think that's only for pictograms and like, in which case we can change it do described. Although modern books are printed, not scribed.

Depicted or described are both fine.

Re: "need date for Wyndham to pin down subsequent decades", right, except I was asked to remove the date as repetetive (it is given earlier) by another reviewer. Since you are right that it's needed here for context, I've attempted to compromise by adding "from five years later", since it was published in 1932, that's five years after the work cited with date earlier (1927).

OK.

Re: "Under "Terraforming" "Other relevant woks"; aside from the unfortunate typo". I don't see a typo, can you elaborate?

Re: " introducing a list like that without analysis, particularly when there are often no wikilinks to explore, is frustrating". Wikilinks for some works are given earlier in the body, and as far I know, Manual of Style forbids us repeating them in the body (so duplicate links were removed). I don't understand what is frurstrating. There's no deeper analysis given in cited sources which simply mention these works as depicting terraformation of Venus, anything else I could add would violate

WP:OR

. If the context is unclear, we could merge this with the preceeding sentence, which opens with "The terraforming of Venus subsequently featured in...". Would that help?

I don't think MoS prohibits repeating wikilinks when the earlier one was in an earlier section. I know many at FAC are far more sparing of repeat links than I am but I don't agree that only linking once serves the reader -- one reads an interesting factoid, wants to know more, and can only find out that we have an article on the topic by text searching the article? Thereby losing one's original place? Serve the readers not the MoS.

I think you could delete "Other relevant works include" and just merge but the listiness is a general problem throughout.

I've merged the sentences as I agree it was redundant wording. I am open to wikilinking any specific terms you wish to see linked (although you can be just be bold and wikilink them yourself in text, might be faster). I will however stress that I believed that one link per text (not counting lead) is a rule we are supposed to follow. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Venusians". Something was added, as requested.

OK.

Re: "The whole list here is very hard to parse.". No idea how to handle this, given that the cited source contains nothing but a list. Any addition would violate OR.

The addition of semi-colons has helped a bit. But "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects" isn't clear.

Do note the semicolon before giant monstrous insects. I am not sure how to reword it better, here's the excerpt from the cited work that I am working with for this particular sentence/paragraph - numbers are cyphered work names, which one has to cross-check elsewhere in the book (print can't have hyperlinks...). Index entry for "Venus, inhabitants." Excerpt from the middle of the list: Dwarves: 13. Intelligent giant bees: 693, 694, 695. Intelligent giant ants: 693, 694, 695, 698. Intelligent worm larvae, surgically inserted into host brains: 695, 698. Giant monstrous insect-like forms: 1179. Living colors: 576." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Venusian society and culture has been described as both inferior and superior to human, varying from work to work." Bit of a pointless sentence. " The source says nothing else, just notes that some works showed Venusians as living in an inferior setting compared to Earth, and some, superior. It's, errr, analysis. Not great, but that's what the source says. Any analysis to lessen the list of examples seems like a good thing, no?

You could give an example of each perhaps? And what does inferior/superior mean? More advanced? More moral?

The source, being a list-like index, does not define what it means by those adjectives, so speculation would be ORish. That said, I double checked, and it does say "cultural level", and later, "culturally and scientifically", so I've added that phrase to the article. I've also add some examples. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively," respectively misplaced, and the whole sentence seems tagged on." I don't understant the problem with the word respectively, can you elaborate? I have moved some sentences around and added a bit more analysis, although I hope it doesn't get too close to OR, given a lot of is interpresting a list.

I think you need to move the respectively to the end of the sentence. Otherwise it applies to "descriptions of Venusian civilizations" which doesn't make sense.

Moved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably recast for clarity: "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively, in History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and A Trip to Venus (1897)" --> "Descriptions of Venusian civilizations are found in James William Barlow's History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897)" --or-- "James William Barlow's History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897) both contain descriptions of Venusian civilizations."

Re: "Literary seems an odd word here given the prevalence of pulp."

Pulp literature

is a thing. But I am open to consider synonyms, if you'd like to suggest any?

print media, printed media, textual works ?

Changed to print media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The Soviet film Planeta Bur (1962) was another movie from that time period." Pointless sentence." It's setting up context. We can't have just lists and examples, right? But we could cut it, if other reviewers concur (or if anyone removes it themselves, be bold, I won't revert such changes).

Suggest just cutting "was another movie from that time period. It " and running the sentence on.

Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a note about television. I did look for such mentions but failed to find anything outside comics and films (hence their sections). If the ref pans out, I'll certainly add

Pathfinders to Venus (1961) as an example of a TV treatment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just got pinged as I was going offline; very quickly, I fixed the typo (wok for work) which is why you're not still finding it. "Disinterest" does not mean lack of interest, but rather something akin to lack of conflict of interest, lack of bias. Will revisit tomorrow when back online but it won't be till late, sorry, as I'm out all evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worry. I'll ping User:Nihil novi re suggestions for what word to use instead of dinsinterest, anyone else is of couse welcome to offer suggestions. Although my check with dictionary does suggest that "lack of interest in something" is one of the two meanings of the term disinterest (I was in fact not even aware that "lack of conflict of interest" is another meaning, leave and learn, thanks). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary and Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterest#Noun) also give the two meanings for "disinterest".

Not knowing the context in the article, it's hard for me to suggest an unequivocal wording.

I tend to reserve "disinterest" for contexts involving "freedom from selfish bias or self-interest; impartiality".

For the other meaning, I might substitute something like "lack of interest" or "indifference".

I hope that helps.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The related adjectives "disinterested" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterested) and "uninterested" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uninterested) carry the same duality of meanings.

Nihil novi (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "disinterest" and (to my surprise) you are right that it can now be legitimately used to mean lack of interest/uninterest; apparently that was the original meaning, it then diverged, but has recently diverged back again through repetitive (what I'd characterise as) misuse. In my copy-editing days, this would have been considered grammatically incorrect, and it still feels barbarous. In any case it is ambiguous and so far better to recast the sentence to remove any ambiguity, along with the prospect of readers of my generation considering it ungrammatical. But I've suggested rewriting/reordering that whole section above. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, apologies for not wading in and editing myself; I usually do but am currently labouring under a thumb injury that makes typing painful and awkward. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Espresso Addict Np, I can try to handle most of that. Do let me know which issues are still outstanding. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus and Espresso Addict:, has this stalled? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note that I think I've addressed many points, and I am waiting for feedback from EA on what else to do. If such feedback was offered and I missed, my apologies, please point it out to me. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fear fundamentally my review was that the article did not meet featured prose standards, nor did it meet featured article comprehensiveness, neither of which I believe can readily be addressed in a short time frame. I also offered a number of minor points, some of which have now been fixed but agreeing on the remainder will not affect my overall view. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been open for a long time, a large amount of work has been done on it, yet it still seems far from achieving a consensus to promote. This being so I am going to time it out and archive it. The nominator may wish to consider GoCER and/or PR and/or working further with Espresso Addict and TompaDompa prior to bringing the article back to FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [13].

Frank McGee (ice hockey)

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One-Eyed" Frank McGee was once one of the biggest names in hockey, but today is known mainly for three things: playing with one eye; scoring 14 goals in one game; and dying in the First World War. This article goes into a bit more than that, and while it is on the shorter end (1800 words at time of nomination), it is comprehensive and detailed. It passed GA many years ago (credit to @Alaney2k: for that), but I've worked on it the past few months to bring it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Silver7.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Frank_mcgee_enlistment.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so quick. Fixed most, but for the enlistment image, I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate tags here: it is a Canadian government document, so I don't think an author tag like is being used is right, but this is far from my specialty. Any thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Canada-anon should work for Canadian status; I suspect the problem is going to be US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't qualify as a pre-1927 public domain work would it? It wasn't published for the public consumption at the time, but still published, no? Kaiser matias (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Published" has a particular meaning in US law, which you can find here - generally public consumption is part of the deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "His brother Jim was also a noted athlete in football and ice hockey" - could do with a link on football as it is unclear which sport this refers to (I bet it isn't the one I think of when I hear the word "football"). Also link ice hockey here rather than on the second use.
• " Walter also served in the war," - which war? The last sentence mentioned two wars.
• "he was promoted within the Dominion lands branch of the Department" - I'm guessing "Dominion lands" means something specific in Canada? Is there an appropriate link?
• "Historian Paul Kitchen has suggested McGee's rise" => "Historian Paul Kitchen has suggested that McGee's rise"
• "the connections both of his father John and William Foran," => "the connections both of his father John and of William Foran,"
• "McGee was the youngest member of the team and standing 5 ft 6 in" => "McGee was the youngest member of the team and stood 5 ft 6 in"
• "He repeated the feat in a game on March 9 against the Brandon Hockey Club" - this sentence has no full stop
• "prompting the Nuggets' manager to reportedly say McGee " => "prompting the Nuggets' manager to reportedly say that McGee "
• "This included eight consecutive goals scored in less than nine minutes,[30] which remains" => "This included eight consecutive goals scored in less than nine minutes,[30] and remains" (the record is the 14 not the 8)
• "McGee scored five or more goals in eight other senior matches" - other than what? No game has been mentioned immediately prior to this
• "At the time it was a common play, before icing rules for the defence" => "At the time it was a common play, before icing rules, for the defence"
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Having read through this, the prose does not seem to meet the "engaging and of a professional standard" criteria. I shall look at a couple of sections in detail to see if this was just an unfortunate first impression.

• "Along with his brother Charles, McGee had been a member of the Non-Permanent Active Militia of Canada, and when ..." Could we put the stress on the subject of the article, with something like 'McGee had been a member of the Non-Permanent Active Militia of Canada, along with his brother Charles, and when ...'
• The 43rd Regiment was the "43rd Regiment, Duke of Cornwall's Own Rifles" during WWI. It did not become "The Ottawa Regiment (The Duke of Cornwall's Own)" until 1920.
• Do you have a military source for the 21st Battalion being part of the 43rd Regiment, Duke of Cornwall's Own Rifles during WWI, as I don't believe that it was. (Two battalions of this regiment were formed and served overseas during WWI - the 38th and the 207th.)
• "the armoured car he was driving was blown into a ditch from a shell". Perhaps "from" → 'by'.
• "McGee was sent back to England on December 28 to recover, and spent several months recuperating." Having been told that he was in England to recover, do we need to be told in the same sentence that he did indeed spend the time recuperating?
• "On July 7, 1916 McGee was medically cleared to return to active duty and returned to service on August 29." "... return ... returned ..." is a little clumsy.
• "joining them on September 5, and took part in the Battle of the Somme." Could the tense be consistent? Ie, if "joining", then "took" → 'taking'.
• "On the day of his death, he was mentioned in dispatches for actions he performed late in the morning that day." 1. This is clumsy. 2. Could we avoid repeating "day". 3. I strongly doubt it. It was usually weeks or months, occasionally years, between an action and it being recognised by a mention in despatches. 4. Would it be possible to quote some or all of the mention, if only as a footnote?
• "Both of their names were later added to the Canadian National Vimy Memorial". "added" seems odd; were they initially missed off. Or would 'inscribed' serve better.
• See
  MOS:NOFORCELINK
  : "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." This seems to not be applied several times in the article, eg with "mentioned in despatches".

This section was better than it appeared on first reading. I shall pick another to examine.

• See
  MOS:NOFORCELINK
  re "a Father of Confederation".
• Is there a Wikilink for Privy Council? (Nice in line explanation.)
• "After finishing his schooling in Ottawa". Is it known which school(s) he attended? Is it known when he commenced and completed his education?
• "He had a passion for sports and played lacrosse and rugby and excelled at ice hockey." Three ties "and" in six words! And no punctuation?
• "While playing half-back for his rugby team, Ottawa City, he was a member of the team". Spot the redundancy. I mean, he would be, wouldn't he?
• "McGee lost use of his left eye during an amateur game for a local Canadian Pacific Railway team from a "lifted puck." I am left unclear as to just how McGee lost his sight. Did a puck - whatever a "puck" is strike him in the eye during the game? If so, could we be told.
• "despite risking permanent blindness". In what way was this the case? At least, more so than not playing? Was loss of sight very common among ice hockey plyers?
• "Highly sought out". I think what is meant is 'Highly sought after'.
• "and standing 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) tall". "standing" → 'stood'.
• Do we need to be told his height twice in the article?
• No links for "Ottawa CPR" and "Canadian Railway Hockey Union"? If not and they are notable there should be red links.

A better article than I had first thought, but I am nevertheless leaning oppose. I note that it sat for a month at PR without attracting comment, which is a shame. It would probably have benefitted from a visit to GoCER. I shall think on't and see what other reviewers have to say. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I am going to be honest, the GoCER completely slipped my mind here, and based on your comments and that by @ChrisTheDude:, I think that may be the best route to go right now. Rather than waste time or try and rush through it here, I think best to withdraw at this time, get it copyedited (and maybe reviewed at PR or somewhere else, hopefully), and try again. And thanks to you both for the initial review, I hope to be back soon with a stronger article for everyone. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Km and thanks for taking the review in the spirit in which it was intended. Although I am recused, I think that I shall allow myself to archive the nomination as you request. Do ping me when it returns. Bear in mind the usual two-week hiatus.

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2022 [14].

TRAPPIST-1

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, this was already at FAC but failed b/c of lack of supports and some prose concerns so it went through a second peer review during which some prose work was done. This is a star which is noted for the presence of seven planets in a harmonic chain, and some of these planets may even be habitable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Several of the diagrams would benefit from being scaled up, but this should be done using |upright= rather than fixed px size

  It looks like several already have that parameter. Any that would benefit from a higher number? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Possible interiors and the following animation, relative sizes, habitable zone. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did this for the non-animated images; one would need to click on the animation anyway to get useful information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some images are missing alt text

  Did this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: There is no alt text for the infobox image, File:The ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 in the constellation of Aquarius.tif. For this, a short sentence describing the position of TRAPPIST-1 within Aquarius (similar to the article text) should suffice. All the remaining images are good. (I don't think the lack of alt text in the navboxes at the bottom is an urgent issue.) ^Complex/_Rational 16:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:TRAPPIST-1_system_to_scale.svg should be cited to a non-circular source

  I think Agol 2021, Grimm 2018 and Delrez 2018 are, but I'll ask Cmglee for confirmation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5330437/table/T1 is another source, though its values are slightly different. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  cmglee, can you add this source information to File:TRAPPIST-1_system_to_scale.svg? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Though I can do that, it might cause confusion, as the sources don't agree with one another, and thus the values in the diagram don't correspond to those in http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5330437/table/T1 . I could put it a note that that source has slightly different values. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All what's needed here is a citation on the file page, rather than "data taken from Wikipedia", I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cmglee: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:TRAPPIST-1e_Const_CMYK_Print.png: source link is dead

  Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Eso1733s_Artist's_impression_of_merging_neutron_stars.jpg appears not to be an ESO artwork - are we certain it would be covered by ESO's blanket license? *

  Um, that image doesn't appear on the page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is - in one of the navboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The wonders of transclusion ... that said, the EXIF claims it's CC-BY-SA 4.0 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artem

• As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) are hypothesised to be orbiting within the habitable zone[c][12] - do you really need this ref 12 in the lead? everything is referenced in the body.

  No; removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• TRAPPIST-1 is in the constellation Aquarius,[13] only[14] five degrees south of the celestial equator.[d][1] - why does 'only' need a separate source? Is it that important?

  Yes, there was a discussion on the peer review about this sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2016, TRAPPIST-1's rotational period was first measured as 1.40±0.05 Earth days,[31] a typical period for M dwarfs.[43] 2017 measurements showed that the star actually rotates about every 3.295±0.003 Earth days,[8][44] though that may constitute the rotation period of active regions rather than stellar rotation according to a 2019 paper.[40] As of 2020, discrepancies between rotational data obtained by the Spitzer Space Telescope and Kepler satellite remain unexplained.[45] - I think it would be better if 2016 and 2017 events would be more implicitly accossiated with instruments, smth like "In 2016, data from the Spitzer show ... In 2017, Kepler measurements show ... As of 2020, discrepancies between those two remain unexplained."

  I think the 2016 observations were from more than one source, but I added the Kepler thing in 2017. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kepler satellite remain - why not 'Kepler space telescope'? Isn't it a common name?

  Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on a combination of techniques, an age of about 7.6±2.2 billion years has been established for TRAPPIST-1,[46] - maybe these combination can be added? (if it's not very important, maybe a note would work?)

  It'd be pretty difficult to make it comprehensible without making it overly long, I am afraid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[i]) - maybe just a link - run out of hydrogen - will work?

  Eh, I don't think it's common knowledge what the "main sequence" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggested this construct during the peer review, and I feel that such a link might be a

  hydrogen burning or similar feels more appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Possible faculae (bright spots[52]) - is this ref proves that faculae are bright spots? If yes, I think it's redundant. Same for albedo (reflectivity[136]). It just looks strange when there is a translation of 'faculae' or 'albedo' (especially for 'albedo' as a common word in astronomy), and there are no explanation of stuff like Alfvén surface, planet's Hill radius, global Rossby number, etc.

  Some of these are explained in text, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As of 2017, this is the largest known number of planets within the habitable zone of a star or star system.[135] - what about 2022?

  It is not feasible to keep an article - even at FA standards - up to date on a monthly basis. Thus I only do it once per year during Christmas, hence any 2022 publication isn't used yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• making TRAPPIST-1b a candidate magma ocean planet - link magma ocean (it was linked before, but would be useful here)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Models of tidal effects on TRAPPIST-1e have been created.[242] - maybe any details about these models are worthy and can be included?

  I'd prefer to leave them to TRAPPIST-1e. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Artem.G (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For each section about a planet you have {Main article} and then start sentence with the planet's name. Maybe it can be simplified - insert links into first sentences and remove {Main}? (just a thought, I have no hard feelings of either variant)

  I think the current form makes it clearer that detailed information on each planet is found elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets is often incorrectly attributed to NASA - 'often' is referenced by one source, maybe 'sometimes attributed to NASA'?

  This was a tough one. It certainly seems to me like NASA is frequently (not just "sometimes") mentioned as the discoverer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The speculative Breakthrough Starshot proposal for sending small laser-accelerated unmanned probes would require around two centuries to reach TRAPPIST-1.[305] - link is dead

  Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides these comments, I can't find any serious flaws - as the article was under PR and FAC before, I think everything was polished several times. Nice article, I support it being promoted to FA status. Artem.G (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

I'm glad to see this back here again. I reviewed it last time around. The prose flows much better now. My comments:

• telescope at La Silla Observatory --> perhaps add which country this is in

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• have precise numerical ratios of 8:5 --> it is not obvious what the ratio is of, so perhaps add "of neighboring planets have precise.."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the formation of the planetary system --> link planetary system

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• of the planets including --> of the planets, including

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• whether planets could retain --> whether the planets could retain

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• exoplanets should be linked

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dwarf stars like TRAPPIST-1 --> this seems out of order, as not until the next paragraph are we told it is a red dwarf.

  Yes, but I'd like to first introduce general information before specific one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Its luminosity is --> link

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• a typical period for M dwarfs --> I thought it was a red dwarf? somewhere earlier it needs to state it is an M dwarf, with explanation or at least a link

  Per our article, they are (mostly) synonyms. I don't have a source for its definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. But we have to say this somewhere, perhaps right after where you talk about its temperature. Something like "TRAPPIST-1 has an effective temperature[h] of 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F), making it fall within the definition of an M dwarf."

  AFAIK the definition is mostly a matter of spectrum, only indirectly of temperature. Added a note for red dwarf to explain that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to be a pain, but I'm not convinced adding a note is good enough. I don't think we can rely on users reading the note. As it stands now "typical period for M dwarfs" is puzzling because the reader has not been told whether Trappist-1 is an M dwarf or not. Can this not be stated? For instance right after stating it is a red dwarf?

  Recast this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the Kepler space telescope --> link here, delink in the next sentence

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the star actually rotates about every 3.295±0.003 Earth days,[8][44] though that may constitute the rotation period of active regions rather than stellar rotation --> given the caveat, I don't think the word "actually" is appropriate.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• making it almost twice as old as the Solar System --> I don't think we should say this. Not with that 2.2 error range. Just say older, like you have in the lead

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• about 700 times[48] longer than the present age of the Universe --> I don't think this is helping. It interrupts the main point about the sun comparison. I would delete it.

  Well, this paragraph discusses both the past and the future of the star sequentially, so I wouldn't agree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, if you want to hang on to it, then make it at least easier for the reader to understand your point by not intertwining two comparisons. So something like "The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is hundreds to thousands of times longer than that of stars like the Sun:[27] TRAPPIST-1 is expected to shine for ten trillion years, while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[i]) in a few billion years. TRAPPIST-1's life expectancy is about 700 times[48] longer than the present age of the Universe."

  I am kind of concerned about inserting the solar lifespan in the middle of the sentence as that proposal does. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for being so astronomically clueless, but the way I understand what you have now is as follows: 1) "The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is hundreds to thousands of times longer than that of stars like the Sun:" == comparison to Sun lifespan. 2) "TRAPPIST-1 is expected to shine for ten trillion years" = absolute TRAPPIST-1. 3) "about 700 times[49] longer than the present age of the Universe" = comparison to Universe. 4) "while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[j]) in a few billion years" = absolute Sun. I had a hard time understanding 1) because 3) is in the middle of 2) and 4). To me as a layman person 2) and 4) should be next to each other in order to make sense of 1), which has a colon to tell me what is coming.

  Attempted a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NASA Exoplanet Archive --> link

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• between Mars-sized to slightly larger than Earth --> this assumes the reader knows the size of Mars. Better to put this after the next sentence.

  I don't think that would be clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• requiring lower-density molecular species to be present --> is this species the right word? Smells of life ...

  At least in the jargon, it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a way to avoid the jargon as per

  MOS:JARGON

  ?

  Yes, and that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• it would causing --> ?

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• facilitating --> facilitate?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is particularly important early in the star's history, when radiation was --> present tense and past mixed

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• existing telescopes and observations cannot infer --> inanimate objects indeed can not infer

  Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• including oceans over hundred times larger than Earth's --> this puzzles me: the biggest planet is estimated to be 150% size of Earth. the Pacific covers a third, so how do we get to 100?

  The vertical dimension also counts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• if there are not other gases --> if there are no other gases

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• additional hurdle for atmospheres --> delink atmospheres

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• M dwarfs have intense flares. TRAPPIST-1 has about 0.38 flares per day[12] and about 4 to 6 superflares[z] per year. --> should this info not live in the Star section?

  This is more important here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Samara, Patsourakos and Georgoulis 2021 --> this format differs from the X et al. (2019) you used before

  Matched. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The stellar wind from TRAPPIST-1 has a pressure a thousand times larger --> this seems to be at odds with "The stellar wind properties of TRAPPIST-1 are not precisely determined."

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System is largely independent on planetary properties such as mass[219] and could remove the atmospheres of TRAPPIST-1 planets --> mixing Solar System with Trappist

  Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• may have lasted for hundreds of millions[204] and up to two billion years --> may have lasted for between hundreds of millions[204] or up to two billion years

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• orbits its star every 2.42 d --> orbits its star every 2.42 Earth days

  Sorry, but I dunno how to make that work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Am I missing something? 1b "orbits its star in 1.5 Earth days". 1d "has an orbital period of 4 Earth days". Is it not possible to express 1c's orbital period in Earth days? It would be really good to have consistency.

  Yes, the formatting template. I don't see how to make it pronounce the units. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you not use what worked for Trappist-1b? "and orbits its star in 2.42 Earth days" Or am I missing something obvious again?

  That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the oribital periods for e f g h are missing

  Still. Or are they not known?

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• TRAPPIST-1e is the TRAPPIST-1 planet most likely to have water --> this was just said in the previous paragraph

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• TRAPPIST-1f could have kept up to several Earth ocean masses of water[12] that could make up as much as 50% of the planet's mass --> again, is "several times" not a bit much, given that the biggest planet is only 150% size of Earth? Or are the oceans on 1e to be expected much much deeper than Earth's?

  They can be much deeper, yes. Water/planet mass ratios are not at all conserved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Large quantities of carbon dioxide, as well as hydrogen or methane[245] --> delink

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the star is considered a promising site --> the star's planets I assume

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mullan and Bais 2018 ... Lingam and Loeb 2019 --> again, different formatting from X et al. (2019) you used before

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The outer planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system could feature subsurface oceans --> should this not be mentioned in the sections about the outer planets?

  No, because the statement pertains to more than one planet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (from the viewpoint of TRAPPIST-1) --> I feel this is in the wrong position. It should be after "the Sun"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• close-by ultra-cold dwarf stars --> is there a reason you use cold and not cool?

  Matched. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Its planetary system was discovered by --> delink here and link first use of planetary system in body article

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• with their orbits constrained by the Spitzer and Kepler telescopes --> what does this mean? How do telescopes constrain an orbit?

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The movement of a stellar body with respect to the sky, rather than the movement of the body itself --> The other footnotes seem to include what it is they are explaining, but this one does not

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lot of things, but I think I got most. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just a few points left. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy my points have been addressed. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (support) from ComplexRational

As I noted at the close of the peer review, I'm quite pleased with the improvements to this article since FAC1. I just gave it another quick review (having done the bulk of reviewing during the PR) and pending a few minor comments, I'm happy to support promotion to FA.

• I made a few minor formatting fixes, removed a couple of duplinks, and changed a second occurrence of magma ocean (in the section TRAPPIST-1b) to the more specific lava planet.
• See my comment above re alt text – the infobox image doesn't have it, but it can be written to reflect the article text.

  Template:Starbox image does not have an option for ALT text, it seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it work to specify |alt= in the file link itself? I don't see anything suggestive of the contrary. ^Complex/_Rational 22:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's see if it shows up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed it does in the alt text viewer (toolbox). I might also suggest mentioning that TRAPPIST-1 is located very close to the ecliptic. ^Complex/_Rational 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I already noted this in one case at the PR – sources published by exactly the same authors in the same year should be distinguished, e.g., 2014a, 2014b, per this and similar guidelines. This is nicely done in some cases, though I've noticed a few instances of broken numbering (e.g., there's a Gillon 2020b but no Gillon 2020a) as well as slightly different author listings. I propose standardizing the authors (even with et al.) and numbering sequence.

  I think I got these? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still needs a bit of work. In the list of sources, months and days are also provided in some cases, which serve to distinguish the sources there. I'm not sure if style guidelines permit, e.g., "April 2018a" and "July 2018b" unless there are multiple papers from either month with exactly the same authors. In these cases, it should suffice to leave them without letters in the list (using letters only as a "last resort" when authors and dates are not sufficient), but rather distinguish them using

  WP:CITEREF

  ; thus, the list would include April 2018 and July 2018 but the footnotes would use 2018a and 2018b, respectively.

  Also, I think you might have missed that there's still a 2011b without a 2011a – there's only one paper by Prantzos on the list. ^Complex/_Rational 22:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! ^Complex/_Rational 16:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Did that one, I don't know about CITEREF enough to make a change on the April and July things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's similar to {{

  harvid}}, which is already used and I hadn't noticed. I made the change here and it seems to work. ^Complex/_Rational 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Hi ComplexRational, I was wondering if you had intended the last part of your review to be a source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gog the Mild: I hadn't planned on doing a source review; that was just one last detail that wasn't fully resolved in the peer review. Since I don't have time to commit now, if a source review is required, I would appreciate it if someone else handled it. ^Complex/_Rational 21:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ComplexRational, that's fine. I had assumed it wasn't, but you know what they say about "assume" - it seemed best to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sportsfan77777

I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• What's rationale for calling TRAPPIST-1 just a star as opposed to a "planetary system" or a "star with a planetary system" (i.e. a "stellar system")? The website calls it a "planetary system" and I would think that when most people say TRAPPIST-1 they are referring to the planetary system, not specifically the star. (i.e. The equivalent article is the
  solar system, not the Sun
  .)

  The article covers both, unlike Sun-Solar System, but added planetary system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Related to that, I would suggest mentioning TRAPPIST-1 has seven known planets in the first paragraph to give that more emphasis. The current placement of that makes it a bit buried.

  Also done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "with the shortest period being" <<<=== suggest rephrasing the sentence to avoid the with "-ing" issue.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also suggest rephrasing that sentence to put the range of orbital periods first (1.5 to 18.8 days) and then add that they are in resonance afterwards. It's much easier to understand the length of the year part than the resonance part.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The habitable zone is the region around a star where temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold for the existence of liquid water" <<<=== "could be" neither too hot nor too cold for the existence of liquid water. (see e.g. [15])

  I dunno, usually one would say a planet too cold or too warm is outside of the habitable zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) are hypothesised to be orbiting within the habitable zone[c] of the star and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and the development of life. <<<=== Suggest rephrasing to make it clear that what's uncertain is the extent of the habitable zone, as well as possibilities of water and life, not the orbits. The current wording sounds to me like the orbits are uncertain.

  Did this, but I sort of don't like the formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star

• only[14] <<<=== suggest not citing "only" or moving the citation to the end of the sentence

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dwarf stars like TRAPPIST-1 are over ten times more common than Sun-like stars[27] and these stars are more likely to host small planets than Sun-like stars. <<<=== This sentence is out of place. It should be in the next paragraph after it's stated that TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf. (albeit see the new few comments) Also, careful: "dwarf" doesn't mean "small", it means "not a giant star, i.e. stars either on the main sequence or below the main sequence".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf;[30] red dwarfs are cold stars with" <<<=== suggest avoiding these types of constructions in general. You could use a construction like "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf,[30] a cold star with... "

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• red dwarfs are cold stars with a mass less than the Sun, including the spectral types M and K,[31] ad TRAPPIST-1 belongs to class M <<<=== I don't think this captures what a red dwarf is. Suggest "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf, the smallest, coolest, and most common type of star". I would lean towards thinking mentioning K dwarfs is not relevant.

  Need a sauce for such a formulation, and I think that not mentioning K dwarfs would be slightly misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "cool" is preferred to "cold". "cool" is a jargon term. (It's not actually cold, it's a few thousand degrees. That's really hot!)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Spectral type" is introduced twice in the second paragraph. You should mention "M8.0" when introducing the spectral type.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• which is a scheme to categorise stars by their temperature <<<=== I'm not sure this captures the point. "Spectral type" categorises stars by their spectra, hence the name "spectral type". For main sequence stars, that classification implies a bunch of other properties including temperature, mass, lifetime, etc.

  I don't think it does, but the problem is that definitions like these are hard to source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link spectral type to Stellar classification#Harvard spectral classification.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• it has only barely sufficient mass to allow nuclear fusion to take place <<<=== this is related to the mass not the radius, but it's in the radius sentence

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest starting the rotation period paragraph by noting the disagreement

  It's somewhat hard to explain things when put in that order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You could compare the rotation period to the Sun.

  I don't think the rotation period is as important as the mass and luminosity, myself. Plus, it'd need another sauce for the Sun's rotation period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "to shine" <<<=== this is too informal. I assume you mean "stay on the main sequence"?

  Kind of, but "shine" captures the pertinent aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More commments later. In general, I think the quality of explanations could still be improved. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777, any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary system

• 1,700,000 kilometres (1,100,000 mi) to 8,900,000 kilometres (5,500,000 mi) <<<=== I would think AU would be a logical default choice of units. (Does 1 million km mean something to a typical reader?) If it were me writing the article, I would also add the distances in stellar radii to elucidate the proximity to the star.

  The AU thing's a reasonable suggestion so it's in. I don't think that the radii of TRAPPIST-1 are known with such precision or so well-known that we could use them as a reference, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A hypothetical eighth planet would be designated TRAPPIST-1i, and its orbital properties have been predicted under the assumption that it orbits exterior to planet h and is part of the planetary resonance <<<=== I would suggest removing the passive voice, as it makes the sentence more confusing. It's also strange to say the properties of have predicted without saying what that orbit would be.

  I am hearing you, but I am not sure how to formulate it otherwise ... also, it does say that we have an idea of what the orbit of an eight body in the resonance would look like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In a 2018 paper, the authors <<<=== I would suggest not using "paper" in general (it's too informal), and just refer to the paper directly (i.e. Kral et al. 2018) or name the authors and year separately (In 2018, Kral et al. OR In 2018, Quentin Kral et al.), or if you'd prefer a similar construction, use "a 2018 study".

  Went for the format used by other paper mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the pre-planetary material was converted into planets <<<=== Rephrase so it doesn't sound so concrete. I don't think it's known for sure that this is the case.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I don't think "pre-planetary" is a real term. Either "solid material" or "rocky material" or both together "solid rocky material"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• spin axis ot TRAPPIST-1 <<<=== typo

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "on the same plane" ===>>> "in the same plane"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The planets all orbit on the same plane and, from the perspective of the Solar System, move past TRAPPIST-1 during their orbit <<<=== This would be a good place to introduce transits, i.e. just say "transit in front of TRAPPIST-1"

  Done, not sure if the quote marks are needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 0.775±0.014 <<<=== suggest using the +0.014 −0.014 to keep it consistent with the others

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Size and composition

• Observations indicate that sizes of the planets range from between Mars-sized to slightly larger than Earth.[86] Their radii are estimated to lie within the range of 75% to 150% that of Earth. <<<=== Condense into one sentence. These are the same thing, but it sounds like they are different things.

  Done but a slight reformulation may be needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• consist of large amounts of atmospheres, ice and oceans <<<=== "large amounts of atmospheres" and "large amounts of oceans" aren't proper phrasing

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resonances

• results in strong tidal interactions ===>>> result in strong tidal interactions

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• which would have important implications for the climate of the planets <<<=== It does not say what those implications on the climate are

  Because the source does not specify; it refers to https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2016/12/aa29577-16.pdf which does discuss the outcomes for a different planet (Proxima Centauri b) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• which potentially makes the planets more habitable <<<=== It's unclear if this part is referring to the tidal locking or the chaotic rotations making them potentially more habitable.

  Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar light

• Okay.

Habitable zone

• Okay.

Moon

• Might want to clarify that no moons have been detected in general around any exoplanet even close to as small as the ones in the TRAPPIST-1 system

  Eh, I don't think it's necessary; we only have one or two disputed exomoons, period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic

• ; the Alfvén surface is the area around the star ===>>> , the area around the star

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

• Suggest citing the Ormel et al. (2017) sentence with that paper instead of just putting the citation in the footnote.

  In this case I prefer to use the secondhand mention as a reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• gave rise to precursor bodies <<<=== suggest using "
  planetary embryos
  " instead of "bodies"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later, hopefully later today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think I'm going to have much free time any time soon. Seeing as it looks like it's going to pass if I just abandon the review and since I already commented on the main things I wanted to comment on, I'm going to leave it at that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Sandbh

I want to support this FAC but concerns raised at FAC1 about the writing not seeming to be up to the high quality FA standard, and a lot of basic copyediting which would have been better done off-FAC and suggesting the article wasn't ready for FAC2 when it was nominated, remain outstanding.

Some examples of writing concerns follow.

Lede para 1, 1st sentence: "TRAPPIST-1 is an ultra-cool red dwarf star in the constellation Aquarius with a planetary system of seven known planets."

Lede para 2, 1st sentence: "The star was discovered in 2000."

Comment. Since para 1, starts off with a reference to a "star" it is not necessary for para 2 to again refer to the "star".

On this one I have to disagree: The star and the planetary system weren't discovered at the same time, so yes we need to specify what "2000" refers to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a reader who is very familiar with the subject matter may appreciate this nuance. OTOH, as a general reader, I found this doubling up to be off-putting. It now occurs to me that since the article is about TRAPPIST-1, rather than its planetary system, there is no pressing need to distinguish between the star and its planetary system, in that way. Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the sentiment, the problem I have with the rewrite is that it is actively misleading. Even for a general reader that would be bad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the distinction between a star and the planets orbiting it is "nuance", really. We're talking about the discoveries of very different kinds of objects, discoveries that were separated by years.

talk) 16:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see any "and thus so far"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared in the version of the article I was looking at, here.

Sorry, but I can't find it even there. Is there an extra space or something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my notes, I was concerned about "and thus to have". I don't know where I got the "far" from, sorry. No matter since this example has since been fixed. Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation period and age
2nd sentence: "2017 measurements by the Kepler space telescope showed that the star may instead rotate about every 3.295±0.003 Earth days,[8][47] though that may constitute the rotation period of active regions rather than stellar rotation according to Miles-Páez et al. (2019).[43]"

Comment. Don't start a sentence with a number.

Para 2: "...TRAPPIST-1 is expected to shine for ten trillion years – about 700 times[51] longer than the present age of the Universe[52] – while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[k]) in a few billion years.[51] The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is hundreds to thousands of times longer than that of stars like the Sun.[40]"

Comment: The last sentence is redundant.

Looks like someone else resolved these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activity
"Numerous photospheric features detected on TRAPPIST-1 may introduce inaccuracies in measurements of its planets.[54] Possible faculae (bright spots[55]) have been observed by the Kepler space telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope,[56] but some of TRAPPIST-1's bright spots may be too large to count as faculae.[57] Their effect on the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 may lead to the planets' densities being underestimated by 8+20−7 percent,[58] and to incorrect estimates of their water content.[59] A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35] The mean intensity of TRAPPIST-1's magnetic field is about 600 G[61] although many of its properties cannot be directly measured.[62] This intense magnetic field is driven by chromospheric[m] activity[12] and may be capable of trapping coronal mass ejections.[n][60][64]"

Comment. I do not understand the need for this sentence: "A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35]"

This section describes the activity of the star, I thought it would be relevant information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The context is disrupted due to the sentence between, "Possible faculae (bright spots[55]) have been observed by the Kepler space telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope,[56] but some of TRAPPIST-1's bright spots may be too large to count as faculae.[57]" and "A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35]" Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected that one. That said, since we are just correcting examples, I think I need to ask whether folks think that the issues can be resolved within the confines of FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Size and composition
Para 2: "The densities are too low for a pure magnesium silicate composition, requiring lower-density molecular compounds to be present,[94] such as water."

Comment: The relevance of a pure magnesium silicate composition is not clear.

This is outside my specialization, but I think the meaning is that pure magnesium silicate is as light as rocky material can get, so to account for the low overall density, material of even lower density (like water) must be present.

talk) 15:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Added a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance
"It could be sufficient to melt the mantles of the four innermost planets, in whole or in part,[124] it would cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets;[125] increase the degassing[u] from the mantle and facilitate the establishment of atmospheres around the planets.[127"

Comment. The construction of this para is clumsy. At 45 words it is too long.

Shortened that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the article be copy edited by an uninvolved editor. Sandbh (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh and SandyGeorgia: can I ask if you have any suggestions for editors who can do the copyediting? I am not going to try peer review for the third time, that doesn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found GOCE to be helpful although I think they are very backlogged at this point. (t · c) buidhe 15:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo thx for the ping, and I sincerely apologize for losing the plot here; real life medical issues have wreaked havoc with my time lately. One editor who might be able to help bring this over the hump is XOR'easter and I don't know whether ComplexRational has more time to help with the ce. Others that come to mind are @Double sharp, Artem.G, and Ovinus:. I wish I could help more, but it is going to be quite some time before I catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already offered some feedback at the PR to help get the article into better shape pre-FAC. While I'm unsure how much free time I'll have in the next few days/weeks to do substantial copyediting, I'll keep watch and point out anything I find. ^Complex/_Rational 21:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this but am rather busy; I'll look when I can find time, though. Double sharp (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have a fair amount on my (on- and off-wiki) plate right now and haven't even been properly keeping up with the other FARs. If Planet gets closed and I finish up Yellowstone fires, I'll look at this one. Edit: I actually thought this was an FAR, not an FAC. So unfortunately I won't be able to contribute in a reasonable time. Ovinus (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When the article is ce'd I recommend that the logical flow of the paragraph topic sentences is checked. For example, in the Resonance section, the topic sentences go in this order:

1. The planets are in orbital resonances,[101] with the durations of their orbits having ratios of 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2 between neighbouring planet pairs,[102] and with each triplet being in a Laplace resonance.
2. The close distances of the planets to the host star TRAPPIST-1 result in strong tidal interactions,[108] stronger than for Earth.[109]
3. The resonances continually excite the eccentricities of the TRAPPIST-1 planets, preventing their orbits from becoming fully circular.
4. Even if tidal heating does not significantly alter the climates of the planets, tidal heating could influence the temperatures of the night sides and cold traps, where gases are expected to accumulate; it would influence the properties of subsurface oceans[121] where volcanism and hydrothermal venting[t] could occur.

Whereas it appears the logical flow would be stronger if the order was: 1, 3, 2, 4. Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tidal interactions are the reason why the eccentricities get excited, so I wouldn't agree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the current ordering of the paragraphs in "Resonance".

talk) 16:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

As a general reader, I don't know that the tidal interactions are the reason why the eccentricities get excited. Nor does the current sequence of four topic sentences make this clear. In the first topic sentence, what is a "triplet"? Sandbh (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern is that the information about the planets is split between two sections. Frex, in the Planetary system section there is a table called "The TRAPPIST-1 planetary system". About 5 screens down, in the List of Planets section, there is another table called "Other characteristics". Why is it necessary to split the data between two different sections, into two tables? Could there not be one consolidated table? A related concern is the structure of the article, as follows:

2	Planetary system
3	Potential atmospheres of the planets
4	List of planets

Why are sections 2 and 4 not consolidated?

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a deliberate decision, so that folks can go from the general traits of the system to the list of specific planets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Sandbh, just checking to see if your oppose still stands? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I'll have another look and let you know. Sandbh (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I'm not pleased to say that my oppose still stands. The items I listed formed only a sample of my concerns. There were several more which I did not list as I considered that the items I did list were sufficient to show that the article needed a thorough copy edit, which it has not yet undergone. Here are some more concerns:

Activity[edit]

Numerous photospheric features detected on TRAPPIST-1 may introduce inaccuracies in measurements of its planets.[54] Possible faculae (bright spots[55]) have been observed by the Kepler space telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope,[56] but some of TRAPPIST-1's bright spots may be too large to count as faculae.[57] A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35] The effect of bright spots on the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 may lead to the planets' densities being underestimated by 8+20 −7 percent,[59] and to incorrect estimates of their water content.[60] The mean intensity of TRAPPIST-1's magnetic field is about 600 G[61] although many of its properties cannot be directly measured.[62] This intense magnetic field is driven by chromospheric[m] activity[12] and may be capable of trapping coronal mass ejections.[n][58][64]

The topic sentence does not make sufficient sense to me. What are "photospheric" features? The second sentence says that bright spots may be too large to count as faculae, but does not sufficiently explain the "so what" if the spots are too large to count as faculae.

Stars lose mass through the stellar wind.[65] Garraffo et al. (2017) computed the mass loss of TRAPPIST-1 to be about 3×10−14 solar masses per year,[66] about 1.5 times that of the Sun,[67] while Dong et al. (2018) simulated the observed properties of TRAPPIST-1 with a mass loss of 4.1×10−15 solar masses per year.[66] The stellar wind properties of TRAPPIST-1 are not precisely determined.[68]

The topic sentence is not specific to Trappist-1. For that matter, what is "the stellar wind"? The sentence would read better as something like, "Trappist-1 loses mass due the activity of...Garraffo et al. (2017) computed the magnitude of the loss to be...". Dong et al.'s figure should also be expressed in terms of how many times it is that of the sun.

Size and composition

The radii of the planets are estimated to lie within the range of 75% to 150% that of Earth,[88] equivalent to Mars-sized to slightly larger than Earth

150% is not "slightly" larger than Earth.

I think I'll need a synonym here ... I think that "larger" on its own implies that such a radius is significantly different from Earth's, but in the context of exoplanetology 150% is only "slightly" larger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since we need more science-topic FA's I regret to say that while the article appears to be technically accurate it does not yet meet the FA well-written criterion. Sandbh (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If my lede edits were satisfactory (let me know?) I might be able to help here. Not sure if this is just a copy edit or if it goes beyond that. czar 17:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Czar:That edit seems OK to me, although I wouldn't say "atmosphere as a precondition for life" as it's implicit in the scientific discourse rather than explicitly stated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Feel free to edit that as would be appropriate, as I'm just attempting to paraphrase what was previously there.

The part that keeps me from copy editing further is not knowing how far this article needs to go to be comprehensible to a

an advanced college student in astronomy as the target audience. I'd lean towards the former in a copy edit, which would include footnoting a lot of detail, such as items it wouldn't make sense to say when reading the article out loud. It looks like the last star FA was Rigel in July 2020 and it wasn't held to that standard then. Without looking at precedent, those are the edits I would want to make for today's bar of FA quality. czar 17:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, it depends. In your judgment, how much work would it be to achieve the former? I know that people complain about excessive footnotes but well, you sometimes can't have it both ways (explained and short) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• Check for p/pp errors in FNs 3, 206, 227.

  Regarding the first, I don't know how to use that source; perhaps @Huntster and Fortguy: know how. Other two done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this fixed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You're not consistent on the use of publisher locations in the book citations.

  Decided to leave them only for conferences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see some others still in the book citations -- e.g. Albarede (2011) and Amils (2011). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any locations there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake; I was looking at the wrong thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The web citations aren't consistently formatted. Weisstein has no website/work parameter, and FN 14 and 31 add what seems unnecessary disambiguation; and the publisher is given for two of the four web citations but not the other two.

  Resolved, but left the disambiguators in since they are equivalent to a pagenumber here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In checking this I found this page, which makes me think the website should be given as "Eric Weisstein's World of Science" rather than the URL, though I do see that they brand it that way on the entries. I was initially concerned this was a one-man operation and public submissions of content but looking through the FAQ it appears to have corporate ownership and editorial control. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You give the publisher for a handful of the journal and report citations -- any reason for doing so in those cases only?

  I think they are more important for books and reports; changed it in others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One publisher left on Fidrick (2020). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rinaldi et al. (2017) has "www.ceps.eu" as the website; should this just be "CEPS"?

  Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at source reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable as far as I can tell, not being knowledgeable about this field. The arXiv links are popping up as alerts but it seems they're just a URL for the text of the papers, not the actual source cited, so that's fine.

• Shouldn't Gillon et al. sort after Gillon?
• The link to Gillon, Meadows, et al. (2020) is broken.

  I think I solved both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Gillon & Triaud is now sorting before Gillon & Meadows; this is chronological but I usually see this sorted by second author before date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the sorting order here is first author-date-second author. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lingam & Loeb (2018) is listed out of alphabetical order in the sources, between Quick and Radnóti. And why is it 2018c? There doesn't seem to be any risk of confusion with the other sources.

  Problem is that Lingam and Loeb published two other papers in 2018 that are cited here. Moved it back to order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then for consistency wouldn't you want 2018a and 2018b on the others? I also just noticed that Lingam & Loeb 2019 has no disambiguator in the source list but does in the citations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed so that the disambiguator is only used in the source list; 2018a is not a date, after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than as noted above, the links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue left is that I think the Wolfram site's website parameter should be ""Eric Weisstein's World of Science". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CactiStaccingCrane

Support - content-wise and image-wise, the article is top-notch. Bad content and good layout/prose is much worse than good content and bad layout/prose. People are just nit-picking entropy at this point. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this can be an controversial opinion, so let me detail at what I meant:

• This article's sourcing is really solid. The author did the right thing by citing the research papers directly instead of citing newspapers. And as Mike Christie's source check shows, there is little if any issue at source-text integrity.
• The article's prose is also good and reasonably easy to understand. Yes, some jargons need to be explained, some need to be clarified, and some should be substituted by other terms instead. But this should not a deal-breaker for FAC. The prose reviewing effort should be redirected towards
  WP:URFAs
  instead, where they are desperately needing more people to repolish old FAs.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: hi Mike, could I just check whether your source review confirms "there is little if any issue at source-text integrity"? Thanks.

Also, without prejudicing any closure decision, the FAC criteria do not require a nomination to be "reasonably easy to understand", and I fail to understand how a review which notes "some jargons need to be explained, some need to be clarified, and some should be substituted by other terms instead" can conclude "this should not a deal-breaker for FAC." The desire to see limited reviewing resources directed to venues other that FAC is not a sufficient reason to support an FAC nomination if the FAC criteria are not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, I did no spotchecking so I can't comment either way on the source-text integrity. If you feel a spotcheck is needed I can try to find time to do one but it might be as well to list it at the usual place in case someone else can get to it; I wasn't planning to do any reviewing for a few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Looking at the lead:

• "The star itself was discovered". Delete "itself", what else would it be?
• "The gravity of TRAPPIST-1's neighbouring planets". What does "neighbouring" mean? If what I am guessing then perhaps best to delete it.
• "As many as four of the planets". Delete "As many as".
• "an atmosphere, a precondition for life". Really?! And this is the clear consensus of the scholarly sources? Additionally, I do not see this repeated in the article.
• I note some good uses of in line explanation, per general good practice and
  MOS:NOFORCELINK
  . ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")

Jumping to "Potential atmospheres".

• "The existence of atmospheres around TRAPPIST-1 planets is a function of the balance between the decay of such an atmosphere, the amount of atmosphere initially present and the rate at which it is reconstituted by impact events,[76] accretion from a protoplanetary disk[180] and outgassing/volcanic activity.[181] Impact events would be particularly important in the outer planets, as impact events can both add and remove volatiles from the planets; in the outermost planets addition is likely dominant." This prose becomes increasingly impenetrable to a non-expert reader.
• "including oceans over hundred times larger than Earth's". Either 'a hundred' or 'one hundred'.
• "If the planets are tidally locked to TRAPPIST-1 and one side of their surface always faces away from the star". It is not a case of "and". 'with' or ', meaning that' would be better.
• "In the case of a carbon dioxide atmosphere, the burial of carbon dioxide ice under water ice, driven by the density of carbon dioxide ice, the formation of carbon dioxide-water compounds named clathrates[z] and a potential runaway feedback loop between ice melting and evaporation and the greenhouse effect additionally complicate matters.[188]" Beautifully expressed, but not at the appropriate level (IMO) for a general encyclopedia article.
• "have ruled out that the TRAPPIST-1 planets have hydrogen- or helium-rich atmospheres". Grammar: perhaps 'have ruled out the possibility that the TRAPPIST-1 planets have hydrogen- or helium-rich atmospheres' or similar.
• "The existence of such an atmosphere and its mass are a function of the initial water mass, by whether the oxygen is dragged out of the atmosphere by escaping hydrogen and by the state of the planet's surface; a partially molten surface could absorb large quantities of oxygen, sufficient to remove an atmosphere." I think that most instances of "by" should be 'of'.
• "as they are destroyed by the radiation of the star". "are → 'would be'.
• "Biogenic ammonia or methane production would have to be considerably larger than on Earth to sustain such an atmosphere. It is however possible that the development of organic hazes from ammonia/methane photolysis could shield the remaining molecules." I doubt that a general reader would make much of this. As a minimum it needs an explanation of "Biogenic ammonia or methane production".
• "Radiative decomposition of carbon dioxide could yield substantial amounts of oxygen, carbon monoxide[203] and ozone." no doubt, whatever "radiative decomposition" might be.

I am full of admiration for this article, in many ways it is excellent. However, in spite of the large amount of work since the article was nominated, the prose still has deficiencies and large parts of it do not seem to do what a Wikipedia aricle is supposed to: explain the topic at the level of a general reader. I appreciated it so much that I want to support it, but objectively I just don't think that it - yet - meets the criteria and so am reluctantly opposing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note (2) -- this is a very long-running nom and unfortunately we're not getting closer to consensus as things go on so I'm pulling the plug; I realise there was a PR before the FAC but at the very least I'd suggest an informal review by some of the above commentators, especially the opposing ones, before any future run at FAC following the usual two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2022 [16].

Tara Lipinski

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about figure skating gold medalist and commentator Tara Lipinski. If passed, it would be only the fifth FA about figure skating, and the first bio about a skater. It would fill in a much-needed content and gender gap and would bring more attention to the sport of figure skating, which due to its gendered status (i.e., most skaters are women), hasn't received the kind of attention it deserves in most areas of the world. Lipinski has made big contributions to the sport, both as a skater and as a commentator. It's a fun and interesting bio. I look forward to the comments. Enjoy! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I've always loved figure skating, but I actually know very little about it so this is very much a non-expert review if that is okay with you. I will post a full review sometime next week, but I do have some comments below for the time being:

No problem, @

Aoba47

; I appreciate the feedback anyway. No expectations regarding expertise. ;)

• The height in the infobox has a citation needed tag.

Removed because I couldn't find a recent reliable source.

• Thank you for removing this part. Would it be standard to have height in the infobox for this type of article?
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yah sometimes. For current athletes, that information's easy to find and support because of stat pages, but not always for former athletes like Lipinski. I think the safest thing is to remove it as per your suggestion.

• Would it be beneficial to link single skating in "competitor in ladies' singles" in the lede?

Yes of course, done. I also changed ladies' to women's as per Wikiproject Figure Skating policy.

• I have two comments about this sentence: She is the first woman to complete a triple loop-triple loop combination, her signature jump, in competition. I would link figure skating jumps at the end. Is there a way to include a link for the "triple loop-triple loop combination" to help with unfamiliar readers like myself? Triple loop is already linked in the article.

Yes again of course. Done. For clarification: for your second link suggestion, I linked only the word "loop" to "Loop jump." Is that enough?

• That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this point.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I know there are some differences in opinion about this. I'd like your opinion: Do you think that I'm overreffing? Personally, I prefer to put the ref, if two quotes from the same sentence are from the same ref, at the end, to capture that both quotes are from the same ref. I put the ref twice because I've been instructed by other editors to do it this way, especially at GAN and here at FAC. I will follow the recommendation of the reviewers here.

• My point was less about the referencing and more about the attribution in the prose. There are spots in the article where a quote is used but the individual and work/publisher is not specifically attributed in the prose. In one of my GANs, a reviewer referred to this as "ghost quotes" which I found both amusing and a solid way of describing this type of thing. I just was not sure if the attribution should be more clearly presented in the prose to avoid any confusion on where it is coming and to avoid having it interpreted as being presented in Wikipedia's voice.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh, now I see what you mean. I went through and fixed all the instances of it, I think.

Oh sure they have, at the time and as late as 2021, according to one source I found. I guess I chose not to include it because other than Kestnbaum's reporting that it was a thing, I didn't think that information was encyclopedic. If you and other reviewers think it should be included, I would be happy to put it in.

• I will leave that up to other reviewers. I can see your point about it getting very gossip-y or tabloid-y very quickly though.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nope, mostly because the sources state that she wrote and published them, and that's all.

• I still think it would be worthwhile to add a brief sentence or two about it to the prose (i.e. the titles, publication year, publishers, etc.) because it felt like I missed something when I scrolled to the bottom and saw that she had released two books.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ok, done.

• Some of the citations do not have the work/publisher linked. For instance, Cosmopolitan is not linked in Citation 2.

My preference is that I don't link works/publishers in the citations, but somebody went behind me and linked some of them. I'll make it consistent, though. Which direction would you want me to go? I'm fine with either way.

• I would go with any direction that you would prefer. What really would matter is consistency so if you would prefer to not have anything linked, then unlink everything. I do wonder why you would choose that route since I would think having the works/publishers linked would only help readers who may want to read more about the specific citations, but again, it is really up to you.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think it's mostly just aesthetics, which is why if you or another reviewer directs me to link them, I would. I mean, the ref is linked to the actual source. I will make sure everything is unlinked, though. Hmm, there was only one linked publication; isn't that interesting.

Yes very helpful, thank you. Looking forward to seeing more comments. I appreciate you getting the ball rolling. Best to you as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for responding to everything. I have added some responses of my own and I will likely get back to this FAC for a full review later this week.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You're welcome, and thank you, too. I think that I've addressed everything and responded to your comments above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I just have one quick clarification question, and once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support. Would the perceived Kwan rivalry be notable enough to mention in the lead? It may not be, but I was curious since a decent-sized portion of this article talks about Kwan in some capacity while

Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You're welcome. I went ahead and added a line about the rivalry in the lead. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it!

Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, done. Wish I had more images to alt text. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

Its nice to see this article coming forward as a FAC nomination. It has been at GA level for quite some time now and has served as an example for other figure skating biographies to follow. One topic of interest for this article is her role as producer for the Meddling documentary which has received some good reviews; can something more be added about this 4-part series since Wikipedia does not have a separate article for it? Another question involves the general outline for the biography which you are using for this article; it looks a little different that other Wikipedia biographies (for the non-skating majority of biographies) in that a section on Skating technique appears halfway through the biography sections, as opposed to coming after all the collected biography sections. Should the biography sections be grouped together, and then followed by the various themes sections which normally come later in most other Wikipedia biographies? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ernest. Yah I've been a bit busy IRL for the last couple of years, so I've neglected editing, but that period has ended for now, so I've been able to do a deep dive back into it this summer. Also, to be honest, I'm a little anxious about bringing a figure skating bio here, especially one who's as polarizing as Lipinski can be. I'm glad to hear that you believe that this bio can be a model for others. I suppose I could add more content about Meddling, if I can find some serious reviews. I will go research and see what I can do. For figure skater bios, it's customary to place Skating technique/style and Influence sections after the sections about their careers; see

WP:FS STYLE. I think it makes sense to make a clear separation of a skater's skating career and life post-skating because they're often very different and have little to do with figure skating. That's not the case for Lipinski, of course, but she seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Endometriosis is mentioned in the article with her as a spokesperson for it and its symptoms listed on Wikipedia's medical article as "pelvic pain, heavy periods, pain with bowel movements, and infertility". Can something be added on this in her biography article here? Has she spoken about her type of experiences and pain management; does she and her husband speak about options like adoption, etc, are there any RS about these issues since she is a spokesperson for it? Also, the husband might be listed in the infobox as spouse. Regarding you TOC comments and the Skating technique section, then I'm interested if you are ruling out the option for rethinking the biography format for skaters; this may come up with the Hanyu figure skater article since he is transitioning to a professional only career at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I was able to find info about Meddling and added it. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any formal reviews, mostly promotional pieces when Lipinski did some interviews about the series. I think what I added was substantial, though. I added spouse to infobox. The information about endo is pretty much all I was able to find about it, including her reports about her moderate symptoms and pain; there's nothing about fertility issues. About the bio format for figure skaters: again, it seems to be customary for these kinds of articles. Wow, the Hanyu bio is such a complicated article; I so admire those of you who have taken it on. I imagine that eventually, since it's certain that Hanyu's professional career will be as long and illustrious as his amateur one, that there will be a separate article about it. That being said, I support following conventions, but that doesn't mean that the team working on Hanyu's article(s) can't break them if they feel it's necessary. I'll support you guys no matter what you do, even if I disagree with it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meddling section looks pretty good now. I've just noticed that Yolo has added a new section of "Professional career" to the Hanyu article at Wikipedia and that she is taking the convention of the Sonia Henni article at Wikipedia to keep the biography sections together, and to make the biography sections come before the discussion of Skating sytle or Coaches themes in the Hanyu article. What do you think? You are setting a type of precedent for figure skating biographies, and it would be of interest to hear your opion on this. Should Wikipedia follow the stardard biography article format for TOC like Hanyu and Sonia Henni, or, take your route here. Separately, can you also confirm for her Personal life section that she has no children with her husband. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest, I think this discussion is probably outside the purview of a discussion here at FAC. However, I've done a cursory look at other skaters' bios and found that this is handled in a variety of ways. Perhaps we need to take it to a vote/discussion at Wikiproject Figure Skating and get a consensus from those of us who work on these bios. Re: the Personal life section: I don't know what you want me to do. I haven't found anything about children, which is why there's nothing about it in this bio. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be comments from both Yolo and Henni below which can be used productively. The MOS page for FS you opened two months ago has had virtually no activity on it. If you wish to start the equivalent of a RFC on this, then this would put a 30-day hold on this nomination which I'm not sure will sit well with the FAC coordinators. Do you have any opinion of leaning toward Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? It might be better to discuss it here rather than asking for the equivalent of a 30-day RfC for something that might be more easily discussed here. Are you leaning towards Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding review comments below:

(1) Is there sufficient discussion of the new age changes rules made over this summer concerning the sport and Valieva? How does this affect reading Lipinsky and Sonia Henni? How would the Olympics games have changed in Lipinsky's year at the Olympics if she were barred from competing due to her age?

Good question. I'm not sure, though, that this belongs here, although it for sure belongs in Valieva's bio. I haven't seen anything that connects the age change rules that happened in Lipinski's era to this one, or conjectures about what would've happened if she wasn't allowed to compete in 1998. However, I have seen her comments about young female skaters in the sport and how a strong support system is needed for them, and how Valieva unfortunately and tragically didn't have it. There's also discussion in Kestnbaum about the influence of teenage girls on the sport. I'm sure you already know that it was Henie's young age that changed female skaters' costumes and that it helped loosen up the strict injunctions against women skaters, which also belongs in Henie's article. The ISU didn't change the wording from "ladies" to "women" until this year. Sorry for the digression; my point is that it may be something important enough and should be researched more. I'll see what I can do about it.

(2) Infobox could mention that she has no children. This is usually covered in Wikipedia articles for married couples.

Not sure how this is done in an infobox. Could someone do that for me, please?

(3) There were fairly detailed interviews about Lipinsky and Weir taking a strng public position opposing Valieva being allowed to compete at the February 2022 Olympics on at least two different occasions. Does this deserve more comment in this Wikipedia article?

I think I've addressed that before. Although this discussion belongs in Valieva's article, for sure, I'm not sure it belongs here, other than the affect it had on your commentating.

(4) Has Lipinsky made any comments about the new age limits for figure skaters from this summer? What does it mean for the sport if the highest performances in the sport will be made at the junior level rather than the adult level? What has Lipinsky stated on this?

Yes, of course she has. See my response above.

(5) Articles for Hanyu and Tara should be consistent with each other in terms of level of coverage and sequence of covered topics since both articles are at GA level, which Tara nominated now for FAC. Yolo and Henni have already made an FL for Hanyu, and the Hanyu article is relevant here for its TOC since Hanyu has much experience in Ice shows already in his career which were conducted while he was still competing.

Yes, I understand that, but if the research doesn't bear that out, you can't do that. The Hanyu team is able to access a myriad of sources, but for Lipinski, since both her amateur and professional skating careers occurred before the wide use of the internet, there aren't as many sources about her out there. It's also why there aren't as many free images of her to use here. The Hanyu team has been able to create an FL because the sources and content warrants it. That's just not true for Lipinski. If you compare this bio to Johnny Weir, you'll find the same thing, even though they're almost the same age, because Weir's career is later than Lipinski's and after the internet. (Yes, I'm considering submitting Weir's bio to GAN, but that'll require more work and frustrations.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to seeing your comments and updates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments below in the other sections, I'm going along with Aoba and Hawkeye in Supporting your nomination. After also reading Yolo's comments, it appears to my reading that you and Yolo are already in 90% agreement about the TOC issue. I've gone ahead and appiled both of your comments to adapting the TOC for the Wikipedia Scott Hamilton biography which you might look at sometime. The five comments I've just added above are optional for you to look at when time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks so much. Also thanks for your willingness to help and for your openmindedness to the discussion here. This bio and others like it will be better because of it. In that same spirit, I will go ahead and address your above comments now. There's so much work to be done on skaters' bios; it's a neglected content gap, for sure. Heck, I'd like to handle Sonia Henie's bio sometime. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

• Should figure skater be linked in the lead sentence?

  Yes, done.

• In the lead, it is noted that she is "the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal". This is ambiguous, and should be elaborated. The body says "Lipinski was the youngest Olympic gold medalist in figure skating history". That is correct, but it passes over her other claim to fame: being the youngest ever in an individual event.

  The lead states, however: "She was, until 2019, the youngest skater to win a U.S. Nationals, the youngest skater to win a World Figure Skating title, and the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal." And the article goes on to state all the individual events in question. If that's not enough, what else should be added?

  Yes but.. she is the youngest ever Olympic gold medalist in an individual event. Winter or Summer. Any country. Any individual event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I added the phrase "in figure skating history", as it states in the article's body. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was the sixth American woman to win an Olympic gold medal." Should add "in figure skating".

  Ok, done.

• Duplicate links: Richard Callaghan, 1996 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, Sonja Henie, Champions on Ice, Johnny Weir, Scott Hamilton

I can remove them, but for longer articles like this one, I like to include multiple links so that readers can access them if they want to without having to scroll too much elsewhere, or if they're only reading that one section.

• Link
  Pyeongchang

  Done.

• What's a salchow?

  It's a jump! ;) Added link.

That's all I have. Great effort. Nice to know that being a figure skating champion qualifies you to comment on fashion at the Oscars Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Ha ha, fashion is a big deal in the figure skating world. And hello, we are talking about Tara and Johnny! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawk! Appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Yolo4A4Lo

Thank you for ErnestKrause to mention this nomination to me. I'm excited to see more figure skating article getting FA. The article itself is pretty good already, but it depends a lot with direct quotes from writers and in need of some copy-edit work. So, English is not my native language, but here are some suggestions on diction, grammar etc. Feel free to use them or not. I just managed to read through her competitive career though. Will continue it later.

I think that's all! Just need to address this and all the missed points I have pinged for you earlier, and I will change my comments to support. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yolo4A4Lo, whew, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your feedback and patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work and patience as well. I give you my support, and good luck for the FA. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Henni147

@ErnestKrause: informed me that this article got nominated for FA class, and I'd like to add some comments as well (mainly about skating-specific issues):

Overall, the article looks good now. The few notes above may need a quick check, but I give my support for FAC now. Henni147 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all comments, both from and from the other reviewers. Thanks for the strenuous reviews, all! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Henni147
This won't change my general support for FAC, but here are some more questions and suggestions after second reading:

• Professional career section:
  • "Lipinski's net worth was perhaps $12 million." → maybe change "perhaps" to "estimated"? Sounds more professional.
  • "In August 1998, Lipinski ended her association with Champions on Ice, which she had performed with since 1995, and joined the cast of Stars on Ice in order to expand artistically and to participate in the company's group numbers." → What does "company's group numbers" mean here? Is it the usual group performances with other cast members in the show? And what kind of opportunities did SOI provide for artistic growth that COI didn't? Was it these group numbers only or something else as well?
  • What judging system was used at the World Pro Championships? Was it the same system as 6.0 with judges' mark scale from 0 to 10? I would add a footnote there, so that the mentioned marks have some reference value.
• Broadcasting career section:
  • Maybe place the last paragraph "In 2018 and 2019 [...]" before "According to Houston Chronicle [...]", so that Lipinski's activities as a broadcaster come first, and then the critical reception of her commentary and works. This is not a must, it's just my personal preference as a reader in terms of structure.

Henni147 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment from Piotrus

No errors detected in the brief treatment of Polish context, but shouldn't

@

MOS:OVERLINK) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a rumor that she was nominated for being elected to the Polish-American Sports Hall of Fame circa 2020 though I can't recall if it went through; it was discussed with this image from the Olympics which might be a nice addition to this article if someone can get it into Wikimedia [21]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cursory google search, but didn't find anything. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a possible lead for this and another nice Nagano image which might be nice for this article here: [22]. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause, looks like it was just a rumor. There's nothing on the HOF website that states that Lipinsky was inducted. The only two figure skaters on their webpage are Janet Lynn and Elaine Zayak. The image on Twitter is most likely not free. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose Comments from Kavyansh

Article: "All four of her grandparents were born in Poland"

Source: "All four of her grandparents were born in Poland" [23].

Article: "They met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys."

Source: "The duo had met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys" [24].

Article: "... loop-triple loop jump combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult program in Olympic history up to that time". [25]

Source: "... another triple-triple combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult in Olympic history."

I am open to reconsideration, but would request the coordinators to not promote until another reviewer has taken a comprehensive look at the sources and assured that the source to text integrity and closed paraphrasing issues have been cleared throughout.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Ok, so I fixed the two instances of MOS:GEOCOMMA. I fixed the ref mixups you mention; I'm sure they're the only instances of it. I also randomly tested five different refs for text integrity, but found no problem; I challenge anyone else to do the same and I'm sure they'll get similar results. I looked up your same version on Earwig [26], which had it at almost 34% but found "violation unlikely." I went through and changed many of the close paraphrasing, so Earwig now has it at 24.5% [27], also unlikely. I can change more if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh Could I ask you to look at the new edits made to deal with this copyvio issue; it looks like the article has made progress on this issue. Separately, if you are now taking more interest in sports articles at Wikipedia, then I've opened a review for Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons which could use a good read and FAC comments from someone with you interests at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christine and ErnestKrause, and sorry for the delayed response. Had been really busy IRL. I'm happy to strike the oppose, but would still suggest someone else to take a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about this requirement that another reviewer look at the close paraphrasing. I don't see the need for it, since the issue has obviously been resolved. I would ask that the coordinators take all the supports and the work that's been done as a result of this FAC into account. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the FAC coordinators, I would request that whoever does the required source review here also do spot-checks. While I do AGF that the close paraphrasing issues have been resolved, it would still be best to verify that. Hog Farm _Talk 21:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Czar

Hi, this might be a source review if I have time, but wanted to ask:

• On the "née Brozyniak", is there really no better source for this? The
  citogenesis. A better source should be easily available. czar 22:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Why is her mother's maiden name even encyclopedic information? (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. For her parents' names, then, the Sports Illustrated source would be okay but there are several books that are even better. Nike Is a Goddess (p. 176) is published by

Atlantic Monthly Press and is more reliable as a source than the one currently in place. I was a little surprised not to see more book coverage in this article. Newspapers have contemporaneous facts but books tend often require taking a few steps back from the story, making for better secondary source analysis. Gale would probably have relevant biographies here too—I'll take a peek later. czar 00:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The easiest thing to do is to remove the offending content about Lipinski's parents' names, so that's what I've done. Regarding the dependence upon magazines and newspapers over books, this article is about an American athlete, so most of the information written about Lipinski will be in magazines and newspapers. There are fewer well-written books about female figure skaters and the ones that are tend to be for a juvenile audience. In other words, books aren't always more reliable than other sources just because they're books. Also, if you look at other bios about athletes, even contemporary and well-known athletes, you'll find that they also use more newspaper and magazine articles than books. For example, Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons, which just passed its FAC and which I admit is much longer and complicated than this one, also uses fewer books, and in Japanese for that matter.

• What makes Golden Skate (goldenskate.com) a reliable source? From the site itself it looks like a community site without usual hallmarks of fact-checking, editorial background (no background page), or industry reputation, but perhaps I'm missing something. czar 00:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Skate is a well-respected website about figure skating and one of the oldest news source about the sport. They conduct interviews and report on all competitions, even during non-Olympics years, when major news organizations don't tend to report on figure skating, especially in the U.S. WikiProject Figure Skating okays its use; see

WP:FS STYLE

. The information the Golden Skate website supports can't be found anywhere else, so I chose to include it for comprehensiveness sake. Again, Hanyu's FA also uses it.

This is a forum post—it does not have any hallmarks of reliability. Apart from your writing of

WP:RSN discussion or further input from FAC participants. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes it's a forum post, but it's the only place to find the information it supports, the music used in Lipinski's programs. Those forum posts are more reliable than a lot of mainstream sources that report on figure skating, especially the music used in programs. The music skaters use for each program isn't something that's normally reported on in the press. Also, the reason FS WikiProject hasn't had a discussion about the reliability and suitability of Golden Skate because its members, all familiar with the sport of figure skating, agree that it's an appropriate source, so there's no need to debate it. And yes the reviewer at Hanyu's FAC brought it up and obviously accepted the nominator's explanation, which is the same explanation I gave here. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to bother the folks at RSN with a pointless discussion those of us who edit FS articles already agree about. I also think that in the case of bios about figure skaters, Golden Skate is an appropriate source to use and satisfies the FA criteria. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A forum post is not high-quality RS period. The answer to most questions that start with, "I know X is a questionable source, but it's the only one that says Y" is "if Y is only covered in this one sketchy source, it probably does not belong in the encyclopedia". (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, you make a valid point, but exceptions can be made, even in FAs, if there's a strong enough case for include sources like Golden Skate and the other source also mentioned. I ask, though: Why is Golden Skate acceptable for the Hanyu FAC reviewers and not here? Is there some kind of double standard for this bio? It seemed like the reviewers AGF regarding the sources the Hanyu article uses, even though many of them of them are in Japanese. It also seems that the reviewers are AGF that the nominators' claim that the translations of those sources are valid. I agree with following that AGF, but why is that this FAC hasn't benefitted from that same kind of AGF? I don't necessarily expect any answers to my questions, but these points need to be raised. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any case where user generated content would be an acceptable source, except for

WP:ABOUTSELF which does not apply in this case. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To the questions: The Hanyu reviewer (@

featured article criteria. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Same for
  user-generated? czar 00:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Again, it's used for comprehensiveness. Also, a previous reviewer (see Yolo's comments above) directed me to use it for Lipinski's TV credits.

It appears similar to IMDB, which is similarly not seen as a reliable source, nevertheless a high-quality reliable source for FAC purposes czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep it in, if I may. There's obviously a conflict between reviewers here. User:Yolo4A4Lo, can you chime in here? Should we follow your recommendations to include the TVDB info, or remove it as Czar seems to request? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UGC is not acceptable source at FAC )or anywhere else). If it's not in a reliable source, it is not required for comprehensiveness. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The text attributes "According to Kestnbaum" without explaining who she is or why she's being cited. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added identifying information.

• "Swift, pp. 30-31" There are multiple works by Swift cited so these citations need to be more specific. The {{sfn}} template works great for this purpose and defaults to surname and year of publication. (The other short footnotes should match the format. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the template mentioned and made a choice not to use it because it'd only be for two sources, Swift and Kestnbaum. It was an editorial choice and doesn't affect the article's qualifications towards FA. The other Swift refs are all from web-based magazines and newspapers, which is still very clear.

Citation templates are not required but clarifying the Swift short footnotes when there are several Swift sources cited is uncontroversially needed for clarity. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the FA criteria doesn't state that we have to use a specfic citation technique. I disagree that it's inconsistent and unclear, but I'll go ahead and change it as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation technique is up to you—I only asked to clarify the ambiguity for the reader. Looks like some are using 1997 and some are using 1997a so they're referring to different citations. Is that intentional or a typo? czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a typo; they're two different sources published in the same year, 1997, and was generated by Visual Editor when I tried to differentiate them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are [[Special:PermanentLink/1117784935#cite_note-FOOTNOTESwift1997a30-31-5|"Swift 1997a, p. 30-31." and "Swift 1997, p. 30." referring to page 30 of the same source? "1997a" and "1997" represent different sources (if you click them), but I imagine they're both referring to 1997a? czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency check: It's unclear why some citations list the periodical's location ("The Tennessean. Nashville, Tennessee.") and others do not. Same goes for other redundant parameters ("ET online.com. Entertainment Tonight." and "AP News. Associated Press.") The formatting should be checked for consistency. Wikilinking is an easy way to identify a parameter without needing extra citation parameters, but I did see the above discussion with Aoba. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editorial choice. I included locations for lesser known sources, or if the location was in their titles, like the NYT. Again, this has nothing to do with this article fulfilling FA criteria.

Citation consistency is a FAC criterion. In the case of The Tennessean, the location is in its title. If your editorial choice is that you don't need the location to reduce redundancy, then the same should apply to the AP News example. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the AP (Associated Press) is a national news organization and isn't tied to a specific location, like the Tennessean or the NYT or the Los Angeles Times. But I added it anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "New York" needs to be added to the Associated Press citations. I was saying that "AP News. Associated Press." is redundant and can just be either. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency check: The infobox says she trained in Newark, Delaware, but does not mention Newark in the article. The article says she trained in Houston but does not say so in the infobox. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does state, however, that Lipinski trained at the University of Delaware, which is in Newark. I added it to the text, anyway.

And about Houston? czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text states that Lipinski and her mother moved to Bloomfield Hills and that she trained at the Detroit Skating Club. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no issues with Detroit. The article says she trained in Houston too, but that is not reflected in the infobox. My question was why include one but not the other? czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RSP suggests that Cosmopolitan is situational, to be used depending on its context. Why is it the best source for this info in this FA? czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Footnote c is helpful for explaining competition scoring but out of curiosity, has there been prior project consideration for creating a sidebar that would explain it? I imagine it would be needed in almost any competitor's article to explain the scoring concept for a
  general audience. czar 03:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

But that's not the convention for any sports article. There are other articles that explain scoring in figure skating, just as I'm sure there are articles that explain the scoring in other sports articles. The Hanyu article mentioned above didn't need it to pass its FAC. There's a link about the 6.0 system, which is up-to-date because I recently rewrote and update it, that readers can read if they want to know more. At the same time, though, it's true that there's a need for someone to improve the ISU Judging System and it's on my to-do list, but that should have no bearing on this FAC because Lipinski didn't skate under it.

I think it's clear from the question that this was a curiosity and never had bearing on the FAC criteria. czar

Source review from Czar

below footnote #s are from Special:PermanentLink/1115157508

Huh?

When the footnotes below are edited, they will no longer be "fn 74" so I linked the version that I used as the ref number reference. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• fn 74: Forbes stated that Meddling "uniquely takes a deep dive" The source does not mention Forbes at all, nor the quoted parts.

The ref name was mislabelled. Fixed.

• fn 74 close paraphrasing:
  • source: "Lipinski and Kapostasy traveled to Russia, France and Canada to interview people connected to the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, who hasn’t spoken to American media in two decades."
  • Wikipedia: "They travelled to Russia, France, and Canada to interview people involved in the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, the French judge at its center, who had not spoken to anyone from the American media for 20 years."

Changed to "They interviewed people in Russia, France, and Canada who were involved in the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, the French judge at its center, who had not spoken to anyone from the American media for 20 years."

That they interviewed the judge does not appear material to Lipinski's biography, so I've pared it down per my below comment. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• fn 72: Checks (But why do we need to cite Lipinski's description of the documentary? Are there no secondary sources?)

No there are not. This source was the best I could find for a minor documentary that aired on a minor streaming service.

Here is an AP News article. There are quite a few source options in terms of covering the basics. And if this truly is a "minor documentary", then it probably doesn't warrant four sentences of coverage, compared with the rest of the article. czar 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's still unclear why we need to quote Lipinski's opinion that her documentary was a "deep and responsible look" – this is something a general reader would assume about any documentary. Same goes for the redundant USA Today quote later in the paragraph that the documentary is "a deep look". czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quoting the sources. The insinuation is that Lipinski and USA Today agree that it's a deep look. It would be conjecture to state something like "USA Today agrees with Lipinski", so the current wording leaves that to the reader. And um, documentaries don't necessarily look at their subjects responsibly. Again, it's what the source states. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• fn 71: E! News is NBC-affiliated—is there no other secondary source coverage of this documentary?

Again no, for the above reason.

This source and the Forbes source below are referencing basic descriptive details about the documentary. I don't see what they're offering that, say, Oxygen (used in the article) or USA Today provide and from a higher quality source. czar 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why is Oxygen okay to use as a source and not E! News, when they're both basically entertainment sources? The Forbes source has already been removed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned E! because it was NBC-affiliated and publishing about an NBC documentary. But yes agreed that E! and Oxygen.com (already used in the article) don't necessarily have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This said, I wasn't going to press that. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• fn 70:
  WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTORs
  are unreliable for statements of fact

I disagree; the source's writer, Scott King, is an expert in the field of entertainment. Hanyu's FA also uses Forbes as a source.

That Forbes contributors are not reliable for statements of fact has been long established (per that link), so this isn't the place to rehash that topic. There should be plenty of other sources available for these statements if they are noteworthy. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. But I removed the Forbes reference and tried to recreate the same content as per your insistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed over a dozen times at RSN. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• fn 69: aired on Chicken Soup for the Soul Studios Hm, how can this air on a production company? From the source, it looks like it aired on the Crackle streaming service?

Changed to: "...produced by"

• fn 4 close paraphrasing – I think there's less to help with this one but at least the sentences could have been mixed:
  • source: "In June 2017, and after two years of dating, Lipinski tied the knot with sports producer Todd Kapostasy .... The duo had met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys."
  • Wikipedia: "In June 2017, after two years of dating, Lipinski married sports producer Todd Kapostasy. They met in May 2015, at the Sports Emmys, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award."

I think it's fine too, so keeping as is.

Edited czar 17:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• fn 4: not seeing mention of Saint Therese, Catholicism, nevertheless Lipinski crediting her with her win, or any mention of her hip surgery; only checks for the "short, but good" quote

Changed to make the referencing more clear.

This source is 20 years old, so it would be more accurate to say that at the time of her Olympic win, she had a devotion to St. Therese rather than implying that it continued over the last 20 years (unless we have such a source). The article also doesn't say she is Catholic. If it's implied in the source, we could similarly imply it in the article. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording and removed the conjecture that Lipinski's still Catholic. You're right; there isn't anything more recent that supports it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this edited so did so here czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just two paragraphs I chose at random. Has a nominating editor gone through every citation in the article already? I would expect to find more of these if not. czar 03:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I would expect that they would not, or at least not enough of an issue for this article to not pass to FA. This article, for some reason, has been through a level of scruntity I've never experienced in an FAC, but I've gone through the process because Lipinski, an important figure (har-har) in figure skating, deserves to have her WP bio be an FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is your scrutiny comment in reference to this source review or to the other reviews above? If the former, I'm surprised to hear it and would be happy to end my review here if you'd prefer another source review. I think my comments have been exceedingly fair given the number of referencing errors found in a single paragraph. This is exactly the standard why FA-quality candidates have their sources reviewed and spot-checked. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Czar, at any rate, I've addressed the feedback in your responses. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been reading the comments from

Czar and it would be helpful if he could mark which of the comments have been fully addressed by Christine in his list and which comments are unaddressed in his list above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I can strike addressed citations but part of the point is that the issues were not isolated. Also some of the threads above are discussions so they won't be marked as "done". czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote #s below are from this version of the article, per above

• fn 55: "instant chemistry" is a quote from Lipinski, not the reporter; also any connection between the reporter Tom Weir and the figure skater Johnny Weir? Both are introduced in the same paragraph so it is a coincidence worth acknowledging or recasting around.

Fixed attribution. I respectfully disagree that it's important enough to do anything about. Johnny is mentioned in the lead, anyway.

• fn 54: The sentence order currently implies that they were in Sochi when Lipinkski and Weir had the realization that they work well together, and then made a change on the fly. The GQ interview (fn 54) says it was in the lead up to Sochi. Optional but that part about their first connection could be sourced to just GQ without any loss in quality.

Removed that it happened in Sept. 2014 when it clearly did not.

• No action required: The Bleacher Report should generally be replaced as a low-quality source known for open blogging, but the byline does note that Tom Weird had covered multiple Olympics for USA Today, so I think okay to keep if the only place these contents are cited, but otherwise not a high-quality source

• fn 65: What is this source's connection to the text? Looks like it's meant to be attached to the Kentucky Derby claim instead, if that sentence needs more references

Moved ref to correct place after the Derby sentence.

• fn 11: She was the first woman to complete the jump combination in competition. This is an extraordinary claim that deserves a source farther removed than Lipinski's own op-ed. Neither the op-ed (fn 11) nor the other source (fn 4, Cosmo) mention it being her signature move.

Removed mention of sig jump in this phrase.

It's also mentioned in Tara Lipinski § Records and achievements and the lede czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• fn 40: It's unclear why this opinion is being cited. There are plenty of sources that say flatly that the skating establishment reacted negatively to her going professional. If that's the point of this closing sentence, then a more authoritative source can be cited as a statement of fact without having to attribute an opinion to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sports column.

Removed sentence.

• fn 48 close paraphrasing:
  • Source: "She then transitioned to NBC and NBC Sports in 2011, where she has covered almost every international skating competition that has aired on the network."
  • Wikipedia: "... transitioned to NBC and NBC Sports in 2011, where she covered almost every international figure skating competition broadcast by the network."

Changed to: "She began commentating for Universal Sports in 2010 and in 2011, began working for NBC and NBC Sports, where she commentated most international figure skating competition broadcasts."

• fn 48: For competitions not broadcast live The source says that "Unlike when she competed, figure skating commentators today call most events from remote studios far away from the live action", which would include live broadcast events. This part can be removed, but alternatively, does this sentence need to be mentioned?

You seem to think that the first part of the source's statement is important so I added it, thusly: "Unlike what was customary for skating commentators when she competed, she would call figure skating from studios in the U.S. instead of at the competition venue." I think it's important to keep the sentence because it describes Lipinski's working conditions. It also goes to the fact that skating commentators were working remotely for several years before they forced to due to COVID. I know no source states that, but with the current situation, I think it's important enough to mention, anyway.

I had asked above if someone familiar with the article can vouch for having gone through each citation before coming to FAC to confirm that the claims match the sources. From the examples above, that doesn't appear to be the case, so it would help for that to happen before continuing with spot checks, given the level of discrepancies exceeding FA guidance. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation to Czar for this. As I'm an early supporter for the prose part of this article, I'll note that there are already three supporters for the prose of this article and a pass on the image review. Putting in an added effort for this source review from Czar would put this article into what appears to be realistic reach of moving towards promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed Czar's most current comments. I agree that this FAC has more than enough supporters, but let me know what else I can do to bring this bio over the finishing line. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've since went through Czar's comments and re-addressed his comments and addressed what I missed. I will reiterate that this FAC still has more than enough supporters for it to passed to FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to be clear here that I, unfortunately, need to oppose on basic verifiablity issues, namely

text–source integrity. Spot checks, such as those above, are meant to rubber stamp that the citation appropriately reflects the contents and repeatedly I have seen and shown that it does not. These spot checks were specifically requested by a FAC coordinator (@Hog Farm) above based on similar issues @Kavyansh.Singh

had found in source verification. I have now twice suggested that a nominator or supporter at least review that all citations in the article match their sources before an outside reviewer such as myself is asked to perform another spot check. This is a standard expectation for preparedness before nominating an article for featured status.

That other editors have supported on prose (

1c). I would encourage those supporters to contribute to the citation verification if they are so willing. czar 18:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but given the continued issues with source-text integrity here, I will have to archive this nomination as not sufficiently prepared for FAC. Figureskatingfan - Please make sure these problems are resolved before renominating. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 23 October 20

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2022 [28].

Abdollah Mirza Qajar

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Abdollah Mirza, an Iranian prince of Qajar dynasty who was a poet and the governor of two provinces during his lifetime. I had nominated this before and I believe it was archived because it was so short, but there is barely any information on life to add. I have seen featured articles shorter than this so I don't think that's much of a problem. Thanks in advance for any reviewers. Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

• Just as a note, the article would probably benefit from another image or two. Even a relevant map or something similar would be nice, but I know these things can be difficult to find and source.
• due to complaints and dissatisfaction - Isn't this a bit redundant? Suggest either using a different second noun or only using one.

Deleted dissatisfaction

• Unclosed parentheses when listing the reign of Mohammad Shah Qajar

Why? I thought years should be placed in closed parentheses

Yes - I agree that the style here looks good, but you have two opening parentheses and only one closing parenthesis - ...(r. (1834-1848)... AviationFreak💬 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link regnal name

Done

• Probably worth stating that Baba Khan was crowned after his predecessor's assassination

Added it

• Perhaps clarify who "Behzadi" is, especially as the name is not mentioned earlier
• Same for Ardakani

I think I'm gonna delete 'the according to' for these two.

Gotcha. I believe similar phrasing was used for other authors later in the article, so that should be reworded/removed as well (if it's not already). AviationFreak💬 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added 'the modern historian' to those examples later in the article.

Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Does rule of a particular province not also grant rule of cities within the province? I would recommend somehow textually differentiating Zanjan from the cities within.

The borders of a province were defined by the territory its ruler had. So, there wasn't a Zanjan province with today's borders. I added a cities in the sentence "rule the cities of Zanjan, Sojas, Sohrevard, Abhar, and Soltanieh."

• If it's not broadly agreed-upon that he ruled over Khamseh province, it probably shouldn't be in the lede. Also doesn't appear to be as talked-about in the article as Zanjan.

Deleted it from the lead.

• Because of his youth, Fath-Ali Shah appointed Mohammad Taqi Saheb Ali Abadi, his favorite poet, as Abdollah Mirza's regent. - It's certainly implied that we're talking about Abdollah Mirza's youth here, but maybe reword this bit? Also, link regent.

reworded it

• Abdollah Mirza developed a taste in poetry because of his teachings. - In my first skim, I though "him" referred to Abdollah Mirza, but it looks like it refers to Ali Abadi.

Also reworded it.

• Ali Abadi served as regent for Abdollah Mirza until 1819 when he returned to Tehran from his father's order. - Who returned to Tehran? What does it mean to return from his father's order? I think the use of pronouns in this section could be cleaned up a little. :)

Amended it.

• The name of the mosque can be linked in the caption, along with maybe adding ", constructed during Abdollah Mirza's rule" or something similar

Done

• Bazaar can be linked

Done

• Naming should be consistent throughout an article - Should he be referred to as "Abdollah Mirza" (used until mention of 1810 valuables discovery) or simply "Abdollah"?

I'll go with Abdollah Mirza.

• They discovered the tomb of Arghun Khan, Ilkhan of Ilkhanate and it was filled with gold and jewelry Abdollah Mirza brought the findings to Tehran and presented them to Fath-Ali Shah. - This is missing a period. The first sentence also is a bit clunky; suggest They discovered the tomb... which was filled with gold and jewelry.

Done

• Include role/title of Abbas Mirza

Done

• According to tradition

Done

• Abdollah's family took a summer trip to Soltanieh. Fath-Ali Shah held a wedding party there for the new couple. can be condensed into one sentence by substituting the period with ", where"

Done

• by his fathers order should have an apostrophe in "father's"

Done

• Do we know anything about what the vassals complained to Fath-Ali Shah about, specifically? I know sources aren't always super specific but if we can get any better than just "complained", it would be great.

Unfortunately, there's nothing. Although, in the Appearance and skills section, James Edward Alexander says that he was cruel towards his subjects.

• There's a jump from the subject accompanying his father on a trip to the father suddenly dying - maybe fill in a bit of context?

Done

• Wouldn't the upcoming conflict be better referred to as a battle than a war?

Replaced with battle

• They dispersed two hours before dawn and before any confrontation took place and Abdollah Mirza was forced to flee to Qazvin. - Three "and"s here feels like a run-on.

Amended it

• Mohammad Shah
  is duplinked

Amended it

• Unclosed parentheses when discussing name and reign of Mohammad Shah

Done

• It's not super clear to me what happens in the last two sentences of this paragraph - How is Abdollah allowed to decide who is King of Iran if his brother has already taken control? Maybe I just haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning.

Replaced it with pledged allegiance.

• Do we know how or where he died?

Only that he died in his sister's house

• What is the significance of Divan-e Marathi?
• MOS:SOB
  in "satire Mathnavi"
• Last 2 sentences in paragraph can be condensed - "...satire Mathnavi about life of a balding person that Abdollah Mirza co-wrote with his brother..."

Changed the whole sentence to 'He also co-wrote a satirical mathnavi called Golnameh or Kalnameh about life of a balding person with his brother Mohammad Reza Mirza'

• The idea of having an "appearance and skills" section seems a bit strange to me. Curious to hear what other editors think, but this could maybe be assimilated into the article somehow? The second paragraph also suffers from pronoun-specificity issues.