Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

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

Nominations

Torture

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This article went through a GAN, GOCE copyedit, and a peer review. I really appreciate all the comments I got, which helped improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A drive-by comment: I glanced through and didn't see anything about criminal torture -- I'm thinking of e.g. the Shankill Butchers; for Murphy in particular it seems the sectarian conflict was opportunity rather than motivation. Shouldn't there be something about the topic in this article, either under perpetrators or purpose? Or is there a separate article covering that topic? I see the definition in the lead of "state-sponsored" would exclude this, but then where would criminal torture be covered? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie, thanks for your comment. RS on this subject follow the definition in international law and focus on state-sponsored torture. Other uses are covered on torture (disambiguation), and perhaps that dab page could do a better job listing related articles. In most legal systems, non-state actions that would be classified as torture if carried out by the state would be legally classified as a different kind of crime. For example, it seems the Shankill Butchers were convicted of murder. There is no such thing as non-criminal torture (at least since the second half of the twentieth century) as it's a state crime. (t · c) buidhe 13:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, I didn't mean to imply that state-sponsored torture wasn't a crime! I think following the RS definitions is reasonable, and I guess that means it's not an issue for this article. I do think some other article is needed, though -- the topic of psychopathic behaviour such as Murphy's isn't going to be covered under murder. But that's not your problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

image review

• Suggest scaling up the map, and see MOS:COLOUR
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Aceh_caning_2014,_VOA.jpg: source attributes image to "dok" - does that still fall under the VOA license? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure so I replaced with File:Lauritz Sand recovering after his release, May 1945.jpg (t · c) buidhe 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch

Drive-by comments.

• I don't see any reference to the Torture Memos, and—a separate but related topic—to the domestic laws applicable to the practice of torture and the admissibility of the related evidence in the context of the criminal process, which seems to be an important topic.
• "Torture is prohibited under international law for all states under all circumstances, under both international customary law and various treaties". Jus cogens is somewhat separate from customary law and treaty law, so saying that it is prohibited in all circumstances under customary law and treaty law is not perfect. Rather, it should be that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international, and also part of customary and some treaty law. Should probably be double-checked, though.
• "Torture was the primary issue that stimulated the creation of the human rights movement." Not sure about the accuracy of this. I would double-check with one or several sources on the history of human rights.
• I was expecting some coverage of what the World Organization Against Torture has been doing. Not very high-profile but known on the international scene.

JBchrch talk 16:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Second War of Scottish Independence

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

After six FACs (and three GANs) on episodes from Edward III's war against Scotland I now offer up the overview. This article attempts to summarise the 25 years of the Second War of Scottish Independence. Which probably caused the Hundred Years' War and even ground on for 11 years after Edward captured the Scottish king. What to include, what to leave out, what to summarise down? Oh me, oh my! Much, obviously, is based on those nine previous articles and Ealdgyth kindly provided this article with an especially rigorous GAN. I think it's as ready as it's going to get. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass, no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• " In response to Philip's urgent requests, David invaded England believing most of its previous defenders would be in France." Does "previous" really add anything?

IMO, yes. I took it out. Then put it back as its lack seemed to wilfully withhold information.

• "Edward's chosen target was Berwick: a Scottish town on the Anglo-Scottish border, astride the main invasion and trade route in either direction.[22]" We know Berwick is Scottish then, as you've told us that twice already, and will again soon after.

Too much of a good thing? mention removed.

• "The leading pro-Bruce nobles appealed to Philip for formal military assistance." Should this be "... nobles formally appealed to Philip for military assistance?"

It should. Done.

• " the latter was a potential port of embarkation for any French expeditionary force" Should embarkation be disembarkation?

D'oh! Fixed.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• "A small number of French knights marched alongside the Scots." Just to be picky, were they marching or riding?

They marched, in the Wiktionary sense of "To go to war". If I were to put "rode alongside", that would imply that all of the Scots were mounted, which they weren't.

• "The Scots were surprised by the appearance of the English close to Durham.[87]" I might consider a comma after "English".

I suspect that we adhere to rather different schools of comma'isation.

That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, and thanks for the review. You comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

What a pleasure to be reviewing a Gog article on a 14th-century war once again. This one is well up to standard, and I confidently expect to be supporting it. But first, a few carps and quibbles about the prose.

• Lead

• "in May 1337 the French king, Philip VI, engineered a clear break" – I'm not clear what it was that was clearly (cleanly?) broken.

• English invasion of Scotland, 1332

• "He insisted Balliol not invade Scotland" – there seems to be a subjunctive missing – "should" or "must" for example.
• "15,000–40,000 men" – that's a helluva range – the authorities differ that widely, I take it?

• English invasion of Scotland, 1333

• "a set-piece battle, which he anticipated winning" – a minor point of usage: it is no bad thing to observe the traditional usage of "anticipate" (note the ant– element) by keeping the verb to mean predicting and forestalling something by taking action in advance. (A. P. Herbert commented, in the days before the permissive society, that "John and Jane anticipated marriage" is not the same as "John and Jane expected to be married".) I think here, just "which he expected to win" is right.
• "Berwick was well-defended, well-garrisoned, and well-stocked with provisions and materiel" – this is a resonant and particularly pleasing sentence, if I may say so: the repetitions of "well" have a fine cumulative effect. Do we need the hyphens, though?
• "the camp followers made off" – I really do think you need to follow the OED in hyphenating "camp-followers" otherwise we're perilously close to Julian and Sandy territory.
• "although it is unclear when this commenced" – at the risk of repeating myself like a cracked gramophone record, may I point out again that "commence" is on Fowler's list of "genteelisms" and that a plain "began" or "started" would be less prissy.
• "he convinced Edward to spend the winter" – in BrE, unlike AmE, one doesn't "convince to": one convinces someone of or that something or other, but persuades him to. (I happen to think AmE usage is excellent in this case, but it ain't the Queen's English.)

• French involvement

• "Gascony was important to Edward, the duty levied by the English Crown on wine from there was more than all other customs duties" – comma splice. Any one of a colon, a semicolon or a full stop would be fine here.
• "could not agree a on position for the peace negotiations" – something awry here. As discussed elsewhere, you and I are ad idem that "agree to" and a plain "agree" can have different shades of meaning, but here, it seems to me, you want either "could not agree a position" or "could not agree on a position".

• English invasion of Scotland, 1335–1336

• " arbitration by the pope …. persuaded by Pope Benedict XII" – if the first-mentioned pontiff was Benedict XII it might be as well to name him the first, rather than the second time he crops up.

• France joins the fight

• "immediately commenced a fresh round" – see comments, above on the refained "commence" – purely a stylistic point and I don't press it all that hard, though perhaps it's time to trot out the relevant Noël Coward quote again: "I just can't abide the word testicles. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words. If you have piles, say so!"

• Scottish resurgence, 1338–1346

• "The French continued to supply the Scots and they had the better of the fighting" – "they" being the French or the Scots? (Yes, I know, but you should make it explicit.)

• Captivity of David II

• " ensured a lack of trust from David" – a little convoluted? Perhaps, "ensured that David did not trust him"?

• English invasion of Scotland, 1356

• "the important English-held border town of Berwick-on-Tweed" – I think you've already made it clear that Berwick was (i) a border town and (ii) important.

• Treaty of Berwick, 1357

• "With no prospect of further military nor financial assistance" – "or", not "nor", I think.

Those are my few comments and suggestions. I have greatly enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. Over to you, and I'll look in again to add my support, I hope. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Nimona

Nominator(s): HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the webcomic and graphic novel, Nimona. Written by ND Stevenson, it is a fantasy / science fiction story. The article passed GA status recently, and since then, a full plot summary has been added. The work is important as an example of webcomics receiving publishing deals, a key work by Stevenson, and an example of queer literature. It is also a timely article, as it was recently announced that a film adaptation of the work will be released in 2023.

This is my second nomination of this article. I withdrew the earlier one on the advice of my mentor in this matter, PresN, while a few matters were resolved. This article is the first I've ever nominated for Feature Article status, so this will be a learning exercise for me. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Enoch Fenwick

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a Jesuit who, fascinatingly, followed in his brother's (FA) footsteps in becoming the president of Georgetown University, which did not go so well, and he abandoned the presidency and refused to return. Ergo Sum 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed, but are there no images of the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, none that I have been able to find. Ergo Sum 07:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

1959–60 Burnley F.C. season

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Burnley are probably getting relegated this season, but there was a time when they were crowned champions of England, albeit a few generations ago: 1959–60. Burnley had to win their last game to win the title, and they did just that ... just. The team consisted almost entirely of players who came through the club’s youth academy. Burnley bought only two players for a combined fee of 15k. This article passed the GA process a year ago, and since then I’ve trimmed it down a bit and made some smaller fixes. All comments will be appreciated. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

*"while the others were recruited from Burnley’s youth academy" - did the concept of a "youth academy" really exist in the 1950s? Not in the modern sense I would say (such as having many different teams, categorised by age). However, according to the book Bob Lord of Burnley (2019), there was already a "youth academy system" at Burnley while Alan Brown was the club's manager (mid-1950s). "with goals from Brian Pilkington, John Connelly, and Ray Pointer, the club's forward" - they had only one forward?? Fixed "McIlroy, Burnley's playmaker, was still absent for the team" - think the last three words are redundant Removed "Burnley then faced Lancashire rivals Blackpool at home; the team took the lead" - wording is not 100% clear as to which team "the team" is Fixed "who objected his "confusing playing style"" => "who objected to his "confusing playing style"" Done "they beat Nottingham Forest, last season's FA Cup winners" => "they beat Nottingham Forest, the previous season's FA Cup winners" Done "despite only having 10 men for most of the game" - why? A sending off? An injury? Injury, added "Second Division side Swansea Town at Vetch Field" => "Second Division side Swansea Town at the Vetch Field" Done "the Bradford City supporters [....] were denied entry by the local police" - all of them? Some, fixed "On an icey Turf Moor pitch" - pretty sure it's spelt icy Fixed "The defeat also meant Burnley were deprived of becoming the first English club in the 20th century to achieve the First Division and FA Cup double" - well, not really, because a) they hadn't won the league at this point and b) they might have lost the semi-final or final. I agree, removed it "with four defenders, four midfielders and two forwards" - pedantic, maybe, but weren't the former two called full backs and half backs at this point in time? One of the books I've used, Never had it so good (2017), contains both terms, such as half-back and midfielder. I've gone with the latter as it's a bit more comfortable:) That's all I got - a great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks very much for the review, Chris! I've addressed your comments (hopefully). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • By the way, if you have the time, I'd appreciate your feedback on my current FAC. Not to worry if not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  No problem, Chris, I'll take a look at your nom somewhere this weekend. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The Cenotaph

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is the culmination of a project I've been working on (on and off, with quite a few digressions!) for about six years, starting with Northampton War Memorial, which passed FAC back in 2016. It documents the history of what is easily Britain's most famous war memorial, and probably one of the most famous war memorials anywhere. It was never intended to be such. It started life in wood and plaster as one of a collection of monuments for the parade to celebrate the formal end of the First World War, but it caught the imagination of a public mourning the loss of an entire generation of men in a way that nothing before or since ever has. The industrial-scale slaughter had never been seen before, and most of the dead (or what was left of them) were buried overseas. People needed somewhere to grieve, and the Cenotaph gave them that. It was rebuilt almost unchanged and in the same spot in stone, where it has stood for over a century and is still revered today.

I've largely rewritten and expanded it from the ground up over the course of a couple of years, and slowly accumulated just about every piece of literature which covers it in detail. I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help and advice throughout the process, and to Tim riley for a very thorough GA review, and now I think it's ready for its star. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the sketch
  • Happy to do so if you can explain how
    • Add |upright=X, where X is how much you want to scale it relative to user preferences. For example, if you have a default image size set of 200px, |upright=1.1 will make the image look like it's 220px for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done, except for the gallery in the bottom where I'm not sure I could add anything that's helpful and not overly repetitive.
• File:Greek_Parade_Paris_1919.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Monk-97672_-_The_Temporary_Cenotaph,_Whitehall.jpg
  • Unable to find a date of death for the first but suspecting it may be more recent than 70 years; image removed. Date and US tag added for the second.
• File:Cenotaph_sketch_by_Lutyens.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:The_Cenotaph_the_Morning_of_the_Peace_Procession_by_Sir_William_Nicholson.jpg, File:Reverse_of_Armistice_Day_Memorial_Medal_1928.jpg
  • Done.
    • Where and when was the first two of these first published? For the last, the image description gives a date of 1928, but the tag indicates published pre-1927? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Can you elaborate on why File:Immortal_Shrine_(Will_Longstaff).jpg is believed to be PD in the US?
  • The AWM states that it's in the public domain; that's all the information I have.
    • Okay - I would expect the AWM declaration to apply to status in Australia rather than US. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• File:British_Empire_1897.jpg: source link is dead, missing US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is transcluded from a template. I have no idea what it's provenance is but it's used in thousands of places on enwiki and elsewhere. That said, I'm not convinced of the value of the template in the first place so I've removed it. @Nikkimaria: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

When reviewing the article for GAN I commented that it struck me as of FA standard, and revisiting it confirms my view. The article is highly readable (nearly 7,000 words, but it didn't seem that long even at a fourth perusal, just now), in impeccable prose, comprehensive as far as I can judge, balanced, well proportioned and well and widely referenced. I don't see any aspect that requires improvement, and the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 07:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

• Just from loading the page, I find that the lede is quite long, with four large paragraphs. I won't oppose because of this, since I think it is still within MOS:LEDELENGTH but I do recommend that you take a look at the lede and consider removing or summarising some information, especially if other reviewers note the same concern.
• "...with the repatriation of the Unknown Warrior an unidentified British serviceman exhumed from France..." Place a comma after Warrior
• "The memorial met with public acclaim and has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials," -> "The memorial met with public acclaim, has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials" This new version replaced the first "and" with a comma.
• Note a might need a citation.
• Optional: MOS:NOTES says that, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." This article has the long references listed first, then the short citations, which is outside the norm. Consider switching the order.
• The infobox says the cenotaph was designated a listed building on 5 February 1970, but the article only has the year listed. The full date should be added to the article text so that this information is cited somewhere, or removed from the infobox if the date cannot be verified.

Those are my thoughts after reading the article. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sir Charles Richardson was a Royal Navy officer who served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, eventually reaching the rank of vice-admiral. While most of Richardson's fellow admirals gained the majority of their experience at sea, Richardson found his calling on land, managing to fight in several British Army campaigns. Richardson was also a successful naval commander when he found time to be so, commanding six warships. He continued in the navy after the end of the wars, ending his career in rather strange circumstances surrounding a diplomatic incident in China. Having created this article and then brought it through GAN and ACR, I am now putting it up for consideration here. This is my first attempt at ever doing so! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

This is an interesting and engaging article – well written and evidently (to this layman's eye) comprehensive and widely sourced. It may be a first FAC but it strikes me as a pretty good one. A few comments on the prose:

• Lead

• "he successfully combatted" – the OED, Fowler and Chambers all give the past tense of the verb as "combated". (There's a "combatting" later, too: the single "t" is correct for all inflected forms of the verb.)

• Done.

• "he personally secured the Dutch admiral" – I see from the main text that this means "captured", and it might be as well to use that word, which is clearer, I think.

• Done.

• "en flute" – I had to look that one up. The OED spells it as you spell it, but our Wikipedia article Frenchifies it –en flûte. I have no view on the matter and merely bring the discrepancy to your attention.

• I'll keep it as it is unless any stronger opinions arise.

• East Indies

• "to convey politician Charles Allan Cathcart" – clunky false title; a "the" before "politician" is all that's needed to remedy it.

• Done.

• "This position never eventuated" – wonderfully circumlocutory: do you mean this didn't happen?

• Indeed!

• "Having stayed on on the East Indies Station" – the repeated "on" is grammatically all right but looks strange: "remained on the…" or similar might flow better.

• Done.

• "before he re-joined Phoenix" – superfluous hyphen: the verb is "rejoin" according to the OED and Chambers. (There's another re-join later in the text.)

• Done.

• English Channel and the North Sea

• "Anglo-Russian invasion" – is "Anglo-Something" still appropriate for events after the creation of Great Britain in 1707? One still sees it used, but I wonder if it is right. I'm not sure, and won't object if you prefer to stick with it.

• The associated article uses it, and there are other examples from the period e.g. the Anglo-Russian occupation of Naples.

• Egypt

• "due to disease being rife –"due to" is accepted in American usage as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. Something like "because disease was rife … and poor weather hampered…" would be better, I think.

• Done.

• "where the brigade had eighty-five casualties" – you are a bit inconsistent in how you record numbers: "92 casualties from a crew of 866", "killing twenty-five of her crew", "The 519 Dutch soldiers", "thirty-six acres (fifteen hectares)", "600 yards from the town". I'm with you in expressing numbers in words rather than figures when reasonably practicable (though not everyone would agree with me) but there's scope for consistency.

• My rule has always been that I write out numbers that are below three figures, unless they are in a sentence also using a larger number, as your first example does. I am not sure how I might go about fixing this but am open to any suggestions!

• Your practice makes perfect sense now you explain it. I'd certainly leave things as they are. Tim riley talk 10:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Having come to the attention of Abercromby in both Holland and now Egypt, the general subsequently appointed Richardson" – the dangling modifier needs attention. Something on the lines of "After Richardson came to the attention of Abercromby …. the general appointed him …." would avoid the grammatical error.

• Done.

• Walcheren Campaign

• "Then on 11 April they fought the Battle of the Basque Roads" – who are "they"? The only plural for it to refer back to is "three French frigates", which is plainly not what you mean.

• Rejigged to hopefully make more sense.

• "because of her draught" – this could do with explaining: because her draught was too what?

• Large.

• "commenced firing" – strangely prissy verb (what Fowler calls a "genteelism") for such a vigorous action. "Began" or "started" firing, or even "opened fire", would be stronger, I think.

• Done.

• Post-war service and retirement

• "tensions deescalated on 20 February 1822" – do tensions escalate and deescalate? Perhaps "eased" might be preferable.

• Done.

• References

• "It would be good to include OCLC numbers for books published before ISBNs came in. WorldCat will oblige.

• Find that I am not the best with these. Have added what I could, but have failed with a couple.

• "James, Wiliam (1837)" – Really Wiliam rather than William?

• Oops!

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, I feel. I'll look in again once you've had time to consider these few points. Tim riley talk 10:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought: I was enormously impressed when reading through by your stern refusal to insert superfluous AmE-style commas where they are not required in the Queen's English. I felt a bit humbled, as I have given way here and there over the years to these otiose commas in my own prose. I hope you will fend off any attempts to insert these excrescences, using incendiary rockets and 24-pounder cannon as required. Tim riley talk 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Hi, thank you for your comments! I have replied to all of them. The commas (or lack of them) are most likely down to my absorbing so much British writing when researching for articles such as this. I take little credit! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

One last read-through and I'll be back to − I hope − support. Tim riley talk 10:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy to support. This readable − not to say rollicking − article is well written, appears comprehensive, is widely sourced, well proportioned and admirably illustrated. Meets all the criteria for FA in my view. I hope we shall see further FACs from this source. − Tim riley talk 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "between 1791 and 1792." Perhaps 'in 1791 and 1792.'

• Done.

• "given command of the en flute HMS Alligator." Could we have an in line explanation of "en flute", if only in brackets?

• An explanation in brackets is already given in the main text, I feel having it in the lede as well might clog it up a little much?

• "where he took command of a naval brigade". Perhaps add 'operating ashore?

• Done.

• "in the parish of Shap, in Westmorland". Add 'England'.

• Done.

• Optional: a footnote explaining that passing the exam for promotion to lieutenant and actually being promoted were different things?

• The house is being painted right now and my books are all over the place, but I'll attempt to add a suitable note and reference later on.

• Perhaps mention that Abercromby died at the Battle of Alexandria? Perhaps mention its outcome?

• Done.

• "Caesar was little engaged in the latter battle because of her large draught." The "latter battle" is Les Sables-d'Olonne, which probably isn't what you mean.

• Fixed.

• "protecting a small convoy of four ships". Were they merchant ships?

• Yes.

• Perhaps mention when the Napoleonic War ends?

• Done.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Hi, thanks for the comments! I've acted on all of them bar the examination query (for now!). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments and Source Review - Ykraps

• Until the age of fifteen Richardson was educated at the village of Bampton - Is it 'at the village' or 'in the village'?

• Either is correct. Tim riley talk 20:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...and buried at Fort St. George, where his grave would be visited by Richardson while he served on that station in later years. - The source doesn't say Richardson visited the grave, merely that he saw the site of it (Fort St George) from the ship.

• True. The whole part seems like a bit of artistic license from the biographer, really! I've rewritten it.

Nicely done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Cathcart was already ill when he began the mission... - This is discussed on page 3 of Armstrong, not page 5. Either add a p. 3 citation after mission, or extend the cite at the end of the paragraph to pp. 3-5

• Have added a separate p. 3 citation, p. 4 not being at all relevant.

Best option, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Cathcart agreed that upon reaching China Richardson would become his aide de camp... - Perhaps change 'on reaching China' to 'on arrival in China' to avoid close paraphrasing

• Done.

• The captain of Alexander, Captain Thomas West, wanted to replace Richardson with his own nephew, and made it known to the other officers that this was his goal. - In the book I have access to, this is covered by pp. 21-22 not p. 22. Do you have a different book?

• Nope, a slip from me there. Thanks for the comments so far!

It has happened so thought I'd better ask before commenting on further anomalies.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

More to come. --Ykraps (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure that casualties (article) is the same as hors-de-combat (source). I may be being overly picky. Thoughts?

• Assuming that you are talking about the Royal George figures, I believe "casualties" is a standard enough way of grouping those killed and wounded in battle.

No, I was talking about the Battle of Mandora, The article says the brigade suffered 85 casualties but the source (Armstrong p. 113) describes them as hors-de-combat. These are combatants prevented from taking part for any reason including death, wounds, those who deserted or were taken prisoner, and those who couldn't function effectively because an essential piece of equipment had been put out of action. A gun crew whose cannon has exploded or a cavalryman whose horse has been killed for example. The reason I think I'm being over picky is because the modern (though not contemporary) definition of casualty includes deserters and POWs, and I can't think of any other reason that would have stopped members of Smith's brigade from carrying on.

• Is it worth mentioning that (according to Armstrong (p. 117)) Richardson also had a combat role at Alexandria, "...headed the tars in their attacks on the enemy"?

• Done.

• He subsequently fought at the Battle of Suriname on 5 May 1804... ...was confirmed on 27 September of the same year. This is quite a long passage before a citation. Perhaps add a couple of interim ones?

• Done.

• He was not unemployed for long... ....Allemand safely entering Toulon. Ditto

• Done.

• On 24 August of the same year... ...congratulated Richardson on the action. Ditto

• Done.

• The sentence beginning "Richardson returned to England with Hood in March 1805..." is cited to Armstrong, Byrne and Winfield. My copy of Winfield has {{HMS|Romney|1762|6)) on page 116 which doesn't seem to be relevant to Richardson. Is this an error or a different version of the book?

• I think it must be a different book version. Mine has Centaur on p. 116.

More to come. I like working in managable chunks like this but others prefer to have the whole lot in one go. Do you have a preference?--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy to continue on like this, but not averse to larger chunks if you want to change your process! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 90

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The longest freeway in the United States, and perhaps the world. Stretching from Seattle to Boston, one can drive on I-90 for over 3,000 miles from the Pacific to the Atlantic without having to stop for a traffic signal, only the occasional tollbooth. This article was completely rewritten and improved to GA status in December and has undergone some copyediting since, and I feel it's about ready for FA status. Note that it's a summary article and is meant to be supplemented by the "Interstate 90 in X" state articles. SounderBruce 03:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• "Major intersections" is unsourced. I'm not sure if it duplicates the "Route description" section, if so, what value does it have to show the same info multiple times? (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It is generally repeating information from the Route description, but I've added the state map citations to cover the rest. The map citations are still slightly broken due to the updates to CS1 templates that are still being resolved. SounderBruce 04:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Combe Hill

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex, not far from The Trundle and Whitehawk Camp, both now FAs. The site has been excavated twice, and is a scheduled monument. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review–pass no licensing issues found. I noticed a couple issues with refs though: 1) Oswald 2018 is not cited 2) why is Sheridan formatted differently than other journal sources? (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; both fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

HF - support

Looks interesting; will review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Causewayed enclosures were built in England from shortly before 3700 BC until about 3300 BC" - the article body implies they were only built for about 200 years after 3700 BC, and that the 3300 BC figure is use, not building?

  Yes, though the sources are not as precise about this as I would like. I have changed the lead to match the body, since I think the date of building is more interesting for the lead; the body gives the "continued to be used" dates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• The exact scheduled monument date of 9 October doesn't seem to be cited?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "included it in a list of certain and probable causewayed enclosures" - while I can see how the description of Curwen's work in the body could mean this, I would think that maybe a description more similar to what is in the body would be better

  Reworded per your suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Beaker pottery needs linked or glossed, unless you're referring to actual pottery beakers

  Linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "may have been an area where flints cores were prepared" - is the plural of "flints" intentional here?

  No, just a typo. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Images/sources look

Very interesting, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

RN - comment support

I'm slowly going through the article (a reflection of my time, not the quality of the article!). My first impressions are that this is a well-written and well-researched article. I'll aim to leave full comments this week, but the ones I've noted down so far are minor. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

My initial impression was correct, it's a very fine article. It is well written and very well research, using an excellent range of sources. With articles like this there needs to be a balance between giving an overview of the sources and avoiding going into too much detail, and the article navigates that challenge very well. The comments below are very minor.

Background

• The construction of an enclosure took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required, for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches. It might be worth making it clear that this is a generalisation, rather than specific to Combe Hill

  I made it "The construction of these enclosures" -- is that enough to make the point clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that's clear enough. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Over seventy causewayed enclosures are known in the British Isles It might be worth changing ‘are known’ to ‘have been identified’ to avoid repetition of ‘known’ which is used in the next sentence.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Site

• With the Allcroft plan, I would add to the caption that it does not include part of the outer circuit to the east.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• At the moment, the more detailed plan comes later in the article. I think it would be worth moving it into the ‘site’ section, where the Allcroft plan currently is. The 1908 plan could go in the ‘Archaeological investigations’ section.

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Is it worth saying how many causeways there are at the site?

  I think not -- most are only known from bosing ("early geophys", as an archaeologist friend of mine called it when I told him about it!) -- and have not been confirmed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• That's a very good reason for not including it. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• A secondary circuit is referred to, but it’s not clear which one this is.

  Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• When discussing the radiocarbon date, it might be helpful to clarify from which part of the site it was taken – if possible, I appreciate that since it was done more than 40 years after the fact, establishing exact provenance might not be possible, but it sounds like it came from the southern ditch.

  A combination of Musson's description of his finds plus Drewett's comments make it clear where it came from, and you're correct, it was the southern ditch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• There a bank associated with the outer ditch, and that is indicated on the more detailed plan, but it’s not stated in the text. As the bank is mentioned in relation to the inner circuit, I think it would be useful to mention it for the outer circuit.

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Related to the above, what do you think about specifying in the text that the bank was on the inner-side of the ditches? I’m not especially fussed since it’s clear from the more detailed plan.

  I think it's OK as is, since the plan is right there next to the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Archaeological investigations

• The explanation of why Allcroft’s plan didn’t include the gaps in the banks is very interesting.

  I agree! I wrote the article on Knap Hill, and it was around the time Allcroft published Earthwork of England that Maud Cunnington was excavating that site and posting the first note about causeways. He was just a year or two too early to hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• The article mentions Veronica Keiller in a footnote. The Heritage Gateway says that she was the first to identify the enclosure as possibly neolithic, so I would add that detail and move the content of the footnote into the main body of the text.

  I'm not sure about this. That page cites (5,6) for the fact the she was the first to spot it, but (5) appears to be missing from the list and (6) is Curwen's 1930 paper, which only says she told him about it, not that she identified it. Unless you feel I really should add it, I'd prefer to email the site via the link given (which goes to the East Sussex County Archaeologist) and ask them what source (5) is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• In that case, it would be best to leave the text as it is and see if County Archaeologist can shed light on the matter. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• When talking about Musson’s identification of a hearth, it’s not entirely clear why signs of burning might bring this into question. The point about the ditch being recut should probably be a separate sentence, as at the moment it reads a bit like the putative hearth was in the ditch.

  In fact it was in the ditch. You can read Musson's paper here; he says "a section of the trench is shown.... It will be noticed that a hearth is shown because at that level two flat pieces of tabular flint set close together were found with a small heap of bones close to and the broken piece of quern stone a little farther away. There was charcoal around and underneath the flat slabs, though not in great quantity..." (p. 108) If you look at the section (p. 107) you'll see it's well down in the excavated ditch. Gathering Time says "...a 'hearth', so called because it contained two slabs of tabular flint set side-by-side. There is, however, no mention of burning in situ and the abrupt sides of the feature suggest that it may have been a recut". I think Musson post-dates the era in which it was thought the builders of these camps lived in the ditches, so I don't know what he thought was going on. I've added "in the ditch" to the description; do you think more is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think that covers it. I was a bit surprised that someone thought there might be a hearth in a ditch, but at least it would have offered some shelter. In any case, it's sorted. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• which Drewett dates to the Romano-British period Does Drewett explain how the dating was reached? In a nutshell, I’m looking for a the sentence to finish based on…[pottery/datable organic material/local context and stratigraphy/something else

  Pottery; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• There was a geophysical survey in 2003 which would be worth mentioning, especially as it identified possible postholes (and therefore structures) in the interior. There is a very brief summary in Heritage Gateway, which is probably all the detail we can manage since it’s a grey literature report.

  Added. I don't know why I didn't find this page when writing the article; thanks for the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• On the subject of postholes, since they’re already mentioned a couple of times it might be useful to explain for the reader why they are significant (ie: they indicate there were structures of some form which no longer survive above ground).

  I am inclined not to go into this much detail -- the problem is that if you do this for one article you should do it for all of them, and it's not that hard to figure out. There's now a link to posthole (which you added, I think) and the new discussion of the 2003 survey makes it pretty clear what post-holes can mean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  That seems fair to me, the info is at readers' fingertips via a wikilink. Richard Nevell (talk)}

Sources

• For consistency with the other sources, perhaps include Maud Cunnington’s first name rather than initials

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Richard: all points replied to now; thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, and thank you for bringing this article to my attention! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Richard, I was about to email the County Archaeologist and realized I'd misread the citation -- it's to a 1929 note in SAC that I hadn't seen, which unambiguously credits Veronica Keiller as the first to point out the causeways. I've now put that in the main text and deleted the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I did my best to find something to complain about, but failed. I find —ize endings look a bit quaint in a modern BrE article, but who am I argue with the OED, the last bastion of —izes in England? (Mind you, even the OED prefers "analyse" to "analyze", but let that pass.) If were writing it, I might put Gathering Time in inverted commas, but I'm not. I wondered why we needed to know that Curwen was informed of the site by Veronica Keiller, but it's only a footnote and doesn't get in the way. The article is widely referenced, from a range of sources – some old, most new – and the references and sources seem admirably set out. The text is a pleasure to read, the article appears to be comprehensive and seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Happy to support its elevation. – Tim riley talk 11:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. The "-ize" endings are probably a result of my corrupted mid-Atlantic English; I've been on the left side of the pond for over thirty years now. I hesitated over the footnote about Veronica Keiller, but finally decided to add it because it's a hint to the social nature of archaeology in those days -- Curwen and Alexander Keiller were both gentlemen amateurs, as many archaeologists were, and given that the article notes that Allcroft included the site in his well-known survey, Earthwork of England, in 1908, I think it's interesting that Curwen didn't find out about it from Allcroft, but from Keiller's wife. That thought process is too much OR to include explicitly, of course. Let me know if you think that's too tenuous to be worth including. Re Gathering Time: I've been undecided how to present this in the articles I've cited it in; if I use quotes, do you think I would need to include the quotes in all mentions of it, including the section header? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

–ize -v- –ise: as both are correct in BrE it is entirely a personal choice which to use, and I am not going to carp at your choice (beyond the gentle dig, above). The footnote about Mrs Keiller does no harm and doesn't get in the way, so I can't see any reason to object to it. As to putting inverted commas round Gathering Time, if you're happy with it as it is, without quotes, I'm not quibbling. If you did feel moved to change, I suppose consistency from article to article would be a good thing, but it wouldn't be obligatory, I'm sure. Tim riley talk 13:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Optional: "Musson also found a large quantity of Ebbsfleet ware in one of the ditches." → 'Musson also found a large quantity of Ebbsfleet ware pottery in one of the ditches.'

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Drewett suggested that three polished axes ..." Full name at first mention.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• "would have been visible from as a treeless notch". Something missing after "from"?

  Fixed: "would have been visible from the north as a treeless notch". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Link scheduled monument.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Once the ditch had silted in". Is that right? Not 'silted up'?

  I had to think about this. Looking in Google Scholar convinced me that the phrase does get used in archaeological texts; it's a paraphrase from the source which just says "silted". To my ear, "silted up" implies filling, whereas with an excavation I think what's of interest is the various layers of earth, and a silted layer can look quite different from a deliberate infill with chalk rubble. So I'd like to keep this unless you think it's jarring to someone unfamiliar with the usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's all. Easy and informative reading. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Mary Jane Richardson Jones

Nominator(s): Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century American abolitionist and activist. I have been working on this article since last January (2021). In May 2021, it was reviewed for GA by Edwininlondon, and passed. I believe it meets the FA criteria and look forward to your comments. This is only my second FAC, after Mary van Kleeck, so I am still fairly new to the process. Thanks for taking the time to review it! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AviationFreak

• Add {{circa}} to infobox image caption per image source
  • Done.
• Suggest linking Illinois in the infobox and splitting birthplace into separate city and state links
• South Carolina is linked in the body, but Tennessee and Illinois are not. Could be MOS:OL, not sure if there is a precedent specifically for US states though.
  • Response: I am not sure either, but for now I have linked each state the first time it appears in either lead or body. I'll look and see if I can find a guideline.
    • Fixed - on reflection, I think it is probably overlinking, so I've removed the links to US states.
• her father's house - Was this the family's group house, or were the parents separated at that point?
  • Response: - I do not know. I've never seen any reference suggesting her parents separated, but the source (p. 342) says her father's house in particular, so that's what I wrote.
    • Yeah, it looks like the author in this case just called it was "his estate" and referred to it as such despite living there with his wife. Given that this is what the source says, I'm fine with it.
• North Carolina and Chicago are also linked. Suggest looking through article for linking of geographic names and applying MOS:OL where applicable.
  • Response: - as mentioned above, am happy to remove links if they're not needed.
• freedman's papers or "freedmen's papers"? Everything I see on Google uses an e.
  • Fixed, good catch.
• Jones moved with him - They would have both been "Jones" at this point, and I reckon it would make more sense to just say "the couple moved" unless she specifically followed him after he decided to move.
  • Fixed.
• Suggest linking/piping Fugitive slaves in the United States from "runaway slaves"
  • Done.
• Suggest adding {{Inflation}} to the $3.50 statement
  • Not done - couldn't get it to work right (it just showed '95') so will try again.
    • Done - I believe I've now understood how it's supposed to be used and added it accordingly.
      • Just about - The template uses an index year that doesn't necessarily line up with the current year, so I've made that change here.
        • Fixed. - should be all set now, thanks for the help with this!
• Shorten John Jones' tailoring business to "John's tailoring business". Suggest using "John" instead of "John Jones" at future points in the article.
  • Done.
• I assume Lavinia was also a Jones - If this is the case, maybe say "The Joneses, including their daughter Lavinia" or something similar. Perhaps include birthdate/year or add a sentence about her if we know anything more about her.
  • Response: Her birth name was Lavinia Jones, and she later became Lavinia Jones Lee, presumably through marriage. You can find her on unreliable sources like FindAGrave and Ancestry.com, but there's almost nothing about her in reliable sources I could add. Adjusted the sentence per your recommendation though.
    • That works
• Decapitalize "Church" in "African Methodist Episcopal Church"
  • Done.
• Remove address of tailoring business unless it's particularly significant.
  • Removed. It was included basically only because I was curious and tracked it down, but I agree it's not actually significant.
• What kind of political success did he achieve?
  • Response: - he was elected to the Cook County Commission, the first black man to be so. One of my to-do-list items is improving his page, which is fairly sparse at the moment.
    • Suggest including this info in the article
      • Included.
• Suggest piping "was hanged in" to Virginia v. John Brown#Execution
  • Done.
• Racial integration and/or Civil rights movement (1865–1896) could be linked
  • Done: added the latter.
• The single-sentence paragraph at the beginning of "Later life" should be merged or expanded. Also is a run-on to my reading.
  • Partially done - split the sentence and will expand.
    • Expanded somewhat from Junger source.
      • Looks significantly better - Recommend using the "r=" parameter to round off the lower 3-5 digits in the Inflation template, and the year needs to be fixed as above.
• The article for Phillis Wheatley Club lists the spellings "Phillis" and "Phyllis", but not "Phylis".
  • Fixed adjusted to the Wiki article title.
• before the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 - The fire was introduced earlier in the article, so this could perhaps be shortened to "before the 1871 fire" or "before the Great Fire of 1871".
  • Fixed.
• Oxford comma usage is inconsistent (Hull House, the Phylis Wheatley Club in Chicago, and Provident Hospital uses it, while Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt and others does not)
  • Fixed, added comma.
• in the latter case, providing him lodgings at her home and funding his medical education. - Suggest changing to "in the latter case, she provided him with lodgings at her home and funded his medical education" to match tense with the first part of the sentence.
  • Done.
• Pluralization of nouns ending in "s" is inconsistent - Jones' is used in some places, but Ida B. Wells's is later used. This is a fairly rule-laden area and may warrant a closer look.
  • Response - my Achilles heel of grammar. I can never remember what's right! I'll go through and fix it.
    • Fixed I think the article is now in accordance with MOS:PLURALNOUN.
      • Looks good, I missed that guideline
• Suggest She died on... -> "Jones died on..."
  • Done.
• the Chicago Defender should be "The Chicago Defender"
  • Done.
• FN3, which has a lot of references, is 503 unavailable for me. Could just be my end though.
  • Question: is that the Junger source? If so, I can access it so might just be you. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was Junger. Tried again and it worked just fine so perhaps I was just trying at a bad time.

This is all I have for now. Looks like it relies heavily on some references and there are relatively few footnotes for a FAC, but if the sources are reliable and the article is comprehensive that shouldn't be a problem. AviationFreak💬 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments! Going through the last issues now and of course would welcome more improvements. It's a relatively short article, but as best as I know, it's a comprehensive article on the known aspects of her life. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure thing! There's a couple places that still need just a little bit of doing, but overall I think the article is looking pretty good. AviationFreak💬 22:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

    Any further comments, or has everything been addressed to your satisfaction? Ganesha811 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Roberta Williams

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a notable game developer, who earned their reputation mainly with the King's Quest series from the 1980s and 1990s. She arguably developed the first graphic adventure game, which catapulted her career and her company, Sierra Entertainment. She retired in the late 1990s after Sierra went through a series of acquisitions (including some unfortunate financial drama). But she leaves a great legacy of titles she personally developed, plus the successful business that she ran with her husband, Ken. She has won lifetime achievement awards for her overall career. I think the article is already in pretty strong shape after the GA, and should be very thorough, and pretty well-written. The prose can always use another pass and I will work at this to bring it up to featured quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AviationFreak

Just conducting a prose review here. At least to my reading, this article contains a lot of extraneous commas. I personally tend to be fairly particular about this and I don't want to assert that my opinion is necessarily the only "right" way of doing things, so maybe hold off on this until another editor gives a second opinion. Moved from the FAC page on 11:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Add birthplace to infobox (if known to city-level accuracy)
• Link California or Southern California
• Maybe clarify that it was her first job after high school, not university or other education.
• became pregnant just a few months after - suggest "a few months later"
• Link computer operator
• Link Interactive fiction as "text adventure games" (or Text-based game if you feel that would be more appropriate)
• fulfill their dream of living in the woods is used word-for-word twice in adjacent sections. Suggest adding some variation.
• A release year (1980) is given for Wizard and the Princess, but not Mystery House, Time Zone, or other games in the article.
• "disk" and "disc" are both used in the article. Should be standardized, probably in favor of the American "disk".
  • Usually it's disk for "hard disk" and disc for "optical disc"; can just clarify in-line if that's the case here czar 06:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Link Oakhurst, California
• That year - Does this reference 1982? The previous sentence just says "around this time", which I assume to mean "anywhere from 1981ish to 1983ish".
• Link to Simi Valley should be expanded to "Simi Valley, California" so that California is not duplinked after above changes
• "Sierra" is italicized in the second sentence of the next paragraph.
• Link Jim Henson
• Suggest piping "game adaptation" link to include the preceding "a", thus indicating that the link is not just to an article on game adaptations.
• Did the company or the game (The Dark Crystal) attract the media attention?
• The concept of a pseudo-3D game that allows a character to walk in front of or behind objects is explained twice in the same paragraph
• Suggest "16 color" -> "16-color"
• Did King's Quest III double the previous games' size in terms of disk space, game length, or some other metric?
• Not a prose consideration, but I see that FN19 does not include a page number or numbers.
• Suggest adding "of all time" or "in the series" to one of the most influential games as it is currently unclear. Also, is this talking about video games specifically or games in general?
• to the detriment of the game's traditional adventure elements - According to who?
• she discussed with Ken about selling their stock - Suggest change to "she talked to Ken about selling their stock"
• Suggest piping a link to Financial crime somewhere, either in the phrase "allegations of financial fraud" or "convicted of financial fraud". Accounting scandals could also be linked, as it's the more specific article for overrepresenting revenue.
• Suggest using {{Inflation}} as you see fit within the article, not required though by any means
• In hindsight, it became apparent that this was her retirement - Is this her hindsight? I actually can't find it in the cited source (only finding "18 games in 20 years"), but maybe I'm just missing something.
• ...was in the past, and she was focused on... - Suggest "...was in the past, and that she was focused on..."
• her husband Ken - I know it's nitpicky, but this feels like a reintroduction of Ken who is already well-established as her husband. Suggest just "her husband" or "Ken".
• Per MOS:OL, countries' names should not be linked
• Suggest noting that Odd Manor is a game developed by Facebook
• Link Leisure Suit Larry
• The name of the scholarship is not italicized in the source
• Link Next Generation (magazine)
• ...their 75 list of power players... - Suggest "...their list of 75 power players..."
• ...highlighting their role in co-founding Sierra Entertainment... - This is the first time the company is referred to as Sierra Entertainment, as opposed to "Sierra On-Line" or just "Sierra". Suggest just shortening to "Sierra".
• Italicize Computer Gaming World at start of next paragraph
• TGA and the 2014 installment thereof are linked separately, while the GDCA is only linked as the 20th installment
• ...as well as her work role in creating the King's Quest series and co-founding Sierra On-Line. - What is a work role? Also, if you end up shortening to "Sierra" above it might not hurt to do it here.
• Italicize Ars Technica
• Mixed-Up Mother Goose is duplinked

This is what I've got. Certainly a pioneering figure deserving of a FA, glad that effort is being made! AviationFreak💬 00:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

AviationFreak, hey, could you move the review to project's talk? It would help a lot to alleviate the length of an FAC, as this would double in length once the nominator answers these! You can keep the general comments and support here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing! AviationFreak💬 11:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@AviationFreak: Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all your comments. Mostly focused on prose, but also dug into the research where it helped to clarify and be more specific. Let me know if there is anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks much better now, just a few tweaks:

• Change the "r=" parameter in {{Inflation}} to better suit the understood level of uncertainty in large dollar amounts (i.e. $500 million)
• 20th Game Developers Choice Awards is piped from "Pioneer Award". Suggest making the piped text "earned the Pioneer Award".

That's all that I'm seeing at this point. Excellent work! AviationFreak💬 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi AviationFreak, sorry about this, but could you do me a favour and move your comments back to where they belong, on this page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No worries, they're back. Going to courtesy ping CactiStaccingCrane to let them know that comments generally should stay here. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 22:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @AviationFreak: Fixed those last two things. That looks like everything for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Sorry to do this, but one other thing after looking over the lede again - The broad The Game Awards is linked, while the more specific 20th Game Developers Choice Awards is linked. They should probably be either both the awards ceremonies or the specific iterations thereof. AviationFreak💬 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Placeholder; I'll review after I get some other projects done. Panini! • 🥪 12:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: note that The Secret got announced a couple weeks ago as a 3D and VR remake of Colossal Cave Adventure ([1]). --PresN 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

National Front (UK)

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a fascist political party that rose to become the fourth most electorally successful party in 1970s England. It has been a GA since 2018 and has been through FAC twice before (in 2018 and 2019), both times failing because it was just too long. Since then it has been trimmed down quite a bit, with sub-articles split off to enable that, and now pretty much fits within Wikipedia's wordcount guidelines (at just over 10,000 words). We only have one FA-rated article on a UK political party I believe (Referendum Party, which I brought through FAC in 2017), so it would be nice to bring that number up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Two weeks, as they say, is a long time in politics  :) I will look in; suggest paging editors who looked in last time, also. SN54129 20:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Sadly, User:Brianboulton is no longer with us, and but I can ping @Wehwalt:, @Slatersteven:, @Tony1:, @Carabinieri: @Vanamonde93:, @Casliber:, @Jens Lallensack:, and @SandyGeorgia: to see if they want to take a second look. No obligation on anyone, of course. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• As a quick note, the page was >13k readable words on last nom, a significant reason for its archiving, but is now c 9850. As an ex-80s anti-fascistic skin/punk, proper review to follow. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Zufar ibn al-Harith al-Kilabi

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Zufar ibn al-Harith al-Kilabi, a 7th-century Bedouin chief. He backed the Umayyad Caliphate's main challenger, Ibn al-Zubayr, when the Umayyads were on the brink of collapse. His Qaysi warriors were annihilated by their tribal enemies, the Kalb, who supported the Umayyads. Zufar led the Qaysi survivors in rebellion, and on a years-long vendetta against the Kalb and their Yaman confederates. He surrendered, mainly on his terms, securing for himself and the Qays a major stake in the Umayyad state. The vendetta, meanwhile, played out for decades as a bloody competition for power, which eventually tore apart the Umayyad state from within. Started article in 2016, it passed GA last year, and I have improved it since. Believe it meets FA criteria now. Al Ameer (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

Will review during the following days. Constantine ✍ 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• As usual, I made some copyedits. Feel free to revert/discuss.

Early career

• Presumably Zufar was born in Basra? Could this be made clear?
• Could we add that many of the Kilab/Amr settled in Basra as a garrison town? Otherwise the link with pre-Islamic Arabia is unclear.
• Can 'nose rein' be linked to Nose ring (animal) or is it something else?

Rebellion against the Umayyads

• the district they dominated IIRC, this domination was because they were the most numerous Arab tribe there, right? I would make this clear.
• Not sure whether the Qays-Yaman rivalry can be described as 'benign', even before it became bloody. Perhaps 'non-violent'? Or even strike the 'previously benign' comment entirely, since by opening a 'bloody phase', it is established that previously that was not the case.
• The Qaysi vanguard is not mentioned before.
• Before entering Iraq, Abd al-Malik resolved to suppress Zufar and the Qays in the Jazira either here, or when Zufar's capture of Qarqisiya is mentioned, it might be a good idea to stress the strategic importance of the city as controlling the passage from Syria into Mesopotamia and vice versa, a role it already had during the Roman-Persian Wars.

Reconciliation with the Umayyads

• Abd al-Malik accepted their counsel, but could not dislodge Zufar does this mean that attacks were launched against Qarqisiya? Then this should be made explicit. Right now it is only implied.
• By the end of the summer can we add the year? It is unclear whether we are still in 691.
• effectively broke the Yamani monopoly on the Syrian army At the risk of violating WP:SS, can you briefly mention the implications of this?

Sources

• All sources are high-quality, scholarly sources, including several standard reference works.
• OCLC for Caskel 1966

That's it. A nice, well-written, well-referenced article, as usual. Constantine ✍ 15:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Trapani

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a naval battle between Venice and Genoa, which resulted in one of the most lopsided and humiliating defeats in naval history, as almost the entire Genoese fleet was captured. Part of an on-again, off-again effort of mine dedicated to medieval, and especially Venetian, naval history, this article was promoted to GA in 2018 and A-class in 2021. I am looking forward to the comments and suggestions on how to improve it further and make it worthy of FA status. Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup. Also, I'm not a military history buff and probably won't notice if something is missing here content-wise.
• "Captain-General of the Sea" → Our article on that doesn't use the hyphen, any reason here?
• That's the only nitpick I could find, so I have no hesitation supporting on the basis of prose. Really nice article. AryKun (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hello AryKun and thanks for your time and your kind words. Re the hyphen, no particular reason, it is just a variant spelling in some English sources. Removed now. --Constantine ✍ 09:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

This looks familiar. Recusing to review.

• Any reason why you don't give the date of the battle in the first sentence of the lead?
  • No reason, added now.
• Infobox: "1,200 crewmen drowned ... many killed". Perhaps "many killed, including 1,200 crewmen drowned"?
  • Good point, changed.
• OCLC for Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani? (1154456556)
  • Added the work's ISBN to the template.
• "the Venetian navy had demonstrated its superiority over its Genoese counterpart." Delete "had".
  • Done.
• "there were several reasons why". You give two. Perhaps replace "several" with 'two'?
  • Done.
• "they joined the rest of the fleet at Bonifacio later in May". Do you mean 'in late May'? (You can't say "later in May" as this is the first mention of May.)
  • Removed the 'later' as it is indeed redundant and confusing.
• "four from Crete, three from Zara". I assume that the numbers refer to ships; is it known of what type?
  • Yes, 'full' galleys. Made clear now.
• Foreign words should use an appropriate lang template, not just be in italics.
  • Implemented.
• "24 of the captured galleys were towed away". The MoS suggests not starting a sentence with a number.
  • Rephrased.
• "Some 1,200 Genoese drowned, many were killed". How about 'Many Genoese were killed, including 1,200 drowned ...'?
  • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Lovely work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild for your time and suggestions. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

William Utermohlen

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about William Utermohlen, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995. Over the next five/six years, his self-portraits would become more distorted until around 2001, where he could not draw anymore.

I started work on this article in late-July 2021, and in that time, it has gone through two unsuccessful FACs (shown above), and two peer reviews (one unsuccessful). After around two and a half months of gradual changes after the second FAC, I think this article is (actually, maybe?) ready for FA-status. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil

This may have failed in last noms due to lack of feedback. It needs a copyedit, wider (ie book) sourcing, and expansion in areas, all of which are do-able.

• Merged and re-giged the lead, feel free to reverse.
• Utermohlen's self-portraits gained attention after they were published in a 2001 paper from the medical journal The Lancet - paintings are not "published"; should this be reproduced, or detailed/examined ?
• changed it to "after they were analysed" Realmaxxver (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• By 2002, he could no longer draw, and was sent to the Princess Louise nursing home in 2004 - is "sent" right here; entered is better, unless he was committed.
• Yeah, I think that's better; though I think that your edit is better. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• In 1994 Utermohlen was commissioned to make a portrait of a client's family is completely under explained and begs the question too the point of, do you not know, or (less likely) was it a secret?
• "Head I" (2000) consists of a head with eyes, a mouth and a smudge on the left that appears to be an ear.[55] In the centre of the head itself, a crack is shown - keep as one sentence so we know not talking about the other heads...also as Head I is titled...how many were they, and did the follow the same titlinig format? - would be great to expand this section, which seems in part at least, influenced by Francis Bacons' Head series.
• We may have to consult somebody like SandyGeorgia for this, but do any of the source mention that the "masks" may relate to "Facial Masking" prevalent in late stage Parkinson's disease
• The rest of the portraits are of a blank head, one of them erased - do you mean they consist of just the outline of a head, part of one which is scrubbed by an eraser. Now I'm seeing more and more how they are influenced by Francis Bacon which we need to expand on...re obliterated heads, which is what I think the source means, see Three Studies for a Self-Portrait, (Bacon, 1979), and Study for a Self-Portrait—Triptych, 1985–86 . I would really like you to mine sources in this area.
• Patricia explained that his later work such as the Masks series shows similarities to movements such as German Expressionism. - and? This is highly relevant so please don't leave us hanging by only mentioning Expressionism.
• To note, this needs an extensive source review (which I can do) as 1 first time nom, 2 veers towards WP:MED
• More later. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Lead: Utermohlen's self-portraits have been displayed in several exhibitions, including in Chicago and London. This maybe misleading in establishing notability, as both cities have tiny art galleries that show works by friends. Say which galleries, which will hopefully be blue linked. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Presumably the lithographs came before the Conversation series. This was muddled and not clear, but have reordered the two sections given (your) descriptions of his condition during the respective periods. Please check. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Stopping here for now as Wetrorave's ask for expansion on the paintings below is similar to mine above. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

DMT Biscuit

More comments TBA

• "He moved to London in 1962 and married the art historian Patricia Redmond in 1965." - how relevant towards the lede is this?

• "before returning to London in 1975." - see above.

• I agree with Ceoil, publication seems like a misnomer. Maybe explain the relationship between Utermohlen and the journal.

• "He experienced memory loss beginning in 1991" → "He experienced memory loss, which began in 1991.

• "which included two years in the Caribbean" - relevance?

• wikilink Margaret Lock

• Italicize The Times and provide Tulle's credentials in prose; is she an art historian, anthropologist or physician?

• "Illness" → "Alzheimers", just as we say death rather than pass away

• "Chris Boicos, Utermohlen's art dealer, said that the subject matter of the lithographs were a metaphor for the forthcoming Alzheimer's disease diagnosis a year later" - admittedly, I am somewhat lost with this. Is it implying that Utermohlen was aware/surmised that he was in falling into the thralls of dementia? If he was aware/foresaw and the metaphor is intentional then that should be reflected by the prose.

• "took him to the doctor" - informal; either mention the practitioner's field (physician, psychiatrist, neurologist) or just explain that they sought medical care.

Comments from Wetrorave

Since you gave such a thorough review on Everywhere at the End of Time, it's only fair that I do the same. Will add comments soon enough. Reviewing per WP:FACR of course.Wetrorave please don't 4 April 2022 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• 1a is reasonably met after my copyedits. You may want to read Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1b is one I'm not too certain of. I think the sections Early life and Death could be more comprehensive; the Find sources template at the Talk page should help with this. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• The Death section was initially a paragraph in the "Alzheimer's disease and death" section, but was moved into a separate section during the second FAC. I've merged that section into that bigger section. With the Early life section, The Studio 360 source and the Philadelphia Inquirer source could expand it. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• 1c is met; all sources seem high-quality and the vast majority of sentences are referenced. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1d is met, not much to say here. The article presents a neutral POV. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1e is met. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1f is met per earwig's copyvio detector. All copied sentences are quoted and simple sentences such as "Utermohlen was born in December" are fine to include without quotes. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• 2a, 2b, and 2c are all met, though the lead may need to be changed per 1b. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• 3 is not met. This article could definitely include more of Utermohlen's paintings, especially from his earlier cycles (most per pd 1927-1977 criteria). Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• 4 is met. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the biggest problems of this article is that it needs some expanding and addition of more of Utermohlen's paintings. I'd love to see both this and EATEOT featured though. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Kaze to Ki no Uta

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) and KuroMina (talk)17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Like its forerunner The Heart of Thomas (brought to FAC last year), Kaze to Ki no Uta ("The Poem of Wind and Trees") is one of the most influential manga works of the 1970s, contributing significantly to the development of Japanese girls comics. I recently expanded the article and brought it to GA status, and to peer review in advance of this FAC. I believe the article now meets requirements for FA status, and welcome any feedback that can further improve it. (Sidebar: I've listed KuroMina as a co-nominator, as they sourced and translated multiple Japanese-language articles that helped to significantly expand the Development section of the article. The co-nomination is not an expectation or obligation to participate in this FAC, though they are certainly welcome to do so.) Morgan695 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• According to MOS:INOROUT, periods should be on the outside of quotation marks unless you are quoting a full sentence, so this would apply to instances like "with sad and painful human relationships and emotions." and "solid enough, if rather melodramatic.". There are points where the period is put on the outside, like "from now on, comics will probably be called 'Kaze to Ki no Uta and thereafter'"., so it is more so a matter of going back and making it consistent throughout.

This is my only comment. All of my comments have already been addressed in the peer review. Once this has addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47 OK, I believe I've corrected the relevant quotations.

Thank you for addressing this point. I support the FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from AK

• I'll try to review this soon. AryKun (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.

Extended content

"1970, upon which" → "1970, following which"? Done. "improve her low level" → "increase the low level" Done. "depictions of sadomachosicm" → "depictions of sadomasochism" Done. 'rendered him as "a creature' → 'rendered him "a creature' Done. "(see Context above)" → This note isn't really necessary and is a bit intrusive. I think it's useful to link the sections here, since "Context" references the specific works that inspired the series, as well as the narrative tropes in Hesse's works that influenced the artists. "sold as of 2019" → Any more recent info? Those are the most recent figures. 'Cover page to "Demian"' in the alt text should be 'Cover page of "Demian"' Done.

• Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated. AryKun (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @AryKun Hi, response above.
• Support based on prose. AryKun (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mindful (song)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Mindful" is a single from K. Michelle's third studio album More Issues Than Vogue (2016). It is hip-hop and R&B song in which Michelle raps and warns critics to be mindful of her. The song does not take itself seriously, and this playful approach can be best seen in its music video which is set in a colorful trailer park. "Mindful" received positive reviews from critics, but it did not chart anywhere. Regardless, this song just stuck out with me for whatever reason.

I initially worked on this article in 2018 and brought it up to GA status at the time. Last month, I put this up for a FAC, and I received very helpful comments from @Nikkimaria:, @FrB.TG:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Pseud 14:, and @Aza24:, but I decided to withdraw the nomination because I wanted to clarify its single status. Since then, I found an official press release from Michelle's record label so I feel more confident about the article. As always, I would greatly appreciate any feedback! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I supported previously and see nothing to change that now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my last review. Except for a minor MoS adjustment I made, I have no complaint. FrB.TG (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you! The adjustment is greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed/justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Improvements look good. Support per my review in the previous nomination. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• By the time I got around to looking at the article during its last review, I felt it was ready for promotion then (although, knowing absolutely nothing of this artist, I wouldn't have noticed any lack of material). I was going to support, with perhaps a comma comment, when the nominator requested archiving, so I was unable to do so. Considering that they did not know that I was about to support promotion, I felt that was an exceptionally mature and self-reflective approach, and demonstrates a nominator who is willing to go beyond the call of duty to ensure the encyclopedia comes first in the true spirit of FAC. It was a really honorable thing to do. I am pleased to rectify my tardiness now! SN54129 16:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind words and for your support. I have tried to become more self-reflective and when I was uncertain about a key element of the song (i.e. its single status), I wanted to make sure that I did my due diligence to do the research and I thought it would be more respectful to do outside of the FAC space to avoid detracting from other nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hopefully @WP:FAC coordinators: will take into account the length of time it previously spent at FAC, and how close to promotion it was, and promote this within a reasonable period—seven days of the nom, say—to make up for it 👍 SN54129 09:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
• "More Issues Than Vogue (2016)" → Is listing the year necessary when you mention later the song was released as part of the album on Feb 19, 2016?

• The single was actually released before the album, which was released on March 25, 2016. It is standard to include year that the album was released in this type of situation as sometimes a single can be released in a different than the actual album. The repetition is a bit annoying, but I think it is important to avoid any ambiguity or potential points of confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe link studio album.

• That's a good suggestion, but I do not think it is necessary for two reasons. The concept of an album is pretty universally understood by a majority of readers (at least in my opinion), and having the link so close to the link for the album and T-Pain could raise some sea of blue concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Jet's" → You could replace the apostrophe with {{'}} so it doesn't overlap with the t.

• That is a very good catch! I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overall really nice article, only a couple of very minor nitpicks I could find.
• Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated. AryKun (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• @AryKun: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it! I would be more than happy to review your FAC. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support as all my concerns have been addressed. AryKun (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. I appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Formatting

• Pass, per last review

Reliability

• Pass, per last review and valid rationale for HotNewHipHop

Verifiability

• Couldn't find any issues
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Non-expert prose review. Comments with a question mark signify that I am unsure about my suggestion, and leave the final decision to your discretion.

• "one of them has the explicit and clean versions as well as the music video." I don't know what is meant by this phrase. What is the "them" that is being referred to here?

• I have hopefully clarified this in the prose. It is intended to mean that one of the digital releases includes these versions of the song and the music video. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• "...along with "Not a Little Bit", "Got Em Like", and "Ain't You"." Should these singles be wikilinked?

• Good catch. I am not sure how I over-looked that one. I have linked the first and third song as the second one does not have an article (at least at the moment). Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Seriah Buckler summarized the video..." Who is this person? Introduce their connection to the song in the article.

• Revised. I actually had the introduction to this person later on in the article rather than on her first mention so that was a mistake on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Michelle further promoted "Mindful" through live performances." This line is in the lede, but I could not find in the article where it talks about Michele's promotion of this single or live performances. Did I miss this in the article?

• The second paragraph of the "Background and release" section includes a sentence about her live performances of the song (at least the live performances that received coverage from reliable sources). Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Thank you for the review. You have helped a lot as you have pointed out issues that I must have just been reading over while prepping this for a FAC. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed and I can support. Z1720 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis

For a one-minute song this article looks pretty ready for FA. I picked up several issues; if they're resolved I'll support this FAC. GeraldWL 04:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Expand "R&B" to "rhythm and blues (R&B)" per MOS:ACRO1STUSE. Although: I'm fine with the status quo as well, since I guess R&B is a pretty common term mainly attributed to the genre? But just wanna note.

• R&B is the standard not only in Wikipedia, but in how music sources cover this genre so I do not think this is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Link studio album and single?

• Both are rather universally understood concepts so I feel that would be over-linking. Plus, the studio album link would be by the More Issues Than Vogue link would could create a sea of blue. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Need another link for studio album in "for K. Michelle's third studio album More Issues Than Vogue"

• I did not not link studio album in the lead so I did not link it in this section either. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "in Atlanta"-- in some parts, the state is mentioned but in others--like this one here--it's not. I'm aware that the Atlanta article has no state in the title, but I suppose it'll be better to add the state for consistent flow.

• From my understanding, larger and more well-known American cities do not use the state (i.e. Seattle, New York City, etc.). Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "along with" --> "along with those for"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The production of the "Mindful" video was shown on the reality television series"-- reality television duplicate link

• Removed. Very good catch! Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "summarized the"-- should there be a "that" between?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "T-Pain does not appear in the video." Should this be noted? Isn't songwriters not appearing in a music video a common thing?

• Fair enough. I have removed it. I had added it to the article as this was pointed out in an article, and T-Pain does have fame and recognition so that's probably why that article pointed it out, but it is rather trivial and does not really flow with the section. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Michelle raps throughout the song. She had previously rapped on her 2012 mixtape 0 Fucks Given and a remix of Yo Gotti's 2015 single "Down in the DM"." --> "Michelle raps throughout the song, which she had previously rapped on her 2012 mixtape 0 Fucks Given...."

• Revised with a slightly different wording to avoid having raps/rapped in the same sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "full-on urban R&B"-- MOS:ACRO1STUSE. For the "urban", I think Urban contemporary music is being referred to.

• Added link for urban contemporary music, but R&B should stay the same per my above response (especially since this is a quote). Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Michelle directs the song toward "all kinds of hos""-- or "hoes"?

• The citation spells it as "hos". Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Aight so I Googled "hoes vs hos" and turns out different press sources use different wordings: "An AP story (on the San Francisco Chronicle site), CNN, NewsBusters, and Media Matters use hos while the New York Post and Chicago Tribune use hoes." I'll let that pass since it's a quote, same case with Among Us' article. GeraldWL 14:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Cragg," also "writing for The Guardian"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "and Jet's Najja Parker considered it not safe for work"-- I think, with the previous descriptions, readers can already guess the song is NSFW. Perhaps it can be linked in the word "explicit" at the background section, with a Jet citation?

• Removed. It is probably not necessary since the release section already talks about explicit/clean versions of the song being released. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "some of the few instances she has done "fun songs""-- but in the lead fun songs isn't quoted?

• I thought it was a basic enough quote that it did not need quotation marks in the lead (as I avoid that in general), but I have paraphrased it now for the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Total duration?

• From my understanding, the total duration for this kinds of track lists are not included. See "I'm Goin' Down" as a recent example of a song FA that does not have this. I do see your point though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thank you for your review! I appreciate all the feedback and you have helped to improve the article a lot. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications, and yeah I do need a little sea of blue reminder every now and then ;-; ... but it looks all good now, and with Elias' comment resolved too I'm giving a support. Nice stuff! GeraldWL 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Elias

Hi! First time participating in an FAC, so please be gentle ^^;. Since I am too busy IRL to substantially comment on the prose, and since other folks seem to have reviewed most aspects of the article already, I'll go ahead and drop a drive-by comment here instead. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 05:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Critics noted that its uptempo production differed from Michelle's previous singles, and she stated that it was one of the first times she recorded a fun song. / Critics praised Michelle's rapping in "Mindful", and referred to it as a highlight of her singles.

While the sentences are separated by a line break, I feel like we can change one of the "critics" here into a synonym to make the transition from the first paragraph to the next flow more smoothly. Perhaps change "critics noted... " to "some reviewers noted..." ?

@Troubled.elias: I have revised the lead using your suggestion. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: No problem! Happy to have helped ^^; If you wish to do a QPQ, you may opt to give your comments in this peer review I've set up for "Streets" (song). Doing the undertaking as my first foray into bringing an article to FA Class. Cheers! ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to help with your peer review. I will try to get to it on Friday if that is okay with you as that is my day off work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... Frank Russell, the second Earl Russell. He wasn't prime minister like the first earl, Lord John Russell, nor a famous philosopher like the third, Bertrand Russell. He had three marriages, all of which ended badly, and other events that marred his life, but he still accomplished a good deal. He was also the last person convicted in a trial before the House of Lords, and the first celebrity to get a Nevada divorce, the two being directly related. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• Suggest scaling up the trial image

Scaled.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• File:Frank,_2nd_Earl_Russell.jpg is claimed as own work, which given the date seems unlikely to be true

I've fixed this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Now needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• File:Frances_Elliot_Murray_Kynynmound.png needs a US tag, and to satisfy the UK tag the image description should include steps taken to try to identify the photographer

Since it was published in the US in 1911, I've changed to a US tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that the file has been changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Since File:Russell2.jpg is hosted on Commons it needs a tag for country of origin. Ditto File:Russell_leaving_trial.jpg

The first is done as an engraving (non photographic) with author unknown more than 70 years ago. The second is signed, though I can't make it out, so I've deleted it since presumably it could be made out.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• File:Russell,_Countessc.1910_(23083012452).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that I can see. I'm content to rely on the knowledge of the LSE (and Fae) regarding the item.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would anticipate LSE would reflect the status of the work in the UK; what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Happy to support. No complaints about the content – clear, most readable and impressively referenced – and just a few anglicisations and other minor tweaks to suggest, none of them important enough to affect my support.

• Lead

• "likely because authorities there" – for some mysterious reason this is not a BrE idiom. Even more oddly, an adverb in front of it would make it perfectly idiomatic, but without one the normal BrE form is "probably because". There's another "likely" in the Trial before the Lords section (third para). The "most likely" in Second Marriage is impeccably BrE.
• "antiwar" (and also in main text) – the OED prescribes "anti-war" (though I ought to mention that Chambers is happy with "antiwar").

• Education

• "longtime" – both the OED and Chambers hyphenate that one.

• Trial before the Lords

• "dueling" – "duelling" in BrE.
• "pled" – the past tense of "plead" in standard BrE is "pleaded", though I see from Fowler that "pled" is not only AmE but Scottish too, and is also found in some English dialects. (A swift rummage in the archives suggests, as I rather expected, that "pled" was once standard English here – Spenser uses it in The Faerie Queen, but by the 18th century "pleaded" was standard.)
• "occupied by journalist W. T. Stead – I shan't bleat on about false titles but I will point out that you give Stead (and Asquith) spaced initials but T.J. Sanderson and H.G. Wells (and possibly others I haven't spotted) unspaced ones. Better to be consistent one way or the other, I think.

• Second marriage

• "practiced" – in BrE the noun is "practice" but the verb is "practise".

• Third marriage; First World War years

• "wed" – the current (2015) edition of Fowler says of this verb that because of its brevity "the word is de rigueur in the popular press" but it is "irretrievably naff" in more serious writing. I see no reason to argue with that.
• "gambling at bridge" – I imagine this would be auction bridge (a bit early to be contract bridge?) and if so it might be an idea to link to it.

• Labour politician and death (1921—1931)

• "The book was well-received" – Oh, I hate hyphens! I think that one has a well-received book but that a book is well received.
• "permitting local authority" – either a missing "a" or "any" or else the noun should be plural, I think.
• "quickly walked back" – not an idiom familiar to me, though it isn't hard to work out its meaning here.

That's all from me. The article seems to meet all the FA criteria, and I gladly support its elevation. I'd never heard of this character and I have much enjoyed making his acquaintance. – Tim riley talk 09:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Much obliged. All of those done. Thank you for the review and especially for instruction on the finer points of the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Placeholder by Moisejp

Hi Wehwalt, hope you're well. I'll review this soon. It looks interesting! Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Placeholder by KJP1

Me too, interesting indeed. One immediate thing - the Ravenscroft Hall linked in the 2nd para. of Early life isn’t the right one. Cheshire’s a fair way from Trellech. The Russell house is this one, [2], which is more generally known as Cleddon Hall. Ah, my youth in the Wye Valley wasn’t entirely misspent. Will get to a full review shortly. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wehwalt - I've done a quick Start class, Ravenscroft, as a replacement. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made that change. Many thanks. Looking forward to the review. Frank is an interesting fellow, indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

1985–86 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's my 11th nomination of a season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. I was 13 years old at the time and was devastated when the team managed to blow their chance of promotion. Hopefully this article won't do the same - see what I did there.....? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Placeholder, leaving comments later today. FrB.TG (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "After slipping to as low as ninth" - do we really need "as low as"?
• "Over the summer break, the club spent £80,000 (equivalent to £250,000 in 2020) installing..." This is an incredibly long sentence. Suggest splitting it.
• "however despite" - I'm not a fan of this double contradiction.
• As noted below by mujinga, there are a little too many usages of however's. In some cases, you could opt for the simpler "but".
• "on this occasion he felt the need to say that he felt" -> "on this occasion he said that he felt"
• "reaching the third round of the FA Cup" - let's make sure it wins here. ;)

Otherwise very well-written. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: - all actioned with these edits I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - fine work, Chris. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by mujinga

• Gillingham F.C. not Gillingham at top of infobox?
• I'll come back to lead after reading through the article
• "gained promotion from the Fourth Division as runners-up in 1974" - not sure if "as runners-up" is needed
• "made his debut but was substituted" - maybe say in what minute? could then use "then" instead of "but"
  • Unfortunately I could not find a source for that specific detail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• "Two days later, Gillingham won their first league game of the season" - I'm confused, do you mean "Two days later, Gillingham won their first away league game of the season"?
  • No, it was their first win of any kind. See the results table further down -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • ah I see now! so they lost to lincoln, right Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • so I'm getting thrown off in this section by a couple of things. "The team's first game of the season was away to Lincoln City on 17 August and resulted in a 1–0 win for the home team;[10] Elsey made his debut but was substituted.[11] Gillingham finished the game with ten men after Terry Cochrane was sent off.[12] Seven days later the team played their first home Third Division game" - 1/ I think Third Division needs to be moved up to the beginning in "team's first game" to make it clear that is a Third Division game and 2/"resulted in a 1–0 win for the home team" would be clearer as "resulted in a 1–0 loss" Mujinga (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• "They extended their unbeaten league run to seven games" - so Lincoln City was a friendly?
  • No - not sure why you would think that from reading the article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • lincoln / darlington / bristol city / bolton / notts C / chesterfield / wigan / bury - thats eight matches so surely the "unbeaten league run to seven games" should be eight? Mujinga (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • solved above Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• "They extended their unbeaten league run to seven games with draws against Notts County and Chesterfield and wins over Wigan Athletic and Bury,[10] after which Gillingham were fourth in the league table" - seems strange to start with they and then have Gillingham later on, suggest "The team extended ... after which they .."
• "Cascarino was suspended" suggest "Cascarino had been suspended"
  • Standard wording in football reporting would be as shown here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• " two players joined Gillingham. David Tong, a midfielder, joined" - two times joined, suggest changing one
• "The result left Gillingham in fifth place, two points off the promotion places, but they were at a disadvantage as they had played at least two games more than all the teams above them.[33] Gillingham won their next two games but then lost 1–0 at home to Newport County on 29 April." - as a general point, from the lead already onwards I'm noticing a lot of "buts" and for exampel there are two in the chunk quoted here. I'd suggest changing some, not particularly fussed how/where
• " 102nd scored by the team in all competitions" suggest " 102nd scored by the team in all competitions in a single season" - obvious to you no doubt but i had to think about it
• "midfielder Mehmet took over in goal after Hillyard was injured" - first mention for Mehmet so maybe full name, first mention for Hillyard after lead so maybe full name and link
• "at home with goals from Robinson and Mehmet" - same as above for Robinson
• "Cascarino was voted into the PFA Team of the Year" I'd say put Professional Footballers' Association Team of the Year
• "Aftermath" sounds a bit dramatic for a section header, is it standard?
  • Yes, every one of my previous 10 Gills FACs used this heading, as do other football season FAs --ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • that's alright then Mujinga (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• back to lead - "After slipping to as low as ninth, the team climbed to third, but finished 1985 in eighth place. The team continued to challenge for promotion in the second half of the season and were in second place at the end of January, but their form continued to fluctuate. As the end of the season approached, the team were still in with a chance of finishing in a promotion position, but three defeats in the last six games meant that the team ultimately fell short, finishing in fifth place." - too many "buts" and the progression is strange for me. Ah now I see why, it's because "finished 1985 in" makes me think it's the end of the entire season, maybe this could be resolved by something like "After slipping to as low as ninth place, the team climbed to third, and then at the close of 1985 had fallen to eighth"

@Mujinga: - all amended other than where noted above. Many thanks for your thorough review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

cool I've clarified one thing above Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: - yup, picked up that too :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice one for the superfast replies, I'm pretty much at support now, the one nitpick for me still outstanding is if you wordsearch "but" I still think there are too many instances, even though you have chopped out some. What do you think on that? Mujinga (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: - what can I say, I like a lot of buts and I cannot lie :-) Having said that, I have eliminated some more -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool I am now satisfied with the prose although the next reviewer may well say you have too many "howevers" :) Good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

Prose

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Little Blue River

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This is probably my last Price's Raid battle FAC for the near future. I brought this one to GA in 2020, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in March 2021, but I've just now gotten around to finishing filling out the sourcing to a state that I believe is FAC-able. Apologies ahead of time for the prose; the fact that I went about a year between really working with it probably doesn't bode well on that front. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Image and source review pass per ACR. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

• while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the Union Army supported the United States and opposed secession. Well, isn't the fact that the army supported the United States what made it the "Union" Army? Do you mean the federal forces stationed in Missouri at the time? Some clarification would be nice, if possible.
  • How about "Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon led Union Army forces in Missouri that remained loyal to the United States and opposed secession"? If it would help, I can cut the mention of Lyon, as he's not super relevant to the overall picture, as he was killed in battle in August 1861
• By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war. Per GLOBAL, might be worth clarifying that Lincoln was the incumbent at the time.
  • Done
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for the federal conflict with the Cheyenne?
  • Done; Colorado War
• Blunt then made the decision to reinforce his outer positions and resist the inevitable Confederate advance. inevitable --> expected/anticapted, ain't much in human history that is truly inevitable.
  • Done
• There is public interpretation at the site but no visitor's center. If this means signage, please clarify as such.
  • Clarified using another source.

On the whole an excellent article with good scholarship to back it up. -20:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Indy beetle: - Thanks for the review! Replies above, hopefully all have been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 04:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Satisfied with the above responses, nominator has a good track record, sources look good, supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review. If my comment ends in a question mark, it means I am unsure if the comment should be implemented in the article and will leave it to your discretion.

• "of the Confederate States Army had led an army into Missouri in September 1864" Delete had?
  • Done
• "and all 14 of the army's cannons were small-bore." Because I am a non-expert, I do not know what a small-bore cannon is, and therefore I would have to click out of the article to understand why this would negatively impact Price's force. Can a half-sentence be added to describe the significance of this?
  • Rephrased to "less powerful pieces", which I think conveys the meaning
• "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand, many of whom were militiamen." Replace the comma after "hand" with "and", to remove a comma? There's lots of commas in this sentence and this might improve the flow.
  • I've moved the militamen clause into the next sentence
• The "Battle" section is quite long, with 6 large paragraphs. Is it possible to split this section up using Level 3 headings?
  • Split into two sections
• I checked the lede and infobox, and everything is in the article.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: - I've tried to action all of these - how does the article look now? Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My concerns have been resolved, I can support. Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Optional: "bringing reinforcements that brought". "bring ... brought" - is it possible to avoid this?
• "all 14 of the army's cannons were less powerful pieces." I know that you have just changed this, but "less powerful" than what?
• "many of whom were militiamen". Link to militia.
• "were also dispersed throughout the state." Delete "also".
• " Attacks ... failed, and the Union garrison abandoned the fort" reads oddly. Perhaps "and" → 'but'?
• "was also mobilized. Major General James G. Blunt was also transferred". Too many also's.
• "Together, Dietzler's militia and Blunt's division were grouped". Delete "Together".
• "the brigade containing the militia was led by Colonel Charles W. Blair." Move this to straight after "one of the brigades was composed of Kansas militia."
• "At this time". What time?
• "were able to put out some of the flame". "some"? So part of it was still burning?
• "Additionally, Thompson's brigade of Shelby's division also crossed over". Delete "also".
• "to form a line at Independence. By 16:00, Union troops held a line near Independence". This is a bit repetitive.
• "The retreat to Independence had been over 7 miles (11 km) of ground". "of ground"? What else might it have been over? Consider rephrasing.
• "The 11th and 15th Kansas Cavalries and the 2nd Colorado Cavalry combined for 20 men killed." "for" → 'had'.
• "Price had lost over two thirds of his men during the campaign." Delete "had".

That's my lot. Nicely explained. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations

Total Recall (1990 film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 1990 science fiction action film Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that questions how real your mind is if it can't be picked apart and put back together on a whim. It took about 15 years and up to $80 million to bring this project to life and Schwarzenegger had to wait until he could get his friend to buy it before he could be considered for the lead. Noted as one of the most expensive films ever made at the time and among the last major blockbusters to not only use practical effects but use them extensively. Famous for, among other things, a three-breasted woman, and Schwarzenegger committing the world's first do-it-yourself divorce. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Probably won't get through all of this in one go, but I will make a start....
• "who is a synthetic replicate" - is "replicate" a real word?
• That's literally all I got up to the end of the music section. Back for more later........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, thanks for taking the time to look at this. Replicate is a word but reading it, not in the context or way I'm pronouncing it in my head. I've changed it to "replica" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

More comments

• "miniature sets produced by Stetson in Los Angeles, and supervised by Mark Stetson and Robert Spurlock" - is the "Stetson" in the first bit Mark Stetson? If so, his full name and wikilink should be on the first usage
• "The film was often compared to Verhoeven's previous work on RoboCop, with some reviews remarking that Total Recall lacked the same "impudence and incandescence" or satirization of 1980s action films as the latter" - not sure "the latter" is correct here, as RoboCop wasn't the last film mentioned. Maybe change it to "the earlier film"......?
• "over two-hundred in Die Hard 2" - never seen "two hundred" written with a hyphen.....?
• "Verhoeven's worked with Stone again" => "Verhoeven worked with Stone again"
• That's all I got in the rest of the article. That was a great read about a film which I probably haven't watched for over 20 years. Maybe if it's on any platform to which I have access I will watch it again tonight while my wife is out - she'd hate it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I was gonna say Google says it's on Netflix, but then I clicked on it and it's the remake -_-. It is apparently on NowTV and Amazon Prime though. I'm glad you enjoyed the read and I've also addressed the issues in your comments ChrisTheDude. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support (and thanks for the tip!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

NERVA

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Vanamonde93 do you feel that your opposition at the last FAC still applies, or have the redundancy issues been resolved? (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: I don't have the time to do an exhaustive analysis, but at first glance, I don't believe they have. These are the combined diffs since the previous FAC at NERVA and Project Rover, and one can see that no restructuring has occurred, nor has substantial unique content been added. Very large portions of the two articles are thus functionally identical. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  As a very rough indicator of redundancy, take a look at this result from Earwig's tool [3]. To be clear, I am not saying there's copyvio here, I'm just trying to estimate shared content. Also, this is a serious underestimate, because Earwig only flags text matches, not content matches. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your point is accepted. This is an artefact of the way that an encyclopaedia organizes articles around subjects. The separation of Rover from NERVA was there before expansion began, and there was no support for merging. They diverge after the material on Project Rover. While DYK has rules about shared content, there are none at FAC, and my contention is that the NERVA article is complete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, comprehensive and accurate. There's not much else that I can say. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support An amazing article. I have added some explanatory text on rocket basics so readers don't have to click out to understand the basic concepts. I also mentioned ARPA, because I think it's useful to understand how the existing programs were split up. Other than that, I found it fascinating and complete. I was especially surprised by the budgets and manpower applied, as I had always thought of it as a relatively small program, but with 1,100 people at a single contractor we are certainly in the area of big science! I'm not sure about the use of "reckoned" as that might not translate properly, but that's no reason to hold up an FA. Good to go here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "which may be more efficient than chemical engines" maybe "could" or "might" for "may", since we're dealing with the past?

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• " They reluctantly concluded that nuclear rockets were essential for deep space exploration, but not yet technically feasible.[5][6]" Since their reluctant conclusion is quite late in the sentence, I'd put a "while" after "that".

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• " This combination of features allows a nuclear engine to outperform a chemical one, they generally aim to have at least twice the specific impulse of a chemical engine.[18]" perhaps the comma should be a semicolon as both parts of the sentence would pass as sentences on their own.

  Replaced comma with semicolon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• You shorten Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory both as LASL and as Los Alamos. I might pick one or the other and use it consistently.

  Settled on LASL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Lewis is double-linked.

  Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Then, on 12 April, the Soviet Union launched Yuri Gagarin into orbit on Vostok 1, once again demonstrating their technological superiority." Possibly "their" should be "its" in AmEng.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• " Test Cell C was supposed to be complete in 1960, but NASA and AEC did not request funds for additional construction in 1960, although Senator Anderson provided them anyway." Two things. "But" and "although" in succession makes a sentence feel like a tennis match, and can we lose one use of "in 1960"?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The subsequent full-power Kiwi B4A test on 30 November 1962, along with a series of cold flow tests revealed that the problem was vibrations induced as the hydrogen was heated when the reactor was brought to full power that shook the reactor apart (rather than when it was running at full power).[73] " This sentence could benefit from commas or reorganization.

  Added a comma, and tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Components that would not affect system performance were allowed to be selected from what was available at Jackass Flats" I might cut "allowed to be".

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• " Congress cut the NASA's budget to $3.8 billion." Extraneous "the".

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• "NASA program funding was somewhat reduced by Congress for the 1969 budget, shutting down the Saturn V production line and cancelling Apollo missions after Apollo 17," My understanding was that Apollo 20 was canceled around New Year's 1970 and the two other canceled missions in September 1970.

  Apollo 20 was canceled in May 1969 to allow for Skylab; Apollo 15 and 19 were cancelled in September 1970. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Our article says that Apollo 20's cancellation was announced 4 January 1970.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm. That seems to be when it was announced. Changed the text accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• " mostly in California, a state that Nixon needed to carry in the 1972 election.[107]" He didn't as it proved. Perhaps "felt he needed to carry"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Pewee" You mention this for the first time at the end of the article and relate it to Project Rover.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pending

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Formatting

Reliability

Verifiability

Late Registration

Nominator(s): K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about American rapper Kanye West's second studio album, Late Registration (2005). The album marked a distinctive change in style from West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have kept on eye on it these past few years. I have consistently added edits whenever I saw the need over this timeframe and recently, around two weeks have been spent by me preparing the article for FAC! K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Realmaxxver

Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Late Registration has frequently appeared on professional lists of top albums" Think it would be easier to just say "top albums lists".

• Done --K. Peake 17:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• "West spent more than a year and US$2 million to produce Late Registration.[6]" Would "West spent US$2 million to produce Late Registration, recording it over the course of a year.[6]" work better?

• Done, but I wrote "recording it in over a year" after the comma because that accurately reflects the timespan. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "and Brion was able to translate the composition and another Levine vocal track in a few hours.[3]" What does this really mean?

• Clarified by writing "effectively work with", as the source is discussing the composition and the vocal track being "meshed". --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Wall appears alongside West and his GOOD Music labelmate GLC on "Drive Slow", which was recorded in Los Angeles after the two had formed a friendship while posing for a photo shoot for an August 2005 issue of King in a spread titled "Coming Kings".[14]" → "Wall appears alongside West and his GOOD Music labelmate GLC on "Drive Slow". It was recorded in Los Angeles after the two had formed a friendship while posing for a photo shoot for an August 2005 issue of King, in a spread titled "Coming Kings".[14]"
• " ' "My Way Home" is performed solely by West's GOOD Music associate and fellow rapper Common, whose sixth studio album Be was being produced and recorded by West simultaneously with Late Registration.[7][17]" replace "simultaneously with" with "alongside"

• Done, for the above --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Certain tracks originally produced by West for the album turned into beats for Late Registration.[17]" "the album" could also be "the former"; "Certain tracks originally produced by West for the former turned into beats for Late Registration.[17]"

• Done, but wrote "his own work" instead of the title to avoid closing two consecutive sentences in the same way and because this is the work mentioned alongside Be previously. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• When Jon Brion is already linked in the image caption (In the Recording section) I don't think it needs to be linked in the quote box in the next section.

• Done --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating," → "Kim noticed a clear difference between Late Registration and West's previous work, stating,"

• I have not done this as not only is Late Registration the most recent album mentioned here, but the last occasion uses its title. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Rolling Stone writer Rob Sheffield concurred with this sentiment, analyzing that West "claims the whole world of music as hip-hop turf" and also takes on a "mad quest to explode every cliché about hip-hop identity".[2]" → "Rolling Stone writer Rob Sheffield concurred with this sentiment, analyzing that West "claims the whole world of music as hip-hop turf", taking on a "mad quest to explode every cliché about hip-hop identity".[2]"
• "As the song progresses, its structure gradually morphs and experiences growth musicality." → "As the song progresses, its structure gradually morphs and experiences growing musicality."

• Done, for the above. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• The image caption in the "Themes and lyrics" section (the Kanye image) is pretty useless, considering that this is already cited in the prose text.
• "West's lyrics contemplate "being honest with yourself in a world that is not", according to rap scholar and author Mickey Hess.[47]" → "According to rap scholar and author Mickey Hess, West's lyrics contemplate "being honest with yourself in a world that is not"."
• "West speaks about women that drain men of the money in their pockets on "Gold Digger", accompanied by Jamie Foxx ad libbing.[49]" → "West speaks about women that drain men of the money in their pockets on "Gold Digger", accompanied by Jamie Foxx's ad libbing.[49]"
• "The album features critiques of institutions such as historically black colleges" simplify it to "The album critiques institutions such as historically black colleges"
• "West performed tracks from Late Registration at Abbey Road Studios in London for a live album entitled Late Orchestration," link to Late Orchestration here (remember to remove from See also).
• The paragraph from the Legacy section about the Concert for Hurricane Relief could be moved to Release and promotion.

Image review

• File:Late_registration_cd_cover.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Ditto File:Heymamakanye.ogg

• Done for both --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Former needs more for purpose of use - suggest looking at some recent FAs that include cover images. Later includes "n.a" fields that should be filled in, and purpose of use currently is almost the same as not replaceable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done now, I think? --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Jon_Brion.jpg is missing evidence of permission

• Nikkimaria Replaced with a different image, please tell me if this alright because I'm not exactly an expert on them to be honest? --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Dropout_Bear_Late.png needs a stronger justification since the character also appears in the lead image

• Done by adding more info --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why is it important for this image to be included in addition to the cover image? That is unclear, and keep in mind that the more non-free images included the stronger the justification for each needs to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Both images may feature Dropout Bear, but this one shows the inner artwork of the album rather than the cover and the bear is written about in detail within this context here. --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I realize this one shows the inner artwork rather than the cover. What remains unclear is why this is sufficient to justify including both, and why one would not sufficiently illustrate the character. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The context of the images are totally different because the cover shows Dropout Bear merely stood afront the university's doors, while the inner artwork shows him inside a classroom and reading books. Therefore, the justification is valid especially when significant amount of content is included about the inner appearance. --K. Peake 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The context is not so significantly different to justify both IMO, but let's ping another image reviewer for a second opinion. buidhe? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Nikkimaria, it's hard to see how both images separately satisfy the requirement that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Should I replace with an actual image of the university or just have no image in this section whatsoever? --K. Peake 17:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• We're not short of images for this article, so it comes down to, do you think such an image would contribute to reader understanding, or would it just be there for decorative purposes? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe that adding an image of the university would contribute to understanding since this will show the reader what the original building looks like, as they've already seen a photo of West's bear depicted inside it. --K. Peake 07:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Kanye_West_Air_Canada_Centre_2005_(61886360).jpg is of poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done, I added a replacement image. --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also not great quality - is there a reason we need to include so many images of West performing? Could just leave it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• There is no article for the Touch the Sky Tour that supported the album, meaning this is the main article for the tour, thus making an image very appropriate. --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Then we'll need a better image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have found one of a better quality but when you are assessing this aspect, remember images can't be as clear as the originals because then they would be violating copyright rules. --K. Peake 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Are you saying these are derived from better-quality originals? That would still be a copyright problem no matter how bad the derived quality is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, the image is sourced from Flickr and I'm not an expert on Wikimedia but I thought that having celeb images was considered copyright when the quality was high? --K. Peake 17:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, neither quality nor fame impacts copyright - it's just how the photographer licenses the work. A professional could release a high-quality portrait photo of West under a free license; I could take a terrible blurry photo of my cousin and reserve all rights to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is photo quality really a problem here? To me, this photo looks to be decent. --K. Peake 07:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it moves towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

John Minsterworth

Nominator(s): SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is another—although probably the last—about 14th-century failures, medieval madcaps or bizarre barons. This chap goes to France, gets roundly up his boss' nose, sneaks away while his comrades get roundly beaten by the French, tries to blame everyone else, then eventually deserts to the French and supports a Welsh invasion, is picked up by the English, and, not unsurprisingly, paid a high price for his escapades. Hopefully, you'll join me in getting Minsterworth the promotion that is most certainly not his by right of conquest! Cheers, SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

• Lead

• "Sir Robert Knolles, who contemporaries praised" – whom, please.

• Yus!

• "Minsterworth may have despised Knolles on grounds of the latter's reputation and status, and with others, split away" – I think we have either one comma too many or one too few here – if you want one after "others" I think you want one after "and" as well

• Add comma.

• "despite regular ambushes" – unless they were e.g. every Tuesday and Friday at 11.00 o'clock I think you mean "frequent" rather than "regular"

• A fascinating thought that!

• Service in France and mutiny

• "as a "shadowy... man" – I think, but don't take my word for it, the MoS would like a space before your elliptical dots.

• Sorted all of them; I had a mixture.

• "Historian James Sherborne" – clunking false title

• Definitely articled.

• "the army commenced a chevauchée" – I have bleated at you before about using a genteelism like "commence" when a good plain word like "start" or "begin" is available at no extra cost. (And you do realise that the word "chevauchée" is the exclusive property of Gog the Mild, who may impose a hire charge?)

• In my defence, m'lud, these three articles were written a long time ago. Probably around the same time, when I was obviously more gentile...!

Usually I would just send the lads round for a full and frank discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Division of the English force

• "continuous ambushes" – I think you probably mean "continual" rather than "continuous" here.

• Check.

• Renegade in France

• "Minsterworth left England for France again in 1372, and it is possible that Minsterworth was communicating" – the repetition of the surname is infelicitous: a pronoun might be better the second time

• Done.

• "communicating treasonably with them by now" – "them" being the French, presumably, but there is no plural noun for "them" to refer back to

• Tweaked.

• "but he was serving Charles V's army by then" – is there an "in" missing before "Charles"?

• Fixed, as part of the above tweak.

• "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, that the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands" – the "that" seems to be surplus to requirements. (Afterthought, but perhaps you meant to put the "that" before the first comma, where it would be perfectly happy.)

• Less being more, I removed it.

• "the intended logistics of this campaign, or how it was to be implemented, are uncertain" – if you use "or" you need a singular verb – "is", rather than "are"

• Done.

• "and Charles' plan" – I haven't boggled at "Knolles'" rather than "Knolles's" (though I would write the latter) but Charles' really does need to be Charles's.

• For consistency, I've double-s'd both. But I could have sworn that BrEng favored a single possessive s...? Must've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

• It would be an oversimplification to say that Jones' is AmE and Jones's is BrE: most BrE style guides use the latter form but I know at least one that doesn't, and I know some AmE users prefer ess-apostrophe-ess; but as a rule of thumb it isn't too far wrong to think of the shorter form as AmE and the longer as BrE. (As for your "favored", that is unequivocally AmE, but we all know that, don't we, boys and girls?) Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Capture by the English

• "Peasant#'s revolt" – the what?

• The pedant's revolt  :)

• Quite so. But as Fowler commented, the term "pedant" is a relative one: "my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education, and someone else's ignorance". Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Notes

• "Under a royal charter issued him in 1365, Gaunt was authorized" – the z is not wrong, but looks a bit odd in modern BrE: "authorised" would be more usual.

• Done.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 18:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this Tim; apologies for the tardiness of my response, there aren't enough hours in the day at the moment. As if, ever. Your points addressed with ths edit, hopefully! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking good now. I'll be back after a final read-through. More anon. Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Appreciate that Tim, as ever. I promise no more gentilisms! Liked the Fowler quote too; somewhat reminded me of Bernard...) and, yes, favored was deliberate mistake of the day  :) SN54129 14:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Check that everything in the lead is cited in the body - for example "attempted to have Knolles tried for treason" is not explicitly claimed there

  Check.

• How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• Ah, well, we have two Bakers.
  Baker, G. P: It's a PhD from a reputable university, supervised by a respected expert in their field, by someone who was subsequently employed at equally respected institutions for their expertise on the same subject (UEA, Southampton and Exeter), and has published in his field. Some of his thesis is replicated in a subsequent piece (Baker 2018), although not completely, so now the one complements the other. For the record though: I would argue for the thesis being a high-quality source in the first place regardless of a later write up (as you'll be unsurprised to hear, most of his article is cited to...the thesis!).
  Baker, R: A RS for the fact that Minsterworth's "infamy" was still being discussed nearly 300 years later.

• What makes Harrison a high-quality reliable source?

• Well. J. J. Alexander, writing in 1937, discussed the use of antiquarian texts by modern historians. It is true, he said, that some of these writers often had access to now-lost sources, and, likewise, that many of them were researching with the scientific method, but on the whole, "the practice of quoting from eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century sources... is to be deprecated". in: J. J. Alexander, 'Tavistock in the Fifteenth Century', Report & Transactions of the Devonshire Association 69(1937), 252. But for our purposes, is 16 out of 59 an overuse of a source mostly backing simple, if rarely considered, facts, in an area where modern scholarship no longer deeply goes?

• If there's reason to consider it reliable, perhaps not - but is there? Alexander was speaking in generalities rather than regarding this particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  True. I have removed the number of references to Harrison. (Admittedly, only by one.) But he's OK for the local detail—not opinion, you see, just raw fact—that may no longer be available to modern scholars. All the stuff getting burned in 1867, etc.

• Leland is missing language

  Excellent eyes, thanks.

• Ormrod: verify location? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree it looks odd  :) The US place of publication is, of course, New Haven, but I only have/had access to that printed on Yale's behalf in the UK, in Padstow. Can you see this copyright page? (Note same ISBN too.) Bloody limeys eh!  :) SN54129 18:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Cf. Tim, apologies for taking a while to complete this Nikkimaria. See what you think now. Cheers! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil

Placeholder. Will get to this over weekend; from the lead looks v interesting. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll edit trivial prose stuff directly rather than list demands here, if that's ok, and of course you can revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Have made some edits
• Convicted of conspiring – alliteration

  Went with "Convicted of intriguing with the enemy"?

  Convicted on conspiracy charges Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• whom contemporaries praised for his military prowess – "Whom" is old fashioned, and "military prowess" should be either tactical or strategic acumen or ability

• "whom" is the only grammatically correct accusative form of "who". (Perfectly OK to use "who" as the accusative in speech or informal prose, of course, these days.) Tim riley talk 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Right, "military acumen"?

• and, for reasons which are now obscure, - concerns historical method and accuracy; if covered below drop clarifier from lead

  When you get to it, you'll see that it's considered too hare-brained a scheme to make much sense at the time, let alone >600 years later  :)

• However, in 1377, while still abroad, he was captured by the English and sent home. Unless missing something..."while still abroad" should be "in France", drop "however"

  Removed however. I went with "abroad" as the geography is a bit complex—he went from Eng > France > Castille > Navarre, where he was finally arrested. And the only place I've mentioned him being before that is France, so I'm kind of skating over the fact that he wasn't arrested there while not having to go into too much detail. Do you see what I mean?

• socially superior - "superior" isn't quite right, maybe use the word higher or rank

  Tweaked the whole sentence.

• The lead is quite sparse; if no image is available would add, gasp!, a brief IB, just to fill up the empty space

  I haven't had much experience with IBs ;) but am not averse. As you say, something to break the walls of text up would be great. This has to have the crappest selection of images ever! Not even a coat of arms. Any particular IB you recommend?

  If not an ib, what about a painting of a repetitively contemporary battel from the Hundred Years' War? Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC) - should have been "relatively" not "repetitively". Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  "All you battles look the same to me, squire"  :) Have added an IB, sorry Cass  ;) what you think Ceoil?

  Looks good (and yes, no disrespect to cass or mr Cat). I like "Known for: Soldiering, treason" Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• More later Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Ceoil, all good points, and thanks for your copy editing through. SN54129 12:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe split "Capture by the English" and "Execution". Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Forget to say, I did this a while ago! Looks much better now.

• This doesn't add up as stated: Minsterworth left England for France again in 1372,and it is possible that he was communicating treasonably with King Charles V of France by this point. Precisely whether he gave himself up to the French or was captured by them the following year is unknown, but he was serving in their army by then.. "Gave himself up and was communicating treasonably" are consistently (though 'communicating treasonably' should be made a deal?), but the "or was captured" doesn't logically flow, unless he was forced into service (unlikely) or was brainwashed. Maybe, precisely when he committed treason is unknow, it may have been before he returned to France, after was captured, etc....".

  Yes, I see: it's not chronological is it... I've tweaked the sentence to put the order of events into, some order!

• A supposed likeness and the the story of Minsterworth's execution is recorded on a version of Ranulf Higden's c. 1377 chronicle Polychronicon, but was added by a 16th-century hand - My reworded version, but should it be that a "16th-century edition of Ranulf Higden's c. 1377 chronicle Polychronicon contained an illustration of Minsterworth and a description of his execution." Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Much better, thanks. Nabbed!

• @Ceoil: Thanks for these suggestions too—I've utilised all of 'em. And apologies for not doing so sooner! Just got bogged down elsewhere. Cheers though! SN54129 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from mujinga

• Thanks for an interesting read! I just realised you wrote Coterel gang which I also enjoyed a while back. This article tells quite a confusing story and most of the time I could follow it easily. Here are some comments on prose, where I got stuck:
• "The Historian James Sherborne has said Minsterworth caused "much trouble" on the campaign,[4] and Jonathan Sumption described him as an "ambitious hothead".[5] " - perhaps recently garbled, historian doesn't need capitalizing and would suggest introducing both commentators as medieval historians or similar

  Absolutely. Decapped, and have remodelled the sentence to show they are both historians.

• "It was to be the first English army to France intended to be led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7]" - seems like this could be trimmed to " It was the first English army to France led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7] "

  Done.

• "resulted in joint command of Knolles " suggest "resulted in joint command by Knolles" or "resulted in the joint command of Knolles "

  Went with "by".

• "This system of shared leadership appears to have led to jealousies and rivalries arising among them" - suggest cutting "among them"

  Done.

• "who had started at the bottom" - bottom of what?

  The ranks. But I've merged the two sentences together, which is hopefully clearer?

• "Geographically his force was recruited from across the country, including locally to Minsterworth—such as Wales and Gloucester—but further afield;" - this reads awkwardly to me, i think the dashes don't help

  Have recast the sentence, hopefully, it reads better now?

• I don't think note2 needs to start with "Although", especially since there's a "though" in the quote

  Good point, tweaked.

• Marches - should this be linked? Welsh Marshes is linked below, which I suppose is currently second mention

  Swapped them over.

• "probably to make enable foraging and increase profits" - extra word here

  I think it was meant to be "probably to make foraging easier and increase profits".

• "escaped into Brittany" - escaped to?

  Done.

• consider "Charles V of France" for heathens like me to keep up with the story

  Apologies, but I couldn't see what you meant; could you clarify where this is?

  • I meant in this sentence: "and it is possible that he was communicating treasonably with King Charles V by this point". It's Charles' first mention and I was wondering before clicking through if he was king of Spain and/or France Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands Minsterworth held of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, Minsterworth's feudal lord in Gloucestershire and the Welsh Marches.[44]" - bit confused by this sentence .. so the escheator was told to confiscate land Minsterworth possessed which was owned by John of Gaunt, who was the Duke of Lancaster? On a reread it's "held of" that's tripping me up

  Changed to "held from"?

  • ah yes that reads much better! Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• so there's two quoteboxes in "Capture by the English", one has a book reference, one doesn't, which seems inconsistent

  Good spot, done.

• in Pamplona,[46] Navarre - prob a comma after Navarre

  Done.

• [observation] wow that's brutal to send bits of his body to different cities

  A deterrent for any like-minded lads  :)

• link messuage to conveyancing (which it currently redirects to)?

  Done.

• i'm not sure how the discussion in the "Estates" section relates to the earlier stuff about the escheator confiscated Minsterworth's holdings ultimately owned by John of Gaunt (although it does clarify my earlier comment for me). But does that mean the land had been confiscated in 1373 or it was spoken about then and only done after his execution?

  Yes, this is a bit confusing, you're right. I've tried to clarify that the outlawry and confiscation took place in '73, but the IPM (from which we get a list of lands) wasn't til '77. Better?

  • yes makes sense, corrected a typo Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Does the Baker PhD need a location?

  I only ever use the university location to be honest—they're rarely different.

  • fairplay Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That's all I got.Mujinga (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking in, Mujinga, great to "see" you again (Kennedy Road seems ages ago now!) I've tried to address all your points, except one, which I'll do when you clarify. Now I see you've mentioned me elsewhere—are my dashes getting me into trouble!  ;) Cheers, SN54129 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Time flies when you are having fun! I've replied on Charles, see what you think, and in any case switching to support Mujinga (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've actioned on Charles, and thanks for noticing the typo which took him back 1,000 years  :) SN54129 15:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Cerro Tuzgle

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a rather unremarkable volcano in Argentina, which is mostly important because it is one of the few recently active volcanoes in the Puna. There are some ideas to use it or its neighbour Tocomar for geothermal power generation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Sources: "Tuzgle" access date?

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "may have continued into the Holocene." Which was when?

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Main body: It seems strange that a reader doesn't find out what Cerro Tuzgle is until the second paragraph. Can I strongly suggest moving the first paragraph of Geography and geomorphology to the end of that section.

  Eh, I think the current order geography->volcano makes more sense - that Tuzgle is a volcano is already said elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As you wish, but you need to tell a reader what you are talking about at the start of the article. so 'Cerro Tuzgle is a dormant stratovolcano located near the eastern border of the Argentinian Puna.' or similar

Um, it does already say "Cerro Tuzgle is a dormant stratovolcano in the Susques Department of Jujuy Province in Argentina."? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• "kilometres" is used 24 times. The MoS suggests "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use".

  Abbreviated most. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "is reported northwest from Cerro Tuzgle". That seems a strange phrase. Are we uncertain whether it exists?

  Aye, I don't see that place mentioned in many places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "In 1926 it was reported that a crater lake lies on the summit." Any information on this more recent than 96 years ago?

  No. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "began to form in the Eocene-Oligocene"; "During the Miocene and Pliocene", "of Ordovician age" etc. Dates please.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Link lineament.

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "into the foreland of Argentina". I don't think that where you mean will be clear to most readers.

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "It is a strike-slip fault". What is "It"?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "which define a" seems an odd phrase. Perhaps 'which result in' or similar?

  Used "constitute", they are not a compound. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "reach 2–20 metres per second (6.6–65.6 ft/s)." Can we have these in accessible units please.

  I don't think any other unit is more accessible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not expect an average reader to grasp what 6 m/s was, I would expect them to understand 70 kph.

Done, with km/h. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• "snowfall [is] common ... The region is arid, with less than 100 millimetres (3.9 in) annual precipitation". Sounds contradictory. Where is the measurement site for that <100 mm?
• "Annual precipitation there". Where?

  (regarding both queries) Hmm, sources often disagree on the exact values, probably because there are lots of mountains and few gauges. Snowfalls often are undercounted in gauges, which is an acknowledged problem in the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had assumed that would be the case. Could this be explained in the article.

This source mentions the issue, but in the context of the Atacama rather than the Puna so I am not sure whether to use it here per WP:OR Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Trichomycterus fish have been found in creeks around the volcano." would be better with animals than precipitation.

  Moved it up. One wonders how the fish ended up there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "buried by aeolian material". Can we have "aeolian" in plain English please.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "300,000±1,000,000". Really? So it may not yet have happened? And that is a stunning degree of uncertainty.

  Yes, really. We only have oldfashioned K-Ar dates for most of these volcanoes, if we have any at all. C14 and Ar-Ar are very underused so far in the non-Peruvian Central Volcanic Zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't start a section with "These hot springs", specify what you are talking about.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Von Rosen". Is that their full name?

  The source has him as "E. Von Rosen" which isn't better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Ceruti"; "Norini": names in full at first mention.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• "was reportedly issued by 1933". "reportedly"? Was it or wasn't it?

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Realmaxxver

Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

• Geography and geomorphology

• "A 0.5 square kilometres (0.19 sq mi) platform" — A 0.5-square-kilometre (0.19 sq mi) platform.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "these include Mina Betty on the northwestern flank[22] between 5,000–5,350 metres (16,400–17,550 ft) elevation where in 1939 seven sulfur outcrops were reported" — Should "these include" be "this includes" since only one sulfur mine is mentioned here?

  I think the current form is more correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The Quebrada Aguas Calientes passes west and Quebrada de Charcos east of the volcano;[27] the latter becomes Quebrada Los Charcos north of the volcano and converges with Quebrada Aguas Calientes." — Are these streams?

  Or dry valleys, hence I did not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Local

• "The basement is formed by Cambrian and Precambrian formations[35] of metamorphic character" — What is meant by "metamorphic character"?

  Formations made up of metamorphic rocks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Eruption history

• "Cerro Tuzgle was active during the Pleistocene[25] and its most recent eruption may have followed a period of inactivity." — This is pretty obvious since most volcanoes are active intermittently.

  Not all of them are; Etna and Stromboli are pretty regularly active and they are very well known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "forming a 80 metres (260 ft) thick plateau" — forming an 80-metre (260 ft) thick plateau

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The middle and upper parts contain pumice" — Is this referring to the plateau?

  No, the ignimbrite. Specified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "It consists of massive, up to 15 metres (49 ft) thick, dark grey to reddish-brown coloured lava flows." — 15-metre (49 ft) thick

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Mafic andesite lava filled the caldera" — Andesite is intermediate not mafic.

  Hmm, the source does treat that andesite as mafic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

All of this from my first pass. The article is overall in a good shape. Volcanoguy 06:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Mount Price (British Columbia)

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a mountain in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Mount Price is also an andesitic stratovolcano that began forming 1.2 million years ago. A vent on its western slope (Clinker Peak) was the source of two thick lava flows that ponded against an ice sheet within the last 15,000 years. These lava flows were one of the first described occurrences of lava having been impounded by glacial ice. Volcanoguy 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• While I don't know whether the article complies with 1c and 1d of WP:WIAFA, but everything else seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Did some work on checking for these two criteria, thus I now say support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "It is located 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) southeast of the abandoned settlement of Garibaldi above the eastern flank of the Cheakamus River valley" - source?
• Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
• What makes Liu a high-quality reliable source?
• Fn26: what is given as work title appears to instead be a section title. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I have dealt with all of this except for the last one because {{cite web}} does not have a section parameter. Volcanoguy 04:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay, but you can't address that by putting that info into a parameter in which it doesn't belong. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

      I've removed it. Volcanoguy 23:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note - at three weeks in, while the important source and image reviews are done, this has failed to attract any general supports. It will likely have to be archived in a few days without further reviews forthcoming. Hog Farm _Talk 21:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Why do we need to mention Burke Channel and King Island in the "Geography" section? They're not that close to Mount Price and are never mentioned again in the article.

Removed. Volcanoguy 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Similarly, the adjacent ecoregions, listed at the end of the first paragraph of that section, don't seem relevant -- they would be relevant to an article about the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion, but this article is about a mountain that is entirely within that region.

I agree. They've been removed. Volcanoguy 19:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Can we get a map showing the extent of either the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection or the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (or just its southern segment) or both? You mention multiple geographic divisions -- another is the Garibaldi Lake volcanic field, and another is the tectonic plate arrangement -- and for someone unfamiliar with the geography it's hard to follow. A smaller map showing Mount Price, Mount Garibaldi, The Table and Clinker Peak would be helpful too; I looked at the two images for a while and am still not completely sure I correctly identified everything in the captions. And there are plenty of other locations mentioned in the article that could be labelled on a map: Culliton Creek valley, the Cheakamus River valley, Price Bay, Table Meadows, etc.

I'm not aware of there being any maps, not freely licenced ones anyway. Volcanoguy 19:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I just searched Commons and found this, that's a little gaudy but would be helpful. I'll keep looking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There's also this, which you could rotate and crop. Interestingly, the date of that map is 1928, but it shows the peak as "Mt Price", so this is a little earlier than the earliest reference you currently have for that name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• "These eruptions resulted in the creation of a small 1,788-metre-high (5,866-foot) lava dome or scoria cone on Mount Price's northern flank". I take it this is the elevation of the peak, not the height above Mount Price's flank? If so this could be clearer -- I initially read it the other way, but then realized that that wouldn't have been "small".

I've changed this to "These eruptions resulted in the creation of a small lava dome or scoria cone on Mount Price's northern flank with an elevation of 1,788 metres (5,866 feet)." I'm not sure if that's any better. Volcanoguy 20:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The age of this final volcanic phase has varied from 15,000–12,000 years ago to as recently as 10,000–8,000 years ago." I don't understand this. Do you mean estimates of the age have varied?
  • Changed to "The age estimates of this final volcanic phase have varied from 15,000–12,000 years ago to as recently as 10,000–8,000 years ago." Volcanoguy 19:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• "In 1927, Canadian volcanologist William Henry Mathews (1919–2003) identified Mount Price as Clinker Mountain in articles and journals." It seems unlikely he did this at the age of 8. I don't think you need to include the birth and death dates in parentheses like this when you mention someone, but in any case it seems this can't be the right person.

I've revised this to "In 1952, Canadian volcanologist William Henry Mathews identified Mount Price as Clinker Mountain in the American Journal of Science." Volcanoguy 20:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally this looks in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from GeoWriter

Overall a well-written and well-sourced article. My detailed comments:

Introduction
"If this were to happen, relief efforts would be quickly organized." — I suggest this should be rephrased. One would hope/expect relief efforts to be quickly organized but it is not accurate to state that this would (definitely) happen.

What would you recommend then? Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Geography
"with the northern summits containing large icefields". — Can (non-crater) summits contain icefields? Or are they covered by icefields?

That's what the cited source claims. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Geology
"A diverse range of volcanic rocks with differing compositions are present in the Garibaldi Lake volcanic field." — The subject is "a diverse range" which is singular, therefore the verb should also be singular i.e. "compositions is present". (Alternatively, remove "A diverse range of").

Changed "a diverse range" to "several". Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Volcanic history
"These eruptions resulted in the creation of a small lava dome or scoria cone on Mount Price's northern flank." — It is usually very easy to decide if a landform is a lava dome or a scoria cone. The word "or" suggests that geologists very familiar with the area do not know which it is, which seems unlikely. Checking the cited sources: Smithsonian GVP describes Price Bay as a "cone". Read (1990) states "a small andesitic dome was constructed on the northern flank of Mount Price". Hildreth (2007) refers to "Price Bay scoria cone" based on Green (1981) who refers to "andesite agglutinate breccia" of Price Bay (adventive) cone. Is "a lava dome or scoria cone" possible novel synthesis? Perhaps there is a lava dome and a scoria cone?

There's only one dome/cone on the northern flank of Mount Price. Volcanoguy 23:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Source [5] ("Quaternary Magmatism in the Cascades—Geologic Perspectives" by Wes Hildreth) is a public domain USGS publication - the citation should include a web page URL for the PDF file https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1744/pp1744.pdf

Done. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"depositing 0.030 cubic kilometres (0.0072 cubic miles) of rock". — These units of measurement are (too) large and give the impression of a small volume landslide. I suggest changing to 30 million cubic metres (39.2 million cubic yards).

Done. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"impact-wave". Please clarify/define/wikilink.

Removed. Volcanoguy 02:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Naming
A date of renaming ("September 2, 1930") is mentioned twice. This duplication is unnecessary. One occurrence should be removed.

I don't see how that's a duplication since they are referring to two different mountains. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Protection
"which is in turn named after the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi." — Seems irrelevant to Mount Price and I suggest it should be removed.

Not irrelevant to Garibaldi Provincial Park of which the section is about. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

— GeoWriter (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Pfly

Is it too late for this article, is it now archived? I've read through it and found it quite good. A couple things:

• Under "Geology": Seceral volcanic rocks with differing compositions are present in the Garibaldi Lake volcanic field.

Is that supposed to be "Several volcanic rocks..."?

Yes fixed. Volcanoguy 00:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Under "Human history", "Naming": ...associated with 'a'a flows.

Wouldn't it be better for this Hawaiian term be written with ʻokinas, like: ʻaʻa?

Yes done. Volcanoguy 00:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, it looks good to me. Makes me think better monitoring of the volcano is needed. I didn't check all the footnotes and their formatting. Pfly (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pfly: Not too late at all. Volcanoguy 00:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Greece

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This article went through a thorough GAN by Hog Farm and an ACR with comments from CPA-5, Nick-D, Catlemur, and Gog the Mild, and a copyedit by Twofingered Typist, all of which are much appreciated. I subsequently expanded the article from a couple newly published sources, and I think it's ready for FAC. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the first two maps, and see MOS:COLOUR
• Some of the captions include claims that warrant citing
• File:Prisoners_sorting_confiscated_property_at_Auschwitz_II-Birkenau.jpg: the description indicates author is unknown, but the source credits authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Scaled up maps. All info in captions should be cited already in the article or image description page. The photographers of the Auschwitz Album are unknown, but there are some theories. The museum puts down two of the hypothesized photographers, but I think it's fine to say "unknown". Thanks for the review! (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

• The Jewish community reported that 12,898 Jews fought for Greece in the war; 613 died and 3,743 were wounded There wouldn't happen to be any unique info on what happened to Greek Jewish POWs, would there?
  • All the Greek soldiers including Jews were released after a month. (Bowman 41) Should this be mentioned in the article? I didn't think so because the treatment of Jews appears exactly the same to Orthodox Greeks.
    • Something to the effect that they weren't treated differently at this stage would be nice.
      • Done
• The collaborationist Greek government began to see Bulgaria as the main threat and did all it could to secure German support in restraining Bulgaria. From annexing its territory?
  • Pretty much, clarified based on the source
• some went mad Is there a better medical term for this?
  • All the source says is, "Several people went mad along the way, and virtually no one was able to stand up on arrival"
• but there is no record of him taking action to prevent the deportations, except two letters of protest written after they had already begun. Is it known on what grounds the Greek authorities protested? That the Jews were Greek citizens? It's curious considering the PMs previous comments about solving the "Jewish problem".
  • The "Jewish problem" comments were from Logothetopoulos' predecessor. The cited source says that the letters were an example of Greek collaborators hedging their bets and continuing to collaborate while creating exonerating evidence in case of an Allied victory. Source does not elaborate on the content.
• By June 1944, 850 Jews had escaped to Çeşme, despite obstruction from British intelligence. The f was Britain doing obstructing refugees fleeing from an Axis-occupied ally to a neutral nation?
  • It was part of their attempt to reduce the number of Jews arriving in Palestine, since the Turkish government was not admitting Jewish refugees but merely allowing them to pass through on the way to the Levant. Nevertheless, these efforts do not seem to have a significant effect and explaining them would take WP:UNDUE space, so I removed this bit.
• All of mainland Greece was recaptured from Axis occupation by November 1944. Recaptured? I'm having trouble finding info here but it seems the Germans mostly withdrew so they could go fight the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
  • True, the source is not completely clear on this point. Reworded.
• In Salonica, Jewish camp survivors were often called "unused cakes of soap". Yikes. No further comment.
• Jews found themselves sleeping in improvised shelters Who established and managed these shelters, the Greek government?
  • No, the source specifically says that the government did nothing and the survivors had to improvise for themselves. Clarified
• Holocaust denial is illegal in Greece since when?
  • After looking at some sources it seems that there is no law against Holocaust denial in particular, although it has sometimes been prosecuted under racial hatred laws with limited success. Rewrote accordingly.
• The Holocaust was obviously an event which focused on Jews, but is it known what happened to other marginalized groups? For example, the article on the Porajmos suggests few to no Roma people were killed in Greece.
  • I've tried to integrate the related ethnic violence (e.g. against Chams or Macedonians), but the Romani people are unmentioned in the sources.

-Indy beetle (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Storage building owned by the Voliotis family in the village of Lachonia near Pelion, where members of the Hakim family lived and hid during the Nazi occupation This caption is too long for addressing a subject not specifically mentioned in the article. Technically, it doesn't even suggest why the Hakim family was hiding. Could be shortened to the effect of "Storage building in Lachonia where Jews lived in hiding during occupation" or something of the sort. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure what you've seen, but this book argues a very clear connection between German attempts to control inflation in Greece and the dispossession and deportation of Jews. You mentioned the confiscated gold, but I wonder if something is missing here. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Some of Aly's conclusions have been controversial (his heavy emphasis on economic aspects to the exclusion of other factors), and Kavala says that many aspects of the property confiscation haven't been adequately researched yet—so I'm hesitant to be too conclusive. She never suggests that the fight against inflation was the cause of the deportation. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review—pass

The article relies almost entirely on appropriate scholarship for the subject at hand, with well-published books and peer-reviewed journal article making up the source material. The few instances where this is not the case are citations to appropriate mainstream media outlets and nonprofit memorial organizations.

• The pagination for Droumpouki, Anna Maria (2016). "Shaping Holocaust memory in Greece: memorials and their public history" appears to be incorrect.
  • The version I accessed starts at page 1.
    • I've corrected this issue; however, I've removed/changed some of the cities listed for places with monuments, since this does not appear to be supported by the source.
• Spotchecks on this version
  • Ref 18 does not appear to support the second half of this statement: some 72,000 to 77,000 Jews lived in 27 communities in Greece—the majority in Salonica. It says the majority were Saphardic, but not that they lived in Salonica.
    • "Despite the lack of credible statistics, a generally acknowledged number for the prewar Greek Jewish population is between 72,000 and 77,000, with the Jews from the Dodecanese included, albeit as Italian citizens. Some 50,000 of them resided in Thessaloniki." The rest is WP:CALC
      • Ah, did not realize that Thessaloniki was Salonica. All good then.
  • Ref 32 good
  • Ref 70 good, but might be worth appending the footnote used in the source material to the citation as well, since that explicitly mentions the diary
  • Ref 114 good
  • Ref 184 good
  • Ref 199 good
• The Antoniou & Moses 2018 "Introduction" chapter seems to have some good info on the development of Holocaust historiography for Greece, which seems to be missing from the article.
  • Added a bit more about this

-Indy beetle (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the sentence you added at the end of the article. The book is about the Balkans generally not Greece specifically. I think it could be misleading as the other events in the Balkans sometimes viewed as genocides did not occur in Greece, eg. the genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, and I've never heard of any other wwii greece events being called genocides. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Have made various tweaks and copyedits to save time. Feel free to revert/discuss.
• Have removed a few MOS:DUPLINKs.
• While Eastern Orthodoxy was and remains the state religion in Greece, legally at least Greece was among the first European countries to lift restrictions on the Jews and accord them legal equality with the Christian majority. This happened already in 1830, IMS.
  • As far as I can tell, Fleming doesn't mention this in her book. According to this source it was in 1844, but I'm still not sure if it would be WP:DUE to mention.
• Can we add that Salonica was at one point known as "New Jerusalem"?
  • Done
• The Jewish community reported that 12,898 Jews fought for Greece in the war; 613 died and 3,743 were wounded a) can we have a reference right here, for these numbers? b) which Jewish community?
  • This is from Bowman who states, "Jewish community figures record the mobilization of 12,898 Jews. Whereas the total population of Jews in Greece was about 75,000, this estimate should be treated with caution. However, given that some 9,000 Jewish males of Salonika of conscription age (fifteen to forty-five) were to report to Plateia Eleftherias (Liberty Square) in July 1942 for registration in Nazi forced-labor gangs, the figure does not seem impossible, if we recall that able-bodied males who had served in 1919 were called up in the later stages of the fighting against Italy. Greek Jewry still commemorates the loss of 613 dead and 3,743 wounded, a 34 percent casualty rate, nearly three times more than the overall 12 percent Greek casualty rate." The notes section does not provide further information about exactly where this "Jewish community" estimate comes from. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• no protests from Greek diplomats are known Greece was a country under military occupation, and de jure and de facto not under control of its foreign policy. The collaborationist regime had no foreign ministry or accredited representatives in other countries, all Greek embassies that survived belonged to the government in exile. Indeed, I am very doubtful that there were Greek diplomats at all in France at the time. Of course, the Greek collaborationist government could have protested, but for the reasons already mentioned, this did not happen (and all other German-influenced governments more or less followed the same policy). To avoid misunderstandings, I'd suggest striking this.
  • I believe the cited source is referring the Greek government in exile, although I'm struggling to independently confirm that the Vichy government had diplomatic relationship with the Greek government in exile. Specifically, Kerem states: "Cases of Jewish Greek subjects in France who were endangered with deportation were brought to the attention of the Greek diplomatic corps there, but Greek diplomats are not known to have taken activist positions on behalf of their Jewish subjects. The Greek Jews in Paris, Lyons and Marseilles were victims of special deportations initially in July 1942 and then mostly in November 1942. Nevertheless, the diplomats representing their country were not known to have pressured the Vichy and German forces in France on their behalf". However, I've removed as it could be an unimportant point. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• most could not can some brief explanation be given why not?
  • Source doesn't say. I added information about hostages used to prevent escapes. It's also the case that the factors that facilitated escapes in other places did not exist in Salonica, but I wasn't able to find sources explicitly making this connection.
• often called "unused cakes of soap" I assume by the local Christian Greeks?
  • Yes, clarified
• The Greek government avoided prosecuting collaborators this was largely due to the outbreak of the Greek Civil War, where the collaborationists joined the military and security forces of the right-wing governments. This is partly mentioned later on, but it should be brought up earlier for context. Liberation from the Nazis did not mean return of normality to Greece.
  • Reordered to provide context
• annulled the Aryanization law the term 'Aryanization' should be introduced and linked when the law is first mentioned.
  • Fixed
• Otherwise a very well written, concise, and necessary article. Constantine ✍ 17:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Cplakidas: - No compulsion to go either way, but do you feel comfortable supporting or opposing here yet? Hog Farm _Talk 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe and Hog Farm: sorry for the delay. I am satisfied with the changes/responses, and ready to support. As said before, a fine article. Constantine ✍ 12:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I looked at this at ACR but using the FAC criteria and it seemed good then. I will recuse and see what further I can pick at.

• "originally native to Greece". Do we need "originally"? I mean, could they have been non-originally native to Greece?
  • done
• "The Greek islands, especially Corfu, Rhodes, and Crete, were home to both Sephardic and Romaniote communities under Venetian rule or influence such that many Jews from these islands spoke Italian." This reads as if they were still under Venetian rule.
  • Rephrased
• "Before the Balkan Wars". Which happened when?
  • This is introduced a couple bullets up. Would more clarification be helpful?

I missed that. If it were me I would write 'Before 1912–1913', but that's just a personal style preference, so feel free to leave it as is.

• "In June 1943, parts of eastern Macedonia switched from the German to Bulgarian control." Perhaps preface with 'Despite this,'?
  • I think this may be straying close to OR because the source does not suggest the handover had anything to do with Greek collaboration
• "Greek Jews living in Paris, Lyons, and Marseilles were deported in 1942 to Auschwitz concentration camp during the Holocaust in France". Any idea as to the number?
  • Done
• "irregularly looted". What does this mean? Is there regular looting?
  • I was thinking that regular looting—by the state, irregular looting—by private citizens without the approval of the state. But clarified
• "Jews filled the area at a time". Is "filled" the best word? 'occupied', 'were billeted in' or whatever?
  • Done
• Why no definite articles in front of LAS, EDES, EAM etc?
  • It reads more correct to me that way. Maybe an ENGVAR issue?

Must be. Each time you miss a "the" it jars as I read it, it comes across as pidgin English. But if it works in USVAR, so be it.

• "EAM refused to help Jews if it did not receive payment for the operation." Optional: delete "the operation".
  • Done
• "Skeptical that Jews had a future in southeastern Europe, the JDC prioritized aid for those in transit to Palestine." I don't understand this. Does it mean 'Skeptical that Jews had a future in southeastern Europe, the JDC prioritized aid for those from this area who wished to transit to Palestine'?
  • Reworded

That's all I have. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Great work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• Optional: In Background, four different types of Jewish people are listed in bullet points. In the sentence preceding this, there can be a colon to signify that a list is coming up, so it reads, "The prewar Jewish communities of southern, western, and northern Greece each had a different history:"
  • Done
• "while others fled to the Ottoman Empire, because of suspicion that they opposed the Greek insurgents." Remove this comma
  • Rephrased
• "either allow Italian troops to occupy Greece or else war." -> "either allow Italian troops to occupy Greece or else Italy would declare war on Greece."?
  • Rephrased
• " that hundreds of Jews lost their lives." -> " that hundreds of Jews died." per MOS:EUPH, died is more direct.
  • Done
• "trying to wrest from them for years." -> "trying to obtain from them for years." I think this sounds more neutral.
  • Rephrased
• Optional: "The municipality of Salonica destroyed the cemetery beginning in December 1942. The city and the Greek Orthodox Church used many of the tombstones for construction." Maybe combine these sentence into, "The municipality of Salonica destroyed the cemetery beginning in December 1942, and the city and the Greek Orthodox Church used many of the tombstones for construction."
  • Done
• "£300 sterling," Do other currencies use this symbol? If not, I don't think it's necessary to specify sterling.
  • Done
• "the prospect of Allied victory led the collaborationist Greek leadership to hedge their bets," hedge their bets feels a little too MOS:IDIOM to me. Perhaps just go straight into "the prospect of Allied victory led the collaborationist Greek leadership to continue cooperating with the Germans"
  • Rephrased
• "Both the collaborationist administration and postwar governments used the war as an opportunity to Hellenize northern Greece, the same area, from Corfu to the Turkish border, that was most deadly for Jews during the Holocaust." I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Is "the same area" supposed to be there?
  • Rephrased
• "Bulgarian authorities saw the removal of non-Bulgarian ethnic groups including Jews and Greeks as a necessary step in making room for Bulgarian settlers." -> "Bulgarian authorities saw the removal of non-Bulgarian ethnic groups, including Jews and Greeks, as a necessary step in making room for Bulgarian settlers." Added some commas
  • Done
• "those who registered with the authorities came from the lower classes in society, and lacked the financial resources to do so." -> "those who registered with the authorities came from the lower classes in society, and lacked the financial resources to flee."
  • rephrased
• "was the last straw that drove them to leave the country." Concerned about MOS:IDIOM. Perhaps, "caused them to leave the country."
  • I removed the sentence because the proposed rewrite changes the meaning. Fleming doesn't say that Jews left solely because of the draft but combined with other reasons.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 12:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Support my concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

@WP:FAC coordinators: since I now have 3 supports, SR and IR, could I make another nomination? (t · c) buidhe 12:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

55 Wall Street

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, whose long history can be seen just by looking at the two tiers of colonnades on its eight-story facade. The lower section was constructed for the Merchants' Exchange in 1841 and also housed the New York Stock Exchange and the United States Custom House in the 19th century. The upper section was built when National City Bank took over in the 1900s. At one point, the bank was said to do "more business in its head office than is done under any other nongovernmental banking roof on the face of the earth". The building's massive cruciform banking hall is now an event venue, with people living in condo apartments above.

This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by one of FAC's very own coordinators, Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • I have done this now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• File:(King1893NYC)_pg790_THE_OLD_MERCHANTS'_EXCHANGE_ON_WALL_STREET.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: The author of the book, Moses King, died in 1909. However, this is already public domain anyway in the U.S., since the book was published in the U.S. in 1893. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Is the author of the book the creator of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

      I cannot say definitively. In the King’s Handbook of New York City, it does not seem that artists for each illustration were individually credited. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

      • In that case I would suggest removing or replacing the life+70 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

        I have done this. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• " is the entrance to the Wall Street station on the New York City Subway's Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line (served by the 2 and ​3 trains).[6]" I might say "an entrance" as there are multiple such.
• "a dome rising 124 feet (38 m)" above street level?
• "There is low relief in the center dome" These are, presumably the compass signs and zodiac spoken of a bit later. Since it is these designs that (I assume) are done in low relief, I might mention them together.
• "to accommodate all of the customs duties " Since "customs duties" has another meaning (i.e., tariffs), I might rephrase.
• Since the Subtreasury was, I believe, at Federal Hall, that might be a better pipe
• "thereby making it easy to transport gold" "By the end of the century, the custom house's location at 55 Wall Street was no longer advantageous, as it was easier to use a check or certificate to make payments on revenue.[18][56]" These read a bit obscurely unless one's aware that they paid before in gold, and there was an obvious safety advantage to having the Custom House nearby the Subtreasury.
• "president William McKinley and U.S. treasury secretary Lyman Gage.[9]" These titles could be capitalized.
• The first paragraph of "Conversion" seems to mix two different things that were going on: the fact that the (predominately rural) Democrats disliked spending money for a new federal building in NYC, and what appears to be something of a tax dodge, with the bank not taking title (which would have made the building subject to property taxes) despite paying most of the purchase price. I might separate them out a bit.
• "$10,000 apiece" the newspaper source says not less than $10,000.
• " A "universal tellers' station"" And this is what?
• "The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the building's exterior a landmark on December 21, 1965. It was one of the first landmarks to be designated by the LPC in Manhattan" This is the second time you've told us about this.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Time in Finland

Nominator(s): LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the history and geography of the time zone used in Finland as well as its maintenance. As far as I know, no time zone-related article has yet to achieve FA status, and so I really wish to expand and improve the coverage of this niche yet highly important subject (It indirectly involves almost all 7.9 billion people!). Additionally, the quality of Time in X articles (even important ones such as the United Kingdom) is rather poor at the moment, and so I also hope that perhaps this article could help towards possibly setting a standard for future Time in X articles I wish to improve. This reached GA in January 2022 (thank you Mujinga) and received a PR in March (thanks to Buidhe). It has changed significantly since it achieved GA status, and I think it is worthy of nomination for FA now. Lastly, I also wish to thank LPfi, whose lengthy edit to the history section in October last year unknowingly inspired me to work on this article. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 02:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisThe Dude - Support

• "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was to be needed" => "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was needed"
• "between Finland its western neighbours" - think there's a word missing there
• "Finland's observance of Eastern Europe Time, while other countries to the west used Central European Time at UTC+01:00 caused" - need a comma before "caused"
• "with the adjustment made one hour earlier at 0:2:00 EET" - that time doesn't look right
• "Hours can be marked with leading zeros especially for the early hours of the night where necessary for clarity [...] but the hour after midnight and later in the morning, the leading zero is usually omitted" - I don't understand this, the two parts seem to contradict each other......?
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Done! And I reworded the sentence you mention last to be more comprehensive. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

It is a shame that this FAC has not attracted more reviewers as it is nice to see a different topic being represented in this space. I am by no means an expert on this topic as I do not even have a full grasp on time in the United States, but I hope my more outsider position will help in at least some way. My comments are below:

• For this part, two hours ahead of coordinated universal time (UTC+02:00), UTC+02:00 is linked twice. I would remove the first instance as it is not necessary in my opinion and it would avoid a sea of blue.
• I am confused by the mentions of daylight saving time in the lead. The first paragraph says it has been observed since 1983, but the second paragraph says it was done away with at some unspecified date. Could you clarify this for me?
• If Finland is linked in the lede, it should be linked in the article itself for consistency.
• I find the citation placement for this part, advanced 20 minutes and 10.9 seconds to Eastern European Time, to be rather cumbersome. Why not just move the citation to the end of the sentence?
• I'd link the Soviet Union as other geographic areas get linked.
• Daylight saving time is linked twice in the article.
• I would split the "Proposals to end daylight saving time" paragraph into two. I would start a new paragraph with this sentence, As of November 2021, as it seems like a natural break to me. I suggest this because it is a rather long paragraph so I think breaking it into two will help with readability.
• I'd remove the following links: telephone, Internet, computer networks, and internet connection. I am encouraging this as this are rather common concepts that a majority of readers will already understand so the link is not particularly necessary.

I hope this review is helpful. I have focused on the prose as I do not know Finnish so I cannot really delve into the sources in any meaningful way. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Very helpful! I have made the relevant changes, and reworded your aforementioned sentence on DST to instead read "Daylight saving time was first attempted once in 1942". Hopefully this should avoid the confusion. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

Nice to see this type of article here at FAC. Some comments:

• The opening sentence is a bit long. Do we really need to have "including Åland" right here?

• Removed.

• In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was needed --> would be better if it starts with what was before 19th century

• Done.

• Daylight saving time was first attempted once in 1942, but abandoned as not useful. In 2017, --> missing here is when it was re-introduced (1981)

• Added.

• to consider abolishing daylight saving. --> to consider abolishing daylight saving time.

• Fixed.

• and each city followed their own --> and what happened in the villages?

• Changed to "localities" instead, sources mention that towns and villages used their own solar time as well.

• each city followed their own solar time. In 1909 --> This is puzzling to me: at first I thought 1909 was a typo and should be 1809, but then realised that is not even "before the 19th century". Maybe just drop the year and say something a long the lines of "This meant that .."

• Changed.

• via telegraph --> when was the telegraph introduced in Finalnd?

• Seems like it was in 1854. Should this be noted in the article?

• Not here in the lead, but in the body it would be good.

• Added.

• Kaipiainen, just east of Kouvola. --> is anything known about time further east?

• I could not find anything.

• In 1882, clock synchronisations by telephone were arranged between Finland and Sweden --> anything about Russia? Especially since the topic was train to St Petersburg.

• It appears I misread the source: synchronisations to Helsinki mean time were arranged between the Finnish Meteorological Institute and Sweden's National Meteorological Institute for geo measurements. Changed accordingly.

• In 1888, the Diet of Finland (a legislative assembly) .. (Finland was --> 2 sets of parentheses is maybe a bit too much in one sentence

• Perhaps "(a legislative assembly)" can be removed? Diet of Finland is wikilinked.

• Yes

• was proposed in the Diet --> by the Diet?

• Fixed.

• On second reading this made it worse, sorry! It now looks as if the Diet disagreed with itself. I assume that the proposal was made by the government and parliament voted and rejected it. If so, then perhaps "proposed by the government"?

• Does it look alright now? :3

• Yes

• without success --> anything known about why it was rejected?

• Expanded.

• Nevertheless, the standard railway time spread to common usage throughout the country --> if there is a bit more about how and why this happened, that would be good.

• Expanded. Should look alright now?

• proposed that Finland adopt Eastern European Time --> link Eastern European Time

• Added.

• to become the standard time zone for the country --> ideally there is a bit more on this: e.g. impact, reactions by the residents, how did it compare to neighbouring countries

• Expanded. Seems like it was a very easy switch with no objections until the proposal of CET in 1929, so there may be little to expand upon.

• caused difficulties for businesses --> would be good to give examples. The next sentence has one, but it would be better placed here perhaps

• Changed. Does it look alright?

• Content yes, but wording a bit sub-optimal with repetition of "caused"

• Fixed.

• proposed that the Finnish government switch --> needs a bit of a rephrase, because now it looks as if they propose the government switches but the rest of the country not, so perhaps "switch the time in Finland to"

• Fixed.

• the European Union directive --> the name European Union was not in use in 1980, it only came in 1992

• Fixed.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on the structure regarding daylights saving time. I can see the argument to have some of it in the history section, but now we have some repetition and wrongly placed info I think. I'm not sure how to make it perfect, but let me try to make some concrete suggestions:
• first of all, Further information: Summer time in Europe should move to the header "Daylight saving time"

• Moved.

• As Finland is at high latitude, the sun ... time coordinated with other countries. --> apart from the tone of this being a bit too informal (still) and vague (as an advantage?) and unremarkable (the sun shines in the mornings in the summer everywhere), should this not move up? It seems to convey the reason why it was changed, so perhaps better suited in the history

• Reckon it could be removed all together?

• No, I do think it is a point worth making that in summer it is pointless. Perhaps something along the lines of "Finland's high latitude means that in summer the nights are short (e.g. in Helsinki in July there are only 5 hours between sunset and sunrise), and daylight saving time has no impact on the population. In spring and autumn it does, in addition to the advantage of keeping the time coordinated with other countries"

• Implemented. Look alright?

• would be healthy for Finns --> any specific reasons given?

• Changed: the society claimed it would save power and food (food??).

• Intriguing. But should it not be singular "means that" instead of "mean that"?

• Fixed.

• Finland has observed daylight saving time since 1981 --> I can live with duplication, given that some readers might jump from the index straight here, but the bit that follows "following the European Union directive on daylight savings time, with the adjustment made one hour earlier at 02:00 EET for the first two years" should not be in this section. The first two years bit should be in the history.

• Fixed, should be okay now?

• Yes

• was reviewing the practice --> repetition of practice

• Fixed.

• As of November 2021 --> any more recent updates?

• None from Yle in English or Finnish. EU has yet to release any updates either.

• Geography and solar time --> a map would be good, the tripoint photo could go to an earlier section

• It used to have file:Tzdiff-Europe-winter.png, or would you prefer a different image? Also, I would personally be fine with removing the tripoint photograph all together if need be, as the tripoint is ultimately of little importance.

• file:Tzdiff-Europe-winter.png confuses me. I was thinking of a map that shows the 30th meridian and some of the cities mentioned in the text. We don't need another time zone image, the top one does that trick. It may not be possible to find something and that is fine too, it would just be nice to help the reader. If found, I agree the tripoint can go.

• Great, will look for something.

• located outside of 22°30' East --> is outside the right word? is simply west not better?

• Changed.

• Finland's standard meridian --> what does that mean? The meridian article doesn't define it either. Plus the infobox calls it "central meridian". One term should be used, not two

• A standard meridian is "a meridian used for determining standard time". The 30th meridian east is the standard meridian of Eastern European Time. I will edit the infobox accordingly and see about adding standard meridian it to an article somewhere.

• @Edwininlondon: Is it acceptable to link to Wiktionary for this term? I do see it as notable enough for its own article or an explicit mention in an article.

• I don't think I have ever seen a Wiktionary link in an FA, so my suggestion is to a) add a Standard meridian section to the meridian article and link to that section; b) fix the infobox template and change "central meridian" into "standard meridian" with a link to this new section. In your source the phrase "central meridian" is never used. A quick search on the internet suggests that "central meridian" means something else, not time zone related.

• Fixed. Standard meridian is also now a redirect.

• Because of Finland's high latitude, ... and Russia easier. --> this sentence feels misplaced. What follows and what comes before it are closely related and this sentence breaks the flow. Also, I would drop the second part from "which is only" until the end, because it feels a bit repetitive

• Fixed.

• At Muotkavaara – a tripoint border between Finland, Norway and Russia – three time zones meet during Finland's winter time; --> commas instead of – is fine I think. And should the semicolon at the end not be a colon?

• You are correct! Fixed.

• in Nikel --> why mention a city? the timezone is for a whole part of the country, not just the city

• Fixed. Thought it was worth mentioning as Russia has several time zones but it seems strange now.

• leap seconds --> I would expect a bit more on this: when was the first time this was done, how often has it been done, when was the last time?

• Expanded. Thoughts?

• Nice work.

• "21–04" to avoid confusion with 24:00 --> why deviate from the standard notation twice here? Both should use the period. And I'm not convinced this is a good example of the point being made about leading zeros

• Changed to 24.00.

• OK, but sorry I still don't get it: we're talking about leading 0s for the hours and 21–04 does not have a leading 0, and also has an unexpected - as separator. Can it not just be "(e.g. 04:00)" and drop the "confusion with 24:00"? What do the sources say?

• @Edwininlondon: Oh, I see! The example is meant to read "21 to 04", as in "open from 21 to 04", as "open from 21 to 4" might make people think it was open from 21 to 24. I was actually confused by this myself! Evidently, It should definitely be changed to something less confusing, any ideas on what to?

• I did some edits, after reading the source (thx to Google Translate!)

• Thank you – that looks great!

• but the hour after midnight and later in the morning --> comma before but and something is missing, perhaps "for the hour"?

• Fixed.

• "9–21" --> (e.g. "1.21" and "9.21")
• just checking if I get this right: acceptable is 00:21 and 0.21 and 1.21 and 02.21 and 2.21 and 07.21 and 9.21. But not acceptable are: 01.21 and 09.21?
• spelled out using the 12-hour clock --> does this work for all time or only the whole hour? I mean, does one spell out 9.21 as nine hours and twenty one minutes in the morning? (Languages can get quite odd with this: in Dutch one can actually say "nine minutes before half ten")

• I shall consult the source.

• Finland previously used the 12-hour clock --> and how did notation look like then? Something like the English am and pm?

• I will see if there are any sources for this.

• I cannot find a source for this specifically.

• Europe/Mariehamn for Åland. "AX" --> anything on why there are 2 entries that are identical?

• IANA gives tzs for individual territories rather than UTC offsets.

• See also: always tempting to add many links, but now I'm thinking "where is Sweden?" That "bordering country of Finland" feels overkill

I'll look at sources later. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Edwininlondon: I believe I have addressed all your points now. Very thorough, thank you so much! For your last points, I have removed some text from Notation, does it look slightly more comprehensive and non-confusing now? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, notation does look better, except for the "21–04" to avoid confusion with 24.00"

• Reading over the article once more, I do feel there is a bit of a gap. The birth of international coordination of time is missing. The 1897 proposal talks about UTC+2. Why was that? By the 1919 proposal EET did already exist. When was EET created? By whom? Who adopted it immediately? Was Finland involved in its creation? I think the article would benefit from an extra paragraph dedicated to international time coordination in the history section, including a link to the International Meridian Conference.

• I have expanded on this. Thoughts?

• Nice work

• Since 1983, the change has been made an hour earlier. --> any reasons given? Did the neighbouring countries do the same?

• TZ database says they did not, and the book source does not mention why. I will try to find another source for this, such as an announcement from a newspaper.

• That would be good.

• I cannot seem to find anything, and the 15 March 2007 source from Yle about DST in the country which is already cited in the article does not give any reason either.

That's it on prose from me. I promise. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes. I support on prose. Later I will look at source formatting, quality and will do a spotcheck, once mujinga has done their review. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from mujinga

• I enjoyed reviewing this for GA and will give it a read again once the comments from Edwininlondon are dealt with. Just wanted to say now that I agree the first sentence is a bit unwieldy and would suggest breaking it up or starting with a different sentence. Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'll give the article a read now after replying at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#FAC_instructions_on_subheads Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• "each locality followed their own solar time" ⇒ "each locality followed ITS own solar time" - in lead and body

• Done.

• "would feel too alien for Finns" - I'm lost, wouldn't standardised time be helpful?

• I know right *-* The source is relatively vague; I will try to find a more explanatory source for it. Found! It has been clarified and expanded.

• " it continued to observe daylight saving time in-line with said directive, however is now bound by European Union law to follow it" - suggest " it continued to observe daylight saving time in-line with said directive AND is now bound by European Union law to follow it."

• Done.

• "must approve the proposal" - suggest "were required to approve the proposal"

• Done.

• "has yet to be obtained as the European Union" - suggest "had yet to be obtained as the European Union" since Nov 2021 is now in past, or can you update this?

• Done. No updates from EU yet.

• on references:
  • is there a reason for UTC–UTC(MIKE) not UTC–UTC (MIKE)? i do see the source uses UTC–UTC(MIKE)

• It seems as though that is how all standards of International Atomic Time are stylised, e.g. UTC–UTC(SP) and UTC–UTC(SU). Research has turned my brain into mush but there is an equation (or calculation or something) called UTC(k), which perhaps has something to do with it. All sources online use UTC–UTC(MIKE).

• thanks for clarification! Mujinga (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• • Tilastoja Suomen ilmastosta 1981–2010 (PDF) can have an english translation

• Added.

• on the lead, as we discussed back at the GA review, more from the article can be summarized in the lead, eg a sentence each about maintenance and geography. notation and IANA time zone database perhaps dont need summarizing, but interested what you think

• I have added on maintenance, geography and notation. I wholeheartedly agree IANA should not be mentioned in the lede. Honestly I am slightly 'meh' on notation, but what do you think?

• By notation, do you mean " Finland uses the 24 hour clock notation." ? I agree, it feels a bit tacked on. Maybe see what someone else says, or if you want to delete it again, go ahead. Otherwise the lead is great now! Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• also the first sentence reads too awkwardly to me. for me, "Finland uses Eastern European Time[a] (EET) during the winter as standard time and Eastern European Summer Time[b] (EEST) during the summer as daylight saving time" reads much better.
• you could then add in "two hours ahead of coordinated universal time (UTC+02:00)" and "three hours ahead of coordinated universal time (UTC+03:00)" in a following sentence if necessary

• I have altered the first sentence of the lead, your thoughts?

• Reading much better I would say! Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• finally, the caption "The Helsinki University Observatory, on which Finland's local mean time is based" is a bit confusign for me, what exactly do you want to say? i feel like "where Finland's local mean time is measured" would work better?

• Done, upon reading other articles that seems to be the correct term to use.

• that's it from me, great to see this article improved from the GA review and here at FAC! Mujinga (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mujinga: And thank you for the GA and now FA review! You have greatly aided in helping to develop and improve this article :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• changing to support Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do this, probably tomorrow. @WP:FAC coordinators: , I assume this needs a spot check too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A spot check would be preferable. Hog Farm _Talk 22:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the nom has any FAs, so it would be required. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll start with the spot check, just in case that leads to any changes to the sources. I'll look at eight footnotes, picked more or less at random. For the Finnish sources, I'm using Google Translate, which I know can be misleading, so please excuse any notes below based on mistranslations. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• 36: OK.
• 60: Used to support "VTT also maintains a radio transmitter in Espoo that transmits a high-precision time signal produced by an atomic clock and hydrogen monitors that maintain Finland's official time zone at a frequency of 25 megahertz to make sure the official timekeeping devices in Finland do not fall behind". I used Google Translate to translate the page cited, but I can't find these details on that page. Should this go to another page? And I see that VTT is in Espoo, but the only source for that seems to be the contact page at that website, so I would suggest citing that page too.

You are right! I have added the correct source ("SI units in Finland, time and frequency"). I looked around, but actually I cannot see anything on VTT maintaining any kind of radio transmitter, so I have removed said sentence.

• 19: Used to support "Finland became independent in 1917, and on 10 December 1919 the Geographical Society of Finland [fi] wrote a proposal to the government that Finland adopt Eastern European Time". I think you need a separate cite for the date of Finnish independence (to avoid adding another source, you could use p. 87 of Heikki (1999), which mentions it). The source is a newspaper dated 10 December 1919, so it seems the Society's proposal must have been written before that date. Per Google Translate, I think that from the second-to-last paragraph I can tell the Society met to agree on this in October. Can you check the date, and quote and translate for me the sentences in the source that support the whole sentence?
• 6: Used to support "A ball was released at noon and its falling was noted optically at the railway station and the clock adjusted accordingly. If there was fog impairing the ball from being seen from that far away, noon would additionally be announced by a shot from a cannon. The correct time was relayed to the other stations via electrical telegraph". I think you need to extend the cite to include page 83, which covers the cannon and electric telegraph. Google Translate says the cannon was used when it was "rainy", can you confirm that the source is really talking about fog?

Fixed. It does say rainy! I somehow mistook Sateinen (rainy) as Sumuinen (foggy). Also extended the citation.

• 18 & 21: Used to support: "On 30 April 1921 at midnight on Walpurgis Night, the official time was advanced 20 minutes and 10.9 seconds to Eastern European Time, to become the standard time zone for the country" 18 is OK; it appears to cite everything except the name of Walpurgis Night. 21 is OK, again except for "Walpurgis Night". I'm curious as to why you mention Walpurgis Night instead of just giving the date -- does it have some particularly cultural relevance to Finns or to the article? Either way, if you keep it I would provide a cite for the name of the night.

It is mentioned in page 87 of Aikakirja, which references that it was purposefully chosen as such, so it may be relevant to the article.

"Valtio- neuvosto päätti, että muutos tehdään vuoden 1921 vappuyönä."

'The Council of State [that is, the government] decided that the change would be made on Walpurgis night 1921.'

Walpurgis night is called vappu in Finnish and yönä means night, but in Finnish yönä refers vaguely to the time between 11 p.m. and 6–7 a.m. So, "vappuyönä" refers to the eve of Walpurgis night (midnight 30 April 1921, as stated in the article).

• 14: OK.
• 23: Used to support "On 19 June 1929, the Finnish Post and Telegraph Board proposed to the Finnish government that Finland's standard time be switched to Central European Time". It looks as though this has the same problem as 19, above; the date given in the article is the same as the date of the newspaper. I was unable to find and translate the supporting text from the source; can you quote and translate the relevant text for me?

-- That's it for the spot check for now; I'll wait to do the source review till after we're done with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Olive Morris

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Olive Morris was a Black activist in the 1970s and no doubt would be better known had she not died tragically young. She grew up in South London and became a squatter activist, involved in Black liberation groups such as the British Black Panther Movement, Brixton Black Women's Group and the Race Today Collective. When she studied in Manchester, she was quick to become involved in local campaigns, and upon returning to London her activism continued before being cut short at the age of 27. Her legacy has recently been invigorated by the Remembering Olive Collective and with the help of other contributors I've hopefully improved the page through a Good article review and a peer review. Special thanks go to Amitchell125 and SusunW. I think the article is now in a state ready for the front page, so all constructive criticism is welcome and I hope to reply to any actionable points as promptly as possible. This is my first submission to FAC. Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hiya Gog the Mild thanks for adding Olive Morris to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. Can I doublecheck whether the comments from SusunW and/or Caeciliusinhorto could be enough for a source review? Otherwise should I be asking people for help on this? Mujinga (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. (I should have thought of it!) @SusunW and Caeciliusinhorto: I am more than happy with the thorough source to text integrity checks. I wonder if either or both of you would care to opine on the more general aspects of sourcing? Eg are sources all high-quality and reliable, are the citation and referencing styles appropriate and consistent etc. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga and Gog the Mild: you know that I am reluctant to comment on formatting or technical stuff, as it is not my forté. Mujinga and I disagree on the citation style as I find it difficult to read "around" in-line citations, but I grant the reasons they prefer this style are valid. The sources are for the most part high-quality and curated. (I honestly believe that all accessible materials were evaluated in preparing the article.) During the peer-review, Mujinga reformatted materials to reflect title case and consistent ISBN formatting. There are three sources in version 1081103085 the piece by Obi (#27), Abasindi Co-operative (#39) and Lopez de la Torre's (#51) which are blogs/self-published. Obi and Lopez's piece were published by the Olive Morris collective, which was formed by academics seeking to recover Morris' legacy and Abasindi is published by the Manchester Central Library. Thus, IMO it is unlikely that any of them would present materials that might harm their reputations or the subject's and they appear to be reliable. The Abasindi piece could be replaced by a citation to Bettocchi's thesis if deemed necessary. I note that the name is flipped in the Lopez de la Torre (her first name is shown as last). Were it me (I understand that I am OCD and overly detail-oriented), I would add locations to all publishers (at present they only appear for books) and issn and oclc identifiers where available for journal articles, as it is often difficult for those of us with no access to formal library systems to access web links and these identifiers are often requested by those who hold articles to attain copies of them. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild – I agree with Susun on the suitability of sources: they're reliable, primary sources are used appropriately, and I can find no high-quality reliable sources that have been omitted. I've fixed the misformatting of the Ana Lopez de la Torre source that Susun identified. I haven't combed through citation formatting in detail, but I don't see any obvious issues with consistency; I'm busy for the remainder of this week but can try to find time over the Easter weekend if nobody else can check that before then. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Olive_Morris_died_1979.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and is any more information available on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, the rationale has been expanded. Re provenance, I already contacted the Lambeth Archives and they said "The ownership/copyright status of the Olive Morris collection at Lambeth Archives is complex. Therefore, sadly, Lambeth Archives isn't in a position, to assist with this request." Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    Just to add, Victuallers has helpfully emailed Remembering Olive Collective, Fawcett Society, Blackpast.org and the National Archives on 17 March to ask if they can supply a free picture. Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    • Nikkimaria There's been no replies to the various email requests, so I guess we can assume we won't get one. I expanded the FUR, anything else I can do on images? Thanks Mujinga (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
      • No, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Spot check - pass

I did an extensive examination during the peer review and spot checked every reference. I can confirm that the information in the article is supported by the citations. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• thanks for that! Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Susun W

• In the second sentence in Adult life and activism, we need context. To avoid repeating 1960s and 1970s, perhaps insert "in the last half of the 20th century".
  • rejigged Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• "not only notions" begs a comparison. Not only British, "but Caribbean"?
  • hmm yes and "style" is repeated from a few sentences earlier .. i'll come back on that one. feel free to adjust since you were already adding stuff here Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I added it with the citation to the Windrush fashion source, as I noted another reviewer also commented that it seemed to be lacking a comparison. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
      • nice! and i rejigged it a but to avoid using the word "style" so much. hopefully it's better now :) Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• flip the references after "his arm was broken" and "ain't no girl" so that they are in numerical order.
  • done Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• "later beaten in police custody", perhaps "while" in?
  • for me that reads ok, happy to see what others think Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• flip the references after "radical feminist" to fix numerical order
  • done Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• ditto for after "activities without any public funding", "Olive Morris Manuscript Collection at the Lambeth Archives"
  • done - thanks for the eagle eyes on this! Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Overall, great job. I would like to see a bit in the legacy section on why historians believe she was a significant figure, but others may disagree. SusunW (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely^^^ legacy is more than buildings and street names, but who was influenced and how; the former might be demolished and renamed, but the latter rings through the ages with ripples still seen today. SN54129 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on this, but it's been quite hard to find stuff talking about her historical significance since she is still very much a marginalised figure - as is shown by the problems finding a photograph of her and indeed her political comrades such as Beverley Bryan, Elouise Edwards, Altheia Jones-LeCointe and Liz Obi Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Go back to the peer review where I wrote "Longley p 131 says examining her life", several scholars I noted there analyze her significance. SusunW (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I was replying more to Serial Number 54129 but I do remember that peer review discussion. Longley is talking about the narrative about Morris presented in the archives and her reaction to that. I was hoping the Bettocchi PhD might have more on her legacy but I didn't see much there. Caeciliusinhorto is also asking about legacy below so I'll have to go back into the sources but I don't think there's a huge amount there to be honest. Having said that I'm sure I can find something and perhaps flesh out the work of the Remembering Olive Collective a bit too. Mujinga (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've had another look in the sources: I've added a quote from Fisher and some more info from Ford; I didn't see much more to add from Bettocchi and Longley. I note I recently added a source from Bristol University for Black History Month about the contributions of Obi and Morris. See what you think! Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on everything I have read, you are correct to not make her "the figurehead", as you said below. The legacy I have in mind and maybe Caeciliusinhorto will look this over too, is something like this very rough first stab at it: An examination of Morris's life provides insight into the collective Black experience in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s.(Longley 2021, p 131; Ford 2016, p 8)(Bryan, Dadzie, Scafe 2018, pp 151, 155) The erasure of the Black community from British history of the period has been challenged by 21st-century scholarship which has examined individual lives of community members like Morris.(Reilly 2019; Longley 2021, p 131; Bettocchi 2021, pp 97-99) Analysis of her life by the Remembering Olive Collective and academics like Ford has brought to light the common struggle of British Black women with women across the African, Asian, and Caribbean diasporas against classism, colonialism, and sexism and the need for more comprehensive study of these intersections.(Reilly 2019) Harrison argues that uncovering Morris's participation in the squatting movement was significant as it showed a lack of academic research into the politics of housing.(Fisher 2012, p 75) Both Harrison and Bettocchi note that Morris's experiences reflected how the politicization of housing and homelessness impacted the Black community, as well as single and/or childless people.(Fisher 2012, p 75)(Bettocchi 2021, pp 99-100) I also see that (Perri W 2019) says her campaigning was successful in motivating the Lambeth council to buy abandoned flats in 1973 to address housing issues. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I don't really feel the article needs this, I think there is already enough on her legacy dotted through the article and we have (with your peer review suggestions) contextualized the time of Black liberation struggles in England in which Morris was active. But maybe I can't see the wood for the trees any more. I left it a few days to wait for other opinions, now I'll ping Caeciliusinhorto to see what they think and I'll also ask Carbon Caryatid. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think on the whole I agree with Mujinga on this point. Though I think Susun's proposed text interesting, I also worry that it is more a conclusion to an academic essay than it is a part of a wikipedia bio? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Far be it from me to hold this up over such a small part of the article. Honestly, Mujinga, you have done a fine job on this and I genuinely appreciate your efforts on it. Support SusunW (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW, that peer review was epic and we found so much extra stuff together! Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from GhostRiver

I will take a look at this later. — GhostRiver 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• In the infobox, "London UK" -> "London, UK"
  • done Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "she was beaten up" -> "she was assaulted"
  • is this a BrEng/USEng thing? Beaten up seems more appropriate to me Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Brixon, South London" potential MOS:SEAOFBLUE concerns?
  • I don't think two in a row is seaofblue, could lose "south" i suppose and not link London, but the benefits of mentioning south outweigh this Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "squatted buildings" or "squatted in buildings"?
  • former reads fine to me, happy to supply academic sources to back that up Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "another was used" -> "while the other was used"
  • she squatted way more than two buildings, so then it's more saying: one .. another .. (unspecified others) Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organisations – Lambeth Council named a building after her – and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective (ROC)." -> "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organizations like the Lambeth Council, who named a building after her, and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective."
  • I am not a big fan of dashes, don't use them myself, but don't see much difference here Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "and has featured on lists of inspirational Black British women" This feels like quite a vague statement
  • it's summarising the mast paragraph which says she appears in the Voice and Evening Standard lists Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "and then followed them" -> "before following them"
  • hmm maybe it's not clear the way it is that the grandmother was in Jamaica? Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Migrants are affected by both local and transnational factors." Sentence doesn't flow as the header of the paragraph; the second sentence feels like a better start
  • sentence removed Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "access to housing and jobs was"; awkward syntax. Could be read as "access to X and (to) Y" for the singular, or "access to X (thing one) and Y (separate item)" for the plural, if that makes sense
  • changed "jobs" to "employment", hopefully that helps Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Just over five feet tall, she gained a reputation as a fierce activist." Is this where I make a no correlation joke? (In seriousness, the connection between her height and reputation is only implicit as currently worded)
• "She was described as other activists" -> "Other activists described her"
  • then the second part reads funny so I haven't changed it Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "wrote up"
  • i prefer wrote up, happy to hear other opinions Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "and several other people" -> "and several others"
  • done Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "trumped up charges" unencyclopedic phrasing
  • Another BrEng/USeng thing perhaps? Could change to "fabricated" Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "the prosecution case" -> "the prosecution's argument"
  • since both case and prosecut- are previously mentioned, I've just chopped that phrase Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Why was she sent away from the hospital?
  • Here's what the source says (Longley p130): When interviewed by the ROC, Gerlin Bean (2009, pp. 5–6) spent time recounting her experience of Olive’s sudden deterioration in health: ‘She’s always messing around and laughing and carrying on, and then she starts rolling around on the floor, and said: “oh, such a pain”. And I said: “Olive stop messing around” and she said: “no, I really have this pain”’. They urgently took a taxi to King’s College Hospital: ‘we went and then they told her, you know what they told her? That she has gas [laughter], and they gave her some tablets and things and said go away’. But the pain persisted, and it was only after some time that they discovered the true cause of her illness, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly very nitpicky prose stuff to cut out fluff, or areas where there's some confusing syntax. Overall very good and informative! — GhostRiver 18:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've implemented changes for some and queried others Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi GhostRiver, are you in a position yet to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither are obligatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mujinga and Gog the Mild, a few points I still want to address.

• I think "assaulted" reads better in the lede, as "beaten up" reads a bit too informal
• I don't love the presence of dashes in the lede still
• Would like the bit from the source to be included that she was sent away with nausea medication.

— GhostRiver 21:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look GhostRiver. I've changed to "assaulted" since another reader also flagged that up and added tablets. For the dashes, I think I'll check with other editors since it seems a stylistic preference to change it. Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked SN54129 below and they thought the dashes worked Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Everything serious has been addressed on my end. Happy to Support. — GhostRiver 18:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Publisher locations are missing from Fisher; Ford; and Scafe.
• When citing books or journal articles it is usual to give only the year of publication. (The latter may also have the volume and/or issue.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, much obliged Mujinga (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto

I made a few comments at peer review, but it looks as though the article has expanded quite a bit since then. On the first readthrough this looks good: two quick comments on prose:

• "Her personal style choices challenged not only notions of what it meant to be British" - suggests that we're going to get some sort of "but also challenged foo", but it never comes, and the paragraph ends leaving us hanging.
  • Indeed! That the sentence/section has been rejigged Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Black" is mostly capitalised throughout, but Longley is described as a "black history researcher" and there's one mention of Morris' "blackness", both lowercased – is this intentional?
  • good spot, capitalised these two for consistency. Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Will comment properly later Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do return! Your comments at the peer review were helpful and like you said the article ended up expanding rather nicely Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the article again, a somewhat nitpicky point:

• "[Morris was] charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm ... she was accused of kicking an officer. The jury found her not guilty on that charge." - implies to me that there were multiple charges: if so, do we know the verdicts? If not, just "The jury found her not guilty" is probably sufficient.
  • You are picking up on a point where the source (the Howe biography) is a bit vague, since it says "As a result, the judge instructed the jury to retire and reach a verdict on the charges facing Morris and Macintosh relating to the assault of PC Reid. Although he provided no formal direction, it was clear that he was asking the jury to find Morris and Macintosh innocent prior to their defence. Conspicuously absent was any direction regarding Howe. The jury found in favour of the defendants, Macintosh was discharged, Morris faced two further charges" (p173). I looked into it a bit further and this BBC source says all three were acquitted so that solves it, the other charges must have not stuck either, so I'll rephrase Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's all very vague, isn't it! Good job on finding the other source Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I also have a few questions where I suspect the answer is "the sources don't say" but I'll ask them anyway:

• When Morris went back to college to study for her O- and A-Levels, I don't suppose we know where? We list her schools and her university.
  • no couldn't find this information Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• The article quotes Longley mentioning Morris' "long-term white-skinned partner", and there are two mentions of Mike McColgan (presumably said partner) in Morris' last year, but do we know anything else about this relationship? When did they meet?
  • the closest we've got is his recent obituary (RiP) where it says they met in the mid-1970s Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I didn't expect you to find much on these points, but it's always worth checking – ah, well, if the sources don't say something, then there's not much we can do... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Finally, for the section on legacy, has anyone discussed the question of Morris' long-term signficance in the context of the black rights, feminist, or housing equality movements? The Voice "listed eight Black women who have contributed to the development of Britain" and included Morris, but how? Did her campaigning lead to any sort of legal change, or inspire a change in how activist groups organised or campaigned? The Voice doesn't say, but perhaps someone has...

• SusunW is also pressing this point above so I'll have another dip into the sources, I am uneager to make it seem that Morris was THE figurehead of black liberation in the UK but it seems I do need to add more. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the answer turns out to be "nobody has discussed this and overegging Morris' long-term signficance wouldn't be neutral" then that's fine! If the current state of the article is a genuine reflection of Morris' legacy, then I'm happy with that – but again I just thought it was worth asking. If I find anything potentially worth using, I will let you know! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a closer look at sourcing over the weekend, but so far the article looks to be in excellent shape and I'm anticipating supporting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, looking at sourcing now:

• There are a few uses of primary sources, but these all seem to be acceptable either as supporting citations for things backed up by secondary sources, or uncontentious statements of fact.
• The use of radical magazines and books published by independent radical presses seems to be appropriate, and balanced by Mainstream Scholarship^TM
• Overall I'm not seeing any sources that I'm super concerned about the usage of in the abstract.

Going to spot check a few sources, chosen at random (actually random, using a random number generator, not just arbitrarily!). I'm referring to them with the numbers as of this revision.

• 5, the National Archives source: used in discussion of Dick Shepphard School. Supports the claim that the school closed in 1994. Doesn't support that the school was girls' only or that Morris attended it, but the accompanying citations do support both those facts. "Other sources such as BBC News,[4] Brixton Black Women's Group[3] and the National Archives,[5] give different school names" – the BBC news source supports that Morris went to Dick Shepphard School, and presumably the school records held in the National Archives would confirm that, but the source cited is the National Archives' catalogue information for their records on the school, which doesn't support this.
  • In the note, 5 is being used the first time to show the school is called Dick Sheppard School, second time to show it closed in 1994. As you correctly observe, other sources are used to show Morris went there. Shall I removed the first mention? Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Gah, I've just spent an hour trying to work out what is going on with schools here, and it's all a muddle. A convenient local government publication called something like "Schools in Tulse Hill, 1955-70" is proving frustratingly elusive! There's an archive catalogue entry in London Metropolitan Archives (https://search.lma.gov.uk/SCRIPTS/MWIMAIN.DLL/300073541/2/11/575371?RECORD&UNION=Y&URLMARKER=STARTREQUEST) which suggests that Dick Sheppard School was also called Tulse Hill Comprehensive, not to be confused with the boys' school which is Tulse Hill School (previously the Strand School). Lavender Hill Girls' School clearly existed in some form, and the fact that it was a girls' school suggests a secondary to me. I'd be inclined to throw my hands up in defeat and cut the note back to something like "The ODNB says that Morris went to Heathbrook Primary, Lavender Hill Girls' School, and Tulse Hill School; the BBC says Lavender Hill Primary and the Dick Sheppard School." (With a Wikipedian fear of original research, we might even note that the fact that Tulse Hill School was boys only in 1974 doesn't preclude it from being mixed when Morris was there, though a comprehensive school going from mixed to single sex would be odd!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes working through the school stuff is a bit of a nightmare! We got into it at the bottom of Talk:Olive_Morris#FA_nomination in case you didn't see that already. I'll take another look now. Mujinga (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I have chopped the note a bit, now I'm wondering whether to chop it more and to just say in the article "Morris went to several schools in South London" and then only have the first half of the note saying "The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states: "Olive attended Heathbrook primary school and then Lavender Hill Girls' Secondary School and Tulse Hill secondary school." A BBC News article says "Lavender Hill Primary School and Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill"." The alternative is to leave it as is and say the names of then schools in the article but then have the note to explain why the sources differ. I blame the ODNB factcheckers for this mess by the way! Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• 17, "The Psychology of Windrush Style": doesn't explicitly discuss Morris' personal style choices, but there are two other citations (which I do not currently have access to but have requested) which may do that. As a supporting citation it is okay for the claim that the fashion choices of Carribean-British people in the 1960s and 1970s challenged ideologies of Britishness.
  • Happy to send over any sources you need! Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• 40, "Black Women's Groups". We write: "Locke had set up the Manchester Black Women's Co-operative (MBWC) in 1975 with Coca Clarke and Ada Phillips; Morris got involved and members later recalled her vigour.[40]: 2, 15". Looking at this version of the article, linked on the CUP website, I think the correct page numbers are 1, 15, and 17? I'm also not immediately seeing support for Morris' involvement in *MWBC* in this article; it talks about her joining *BWMA*, and the two groups seem to have overlapping membership but are distinct entities?
  • Damn I printed the open access version of the article and it has 28 numbered pages so there will be differences, I'll fix that now using this authoritative version with 21 pages. On page 14, it says "When discussing the conflict between the MBWC and Ron Phillips over the mismanagement of company funds, Tsele noted that Morris ‘was not in with those sorts of fights, those were just for us, grassroots’, noting that she ‘just used to come and help us with the intellectual bits, about how the system was working’" - so that shows Morris was involved with MBWC (as well as BWMA) Mujinga (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• 40 is also used to support the discussion of the collapse of MBWC and its reformation of Abasindi; it supports the first part of this sentence.
• 41 also used in the discussion of MWBC/Abasindi: along with 38 and 40, this supports the claims made.
• 54: along with 55, supports the claims made about Breeze Yoko's Olive Morris mural.

Other less systematic checks I have done while reading the article for the PR and this FAC didn't bring up concerns, so the main worry is the pagination of ref 40, and whether you've confused MWBC and BWMA in that paragraph? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that I've think I've answered everything (and note that I recently added another source answering other comments so after 29, numbers are +1). Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to get back to you sooner, but the last week has been super busy for me. Time for me to stop dithering and support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry

Not a subject I'm familiar with but I'll give it a go. I probably owe you a couple of reviews from my police shootings. At a glance, looks good.

• At the age of 17, she was beaten up Personally, I would say "beaten up" is bordering on too informal for an encyclopaedia but I won't push it if you disagree because it is at least succinct and understandable.
  • GhostRiver suggested above replacing with "she was assaulted", would that be an improvement? Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    • That would work.
• following an incident That's not a lot of detail, even for the lead. Is there anything else that can be said without bogging down the lead?
  • nothing springs to mind to summarise it better and the subheading calls it an incident. the diplomat does not appear to be otherwise notable Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• She joined the British Black Panthers... The lead doesn't explicitly say that this is a result of the Nigerian diplomat incident, but the placement implies it. Can we be clearer?
  • the sources say it was a formative experience, it's a bit hard to be more specific since we don't have a definite date when she joined the Panthers Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm guessing you would have included it if there was, but is there anything much to say about how/why she or her parents moved to Britain? Were they part of one of the mass migration events from the Caribbean?
  • It's a good question, unfortunately there isn't information in the sources. I think even Windrush was mentioned at one point but I took it out because it wasn't backed by the citation Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Windrush was what I had in mind when I asked the question, as well as London Transport's recruitment of of workers from the Caribbean, but if we don't know, we don't know.
• at the Victoria University of Manchester between 1975 and 1978 This is pedantry really, but hey, pedantry is what FAC is all about! By a strict literal reading, that sentence means "in 1976 and 1977", but I'm assuming you mean "from 1975 to 1978".
  • Yes, corrected Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Very little to criticise really. A succinct yet comprehensive and well-written article. I'll doubtless support once you've had a chance to look over my nit picks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by! I've replied to the comments Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

A couple of replies inline, but the resolution on those is not going to cause me to lose any sleep. For what it's worth, I've read the ODNB and it compares well to this article. I see no evidence of overly close paraphrasing, it appears to support all the claims it's cited for, and everything of importance in the ODNB is also in the Wikipedia article. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial

Placeholder, but I usually get a nosebleed if I go that far saarf. SN54129 11:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind south, isn't this about 600 years too modern for you? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry, how did you guess I spend my evenings flicking the light switch on and off in wonderment? "Give me the secret of thy Elektrickery!"  :) SN54129 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Other commenters are pretty much done just so you know. One thing I'd like to ask is since you use dashes at John Minsterworth, what do you think about the use of dashes in the lead here? Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I am wholly embarrassed at not looking at this important article like I said. Apologies, I'll look now. FTR, it was near-support worthy when you nominated it so I don't foresee anything too drastic.

Re. dashes, as you know I probably overuse them myself—I find them a useful halfway house between commas and brackets. I think your use in the lead is fine, as it sets off a parenthetical statement while keeping the reading smooth. SN54129 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh no worries I figured you were waiting on other reviewers to finish up. Thanks for the reply on dashes! Mujinga (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe "she continued her activism while studying at the Univ of Manch".
  • Having read it both ways a few times out loud, I think I prefer the current sentence as a link between two lists of groups she was involved with Mujinga (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously linking the African nations you list would be WP:SKYBLUE, but there might be a case for lining them to their respective liberation struggles? (I certainly don't object to leaving them unlinked either; could be slightly EASTEREGGy, I know. And bloody complicated.)
  • that's a good idea, resolved by not really being able to find articles on black liberation in X and I think linking to specific groups eg Front for the Liberation of Zimbabwe in the case of Zimbabwe would be a bit eastereggy indeed Mujinga (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• "adornment, clothing, and hair styles" - maybe link to Black British identity?
  • I don't mind to link it but wondering where. On "choice"? Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps, "grassroots problems affecting her community". H'mm. That double-plurarl doesn't read great either. It's just that, as it is, these undefined problems are a little vague.
  • true. the sentence is a bit divorced from " continued to experience racism; access to housing and employment was restricted in discriminatory ways and Black communities were put under pressure by both the police and fascist groups such as the National Front" above. hmmm could change to "fight for community rights"? That's also quite vague Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Any chance of more on why her assault led directly to Marxist-Leninism and rad feminism? I mean, the link's an obvious one to those involved in the movement, but in this article, it's unclear that she isn't already either of those things!
  • not really, the sources are pretty vague, it's even unclear exactly when she joined, so everyone seems to say a variation on "the assault happened. then she joined the panthers" Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• I can't think of a good way of removing the three-month/three-year repetition either.
  • yup that troubled me Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• How about, "This introduced Morris to Altheia...", then you can lose the third usage in a row of panthers.
  • yes! i can action this one! Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Is it possible to say slightly more about her trip to Morocco? (As her first trip abroad, it stands out.)
  • unfortunately not, that's all the sources say. must have been a fun experience until they ran out of money! Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not wanting to raise obtuse points of law  :) but re. "the accused were eventually found innocent"... in Eng law, I think people are found not guilty rather than innocent. I might be nitpicking, though, as the result, of course, is exactly the same!
  • changed, reads much better now Mujinga (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'd forgotten I wrote the Oval Four! Nice to see it linked to a far better article.
  • ah! oh what a tangled web we weave Mujinga (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• "Upon the demise of the British Black Panthers" -- what happened, briefly?
  • sources are quite unclear. certainly one reason was women observing sexism as referenced in the link to Black_Panther_Party#Women_and_womanism but that's also about the US group. should i try to draw that out a bit more? Mujinga (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• You want to choose between suffixing -ise(d) or -ize(d); you currently use a mix of both. FWIW, I think that -ise is more common in BrEng. (Same with organise/organize.)
  • -ise is more common in BrEng, but if Mujinga prefers -ize, Oxford English claims to have etymological justification on its side; you are right that consistency is needed! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    • ugg yes. I'd like to keep the -ize but of course need to be consistent, thanks for the spot Mujinga (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• "because the publisher refused to use a collective name and it was dedicated to Morris" -- clarify; atm it could mean either it was credited to three women because the publisher refused a collective name and because it was dedicated to Morris, or "because the publisher refused to use a collective name; it was dedicated to Morris". If you see my point.
  • rejigged Mujinga (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• "After her death, the MWBC folded after" -- "After her death, the MWBC folded due to", per repetition.
  • done! Mujinga (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Link praxis to Praxis (process)?
• What's the meaning behind the newsletter FOWAD!, do we know? A play on Forward! and the group[s name, or an acronym in its own right?

(drive by comment from someone who has lived lang taim eena di Caribbean) Chu kod do da consider dem "Kriol-speak", aka faawad, (or moving ahead, along, etc. In other words, the meaning would be obvious to anyone familiar with Kriol in the Caribbean and it is doubtful that it has any other meaning, but of course it could). SusunW (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What a brilliant explanation SusunW, seen :) Mujinga (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• "began feeling ill"?
  • "began to feel ill" ? Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• You elide seamlessly from the flatulence to Hodgkins. Was the former effectively a mis-diagnosis? If so, is the implication that—had it been caught earlier—the treatment might have been successful?
  • Yes that's a recent addition after a request for more info from GhostRiver above. What I'd done doesn't read back well to me today so I've rejigged it, see what you think. Here is what the source says in full: When interviewed by the ROC, Gerlin Bean (2009, pp. 5–6) spent time recounting her experience of Olive’s sudden deterioration in health: ‘She’s always messing around and laughing and carrying on, and then she starts rolling around on the floor, and said: “oh, such a pain”. And I said: “Olive stop messing around” and she said: “no, I really have this pain”’. They urgently took a taxi to King’s College Hospital: ‘we went and then they told her, you know what they told her? That she has gas [laughter], and they gave her some tablets and things and said go away’. But the pain persisted, and it was only after some time that they discovered the true cause of her illness, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.(Longley p130)
• A shame we don't have an image of her grave; unfortunately this category of Wikipedians is very sparsely populated!
  • Trying hard not to make a joke about Croydon Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• "a feminist Black Power movement in the UK and anthropologist" -- comma, semi-colon even, after UK?
  • Tried both, I think I'm happy with how it reads now Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Mostly just suggestions, Mujinga, although a few things could perhaps be clarified. But it's a thoroughly enjoyable read and a worthy tribute. SN54129 14:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

great lots of stuff to chew on, I'll hopefully get to this later on today Mujinga (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 thanks for the comments, I've followed some and queried others Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yo Gog, sup? SN54129 15:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• Can we get page numbers for the chapter for [46]?
  • using the wikipedia library no page number is given, so I've switched to the ebook isbn Mujinga (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure this is a problem, but the link for [19], http://www.movinghere.org.uk//gallery/celebration/desmond.htm, goes to the same URL as the archive link, though the URL is different when entered. Is there any reason to have an archive link in this case?
  • I suppose it can be of use to preserve the original link history? What's happened here follows from the National Archives running then closing the Moving Here project. Mujinga (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Again I'm not sure it's really a problem for FAC, but I don't see why we need to archive links such as [26], which only take you to an access page -- if you have to go to an archive because this page is down, the archive page won't help.
  • I see what you mean, I suppose the counter-argument is if Wiley goes down totally, there is still the record at archive.org Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• The archive link for [27] doesn't work.
  • True! Fixed Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• The archive link for [33] doesn't bring up a page image.
  • Works for me? Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• For [35], neither the original link nor the archived link is working. Assuming you can fix that, what makes britsandpcs.com a reliable source?
  • Yes it's been down for a while now, a few months at least. They are still tweeting at https://twitter.com/britsandpcs. It's a bit hard to debate the source when it's not available. I could just chop it and find another reference for leila hassan (and others)? I think the rest of the sentence is backed by the other ref. Mujinga (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    I think that would be best, since it's not possible to evaluate the source as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• The archive link for [41] goes nowhere.
  • Good point, removed Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• The archive link for [55] doesn't bring up a page image.
  • True, not sure if it is then better to delete the archive-url or not? Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    It now seems to be working! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced the link for [3] is correct. You cite pp. 9-10 for the obit, but I see nothing about Morris on pages 9 and 10. The page 9 I see has a subhead halfway down titled "BRITISH IMMIGRATION LAWS - An attack on Black people".
  • It is correct, in that it's pages 9 and 10 of issue 3, you were on issue 1, but hopefully now it links direct, avoiding the issue Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    My mistake. The link is unchanged as far as I can see, but it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• [4] is fine, but it seems to be used only to cite that the school exists, and since we have a link to a Wikipedia list article that includes the school I'm not sure why we need the cite. Still, not a sourcing problem if you want to keep it.
  • Yes I'd like to, since it says "Morris went to Lavender Hill Primary School and Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill and became involved in the British Black Panther Movement in the late 1960s." Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• What makes manchesterarchiveplus.wordpress.com a reliable source?
  • It's a partnership of : Greater Manchester County Record Office (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities); Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives (Manchester City Council); North West Film Archive (Manchester Metropolitan University); Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Race Relations Resource Centre & Education Trust (University of Manchester); Manchester & Lancashire Family History Society; BFI Mediatheque and Manchester Registration Service (Historic Registers) Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• What makes brixtonbuzz.com a reliable source?
  • This one is debatable I suppose since it's a (long-term) local news website. The about us is not clear on editorial policy but I don't think the claims it is being used for are particularly controversial. Mujinga (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• What makes rememberolivemorris.wordpress.com a reliable source? If you're using it only to source the existence of the book, I don't think it's a good idea to use a wordpress.com link for that. The ISBN/OCLC/etc. are enough to source that. If the book was too small-scale a publication to be recorded by OCLC or other indexes, then what makes the book itself a reliable source?
  • rememberolivemorris.wordpress.com is the website used by the Remembering Olive Collective, which in its first iteration collected information about Morris and then gave the materials to the local archives. People involved with it included Stella Dadzie, Tanisha C. Ford and Liz Obi, so subject area experts who wrote about Morris and also worked on the pamphlet together. We did discuss using this link at the peer review as well; I'd like to have it so people can find the pdfs via rememberolivemorris.wordpress.com, but can also just add Chidgey or Ruiz to cover its publication instead? As a sidepoint, the pamphlet appears to be listed twice on OCLC. Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• What makes brixtonblog.com a reliable source?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• • It's a local news website with a production staff including subject area editors. They also publish the Bugle, which is a community newspaper. Mujinga (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mike Christie thanks for the thorough review. I've replied point by point, please let me know what you think. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck everything above except the point about britsandpcs.com; everything else looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

2021 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 2021 version of the World Snooker Championship. Third times the charm! 15 other events are at FA level, so I'm looking to get the latest version up to level. Let me know what feedback you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Sportsfan77777

I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you have anything for me Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• , that took place from 17 April to 3 May 2021 <<<=== I don't think that comma is needed.
• for the World Snooker Championship to be held ===>>> the World Snooker Championship was held
• , and was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. The tournament was ===>>> The tournament was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. It was
• There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, with a mix of professional and invited amateur players ===>>> There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, consisting of a mix of professional and invited amateur players.
• , with 16 players reaching the main stage of the tournament where they played the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings. ===>>> The main stage of the tournament featured 32 players, the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings and an additional 16 players from the qualifying rounds.
• , defeating Kyren Wilson ===>>> , at which he defeated Kyren Wilson OR where he defeated Kyren Wilson
• with an additional 106 ===>>> and an additional 106
  • Replaced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Background

• with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. ===>>> The final was held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. (the misuse of "with" issue)
• The event is organised by World Snooker ===>>> It is organised by World Snooker
• £500,000, from a total <<<=== don't need the comma
• highest-ranked players ===>>> higher-ranked players (it's too many for highest-ranked)
• given byes ===>>> given one or two byes
  • Hmm, I'm not so sure of this. You get two byes if your opponent was to quit in two seperate rounds, but generally, the wording is "given a bye until round X". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan <<<=== I'm supporting using his first name here because it's used in tandem with "Defending champion", in contrast to ChrisTheDude's suggestion below.
  • Can't say I care either way. I actually thought Sean O'Sullivan was playing, which is why I got confused. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• a maximum of 33 frames. <<<=== just repeat "best of"? Changing terminology makes it sound different, but I think it's the same?
• Maybe contrast the spectator situation with that of the previous year and/or what was normal for the rest of the events from the same season?
  • Hmm, I think we'd be WP:SYNTHing something together to get this to work, but I will take a read of some more sources. [4] doesn't actually cover it. It was (I believe) the only tournament with spectators, but there was (although weirdly limited to the first and last two days) fans in 2020. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Covered the ones that have no comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Qualifying

• The defeat for White meant he was not ranked high enough to remain on the World Snooker Tour, but he was later given an invitational place for the following two seasons. ====>>> The defeat for White left him with too low of a ranking to automatically retain his tour card; however, he was later given an invitational tour card for the following two seasons. ("however" is useful for flow here. any reason for not using "tour card"?)
  • I don't like "tour card". If you know what it is, great - but it's unnecessarily jargony. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• named "judgement day", took place on 13 and 14 April and the winners qualified for the main stage ====>>> named "judgement day" because the winners qualify for the main stage, took place on 13 and 14 April. (lacks parallelism)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

First

• 112, to win the match 10–4 <<<=== don't need the comma
• Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, having only played eight frames in their opening session. ===>>> Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, ending their opening session after only eight frames. (I think? something is off grammatically.)
  • Yeah, the comment is that it was 4-4, despite first sessions generally being 9 frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Maguire commented that he would be fined for using bad language at the quality of his play <<<=== Rephrase. This wording makes sound like was fined or did use bad language. Or maybe just use the quote: "I’m frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"
• the last three frames of the opening session to trail 4–5 ===>>> the last three frames of the opening session to only trail 4–5
• was leading 5–4 after the first session. ===>>> ended up leading 5–4 after the first session.
• Ding attempting a pot, only for the black to end in the opposite corner ===>>> in which the black ended in the opposite corner from where Ding was attempting a pot
• after the next session had ended ===>>> after the next session ended
• Identify the two qualifiers who won as qualifiers.
• At the end of the section, state how many qualifiers advanced.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Second

• 81, 105 and 138 as he led 4–1 ===>>> "81, 105 and 138 to lead 4–1" OR "81, 105 and 138 as he took a 4–1 lead"
• McGill forced a deciding frame ===>>> McGill forced a deciding frame,
• in the next allowing Lisowski ===>>> in the next, allowing Lisowski
• two frames later – a 13–9 victory ===>>> two frames later, a 13–9 victory
• praised Lisowski's play saying ===>>> praised Lisowski's play, saying
• In a replay of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final <<<=== Is "replay" actually used the same as "rematch"?
• 106–6 <<<=== Isn't it 109–6?
• but won the final frame of the second session to lead by three ===>>> but he won the final frame of the second session to lead by three
• At the end of the section, summarize the remaining seeds (e.g. All but three of the top eight made it to the quarterfinals.)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Quarter

• Here you switch from best of 25 to best-of-25. Either is fine, but be consistent.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• but they were tied at 8–8 after the second.[92] In the final session, Wilson won five straight frames to win the match 13–8. ===>>> After they were tied at 8–8 at the end of the the second session,[92] Wilson won five straight frames in the final session to win the match 13–8.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Williams had been playing <<<=== I don't think this is the right tense. It sounds like he changed his strategy, but I don't think he did?
  • He did change it, but not what's relevant. Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• where he rolled up to the reds <<<=== Is this "where he attempted to pocket a red ball on the break" (Also, would something like that be a clearer way to state it?)
  • The opposite, actually. Here's what it looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJw2qEDg00Q
• Williams defended the break (add "strategy" or "tactic"? It's not just one break, right?)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• where Murphy ===>>> during which Murphy

Semi

• Wilson made breaks of 121 and 127; a total of 248 points without reply <<<=== should just be a regular comma
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• on several occasions ===>>> on several occasions,
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• the first player to win a match (add "at the World Championship")
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• , which Selby tied at 4–4 after the first session ===>>> and the match was tied at 4–4 after the first session
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• including making ===>>> , during which he made
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• but the next was won by Selby, which was halted twice for a re-rack ===>>> before the one after was halted twice for a re-rack and won by Selby
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• to be one frame away ===>>> to get to one frame away
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• with extended safety play ===>>> in part due to extended safety play
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Final

• claimed the title ===>>> won the title ("claimed" is too informal)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• allowing Selby to win the frame. ===>>> , allowing Selby to win the frame.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• before Murphy made a break of 100.[123] Murphy won the next frame, <<<=== this seems disjoint. these are the same frame, right?
  • Slightly changed, these are two frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• being one frame away ===>>> and was one frame away
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll finish the review in the next day or two probably. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Thanks for this. Looks like mostly minor wording changes, which shouldn't be a drama. Will start tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I finished a first read-through. I'll go through it one more time after those comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Will get on this as soon as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

All covered Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Images

are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, MrLinkinPark333, you both took part in /FAC2, pinging in case you have any further comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2009" - I'd be tempted to change this to "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it had been since 2009", so that it remains valid even after such time as Betfred's sponsorship ends
• "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan" - no need to restate his forename so soon after he was last mentioned
• "serving a year-long ban for controvening betting regulations" - contravening is spelt incorrectly
• "World number one Judd Trump" - this is the first mention of Trump but he isn't wikilinked
• "Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70 to win 13–7" - think you need a comma after 70
• "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but won" - Selby's lead didn't win, so this should be "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but he won"
• "The final was broadcast to a peak audience of 4.1 million viewers on domestic television, equating to 27 per cent of all viewers in the United Kingdom" - this is a bizarre claim as, if I have read it correctly, it means that only around 15 million people in the UK were watching television at that time, which seems a low figure for a country with a population of 67 million. But it's what the source says, so hey......
  • Ha, no one watches live TV anymore. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got this time round...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Cheers Chris, I'll get on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • All done ChrisTheDude Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest but saw that the previous two noms suffered from a lack of feedback.

• "It tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour" - I think you probably meant "Its" here.
• The lead mentions Matchroom Sports as one of the three broadcasters but the coverage section says, "The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Television and Eurosport".
• BBC → BBC Television (per coverage section)
• whilst → while - both mean the same thing so we should opt for the simpler one.
• "whilst Maguire commented that he was "frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"." Use straight apostrophes instead of curly ones per MOS:'.
• "On the resumption of play, Williams won five straight frames to take the match 10–4, saying afterwards that he would "go for everything", indicating he would.." - two usages of verb-ing modifiers read a little strangely. I suggest connecting these two with a conjunction.
• "Higgins won the final three frames of the second session, but Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70, to win 13–7." Three instances of 'win' in one sentence.
• "Williams commented after the win that he felt he was playing as well as he had during the 2002–03 snooker season" - I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
• "Bingham also won the next two frames, but frame 22 was won by Selby after the frame" - frame.. frame.. frame

That's all. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've made the above changes (with a few modifiers) in Special:Diff/1078619309. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Your changes look good but I’d still like a clarification on Matchroom Sports. The lead mentions it as one of the three broadcasters while the body only says BBC and Eurosport. If the lead is true, it should also be included in the body. FrB.TG (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that must have been deleted at some point. Basically, whilst there were minor coverage in other areas, which we shouldn't list all in the lede, matchroom covered it in any other areas. Now added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Good work. I would appreciate comments on my FAC but this is obviously not obligatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment by MrLinkinPark333

Per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 World Snooker Championship/archive2 and Talk:2021 World_Snooker Championship#FAC source review comments, I did not review Section 2 Summary to Section 2.6 Final as I had found a lot of unverifed / original research. As FAC2 was closed, I worked with Lee to go through the comments I had there on the talk page. Therefore, a source review of all sources for verification / original research issues is needed in all sections from Section 2 to Section 2.6 (Summary to final) is needed. I won't be doing this source review for FAC3 as I went through the ones I brought up with Lee in the talk page. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your previous comments. I don't believe there is much uncited in this area, but happy for someone to check it over and confirm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

My knowledge of snooker only extends as far as eight-ball, so hopefully I should help the article appeal to a broader demographic.

• I'm not sure if others are having the same problem as I am, but a bunch of scores are being thrown around (1–6, 6–3) and I'm unsure of how this conclusion was reached.
  • MOS:CUE says that we should have scores written from the perspective of who is being talked about. For example, Robertson trailed 1–6 but later led 9–6. The article does say that the matches are played as the "best of" a certain amount of frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

My grasp of article understanding would really benefit from a general description of how to play snooker, probably somewhere in format, possibly? As of late, the article appeals to an audience that has come to this article knowing what snicker is and just wants to know about the tournament statistics.

• • I'm not sure I agree with you. The vast majority of the article is a tournament summary in prose. There are results, but that's exactly what you'd need from an article about a sports event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• but this is gonna be on the front page and read by 30k others, most of which would probably like to know this information too. Here are some other statements throughout the article that better solidify my confusion with a lack of explanation:
• "misjudged a pot on a red ball"

• • Both pot and "red ball" are linked. I'm not sure what more I can say other than the red ball is a ball, that is red.

• "before going in-off in the next"

• • In-off is a type of foul shot. It is linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Mentions of specific-colored balls - to me a pink ball is the same as a black ball

• • Indeed. There are 22 balls in snooker, 15 red balls (worth 1 point), and then six coloured balls, with different values (pink is worth six, black worth seven)

• "Wilson was placed into a snooker" - Is this like a Yahtzee situation?

• • Kind of. It's something that you can both play and be put into. Basically it means you have no clear path to the ball in play, but there's a bit more to it than that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm also not a fan of how many of these terms link to Glossary of cue sports terms. The glossary itself is confusing (the definition of frame reads "A term for each rack from the break off until a clearance" with three other jargon words linked, so I had to go on a goose chase to figure out the meaning). Is there a way where you could give a basic description of some of these terms?
  • The thing is, not really. The glossary has very little to do with this article. The links are there specifically to help clarify what some of these words mean. A frame is an individual game of snooker, but the word game could mean a match. It's a little confusing to try and explain in line. You're better to say that a match is played as the best of X frames, and go with it. It's a little like explaining what a goal is in football, when you are talking about the world cup. I agree the glossary could probably do with a cleanup, but as there's no "featured glossary" pages, I doubt it'll top my list for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Stephen Hendry and black ball are linked twice.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall, good work on this article. It's mainly just an archive of numbers so it's pretty hard to screw that up, and the player quotes help shake things up every once in a while. These main two points are my main concerns but a sprinkle of definitions should fix it up in two shakes. Best Wishes, Panini! • 🥪 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Spot check by Z1720

A reviewer as requested a spot check of sources in section 2. Below are my findings:

• Refs checked, and no problems determined: ref 2, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38

• Ref 35 is in German, so I can't verify it.

• ref 27: "for the first time since announcing his retirement after the 2012 event." The source says he retired in 2012, but doesn't say that it was after the 2012 event. I suggest changing this to, "for the first time since announcing his retirement from the sport in 2012."
  • Sure, that seems like a suitable way to deal with it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• ref 32: "Three-time World Championship semi-finalist Alan McManus announced his retirement after his second-round loss to Bai Langning." The source doesn't state that this was the second round. Can another source verify this, perhaps ref 33?
  • added additional source. Obviously the draw itself is widely cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• ref 13: "but lost to world number 50 Mark King 3–6 in the second round." What information is this ref verifying?
  • I've removed this ref, because the other one covers the info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• ref 33: "Matches in this round were played over the best of 19 frames." How does this ref verify this?
  • Best of 19 = First to 10, which is obvious from the draw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• ref 37: "Four players were competing having started in the opening round: Bai Langning, Jamie Clarke, Igor Figueiredo, and Steven Hallworth," Where does this course verify this info?
  • Cited the draw Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• ref 37: "Bai led his match 5–4 after the first session, but lost 5–10 to Martin Gould;" Where in the source is this verified?
  • Removed the bit uncited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• ref 33: "The lowest-ranked player to make it through to the Crucible was Jamie Jones, ranked 69 before the tournament." I don't think the archived link has the ranking of hte players.
  • Sure. I've removed it for now. I can find a source stating he was 69th, but not specifically stating that he was the lowest ranked player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll pause at "First round" because I need to get back to real life, but I will continue later. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:

• Refs checked: 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 12
• Ref 39: "The draw for the main stage of the tournament was held at 11 a.m. on 15 April 2021." Where in the source does it specify the time?
  • Removed the exact time. Not really relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 12: "The opening round took place between 17 and 22 April, each match played as the best of 19 frames held over two sessions." Where is the held over two sessions verified in the source?
  • I've removed. There is definitely a source out there (the old order of play for snooker.org states the times and stuff), but it's not super important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 12: "Defending champion O'Sullivan played debutant Joyce in the opening match." Ref 12 doesn't verify this information, but I think ref 40 does so you might want to add ref 40 here.#
  • Indeed, changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 50: "before the match was halted to allow a later session to go ahead on time." I could not find this in the source.
  • I've added another citation to show the match was halted as it overran. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 53: "The previous year's runner-up Kyren Wilson" I could not find this in the source.
  • Removed previous years runner-up, although it's already mentioned in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 65: " but won the final frame of the first session with a break of 114." Should this be 113?
  • Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll continue later with "Second round", as this is time comsuming and I need some rest. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:

Refs checked: 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91,

Ref 76 and 87 were behind a paywall.

• Ref 12: "The second round matches were played from 22 to 26 April," Where does the source verify when each round was played?
  • It's in the archive link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Double checked, and Lee is correct. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 69 and 71: "who had never defeated him in their six professional matches." I could not find in the source where this was verified.
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 81: "In a rematch of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final," Where is this verified in the source?
  • Added a citation for their (epic) 2018 match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Pausing, I'm at "Quarter finals". Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:

Refs checked: 12, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105

Ref 97 is a video, which is region-locked for me.

• Ref 94: "Selby defeated Williams with a session to spare." Where does it verify that it was a session to spare?

Pausing at Semi-finals. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:

• Refs checked: 12, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118

• Ref 107 did not have a link because it was a printed source, so I couldn't check it.

• I looked at this source and it verifies the relevant article text. I amended the stated author, per the source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 106: "who had reached this stage for three of the last four events," I was not able to verify this in the source.
• Ref 108: "In the final session, Murphy won five straight frames to win the match 17–12." I could not verify this. Perhaps use ref 109 instead.
• Ref 113: "after Bingham scored 92 to lead again at 6–5." I could not find 92 in the article. Is this the correct number?
• Ref 114: "before frame 19 lasted over an hour," I could not find this information in the source.

I'll finish the final later. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's finish this up. This spot check has already ruined my news algorithm. I have so many articles about snooker on my phone now....

Refs checked: 12, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132

Ref 110: "but they had not met at the event since the 2007 semi-final, which Selby won 17–16" I could not verify this in the source. Ref 119: "and been runner-up in 2009 and 2015;" Was not able to verify this. Ref 119: " Selby was playing in his fifth final, having won the event in 2014, 2016, and 2017, and been runner-up in 2007." Was not able to verify this. Ref 126: "After a safety battle, Selby won the next frame with a break of 120, and was one frame away from victory at 17–13." This is not on this page of the source, and it probably needs to be cited to page three.

All done. Please ping once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

I'll do a fuller read-through after the responses to Z1720's review, but a couple of things for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Lead: "It was organised by the World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." - suggest amending this (see Talk:2022_World_Snooker_Championship#Ownership of World Snooker Tour)
  • Sure, I've made this change. I will eventually go through all of the articles, but time dependent! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Coverage: "Internationally" seems superfluous.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• "an Events Research Programme" - perhaps "the Events Research Programme" as it seems this is the title of it. (link)
  • Sure, I suppose both things are true, but changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Refs 1, 2 and 16 should have WPBSA removed.
• Some script shows ref 20 as having a "cite web: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)" message
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Inconsistency between using wst.tv (e.g. refs 1,2, 137, 138), World Snooker (e.g. refs 13, 25) or World Snooker Tour (e.g. refs 24, 130)
  • Working Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Can probably do without the "– WPBSA" in ref 134 and the "– World Snooker" in refs 5 and 24
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• "A record number of 108 century breaks were made by 22 players during the main event" doesn't quite read right to me. I'm not a good writer and will defer to others, but maybe something like "A record number of century breaks, 108, was made during the main event. There were 22 players that made at least one century break." ?
  • Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Did you have anything else for me BennyOnTheLoose ?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 97 (the BBC video): I only watched it once, but I don't think it verifies "which other players such as O'Sullivan had also attempted." As mentioned above, I'll re-read after the source review. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Kharijites

Nominator(s): AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Being Top Importance in WikiProjects Religion and Islam, this article is about the first Islamic sect. The sect appeared during the First Muslim Civil War in late 650s when a group from the army of the fourth caliph Ali seceded protesting against the proposal to settle the dispute with his opponent, the Syrian governor Mu'awiya, through dialogue. They weakened Ali's authority in his home base who then proceeded to defeat them. One of the survivors killed him in retaliation thus inadvertently assisting Mu'awiya's rise to the caliphate. They vigorously fought the subsequent governments labeling them unjust. The governments on their part severely suppressed them, which eventually caused their disappearance, except for one of their non-violent sect, the Ibadiyya, who survive to this day. I have been working on this article for about two years now. With content help from a subject expert and prose improvements by Al Ameer son, I think the article is now in a position to be judged against the FA criteria. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive by

• References should be in chronological order.

Thanks SN54129. I prefer ordering by last name, and then by year. They seem to be all correctly ordered. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• You'll get a thorough source review—probably spot checks—but you've got a few p/pp anomalies in your refs, and some of your sources are missing publisher locations and/or page ranges for book chapters. SN54129 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, AhmadLX I sent you up a blind alley: I meant, "inline citations should be in numerical order" (e.g., not [31][34][33], but check for more?). My poor choice of words completely mislead you. Sorry for the confusion! SN54129 12:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, there is no rule about whether inline citations should be in a particular order. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the reason there's no rule about this (and so many other aspects of the process) is because WP:FA/ has very few rules about anything. However, it is clearly an acceptable request for a reviewer to make and in line with generally accepted custom and practice. See, for example, the following FACs: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]; [13]; that last is fresher than a duck's nostril. The point has been suggested by highly experienced FAC reviewers and as—if not more—pertinently, accepted by your co-ord colleagues as legitimate requests. Yes, you consider them cosmetic, and I don't necessarily disagree; but consistency, particularly of citation, is one of the few "rules" we have, and this has clearly become something of a community norm. SN54129 13:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 and Buidhe: That is news to me. I have always been against this and list my cites in the order they occur in the text, or randomly. With the exception of a now-retired reviewer at ACR I can't recall ever being picked up on this, and not at FAC. I quite probably have been, have complied in order not to trivially stretch out a review, and have since forgotten. But I am a little startled to discover that this a "rule", if only because I have never made any effort to comply. Skimming some of my recent FAs, they do seem - serendipitously - to comply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, just because something is sometimes requested by FAC reviewers does not make it a "rule" unless there is a basis for it in the FA criteria. As a coord, the only thing I'm looking at is whether the article meets the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gog, custom and practice, best practice, whatever one calls it, =/= a rule, and only you and one other editor have, in fact, called it one. SN54129 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, thank you for the feedback and the links. I sort citations based on authoritativeness of the sources, and if two sources are more or less equally authoritative, I give first the one which is more easily accessible. I think it too is a reasonable choice. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any p/pp. issues. Could you please point out any specific instances?--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not SN54129 (of course), but I can help: Ref#43: "Wellhausen 1901, p. 17–18". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Kavyansh.Singh. It has been fixed.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Publisher locations are missing for online publications (such as EI3 online or Oxford Bibliographies Online) and for journal articles (which do not need locations (AFAIK)). There were a couple other instances of missing loc, which I've fixed.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Missing page ranges are also for online publications, where they do not exist/apply.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up maps and charts, and see MOS:COLOUR

Scaling done. Have to read MOS:Colour. Will get back on this afterwards. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Allah-green.svg: what "public domain artwork" was this copied from?

It was in a template, which I've now removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Battle_of_Siffin_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg

Done both. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Dirham_of_Qatari_ibn_Fuja'a.jpg needs a tag for the original work

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:خريطة_الدولة_الرستمية.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Replaced map. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Did some copyedits, feel free to revert if necessary.

Thanks. They look very helpful. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• amounting supposedly to a total of 4,000 men why 'supposedly'?

At Adam Gaiser's suggestion. He said that the numbers in the sources are exaggerated. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Then I would state it like this, e.g. "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men, although the number is likely exaggerated." Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men". I think "reportedly" does the job of alerting the reader. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• elected Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi as their caliph. was al-Rasibi really proclaimed caliph, or just their leader?

Yes he replaced Ali as the caliph in their view. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• they were called Khawarij; the term is anglicized to 'Kharijites' can we add the Arabic singular here as well? It will make clear where the English form comes from.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why is the photo of the Nahrawan Canal in a different section?

Just because of space; moving it up breaks the section border and looks a bit ugly. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• where he was taking the Kufans' oath of allegiance link oath of allegiance to bay'ah.

I think you've already addressed this in your ce. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can we link the major figures? Even if only as WP:REDLINKs.

I've added links to the most important ones. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can we link the Kharijite Rebellion (866–896) somewhere appropriate?

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Have reviewed until 'Beliefs and practices', will continue from there as soon as I have some time. Constantine ✍ 07:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• although Ibadi communities in these regions ceased to exist do we have a timeframe for this? Otherwise I would suggest rephrasing to something like 'although the Ibadi communities in these regions disappeared over time.'

Not really, so I went with the second option. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• the use of the tahkim by the Kharijites the tahkim is mentioned for the first time here, and needs to be explained here, or given earlier, when the motto is introduced.

That was a stupid mistake on my part. Should have been la hukma. Now fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• According to him, the main role in forcing Ali Who? Shaban or Hinds?

Shaban; specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also had economic origins according to whom? Better still, something like "X attribute the Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also to economic motivations".

Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That's it. The article is well written and impressively comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Being somewhat familiar with the subject, I could follow it without any problems, and didn't find anything major missing. Will do another read-through once the above points are dealt with, but I am ready to support it as it is. Constantine ✍ 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine. Looking forward to the rest. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of my points above have been addressed, and I've marked them by crossing them out. I've done some additional copyedits, and have some final questions:

• the emerging orthodoxy I assume Sunni orthodoxy is meant here? Then I would mention this.

Actually both Sunni and Shia authors are hostile to the Kharijites; specified now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• a probable reconstruction of the events I am uneasy with 'probable' here. You mean something like 'reconstruction that might be close to actual truth', but I am not sure this is understood.

Modified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• the sources sometimes used the Kharijites are we still talking about the heresiographers here, or the later sources generally?

Both; histories and heresiographies. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

As these are minor issues, I also don't hesitate to support at this time. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine. I think I've addressed all points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Constantine. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gog the Mild: Thanks. Just give me a week. I will ask a few blokes. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you also put it on urgent list?AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Placeholder. First impression (from reading the lead only) is that this is very well written. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sourcing is impeccable, all high quality, recent (ie up to date), and consistently formatted. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Information about Kharijite history and doctrines derive from non-Kharijite authors, and are hostile toward the sect. - should the word contemporary be used here

Not quite contemporary, but I got your point. I added that they were mainly from the 9th and 10th centuries. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• A small thing, but would right-align File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg, and place just after the "Under Mu'awiya" sub-header.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• They held that Uthman had deserved his death because of his faults deserved his death is awkward, and "because of his faults" is hopelessly vague.

Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, have read it all and am a Support on prose & sourcing (spot check not done as have reviewed earlier FACs by the nominator). Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ceoil. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• One last thing, I would drop the 2nd nav box in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Al Ameer

Received a request by nominator to give my thoughts. The subject covers a major group and formative period of Islamic history. I reviewed the article just prior to its nomination, believing it to be ready, but I will review with a keener eye once Ceoil finishes. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• "anti-government activities" → "rebellion" or "rebellions".

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• "... their defeat by the Umayyad general al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf" → "their defeat by the Umayyads"

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites of the Second Muslim Civil War and beyond, condemning them as extremists" → "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites, condemning them as extremists"

This cannot be done really. As mentioned in the article body, the Ibadis respect and fully own the Muhakkima and the Basran quietists (e.g. Abu Bilal). They disown only the Azariqa, Najdat, and Sufriyya (who in the classical narrative originated during the 2nd Fitna). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Is “and beyond” necessary then? —Al Ameer (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually yes, because the classical narrative of the tafriq during the 2nd Fitna is incorrect as discussed in the moderates' section. Also, Suffriyya in any case survived for centuries, as did Najda splinters (e.g. Ajarida, Hamziyya) beyond the 2nd Fitna. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• "branded as unbelievers any Muslims" → "branded as unbelievers Muslims"

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists and having left the Muslim community" → "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists who left the Muslim community".

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Al Ameer (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Unless pertinent, I recommend trimming the details of Mustawrid's revolt. Maybe split off to an article about and expand it slightly.

The section on the Kharijite activity under Mu'awiya was added at Gaiser's suggestion; according to him the discussion of the Kharijites of the period b/w Nahrawan and 2nd Fitna should be expanded else it leaves a significant gap in the article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Link Second Fitna in the 'Second Fitna' section.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I recommend deleting the following, because these details do not seem necessary for this article: "The Azariqa, under the command of Ibn Mahuz's brother Zubayr ibn Mahuz, returned to Iraq, ravaged al-Mada'in, evaded pursuit from Zubayrid forces, and then besieged Isfahan. They were driven from Isfahan and fled to Fars and later to Kirman." Then, I would slightly revise the next sentence to "Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them." Then link the next mention of Kirman.

• On second thought, it seems important to note their attack on al-Mada'in and siege of Isfahan. Recommend adjusting to "The Azariqa plundered al-Mada'in and then besieged Isfahan, but were defeated. They fled and eventually regrouped in Kirman. Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them." (link Isfahan) Al Ameer (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• No need for "His election came about as a result of his leadership qualities, which convinced Abu Talut's followers to depose him in favor of Najda." We already state in the previous sentence that he became this group's leader. Alternatively, if you want to emphasize Najda's leadership qualities, you could revise those two sentences to just the following: "Najda's leadership qualities convinced Abu Talut's Kharijite faction to elect him as their leader and they became known as the Najdat after him."

Had added it to emphasize the vulnerability of the position of Kharijite leader. But yeah was a bit repetitive; removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Were the towns Najda raided in Ibn al-Zubayr's domains in Bahrayn? If so, you could remove that bit, and just state that he took over Bahrayn and repulsed a 14,000-strong Zubayrid army deployed against him. Ignore if this was not the case.

Will check the source tomorrow. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Al Ameer (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• "the Sufriyya became extinct with the passage of time" → "the Sufriyya eventually became extinct"
• "Sufriyya and Ibadiyya sects at this stage are ahistorical" Please specify which stage.
• I see inconsistent use of Sufri and Sufriyya. Sufri should be used as an adjective as in "Sufri revolts" and Sufriyya as a noun, as in "the Sufriyya were led by". I made the change in the Sufriyya section, but this should be done throughout. Same with Ibadi and Ibadiyya, etc. Alternatively, eliminate the dual use altogether and strictly use "Sufriyya" and "Ibadiyya" (in which case I will revert my change). Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed a few instances. Will do the rest soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Al Ameer son I think I've done all of them. You might want to have a look. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Link taqiyya at first mention.
• Should imams be de-italicized as this is an 'integrated' English word by now?
• Link Tripoli.
• "the Abbasid army" → "an Abbasid army", unless this was the empire's main army.

Finished with the History sections, will continue the rest tomorrow I hope. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Sunnis, who later went on accept the leadership" → "Sunnis, who accepted the leadership". Since we are talking about Sunnis and not 'proto-Sunnis' or some other predecessor group.
• "as long as they were Quraysh" → "provided they were Qurayshite" or "provided they were of the Quraysh"
• "Shi'a, who were to assert" → "Shi'a, who asserted", same as above, since you are talking about Shia, not 'proto-Shia'.
• "displaced" does not seem like the right word, perhaps "deposed", unless the Kharijites specifically mean exile or expel (in which case I would use one of those two terms).
• "Although militant like the Azariqa", I would either drop this since it's been well-established by this point in the article that the Najdat and Azariqa were both militant/radical factions of the Kharijites, or, if sourced, something like "While the Najdat generally shared the Azariqa's view toward unbelieving Muslims [or kafirs if you prefer], they allowed marriages with non-Kharijites"
• "Of the moderates, the Sufriyya and Bayhasiyya—followers of Abu Bayhas, who is said to have criticized the Azariqa for going too far and the Ibadiyya for not going far enough, although it is almost certain that this sect too developed later and not during the second civil war as the sources assert—considered all non-Kharijite Muslims as unbelievers, but also abstained from taking up arms against them, unless necessary, and allowed intermarriage with them" → Unless there is an appropriate place to introduce the Bayhasiyya beforehand in the article, in an exclusive sentence, I would move this: "followers of Abu Bayhas ... as the sources assert" to a footnote.
• "Going too far" or "not going far enough" is vague, could this either be specified or revised?
• "fighting jihad" → just "jihad" (with link)
• Should "dhimmi" be de-italicized?

Almost done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• The majority of the leaders of the Kharijite revolts in the Umayyad period were Arabs" → "Most Kharijite leaders in the Umayyad period were Arabs"
• You spell out two-digit numbers in the "Tribal affliations" section, but use the numeric form elsewhere. Choose one form for consistency.
• Why does the South Arabian influence on the southern Arabs' culture and collective thinking attract them "more to Shi'ism than Kharijism"? I understand why this would steer them away from Kharijism, but why would it specifically attract them to Shi'ism?
• When kufr is first introduced, mention that kuffar is the plural form, since kuffar appears a couple times in the article without being defined to the general reader.
• "traditional Muslim historians and heresiographers of subsequent centuries" Might help general reader to clarify which centuries are covered by "traditional Muslim historians" since you mention the heresiographers are "of subsequent centuries".

Basically 9th to 12th centuries. I changed it at first but it looked ugly, so didn't save the change. Can you think of a suitable formulation? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Finished. Made some copyedits here and there that you may want to check. Al Ameer (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Al Ameer. I've addressed most points. The two exceptions responded to above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Ahmad. I trust the Sufri/Sufriyya inconsistency will be cleared up. This is an exceptionally fine article and I am happy to support. Al Ameer (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Al Ameer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Funk

I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll continue when Al Ameer's issues are fixed, so we don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Funk, ready for you I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably has the necessary support already, but beginning now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Almost no primary Kharijite sources survive, except for Ibadi works" I wonder if Ibadis should somehow briefly be presented here, as it's the first time you mention them outside the intro.
• The second paragraph under "Primary and classical sources" is a huge wall of text which is difficult to perhaps, could be broken in two.
• Link people and places mentioned in image captions too, such as Uthman, Umayyad, and similar.

Thanks Funk. All done. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "(sing. Khariji); the term is anglicized to 'Kharijites'" Shouldn't this be in he etymology section? Seems odd that you in a way present the word twice.
• "During their time in Ahwaz, doctrinal differences caused a split between Najda and Ibn al-Azraq." But what were these differences? Or is this what's described in the subsequent section?
• "All the other uncategorizable Kharijite" uncategorizable or uncategorized?
• "which might have been called "Sufri"." According to what, and what does it mean?
• "who sent 4,000-strong army" Sent a?
• You mention Jazira and Jaziran without introduction, would perhaps warrant some sort of context?
• "Abbasid influence in Oman was mostly nominal, and Ibadi imams continued to wield considerable power.[111] Ibadi imamates were reestablished in subsequent centuries.[112] Ibadis form the majority of the Omani population to date." But when did they finally take control, and how?
• Any total population number of modern Ibadis that could be mentioned under Ibadiyya?
• You have maps showing Kharijite dynasties in various parts of the world, except where Ibadis have their stronghold now, in Oman, perhaps some historical map of that area would be relevant somewhere?

I couldn't find a suitable historical map of Oman which has references to its data sources. Essentially none on the Ibadi imamates. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Link Sunna?

Seems it is linked long after first mention, at "although they added to its sources the sunna of Muhammad", should be at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is intentional because in the earlier references sunna likely refers to tribal code of conduct and not Muhammad's sunna. Please see footnote [i].AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "hold that the story, due its prevalence in the sources" due to?
• "It contrasts Kharijites' extreme piety with extreme" The Kharijites'? The extreme piety of the Kharijites'?
• "It contrasts Kharijites' extreme piety with extreme violence, justifies Ali's attack on them at Nahrawan, certain versions have anachronous references to isti'rad, it is similar in structure to an incident of a later date, and mimics the actions characteristic of the later Azariqa group." Very long and a bit confusing sentence. Perhaps break it a bit up?
• ", else he forfeited his right to rule and was subject to deposition" Or else? The current wording may also be possible, not sure.

I think it is correct. Maybe we can again ask Gog on this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an archaic usage, but IMO acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. I've changed it to "or else".AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• You present some modern historians/researchers by occupation, others not, should be consistent.
• "A famous example is the warrior and poet Layla bint Tarif" I came across another example with an article, Ghazala, perhaps worth a mention in that sentence?
• "One of the Kharijite groups also refused to recognize the sura" Which group? You name the others, but perhaps this one doesn't have a name?

The source doesn't name them, and I haven't been able to locate it in any other sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Link ethnic terms such as Arab, Greek, and Bedouin?
• Any names of the poets that authored the last two quoted?
• "But their goals were impractical and hostile to culture:[166] "let justice be done, though the world perish".[168]" This quote is a bit puzzling, what does it quote and in what context? Wellhausen stating this was akin to their doctrine? Could be stated more clearly.

I think the link was already implied in "But their goals were impractical and hostile to culture". Further elaboration would be counter-productive IMO as it is a minor point. I just removed the quote. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "influenced the development of the mainstream theology" Add "Muslim"?
• "in relation of faith and deeds" Relation to?
• " In Levi Della Vida's view" No need to spell out full name after first mention.
• "the Mu'tazila in particular were likely influenced by them" Could these get some kind of context?
• Islamist needs a link?
• "The first Kharijites were supporters of Ali who rebelled against his acceptance of arbitration talks to settle the conflict with his challenger, Mu'awiya," you should state here it was a challenge for power over the Caliphate?

It wasn't really a challenge for caliphal claim. Mu'awiya became a contender after the Adhruh meeting. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Ali was assassinated in 661" Link the article about his assassination here?
• "What is known about Kharijite history and doctrines derive from" Derives? "What is known" is singular, no? Pinging Gog the Mild as usual when I'm in doubt about some grammar issue... FunkMonk (talk)

14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well now. I have an opinion, but am not 100% certain, so I am pinging who I refer to my grammar uncertainties to: Tim riley Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Without question the singular "what is known" must have a singular verb following it – "derives". (I take it you are tweaking my tail by writing "who" when you mean "whom", but I let it pass.) – Tim riley talk 17:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

:-) Thank you. That is what I thought, but I was struggling to articulate why. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, so I guess the same applies to the point below. Just need to be sure AhmadLX has seen any of this? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @FunkMonk: Yes I've addressed both and most other points. The remaining ones I'll do soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• "and are hostile toward the sect" Likewise, is hostile?
• "proto-democratic tendencies" The article body doesn't use this term, there shouldn't be unique info in the intro.
• Could be interesting to have a category for extinct Islamic sects (would apply to some of the sub-sects covered in this article)... Not sure if there are equivalent categories for other religions and sects, maybe I should start some... All we have now is a List of extinct Shia sects.

Made an inquiry about it here:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you've created one now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Funk. I've addressed most points. Exceptions responded to above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - interesting stuff, glad I got time to review before it was promoted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka

• The term al-Khariji was used as an exonym by their opponents for leaving the army of Caliph Ali (see below). Consider completing the sentence instead of placing a "see below" text within the article. For instance, "...for leaving the army of Caliph Ali during the First Fitna".

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• They called themselves al-Shurat ("the Exchangers"),... Are you sure Gaiser (2010) verifies the sentence?

Actually Gaiser (2016); Gaiser (2010) also, but on a different page number. Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• As representatives of the emerging orthodoxy... To which branch of Islam does the term "orthodoxy" refer? Sunnite, Shiite or both?

As far as the Kharijites are concerned, both. Now specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...the authors tend to portray their own sect... Is the term "sect" neutral? I assume co-religionists of these "sectarians" are mentioned as representatives of "orthodoxy" in previous sentences.

On neutrality please see my response to point 6 below. As for "Orthodoxy", we are not actually declaring the non-Kharijites as "Orthodox" from a religious point of view but from a historical point of view. The source itself uses the term "Orthodoxy". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...(see below)... Do we need this text?

Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...the first sect to arise within Islam ... Is the term "sect" neutral?

I think there is nothing non-neutral in the term. They were a sect just like other sects of Islam such as Sunnis, Shi'a, Mu'tazila etc. The source starts the Introduction with "The Khārijites were the first sect to crystallize in the Islamic world...". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Consider deleting "First Fitna" from the "Further information" part of section "Origin" (because the First Fitna is linked in the text).

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...(la hukma illa li-llah) Move to the last sentence of section "Origin" (where the English translation is first quoted). Borsoka (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Introduce Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi.

Well, since his primary claim to fame is him being the first Kharijite caliph, not sure how can one introduce him in other terms. I added "pious" before his name. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• The Kharijites continued to launch insurrections against the caliphate. Five small Kharijite revolts following Nahrawan, involving about 200 men each, were suppressed during Ali's rule. Move it to the previous section before mentioning Ali's assassination. Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Introduce Farwa ibn Nawfal al-Ashja'i.

Stated his clan; I couldn't find anything more suitable to introduce him. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...near al-Mada'in (Ctesiphon) Is this necessary taking into account that Behrasir is linked?

Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...killed Ibn Ziyad's deputy... In the previous sentence we are informed that Ibn Ziyad was expelled from the city. Did his deputy remain in the city?

He appointed the deputy when he left. Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• ... Shabib ibn Yazid al-Shaybani (see below) ... Is the "(see below)" part necessary?

Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• ... Modern historians consider Ibn Saffar to be a legendary figure ... Does the cited source verify the statement about modern historians?

I think I've now added enough sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• ... The heresiographers, whose aim was to categorize the divergent beliefs of the Kharijites, invented the Sufriyya to accommodate those groups who did not fit neatly anywhere else. I assume this is not a fact, but a widely accepted scholarly theory. Perhaps we could say, "The heresiographers .... likely/probably/obviously invented the Suffriyya..."

It is continuation of "Modern historians consider..."; now added specifically. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• During the last days of the Umayyad empire, a major Sufri revolt erupted in 744. Consider mentioning that this happened in Iraq because the previous sentence referred to northern Africa and Oman. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• The ruling position remained exclusively within the Quraysh for centuries. Is this necessary?

Admittedly, it was placed in a wrong place and did not fit in the context. Moving it one sentence past also broke the flow, so I had just put it in this wrong place. Now I have moved it to a footnote and rephrased it a bit. Hopefully the context is now clearer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• ...first four caliphs... Consider linking Rashidun.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• ..., especially Iraq and Persia ... Is this necessary (taking into account that a mawla of Greek origin is mentioned in one of the following sentences)?

The vast majority of the mawali was in fact of Persian/Iraqi origin. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Consider introducing Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Michael Cooperson is introduced in a following sentence).

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• The first Kharijites were supporters of Ali who had rebelled... Perhaps "who rebelled"?

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

End of my comments. Thank you for this interesting, well-written and thoroughly researched article. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Borsoka. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review

• Can you provide ISBNs for Abbas, Bosworth, and Donner?

Thanks Mike. ISBNs for these do not seem to exist. Bosworth is an online article, whereas for the other two, I haven't been able to find any. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

For Abbas try OCLC 584091175; and 587950873 for Donner. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• You're inconsistent about providing publisher locations; they are missing for Gaiser (2020), Gaiser (2021), and Lewinstein (2008).

Yes, these are online publications and do not have locs. Also Gaiser (2013), and Sonn, Tamara; Farrar, Adam (2009). Bosworth (2009) has one, but it shouldn't; it comes from the template. I will replace the template soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources all look reliable, and I can't find any formatting problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A cousin to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capture of Sedalia/archive1. The Confederates need weapons, so they raid a town on the Missouri River, getting weapons and supplies and burning a steamboat. Hog Farm _Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Having just looked at this for ACR I may as well recuse and rereview it.

• "gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war." This doesn't come across as relevant to the rest of the article. Suggest either deleting or expanding a little. Preferably the latter.
  • I've added a sentence about Southern hopes for McClellan
• "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand". Any ideas on the split of infantry and cavalry and if there were any artillery?
  • I believe it was nominally split between infantry and cavalry, but I'm not finding good breakdowns between the two or much comment on artillery, with the sole exception breakdowns of Ewing's scratch force at Pilot Knob. Collins just gives the overall total; Suderow (a newly-added source) just gives muster totals from August; Sinisi talks about reduced strength due to a botched vaccination but not a force breakdown, and I can't find anything super useful in Lause, Kennedy, or Nichols.

Optional (just a thought): Consider adding something like 'The breakdown of this force is unclear.' 'It is not known how much, if any, artillery was available to Rosecrans.

Unfortunately, the sources don't even say that. They're just silent on the issue.

• "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand"; "whose garrison was increased from 1,000 men to 7,000". Was that 7,000 of the 10,000? Or had additional Union troops entered the state? If so, from where?
  • I've clarified that Rosecrans received reinforcements at St. Louis, and that the increase to 7,000 was from bringing troops in from elsewhere in the state and from calling up more militia
• " Attacks against the post on September 27 failed ... and decided to divert the aim of his advance from St. Louis westwards to Jefferson City." Yet the map shows him continuing towards St Louis until 1 October and only turning west at Franklin.
  • I've added some detail about what was going on here from a book specifically about the Pilot Knob fiasco

Ah. That's better.

• "Price determined that Jefferson City was too strong to attack, and began moving westwards along the course of the Missouri River." I don't understand - the map shows the Confederates turning west and following the Missouri a week before they reached Jefferson City.
  • Rephrased
• "On the 11th, Sanborn moved north and skirmished with the Confederates, who abandoned the town". Which town?
  • Clarified (Boonville)
• "and then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock". Is it known how they crossed?
  • Added (ferry)
• "to effectively fire across it". Do you mean 'to fire across it effectively'?
  • Done
• "The Union had no artillery available." Perhaps 'The Union force had no artillery available.'?
  • Done
• "The line was anchored by". What line?
  • Clarified
• "drove away some Confederates from the riverbank". Maybe 'drove some Confederates away from the riverbank'?
  • Done
• "Clark's force, delayed an hour while trying to cross the river". Which river?
  • The Missouri. Clarified
• "on both sides of their line." I think you mean 'on both ends of their line.'.
  • Corrected
• "give a maximum number of thirty-two wounded and eight to eleven killed". Why the switch to giving figures in words?
  • This was a response to a comment of yours in the ACR - ""32 wounded and eight to eleven killed". Could we have these numbers either all spelt out or all as numerals?" I can switch to numerals if preferred, although I find using the numerals for the small numbers a bit jarring

I find the switch jarring! The MoS leans towards standardisation but I am happy to leave it as a personal preference issue.

• "An engine removed from the riverbed at Glasgow during World War II". Is it significent that it was removed during WWII? If not, suggest just stating the year. (Or 'during the early 1940s'.)
  • Source doesn't give a year. I've specified that it occurred during a WWII scrap drive to indicate the significance (surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding a particularly good place to link the WWII scrap drive concept)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: - Replied above - one not done (for now), and I'm having trouble finding something for the breakdown of Rosecrans's 10,000. I've also added two new sources used briefly for background information. The Suderow book published by SEMO should be fine for reliability, and Battle Cry of Freedom is basically above reproach there. My formatting might need checked though. Hog Farm _Talk 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. One very optional suggestion above, but I am supporting and unwatching. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

When I did the source review for this article's ACR nomination five days ago I did so to FAC standard, so I shall merely repeat my conclusions:

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 18:57, March 4, 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support on 1a, 2, 3, and 4 per my review at the ACR. I have no additional comments at this time. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

Support on all criteria (except images, reviewed by Buidhe). My review is on talk; nitpicks addressed. A U. S. Supreme Court case resulted from the fire started by Harding, related to an insurance company claim. The findings left insurance company practices intact, so the case has no lasting significance, is of no significance to the Battle article, and amounts to "just another lawsuit", ho-hum. It needs not be mentioned to meet comprehensiveness. If Insurance Co. v. Boon were of any significance, it should have an article, but I can find no reason for that to be the case, as it changed nothing about insurance claims during war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that none of the print sources I consulted mentioned it. Hog Farm _Talk 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Because it's inconsequential; I only found it because it is mentioned on article talk (I always, and believe reviewers always should) review the article talk page, and its archives, in search of POV swept under the rug or comprehensiveness issues :0 Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Suggest linking Abraham Lincoln, 1864 United States presidential election, George B. McClellan, militiamen.
  • Done
• I assume, since you mention how many of Rosecrans' men were militiamen, that this implies they are weaker troops than the regular army. If so, could we add an adjective or two to make that clearer? Perhaps "poorly trained", or "less experienced", or "untested", or whatever applies.
  • I've clarified with "without experience in major battles"
• "and militia, including by calling up some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia": "including by calling up" is a bit ugly. Could we do something like "and militia, including some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia, who were called up after the Battle of Pilot Knob" or "who were called up at short notice", or whatever the sources will support?
  • Went with the short notice one
• You mention Bloody Bill Anderson joining the Confederates, and the dates given make it appear that it was on or after October 9. Our article on Anderson (which is featured, as it happens) says he met Price in Boonville on October 6. Is one of the two articles incorrect, or is the sequence more complicated than it appears?
  • Collins implies that it was on the 10th. Nichols says directly in two places that it occurred on the 11th. Sinisi also places it at the 11th, discussing the event in some detail (Price was giving a speech, Anderson's boys rode up, Price made them get rid of the scalps, Anderson gave Price a brace of pistols, Price sent Anderson away with orders he didn't follow). I'm not sure if Wood in the Anderson article is wrong, or if October 6 is the day Anderson began riding towards Price
    • User:Mark Arsten hasn't edited since 2020, and in fact lost his admin bits, so perhaps HF you will just make adjustments needed to William T. Anderson so we don't have to see it at FAR :) :) (Nice review, Mike Christie! Now we have an example of what I do not mean when I use the term prose nitpicks, as these are all issues of substance.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Brownlee's Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy discusses Anderson in-depth, and places the meeting on October 11, as well. Brownlee also doesn't mention the bit with the trained horse as well (see below). Hog Farm _Talk 20:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

        Thanks for cleaning that up. And thanks for the compliment, Sandy! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Again referring to the article on Anderson, a footnote saying that Anderson ignored Price's instructions might be worthwhile.
  • Footnote added
• The description of the Union defences is not very clear to me (I have read very little military history so have no instincts about what to expect). I would expect the defensive line of a location to encircle that location, is the line described specifically a defensive line set up in expectation of the Confederate attack?
  • @Mike Christie: - I've added a sentence describing the shape of the interior line - it ran east from the river before curving north. Does this help it make a little more sense? Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    That's a big help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• The attempt by Clark to surrender a battle which was shortly won seems unusual enough to mention in the lead.
  • Added. It's not the most unusual I'm aware of - I'm currently reading a book about the Second Battle of Springfield, and it mentions the Confederate commander there send a surrender offer to a Union force after he had spent an entire day unsuccessfully trying to capture the place.
• Another question about Anderson: this article says he fatally beat someone on the night of October 21-22; the article on Anderson talks about a wealthy Union supporter whom Anderson himself beat, partly because he had freed his slaves. Are these the same incident? They don't match up but even Anderson probably didn't beat multiple residents to death in just a few days.
  • Per Lause, this is apparently the same incident, although none of Sinisi, Nichols, Lause, Collins, or Monnett (the most relevant sources I have handy) attribute his motivation to freeing his slaves. I've added a mention of the rape from Lause. Likewise, the claim of trampling him to death with a horse does not appear in any of the sources I have, and frankly Wood in the Anderson article isn't a strong enough source for more extraordinary claims like a specially trained horse stomping people to death (full disclosure: I've used a different book by Wood as a source for two FAs, but not for any extraordinary claims like that) Nichols and Lause imply the primary interest was monetary.
• There's no location given for Suderow & House.
  • Added
• How are you sorting "An Industrial History of Missouri"? If it's by title, I'd expect it to precede Kennedy; if by "Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics", which could be regarded as the author, I would expect it to precede Monnett.
  • I'm not sure how I was trying to sort it; I've moved it above Kennedy.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Re the Anderson article - I've been able to adjust the wording of the date of meeting Price (confirmed in Wood that it was the date he left), and the bit about the trained horse is supported by the reliable Castel (confirmed via google books), so the Anderson article looks fine now. I also spot-checked a few other things in a copy of Wood from a local library. Hog Farm _Talk 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And I always think it's a pleasant surprise when an article you link to from an article you take to FAC turns out to be featured as well; it gives me the feeling that we're making progress. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Very clear and readable, and a pleasure to review. My only suggestion, which doesn't affect my support, would be to add a map showing the defensive lines and positions, if the sources are definite enough to make that possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: - May I have a dispensation for a second nomination since this one seems to maturing nicely? Hog Farm _Talk 04:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Daisy Pearce

Nominator(s): 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Daisy Pearce, one of women's Australian rules football's leading pioneers and a prominent current player/media personality (and future coach, if the recent news is anything to go by). I've put a fair bit of time and research into this one, and got it to GA status last year, so keen to know what you guys think/how you guys might like me to improve it further – thanks! Kind regards, 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh

How can I not review "Daisy"! Expect some comments soon – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• It has clearly taken a lot of effort to write and improve this article, and all your work is very much appreciated. The first thing, and perhaps the most major point that concerned me is the sources. I'll admit have just read the lead, but from a look at sources, I see various sources whose reliability cannot really be judged. For featured articles, we require sources to be "high quality reliable sources". How are "afl.com.au", "SportsTG", "AFL Community", "girlsplayfooty.com", etc. the reliable sources of highest quality? Another issue with the sourcing is use of many primary sources: "westernbulldogs.com.au", "melbournefc.com.au", "aflplayers.com.au", "womens.afl". 71 of the 175 sources are directly or indirectly from the website of Australian Football League (AFL), a primary source. There are also other issues like overuse of direct quotations in "Legacy" section, duplicate linking, adding Instagram link in External links, etc. Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article, and why does the article meets WP:FA?#2c? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh – I'll try and address your points as best as I can. I've rectified the smaller issues that you've mentioned so far, though I've intially left out the first links after the lead if I thought they were helpful and links that technically link to the same article but different areas, e.g. Melbourne / Melbourne – would this be allowed, or would I just have to limit it to one?

Regarding the sources, most if not all of the bits of information that just cite a single source, whether it be The Australian or melbournefc.com.au, only cite those sources because they were the only ones that I could find for those tidbits; some of the time, I might have used a club website as a second or third source when something like SEN or Fox Sports was already there – if you want me to remove those instances where there's already a better source, more than happy to, but a lot of the time when you see something from AFL Media (afl.com.au or womens.afl), it's probably because it was the only thing I could find/that was reporting on that particular piece of information. Granted, SportsTG, AFL Community and girlsplayfooty.com might not be the Herald Sun, but they were, again, the only ones I could find/that were reporting on that tidbit. I would argue that AFL Media is independent from the AFL and not just a primary source that's biased/selective in the content that it produces, as it produces stories about the good, bad and the ugly in the AFL world (even at AFL HQ), same as the newspapers and TV/radio networks, but that's a whole other story – my point being that because it gives such a wide coverage of the AFL and AFLW, hasn't been shown to necessarily be given preferential treatment by the league or its clubs and (I would argue) very reliable from a journalism standpoint, I'm not sure that it should necessarily be brushed off as a primary source/unusable in a featured article, but hey, that might not amount to much.

As for how I found sources, I follow AFL Media pretty closely for the reasons above, but in some cases, I'll also do a Google search to find other sources on certain bits of information. Before the article reached GA status, it had bits of information that were unsourced or improperly sourced, so I did the best I could to Google these areas to find what sources I could and include them if I thought that they were reliable enough – some periods of Pearce's life/career were more widely reported on than others, clearly, and there were certain bits of information that I was forced to remove/leave out because I couldn't really find anything to source it with, so I believe that the article's been improved from that standpoint. Regarding your last question, did you mean 2c or 1c? I believe that I've maintained a consistent use and format of citations throughout the article, but if I'm wrong, please let me know how I can improve this further.

Otherwise, let me know if any of this makes sense/you need further clarification, and otherwise what else needs doing – I'm fairly new to this process/the jump to featured article status, but keen to learn and take on what I can, even if it's because the article isn't quite ready yet. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

By over-linking, I was particularly referring to double linking in the prose itself (independent of lead), like AFL Players Association, but I'm confident you'll fix that too. Multiple links to sections withing the same article is allowed. So if I understand you correctly, the article has various information which only a particular sources cite. Then why is that information important enough to be mentioned in the article? If there is something significant, I'd expect a lot of media commentary on it. Even if AFL Media is independent from the AFL, and even if it is reliable, what makes it among the highest quality of reliable sources? Don't get me wrong, I know almost nothing about sports; this is entirely a non-expert's perspective, but I think we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts. Are there no books/academic work about her life? Regarding my last point, I meant 1c, apologies. All in all, I don't think you'll get a consensus here that sourced are WP:HQRS. I am not convinced that the article meets the criteria, at-least for sourcing. I won't oppose, but I am suggesting withdrawal (changed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)). But please don't be discouraged, we need more FAs about women, especially in sports. I'll be happy to give this article a review outside of FAC once all the sourcing concerns are resolved. I am open to reconsider, if other feel the other way. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, per this discussion, I have been requested to provide some sources not used in the article. Here are the sources:
  • Fedele, Robert (2017). "Midwife Blossoms Into AFL Star". Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. 24 (8). ISSN 2202-7114. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
  • Pippos, Angela (2017). Breaking the Mould. Affirm Press. ISBN 978-1-925475-29-6 – via Google Books.
  • Faganel, Armand; Rižnar, Igor; Baruca, Arne, eds. (2021). Impacts and Implications for the Sports Industry in the Post-Covid-19 Era. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-6782-1.
  • Lynch, Jackie (2018). "State of the AFLW Nation". Green Left Weekly. 1171. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
  • Sources mentioned by Steelkamp below are not repeated here. The 2nd and 3rd might help a bit, but I think the other two (especially the 1st) discusses the topic in bit detail. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Okay, I have struck my suggestion to withdraw, but my concerns stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

I'll review this article. Noting I reviewed it for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Also noting above that Kavyansh.Singh's comments above are blatantly sexist. They make an assertion that "we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts". That essentially implies that biographies should not be able to be made into FAs if the subject doesn't receive a very wide range of coverage, an issue that much more frequently affects women than men. I would recommend their review be disregarded by the coordinators. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think my comments were "blatantly sexist". I never intended to say that. We need sport biographies in FAC, for both man and woman, equally. My comment regarding that encyclopedia articles should mostly have widely reported facts meant to imply that if a particular piece of information is covered only in 1-2 sources, that too a primary one, why is it significant enough to mention then? My suggestion to withdraw is in accordance with the FA criteria; I have no issues with you disagreeing on that. But I don't think my comments should be "disregarded". It is upto @WP:FAC coordinators: to determine if my comments are in accordance with the criteria or not. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said. It is up to the coordinators to decide whether to take your review into account. I am merely suggesting that they do not. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Although higher standard for sourcing or WP:DUE arguably impacts biographies of women more than men, I do not agree that it's sexist. All reviews are taken into account to determine consensus to promote, to the extent that they are based on the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:AGF. Also that a nominator should address a review, not the reviewer. As Buidhe says, all reviews and comments are taken into account when closing. Ones bearing on whether the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" will be weighted heavily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• in the AFL Women's (add "competition" so that the sentence ends on a noun)
• One of women's Australian rules football's first superstars <<<=== In-between this and the old statement of "Widely regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football", I would suggest the intermediate "Often regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football" to be more complete without potentially making too strong of a statement
• having (add "already" or "previously") captained the club in the women's exhibition games in the years prior
• seven as captain ===>>> seven times as captain
• "VFL Women's (VFLW)" ===>>> VFL Women's (VFLW) competition
• Pearce is a dual AFL Women's All-Australian, having been named as captain in the 2017 team and vice-captain in the 2018 team, and won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards. <<<=== This sentence doesn't have parallelism. I'd suggest splitting off the second part as "She won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards."
• "media performer" <<<=== I'm not sure "performer" is the correct word (unless it's an Australian English thing?) Maybe "media personality" would be better?

Early life

• Okay.

State

• She was named in the carnival's All-Australian team <<<=== I might suggest calling it the "National Championships' All-Australian team" instead, since I don't think it's obvious that is what carnival is referring to.
• with Pearce named among the best players in the grand final ===>>> a game in which Pearce was named among the best players. (to avoid "with" and repeating "grand final")
• Darebin would go on to win five VWFL premierships in a row, before losing to St Albans in the grand final in 2011; Pearce, who had by then become captain, was named Darebin's best player in the loss <<<=== Combined with the previous sentence, it says Pearce was among the best players in 2007 and was the team's best player in 2011. But what about the other years in the five VWFL premierships in a row? Do you have that information?
• In 2013, Darebin again went through the season undefeated, defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final.[21] Darebin repeated this feat in 2014, again going through the season without a loss and defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was named best afield in the grand final. <<<=== Combine these two sentences to something like "In both 2013 and 2014, Darebin again went through the season undefeated. In both years, they defeated Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final."
• She would also feature in Darebin's third ===>>> She also featured in Darebin's third
• "with Darebin named among the ten teams" ===>>> "and Darebin named among the ten teams" (avoid "with")
• "She would also play in Darebin's grand final win" ===>>> She also played in Darebin's grand final win

Exhibition

• The top 50 female footballers in Australia ===>>> Fifty of the top female footballers in Australia (it's not literally the top 50)
• "Pearce was selected by Melbourne with the first selection in the draft" ===>>> "Pearce was selected by Melbourne first overall in the draft"
• with the first to be held ==>>> the first to be held
• "with Melbourne playing two games" ===>>> "in which Melbourne would play two games"

2017

• the Melbourne's inaugural match ===>>> Melbourne's inaugural match
• and won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award ===>>> . She won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award
• meaning that she would miss the 2019 season ===>>> which would result in her missing the 2019 season

2020

• with coach Mick Stinear saying ===>>> ; coach Mick Stinear stated
• She played her first AFLW match ===>>> Pearce played her first AFLW match (unclear "She" with Black in the previous sentence)
• half-back (add "in defence" to clarify)
• without a premiership being awarded due to the worsening pandemic ===>>> with no premiership awarded due to the worsening pandemic
• Pearce went on to be selected ===>>> Pearce was selected
• two goals from 13 disposals ===>>> two goals from 13 disposals,
• with Pearce saying ===>>> and Pearce herself stated
• Pearce also received five coaches' votes <<<=== Unless the coaches votes are a new thing, I would leave this out given that you never mention them before. (As in, wouldn't she have received coaches votes before?)

Playing style

• A few pairs of citations are not in numerical order.
• her ability to threaten <<<=== specify what she is threatening

Statistics

• Okay.

Honours

• Okay.

Media

• Clarify that Triple M is a radio network (or radio station?).

Advocacy

• Okay.

Coaching

• with Pearce to complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation ===>>> in which Pearce would complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation
• Explain what AFL level three coaching accreditation means, maybe just in a footnote.

Legacy

• You can put back the "face of" statement, but state who calls her that (e.g. the media, I think? or maybe other players?)

Personal

• Pearce began working as a midwife <<<=== if known, state at what age?
• she currently divides ===>>> she has since divided (avoid "currently" per MOS:RELTIME)

Overall

• I don't share the concerns above about not using game reports because they are primary sources. This is pretty typical of most past sports FA articles. I'm not even sure I agree that game reports count as primary sources. (Relatedly, a book source would be nice, but you can't ask for one if it doesn't exist.)
• Use IABot to archive all the sources.
• In particular, I noticed this one doesn't work any more.
• There are a few instances of using ALLCAPS in parts of some references where it is not needed (e.g. "COMMENT", "THE W SHOW IS HERE").

Overall, it looks like it's in pretty good shape. The content looks very thorough and well-organized. I intend to support after the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Sportsfan77777. I think I've covered most, if not all, of your feedback – let me know what you think/if there's anything more that you wanted to throw in there (given I've also added a little bit since you gave your review). Thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Second read-through

• "was selected by Melbourne with the first selection" <<<=== to avoid "select" twice, would "was selected by Melbourne with the first overall pick" be Australian English enough? Or "was taken by Melbourne with the first selection"? --- This issue is in the lead and the body.
• before the first exhibition game ===>>> for the first women's exhibition game
• Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 prior to the competition's first season. ===>>> Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 for the competition's first season the following year. (the year is more important to clarify)
• She also won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards <<<=== You don't need the "also" here.
• If the book source disagrees with her birthplace, add a footnote stating the alternative possibility.
• Specify "Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG)" in the first mention
• and Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. ===>>> Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. (start a new sentence)
• The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season was ===>>> The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season were
• Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 ===>>> Pearce won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016

Source comments

• There is still unnecessary all caps ("LISTEN", "UPDATE", "DEE-MOLITION") left in the sources.
• I do think AustralianFootball.com is definitely a high-quality reliable source, per 4TheWynne's reply to Hawkeye.
• Both of the SportsTG sources are really content published by the VWFL (it says it's the official VWFL website). Whether it's republished or that's where they published it originally, I don't know. Either way, the publisher should be listed as the "VWFL", not "SportsTG".
• Similarly, the first Footy Almanac source is also published by the VWFL, and should have VWFL as the publisher.
• In the second Footy Alamanac source, the one comment (from one of the website administrators) specifies that the author of the piece is the same author (Leesa Catto, who works for the VWFL) as the first Footy Almanac source, so I would assume it is also published through the VWFL. I would recommend putting Catto as the author and VWFL as the publisher just like the first source.
• You don't need the Instagram source. (Both usages are covered by the very next source.)
• I agree with the comment below that Fox Sports should always include "(Australia)" and likewise for ABC News. You could also do the opposite and never include "(Australia)", since they are always linked anyway.
• Regarding the book sources, I would expect only the Lane book on the launch of the AFLW to potentially have more information that could be included, but probably not a whole lot given that it doesn't focus on Pearce specifically. I would expect the news sources and the official sources from the official VWFL/VFLW/AFLW websites to be more in-depth. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I am curious as to how the book source disagrees with whether her siblings are brothers or sisters. Having no access to either source, I don't know which would be more reliable. The newspaper source is much more recent, so I don't see how they could have messed it up if the book was already published. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• The other book sources seem like mostly passing mentions. The Hayes and Sheedy sources are a bit more in depth, each with about two pages on Pearce, but these are picture books for kids. They might have a little more information, but I wouldn't favor them over most other types of sources already used.

I didn't finish either of these today. I'll probably finish both of them tomorrow. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's it for the comments on the prose. I didn't find much after a second read-through. I'll look through the sources again if others continue to comment them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, just finished here again. I've opted to remove "(Australia)" because they're linked, like you mentioned, and regarding the differing information in the sources, I really like Sam Lane – who I know is a big fan of Pearce – and wouldn't expect her to get this sort of information wrong, but from memory (the Weekend Australian article was freely available at the time when I used it), Courtney Walsh actually travelled around with Pearce to write her story, and it's more recent like you said, so I figured it would also be pretty reliable; to counter this, I've tweaked the wording slightly so that it doesn't contradict either source ("two brothers", "two younger half-siblings"). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, supporting! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Steelkamp

Media career: (some of this may have already been mentioned due to an edit conflict)

• and in 2019, she also hosted This Is Grit, a weekly podcast series on SEN focusing on female sportspeople. – Citation doesn't show that. Also, wouldn't "sportswomen" be more concise than "female sportspeople". Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pearce was a rotating panel member on the Seven Network program AFL Game Day and is a boundary rider for Seven and 1116 SEN's AFL coverage – Citation makes no reference to 1116 SEN. Citation does not show why rotating panel member is in past tense. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• I notice womens.afl is frequently referred to in references and other parts of the article, but [15] this shows that it should be womens.AFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  This one has not been addressed yet. Steelkamp (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I honestly think you might have just picked out one of the only instances in which this happened, as I see it formatted far more frequently with the "afl" in lowercase – here are some recent examples (plenty more where these came from): [16][17][18][19][20] 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Only two issues remain (see below) for me to support. Steelkamp (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on womens.afl alongside Nat Edwards – There is no indication that this is a website. Maybe change to In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on the womens.AFL website alongside Nat Edwards Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• After Tiffany Cherry spoke out against the Nine Network in February 2018 for failing to stand up for gender equality after being replaced as host of the Nine program Women's Footy by Clint Stanaway, Pearce said that it was better to have both men and women involved in commentating and talking about the men's and women's competitions. "I enjoy seeing men working across and well-informed football commentators talking about [women's football]... why can't we see men working across the AFL Women’s competition?" She said that if there was a belief that only women should call AFLW games and only men should call AFL games, "It's almost as if we are taking a few steps back". – The problem with this paragraph is that it takes a while to get to the point. It's not until about 2/3rds of the way through that I realise that Pearce is criticising Tiffany Cherry's stance. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pearce was among several high-profile AFLW players to speak out during the 2020–2022 collective bargaining agreement negotiations in 2019, with Pearce supporting the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) and its efforts to grow the competition,[152][153] saying that broader talks between the AFLPA and AFLW players would result in an agreement that would satisfy all players. – This doesn't really put things in their full context. The Age says that "reports emerged of a split over the new collective bargaining agreement." I think the quotes can be shortened and more context to this can be added. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Coaching career:

• I don't think that many citations are needed. Three or more adjacent citations is too much. For example, in the first group of citations, the Lions website could be removed without impacting the verifiability of the preceding sentence. Use WP:CITEBUNDLE if they absolutely must be there. Steelkamp (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Legacy:

• and is highly regarded across the football industry for her professionalism, football knowledge and leadership, both on and off the field, as well as being a role model for current and future female footballers and commentators.[24] – Citation is a wix.com website. Doesn't seem to be a high quality source. It is also a dead link, so some source archiving will need to be done. There are several other dead links throughout the article as well. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Still not convinced by a wix.com website. Steelkamp (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've reverted to citing the Weekend Australian article in the instance above (I remember it covering the inspiration element a fair bit, and that really should have been the source in the first place) and used a different quote from Melissa Hickey from a Fox Sports article (Hickey was clearly full of praise) in the quotes further down, so the Change Her Game article is now, for all intents and purposes, dead and buried. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Herald Sun journalist Jay Clark wrote that Pearce had "set the standard in training and professionalism [in women's football] for years" and that her contributions over more than a decade made her a "living legend of the women's game", – What's to say that Jay Clark wrote that. It says up the top that Lauren Wood wrote that article. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  This issue still remains. Also, the archive link for reference 157 is incorrect. Steelkamp (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I fixed the archive link (I remember pasting it into the text originally, so not sure how I accidentally put a different one in there) and set |url-status=deviated to indicate that the current version usurped the older version that I'm trying to cite; both versions at least attribute the information that I'm sourcing to Clark, but this way you can see that Clark originally wrote the article before Wood came in over the top and "took a screamer", to use the old footy vernacular. Would this suffice? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• The format of this section is a bit awkward due to the images. I think it would be best to remove one image, and have the other one on the right rather than the left. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• This is very minor, but I think that named Daisy in honour of Pearce sounds and flows better than named Daisy to honour Pearce. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA, which then decided to include AFLW players as full members of the association. – Citation says that it was existing members that voted to include AFLW players as full members. There is nothing there to say that the vote occurred after Pearce was elected. How about On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA. The association had also decided that day to include AFLW players as full members. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pearce had won the inaugural award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. – How about you change this to Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal life and philanthropy:

• Pearce began working as a midwife at Box Hill Hospital upon moving to Melbourne, and lived in Eltham, in Melbourne's north-east. – The flow of this sentence is awkward. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• near Bright in country Victoria – Seeing as Bright is mentioned earlier in the article, it is not necessary to say that it is in country Victoria. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Honours and achievements:

• 2× AFL Women's All-Australian team: 2017 (c), 2018 – There is nothing to show what "c" stands for. Steelkamp (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

General:

• Best and fairest should be linked somewhere in the article, seeing as its mentioned several times. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be The Weekend Australian, rather than Weekend Australian? Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• There are several book sources that may be useful. I may get around to looking at some of these books over the coming week to see if they are useful to this article in any way:
  • Lane, Samantha (2018). Roar : the stories behind AFLW -- a movement bigger than sport. ISBN 9780143788744.
    • Pg. 302: Pearce was born in Wandiligong, not Bright. She was born in Wandiligong, Victoria, which has 300 residents, with the nearest major town, Bright, having a population of just over 2000. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Pg. 302: Pearce has an older brother Harry (two years older) and a younger brother Billy (two years younger). Ali is actually a half brother, not sister. Pearce's parents separated in 1995. Pearce has an older half brother, Aaron, through her father. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Pgs. 293-: Details on her life and career in 2016 and 2017. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hayes, Nicole; Sometimes, Alicia (2017). A footy girl's guide to the stars of 2017. ISBN 9781863959124.
  • Sheedy, Kevin (2020). Kevin Sheedy's heroes of footy. ISBN 9781922400246.

Steelkamp, I've mentioned the differing information regarding Pearce's birthplace in a footnote and tweaked the information about her brothers and half-siblings so that it doesn't contradict either source. I've also sourced 1995 and her half-brother, and otherwise addressed all most of your other feedback previously. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards

• I have made a few edits to the article rather than list my suggestions here. The article suffers from citation overkill. For example, does Pearce's participation in the annual Big Freeze at the 'G need three citations? Similarly, "By March 2022, Pearce was considering an assistant coaching role for Geelong's AFL team;" has five citations. There are others like this. Can we use just one reliable source for uncontroversial statements? And on the subject of citations, some seem to be poor quality (there was even a Facebook one). Can we weed these out and replace them with better ones? I'm referring to the ones like worldfooty.com. As it stands, the citations are a problem. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also: These are often redundant but keep popping up in revisions of the article. I think the writer has an addiction to them. Here is a quote from Tony's essay :

"Additive terms—"also", "in addition", "moreover" and "furthermore". Every sentence is additional to its predecessors, but most of us, including otherwise good writers, have got into the habit of sprinkling these terms through our writing, because they give us a vague feeling of adding to the cohesion of the text (the strength with which it all hangs together). However, only occasionally are these additive words required for textual cohesion; the flow is usually stronger without them." -Graham Beards (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All of these have been addressed – let me know if you have any additional feedback. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support on prose. For a sports biography, this article is refreshingly accessible to someone who know nothing about the game. Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest scaling up the image in Personal life. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Teratix

Just a drive-by comment on sourcing, might convert to a full review. Bylined pieces from AFL Media (i.e. post-2012 AFL.com.au) and womens.afl have a decent track record of independent coverage and in my view should be regarded as independent RS. Club and AFLPA websites aren't independent but are reliable enough to be used sparingly. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Quality

• Fn 5: Is Australian Football a reliable site? (consider using an AFL site like https://www.melbournefc.com.au/players/aflw/1669/daisy-pearce#playerstatistics instead)
• Fn 18: Is World Footy News reliable? Looks like a Wikinews-style site.
• Otherwise, all sources are high quality.

Formatting

• I have replaced the work cards with publisher/newspaper/website as appropriate to generate MOS-compliant formatting
• Also News.com.au was sometimes capitalised, sometimes not; I have standardised the article on lower case, matching the other web sites

Spot checks

• Fn 4, 8, 11, 21, 32, 80, 111, 112,
• fn 155 says it is The age, but links to an article in The Australian; I think the link should be https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/star-player-daisy-pearce-named-afl-football-woman-of-the-year-20160929-grr1ww.html
• Fn 158 Not seeing "Pearce studied a Bachelor of Nursing and Midwifery at La Trobe University, graduating in 2010" in the source

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, thanks for the review – I think I've pretty much covered everything. Australian Football seems to be the database of choice for all AFLW players (AFL players use both AFL Tables and Australian Football, whereas AFL Tables doesn't cover AFLW), and the club websites don't include AFLW best and fairest votes (which I used the database to source a few times), so I'd argue that it is reliable and the article would benefit more from keeping it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Pass on sources, support article generally. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns from Kavyansh — resolved

• Of the five instances, Fox Sports (Australia) does not have 'Australia' in Ref#135 and Ref#143. Also, Ref#135 and Ref#143 are italicized while rest three are not. Suggesting to be consistent.
• I am not confident if "Australian Football" (australianfootball.com) is a high quality source. this does not make it clear if any content matter experts are consulted. More importantly, this says "In order to view some Content, post any Content or access certain features of the Service, you must register as a member with AF" (emphasis mine), which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#5, Ref#54, and Ref#131)
• I am not sure how this of from 'SportsTG'. (Ref#6)
• Since we write 'Fox Sports (Australia)', shouldn't we also write 'ABC News (Australia)'. It can easily be confused with American ABC News. (References: Ref#7, Ref#37, Ref#44, and Ref#111)
• Not convinced that 'The Footy Almanac' is a high quality source. This says "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go", which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#13, Ref#17)
• Ref#21: The URL says "The Page you are looking for cannot be found". Should url-status be marked as 'dead'?
• Why do we use 'Instagram' as a source. Are there no secondary sources? (Ref#78)
• Our article italicizes 'Seven News'. Should we do that same in Ref#122?

That is on a quick run. This should be noted that these concerns are raised after a source review was been "passed" on March 14 (Special:Diff/1077022142/1077025521). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, thanks for your feedback. As I've gone into above with Sportsfan77777's comments, I've removed "(Australia)" from each Fox Sports and ABC News source, as they're all linked. I've fixed the VFLW source and removed the Instagram source, and I've stopped short of italicising Seven News, as I've treated it as being the same as ABC News, etc. All of the other sourcing concerns were addressed in Sportsfan77777's comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. Thanks a lot for fixing most of it. I still have few standing concerns. Per your reply about "Australian Football", you talk about the usefulness of the source, which still does not make clear why it is reliable, or why it is not a WP:UGC. Same with "The Footy Almanac". Even if VWFL (assuming it to be Victorian Women's Football League) is a publisher, does it make it a WP:HQRS when the site explicitly claims "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go". Sorry for pressing you and/or being nitpicky. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, sorry for taking even longer myself. Regarding Australian Football, I've cited different sources for the AFL Women's best and fairest votes, leaving just her date of birth and player statistics (both of which normally cite databases anyway, as you aren't going to find either in a news article) as citing the database; the only alternative would be to source the club website, but the individual player pages at club websites only exist when the player is active, so Australian Football would likely be the only source (if not the best available, at least) that's still live once Pearce retires (I also didn't see anyone object to the use of Australian Football when Erin Phillips was nominated... and her article is littered with citations to the database). As for The Footy Almanac, I've also replaced one of these articles (2011 VWFL GF) with a different source because I was able to find one, but I haven't been able to find another source/version for the other (2009 state team); is there anything wrong with treating it on a case-by-case basis? In this case, just one article; because we know that it was written by Leesa Catto and originally published by the VWFL, shouldn't that make that particular article reliable enough given we can't find another version? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not objected to using any source, merely questioning the reliability. I am now satisfied with the responses, and as far as I am concerned, most of these sourcing concerns should be considered resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Further comments/discussion/feedback

OK, guys – I think I've covered just about everything so far, aside from upscaling that last image and maybe a couple of other things (including getting a chance to check out those books/articles, if that was directed at me). Let me know if you guys had any more to add; I've just added this subsection in case anyone wanted to add a comment separately to their reviews, otherwise feel free to drop your thoughts via your own sections if that's easier – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just seeing if anyone else has anything to add? Not sure of the best way to scale up the Personal life image, either. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Just checking in again – been three days now. Pinging those we haven't heard from in a little bit (Buidhe, Gog the Mild, Graham Beards, Nikkimaria and Teratix), along with Casliber, Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, Hmlarson and Figureskatingfan from related FACs if they have any comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: five supports/concerns resolved here, and haven't really had any opposes – is that enough/is there anything else that you guys think needs doing? Anyone else, please feel free to comment as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As you are a first time FAC nominator, the article will need a source to text fidelity spot check. I have requested one at the top of the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Spot check

I'll do the spot check; I know nothing about this sport so in some cases I may be asking from ignorance. Working from this version, for reference numbering purposes. I'll look at every 11th footnote.

• 11: OK, but the source is from 2016 and says "remains" the only [etc.]. I know this is picky but I think you should say "as of 2016". If another series takes place in 2024, we want this article to still be correct.
  • Done.
• 22: OK.
• 33: OK.
• 44: What's the source text for "a national free-to-air audience of over one million people"? Is it "telecast live into Melbourne and Adelaide on Channel 7; as well as Sydney, Brisbane and Perth on 7Mate — reaching a combined audience peak of 1.05m people"? I don't understand "free-to-air" -- does it mean broadcast over the air; i.e. non-cable? If so this is OK.
  • Correct.
• 55: You're going to have to explain this one to me. I see her name in the ROUND SIX section under "Adelaide v Melbourne", listed as "3. D Pearce (Melbourne)". How does this support "was awarded the maximum three AFL Women's best and fairest votes by the umpires in the round 6 win against Adelaide"?
  • The AFLW best and fairest votes are awarded by the umpires (3, 2, 1 for each match), but this isn't in the source, so I reworded the sentence to "...awarded the maximum three votes for the AFL Women's best and fairest award in Melbourne's round 6 match against Adelaide".
• 67: OK. I'm skipping 66 because it's almost identical to 55.
• 77: used to source "on 31 August, Pearce announced her pregnancy with twins, which would result in her missing the 2019 season": in fact it doesn't strictly source the second half of the sentence, since that season was in the future at that point. You need another source for the fact that she actually missed that season.
  • Done.
• 88: "She ran a personal best time in the club's two-kilometre time trial in the lead-up to the season". The source doesn't say the time was in a time trial or for the club.
  • Reworded to "She ran a personal best time over two kilometres...".
• 99: OK.
• 110: "after moving to the forward line and kicking two goals from 13 disposals". In the source I see she is credited with two goals, but I don't see anything that supports the rest of this, though since I have no idea what a disposal is I might be misinterpreting something.
  • I read the "13 disposals" part in another source, but was fine to just remove it instead.
• 121: OK.
• 132: "Pearce played in Melbourne's preliminary final win over Brisbane": I don't see evidence in the cited page that she played in this match.
  • In the source: "In a promising sign of things to come, Melbourne's win was built not just on the backs of experienced campaigners Daisy Pearce and Paxman..."
• 143: OK.
• 154: "As a result, Pearce was shifted to Seven's Friday night commentary team for the 2022 season". Yes, she was moved to that slot, but the source doesn't really support "as a result" (of her previous strong and praised performance); they could have planned to move her anyway.
  • Done.
• 165: OK, but I would suggest changing the article text to extend the quote, since "over more than a decade" is directly from the source too. I.e. 'her contributions "over more than a decade [made] her a living legend of the women's game".
  • I think either would have been fine, and I might have even preferred it how it was, but changed it anyway.
• 176: OK.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie, just went through your feedback – sorry for the wait. Let me know if you have any more – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The above issues are all OK now, but there were four or five (out of sixteen) that were just slightly inaccurately sourced. I'm going to look at ten more to be on the safe side, using the same numbering for the footnotes:

• 113: I don't think this gives the exact nature of her injury, unless I'm missing something in the source.
  • The MCL part was in one of the sources that I removed when I cut down on the number of sources, so I've added that back.
• 39: sourcing "a match against a Brisbane Lions women's team at the MCG in May" -- the source says "Queensland"; I know Brisbane is in Queensland, but the Brisbane Lions seem to be a different team from the way the source presents this.
  • I remember it initially being fixtured as "Queensland" but ending up just being the Brisbane Lions (including their guernsey), so I repositioned the current sources and used a different one to source the Brisbane team instead.
• 125: OK.
• 6: OK.
• 162: OK.
• 175: OK.
• 136: OK.
• 17: OK.
• 21: OK.
• 119: OK.

-- This is a bit better but the first two look like more of the same -- slight inaccuracies in the sourcing. Let me know whether I'm missing something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I've ticked off those couple of issues as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Those fixes look good. To pass a spot check, I need to have confidence that this sort of slight inaccuracy has been cleaned up throughout the article. Can you take a pass through and see if you can spot any other similar issues? It's clear to me there's nothing inaccurate in the article -- we just need to be sure we're sourcing it precisely. Let me know when you want me to have another look, and I'll pick another ten footnotes to check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

SS Edward L. Ryerson

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Edward L. Ryerson. I brought the article to GA status in March 2021. It has since been copy edited by Twofingered Typist, and has undergone a peer review. GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Edward L. Ryerson launch.jpg, File:Edward L. Ryerson in the Manitowoc River.jpg skeptical about the non-free usage rationale. How is NFCC#8 met? Does "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."? If so, the rationale does not explain. I would suggest removing both images. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Could the picture of the launch be kept? GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You would need to make it clear why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Removing it seems to be the only option. GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Are the other images alright? GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from North8000

A sentence that is both in the lead and body says: "She is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters..." relying on the internal link to say what "straight deck" means here. But as described at the linked article, "straight deck" has two very different meanings. The intended use in this article is not only merely one of the two (leaving the intended meaning in this article unclear), but the intended meaning is not what the linked article describes as the primary meaning. Could this be clarified? North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked the straight deck article to help in this area. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I've added a footnote to clarify the matter. GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I've added "Comments from North8000" to this section. Hope you don't mind. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The article mentioned that they spent an immense amount extra to equip it carry passengers in style. The few glimpses I had of sources seemed to make a point of discussing it carrying VIP's as guests. Do think this should be mentioned in the article? North8000 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why not.

@North8000: Which source said that? I think I missed that detail. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make a note of it but I see if I can find it again. It was one of the sources in the article, and the link went to a site (google books?) which had a paragraph or two from about 10 different pages. That's why I called it "glimpses". North8000 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It was the google books glimpse of "Twilight of the Great Lakes Steamer" page 77. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you. Done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support I was going slow figuring that others would be taking more time interviewing details. But then I saw the recent notice. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - eg yard number
• "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup at the Fraser Shipyard" - text indicates that while she started there she was later moved

Changed to "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup in Superior, Wisconsin."

• "became well known for her elegant lines" - source?

Changed to "Enthusiasts consider Edward L. Ryerson to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing lake freighters ever built."

• How are you ordering Sources?

Originally alphabetically based on the author/publisher, although they were changed during the peer review.

• What makes Great Lakes Vessel History a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything official that would qualify it as a usable source. It has been removed.

@Nikkimaria: The points have been addressed.

@Nikkimaria: Are the rest of the sources alright? GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Still seeing details in the infobox that don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the capacity of 27,500 tons. Also not clear on Sources ordering - it appears that items without a named author are mostly alphabetical by title, but not entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've sorted all i could find. As for the sources, they are ordered alphabetically, regardless of whether or not an author is listed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Still more, eg displacement. Also we've now got several work titles in Sources using |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I can't see anything else that isn't cited in the infobox or the body of the article. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, is this one good now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Still seeing work titles using |publisher=. Otherwise yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It's done. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 14:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• She was launched on January 21, 1960, and Frankcliffe Hall was launched before that, on December 7, 1959, so I don't understand the "Queen of the Lakes" title -- if it doesn't count till the ship is launched, then she was never the longest; if it counts from construction, then the Frankcliffe Hall would have taken over the title before December 7. What am I missing?

My mistake. I accidentally wrote 1959 instead of 1962.

• Is Joseph L. Block worth a redlink?

I don't think so.

• Why is it worth mentioning a cargo of mill scale? Is there something unusual about that?

It is for a ship that worked in the iron ore trade.

• Have you looked through the newspapers.com articles that mention the ship? I had a quick look; there are hundreds of mentions. No doubt most are trivial, but I see you don't have any references to newspapers in the article so I thought I'd check.

  I don't have a newspapers account.

  It's free. If you go to WP:LIBRARY and click on "Get free access to research!" near the bottom it'll take you to a page where you can sign up. If you have problems you can ask questions or ask for help at WT:LIBRARY. It's a great resource. Since you don't have an account yet I'll do some searches today and see if I can find anything of interest, and post the results here, but I really recommend you sign up -- for the articles you write I think it would be very useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Two months ago I got a notification which said I was eligible for an account at the Wikipedia Library. Is that significant? GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They sent that note to everyone who was eligible, so yes, it means you would be given an account if you asked for one. There are requirements (minimum number of edits, etc.) and that notification just meant that you meet the requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's everything I can see; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Some clippings. I've noted below if they are out of copyright, meaning that you can use the photos, if you want to.

• [21] -- mentions details of the accommodations, and mentions that the hatches admit two loading chutes and improve visibility and access during unloading. This is out of copyright.
• [22] -- more details of accommodations, info about the crew, a mishap on the first trip, and this source says the $8M was for the whole ship, not just the accommodations, which to be honest is a lot more plausible. Out of copyright.
• [23] -- 2016 look back. In copyright. Mentions the Manitowoc County Historical Society which apparently has photos of the ship, which may be available for use.
• [24] -- a similar article, from 2020. In copyright. This one has a picture from the Wisconsin Maritime Museum, which might be worth contacting.
• [25] -- mentions that the launch damaged the city dock, and that there's an elevator on board -- the first on a lake ship. Out of copyright -- the Green Bay Press-Gazette did start renewing copyright, but much later than necessary for the 1960 issues.
• [26] -- gives a couple of engineering details, e.g. about the controls for the boiler, and explains why the vertical-sided holds were important. Out of copyright.

Per this page copyright has to be renewed for publications before 1964, and this page is where you can search for those renewals.

I think that's everything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips regarding the two new photos, how did you confirm there was no copyright renewal? (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if GreatLakesShips repeated the search, but I searched, using the link above to cocatalog.loc.gov. I searched for renewals 27-28 years after the publication dates using the newspaper titles as the search string. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. Image review is a pass. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. The additions look good. Buidhe, since you did the image review, there are two new images you may want to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

ore than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I was sitting back figuring that that the first step was a longer process of getting details reviewed. Seeing your note I added my support. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Ispat International N.V." Of which country?
• "She was sold to the Indiana Harbor Steamship Company;" When? Ditto in the main text.
• "in December of that same year," What year? Ditto in the main text.
• "Edward L. Ryerson set cargo haulage records twice during the early 1960s." This is unclear. From the text below the record appears to be before the weight of cargo, but this shoudl be clarified. Also record for what? For any ship on the Great Lakes? For a ship of her class?
• "In August 1989, she loaded a cargo of mill scale in Detroit, Michigan." Why is this worth saying? It seems too trivial for the article.
• "On November 13, 1997, she was placed in the dry dock at Bay Shipbuilding Company in Sturgeon Bay for her five-year inspection." Also trivial. You could say she was inspected every five years, but why mention this specific inspection?
• "The ship was moved to Sturgeon Bay's east dock on December 7, 2000, and back to Bay Shipbuilding on August 17, 2004.[" Presumably laid up, but you should clarify.
• You say in 'History' "Edward L. Ryerson is the third of the thirteen so-called 730-class of lake freighters built; five were American, of which she is the first." and in 'Career' "Edward L. Ryerson is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters, the other one being the 1958-built freighter John Sherwin." I think it would be better to have these comments together and explain how they are related - or not.
• The referencing is confusing. You have two different Boatnerd refs, divided apparently randomly depending on whether you have put Boatnerd in italics. It will also be very difficult for a reader who does not understand sfn to find the correct reference. It would be better to consistently have the first word(s) as the sfn ref e.g. "Great Lakes" rather than Boatnerd. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi GreatLakesShips, I note that you have been off Wiki for a week, but this is a reminder that when you are back Dudley's comments above are awaiting a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I'll start working on them tomorrow. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Milk Hotel

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Neutral Milk Hotel, an important and influential indie rock band from the late 90s. One thing I should note is that regarding Adam Clair's book, I only own the E-book version which uses Reflowable text, so I can't include specific page numbers. However, I'll be happy to provide the necessary quotes during the FAC process if needed for spotchecking. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please fix the following harv error: "McGonigal 1998; McGonigal 2008 Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 09:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Fixed Famous Hobo (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wetrorave

This is one of those bands that I always tell myself I have to listen to but end up forgetting about hehe. Comments coming soon. Sorry if it seems as if I've read the article in reverse btw. Wetrorave (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

"Neutral Milk Hotel songs explored" - "explored" should be "explore" since the songs do not exist only in the past "other Neutral Milk Hotel recordings" could be reduced to "other recordings of the band" "a subject of debate, however." - Having the 'however' at the end of the sentence rather than at the start feels a bit awkward to read "his subconscious. 'Some of it" - since these two sentences are highly connected, I'd suggest changing them to "his subconscious, saying 'Some of it" "style of songwriting. While the lyrics" - same as above, the full stop could be changed with a semicolon "early music was rough," - could be changed to "was considered rough", or quotation marks could be placed around "rough" "described some of the acoustic songs as 'lifeless acoustic warbles.'" - unnecessary repetition of the word "acoustic", the first use of it could be removed "of the band members. The band members would" - same as above, could be changed to "of the band members, who would often ask" "He then became a vagabond" - what exactly does "vagabond" mean? In my language the word "vagabundo" is associated with negativity towards a person's actions, though this may just be a difference in meaning of two similar-sounding words "including nontraditional rock" - there should be a hyphen in "nontraditional" The Decemberists should not have a capital The, per MOS:THEBAND These are my comments. The article's overall prose is pretty good, and you could easily get it to FA. Wetrorave (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC) @Wetrorave: Addressed each point except the vagabond one. In English, vagabond simply means a person who moves constantly without a home or a job, which in retrospect, doesn't seem to accurately describe that period of Mangum's life. Rereading Adam Clair's book, it appears as though Mangum was never homeless, but was what I would describe as "restless." The dude just didn't like living in one spot for long periods of time for one reason or another. I'll think of something better to replace vagabond and get back to you. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Hmm I see. It's strange when words from gramatically close languages have different meanings. That definition of the word seems fine for this use, so prose is good. Wetrorave (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. A well-written article overall (and a good band overall, just finished listening to ITAOTS and it's... interesting). Wetrorave (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by re. ebooks

This has come up before. The reason page numbers are required is for reasons of policy rather than internal FAC processes (e.g. spot checks, although of course, they're interrelated), so the current situation—linking to chapters rather than pages—could be unsatisfactory. @WP:FAC coordinators: the relevant discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... The suggested path forward seems to be to use the |loc= parameter; this will allow either a hyperlink to a page (if available), or a searchable term for the reader to ctrl+f within the document. (I think it was Ealdgyth's suggestion, but as usual with WT:FAC, bugger all consensus was come to!) SN54129 19:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The relevant FAC criterion is "claims are verifiable". Personally I would not feel that linking to chapters meets this. There are probably several ways of satisfactorily addressing it, and IMO providing a searchable term per Ealdgyth's suggestion is one of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It depends how long the chapters are whether that is an acceptable solution. I mean, some books have chapters that are like 100 pages long. So if the chapter is pretty short, like 10 pages, that is an acceptable solution although providing a quote might be even better for WP:V. Of you could list the lowest-level subheading that the information is under, since many books have sub-chapter organization. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild, and Buidhe: Sorry to ping all three of you, just wasn't sure who to exactly respond to. So I like the idea of including a searchable term. Take for example reference 28. Chapter 11 of Clair's book mentions April 28, 1997 as the start date of the national tour, and then spends the next five paragraphs talking about the growing pains of the members playing in a band. The reference with the search term would look like {{sfn|Clair|2022|loc=Chapter 11 (Search phrase "April 28, 1997")}}. Would this be acceptable? Famous Hobo (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

While I can't pre-judge any individual cite, in general terms that seems entirely satisfactory to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea; perhaps use the first sentence of the relevant paragraph? (Or a chunk of it if it's as long as one of mine!) Also, try and avoid using particularly common forms of words, as they might appear multiple times. I really do think this needs codification though, @WP:FAC coordinators: , as it's a situation that's only going to increase in frequency, and we should have an across-the-board to approach rather than on discrete FACs. SN54129 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure codification would be the right way to address this problem. The FAC criteria are not that specific when it comes to the exact citation style because we recognize there are multiple correct ways to do citations. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is about WP:V, not cosmetics such as citation style. SN54129 12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• By the way, @WP:FAC coordinators: , could one of you advise Wetrorave not to bold both of his "supports" (once in the section heading, and once in his review)? The nominations reviewer script reads that as two opposes rather one, due to the bolding, and as such misleads on the main FAC page. Cheers, SN54129 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Wetrorave (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of this problem, but a lot of people do this not realizing it throws off the script... I don't think there is technically any rule against it. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I think the dates should be given in the first or second sentence -- even if it's as vague as "late 1980s" and "2015, most recently" or something like that -- we need some sort of framing.

Added a sentence to the lede

• Our article on the Casio digital horn says that noone but Neutral Milk Hotel calls it a zanzithophone. I don't know if that's true, but unless we've some evidence that the term is in use I think we shouldn't use the word (even linked) as if it were something some general readers might understand. Perhaps call it a Casio digital horn, with a footnote giving the band's name for it. I see you have it the other way round in the body, but I think in the lead we have to be clearer. In the body you could call it by either name with a parenthesis giving the other.

Changed zanzithophone to Digital Horn, as that appears to be the proper title of the instrument (including the capitalization). Slightly altered the footnote pertaining to the instrument

• "the band's newfound stardom through the Internet": "stardom" seems too strong a word, judging by what I read in the article on In the Aeroplane Over the Sea.

Reworded

• Suggest linking "Synthetic Flying Machine" to the Olivia Tremor Control, and then unlinking it in the explanatory footnote.

Done

• "overcame his apprehensions of the music industry": I don't think this works, because "apprehension" can mean "understanding", and with "of" that's the more natural way to parse this. Perhaps "apprehensiveness about the music industry"?

Reworded

• I seem to recall there's a MoS rule about this, but shouldn't it be "The Apples in Stereo" inline, if you're going to link the "the"? Or else "the Apples in Stereo"? But it appears the band name does include the "The".

So admittedly I'm also confused about this. According to MOS:THEBAND, the word "the" should not be capitalized, and should only be linked if the word consistently appears on releases (which it does)

• "how he felt he was being led down a different life than he was supposed to live": I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it. I think it means something like "how he felt circumstances/chance/something was leading him down a path in which he wasn't living the life he felt he should be living"; that's clumsily phrased but I think that's what's meant. If so I think it needs rephrasing.

Reworded and added a quote to clear up some confusion

• "to improve upon the lo-fi sound of On Avery Island": is "improve" the right word? No doubt the fidelity was better for the second album, but the lo-fi sound of the first album wasn't a mistake, so I think this is a misleading word choice. I see a couple of sentences further down that "lo-fi" is still being used to describe In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, too, which makes it more confusing to say "improve".

Reworded

• "who would often ask some audience members if they could spend the night at their house": was this as a sort of performance art or were they really looking for somewhere to crash?

No they just needed somewhere to crash. They were kinda broke. Being an indie rock musicians in the late 90s wasn't a particularly profitable career choice

Can we make this clearer to the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Reworded, although I think it looks a bit clumsy. What do you think?

I tried a rephrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• "while others perpetuated hoaxes around what might have happened": vague, and do you mean "perpetrated"? Perpetuate implies that the hoax already existed. Either way a bit more specificity would be good.

Added more details according to the source

• "The large response helped": I don't know what "The large response" refers to. The previous sentence talks about fan anger and hoaxes. Do you mean something like "The speculation and online discussions raised the profile of the band, to the point that Neutral Milk Hotel and, in particular, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea gained..."?

Reworded

• "became incredibly passionate": "incredibly" is a bit non-encyclopedic, though if you can find a quote that says something like this that would work.

Reworded

• "Neutral Milk Hotel was known for its experimental sound": surely "is known"?

Whoops, got too caught up with making sure to refer to the band in the past tense that I let that one slip through

• "As the song progressed, more instruments could be introduced": I think "would be" or "were" rather than "could be", unless I'm missing some nuance here.

Reworded the sentence. I wanted to make sure not to specify that every NMH song builds up with more instruments, but a good chunk of them do

• "Neutral Milk Hotel's early music": I don't know what "early music" refers to -- there are only two albums, only separated by two years. Or is the distinction between those two albums as the early music, and Ferris Wheel on Fire and the live sets of 2013-2015? The quote from Mark Richardson implies we're talking about pre-album material, but that doesn't seem to be generally available, so I'm not clear what's being discussed.

So early music in this case refers to recordings made prior to the first album. Not all of these recordings are availble, but the demo album Hype City Soundtrack and the 1994 song "Everything Is" is available. I changed "early music" to "early recordings"

Now we have "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings was considered rough, and featured a considerable amount of distortion": how about "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings, prior to On Avery Island, featured a considerable amount of distortion and are considered rough". It needs to be "were", not "was", and reversing the order gives the description before the opinion which makes more sense; and I think "prior to On Avery Island" or something similar would clarify what "early" means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Reworded

• Why isn't Ferris Wheel on Fire included in the discography? I see from the discography article that it's just an EP, but you describe it as a boxed set?

So Ferris Wheel on Fire is an EP of unreleased songs that was bundled with the boxset, which is mentioned in the Reunion section. Per WP:WPMAG, articles about musicians and bands should generally only include studio albums in the discography section, which is why Ferris Wheel on Fire isn't included

• You're inconsistent with the tense you use to describe critics' opinions: "Kim Cooper cites" but "DeRogatis described", for example. I think present tense would be the best choice.

Pretty sure I changed every instance of past tense to present tense in regards to critics' opinions

• "have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album": I'd make it either "have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea a concept album" or "have described In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album".

Reworded

• Any chance of more recent sales numbers than 2013 for In the Aeroplane Over the Sea? Understandable if nothing is available.

Yeah, sadly 2013 seems to be the most recent update

• "publishing emphatic reports on his life": I don't know what "emphatic" is intended to mean here. Strongly-worded? Forceful? Neither seems likely.

Changed to detailed

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Oh god, it's been a while. Real life problems and all that jazz. But I finally took care of the issues you brought up, or at the very least answered them. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I understand about real life. I've struck a few that I could check quickly; will look at the others this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points outstanding above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Responded to the remaining points. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman

The only thing I suggest is unlinking "the" in the blue link for the Apples In Stereo. Otherwise I support this nomination. Nice work! 웃OO 08:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Media review

• File:NeutralMilkHotel-InTheAeroplaneOverTheSea.ogg: part of the FUR refers to a different band/article - possibly it was copied from another work? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Yeah, that's on me. I got lazy and copied part of the FUR from a Radiohead article. Fixed now. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Since nobody else has stepped up to do the sr here, I will. Hog Farm _Talk 23:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea emphasizes structure and texture, and tracks seamlessly segue into one another" - attribution to source needed

Added

• "His lyrics were surreal and opaque, and feature a stream of consciousness style of songwriting" - attribution to source also needed here

Added

• "Anon. (n.d.). "On Avery Island". AllMusic. Archived from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved December 19, 2020." - source gives Ankeny as the author, this shouldn't be cited as "Anon.", unless you're citing the user review below, in which case that isn't an acceptable source.

So I use this source to cite the release date for the Fire Records edition of On Avery Island, which is September 30, 1996. It says it in the side bar, which from my understanding, is acceptable according to WP:RSMUSIC as I'm not sourcing a genre from the side bar (for reference, it is the second entry in source 19 in the "On Avery Island and expansion to a quartet" subsection). Since I'm not 100 percent sure Ankeny wrote the side bar information, I left it as Anon, although I can change it if need be. I can also find another source for the release date.

• AllMusic has been debated back and forth before. I think the stuff it's being used for here is okay, given that you're not citing biographical or band history details, rather just review components

I personally think it's acceptable, but that's a discussion for another time. Like you said, I didn't cite the biographical details from AllMusic, just release dates and critic opinions.

• WP:RSP lists Vice as being of debatable reliability, what makes it high-quality RS for FAC purposes?

Removed the first instance of Vice, but left the second one. That's a interview, and the subjects interviewed directly reference that they were influenced by Neutral Milk Hotel.

• Newsweek is known to have gone into great decline after 2013 due to a new owner who introduced bad editorial practices. What makes a 2018 Newsweek piece high-quality RS?

Replaced

Other sources look reliable enough for the subject matter. Did a handful of spot checks that didn't flag up anything. Hog Farm _Talk 23:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the source reveiw! Left comments for each point. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)