This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
This article is about the 2003 song "Dragostea din tei" by Moldovan band O-Zone, which by now might be the most prolific moment of Romanian language and music in international pop culture. It has been a project close to my heart ever since I began working on it, and I was happy to see it pass to GA status. I am happy for feedback on how to improve it even further to hopefully get it to FA status. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article encompasses the conception, appearances, and reception of the My Hero Academia character Ochaco Uraraka. The conception details her voice actresses and characterisation. The article details the appearances of the character in My Hero Academia, its spin-offs, crossover promotions, and merchandise pieces. Reception has generally been positive.
This article is about East Island, a low-lying island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands that was largely destroyed by Hurricane Walaka in 2018 and has since partially reformed. MallardTV Talk to me! 23:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great topic, and this is a solid GA, but it is not on FA level yet, unfortunately. There are many small things with consistency, linking, etc. For example, Hawaiian monk seals is not linked at first mention, and you provide the scientific name at second mention only. Context is missing (you should state who discovered the island group, and when and why it became part of the US). There seem to be some issues with structure and flow, too (for example, you say "and had begun to stabilize by 2023", but in the section where this information would be expected (Post-storm recovery), there is nothing on that). Finally, you do not always seem to accurately reflect the sources; for example you say "An estimated two monk seals remained on the island when the hurricane hit", but the source says "Only two minuscule slivers of East Island have resurfaced since the Category 5 storm struck the region". That's a big difference! The source describes the aftermath of the storm, not "when the hurricane hit", and there is no estimate involved at all; two have been observed.
But most importantly, the article seems to rely a lot on news articles while scholarly articles, which do exist, are mostly not incorporated. I had a quick look with Google Scholar, searching for "East Island, french frigate shoals", and I quickly found articles that contain a lot of highly relevant information that is not incorporated. The first article I looked at was this one [1] which has information such as average elevation above sea level, percentage of shrub coverage, and details on the bird colonies, including which birds bred there, and probably more. I think that, in order to bring this to FA, you would need to do much deeper literature research, and focus on scholarly articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I've fixed the example of the linking with the animals, and re-wrote the text a bit around the post-storm recovery (still probably not great enough tbf), I do agree that the scholarly work ought to be sorted through and incorporated in the article. As it stands, some good refideas should be made and taken advantage of. Concur with Jens. BarntToust23:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mallard here! I'm looking into scholarly articles now but can only find one on Google Scholar. I may just not be looking right but I'm incorperating what I can. MallardTV Talk to me! 02:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Melisende, famed for her piety and patronage, was the first woman to rule the crusader kingdom. Though her tumultous private life saw her accused of incestuous adultery by her husband and bombarded by her son, the Church exalted her. Her legacy has long been shaped by the admiring pen of William of Tyre. This article draws on the leading historians of the crusades, who have looked both closely at William's account and beyond it—to foreign chroniclers and documentary evidence—to uncover a more layered figure. I am grateful to Adam Bishop, who was one of the earliest contributors to this and other crusade articles, and particularly to Borsoka, whose relentless GA review made this nomination possible. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Fulko_jeune.jpg: this is tagged as a 2D work of art, but typically seals/coins are considered 3D. Also this needs an author date of death.
Similarly File:Egerton_ms_1139!1_fse005r.jpg appears to be 3D rather than 2D
The original work would be out of copyright due to age, but the author date for the photo presents a problem - 1948 is less than 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was my very first GA, passing its GAN almost five years ago. As such, I am interested in making this article an FA, having since learned a lot more about the processes and guidelines in Wikipedia. Also interested in nominating this article for TFA by the song's 15th anniversary. Lazman321 (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a skyscraper in Lower Manhattan, New York City. Built as the headquarters of the Cities Service Company (now Citgo), it was one of the city's tallest buildings. Surprisingly, it isn't particularly well-known despite having been one of the world's tallest buildings at one point, being beat out only by the more-famous Chrysler and Empire State buildings. After Citgo moved to Oklahoma in 1973, it was the headquarters of American International Group for a while before being converted to residential use. 70 Pine was designed in the Art Deco style, like many NYC skyscrapers of the time, with miniature models of the building at its entrances. The interior is equally impressive, with a lobby decorated with multicolored marbles and an observation deck intended (but never used) as a private apartment.
This page became a Good Article five years ago after a review by the late Vami_IV, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit by Mox Eden (which I also appreciate) and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image seems a bit crowded of buildings as I had to look at the other images in the article to tell which building is the subject of the article. Cos(X + Z)17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The building has five entrances in total."→"The building has five entrances."
Another entrance on Pearl Street, which was formerly located under the Third Avenue elevated line, is more simply designed and leads to a lobby in the lower level.
Done. - EG
“in the lower level” → “on the lower level” for standard preposition use
Done. - EG
The western entrances on Pine and Cedar Streets are located near the western end of the building and are two stories tall.
These pillars, each 14 feet (4.3 m), may have been designed by Rene Paul Chambellan and were fairly accurate in their detailing. Is it unclear whether Chambellan designed the pillars or not?
Yes, the source says: "Rene P(aul) Chambellan (1893-1958), who designed the figurative reliefs on the aluminum elevator doors in the first floor lobby, was a celebrated architectural modeler and may have played a role in each sculpture’s design." - EG
Overall, I found the prose comprehensive and engaging. I have no further suggestions.
A little bit of a personal peeve, but each of the three lead paragraphs begin with "70 Pine Street". I recommend changing like an instance (either the second or third paragraph) from "70 Pine Street" to "The building" for a bit of variety
Done. - EG
The structure was originally named for its original tenant "Originally" and "original" is a bit repetitive. I might say the first tenant.
Rephrased. - EG
and was Lower Manhattan's tallest building and the world's third-tallest building upon its completion. I assume these accolades applied when it was completed but superseded since. Might specify when the building was completed for a bit of clarity
This is already mentioned in one of the preceding sentences: "70 Pine Street was constructed between 1930 and 1932 as an office building". - EG
I mean, my reasoning is that while we can assume the building's construction was completed in 1932, maybe the opening would be a bit later. But it's fine.
Architecture
The roof is 850 feet (260 m) tall,[9][2] while the top story is 800 feet (240 m) high I find this a bit confusing: How can a roof and the top story be that tall? Unless the roof and the top floor is at that height, not that it measured that tall.
Good point regarding the roof - it is 850 feet high (location above ground), not 850 feet tall (from ground to pinnacle). "The top story is 800 feet high" is correct as it refers to the location above ground, not the height from the ground to the top. - EG
The building exceeded 40 Wall Street, the Manhattan Company's building, by 25 feet (7.6 m) to be Lower Manhattan's tallest building. – The wording here is a bit awkward. Might suggest rewriting: The building surpassed the Manhattan Company's 40 Wall Street by 25 feet (7.6 m), becoming the tallest structure in Lower Manhattan.
Done. - EG
Citation 2 does not support this chunk: It was the last skyscraper to be built in Lower Manhattan prior to World War II and was the tallest building in Lower Manhattan until the 1970s, when the World Trade Center was completed. With the collapse of the World Trade Center in the September 11 attacks, it regained the status of the tallest Lower Manhattan building until the completion of the new 4 World Trade Center in 2013. Also I might find this is a bit of trivial fluff, especially when it talked about how it "regained" that status.
Removed. You're correct that this is trivial, and in any case it was added without any sources 15 years ago; I just forgot to remove it. - EG
the setbacks are placed at regular intervals Shouldn't it be "were" since they were built/placed in the past?
Yeah. Usually, the present tense would be appropriate since the setbacks still exist, but in this case the sentence is talking about something that happened during the construction process, not the present-day condition of the building. - EG
To maximize rentable space while also complying with the 1916 Zoning Resolution – "also" is redundant
Above the 67th-floor observation deck is the building's spire, composed of a glass lantern rising 27 feet (8.2 m), topped by a stainless steel pinnacle extending another 97 feet (30 m) – ..., composed of a glass lantern rising 27 feet (8.2 m) and topped by a stainless steel pinnacle extending another 97 feet (30 m)
The spire rises 124 feet (38 m)... I felt this part should be mentioned earlier before specifying the spire's composition
Another entrance on Pearl Street, which was formerly located under the Third Avenue elevated line, is more simply designed – ..., has a more simple design
All of these streets are narrower than the typical street in Manhattan I was initially confused what streets then I figured it must refer to the adjoining streets of the building. I would just say "adjoining streets" (as described from the source) given that's like a common term.
These pillars, each 14 feet (4.3 m) Height or length?
Thanks. I've done these as well. I swapped the order of the phrase "glass lantern" phrase and the "spire rises 124 feet" sentence. The pillar measurements refer to the height. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continued (Architecture):
Inside each entrance were retail spaces that faced the first-floor lobby Are there still retail spaces to this day?
Until the early 2000s, these retail spaces contained such stores as "a drugstore, a bookstore, a tobacconist and a telegraph office" – Since also these are quoted, I might attribute According to a New York Times article in 2015, these retail spaces housed "a drugstore, bookstore, tobacconist, and telegraph office" until the early 2000s.
as well as Cities Service's logo – as well as the Cities Service's logo
and the northernmost west–east corridor. – Wouldn't east–west be more natural?
The fourth floor contained a clinic for people who worked in the building – A clinic at the fourth floor served the workers of the building
Crown Shy, a 120-seat restaurant, opened on the ground floor as well; it is an à la carte eatery, where dishes are ordered individually Is it kind of important to say this is an à la carte eatery?
2,229 years ago a Roman army landed near Utica in North Africa. This was an attempt to end the Second Punic War against Carthage, which had already lasted 14 years. Utica was besieged and large parts of the ensuing campaign revolved around this. Utica held out but the Carthaginians lost four battles in two years and were forced into a humiliating capitulation. I have been working on the six articles in this campaign for a while and got round to this one in February, when it went through GAN - thank you Hog Farm. After a little further work I believe it may now be ready for FA. I would appreciate your views on what additional work it needs to get there. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we necessarily need the link to Rome in the lead?
attempted to seize the port to use as a secure base “to use as” → “as”
Siege
The size of both of these armies as reported by ancient historians have been questioned... have→has
This force consisted of about half the Romans and was accompanied by the Masinissa's Numidians. Its target was Syphax's camp.the Masinissa's Numidians→Masinissa's Numidians
He sent messengers to alert the Roman ships; or by some accounts rode to Utica himself to raise the alarm. Do we need the semi-colon here?
“Carthaginian fleet sail from Carthage” → “Carthaginian fleet set sail from Carthage”
Background
“was fought primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily, its surrounding waters and in North Africa”→ “was fought primarily on Sicily, its surrounding waters and in North Africa”
Avoids repetition of “Mediterranean” (already implied).
Aftermath
“helped to rebuild” → “helped rebuild”
“a siege of Carthage” → “the siege of Carthage” (specific siege referenced)
This article is about Dan Burros, an American neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon who killed himself when, in 1965, it was revealed by the The New York Times that he was Jewish.
While that inherent contradiction is itself fascinating, and of course resulted in the typical "how did he end up like this" type of coverage, I think this article's most interesting aspect is the look it provides into the world of the 1960s racist right wing. A world of constant petty squabbles, dozens of similarly named racist groups that all hate each other, backstabbing, and periodicals all firing shots at each other. Burros was actually quite the important figure in this milieu. It was interesting to improve. And before it is asked, no source really has a satisfactory explanation as to why he ended up like this. All the most comprehensive sources admit it remains a mystery, and his parents never agreed to talk. Some things remain unknown, but I think personally you can sort of see an outline of it if you look at what's there.
I have never taken anything to FA before, but I do lurk around these parts so I believe I have a rough idea of what is required... this article received a GA review from PMC (for which I am very grateful) and a few notes about grammar at peer review from Sophisticatedevening (for which I am also thankful). Would have left the peer review open longer, but those parts are rather dead nowadays. After looking at this article from everywhichway, I can't see any problems with it and I believe it aligns with all FA criteria. It is a comprehensive usage of all sources on Burros.
A great article. I have no personal criticisms, and I’m not sure if I would even be allowed to present them, as I work extensively in the ANP topic area and was consulted on a few minor details on this article, which is otherwise entirely the work of PARAKANYAA; and a great work it is. Not sure if I’m allowed to support, so I’ll just voice it, I assume. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any and all comments, including formal supports and opposes, are welcome from any and all editors. We do encourage reviewers to be transparent about where they are coming from, which you have been - so all is good. Specialist reviews or those from editors close to the pre-FAC process can be very informative. The coordinators will weigh your comments along with all others when closing. Although note from the instructions that "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." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very excited to see this at FAC! I'll have another look over it to see if there's anything FAC-level-y that I missed, although I was quite fussy at the GA review already :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's 1982 masterpiece Nebraska. One of the most artistically daring statements ever released by a major artist, the album represented substantial growth for the singer-songwriter and paved the way for not just multiple releases of his own catalog, but proved influential in indie rock and DIY records. This would be the fourth Springsteen FA, following the three great albums that came before it. I'm looking forward to comments and concerns. Thank you to Tarlby for providing comments at the peer review and to Ippantekina for the GA review. – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to see this here. Reading through, making light copy edits along the way which you are free to revert. Some work needed on prose...to follow. Overall the article seems to be in very good shape; excellently researched and comprehensive, with good command of the sources. Only quibble so far is the "Attributed to multiple references" format is not something have seen so far. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it on multiple articles. It's for when there's a buildup of 4+ references that can be grouped together so there's not ref overload. Hopefully one of these days I'll hear you say the prose has no issues xP – zmbro(talk) (cont)19:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re over-citing, can you avoid top-heavy sentences such as "Featuring only Springsteen,[94] Nebraska is a minimalist[95][96] folk record,[97][98][99] with heartland rock,[100] lo-fi,[96][101][102] and country influences.[103][104]", which really makes for difficult reading. To me a single ref would do, as everything you claim here is clearly true to anybody who has ever listed to a track from the record.
The lyrics section is excellent overall but I think you are missing a trick in emphasising the point of view aspect. eg compare our "The opening track, "Nebraska", tells the story of the killer Charles Starkweather,[97] who murdered ten people from 1957 to 1958 between Nebraska and Wyoming while traveling with his girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate.[n] After his capture, Starkweather is sentenced to death by electric chair, but remains unrepentant, blaming his actions on the "meanness" of the world.[122][18]" to the unreliable "American Songwriter"'s summary: "Bruce Springsteen‘s “Nebraska” begins with a fictionalized bit of court testimony, delivered by mass murderer Charles Starkweather to the judge who’s about to sentence him to death." By which I mean in the current wiki article the sentence to death seems to be background info, rather than explicit in the lyrics.
I clarified that the "meanness of the world" line was fictional and instead taken from an O'Connor short story. Hopefully this helps draw the line between fiction and reality better. – zmbro(talk) (cont)18:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mastering has always been a nebulous art and different to production, which is not clear as written (it seems the album was not produced). By which I mean producers are usually on the artist's side, while those mastering are typically failed producers and record company shills. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say needs fixing here. The final master was made by Dennis King, who was 'outside' of the recording process. This album is a very unique instance wherein it truly seems like there was no official "producer" (there is none listed in the liner notes and Springsteen himself has declined the title). They were literally home demos officially released as an album. It was not intended that way, it just happened to be released that way. Does there need to be more clarification between the the "production" and mastering? – zmbro(talk) (cont)15:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i might just add to the section what mastering actually is. You have: Producer Mike Batlan (engineer)[a] in the infobox. Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springsteen himself stated that the songs from the period were more "connected" to his childhood than ever before. is this verified in Kirkpatrick? The source written by him doesn't use that phrasing.
It's verified in Springsteen's Songs book (just checked).
In the Attempted rerecordings section, the Electric Nebraska hatnote probably isn't necessary; it can just be linked in prose instead, where it's explained.
Fixed.
Also maybe worth mentioning in this section that those other recordings became the base of the Born in the U.S.A. album? So that hatnote could be removed too.
These are mentioned in "singles and aftermath" down in release. It fits better there in terms of chronological order. The hatnote is there because of the cross in recording history between Nebraska and BitUSA. – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
between Nebraska and Wyoming might be better as just "in Nebraska and Wyoming"
Fixed
Do we know where the album cover art was taken? (Fine if not, was just curious)
I have nominated this article on Urien Rheged, who was perhaps a king of Rheged, but who was certainly a critically important figure, to judge by his treatment in our few sources for sixth-century Britain. He seemed to have all the northern British kings other than that of Gododdin under him, and nearly succeeded in driving out the Anglo-Saxons. This period is very murky for academics, and even moreso online, so I have compiled basically every academic source about him to the end of providing a coherent and cohesive biography of the man. I have also included his legacy in medieval Welsh literature, not least because some of our sources about him may be contemporary panegyric, but also because the poems about events in the north of Britain after his death are some of the most moving in medieval Welsh literature. Tipcake (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look in again if I have time for a thorough look, but from a quick canter through:
Duplicate links: I gather these are not now as strictly taboo as they used to be, but all the same do we really need two links to Anglo-Saxons and two to Ancient Britons? And that's just in the lead; the main text is peppered with superfluous duplicate links.
See the Manual of Style MOS:DOUBLE – the text is full of single quotes.
See MOS:CURLY – a few curly quotation marks need to be straightened. I spotted ‘the Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal lists’, ‘the old North’ ‘British North’ and ‘Old North’ (all of which should, I think, be double as well as straight) and there may be others I didn't notice.
"However" – the word appears fourteen times in your text and rather wears out its welcome. In most cases the sense will be unaffected and the prose crisper if you remove the word.
"Due to" – you use this three times as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to". This is commonplace in AmE but in formal BrE it is not universally accepted. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
"Geoffrey of Monmouth, drawing on Welsh sources and his own imagination" – says who?
Note e caught my eye as inappropriate: "Note that Gwenogvryn's notes and 'translation' are hopelessly speculative." This seems to me to offend against WP:EDITORIAL and unless you can cite a source for "hopelessly speculative" it does not belong here.
Poems: you seem undecided whether to italicise them or not: Yspeil Taliessin but then 'Yspeil Taliessin'.
Diolch yn fawr am hynny. I shall fix these formatting errors. As to note e, well, this is nicer than what Morris-Jones said himself, whose judgement has unanimously been followed by later scholars:
It may have occurred to the reader long before this to ask whether, if Dr. Evans's work is as bad as I make it out to be, it was worth while devoting all this space to criticism of it. I answer in the affirmative for two reasons. The first is the reason I gave at the outset : "because in the process some constructive work can perhaps be done", p. 38. It will be agreed that something positive has been attained; I put it forward as tentative; I claim no finality for it — in the present state of our knowledge of the subject finality is far from being in sight. But criticism of false theories is necessary, and is a method of discussion that has its advantages; it is an effective way of presenting saner views, and it often helps the writer to form clearer ideas, because wrongheaded notions often suggest points of view which would not have occurred to him in a detached study of the subject. Dr. Evans knows this from experience: "I have never received an inspired answer to a 'wise' question; but the imprudent sort is apt to find a hot response", p. vic. He fully accepts the position: "Better then a 'howler' that may herald the light than all the respectability of empty silence. I am content to become the whipping-boy of light & truth", ib.
The other reason is that criticism of this book to be of real use had to be fairly full and systematic. It is often easy to pick out a large number of incidental errors and slips in a work which is sound on the whole; my task was to show not how many mistakes the book contains — this is impossible, for their number is legion — but that the whole work (excepting the mechanical and diplomatic reproductions) is one huge mistake. Few would believe without conclusive proof that an editor of Dr. Gwenogvryn Evans's reputation can be so utterly incompetent to deal with the questions which he sets himself to discuss in this book as he in fact proves himself to be. Dr. Evans is an honorary Doctor of Letters of two Universities; but the distinction was conferred upon him for reproducing texts, not for interpreting them. He had done supremely well what had previously been done only imperfectly. He had for the first time supplied Welsh scholars with reliable texts to work upon. He had already published his reproductions of the Mabinogion and Bruts from the Red Book of Hergest, his facsimile of the Black Book of Carmarthen, and his superb edition of the Book of Llan Daf. In the latter he wisely entrusted the philological work to Sir John Rhŷs; but the laborious and valuable topographical work is his own ; and his recovery of the original reading of the priceless Breint Teilaw, which a late medieval vandal has mutilated with knife and pen, is a service to Welsh learning. Of late years he has manifested a growing disposition to pose as an authority on the language and subject-matter of his texts. He is aware that his knowledge is somewhat hazy, and that he may fall into many errors; and he is shrewd enough to attempt to forestall criticism: -
A critic may dispute my rendering, but it does not follow that he is right because he differs from me, or cannot in 7 minutes see what it has taken me 7 years to 'grip' (II, p. xiii).
It will be "the usual difference of opinion between experts ". This suggestion seems to me to render it necessary to state the truth, which is that Dr. Evans has not mastered some of the elements of Welsh grammar, and has less of the scholar's instinct than almost any of the Eisteddfodic bards whom he scoffs at in his footnotes. He has tried to persuade scholars to cooperate with him in the preparation of his critical editions. He proposed to "a Welsh scholar of repute" that they "should jointly attempt to amend and translate the text of Taliesin". He was advised "to attempt no such thing — he certainly would not cooperate; 'in short I funk it' were his parting words", II, p. vii. The refusal is intelligible, though perhaps not to Dr. Evans. He has rejected the advice of his friends, and apparently interprets their good intentions as "envy". This is the reason for the bitterness with which he speaks of his fellow-workers in the field of Welsh studies. They are jeered at, and accused of taking "their ease in the Halls of learning ", p. i. The references to the late Sir John Rhŷs, in particular, are deplorable; and I have no doubt Dr. Evans himself regrets them now.
Finally, I will only say that his friends were wiser than himself, and it is a pity that he did not follow their advice. It offends my sense of the fitness of things to see any purely ephemeral matter bound up with perfect reproductions which are for all time; but that all this trash should be printed in the best ink on the finest paper — including 125 copies on Japanese vellum, and of the concentrated nonsense of the smaller volume four copies on vellum itself — to share the permanence of the text and facsimile, is sad indeed. But posterity will look kindly on the editor's follies, and will honour his memory for the good work he has done.
If you want me to change the way this is expressed, I am open to whatever you suggest, but it is no assertion on my part, just an expression of the general (and present) reception of his commentary. Tipcake (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'm happy to see this here. yesterday i switched over the citations to sfn format (so if there are mistakes in that regard, they're probably mine), but otherwise i haven't looked at the substance of this article yet. however, i'm fairly familiar with the subject matter, as i've taken a university course on medieval welsh literature which included discussion of the urien poetry. i plan on doing a review maybe tomorrow, so i am just bookmarking my place here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk04:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
easy things out of the way: the sourcing quality is A+, and i really couldn't ask for more on that front (among all those names, i even see a professor of mine). the article is a good length for the subject, and laid out logically. here's my suggestions/comments:
in general, wikipedia prose style tends towards being quite... dry, due to our avoidance of any editorializing. i'm seeing a good amount of language which, even where verified and true, reads as editorial-esque or flowery (e.g. "the greatest difficulty when attempting to reconstruct Urien's life and career is how to interpret and reconcile our varied, late, and sometimes obscure, corrupt, or confused sources"; "Despite what one might find in earlier scholarship, and reams of sources online, there is no good reason to claim that these stories about character such as Modron reflect some kind of older, pagan connection"). i'm actually not sure whether this is something that's formally discouraged or just an unspoken normality, but i thought it worth mentioning. personally, i hate to tell a nominator "please make your writing more boring" so i won't.
i'm unclear on what the point of the large table comparing Pen Urien and Celain Urien are - what is it communicating to the reader?
what's the distinction between use of (year x year) and (year-year)?
i'll add more comments as i think of them & if no other reviewer comes along to do a source spot-check, i will. overall, thumbs up. ... sawyer * any/all * talk03:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have edited this as you suggest. However, there are no images of the subject that I can find online, other than an illustration from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. As this is article is at pains to speak exhaustively of the historical Urien or at least his presence in Welsh literature, however, I find a fantasy illustration very inappropriate as the one to represent the article. Regards File:In_her_ecstasy_a_lovely_devil.png, the painter died in 1938, and the author of the book it accompanies in 1914. Tipcake (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look at this article, but looking at the sources, it certainly does not fulfil the claim above to cover "basically every academic source about him". It is strong on literary sources, but very weak on biographical and historical ones (apart from Charles-Edwards). None of the three biographical surveys of Urien are included, Thornton in ODNB, which you strangely list as further reading, Peter Bartrum's A Classical Welsh Dictionary, and a brief entry in Williams et al, A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain. These all have bibliographies pointing to further sources. Historical works which cover Urien include Smyth, Warlords and Holy Men, Halsall, Worlds of Arthur and Higham, Northumbria. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just for clarification, i was the one who put ODNB in "further reading", because it was listed in the original bibliography section but not referenced inline. when i switched the article over to sfn format, i put it there because it seemed inappropriate to remove it - this was before nomination at FAC. ... sawyer * any/all * talk19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A largely forgotten, albeit vicious, WW2 fascist collaborator. I've more or less thrown everything but the kitchen sink into this as far as the source material goes, and I'm looking forward to further improving the article through the community's gracious feedback. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amanuensis Balkanicus thanks for the updates, see one followup about Nikola Tusun. A google search indicates some notoriety, but if we're getting this up to FA standard, we should give a bit of an intro about him instead of just hoping that someone will fill out the red link or be able to read an offline foreign-language reference. --Joy (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Jianwen Emperor, the second emperor of the Ming dynasty. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the third and longest-serving prime minister of Liechtenstein, Josef Hoop. This is the first article that I contributed to significantly on Wikipedia in 2022 and have continued to improve and expand upon since, successfully bringing it to GA in July 2024. I now believe that I have brought this article to a high enough quality to consider it for FA status and I am able to respond to any queries swiftly. This is my first FA nomination and would also be the first Liechtenstein FA, if successful. TheBritinator (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, welcome to FAC! Starting off with an image review:
Both the lead image and the signature are repeated in the sidebar - would suggest removing the signature from the sidebar, and if possible replacing the image to avoid the immediate repetition
File:Josef_Hoop.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in the US? Ditto File:Opening_of_the_new_Landesbank_building_1953.jpg
File:Josef_Hoop_Signature.png: the tagging here is contradictory - is it PD or CC?
File:Hoop_Vogt_Schaedler_Marxer_1938.jpg: this has one tag stating the author is unknown and one stating the author died over 70 years ago - which is correct and what is the status of this work in the US?
I am unsure how I am intended to determine the status of the images in the US, so some pointers on that would be appreciated. The Liechtensteinisches Landesarchiv is a reliable source on author and publishing information on images that it holds within its collection, but they do not make any mention of specific publication dates. Worst case scenario I could ask them myself for such information, but since it isn't on the page itself then it probably is not known. TheBritinator (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This chart has some general guidance on determining US status, which is generally dependent on where and when the image was first published.
Given the dates of these images, if the author isn't known we unfortunately can't assume that they died over 70 or 100 years ago - for example File:Franz_Josef_II_Berlin_1939.jpg has a life+70 tag but no author listed. Would suggest having a look through the tags provided and swapping out those which cannot be verified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Singapore's second Light Rail Transit system. A little clarification; despite the name, it's not a "light rail" as we know like in the US, but more of a neighbourhood people's mover or automated guideway transit. Unlike the preceding Bukit Panjang LRT, the Sengkang LRT saw fewer issues in its operations since its inauguration in 2003. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 08:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the sourcing. I count 15 18 sources that are from the Land Transport Authority, who owns the line. Another 30 are from SBS Transit, the line's operator. I count 29 from The Straits Times, the government-owned newspaper. 5 press releases or government minister speeches from the National Archives of Singapore.
I just reiterate again: it's unrealistic not to use these sources or there would be nothing to write about this LRT line. And these sources are OK for statements of basic facts, including the opening of stations, the construction of the lines, the awarding of contracts, the technical specifications, the features of stations... Unless there's are issues with WP:NPOV pushed, I don't see any problems.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 02:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not going to make you happy, and I appreciate that you've put a lot of effort into writing this article (and others like it), but I think the preponderance of the sources do not meet our requirement for "high-quality reliable sources". If you are unable to find substantially better sourcing, I think you should withdraw this. RoySmith(talk)11:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Roy here. For me, the issue is WP:DUEWEIGHT: take for example the section about the 2017 renovations. All of that, as far as I can see, is cited to publications whose owners (the Singaporean government) also own the railway -- there's a clear WP:COI there that means this is no guide to whether, as DUEWEIGHT requires, our coverage here is in proportion to that observed in neutral, reliable, secondary sources. If this were also reported in independent or international media, I would be greatly reassured, but we have something fundamentally promotional in tone ("look how much work the government is doing on the railway!"), whose notability is currently established entirely because it is talked about by the very people it is promoting. Whether or not this has been raised before, I think it's a problem here, and I would suggest withdrawal if more detached sources do not exist. If there just isn't the material to write an FA, that's unfortunate, but we can't promote an article that doesn't have the sources to interrogate or corroborate the government line.
On a separate note, I don't think the reference to WP:STICK is merited or helpful: "drop the stick" does not mean "agree with me when I explain why I believe I'm right", but "don't carry on a debate that has clearly been resolved". Clearly, this one is still an open question, both here and at RSN. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns about the use of primary sources. However, these primary sources are not being used for analysis, only uncontroversial facts (such as the awarding of contracts and the opening of stations); this is a valid use of primary sources particularly if the sources themselves are closely connected with the subject matter. It's the use of primary sources for secondary analysis that isn't allowed.
I'd also say that the Straits Times is no more of a primary source than any other newspaper, which could be considered a primary source in some situations (mainly in a time-related sense - breaking news stories are usually primary sources, for example). The main thing that differentiates the Straits Times from "generally reliable" newspapers is the fact that the SG has limited press freedom, and some reporting involving the government may not be fully neutral. Yes, there may be some form of government interference/intervention on the editorial process when comes to politics-related content. But this is a transit project. Why are you guys looking at this from a political lens? I understand the Singapore Rail Test Centre might be more contentious with more boastful claims of what it does, but the Sengkang LRT line is far from that. (Heck, this LRT even serves an opposition-held ward, but I don't think that's relevant)
I also need to clarify that the Straits Times isn't at all state-owned and is still a private entity. As I quote from SPH Media Trust: "SPH Media Trust is managed privately by its shareholders. The management shares are regulated through Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and its issuance and transfers have to be approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information, and in "any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff" the vote of one management share is equivalent to 200 ordinary shares." These shares are mainly held by banks and education institutions in Singapore.
To frame it from another perspective regarding DUEWEIGHT, there would not be as many objections if it were the New York Times reporting on the opening of a NYC transit route, even if NYC's transit system is owned by New York state, because the NYT is not itself affiliated with the state government. Or that some tram line in some obscure town of the US or Europe would be brought to FA more easily just because there's sufficient local free press news coverage, but not a tram line in an authoritarian state. Which I find it's a rather unfair assessment of what articles should be brought to the FAC stage.
I see that -- as Roy said elsewhere, my concern isn't that the facts reported might be untrue, but that we haven't established that the balance of our coverage in this article fits how independent reliable sources cover it. Being a bit crude, we haven't shown that anyone actually cares about (say) the 2017 renovations of this railway unless they have some sort of stake in them. The relevant bit of WP:PRIMARY isn't the part about analysis, but Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. (emphasis mine). Given that the sources aren't just primary but also have a clear COI. As you note, some reporting involving the government may not be fully neutral... [and] this is a transit project -- one constructed and operated by the government. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already had this at GAN, so only a couple of comments here.
Like other Middle Pleistocene European specimens, the skull thickness of the parietal bone at the asterion (where it connects with the occipital and temporal bones) is normally midway what is usually seen between Neanderthals and Peking Man (H. erectus pekinensis). – Multiple little grammar issues. "Like in" or "Similar to". "midway between that of". Also, if I remember correctly, H. erectus pekinensis is not a widely accepted subspecies so I recommend not to mention it.
Generally, the anatomy section is very long. Apply summary style a bit more? For example: Cranium 4, though, falls on the upper end of the Peking Man variation of thickness in the angular torus (a raised bar of bone at the junction of the parietal and temporal bones) at 17 mm (0.67 in). – this information strikes me as quite excessive.
The stratigraphy section is quite technical. I recommend to explain the most important terms (such as breccia).
I'm not sure how to gloss breccia without bringing up more geological words like cement and matrix. I put a gloss next to speleothem but I feel like there's parentheses overload happening now. What other words should be glossed? Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced about the stratigraphy section. It looks like bombarding the section with glosses is not enough, you might have to give it a bit more space to keep it readable, and with more context.
It is composed of over 80% phyllosilicates, of which more than 60% is paramagnetic illite, permitting paleomagnetic dating to the Brunhes Chron; indicating that LU-6 is younger than 780,000 years. – first, the ";" should be a "," I think. More importantly, the sentence simply lacks the necessary context so that a reader of the target audience can understand it. You might have to make two or three sentences out of it; explain it a bit slower. Or, alternatively, simplify.
The fossils are randomly mixed into a bone breccia – Why do you need the word "randomly" when you already say "mixed"? Isn't that redundant?
As for explaining "breccia", maybe just reword "the fossils are mixed with limestone blocks, speleothem, and [whatever fine-grained sediment the matrix is], forming a bone breccia". Here, you might not even need "forming a bone breccia".
Thank you for adding some glosses, but some of these do not help, as you introduce new terms that are even more complicated than the ones you want to explain. I don't think you need to explain "mud".
alongside limestone blocks, speleothem (mineral deposit) fragments (probably reworked from LU-2 and 4) – "mineral deposit" does not help either. Limestone blocks are also a sort of mineral deposit, no?
"When first published in 1993, these 29 individuals represented about 80% of the Middle Pleistocene human fossil record, and they preserve every bone in the human body." - The construction of this sentence—mainly the tacked on clause "and they preserve..." is awkward. I might merge that fact with the following sentence "The unprecedented completeness of the remains..."
" Like in Neanderthals, the brow ridges are inflated, but the back of the skull is not as robust, and the skull has a "house-like" profile instead of the rounded "bomb-like" profile." is bordering on being a run-on. I suggest something like "Like in Neanderthals, the brow ridges are inflated, but the skull is not as robust in its rear and has a "house-like" profile instead of the rounded "bomb-like" profile."
I suggest rephrasing it as something like "The teeth are essentially Neanderthal-like, with shovel-shaped incisors and taurodontism but differ in tooth cusp morphology"
The following sentence has the same "This, but that" structure. Rephrase to improve flow.
Well yeah, I start the paragraph off with they have Neanderthal traits but non-Neanderthal traits too, so to make it easier to understand I kept that pattern Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"large-bodied" - relative to what? Were they larger than neanderthals? For hominids at large?
"who would identify several sites here strewn" --> "who identified several sites here strewn" per WP:WOULDCHUCK. Also suffering from this same issue later on:
"A similarly rich Middle Pleistocene human fossil assemblage would not be found until 2013" --> "A similarly rich Middle Pleistocene human fossil assemblage was not found until 2013"
Fossil names are placed within quotation marks except for 'Swanscombe, Petralona, and Steinheim'. I would be consitent either way. Check for this issue throughout the article.
"Neanderthals, and unlike in H. erectus" - comma not needed. Part of my comma griping at large is due to these commas not being used in the same context elsewhere in the article, e.g. "Like in Neanderthals but unlike in many Middle Pleistocene specimens"
"the temporal lobe is narrow, which is associated with visual and olfactory memory" - is the narrowness or the lobe itself associated with visual and olfactory memory? Clarify.
"sloping down" - Could this be shortened to simply "sloping"? All slopes slope down/up depending on the direction viewed, right?
sloping up is very different than sloping down, and in anatomy the "front" of a bone is always a defined landmark so all the description is directional Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"regions of the temporal bone which are functionally relevant" --> "regions of the temporal bone that are functionally relevant"
"Unlike in Neanderthals where they are common, tubercules on the incisors, canines, and molars (the cusp of Carabelli) are an infrequent trait" is an awkward sentence. Rephrase.
"generally Neanderthal-like" - "Neanderthal-like" does not mean identical to Neanderthals, right? If so, no qualification is needed. For instance, you later say "savannah-like" instead of "essentially savannah-like" in a later context.
"The skeletal weight of the Sima de los Huesos hominins may have been roughly 36% greater than that of the average modern human." - I might remove 'average' as it's self-evident, as you noted when you chose not to write it as "The average skeletal weight of the Sima de los Huesos hominins"
Why not restructure "Like in modern humans and Turkana Boy (as well as the australopithecine Paranthropus robustus)" as "Like in modern humans, the Turkana Boy, and the australopithecine Paranthropus robustus" for concision and flow? There is also a local excess of parentheticals.
As I progress throught the anatomical sections, I have to agree with Jens Lallensack that it would benefit from some more streamlined summarization to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. ~ HAL33321:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"similarly the medial malleolus (the ankle bone that connects to the tibia) is hypertrophied (enlarged)." - does this also indicate squatting? Clarify.
I got the gist, but I think it could be clear. I might switch it to something like "Habitual squatting is evidenced by hypertrophy of the medial malleolus (the ankle bone that connects to the tibia) and wearing near the ankle on about a quarter of the tibiae." ~ HAL33315:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hibernation can be induced in modern humans with injection of 5′-AMP (a secondary messenger), which in hibernating animals is normally produced by brown adipose tissue." seems like a tangent. Maybe move it to the note.
It's already explained? A catastrophic mortality profile is "The overrepresentation of young adults in their prime ... instead of children and elderly" and attritional is the opposite Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Like in Neanderthals and modern humans, the third turn is short, but is more strongly curved" - second comma not needed and makes the sentence choppy.
Happy to support. It's a great article, and I'm sure you'll adjust per my replies, which are admittedly minor anyway. Cheers, ~ HAL33315:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the plot, production, release, and reception of the film Hundreds of Beavers. It was upgraded to GA status by me back in February. It is comparable in length to some other FA-class film articles. I have done intense research for this article since May 2024. I have used every possible news article or web page and created a Google alert solely for subjects related to this. Jon698 (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Alt text shouldn't duplicate captions
File:Abbott_and_Costello_circa_1940s.JPG: two of the source links are dead. Ditto File:Three_Stooges_1937.jpg
@Nikkimaria: Made an edit to change the alts that duplicate the captions. Those two images you noted with dead links still have the full image, back and front, in their image histories. This shows that they are indeed missing copyright notices. Jon698 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jon, I may give a full review if I have the time, but first do you think you could briefly outline how you feel you have addressed TompaDompa's oppose in the past FAC? Also, I would suggest removing the Harvard Crimson film review, since it's by a university student in a university publication, not a critic in a reputable newspaper. Eddie891TalkWork08:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: For comment 1: I have expanded the section covering its video game inspirations and how it was designed to look like a lets play. As for his other comments I feel as though I properly answered them with edits made during the first discussion. For comment 2: The Harvard Crimson is not just a university publication, but a publication at one of the most famous universities in the world. It has carried stories by a future Pulitzer Prize winner and its list of former editors and contributors include JFK, FDR, and a large amount of notable journalists. Jon698 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. re #2: none of those points make The Harvard Crimson a reputable source for happenings outside of their university sphere. Regardless of the university, undergraduate publications tend to have very low standards to publish, and almost non-existent peer review processes (source: I went to a world class university, and that was definitely the case with their well-regarded undergraduate newspaper). I could maybe see a case being made for inclusion if the figure went on to become a notable film critic (such as Roger Ebert's undergraduate writings), but fundamentally don't understand why would we care what this student has to say here, even if (only because?) they were at Harvard.
What are their qualifications to be a critic? How is Joseph Johnson qualified to say that a film represents "a groundbreaking technical achievement"? Eddie891TalkWork15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will do my best to offer a full review within ~1.5 weeks. Please do ping after 25 June if I haven't gotten back here (next week might be too busy for me to get to this). Best, Eddie891TalkWork15:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes:
"He catches fish by making his fingers bleed and using them as lures, and when he sells the fish to a local merchant, he notices a fur trapper turning a large profit." I would personally split this into two sentences, it feels like you're conveying two fairly different scenes here
You have a few spots using the ". He [does x]" sentence construction a couple times in close proximity, which reads stilted; I primarily noticed this in the second para of the plot. Can you vary the phrasing at all?
"Jean erases it" how?
"styled after Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson " Can we say this without a citation? It feels a little OR-y
"He is found guilty and set " perhaps "sentenced"?
Are all/ any of the cast members notable per WP:REDYES? Also, surely we need to cite their names?
"Filmmakers Mike Cheslik and Ryland Tews met at Whitefish Bay High School and came to collaborate on film projects" This sort of makes it sound like they worked on these projects beginning in high school, or at least leaves that implication open, but their first notable film wasn't released until like a decade after high school. I think it's worth noting that when they were actually in high school was ~2008 (source) Can you clarify the timing with a couple words?
I changed it to be "on film projects starting in 2008" in this edit
"The idea for Hundreds of Beavers was created by" this is awkward use of the passive voice: why not simply "Cheslik and Tews came up with the idea for Hundreds of Beavers while at a bar in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in October 2018."
"The duo made Lake Michigan Monster, a black-and-white film that cost $7,000, in 2018" why do we care about this? I also think use of the word "made" in 2018, is a bit confusing, as our article seems to say that the film was largely filmed in 2017. Maybe "released" instead. Consider also adding a sentence connecting this one and the next, along the lines of: "In 2018, the duo released Lake Michigan Monster, a black-and-white film, which they [shot? not sure about the best word here] on a budget of $7,000. Following the film's positive reception, they came up with the idea for Hundreds of Beavers in October, while while at a bar in Milwaukee, Wisconsin."
"It was originally conceived as a parody film of The Revenant (2015) and survival films." I would suggest putting this sentence right after the sentence about the origin of the idea for the film
"which Cheslik compared to the screenwriting techniques of George Miller" This is somewhat unhelpful, as George Miller's article doesn't seem to say anything about Miller's screenwriting techniques, so I am unable to answer my fundamental question, which is: what are Miller's techniques? If the sourcing doesn't allow you to briefly gloss this, I don't think it's worth mentioning.
"Cheslik noted that Jean's progression was like Joseph Campbell's hero's journey." Again, I think it's worth specifying what about Jean's progression echoes a hero's journey. Was the intent to satirize stereotypes of heroes, perhaps?
Added "as Jean betters himself from an alcoholic struggling in the snow to killing hundreds of beavers" in this edit
"The film was shot in black-and-white and had a budget of $150,000..." I think this paragraph would benefit from a restructuring, with information presented in a strictly chronological manner. So, "Cheslik and Tews were initially able to raise enough money to film the first act, which they filmed in early 2020...." and ending with "the film's overall budget was $150,000".
I'm also just a bit confused about the timeline: you say the second act was filmed in "in winter in 2019 and 2020", but the producer says (in Macaulay 2024) that they filmed the first part in 2020, and the second part the following year.
"with the teeth being modified by the filmmakers" do we know how so? Also, can you rephrase to eliminate the with + -ing construction?
" Eric West, Daniel Long, Jay Brown, and Mike Wesolowski wore the beaver costumes" surely they should be included in the cast?
I think you should mention all the influences in one paragraph- it feels a bit out of place to talk about "It was originally conceived as a parody film of The Revenant (2015) and survival films" in the first paragraph, but not describe any other inspirations until the fourth para.
"while specific allusions to silent comedies include a scene that references" Which scene? Also, this sentence seems to contain two completely separate ideas and should probably be split
I'd suggest giving years for all the films you mention
"he merchant's shop was noted by GameSpot to operate like those in the The Legend of Zelda and how the video game features in the film were not used as a joke, but to give convey information series." I am having a lot of trouble parsing this sentence, can you try rephrasing.
I'd suggest trying to thematically organize your discussions of influences somewhat. Seems like one clear influence is video games, another is the silent film/slapstick comedy era, but it currently feels like you jump between discussing different inspirations a bit based on what the sources say.
"with a runtime of 108 minutes" feels like it could fit somewhere else better. Presumably its runtime was 108 minutes everywhere, not just at Fantastic Fest
Why does the Fantasia International Film Festival only get a year, while every other release gets a specific day?
The reason for it lacking the specific date is that I was unable to narrow down which day the film was shown.
"the Sitges Film Festival" maybe add in Spain? year?
"Cheslik and the producers chose to distribute the film themselves"... but then you say Rosner helped with the distribution, so they didn't exactly distribute it themselves, no?
That seems more like hiring a guy to help you. They are still doing the distribution themselves and getting the profits.
"including the Music Box Theatre" - 'Chicago's Music Box Theatre'?
Changed to "including the Music Box Theatre in Chicago" in this edit
" fourteen independent theaters in the Great Lakes region," I don't think it's clear why only the Great Lakes is mentioned here. Did it not show elsewhere? Was this the first region they showed the film in?
"The filmmakers rejected distribution offers made after festival showings as those plans would only show the film in theaters for a week before sending it to video on demand." I consider would putting this after the first sentence in the second paragraph of this section, perhaps.
"As of November 2024, the film was never shown in more than 33 theaters at once." -> suggest "by November 2024, the film had not been shown in..."
"$5,000 was grossed after three days of screenings at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts" I get why it's worth mentioning the Music Box Theatre's Gross, but why is the Cambridge on e significant?
Why describe some similarities identified by other sources (like those noted by GameStop) in the Production section, but others ithe critical response section (like those made by Seitz)
The NYT attributes success to "the movie’s robust, beaver-heavy social media presence" - can we say anything about that.
How did you decide which critics of 100+ to include, and which to exclude? I'm kinda surprised there is nothing in the way of critique included, but perhaps all reviews are unanimously positive.
Interesting article, that's a first round of comments. I'll probably have another. I have the general impression that trying to organize things a bit more chronologically (in production section) and thematically (when you talk about influences) would help a good deal. Eddie891TalkWork10:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through a bunch of your comments and will try to finish up more of them soon. I am just a bit busy with the World Destubathon. @Eddie891:Jon698 (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an 1895 painting by the Brazilian artist Rodolfo Amoedo that portrays a woman seated in a refined domestic interior, clutching a crumpled letter and gazing directly at the viewer. The composition's emotional ambiguity and fragmented framing have invited interpretations linking the work to both realism and symbolism. The subject has been read as an embodiment of feminine psychology and a reflection of social shifts in late 19th-century Brazil, which scholars later recognized it as an important contribution to the modernization of Brazilian art.
The article has passed GA, where the reviewer had no comments for the article's prose except the lead. Originally translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia, where it has been promoted as a featured article, this version has been carefully revised, by both me and participants from ptwiki's FA candidacy, in an effort to meet the FA criteria. Cattos💭17:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nominating this article for FAC. I won't do a full review for now, but I have one suggestion and that is to add English |trans-titles to all references. Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are long overdue for a fish article and these are the most popular tropical fish of them all. Clownfishes are known for their bright colors, symbiotic relationships with sea anemones and their appearance in Finding Nemo. The article received a thorough review from Jens Lallensack, so I think we're off to a good start. LittleJerry (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a drive-by review, but the lead is overly complicated for an article with such a broad popular reach. Examples:
The first two sentences are too complicated. People are not going to know what the Pomacentridae family is, for instance. If they're really interested, they can look at the infobox.
Similarly, "attract photosynthetic zooxanthellae" is overly complicated per MOS:INTRO.
You can simplify "Clownfish are omnivorous and mostly feed on planktonic food" to "Clownfish are omnivorous and mostly feed on plankton", as planktonic is a more complicated version of the word plankton.
I changed the last two but I would like a second opinion on the first one. It is important to mention their classification in the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could just link "damselfish" to Pomacentridae without providing that term explicitly? And I think I agree with Femke that the lead could be more accessible; for example, "mutualistic symbiotic relationship" should be explained, or you could write "they developed a relationship with sea anemones from which both sides profit: the clownfish relies on …". This way, you keep the link to the "Mutualism" article (I think that we only need this link btw; symbiosis does not need a separate link because mutualism is a type of symbiosis). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good, but maybe you should revert your removal of Amphiprion ocellaris from the lead; now the text is a bit unspecific and, more importantly, your "some species" is not mentioned in the body (and therefore unsourced) since the body only says that "this species" is one of the most popular. (You could give the common name of the species in addition to make it easier for the reader). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already had my say at GAN and was quite happy with the article. I still found some typos though, and a couple other points:
using Red saddleback anemonefish – "the red saddleback anemonefish" (add "the" and "red" should be in lower case)
link subfamily
A 2009 study suggested creating the tribe Amphiprionini for clownfishes and moving them to the subfamily Pomacentrinae. – You should probably say on what this suggestion was based on (molecular analysis; "based on genetic evidence"?)
the maroon clownfish can reach 160 mm (6.3 in) long while then orange clownfish reaches only 80 mm (3.1 in). – why "then"?
Feeding takes up most of a clownfish's acivity; around 90 percent in dominant orange-fin anemonefish specifically – is it 90% of the day? If it really refers to "activity", the 90% isn't so helpful because you don't say for how much time they are active.
Between 1997 and 2002, The ocellaris clownfish – "the"
Other popularly traded clownfishes include the maroon clownfish' and orange clownfish. – why the hyphen?
Note [a] Says "Examples ...". Some readers may skim the article and read the "Notes" section (vs comting them from clicking on [a] superscript) so it would be nice if the footnote had a few more words so it stands on its own. E.g. change "Examples" to Examples of the clownfish genus parent clade being specified as Pomacentrinae [wording here is simply my crude attempt, I'm not saying this is accurate]
Caption confusing Clark's anemonefish with a bubble-tip anemone, the species utilises all ten anemone species which host clownfish Can that be re-worded to be more plain? I'm not sure what "the species" refers to: the "Clark's anemonefish" or "bubble-tip anemone". And I cannot figure out what "the species utilises all ten anemone species .... " means. Very confused.
ISBN 10 vs 13: Allen, G. R. (1975). Damselfishes of the South Seas. TFH Publications. p. 34. ISBN 978-0876660348 I don't really care, but some reviewers will say that is not acceptable becuse ISBN-13 did not exists before 2007, so you should use the ISBN-10 value for that source; or, alternatively, find the a post-2007 reprint/edition that uses that ISBN-13. But it doesn't bother me.
Confusing: the following cladogram of the 28 clownfish species is based on a 2025 genetic study, with clade groupings based on a 2014 study. Isn't the "cladogram" the same thing as the "Clade groupings" .... both terms mean the tree's shape, i.e. its branching pattern, correct?
Clarify Clownfish have a size-based dominance hierarchy with the female ranking at the top, followed by the male and then the largest non-breeder and so on. ... Consider reducing ambiguity by changing to ...followed by the breeding male and ...
The diagram in the InfoBox that shows the blue distribution ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amphiprioninae_distribution_map-blank.svg ) is a bit suspicious: why doesnt the blue range include the shallow waters around islands such as Sri Lanka or Philippines or (parts of) Madagascar? I'm not second-guessing what the source says, but it is rather puzzling. Maybe you should verify by examining the original source of that range data and make sure the WikiCommons artist did not make any mistakes. And: if the blue range in the diagram is correct: Is there a source that explains why clownfish are not found around Sri Lanka or around Philippines? Seems strange, since it is a shallow-water fish, and phillipines has a LOT of shallow water.
A new map is being made by Carnby. I added this one as a placeholder, in case people asked about a range map.
Support on prose Great article. I did not check images or sources. I think a good distribution map is essential for the article. So, final promotion to FA should probably wait until the new distribution diagram is inserted in the article. Noleander (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John James Beckley was the first Librarian of Congress, the first Clerk of the U.S. House, and one of Jefferson's closest political supporters, but an incredibly obscure figure today. He came to the U.S. sold into indentured servitude by his parents, making his rise to political power in the early U.S. a genuine rags-to-(somewhat) riches story; I had a lot of fun researching and making this article, and I hope you have fun reading it! This will be my third Librarian of Congress FAC if successful, and hopefully there'll be more to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Is no image of the subject available?
Alas, it doesn't seem any portraits of him have survived. - G
File:EdRand.jpg: it appears from the source given that this was originally a state rather than federal work?
It's a copy of an older painting, but its different enough it might have separate copyright. Also, it wasn't commissioned by the US government, it was purchased by it... I just swapped to another one based off the same original. Easier. - G
Born to a family in or around London which fell into poverty during the late 1760s,...
"which" → "that" for restrictive clause clarity; "Which" is used for non-restrictive clauses, which give non-essential info and are usually set off with commas.
Fixed. -G
"He was appointed as the clerk of the county's Committee of Safety..."→"He was then appointed as the clerk of the county's Committee of Safety..."
"...vast land holdings in the Appalachians which he was unable to sell"
Same as point 2 above.
Fixed both of these. - G
Early life
Same point as point 1 under Lead.
Fixed. -G
who his parents sold as an indentured servant→ who was sold by his parents as an indentured servant
Alt who his parents sold as an indentured servant→whom his parents sold as an indentured servant
The clause is ungrammatical because "who" is the subject of the relative clause, but it's immediately followed by another subject ("his parents") without a verb connecting them properly.
Fixed. -G
the York River of Virginia →the York River in Virginia
"desire for revenge against Hamilton" → "desire for revenge on Hamilton" (standard phrasing)
Fixed. -G
"orphan's court" → "Orphans' Court" (official name capitalisation and possessive correction)
Fixed. -G
"John Adams had fired the prominent Hamiltonians James McHenry and Timothy Pickering from his cabinet" → "John Adams had fired prominent Hamiltonians James McHenry and Timothy Pickering from his cabinet" (remove redundant "the")
In English, we typically drop “the” when naming multiple specific people described by a shared attribute.
I think this still counts as a false title here without the 'the'. -G
"Cobbett challenged him to a duel in the streets" → "Cobbett challenged him to a duel"
From what I recall, not all duels were in public places, so I think this adds context. - G
By 1800, Beckley and journalist William Duane succeeded... journalist → the journalist (as done while introducing Cobbett and Callender)
Beckley assisted Jefferson in the creation of his 1801 Manual of Parliamentary Practice. his→Jefferson's or Beckley's?
Clarified. -G
... Philadelphia Aurora and National Gazette and the New York Greenleaf's New Daily Advertiser.→... Philadelphia Aurora, National Gazette and the New York Greenleaf's New Daily Advertiser.
Fixed. -G
"and asked him to forward it Samuel Harrison Smith when he had finished."→"and asked him to forward it to Samuel Harrison Smith when he had finished."
Fixed. -G
"gentleman officeholders"
→ "gentleman-officeholders" or "gentleman office-holders"
I've re-read the prose and really enjoyed it. Looking forward to your response—thank you for bringing such an interesting article to FAC.
P.S. I had never come across Beckley before I started reviewing this article. Nevertheless, I found it a fascinating read. MSincccc (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is London wikilinked in the infobox but not in the rest of the article?
Forgot to unlink it there. -G
The rest of the lede reads well to me. I did not spot any issues.
"He had at least two siblings, both of whom later immigrated to the colonies." – I assume the Thirteen Colonies? This should be specified.
Done. -G
According to Beckley's son → According to Beckley's son, Alfred,
Fixed. -G
"John Norton, writing to a relative in Virginia" – we've already introduced John Norton & Sons so this could be cut only to "Norton, writing to a relative in Virginia"
Done. -G
"Beckley witnessed Clayton's will in late October 1773" – maybe wikilink will to will and testament?
Well, its the location he worked. I can remove it if you think it's superfluous. -G
"By 1775, the authority of the royal government was collapsing in the colony." – suggest wikilinking "royal government"
Done. -G
"a 17-year old Beckley" – is it necessary to mention his age?
I think so, just to remind the reader that he's quite young at this point. -G
Colony of Virginia seems to be first wikilinked at this point, while we could actually have the first wikilink much earlier in the article such as at: Virginian court official or writing to a relative in Virginia.
Fixed. -G
"Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates" – why is clerk here capitalised but is not in other instances? (This occurs again later in the article under Second congressional clerkship)
Following MOS:JOBTITLE; though I realized I needed to add a 'the' to a couple instances. -G
a position he would hold until 1785 → a position he held until 1785
I just checked that Jefferson narrowly won Pennsylvania. Maybe change it to: Thanks in part to Beckley's campaigning, Jefferson narrowly won Pennsylvania in 1796.
Done. -G
"Three days later, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison" – we already introduced them in the article, can be cut to Jefferson and Madison.
Fixed. -G
"extolling the most dedicated Republican organizers and activists." – was this supposed to say Democratic-Republican?
Yep - G
West Virginia seems to be first wikilinked in Personal life but is first mentioned in Librarian of Congress.
Would be happy to have a read through. Do ping when the above two users have finished having their say, and I will have mine. The next week may be quite busy, but I should be free by the 24, if not sooner. Eddie891TalkWork12:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note, for now. I'm curious about the description of the Berkeleys as historians. Edmund seems to have been, by training, a biologist, and I can't find anything about his wife really. I don't dispute that they are a HQRS here- reviews of their work only seem to take issue with the prose, not its accuracy, but I might suggest "The botanist Edmund Berkeley and his wife Dorothy Smith Berkeley" instead of "Historians Edmund Berkeley and Dorothy Smith Berkeley". "amateur historians" feels demeaning, especially since they produced a few valuable historical works published by reputable publishers, but they don't seem to have been historians by training or profession. Also are the last two works redlinked in prose notable for their own articles? Eddie891TalkWork13:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh - good point; I hadn't realized they weren't professionally trained (although they do seem to have published multiple history books). I changed that to just "scholars".
Notability for books is a surprisingly low bar (see WP:NB); the criteria of "two or more published works about the book" means that original academically-published books are generally notable, because for any topic there's going to be at least two journals that will review most of the works in the field. (JSTOR has nine reviews of Zealous Partisan in a Nation Divided). However, I realized that edited volumes of writings get less academic reviews (I could only dig up one on Justifying Jefferson), so I removed the red link there. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the next few days are incredibly busy for me, but I may have a break. Am realistically hoping to get to this Sunday, but may be closer to Tuesday. Please do ping by the 25 if I haven’t circled back. Eddie891TalkWork00:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Mud March was the largest public demonstration supporting women's suffrage seen up to that 1910. It was peaceful, seen as successful, and very wet and muddy, thus the name. This article was something that was worked on some years ago by me and two of our late colleagues, Brianboulton and SlimVirgin. I now feel that enough time has lapsed since then that this should be raised up to FA level, very much with those two other editors in mind. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relation between the WSPU and NWUSS is a bit unclear in the lead (eg, the sufferagtte/suffragist) but is explained better in the body. I'd note that the march was motivated by an earlier WSPU march, and that the WSPU and NWUSS were initially on friendly terms. Also, what exactly "direct action" means here is unclear; I associate the term with strikes and sabotage, not picketing.
OK, I've reworked a little more - we didn't really 'introduce' the NUWSS in suffragist/~ette terms previously, which I think was possibly where there was a lack of clarity, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it now. I'm not sure what you mean on the point about direct action. What the WSPU did was very much in the direct action sphere according to pretty much all the sources on the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Mud March (suffragist)" would be a better title? I don't know why the disambiguator ought to be a plural noun and not an adjective.
I'm ambivalent on either, but I don't see a problem with the current one. This may be something best picked up post-FAC, to avoid problems changing the name mid-process. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea when Pippa's meeting with Davies was?
Unfortunately not. I've gone through a couple of biographies on Davies and there's nothing in those, not in the source used here, either - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was she also a member of the WSPU? If not, why did she lead the London march?
Forgive me if this is a cross-the-pond preference, but I think "Fawcett wrote that 'Mud, mud, mud'..." would flow better than "'Mud, mud, mud", wrote Fawcett."
I prefer the current version, partly because it puts the emphasis more on the 'mud' aspect, which is the more important part.- SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably good to mention that many members of the WSPU participated in the lede.
We mention that members of the WSPU attended the march, but they were not attending as the WSPU, but as individuals. I'm not sure we need to highlight the WSPU too much more than we already do, given the organisation was not officially represented. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do the colors red and white for the rosettes indicate something here? I'm most familiar with the purple-white-green suffrage colors.
I don't think so. I've had a quick look in the sources, and there's nothing in the NUWSS article either, and that would be the logical place for it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20 column inches? I'm unfamiliar with that term; it might be better to be less precise here and just indicate that it gave it extensive coverage.
In the pursuit of concision, either "what was" and "seen up to that date" in in what was the largest public demonstration supporting women's suffrage seen up to that date are redundant. I might remove the former.
"formation of... a new umbrella organisation" - Isn't everything new when it is first formed? Or is it a successor organization? Added repetition with "the new central body" which is more forgivable.
"The Mud March was the largest-ever public demonstration until then in support of woman's suffrage" - Not sure if it's a Am/BrEng issue, but "largest-ever public demonstration until then" reads somewhat awkwardly. What is "then" referring to?
File:Band_at_the_Mud_March.jpg: as per the UK tag, description should specify the research conducted to try to identify author. Ditto File:Mud_March,_9_February_1907,_Illustrated_London_News.jpg, File:Rally_at_Trafalgar_Square,_part_of_the_Mud_March.jpg, File:Front_page_of_The_Daily_Mirror,_reporting_the_Mud_March.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this has already had lots of very skilled eyes on it; I hope this will be useful nonetheless.
It acquired the name "Mud March" from the day's weather, when incessant heavy rain left the marchers drenched and mud-spattered.: this would not raise an eyebrow in conversation, but on a grammatical level I'm not sure: what does when modify? I can only make it "the day's weather", which is a thing rather than a time: I can't really stretch it to just "the day" given the possessive. How about "the day's weather; incessant..."?
The proponents of women's suffrage were divided between those who favoured constitutional methods and those who supported direct action; the NUWSS were constitutional suffragists. The split between the two factions was formalised in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst, who formed the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU). Known as the suffragettes, the WSPU held demonstrations: as I understand it, suffragettes were those who supported direct action -- notably but not exclusively the WSPU. I'd be tempted to bring those names in a bit earlier -- "those, known as suffragists, who favoured constitutional methods, and those who supported direct action, who became known as suffragettes. The OED, as cited at Suffragette, would support you here.
In October 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel Pankhurst formed a women-only group in Manchester: just Christabel perhaps?
Does Lady [Jane] Strachey need the square brackets? Lady Jane Grey doesn't generally get them, nor does Alfred, Lord Tennyson.
Regional suffrage societies and other organisations were invited to bring delegations to the march. The art historian Lisa Tickner writes that "all sensibilities and political disagreements had to be soothed" to make sure the various groups would take part. The Women's Cooperative Guild would attend only if certain conditions were met: why are we quoting an art historian here? Art history and political history aren't totally distinct, but they're generally different skillsets.
Fair enough: if someone else has made the same point, I think it would be reassuring to swap them in. Or has she written enough on the history of the movement to qualify as a historian in her own right? UndercoverClassicistT·C06:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the veteran campaigner Emily Davies: I wonder if we're selling Davies a bit short here: weren't many of the others experienced campaigners too? She's quite notable as an educationalist and for founding Girton College, Cambridge.
I've removed the description and link altogether as she was mentioned and linked further up (although not introduced at all). She's now introduced in the first instance as an educationalist. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The march's aristocratic representation was matched by numbers of professional women: as phrased, this may imply that Davies was an aristocrat. Not sure I've got an immediate fix: I was thinking "although many aristocratic women attended...", but many is pretty slippery.
According to the historian Diane Atkinson, "belonging to both organisations, going to each others' events and wearing both badges was quite usual".: do we need to quote here, rather than just saying "it was common for activists to belong to both the WSPU and [the NUWSS? This isn't massively clear at the moment], to wear both organisations' badges, and to attend both organisations' events."? This doesn't sound like the sort of controversial thing that I'd normally look to attribute.
It was common for women to be members of both organisations and to attend the events of both and wear the two badges they provided for members.: suggest cutting the first and and sticking a to after the one that follows, with a comma before the conjunction if it takes your fancy. A bit breathless at the moment. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of my usual -- is there any chance of a map -- perhaps similar to the dynamic one on the Berner's Street article? As a provincial: where is Rotten Row, and how far was the walk to Trafalgar Square -- and I know that's in London, but which bit of it am I picturing here?
I've put in a request for one. It can only show the three main points (Hyde Park corner, Trafalgar Square and Exeter Hall), as the route isn't mentioned and is not obvious (there are three possible routes they could have taken) - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the weather, thousands thronged the pavements to enjoy the novel spectacle of "respectable women marching in the streets", according to the historian Harold Smith: I would suggest rephrasing this to be more precise about what we're saying is opinion: presumably, it's not controversial that thousands came to watch, but it's less verifiable as to why.
I would observe (sorry) that Smith's take seems not to jar with the Observer quotation that follows -- he makes it sound like they all came to gawp at the novelty, and indeed some of the contemporary sources seem to agree while others are completely opposed. Perhaps it would help to include a short topic sentence to the effect that contemporary reports differ dramatically as to how the audience behaved? It's interesting, however, that at the end of the article, we not only take the polite reception as fact, but make it quite an important part of the story.
The text in the Trafalgar Square photograph looks odd. Is that just because old cameras had slow shutters? It looks almost like an AI "retouching".
It's been through a 'clean-up' as the original was too dark, so that may explain it, but it's not too far from the original. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
praised the crowd's diversity: can we be more precise here? Without context, a modern publication would normally use this to mean that there were lots of non-white people, but that doesn't seem right. Are we talking about class here, and/or the fact that women from the north were prominently represented?
The protesters had had to "run the gauntlet of much inconsiderate comment",: could link "run the gauntlet" here to help with the idiom, but very much editor's call.
The Graphic, a pro-suffrage paper, published a series of illustrations sympathetic to the event except for one that showed a man holding aloft a pair of scissors "suggesting that demonstrating women should have their tongues cut out", according to Katherine Kelly in a study of how the suffrage movement was portrayed in the British press.: I would be tempted to split this sentence. Not sure "except" is the right word, either, in this context: we could put a full stop and then "It also carried one showing a man ..., "suggesting..."
the vital civic duty and natural function of women ... is the healthy propagation of race: crikey. Not "the race" or similar? Might just be dated, but this reads oddly in a few ways today.
I don't have a strong view on the quote itself either way, but if it is to be kept, I'd suggest removing the redundancy by changing to e.g. "went on to say" and starting the quotation at "What is aimed at...". Actually, saying that, WP:PRIMARY advises not to quote primary sources at length unless the quote's notability is established from secondary sources: is this a passage that scholars and historians regularly pull out? UndercoverClassicistT·C18:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the movement should educate its own sex rather than "seeking to confound men".: suggest should educate women, as there were men in the women's movement (John Stuart Mill being an early and famous example; Laurence Housman a less famous other).
The newspaper nevertheless welcomed that there had been "no attempts to bash policemen's helmets, to tear down the railings of the Park, to utter piercing war cries ...": this is clearly tongue in cheek, so welcomed may not be the right word, but I'm not sure how much latitude WP:OR gives you to call out patently obvious sarcasm. I wonder whether putting the Daily News and the contrast with Suffragettes first might help? At the moment the point only becomes clearer when we get there.
Willoughby Dickinson MP: we don't normally use postnominals: it helps to know that he was an MP, granted, but I'm not sure he could have been anything else, given that he sponsored a bill.
proposing that women should have the vote subject to the same property qualification that applied to men. That would, it was estimated, enfranchise between one and two million women: Have we actually said what that qualification was, and what proportion of men it enfranchised? Even if so (I'm being idle rather than checking, I know), is it worth restating it here?
(On the day that the bill was published, the Cambridge Union passed by a small majority a motion "that this House would view with regret the extension of the franchise to women".): not a fan of putting whole sentences into brackets: asides go into footnotes, in my book, or else we should integrate them into the text.
On 8 March Dickinson introduced his Women's Enfranchisement Bill to the House of Commons for its second reading, with a plea that members should not be swayed by their distaste for militant actions; the House of Commons "Ladies Gallery": no apostrophes in Ladies' Gallery? Suggest "the House's "Ladies Gallery"..." to avoid repetition.
This tactic met with sufficient success for the NUWSS to resolve that it would become active in all future by-elections, and between 1907 and 1909 they had been involved in 31 by-elections: just in 31?
"Millicent Fawcett was the driving force behind the formation of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), an umbrella organisation for all the factions and regional societies, and to liaise with sympathetic MPs." – the syntax goes off the rails towards the end of the sentence: "and to liaise" needs to be "liaising" or something of the sort.
"Initially, seventeen groups affiliated to body." – missing a definite article?
"the WSPU organised open-air meetings and heckled politicians and chose jail over fines when it was prosecuted" – presumably the jailing applied to individual members rather than the union? If so, adding "Members of..." at the start of the sentence and changing "it was" to "they were" will make this clear.
"the Liberal Party, led by Henry Campbell-Bannerman" – He had been Sir Henry for more than ten years by this time and should, I think, be given his title here.
"Her mother, Lady Jane Strachey" – No. Lady Frances Balfour, as the daughter of a duke, is correctly styled thus in your text, but Jane Strachey, daughter of a commoner and wife of Sir Richard Strachey, was correctly just "Lady Strachey" or, if you absolutely must, "Lady [Jane] Strachey".
"executive committee were connected to the Liberal Party" – the preposition looks a trifle odd to me, as though they were plugged into a mains socket. Perhaps "with" rather than "to"?
"Exeter Hall, a large meeting venue on the Strand" – You have been warned! The wonderful dining room (still mysteriously shut) is "Simpson's-in-the-Strand"; Percy Grainger (one of Brian's FAs) did not write Handel on the Strand; and Times headlines from the last century and this include "Begging in The Strand", "Bladerunner in The Strand", "Cottages in The Strand", "Government Offices in The Strand", "Loiterers in The Strand", "Nash's 'Pepperpots' in The Strand", "Street Nuisances in The Strand", "The Peacock in The Strand" and "Woman's Arrest in The Strand".
"Strachey arranged for some of the male members of the Bloomsbury Group " – not the happiest of phrases: I shouldn't be surprised if the present wording was slipped in by our beloved Brian with malice aforethought but "men from the Bloomsbury Group" might be less calculated to provoke schoolboy smirking from those of us old enough to know better.
"This tactic met with sufficient success for the NUWSS to resolve that it would fight in all future by-elections" – not fielding candidates, I imagine, but you could be clearer about what form their "fighting" took. Tim riley talk10:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially, seventeen groups affiliated to the body" → I am not familiar with the phrasing "affiliated to"; unless this is a BrEng thing, I'd say "were affiliated with" sounds more natural
"From 1906 it began" → both the NUWSS and WSPU are mentioned in the previous sentence, so "it" sounds a little ambiguous here (even though the remainder of the sentence indicates "it" refers to the WSPU, if I'm reading correctly)
"scheduled for Saturday, 9 February 1907, was" → this is more of a question than a suggestion, but I am curious how MOS:DATEFORMAT, which would suggest removing the comma after "1907", factors in when the day of the week is also included. I will admit I am having some trouble finding applicable MOS guidelines relating to the day of the week
I normally don't bother with commas after dates, but I think it warranted here, although if an MOS check or a grammarian queries it, I'd be happy to take it out too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"with the aim, according to Sowon S. Park, of "equal suffrage"" → this is a very good note as far as background info is concerned, though this sentence has a lot of commas and I think readability would improve from re-wording this bit to "with the aim of "equal suffrage", according to Sowon S. Park"
"The art historian Lisa Tickner writes that" → present tense "writes" sounds a little out of place to me
I think it's common to adopt the present tense for what has been written, even if the writer is long dead. Thus, "Wilde writes in a flowing style ...". In this case I think Tickner is still alive, and her text still exists, so present would be better, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The march would begin at Hyde Park Corner" → this may well be more of a pet peeve of mine, but if you are trying to frame this as "this was their plan" I much prefer "The march was to begin at..." (I follow WP:WOULDCHUCK for this sort of thing despite the fact that it's an essay, not a guideline, so this is purely a take-it-or-leave-it suggestion)
"movement "more publicity in one week", according to one commentator, "than it had enjoyed in the previous fifty years" → I think keeping this quote intact and moving "according to..." to the end of the sentence sounds a little more natural and makes the quote's impact a little greater
Done, although it gets a little repetitive to have the same format of '"quote", according to X' on each occasion and a little variety is needed from time to time. - SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"in a study of how the suffrage movement was portrayed in the British press" → another that is pure suggestion; if you wanted this to be a little more brief, you could reword to "in a study of the suffrage movement's portrayal in the British press"
"to utter piercing war cries ..." → since you are quoting a sentence fragment, I think you can ditch the ellipses and just finish with war cries".
I'll think on this too. The ". ending to quotes always suggests the end of a sentence to me in a way that ..." definitely doesn't. - SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
breaking up meetings held by Liberal Associations". → since this is a complete sentence (I presume) which ends the sentence that contains it, I think you can move the full stop inside the quotes per MOS:LQ
"rateable value above £5, or whose husbands did" → another pure suggestion, but adding {{Inflation}} would be good for context here -- something like (equivalent to $308 in 2023)
Changes look good and explanations make sense - the only thing I'd disagree on is the sentence She took on the organisation of the London march with no previous similar experience, but carried out the task so effectively that she was given responsibility for the planning of all future large processions of the NUWSS; it is my understanding that, since the portion of the sentence beginning "carried out the task" is not a complete sentence, there should not be a comma - I tend to follow WP:CINS for this (essay, but a good one). This certainly won't keep me from a support however - nice work as always! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imma ping @Ceoil and Victoriaearle: as I recall them reviewing such a topic in greater depth and during holiday my reviewing skills might be a bit on vacation too. The books I looked at seem OK. I dunno about the newspapers. Formatting is appropriate but I can't vouch on completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hedonism is a family of philosophical views that prioritize pleasure. If the pursuit of pleasure is your primary motivation for reviewing this article, as psychological hedonism claims, then I hope your goal will not be frustrated by the paradox of hedonism. Thanks to Brent Silby for their GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ErnestKrause and thanks for taking a look at this nomination! I checked a few overview sources on hedonism, like Weijers, Tilley 2012, Gosling 1998, and Moore 2019. None of them mention Jefferson, indicating that a substantial discussion of this topic would violate WP:PROPORTION. Maybe a footnote could be added if you know of a source that explicitly elaborates the link between this topic and hedonism. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just this short note for now, though your article does have a section already on "Happiness, well-being, and eudaimonia." This appears to be a tie-in to the Jefferson usage I quoted above within political philosophy. One of the books by a philosopher on the general happiness issue is "The Philosophy of Happiness" by Lorraine L. Besser, which does not support the disassociation of happiness from pleasure or from hedonism. Her chapter three seems to cover some this: [3]. Also see: [4]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the summer of 1917, during a record-breaking heat wave, 10,000 African Americans marched in New York City to protest recent lynchings and other violence against African Americans. They marched in silence.
This is my seventh FA nomination; and my fifth nomination related to the Progressive Era in U.S. history. I nominated this article a couple of months ago, but it was not quite ready at the time. Since then, it has been through a peer review, and has been improved. Noleander (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
specifically, the recent East St. Louis massacre and lynchings in Waco and Memphis.: is there an efficient way to narrow down "recent" -- I think all of these had happened in the previous year?
Parade organizers hoped the parade would prompt the federal government to enact anti-lynching legislation, but President Woodrow Wilson did not act on their demands. The federal government would not pass an anti-lynching law until 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was passed.: this may be slightly misleading: it sounds like we're saying that they wanted the government to make lynching illegal, and that the government refused to do so until the C21st. Clearly, lynching was still murder, which is illegal, but did they want a specific offence of lynching recognised in law?
Yes, lynchings broke many state laws, but prosecutors in Southern states often refused to prosecute. Black leaders wanted a federal law so that federal prosecutors would have the power to prosecute. The article discusses this in (a) footnote [n]; and (b) linked article Lynching_in_the_United_States#Federal_legislation_inhibited_by_the_Solid_South. But I can move those details up into the body text. I have no objection to doing that, let me know if you think it would improve the article. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. I must admit that I really didn't understand that from the current framing.
Would suggest two levels of explanation -- in the body text, say that black leaders wanted lynching to be made a federal crime, which would give the federal government the authority to prosecute for it when state governments, as was often the case, refused to do so. I'd then include a footnote to say that murder, in the United States, is generally prosecuted only at the state level -- most readers won't be completely clued-up on the distinction between federal and state law, and in most countries it would be decidedly odd for the central government to have no power to prosecute a murderer. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added two similar sentences in the body text, one on the Lead and one in the lower body: "Federal legislation was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault." I also added a large footnote [a] that - I hope - explains the subtleties of US federal vs state law. I daresay 99% of US citizens are not aware of these nuances, let alone non-US readers. Noleander (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that began in the United States' pre–Civil War South in the 1830s and continued until 1981.: I know that this is a tricky one, but I'm hesitating on "began in the 1830s". Mob justice and killings of perceived wrongdoers have a long history, both in what became the USA and in Europe. Would this be better phrased as saying something to the effect of that the phenomenon of extrajudicial killings as a widespead means of inciting racial terror is documented from the 1830s -- and perhaps saying that Francis McIntosh in 1836 is sometimes considered the first person to be lynched?
Excellent point. I changed to Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that were first documented in the United States in the 1830s, and continued until 1981. And included new cite re 1836 McIntosh lynching. Let me know if it still needs work. Noleander (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit uncomfortable with "continued until 1981" -- this implies that this is in the past, which it mostly is, but it's not as if something magical happened in 1981 to end things -- 1981 was the year of a very obviously "traditional" lynching, but there have been crimes more recently described as lynchings by at least some people. On the other hand, others consider Emmett Till (in 1955) to be the most recent person lynched. I would be tempted to avoid putting an end date on this at all. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reworded body text to: Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that were first documented in the United States in the 1830s. and added new footnote There is no consensus on whether or not lynchings have ceased in the United States. Some commentators conclude that lynching ceased in the mid-to-late 1900s; others characterize some 21st century killings of African Americans as lynchings.Noleander (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that footnote, should we avoid the past tense of "were"? Perhaps Lynchings (extrajudicial, racially motivated killings) were first documented..., which avoids implying that they no longer exist? UndercoverClassicistT·C15:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed to Lynchings are extrajudicial killings carried out—often under the pretense of punishing alleged crimes—by individuals or groups lacking legal or law enforcement authority. These acts frequently involve mob violence and are commonly driven by racial animus. In the United States, documented instances of lynching date back to the 1830s.Noleander (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Along with disenfranchisement, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination, lynching was one of many forms of racism inflicted on African Americans.: this might be worth a rephrase: one of these worse than the others! A bit like "parsnips, carrots, Brussel sprouts and arsenic were among the unpleasant things served at Christmas dinner."
Done. Changed to: Lynching was a brutal manifestation of racism directed at African Americans, occurring alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws.
The frequency of lynchings steadily increased after the Civil War, peaking around 1892.: put a date on this: we shouldn't assume that all readers will know the dates of the ACW.
The Silent Parade took place at a time when lynchings were beginning to be widely publicized – particularly by the NAACP under the leadership of W. E. B. Du Bois.: I think the NAACP needs a brief introduction.
These lynchings were precursors to the Silent Parade: not sure precursors is the right word -- it usually means something of the same kind that went before. Motivations for? The parade was organised, in part, as a response to these lynchings? But then...
The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots that took place in East St. Louis from May to July 1917 ... we contradict ourselves. I think you're trying to draw a distinction between the events that created the long-term animus from which the parade could form, and the short-term causes that meant the parade happened in 1917 rather than 1916 or 1920.
Done. You are correct: I was trying to distinguish between "long term" anger over lynchings, going back several years before the parade; versus the St. Louis riots, which were the straw that broke the camel's back. My fix was to leave the St. Louis text as-is: The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots ... and change the Lynching section to remove the word "precursor", so it now reads: Anger over these lynchings was one of the motivations for the Silent Parade. In addition, both sections are within the "Background" section, so the reader should already be in the mindset that everything here is a cause or motivation for the parade. Noleander (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ensuing racial tensions led to widespread violence, with estimates of African American deaths ranging from 39 to 200.: led to widespread violence avoids blaming one side or the other for it, but our death figures suggest that we mean that many white workers attacked black strikebreakers.
Done. The violence certainly went both ways, and the first attack was black-on-white; so it is not easy to find precise wording. I let the numbers do the talking and changed it to: The ensuing racial tensions led to widespread violence, with an estimated 39 to 200 African Americans killed by whites. In addition, hundreds were injured, and thousands were displaced from their homes. Nine white Americans were killed.
I wonder whether it would be useful to add a footnote explaining the pointed line "the world must be made safe for democracy" on the Wilson cartoon? This context seems to be missing from the WWI section, but if none of the scholars have made the link between America's rhetoric of freedom abroad and racial repression at home, there may not be too much we can do.
Done. Expanded the existing footnote for that cartoon to read: This cartoon was published in The Kansas City Sun, July 14, 1917. Wilson is holding a newspaper with the headline "The World Must be Made Safe for Democracy", which is a quote from a speech made by Wilson to Congress in April 1917, seeking a declaration of war against Germany. The cartoon is noting the irony that Wilson went to war to protect democracy for Europeans, but failed to protect African Americans in his own country. Fortunately, the existing source for that cartoon already discussed the ironic aspect of the headline. Noleander (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed and insightful comments. I believe I have addressed all issues raised above. Please let me know if anything else requires work. Noleander (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parade marshals included J. Rosamond Johnson, A. B. Cosey, Christopher Payne, Everard W. Daniel, Allen Wood, James Weldon Johnson, and John E. Nail.: some of these I understand, because they're linked, but others I don't. Would it be useful to have a phrase like "nationally prominent African Americans such as..."? Would any of the non-linked people rate a redlink, under WP:GNG (and so WP:REDYES)?
James Johnson wrote "the streets of New York have witnessed many strange sites, but I judge, never one stranger than this; among the watchers were those with tears in their eyes.": not sights?
In addition, Haynes reported that between January 1 and September 14, 1919, white mobs lynched at least 43 African Americans, with 16 hanged, some shot, and eight burned at the stake.: MOS:FIGURES would like 8 in figures here.
The report urged the U.S. Congress to take action and identified 38 separate racial riots against blacks in widely scattered cities, in which whites attacked black people: personally, I'm not a fan of whites and blacks as nouns, but it's odd in any case that we switch between that and more modern/"PC" "black people" in one sentence.
on June 14, 1922 in Washington, D.C., about 5,000 people marched in front of the White House and Congress: do we need in Washington DC here? It makes it clunkier, and I think most people will know where that is, and in any case the most important thing is that they were in front of the White House and Congress. Being very picky, Congress is a body of people, not a building: the building is the Capitol.
Several events commemorated the one-hundredth anniversary of the Silent Parade ... In East St. Louis, a series of events were held to commemorate the riots that occurred in that city a century earlier: this is unduly repetitious, I think.
Everyone marched in silence, with many women in white and men wearing black suits: it might be worth reminding the reader that this was how the original marchers dressed.
In the United States, the federal laws do not include statutes outlawing common crimes like theft, murder, assault : more idiomatic as federal law does not include, I think.
Thus, attempts to enact anti-lynching legislation were required to rely on the 14th Amendment, which empowered the federal government to ensure that Black citizens : we haven't generally capitalised Black in this article. There are good reasons to do so, but it should be consistent.
I would put the slogans in note J into quotation marks, as we are quoting placards. I'd also be tempted to add a full stop after those quotes, per MOS:LQ.
Might be worth a brief adjective in note l to explain what was so objectionable about The Birth of a Nation (the pro-Ku Klux Klan film The Birth of a Nation)?
Should note P and note A be reworked and merged -- they seem to be doing the same job? In note P, the acts of violence involved in lynching (battery, assault, murder, kidnapping, etc) were crimes in all states under various state laws, although there were rarely prosecuted: this is not grammatical, and is a bit surprising after a sentence about 2022 -- I think these things are generally prosecuted in the 21st century.
We seem to be using ISBN 10s where they exist: Logan 1997 would have one of these, not an ISBN 13, which were only introduced in 2007.
I'm no expert on ISBNs. Generally, I grab the number from Google Books. The page WP:ISBN says "Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work.". I understand that ISBN-13 was introduced in 2007, but Google Books seems to list both 10 and 13 digits for many pre-2007 books ... even books that apparently have no reprints after 2007. For example, here is a 1964 book cited in this article: Google Books has both 10 and 13 ISBNs, but it does not appear that there are any editions after 1982. So, in situations like that, it may be better to go with the ISBN-13 based on WP:ISBN. Noleander (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's really two schools of thought -- either use the ISBN actually printed on the book (which in practice means 10 before 2007, 13 after), or convert to ISBN 13. ISBN 10s can be algorithmically converted into ISBN 13s, so it's possible for a repository (like Google Books) to include one even if the original work doesn't. Different editors have different opinions on whether keeping the original or converting the lot is better, but we should pick a lane. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the logic as to which sources are in the "Sources" section, and which are not?
This is a hybrid approach to citations that balances reader-friendliness, ease of editing, and pleasing aesthetics. Templates sfn/harvnb are used for major sources that appear in the "Sources" section; other citations (minor or one-off) use inline <ref>. The concept is that the "Sources" section doubles as a list of important documents that readers should refer to if they want to delve deeper (vs. less important sources, which are relegated to the "Citations" section). For minor sources: users can see the source details with a single mouse click. I understand that the "100% sfn" approach used in many history articles is visually appealing, but I feel that it has some drawbacks: (a) readers must click twice to see source details - even for a minor newspaper source used only once; and (b) It might dissuade editors from using minor/newspaper sources since it requires more time to generate. Conversely the "100% <ref>" approach (used in many articles related to current events) doesn't conveniently support book sources that are used for multiple article sentences (each with unique page numbers). Noleander (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is the distinction between "major" and "minor" sources. How is it made? If it's just on an editor's instinct, I think we're in danger of WP:OR. Some editors apply principles like "books and journals in bibliography, newspapers and websites in notes", or "modern sources in biblio, primary sources in notes", or break the bibliography down by source type (see e.g. Edward Dando from a prolific proponent of this style). My own approach is to put anything that can be sensible reduced to a SFN in the bibliography (ie, we have an author and a date), and leave everything else in the notes. It doesn't matter which one you pick, but I think there needs to be a clear, objective set of criteria as to what goes where. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that a clear algorithm is the way to go. I'll change the article to use the "books and journals in bibliography, newspapers and websites in notes" algorithm. It might take me 2 to 3 days to do so, I 'll notify you when it is done. Noleander (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm sold on the FUR for the Google Doodle (the usual bar is that it has to be doing something more than illustrating -- ie that we discuss the image itself, or it allows you to identify something that would be impossible to identify otherwise), but I'll leave that one for the image reviewer.
I agree that this image is marginal case. I think one rule is "if the article is discussing/analyzing the image, as an image" it is acceptable, which I think this article is doing. In any case, I'll defer to whatever the image reviewer decides. Noleander (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rare newsreel footage of the parade, discovered in the Yukon in 1978 after being buried in permafrost for 50 years: no period per MOS:CAPFRAG (and what a caption!) The flyer and the cartoon similarly need their periods removed.
Noting that I'll respond to rejoinders on the above as they come in, but would like to see Eddie's points below dealt with before concluding the review. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've implemented all of the suggestions you made above. I've also completed the "algorithm for sfn vs inline ref" task (sfn for books & journal; inline for newspapers, websites & commercial magazines). I'm in the middle of working on the suggestions from Eddie891 - the changes to the article will be relatively minor (no major restructuring; just adding a few sentences in a few places). I'll notify you when all suggestions are implemented. Noleander (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist - Thanks for your patience - you may now resume reviewing the Silent Parade article. I've implemented all suggestions made by reviewers as of 11 June 2025, including (1) Implementing all suggestions from UC; (2) Adopting a new approach to using sfn vs inline refs (namely, sfn for books and journals; inline ref for newspapers, magazines, and websites); (3) Removed the Google Doodle image; (4) Reviewed the additional sources recommended by Eddie, and added about a dozen new sentences into the article based on those sources. The new sources were useful, and resulted in minor, incremental improvements (new insights, new details) but did not introduce any significant restructuring of the article. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Noleander (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
although some contemporary sources referred to it as the Negro Silent Parade I couldn't find this in the source, could you point to it
Done. Thanks for catching that. I added a cite to that sentence that names a source that uses the shorter name "Negro Silent Parade"; namely a 1917 article in The Crisis (which uses both names). Noleander (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The march was organized in response to a series of violent and racially motivated events that had occurred the previous year - My impression is that, while that was the immediate motivating reason, the march was also more generally in response to years/decades of similar violence. You mention in the body that Villard suggested a silent march even before the East St Louis massacre and Persons was lynched. Indeed, neither of those events was in the previous year, they were in 1917. Would it be worth tweaking this sentence?
Done. I reworded those sentences to put the longstanding oppression first, and then mention recent events ... making it clear they were simply a catalyst, not the sole purpose: The primary objective of the march was to draw national attention to the widespread racial violence and entrenched systemic discrimination endured by African Americans. It was organized in direct response to a series of racially motivated attacks in 1916 and 1917, including the East St. Louis massacre and lynchings in Waco and Memphis.
Organizers hoped the parade would prompt the federal government to enact anti-lynching legislation... Federal legislation was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault I would almost expect this sequentially to come where you talk about motivations of the parade, not when you are talking about its impact
Done. You are right. I moved those "goal was federal anti-lynching laws" sentences up from the Aftermath/Impact sections to the Motivation section, and did some slight word-smithing to make it fit: The goal of the parade was to protest lynching in particular, and violence against African Americans in general. A particular objective was to persuade President Wilson to implement anti-lynching legislation, which was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault. A federal law would permit federal prosecutors to prosecute lynching when state prosecutors refused to act.Noleander (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see Krugler 2014 included. Other sources I have as high quality on the period are: Nina Mjagkij, Loyalty in Time of Trial: The African American Experience During World War I; Richard Slotkin, Lost Battalions; and Chad Williams, Torchbearers of Democracy. Have you gotten to check those/do they have anything?
Thanks for taking a look. I don’t think Williams is essential if you can’t get a hand on it, though he might have something interesting to say. Mjagkij at least mentions the march, though I don’t have it on hand to check to what extent. Not sure about Slotkin Eddie891TalkWork19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 If you'd like, I can notify you when UC has completed his review. In the meantime, I'll start working on the issues you raised above. Or, if you prefer, you can continue in parallel with UC ... either way is fine with me. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 - Thanks again for identifying some potential sources. I've incorporated all the new sources that seemed useful; and also created a "Further Reading" section for several articles/books that were related to the Silent Parade but not (yet) used as sources for any citations. Noleander (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The archive URL for Meacham 2004 feels a little pointless. More to the point, that encyclopedic article includes some further reading suggestions that I don't see cited in the article, chiefly Ann Douglas, Terrible Honesty (1995). Worth checking out? I am planning to head to a major US history library today and see if I can find anything more, or at least confirm that we cover everything worth covering here. Will update- Eddie891TalkWork07:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A search on google scholar for "silent parade" 1917 brings up quite a few scholarly sources that don't seem to be cited here. I'd like to see some engagement with these, or at least an explanation why they aren't worth including here, to be satisfied that FACRIT 1b/c are met. I will be making a longer comment on comprehensiveness on the article talk page, shortly. Eddie891TalkWork10:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I have left a comment on the article Talk Page going into more depth on this, but I feel there is a good bit of secondary scholarship that has not been cited in the article that could be used to expand it. I also think there's a bit of an over-reliance on contemporary reports currently that integrating more secondary sourcing could help address. This is definitely an under-studied subject, but it has not been completely ignored. I would like to see this addressed before commenting on the prose/content more specifically. Eddie891TalkWork12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm analyzing the sources you identified ... they absolutely look valuable, and I can see several fact that can be added to the article. I'm analyzing them now, and will reply soon with more thoughts. Noleander (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 Thanks again for the suggestions. I've completed reading the sources you identified (that is, the portions of the sources related to the Silent Parade) and determined which facts/insights from the sources should be added into the article. No major restructuring will be required; I estimate it will be about 6 to 10 new sentences, placed within existing sections. I should be done within a day or two; I'll notify you when complete. Noleander (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for all your work so far! There's a few more sources that might be worth checking out:
Morrisette 2013 seems to have a few pages about Johnson's organization
Francis 2014 seems to say that Wilson did meet with a group involved in the protest on August 16. What to make of that?
@Eddie891 - Thanks for these sources. I've read through them (that is, the portions related to the Silent Parade) and I see two valuable items that can be added to Silent Parade: (a) relation/inspiration from Silent Sentinels suffrage group. And (b) The meeting with Wilson in August 1917. It's interesting that four other sources emphasize that Wilson refused to meet with NAACP delegation in early August (4 days after parade) and neglected to mention that he did meet with a subset of them a couple of weeks later. I think some of the authors are not fans of Wilson.
There's also some insightful quotes from Johnson's autobiography, but as a primary source, I'll have to think whether those belong in the article; on the other hand, a 2ndary source is repeating the quotes, so there's that.
A couple of the sources above are very dense, obtuse essays emphasizing sociology & psychology (perhaps PhD theses translated into a paper) .. I don't see anything suitable for Silent Parade in those, but I'll double check.
I should be able to incorporate this new information into the article within a day. Again, I don't foresee major restructuring of the article: merely adding 2 to 3 new sentences within existing paragraphs. Noleander (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't really love the quality of the two journal articles, honestly. Was thinking that they might be suitable further reading articles, though. Thoughts? Either way, I'll aim to get on with a prose review by the end of this week :) Eddie891TalkWork20:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea of a "Further Reading" section makes sense: I'll create one now, and insert the sources that contain solid content related to Silent Parade, yet were not utilized as sources. Noleander (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws" I think you could maybe tweak the phrasing here, because disenfranchisement would generally be considered part of the enforcement of Jim Crow laws, not a distinct second factor, no?
Done. Changed to alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and segregation.
"They remained common into the early 1900s, experiencing a resurgence in 1915 following the founding of the Second Ku Klux Klan" The first part of this sentence seems to contradict the second somewhat: If lynchings remained common (a statement that I agree with), how could they experience a resurgence, which to me would suggest a decline in prevalence before?
Done. Changed to .... They remained common into the early 1900s, with a notable spike in 1915 following the founding of the Second Ku Klux Klan. And added a cite that shows the 1915 spike. Noleander (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Silent Parade took place at a time when lynchings were beginning to be widely publicized" Is it true that lynchings were not widely publicized before? I think lynchings even before this point would have gotten wide coverage (lynching postcards were widespread in the late-19th century, for instance), and there was a well-established African American press post-Reconstruction that would have no doubt covered lynchings. I think many Americans would have been well aware that lynchings happened even pre-1915. Ida B. Wells was giving anti lynching lectures as early as the 1890s, for instance. There is something to say about the anti-lynching movement gaining steam in this period, but not, I think, exactly what you have here.
Done. Changed to The Silent Parade took place at a time when the anti-lynching movement was gaining momentum under the leadership of the NAACP leader W. E. B. Du Bois. Noleander (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"an estimated 39 to 200 African Americans killed by whites" This is a really wide range, worth, I think, an explanatory footnote citing which sources give us which numbers.
"unusually explicit terms" does the sourcing clarify whether it unusually explicit for The Crisis, African American publications in general, or the American press more broadly (or perhaps all three)?
Done. The word "unusually" was removed, since the sources don't state what it was being compared to. Changed to ...they published a photo-essay in The Crisis that described the riots in graphic terms. And added a cite to book that covers that particular issue of The Crisis in great detail, and describes the article as "graphic". Noleander (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and served as a backdrop to the events leading up to the Silent Parade" I think you could probably cut this phrase without losing anything -- given that this is the background section of the Silent Parade article it probably goes without saying?
I would add a sentence at the end of the 'East St. Louis massacre' section that leads into to the protest, along the lines of "following the massacre, NAACP leaders decided that a large protest was necessary" [or whatever the sourcing allows us to say, I don't have it at hand right now]. Right now, it feels a bit abrupt jump between the two sections
" One month before the Silent Parade, African American women in New York" Do we have a secondary source connecting this march to the Silent Parade? Otherwise it feels a bit like original research to mention it
Done. Removed the "One month before the Silent Parade.." sentence. I'm looking for a 2ndary source; may re-insert if I locate a good source. Sentence is not especially significant, so okay to leave it out permanently. Noleander (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be beneficial to combine the three sections 'planning', 'leadership', and 'motivation' into one, it doesn't seem like they contain mutually exclusive information.
"also emphasized that violence against African Americans constituted a direct assault on their families" This feels like it's saying the same thing that the previous sentence did. You could probably revise it to "Following the march, The Crisis published several photographs of the parade, all but one of which featured women and children." without losing anything
""...the deliberate refinement of the clothing reinforced the relationship between rights and respectability. The protestors presented themselves as citizens while affirming the look of citizenship."" I think this is from one of the sources that I suggested, but I'm left feeling like the meaning here could be more effectively conveyed by paraphrasing.
"Although the marchers were silent, many of them carried signs and banners that described contributions of African Americans to American society, or gave reasons for the protest" This paragraph feels out of place, because you have already mentioned several signs and banners. Especially, earlier you say that soldiers "carried placards drawing attention to the fact that", and here you again say "Many of the placards contained slogans highlighting military service by African Americans, reflecting the fact that the country had just entered World War I."
"second instance of African Americans publicly demonstrating for civil rights"- I would be shocked if this is true (even if a source states it), and imagine it depends upon a very narrow definition of what a public demonstration, and 'for civil rights', is. Surely Ida Wells' lectures or the Nashville Streetcar boycotts might count as a 'public demonstration',". Might be better to remove it
"in stark contrast to the actions of the white rioters in East St. Louis" I agree with this point, but you have made it a few times. Might be better to only make it once.
What do we have in the way of sources connecting the Legacy of the Silent Parade to the REd Summer? You don't make the connection explicit in that section.
I removed that section, since it might give the impression of violating WP:SYNTH policy. There are a few sources that make a tenuous connection, but they are minor. I don't think it damages the article to remove the Red Summer section ... it was informative, but not essential. Noleander (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a first round of comments, nice work here. I will probably have another round, but will give you the chance to work through these first. Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork11:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 Thanks for the insightful and detailed comments ... very valuable. I've addressed all of them; where you made a suggestion, I implemented the suggestion. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you spell out "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" in the lead of the article, but not the article body. I'd suggest doing so in both or neither
"The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots that took place in East St. Louis from May to July 1917" I feel like "the specific events that precipitated" is possibly unnecessarily wordy. Can you simplify at all?
I'd suggest rephrasing "The riots were the catalyst that prompted the NAACP to plan the Silent Parade." to "In response, the NAACP began planning a public protest" or something, because your next paragraph discusses how they reached the determination that there should be a silent parade
"Initial plans considered a protest at Carnegie Hall, but after the East St. Louis riots, Johnson proposed a silent march, based on a suggestion made in 1916 by Oswald Garrison Villard during a NAACP Conference" consider splitting into two sentences somehow?
Done. Changed to Initial plans considered a protest at Carnegie Hall, but after the East St. Louis riots, Johnson proposed a silent march. The idea of a silent protest was based on a suggestion made in 1916 by Oswald Garrison Villard during a NAACP Conference.Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Silent Parade was not the nation's first silent march: Villard's mother, anti-war activist Fanny Garrison Villard, had organized a silent march in 1914 to protest the war" what if you put this sentence right after the one about Villard's suggestion, to make the connection explicit?
I would move the paragraph starting "The parade was organized by a" to before the paragraph starting "While the organizers of the Silent Parade" since I think it makes sense to describe the organizers, before talking aobut what they did.
"A specific objective was to urge President Woodrow Wilson to support the enactment of federal anti-lynching legislation. Such legislation was deemed necessary because Southern states frequently failed to prosecute lynchings under existing state laws prohibiting murder, kidnapping, and assault. A federal law would permit federal prosecutors to prosecute lynching when state prosecutors refused to act" I would put at least some portion of this in the lynching background section, since it's relevant background.
"leadership of the NAACP leader W. E. B. Du Bois" Du Bois is obviously worth mentioning in the background, but I wonder if it might make more sense to introduce him a couple sentences later, as the EiC of The Crisis. Would also help you eliminate the awkward "leadership...leader", and I'm not sure we should imply that Du Bois was the sole leader of the movement, when there were most probably many (though of course he was one of the most prominent)
Done. Changed to: The Silent Parade took place at a time when the anti-lynching movement was gaining momentum, led in large part by the NAACP. Founded in 1909, the NAACP sought to advance equal rights for African Americans. Two years before the Silent Parade, the NAACP's magazine The Crisis published an article titled "The Lynching Industry", which contained a year-by-year tabulation of 2,732 lynchings, spanning the years 1884 to 1914. During the year leading up to the parade, The Crisis – edited by W. E. B. Du Bois – published a series of articles documenting specific lynchings, including:...Noleander (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
", and they marched in rows" What if you put this in the first sentence in this section (something like "an estimated 8,000 to 15,000 African Americans marched in silent rows."
I'd prefer to leave it in the current location, if you don't mind. The "... marched in rows" is within a pair of paragraphs that are describing the visuals of the parade. Apparently it was quite remarkable: the colors, the gender separation, the attire, the rows ... I think readers are better served by having all the visual aspects presented in a consolidated manner. But I can change it if you think it is required. Noleander (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote q (about the picketing) doesn't really fit, since you've removed discussion of the second instance.
"The Silent Parade failed to reduce the number of lynchings of African Americans" - did the organizers think that the parade itself would reduce the numbers of lynchings, or was it more that they hoped legislation would be passed which might decrease the numbers? To put it another way, would the organizers actually count it as a "failure" that numbers of lynchings did not go down, or would they have expected as much because the federal government refused to take action
Done. That is a good point. I can't find any sources that talk about how the parade organizers felt about the trend of the number of lynchings. The sources themselves do discuss the fact that the number did not decrease after the parade ... but they do so in their own (author's) words, not the parade organizer's words. I changed it to The annual number of African American lynchings increased following the parade and did not decline below the 1917 level until 1923. Lynchings persisted in the United States at least into the 1960s.Noleander (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is looking in good shape, and will probably just have one more round of comments after this. I've made some copyedits myself here, please do check that the changes are acceptable to you. Thanks for your engagement so far, this is an important article! Eddie891TalkWork11:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent feedback, thanks! I reviewed your copy edits and they all look fine. I'll start implementing those suggestions above in a couple of hours. Noleander (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I am happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. I have primarily focused this review on FACRIT 1a-d, and 2a-b, and feel it now meets those criteria. Two final points worth considering, that will not impact my support:
It might be worth mentioning the muffled drums in the section on the parade itself, since you call them out in the lead. I also might mention the legacy of silent parades in the lead, but am not sure
You currently end your "Subsequent silent marches" section with the 2020 parade, but then go back to 2017 in the next section (100th anniversary). Perhaps they could be combined to maintain strict chronology, perhaps that would not be desirable. I am somewhat ambivalent
File:Jesse_Washington_hanging.jpg: first source link is dead
File:Oogle_Doodle_commemorating_100th_anniversary_of_the_Silent_Parade.png: what is the benefit of providing this image on top of just saying a Google Doodle was created?
I removed the Google Doodle image from the article. Regarding cites: A prior reviewer (UC) suggested regrouping them as:
Books & journals: use sfn (and put the sources in "Sources" section)
Newspapers & web sites: use inline <ref> (not in "Sounces" section)
and I agree that is an improvement, so I'm starting to do that now .. should finish within a few days. I'll notify you when that task is done. Noleander (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your patience - you may now resume reviewing the Silent Parade article. I've implemented all suggestions made by reviewers as of 11 June 2025, including (1) Implementing all suggestions from UC; (2) Adopting a new approach to using sfn vs inline refs (namely, sfn for books and journals; inline ref for newspapers, magazines, and websites); (3) Removed the Google Doodle image; (4) Reviewed the additional sources recommended by Eddie, and added about a dozen new sentences into the article based on those sources. The new sources were useful, and resulted in minor, incremental improvements (new insights, new details) but did not introduce any significant restructuring of the article. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Noleander (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article, about a German armored cruiser of World War I vintage, is the next in this series that I hope to have turned into a complete Featured Topic in the not-too-distant future. The ship had a fairly short lifespan, having been superseded by more powerful battlecruisers not long after entering service, and then being sunk in the opening months of the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed working on the last one, and this is clearly in similarly good nick.
Yorck spent the first seven years of her career in I Scouting Group, the reconnaissance force for the High Seas Fleet,: I raised this on the Roon article, but needs a slight change, as the HSF didn't technically exist under that name until 1907.
Good catch, I had forgotten to correct that here
She undertook training exercises and made several cruises in the Atlantic Ocean.: is this particularly notable for the lead? At least the first bit seems very much in the routine day-to-day for a warship.
I don't disagree that it's fairly routine, but the lead should summarize the article, and that line more or less sums up the ship's entire peacetime career, apart from the accidents
I might consider trimming the first bit: the Atlantic cruises do get a lot of airtime in the article, but I don't think we'd say that (for example) a famous doctor spent most of her career treating patients, or that a famous chef spent most of his cooking food. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but on the other hand, those are commonly understood professions - I know that the average reader knows much about what ships do routinely. But I've trimmed the training exercises bit.
Yorck was involved in several accidents, including an accidental explosion aboard the ship : I don't think we need to say that it was accidental twice.
Good point - trimmed (and a couple further down in the body as well)
The launch of the British battlecruiser HMS Invincible in 1907 quickly rendered all of the armored cruisers that had been built by the world's navies obsolescent: I'd suggest a brief comment here as to why -- that it was faster/tougher/had more firepower...
Added a footnote to explain this
Yorck was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Deutschland: two different blue links next to each other not ideal, though maybe a necessary email here. Worth explaining what that name meant? Seems an oddly self-deprecating one to use.
There's an explanatory note, but I've moved it to right after the name to make it clearer - suffice it to say, Ersatz didn't have the WWII-era connotation then
General Wilhelm von Hahnke: why does he get an (approximated) English rank when von Pohl and Schmidt get (full) German ones?
Probably a visceral dislike for the army stemming from my own military service ;) I've added his rank at that time
christened Yorck after Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg, a Prussian general during the Napoleonic Wars by Josephine Yorck von Wartenburg,: comma after Wars. Could consider a link to Napoleonic Wars.
Done (to both)
the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize): if you're going to keep the caps, I would also use a gloss template here -- otherwise, just treat it as a description and do "shooting prize", no quotes.
De-capped
Spithead, Britain, where it was received by the Royal Navy.: this is quite an odd way of giving a location in British terms -- suggest "the British port of Spithead". At the very least, "England" is better than "Britain".
Sometimes people get upset when us Yanks refer to anyplace in the UK as "England", I figured I was playing it safe!
a sortie into the central Baltic, as far north as Östergarn,: I might clarify that Östergarn is on the Swedish island of Gotland.
Good idea
Yorck's commander, KzS Pieper, believed the fog to have cleared sufficiently to allow the vessel to return to port, so he ordered the ship to get underway.: as in the last FAC, I think it would help to give an idea of how long he waited for this.
Updated
The naval historian V. E. Tarrant states that 127 out of a crew of 629 were rescued; ... Hans Hildebrand, Albert Röhr, and Hans-Otto Steinmetz concur with Gröner on the number of fatalities and note that 381 men, including Pieper, were rescued by the coastal defense ship Hagen.: I don't think we can use notes here, as it's clearly a matter of at least some dispute, under MOS:SAID: to use notes means that we're taking a position on that dispute (that Tarrant is wrong).
Changed to "add"
During a series of construction programs to expand the entrance to the Jade: to the what?
Whoops, that was an obvious link to have overlooked
The article says that it's now known as the "Jade Bight", which is probably clearer anyway (at least to those who know what a "bight" is).
Use circa templates to allow an explanation on mouseover.
I always forget to use that...
Dodson 2016 should come before Dodson 2018, surely?
Good catch
the Heimatflotte (Home Fleet) ... the High Seas Fleet: naming style is inconsistent here.
This is a little messy, since the fleet is more or less universally referred to as the High Seas Fleet in English, but references are generally to the Heimatflotte (presumably to differentiate it from the Home Fleet, which overlapped with its existence). I get that it's inconsistent to use the German name for one and the English for the other, but I've opted to follow the usage I've observed over consistency
Hildebrand 1993 -- the ASIN link goes to a 404. The page on ASINs says that a book's ASIN should be the same as its ISBN 10, which clearly isn't the case here.
Oddly, no, not that I've been able to track down. These books were initially published in a 7-volume set, and at some point, were republished into the 10-volume paperback set I have. For whatever reason, the books don't list an ISBN, and Worldcat never updated their listings beyond the original 7-volume set.
Note C needs to be cited.
Good catch, added
Do you know anything about the "Commander Cleve" (imprisoned for a year over the ship's sinking, according to the NYT)? He isn't mentioned in the article, I don't think.
He's not mentioned in Hildebrand et. al. (or anywhere else I've seen - I'd assume he was the executive officer. He's also not listed on the List of admirals of Germany, so this incident didn't enhance his career, it would seem.
Maybe mention that an officer named Cleve was also imprisoned? I think it puts a different spin on the trial -- for one thing, it shows that the Navy didn't just throw the captain under the bus, or even entirely blame him, even though our account suggests that it was (entirely?) his fault. It would be ideal if we could give his position, but I don't think not having it is a reason not to include him in the story. I assume "Commander" can be readily back-engineered into German (one below Captain)? UndercoverClassicistT·C21:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Levensau High Bridge link, but I don't want it to get too wordy
I'll get the Support in now, on the assumption that the fairly minor issues above will be sorted: an excellent article that even I struggled to complain about. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding alt text to the image captions.
Done
There is a typo in the caption for the image File:Yorck - Brassey's Naval Annual 1906.png – Sketch of Yorkby William Frederick Mitchell. It should read "Yorck" instead of "York", and a space should be inserted between "Yorck" and "by".
Good catch, fixed
File:NH 92713.jpg – Could you please verify whether the stated reason for this image being in the public domain is valid? MSincccc (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have much to go on other than the standard NHHC disclaimer that the images it hosts are PD unless otherwise noted. I've not seen this particular photo anywhere else (or that wasn't obviously taken from the NHHC site). The provenance is a bit odd, but there are 27 images credited to Shake; the Army Times uses one of them and cites him, for example. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"She was laid down in 1903 at the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, launched in May 1904, and commissioned in November 1905." Add the month she was laid down, if only for consistency.
Good catch
"which increased horsepower by 2,000 indicated horsepower (1,500 kW) and speed by 0.5 knots". I have problems with this, given that Yorck trialled at 20.4 knots while the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers with which it is being compared managed 20 and 20.5 knots. Why not 'a decrease in speed of 0.1 knot'? I think a judicious use of 'was intended to' may be called for.
Good point - amusingly, none of the German armored cruisers made their intended speeds
"envisioned a force of twelve armored cruisers intended for overseas service". I am not sure that "envisioned" and "intended" works.
"equipped with fewer guns and thinner but more comprehensive armor in a trade-off for higher speed and lower cost." Does this refer to Prinz Heinrich or Fürst Bismarck?
"all in individual mounts in the superstructure and in the hull." A pedant's point, but "and" → 'or'?
Fixed
"and reduced to 80 mm (3.1 in) on either end". Reduced, or tapering?
Tapering works for me
"major fleet exercises every autumn in late August and early September." Do we need "autumn" and "late August and early September"?
Not exactly (especially since neither August or most of September are part of the season), but that's how the annual German fleet maneuvers are generally referred to (for example, Hildebrand et. al. always uses "Herbstmanoever" and Sondhaus in Preparing for Weltpolitik refers to them as autumn maneuvers as well)
"During this period, Erich Raeder served as the ship's navigation officer." This is notable why?
It's not, exactly, and could be trimmed
I would be happy to see it trimmed. Or to see it included, but Raeder's notability mentioned so a readet understands why he gets a mention. Your call.
I removed it, since he didn't do anything of note in the role, so it's probably into WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS territory
"The ship suffered an accident on 2 November when one of her pinnaces detonated a naval mine". Maybe say where this was.
Hildebrand doesn't say, unfortunately
"Yorck thereafter steamed to Kiel, where on 21 May she was decommissioned, the last armored cruiser to serve with I Scouting Group. She thereafter underwent an overhaul and was placed in reserve." "thereafter" as the second word of consecutive sentences. Maybe tweak one of them?
"providing distant support in the event that the raid provoked a British counterattack." I think that it was actually 'providing distant support in case that the raid provoked a British counterattack.' It was providing distant support regardless of whether there was a British counterattack.
Reworded, let me know what you think
"The pilot refused to take responsibility for maneuvering the ship". Could we have a brief in line explanation of who/what a pilot was, per MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")?
The "title" fields of all source, ideally, should use a uniform capitalization scheme. This is optional for FA. FA does not have a fixed convention; many articles use either Title case or only capitalize the first letter. In other words, after you copy the title of a source into a cite/source "title" field, you sometimes need to redo the capitalization.
Source Gray, John Edward (1869) is missing a publisher.
Citation tool reports an issue with source Round, M. C. (1968). ... it says that 1968 is too early for an ISBN. So, the book may have been reprinted & later reprint (after 1968) got the ISBN. You should determine which edition/reprint you read, then update the cite to show that specific year, and if it is the orig 1968, then you should remove the ISBN field.
I read it off the link I put in the source, which seems to be the original so I remove the ISBN (which I had gotten from a Google Books page for the same book). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Thomas, Oldfield; Schwann, Harold (1904). "On Mammals appears to be missing "access-date" field. For allsome sources that have a URL field, you mustshould supply an "access-date" field that states the day you read/retrieved the source from that URL. That field is required so that the Wikipedia citation bot can find and provide archives of the original source website. There may be several sources that need access-date added.
This is not entirely true. For urls that link to old publications (like Biodiversity Heritage Library), an access-date is not required, as these texts do not change. See template:cite book and search for "Not required for linked documents that do not change." Esculenta (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to double-check the "free use" status of File:Drawing of striped weasel, by J. Kingdom Wellcome L0024958.jpg ... I'm not an expert in image stuff, but if that is a photo of a drawing, the "Details" data of the image requires two distinct copyright-free proofs: (a) the original drawing; and (b) the photo of the drawing.
Scrolling to the bottom of the webpage that the image comes shows the text "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence" so I think it is fine. ReconRabbit also seems to have found something supporting it being okay further down below. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: Often associated with termite mounds, the African striped weasel is most commonly seen in savanna and veld grasslands, but has been recorded in a wide range of habitats ... That is an important sentence; it is a bit long. The initial phrase "Often associated with termite mounds" makes it harder for readers to grasp the whole sentence. Suggest removing that phrase from the start and moving somewhere else: maybe a new sentence following this one?
Images: Alt text: all images include alt text, which is good, but I think the alt text guidelines WP:ALT say that the alt text should not begin with "A drawing of.." or "An illustration of ..." .. omit those words. Simply say "A weasel eating some leaves" or whatever. If the alt text ends up being a duplicate of the caption, you can omit the alt text entirely.
Section on Temperament, Territoriality, etc? I'm looking at some other weasel-family articles, and some have a section "Temperament" or "Territoriality" within "Behavior" top section. In this African Str. article: it looks like similar material is in the top "intro" paragraphs under the "Behavior and ecology" section. Consider making a subsection to hold those intro paragraphs, and give the subsection a useful name: that may help readers find material in the article.
File:Drawing of striped weasel, by J. Kingdom Wellcome L0024958.jpg A bit confusing, but Wellcome collection implies CC BY 4.0 license - is this correct, as Noleander states above? The drawing itself is undated and the source page provides little information.
CC BY SA 4.0 File:Termite mound Okavango Delta.jpg
CC BY 4.0 (via iNaturalist) File:Striped weasel camera trap.jpg: This image is okay. There are no good alternatives on iNat that I could find. Could be cropped.
File:African Striped Weasel area.png could be converted to SVG and currently has no transparency. If you want me to do this let me know. Otherwise, has the correct license (IUCN map, VRT ticket etc.) Couldn't help myself: Poecilogale albinucha range I recommend using this map, not only because I made it but because it includes South Sudan.
The height of the skull illustration is so large that it pushes the paws illustration into the next section in all but the narrowest displays. I don't know how much the drawing of the striped weasel adds.
Any lifespan estimate for individuals in the wild?
If one exists in published literature then I have not found it (would not be surprised if it doesn't, this is a secretive nocturnal animal that hasn't been the subject of a lot of focused research). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noleander above that prefixing the habitat description with Often associated with termite mounds confuses the intended meaning of the sentence.
I give a pass on the image review and will give my support for this nomination on the notes I have, given the lack of research on this critter's daily habits. -- Reconrabbit12:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have not been editing in any appreciable amount since 6 days ago. I would give it a little time. Not guessing at any motivations but where I am it is finals week. -- Reconrabbit22:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read this maybe tomorrow or so, had three essays to write and a set of ethics paperwork to fill in recently. Only one essay is left now and it's halfway done and the deadline is more than a week away so I should have time in a bit. Olmagon (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the GA reviewer of this article a few weeks ago, so I figured I'd take a stab at this. These are just some recommendations/comments; not necessarily issues that need to be adressed (ASW = short for African striped weasel).
I do generally do this for a species with known fossil remains but to my knowledge, no fossils of this species have been found (the only article I could find mentioning P. albinucha fossils refers to specimens that were later reclassified as Propoecilogale remains). Also the numbers in the Evolution subsection are estimates of when the African striped weasel lineage diverged from the striped polecat lineage, and do not necessarily reflect the age of the species itself (there could be prehistoric members of the lineage). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarize the contents of the article, but almost nothing about its taxonomy or evolution is mentioned. It doesn't have to be much, but enough for the reader to have a basic rundown of the topic.
You should probably change this species/this weasel/these weasels to the species or the weasel. It reads better IMO and is more grammatically correct.
(lead, par. 1) where it occurs as far north as Kenya and stretches down south to South Africa. I would recommend changing the wording to something like and as far south as South Africa or something along those lines. To me, the wording is a little awkward here. The word stretches is a little ambiguous; you could determine was refering to its range, but because the word "range" is not explicitly stated, it makes it sound like it could be talking about someting else, like the weasel itself stretching or something. Again, you could probably determine what it's talking about but I think changing it would make it just a little bit clearer. The lead should be as clear as possible because it is the part that people usually read, so being clear is especially important here.
(lead, par. 2) Often associated with termite mounds. Again, its important to be as clear as possible here, and this could mean a few different things. Does it live near termite mounds? In them? Does it hunt termites? etc... This is brought up again later in the article in the Distribution and habitat section but is still not explained any further. It is explained in the Behavior and ecology section where it says that they are latrines, so you should mention this in at least the lead section. I would probably remove the mention in the Distribution and habitat section as it kind of unrelated to that topic.
(lead, par. 2) secretive nature feels a bit odd to read. I feel like this phrase would be more appropriate in literature; its a bit "weighted", for the lack of a better word, for a biology article. Maybe say something like "covert lifestyle" or just deleting it would be better wording.
(lead, par. 2 & whole article) There are no known major threats to the species, though it is commonly used in local traditional medicine. This sentence could probably be deleted; the previous sentence already talks about its conservation status so this may be a bit redundant. I remember you saying that no source explicitly says what it's used for in traditional medicine, but the mentioning of traditional medicine here is a little confusing because its not immediately obvious why it would be related to conservation, at least for me, so the lack of an explanation is a bit problematic. If no source says what it is used for though I don't really know how you would fix this. It would be important to mention in the article except for the fact that you can't explain it any further. Unless you could find more info about this you may want to remove mentions to alternative medicine, at least in the lead. I don't really have any good recommendations for what to do here.
(lead, par. 3) It commonly bites its prey in the back of the neck while rolling around or kicking the prey's back likely to attempt to dislocate the neck... The word "commonly" should probably be removed. This suggests that there is another method of hunting, but none is mentioned. Also, the way this is described in the Behavior and ecology section is better worded and much clearer than in the lead. You could just copy & paste it into the lead, and it would read much better IMO.
(tax. & evo., par. 1) "Generic name", and really just the word "generic", should link to genus.
(tax. & evo., par. 2) You should probably link Angola.
(tax. & evo., par. 2) In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported... considered a variety of this species. Could be combined into one sentence. It would flow better IMO. Something like In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported two Zorilla africana specimens from Golungo Alto, Angola. The latter specimen he studied he considered to be a new variety of the species, but Australian explorer... (rest of sentence as in article) would read more clearly.
(tax. & evo., par. 3) The following five subspecies were recognized in the third edition of Mammal Species of the World published in 2005: should have a comma between World and published.
(tax. & evo., par. 5) The most complete fossil specimen of Propoecilogale was... to the Laetoli specimen. It has therefore been proposed to... could be rewritten as The most complete fossil specimen of Propoecilogale was discovered in the Early Pliocene-aged deposits of Laetoli, Tanzania. A younger specimen is known from the Early Pleistocene-aged deposits of Cooper's Cave, South Africa, which shows a larger first molar tooth with a more reduced metaconid compared to the Laetoli specimen. It has therefore been proposed to... You could also add the actual ages of these specimens.
I think it's important to explicitly say "geologically younger" since just "younger" could sound like the Cooper's Cave specimen is of a juvenile or something like that. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(description) The skull and paw images could be moved up so they aren't as in the way of the Distribution and habitat section.
(description) The striped polecat is mentioned a few times in the description section, mentioning it as a closely related species, but you should really mention that it is specifically the most closely related species, as shown in the evolution section. I think this would make the significance of their differences more apparent. Striped polecat should be linked at least once in this section.
Added mention of it being the closest living relative in brackets, also it seems to already be linked in that section (unless that's one of the edits you made). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(description, par. 1) (along with the dwarf mongoose) could be removed.
(description, par. 1) with males larger than females → with males being larger than females.
(description, par. 1) KwaZulu-Natal did not exist in 1978, so a different region should probably be mentioned. Apparently the province was just known as "Natal" until 1994, with the Zulu bantustan being a semi-autonomous area within, so you could probably just use that.
(description, par. 3) As in other mustelids → Like other mustelids.
(description, par. 3) and each digit bears → with each digit bearing.
(description, par. 3) scent glands in the perineal region → perineal scent glands.
(dist. & hab.) They are found from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Kenya in the north, and as far south as southern South Africa → They are found as far north as the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Kenya and as far south as southern South Africa.
(dist. & hab.) Within this region & roadkill carcasses have been collected in agricultural land could be removed. The former is not necessary and the latter just doesn't flow well with the rest of the text.
(dist. & hab.) appears → also.
(dist. & hab.) the weasels may be overlooked across much of their range → their true extent may be larger/greater than previously thought.
(bhv. & eco., par. 1) Active mainly at night, the African striped weasel is a mostly nocturnal animal is redundant. You could remove Active mainly at night.
(bhv. & eco., par. 3) the vast majority of their diet consisting of rodents of their own size or smaller, and will travel into the burrows of rodents to hunt them is a bit redundant. You could write it as ...own size or smaller, and will travel into their burrows...
I feel like using "their" here leaves it a bit ambiguous whether it is talking about weasel burrows or rodent burrows, especially considering the section talks about weasel burrows earlier. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(bhv. & eco., par. 3) Prey is generally eaten whole while the weasel is in a crouched pose, though the feathers and legs of birds and the stomachs of mammals are sometimes left uneaten, and the weasel will not use its front limbs to stabilize its food. is a bit of a run-on sentence. The first and last parts should not even really be in the same sentence in the first place anyway.
(bhv. & eco., par. 4) The article says that A male kept in a cage for two weeks during the winter did not drink at all during this time, but later says that it did drink small amounts of water. You could write ...did not drink almost any water during this time, only occasionally drinking... to be consistent.
(bhv. & eco., par. 5) If the female is receptive, she may express it by moving around him is a little unclear. What exactly is it?
(bhv. & eco., par. 6) and the prominent black and white coloration of the species develops when the young reach 28 days of age → and their prominent black and white coloration develops at 28 old.
(bhv. & eco., par. 7) Vehicular collisions lead to some African striped weasel deaths, as evidenced by roadkill carcasses found in agricultural areas → Some can be victims of vehicular collisions, with roadkill carcasses being found in agricultural areas or something like that. Also, agricultural areas is a bit confusing. Are you just talking about a farm?
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) If this does not ward off the threat → If this fails.
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) ...perineal glands, and the stream can be... → ...perineal glands that can be...
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) Again, striped polecat should be linked.
(conservation) Least Conern → Least Conern species.
(conservation) ...assessments in 2008 and 2015. It was assessed as such because although it is not... feels a little awkward to read. You could do something like ...assessments in 2008 and 2015, citing that although it is not... and combine it into one sentence.
Again, many of these are just suggestions. You don't need to implement all, or really any, of these changes if you think they're unecessary, these are just some things I would do. Edit: I've made a few edits on the page for some of these smaller things; text in a strikethough is already done.
I'll give my support now. I've covered all of the C1 issues and it looks like the folks above adressed their concers with the other critera. Just giving a glance at your sources and they all look reliable and high-quality, so I think you're pretty much set, at least for me.
This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Cayuga. I brought the article to GA status in August 2021. Ever since then, it has been copy edited, and has undergone and a peer review. I have returned from the dead to finally complete the process always intended for this article. Saltymagnolia16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Cayuga.jpg - how do we know it was never published? You have to be able to demonstrate some level of research to make the claim. If you are the individual who runs the site that hosts the photos, where did you get them?
File:Cayuga in service.jpg - image description should be updated to reflect the Marine Review citation as the source, since it gives us a pre-1930 publication
A significant issue with all of these images (save the one from Marine Review) is that, without proof of publication before 1930, there is a possibility that their copyright might have been extended until 2048. See here for further details
I've removed a few of them since they didn't really add much.
As for those remaining, specifically the two of Cayuga on the ways and the blueprints (where I used the wrong licence), I have dug through the US copyright database (both pre and post 1978, and have found no trace of either the blueprints, or the photograph. I have also trawled through maritimehistoryofthereatlakes.ca where most publications relating to Great Lakes maritime history are archived, and similarly found no trace. The image seems to originate from the Richard J. Wright of the Bowling Green State University.
The site hosting those pictures is the Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library, while the collection of images is moderated by maritime historian C. Patrick Labadie. I have emailed him inquiring about the hypothetical publication history of the images, but have not received a reply yet.
@Parsecboy: I have received a response from the library in Alpena. The special collections manager at the library also seems to be unaware of any publication of those two images.
My general impression is that it has some repetitive elements which should be eliminated. For example, you mention 1889 three times in the first three sentences. Couldn't you say something like "SS Cayuga was a steel-hulled American package freighter in service on the Great Lakes in the late 19th century. Built in 1889, she entered service the same year and sank just six year later after being involved in a collision". I would leave out the stuff about the Lehigh Valley Transit Company of Buffalo, New York, and her sister ship. That should certainly be included in the body, but doesn't seem so important as to need to be in the first paragraph of the lead.
Likewise, you mention "package freight" twice. Once you've told us that it was a package freighter, it's redundant to tell us that she was carrying package freight. And on that topic, package freighter links to Lake freighter whose first sentence tells us that's a bulk carrier, so not really a package freighter at all.
six tugboats managed to pull her free that same day, just say "six tugboats pulled her free ...". The "managed to" is editorializing.
Cayuga was involved in a collision with the package freighter Delaware ... The repetition will sound less awkward if you say "another package freighter, the Delaware".
On the morning of May 10, 1895, Cayuga while bound for Buffalo with a cargo of oats, flour and general merchandise I'm guessing while -> was?
A thick fog hung over Lake Michigan This is confusing; Buffalo is on Erie, not Michigan.
Joseph L. Hurd struck Cayuga on her starboard side, tearing a hole in her hull It seems odd that a wooden vessel could tear a hole in a steel hull. Obviously, it did, but this unexpected result deserves some explanation.
I suppose all this stuff in the Background section about iron-hulled ships is interesting, but is it really germaine to this article? I want to know about the Cayuga, but I have to get through this entire long paragraph before she's even mentioned.
The second of five identical sister ships isn't "identical" implied by "sister ship"? And even if it really only implies "mostly identical", is the distinction important here?
I would find some way to simplify all the stuff about her dimensions. Between all the "other sources", and the metric conversions, and the length between perpendiculars stuff, it's just a sea of confusion. How about "Cayuga was approximately 308 feet (xx meters) long, with a beam of approximately 41 feet (xx m) and approximately 23 feet (xx m) deep from (I'm guessing here) her keel to the shearline and a fully loaded draft of 16.5 feet (xx m)" You could then add a footnote which goes into all the details of the different sources.
The cylinders of the engine were 24 inches (61 cm), 38 inches (97 cm) and 61 inches (150 cm) in diameter and had a stroke of 42 inches (110 cm). I had to read this a few times to understand it. Also, the next sentence "Steam for the engine ..." just repeats what was said in this sentence. How about "The cylinders of her triple expansion engine were 24, 38, and 61 inches (61, 97, and 150 cm) respectively, with a uniform stroke of 42 inches (110 cm)". Steam was provided by ...
two 11.1 by 12 feet should be "foot". There's a parameter to the {{convert}} template that makes that happen; adjective=y, maybe?
top speed of about 14 miles per hour (12 kn). I'm curious why mph is the primary unit. I would think it would be kts. Or are Great Lake freighter speeds traditionally reports in mph?
She was propelled by a single, four-bladed, fixed-pitch propeller Another awkward repetition. How about "she was driven by a ... propeller"?
Throughout her career, Cayuga was involved in several accidents, I'd leave out the "throughout her career" part. When else would the accidents have happened?
The first serious incident occurred on April 9, 1890 You previously talked about accidents. In maritime parlance, "incident" and "accident" have specific distinct meanings[7] so make sure you use the right term.
She drifted onto a shoal, broke free ... broke free of what? Broke free of her tow? Or managed to get herself off the shoal?
Cayuga collided with the wooden package freighter Delaware off Cheboygan, Michigan.[8] And?? Don't leave us hanging. Was there any damage? Did they just swap paint and move on?
This takes me to the end of Service history. I'm going to pause here. I've already found a lot of problems and I'm only about half way through. To be honest, that doesn't bode well. I'll let you chew on what I've noted so far and perhaps I'll come back another day to look at the rest.
Regarding the paragraph in the background section, I believe it to be important. There have been multiple references to Cayuga's status as an earlier steel vessel. I can expand it a little with info about issues regarding brittle steel, which resulted in the adoption of an entirely new process.
I can definitely sort the issue with the dimensions. In subsequent articles, I have included alternate source results within notes.
Regarding the "sister ships" section, on the lakes, there have been multiple cases of ships being referred to as "near-sisters" (e.g. the Edward Y. Townsend and the Daniel J. Morrell).
I picked up again with Final voyage, but didn't get very far. Looking at On May 10, 1895, Cayuga, under the command of Captain George Graser, was bound for Buffalo with a cargo of 35,000 or 38,000 bushels of oats, flour and 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of general merchandise.[8][19][28][29] I don't understand why this has four citations. All of the essential facts are supported by the Buffalo Evening News, Friday, May 10, 1895 article, which is the first of the several newspaper clippings aggregated by the maritime History of the Great Lakes. So, I'd just cite that directly and drop all the rest. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to point out the discrepancies between the various sources as to the exact amount of cargo, since this doesn't really add anything to the readers's understanding of the ship or the collission. Maybe just hedge a bit with "a primary cargo of oats and flour, with some additional general merchandise"
You have many places where you support a single sentence with three, four, or even five citations at the end. While this style is allowed (see WP:CITEBUNDLE), I'm not a fan of it. It makes it very difficult to understand which source is supporting which claims. I encourage you to not use this style. I also suspect you are over-citing things. For example, you have Cayuga went down in 25 minutes.[19][32]. Surely it doesn't take two sources to support this one simple fact?
I'm a boat person, so I understand most of the technical terms you use, but the average reader might be lost with length between perpendiculars, beam, draft, triple expansion, fixed-pitch, gale, shoal, breeches buoy, rudder shoe, port, starboard, passing signals, dragging an anchor, scow, pontoon, list (as in "port list"). Many of these you link, but note that WP:TECHNICAL says Articles should be self-contained as much as possible, rather than relying on excessive links to explain unfamiliar concepts.
I'm sure I can sort the citation issue, although it has never caused any trouble before.
As for the technical aspect, I could sort that by including the actual definition in the text, or through a footnote supported by an outside source, if that is the standard practice of rectifying this.
(not a full source review, just some things that I noticed)
Two of the sources are database searches at the Alpena County library. These in turn are used for multiple citations (2020a is 8a – 8l, 2021b is 21a and 21b). I can't find any specific policy that speaks to this, but I don't think these count as WP:RS. As live database searches, there's no guarantee we'll get the same results at different times. And while they do include a list of sources, it's pretty vague, i.e. "Newspaper Clippings" or "Donald V. Baut", so there's no real traceability.
There's a bunch of citations to https://www.greatlakesvesselhistory.com/. As far as I can tell, this is somebody's personal wordpress blog. The author (Sterling Berry, now deceased) appears to have been a dedicated amateur/hobbyist historian of Great Lakes vessels, but this is a WP:SPS and it's not clear if Berry qualifies as an WP:EXPERT.
boatnerd.com is basically a hobbyist site.
straitspreserve.com describes itself as "an all-volunteer, non-profit 501(c)3-approved Michigan corporation" That doesn't prove they're not a WP:RS, but I don't see anything which makes me believe they have the kind of editorial oversight that we want to see in a source.
The citations to The Marine Record/Review are a bit of a mess. For example: The Marine Review (1895f). "The Marine Review (Cleveland, OH), 12 Sep 1895". Cleveland, Ohio: The Marine Review. Retrieved August 6, 2021 tells us three times that it was in The Marine Review and twice that it was published in Cleveland, Ohio (nit: don't abbreviate state names), but leaves out essential information like where to find the item on the page. If there's no useful heading, then at least use at= to describe where to find it ("note near the center of column two"). Also a bunch of the URLs error out with 500's.
I can't figure out where Amherstburg Echo (1895–1896). "Echo Soundings: Marine News of 1895–96". Amherstburg, Ontario: Marsh Collection Society. Retrieved August 6, 2021 is used.
Beaver Island History (2021). "Cayuga" (PDF). Beaver Island, Michigan: Beaver Island Historical Society looks like somebody's personal recollection of diving on the wreck. Not a WP:RS.
The second Alpena source can be dispensed with. I don't really remember why it was even included. The first was compiled by C. Patrick Labadie, a well-respected historian around the Lakes, who has been referenced by NOAA.
The Berry sources can be replaced by those from the BGSU, for identical results.
I suspect the Marine Record URLs might have expired, since the hosting site ran a major domain update a few years back. This article was written before I learned to use ref = CITEREF for sleeker results.
In general, I'm sceptical of diving guides as WP:RS. Looking at Harrington 1998, they are clearly a secondary or tertiary source, yet give no indication of where they get their information from. It is published by "Maritime Press", which I can find very little information about. Bookscouter.com lists 12 books they've put out, 7 of which are by Harrington, so I'm guessing they're some sort of vanity press.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to land on oppose. There's just too many problems here to be sorted out at FAC, and I'm still only half way through the article. RoySmith(talk)16:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say this is worthy of a complete re-write? From your comments, I am getting the distinct impression these aren't an issue which can be ameliorated quickly.
Now you have mentioned the legion of issues with the references which didn't bother me before, I cannot unsee them. Salty🇬🇧20:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the basic story. There is a logical progression from the history of of Great Lakes freighters (even if I think you can trim down the amount of detail you devote to that), to the design of the ship, time in service, its demise, through the salvage attempts and leading up to the current state of the wreck. I would certainly keep that basic structure. The first thing listed under WP:FACR is "its prose is engaging" and I think you've got a pretty good leg up on that. I would start with cleaning up the references, if only because that's a bit of a mechanical process so it's easy to dive into. See where that leaves you. RoySmith(talk)23:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It was the sequel to his Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), in which many of the characters are anthropomorphic playing-cards." Consider "are" → 'were' to avoid confusion as to whether the "in which" refers to Wonderland or "the sequel"
OK. Done. While you're here, Gog, taking note of your comment about the length of the Plot section I've whittled it down to 1,100 words, and as there are existing FAs about novels with Plot sections over 1,000 words I hope the latest version will be found acceptable. Tim riley talk12:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words, my dear Gog, always carry weight, and the more so when you are commenting in line with the Manual of Style, which specifies "between 400 and 700 words" for a plot summary. It adds that if an editor believes more words are needed for a particular article s/he should "be prepared to explain why", which I think I am, for the reasons discussed at PR. Tim riley talk13:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Alice will be a queen if she can advance all the way to the eighth rank on the board." Perhaps a footnote explaining that this is indeed one of the rules of chess?
One point which I fogot to raise at PR: at the moment, Charlton Kings is pretty definitely in Cheltenham. Was that not (yet) so in Carroll's day? From looking at the article, I think that's probably so.
Though I am a great fan of Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hiker's Guide I think we have enough about him and it. I have batted off the idea of an excursus on the number 42 already. Tim riley talk16:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The White Knight contains elements of Carroll himself and of a college friend, Augustus Vernon Harcourt,: I'd be interested to know what these were, if anybody does.
Indeed. Now added a word about Harcourt. I think I've read that the Dodgson element was his unworldliness, but I'll have to rummage to find that before I can add it. Tim riley talk07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a 1933 essay Shane Leslie suggests that in Through the Looking Glass Carroll was satirising the controversial Oxford Movement in the Church of England, Tweedledum and Tweedledee representing high church and low church respectively: I think this whole thing needs a litle bit of context.
I'm reluctant to expand this bit. First, Leslie's theory is by no means universally accepted and I don't want to give it undue prominence; secondly, though Carroll himself was in sympathy with the Oxford Movement, he wasn't prominent in it and didn't make a feature of it; and thirdly, I think the blue links do the job pretty well for readers wanting to know more. (With a few more citations the OM article would be a pretty impressive piece, in my view.) Tim riley talk07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have MOS:NOFORCELINK, so shouldn't rely totally on the blue links. I don't think it would be much of a loss to say something like "the controversial Oxford movement, which sought to align the Church of England more closely with the Catholic Church, with Tweedledum representing "high-church" reformers and Tweedledee representing "low-church" opponents of the movement". I think the idea about Leslie's theory being controversial is separate: if it's going to be in it, it should be explained fully; if it's not worth explaining fully, it probably shouldn't be there at all. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work well: I've experimented in my sandpit and the result takes up far more space compared with the diagram and the columns don't work. I've followed the guidance of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES by transcribing the entire text into the alt text. Tim riley talk08:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: There is a lot on the many famous plot elements and comparatively little on the real world. In particular, wouldn't John Tenniel merit a mention, given that he even had influence on the text?
Link Translations of Through the Looking-Glass, here and in the body? (It is only linked through the navbox at the bottom, and my mind is trained to ignore navboxes).
Illustrations: when did the discussions with Tenniel and others happen? I am a bit confused about the timeline here because "only at his own pace" sounds like Tenniel might have slowed down the book, but "He thinks it possible (but not likely) that we might get it out by Christmas 1869" sounds like the discussions went reasonably quickly (assuming they started after January 1869) and that Tenniel was planning to be reasonably fast.
This has been a bugbear throughout my overhaul: the sources are often vague and sometimes mutually contradictory about the progress of the draft. As I said at PR, I don't think I can be more specific. Tim riley talk17:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have in the "Publication" section that Tenniel did indeed not complete the illustrations until 1871, which would be important context for the discussion? —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I have garnered and used what firm, undisputed dates I can find and I mustn't speculate on the progress of the writing without facts from a WP:RS. Tim riley talk12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wasp in a Wig: "introduced a wasp wearing a yellow wig and includes" tense?
Poems and songs: the "lullaby" link stands out as a bit of an easter egg and does not lead to Alice-related content. Better to say "lullaby based on Rock-a-bye Baby"?
I've been too busy with offwiki things, but before this gets promoted, there is an issue in the Translations section that needs to be looked at. In particular, the "German translation" of Jabberwocky given is not the Christian Enzensberger one from Alice hinter den Spiegeln (because I know that one by heart, and it is "Verdaustig war's, und glasse Wieben // Rotterten gorkicht im Gemank // Gar elump war der Pluckerwank // Und die gabben Schweisel frieben"), but a standalone 1872 joke translation by Robert Scott, who claimed to have produced the German "original" that Carroll had translated into English. While Martin Gardner calls Es brillig war a "magnificent" translation, I personally think it is lame because it just transports the sounds and does not come with a Humpty Dumpty explanation of the portmanteau words etc., unlike Enzensberger's text. There is some of the history of Scott's poem in The Annotated Alice, in the "Looking-Glass House" chapter where Jabberwocky is first mentioned. In my 2000 "definite edition", it is on p. 151. I will try to comment more on translations (one of my favourite Alice-related topics) as soon as possible, but it might not be before the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amended, and added a footnote. (UndercoverClassicist, may I trouble you to run an eye over my transliteration of the Ancient Greek in footnote 15? It is sixty years since I did Greek at school and I may have got a bit rusty.) Tim riley talk07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think that works, although there is quite a lot more that can be said on the subject of translations, given how hard they are to do. (And I wish people wouldn't use Robert Scott's translation, but it is quite popular, for example it [8] appears in Gödel, Escher, Bach. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy with the Plot and Themes sections. What I am missing a little is sales and a comparison of the success to that of the first Alice book. We have that it was critically well received, but very little about the editorial history. (Wouldn't it be worth to mention the existence of The Annotated Alice?) For example, the Looking-Glass is much less translated than the original Alice. (This was certainly true when Warren Weaver wrote Alice in Many Tongues, but I think it is true today and the bibliography in Alice in a World of Wonderlands: The Translations would support that). —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initial sales are covered, and I don't recall seeing any published comparison of the sales of the second Alice book and those of the first. A related article about the post-publication editions and glosses of the two Alice books would be interesting, but the Annotated Alice and Aspects of Alice etc wouldn't fit well in the present article because they are about Wonderland at least as much as about Looking-Glass. I'm sure you're right about the sales of the first -v- the second novel, but I have no WP:RS to substantiate the point. Tim riley talk12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joint editions of both books are common, so I don't really think discussion of these are off-topic (I can offer some related quotes from my sources about translations). If you are looking for further RS, in addition to those I mentioned above, there is this "publishing history" (one of many reviews) that looks recent and useful and could perhaps clean up the remaining Tenniel issues. —Kusma (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still be uneasy about referring here to works that treat Wonderland at least as – and usually more – prominently than Looking-Glass. To my mind this topic belongs in (and merits) its own article. Thank you for the offer about translations, but we already have what seems to my inexpert eye an excellent article on those for Looking-Glass (though to my regret it reflects the book's relative neglect (65 languages) compared with Wonderland (175 languages)) and I don't want to overload the present article. Tim riley talk10:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that not considering works treating Wonderland more prominently than Looking-Glass basically means ignoring three quarters of the reception of Looking-Glass. I do not think that is appropriate. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to have to agree to differ about this. Where any writer clearly refers solely to Looking-Glass that would be fine for mention here, but from my reading I find that most treat Carroll's two Alice books together when discussing themes, style, humour and so forth. Tim riley talk11:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I commented at peer review and the only other point I would make on re-reading is that I would merge the two sections on chess, but that is a matter of opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another happy traveller from peer review. A read through shows it's strengthened since then, so I'm happy to support this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't you just hate it when friends borrow your books but never return them? I can't find my copy of Annotated Alice, but I'm confident that Tim has not left anything important out. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Graham. I can't find my copy of The Annotated Alice either, but happily it's online in an edition later than the one missing from my shelves. I haven't actually read Dante's Inferno but there ought to be a section for people one lends books to and don't return them. Meanwhile your support is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk16:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of these comments are just superficial and more stylistic suggestions, so feel free to disregard those, especially if they might just be BrEng/AmEng discrepancies:
Should "pen-name" by hyphenated? And "nursery-rhyme"?
I guess I should have worded this as "Should "pen-name" not by hyphenated?" for clarity. They're both currently hyphenated in the article. ~ HAL33318:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I've lost the hyphen from pen name, but kept it in nursery-rhyme, where it is in effect a compound attributive adjective, as one would write "the twentieth century" but "a twentieth-century filmstar". Tim riley talk10:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might recommend shortening "or else only just short of it" to the more concise "or else just short"
"Morton N. Cohen suggests" - as Cohen is deceased, should it be "suggested"?
We usually adopt the present tense for what writers, even long dead ones, have written. Thus, "Shakespeare writes in a combination of prose and verse..." and "Homer writes of love, loyalty, piety, honor, self-sacrifice, courage, justice..." Tim riley talk16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might shorten "The brothers begin suiting up for their battle" to "The brothers begin arming for battle"
You're right. "Suiting up" is an odd phrase (I inherited it from an earlier revision). I'm not sure "arming" will quite do given the ludicrous stuff the brothers gather around their bodies, but I'll find a better wording than the existing one. Tim riley talk16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still puzzled at what you are looking for. Both the citations to Amor's book have the page numbers given. You surely can't be suggesting we give them in in the Sources listings as well as in the References listing? I've never attempted such a thing, which seems to me nonsensical. Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also why the FIDE rules and the Wig PDF are formatted differently from the sources section - never mind lacking page numbers.
Links to a pdf generate that symbol willy-nilly. For the chess rule, I think the actual rule number is more helpful to the reader than the page number and it would clearly be unhelpful to have both. The other pdf is now gone. Tim riley talk10:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The principle I follow, and have followed for dozens of FAs, is to put refs to a short or single-page journal article in the citations and to put in the sources section multi-page articles of which I refer to various pages (treating them like books in effect) in the citations. This seems to me to give readers the quickest route into the sources.
The chess rule is somewhat different than stated - pawns that advance to the last row are promoted to any piece - except for king - of the player's choosing (but most people pick queen).
If you read footnote 11 more carefully you will see that that is what it says. (If the Red Queen, Carroll and Tenniel chose to make the queenship automatic I am afraid I cannot go back and rewrite the book, but we have correctly set out the actual rule here.) Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neos Kosmos has its own Wikipedia article. I see no reason to think it less reliable than the other newpapers to which the article refers, but have replaced with the same information from a book source. I inherited the contrariwise citation and as I think the website is distinctly tendentious I have gladly removed the relevant text.
The various books should probably be marked by ref=none so that they don't throw the harv warning.
This is unfamiliar to me. I have taken dozens of articles through FACs without this "ref-none" you mention, and nobody has mentioned a problem with a "harv" warning. Tim riley talk10:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the script installed and cannot see any warnings. It may be best to say which specific sources you see these on so they can be dealt with. I normally add the extra parameter on Tim’s articles when they hit PR, but there was nothing to do this time. - SchroCat (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nosing in to say I'm also seeing the harv errors on all of the books. It seems to be because the short footnotes are generated with <ref> rather than {{sfn}}. When I experimentally swapped one of the existing ones to an sfn format, the harv error for that book disappeared on preview. Fwiw, I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed rather than Trappist's script; maybe that makes the difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PMC. I’ve installed that and can see the messages. I’ll add the workaround now, even though it won’t affect readers, but only those with the script installed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification: I regard as a reliable source any book published by an established and reputable publisher, unless there is clear cause to believe otherwise. (Offhand, over nearly twenty years of editing Wikipedia I can only recall one published book from a well-established publisher that was so full of demonstrable inaccuracies and distortions as – in my view – to fail the WP:RS test, and that was on a subject unconnected with Carroll or Alice.) Tim riley talk13:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I do not for a moment believe that reputable, not to say distinguished, publishers such as Dent and Heinemann publish unreliable books. If you read my earlier reply more carefully you will see that I have already addressed your mention of Bakewell in any case. Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Carroll, Lewis (2004)" is the year right and what is this publisher?
Well, Carroll died in 1898 - was this posthumous? Also "Paris: Ebooks libres et gratuits" sounds like it might be a vanity press or the like if we go by name, hence I was asking about clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a French translation. Carroll wrote in English. Who made this French translation and when the source does not say. If you wish me to substitute a citation to an academic journal – as I say above – I can do so. Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already quite polished. I have made notes on several areas. The notes are a bit long, but the ways to resolve them are probably fairly straightforward and minor.
Is this the only major decision that John Tenniel had affecting the plot? If so, the article should probably state that.
As far as I know, yes, but I have read no unequivocal statement to that effect, and I'd better not speculate in the article. Tim riley talk
Later: Doing a bit more digging I found an interesting article about "Tenniel As Carroll's Reader" but it deals solely with their collaboration on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and is no help in answering your question. Tim riley talk08:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at recent scholarship, it seems the consensus is that the 1974 galley proofs are most likely legitimate, but there are unresolved questions, particularly regarding the handwritten notes. Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass: A Publishing History (2016) by Zoe Jaques and Eugene Giddens says that Selwyn H. Goodacre "goes further to doubt the authenticity of the autograph corrections: 'I conclude that the weight of the evidence is that the proofs are genuine, but that the corrections show signs of another hand.' [...] it provenance before 1974 had not been publicly verified." In some places the Wikipedia article seems to overstate the certainty. For example, "revisions in Carroll's handwriting" could be phrased something like "handwritten revisions" or even "handwritten revisions, likely by Carroll himself".
I've gone for the shorter version: the subsection was already on the brink of disproportionate length and I'm happy to trim it a little on the lines you suggest. Tim riley talk09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section is long and detailed. I think this is fine, and Talk:Through the Looking-Glass#Plot sections explains, "Each of the chapters of the book, except for the brief chapters 11 and 12, is a self-contained episode, similar to a short story." That explanation makes sense, and I think the plot section would benefit from containing some version of that information either at the beginning or at the point where Alice goes through the looking glass.
Rules and logic are a major focus of the book. What do scholars say about this?
In "Logic And Language in Through the Looking Glass", a journal article I downloaded early in my research for this article, I found, "Carroll succeeds in suggesting that the apparent chaos of the dream world is less disorderly than the lack of discipline in the real world, that the problem of appearance and reality has to do with value as well as perception. ... Only in the shallowest sense, however, does the trip through the Looking Glass reveal disorder and nonsense. Carroll's world of fantasy is most profoundly, in its semantic aspects at least, the sort of world for which such a logician as Charles Dodgson might yearn". But this doesn't seem to me to get us very far. And nor does, "But the ultimate point of Humpty Dumpty's method with language is the same as the point of the gnat's exposition of Looking Glass insect life. In both cases, the central revelation is the same: that language, the symbolic representation of experience, has power of its own". Tim riley talk09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense is also a major focus of the book. What do scholars say about this? Also, do scholars comment on the seeming contradiction between the rules and nonsense?
I haven't run across much on this. There is one comment from Hahn to the effect that "the nonsense in the book is even more ruthless than in the first Alice story" but I have referred to that paragraph already in the last paragraph of Reception. Tim riley talk09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I've found a learned article "Wittgenstein, Nonsense, and Lewis Carroll" from 1965, which is interesting:
Since the White Queen thought that Alice's inability to remember things before they happen was due to the poor quality of the girl's memory, she too confused empirical with logical necessity. The White Queen fell into this confusion because in her world (if it is, in fact, a conceivable world), time ran backwards, and in that kind of world it would presumably make sense to speak of remembering "things that happened the week after next" But she forgot that her own memory, too, worked in only one direction (albeit in the opposite direction from that in which Alice's memory worked), and had she remembered it, she would have been blissfully unaware that this, too, was a matter of logical necessity. ... How could the White Queen, for whom time ran backwards, converse with Alice, for whom time ran forwards? Ignoring some minor qualifications, we can say that in Alice's world it is logically necessary that one can remember only things in the past, while in the White Queen's world, it is logically necessary that one can remember only things in the future. Here we may begin to see, if only dimly, the (very important) connections between (i) the distinction between logical and empirical necessity and (ii) certain very general facts of nature being what they are.
I must admit this article opened my eyes to things I'd been missing all these years, such as the above, but it seems to me too specialised for inclusion in a general-readership encyclopaedia article. Tim riley talk08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Most stage and screen adaptations of the Lewis Carroll novels concentrate on the more familiar Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, although many of them import characters from Through the Looking-Glass." I disagree with this statement and don't think it meets WP:V. The cited source is saying something similar but different: "While most adaptations of the Lewis Carroll novels concentrate on the more familiar Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), this musical focuses on Through the Looking Glass (1872) and the more nonsensical and satirical aspects of the fantasy." I read the Wikipedia article as implying that insufficient fidelity could somehow disqualify something from being an adaptation of Through the Looking Glass. In the way that O Brother, Where Art Thou? is an adaptation of Homer's Odyssey, I would say a lot of Alice media adapts this book. Maybe the best way to cover this is to do a paragraph between "Adaptations" and "Stage and cinema" to explain how media draws from both stories and give some of the more notable examples before moving on to cover the more direct adaptations. For example, despite its title, Disney's Alice in Wonderland draws a lot from Through the Looking Glass. Offhand, I think that a lot of Alice media (Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", the Alice games, and so on) uses the chess motifs from the sequel. Tweedledum and Tweedledee also frequently appear in adaptations that cover both books.
Made some minor suggestions at Peer review, but it was already a quality article, and the overall input at PR has only improved it further. Pleased to support. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you KJ, for comments at PR and support here. I struggle to recall another PR from which I derived as much benefit as I did for this article and I am most grateful to you and fellow reviewers. Tim riley talk16:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On prose and completeness this tells the story very well and meets the standards. I made a couple of trifling adjustments to the wording yesterday and today. Gardner's Annotated Alice will likely have a reference to the origin of the nursery rhyme that someone mentioned if you wanted to include it. John (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the second series of British nuclear tests conducted off the coast of Western Australia in the Montebello Islands. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:HMAS_Warrego_by_Allan_Green_SLV_H91.325_78.jpeg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:HMAS_Junee_by_Allan_Green_SLV_H91.108_2689.jpeg.
"before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped would be achieved in 1957" --> something more concise like "before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped to achieve in 1957" or "to complete in 1957", etc.
"thus increasing the rate of fission and therefore the yield" - I am a fan of the occasional "thus" but I find it a bit clunky to have "thus" and "therefore" in the same clause.
The caption "The sloop HMAS Warrego carried out a hydrographic survey of the Montebello Islands" needs a full stop. I also suggest the slightly more concise "Warrego conducted". There's the same issue with the following two captions as well.
"but the boosting effect of the lithium deuteride had been negligible because the process had not been fully understood" - How was it not fully understood?
"British official historian, Lorna Arnold" Official in what regard? Was she associated with a specific department?
An official historian is one engaged by the government to write history, and is given access to all the documents (which may not be declassified for many years). Arnold was the historian at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Added this. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rational between the yellow headers in the table? I might understand if it was purely alternating, but yield is skipped.
Define acronym: They were augmented by RAN vessels, designated ... I'm guessing Royal Australian Navy, but other readers may benefit from the acronym being defined here or earlier (I looked but could not find it defined above)
Clarify ...of works to schedule a scientific rehearsal for 27 April. A second scientific rehearsal was held on.... I've never heard the term "scientific rehearsal" before. "Dress" is about the only modifier before "rehearsal" that will be familiar to readers, I think. Do the sources define what it is? I'm guessing some kind of partial rehearsal that omits .... what?
Plainer wording: Because fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, in the light of Beale's announcement that G2 would be smaller than G1, an impression was generated that something had gone horribly wrong. That is a tough sentence to parse :-) Both "Because fallout .." and "in light of Beales" are reasons. Which one of the two (or both?) casued the "impression" to be "generated". Maybe The fallout detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations caused Beale to decide to make G2 smaller than G1. This change in plans generated the impression among [who?] that something had gone horribly wrong.
Re-worded: "Beale had announced that the G2 test was going to be smaller than G1, so when fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, newspapers reported something must have gone horribly wrong." Hawkeye7(discuss)19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetize categories? Not sure if that is required for FA or not. When there are more than 10 or so categories, it does help readers hunt for categories. But this article only has 5 cats, so maybe not important.
MOS:CATORDER: "Beyond that, the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."
I ran the "Show Ref Check" tool, and it flagged about six sources as "Missing archive link", but I checked one of them, and it had an "access-date" field, so I'm not sure why there is no archive link yet. Maybe the bot hasn't come around the the article yet.
Summary Table: I like it: very useful presentation of data. I wish more articles had tables like that (vs 100% prose).
All the nuclear test articles have them. Another user generated them with a bot.
Clarify In fact, since Narvik had arrived in March, not a single day had been suitable. Good weather conditions alone were insufficient because the meteorologists had to accurately forecast them. That might be a bit confusing to some readers. Maybe The tests could only proceed on days when meteorologists forecast good weather and the weather was actually good. Since Narvik had arrived in March, no day had met both conditions (although several days were good, they were not forecast to be good). Or something like that.
InfoBox: Having two images (movie & map) at the top of the InfoBox will push important InfoBox text (country, etc) way down, especially on smaller devices. Consider moving one of the two (map or movie) down to bottom of InfoBox, or just below the InfoBox, or even lower in the article. Not a show-stopper for FA, just a suggestion.
Was the promise kept? ... but promised that the yield of neither test would exceed two and a half times that of the Operation Hurricane test. After reading that sentence, EVERY reader will want to know if the promised limit was respected. Even if it is stated later in this article, can you add a footnote to this sentence that states something like: "The yields of G1 and G2 were less than 2.5 times the Hurricane test" or conversely "The yields of G1 and G2 vastly exceeded 2.5x the yield of the Hurricane test" ? Even if readers have the time to search for the answer, that kind of detail is hard to locate in an article. A footnote here will make many readers happy.
It's complicated. As the article (and the lead) relates, the limit was changed, and there were unsubstantiated allegations that the yield was higher than reported. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More precise wording The second test in the series, G2, was the largest ever conducted in Australia. Some readers may think that means "... was the largest test at the time (but bigger tests came later)". Consider The second test in the series, G2, remains the largest ever conducted in Australia.
Define/clarify: In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists ... Many reader will not know that "thermonuclear " in this context is a synonym for "hydrogen bomb" (used earlier in the article). Consider helping the reader make the connection.
More encyclopedic wording? In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ... The first phrase "In thinking about.." is a bit vulgar/idiomatic. Maybe When considering thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ...
Dirty Dick was the nickname given to a London eccentric from the eighteenth century. A disgustingly dirty man, his hardware shop was so filthy it would attract visitors just to see how bad it really was. He's achieved a form of immortality since his death, firstly as the probable inspiration behind Miss Havisham in Charles Dickens's 1861 novel Great Expectations, and secondly in the pub named after him near Liverpool Street - a favourite drinking hole of mine back in the early 90s when I was a student. Any constructive comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"dressed in a dandified manner, and was given the nickname "the beau of Leadenhall Street". He met Louis XVI of France and attended his coronation; he was a patron of the London pleasure gardens at Ranelagh in Chelsea and Vauxhall in Kennington." Was all of this only prior to his epiphany, or did it continue afterwards?
"and soon acquired the nickname". "soon"? Soon after what?
"Bentley was also lampooned in verse". "also"?
"There was speculation that the cause of the change in Bentley was because of the death of his fiancée on the eve of their wedding." Was he engaged? And did she die?
A few tweaks needed, but nothing important enough to stop me supporting straight away. Gog's comments, above, are very much ad rem, and these are my few additional comments:
"Louis XVI, who he met" – "whom" please.
"Philip Carter, Bentley biographer" – looks a bit odd to me: perhaps "Bentley's biographer"?
Image caption: "Dirty Dick's pub on Bishopsgate" – it really will be sleeve-across-the-windpipe time if you persist, yet again, in inflicting the Americanism "on so-and-so Street" on us rather than the native English "in so-and-so street".
"Miss Havisham ...Miss Haversham" – right the first time and wrong the second.
That's my lot. Happy to support. For such a brief (though by no means too brief) an article it is impressively widely sourced, the text is lively and readable, the illustrations admirable. I am happy to support its promotion to FA. (Is it just me who worries a bit about SchroCat's frequent choices of subject?) Tim riley talk19:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's about a truce. They all promised to stop fighting and went off to Avignon for a very serious chat with the Pope, who was very disappointed with them all. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheery and optimistic topics? I can't think of any interesting ones that would hold my attention, to be honest!Many thanks, Tim, all sorted to your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest shortening "and it is possible that Bentley's locked dining room was the inspiration for the locked room..." to the more concise "and Bentley's locked dining room may have inspired the locked room..."
It may be BrEng convention, but is another comma needed after "cats" in "contents, including mummified rats and cats"?
"the cause of the change in Bentley was because of the death" - The repetition of cause/because is slightly awkward.
What makes "Allingham, William (1860). Day and Night Songs; and the Music-Master: A Love Poem. London: Bell and Daldy. OCLC 645113276." and "Wilson, Derek A. (1983). Extraordinary People. London: Pan. ISBN 978-0-3302-8288-8." a reliable source? What's "The European Magazine" and "Household Words"? The linking of IA is a bit inconsistent, e.g this one isn't linked.
Is there anything about either Allingham or Wilson that you think makes them unreliable? Both seem appropriate for the information they are supporting.
"The European Magazine" and "Household Words" are two long-defunct magazines, but the information they are supporting is that two poems existed, which both demonstrate. Household Words has an extra level of notability by being edited by Dickens (which is why it was used, given the connection with Miss Havisham.
The one you’ve linked to is a different edition to the one we cite, which is why I didn’t link it.
With Allingham, I think the reason you can't find anything is that it's an old and now-defunct company, but it's now part of the reliable publisher Allen & Unwin (see George Bell & Sons for more history). Pan Books has been around since the 1940s, is deemed reliable, and is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers. The late Derek Wilson, who wrote the Pan book, was a respected historian - see here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem if this is ambiguous in the sourcing, but were the fiancee's existence and her death real? Or were they rumors too?
~sigh~ I wish I knew! Some sources treat it like the truth, others make their disbelief clear, but no-one is terribly clear or has provided enough proof to make is obvious either way. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made two minor tweaks in Legacy - one to turn "Dick's" into "Dicks" in the caption, and one to de-capitalise "the Dirty Warehouse", both consistent with the rest of the article
@FAC coordinators: Is there any chance I could pop in a second nom? It's been open for two weeks, I've got three supports and the image and source reviews are clear on this one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1342. A new front has opened in Brittany and both sides have their problems during the winter campaign. A truce is hastily agreed, with peace negotiations to follow - personally mediated by the Pope. The French think that the English will now go home and a peace treaty will be agreed. The English, well, read the article. Another in my occasional efforts to balance the blood and gore in most of my output. Recently knocked into shape, GANed, and now offered up for you to grumble about. Have at it! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"one of Philip's senior advisors" – unexpected Americanism. One might expect the traditional English "advisers".
Whoops.
"The fleet was depleted by most of its ships deserting" – gerund time! To be grammatical this should have a possessive apostrophe after "ships" but that would look pretty awful, and I suggest something like "The fleet was depleted when most of its ships deserted"
Ah, they're back! Hmm. Would "The fleet was depleted by the desertion of most of its ships" work?
"large detachments were sent on chevauchees" – chevauchees! Gog's in his heaven, All's right with the world, as Browning nearly has it.
I am happy to spread a little joy in this vale of tears which we mockingly call life.
"the French commenced the 50 miles (80 km) journey" – I know, because you've told me, that battles traditionally commence, but I'm blest if I can see why journeys can't just start or begin.
It's a perfectly good word. Did one bite you when you were young? Switched to began.
From Fowler (2015, p. 166): "It is a sound rule to use begin in all ordinary contexts unless start is customary (the engine started straight away; he starts work at 9 a.m.; the game started on time). Commence has more formal associations with law (to commence an action) and procedures, combat (hostilities commenced on 4 August), divine service, and ceremonial ... As a general rule it should be reserved for such contexts." And, for light relief, from Noël Coward: "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!" Tim riley talk14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"With both sides disinclined to commit to battle negotiations ..." – you and I see eye-to-eye on being sparing with commas, but I think one after "battle" here would help the reader's eye along the line.
I do like the idea of "battle negotiations" but you are correct. Inserted.
"all of the English would leave for home" – do we need the "of"?
Nope.
"William Bateman, the dean of Lincoln ... the Dean of Clerment" – not sure why one dean is capitalised and the other isn't.
Because the latter "is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" while the former isn't. Don't look at me like that! That's what the MoS requires.
That's all from me. A brilliantly good read, and I look forward to signing on the dotted line for the promotion of this article to join its fellow Gog productions on the Hundred Years' War. Tim riley talk20:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dotted line now signed on. Even by the impeccable standards of Gog's Hundred Years' War articles this is outstanding, in my view. Meets all the FA criteria in spades. Tim riley talk14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could the relevant language template be added to the article?
Added.
Lead
"...to negotiate an end the war." → "...to negotiate an end to the war."
Whoops. Done.
"There, mediated by Clement,..."→"There, mediated by Pope Clement VI,..."
Good catch. Done.
Background
Could "Flemings" be linked to the article on Flemish people?
Smacks of overlink to me, but done.
Breton Civil War
As per MOS:ALTCON, "Charles of Blois" should be named here:
A pen and ink drawing of the head and shoulders of a bearded man in early modern style
I disagree. Charles is not a near-random example of a class - as in the first bullet point of ALTCON - but an important personality in the account, so bullet point 2 applies.
"...with King Philip's oldest son, John, Duke of Normandy, in command."→"...with King Philip's eldest son, John, Duke of Normandy, in command." ("Eldest" is preferred when referring to people, especially within a family.)
"Christmas Day (25 December) 1342" → "on Christmas Day 1342"
In a different article UndercoverClassicist commented "Once started, the French advance was rapid; it was Christmas Day: I would include "25 December" per WP:POPE: not everyone will have an instinctive sense of when Christmas Day is, and we wouldn't write e.g. "this happened on Yom Kippur" and expect everyone to know when we mean." I am not an enthusiast, but the MoS would seem to be against us.
As per MOS:ALTCON, "Pope Clement VI" should be named here:
It was a pleasure reading through the article. I have made a few minor suggestions above and hope they are helpful. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MSincccc, that is kind of you. It is good of you to run your eagle eyes over my articles so frequently. Some done. I'll wrap the rest up in a bit. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have reviewed some of these sources already, but "The Three Edwards: War and State in England " is apparently two books with the same title? Otherwise, it looks like the source formatting is consistent and the reviews of the sources are good too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's me - yet again! - confusing Edward the Third and The Three Edwards! Now sorted. Apologies Jo-Jo and thanks for both the prompt review and for picking up my sloppy referencing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a shame not to have any image in the lead, I think. I wonder whether the Chapel of the Madeline would work -- either the plaque or something like this one, where we could say "this is the place where all of this happened".
Excellent idea. Done.
on 19 January 1343 in Malestroit, Brittany with the intention of pausing: comma after Brittany per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
Inserted.
The immediate effect was to allow the Flemings to join his cause without technically becoming rebels by disowning their fealty to the French crown: I think the by clause is slightly grammmatically ambiguous (does it modify join his cause or becoming rebels) -- suggest "to join his cause without disavowing ... and therefore without technically ...".
Done.
The extent to which Edward may have considered the claim more than a negotiating position is unclear: any reason not to cut may have?
Cut.
On 7 September the French army arrived, but Philip held it back to ensure there was no risk of a general battle occurring: what is the word general doing here -- was he happy for part of his army to fight a battle?
Removed.
Edward was unable to meet his commitments, the English Crown was bankrupt, and Edward fled the continent in order to avoid his creditors.: the elegant variation of English Crown confuses me a bit: I'm not sure I see a distinction between the Edward who couldn't meet his commitments and the Crown that had no money. I'd suggest picking a lane: perhaps "Edward was bankrupt and unable to meet his commitments; he fled...". I appreciate I may be missing a subtlety here.
If I switched "Crown" to 'treasury' would it be clearer?
It would, but I think I'd still have the same query. Is the distinction because England's wealth didn't, in theory, belong to Edward personally? If so I'd be confused by the walk between the "treasury" having no money and "Edward" having creditors. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is more there being no such thing as a corporate England to have money. Taxes and customs were granted to the Crown, but I prefer to not use that word, nor to get too far into the weeds of Medieval national financing. I simplify but slightly. Hmm. That gives me an idea. Hows about 'The English government was bankrupt, meaning that Edward was unable to meet his commitments and he fled the continent in secret.'?
The French King correctly suspected: lc king (I think this came up in the last one).
Done. Although I am not wholly convinced that the "title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" doesn't apply.
but had extreme difficulty in assembling ships: sounds a bit like IKEA. Securing/procuring/obtaining?
You've been doing too much DIY. Used in the sense of "To gather as a group".
Oh, no, I'm completely aware of that meaning, but we've also created an unfortunate double meaning that's easily avoided; I think an alternative verb would be an unmitigated benefit. It certainly sounds like the problem wasn't gathering them (that is, he had them but couldn't bring them together), but actually getting control of them in the first place -- if not, the footnote makes little sense. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't suppose you would be amenable to 'persuading the captains to do what they were damn well told'? I have gone with "mustering", which is both happily unambiguous and suitably military.
By July Joanna was besieged: I would extend the link on "besieged" to either or both of the preceding words, to be clear that we're not going to an article about sieges in general.
Good point.
Note 3 needs a full stop.
Inserted.
switched their allegiance to the Montfort cause: not Montfortist (like "the Royalist cause", "the Jacobite cause", etc)?
Corrected.
King Philip's eldest son, John, Duke of Normandy, in command.: this is linked to John, King of England, who was surely getting on a bit by then. I think it's meant to be John II of France.
Thank you. Fixed.
the French began the 50 miles (80 km) journey west to the Breton border.: singular mile ("a two-week holiday"). I would hyphenate, even with figures: the convert template has a parameter to do that too.
Done.
Edward suspected that everything they saw would be passed on to the French: could be more precisely phrased: he means that they would inform the French about what they saw, not that e.g. his clothing and tableware would be physically handed over to the French.
Rephrased.
Foulques of Chanac, bishop of Paris; the Dean of Clermont; Louis of Cerda, prince of Fortuna; Louis of Poitiers, count of Valentinois; and Simon Bucy, president of the Parlement of Paris.: this is a real MOS:PEOPLETITLES workout. Generally, you've capitalised titles like this (see earlier Annibaldo Caetani, Bishop of Frascati–Tusculum; and Pierre Desprès, Bishop of Palestrina–Praeneste), so all should be capitalised (except maybe president) -- on the other hand, the Dean makes it a description, so no capital there.
The MoS states: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: ..." Which of the three following options do you consider to apply in the cases currently in lower case? And the MoS specifically allows a definite article "e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the President, not the president (referring to Trump)", so an upper-case D for Dean
Ah -- I'd misread the dean; I thought that was another of Foulques' titles, but the semicolon says otherwise. I think we're in When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description, the corresponding example being Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016 -- I would read "Louis of Cerda, Prince of Fortuna" as equivalent to "Louis of Cerda, [otherwise known as the] Prince of Fortuna". I'm not sure I'd be too upset if you were to dissent and decapitalise, but I would expect you then to make that consistent with e.g. Caetani and Desprès. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Apologies for the inconsistency and thanks for spotting it. (I think I was so happy to finally turn up the names of the cardinals - in an obscure French source - that I wasn't concentrating.) I don't think we are in exemption three territory, so will go with lower case, which I hope is now consistent.
They did not meet face to face, but each group talked to Clement, who conveyed messages between them. The terms of the truce required Clement to be neutral, but everyone involved believed he was pro-French and his behaviour outside the bounds of the conference did nothing to dispel this idea.: everyone involved? There also seems to be a bit of an elephant in this room -- Clement wasn't just pro-French; he was French.
"everyone involved". Seems a fair summary of the source. Would you like me to quote so you can judge?
Nationality was less cut and dried in those days. Perhaps pertinent was his previous role as one of Philip's senior advisers. This is mentioned when he is introduced.
This is true on both counts. Can we go stronger to "understood that he was pro-French" or similar -- that is, be clear that this was a true belief (as we've said earlier). I take the point about nationality being less clear-cut, but he was born with the name Pierre, in a chateau, in Limousin, and his dad had the title of "Lord of Maumont-Rosiers-d'Égletons" -- I can't really see a way he could have been more French! UndercoverClassicistT·C16:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more I dig, the more nuanced it gets. He was never a full-time advisor, and was against the war when Philip was considering it. He may have sworn fealty to Edward for an abbey in Normandy at one point in his career. I want to oblige you, but the sources are cautious. Full of "the English believed that" and "the English blamed" they don't come out and say he was he was partial. There are examples of his arbitrated things in Philip's favour, but prior to the collapse of the talks they are all relatively trivial. I can rearrange the words, but I don't see that I can strengthen his pro-Frenchness.
OK, then we need to look again at In May 1342 Clement VI became pope. He was strongly pro-French and had previously been one of Philip's senior advisers further up. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was meant to include all mentions of Clement/Pierre. I looked at that. I have looked at it again. It seems a reasonable summary of the sources. If I were to change anything it would be to remove "strongly". But I assume you wouldn't like that. If you would like Clement's intro to say something different, could you tell me what and why and I'll see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm understanding: you seem to be saying that we should call him "strongly pro-French" as a matter of fact on first mention, because that's what the sources say, but we can't call him "strongly pro-French" as a matter of fact when we talk about the conference, because the sources don't support that? UndercoverClassicistT·C20:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was mutual. No problem. I dislike repeating myself in articles, so I didn't describe his attitude again, but what was generally thought of him. But if you think it is better to replace this by a more general description, then tweaked to "The terms of the truce required Clement to be neutral, but his behaviour outside the bounds of the conference was generally supportive of the French and the English were deeply distrustful of him." Does that work for you?
Can we contextualise the portrait of Clement -- I think it's contemporary, for example; is there any chance it's from life?
It's from the Chapel of Saint-Martial in the Popes' Palace in Avignon. The work was commissioned by Clement while he was pope and finished during his life, so we can be fairly certain that the painter(s) had seen Clement close up. But I cannot find anything anywhere flatly stating this, never mind if he posed for the image. IMO he almost certainly did, but that's OR. [UC: wonky link removed], for example, goes into great detail, but not on the things we want it to.
After four rounds of mediation Clement handed over the role of intermediary to a pair of cardinals: I assume we don't know who they were?
'Fraid not, despite much hunting. (Including through the French sources - in an attempt to find something to keep Jo-Jo happy.)
Several suggestions were put to the English delegation by which either England generally or Edward personally gave up the claim to Aquitaine in exchange for territorial compensation elsewhere: would give up, as these were hypotheticals.
Done.
Worth saying that Henry of Grosmont was Duke of Lancaster?
Ok.
on the orders of the French King was arrested and executed: the French king. Worth saying that the arrest was for treason?
Ok.
burnt a path of destruction: I think MOS:CLICHE applies.
Tweaked to cleve a little more closely to the source.
originally due to expire on 7 July 1348 it was repeatedly extended: I know I'm more comma-happy than you, but I think we really need one after 1348 here for the fronted adverbial phrase.
Not IMO, but added anyway.
I would pull the link on "full-scale war" to cover "reverted to" as well.
Done.
Note 1: By English common law, the crown was required: capitalise Crown, and perhaps link "common law"?
Done.
The giant caption on the plaque is actually still a sentence fragment, so MOS:CAPFRAG applies. I'd consider reworking it so that it does end in a complete sentence, and therefore a full stop.
Done.
Brittanica. Encyclopædia Britannica (in the Charles citation): one of these spellings isn't right.
A coin has been tossed.
English and War at Sea, c. 1200-c. l500 (in Friel): I think that's an L in front of 1500.
Eagle eyed. Thank you.
Fowler 1969 -- why ISBN and OCLC?
Belt and braces? OCLC scrapped.
Bove and Biget -- dash in title.
Fixed
Does Mortimer's biography meet the HQ part of HQRS -- how scholarly vs popular is it?
Well, he's a prize-winning fellow of the Royal Historical Society and it's published by Pimlico. I have a paper copy and found it accessible and with a PoV to push - the former being more common than the latter in my experience. It didn't suffer from my reading Ormrod straight afterwards. I could pick at several things, but not at whether it is HQ.
Spaces after Rodger's initials (I still need to read his stuff!)
I am getting his third and final volume for my birthday in a week. I envisage being off Wikipedia for a while.
Williamson is a very old source, only used in a multi-cite. Is it supporting anything that can't be found elsewhere?
I like Williamson. He is the source for "By English common law, the crown was required to compensate the owners of ships impressed into service". Substituted and the note rephrased.
Fryde et al -- personally, I would spell out all the authors in the biblio, if not in the citation (I think the SFN automatically abbreviates very long lists into et al). This would be of more help to readers trying to find the book, though admittedly they almost certainly have enough to do so anyway.
I do spell them out. But then use a parameter to force et al after the first because there is a regular reviewer who insists on it. Parameter removed and fingers crossed.
Afternoon UC and thanks for once again wading though my messy prose. I have now, I think, addressed all of your comebacks and over to you. (PS I liked Pro Plancio: as soon as I saw the hook I knew it had to be one of yours.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's everything: I'll put a support in, though it's not impossible that something trivial will crop up when I give it another look. Very kind of you about the Pro Plancio, as well. I'm not sure anyone has ever been quite so complimentary about the speech itself. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Ballad of a Homeschooled Girl", which holds the distinction of being her only one to be nominated in a Rock category at the Grammys (unfortunately, "Obsessed" was snubbed). My fiancé's favorite song on Guts, this one perhaps depicts Rodrigo experiencing even more embarrassment than she did on the last one I nominated. There is also a reason I saved this for Pride month, as you will find out upon reading the article... Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ11:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this one when I have a bit more uniterrupted time. One thing that jumps out after a skim read is that "with an all-female five-member band and two background singers in a silver two-piece outfit" makes it sound like both singers (or possibly even all seven people) had somehow been crammed into a single two-piece outfit, so this could do with rewording....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are high-quality and appropriate for a potential FA and are fitting for a music topic. The citation method is consistent and the citations themselves are structured well. I have some minor comments on the citations below:
The link for Citation 26 (here) goes directly to the entry on "Get Him Back!" rather than to the entry on the song that this article is actually about.
I am uncertain that the ISSN number for Citation 30 (linked here) is really necessary or particularly useful. None of the other citations include ISSN numbers.
Citation 41 (here) should clarify that a subscription is required to view the full article. I have a similar comment for Citation 42 (this one) and Citation 49 (this one) . I think that these are the only ones that would need this added, but if I notice anything else similar to this in the my spot-check, I will let you know.
I will do spot-checks (to make sure that the information cited in the article is supported in the citations) once my above comments have been addressed. Hopefully, getting the source review out of the way near the start of the FAC will help the process go more smoothly. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Aoba47. I think I have addressed all of your above comments. I agree that getting the source reviews done early in the process is beneficial, so I really appreciate this.--NØ17:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything so far. I have done a spot-check of random citations to see if the information is supported in the sources. Mostly everything matches up, but I do have some comments below:
Citation 33 (MusicOMH) requires a subscription to view the full article. I would clarify that in the citation. Apologies for missing this one.
I believe that this part, (less of a well-calculated political critique and more resembled a "stream-of-consciousness journal entry"), reads a bit too closely to the source (less like a well-thought-out political critique and more like the stream-of-consciousness journal entry). For reference, this is sourced from Citation 34 (The Line of Best Fit). I believe that revising it further would be beneficial. Maybe something like: (thought the song more so resembled a "stream-of-consciousness journal entry" rather than a well-calculated political critique)?
I have a similar concern to this part, (and Clash's Alex Berry believed the lyrics offer wisdom and comfort while maintaining the relatable and confused voice of a young person navigating the world), which is sourced through Citation 44 (Clash). The source uses "confused voice of a young person trying to navigate the world", which is very close to "confused voice of a young person navigating the world". I would either use the quote from the source or paraphrase it more in your own wording.
I am uncertain about this part, (it showcased Rodrigo's skill of bringing a ballad's emotionality to a song without that type of production). It is being sourced through Citation 36 (Beats Per Minute), but I read the source a bit different than what is represented in the prose. The source says that the song is a "tour-de-force of the artist’s ability to bring the aching vulnerability of a ballad to a pop-rock sound". I interpret it as saying that "it showcased Rodrigo's skill of bringing a ballad's emotionality to a pop-rock production". The article's current wording makes it sound like the source is saying that Rodrigo can bring the emotion of a ballad to a song that does not have a ballad production, but I think the source is focusing more on the pop-rock sound. That is just my interpretation though.
Are three citations necessary for this sentence: (On October 24, she reprised the song on Jimmy Kimmel Live!)? I understand if they are needed, but it just seems like a lot to say this.
As a rule of thumb, I consider four or more citations for a sentence overkill and anything lesser a matter of editorial preference.
I agree. My concern was not about citation overkill, but I was just curious on why three citations would be needed to say that she performed a song on a talk show at a certain date. I would think that could be covered in just one, unless the information is scattered in parts and could not be sourced to a singular citation. It is not a major issue so it would not hold up my review in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some additional context could be added for this part, (Rolling Stone's Tomás Mier believed they constituted a set which harkened back to Rodrigo's teenage years). I believe that Citation 74 (Rolling Stone) specifies that this harkening back to Rodrigo's teenage years was done through "some yearbook-esque imagery that referenced her past", rather than just through the songs themselves.
This is admittedly outside of the parameters of a source review, but do you think that linking guacamole for "guac" would be helpful? I think that it would be obvious to a lot of people, but I would be curious if non-English speakers for instance may be familiar with this shortened form of the word? For that reason, a link may be helpful here.
Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that I am able to help with this FAC. I left a response to clarify my point regarding the Jimmy Kimmel Live! citations, but it is nothing major and would not hold up my review. I did make a small copy-edit to the article, but feel free to revert this if you disagree with it. Everything looks good to me, and I have marked this source review as a pass. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Rodrigo was homeschooled as a teenager and missed out on a regular high school experience. The song draws inspiration from this"- this could be compressed to "The song drew inspiration from the fact that Rodrigo was homeschooled as a teenager and missed out on a regular high school experience.
"He plays guitar, percussion, and drum programming" - I don't think you really "play" drum programming. I would suggest "and programmed drums"
"In the United Kingdom, it debuted at number 20 on the Official Audio Streaming Chart and Billboard." - this doesn't seem to make sense. How did it debut "on Billboard" (a US publication) in the UK?
Billboard also has a "U.K. Songs" chart, which we are apparently allowed to include when a song didn't crack the Official Charts Company's main singles chart.
I didn't realise that. In that case I would change it to "It debuted at number 20 on the United Kingdom's Official Audio Streaming Chart and on Billboard's UK Songs chart". I don't think saying that it charted on a Billboard chart "in" the UK is totally accurate as, while it's (apparently) based on UK data, the chart is published in the United States.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"also reached national record charts at number 17 in Ireland" => "also charted at number 17 in Ireland"
"Rolling Stone's Tomás Mier believed they constituted a set"- "they" is a bit vague, maybe say "Rolling Stone's Tomás Mier believed that the three songs constituted a set"
"lots of confusion, mistakes, awkwardness & good old fashioned teen angst", from a look at your other FAs the quote credits Rodrigo as well. Would it be relevant to include that she said this to avoid confusion?
The song was included in the concert film, would it be redundant to put information regarding that here?
Arconning, I think I have completed addressing everything in this list of comments. Highly appreciate you taking the time to review this.--NØ09:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sour's producer, Dan Nigro, returned to produce every track on it." do we need 3 refs for this one? Seems like ref overkill to me...
Same concern with: "The song drew inspiration from the fact that Rodrigo was homeschooled as a teenager and missed out on a regular high school experience"
More than three would be overkill. Three is an adequate amount for the claim made here.
Also I would use the params |last= and |first= in {{Cite AV media notes}} for the album liner notes ref, instead of putting Rodrigo in the |others= param
I mean, is there any reason the practice around this would have changed...? Articles like Shake It Off were promoted with the artist in the Other parameter.
"The song became available for digital download on the album, which was released on September 8, 2023" assuming this was released by Geffen Records; I'd also suggest adding a third-party ref for the label
Just added the label name. This is verified by the ref already present. Turning to Shake It Off as a reference point again, you used 7digital which is a similar service to Apple Music which is cited here
Not sure if the dig at Bassett would qualify as WP:GOSSIP...
Stating that Rodrigo took a "dig at Bassett" would, but stating that some people had that interpretation is not. Some having that interpretation is a verifiable fact and not speculation.
Do we have the studio for mastering?
Unfortunately not.
"According to John Murphy of MusicOMH, it begins like a Weezer song,[33] incorporating grungy guitars and quiet-loud dynamics.[10][32]" pretty sure [10] and [32] are not attributed to Murphy and thus this is SYNTH...
"vocalizing in a "bratty" way" I think we need an attribution for "bratty"?
I think there's a missing comma before "according to Billboard's Jason Lipshutz"
Does "AH-ah" follow the right capitalization..? Shouldn't it be "ah-ah" instead?
Not sure we should alter capitalization from the original print source, considering it is a direct quote.
Inconsistent tense use: "The Line of Best Fit's Matthew Kim thought the song more resembled [...], and Clash's Alex Berry believed the lyrics offer wisdom"
This also recurs elsewhere in the Critical reception section.. pls brush through it
I think "impeccable" should be in quote marks because this is not exactly NPOV...
That Sheffield placed this song at the bottom of his list should be somewhere else, as its current position as the first sentence to a paragraph that details its accolades makes for a jarring transition. Maybe at the end of the paragraph that discusses its production choices (esp. the "let-down" of a chorus?)
Same concern with ref overkill for the Grammy nom and the Kimmel live
Three is really fine.
Has there been any scholarly analysis of this song?
The 2021 World Figure Skating Championships were held during the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, this article has a lot more background material than a typical skating competition. While I have never submitted an article to FA, I have shepherded several through the Featured List process. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written, the sources are properly formatted and archived (where possible), and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98(Talk)23:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"were held from March 22–28, 2021". Replace the dash with the word 'to' per MOS:RANGE.
"hosted this year by Skate Sweden". "this year" is ambiguous. Suggest deleting.
"throughout the duration of the event." A touch of redundancy there. Maybe 'for the duration of the event' or 'throughout the event'.
"and any potential changes determined based on ..." I hiccupped reading this. Maybe 'and any potential changes needed would be determined based on' or similar?
"due to insufficient COVID-19 protocols." I struggle to work out what this means. Did they want more protocols? Better protocols? Something else? Come to that, what was a COVID-19 protocol? You have not mentioned them before.
"with all athletes testing negative". As this is the first mention of this, could you tell readers what it means.
Gog the Mild, thank you for the feedback. I have made the recommended changes, including a rewrite of the bit about Canada. It turns out Skate Canada's complaint wasn't with Sweden, but with Canada. Bgsu98(Talk)17:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, at the start of "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" you could do with saying what there was a pandemic of, what effect it had generally and why, and what effect it had on organised sport and why. What the tests were, how often one needed to test, transmission mechanism, vaccinations (maybe), what is meant by "protocols". Social distancing and masks and their rationale, Contact tracing procedures. Lots of things lower down which don't get proper explanations. You get the idea. At the moment the article just assumes that a reader more or less knows more or less all of that.
I can see why we just expect everyone to know everything about COVID at this point. I have imported some text from COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to work on that section with what you've suggested above.
"Some skaters, however, felt that proper precautions were being taken". Suggest "proper" → 'adequate'. Fixed.
"The ISU did not address the campaign's concerns". Does this mean that the ISU did not make any changes in response? If so, I suggest saying that.
"in violation of the ISU's COVID-19 safety guidelines." I don't think this quite works grammatically. Can one be in violation of guidelines?
Fixed. I changed "guidelines" to "protocols", which is more enforceable.
"were documented not wearing masks". Does that work in USEng? Fixed. Yes.
"had been found, with this case being discovered". Is it possible to rephrase to avoid the found/discovered repetition? Fixed.
"for virtual judging." Is there a link for "virtual".
Fixed. I don't know if it's exactly accurate, but it's the closest link Wikipedia has.
"Normally, the number of entries for the 2021 World Championships would have been ..." Should/could there be a 'from each country' in there? Fixed.
"Under the Court of Arbitration for Sport ban, Russian athletes could not ..." Could we have a brief explanation as to why?
Like with COVID, we can't assume everyone knows about the Russian doping scandal, so I've expanded that section.
"present themselves as "Neutral Athletes" or a "Neutral Team" ". Why the upper-case initial letters?
That's how they're identified in the source.
"Athletes from Russia, who were not allowed to compete using the Russian name or flag at the World Championships due to doping sanctions against the country, would compete under the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) flag at the 2022 Winter Olympics for the same reason." The doping thing should be mentioned earlier and at greater length. You don't need to repeat "who were not allowed to compete using the Russian name or flag at the World Championships". Fixed.
Gog the Mild, thank you for the additional feedback. While I am still working on the article, I did want you to take a look at these two sections, when you have a chance, which I heavily edited per your comments to see if you have anything further.
Gog the Mild, those competitions are really not comparable because those sports are all interactive, but figure skating is not. Someone performs, leaves the ice, receives their score; and then repeat that thirty times, and that's a figure skating competition. The play-by-play format that works for team sports or even one-on-one sports just wouldn't work here. Now, that being said, I did add a section prior to the results that outlines what elements the skaters performed, and the format of the competition. I also added some details prior to each of the four events with media citations. I believe I have also addressed the other issues you mentioned. Please take a look at the article now and let me know what you think. Bgsu98(Talk)23:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten that. (I don't often think about figure skating.) Ok, in which case that needs explaining to a reader. A little more formally that you have above, and at a little greater length, and cited, should get somewhere near what is needed. This - Compulsory figures - a successful FAC from a few years ago may be more relevant as some sort of guide than my previous suggestions. It may even have a cite or two in worth stealing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bgsu98, wearing my coordinator hat and per the FAC instructions, could you avoid using graphics? Ie ticks. They disproportionately overload the FAC bot, and can cause it to fall over. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Hawkeye7 - you are multi-talented, used to thinking outside the box, and reviewed Compulsory figures. Any chance you could cast your eye over this? A full review would be great, but what I would really like an opinion on the use of tables where one might normally see text. What do you think? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I will post a review this weekend. With regard to the use of tables: this is normal in sports articles. We make extensive use of them in the articles on the Olympics and Paralympics. I think their use in this article is in line with that, and have no issues with it. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I'm trying to meet a deadline in another project, so give me a few days to get more ahead. It looks like this FAC is going well for you, so you may not even need my input. I promise to keep a eye on it and once I get caught up and if I'm needed, I'll return and give some feedback. Thanks for asking! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of footnotes in the lead always raises concerns that what it says is not in the body.
I have removed the footnotes for items which are discussed later on, and also moved one sentence entirely down to later in the article as it's really not significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the lead.
Infobox: I know this may sound odd, but the date without the year had me pause to think. I realise that you could infer the date from the season, but for several sports I could name (starting with the Tokyo 2020 Olympics) in the COVID era the season doesn't match the date. In other words: would it be possible to add the year to the date?
A reasonable suggestion.
"The COVID-19 pandemic began with an outbreak of COVID-19 in China in December 2019."~> WP:ASTONISHME@EEng: If it had begun with an outbreak of Portnoy's Complaint, now that would have been worth noting.
Do we need the second paragraph of "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic"? The only relevant sentence is the last. Consider removing the rest.
It was User:Gog the Mild who suggested adding all of that information about the pandemic in his comments above.
"One testing methods for COVID-19 to detect the virus's nucleic acid included real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which was used at the 2021 World Championships." ~> "One testing methods" Is there one or many here? And were we trying to detect the virus of its RNA?
Fixed.
Move fn 23 to the end of the sentence ending with "further limiting their preparedness"
Done.
"they planned to focus instead on the 2022 Winter Olympics" How were they planning to qualify?
It would ultimately be up to the French Federation to decide whom to send to the Olympics. This event just netted berths for the respective nations, not guaranteed spots for any skaters.
"they, too, had concerns about COVID-19 safety" Nobody else has been mentioned in this context
Fixed.
"PCR test" only needs to be linked once
Fixed.
Age and minimum TES requirements: Source for this table?
Fixed.
Why is the table heading available on screen readers only? Show it!
Same story on the second table
I had been advised at FL reviews that if the table's caption is the same as the section header right above it, to go ahead and hide it, but I have no objection to showing it.
"If a nation is not listed on this table, it could field only one entry per discipline." Source?
Ice dance: "continue dfor"
Fixed.
"Olympic qualification event" ~> This isn't actually an event on the program
A fine article, well-written and interesting. I commend you for expanding it; this and other pandemic-era figure skating competitions are important in the sport's history and should have an account of their unusual nature on WP. Additionally, this could be a model for articles about other competitions; I've always thought that the tradition of these articles being basically lists and tables of scores misses the opportunity of having accounts of them, especially if they occurred during important historical periods. Of course, a lot of that is impossible, since unfortunately, there may not be sources out there about them.
But I digress. For this review, I'm doing a source review, plus a few general comments. Take what you like and leave the rest, as the saying goes.
Source review:
Ref1b: The source states that the bubble was in existence for the competition, but it does not define a pandemic bubble. You need to find a source that does that. Done.
Ref6: The source does not state that the PCR test was used at Worlds. Done. A subsequent source did, so I copied it up.
Ref10: I think you should include that the World Jr. Synchronized Skating Championships was also cancelled; synchronized skating is figure skating, you know. Done.
Refs 21 and 43: Twitter and Instagram are not considered reliable sources; either remove the content they support or find other sources that do. Per WP:TWITTER, social media posts can be used as sources under certain circumstances, which I believe apply here, as it is the Japan Skating Federation's official account. As for the two Armenian skaters, I did replace that one.
Skaters' responses section, 1st paragraph: “Multiple skaters had been unable to train..." is supported by ref24 and ref25, but ref24 only talks about Hanyu and ref25 only talks about Galyavieva and Thoron. Neither source, unless I missed it, generalizes their experience with training and their coaches to other skaters. If you’re going to make that statement, that multiple skaters had that experience, your sources need to support that assertion, but neither source you cite does. You either need to find a source that states that, or you need to change the wording; i.e., “For example, Japanese single skater Yuzuru Hanyu and French ice dancers Adelina Galyavieva and Louis Thoreau were unable to train with their primary coaches...” This is the third time so far that I’ve found similar errors, and it appears a few more times; to be honest, Bgsu98, I’ve seen you do this in other figure skating articles. See WP:BURDEN. Yuzuru+Galyavieva+Thorn = multiple. If I had linked only the Yuzuru article, for example, while saying "multiple", then you would be correct.
Okay, we're getting really picky here. As a reader, when I see the words "multiple" or "some" (as below), I think of more than two, but you're right, the dictionary definition of both words mean "more than one." I still think you could improve the wording as per my suggestion, but I'll let this slide this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref27: This is an excellent source about the accommodations made at Worlds. You include some of them, but you could add more of them described in the source. In other words, you could have mined the source for more information. See WP:MINE. I assume this is now Ref28. I'm not sure what accommodations are not mentioned in the article.
Yes, after all the changes, the ref numbering changed, which happens. Here are three additional things you could've added from ref28, which is , which is about Moore-Towers and Marinaro, and full of content about their responses: (1) They did not expect that Worlds would happen in 2021; (2) Marinaro's grandmother died of COVID; (3) they had a lot of downtime caused by the COVID shutdowns, which rejuvenated them and provided them with much needed rest and respite. These are just suggestions, so it's up to you if you want to follow them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 29 and 30: More over-generalization, same problems as above. Two skaters = "some"
Ref45: The source does not support your assertion regarding the minimum age of eligibility. I went ahead and added the page number. I looked and looked, and couldn't find any actual documentation about age requirements at that point, so I just deleted the statement. I seems unimportant anyway.
Ref46: "If a nation is not listed on this table, it could field only one entry per discipline." This is about the table below, so the source doesn’t technically support it directly. You could either state that the ISU did not name nations that could only send one entry, or you could put this in a note. Done, but I'm not trilled with the wording. Please let me know if you can think of a better alternative.
Ref50: Again, the source doesn’t support all the assertions you make. This is how I would handle this: "Thus, Russian skaters, like all Russian athletes, had to compete under the shorter name of the Figure Skating Federation of Russia, or “FSR,” and without their country’s flag or anthem." You can also remove the first time ref50 is used, since it supports both sentences. What is now Ref51 does support all of this information.
Ref70: The link takes you to the 2024 Regulations, not to the regulations in effect in 2021. As you know, regulations in figure skating change often, so the regulations listed in the source might not have been in effect in 2021. Unfortunately, the ISU uses the same URL address whenever it publishes a new version of its regs, so it’s impossible to locate the regs in effect back in 2021, unless it was archived. I looked and couldn’t find the archived version. What this means is that you’ll have to either find another source that lists the required elements or, unfortunately, remove the content. Done. I found the 2021 document and switched it in.
Wow, how impressive! I love it that even after all these years of editing, I still learn stuff. I didn't know about Scribd as a source for lost websites, so thank you for that. Excellent. The ads are a bit annoying, though.
This brings up something else, though. Your content supported by what is now ref71, the 2021 regs, has multiple page numbers. For example, men's and women's required elements for the SP are are on p. 103, and the pairs' required elements are on p. 112. You need, therefore, to put the source in a Works cited section and include the page numbers as inline citations. Currently, you're forcing the reader to hunt for the information. I know that this is a big ask, but I'm willing to do that for you, if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skaters' responses section, 2nd paragraph: "Other skaters scheduled to compete at the World Championships, including Nathan Chen of the United States, the defending world champion in the men's event, stated that while they were grateful for the opportunity to compete, they had concerns about COVID-19 safety protocols." The first source talks about Chen. Expansion opportunity: What were his concerns? The second source talks about Moore-Towers and Marinaro, as part of your generalization about “other skaters." You could cite their concerns, too. I've expanded that whole paragraph.
Can you explain why you only focus on the top three winners in the Results section? I have no problem with you doing it; I’d just like to hear your reasons for it. Suggestion: You could include information that’s interesting or noteworthy about other competitors, but I’m requiring it from you. I also recommend that you see if you can better mine the news articles for more content. Again, that’s not a requirement, since you’ve made the editorial choice to only include information about the top three winners. I did not focus only on the medalists, although I did make sure to include them, as they typically receive the lion's share of the media attention. I did include details about Yuzuru Hanyu, Karen Chen, and Vincent Zhou – Zhou had a disastrous short program and did not advance to the free skate.
Additionally, I'm hoping we can settle on a boilerplate text that we can include in additional articles regarding the format of these competitions. Bgsu98(Talk)04:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The only thing that's unresolved are the page numbers in the regs suggestion above. Once we've taken care of that, I will support. Again, nice job. I think that using this article as a model for other similar articles is an excellent idea, something that once this passes, we should add to the Figure Skating WikiProject page. Thanks for all you hard work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the fifth on a Centre College president that I've brought to FAC - this one is about a man who, despite his relatively brief stint in office (six years), had quite the impact on the school. William Arthur Ganfield was a minister in Iowa and Wisconsin when he was elected president of Centre in 1915. He restored the college's ties to the Presbyterian Church, thereby helping to solve Centre's ongoing enrollment and financial issues. He was a large supporter of athletics at both Centre and Carroll University, where he was president for nearly eighteen years; he was in office (and in attendance) for Centre's major upset victory over Harvard in 1921, and he later hired a Centre alum to coach Carroll's football and basketball programs to conference championships. The article underwent a GA review from It is a wonderful world last month. Any and all comments/suggestions will be greatly appreciated! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
predecessor, Frederick W. Hinitt, in order to restore ==> "predecessor, Frederick W. Hinitt, to restore"
early life and education
no problems here.
career
were made in order to gain Central ==> "were made to gain Central"
reverse this to get the school's enrollment
He conducted a fundraiser which was planned for completion in 1919, in time for the college's centennial, though it did not finish until afterwards. ==> "He conducted a fundraiser that was planned for completion in 1919, in time for the college's centennial, though it was not finished until afterward."
though a collapse of the steel framework in November of that year the second "of" is redundant
Greek life enjoyed prominence at Carroll ==> "Greek life was prominent at Carroll"
@750h+ Thanks for the review! All fixes made - the only one I did differently than your recommendation was the "November of that year", which I just changed to "that November" instead. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few quibbles with referencing: ref 1 should be either "website=WisconsinHistory.org" (or something like that) or should be something like "publisher=Wisconsin Historical Society", since at the moment, "Wisconsin Historical Society" is in italics, when normally it wouldn't be. Similarly, ref 60 has "Carroll University" in italics when it should not be. Same with ref 62 for "Centre College". Having "Carroll Pioneers athletics" in ref 63 feels awkward as well.
Switched to publisher parameter for 1, 60, 62; the format used in 63 is my go-to for university athletics webpages but I am definitely not married to it and certainly open to suggestions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead notes ... who was president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, from 1915 to 1921 and then of Carroll College (now called Carroll University) in Waukesha, Wisconsin, from 1921 until his retirement in 1939 ... and stayed in Waukesha until 1915, when he was elected president of what is now Centre College. – if you have the then-Carroll name listed in the first sentence (with parenthesis listing its current name) what's the reason for not doing the same regarding Centre, if it was named differently when he was president?
I do recognize the inconsistency there; my reasoning was that Carroll didn't adopt its current name until 2008, but Centre switched back to its present name in 1918, during Ganfield's term. I guess I felt that since Centre is still the name of the school and that Ganfield spent roughly half of his term with each of the two names, I could stick the recognizable (and linkable) one in the lead and give the alternative in the body of the article. I am definitely open to re-working this if you feel that would be appropriate (or if my reasoning is not as logical as I think). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
both grew during his nineteen-year term – should it be 'nineteen-year' or '19-year'? I feel like I've read somewhere that numbers above 10 should be listed as numbers...
That would be MOS:SPELL09; that specifies that numbers 0-9 should be spelled out but the flip side is not a requirement: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words - for some reason, spelling them out looks nicer to me, so I default to that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Faculty pensions were introduced during the Great Depression, and fixed salaries were implemented as the faculty numbers grew. – is the comma necessary?
graduated from St. Mary's Seminary in Epworth, Iowa, in 1894. He attended Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1898 and a Master of Arts in 1901. Afterward, he attended McCormick Theological Seminary and completed graduate work at the University of Chicago. – if you mention the locations for St. Mary's and Cornell, should you also mention the location of McCormick?
become a professor of history and political science at Carroll College—now Carroll University—in Waukesha, Wisconsin. – in the lead, you have it as "Carroll College (now called Carroll University)" – be consistent (parenthesis or dash).
He conducted a fundraiser which was planned for completion in 1919, in time for the college's centennial, though it did not finish until after the centennial. – perhaps you could say something like "though it did not finish until afterwards" or something to that effect, to avoid mentioning "centennial" twice in 10 words.
from the board of education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America – is it necessary to link to the Presbyterian Church a second time, since you do it in the prior paragraph?
Didn't want to just de-link the second instance since the links display different text, so I re-formatted the first link, moved the abbreviation there, and changed the second link to an un-linked "PCUSA" instead. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sports, particularly football, were emphasized during Ganfield's time at Centre. – perhaps link American football, since international readers might think it to be a different football?
This is what I've found. I've never conducted an FAC review before so apologies if any of my comments are silly – feel free to decline any of them if you think it wouldn't be an improvement. Nice work here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
England: A boy king who wants to be his daddy. An invading army that starts fighting itself before it even reaches the border. Stays two weeks, then goes home. Hungry and broke.
Scotland: French allies who are hated. The French plunder their ally's land and moan about being ripped off. The Scottish continue to rip off the French. The Scottish then hold the French leader to ransom.
Just another day in Anglo-Scottish/French politics. What could possibly go wrong?
A map would be good, but could it possibly include both current and contemporary borders as a couple of then English possessions mentioned are now in Scotland. I don't know how easy it would be to get the Solway Firth coastline from that era, but I'd be surprised if Carlisle was as far from the sea in those days. ϢereSpielChequers08:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I've moved the discussion to the talk page, and inserted the map as it currently stands. It's sufficiently complex, and adjacent to FAC itself, that it deserves more eyes on it than can be expected here. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix09:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing to review. This looks up my street. I'll start with a source review and then see how it is getting on generally.
Article titles should be standardised on either title or sentence case, regardless of hte style of the originals. Similarly for the titles of books.
Check.
"in return for knight service of forty days a year." Can a better source not be found than one 120+ years old?
Might rid of the whole footnote to be honest. It's somewhat adjacent to the topic, and theer's a link for tose wishing tyo indulge in esotericisms. What think ye.
"The city was heavily pillaged and fired, leading the 18th-century antiquarian Robert Chambers to comment that Edinburgh "suffered its full share of calamities attendant upon these disastrous wars"." What makes Chambers a high-quality source? (Or even a RS?)
Meh. He's good enough to make a point that's now supported by a modern HQRS.
No Wikilinks for authors?
Don't think I ever have. Likewise book URLs.
"with one mind ... complaining grievously". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
Gillespie, 1997. Where you say vol, do you mean chapter?
No. But that was there since the GA review in 2018; wierd.
"Jean Froissart, on the other hand, says that ..." Froissart needs introducing.
Done, +source.
"According to Froissart, the invaders raids on the wealthy bishoprics of Carlisle and Durham, gained them more than was held within the whole Kingdom of Scotland." Well now. I assume you insert "According to Froissart" because the statement is so unreliable that the source distances it even more, with 'so the French said'? I am unsure that we need to give any credence to French boasts/denigrations of their allies. Especially when both the source and you feel a need to distance themselves from stating this as a fact. And even more so when almost any reader of the article wouldn't realise that it wasn't a fact.
Replaced with "claims"; added footnote re. reliability.
"What Prussian march is this to which our Admiral has taken us?" Not IMO helpful to a reader, who is likely to misunderstand both Prussian and march.
Ah. As it it goes, no-one knows what that it is. Probably the Rhine I guess, but I would've thought the wine would've made up for its Prussian-ness.
"This was a similar attitude to the English, whom Froissart writes in contempt for their poverty-stricken uncouthness." I am unsure what you are saying here. That the French had a similar contempt for the English as for the Scots? And why are we citing Froissart in line rather than using Wikipedia's voice?
Froissart was saying that the English and the French shared similar attitudes towards the Scots. Still, I've removed it as while it's relevant that the French looked down on their (so-called) allies, it's pretty par for the course for an invading army to feel that way towards the enemy (as in, the former is man biting dog, whereas the latter is dog biting man). And that para is about Francoo-Scots activities, so what the English thought is in any case rather out of place.
Thanks Gog, have responded to your points, except the one that relies on BHO (only temporarily, I hope, but it's being crap at the moment. It's a shame that their recent 'upgrade' made the thing look all so smart and modern, but also broke half the bloody links...) —Fortuna, imperatrix17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: Yeah; on further consideration, I've abridged some of the notes and removed others. Also considering whether some of fn. 15 could be folded into the text and the rest removed. —Fortuna, imperatrix18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was an interesting read, thanks for writing it. I've made a few tweaks hope you like them.
I'm not sure of the timeline in "Three days before reaching Edinburgh Richard received news from London that his mother, Joan, Countess of Kent—with whom he was very close—had died the previous day.[3][note 16] That night most of Edinburgh was set alight," That's some very fast communication between Berkshire, London and southern Scotland. Did they have some form of heliograph? If Edinburgh was set alight while Richard was three days away, does that mean that the English vanguard was travelling that many days ahead of the army or did the Scots burn Edinburgh themselves?
Yes, this was confused by the fact that historians have plumped for different dates, which means when I try put them together, it's round pegs in square holes. I've settled on on exactitude: remove explicit referernce to Joan's death date (which varies by over a week).
The Scottish counter attack would benefit from a route map. Hard to see how they would ravage Cumberland and also "almost reaching Carlisle." as there really isn't much of Cumberland between Carlisle and Scotland. I get that they headed South from Edinburgh, but "they could launch a counterattack in the east" doesn't make sense to me. The western end of the border is the most southerly place in Scotland, but I could understand it being described as " they could launch a counterattack in the west". Reading between the lines I suspect the army stopped outside Carlisle but sent raiding parties to ravage further into England, devastating Cumberland. But it reads that Carlisle was the furthest point they reached, almost as if the invasion was from westmoorland or Furness.
I've expanded on the Carlisle action; the Solway Firth gets a namecheck (per the source) too!
"The destruction in Carlisle was such that the following year's taxes were commuted to a £200 lump sum in acknowledgement, as the Exchequer writ puts it, of "the great mischiefs and destructions which are done to and inflicted on the people of the holy church and the commons of the county of Cumberland by the invasions of our enemies of Scotland"." Wouldn't destruction in Cumberland be more apt as Carlisle seems to have been the one bit of Cumberland that held out? Was this a reference to the whole county by referring to its county town?
Well spotted, thanks. I've changed it to Cumberland, as in fact the incursion went even deeper than Carlisle.
Re "Men would serve, and to just serve not merely cum servitio debito but quanto potentius poteritis." What reading age are we aiming for? I've done a tiny bit of Latin and from the context I think I know what is meant, but links for those phrases would help if you are using such Latin terms that are almost archaic in modern English. ϢereSpielChequers08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it!
Many thanks for looking in WereSpielChequers, I've actioned most of your points (still working on the Latin!), which have helped clear up some chronological confusions. Thanks for you earlier copy edits too—even running it through word, I always seem to miss a few silly typos. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix14:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the plus side, Richard achieved a three year truce with Scotland. On the minus side, when he was deposed 14 years after the war, there were reports of the Scots breaking the truce. On my time line that's a truce that ended 11 years earlier. ϢereSpielChequers08:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, WereSpielChequers, it's a tricky one. I don't want to get to bogged down in the minutiae of medieval treating, of course, but I've added a sentence under 'Background' noting how elastic they actually were, and again in the 'Aftermath' section, noting that pitched battles could be fought in times of supposed truce. Truces, after all, weren't treaties. I wish I had a source that actually says that though! Let me know if you think that clarifies things. —Fortuna, imperatrix14:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At one point the truce was described in positive terms for being as long as three years, at another it was criticised for breaches taking place after the truce had lasted 14 years. The rewording does explain how the truces were subsequently renewed. I get that normal raiding on the border wasn't considered incompatible with a treaty that prevented armies crossing and going beyond the marches. I just find it odd that one person thinks a three year truce is more substantial an achievement than someone else thinks a 14 year duration is. ϢereSpielChequers23:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just me, and absolutely no disrespect, but I disagree with the usefulness of {{Inflation}} in medieval articles on principle. Or, to be fair, at least until they can compare the value (not the worth) of a horse in the 15th century, and compare it to something we haven't even invented—some kind of a tractor-Bentley-T-34 combo—in the mid 20th... :) —Fortuna, imperatrix21:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re {{Inflation}}, but maybe footnote the annual income of someone at the time to give at least some sort of context? (You once put your name to article which claimed that in the 1360s "To give a very rough idea of earning power, an English foot-soldier could expect to earn £1 in wages for, usually seasonal, military service in approximately three months.") Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take your points re inflation. I don't know how the template calculates it, my concern was that simply writing £500 without some indication that at the time this was a fine that only the richest could afford was misleading. However if the inflation figure is the result of some serious economics from a reputable source, it would save us from having to decide whether to compare the price of a pint of beer, a riding horse or a pub between 1385 and now. But my concern about that is minor compared to my concern that we need to do something to convey that £500 then was a lot of money, many times an ordinary person's annual income. If you two would rather do this as Gog suggests then I can live with that. ϢereSpielChequers23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I did, Gog. And in review too :p yeah, that's fine. I wasn't having a go at you WSC, jus musing allowed on the dangers of the the code. By the way, to keep this in one para, can you clarify who said a three-year truce was worth more than one of 14? I'm missing it at the momenmt. Having said that, i've juS got back from Moorfields, and can't see a bloody thing. Hopefully I won't be too slow on the responses here co-ord, but I think the map's later stages might be be delayed a little. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix14:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: I think I see wat you mean re. truces. But the 'three years of truces' is in the historiography section. The '14 years of truces' is in the aftermath section. The reason for this—and why I wrote it like that in the first place—was that the afterm,ath section looks a few years ahead (in this case, to the end of the reign) while the histo section discusses historians views of the campaign itself, where it suffices that the Scots accepted truces. What happened n 1399 is relevant to the aftermath, not the historiography. However, to simplify tings (Hopefuly!)_ I've committed 'three' and reduced t to the vagfuer 'successive truces', which allows for coexistance. —Fortuna, imperatrix14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re. inflation: Yes, I'll look for something to compare the figures too to. The £1 p.a. is too small to be useful in this context, but there's plenty of comparisons that can be made. See Christopher Dyer. Cheer, —Fortuna, imperatrix14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For the last 50 years, England and France had been engaged in the Hundred Years' War". I think previous 50 years would be better.
Yes.
"the leadership was divided and often indulged more in internecine fighting than in attacking the Scots". I would take "fighting" to be taken literally. Maybe use a milder word.
"The Scots scorched the earth as they retired." The expression "scorch the earth" seems to generally be used in a more literal sense than a scorched earth military strategy. I would revise.
Done:"destroyed provisions and infrastructure".
"The Historiographer Royal, Robert Rait, says that, while it may not have been particularly vicious "Still, it was an act of war, and the Scots may reasonably have expressed surprise, when, in April, the French ambassadors (who had been detained in England since February) arrived in Edinburgh, and announced that Scotland and England had been at peace since January." I had to read this several times to be sure what it was saying and I am not sure what it adds to the article. It also implies that it is by a contemporary historian, not from 1901.
You're right, of course, I've removed the quote and paraphrased the primary point.
I am not clear what you are saying about Gaunt in the background section. If he was pro-Scottish, why did he invade Scotland in 1384? And saying that his policy disintegrated with the arrival of de Vienne's forces in Scotland seems to contradict the statement that it was unsuccessful because of his poor relations with the king.
I've tweaked this, hopefully clarifying both points. (It wasn't so much that he was actively "pro-Scottish" as that he would have preferred to be in Castille claiming the throne that wasn't his by right.)
itinerancies. You link to an article about a permanently itinerant court rather than a temporary caretaker government in the capital.
"Legal wonk" Wonk is too colloquial - and he was writing as a historian rather than a legal scholar.#
H'mm not sure how that even got in! Gentrified.
"The two countries decided on 23 July for the launch of their campaign,[31] although in the event it was brought forward to the 8th.". This is confusing. I thought at first you meant that they had made the decision on the 23rd. I do not see that it is significant that they changed their mind on the date.
True; omitted the 23rd.
"in the event" twice in two lines.
"ultimately" on first occasion?
"the nature of Marcher conflict made this approach impracticable". This is vague and needs explanation, particularly as it is the only use of "Marcher" in the article.
Changed to 'border' for consistency; clarified war was attritional.
"Military and naval ordinances were drawn up.[41][note 7] in Durham,[28] These were probably authored". The punctuation has gone awry here.
Yes. I've now split the sentence too.
"These were probably authored by Richard". I dislike "author" as a verb. Fowler describes it as "widely reviled" but does not condemn it. Tim riley what say you?
I am happy to join in the wide revulsion. In general it is silly to wax indignant at turning nouns into verbs – Shakespeare did it continually – but I'm blest if I can see what the lumpen "authored" has got that the crisp "written" hasn't. Thank you, Dudley for that ping, which has alerted me to this review, to which I hope to contribute in the next few days. Tim riley talk16:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're bringing out the big guns. Twice! :) How about 'drafted'?
No change needed but I am interested to see that the disciplinary ordinances were in French. I thought that French went out in government documents in the late 14th century?
The annoying thing is that one of the sources used actually discusses that, and suggests an interesting reason for it being so. (In other words, yes, you're absolutely correct DM, but the use of French had a particular meaning in this context. Annoyingly, I can't remember it now, but if I do it might be worth adding... Other readers may also wonder the same thing.)
"Another problem inherent to medieval warfare was financing." Why medieval? It is a problem in all places and periods.
Point. I've kept the link to Medieval warfare, but reduced the text to just 'warfare'.
"The King, on the other hand, at this time had no gift for command" "gift for command" sounds odd to me in this context. Maybe "experience of command"?
Of course, thanks.
You mention the vanguard and centre, then Gaunt etc, then in a few words the rear, then more on the army generally. This seems an odd arrangement and it is not clear which division most of the troops were in.
I've moved the rear to follow the centre and vanguard; hopefully, the individual contingents flow more naturally now.
"But their combined force of over 2,000 men". It is not clear what "their" refers to.
Clarified.
You say twice that there were 3000 Scottish soldiers.
Removed the second sentence entirely.
"De Vienne led the army for the French and for the Scottish, James, Earl of Douglas, with the latter's cousin Archibald Lord of Galloway, King Robert's son Robert, Earl of Fife, Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale and George Dunbar, Earl of March." This is ungrammatical and unclear.
I've split the sentence and tweaked.
"Disagreement over Roxburgh effectively brought official Franco-Scottish cooperation to an end." What disagreement? You imply above that they agreed that it was impregnable.
Tweaked.
"Now another argument took place as to whether to assault Wark before, as Sumption puts it, the French attacked "on their own as the Scots stood by and watched"." I am not clear what this means.
The French did all the work :)
"The garrison was put to the sword, the captain held for ransom," No change needed, but this seems the common ancient practice of punishing the commmon people who had no say in the decision to fight while not punishing the leader who took the decision.
You're not wrong. Interestingly, the first occasion I can find where that wasn't the case (in an English army anyway) was under Edward IV over 70 years later, who gave the order before Towton (and if I remember correctly Tewkesbury also) to 'spare the commons and slay the lords'; but then that was a civil war, with fewer opportunites for ransom. Cheers!
"The army crossed into Scotland over the central borders." central borders links to the a modern council area, which is not helpful. I think it would be better to be more specific, for example near a specified town.
Berwick.
Why "Catholic papacy" (in note)? I am not aware of a non-Catholic one.
I think I was drawing a distinction with the Antipapacy, but to be fair, no one's ever argued that wasn't still Catholic.
"England stayed loyal to Pope Urban VI and his successor Pope Boniface IX, the Schism had "removed some religious sanctions", argues Ranald Nicholson." The comma is wrong here.
Done.
"Most contemporary chroniclers considered the destruction effectively terrorism." This is clumsy. Maybe "Most contemporary chroniclers regarded the destruction as terrorism."
Yes, thanks.
"It was by then deserted,[59] apart from a garrison at Edinburgh Castle, as the Franco-Scottish army was in retreat via Ettrick Forest to the south." Presumably also abandoned by the civilian population, but you should say so.
Clarified.
"afired". Dictionaries do not list this word.
Curious! The more trad. 'burned' then.
"while St Giles' Cathedral was so badly damaged that it was later torn down and rebuilt." This does not appear to be correct. See [10], which says that it survived.
H'mm. I think I'd take the Pepsi Challenge between two historians writing for that city's own university press and a self-published website specifically designed to draw in the tourists. Note the SGK site also claims that the English 'sent a large army north to destroy St Giles' and other Scottish churches', rather than that they were destroyed in the course of a full-scale invasion.
"With much of the city burning—including St Giles' Kirk". You have said this above describing it as a cathedral.
True. SGK redirects to SGC, conveniently, so I've changed the first mention to Kirk and dropped the second usage completely.
"probably accounts for chroniclers own confusion" Maybe "probably accounts for chroniclers' confusion".
Done, thanks.
"personally knew several of the leading men of Richard's" Of Richard's what?
'Court' got lost somewhere.
"the monk of Westminster" Is this the same as the Westminster chronicler? This should be made clear.
Done.
"Saul argues that as he was clearly basing his account on that of someone present at the meetings—and biased against Gaunt—the monk's report should be considered "dubious", and that of Froissart was to be preferred." This seems puzzling. Froissart is to be preferred because he was not basing his account on someone present at the meetings?
Indeed, unnecessarily complex... the problem was obviously the informant's bias rather than their proximity to events, so I've clarified that.
"Crossing the undefended border around 15 August,[32][37] much of Cumberland was plundered." This is ungrammatical. How about "they plundered much of Cumberland"?
Much easier. Done.
"Douglas distinguished himself in the siege, although still young". Seems a bit ageist. The young often distinguish themselves in battle.
Apologies! (Noting in passing that—again 70 years later—this chap was fighting pitched battles at 60.)
"although Knighton preferred to record how the Scottish army withdrew in panic after the Virgin Mary appeared on Carlisle's walls.". This seems an odd wording. Maybe "although Knighton claimed that the Scottish army withdrew in panic after the Virgin Mary appeared on Carlisle's walls."
Thanks—I wanted to avoid implying that Wikipedia endorsed her appearance as a historical fact.
Middle March. This term is obscure and undefined.
Redux to just 'lowlands'.
"a significant quantity of plunder, was achieved after leaving Cumberland." Did they not cross into Scotland from Cumberland? How did they get plunder after leaving it?
Clarified.
"claimed the Franco-Scottish raids into the wealthy bishoprics of Carlisle and Durham". Durham? In the previous paragraph you do not say that they crossed the Pennines.
True, I've simplified it to focus solely on the booty.
"The erubescent King Robert did not cut a charismatic military figure". According to Boardman in ODNB on Robert, this is an unfair characterisation by Froissart.
And well caught, thanks for that source. I've reversed the comment of Froissart to add Boardman's assessment.
Prisoners sub-section. This is a sub-section of the main campaign section, but seems to be only about the Scottish/French counter-attack. Does "The campaign had been short yet bloody." refer to the whole war or just the Scottish raid?
Both. And have tweaked to show the POWs were all in English hands.
"the extravagant largesse bestowed by the King upon de la Pole". You mention this as if it has been covered previously, but it has not.
Done.
"His absence from English politics enabled Richard’s baronial enemies to strengthen their attacks on Richard's favourites." It is unclear why as you say Gaunt was an enemy of Richard.
Simplified: the old chestnut about 'upset the balance of power' applies here.
"For the Scots, they had established the value of their relationship with France." This is ambiguous. Do you mean its low value?
Added 'low'.
"John Sadler has also argued that the Scots were no more successful in their own country than the English had been." I am not sure what the qualification "in their own country" means as you say that their foreign raids were unsuccessful. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that qualification; shorter sentences preferred on principle.
Well caught, Dudley Miles. As it happens, I did act on your suggestion (see above, 'redux') in my original edit, but missed logging it here. Is it what you were thinking, though? —Fortuna, imperatrix22:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few more on a re-read
"Franco-Scottish army counter-invaded England from the West March" West March links to a list of wardens, which is not helpful. I would delete.
Done.
"The destination of his next foreign campaign was Ireland in 1399". This should be his last foreign campaign.
"They effectively codified the troops' behaviour during the offensive, for example, explicitly prohibited rape and sacrilege." This is ungrammatical.
"the penalty for taking women and priests prisoner, for example, was to be death". This is covered in the quote above.
Done.
"By the later Middle Ages the Crown had preferred the mobility and reliability that paid, professional soldiers brought, over an army of raised feudal tenantry.[52] Armies were recruited and then disbanded, and there was no way of ensuring that men whom a previous set of regulations had bound would be recruited again." I would transpose these sentences as the second one appears to refer to the earlier period. Also, why "had preferred"?
Great point, swapped order and changed tense.
You are inconsistent whether to refer to De Vienne or Vienne.
Odd! I couldn't find any, but hopefully they're OK now (I just did a find/replace).
On a quick read through, this needs a lot of work. I'll post a longer list but "These favourites rode high in the King's favour at this time." is memorably infelicitous. John (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will take me more than one go. Here's the first, down to the end of the Background section:
"an allied French army in Scotland the previous summer. For the previous 50 years" – obtrusive repetition of "previous".
I've gone with the date; it previously (!) said 'last 50 years', but that too was unpopular.
"The King's friends among the nobility, who were also Gaunt's enemies" – I'm unclear about the intended meaning. Do you mean that the king's friends were all Gaunt's enemies or are you referring to just those of the king's friends who were Gaunt's enemies?
Hopefuly clarfied, "several of whom were..."
"On its return to Scotland, Cumberland and Durham were pillaged" – This confused me at first reading, as Cumberland and Durham are and weren't in Scotland. Perhaps "during" rather than "on"?
Great, super.
"The choice was made for the crown" – but you capitalise Crown earlier (rightly in my view, though as the retired librarian of the Crown Estate I may be biased.)
Annoyingly, I'd thought I'd caught all my caps, thanks. I guess you approve of Bolingbroke then :)
"This force was to both provide the Scots with technical assistance and to encourage an invasion of England" – having two "to"s is too much. (I always like managing to have "to", "too" and "two" in one phrase.)
Removed. I tried to think of a clever construct that would allow 'their', 'there' and 'they're'. No joy!
"It did not stop Gaunt leading a chevauchée" – the noun is a registered trade mark of Gog the Mild and a licensing fee may be required.
I for one welcome our new Mild Overlords.
"The invasion was to be one of several long itinerancies" – one of several what? Could we have that in plain words?
Shame. Such a good word. You wouldn't like 'peripatetic perambulations', then...? How about progress, as in 'Royal progress'?
"did not suit France at all. They were, says the medievalist May McKisack" – either "the French" rather than "France" or "it was" rather than "they were".
Tweaked.
"Legal wonk Jonathan Sumption" – "wonk" is much too slangy for a formal encyclopaedia article, and we don't need the clunking false title. (I could think of other descriptions of the egregious Sumption, but that is not for this page and Gog will beat me up anyway.)
Gog, if, per impossibile, I were planning to defame anyone in Wikipedia I should not choose a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as my target. I know what I think of him as a historian, but I do know enough to come in out of the rain. Tim riley talk19:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This could have raised him around £12000 (equivalent to £12,378,344 in 2023)" – no comma in the first figure but a comma (two in fact) in the second.
Well spotted. There's something funny with the template—or with me, that's perfectly likely—and I've asked at the Help Desk (as every time I add the comma and get a load of red ink and jargon spewed back at me. Quite bizarre.)
"Sumption's suggestion regarding horse trading is strengthened ...[25] " – you appear to be citing Sumption for the statement that Sumption's suggestion is strengthened. A bit circular, don't you think?
Yes; have changed to "Sumption's suggestion of horse trading is based on..."
"Men would serve, and to just serve not merely cum servitio debito but quanto potentius poteritis." – translation please, inline or in a footnote.
Now parenthesised inline.
"The capture of Wark was the sole notable victory of the Anglo-Scottish alliance" – I'm puzzled: I thought this was an Ango-Scottish war and not an Anglo-Scottish alliance.
Slaps head* Franco-Scottish of course!
"a dearth of foodstuffs" – would that be what in English we call a shortage of food?
Ha. Yes.
"killed on route" – not sure "on route" is an idiomatic English phrase. The French en route has been sufficiently absorbed into English to be used here.
Done.
"The medievalist Richard Oram notes that this has led previous generations of Scottish historians[87]—the 19th-century antiquarian Robert Chambers, for example, lamented how Edinburgh "suffered its full share of calamities attendant upon these disastrous wars" [88]—to condemn England's "wanton vandalism"" – that is a huge (21-word) parenthesis, and I think the sentence would flow better if rejigged on the lines of "The medievalist Richard Oram notes that this has led previous generations of Scottish historians to condemn England's "wanton vandalism" – the 19th-century antiquarian Robert Chambers, for example, lamented how Edinburgh "suffered its full share of calamities attendant upon these disastrous wars"
Thanks for the suggestion, tweaked.
"St Giles Kirk was so badly damaged " – lacking the possessive apostrophe you give it later.
Done.
"with whom he was very close" – with whom he was very close to what? Or do you mean "to whom he was very close"?
"received fáilte hospitality" – at Fáilte Towers? Translation or clarification, please.
From Basil Fáilte :) changed to "it was where he had received lodging and hospitality in 1381", which tightens it a little too.
"probably accounts for chroniclers confusion" – possessive apostrophe lacking
"and that of Froissart was to be preferred" – we've gone from present to past tense during this sentence. I suggest "is to be preferred" is to be preferred.
"the indignation of both the houses of the Lords and the Commons" – reads a bit oddly. Perhaps something on the lines of "the indignation of both houses of parliament" or "the indignation both of the Lords and the Commons"?
Gone for the latter.
"He was probably as keen for Gaunt to go as Gaunt was to be gone, probably explaining the King's willingness to advance him a loan" – too many probablys.
Well, it's a fact that he was keen to be rid of Unc, so that first one was begging to be dropped.
"Richard's ordinances not only provided a blueprint for these later summonses" – this manages to be parachronistic and anachronistic simultaneously, the former because blueprints were unknown until the mid-19th century and seem jarringly inappropriate for 14th-century references, and the latter because they were superseded in the 20th century by semi-dry diazo plan printing and later xerography and then CAD. Even figuratively "blueprint" is well past its sell-by date. Fowler classes it among "Words taken up merely as novel variants on their predecessors", along with such as breakthrough for achievement; reaction for opinion; optimistic for hopeful; redundant for superfluous; rewarding for satisfying; and significant for important (of which more below). I suggest "model", "template" or some such.
Err, model then :) but interesting analysis there Tim.
Fifty years ago I worked for the CRS. Nothing to do with the muscular French CRS, but the British government's Coordination of Reprographic Services outfit, which is how I know about blueprints and diazo plan-printing. Tim riley talk13:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Richard's next foreign enterprises were in 1394 and 1399, when he invaded Ireland; during the latter invasion, Richard II was deposed" – wouldn't a plain "he" suffice instead of "Richard II" here?
Indeed!
"Richard singularly failed to match up to the image of the successful warrior princes" – two points here: first, the adverb seems to me a touch editorial and secondly, I think you have conflated "match" and "live up to", either of which would, I suggest, be preferable to "match up to".
Both addressed.
"Richard's choices of advisor" – unexpected AmE spelling of the traditional English "adviser".
Done.
"Along with the Lord High Constable of England, the marshalcy was one of the two great military officers of the medieval English Crown" – the marshalcy wasn't an officer; it was (and is) an office; the officer is the Earl Marshal.
The Office.
"Society, and the adhesive which bound it together had changed" – one comma too few or one too many.
+ ,
"had changed significantly: this is the wise guidance of Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?
How about 'radically'?
"Indicating the enormity of this sum" – "enormity" usually applies to crimes or sins, indicating "extreme wickedness" or "viciousness". The OED records a secondary usage indicating vastness, but cautions against using the word in that sense.#
Ditto 'magnitude'?
Links: I gather that duplicate links are no longer regarded as a mortal sin, provided they are not overused. Nonetheless I suggest you revisit those for "favourite", "the Westminster Chronicle", "Pennines" and "Sluys".
Great stuff Tim, all of it's useful, many thanks. Especially the wise authorities. Let me know if any of my changes aren't sufficient. Am still waiting on Help Desk advice re. the inflation commas, by the way. —Fortuna, imperatrix11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all my quibbles addressed. One last read through and I'll be back with a view to adding my support. Give me till tea time today. Tim riley talk11:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, no rush, of course. By the way, although I addressed your second tranche, I forgot to reply here inline, which I've now done. Sorry about that. —Fortuna, imperatrix12:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The destination of last foreign campaign was Ireland in 1399" – missing a word before "last".
"many of England's continental possessions had been lost" – I'm on thin ice here, I suspect, but I had the impression that the French lands were not England's possessions but those of the Kings of England in a personal capacity. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
I don't think either of these is a stumbling block to my supporting the elevation of this article to FA. The prose now passes muster, to my mind, and the scholarship and sourcing seem to me beyond question. The approach appears balanced and comprehensive. I'm happy to support. Tim riley talk12:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Tim. Added the missing definitive. Re. possessions, if you don't mind, I'll keep the status quo, while emphasising that You're Not Wrong. In fact, juridically speaking, you are quite absolutely correct. But I think in the context of this article, it's an unnecessary detail (compared, for example, to an article on the origins of the HYW, where it would not only be pertinent but essential). Secondly, and more prosaically—and without wanting to cleave an already split hair further—the phrase is common enough in the scholarship to justify its use here. (For "English territories in France": De Marco, The English Crusaders; Allmand, Aspects of War in the Late Middle Ages; Hoskins, In the Steps of the Black Prince; Brunton, The Beauforts: Lineage, Ambition and Obligation; Keen, England in the Later Middle Ages. For "English lands in France": Fourteenth Century England VIII; Thomson, The Transformation of Medieval England 1370-1529; Lewis, Richard, Duke of York. For "English possessions in France": Patrick, Renaissance and Reformation; Myers, English Historical Documents; Crawford, The Yorkists; Knecht, The Valois: Kings of France 1328-1589; Marx, An English Chronicle, 1377-1461. For "England's continental possessions": Gransden, Historical Writing in England; Heath, Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300; Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461; Stanton, Medieval Maritime Warfare; Masschaele, Jury, State, and Society in Medieval England; Green, The Battle of Poitiers 1356.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[page needed]Thanks for the support too! —Fortuna, imperatrix13:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 16th president Abraham Lincoln. It is a co-nomination with Nikkimaria and is the 4th time that this page has been nominated. A previous 2004 FAC nomination of the article was successful though it was delisted a year or two after that. Two further FAC nominations over the years also did not succeed. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Lincoln biography which previously had reached over 200Kb in system size, though now significantly condensed in system size. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in this president. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: This is a great article! I don’t have enough time to give a full review, but I noticed quite a few images don’t have alt text. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it’s recommended for every image to have at least some kind of alt text, so adding some would probably be for the best. Nice job overall, however — Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is impressive indeed. Some nitpicky comments follow -- I'm not at all qualified to pronounce on the history.
calling for "malice toward none; with charity for all" in his second inaugural address.: with the semicolon, this is slgihtly ungrammatical. Could do "malice toward none" with "charity for all"? However, that starts to look like scare quotes, so this might be an acceptable sacrifice.
Many of the sources for quoting this Inaugural take liberties in including or excluding the punctuation used here. For example, the National Park Service seem to exclude punctuation, while Bartleby's seems to include it. Preferences seem to vary. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of quotations which need to be attributed intext, per MOS:QUOTE: see They settled in an "unbroken forest" in Little Pigeon Creek Community, Indiana. (and here consider MOS:QUOTEPOV) and Thomas and Nancy were members of a Separate Baptist Church, which "condemned profanity, intoxication, gossip, horse racing, and dancing." Most of its members opposed slavery. (to which the same may apply).
Right -- under the MoS, we need to say that these are Donald's words in the text, not just in the footnote. On the other hand, I think there's a strong argument, especially in the case of the forest, to just paraphrase. I don't think we'd lose much by saying that the Separate Baptists were quite straight-laced people, with religious prohibitions against all of those things. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When Lincoln was a teen, his "father grew more and more to depend on him for the 'farming, grubbing, hoeing, making fences' necessary to keep the family afloat: I think teenager is better than teen in formal writing, though this may be my antediluvian British sensibilities. The quote, however, certainly needs attribution on two levels -- I would be tempted to paraphrase the first but be clear who said "farming, grubbing" etc -- was it Lincoln Sr.?
another milk sickness outbreak: hyphenate as a compound modifier. I must admit I don't totally understand this -- our article says that milk sickness is caused by drinking milk from a cow that has eaten a poisonous plant -- so presumably doesn't break out in the same way as e.g. flu?
It is a toxin which dairy cows ingest while feeding; the poison (toxin) then can be fatal. Wikipedia linked article for this does not hyphenate as its preference. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphenated. The etiology was not understood at the time; settlers considered it analogous to infectious diseases like cholera. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Possibly a bit too far into the weeds to EFN it, but I can see the argument. We've explicitly phrased this as a fear: I don't think we necessarily need to gloss e.g. "fearing that she may be a witch" with an EFN saying that witches don't exist. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham became increasingly distant from Thomas, in part due to his father's lack of interest in education; he would later refuse to attend his father's deathbed or funeral: is it worth giving a sense of how much later this was?
For clarity, when I'm asking a question here, I'm doing so on behalf of the reader -- I'm looking for the answer to be clarified in the text (or a reason why we shouldn't clarify it there), rather than necessarily for you to inform me here. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to set out briefly what a Whig was on first mention. Did Lincoln declare any political positions in his first, unsuccessful, campaign?
Right, but I don't think that quite answers the question -- what did Whigs believe in? Did Lincoln support him because he was a Whig -- which in turn raises the question of why Lincoln was a Whig rather than anything else? We do explain this a bit later on.
Why not bring this bit up to the first mention of the Whigs -- Their party favored economic modernization in banking, tariffs to fund internal improvements such as railroads, and urbanization? UndercoverClassicistT·C16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln denounced the "mobocratic spirit ... now abroad in the land", indirectly attacking Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Party, and anti-abolitionism: I think we need to explain the connection here.
though the duel ultimately did not take place, "the affair embarrassed Lincoln terribly".: another quotation that needs to be paraphrased or attributed. I would strongly recommend a thorough pass-through for these.
In his Springfield practice, Lincoln handled "virtually every kind of business that could come before a prairie lawyer".
He partnered for several years with Stephen T. Logan and, in 1844, began his practice with William Herndon, a "studious young man".
He insisted that morality required opposition to slavery and rejected any "groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong".: here I assume we're quoting Lincoln, but should, at least in the footnote, clarify when and in what context he he said or wrote this. Ditto, later, Lincoln's philosophy on court nominations was that "we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known..
Lincoln not only pulled off his strategy of gaining the nomination in 1846, but also won the election: pulled off is a bit informal, and this is hardly a strategy -- we just mean that he got what he wanted, surely? It was hardly some strategic masterplan to fail to get it in 1843, at least as we've presented it.
dropped the bill when it eluded Whig support: eluded is a curious metaphor here, and in any case I think MOS:IDIOM applies -- failed to attract support from the wider Whig party? After all, it had at least two Whigs supporting it.
Lincoln emphasized his opposition to Polk by drafting and introducing his Spot Resolutions.: these are lc in the article by the same name. It might help to use the name of "spot" after we've explained the significance of the "spot" in question.
Current text states it as: "Polk insisted that Mexican soldiers had begun the war by "invading the territory of the State of Texas ... and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil"; Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil". His approach cost Lincoln political support in his district, and newspapers derisively nicknamed him "spotty Lincoln"", in 1847. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil".: I'm sorry to keep beating this drum, but here it sounds like Lincoln said these words; they're MacPherson's, I think.
I'll take another look at it. Lincoln's situation appears to have resulted from what he thought was a rhetorical flourish which the press did not like. I'll try to amend it. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From 1853 to 1860, one of his largest clients was the Illinois Central Railroad.: what exactly do we mean by "one of his largest"? Do we mean that it took up most of Lincoln's time, or that it was one of the "biggest" clients he represented -- in which case, it sounds like we're being needlessly cautious in our phrasing?
Lincoln was dedicated to them to the point of their owing him very large legal fees, for which he needed to file suit against them to eventually recover. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty: I would rework this per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
We still have the very scare-quote-y quote marks: He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty, the "sheet anchor" of republicanism, at a time when the Constitution, which "tolerated slavery", was the focus of most political discourse. "Tolerated slavery" is a particularly problematic example, but all except "sheet anchor" need to go under QUOTEPOV. -- UndercoverClassicistT·C06:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a read of MOS:QUOTEPOV that allows the quotation marks as written. You could rewrite the sentence to include more substantial quotation from the DoI, explicitly framed as quotation. Or, you could just knock the quote marks off and keep the wording: there's clearly no question of copyvio here and "the Declaration of Independence says that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or similar is a perfectly respectable paraphrase.
The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 signaled that legislative compromise was impossible: I think this is a matter of opinion (albeit well-justified scholarly opinion), and needs to be couched as such.
I've amplified the wording, though the Donald book is the main cite for this: "The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 to attract the attendance of seven of the Confederate states in rebellion signaled that legislative compromise was impossible". ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The citation isn't the issue. It's still a matter of opinion/analysis -- it's clearly not a fact that there was literally zero probability of avoiding the ACW by a political solution. We can say that historians consider there to have been no chance of such a solution, that Donald thinks it was impossible, or anything similar -- all of those are potentially facts. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing wording to "not practical". It is Donald who is the one who is counting the states who participate and those which do not. He uses it to draw his own conclusion as a reliable source. If you have a different reliable source who is not in agreement with him, then I could bring it into the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying is the problem. If an acknowledged food expert says "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones", we don't have licence to print "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones" on Wikipedia -- it's a matter of opinion or judgement, not fact. We do have licence to say "the food expert Charles McChef has described ham sandwiches as tastier than cheese ones", or similar. The same applies here -- a matter of historical judgement, like "Germany was responsible for the First World War", "George Washington was the greatest US president", or "the Civil War could not have been peacefully averted after 1861", can only ever be presented as a judgement or opinion, never as a fact, regardless of where it's printed. WP:V is the policy here -- a statement that isn't falsifiable isn't verifiable either -- as explained in WP:OPINION. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the selection and use of his cabinet Lincoln employed the strengths of his rivals in a manner that emboldened his presidency: I'm not totally sure what this means, in concrete terms -- particularly between the bolded part and the rest.
Democrat Stephen Johnson Field, a previous California Supreme Court justice, provided geographic and political balance: I think we need to say that the others were from the east.
Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary: is Treasury Secretary the formal title -- not Secretary of the Treasury? In any case, lc the title per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, and in Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, to replace Taney as Chief Justice ("chief justice").
Lincoln believed Chase was an able jurist who would support Reconstruction legislation and that his appointment would unite the Republican Party: we've jumped ahead here: a year would be helpful, but we also need to be clear what Reconstruction was, and that Lincoln believed the end of the Civil War to be imminent.
There is distinction of Reconstruction after Lincoln in office, and during Lincoln in office. The current version deals only with the start of 1865, and the end of 1864 somewhat. I'll check the wording for emphasis. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given all that prose, what does the table of Supreme Court justices add to the article?
Right, but we get that number and the rough dates (though see my comments above) in the preceding paragraph of text, so my question is: what does the table add that we don't already have there? It's very visually prominent, so takes a lot of the reader's attention: I think we need to justify spending our metaphorical capital in that way. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In early April 1861, Major Robert Anderson, commander of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, advised that he was nearly out of food. After considerable debate, Lincoln decided to send provisions; according to Michael Burlingame, he "could not be sure that his decision would precipitate a war, though he had good reason to believe that it might".: I think we need to be a bit clearer as to why this would precipitate a war, which may perhaps be the same question as "why was the fort out of food?"
I'll re-examine the wording. The provision of supplies from the North to South Carolina was seen as explicitly prevocational, interpreted by So. Carolina as an act of war/declaration of war. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Fort Sumter attack rallied the North to defend the nation: is this quite NPoV?
In Wikivoice, we need to maintain NPoV even when our sources don't. It would be perfectly fine to say that public opinion in the North considered military action against the South a matter of defending the nation. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: when you want to say that the police detained people but they were not charged with a crime, you say "they were arrested without charge" (cf. "detained without trial", "taken without permission", etc, which are all singular even when there are multiple denied trials etc). UndercoverClassicistT·C06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the Copperhead leader Clement L. Vallandigham: what was a Copperhead?
In the party politics of Lincoln's day it is defined in the current article as: "Copperheads (anti-war Democrats) criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on slavery; the Radical Republicans (who demanded harsh treatment against secession) criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery". ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not for another two paragraphs, and on the other side of a section break. As usual, I'm not asking this because I haven't looked it up, but because there's a gap in the explanation we're presenting to the reader. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any compromise alienated factions on both sides of the aisle: MOS:CLICHE.
It is meant as a reflection of the complicated party politics surrounding Lincoln. His VP was a cross-party appointment as a War Democrat, alongside Lincoln's Radical Republican friends. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln's war strategy had two priorities: ensuring that Washington was well-defended and conducting an aggressive war effort for a prompt, decisive victory: no hyphen. The following footnote says "however", but I don't see a prediction of victory in 90 days as opposite to this.
I intend to do a full review; I just won't have as much time onwiki as I would like for several days due to a sudden real-life work project. I have an open Civil War-related FAC myself that could use comments either positive or negative, but of course I intend there to be no pressure to review that one. Hog FarmTalk01:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Noah Haynes Swayne, a prominent corporate lawyer, who replaced John McLean after the latter's death in April 1861." - this is a sentence fragment
In the Early Union military strategy, there really ought to be some reference to the Anaconda Plan - while Scott's proposal was never formally adopted, the general ideas became key elements of the northern war plans.
" General Henry Halleck, " - For American Civil War topics, you need to be very careful with the use of the term "General". The South had a formal, specific rank known as "General" that was a four-star rank; there was no equivalent rank for the North (the highest was Grant's late war three-star rank), but it's still a bit problematic to use that term for Union officers because of the specific terminological meaning on the other side. Halleck was a Major General. The later reference to "General Robert E. Lee" by contrast is accurate
There is still "General Zachary Taylor", "General Don Carlos Buell", and a few others. If you're going to be using it as a generic term like in "General Pope" I don't think it should be capitalized as it is not a proper title. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For his edification Lincoln relied on a book by his chief of staff General Henry Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Science." - Halleck did not have an appointment as a chief of staff until 1864; he had a departmental command out west first in Missouri and adjacent areas and then into Tennessee/Mississippi from which he was called east to become the General in Chief in July 1862.
The issue is that we are erroneously calling Halleck a "chief of staff" in a time period where he was not anybody's chief of staff. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"as did his position that no troops were needed to defend Washington." - I don't have the source and page number in front of me right now, but McClellan wasn't stating that no troops were needed to defend Washington. Rather, it was a dispute over how many troops were needed as well as the quality of troops McClellan left (and McClellan's creative accounting as to how many troops he had left to defend the capital)
"The appointments were both politically neutral and adroit on Lincoln's part" - I think "adroit" here should be attributed to a source, given the degree of a debacle that the Burnside appointment ended up being
"Hooker was routed by Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May," - Chancellorsville was not a rout in the proper military sense, as Hooker retreated on his own volition and in a reasonably orderly manner
When discussing the battles of the war, there is a definite skew towards the eastern battles - we get a mention by name of all of the major eastern fights from 1st Bull Run through the Overland campaign, and yet no mention of the critical capture of New Orleans, and the only reference to Shiloh is in a description of Grant's past victories?
Current emphasis in article is on Lincoln as Commander in Chief in relation to McClellan and the to Grant. Capture of New Orleans might be possible to add here. Vicksburg is usually cited as the related key victory. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that this was why you added a mention of New Orleans when discussing the Thanksgiving holiday. However, the implication is that the capture of New Orleans, which took place in the spring of 1862, strongly influenced Lincoln's decision to proclaim a Thanksgiving holiday, which he did in late 1863. Does the cited source (Donald) say this? If not I am skeptical. Perhaps the mention of New Orleans should be moved forward to a place that is chronologically more appropriate. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the chronology there; auspicious events leading to Lincoln's proclamation. Its New Orleans on the way to Vicksburg. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be mentioned that Lincoln's reason to hold off on issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was to wait until after a battlefield victory, which ended up being Antietam?
" In July, the Confiscation Act of 1862 was enacted,[193] freeing slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." - this reads as if it was a general emancipation of slaves in occupied regions, but it only allowed for confiscation in certain situations
The current wording in the article is: "In July, the Confiscation Act of 1862 was enacted,[194] freeing slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." Add more? (The linked article states it as: "The Confiscation Act was enacted on July 17, 1862.[3] The defining characteristic of the act was that it called for court proceedings for seizure of land and property from disloyal citizens (supporters of the Confederacy) in the South as well as the emancipation of their slaves that came under Union control.[1] "). ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be clear that this allowed for only targeted seizure, not a general freeing of the slaves in those areas as the current phrasing implies. Hog FarmTalk20:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really due weight for two whole paragraphs on the Dakota War? I'm not overly familiar with Lincoln's Native American policy, but surely there was more to it than just sending Pope against the Sioux
If we were presenting a broad treatment of Lincoln's Native American policy, then this would definitely be proper weighting. Except we're taking a single incident and treating it like it's the end-all-be-all of his Indian policies. We're told that Lincoln wanted to reform the government's policies towards the Native Americans; but not given any details of this. Do the sources say what Lincoln's response to the Sand Creek massacre were? The issue is that we're taking one incident and conflating it with Lincoln's whole Native American policy. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Native American issues during his presidency receive relatively little weighting in biographies of Lincoln, and the emphasis is heavily on the events in Minnesota (eg in Burlingame). I have reworked the section to give more context. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think we should stick to what is mentioned in Lincoln books/papers. I recommend using Green's book as a source for Lincoln's Indian policy. As well as the Sand Creek Massacre. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Lieber Code mentioned in with the Dakota War? What I've read that discusses the Lieber Code does not mention it in relation to the Dakota War
Military conduct as it applies or does not apply to Native Americans appears to fit this context; discussion of proper military conduct. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's misleading to the reader to contrast the Lieber Code to previous things that had nothing to do with the creation of the Lieber Code; we're basically trying to draw a comparison that isn't made in any source I've seen. And if the source you're citing here is making the comparison, you should be making that clearer. And was the Lieber Code actually applied to combat with the Native Americans? Again, see Sand Creek massacre. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you are presenting this as NOR, based on a possible false analogy. The Lieber Code could receive much attention for its discussion of military ethics as applied to conflicts with Confederate soldiers; though its made more difficult when applying its principles to Native Americans because of their differing customs of warfare intergenerationally. The text from the article there states that the starting point can be stated as for possible adaptation: "To resolve the lack of military authority in the 1806 Articles of War, Commanding General of the Union Army Halleck commissioned Professor Lieber to write military laws specific to the modern warfare of the American Civil War. For the Union Army's management and disposal of irregular fighters (guerrillas, spies, saboteurs, et al.), Lieber wrote the tract of military law Guerilla Parties Considered with Reference to the Laws and Usages of War (1862), which disallowed a soldier's POW-status to Confederate guerrillas and irregular fighters with three functional disqualifications: (i) guerrillas do not wear the army uniform of a belligerent party to the war; (ii) guerrillas have no formal chain of command, like a regular army unit; and (iii) guerrillas cannot take prisoners, as could an army unit". ErnestKrause (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the stuff about the Homestead and railway acts awkwardly tacked on to the end of the discussion of reconstruction?
The article emphasis is more oriented to him as wartime president, rather than as having legislative initiatives; the 13th Amendment seems to receive due weight in the article, and the two acts you mention are presented as receiving a little less attention. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These really belong elsewhere; I'd be inclined to move this to the fiscal matters section, as these are at their base economic policies, and have nothing to do with Reconstruction. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the most accurate in the infobox to call him a non-combatant for the Black Hawk War? He didn't see combat, but non-combatant at least in the modern sense is a specific term that refers to medics and chaplains and the like
"though Lincoln prevailed with the party in limiting Hardin to one term" - it's unclear to me what exactly this is trying to say. Did Lincoln actively work to only allow Hardin one term? Is "the party" here meant to be a reference to the party mechanism or to the voters?
"and was awaiting ratification by the required three-fourths of the states when Lincoln took office, whereupon Southern states began to secede" - I'm not a fan of this phrasing as all of the states either seceded before Lincoln took office or after Fort Sumter and the call for 75,000 volunteers; no states seceded just because of Lincoln's inauguration
" allowing the targeted seizure of slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." - I still think we succinctly need to state in what cases targeted seizure was allowed
The text states that as military expansion by the United States progressed, that the assertion of emancipation would be simultaneously granted to any former slaves encountered during the expansion. The geographic expansion of the marching troops as they claimed territory would assert freedom to any slaves encountered on such claimed territory. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nuance that you're failing to catch is that the Confiscation Act of 1862 only applied to those disloyal to the United States which was NOT held to be all of those in the Confederacy. Lincoln's government considered some within the seceded states to still be loyal to the Union - cf Lincoln's constant concern for the Unionists of East Tennessee. Hog FarmTalk14:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Confiscation Act of 1862 definition can be modified if you can make suggestion for an alternate to the one currently there stating: "This law specifically targeted the seizure of property of any Confederate military officer, Confederate public office holder, persons who have taken an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy or any citizen of a loyal Union state who has given aid or support to any of the aforementioned traitors to the United States of America." I'll change the sibling article also if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think all we need to do here is to indicate briefly in Lincoln's article that this act allowed for the targeted seizure of slaves for those disloyal to the United States. We can't quote ""within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." without making it clear this isn't a general emancipation proclamation and it's weird to say it was a targeted seizure without indicating who it was targeting. Hog FarmTalk00:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Senator Willard Saulsbury Sr. criticized the proclamation, stating that it "would light their author to dishonor through all future generations"." - I don't believe this was only after the private Cabinet introduction - it seems a bit odd to place this criticism earlier in the timeline than it actually would have occurred. My impression was that this was not a public matter until the preliminary draft - am I wrong about that?
I've just now noticed that we have an infobox note discussing Lincoln's re-enlistment at a lower rank in the Black Hawk War, but this isn't mentioned in the article body so this isn't actually sourced anywhere. Hog FarmTalk00:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lincoln's war strategy had two priorities: ensuring that Washington was well defended and conducting an aggressive war effort for a prompt, decisive victory" with "Major Northern newspapers, however, predicted victory within 90 days" as the endnote - why the "however"? While there were certainly those who expected a long war from the get-go, that wasn't the prevailing view and the Union was raising a bunch of 90-day volunteers in '61. I don't really see the sentence and the endnote as contrasting enough to warrant a "however"
"Rhea, Gordon (2001). The Battle of Cold Harbor. U.S. National Park Service and Eastern National. ISBN 1888213701." - citation information is wrong. Those NPS/Eastern National guides usually aren't 400 pages long (Amazon and Worldcat both say 60 pages for that ISBN). I can confirm that the statistics are generally found on page 393 of a different Cold Harbor book by Rhea that I have a copy of in my personal library. The citation information for that copy is "Rhea, Gordon C. (2002). Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee, May 26–June 3, 1864. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-2803-1". So is this supposed to be the LSU book (which is part of Rhea' well-regarded series on the Overland Campaign) or is this information also found in the NPS/Eastern National guide and the pagination is just wrong? Assuming the LSU Rhea work is meant, I'm not seeing where the 7,600 Union killed is coming from - it's not on that page of Rhea and while I was able to find those pages of Young on the Wikipedia Library, those pages only cover Confederate losses
That's correct when you state it was 2002 and not 2001; Rhea wrote of that battle separately in both 2001 and 2002. The Correct one is in the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a CWW in answer to another editor requesting more details about Grant's related campaigns. If that specific statistic is not in the citation, then it can be removed since the other statistics in the CWW have been verified. Nikkimaria can also take a second look. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what CWW means in this context, but even though another editor requests some further detail you still need to provide a real source that supports it. Hog FarmTalk20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Confederate forces triumphing at the Battle of Mansfield, the Battle of Cold Harbor, the Battle of Brices Cross Roads, the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the Battle of the Crater damaged Lincoln's re-election prospects, and many Republicans feared defeat; Lincoln rejected pressure for a peace settlement" - can you please provide the quote for this? I brought up the Wikipedia Library copy of this ANB entry and I'm not seeing where any of these battles are mentioned by name
Each of the battles in that section were added individually and are blue linked; the relevant date of the battle is listed in the selected article. They all verify as in the correct time frame and as Union setbacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research to come up with a list of those on your own and determine those are the most significant. For instances, why link Battle of Mansfield rather than the greater Red River campaign? I suspect you'll probably find more references in the literature to the latter. But we can't pick and choose examples without a source for a FA. Hog FarmTalk14:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source being used states the Lincoln was concerned with the Union setbacks during the time period specified. I'll add that these were examples and not an exhaustive list. Its possible to find another source for an exhaustive list if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then just state that Lincoln was concerned with Union setbacks, unless you want to utilize a source that identifies some as particularly important. We shouldn't be making value judgments of which ones must be the most important without backing that with a source, and we certainly don't need an exhaustive list. Hog FarmTalk15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That edit summary from me was overly concise, combining two separate cite sources. The statistics are not in Donald, which only contains the Lincoln quotation in that sentence. The list of battles as I'm recalling was a CWW from the request from another reviewing editor (Nick-D below) below who requested more detail on that campaign. Nikkimaria can decide how best to describe this since its not in Donald. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the publisher for Murrin is "Clark Baxter"? I'm seeing several things that say Thomson Wadsworth for that book.
The Murrin book is up to its seventh edition, and the 4th edition matches with the 2006 publication date which was published by Belmont, CA : Thomson Wadsworth. Updating. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as the nominator is apparently willfully adding things that aren't found in the citations in response to requests for further detail per this. It's also concerning that apparently they were citing page 393 of Rhea but then adding a long citation to a book that was only 60 pages long; this appears to have been yanked straight from Overland Campaign without actually verifying the content to the book as it would have been obvious that the Eastern National guide wasn't the correct book - compare what was added to this article with this revision of the Overland Campaign article. I don't trust the sourcing at this point. @FAC coordinators: Hog FarmTalk20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to either Rhea book, but I've confirmed the numbers of deaths using another source, now cited. I've also removed the battle list and done some additional spotchecking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have great respect for all that Nikkimaria has done for the featured article process, so I don't really want this to be how the review ends. ErnestKrause - What parts of the article have you copied over from other wikipedia articles without verifying, and what all has been added without a source? I have found that a lot of times, even what's sourced in a wikipedia article can't be trusted. My very first GA (Battle of Wilson's Creek) back in 2020 I had trusted pre-existing sourced content, but then later found out that a lot of what was there wasn't supported by those sources, and I had to do a top-to-bottom rewrite. I also had a bunch of requests for additional background information at the FACs of Battle of Arkansas Post (1863), but instead of copying stuff over without checking, I spent a lot of time with a 900 page book (Welcher). I would expect that something like Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era would be the first place to look for background material, not wikipedia articles. Hog FarmTalk02:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question and note. I'm sorry to hear of your previous bad experience in trying to transfer what appeared to be reliable sources in an old article into another article which you were working on at that time; apparently it proved to be inaccurate and caused you to have verification issues with that source. After looking at your edits and the edits of Nikkimaria made last night in the Lincoln article, then it seems like both of you are in agreement that only verifiable and transparent citations are preferred to be used in featured articles, such as linked webcite articles or pdf copies of books available online about Lincoln and related matters for this article. That should be possible to implement as a general rule from now on. I'm in full agreement with the edits which you have made yesterday and which Nikkimaria made yesterday, and it should be possible to follow this approach as a general rule from now on. The list of battles I had added during FAC was removed by Nikkimaria which was originally taken from another Wikipedia article under rules for copying within Wikipedia; Nikkimaria has now removed it. Also, the list of death statistics for the Overland Campaign was copied from another Wikipedia article under the rules for copying within Wikipedia, for which Nikkimaria has now substituted another source. I'm agreeing that using these new transparent webcite sources is the better way to go as you have stated and as Nikkimaria has now edited into the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that only easily accessible/online sources should be used in a FA - in fact, it's usually the opposite; almost all of my FACs are very heavily dependent on print books whichs means either I have to have a copy, I could access a copy from internet archive or the Wikipedia Library, or I was able to get a copy from a local library or through interlibrary loan. What I'm saying is that if you're taking an article to FAC, you need to be able to vouch that the source-text integrity is accurate. I won't take anything to FAC that there's content I personally haven't been able to trace to the cited source. The FAC instructions state that "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process" (emphasis added by me). The issue here is that text was added to this article for the FAC that was not verified, as is clear by what should have been an obvious error in what book was cited. If you can't verify the text, don't take the article to FAC. I'm thinking this might be part of the issue with the Confiscation Act of 1862 above - I'm getting the impression that you weren't familiar with the sourcing for that subject matter and were just trying to get by with reading the Wikipedia article on the act. Hog FarmTalk16:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've struck the oppose - depending on how things go I'll try to get back to this either later today or tomorrow evening. Hog FarmTalk18:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through those sections as identified as recited and they look fine at the surface, although I didn't go back to recheck stuff. I'm hoping tomorrow to do a full re-review with anticipation of supporting. Hog FarmTalk03:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our description of the Gettysburg Address is now this:
Lincoln spoke at the dedication of the Gettysburg battlefield cemetery on November 19, 1863. In 272 words, taking only three minutes, Lincoln asserted that the nation was "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", and that the deaths of the "brave men ... who struggled here" would not be in vain, but that the nation "shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
I am aware that this summary has gone through several changes, and one editor said, "There is no reason to reduce the number of quotations." But in its present form, there are just too many quotations. Ironically, we then say The Address became the most quoted speech in American history. Sure enough! I am not sure how to fix this, but there must be a way. Note that we have an article about the Gettysburg Address. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could "They had three children: Sarah, Abraham, and Thomas, who died as an infant." be changed to "They had three children: Sarah, Abraham, and Thomas; Thomas died as an infant."
Could "Overcoming financial challenges, Thomas in 1827 obtained clear title to 80 acres (32 ha) in Little Pigeon Creek Community." be changed to place the "in 1827" at the end of the sentence?
Could this photograph be added to the "U.S. House of Representatives (1847–1849)" section? Besides being a depiction of Lincoln during that time, it is also the earliest known photograph of him so it is rather important.
Link them. Salmon P. Chase is already linked in the Personnel section and in the Cabinet infobox. First Bull Run is already linked in McClellan section as "Bull Run" as piped. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: I have finished looking at the article and cannot find any issues that have not been brought up by other users. I have nothing left to critique or oppose in this article. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm most familiar with Lincoln's role in the Civil War, so I'll focus on those sections of the article:
" Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, but the South viewed his election as a threat to slavery, and Southern states began seceding to form the Confederate States of America." - this (in the lead) essentially attributes the Civil War solely to Lincoln's election, which is a considerable over-simplification: tensions between the slave and non-slave states had been increasing since independence and fighting was underway long before the election (Bleeding Kansas, etc)
"Lincoln closely supervised the strategy and tactics in the war effort, including the selection of generals, and implemented a naval blockade of Southern ports." - I'd suggest making this the second sentence of the para, as it explains the rest of the para. The para could also be strengthened by tweaks to the first two sentences to stress how strongly dedicated Lincoln was to restoring the union through winning the war.
The 'Commander-in-Chief' section seems miss-titled
This is the president's official title in relation to the military as used in that section, and the section after that which uses the phrase: "He responded to the unprecedented political and military crisis as commander-in-chief by exercising unprecedented authority." Is there an alternate suggestion? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Early Union military strategy' section would benefit from material discussing Lincoln's focus on winning the war. Historians often note that he was much clearer eyed on this that most of his ministers and senior generals, who had a tendency towards half measures while Lincoln accepted from an early stage that the union could only be restored through victory and this would mean tough fighting.
As you also state later in the article when you mention McClellan, Lincoln was certainly frustrated with McClellan on this issue in particular. I've strengthened some of the wording on this already as stated in answer to your McClellan comments below. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It was clear from the outset that bipartisan support was essential to success" - I'm sceptical about this claim, which doesn't seem to reflect the consensus in the literature I've read.
Although Lincoln is usually identified as a moderate Republican, he was not averse to accepting support from the War Democrats as well; definitely both sides of the aisle on this issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lincoln selected civilian generals from varied political and ethnic backgrounds "to secure their and their constituents' support for the war effort and ensure that the war became a national struggle"" - I'd suggest noting that this was at the outset of the war. As it continued, he increasingly favoured generals with a record of success, who were usually the professional soldiers.
" McClellan spent months planning his Virginia Peninsula Campaign" - this and the subsequent text is a bit confusing: the issue is that McClennan was (incredibly) excessively cautious, which led to campaign to move slowly and become bogged down. It ended with McClennan being thrown back by an inferior force due to becoming spooked.
"On July 22, 1862, Lincoln reviewed a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet. ... Buttressed by news of the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation." - you should note that Lincoln chose to delay this proclamation as he wanted it to follow a major Union military victory so it wasn't seen as a response to defeats.
The "Promoting Grant" section is a bit under-developed. A point that historians usually note is that Grant was the first senior leader who was fully aligned with Lincoln's understanding of how the war needed to be fought, and that Lincoln was greatly relieved when Grant pushed forward after difficult battles where the previous generals would have retreated. This led Lincoln to become less hands on in directing the armies as he trusted Grant. The material on the campaign that led to the fall of Richmond should also be fleshed out a bit more.
"A month later, on April 9, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox" - this should be fleshed out a bit to note that there were other surrenders as the confederacy collapsed (the fact that the Confederacy ceased to exist also isn't explicitly noted at present)
Another editor has objected for his own reasons to the amended edit which I added here: [13]. His claim appears to be not to elaborate of the conclusion of the war but only about Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Lincoln is one of the most written about people of all time, so two paras from a single historian seems hard to justify. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its been condensed further. Foner was a professor at Columbia University and the quote seems authoritative. If you think it should be further trimmed, then maybe list here the part that works from your viewpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Foner was a professor at Columbia University and the quote seems authoritative: without wishing to speak for Nick, I'm sure similar credentials could be offered for dozens (at least) of respected academics who have written about Lincoln. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Foner isn't just any professor- he's definitely one of the most widely read and respected scholars (and probably the single most read/respected living scholar) on the Reconstruction Era. Eddie891TalkWork11:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first sentence of the para starting with "In surveys of U.S. scholars ranking presidents since 1948" seems necessary - the other sentences just repeat this.
The three opinions are kept together from Gallop, The Federalist Society, and the Leo book about the presidency to avoid a show a favoritism to any one of them. If any of them are shown to be flawed, they can be deleted. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Memorials and commemorations' section is just a listing of memorials and some of the things named after him: surely there are sources that discuss this thematically. It also doesn't discuss how Lincoln has been discussed on film and how this has changed over time; for instance, the people behind Lincoln (film) were partly motivated by wanting to portray Lincoln as a politician who got things done, at times in distasteful ways, rather than a superhuman figure. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Film, drama, and fiction" section of the Wikipedia article for Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln is very large; its difficult to avoid looking overly selective in choices made and applied to that section. Doris Goodwin's book was used for the Daniel Day Lewis version of the film, done with high acclaim. Her book is mentioned in the Presidency section of the article mentioning her book Team of Rivals. Its possible to mention something like Spielberg's film version, though it might be overly selective to do this. Let me know what you think after you see the Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln Wikipedia article which I just linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the last point, I'm very doubtful that there aren't sources that thematically discuss how Lincoln has been portrayed in novels and films that can be drawn on instead of just nominating some examples. The point I was making by noting the film Lincoln is that it's an example of a project that sought to portray Lincoln in a different way to how he is usually depicted, so there should be material discussing the broader topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. That material looks good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Great work to Ernest and everyone else involved. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"....in 2004—the youngest signee in its history, and a...." - the clause starts with a dash but ends with a comma.....?
"Swift spent four months near the end of 2005 to record her debut album" => "Swift spent four months near the end of 2005 recording her debut album"
"classic hits such as Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" (1974), the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" (1961), or Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart and Soul" (1938)" => "classic hits such as Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" (1974), the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" (1961), and Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart and Soul" (1938)"
"as well as that the refrain is built on repetitions of the initial short motif" => "as well as the fact that the refrain is built on repetitions of the initial short motif"
""Tim McGraw" is about a summer romance that has past and leaves behind" => ""Tim McGraw" is about a summer romance that has passed and left behind"
"but he was repugnant of the title" - I think "but he hated the title" would read more naturally
"It was one of the Award-Winning Songs at the 2007 Country Awards by Broadcast Music, Inc., which honored the most-played country songs on United States television and airplay of the year." → A secondary source would better justify the inclusion of this award in the article
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is missing author that is given in the article
Hi, thanks for the source review. I've added the author to the Post-Gazette source. Re. BMI, I couldn't find third-party coverage for the 2007 awards, but the awards in 2008 and 2010 did receive coverage on Billboard and MusicRow, so I guess the 2007 awards also guarantee inclusion here too.. Ippantekina (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, a rare FAC that's in my wheelhouse. Source quality is good across the board, and I feel all major and minor aspects of the song are widely covered. All sentences seemed to read clearly to me and all citations stood up to scrutiny. (I even got out the CD to double-check the personnel.) I made a couple minor tweaks, such as changing "summer 2006" per MOS:SEASON and capitalizing "Dobro" as it is a brand name. My only concern is that I thought footnotes are not supposed to be done mid-sentence (as is the case with citation 81, among others), unless there is a comma or other punctuation mark. If that last point can be cleared up, then I am willing to support. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TenPoundHammer:, thank you for the review. I can't specifically find a MOS that mentions the issue with mid-sentence sourcing, but I think it could make sense in specific cases. For example, It is a mid-tempo country ballad[35][36] that is driven by a twelve-string guitar[36][37] and incorporates fiddle, Dobro, and banjo.[10] -- leaving all 5 sources at the end of this sentence makes it look overwhelming. I can bundle them up using {{efn}} but it would be confusing. As such I'm fine with mid-sentence footnotes, but let me know what you think! Ippantekina (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything in policy that seems to disallow footnotes of that nature, but I was certain there was a policy about it. In the absence of any policy to the contrary, support. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)03:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, old friend! So good of you to take on this article, especially since Taylor recently got her masters back :)
"On the Billboard Hot 100 chart, the single debuted at number 86 on the issue dated September 26, 2006,[26] peaked at number 40 on January 13, 2007,[27] and spent 20 weeks..." I think it'd be better to say "20 weeks on the chart" or something to that effect.
"Elsewhere, the single peaked at number 10 on the Canada Country chart[32] and has been certified gold in Australia" Why the two different verb tenses?
For me the charting peak was completed in the past, while the cert is still present and hence... lmk if it makes sense for you :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Unlimitedlead:, it's great to see you again :) I've responded to your comments and yeah it's great news that Swift triumphed in her masters battle, guess karma is sweet like honey fr fr. Ippantekina (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment on the following sentence from the lead: Swift wrote the song with Liz Rose, and Nathan Chapman produced it for her debut studio album, Taylor Swift (2006). I could just be overthinking it, but I am not sure if it's entirely grammatically correct as the part on Nathan Chapman is cut off in a way to tie it with "her debut studio album", and Chapman is obviously not the her here. I think it is obvious in context, but I wonder if switching the writing and production would avoid this potential error as with: Nathan Chapman produced the song, and Swift wrote it with Liz Rose for her debut studio album, Taylor Swift (2006). Again, I could be over-thinking it, but I did keep coming back to this part.
For the Dobro references, would it be possible to expand the link to say something like Dobro guitars instead. I could see people being confused by what is meant without the qualifier. I never heard of this brand, but I am not familiar with guitars in general. I just think that clarification is always helpful, especially when it is a minor change like this one.
I am uncertain about the "Swift's narrator" phrasing. It sounds a bit odd to me, particularly with putting the narrator with a possessive in such a way. I would think that "the narrator" would be more concise or something like "the song's narrator" or "the track's narrator" if clarification is needed.
For this part in the lead, her favorite song by the country musician Tim McGraw, the song's namesake, would it be possible to avoid repeating "song" twice in the same sentence? An option could be saying "the single's namesake".
For whatever reason, I am having trouble loading the source link for File:Taylor Swift - Tim McGraw.png. It could be an issue with my internet, but my connection keeps timing out. The link itself seems a bit odd as I would have expected either a link to a streaming platform or to the record label's website.
I have a comment for the following sentence: After finishing school, she came to the Sony/ATV office to finish the song with co-writer Liz Rose, using a piano. The last part on the piano seems incomplete. How did she use a piano to finish the song?
I have a question about this sentence: He suggested that Swift rename it "Tim McGraw", deeming it a move that could attract the attention of country fans who liked McGraw—a contemporary country "superstar". The article had established that the song's working title was "When You Think Tim McGraw", so McGraw was seemingly already a part of the the name prior to Borchetta's opinion. It seemed more like Borchetta was shortening the title, but the sentence more so gives the impression that he thought up the idea of naming the song after McGraw in the first place.
This is likely a silly question, so apologies in advance, but for the lyric, "Georgia stars at night", would a link for Georgia be helpful, especially for non-American readers? I was wondering as Southern United States is linked later on.
I am a part uncertain about the following part, the English-language academic Maggie Laurel Boyd, specifically the phrase "English-language academic" as it is not something that I have run across before. When I look up Boyd, she seems more like an English literature academic. That is of course if I am reading about the right person.
I am uncertain about how this quote, "hit [...] hard", is being used in the article. It is lifted out of its context, and its current placement in this part, Rob Sheffield of Blender wrote that the song "hit [...] hard", is rather vague. In the source, Sheffield ties the song hitting as hard because of Swift's "personality and poise". Would it be possibly to add that context?
This could just be me, but something about the following part, entertain him on live television, specifically the "entertain him" wording seems off to me. Maybe, it is because I have seen that phrasing used in other contexts that are not applicable here.
All of the people from the Personnel section should be discussed in the prose. I did a spot-check for this, and Lex Price, Tim Marks, and Rob Hajacos are only mentioned in this listing and not in the prose.
I left out all personnel because I think they are not worth mentioning... I only included the writers (Swift, Rose) and producer (Chapman). Ippantekina (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as I believe that everyone responsible for creating this song is worth mentioning, but after looking thorough the FAs on songs, I noticed that several of them that do not include all of the personnel in the prose so it is likely a matter of personal preference. For that reason, I will not push this further. Aoba47 (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about title case. It seems like this is used for the online citations, but not for the book/journal sources. Is there a reason for that? I would think that it should be used consistently across all sources.
Wonderful work with the article. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. I doubt that I will find anything major. I hope that this review was helpful. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, Aoba47. Your comments are helpful as always, and I have addressed them all. Let me know how the article looks now :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sound sample is from the refrain, which is discussed in the third paragraph of the Music section. I'm not sure if audio files require alt, which I think normally applies to image files (jpg/png etc). Ippantekina (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines first competed at the 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris, which marked their debut and the debut of any Southeast Asian nation. Some interesting facts include that the flagbearer had to carry two flags as the nation was still occupied by the US, the nation initially had to compete for the US even after becoming a member of the IOC, and two of the three initial athletes dropped out from competing.
My second FAC, shall respond to all comments, trying to improve the quality of the niche and infamous world of Olympic-participation articles. Yours truly, Arconning (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well done researching and putting all of this together, it seems a hard topic to find resources on.
The lead wording on the shift from the HAAU to the Far Eastern Athletic Association read to me like they shifted from the HAAU to the latter due to the letter. However, the body makes it clear the Philippines was already a member of the PAAF, and thus they simply dropped participation in the HAAU. There's also something missing in this story, the article asserts "Philippine athletes had to qualify as athletes for the United States' Olympic team through trials hosted by the Amateur Athletic Union". "Its participation as a separate entity at the Olympic Games was then organized by the PAAF" does not explain how it transitioned away from this situation. Was Quezon negotiating with the United States, or with the IOC, or both? Was it already possible within the IOC for the Far Eastern Athletic Association to bring participation?
Rewording for less confusion as I may have misinterpreted some of the sourcing, sent an email as well. :)
It is also unclear how the Philippines joined the IOC in 1918, but did not have an NOC until 1929.
Sent an email to the Olympic Studies Centre to clarify, though other nations have competed without an NOC such as Italy at the 1896 Summer Olympics and Switzerland at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The AOA was already recognized by the IOC so I seem its plausible that they didn't need to recognize the PAAF as it was still part of the AOA at the time.
I'm not sure about the repeated use of occupation here, given the possible reading as a very temporary governance. It is a word used for the Philippines, although more for the earlier period of rule pre-Jones Act. The wording however is very odd when used as a comparison to Canada or Ireland. In 1924 both were "Dominions", a term with some legal wrangling, but certainly in the Ireland case they asserted (and assert, as many discussions on Wikipedia have established) effective independence from 1922.
Changed! It's quite odd, I agree, the competitors word it as such and I wouldn't want to misrepresent it + might be an issue of WP:OR if I did. Though I'll try to word it better if you'll ask me further. :)
No idea... the report is devoid of any information regarding the flagbearers so I assume they had to use newspapers and/or other print sources to verify the flagbearers and did not find any regarding the Philippines'.
The quote by Nepomuceno about his experiences is reading to me not specifically about his time "at the games", but rather about the seemingly awful travel experience needed to reach it.
Moved.
Speaking of the quote, it seems odd there's no section on legacy. This was the first Olympics for the Philippines, and they participated almost continuously since, which is in some of the sources and seems worth mentioning. (There is also possibly some legacy for racial representation and decolonization, I'm seeing vague google snippets, but if it's not in the sources you've seen the snippets may be misleading me.)
Added some information, could you supply some of the sources you're talking about so I can expand if I find something... relevant!
@Chipmunkdavis Got a reply from the Studies Centre! The participation of athletes back then relied on the Organizing Committee of the 1924 Summer Games rather than an NOC, which meant that NOCs weren't mandatory for an athlete's participation, hope that clears up the second point. For the first point, let me know if I've written it... better. :) Arconning (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I had trouble putting aside a bloc of time. Glad you got replies, and thanks for the changes, not following up on the handled ones.
I'm still stuck on "the nation had to qualify". Clearly they didn't 'have' to. Maybe they "had" to in 1918 and this was changed? It's just unclear how Osías had the unilateral ability to act on that. One factor that may make a difference and is perhaps unclear to modern readers will be that Hawaii was also a territory at this time. The Rappler source glosses over the details. However, the Honolulu Star article does not state in its own voice that the Philippines "had" to complete under Hawaii/the United States, but that this was the opinion of an "E. Fullard-Leo" (I suspect this E Fullard-Leo, seems notable and perhaps worth a redlink, I may look into it further). It says Hawaii invited the Philippines to compete with them, not that this was the letter of the law. I suspect the current article overstates the position, and that rather the whole issue (as with the flags) was untested and subject to various domestic and international politics. Similarly, "Although the nation became a member, the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA), meaning that athletes would have to qualify for the Olympics through American-run trials" seems to far overstate the very small mention in the source which merely notes that the Philippine Amateur Athletic federation became affiliated with the National Amateur Athletics federation in 1923, and perhaps crucially that it was not a member. On the last sentence, "were expected to compete" could perhaps be attributed to saying "...by American newswriters" or similar.
Responses:
"I'm still stuck on "the nation had to qualify". Clearly they didn't 'have' to. Maybe they "had" to in 1918 and this was changed? It's just unclear how Osías had the unilateral ability to act on that. One factor that may make a difference and is perhaps unclear to modern readers will be that Hawaii was also a territory at this time. The Rappler source glosses over the details. However, the Honolulu Star article does not state in its own voice that the Philippines "had" to complete under Hawaii/the United States, but that this was the opinion of an "E. Fullard-Leo" (I suspect this E Fullard-Leo, seems notable and perhaps worth a redlink, I may look into it further). It says Hawaii invited the Philippines to compete with them, not that this was the letter of the law. I suspect the current article overstates the position, and that rather the whole issue (as with the flags) was untested and subject to various domestic and international politics." It just linked in my brain, I've changed it, I'm so sorry for the past miscommunications! I probably misread my own text, reworded it that they had to send a team to the '24 Games upon receiving membership, then the Hawaiian AAU invited them to compete under them as the secretary thought that they may have not been able to send a team. To give some context, I put "territorial Hawaiian Amateur..." as opposed to the modern one.
"Similarly, "Although the nation became a member, the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA), meaning that athletes would have to qualify for the Olympics through American-run trials" seems to far overstate the very small mention in the source which merely notes that the Philippine Amateur Athletic federation became affiliated with the National Amateur Athletics federation in 1923, and perhaps crucially that it was not a member.", removed this.
"On the last sentence, "were expected to compete" could perhaps be attributed to saying "...by American newswriters" or similar.", let me know if my change was alright.
Not seeing "In 1918, the nation became a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) under a condition that it would send athletes to the 1924 Summer Olympics" in the Manila Bulletin source?
"The Philippines joined the International Olympic Committee six years prior and as a requisite for acceptance, it must send a Filipino athlete to the said edition of the Games."
The Taduran wording in the lead could use some tweaking, he is introduced twice and so comes off as two people. (As an aside, this source seems very harsh on Taduran, how is a decathalon champion unimpressive?)
Changed. I do agree it's quite harsh, probably Asian talent within the decathlon was far from the standards of European and North American athletes + it's the 1920s, well... you know what flourished in that time.
"To date" should be changed to as of the specific games (2024) per MOS:DATED.
Done!.
As for the sources, I'm afraid I've had no better luck than scraping through snippets. Philippine participation at the games did provide an argument for Puerto Rican participation, but that isn't the legacy of a single event per se. CMD (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following the revisions and the Legacy expansion I read this article as being in good stead regarding 1b. The changes also put it inline as far as I can tell on 1c now, although during spot checking I was unable to access the Manila Times sources or Blanco 2024 if anyone wants to do another source check. The prose is reasonably clear. The two photos are both older than the 1930 date which Commons has as a pretty clear line for an assumption of public domain. Not an expert on 2c, but it seems roughly fine. Support on that basis. CMD (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1918, the nation ..." I think some of the context in this para should come before the preceding paragraph. Indeed, I would expect the context about how prior to 1918 athletes competed for the US to come first in the background section, rather than a few sentences into the second paragraph
Done.. Hope this is okay.
"to qualify for the United States' team or be unable to compete" -> "...team to be eligible to compete"?
Done.
"For instance, Catalon and decathlete Juan Taduran were expected to compete" how does this sentence fit in this article? I don't think it does, as currently written
It gives the reader context on some initial set-ups before the PAAF's decision... tried rewording it. Let me know if I've done it justice.
"Subsequently, then-PAAF secretary"
Done.
" stating their unwillingness to compete under the HAAU " who is 'their' in this context? The PAAF? The athletes?
Done.
Do you know what Jigorō's connection to the Philippines was? Why would they reach out to him over anyone else
Jigoro was a FEAA representative and IOC member, letter states: "The Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation is an organization in itself, and as a member of the Far Eastern Athletic Association, is entitled to participate in the world Olympic games."
Are the 'delegation' and 'opening ceremony' sections really background?
Made into different sections.
"The Philippine delegation" Since it's a new section, I think it's worth saying something like "The Philippine delegation to the 1924 Olympics"
Done!
I think it would make sense to reorder the paragraphs in the 'delegation' section. I had the following questions on reading through the first paragraph-ish,
Is there anything on how the people who were to be part of the delegation were selected/qualified?
The usual way to qualify for a games at the time was to be selected or entered by the Organizing Committee of the Games rather than modern way where there's multiple ways of qualification such as meeting standards, ranks, or universality slots.
So were Catalon and Taduran not still part of the delegation, even if they didn't compete?
Taduran, yes though as a representative. Catalon, no. They were part of the initial delegation though had to drop out due to stated reasons in the article.
He was set to be part of the official delegation as he was entered in the 100 and 200 meter dashes, though he did not start his events nor attended the games itself. He did not have a substantial role in the countries' participation at the games whether in a diplomatic or sport manner, so he's not part of the delegation.
Did any of the athletes excel outside of the Far East? Curious why we say "mostly"
Reworded, they mostly competed in Asia, not really competing outside of the continent.
But I think they would mostly be resolved by putting the second paragraph first.
"Taduran instead served as a representative" I can't really grasp what representative means in this context?
Representatives hold similar duties as an ambassador or is one, added a wikilink for clarity. As the Olympics are a "world event", teams appoint attaches, chef de missions, and et cetera.
"with the former winning eight" How did you decide that 1919 was "in the lead-up" but 1917 wasn't (which would bring his total to ten)?
Whoops! Miscounted, changed!
"which was within one-fifth" ... of a second? of a percent? of his time?
Of a second, done.
"which was within one-fifth of the world record at that time held by Jack Donaldson, qualifying them for the games" to me this could imply that being within X seconds of the WR could qualify one for the olympics, but I don't think that's accurate?
Changed.
"at the Southeast Asian Olympic Tournament." do you have a date/year for the tournament?
Source does not state any dates, tried finding other sources nada.
" The procedure that was adopted was equal to the Moroccan delegation that did not compete, who would have needed to fly the flag of France on top of theirs" this is a bit odd to me, couldn't we axe this sentence and not lose anything? It also feels a bit odd to break the paragraph here
That's true... removed.
"In the history of the Games, Catalon became the most successful athletics competitor" -> "Catalon became the most successful athletics competitor and Taduran the most decorated decathlete in the history of the games" would feel more natural to me
Changed.
"Catalon and Taduran were active in sport through other means" do we lose anything from cutting this? You state what their activity was later
Donezo.
"though the team lost every match they had at the 1930 Far Eastern Championship Games" ditto
Done.
"at the subsequent Summer Games" subsequent here could be read as subsequent to 1980
Changed.
Have you been able to access 1920s Filipino newspapers to check for coverage? I feel like they would have relevant information to the article.
Checked the archives of East View and the Library of Congress, doesn't give any substantial information that isn't included in the article.
OK, on a re read, in addition to the two above, my main point is still that I think the background needs re-ordering. Why do we begin with the dates of the olympics, and not the sequentially earliest background information (currently in paragraph two?).
Changed!
Other minor points:
"in the mid-1920s" this wouldn't have been before the game, is jarring when contained in the same sentence previously talking about their careers "before the Games", and then going on to continue to talk about their pre-1924 careers.
I may be coy, could you give some selected instances?
Do we have no information about Nepomuceno pre-1924?
Checked archives, none. Considering he just turned 24 at the time of the Games it would've made sense. Additionally Catalon and Taduran were born in the 1890s
"becoming the two-time winner in the decathlon at the Southeast Asian Olympic Tournament" If you can't put any sort of date on this, I don't think it's helpful to include, you already establish that he had won medals.
Removed.
I'm not convinced the link to ambassador is actually accurate/helpful, as the article is on a specific diplomatic context- might be better just saying "representative" if you can't get any more info on it.
Alrighty!
"showing visible signs of tiredness" - maybe attribute who thought they were tired, like along the lines of "and contemporary reporters described them as something something something"
Done.
"Catalon was set to compete in the men's 100 meters[1] and 200 meters, while Taduran was set to compete in the men's decathlon" I would put this at the end of the first paragraph, and move the part about "Nepomuceno... participated in the men's 100 meters and 200 meters" here as well
Done as well.
"before the opening ceremony for training" are we sure that it was for training- one would hope that their training had been largely completed by this point? Maybe cut "for training"
Source says they arrived for more training, most Olympic athletes do train a lot before their events, even at the host city!
"The Philippine delegation marched 34th out of the 42 nations present in the Parade of Nations within the opening ceremony on July 5" I would sequentially move this to the end of the parade of nations section.
Done + moved some text around, hope it's okay.
"sixth heat, a preliminary round" could you just say "sixth preliminary heat"?
That's true... fixed.
Why do you have "100-yard dash" (with hyphen), and "100 metre"/"200 metre" without?
Both are accepted styles, changed to retain consistency. :)
"The Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) gave the Hawaiian Amateur Athletic Union (HAAU)" Do we know when this happened?
Checked archives and some contemporary websites, nothing listed.
"was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA). Due to this ruling, Catalon and decathlete Juan Taduran were expected to compete in the 1924 United States Olympic trials in track and field in Cambridge, Massachusetts" would the sourcing support/it be clearer to revise to something like "Although the nation became a member, the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA), meaning that athletes would have to qualify for the Olympics through American-run trials. For instance, as late as [December?] 1923 Catalon and decathlete Juan Taduran were expected to compete in the 1924 United States Olympic trials in track and field in Cambridge, Massachusetts" I think this would help connect the two sentences and avoid the awkward "Due to this ruling [which one?]"
It would! Changed.
I still don't get why Catalon is not included as part of the delegation, if he went to Paris with them, just as Taduran did. I'm sure that I am just being thick, but can you try explaining again to me?
Unlike Taduran who had initially qualified for the games as an athlete though took up a spot on the delegation as an ambassadorial role, Catalon wouldn't be part of the official delegation. Though he arrived in Paris, he did not compete nor attend the games as a spectator at all. He was initially entered as an athlete though did not follow through that role thus rendering him not being part of the nation's delegation. (checked Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive if Catalon had another role, he did not)
re: "noun + ing", I think the following constructions should just be reviewed to make sure they are the best way of phrasing things: "with the former winning ten and the latter winning two in the lead-up to the Games", "with Catalon and Taduran eventually not competing in the trials", "Taduran injured his collarbone after playing" "was in a dilemma concerning". Eddie891TalkWork14:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Done! Removed info about Catalon and Taduran's trials entry, as the reader could probably assume they did not compete as it was stated before they were "expected" to compete though the PAAF was reluctant to send them... et cetera et cetera. 16:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I’m not sure I understand the point on Catalon not being part of the delegation, but am willing to chalk it up to my brain not working. Support on prose - Eddie891TalkWork16:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Flag of the Philippines (1919–1936).svg needs a US PD tag
File:Philippines – 1924 Summer Olympics.png good
File:Loren Murchison and David Nepomuceno.jpg also good (shame about the quality, but it could probably be cropped to exclude the borders around the image) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno whether International Olympic Committee should actually be italicized - it's a publisher, not a source, essentially. Same question about Philippine Olympian Association. #33 seems to be broken. Some light spotchecking turned up no issues but I must note I don't know the reliability of most sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rappler (2, 19) - Consensus that it was deemed reliable, WP:RAPPLER.
Manila Bulletin (3, 23) - The source is well trusted per a Reuters report [14], the newspaper itself has a huge editorial oversight.
The Manila Times (8) - Currently the oldest running newspapers in the Philippines, politically the source itself is quite... difficult. Since the article and source mentions who led the PAAF at the time, I don't see it being a problem on my end.
Olympedia (14, 18, 26, 31, 32) - Managed by select Olympic historians, made by Sports Reference and currently owned by the International Olympic Committee.
This article is about how to carry on drinking after death with the help of a lead pipe. I am indebted to Richard Nevell for a thorough GAN review, help with sources and suggestions for improvement. It's been a couple of years since I've been here, so apologies in advance if I've missed any changes in requirements Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have taught about this burial many times -- I didn't even know it had an article, so it's particularly wonderful to see it
A couple of quick points on a quick scan:
Anything in a non-English language needs to be in a lang template -- that goes for Latin and for Welsh. In general, we should translate when we can: see Cair Legeion guar Uisc and Ultra Pontem.
British English doesn't like false titles ("archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler") -- we can do "the archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler", "Mortimer Wheeler, an archaeologist" or similar.
Oh -- that's the cited page? I've never seen that before: using a SFN would solve it altogether; you could otherwise use the RP template, but that would need to be a consistent style throughout the article. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting is quite inconsistent -- are titles written in sentence or title case? Are initials formatted as e.g. CW Blegen, C W Blegen or (my personal preference) C. W. Blegen?
The bibliography title "cited texts" seems inaccurate, as there are lots of texts cited that don't make it there. In all honesty, I'm struggling to pick out a logical distinction between those cited wholly inline and those in the bibliography, but would strongly suggest moving (at least) all books and journal articles to the biblio. Some people like to keep websites and ephemera where it's not possible to give an author and date in the notes only.
I have only put sources with references to more than on section in "Cited texts". I've regularly done this without comment, for example my 2023 FA Red-throated wryneck has the two Gorman books in that section. Unless MoS now prescribes it, I see no reason to change that. Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS doesn't specifically prescribe any citation style, but I'd observe that this one is likely to be opaque to almost any reader, and I must admit that I can't see the logic in it -- what makes a source mentioned twice, in two different sections, more prominent or honestly different to one cited four times in one section? As I've noted above, using footnote-only references when you also want to specify individual pages has caused you some problems, and forced you into a very opaque style of notation which I wouldn't expect many readers to understand. That's an FACR problem, even if the citation style itself isn't. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, the weight and nature of the sources gives me a little pause. We're really leaning on two big academic works (Roberts and M. Wheeler), with what would seem like two major sources relegated to Further Reading. FAs need to be comprehensive: if there's good material in there, they should be used fully and brought into the biblio. Conversely, a lot of the sources we do use don't seem to be particularly high quality: introductory summaries by Historic England and Cadw, Caerleon.net, and museum records that state things like scientific investigations done on the objects -- which we would expect to be taken from an academic publication, and to have more information available there.
I've removed the further reading, partly because I have no access to either of the Tessa Wheeler sources, and also because they're about the amphitheatre, not the burial. I tried to find the scientific investigations, but without success, but I'm unclear why a national museum isn't seen as a reliable soure for work that presumably it commissioned. @UndercoverClassicist:, perhaps you could clarify before I plough on with the remainder of your comments Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the analysis exists only as a grey literature report somewhere and wasn't published in a journal. I had a (brief) look and couldn't surface anything through Google. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this for a while. Not sure if I'll do a full review, but I did do a little digging for those two sources. I am fortunate to be a patron of the New York Public Library; a wonderful research librarian there was able to locate one of the sources for me:
(Item Link: Full viewv.78 1928 ; Original Source: University of Michigan)
and I've got an inter-library loan request in for "The Caerleon Amphitheatre: A summary". The status is currently "awaiting ARM Manual Review", which I guess is library-speak for "we're not sure yet if we can get it for you". If it comes in, I'll let you know. RoySmith(talk)00:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look on Google Books for "Caerleon Pipe Burial" gave me quite a lot of unused sources:
This one briefly discusses the burial in relation to whether the living visited the site (using it as evidence in favour), and whether it can be called military (no).
This one and this one have useful context on this burial alongside other pipe burials elsewhere; we currently talk about other British examples, but otherwise only say that others exist, with times and places unspecified.
Similarly, Keith Hopkins here talks a little about the why of pipe burial, with reference to Caerleon (and a kind if pointed word for Wheeler).
I can't get the full text on Google Books, but this one discusses the burial at length.
Ah, good find. I was including the source here as an illustration ("there are more out there that we're not using yet"), rather than because it had something specific -- but Boon does talk about what was poured down the pipe as libations, endorses the age and gender of the burial, and gives a more precise findspot than we have. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an important footnote to the archaeological investigation of the burial here, on JSTOR.
Another thing -- I realise that I took a photograph of the real thing a little while ago: you can find it here. It's not the greatest, but might be worth adding so that readers can see what it actually looks like.
At the moment, I'm not sure we're quite up to the FA standards of comprehensiveness and detail, though it's unquestionably a good article and a really nice introduction to a fascinating find. I think this might be a case where bringing a pre-FAC mentor (noting the comment in the nomination about standards having changed, which I'm sure is very true) on board would have made the process easier, and would suggest poking through some recent archaeological FAs to get an idea of the level of detail and general "meat" we normally find in them. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested the Cadw source, it seems only fair that I explain why I think it's suitable. As a Cadw guidebook it's a high-quality and accessible summary of Caerleon. I can't speak for how Cadw do things, but English Heritage send their guides for peer review and are a similar quality, and the guidebook is cited by other sources. The guidebook is not the definitive work on Caerleon, but is reliable and I think it is suitable for providing context, particularly as a source for an uncontroversial statement like "Although there are no extant visible traces of the burial sites that lay along the roads leading to the fortress, numerous tombstones and cremation graves have been recovered". Richard Nevell (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a bad source, but we expect FAs to be primarily sourced to high-quality, high-detail works by academics, with perhaps a couple of other reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, guidebooks, quality websites, doctoral theses) cited where those add something that can't be replicated elsewhere. My impression of the sources here is that the balance is the other way: most of the sources are general-audience works, often written by heritage bodies rather than research academics. I note, for example, that while Roberts is unquestionably an authority in her field, Buried is a mass-market work, and will doubtless be built upon more specialised and generally "nerdy" scholarly publications: I'd generally expect an FA to be primarily engaging with those directly. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A guidebook falls comfortably in the category of a general work designed for the public rather than specialists. All the same it's worth noting that research is an important part of Cadw's work and Jeremy Knight (the author of the guidebook) was an Inspector of Ancient Monuments, and has written numerous research papers and academic books. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Richard Nevell: I've made use of the Bank Holiday to address the points made above, as well as those from Nikkimaria above and Tim Riley below. Thanks you both for the time and effort you've put in. I've incorporated from the sources what seems to add value to the text, rather than basically rephrase what is already there. I have no problem using Cadw, English Heritage or the Museum as sources. It would be nice to get under the skin, for example with the museum's scientific tests, but inability to do so doesn't, in my opinion at least, lessen the credibity of what they are claiming Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: For your first link above, the text I can see in full is about Anglo-Saxon graves, I can only see snippet view for the pipe burial bit. Neither Wheeler nor Roberts mention a sacrificial table, and the presence of the pipe suggests that people visited the cemeteries, as does the Roman funerary customs. Perhaps you can access more text than me, but as it stands, I'm struggling a bit with this source. Jimfbleak - talk to me?12:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasing article! A few quibbles before I sign on the dotted line to support promotion to FA:
"In 1927, building works on a site" – AmE-style commas after dates: Plain Words sums up the BrE model concisely: Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent ... On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended". If I were you I'd lose the superfluous comma. Tim riley talk20:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"confirmed at reexamination in 2001" – the OED hyphenates re-examination.
"Across the river Usk, there was a suburb" – another superfluous comma.
"the Ultra Pontem/Bulmore area" – spelling of Bulmore? (Double l elsewhere).
"sent the fragments to anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, FRS" – two things here: first a clunky false title easily remedied by the insertion of a definite article; and I don't think we usually give people their postnominals in the text of an article,
"tin and sulfur were present" – imported from America, presumably, in preference to English sulphur.
Bloody hellfire! (with or without sulphur) but so be it! I much enjoyed this article and am happy to add my support for its elevation to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk14:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree on sulfur. It is not a scientific setting but a technical chemical setting. See [21], which explains that the new journal Nature Chemistry will use sulfur even though sulphur is retained for Nature itself. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: The page you linked seems to be arguing strongly to lose the "ph" spelling in the case of sulfur, there seems to be no good reason to continue using the 'ph' form other than perhaps a mistaken sense of spelling jingoism.. More to the point, the British source for the statement uses "sulfur" Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article continued to improve after the GA review, so I've had to refresh my memory of the article. Reading through it again, it is clearly written and has an appropriate level of detail. The article is well constructed providing the context necessary to understand this fascinating subject. In the last few weeks an article was published which contains a brief mentions of the Caerleon pipe burial. It says that lead particles from the canister led to the preservation of the cloth. Is that a detail worth including? Perhaps, but not something I think would undermine the article's comprehensiveness. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, just one comment: per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, I would delete the photo of Alice Roberts as it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject.
@RoySmith:. Roberts was one of the two principal investigators of the remains, and one of two prominent female scientists featured in the articles. I'm not sure how the article is improved by not having an image of her? Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how this jives with Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding. And while I hate "nobody else does it" arguments, I can't help noticing that of the two dozen or so archeology FAs I looked at, not a single one included a photo of the archeologist. It's about what they found, not who found it. That's even true in (archived) Peking Man, where a significant part of the story revolves around the investigators and the politics they were involved with. RoySmith(talk)21:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason you use a mix of m, cm, and mm for lengths in various places?
Caerleon, a town north of Newport in South Wales, I'd just say "Caerleon, a town in South Wales" or even "Caerleon, in South Wales". Knowing that this is north of Newport doesn't seem to add any value.
The professional archaeologist Tessa Wheeler Why is it important to note that she is a professional, especially since you don't make a similar distinction for her husband?
Across the river Usk there was a suburb ... This may be a regional English thing, but I don't think you can say "Across" without stating what it is across from, i.e. "Across the river Usk from the excavation site there was a suburb ..."
... and several are known in the area I think you're referring to "several cemeteries", but there's enough distance between the words to obscure the connection.
most were identified from casual finds I'm guessing "casual find" is a term of art in the archeological world, but it's worth explaining here for the lay reader. Presumably it means "Some farmer happened to stumble across it while working in his field"? Or maybe it's OK as is; I could go either way.
These are Abbeyfield to the north of Caerleon and the Ultra Pontem/Bulmore area adding a comma after "Caerleon" will make this easier to parse.
A scanning electron microscope investigation revealed that tin and sulfur were present in the deposits within the canister I know that's what the source says, but my (admittedly limited) knowledge of SEM has me wondering how you could detect specific elements with such an instrument. Is there any more information about this available?
On the point about Teresa Wheeler being a professional archaeologist, it struck me that this was a deliberate contrast with the antiquarian excavations that preceded Wheeler's work and which are the topic of the preceding sentence. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell, Roy Smith I've adopted all your suggested changes above, although I've retained "professional" for that reason. SEMs inter alia incite X-ray emission from the sample characteristic of the elements it contains see hereJimfbleak - talk to me?11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give this a guarded support. It is well written, complies with the MOS, etc. It is shorter than a typical FA, but I don't see that as a problem; I'd rather see us write short high-quality articles on niche/obscure topics of academic import than to churn out tomes on popular topics awash in contemporary coverage. The referencing looks good to me, but I'm not a SME so I'm not qualified to comment on the comprehensive and well-researched aspects of the WP:FACR. UndercoverClassicist has already expressed his reservations in those areas and his opinion should be given greater weight than mine, hence my "guarded" qualification. RoySmith(talk)15:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places where the people's initials are not followed by a full stop. I tried to push years ago to allow the lack of usage and had the massed ranks of the MOS people land on me for it; it may be best to add them now to save grief down the road
I see in the sources you list him as "Wheeler, Mortimer"; maybe "Wheeler, R. E. Mortimer" for consistency?
Breadth and reliability
All sources used are high quality, with most of the article's heavy lifting being done with academic sources or 'industry' specialist (Cadw, archaeological trust, Museum Wales, etc)
Additional searches have shown no further high-quality sources that could or should have been used
This article is about the oldest known tyrannosauroid, though dramatically different from its later, more famous relatives like Tyrannosaurus in being quite small and with a crest beginning at the snout. While first named over a century ago, little was published about it until the last few decades, and we have summarised all of it here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joining as co-nominator as agreed, focusing on revisions for things such as references and formattings. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Creisler, B. (July 7, 2003). "Dinosauria translation and pronunciation guide P". Archived from the original on August 18, 2010. Retrieved April 28, 2025." - needs publisher in the citation
"as well as the shape of the maxilla (the main tooth bearing upper jaw bone) and squamosal (a bone towards the back of the skull) as well as the shape of the external nares (bony nostril openings) and the infratemporal fenestra (the skull opening behind the orbit/eye socket) as distinctive" - is it possible to avoid the duplication of the "as well as the" construction in a single sentence?
"Von Huene considered the crest, as well as the shape of the maxilla (the main tooth bearing upper jaw bone) and squamosal (a bone towards the back of the skull) as well as the shape of the external nares (bony nostril openings) and the infratemporal fenestra (the skull opening behind the orbit/eye socket) as distinctive,[7][8] considering the crest, which he thought to represent the base of a nasal horn, as a feature supporting its relationship with Ceratosaurus.[9]" - "considered the crest" and "considering the cest" in the same sentence? The whole sentence seems very convoluted.
"Well preserved fossils of the related tyrannosauroids Yutyrannus and Dilong indicate that they were covered in relatively simple feathers in life, similar to the down feathers of modern birds" - this feels tacked on. There's obviously not going to be fossil evidence support to confirm/deny feathers for Proceratosaurus given that only a partial skull is available for this dinor. But is there actually direct speculation as to feather presence on Proceratosaurus? Are the two tyrannosauroids listed particularly close relations? If there's no direct discussion in the sources regarding feathers here, I don't know that this is really appropriate to include. Are there other related tynrannosauroids that lack feathers?
Hone explicitly states in the source: Feathers are rarely preserved as the conditions for their preservation have to be near perfect, and we have to be lucky enough to find fossils of feathered specimens. Thus even though only two tyrannosaurs are directly known to have had feathers, it is reasonable to infer that all of them did. I've modified the sentence to be more explicit about this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The presence of tyrannosauroids such as Proceratosaurus in the Bathonian" - would recommend linking Bathonian here as it is the first use
discovered some time prior I assume we know when, so be more specific: "discovered X years earlier".
I looked into this, and I genuinely could not find out when the skull was discovered. The original 1910 description does not say, only "At last, however,' Mr. F. Lewis Bradley, F.G.S., has been able to submit to the Society the greater part of a skull obtained some time ago from the Great Oolite in an excavation for a reservoir at Minehinhampton (Gloucestershire)" [22]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arthur Smith Woodward book chapter confirms that the preparation and CT scanning occurred in 2010, but there's no confirmation about the date of the excavation of Proceratosaurus. Given the distance from the source, the "early 1900s" is probably just a reasonable speculation on the part of the author of the Australian Museum article, and I don't place any weight on it. Getting a proper answer on this would probably require deep archival digging that would probably go into WP:OR territory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minchinhampton, a town in the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire, South West England.[1] Just saying "Minchinhampton, in South West England" is enough. Knowing the full political structure of the UK doesn't help the reader understand the subject.
made the skull the holotype specimen of a new species I know just a little about taxonomy; I'm familiar with type specimen but not "holotype specimen", so that needs a bit of explanation.
Hmmm. I'm sure to an expert, it's obvious what this means, but I'm still finding it a bit puzzling. It's also not entirely clear what it means to "move" a species. Reading the introduction to Rauhut et al, I understand it completely, so perhaps hew a bit closer to how they describe the situation and include some more of the details (obviously within the constraints of WP:CLOP? RoySmith(talk)13:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, later research showed "However, Rauhut et al later showed ..."
I think some researchers had disputed it before this, but fixed and moved to the bottom of the section so the Rahut study could be properly introduced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The holotype skull was since CT scanned Be more specific: "In <year>, the holotype skull was CT scanned ..."
This isn't specified in the source, but it was CT scanned as part of the project to redescribe the specimen, so I've mentioned that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only known skull of Proceratosaurus is 26.9 cm (10.6 in) long as preserved I think you're missing the word "is"?
To my native English speaking self, this seems like okay grammar to me without the "is" (I'm not sure where the "is" is supposed to be inserted, presumably in "as preserved"?) but I'll let others chime in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its longest axis is not horizontal but inclined upwards at an angle of approximately 30 degrees looking at the various illustrations (ex File:ProceratosaurusBradleyiSize.png), I'm not seeing this.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's an internal feature of the skull that wouldn't really be visible in life or silhouette. It's in comparison to Guanlong, where the difference in the orientation of the nasal fenestra (the big black opening at the front of the skull is quite apparent. [24]Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a version of the Proceratosaurus image with all the skull parts labelled, as well as provided the Guanlong restoration (which is unmodified) in a double image for comparison. I think the reader will be able to infer what parts of the skull of Guanlong are which from the labels on the Proceratosaurus image. The Proceratosaurus image was reuploaded over the old one, so you may need to refresh your cache or use incognito to see it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
though one opinion published in 2000 Hmm, this is Rauhut again. You seem to be shy about giving him credit :-)
This isn't referring to Rahut 2010, this referencing Rahut 2010 quoting the opinion of another study "Madsen JH, Welles SP 2000. Ceratosaurus(Dinosauria, Theropoda). A revised osteology. Miscellaneous Publication, Utah Geological Survey 00-2: 1–80.". Would it be better to directly cite this study? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for leaving you wondering. I'm going to put this on the back burner for now but I'll come back at some point and take another look. If this slips down into "Older nominations" and I haven't come back by then, please ping me. RoySmith(talk)17:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to call this a support from me at least as far as being well written and approachable to a non-expert. I dont know enough about paleontology to express an opinion on whether it is comprehensive or well-researched, but I assmume we will get some SMEs to chime in on that. RoySmith(talk)21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It was originally described as a species of Megalosaurus in 1910, M. bradleyi, but this species was moved to its own genus, Proceratosaurus, in 1926." - why not just "It was originally described as a species of Megalosaurus in 1910, M. bradleyi, but was moved to its own genus, Proceratosaurus, in 1926." (reduces the odd-sounding repetition)
due to perceived resemblance of Proceratosaurus incomplete cranial crest to Ceratosaurus nasal horn - if the dinosaur names are used in possessive here, should be Proceratosaurus' and Ceratosaurus' - or otherwise we need definite articles (or something) here...?
A diverse marine assemblage is known from the Great Oolite Group... - discussing marine life in this article seems to be straying a bit far. Context is good but this last sentence strikes me as overinclusive.
So the article now has "Proceratosaurids were generally small-bodied carnivorous animals" in the main article, and "Proceratosaurus is thought to have been a carnivore" in the lead. Either is fine, and I realise that Proceratosaurids is not the same as Proceratosaurus, and that there is a "generally" in there, but it looks like a contradiction. Would you care to have a second look at this?
"as well as being CT scanned at the University of Texas during the same year as part of this project." Given that you are still in the same sentence and that the clause starts "as well as" I think we could do without "as part of this project."
"These authors found the holotype specimen to be at least a sub-adult dinosaur, as the bone did not show features associated with juveniles" Why does this need pointing out so firmly?
"The partially preserved orbit (eye socket) has an inverted egg-shape, and was probably marginally taller than long when complete, with a maximum estimated complete height of 6 cm (2.4 in), and a measured length of 5.55 cm (2.19 in), respectively." I don't think you need "respectively".
You join words with slashes several times. primitive/early diverging; margin/border; orbit/eye socket etc MOS:SLASH advises against, suggesting "Replace with clearer wording."
Archives for journal websites removed, url links to journal websites (when doi links to same place) removed. All dates are formatted consistently, either as year-only as is standard for journal or book citations in the field, or with year-month-date citations as is standard for websites or access dates. I can revise them all further if its required. Ben Criesler (Dinosauria Online) is a reliable citation for names and pronunciation as can be seen by his published works here (chapter 10)here or here or acknowledgements here or here. I replaced the link to Mindat with the appropriate original source of the Paleobiology Database, which is an established and cited tool in literature. Links and clarifications are given for "Carnivorous Saurischia in Europe..." and "Ceratosaurus... a revised osteology". Hope this satisfies the source review. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The archive for the OUP description paper was included because the article is currently paywalled but historically was freely accessible. The images didn't load properly on the archive so I don't think removing it that big of a deal. CERATOSAURUS (DINOSAURIA, THEROPODA) A REVISED OSTEOLOGY says in the opening pages The Miscellaneous Publication Series of the Utah Geological Survey provides non-UGS authors with a high-quality format for papers concerning Utah geology and paleontology. Although reviews have been incorporated, this publication does not necessarily conform to UGS technical, policy, or editorial standards. so it's clearly a paper rather than a book. Megalosaurus dinosaur.png has been very heavily revised to be almost an entirely different image from its original version [25], for which those unreliable sources were used as references, so I don't think the sourcing issues is applicable, as the current version of the file is clearly based on reliable academic sources. I've added explanations of the meanings of the colours for Proceratosaurus bradleyi Skull Reconstruction (alt).png and File:GuanlongWucaiiSkulls.png. I would concur with IJReid that Ben Creisler is a reliable academic expert source of the pronounciations of Greco-Latin scientific names. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that ALT text might need improvement; e.g File:ProceratosaurusBradleyiSize.png doesn't provide information on the size of the dinosaur. At least my understanding of ALT text is that it has to substitute the information provided in the image, if there is any. The date formats are still inconsistent; sometimes numbers separated by hyphens, sometimes months spelled out. Everything else seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've changed the dates so all sources are now given as years only, and also changed the alt-text of ProceratosaurusBradleyiSize.png to be more descriptive. Is this enough? If you have more images in mind where you think the alt text needs improving, can you name them specifically? Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The map and the stress image ALTs might work better if they actually present some of the information in the image (e.g a short statement of what Central Europe was that time). The date format is still inconsistent - the archive dates are in year-hyphen-month-hyphen-day and #1 in month-comma-day-year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first FA nomination; though I've had a lot of experience with GAs and had a few successful FL noms, I figured it was about time to dip my toes into FA. I decided to nominate this article because I recently patched it up and feel it has a good shot at meeting FAC criteria, as despite the subject's obscurity it has some surprisingly well-documented creation info and Reception. As such, any and all comments are appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who.", this statement needs to have some citing and text within the body. You should give a short explanation on what Doctor Who is for some context for the readers
The lead states that Downtime was made in 1995, while the body states it was made in 1994.
Mentions of "direct to video" - " direct-to-video"
"Yeti robots were also among the monsters to appear in the 1997 video game Doctor Who: Destiny of the Doctors.", citation?
"many had criticized the "cuddly" Yeti designs." who?
Citation 24 is probably not in Arabic.
Addressed the above. On a few points:
-Lethbridge Stewart is already hyperlinked in the section, as is his actor, so hyperlinking it again would not be necessary.
-Per WP:MOSPLOT the Appearances do not technically need to be cited; if I'm being honest the main issue is just that I couldn't find a valid citation template to use here.
-The source itself uses the same wording I use for the "cuddly" statement: "The costumes from The Abominable Snowmen were already falling apart, and had been considered by many to be a little too cuddly to send children scurrying behind the sofa."
As it doesn't specify who the "many" is, I did not either to avoid OR.
@Arconning I've added a paragraph at the start of history to give a very brief series overview; basically just included the basics that would be relevant to the article. Let me know as a whole if anything else needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a request from the nominator, I reviewed this article in-depth just one day prior to candidacy, in an effort to make the process less stressful by cleaning up any outstanding issues that might come up here. This review included comments on wording choices, grammar, linking (dup links, Easter Eggs, BLUESEAs), and needing increased variety. These would be any common problems that I specialize in spotting, and that I would check for any featured-quality review to ensure that the article meets the criteria, specifically in regards to #1A, #1D, and #2. All of these were cleaned up in this edit, and as I believe those, and the other criteria are met (a quick glance at the images and source editor ensures that there are consistent uniform citations, and proper licensing), I'm satisfied to a point that I'd like to go ahead and provide my support. I'd be happy to provide a screenshot of the comments upon request. TheDoctorWho(talk)20:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advances as unfortunately, I do have the time to do a complete review for the article. I do have some comments about the citation formatting. I am looking at this version of the article.
Some citations do not have the work/publisher linked. Examples are how Vox in Citation 2 and Bloomsbury Publishing USA in Citation 3 are not linked. Works and publishers should be consistently linked by either having them linked in the first citation or for each citation. It is up to you which way you prefer as long as it is consistent.
Some of the citations are missing information. Citations 15 and 16 do not include publishers. Citation 24 is missing the production company and network. Citation 11 in particular is missing a lot of information, such as the director and production company, and should more clearly define Platt's role with the movie.
Marc Platt, Mark Brake, and John Kenneth Muir should be linked in their citations. Downtime should be linked in Citation 11 and Millennial Rites in Citation 14. On a somewhat related note, is Piers D Britton notable enough for a red link? There is of course nothing wrong with red links, as they are useful, but they should be reserved for a topic that could potentially be an article.
Why does one of the authors in Citation 20, (Smith?), have a question mark?
I would be consistent with using title case for the citation titles. Doctor Who (and any show or movie title in general) should also be consistently italicized in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
I hope that these comments are helpful. My primary concerns are with linking and incomplete information in the citations. I would encourage you to look through each source to check for any of these issues with the citations. Apologies again for not being able to help further. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47 I've done most of your other suggestions. A couple things:
-How do you hyperlink authors in a citation? The first and last names are split into two categories, so I'm not quite sure how to do it.
You use the |author-link= parameter with the name of the author as they appear in the Wikipedia article, and by that I mean with any disambiguation. For this one, you would just plug in John Kenneth Muir. It is the same way as James Chapman is currently linked in one of the article's citations. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added hyperlinks where applicable. Not sure on Britton so I'm not sure about adding a red link; if you want me to I will though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-On Smith?, I have no clue. He's just credited like that, even on the cover.
That is strange, but thank you for clarifying that for me. I am guessing it is some sort of stylistic choice on the part of the author. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-I elected to axe Cite 24, since the information is covered by the other citation on that line already.
-I am unable to add Director and Production Company to Cite 11, so I'm not sure what to do there.
I have left a suggestion below. I have primarily used the AV media citation in regards to television episode, so I was unaware that the production company cannot be put into this type of citation. Below is my suggestion for the citation formatting:
You could just go into the source editor and use the citation that I have already formatted above and put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The citation does not clearly convey that Platt was the screenwriter for the movie. When I first looked at it, I guessed that he was the director. My suggestion above should solve this. The citation should be easily understood by readers, even by those completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just to be clear, this is not a source review. I just have one question. Do the Doctor Who: The Complete History sources have ISBNs? Other than that, I do not see anything else with the citation formatting. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are ISSNs, which I've added. I'm aware this isn't a source review, but since you were reviewing the formatting I figured I'd ask in regards to that in case there was anything missing from them formatting-wise. Thank you for the comments! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this point for me. I was more so making sure that reviewers who come to this FAC know for sure. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for the sake of transparency, I did some edits to the citations when this FAC first opened, but I think that it is better to raise these points on here directly. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well researched article. I think the prose needs work in places.
Here "and the fact the team needed a replacement for the Daleks, another popular antagonist that had recently been written out of the series." I was hoping for a fuller explanation of the Daleks' demise but it is not given. We all know they made several comebacks. And do we need to be told they were popular antagonists?
I'm not really sure not much more needs to be said, since the Daleks' later return is entirely unrelated to the Yeti, so bringing it up doesn't really expand understanding of the Yeti. The Daleks themselves do need to be defined as popular antagonists just to clarify their presence in the universe of the show; the absence of a highly popular character helps explain why the production team was trying to seek out further replacements. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "1968 over a serial introducing" I think this is a gerund and not a participle, if so it should be "over a serial's introducing".
Here "retirement of the Yeti as antagonists in the main series outside of small cameos" The word "outside" has two main functions in English; as a preposition as in "outside the house" and as a noun as in "on the outside of the house". I think here you should use " apart from" as "outside of" is not correct.
Outside of has been a synonym for apart from, or the similar phrase except for, for quite a long time. Nearly every dictionary I can find includes this as a definition of the term. This is grammatically correct, so I don't see a need to change this here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, you should have led with the fact it was an Americanism. I accidentally let a few leak through sometimes because I'm writing British articles as an American, so thank you for the catch. I was unaware it was an Americanism, so this is adjusted now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden among this long clause is a fused participle "with the inflexible costumes and "cuddly" designs of the creatures being stated as lessening their credibility as antagonists". How about ""with the inflexible costumes and "cuddly" designs of the creatures said to lessen their credibility as antagonists"
The present and past tenses are mixed here; "The Yeti appeared twice in the fifth season of Doctor Who as adversaries of the Doctor's second incarnation (Patrick Troughton). They are introduced in the 1967 serial The Abominable Snowmen"
Here, I think you have to be clearer in what is meant by yeti pieces "Using Padmasambhava, the Great Intelligence moves small Yeti pieces"
There is another fused participle here "with the Yeti being controlled remotely" How about "and the Yeti were controlled remotely".
I feel this doesn't work, as it switches tenses between the two halves of the sentence, and the usage of "and" doesn't make grammatical sense with the prior sentence. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Yeti subsequently made a brief cameo in the 1969 serial The War Games, where it is referenced as one of the many antagonists that the Second Doctor had fought and defeated." Why "it" and not "they" and why the uppercase S in Second Doctor (three occurrences)?
The numbered incarnations of the Doctor are referred to with capitals for their number, which has been the standard across Doctor Who articles for quite a while. Thus, "Second Doctor" with a capital S is the correct usage. It is also the spelling most frequently used at the character's own article. Adjusted the "it" into a "they". Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is clumsy and needs to be recast "which included an episode which would have written out the Second Doctor's companion Jamie McCrimmon."
There's another fused participle here "that this was likely due to the Yeti being seen as too silly". This should be "due to the Yeti's being seen" (You need a possessive before a gerund).
Another one "with Cybermat props being reused for elements". Try, "and Cybermat props were reused"
"and another one "due to the creatures being revealed as robot minions" This should be "due to the creatures' being revealed as robot minions".
Here, "The book Once Upon a Time Lord: The Myths and Stories of Doctor Who's author Ivan Phillips stated in the book" Instead of "stated in the book" why not simply say "wrote"?
"utilized similar elements" Yuk! We don't "utilize" we "use".
I prefer utilized personally (And good Americanism catch) but I feel it's probably better to compromise and use "use". I trust your judgement here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this a red link? Britton, Piers
That's an old change I forgot to do something about, but technically there's nothing wrong with red links in articles; if you want me to remove it, I will, though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDLINK says "In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created." Is this the case? Graham Beards (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: Addressed the above. Those with comments are those that either needed some elaboration or I had comments about. Those without further comments have been done. Let me know on the above and what else needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will probably be picked up in the source review. References 12 and 13 are incomplete. I found one: Frankham-Allen, Andy (2017-06-05). Lethbridge-Stewart: Night of the Intelligence. ISBN0-9957436-3-0., but the other only seems available on Kindle. Graham Beards (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I couldn't find the info for these, so the info here helps. Added the ISBN to the first ref, but I'm not sure the info is actually available for the second release at all, since I couldn't find much on it and seemingly neither could you. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more point and probably my last. The use of "stated" and "stated that", instead of just "said" or "wrote", sounds odd to my English ears. It's an Americanism and sounds way too formal – as though we are in a law court. I think the prose would shine more brightly without them. Graham Beards (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards I can't find anything saying stated is an Americanism, and it seems to see use in British media as well. I've seen it be used in many other similar articles for this series in the past as well, even beyond ones which I've worked on. I can still remove a few if you feel its current usage is excessive but I'm not seeing the reason to remove them entirely. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think those changes enhance the prose a great deal. I have taken the liberty of making a few minor edits [26], which are no big deal. There is still the source review to come and I have already pointed out one potential problem, but I doubt there will be others. Well done. This will make a fine FA! Graham Beards (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interested but knowing nothing about the subject, - please forgive "wrong" questions. I'll look at lead and infobox last, after hopefully knowing more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History
What do you think of giving us who know nothing a year when the series started?
"The Doctor" - "their"? - is it because we don't know the gender of the Doctor?
The Doctor has used both male and female pronouns throughout the show's history; I'm using they/them pronouns as a blanket term for the character as a whole, which have been widely used by both official media and secondary coverage of the content to describe the character in cases where the character as a whole is being addressed instead of a particular incarnation. Hope that clears it up. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Yeti" - perhaps indicate at some point that it means (or can mean) more than one? Just saying again "The Yeti robots" might do it.
The plural of Yeti is Yeti, so there's not much that can be done there. Regardless, they are almost always referred to with terms used to describe a group or multiple individuals, so I do not believe there will be much confusion there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The book Once Upon a Time Lord: The Myths and Stories of Doctor Who's author Ivan Phillips stated in the book" - I read that three times and still don't known ;)
Thank you for the changes, found helpful. New question though:
"where they are referenced as one of the many antagonists" - how can "they" be "one"?
you changed "the creatures being revealed as robot minions" - "to the creatures' being revealed as robot minions", with being as a noun where I had understood it as a verb. It seems too ambiguous, and also "being" seems a strange term for anything in fiction, + wouldn't it be "beings"?
The book sentence is still too unclear, simply because the book's title is so long and the end of that title not obvious. How about this: "Ivan Phillips, author of [the book] Once Upon a Time Lord: The Myths and Stories of Doctor Who, wrote that ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that even I had thought of that reason. Thanks for supporting (but please when indenting copy exactly what there was before, or you may get two bullet points, - there's an essay linked from my user page, by RexxS.). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"In-universe" is probably a term everyone knows but I don't.
If you don't mind, consider to have "formless" first, the other second (if needed). "disembodied" is hard to read to foreigners, "disembo died" ;) --GA
"The serial, The Abominable Snowmen, was taken on out of" - guess what, I stumbled over "on out of" - can that be avoided please? - "chosen"? any other simple verb?
"Producer Peter Bryant, predicting they would be a success with audiences" - after all this, we may have forgetten what "they" should refer to, better repeat "the Yeti"
"Disagreements arose between Lincoln and Haisman with the BBC in 1968 over a serial's introducing of another new monster, leading to" - in the lead, I'd rather not want to deal with the exact topic of the disagreement, - enough that it happened, and the consequences. I'm also not sure what "between Lincoln and Haisman with the BBC" means exactly, - who is with whom and against whom?
Reworded a bit. Will also note that I'm keeping it brief in the lead; the full clarity of what is discussed is further down in the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"leading to the writers' departure from the series and the retirement of the Yeti" - I don't understand how the writers' leaving also necessarily means the retirement of the creatures that other writers might have continued, no?
I mean, that's what happened. There's not really much more I can say on that because it is what happened and is how the sources describe it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"cameos" - probably everybody knows what that is ...
The last sentence is another too complex structure for my taste, "Yeti" twice, "fans" twice, - please try untangling.
Any suggestions? Not quite sure since the clarity is needed both to reflect the article body text and to make sure nothing is confused in the lead given the number of subjects being discussed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
now: "Though the Yeti have maintained an appeal with fans after their retirement from the series, some fans and critics have criticised the Yeti, with the inflexible costumes and "cuddly" designs of the creatures said to lessen their credibility as antagonists." - how is this: "The Yeti have maintained an appeal with fans after their retirement from the series, but critics and some fans expressed [or whatever other word but not repetitive "criticised"] that the creatures' inflexible costumes and "cuddly" designs lessened their credibility as antagonists." --GA
Thank you for the clarifying changes! As always, they lead to more but minor questions:
The second appearance doesn't need "would", and could have "only major".
When dealing with the writer's disagreement, we now have their names twice.
"At the time of their introduction, the Yeti were popular monsters. Their popularity further increased as a result of their second appearance ..." - a bit repetitive, - how is this: "Popular monsters already at the time of their introduction, the Yeti became even more popular [or better some other word if there is one] with their second appearance ..."?
"Ivan Phillips, writing in the book Once Upon a Time Lord: The Myths and Stories of Doctor Who's, stated that ..." - how is this: "Ivan Phillips stated in the book Once Upon a Time Lord: The Myths and Stories of Doctor Who that "? I suggest that when you reply to items of a bullet list you simply use a short signature (without links), and just sign the last entry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt Incorporated all of the above, though I've made a few alterations to the text for some flow reasons. Let me know what else is needed. On the first point (The bit on the would stuff) I'm a bit confused on what you want me to do there, so that in particular I would appreciate some clarity on. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. "would" - perhaps I don't know the intricacies of English well enough. I like to keep things simple if possible, and would probably say, instead of "Following this debut appearance, the Yeti would have one other major on-screen appearance", "The Yeti appeared only in one more serial, .... But regardless, I can support the article for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe the image debacle got resolved during Talk:Silence (Doctor Who)/GA1 due to the images falling under Freedom of Panorama? (Proper discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 34#Derivative work question, though the reviewer accepted it even if my question wasn't replied to. Would appreciate another set of eyes on that if you'd be willing) For now I've tagged the images under FoP but if there's more to discuss on that front let me know.
I've added some more to the fair use rationale but let me know if I need to beef it up. I believe you're right on the arms crossing over the stomach more than the chest, and I've amended accordingly. Also added ALT text to the fair use image, but I'm physically unable to add alt text to the artistic depiction of a yeti for some reason, so I'm afraid I'm unable to accomplish that task.
The question mark is discussed above. I honestly have no clue why, but it seems to be an intentional choice on the part of the author since it's on the book's cover and is how he's referred to throughout the book. The Complete History is a partwork, though admittedly I'm not too familiar with them and not sure how to reflect that in the citation itself. Regardless it's an officially published, albeit Wikipedia:PRIMARY source made by the same people who make the official Doctor Who Magazine; the partwork covers the developmental history of each episode using information from a variety of sources, including the Magazine itself. Hopefully this clarifies what it is a bit.
For spotchecking, most of the book sources have the information available in previews, and a few of them are on the Archive; I also own Once Upon a Time Lord, so I can give excerpts from that book in particular directly should you need it. "An Enemy Within: The London Underground and Doctor Who's "The Web of Fear" I believe is also available on the Library. Hopefully this helps with the review; let me know if I can be of greater assistance in that regard. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were you trying to add the alt text in visual or source editor? You should just be able to add alt=InsertAltTextHere to the end of the image code in source editor. If that's still not working and you have the alt text you want, just drop it here in a reply and I can try sticking it in for you. TheDoctorWho(talk)19:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
img2: license good, caption good, at good, new zealand mentioned
img3: license good, caption good consider White chocolate is featured, consider changing alt to A clamshell-shaped pastry base filled with green beans. A white flower made of white chocolate sits on top; covered with a spoonful of black beads of caviar. It is garnished with small leaves. dish looks diabolical
img4: license good, caption good, alt good
img5: license good, caption good, consider changing alt to White chocolate bar on foil embedded with red speckles
img6: license good, caption good, alt fine
img7: license good, caption good, alt good
img8: license good [note it contains a trademark], caption good, consider changing alt to A chocolate wrapper labelled "meiji". Packaging is pulled back, and foil is torn to reveal chocolate beneath.
img9: license good, caption good, alt good
img10: license good, caption good, alt needs full stop as full sentence.
bonus What type of English is used in this article? Put template at top please.
sorry, just went through the links to flickr and a two of them are broken. They could be replaced pretty simply with archived versions. Not sure if there is a template for this on commons.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term was first used ... cite the OED in addition to SciAm for this sentence.
Done - RIHG
In 1936, the Swiss company Nestlé launched the first commercial white chocolate product This should be attributed to Eagranie Yuh, as part of his "general consensus" statement.
Done - RIHG
For the "This year's 'hot' chocolate turns out to be white" reference (and others as approriate), I suggest adding "agency=Associated Press".
Done - RIHG
(known as Milkybar in the United Kingdom) neither of the cited sources say this.
I've moved up the SCMP source to verify this (The turning point occurred in 1936, according to the Nestlé historical archives, when Nestlé launched white chocolate bars in Europe under the name Galak (or Milky Bar in the UK). - RIHG
One account of Galak's creation ... there's a bit of WP:SYNTH going on here; the cited source (Sethi) tells the story of the glut, but the name "Galak" only comes from This year's `hot' chocolate turns out to be white.
I believe now that I've moved up the previous source it should be okay, as both sources are clearly referring to the same first commercial white chocolate product launched in 1936 by Nestle in Europe. - RIHG
Why does the citation for Sethi 2017 say it is "in Punjabi"?
The author-link for the source is an interlanguage link to the Punjabi wiki's page on Simran Sethi. This is how the template formats it. - RIHG
According to Nestlé, white chocolate was originally a coating for a vitamin product I don't think the source supports saying "originally", which makes it sound like this was the very first use. An early use, sure, but I don't see support for "originally".
I've moved up the Milkybar website source which I think makes the claim more concretely (In doing so, they accidentally invented white chocolate), and I've clarified that it was a modification of the coating. - RIHG
(more to come)
Consumers had difficulty distinguishing between white chocolate made with and without cocoa butter this sounds like if you gave a typical consumer two samples to taste-test, they would have problems telling which was which. But, I think this comes from the source's "Because no such standard exists, it's hard to distinguish the real stuff from impostors" which I think is saying that it's hard for people to tell from the packaging which kind they're buying.
You're right, I've changed it to labels did not clearly distinguish between white chocolate made with and without cocoa butter - RIHG
It was sold as "ivory", "blanc", or just wrapped in clear plastic bags this seems at odds with your later statement that white chocolate cannot be packed in a transparent wrapper
It is at odds, thanks. I've changed the imperative cannot to a descriptive white chocolate expires faster if packed in a transparent wrapper - RIHG
International and domestic regulations govern ... Perhaps "national" or "country-specific" would work better than "domestic" here?
Done - RIHG
White chocolate is 59% carbohydrates, 32% fat, 6% protein, and 1% water Given that there is no single standardized definition of what white chocolate is composed of, it seems odd to give such a specific nutritional analysis. Perhaps this needs to be qualified with "typically" or something like that? It would also be interesting to provide the corresponding values for milk and dark chocolate, for comparison.
panned chocolate products, such as panned nuts. Please provide a description of what "panned" means in this context.
I've rewritten the sugar panning page to be about panning more broadly and added a section on chocolate panning, so chocolate panning is no longer redlinked. Is this okay or would you still prefer I add a description? - RIHG
Maybe "... including chocolate bars and panned (coated) chocolate products ..."?
Support based on being well-written prose which explains a highly technical subject in a way which is approachable to a wide audience (especially the process of tempering, which is somewhere between chemistry and black magic). I am not a SME, so cannot speak to it being "comprehensive" and "well-researched" and assume other better-qualified reviewers will address those aspects. RoySmith(talk)14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some initial comments below, I'll try to add some more soon (meanwhile, I'm going to find some white chocolate to eat!) Shapeyness (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mascot continued to be depicted as a child until 2010 Technically the source just says that the Milkybar Kid was portrayed by adults for a single ad campaign in 2010. It seems that the Milkybar Kid was portrayed as a child in other ad campaigns around this time (by Hinetaapora Short and Matthew Portas). However, it is true that more adult portrayals have occurred since 2010, e.g. a Milkybar Kid-ult campaign in 2020 [29][30]. Either way, I don't think the current source is strong enough to support this (as currently worded anyway).
I've found a source conveying what I was more interested in saying: "Over the following decades, a series of adverts featuring the character has become among the longest-running on television." - RIHG
Anything more recent on white chocolate in Japan? It is a bit of a cliffhanger atm, although I understand there is nothing we can do if the sources don't exist to give more details
As I mentioned below, I'll come back to this but I don't think I'll find anything more unfortunately. - RIHG
Nutrition: the first couple of sentences come from data in the table - can we get a citation to the USDA database entry so it doesn't look like this is covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph?
Done, cited as (table).
Great that works thanks! (although maybe (see table) or (values from table) would be less ambiguous?) Is the sentence beginning In a reference amount of 100 grams... also coming from the table or is it available in Liu et al.? Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Altered, and added another inline cite to table to make it more clear the reference amount is coming from the table. - RIHG
Relatedly, I think the rich source/moderate source language is based on FDA guidelines? It might be worth putting this in a note, maybe with a link to the requirements for something to use these claims.
The Dowling source seems to suggest that white chocolate had already lost its association with children for much of Europe by the 2000s, might be worth a mention alongside the note about the same happening in the UK by 2017 (this is more an optional suggestion than something I think is required for FA)
I don't think it's quite saying that, it says the association with children is only "so strong" in the UK, indicating it is less strong elsewhere. I'll come back to this.
Done - RIHG
In France, white chocolate remains associated with children. The source says that white chocolate is well-liked by children, but I don't know if it is explicitly suggesting that it is particularly associated with children in contrast to adults
You're right, adjusted.
However, it did not become popular until the 1980s... I think the Lovegren source should be used here too to more explicitly support the "started a fad" claim
I'm a bit confused by this as the inline cite is to Lovegren already, but I assume you're talking about Lovegren (2005). I don't think this is necessary as it's the same author making the same claim. - RIHG
Sorry yes I meant the Lovegren 2005 source, it is more explicit on this starting a fad I believe. However, this is clearly verifiable from a number of sources in this paragraph and seems uncontroversial, so will leave it up to you whether it warrants moving the extra source over. Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, moved it up - RIHG
and some consumers believed that white chocolate, because of its light color, contained fewer calories and fats than other chocolates Does the source link this to the growth in popularity in white chocolate?
This is a great question. In the previous sentence I quote growth being driven by perceptions that it was "lighter and more delicate". It isn't clear what lighter means here: lighter in intensity vs lighter in calories. We have documents showing it was understood as lighter in both senses. I don't believe this is SYNTH, as it's just showing that they were understood as lighter in both senses. I'd love to hear your thoughts, if you disagree I can reframe it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right that makes sense, I hadn't realised that was the intention on first reading - I do still think we would need an RS to explicitly link these ideas for this wording (especially with This perception was twofold... linking these ideas together in wikivoice currently). It might be worth trying to reframe. Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it causes less thirst than chocolates containing cocoa solids I wonder if a scientific paper (or similar tier of source) linking cocoa content to thirst would be useful as a supplementary source here (even if there is no explicit mention of white chocolate)
I haven't seen any such papers before and haven't seen any after investigating now. - RIHG
The only worry I have is that we are making a physiological claim on the basis of a source that is essentially about consumer perceptions - I had assumed this was an established fact and sourcing would be available, but maybe this should be dropped or reframed/weakened as a claim? Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped - RIHG
In the nutrition section, it is probably useful to readers to include the health effects of white chocolate (or lack thereof) compared to other varieties of chocolate - I saw there are a few papers that compare the health benefits of white chocolate to dark chocolate for example
I don't believe there are any that meet WP:MEDRS. Chocolate research is often poor quality (see Dark chocolate#Research), and these studies you see are generally only looking at white chocolate as a control for observing the effects of the presence of cocoa solids in dark chocolate. I haven't seen any reviews which comment on white chocolate specifically. - RIHG
For fans of white chocolate, perceptions of its flavor and color as "unusual" contribute to its appeal This is worded too universally I think, especially based on a diary study of a few people - could it be weakened by attributing it to this particular study or maybe to qualitative research generally? Or at least changed to "For some fans..."
Qualified, thanks. - RIHG
The chocolate sold poorly was discontinued after less than two years I think this should be "The chocolate, which sold poorly, was discontinued..." or "The chocolate sold poorly and was discontinued..."?
Done
My understanding is that FACR 2c requires consistent capitalisation of sources (either sentence case or title case). Kind of related, but do the Eurostat sources have the correct titles?
Converted to be consistent. These are the titles Eurostat generates by clicking Share → Copy Dataset name as link, so they're as correct as they'll get. - RIHG
Also, is Serious Eats a high quality reliable source? I can't tell if it's being used on the basis of EXPERTSPS or because Serious Eats itself is reliable
It's being used for Serious Eats being reliable. The article was published pre-Dotdash Meredith acquisition, has editorial oversight, the article itself was high-effort. The site has also won several major industry awards (including the James Beard Award). I don't think the claims are too controversial either. - RIHG
Should Candy & Snack Today be listed under "News and magazine articles" instead of "Other"
Done
Thanks for these helpful comments, I'll get to them over the next day. I've done searches in English and Japanese language sources for info on chocolate in Japan twice, but I'll do another over the next week. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: Thanks for making those changes, I've added a couple of responses above On the paragraph on Japan, thanks for checking, at least the extra search was not completely in waste! Shapeyness (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rollinginhisgrave, now ready to support. I didn't do any proper spot-checking but the few sources I read over while going through are accurately represented and sources seem reliable and high quality. Can't speak to comprehensiveness but I think this definitely meets the other criteria, well-illustrated, well-written, well-researched, etc. Shapeyness (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a superb article. I'm having a hard time to find anything to comment on.
Wording: Some members of the public and some chocolatiers and trade groups dispute ... Seems like there should be one "some" or three "some"s, but not two. Maybe Some chocolatiers, trade groups, and members of the public dispute ...
Done
Wording: Vegan white chocolates substitute milk powder for rice flour ... Is that backwards? I expected Vegan white chocolates substitute rice flour for milk powder ... or Vegan white chocolates replace milk powder with rice flour...
Interesting. I actually think it works both ways when using "for", but I've swapped for "with". - RIHG
Source needed: Belgium and Germany exported €192,003,625 and €58,468,546 worth of white chocolate outside the EU respectively For merely decorative footnotes, cites can be skipped. But hard facts should probably have a cite.
Added
Red link? Margen, Sheldon There are dozens of authors cited in this article that do not have WP articles, and there is no author-link. Looks peculiar that this one author is singled out for a red link.
It does look a bit peculiar, but I recall this being the only author who stood out as likely meriting a Wikipedia page from just a quick Google. I can remove it if you think I should. - RIHG
Clarify White chocolate was first sold commercially in tablet form in 1936 ... I don't know what "tablet form" is. Is there a article to link to? or maybe a footnote explaining it?
Added link. - RIHG
Pet peeve At the turn of the 21st century, culinary... I probably am alone in this, but I cannot stand "turn of the century". Does "turn of the 5th century" mean start or end of 5th c? Who knows? For 21st century, sure we, today, can guess "start". But think of the readers of this article 600 years in the future (well, the AI engines that read the article) ... it will be ambiguous. Consider At the start of the 21st century, culinary....
I would do this, if I was just talking about the start of the 21st century and not also the end of the 20th. Sorry, I think I'll keep it as turn of the 21st century. A lot of the article relies on being updated in the next 80 years, I'm okay with this being another. - RIHG
Red link in lead: children's food Doesn't really bother me, but it does make the lead a bit unattractive.
Keeping this in, I am thinking of writing this article. - RIHG
Sources & citations look immaculate. Nice job!
Thanks!
Trim? The exact origin of white chocolate is unclear. The word "exact" is not useful. Consider The origin of white chocolate is unclear.
Done
Anonymous cite: [68] European Commission 2022 . I'm not a big fan of using template:sfn with sources that do not have an author, because reader cannot read the cite [68] European Commission 2022 and then with their eyeballs find the source in Sources section below. The sfn approach for anonymous sources relies on WP software to jump the cursor to the Source (and highlight) ... not user friendly. I don't think this approach violates any MOS guidelines. I've seen it used in FA articles. I even used it a couple of times in my FA articles ... but I had to use sfn for the anonymous source because the anonymous source was located in the "Works" section of the article, so I could not use <ref>. Here, for this "European Commission 2022" source, you could use a simple <ref> and avoid the sfn template, then readers could directly find & read the details about the source. Of course, that would make the beautiful References section a bit ugly. Just my 2 cents.
I understand your point. I think I will leave it, given the work I put in to reconstruct Template:Nutritional value into shortened footnotes. I have had a poke around the CS1 talkpage archives and I don't see any answers. I may come back to this, but probably not. - RIHG
Follow-up Describing this new product as "chocolate" was immediately challenged as it lacked cocoa solids and in at least one county companies agreed to avoid the descriptor. Interesting fact. Is there any follow-up available? I gather that today the word "chocolate" can be used legally all around the world when the c. solids are missing? Maybe say that. Also "the descriptor" may not be clear to many readers (espec if English is their 2nd language) ... I assume you mean "cannot use the word chocolate on the packaging" maybe reword to help such readers e.g ... at least one county companies agreed to avoid the word. or ... at least one county companies agreed to avoid the word "chocolate".
I believe so, but I can't conclusively say that. The #Regulations section covers the varying standards or lack thereof. Done for the second bit. - RIHG
I'll go section by section, starting from the lede. I'll review some of the article today, and the rest tomorrow. I'll be doing a prose review, therefore will check if there are any grammar errors and if the article seems to be well explained to an average Wikipedia reader. We sadly do not have a lot of food editors around there, so as someone who has gotten a few food articles to GA status, I'll try to jump in on the comprehessiveness if I can. After finishing the review, I'll go over the article again to check if I potentially missed something.
With a quick search, I see that oxford commas are used in some parts of the article, while in some they seem to be missing. The first one I noticed missing is in the first sentence of the lede. This is really a minor issue and it'll be only this time that I'll be checking it. This won't be counted towards my support/oppose vote.
Done - RIHG
It's up to you, but we can remove parentheses if you want. as it does not contain the non-fat components of cocoa (cocoa solids) → as it does not contain cocoa solids, the non-fat components of cocoa.
I'll leave this in per the discussion on the peer review. - RIHG
"white chocolate is the least popular" – do we know why (I haven't read throughout the rest of the article yet), if yes, it might be good to mention the reason(s).
Reorganized - RIHG
"White chocolate is made in a five-step process." – is this an universal/widely accepted practice or are there more ways to create the chocolate?
Clarified this is industrially - RIHG
The lede reads well to me, seems to be well explained. Good job on explaining what "tempered" means. Other terms seem to be more general to the public.
Thankyou. - RIHG
", according to author Eagranie Yuh" instead of using a comma, you could start a new sentence here with "According to..."
Done - RIHG
wikilink cocoa solids in "History", second para, second sentence.
Done - RIHG
"Other large manufacturers soon followed" in Spain?
"The Hershey Company introduced Hershey's Cookies 'n' Creme" – when?
Clarified - RIHG
milk solids could be changed to milk powder for the sake of consistency in the "Manufcaturing" section. At first I got confused why this wasn't wikilinked.
The locations are a bit messed up and inconsistent. You have "Cheltenham, UK" and Cham, Switzerland but "Barcelona". "Hoboken, New Jersey" and "Connecticut". Pick a format and stick to it. The normal route would be "Hoboken, New Jersey", "Cham, Zug" "Cheltenham, Gloucestershire" and "Westport, Connecticut". Places like London, Barcelona, New York and Paris are fine just to have the city name
Why are the publishers linked? It's normally not done and always rather pointless when it is
There are a few places where the full work is available online through the Internet Archive – it may be true for Google Books too – best to check and add links where possible
"Audretsch, David B; Lehmann, Erik E" should be "Audretsch, David B.; Lehmann, Erik E." with full stops after the initials
This should be the same on the multiple other authors with missing stops
di Schino is missing a location (although OUP mostly publishes in Oxford, this is a New York-published edition)
Will return to. - RIHG
Hori is missing editor details and location
Lovegren 2005: you don't need "(University of Chicago Press ed.)." when you've listed them as publisher. You do need a location though
Lovegren 2013: "Historical Overview" should be "Historical overview" for consistency
You have several entries linked to a couple of books – all done more or less correctly. You may want to think about grouping them the way that the chapters in Lindner have been grouped here, which is a bit more helpful for readers. This is just a suggestion and not actionable if you don't want
Journals
"Fda proposes" should be "FDA proposes"
Hashimoto should state what language it's in and have a translation for the title (much as you have for the Perusset entry)
Added language. By translation for the title, do you mean the journal name? - RIHG
Hayward – lower case on "Advertising"
Hyde – upper case on "rowntree"
Nichter – lower case on "Weight"
News and magazine
Sethi is not "in Punjabi" – it shows as English in the original for me
This is how the author-link parameter displays interlanguage links. I've removed the link (pa:ਸਿਮਰਨ ਸੇਠੀ); it's not a good article to link to and (in Punjabi) is more confusing than helpful. - RIHG
The reproductive structure of flowering plants is back at FAC after 18 and a bit years. Underwent (over) expansion in 2021, then pruned and expanded recently. Many thanks for the GA review from User:Chiswick Chap and substantial peer review from many editors. Courtesy pinging @Tim riley: and @SchroCat: per their request. Additionally to the peer review, I rechecked all the references in sections I did not personally write, replaced a number of them with better ones, and added some supplementary references. My second FAC, nice to be back after all this time. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 10:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I peer reviewed this and said then that I hoped to see it at FAC. My few quibbles were well attended to at the time, and the only thing I have spotted while rereading for FAC is that in the Taxonomy section "Carl Linnaeus 1753 book Species Plantarum layed out ..." has two small errors: Linnaeus needs a possessive apostrophe after his name and "layed" should be "laid". This seems to me, speaking as a more or less complete layman, to be a clear, balanced, well sourced and well written article with the technicalities kept to a sensible level but properly covered, and I am pleased to add my support for its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetics: the visual impact of this article is absolutely stunning ... the layout, the size of the paragraphs, the colors in the illustrations, the overall size. Everything looks clean and crisp. Just amazing.
Thanks for that. I would credit User:Chiswick Chap with a lot of the credit for that; they created many diagrams and made images a key GA focus. For reference, the lede images rationale is: Basal flower (magnolia), symmetric pollination syndrome (orchid), highly complex modern flower (passionfruit), long stamens (complete flower), reduced wind pollinated (corn), iconic pseudanthia (sunflower).
Is it possible to add a sentence or two contrasting flowers with some things that laypeople often mistake for flowers? For example: bracts on Bougainvillea, which is only one example flower-like things. Perhaps most of these pseudo-flowers evolved to attract pollinators to nearby flowers? [The article already has the sentence An inflorescence may include specialised stems and modified leaves known as bracts and smaller bracteoles but that is not what I'm suggesting.] Lots of articles on subject X have a sentence or even a whole section listing "Things that are not X".
done, also added a note in the first paragraph of morphology that defines flowers and discusses how there are structures that look like flowers, that we currently dont include in this definition.
There are several structures, found in some plants, that resemble flowers or floral organs, but often only in an ambiguous way. These include: coronas, crown-like outgrowths; phyllody, leafy flower parts; and pseudonectaries.
Although flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms, there are many gymnosperm cones which resemble flowers. The female cones of Ginkgo biloba, for example, are mostly considered to be simple strobili, and not flowers. This also resolves the (previously) uncited definition in the lede
Quote: relationship: Outstanding usage of a quote box in section Flower#In culture ... but could you add a few words at the bottom (beneath author name) relating the quote to "In culture" e.g. "Poets often use imagery of flowers" or something like that.
Readers will be happier if a WP link is included in the caption of pic in section Flower#Coevolution ... Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator. That insect species has no article, but the parent family is Mordellidae, and that article's first sentence contains "... commonly known as tumbling flower beetles for the ..." which is enlightening. I think WP linking policy supports linking to parent taxons.
linked
Citation for pic caption: Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator Captions can omit citations when they simply describe the picture; but this pic should probably have a citation for the "99 Mya" fact.
added
Punctuation/grammar: .. angiosperms show a wide variation in floral structure. This includes size, shape, and colour. That latter sentence kinda sticks out in a bad way. Consider making it a fuller sentence e.g. The variations encompass all aspects of the flower, including size, shape, and colour or similar.
changed to This variation encompasses all aspects of the flower, including size, shape, and colour.
Confusing: Although most plants have flowers ... In addition, the four main parts of a flower are generally ... Even after re-reading three times, I'm still not sure what "In addition" is adding to. Can it be re-worded so readers can digest the intent?
It reads ok imo. It is in addition to the structural variation described in the prior sentence. It's possible it's not needed, however.
Identify the alternative: Flowers evolved between 150 and 190 million years ago, during the later part of the Jurassic era and ... Can the article have a few words here stating what plant features performed the role of flowers before flowers existed? [If not already stated nearby] E.g. Prior to the advent of flowers, plants reproduced using asexual methods such as ...[this blue example text is fictitious, only for illustration]
done, + a new source for part of the claim
Emphasize & contrast: As a subgroup of seed plants, angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members, as a result of greater efficiency. This seems like one of the most important facts in the article. Consider adding a few words identifying the competitors that were "outcompeted". E.g. ... angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members – such as fungi and lichens – as a result of greater efficiency. [this blue example text is fictitious, only for illustration]
done
That's all I have for now. Notify me when the above are addressed/resolved and I'll make another pass. Note that some of the above are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In section Flower#Colour, there is a a diagram with caption: The diffraction mechanism of photonic crystals. Nearby body text says ..present in some flowers are photonic structures. Two things:
(a) should change "photonic structures" in body to "photonic crystals" to match caption (or vice versa).
. > crystals per source. I think structures is also fine, but might imply man made per the sauce.
(b) The diagram itself includes the word "nanosphere": The term "nanosphere" is not explained anywhere in Wikipedia (no article on it). I had to look it up in a dictionary: it is a "spherical shaped nano-particle" (about a nanometer across). Suggest either (b1) add "nanosphere" article stub to WP; or (b2) define "nanosphere" in the diagram caption; or (b3) mention/define "nanosphere" in nearby body text; or (b4) edit the diagram in photoshop and remove that term (that diagram is used only by a single article in WP, so no impact to other articles). (I'm not saying that a WP article's body text must mention every term found in its diagrams; only that WP as a whole must define those terms).Noleander (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These whorls include: calyx, modified leaves; corolla, the petals; androecium, the male reproductive unit consisting of stamens and pollen; and gynoecium, the female part, containing style and stigma, which receives the pollen – you give some broad terms here in the lead (some of which do not even appear in the diagrams further down in the article), but much more common terms such as "pistil" and "nectar" are not mentioned; are the terms you selected for the lead really the most essential?
In my view, yes. They are almost always listed as the "four main whorls" in sources (such as Mauseth and Pandey) Both sterile and fertile appendages are borne on the foral receptacle in distinct whorls consisting of calyx, corolla, androecium and gynoecium. - pandey.
or between flowers on the same plant—or even the same flower, as in self-pollination – but self-pollination is within the same individual, not necessarily the same flower?
Per Mauseth Cross-pollination is the pollination of a carpel by pollen from a different individual; self pollination is pollination of a carpel by pollen from the same flower or another flower on the same plant. I think this clarification is useful, as reader's might not expect it to be the case.
Yes, but my concern was rather that you are implying that the term "self-pollination" is only used when it is the same flower, but it can actually be a different flower from the same plant. I think it is a wording problem and you could just remove the "—" to fix it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members – Is this scientific consensus? Where does the source say this? It could be opportunistic replacement, too?
In the first paragraph of Becker et al. THE origin of the flower during the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous eras (most recent estimates are between 150 and 190 MYA; Magallón et al. 2015) was a key evolutionary innovation that profoundly altered the Earth’s biota. Flowering plants (angiosperms), with reproductive security and speed conferred by the flower, replaced other seed plants in most ecosystems. Diversification of flowers and the resulting fruit spurred coevolutionary change in pollinators and dispersers, with subsequent wide-ranging effects on herbivores, mycorrhizae, and other interacting organisms. I've just gone with "replaced" per the source
colour of flowers assists in pollination – This sentence is quite isolated in the lead. You mention colour here, but not nectar?
was drafted in chronological order. Moved to by pollination and changed to The colour and structure of flowers—such as nectaries and nectar guides—assist in pollination.
are a key tool – I don't think they are a "tool". "Feature" maybe?
changed to feature
and not to the whole flowering plant – You never mentioned that the term applies to the whole plant.
reworked this section
Flower and blossom are cognates and are both derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *bʰleh₃ōs ('blossoming') – contradicts earlier statement regarding the origin of "flower".
doesn't contradict, but could be clearer. Here is the OED: "Anglo-Norman and Old French flur, flour, flor, fleur (Middle French, French fleur) flower, bloom, blossom (of a plant), representation of a flower, decoration, the best of something, best part, shining example, an elite group or individual, a paragon, a virtuous or beautiful person, prime or bloom (of life, etc.), virginity (all 12th cent.), flour (12th cent.: see flour n.) < Latin flōr-, flōs flower, bloom, blossom, representation of a flower, state of being in flower, something forming on the surface (as scum on wine), powdered or powdery form of a substance, fragrance, aroma (of wine, etc.), most flourishing condition attained by a person or thing, zenith, youthful condition, youthful prime, virginity, best of something, rhetorical or poetical ornamentation < the same Indo-European base as blow v"
bloom and blossom refer to flowers – You didn't introduce "bloom"
reworked this section, please take another look
A stereotypical, or complete, – not sure what this means. Is this needed? Would the opposite be "incomplete"? Maybe this needs an explanatory footnote if kept.
In #Variation I write Many flowers lack some parts—known as incomplete—or parts may be modified into other functions or look like what is typically another part. Both complete and incomplete are useful botanical terms.
They are leaf-like, in that they have a broad base – but not always.
per De Craene Sepals have a spiral initiation sequence with rapid growth, a broad base, three vascular traces and an acuminate (pointed) tip. The homology of sepals with leaves is based on similar anatomy as well as on several character-istics such as the presence of stipules and stomata, and sepals are often compared to the petiole of a leaf due to their broad shape
(small stem-leaf structures) – This explanation doesn't help I think.
yes stipule is too broad to be defined here. just rmved.
If the calyx is fused it is called gamosepalous – Also when partially fused, right? And why not use "synsepalous", which matches the linked article and seems to be a much more common term?
ngram would suggest otherwise (the noun ngram is closer, however). I have included the partial part, but for some reason could only find it in Collins ED, which is odd.
Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator – This image caption should clarify that it is a hypothetical life restoration.
Because sexual reproduction between distinct plants – would "individual plants" be a bit clearer than "distinct plants"? The latter sounds as if you were talking about distinct species.
The current wording is actually: Sexual reproduction between plants results in evolutionary adaptation, which improves species survival. How do you feel about it?
Specific adaptations to attract pollinators (animals that transport pollen), for example, are the most common adaptations. – Two times "adaptations" reads a bit awkward, is it possible to reword?
changed to structures
and may have stipules – I would still explain that term in simple words, so that the reader has at least an idea. Simply "outgrowths from the leaf stem"?
done. I like this version; stipules take many forms.
ovules contained within an ovary. – need wikilinks here
done
Anthers typically consist of – Introduce this new term.
Anthers, the tips of the male part of the flower (containing the pollen sacs), typically consist of four microsporangia (tissues that produce microspores) and an ovule in an integumented (protected by a layer of tissue) megasporangium (tissue that produces a megaspore). how's this
Microspores are produced by meiosis inside anthers and megaspores are produced inside ovules contained within an ovary. – This is a bit technical and difficult and could do with additional explanation and context. Maybe an additional sentence to introduce some basics would be helpful.
added Meiosis is a type of cell division that occurs in angiosperms to produce microspores and megaspores; the precursors to pollen and embryo sacs (the gametophyes).
Hm, I think this could be improved. The new sentence does not flow well with the rest, and we might not need that for "meiosis" (it is enough to know that it is a type of cell division). I was instead wondering if a sentence explaining what a gametophye is would be better; this is what the reader really has to know here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
into gametophytes (organisms that lead to creation of sex cells) – since this is such a basic article, and the term gametophyte is so important for understanding the text, I would provide enough context here to give a basic idea what this is (without introducing further complexity). The current explanation is insufficient for this purpose. It becomes clearer in the "male" section (which states that pollen are gametophytes) but that's a tad late.
microsporocytes – are these the same as microspores? If so, stick with one term. If not, introduce the new term.
that is the umbrella term. but in the anthers only the microspores are present so i've gone with that.
Maybe remove the heading "spores" (the heading, not the paragraph), as it is the introduction to the following sections. I found that heading confusing.
done
ovules (female gametophytes) – you previously stated that ovules contain gametophytes, not that they are gametophytes.
good catch. fixed
which acts as a stalk – why not simply "is" instead of "acts as"?
changed to the stalk
pistil – wikilink
just goes to gyno which is linked earlier in the para.
Other flowers have modified petal-like stamens; the double flowers of peonies and roses are mostly petaloid stamens, for example. – it is unclear to me what "double flower" means; I looked up the roses and petaloid articles but they do not mention this, and I don't see petal-like stamens. This might need more explanation.
Changed to In some flowers, for example, floral parts such as the stamens, stigmas, and sepals are highly altered to look like petals. This is most common in cultivation (such as of roses), where flowers with many additional "petals"—termed double flowers—are more attractive
When flowers are bisected and produce only one line that produces symmetrical halves – Bit awkward wording. Maybe write: "If there is only one plane of symmetry, ..."
done
Many flowers have symmetry – should be "most flowers", no? Also, it would help to give examples for these types (orchids are a good one for bilateral symmetrical flowers, I think)
done
There are several structures, found in some plants, that resemble flowers or floral organs, but often only in an ambiguous way. These include: coronas, crown-like outgrowths;[35] phyllody, leafy flower parts;[36] and pseudonectaries. – Phyllody is not a "structure", or is it? I wouldn't expect to find features not typical for a species (diseases) listed in a section about "structure" anyways. Maybe a dedicated section "Deseases" is warranted?
I don't think there is enough for such a section. per the wiki article "It is generally caused by phytoplasma or virus infections, though it may also be because of environmental factors that result in an imbalance in plant hormones." If you consider the #structure section to be a little looser than just a strict botanical sense, I feel it could stay.
Understood. But my concern was actually more with your phrasing of phyllody as a "structure", when it is a disease. Just move it to a separate sentence? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to do that. There is a case to be made that it is a structural, although it isn't a structure as such. Like the petals aren't turned green over time. The petals never grew. They were always just leaves. Dracophyllum23:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but often only in an ambiguous way – not sure what that adds, maybe just remove this part.
done
coronas, pseudonectaries – explain, or at least link these terms?
done
In the majority of species, individual flowers have both carpels and stamens. – I would repeat the explanation ("male amd female parts"), especially since you provide it a few sentences later anyways. (Few readers will be able to remember all those terms you introduce throughout the article)
done
Many flowers have floral nectaries, – "floral" is superfluous, since nectaries of flowers are "floral" by definition, right?
rmved. there is one tiny exception, but we dont call them nectaries
The main axis or stalk of an inflorescence (a cluster of flowers)[11] is called a peduncle. – I would move this to section "inflorescence", especially since "stem" is mentioned there, too.
done
I wonder why "Inflorescence" is a subsection of its own, even though it is only one paragraph, and even though the other paragraphs in "Variation" seem equally distinct and worthy of a subsection heading? Ditto "Pollinator relationships". How do you decide what is a separate low-level subsection and what is not? One solution would be to remove both headings.
I've removed pollinator relationships, inflorescences are a very common, recognisable, and interesting variation, more than anything else in the section; and have their own article... I am prone to keep it for now, but happy to rmv if you object further.
Caption: "Floral diagram and formula for a Convolvulus flower". If you show it, shouldn't it be explained (i.e., what does the shown formula say?). Maybe add a footnote?
done This describes that the flower is: (*) radially symmetric, (K5) has 5 sepals, (C(5)) has 5 fused petals, (A5) has 5 stamens, and (G(2)) has two fused carpels.
It has compressed internodes (gaps between attachment points), bearing structures that in classical plant morphology are interpreted as highly modified leaves. – I have honestly no idea what that means.
changed to A flower develops on a modified shoot or axis from a determinate (growth-limited) apical meristem. The internodes—gaps between attachment points—are typically compressed, resulting in the close arrangement of floral organs.
I think that, if you also mention what attachment you mean here (attachement between the shoot and the petals, sepals, etc?), it would be even clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests a continuum in floral evolution, in which intermediate structures blur the lines between organs – Again, not sure what to take from this. Flowers can develop on different organs, but why does that "blur the lines between" them?
I tried again but have ultimate just decided to remove this passage, it is more evolution than growth anyways. Gradualism mostly captures this anyways. Dracophyllum02:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reversed and the stems develop flowers—even if the initial event was dependent on some environmental cue, which is no longer present. – should this say "that is no longer present" and without the comma?
sure, done.
under ultraviolet light, which can be seen by bees and some other insects. – But birds can see ultraviolet too, right?
I've cut this clause for simplicity.
Many flowers have close relationships with one or a few specific pollinating organisms. – I think the article fails to mention two important aspects: 1) Why do flowers prefer a limited number of pollinator species? This might seem obvious to a biologist but should still be mentioned. 2) How do flowers ascertain that only their preferred pollinator species can access the nectar? Isn't this an important driver of flower shape (e.g., extremely long flowers can only be accessed by hummingbirds with very long bills), and for this reason worth to discuss?
This section is basically repeated in the #coevolution section... But I've restated a little here as well and moved some info around. Many flowers have close relationships with one or a few specific pollinating organisms. They may be structured to allow or encourage pollination from just one or a few species. This increases efficiency, because there is a higher chance pollination comes from pollen of the same species.
Optional: A sentence on Nectar robbing could be interesting, unless you think it is too specific and want to keep this article short.
Whereas the pollen of entomophilous flowers is usually large, sticky, and rich in protein (to act as a "reward" for pollinators) – You previously only mentioned that nectar is the reward; now it is pollen, which is confusing. Mention both when mentioning nectar?
done.
The mechanisms by which pollen is transferred between plants are called vectors – I don't think that vectors are "mechanisms"? They are "carriers", no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
autochory (an internal vector); usually the plant itself – I think it might help readers to give an example (Dehiscence (botany)#Explosive dehiscence?), as I think that some readers might have no idea how the plant could disperse the seeds itself without an external vector.
done
Related to the above: you say "usually the plant itself", but when it is not the plant, how can it still be an internal vector?
rmved
during the later part of the Jurassic era and Early Cretaceous. – The Jurassic is a period, and the Early Cretaceous is an epoch. Neither of them is an "era" (see Geologic time scale)
done
spores, or sporangia – isn't that the same? Aren't sporangia forming spores?
fixed
such as Pinales, Cycads, Gnetophyta and Ginkgoales – should all be lower case?
No, because they are taxonomic names like Asteraceae. The exception is for common names, likegymnosperms vs Gymnospermae.
My bad; yes, my comment applies only to "cycads", which are a common name. However, we should not write any taxon above genus level in italics. Italics implies that it is a genus, which is not the case. No source does that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
angiophytes – term comes out of the blue and is not linked nor explained.
explained
Angiosperms are a sub-group of spermatophytes (seed plants), and of these, the living species are regarded as a more recent ancestor of the older angiophytes – that does not make any sense to me; what do you want to say?
reworded
The latter aspect is unique to them – unclear what "them" is referring to.
reworded
Under "evolution", you apparently list synapomorphies of angiophytes and pre-angiophytes, but not those of angiosperms themselves?
added
Fossils of the beetle Angimordella burmitina, which is at least 99 million years old, show evidence of adaptions for pollination – is it angiosperm pollination, and if so, how do we know? If not, why is it relevant?
yes it is. relevant because it is one of the earliest example of coevolution between animal and flower.
Angimordella burmitina should be a red link rather than linking to the group article that does not even mention this species, I think. This one will get an article sooner or later.
done
Shouldn't the "Coevolution" section have at least one example of coevolution that is visible in a flower? The only example is the fossil beetle, but it's just about the beetle morphology, not about adaptations in a flower that would be more pertinent to this article.
added
The article seems to have a strong focus on cellular development. But there seem to be a number of other aspects that are not covered that seem important:
You mention nectar and pollen, but plants have other means to attract pollinators; e.g. carrion flower is quite common and important, I think.
added the lines Rewards given to pollinators by flowers in "payment" for pollination include: food (such as pollen, starch, or nectar), mates, shelter, a place to raise the young, and pseudocopulation (sexual deception). They may also be attracted by various stimuli such as size, scent (as in carrion flowers), and colour—this includes nectar guides, which show pollinators where to look for nectar; they may be visible only under ultraviolet light.
What is the size range of flowers? The largest flower is that of Titan arum, is it? This information is of obvious interest for lay readers and helps to better illustrate the diversity of flowers.
added Flowers range in size from less than 1 mm (1⁄25 in) (Wolffia) to 1 m (3.3 ft) in diameter (Rafflesia arnoldii).
The fact that flowers can close and open is not discussed at all? What stimuli cause flowers to open? Some flowers open in the morning and close in the evening. Others flower at night. Etc.
added
nice – the only problem is that it does not really fit under the section "Development", because it describes processes in fully developed flowers. Not sure where else to place that, though. I would at least start a new paragraph. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flowers develop from a bud, right – also not discussed?
added bud in growth section
Some flowers direct themselves to the sun (Heliotropism)
added
Senescence is also not discussed, I think. Pollination drastically shortens the lifetime of a flower, etc. Is it correct that flowers never last longer than a year, or are there multi-year flowers?
added This process is called floral senescence; it is often accelerated or initiated by the completion of pollination. Death is preferred because flowers are costly to the plant; nevertheless, flowers can last for between a few hours and several months.
I also wonder if we have some WP:undue weight towards colour. "Color" is its own major section with four paragraphs, but scent and nectaries are only mentioned en passant and are not really discussed. It is also interesting to look at other language versions of this article, especially of the German and Spanish Wikipedia, where this article is "featured"; neither of them seems to have a section just on colour. I am not arguing that the section should be removed, but the section is huge and the article looks imbalanced to me. What do you think?
I also wonder (but not sure) if "Colour" should be right after the "Structure" section, or even combined with it. "Colour" is basic description still, so that makes more sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between 3 and 8% (around 1500) of all crops are pollinated by insects. In this way, flowers contribute a total economic value of around $361 bn (2015 estimate) to the world economy – This does not make sense to me. There are flowers that are not pollinated by insects, right? Of the crops not pollinated by insects (I am surprised these are the majority), many could still have flowers, right? And what do you mean with "crops"? Individual plants; species; or cultivars? If it is cultivars, is that figure ("between 3 and 8%") really informative, since what matters for the total economic value are only the most common crops, no? Are all tree species that are grown for wood included in these "crops"? Without background information here, the percentages are not really informative or can even be misleading, in my opinion.
Cut
For the section "Uses": Flowers are also important addictive drugs (Cannabis indica, i.e. hashish, marihuana); worth to mention I think.
added
Also in the "uses" section; the word "spices" could be listed (thinking about clove, saffron, Humulus lupulus).
added
Regarding balance/undue, I wonder if the "Taxonomy" section is (relatively) too long. Many important aspects about flowers are only very briefly mentioned, but uses of flowers for plant taxonomy has four paragraphs – twice as much as the "Uses" section that is for all other uses, and this is what worries me. Compared to the rest of the article, the "taxonomy" section strikes me as overly detailed. We might not need a detailed explanation of Linnaeus classification; the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section seem enough for that (we need summary style here; we have other articles for those details). Also the rest could be shortened/written more concisely; the sentence this system of classification was published in their Genera plantarum in three volumes between 1862 and 1883 seems especially excessive to me.
Indeed, I've cut much of it. The thesis is basically: we used to care only about flowers, then we cared about the plant as a whole, and now we just look at DNA, but in the end flower morphology is still key.
The French botanist Antoine Laurent de Jussieu's 1789 work Genera plantarum set out a new method for classifying plants; based instead on natural characteristics. – Does that mean that Linnaeus' characteristics (the stamens) are not "natural"? If so, what is the difference?
added: ...more on natural characteristics. This included taking into account the rest of the plant, so that diverse plants weren't put into the same groups, as often happened in Linnaeus's system
The principal purpose of a flower is reproduction,[6] both of the individual and of the species – Only an individual can reproduce, I would assume; I am not sure what "and of the species" is doing there?
changed to The principal purpose of a flower is reproduction of the individual, leading to the survival of the species.
Not enough time today to finish it. I still need to reply to a couple of the points above, but overall, I am happy with most of the article now. However, the "Evolution" section (the first four paragraphs of it) appears weak to me, and I will try to provide more comments on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In anticipation of this, I have rewritten it so it doesn't rely so heavily on one really weird and not so useful explanation. It is now also more balanced, at four paragraphs. Hope this is an improvement. All responded to again @Jens Lallensack:. Cheers, Dracophyllum23:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flowers originated between 150 and 190 million years ago, during the later part of the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. – The Jurassic was from 201 to 143 mya. So, 190 mya is not the "later" part, right? It is almost the entire Jurassic.
verbatum the source says: THE origin of the flower during the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous eras (most recent estimates are between 150 and 190 MYADracophyllum23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Molecular clock estimates of crownangiosperm age range between 300 Ma or older (e.g. Ramshawet al., 1972; Brandl et al., 1992; Magallon, 2010) and 86 Ma(Sanderson & Doyle, 2001), with many recent estimates lying between c. 190 and 150 Ma (e.g. Magallon, 2010; Smith et al.,2010; Clarke et al., 2011; Magallon et al., 2013; Fig. 1).The fossil record is consistent with an onset of angiospermcrown diversification in the Early Cretaceous, as shown by theincreasing diversity and abundance of angiosperms in local out-crops and at a global level; increasing morphological complexityof leaves, pollen and flowers in agreement with expectationsbased on plant morphology; and congruence between the appear-ance of lineages in stratigraphic sequences and the branchingorder in molecular phylogenies (Doyle, 2012; Magallon, 2014).The fossil record is consistent with a proliferation of angiospermlineages during the Cretaceous (145.5–65.5 million yr ago (Ma)),as indicated by the first stratigraphic occurrence of 35 orders andmajor clades during this period (Fig. 1; Supporting InformationMethods S1). The observed distribution of the angiosperm fossilrecord as a whole may provide consistent landmarks to aidrelaxed clock estimations, and for calculation of the age of the group as a wholeDracophyllum23:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm but I now see another issue: "Ealry Cretaceous" does not fall within the range "150 and 190 million years ago" (it starts later, at 143 mya). I suggest to write this: Flowers originated between 150 and 190 million years ago during the Jurassic.[113][114] Although molecular clock estimates suggest this early appearance of angiosperms, the earliest definitive evidence from the fossil record comes from between 125 and 130 years ago, during the Early Cretaceous. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the advent of flowers, plants reproduced using cones (as in gymnosperms),[117] and spores (as in Pteridophytes). – I am not confortable with this sentence. First, you state earlier in the article that spores are part of angiosperm reproduction, too. So they reproduce using spores in some sense. Second, gymnosperms also have flower-like structures, and cones are replaced by fruit, right? So you seem to compare apples with pears here.
The angiosperms' most significant evolutionary innovation was the flower. – I am wondering if it would help if you start with a sentence explaining how the non-angiosperm flower looked like first. And then contrast that with what makes a flower a flower. The evolutionary step that is involved here does not become clear enough in my opinion.
Found some good material in Mauseth 2016>>added The transformation of sporophylls (spore-producing leaves) into structures like stamens and (enclosed) carpels, is the most clear milestone in the complex evolution of flowers.
Approximately 90% of all living land plants are angiosperms. – I assume you mean species here, not individual plants?
done
Within the angiosperms, some flowers have features not found in other angiosperms. – I wonder if it is better to remove this sentence and the following one. First, you already have a section "Variation" where this should be discussed, so it seems repetitive. Second, I would argue that almost all flowers have features that differ from other species – this is how species have traditionally been defined to begin with – so writing "some flowers have features not found in other angiosperms" does make little sense to me.
rmved
My main concern with the "Evolution" section is that it does not address the crucial (and difficult) question: Why did the flower evolve, and what was the adaptive advantage that led to their success? Did it evolve to allow for symbiosis with insects (I think one hypothesis assumes that?). Was the additional "protection" you mention to protect sensible parts from the insect pollinators? At the moment, you imply that it is all about the timing of flower evolution (e.g., "The exact time at which angiosperms diversified from other seed plants is a classic open question in evolutionary biology"), but I actually wonder if the more fundamental "Why" is the even more classic question. I think these points may be difficult to cover in a few sentences, because nothing is clear and there are multiple hypotheses, but I think it has to be covered somehow. Let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already list the key features that flowers have and how they are advantageous, including coevoultion. I've also added There is both debate over whether these and other changes happened gradually or suddenly—as in homeotic mutations, and which aspect of flower morphology came first. and the clause: which was able to take effectively take advantage of animal pollinators.. Is this enough @Jens Lallensack:? cheers, Dracophyllum06:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this and earlier methods, such as Linnaeus's, used morphological features, many botanists today use more phylogenetic methods through the use of genetic sequencing – I do not think you need to include the "phylogenetic" here. The sentence reads as if morphological features are not used in phylogenetic methods, but you can do phylogenetics just with morphological features. The use of phylogenetic methods has nothing to do with what you are explaining here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can look forward to a barnstar from me soon. This might be hyperbole but this FA is as much yours as it is mine. Thank you, Dracophyllum11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All credit is yours, and I think that it takes more time to carefully address issues than to write a review. In any case, I am glad I could make a meaningful contribution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on second place at TCC! My belated comments here (I wrote them about 10 days ago, so they may be slightly out of date).
I do not believe the article is understandable to a broad audience, in particularly the lead but also parts of the body. The very first question we need to ask is who would read this article. I imagine that’s people buying flowers for mother’s day, elementary school kids, people studying biology at GCSE levels (age 15-16), people studying it at A-levels (17-18) etc. The current target of the article is probably people studying flowers at university level instead.
Given the very wide audience of people reading this, the question is how do we make it inclusive for as wide a public as possible, without sounding like we’re dumbing it down. Writing for elementary school children would make the article sound simplistic, but I believe you can write for 14- to 15-year-olds without alienating other readers. That would involve a complete rewrite of the lead.
This audience might have questions such as “What’s the smallest thing that still counts as a flower” or “what’s the biggest flower out there”?. What’s the range of smells that come out of flowers (some smell like carrion). Which types of plants have flowers (“flowering plant” doesn’t say much)? Which don’t? You might want to mention grasses have flowers and that they’re not very obvious. Why are some flowers really impressive (attract bees and birds), while others aren’t (wind as the main fertiliser). “How do flowers attract pollinators?” (“via bright colours, nectar and scents”).
Facts about the specific genes, what whorls are, jargon like ‘heterosporous’, ‘vector’, ‘calyx’ etc. do not belong in the lead. If you need to introduce more than one bit of jargon in a lead paragraph, you’re losing people. If you do introduce jargon, keep to simple terms such as nectar and possibly vector.
Overall, the article overuses parenthesis for explaining things, which makes the text less engaging. Think harder about which jargon is essential, and which jargon can be hidden behind a wikilink or omitted. For instance, you can hide the word ‘vernalisation’ behind cold exposure. The amount of required working memory (remembering all the new terms) is high. Please check this throughout.
A non-exhaustive list of comments on the body of the article (might be slightly out of date). But please read throughout to ensure the article meets MOS:JARGON and WP:MTAU.
The alt of the first image is insufficiently descriptive
These three gene groups' activities interact in a combinatorial manner to determine the developmental identities of the primordia organ within the floral apical meristem. > Let’s remove the jargon ‘combinatorial’. I doubt many teenagers or even first-year biology students have heard of this mathematical jargon
“A floral formula is a way to represent the structure of a flower using letters, numbers, and symbols, presenting substantial information about the flower in a compact form.” > reword as “A floral formula is a way to represent the structure of a flower using letters, numbers, and symbols in a compact form”
the presence of fusion and symmetry > I don’t understand what fusion means here.
colour-effects why is this hyphenated? What is structural colouration? And what are photonic crystals?
Start with a paragraph understandable to a broad audience, before diving into (slightly) more complicated areas.
All of the floral organs develop within a bud, that itself is enclosed by leaves, and other organs or axes I don’t understand how ‘organs and axes’ correspond to the rest of the sentence. Are they also enclosed in the bud? Or do they enclose the floral organs?
Unclear what attractant is in: “Often they are specialised in shape and have an arrangement of stamens that ensures that pollen grains are transferred to the bodies of the pollinator when it lands in search of its attractant”. Can you reword in plain English?
You’re linking entomophily twice. Neither need to be visible to the reader, they can be hidden behind plain English words (as can all the other jargon in that paragraph).
and pseudocopulation (sexual deception) This can do with its own sentence as it’s interesting and may need some explaining for people unfamiliar with the concept
Flow can improve if you split this sentence into two (as it’s not immediately clear what they refers to): “They may also be attracted by various stimuli such as size, scent (as in carrion flowers), and colour—this includes nectar guides, which show pollinators where to look for nectar; they may be visible only under ultraviolet light”
No need to introduce the word syngamy. It’s jargon that’s not further used. Don’t introduce jargon just to teach it to readers per MOS:JARGON
Again, start a section with a paragraph that is 100% understandable to a broad audience. You could for instance compare it to human fertilisation which people are somewhat familiar with.
The exact time at which angiosperms diverged from other seed plants is a classic open question in evolutionary biology The sources are quite old. Is this still a classic open question?
Coevolution: I’m surprised climate change is not mentioned, given that pollinators and flowers sometimes have different cues for seasonal change that are now misaligned.
I have no idea what this sentence means: “In addition, they pioneered double fertilisation, which allows energy investment (into endosperm) to be prolonged until after pollination.”
Why switch to the jargon here? Simply use flowering plants: “In addition, most crop plants are angiosperms” Do we need the second half of that sentence? Seems redundant with the first.
I don’t understand what this means: “Some flowers are steeped with or without Camellia sinensis (tea plant) to produce flower tea”
Support. Now Jens has finished his mammoth and excellent review, I've taken a further read. I am ignorant about the subject, so cannot comment on the technical side of things, but the prose reads very well and the article covers all I would think it should do for an encyclopaedic overview. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What an article. It baffles me how anyone is willing to put in the effort to improve such a large topic. Applause all around. This is my first FAC contribution ever, so I will not be putting forward a !vote, but I hope you can appreciate these copyediting comments:
Nub098765
"Flowers not only develop and produce spores (reproductive units), gametes (sex cells), zygotes (fertilised cells), and seeds, but also aid in their effective dispersal." — This feels a bit clunky. Unless it’s important to separate development and dispersal, consider streamlining: "Flowers develop and disseminate reproductive cells—spores, gametes, zygotes, and seeds."
Technically that would be incorrect, because only seeds are "disemminated" I've gone with Flowers not only produce spores, which become gametophytes that produce gametes (sex cells), leading to zygotes (fertilised cells), but also develop and help disseminate seeds. This is a little wordy but I think it works.
"The zygote grows into a seed, which contains structures to assist in the future plant's survival and success. — The word "success" sounds slightly non-neutral. Perhaps replace with "growth".
done
"The androecium, consisting of stamens, is the whorl of pollen-producing male parts." — Does this then mean that the stamens are such pollen-producing male parts? If so, I'd suggest clarifying it: "The androecium is the whorl of male floral organs called stamens, which produce pollen."
done The androecium is the whorl of male parts called stamens, which producing pollen.
"This close relationship compounds the negative effects of extinction, however..." — A more elegant phrasing might be: "However, such interdependence exacerbates vulnerability to extinction..."
changed to However, this close interdependance increases the risk of extinction, since the extinction of either member almost certainly means the extinction of the other member as well.
"In some flowers, for example, floral parts such as the stamens, stigmas, and sepals are highly altered to look like petals." — A shorter "In some flowers, organs such as stamens, stigmas, and sepals are modified to resemble petals." would work better here IMHO.
done
"The carriers by which pollen is transferred between plants are called vectors." — This construction is pretty wordy. Consider simplifying to "The agents that transport pollen between plants are known as vectors."
done Agents that transport pollen between plants are called vectors
"Flowers have been used by humans all over the world for thousands of years for a variety of purposes, including: decoration, medicine, food, perfumes, and essential oils." — Ah, the perils of the passive voice. Perhaps: "Humans have used flowers globally for millennia for many purposes, including decoration, medicine, food, perfumes, and essential oils."
The change has been made.
"They may be deciduous (fall off at maturity), but will more commonly grow on to assist in fruit dispersal." — "grow on" seems informal and a bit vague. "Persist" might be a better word to use there. Maybe: "While sometimes deciduous (falling off at maturity), sepals more often persist to aid in fruit dispersal."
done
"The molecular interpretation of these signals is through the transmission of a complex signal known as florigen..." — Has a bit of a convoluted structure. Maybe: "These signals are molecularly interpreted through a complex signal called florigen..."
done
"As a result of economic forces, plants are bred for longer lasting, more beautiful, or colourful flowers." — Perfectly fine as-is, but perhaps, for flow: "Economic demand has led to the cultivation of flowers that are longer-lasting, more colourful, and visually appealing."
done
That's all from me. A great article by an excellent contributor. Thank you for the work that went into this, and apologies if any of my comments came across as glib. I'm still working out the kinks in my reviewing style. Nub098765 (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All images have alt text that accurately describes the image. (One had an incorrectly named alt parameter inside a multiple image template but it was trivial to fix.)
CC BY 3.0: File:Hyndrangea phyllody (cropped).png (confirmed at source paper)
CC-BY 4.0: File:Phalaenopsis bellina (Blue Pink x sib) (Rchb.f.) Christenson- Brittonia 47- 58 (1995). 20210623 013709.jpg, File:Plant life diversity graph.jpg, File:Maximum Likelihood analysis of Vanilla (Orchidaceae) - Oo 861413.jpg
CC BY SA 2.0: File:Enhalus acoroides fleur femelle.jpg, File:Solola Market (Guatemala, February 2020) - 69.jpg
CC-BY-SA 4.0: File:Passiflora caerulea (makro close-up).jpg (there's something weird going on with the location template), File:Rafflesia arnoldii Bunga Nasional Indonesia 01 (cropped).jpg, File:Monoecy dioecy en.svg, File:Bloeiwijze van een Kruisdistel (Eryngium). 21-07-2023. (actm.) 01.jpg, File:Buttercup petal structural and pigment coloration.svg, File:ABC Model.svg, File:Grey-headed Flying Fox (IMG0526).jpg, File:Populus tremula sl10.jpg, File:Flower fertilisation diagram.svg, File:Flower seed fruit development diagram.svg, File:Flower seed fruit development diagram.svg, File:Gravestone flowers 06.jpg
CC-BY-SA 2.5: File:Anther-schematic.png, File:Diagrama convolvulus (cropped).jpg (can be converted to SVG)
GNU: File:Sunflower from Silesia.JPG, File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg, File:Ophrys apifera flower1.jpg, File:Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg
PD: File:Mature flower diagram.svg, File:Ovule-Gymno-Angio-en (cropped).svg, File:Ehret-Methodus Plantarum Sexualis.jpg, File:Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (Dutch - Flower Still Life - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Wedding day of Princess Désirée of Sweden 5 June 1964.jpg
Where images are marked as "own work", it is clear that the descriptor is accurate and they aren't lifted from elsewhere on the web.
Minor items that could be improved are noted in green, but none of these disqualify it from passing this image review.
The amount of text in File:Buttercup petal structural and pigment coloration.svg is very high when compared to the length of the description and alt-text, which is concerning. Other diagrams such as the monoecy-dioecy and ABC model diagrams have more detailed alt-text or captions to indicate what is depicted.
With the caveat that I am no expert in this area, but I do at least have good access to the sources through my library, I've randomly sampled the following 15% of the citations to check for source-text integrity and WP:CLOP: 2, 6, 14, 18, 19, 28, 39, 40, 46, 52, 56, 57, 60, 78, 85, 98, 109, 114, 119, 132, 145, and 158, as numbered in this diff.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
For 2, I am struggling to reconcile the source's claim that Most current observers view the angiosperm flower (arguably also the short shoot of the phylogenetically isolated extant gymnosperm Ginkgo biloba) as simple strobili, with the article's explanation that Although flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms,[1] there are many gymnosperm cones which resemble flowers. The cones of Ginkgo biloba, for example, are mostly considered to be simple strobili, and not flowers. Since the cited source is trying to address the evolutionary origin of flowers, they may mean that angiosperm flowers developed as a simplification from the non-flower structure known as stromboli, but that still leaves me feeling like the "phylogenetically isolated extant gymnosperm Ginkgo biloba" is a poor example of gymnosperm cones in general. Is there another way to approach the distinction/clarification that pine cones resemble but are not flowers? Mauseth 2016 p221 says Flowers contain the organs and tissues angiosperms need for sexual reproduction; cones are equivalent structures in conifers, which feels related. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I've gone with In botany, flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms, while cones are regarded as the gymnosperm equivalent. and moved the ginko example into a note. Cheers, Dracophyllum03:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great -- this has the advantage of being much clearer. The new sentence start also addresses my concern below about section flow. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 18d, Pandey 2023 p.17 doesn't verify specifically the part that four pollen sacs arranged in two thecae (sheaths). De Craene 2010, p. 8 verifies this. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 19c and 19d (the bits about androecium), cut the citation to Mauseth -- it doesn't support any of this info, but De Craene 2010, p. 8 fully verifies it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to research the following journals that my UI tool pings as "yellow flags", possibly a "borderline source" (probably fine but I don't know so I will check!): Plants, Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability, Seeds, Foods, Frontiers in Plant Science. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Plants, Seeds, and Foods were all flagged because they were published by WP:MDPI. Plants and Foods look OK to me because they are affiliated with multiple academic societies, list robust editorial and reviewer boards, and have actual impact factors and citescores listed. I can be talked into these. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeds raises more eyebrows because it lacks all of those except the editorial board, but it's a "companion journal" of Agronomy which does pass those sniff checks? It's only cited for one statement -- Autochory includes, for example, the fruit exploding to release the seeds (ballochory), as in Hura crepitans. Why not replace with a cite to Pandey p. 263, which has lots of examples of autochory? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability is flagged because it's at IndianJournals.com. It appears to be a publication of The Society for Science of Climate Change and Sustainable Environment. I can't confirm whether this is considered a predatory journal, but on pp 232-233 of Mauseth there is a little box about "Plants and People" that may be able to support this information instead. Also open to your thoughts. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found Although flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms... to be a jarring opening to a section called "etymology". Perhaps the two paragraphs here could switch places? And/or the opening of the paragraph could clarify that it's specifically addressing the term's use in botanical scientific contexts? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parentheses might be clearer than commas for calyx, the modified outer leaves, and corolla, the petals since on first read it's not clear that "the modified outer leaves" isn't just the next item on a list. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All responded to @LEvalyn: thank you. Are you in a position to support for sourcing now? Can I also ask do you have an opinion on the ref formatting; should I do away with the display-authors=1 parameters? Cheers, Dracophyllum04:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to finish checking my randomly-selected cites, just in case; just did another batch of them now. Also, my opinion on ref formatting is that I hate dealing with it, so you should look to someone else for advice there; I know there are many folks at FAC with a fine eye for detail when it comes to formatting. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 39, the article says Floral symmetry improves ... rates of pollination but I think it's not quite that simple. Wang et al 2023 seem to say that floral symmetry improves the number of pollinator species that will visit a flower (in contrast to zygomorphic flowers that attract more specialized flowers). Mauseth pp240-241 gives more detail: many lines of insects and flowers underwent coevolution, a flower becoming adapted for visitation by a particular insect and the insect for efficient exploitation of the flower ... When a pollinator approaches a zygomorphic flower, only one orientation is comfortable for it ... As a result, as the pollinator feeds at the flower, pollen is placed on a predictable part of its body. When it visits the next flower, pollen is rubbed directly onto the stigma. ... In contrast, a pollinator can approach an actinomorphic flower from any direction, and pollen may be brushed onto any part of the body. Can you revisit? The sentence in question may need to be split into two, one about heat retention and one describing in more detail the relationship between symmetry and pollinator coevolution. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because animal pollinators are themselves zygomorphic, there is only one comfortable orientation they can have on a zygomorphic flower. Organs can then be arranged to ensure pollen is placed on their bodies in a specific position than ensures pollination of the subsequent flower. Floral symmetry also assists in heat retention, which is required for the growth and effective performance of the floral organs. Tucked the coevolution part into a notetag. cheers, Dracophyllum09:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a great explanation... though I'd be tempted to reverse the article/note info to keep the article more 'zoomed out'. If it was me, I think I'd have the article say Floral symmetry is a key driver of diversity in flower morphology, because it is one of the main features derived through flower-plant coevolution. Zygomorphic flowers often develop specialized coevolution with specific pollinators, while radially symmetric flowers tend to attract a wider range of pollinators. And then use a note for Because animal pollinators are themselves zygomorphic, there is only one comfortable orientation they can have on a zygomorphic flower. Organs can then be arranged to ensure pollen is placed on their bodies in a specific position than ensures pollination of the subsequent flower. You've addressed my quibbles about accurately reflecting the info in the source so this isn't a source-check suggestion, just an idea for the prose. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not related to sourcing: personally, I found it confusing that the floral diagram and formula for a Convolvulus flower was joined in a little "box" with an entirely different flower. I'd suggest "splitting" them, and maybe even joining the diagram to a photo of a convolvulus flowers? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the diagram clearer now, thank you. It felt like a real shame to lose the colour diagram (it made the difference between pigment and structural colouration very clear to me in a way that the prose wasn't able to) so I boldly tried out shrinking the floral diagram -- I am not sure if it still looks to crowded, but it felt worth a try. Follow your heart for the images in this section and I will support your decision. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the third and final check, 85, 109, 114, 119, 145, and 158 all check out, no notes.
In the "Seed and fruit development" section I notice that the article points out the "torpedo stage" but doesn't mention that the preceding stages is called the "heart stage". (While young, the cotyledon primordia give the embryo a heart shape; this is the heart stage, Mauseth p235) This may be an unnecessary level of detail but wanted to note the omission. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 98, this isn't quite right: The fruit contains three main structures: the exocarp, or outer layer; the mesocarp, or the fleshy part; the endocarp, or innermost layer; and the pericarp, the fruit wall.. Mauseth p 237 says The entire fruit wall, whether composed of one, two, or all three layers, is the pericarp.. Also, it might be helpful to gloss that the endocarp is the 'nut' of a pecan or the pit of a cherry (both are examples that Mauseth gives on this page). Possibly also translate that the exocarp is the skin/peel. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fruit contains three main structures: the exocarp (peel), or outer layer; the mesocarp, or the fleshy part; and the endocarp (stone), or innermost layer. The pericarp, which may include one or all three of these structures, is the collective name for the fruit wall (everything but the seed).Dracophyllum21:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 132, I wasn't able to access Sharma 132, but I am happy to take this one on good faith; the book is obviously an appropriate source for this kind of information. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That completes my spot-check! Once you've had a chance to address my last few notes, I'll be ready to support on sources. Really excellent work here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking my spot; will pre-face that right now I am looking for some more comments on my own FAC at Yeti (Doctor Who); no pressure and you have absolutely no obligation to take a look if you don't want to, as I'll be reviewing this FAC all the same, but I figured I'd put it out there.
Not too familiar with plant articles, so consider my review a read from an outsider's perspective; I can probably help with comprehension issues in the prose that a regular reader may be stumped on, but for particular subject matter-specific stuff I probably won't be able to help as much. It's late where I am right now so I'll probably leave a review here tomorrow. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to highlight that the gametophytes are complete plants, and angiosperms are (somewhat) unique in going further. Dracophyllum05:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one that can grow, photosynthesise, absorb what it needs to survive, and produce gametes all on its own. Flowering plants are all spermophytes (the next stage) Dracophyllum06:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gametophytes are the haploid (one set of chromosomes) plants that produce the gametes. In angiosperms the gametophytes are not visible and highly reduced, while the visible part (including leaves, stem, and flowers) is the sporophyte. this is more technically accurate and generalised i think Dracophyllum10:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"lizards (saurophily), other mammals," maybe non-flying mammals. Also, does the source actually say what groups of mammals? Just quickly going through it, it mentions rodents and at one point a possum Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In plant taxonomy ... the morphology of plants' flowers are used extensively—and have been for thousands of years" has taxonomy been around since Ancient Babylonian times? I feel like the source was talking about hunter-gatherers or just general foraging maybe? Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pg 8: The advent of writing and printing changed the entire picture of the ancient preliterate mankind. Theophrastus (370–285 B.C.), the “grandfather of the modern botany”, was the greatest botanical writer of the distant past. He was a student of Plato and Aristotle, and studied botany under their philosophic guidance at Athens. He classified the plants into four groups: herbs, subshrubs, shrubs, and trees. He also distinguished between the nonflowering plants (Cryptogams) and flowering plants (Phanerogams). He suggested that calyx and corolla are the modified leaves. He described nearly 500 plants in details, and certain names (e.g. Asparagus, Daucas, and Narcissus) are used even today in the same sense. The details of his works are available to the world in the form of books entitled “Enquiry into Plants” and “The Causes of Plants”.Dracophyllum06:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"described as vegetables, when in fact they are actually inflorescences, bracts, or stems of flowers" I mean, "vegetable" isn't a real thing botanically, it's a culinary word Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Flowers may be eaten freshly after being picked, termed floriphagia, or dried and eaten later" seems to suggest these are the only 2 things people do with edible flowers Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cover the decoration aspect/infusion etc. in other sentences. this is just to highlight that flowers can be dried, or not dried. Dracophyllum10:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
iirc flower tea is just flowers steeped with water. Flowering tea in the west means tea leaves around a flower, although I couldn't find a source to support that (only one that claimed that flower tea = flowering tea). In the end I have just gone with Flowers are steeped to make teas, either alone (as in herbal teas), or in combination with Camellia sinensis (tea plant).Dracophyllum12:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They may be living animals, such as birds and insects, or non-living factors such as wind and water. ... External vectors include both living things, such as animals and insects, and non-living things, such as wind and water." Any chance of a bit of variety. (And I am not an enthusiast for "living animals". As opposed to the other sort?)
reworded to External vectors may be biological, like animals and insects, or abiotic, like wind and water. also rmved "living". Note that I have heard from both pokelego and femke that they have comments prepared off-wiki. Dracophyllum22:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After narrowly missing out on promotion last month, I'm taking this back so that hopefully it can achieve FA status this time. Carl Zoll, the son of a stonecutter, was one of three brothers active in Green Bay, Wisconsin, sports, competing in wrestling and football. A heavyweight, he became one of the top wrestlers in the area and was undefeated in his first two years of competition, becoming the state champion. He contended for the World Light Heavyweight Championship in 1920 but was defeated, and after several losses in 1921, only competed periodically in subsequent years. Zoll was also active in football at the same time, being a member of the inaugural Green Bay Packers team in 1919. He appeared in exactly one NFL game for the Packers, a distinction that his two brothers also hold. He later worked for his family's stonecutting business until his death in 1974. Thanks are owed to Gonzo fan2007 and PCN02WPS, who both reviewed it twice (on the talk page and at the prior FA nom), as well as the five other editors who reviewed it at the last nom. Hopefully Zoll can become an FA this time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are all in public domain because of their age and/or lack of copyright notice. The links to the image sources are working. The images are relevant, placed in appropriate locations, and have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A decent amount of rewording has been done since your last comment at that FAC. You also never made it clear what exactly I was to do, only saying that the article somehow needed to be entirely rewritten by a football FA expert, despite all four of the most prominent football FA writers reviewing it, some even copyediting it, and each agreeing it was in FA-shape. As I said before, I'm happy to address any issue you point out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant since the last FAC was archived. At least one reviewer said the prose needed a polish but no edits have been made. I'm sorry but I get the impression it has just been brought back to FAC hoping for better luck. Graham Beards (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer said the prose could use polish, but they also said their comment was "certainly not an oppose". I'm happy to address any issue you point out, but I don't see what I'm possibly supposed to do when I'm told by one lone "oppose" editor (compared to four who supported, and no other opposes) that the "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer" when (i) each football FA writer reviewed and/or copyedited it and said it was good, and (ii) you haven't specified anything for me to do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, I certainly disagree with Graham Beards on their opinions on the article, but respect that they feel that way. I think their point lies more in two places: (1) WP:FIXLOOP, where they believe that the level of review is so significant that instead of providing 100 comments and days of back-and-forth, they would rather see another editor copyedit the article and improve the prose before reviewing it; (2) that since the last nomination closed, there haven't been any significant changes to the article and since David Fuchs archived the nomination as a failure, the expectation is that improvements need to be made to change that consensus. Now I of course am paraphrasing others, so they are definitely welcome to chime in to clarify. I obviously still disagree with the commentary and decision in the first nomination, but here we are. I would say that unless the two reviewers who were neutral on the first nom are willing to come back for another review and switch to support, it will be challenging to have this nom be successful with Graham Beards opposition (which was strongly relied upon for the archival of the first nom). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is so poor and I'm incapable of writing acceptable prose, I'd like to see at least something illustrating that. At the moment, every addressable issue that anyone has raised anywhere has been addressed. I had nothing to indicate what I possibly could have done to 'fix' the vague 'issues' brought up by Graham Beards in the past FAC before a renom, and still have absolutely nothing indicating what sort of copyedit needs to be done now. Saying that the article needs someone other than me who writes football FAs to give it a complete rewrite when every editor meeting that description has done either that or given it a decent review and supported is pretty ridiculous if you ask me (especially with how vastly different the article is compared to when he first reviewed it). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you BeanieFan11. I am sure there are actionable comments that could be made, but I view the prose as WP:FAC worthy at this point and any additional issues being relatively minor, stylistic choices. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say ""whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? I don't recall it, nor can I find the diff. Graham Beards (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs a copyedit by someone new to the article who can bring some objective distance to the prose. ... you [should] find an editor who is familiar with the sport...preferably one with and established FA track record, who is willing to help you rewrite the article to a FA standard. In its current state, it is not good enough – that seems to imply you think the article needs significant reworking and rewriting by someone else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply the diff for this quote you attributed to me; "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? If you can't, kindly apologise and retract the statement. Graham Beards (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the foundational quality of the sourcing here. Referring to a specific passage in the article at the last FAC, SchroCat stated that it read like it came from a "bad local newspaper". While I'm not going to disparage the quality of the Press-Gazette, we have a situation here in which the sourcing is almost entirely from a few regional newspapers. And while Green Bay has grown quite a bit, as of 1910 it was the eight-largest city in Wisconsin and smaller than Sheboygan, according to PDF pages 5 and 6 of this census document. So we're quite possibly into semi-regional or large local territory here at best for the 1910s newspaper coverage. And this coverage falls into two groups: 1) "come see this local wrestling production so that they'll still do shows here" like a 21st-century newspaper advertising a demolition derby or a high school basketball tournament and 2) "local boy makes good" stuff. I just don't see the available sourcing here as a foundation for a proper FAC. The pool of articles where GA-level sourcing exists is just much larger than the pool where FA-level sourcing exists. For example - I had 5 GAs promoted in 2024. Of these, CSS General Earl Van Dorn is a FA, CSS General Polk could maybe be a FA with further work, and I do not believe that Battle of Bayou Fourche, Edward W. Gantt, or Battle of Clark's Mill could ever be a FA without more research and publication into these topics, which is very unlikely for at least the latter two. I will let the FAC coords determine if this is actionable or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing your main points, but I did want to note that the Green Bay Press-Gazette holds a somewhat unique place in the history of the NFL, and the reporting thereof. It was one of the earliest newspapers to accumulate All-Pro lists (see here for an example of 1925 All-Pros). The Press-Gazette employed George Whitney Calhoun, co-founder of the Packers who "amassed one of the most complete collections of NFL game results during his career" and reported on the Packers for 30 years. Andrew B. Turnbull, the first president of the Packers, was also the owner of the Press-Gazette. You can also read a "self-history" of the paper here. I say this all for two reasons: (1) the Press-Gazette has been a trusted, reliable source, especially for Packers content, for 100 years and (2) smaller, regional papers of the time obviously did not operate as newspapers today do, so we do need to read between the lines a bit between "promotional" material and true reporting. All that said, in my view 60+ newspaper sources over a long period of time feels like enough, even taking into account the differences between today and 100 years ago. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good argument for the Press-Gazette's Packers coverage, which I'm not disputing. What I'm concerned with is it's regional wrestling coverage, which is most of this article's sourcing. Just because Zoll had a brief association with the Packers doesn't mean that the quality of its Packers coverage can be retroactively applied to earlier wrestling coverage of Zoll, or to coverage of wrestling with no direct connection to Zoll's brief Packers stint. I think the subject is clearly notable, but I'm concerned that this is an example of the difference of RS coverage for notability and GA versus the higher sourcing quality expectations for FAs. Hog FarmTalk15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns! Unfortunately back then there was a proclivity to avoid placing the author's name in articles. It's likely that Calhoun wrote most of, if not all of, the Press-Gazette's sports coverage in the early 1920s. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heya! Gonna review this article, though just pre-facing that I've also got an active FAC nomination for Yeti (Doctor Who) up as well. It's not super long, so if you'd be willing to review that article as well, I'd greatly appreciate it, though I'm not forcing you by any means.
Onto the review itself, very few major issues. Prose reads pretty well. A couple nitpicks though:
- When it says tombstones, are these actual tombstones, or some other object? I'd hyperlink it if it is.
Appears to be actual tombstones, so linked.
-Is the quote really necessary? I feel the idea of Zoll's wrestling tendencies are easily conveyable through text.
I think it gives a good background and it was written by one of the most famous sportswriters ever, so I feel it has some relevance. Perhaps I should shorten it to only the part after "It is not recalled..."? Thoughts?
-"and the Toronto Star Weekly highlighted his willingness to compete against any challenger and in any location." Not sure why this is needed since it doesn't really add much to understanding him in my opinion.
Cut.
-"He was the heaviest player for the Packers in their inaugural season, weighing 215 pounds (98 kg) despite standing at only 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m)" As someone not in the football know, why is this a problem? 5'9 is a pretty respectable height, so it's not clear why that's a problem for playing the game.
5'9 is a bit small for a player at his position; also, the heaviest players are usually closer to, like, 6'4 than 5'9, but I changed it to "weighing 215 pounds while standing at 5 feet 9 inches".
-Is there any info on when he married his wife Pearl? Not a huge issue if there's nothing, but checking just in case.
-I have to concur with Hog Farm that I'm very concerned by the amount of local coverage. It doesn't really indicate much significance on a larger scale or in terms of long-lasting significance. This clearly passes GNG and is definitely a strong read for a GA, but I'm not sure if the sourcing is up to FA par. I'm not gonna oppose but I'll probably wait and see how your discussion with Hog Farm goes above before I make any final judgement calls.
I'm not sure what else there is to say about the newspapers. The Press-Gazette is arguably the best newspaper source for early Packers players and I'm not sure of any other Wisconsin papers of the time that gave better sports coverage... are there any parts of the article in particular where you think the source(s) are unreliable or inaccurate?
Best of luck with the FAC all the same! This reads very well and I couldn't find too many issues with the prose, so all in all I'd say this is a fantastic article no matter the outcome. I'm a big fan of your Packers articles and your dedication to the area, so thank you so much for all you do here. It's really genuinely so awesome. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a decade of sitting on some notes, I have finally finished writing an article on one of my username's inspirations: a commuter train system that serves the Seattle area. It has two lines, runs somewhat infrequently, but boasts great views (especially on the N Line, which runs along Puget Sound). A GAN review was completed last month and I feel that there wasn't substantial changes needed to prepare for a run at FAC. The first line turns 25 in September and I hope to have a TFA ready for that day. SounderBruce01:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Other services, including reverse commute and mid-day trips are offered" => "Other services, including reverse commute and mid-day trips, are offered"
Fixed.
"which is shared with Amtrak Cascades" - link Cascades, which seems to have an article
"add passenger cars on gamedays in the future" - might be worth clarifying that the Kingdome was a venue for [whatever sports it was a venue for] (or at the very least clarify that it was a sports stadium) as without that info, "gamedays" is a bit meaningless in this context
Thank you for the review so far. I hope you'll be able to enjoy a ride on Sounder; the N Line to Everett is very scenic and, when combined with a ferry trip, a perfect way to spend a summer afternoon here. SounderBruce17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A series of open houses [...] were held during the same month and was followed" - subject seems to change from plural to singular mid-sentence
Decided to split the sentence, as it isn't that related to the next event.
"In April 1999, Sound Transit, WSDOT, BNSF (formerly Burlington Northern), and Union Pacific announced a preliminary agreement to operate Sounder service" - think that should be either "In April 1999, Sound Transit, WSDOT, BNSF (formerly Burlington Northern), and Union Pacific announced a preliminary agreement to operate Sounder services" or "In April 1999, Sound Transit, WSDOT, BNSF (formerly Burlington Northern), and Union Pacific announced a preliminary agreement to operate the Sounder service"
Switched it to "Sounder's Seattle-Tacoma line" to make it clearer; "Sounder [train] service" would have worked, but it implies (at least in American English) that it is just one trip and not the whole line's operations.
"A provisional station near in North Sumner" - is there a word or words missing here?
I appreciate the offer. I will be on a fairly long road trip beginning soon, so I can't commit to anything; if I have a free evening, I will try to leave a review. SounderBruce21:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an early comment, the article would benefit from a better, and especially more interesting, infobox photo to get readers' attention. The current image is cluttered and doesn't depict anything clearly. Something like File:Sounder_at_Carkeek_(20192129658).jpg would be superior. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped with a scenic shot that isn't too "scenic". Will look at retaking a shot from the same vantage point with my equipment when the weather is more reliably sunny. SounderBruce06:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read over the article, which is in excellent shape. I have only 2 comments:
For the 'Stations' section, were all the stations established for this service or did they exist before it started?
Several were existing facilities that were either repurposed for Sounder or built with the hope of eventually serving Sounder; in fact, one of the future stations will serve a bus platform that will have waited 40 years for its train.
For the ridership section, how does the actual ridership compare with what was expected when this service was planned? Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thank you for looking over the article. I have added a blurb with some of the predicted rider numbers that were reported by the Times; will look for more in a bit. SounderBruce07:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this about a month ago for GA. The article was in great shape then, and the nominator addressed several issues that I raised at that time.
A month ago, the article had some railfan lingo, but I believe that was all converted into layman's terms during the GA.
The article's prose & paragraphs are rather dense and detailed, but I don't think it rises to the point of encroaching on WP guidelines WP:SUMMARY or WP:DETAIL; and a dense, factual style is somewhat expected when describing an engineering infrastructure.
Map color contrast: There are two maps near the top of the article that do a poor job of communicating info to the reader due to a color-contrast issue: those maps draw the rail line as light blue, while the line is adjacent to a light blue bodies of water (Puget Sound, Lake Washington, etc). .. the lines are very hard to see because it is blue-on-blue. These two maps are in the sections Sounder_commuter_rail#N_Line and Sounder_commuter_rail#S_Line.
The content of the maps is not under the control of the nominator of this article ... the nominator is using the standard rail/subway map template template:Rapid transit OSM map. That template gets the color of the Sounder line from WikiData at: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56525586 and that file contains the official light blue color of the Sounder line, which, coincidentally, is nearly the same color as the map's ocean & lakes.
This is not the first time in the world's history that rail line colors have conflicted with map background colors (e.g. a green rail line going thru a green forest). This color-contrast problem has been solved in real world maps in many ways (e.g. drawing thin black borders on the rail line). For example: Google maps draws this same Sounder rail line in its official light blue color, but has white border lines, so as the line crosses blue water it is still visible: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6669173,-122.4022998,18.17z/data=!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Has this map color-contrast issue been discussed before in the FA process? What was the outcome?
That's all I have for now. The article is a great article, and I hope my lengthy discussion about the map color issue is not out of place here in the FA review. Noleander (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: I have also made some inquires about improving the interactive map template; it seems to be using {{Maplink}}, which does have support for color changes, but the code is rather complex. For the time being, I have whipped up a new map in QGIS that should suffice as a placeholder. SounderBruce07:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce One final comment: There is a redundancy near the bottom of the article: the See Also section has a link to Commuter rail in North America, and also there is topic bar Template:USCommRail at the very bottom of the article, which has the identical link to Commuter rail in North America in the topic bar's colored header. Some editors say "See Also" sections should not exist in a great article (on the theory that any important link should be in the body text); on the other hand, the topic bars are not displayed to readers on many devices (e.g. phones). Not a showstopper for FA, just pointing it out. Noleander (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Caldbick, John (January 7, 2015). "Milwaukee Road's S-Curve Trestle (Tacoma)". HistoryLink. Retrieved January 2, 2025." - what are Caldbick's credentials for this? Is he a subject-matter expert? What sort of editorial control does HistoryLink have, and are the editors recognized experts for Washington history? The about page of the website says "With a few noted exceptions, all articles on this site are original works prepared exclusively for HistoryLink.org by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts." - so there seems to be a fairly wide range of qualifications by the writers. The same general question applies to the other HistoryLink articles
HistoryLink does seem to have editorial guidelines and fact checking, per this Times interest piece and their about page ("HistoryLink.org articles are fully sourced, bylined, and dated to provide authoritative references for legal, journalistic, and scholastic use") for their features and timeline entries. The people's histories are generally from relevant but not professionally qualified contributors.
Going through those who are used in this article and from the list of past contributors, I do think most have the proper credentials: Heather MacIntosh, master's degree in architectural history; Walt Crowley, co-founder of HistoryLink and author of several city and university books; Russell Holter, historian employed by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation; Greg Lange, reference historian at the King County Archives. Caldbick is a former newspaper reporter, but not necessarily a subject expert; McClary and Cohen don't seem to have the credentials. These three HistoryLink sources have been replaced.
"The locomotives are 58.5 feet (17.8 m) long and 15 feet (4.6 m) tall, while the passenger cars are 85 feet (26 m) long and 15 feet 11 inches (4.85 m) tall" - I'm not convinced that this can be adequately supported by a 1999 press release. This press release obviously can't support the size of the 2012 locomotive additions, or support that the various new car cab purchased in the 20 years since didn't have a redesign
Added a late 2000s source, but could not find specifications that were newer than that.
"The tracks cross over the Lake Washington Ship Canal on the Salmon Bay Bridge, a movable bascule bridge near the Ballard Locks, and pass through Golden Gardens Park" - The source used to support the use of the Salmon Bay Brigde is a source from 2018 discussing how the bridge is being considered for replacement. While this didn't happen, I think a more recent source that isn't discussing the bridge in the context of it being planned to be removed 7 years ago would be better
Replaced with a 2020 source on the non-replacement decision.
"Trains then pass under Interstate 405 near the former Longacres horse racing track and arrive at the first outbound station, Tukwila, which is shared with Amtrak Cascades" - source does not seem to mention Interstate 405 or the horse racing track, and I'm not seeing where it supports that Tukwila is the first outbound station?
Moved up the map source (which should support the station order and I-405) and added a better DJC source for the horse racing track and Amtrak service.
"The railroad to Tacoma was completed in December to meet a deadline imposed by the United States Congress and scheduled passenger and freight service began on January 5, 1874" - OK, although the copy of Armbruster on Internet Archive not having visible page numbers is a bit annoying
"The companies, which merged into the Burlington Northern Railroad in 1970, ceased all of their passenger service the following year amid financial losses" - Can I get the quotes from the sources supporting this?
From Barr (April 30, 1971): "The North Coast Limited, now operated by the Burlington Northern, formerly was a proud name train of the Northern Pacific Railway. [...] For nearly three quarters of a century, that road's Monad emblem, followed by Rocky the Great Northern Railway goat, were identities and symbols of the Pacific Northwest. They died when the lines merged."
Replaced the other source with one that focuses on Burlington Northern's finances (August 17, 1970): "Last March 2, the Great Northern, Northern Pacific and Spokane, Portland & Seattle railways joined the Burlington & Quincy Road to form a 24,000-mile system extending into 17 states and two Canadian provinces [...] But he [BN president Louis W. Menk] warns that his rail line and others must go out of the passenger business unless Congress subsidizes them. [...] "We are, out of pocket, losing $38 million a year on passenger operations.""
"Burlington Northern agreed to share technical information with Metro Transit for their studies and stated that they were interested in operating the trains, which they could accommodate with the construction of a parallel track" - Does Higgins, Mark (October 27, 1990). "Commuter rail line draws interest". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. p. B2. support the parallel track, and if so can you please provide the quote? The other source supporting this mentions that the service would occur on existing tracks
The quote is "The company has proposed using its tracks through the Green River Valley and may consider adding a new parallel line if there is sufficient demand for the commuter service, said DJ Mitchell, superintendent of suburban operations for Burlington Northern."
Added "should demand warrant it" to the article.
"The demonstration was delayed due to issues securing financing from the state settlement and was renamed to reflect its expanded scope, which included rush hour service to Seattle that began from Everett on January 28" - source mentions only funding difficulties without specifying if this was the state settlement or the federal grant funding
Removed the "state settlement" here; it is mentioned in the second part of the January 29 source but only in passing.
"The RTA's preliminary schedule for the projects in Sound Move was adopted early the following year with plans to begin construction on commuter rail stations in 1998." - could I please get the quotes from the sources supporting this?
From Feb. 14, 1997: "Commuter trains powered by diesel locomotives are expected to be rolling between Seattle and Tacoma by the end of 1999 [...] The Regional Transit Authority unveiled yesterday a 10-year schedule for its $3.9 billion bus-rail system"
Swapped out the second source for a better one (Mar. 31, 1998) that says the following: "Construction on the Tacoma-to-Seattle commuter line, called Sounder, will begin later this year."
"of which $200 million would be funded by Sound Transit—was part of the agreement, which was overseen by U.S. Senator Slade Gorton at the request of local officials during an impasse in negotiations" - could I please get the quotes from the sources supporting this?
From "Gorton breaks impasse...": "An impasse involving two major railroads and Sound Transit that threatened the inauguration of Seattle-Tacoma commuter trains this December has been broken with the intervention of Sen. Slade Gorton.", "[Rob] McKenna said he approached fellow Republican Gorton about a month ago when it became apparent the parties could not get together.", "Sound Transit will cover $200 million of the work with the railroads, ports and state sharing the rest."
From "$319 million deal...": "The $319 million agreement to improve 40 miles of track will smooth the way for commuter-rail service between Seattle and Tacoma, scheduled to begin by the end of the year.", "Sound Transit will provide $200 million of the funding. The Transportation Department will provide the bulk of the remaining budget, but its share has not been approved by the state Legislature. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroad companies, which own the tracks, also will contribute financially."
"A flat rate of $1 is charged for senior citizens and passengers with disabilities enrolled in the Regional Reduced Fare Permit program, or low-income passengers enrolled in the ORCA Lift program" - OK
"The ST2 ballot measure, approved by voters in 2008, included funding for additional parking garages at four S Line stations that would open in the 2020s" - OK
So there's 10 spot-checks - one with issues, one with a more minor issue, one with a non-ideal source, three OK, and four pending quote from offline source. Hog FarmTalk21:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late response. I have been on a road trip for the past week and will not have full access to my sources until I return. Will make corrections and such where I can with the online sources I can access. SounderBruce04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass on the source review - formatting and reliability OK; there were a few minor sourcing issues which have been resolved but I trust the nominator will look through the article as appropriate. Hog FarmTalk22:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sounder 326 seats on the upper deck.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out. It's technically uncited (and not mentioned on Commons) that this is a Bombadier BiLevel coach -- I don't see any reason to doubt that, but would suggest adding it to the Commons page.
In Sengkang LRT line, I objected to the sourcing based on the high reliance on WP:PRIMARY and local sources. It would be disingenuous of me to not raise the same concern here. With the help of a little scripting, I looked at the publisher= or work= attributes of all the sources (305 out of the 318 in the article). Here's what I came up with:
90 publisher=Sound Transit
6 publisher=Washington State Department of Transportation
2 publisher=Washington State University Press
2 publisher=Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
2 publisher=Amtrak
1 publisher=Virginia Railway Express
1 publisher=University of Washington
1 publisher=Northwest Seaport Alliance
1 publisher=Metrolink (California)|Metrolink
1 publisher=King County Flood Control District
1 publisher=KING-TV|KING 5 News
1 publisher=KING 5 News
1 publisher=City of Puyallup
1 publisher=American Public Transportation Association
55 work=The News Tribune
52 work=The Seattle Times
42 work=Seattle Post-Intelligencer
24 work=The Everett Herald
4 work=HistoryLink
3 work=Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce
2 work=Kent Reporter
1 work=Tukwila Reporter
1 work=Trains (magazine)|Trains
1 work=The Washington Post
1 work=The Olympian
1 work=The New Tribune
1 work=The Columbian
1 work=St. Cloud Times
1 work=Seattle Weekly
1 work=Seattle Magazine
1 work=Railway Age
1 work=Puyallup Herald
1 work=Los Angeles Times
It would be really nice if this could rely less on self-published reports from the system owner. On the news media side, the coverage is overwhelmingly local. What are the media outside of Washington State saying about the line? Here's a few possible sources:
I also found a bunch of news coverage from Oregon, but that's local-ish so I haven't listed them here. Some of these may be wire service reprints which actually originated in Seattle, but there's at least a couple which are other cities thinking of building their own light rail services and looking at Sounder to learn from their experience. My guess is with a bit more digging, you could write a whole top-level section on Comparisons to other systems.
I see you've got a 40 page chapter from a 2014 Environmental Impact Statement, but you missed the 826 page version from 1999:
I have to respectfully disagree with "high reliance" on the use of local sources from reliable and reputable news organizations and noncontroversial facts sourced to primary sources as being problematic. Commuter rail, much like the Singapore LRT example, is an inherently local issue that will have very little in-depth and truly high quality sources from outside of the home region or neighboring areas. As it stands, the Pacific Northwest is also largely ignored by the national media relative to our size and influence on the national economy, so the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I (when it was printed) have been treated as having the same weight as a national newspaper would. Conversely, I would not expect to find in-depth pieces about the Long Island Rail Road or MBTA Commuter Rail system in a copy of a newspaper outside of the Northeastern U.S. except in the event of a controversy or tragedy that receives national coverage.
While I will try to incorporate some of the Minnesota coverage, I do not think that the scope of this article should include comparisons to other systems, as Commuter rail in North America is a far more appropriate place for it. The Flint source is from 1938 and long precludes any plans for commuter rail, let alone the name Sounder, and quite a few results in the keyword search would turn up similar mismatches.
The 2014 Long-Range Plan EIS is merely used to cite the standard platform configuration for the system. I tend to avoid using project EISes as sources due to how significantly things can change between their publication and the actual construction and opening of transit projects. They would also exacerbate the potential issue of using Sound Transit sources in a Sound Transit article, which I have tried to avoid as much as possible for anything remotely controversial or potentially able to be influenced by their bias.
As for the reliance on Sound Transit sources, I took great care to make sure that they are being used to cite raw numbers, basic facts, or other information that would not be considered challengeable. A good chunk of the citations are to ridership statistics, audited budget figures, dates of service changes, or basic service information that would not be covered in a secondary source in the level of detail needed for this article.
Among the HathiTrust results, most are EISes or federal documents that pertain to budgets and congressional committee notes, which would be covered in better detail and with proper context by the Seattle Times or P-I. Indeed, some of these reports overlap with news coverage that was instead cited, as the preference for secondary sources is something I do not take lightly. Prior to completing my rewrite of the Sounder article, I did a thorough sweep through WorldCat and the Sound Transit Library for relevant literature, and could only find a handful of books with usable information, but some were far below the threshold of "high quality" that is required in the FACR. The "Back to the Future" book is a collection of essays and projects from University of Washington students, so none are particularly able to count as subject matter experts (full disclosure: I personally know one of the authors of another chapter in that book). The Dorin book is written from the perspective of a rail enthusiast and, from the copy I read a few months ago at the Seattle Public Library, the author does not have the appropriate credentials to be a subject matter expert. The final example listed is a promotional map, which I have requested a copy of from Sound Transit and hope to see soon; I do not expect it to have anything new or usable, but it is a nice find nonetheless.
Just as a drive-by comment because I noticed this as well, but @RoySmith, I also would respectfully disagree that the use of local sources is a problem. The FA criteria, specifically 1c, require only that an article be "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". The FA criteria don't require that the article use citations from non-local publications if such citations don't exist, or if they are inferior to the coverage provided by local publications. Many topics only receive in-depth news coverage from a relatively small geographical area because that topic is only relevant to that particular area. For example, you would expect a building or a rail line in Seattle to be covered predominantly by Seattle-area newspapers, or even Washington state newspapers. I'm not saying that non-local coverage shouldn't be used, just that there's usually a reason why local publications are the best sources for a topic. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius thank you for your comment. Perhaps I overstated my case a bit, but I do think that non-local coverage, while perhaps not strictly required, is useful and worthy of extra effort to uncover. I'm sure 10 minutes with google or newspapers.com could produce another 100 examples of routine local press coverage of service changes, but I'm much more interested in what people outside of the area think about the project. I'll thus politely push back on I do not think that the scope of this article should include comparisons to other systems. If the folks in Saint Cloud, Minnesota are using Sounder Rail as a model of comparison as they consider their own rail system, of course we should cover that.
Be that as it may, I'm more concerned about the WP:PRIMARY sources, especially those that are Sound Transit talking about themselves. By raw source count, Sound Transit is the single most common source by almost a 2:1 margin. And counting individual citations (i.e. 1a–1p, 8a–8m, 11a–11h) it's even more lopsided. That's a problem. RoySmith(talk)12:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe nuance is required when evaluating the use of primary sources. I have done my best to avoid using Sound Transit sources to discuss aspects of the Sounder system that could be criticized by a secondary source or could be considered contestable. The following table shows how the Sound Transit sources are used and their distribution among the sections:
Use of ST sources by section
Section
Number
Use(s)
Lines
13
Basic overview (termini, length, ridership); track ownership; location of overpasses, bridges, and parks
If there are specific instances that are problematic, I am happy to address them. Removing even half of the Sound Transit sources would require carving away enough content for the article to fall short of FACR 1(b), as it would neglect aspects of the topic. I should also note that the criteria does not preclude the use of primary sources.
As for the comparison between systems, there is not enough of a connection beyond the borrowing of a trainset. There is very little evidence that Sounder was a strong influence on other commuter rail systems, as such comparisons are frequently made between many transit systems during the planning and debate stage of the project lifecycle. Seattle itself looked to many other systems when designing its commuter rail and light rail systems, but none of these instances are notable enough to mention in the respective articles. SounderBruce04:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a volcano in Peru, which despite its long inactivity is considered to be among Peru's most dangerous ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Misti has been cited as an example of a volcano where glaciers are retreating due to global warming," - if the consensus of the high-quality RS is that there are no glaciers on Misti, I think we can safely ignore the one reference to this as erroneous. I've seen my fair share of short one-off mentions of stuff in Civil War literature that is just plain wrong, from an author of an overarching work not specializing in the detailed topic matter and misinterpreting a source (or in some places, I almost suspect guessing)
"Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru, having erupted 24 times since 1550" - reading through Ubinas#Eruptive history, it appears that this soure is outdated
"The quebradas (dry valleys) carry water during the wet season" - I think it would be a bit better to introduce the meaning of quebradas earlier in the paragraph where the term is first being used
I know this is probably due to inconsistent source, but having part of the article say "There is no clear indication of past glaciation, either, except possibly on the western flank." but then later "Traces of glacial erosion[126] like cirques,[128] evidence of hydromagmatic activity and mudflows imply that Misti was glaciated during the first last glacial maximum of the Central Andes 43,000 years
ago." So is there only marginal possible evidence of glaciation, or enough traces to state outright that there is an implication of past glaciation? I think there needs to be some sort of harmonization here
I agree that putting the material reflecting disagreements between sources to the same immediate area is a better way to present the discrepancies. Hog FarmTalk02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical records begin in 1540 AD when the Spaniards arrived" - I'm not a huge fan of this phrasing, given that there is some sort of historical Inca record for the 1440/1470 eruption
"The first documented ascent was by Álvaro Meléndez, a priest from Chiguata,[314] in 1 May 1667." - I guess what qualifies as a documented ascent? Earlier in the article there are reference to various people climbing far enough up the volcano in 1600 to throw stuff into the crater
One where the person and date is clearly identified, I guess. Many of the mountains there have such ascents which found evidence of earlier ascents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The iron cross on the summit was placed in 1784 and was still there a century later" - this seems like an odd statement, as there's greater detail about the history of the cross earlier in the article, including information that the 1784 cross had been replaced by the century later
It's a minor issue so it's not necessary. It's just odd to have the same expression one time with a comma and the other time without the comma. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The crater of El Misti (2005). In most other places, the article refers to volcano without the "El" and without italics.
This mosaic of two astronaut photographs taken from the ISS illustrates the proximity of Arequipa to Misti, just 17 km away (2009). Do we need the information about how the image was created? We could simplify to "Arequipa is only 17km away from Misti." or something similar. We could add "(shown on the left)" after "Arequipa" in case this is not clear to the reader but I'm not sure that it's necessary.
"appearing on the seal of the city for example." Not sure if "for example" is needed here. If it appears in other places, they can be mentioned as well.
"According to Italian geographer Cumin 1925" I think this should read "According to Italian geographer Gustavo Cumin" to avoid WP:PAREN and to explain who this person is.
Suggestion: "The station was one of several high-altitude stations built at the time, which aimed to investigate the atmosphere at such high altitudes;[30] additionally, the Observatory performed research on the response of the human body to high altitudes..." -> "The station was one of several high-altitude stations built at the time, which aimed to investigate the atmosphere at such high altitudes;[30] it also performed research on the response of the human body to high altitudes..." for flow.
"Misti was in its time the highest permanently inhabited location on Earth." When was this? Is this referring to the weather station or a town? Clarification would be helpful here.
"The volcanoes of Peru are part of the Andean Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ),[45] one of the four volcanic belts of the Andes; the others are the Northern Volcanic Zone, the Southern Volcanic Zone and the Austral Volcanic Zone." I don't think the names of the other volcanic belts are necessary here and are off-topic.
The "Regional" section feels a little off-topic: it is important to describe the regions that Misti is part of, but the section talks about how other volcanos are the most active. I'm confused on how the latter part of this section relates to Misti.
If this is to put Misti in context with the other volcanoes, then I would mention Misti more often and compare the other volcanoes with Misti directly. The article should answer the question, "Why is it important for the reader to know in the Misti article that "Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru" or "The 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina claimed more than 1,000 casualties". While some of that is explained later in the article, some of the context can be explained here or the information from this section should be moved to where it is relevant when talking about Misti (like the emergency preparedness reports). Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider reversing the sentence, maybe with something like "Hazards at Misti not related to volcanic activity include flooding" as it introduces immediately that the section is about hazards not related to the volcanic activity. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The hottest of these is[253] the Charcani V spring in the Rio Chili gorge;" ref 253 is in a weird place: what is it verifying where it can't be in a different place (like after the semi-colon)?
"and amounts to 89.1 millimetres per year (3.51 in/year),[43] a 1910 study found most precipitation to be in the form of snow or hail." suggest changing the comma to a semi-colon.
"Fernández, Alfonso; Mark, Bryan G. (March 2016)", "Sarmiento, F.O. (2016)" and "Reinhard, Johan (2005)" are listed as a source but does not seem to be used as an incline citation.
If it's not being used as an inline citation, I would rename this section to "Further reading". My preference is that there are no "Further reading" sections in featured articles (because all available, high-quality sources are used as inline citations) but that won't prevent me from supporting this. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the lead talks about fumaroles. Given that the audience probably includes non-geologist (local residents), could this word be replaced by a plain English equivalent per WP:EXPLAINLEAD?
The same paragraph mentions bushland. The wikilink says it's something Australian, and the word isn't repeated in the rest of the article. I don't quite understand what it means here.
Misti is the house mountain of Arequipa,[15] who view themselves as the offspring of the mountain, it on the seal of the city. > the last clause seems to be missing something.
Professor Solon Irving Bailey from the Harvard College Observatory in 1893 installed[25] the world's highest[a] weather station on Misti -> The flow of this sentence is impeded by the two mid-sentence notes. Can you move the [a] to the end of the sentence? Or possibly both mid-sentence citations. Surprised you need 3 citations to fully cover this sentence.
As it takes a while before you say the observatory is no longer in use, can you add a 'then' to the previous sentence (like, 'then the world's highest weather station', or something more elegantly)
Similar possible overcitation and break of flow in "Another weather station, named "Mt. Blanc Station",[33] was installed at the base of the volcano[34][35] after 1888.[36]". Do we need the final three citations and can they all be at the end of the sentence.
The information on this weather station system is presented in a very piecemeal fashion in sources that are poorly formatted. We can move the citations at the end, but I prefer to do such changes only after everything else has been reviewed - in my experience, one often gets further questions that are tougher to answer after bundling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the crater is a 120-metre-wide (390 ft) and 15-metre-high (49 ft) volcanic plug[59]/lava dome,[50] covered with cracks,[22] boulders and fumarolic sulfur deposits;[58] it is fumarolically active.[60] --> Again a lot of mid-sentence citations breaking flow. Here, I imagine it might be more difficult to just put them at the end. Two suggestions: avoid the slash (if my memory is correct, that's typically discouraged anyway somewhere hidden in the MOS), and replace the semi-colon with a full stop.
This is a recurring issue with flow of prose. Could you go over the article and see if it's possible to reduce mid-sentence citations and in particular, mid-clause citations.
Temperatures decrease with elevation;[262] in 1910 monthly mean temperatures at the summit ranged from −6 °C (21 °F) in January to −9.7 °C (14.5 °F) in May, June and August[263] but in 1968 temperatures at the summit rose above freezing for a few days per year.[63] --> Replace the semi-colon with a full stop, as the citation breaks the flow anyway, and the two sentences are not that connected. Why the 'but' in the second part of the sentence? There is no obvious contrast with the previous sentence.
During most of the year, dry westerly winds blow over the Western Cordillera except during summer months, when convection over the Amazon forces easterly flow that draws moisture to the Cordillera --> Can you omit 'During most of the year', given that 'except during summer months' conveys similar information?
; ages of 2,300 BP are probably too old --> Is this relevant? If we already know in 2011 that it's probably not correct, and the more recent (?) global volcanism programme has a small range for this eruption not covering 2,300 BP, I think we can omit it. The prose becomes less engaging with so many dates in there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feels slightly of to present a myth as fact like this "Previous ceremonies had failed to calm the volcano and only the emperor's direct intervention quelled its anger". I imagine most readers will get that this is a story, but for the small share that doesn't, can the text be adjusted to make this explicit?
Are modern units used in South America? If so, consider only converting the metric units to US units on first mention. This is mostly a scientific article, where you're not obligated to convert everything. This will help improve flow.
There is no clear evidence of eruptions after the arrival of the Spaniards,[102][183] while the Global Volcanism Program reports a last eruption in 1985 -> How can both be correct?
I am concerned about the writing quality, vis-a-vis prose is engaging and of a professional standard. Much of the text is written in a choppy style, i.e. sequences of disjoint sentences which don't flow together. For example, from Human geography:
The old roads heading from Arequipa to Chivay and Juliaca run along the northern/western and southern/eastern foot of Misti, respectively.[20] Inca roads from the Arequipa area passed by the volcano.[21] There are numerous dams on the Rio Chili, including the Aguada Blanca Dam and reservoir north of the volcano,[22] El Fraile, and Hidroeléctrica Charcani I, II, III, IV, V and VI.[23] These dams have hydroelectric power plants which supply electricity to Arequipa. The river is also the principal water resource for the city. Roads leaving the city cross the river on bridges.[24]
This may all be true, and the text may be grammatically correct, but it's just not engaging to read because it doesn't tell a coherent story. With the exception of the two that talk about the dams, these sentences could be presented in any order with no change in meaning.
This is just one example; most of the rest of the article is written in the same style. My apologies if this sounds harsh, but I think the entire article could do with a copyedit to improve the overall flow of the text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
I did some editing on the "Name and settlement history" section, but I'll need some more time for the other sections. Getting pre-FAC copyedits is always a hit and miss sort of deal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One question about the "The western rim of the outer crater is about 150 metres (490 ft) higher than the southern." sentence is whether it should remain in that section or be moved to the crater description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking at that now, but what is Estimates of the mountain's volume range reach 150 cubic kilometres supposed to be? I'm guessing there's some word missing there? RoySmith(talk)20:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is that pulling that sentence out of where it is now and putting it in the description of the crater would make sense. But while I'm here, I noticed that the first paragraph of General outline says The volcano is a young, symmetric cone, but in the next paragraph, you have It is notably asymmetric. This should be resolved somehow. If you're talking about two different sub-structures, this would be a good opportunity to tie the text together with something like, "Unlike the xxx, which is symmetric, the xxx is notably asymmetric ..." RoySmith(talk)21:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A second attempt for this one. In December 1862, Ulysses S. Grant and Henry Halleck managed to divert a command intended for political general John A. McClernand to William T. Sherman. After Sherman led this force to defeat in the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou, McClernand took over and reorganized the command. Sherman and McClernand had independently decided to reduce a Confederate position on the Arkansas River known as Fort Hindman, which was commanded by the luckless Thomas Churchill. After some maneuverings and shellings from the David Dixon Porter's Union Navy squadron, McClernand's infantry assault was repulsed along the lines, but unauthorized flags of surrender were raised over the Confederate lines. The ensuing chaos resulted in Union troops swamping the Confederate lines, and the fort was captured and later destroyed. Grant took personal command not long afterwards, and after some false starts embarked upon his famous campaign that captured Vicksburg. Courtesy ping to prior reviewers - @History6042, Nikkimaria, and Gog the Mild:. Hog FarmTalk03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
img1: license good, caption good, alt long but key info in first sentence
img2: license good, caption short but good, alt very long but key info in first sentence
img3: license good, caption good, consider Operations against Vicksburg, including the Arkansas Post Expedition (4), alt long but key info in first sentence
img4: license good, caption good, alt good
img5: license good, caption good maybe consider appending Colonel although i see it is in prose, alt good
img6: license good, caption good, alt good
img7: license good, caption good, change alt to Soldiers advance across a ditch on planks and up sloped earthworks
"the Union Army (as the United States was known during the war)" Pardon?
Is "As the United States Army was known during the war" better? I have had reviewers express concern that to non-Americans it is not necessarily obvious that Union = USA Hog FarmTalk
"that Arkansas Post should be attacked;" Optional: make the semi colon a colon.
"Acting Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter's Union Navy fleet". That's a lot of blue.
Split up partially - I don't think there's a clean way to prevent the rank & name from being blue next to each other. Hog FarmTalk02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the sort of cutoff going on here - more like two rivers eventually eroding the space between them. Apparently the Corps of Engineers still has issues trying to prevent this from recurring on these rivers. Hog FarmTalk02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Union troops moved up close to and swamped parts of the Confederate line." Maybe 'Union troops moved up close to the Confederate line and swamped parts of it.'?
"Grant relieved McClernand of command of the operations against Vicksburg on January 30 and took command of the campaign personally." I am not a fan of "command of" twice.
Is "Grant relieved McClernand on January 30 and took command of the campaign against Vicksburg personally" any better? Or does it read as a complete canning of McClernand rather than just a demotion? Hog FarmTalk02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"this was a key event in the outcome of the war." I am not sure that something can be a "key event" in an outcome". An outcome is, as it were, instantaneous. What was it anyway? ;-) Maybe 'key contribution to the eventual Union victory' or similar?
"by controlling its coastline and major rivers. A significant component of this strategy was controlling the Mississippi River." "...by controlling ... was controlling ..." Optionally.
"Halleck, who distrusted McClernand, used this language in the official orders". Perhaps 'put this language', to be really clear?
I've clarified some stuff in the prior paragraph. The orders were dictated by Lincoln but this part was influenced by Halleck. Hog FarmTalk02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Grant was also growing concerned about the length of his supply line in Mississippi". "Also". Also to what or whom?
"the movement he had intended to command left without him." I have trouble with both McClernand commanding a "movement" and a "movement" leaving anywhere.
"Defeated, Sherman's men re-boarded their ships on January 1, 1863, and withdrew from the battlefield." They "withdrew from the battlefield" after they "re-boarded their ships"?
"Many of the men assigned to defend the fort were concerned that it was poorly sited" In what way?
What I've got to work with here is "The troops who manned the post, however, had serious misgivings about the location" followed by a series of quotes from Roger Q. Mills, an unnamed Texan, a captain in the W. P. Lane Rangers, and an "armchair historian" that the citation for the paragraph leads me to believe is probably a reference to an 1880s Southern Bivouac article. I will try to hunt up something more specific in the other sources. Hog FarmTalk03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"with another tier of rifle pits between the outer line and the fort." Was this line started or completed?
The last paragraph of Prelude details Churchill's troops, except for his cavalry, which turn up in the next section. McClernand's forces are also broken down in Battle, while the Union navy contribution is partially listed in Battle. The Confederate artillery is listed in Background, except for some mobile artillery in Battle. Some mobile Union artillery crops up just after this. Might it make sense for all known information to be lumped together in an Opposing forces section?
@Gog the Mild: - Does Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)#Opposing forces look like an improved start? I'm going to have my wife go provide a list of copy-editing suggestions this weekend. I'm still looking for a succint summary of the Union Navy forces. The detailed oobs in Smith 2023 and Bearss 1985 do not list the naval vessels. Smith 2023 at one point lists a number of vessels involved in the operation, but this does not include among others Monarch and is clearly incomplete. Tomblin's The Civil War on the Mississippi includes a detailed listing of part of the Union fleet, but the structure of the rest is unclear from that work, and where Black Hawk among others falls in there is not stated. I can/will keep looking, but Bearss's trilogy is considered to be probably the most comprehensive thing ever written on the Vicksburg campaign, with Smith's five-volume work as the second most detailed. The lack of a detailed naval order of battle in those works is concerning. Hog FarmTalk02:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"he ordered his men to defend the outer set of rifle pits, which were still incomplete. As it was believed that the Union troops already heavily occupied the area of the lower rifle pits, the orders were changed to hold the inner line of rifle pits, closer to the fort." Is "the outer set of rifle pits" the same thing as "the lower rifle pits". Is "the inner line of rifle pits, closer to the fort" the "another tier of rifle pits between the outer line and the fort"?
Clarified in the original description of the rifle pits - although the comma placement in what I have added is guesswork. Hog FarmTalk03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and the six cannons of Hart's Arkansas Battery". "the" implies they have already been mentioned in the article.
I'm going to pause here. The action hasn't started and I've picked up a lot of - mostly minor - bits and pieces. And I have reviewed it recently - did I miss all of this. HF, could you resolve the above - possibly by telling me I am wrong - give the rest of the article a bit of a copy edit and then ping me to finish the review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work my way through these concerns over the next day or to, and then have my wife read through this for spelling/grammar/stuff not making sense. After which I will attempt to give this a round of self copy editing. Hog FarmTalk02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - Okay, here are some edits resulting from the copy-editing; I've had somebody other than me read over it so all of the spelling errors should be gone. I've made another round of edits to try to tighten up the phrasing. Hog FarmTalk03:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title: do we need the year as a disambiguator?
"he ordered his men to defend the lower set of rifle pits ... the Union troops were landing near the outer rifle pits." Is the lower set the same as the outer? If so, perhaps stick to one name? If not, I'm confused.
"positioned on the right flank of the line of rifle pits, near the river." Are we talking about the inner set of pits? Could you specify? If it is, I thought its right flank rested on the fort, not the river?
"Many of Sherman's troops did not land that evening as the transports did not arrive until ..." Suggest "the" → 'their', to indicate that not all of the transports didn't arrive.
"Churchill was informed by Lieutenant General Theophilus Holmes that he was expected to "hold out till help arrived or all dead". Holmes vacillated and originally denied reinforcements, but then stated that he would send some." This gives the impression that Holmes was senior to Churchill, despite ranking two levels below him.
Yes, Holmes was the senior officer. I was under the impression that in the English-speaking world that Lieutenant General (Holmes) was consistently two spots above Brigadier General (Churchill) with Major General in between - is this not the case? Hog FarmTalk18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, Churchill ordered about 120 soldiers to guard the line of the bayou from Deshler's left down to the Arkansas River. He also pulled troops from the right of the rifle pits line to support Deshler, and sent four guns from Hart's battery to Deshler as well ..." Maybe just start with "Additionally ..." then list all of the changes in one sentence?
"However, there were delays in getting Morgan's lines established and for the navy to finish its preparations." "However, there were delays in getting ... and for the navy to finish its preparations."? Maybe 'However, there were delays while Morgan's lines were established and the navy finished its preparations.' or similar?
"The transfer of the 19th Arkansas required Garland to stretch his line to fill the space formerly occupied by the Arkansans." In the previous sentence you say it was only "a portion of the 19th Arkansas".
"Morgan's corps began its advance, as the Union assault began brigade-by-brigade". 1. "... began ... began ..." 2. You sure about those hyphens. (An open question, I don't know.)
"That same day, McClernand received Grant's order to return to the Mississippi River." Personally? Or with his two corps?
Clarified; and I have added another page to the page range in the citation where it is clearer that this is McClernand + troops. Hog FarmTalk21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A spat between Grant and McClernand arose". Can a spat arise? 'broke out'? 'occurred'?
"McClernand reverted to commander of XIII Corps". At no point have you said that McClerland was in direct command of a corps, and XIII Corps only came into existence 16 days earlier.
"but entered the White River first as a diversion. After moving through a cutoff into the Arkansas River", Optional: not sure this is needed for the lead.
"but he believed that he was required to remain in Illinois according to his orders." → 'but he believed that his orders required him to remain in Illinois.'?
"who was upset about being sidestepped in command of the river expedition". I am not sure that "being sidestepped in command" will be clear to all readers.
"the operation would occur within Curtis's geographic area of command." It may be worth stating what this was.
I've added a sentence without listing all areas as most of Curtis' territory was completely irrelevant to this operation. I hope I do not need explicit citations for describing Kansas, the Colorado Territory, the Nebraska Territory, and the Indian Territory (modern day Oklahoma) as being west of Arkansas and Missouri. Hog FarmTalk00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, Churchill had about 5,000 Confederates". Recommend deleting "Meanwhile".
Pretty much. "he ordered his men to defend the lower set of rifle pits" - could "lower" be changed to 'outer' or 'inner' as the case may be? And "decided to withdraw his forces from the rifle pits" - all of them, including those from the fort to(wards) the bayou? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The maps look pretty heavy on the left side, where they shift the section titles into odd awkward positions. Anything that could be done about the layout?
Yeah, personally I would reverse the alignment of the two images under January 11 to "open up" the layout a bit there, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk)
Perhaps more dates and context for some captions of historical images in general that now seem pretty basic?
The Giles Smith, map and plan, and naval bombardment captions have all been expanded - the middle one was done by a notable engineer and the latter was published in a notable periodical. The battle map was published in an 1887 source that doesn't have an article but maybe should; I don't know how useful it would be just to namedrop the Battle and Leaders of the American Civil War in the caption. Hog FarmTalk02:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sherman did not approve of McClernand's appointment to command" But didn't that come about through the discussion between him and McClernand? Why did Sherman concede, and why did McClernand suddenly have this leverage now when he didn't before?
Okay - I've finished up some re-arranging and rephrasing. McClernand took command not because of the meeting with Sherman, but because of earlier orders received from Grant. Hog FarmTalk21:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Porter disliked McClernand and his treatment of Sherman" What treatment? Wasn't it McClernand who had been overruled to begin with?
Have rephrased to "attitude towards", which is consistent with source as well; I can go into a little more detail if necessary. Hog FarmTalk21:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"when it learned Churchill has surrendered the day before" why present tense?
" Confederate forces constructed Fort Hindman near Arkansas Post in late 1862." Can't seem to find this info outside the intro, which should not have unique info.
The various parts of this are in the Confederate preparations section - "Dunnington selected a location for a fortification on the Arkansas River near the settlement of Arkansas Post", "Known by both the names Fort Hindman and the Post of Arkansas, the fortification was", and the late 1862 date is fixed by Dunnington's appointment in late September and Churchill being appointed to command the position in December 1862. Hog FarmTalk21:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems McClernand was vindicated after he took over, is there anything on retrospective praise or how he himself felt about the events?
I've added a bit from Kiper regarding this. The Governor of Illinois congratulated him, Lincoln commended him, and there was some newspaper coverage on the civilian end. Meanwhile Porter and Sherman were still squabbling with him. Kiper says that the quote that had been in the quotebox comes from Sherman's memoirs, so I've moved that inline and attributed it there as Sherman is clearly not a neutral party here. Hog FarmTalk00:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The interpersonal interactions in this are quite fascinating. Makes it much less "dry" than most military articles.
"controlling its coastline and major rivers, including the Mississippi River"- was there really another major river in the Confederacy than the Mississippi? It also might be worth adding a brief sentence explaining why this was expected to defeat the CSA?
I've adjusted the text to just refer to the Mississippi. The value of say the Tennessee River or the Red River doesn't seem to have factored into Scott's thinking as heavily as the importance of those rivers ended up being (especially the Tennessee). Hog FarmTalk23:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why the pipe to Williams's Canal rather than Grant?
Grant's involvement with the canal was still in the future as of the time period being referred to in this article - it was known as Williams's Canal while Williams was still the northern general associated with it. Hog FarmTalk20:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might be missing something, but I'm not clear from the prose where Grant originated his movement from, or where he had gotten to by 5 Dec, both of which seem like they might be helpful to know?
The source mentions November 26 as an important date appears to be over-simplifying things based on further digging. I'll rewrite this and I'll need to check to make sure I'm not using that date in other articles. There were movements that began on November 26, but it's not quite as key of a date as the one source used it as. Hog FarmTalk23:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Grant decided to take control of McClernand's accumulated troops" My impression from the previous sentence "transferred McClernand's newly recruited troops to Memphis, Tennessee, or Helena, Arkansas, as they entered service" was that McClernand had not maintained control of his accumulated troops, as they were transferred away. Is this incorrect?
"the latter half of December" Given that this sentence is the beginning of a new paragraph, it might be helpful to mention the date sooner than you currently do
"made a frontal attack against Confederate defenses at Chickasaw Bayou on December 29, but were repulsed with heavy losses in the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou" do we need the name? So, might it be simpler if you just pipe to the battle: "made a frontal attack against Confederate defenses at Chickasaw Bayou on December 29, but were repulsed with heavy losses."?
"While at Memphis, McClernand received orders from Grant which placed him in command of the downriver movement" -Had Halleck not already technically done this?
I've added a brief bit earlier in the article - basically, Halleck's orders to McClernand in Illinois kept him under Grant's general supervision. Hog FarmTalk23:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"will get his fill before he is done" - Could just be me, but I'm not actually sure what this quote is supposed to mean, even given the context you supply
I've gone ahead and removed it as confusing
"but agreed to the movement for Sherman" Am not clear what this means.
"while he really only held a corps command under Grant." But earlier you say that he had been put in charge of the entire downriver movement, no? Or was the movement entirely comprised of a corps? I'm a bit rusty on my ACW organization, if you can't tell haha
I'll have to dig around a little more this evening but I think the situation with this comment and the one below it is related to some quirky Union army organization - IIRC Grant's entire department was considered to be a single XIII Corps which was then broken up into several corps of more manageable size. The reorganization was only partially complete at the time all this drama was occurring. Hog FarmTalk23:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a string of edits to try to clarify this - essentially, Grant's forces had been officially reorganized in December but these changes had not been entirely effected so the on paper organizational structure did not match the in practice structure. Additionally, McClernand's two-corps army was largely self-proclaimed. Hog FarmTalk03:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Morgan's corps had been officially designated as the XIII Corps and Sherman's as the XV Corps by orders of December 18" I'm again a bit confused by this: He commanded one corps, which was already officially two, but separately divided it himself?
I've tried to clarify this - McClernand and Sherman's commands were split off into separate corps from a larger XIII Corps on paper December 18. McClernand commanded the downriver forces, and declared the two corps to be a separate army largely on his own initiative and gave them his chosen names. Hog FarmTalk03:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"largely dismounted cavalrymen " What do you mean by dismounted in this context? Is there a reason worth mentioning that none of them had horses/that 40% were not in fighting shape?
I've mentioned why they were dismounted which has required the addition of another source (courtesy ping to source reviewer Jo-Jo Eumerus). I'm a bit uncertain on the formatting for that new source (Oates 1994); it's an old graduate thesis revised and reprinted as a paperback book by UT in the 1990s. Nikkimaria had suggested several years ago at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)/archive1 that it should possibly be set up using the template for citing a thesis rather than a book; I'm concerned that citing it as a thesis would make it look like a marginal source while this is a rather well-respected work by a notable historian. Hog FarmTalk03:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen theses being reprinted as books. I think that if you cite the reprint, using cite book is reasonable. I can certainly imagine an university press reprinting a thesis as a book if the thesis was influential enough, which would mean for us that it is a better source than an average thesis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Notrebe is definitely notable and I will try to put together a B-class article for him soon as my work schedule permits. I had already written John W. Dunnington in preparation for taking this article to FAC. Hog FarmTalk20:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" at a place below Notrebe's" below here being relative to?
Nice work as always. I've read through the article, and clearly had far fewer comments on the second half, so may give that a second read-through. Minor suggestions as usual. Eddie891TalkWork15:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: - Thanks for a thorough review! How do the changes made look? Apologies for the slow going here; I'm starting to have my annual busy summer of work so I've got less time for this. Hog FarmTalk02:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gave up on work for the day :), will have a second read-through today:
Do you cite the aka name anywhere?
I've tacked on a citation in the lead
"Halleck, who distrusted McClernand, used this language in the official orders to undercut McClernand" Might be more simply phrased as "Halleck used this language in the official orders to undercut McClernand, whom he distrusted"?
"Cincinnati fired 100 shots, Louisville 212, and Baron DeKalb 158, with the latter being the most effective" I've always understood latter to only be applicable when considering two things. Is that wrong?
"The Illinois State Journal and the New York Herald published reports of the fall of Arkansas Post" Surely those aren't the only two papers which did. Is there a reason why they are worth mentioning?
What I'm working with from the source is "McClernand's success against Arkansas Post was widely reported in the Illinois State Journal and the New York Herald, and he received a letter of congratulations from Illinois governor Yates." I've rephrased to "Newspapers published report of the fall ..." for now. Hog FarmTalk02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my concern here is why do we care that newspapers reported on it at all? Surely that would go without saying, unless there's something to add about the character of their coverage, or it was unusual in nature. Eddie891TalkWork12:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a skyscraper in Lower Manhattan, New York City. Built as the headquarters of the City Bank–Farmers Trust Company, it was one of the city's tallest buildings and the world's tallest stone-clad building at the time of its completion. At one point, 20 Exchange was planned to be the world's tallest building as well, but since it didn't, the tower has fallen into relative obscurity compared with the Empire State and Chrysler buildings (which did claim that title). While 20 Exchange may seem like just another NYC skyscraper nowadays, it has some interesting architectural features, such as massive "giants of finance" and a lobby with 45 types of marble.
This page became a Good Article five years ago after a Good Article review by Lee Vilenski, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit by Mox Eden (which I also appreciate) and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DTH had also hired several teams of experts, who suspected the issues were related to power surges from Consolidated Edison machinery, but Con Ed said its equipment was functioning properly. Could "Con Ed" be mentioned within round brackets on its first mention?
I just spelled out the company's name, since this is the only other use of it. - EG
The article Life and Trust could be linked in this section.
The primary image in the InfoBox is rather dark: it would be an easy matter to retouch it to brighten it: especially the shadow regions
I'm not actually sure how to do this. I'll ask around. - EG
Explain: entire irregular city block and .. That phrase "irregular city block" is used twice. What does it mean? 99% of city blocks in USA are rectangular. Is this block 3-sided? 5-sided? trapezoid? Readers will want to know.
It's a four-sided block with irregular side lengths (I think the side lengths are already mentioned but I'll clarify this shortly). - EG
Elaborate: Art Deco is a very important American art/architectural form. It is mentioned in passing a few places, including the lead which says it is an art deco building: but article seems to lack specifics. Maybe some pics of the art deco decorations? A list of art deco features? Comparison with other art deco NY buildings?
Unfortunately, the sources I found didn't even agree on whether the building was Art Deco, let alone elaborate on the Art Deco architectural features. The use of setbacks and vertical stone piers is pretty common in Art Deco buildings (but this is original research, so I can't add it). - EG
Define ... white Rockwood stone.. - If this is a major component of the facade, it should be defined. The existing red link is not helpful. Where is the stone from? Can you find some website that defines/describes the stone and insert some of that info into this article?
The next sentence actually mentions where the stone came from (Alabama). The sources don't say who made the stone, only that it's a type of oolitic limestone. I found a source that describes what this is in more detail, but it goes into technical detail that, in my opinion, may not fit in the article. - EG
Nationality is useful: as decorations designed by David Evans. ... Maybe change to ... British sculptor David Evans ....
Done. - EG
Provocative word: which supposedly could handle over 100,000 .. "supposedly" should be omitted, unless the sources say there was some question whether the capacity was an exaggeration; in which case that controversy should be mentioned in the body text (or in a footnote for that sentence).
I removed this as suggested. The sources don't give any indication that this was in dispute. - EG
Exernal Links vs InfoBox: External links... Official website is kinda hidden. The Infobox supports the website tag, so consider eliminating the External Links section and instead adding this tag into InfoBox: | website = http://20xnyc.com/the-building.aspx
Actually I realized that this was a dead link, so I've replaced it. I copied the new website to the infoboz as well. - EG
Elevators: Problems with the elevators persisted through mid-2022... That was three years ago ... any updates?
Unfortunately, not that I can find. - EG
Clarify: architecture critic Robert A. M. Stern wrote in his 1987 book New York 1930 that 20 Exchange Place's proximity to other skyscrapers, including 70 Pine Street, 1 Wall Street, 40 Wall Street, and the Downtown Athletic Club, "had reduced the previous generation of skyscrapers to the status of foothills in a new mountain range". I'm not sure what the critic was saying. The listed buildings are all about the same height as 20 Exchange Place , but it sounds like the critic is saying they are shorter than 20 Exchange Place? Regardless, consider adding some words to clarify his point, whatever it is, since it is confusing as it stands now.
Stern says that these other buildings are the same height or taller than 20 Exchange Place. It's older buildings that are shorter. I've fixed this. - EG
and a budget of $9.5 million... Readers would be happy to see that in todays dollars. I think template:inflation would work, e.g.
$9.5 million (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|9.5|1929|r=2}} million in {{Inflation/year|US}})
Will display: $9.5 million (equivalent to $173.96 million in 2024)
Done. - EG
See also Section: 60 Wall Street - Why is this here? If it has a special relation to 20 Exchange Place, then add a few words following the Blue link so users can decide to click on it or not.
It's one of the buildings near 20 Exchange. I moved it up to the Site section. - EG
.. the lobbies had been closed to the public by the end of the 20th century. Lobbies are an important part of many NYC skyscrapers. Readers will want to know if the lobbies are open to the public today, or not.
The last paragraph of the "Residential use" section mentions that the main lobby has been open to the public as a coffee shop since February 2024. Please let me know if you want me to make it clearer. - EG
@Epicgenius: Article is looking pretty good. Two remaining issues I see: (a) suggest delete "External Links" section, since that URL is now in the InfoBox (redundancy is generally avoided, unless there is a compelling reason); and (b) Image in InfoBox is rather lame .. consider swapping with the more vibrant image that is located in the article's Development section. Almost ready to support. Noleander (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
was one of the city's tallest buildings and the world's tallest stone-clad building at the time of its completion. While 20 Exchange Place was intended to be the world's tallest building at the time of its construction, the Great Depression resulted in the current scaled-back plan. "at the time of" is used twice, maybe use "at its completion or at its construction
Done. - EG
site
Just prior to 20 Exchange Place's ==> "Just before 20 Exchange Place's"
Done - EG
architecture
Some observers characterized the building as an Art Deco structure, while others describe it as having a "modern classic" style with minimal Art Deco ornamentation. i think we should either use "characterized and described" or "characterize and describe". i would opt for the latter though, but i don't really mind
Oops, I forgot to add a "d" to the end of "described". Thanks for pointing it out. - EG
and an alloy of bronze, zinc, and copper and trimmed with think there should be a comma after "copper"
Done - EG
There are glass panes above the doors and panels; they are separated by mullions ornamented with industry symbols. ==> "Glass panes above the doors and panels are separated by mullions ornamented with industry symbols."
Done - EG
The outermost piers are topped by eagles at the 17th floor. ==> "The outermost piers are topped by eagles on the 17th floor."
Done - EG
At the highest setback, there are buttresses that transfer some of the upper-story loads to the base. ==> "At the highest setback, some buttresses transfer upper-story loads to the base."
Done - EG
history
which comprised a majority of the ==> "which comprised most of the"
I'm sorry but I forgot about this. And right now due to other personal reasons, I find myself unable to commit to this source review. I shall open it up for someone else to take over.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 00:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll take it over then. What editorial mechanisms does SkyscraperPage have? What's Through the Ages and Architectural Forum? Do newspapers get ISSNs? What makes ""Stone and Marble of Alabama". Stone. Vol. 46. Stone Publishing Company. 1925. p. 39." and Playbill a reliable source? This URL is broken. The New York Times at one point is linked like a PDF - is that just for age reasons? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SkyscraperPage is apparently "a website for skyscraper hobbyists and enthusiasts". I've replaced it with CTBUH, a more definitive source.
I forgot what Through the Ages is, and I couldn't find the original source. I removed it.
Architectural Forum was a long-running architectural magazine. Though it no longer is published, it had editorial oversight.
Stone is a long-defunct magazine about the stone industry, which also had editorial oversight. It wasn't affiliated with any particular supplier, and my understanding is that it would be reliable for this specific topic, as a source that specializes in a specific subject matter.
Playbill is a long-running theatrical magazine that is the publication of record for Broadway shows. It does publish articles on off-Broadway, off-off-Broadway, and alternative theatrical shows in and outside NYC. It has editorial oversight but unlike other magazines, it also maintains a database of Broadway shows called the Playbill Vault, and distributes showbills for Broadway and off-Broadway shows. Given that this is a publication of record, I'd say this is a reliable source.
I removed the ISSNs for consistency, and fixed the dead link.
Yes, for some NY Times sources the full text is only available in PDF format.
"resulted in the current scaled-back plan": I'm not sure we should describe the plan from the 1920s as "current". Maybe "resulted in the plan being scaled-back", or "resulted in the scaling back of the plan"?
I changed it in a slightly different manner: "While 20 Exchange Place was intended to be the world's tallest building when built, the plan was scaled back because of the Great Depression." - EG
"The superstructure uses 20,200 short tons (18,000 long tons; 18,300 t) of steel as well as 300,000 square feet (28,000 m2)." I'm slightly puzzled by this. I get it uses x amount of steel, but the second part of the sentence has me asking what it uses 300,000 square feet of...
Whoops. I have hidden the 300,000 square foot thing for now. The source probably gives more info about what that figure refers to, but Internet Archive is currently down, sadly. - EG
Whoops again. It's back up, and I was able to confirm that the building used 300,000 square feet of marble. (Incidentally, I tried to go to the library earlier this morning, but they didn't have this book, so I made a 30-minute detour for something I could've just looked at online.) Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"movies" is a slang term: "films" would be better
I have reworded it, but slightly differently, to avoid the awkward phrasing "filming location for several films". - EG
"if the 57th story was" -> "if the story was"
Fixed. - EG
I'm wondering why the inflation figures have their sources in a footnote, rather than in with the rest of the sources
I've changed the inflation-figure source so it appears in the reflist, not the notelist. - EG
@SchroCat: Thanks for the comments, as always. I've addressed them all, though I won't be able to fix the 300,000 square foot thing until the Internet Archive comes back online. Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay if I were to nominate another FAC later this week, or should I wait? This article has received several supports, including a source and image review, and I was thinking about nominating another FAC, since activity on this nomination seems to have slowed down. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rose Cleveland was the sister of U.S. President Grover Cleveland. He had not yet married when he became president in 1885, so she served as acting first lady until his wedding the following year. Despite all of the excitement in Washington, recent scholarship has taken more interest in the years after, when she began a same-sex relationship with Evangeline Marrs Whipple and moved to Italy. The couple provided assistance for refugees of World War I and the Spanish flu, of which Cleveland herself died in 1918.
This is the sixth U.S. first lady article I'm submitting as a featured article candidate, part of a project I began with WP:Women in Green, and the first not to be the wife of a president. I wasn't sure about submitting one of these simpler Acting First Lady articles, but Cleveland had surprisingly in-depth coverage of her life with publications specifically about her. Nonetheless, this is the shortest first lady article I've submitted to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria! Alt text added. I'm unable to confirm anything about the author or publication of that particular image, so I've removed it barring any revelations on its origin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸06:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brockell (2019) uses sentence case while other references use title case. I'd recommend changing the style of this reference to title case for the sake of consistency.
Per MOS:SMALL, {{small}} templates should be avoided in the infobox.
You could mention that Ipswich is in England, e.g. Ipswich, England, in Early life.
Avoid repetition: They moved to Holland Patent, New York, in 1853 → In 1853, they moved to Holland Patent, New York
He had raised Cleveland and her siblings as Presbyterian, and she remained devoted to the religion her entire life. could be moved after the "The Clevelands were poor..." sentence.
Would suggest cutting this: before returning home to her family home in Holland Patent → before returning to her family home in Holland Patent
Holland Patent is wikilinked twice in the same section (Early life).
Here she returned implies that the Houghton Academy is located in Holland Patent. I'd suggest changing it to: After recovery, she returned
Besides teaching, Cleveland became a prominent lecturer in the state of New York, speaking at schools about things such as history and women's rights. could be moved after the "Here she returned..." (After recovery, she returned...) sentence.
Cleveland inherited The Weeds Grover or Rose?
Cleveland's brother Grover Grover is already introduced in the previous section so I don't think that it's necessary to state "Cleveland's brother" again. In order for this sentence to then make sense, I suggest changing so he asked her to fulfill the role to so he asked Rose to fulfill the role
Typo: in June 1, 1886 → on June 1, 1886
How is File:ROSE ELIZABETH CLEVELAND.jpg relevant to the section?
Would suggest merging sentences: In 1909 → , while in 1909
She founded the Florida Audubon Society along with the Whipple and Marrs families and served as its vice president. was this after or before her return to New York?
Maybe change the Bagni di Lucca, Italy subsection to Life in Bagni di Lucca, Italy
Cleveland attended Houghton Academy in Buffalo, New York, from 1864 to 1866. "Buffalo, New York" could be linked in this sentence.
Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited their home, The Weeds.→ Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited their family home. Or Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited The Weeds. Any of the two suggested versions (in blue) will avoid repetition.
Acting First Lady of the United States
Could "Annie C. Van Vechten" be introduced in brief?
Could "Adelaide Hamlin Thierry" and "Katherine Willard Baldwin" be introduced in brief?
The Spanish flu occurred this year,... Could "this year" be replaced with "that year"?
"That year" would be appropriate if the flu was happening in the same year you're speaking or writing whereas "this year" would refer to an event in the past (as is the case).
Legacy
Cleveland's romantic to Whipple→Cleveland's romantic letters to Whipple
MSincccc Thanks for the help! Everything should be fixed now. The people you mentioned aren't notable besides being friends with Cleveland, so I've introduced them as "women named". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would a link for women's rights be beneficial? I am only bringing this up as women's suffrage is linked, and I could see a similar argument being made for why linking women's rights could help readers get further background on this.
Linked.
This is more of a clarification, but do we know how Cleveland's father, mother, and brothers died? I am guessing that since this information is not in the article, it is not known or named in a source, but I still want to ask just in case. I have a similar question about the "period of illness" Cleveland later has. Again, I understand if further information is just not available or known about this kind of stuff.
Clarified "lost at sea" for the brothers. Added "became ill" for the mother but the source didn't have more detail. Unable to find a clear answer for the father or for her illness.
Do we know what degree Cleveland earned from graduating from Houghton Academy?
It looks like this was a secondary school, but the source emphasizes her study of classical literature, so I added that.
This is likely from my modern perspective, but I have a comment about this sentence: (Besides teaching, Cleveland became a prominent lecturer in the state of New York, speaking at schools about things such as history and women's rights.) I would associate lecturing as a type of teaching, but the quoted sentence places that as distinct and different.
Removed "at schools", her lecturing career seems to have been more general.
First lady of the United States should be linked on the first instance in the article to match the links in the lead and the infobox. Apologies in advance if I somehow overlooked it if it was already linked.
Linked.
Just out of curiosity, but do we know which languages Cleveland was familiar with?
I'm only finding hints, like how she studied in Greek and Latin.
Cleveland's book on George Eliot's poetry is inconsistently represented in the article, with both George Eliot's Poetry, and Other Studies and George Eliot's Poetry and other Studies being used.
Fixed the latter to align with the other uses.
Was there a reason given for the president keeping the press from taking pictures of Cleveland? Based on the article, she seems like someone who would not like having her photos taken, so I would imagine her brother did that to help her, but I was curious if a reason is known.
Yep, the source says it was for privacy. Added.
Who addressed Cleveland as Miss Rose? I was curious as I could see it going a few ways, like this could have been something used by servants for her or something used by close friends and acquaintances.
According to the source, she was "generally addressed as Miss Rose" in Washington.
I wonder if wedlock would benefit from a link, but admittedly, the current redirect is not particularly helpful.
Yeah, probably not helpful in its current state.
For this part, the feminist movement of the time, I think a link to first-wave feminism would be helpful to provide further background information for interested readers as I believe that this is the movement being referenced.
Linked.
This is another clarification question, but for Indigenous sovereignty, should indigenous be capitalized? On a side note, I do want to say that the article does a wonderful with both discussing and highlighting Cleveland's more progressive views and work while also acknowledging and naming her prejudices. It provides a nuanced perspective on her, which I appreciate.
I think Indigenous is one of those words where it can be upper or lowercase since it refers to a group of people, I have no preference. And thank the sources, I'm just the messenger!
You did a very good job with conveying the information from the sources. I am glad that the sources provided this more nuanced take on a historical figure, as I always think that is important to consider when looking back on them. Thank you for the note on Indigenous. I have seen it both ways too. It is one of those words that I am never quite sure about. It should be fine either way here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would clarify in the prose that Oliver Ames was the governor of Massachusetts. I would do the same type of clarification for John W. Candler.
Done and done.
I am curious if this sentence is needed: (It is unknown whether they had a romantic relationship.) If it is unknown, why include a sentence that implied that it was a possibility or something that people may think is the case?
Clarified, it has been raised as a possibility.
For this part, a 220 acre farm, shouldn't it be 220-acre with a hyphen?
I'd rather not link one word within a proper noun if it can be helped.
That makes sense. I did not consider that, and I agree that a link to a specific part within a proper noun like this would awkwardly cut it up and hinder readability. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would Grover Cleveland's death in 1908 be relevant to this article? Is there any information on Rose Cleveland in connection with his death?
A few sources mention it in passing, but mostly in relation to other people or to explain the context of other things. It doesn't seem to have directly affected Rose.
Understandable. Thank you for the reply. Since Grover's death is not really about Rose directly, it is understandable why this information would not be present in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know how Evangeline Marrs Whipple died?
Added.
Wonderful work with the article! I have focused my comments on the prose. I hope that this is helpful. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I am just glad that I am able to help. I really enjoyed reading this article. I agree with your replies above and with your edits to the article. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Washington Post reference formatted like a journal article? Are there any reviews of "An Honest President: The Life and Presidencies of Grover Cleveland" and "Rose Elizabeth Cleveland: First Lady and Literary Scholar"? The citation info for A Woman of the Century is pretty basic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I'm not sure what you mean by formatted like a journal article; it looks like a regular citation to me. I'm not entirely sure where to search for book reviews, but I tried ProQuest and turned up two for Jeffers 2000: Kirkus Reviews 2000 and Calhoun 2002. What do you mean by pretty basic? If you mean it has no ISBN, this source predates ISBNs by nearly a hundred years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸21:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Grover Cleveland has more information on the family's ancestry. Is there a reason that you only mention the Cleveland family's ancestry, not her mother's, for instance? I think it would make sense to include both, or neither, but not only one
I only included the father's side because it appeared in one of the sources on her, I'm not usually a fan of ancestry trivia. Unless you have other thoughts on it, I've added one sentence about her mother's side from the same source as the Grover article.
Well, my point was just that you should include both, or neither. I also would be fine with removal, if you wanted.
"Cleveland attended Houghton Academy in Buffalo, New York" The link to Houghton Academy pipes to an elementary school, which I don't believe is the Houghton Academy that you want. Salenius writes that she instead went to Houghton Seminary, in Clinton.
Fixed. I've left it unlinked since there are multiple places named Clinton, New York, and there's some ambiguity about the actual location.
"over more traditional women's activities" This is a little vague to me, can you say anything more? Salenius gives us a preference for "outdoor activities" over "domestic chores". That's not convincing to me, to support what you have paraphrased. Who wouldn't prefer activities to chores?
The source says "Cleveland contested conservative models of femininity, preferring, instead, a more active life commonly associated with boys" and then gives the activities over chores as its example in the same sentence. I believe this verifies the statement.
That's certainly the implication, but I don't think it's made explicit enough to support your paraphrase. Would suggest losing "over more traditional women's activities" - the reader can infer from the rest of the sentence. Eddie891TalkWork12:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.
"In 1853, they moved to Holland Patent, New York, and their father died shortly afterward when Rose was seven years old." It might be worth adding that Rose remained in Holland Patent? This can be sourced to hardy 2007
I feel like this can be assumed, but it also doesn't hurt anything to add. Done.
"before returning to her family home in Holland Patent, called The Weeds, during a period of illness" can we put a date/timeframe on this? If it was just a brief illness, is it even worth mentioning? For instance, Salenius doesn't even support that she started teaching "after recovery", though Willard & Livermore may. Also, if you are going to name the house, I think it would make sense to do so when first mentioning the move to Holland Patent, not later. Generally, I thin this paragraph (the one beginning "By the start of the American Civil War...") needs some more dates to establish where she was when. For instance, you mention her brothers being lost at sea in 1872, after mentioning her return to New York, but I think that she was still in Pennsylvania at this point. Similarly, the sourcing I read is that the lectures she gave came chronologically after her mother died.
Removed mention of the illness since none of the sources dwell on it. Moved the name of the house up. I searched for dates across several sources, but the only one I was able to add was that Muncy was in the "late 1860s", and I suspect that the exact dates are not recorded anywhere.
"and she also began teaching Sunday school". Hardy doesn't support that she began teaching Sunday school, just that she did teach it while in Holland Patent. A simple revision to cut "began" would address this.
I read these as meaning the same thing, but I've changed "began teaching" to "taught".
The statement that she taught at Hamilton College is interesting, and I'm surprised that I can't find it anywhere besides Salenius. Just leaving this here as a note to myself because I want to look more into this.
The source's exact wording is "her career took Cleveland to Hamilton College". If I had to speculate (a dangerous game), it's possible that this was a place she lectured rather than worked as a teacher full time. Either way, I've removed it for the time being.
I'm skeptical of the assertion that Cleveland was a "prominent" lecturer in New York. It's a vague, hard to quantify term, and don't see the sourcing supporting it. Indeed, I don't really see the sourcing supporting the impression which I get from this sentence, which is that she travelled around the state delivering lectures. You're also missing some interesting bits about her career from (at least) Salenius- she started teaching in NYC, worked on the American Magazine of History, gave a lecture on medieval history. This might help the confusion I had when you say "Cleveland declined a teaching job in New York City" - the last we heard, she's in Holland Patent with her mother
The word "prominent" is one of my bad habits in writing; removed. But I believe that "Cleveland prepared a lecture
series on medieval history that she presented at Houghton Seminary, the Elmira Female Academy, and Miss Grahm’s [sic] School in New York" and "she became well-known for her speeches and was sought-after as a speaker" support such an aspect of her career. I've added NTC and the American Magazine of History.
"Eventually, her time in Holland Patent was spent caring for her mother until her death" We do get this impression from Hardy that she took time off of her career. But Salenius seems to say that she continued to lecture at Houghton
I think the sentence currently in the article is sufficiently agnostic on this.
"She inherited The Weeds when their mother became ill and died the same year." I think should go with the first mention of her mother's death. Especially because it happened before Grover's election
Done.
"When her brother Grover was elected to be the governor of New York in 1882, Cleveland declined a teaching job in New York City so that she could assist him at the Executive Mansion" This is not supported by the source, which says that she did so in 1885.
That's when the New Haven Evening Register described it, not necessarily when it happened. But I've reworded the sentence so it doesn't suggest that her declining the job was at the same time as Grover's election.
The first paragraph in the 'acting first lady' section has a lot of "She..." constructions. Can we vary the phrasing?
Fixed.
"She was sometimes assisted by her sister, Mary Hoyt" Meaning? It's kinda odd that this is the only mention of this sister, to me. Do we know why Grover asked his youngest sister over the others? Anthony briefly says that Mary was Cleveland's hostess for the first few months of his presidency, is that true?
The source says "Miss Rose Cleveland was the first chatelaine, assisted sometimes or even relieved by her sister, Mrs. Hoyt." My impression is that Grover asked Rose because she wasn't married and wasn't tied down anywhere, but I'm not aware of any source coming to the same conclusion.
"Cleveland kept several friends while she lived in the White House...Cleveland kept several friends while she lived in the White House" I mean... this doesn't feel encyclopedically relevant as it is phrased. Of course she had friends. Why mention Van Vechten Hamilton and Nelson? Do sources give us anything about them? I think Holloway and McElroy are worth mentioning, but don't get the inclusion of the others.
I included it because the sources deemed it relevant enough to mention. But I see where you're coming from, and I've removed them.
"she was more interested in speaking to academics" more interested in speaking to academics than [X]?
I decided to replace this with a quote from a contemporary who describes how she engaged in conversation at these events.
"where knowledge of history and foreign languages was an asset when speaking to dignitaries from around the world" Any idea what languages she actually spoke?
No source explicitly lists them except to say that she studied Greek and Latin literature.
as best as I can tell, The Long Run was published after she left her role in the white house, so am not sure it fits where it is mentioned. Especially since your "12 published editions" and $25,000 figure only refers to George Eliot's Poetry
Moved to the next section.
I'm going to stop here for now, having primarily focused on the early life section. I think the prose needs a bit of untangling/more thought. I have been left with more questions than I am comfortable with, and found quite a few phrasings that I don't think are supported by the sourcing. Very interesting article, and thanks for your work so far, but I just feel like it needs more work than should be expected to be done in an FAC. Am not opposing yet, because I want to give TBUA a chance to respond (I have been known to be completely off base before), but I don't think this is quite ready. Eddie891TalkWork10:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thebiguglyalien, just wondering if you intended to respond to the above? Many of the points are quite pedantic, typical FAC stuff, which could be resolved with a minor tweak. A few are, I feel, larger, but nothing here is unresolvable. You've got the right sources cited, and a good base, to be sure, even if I feel it could have benefitted from a PR before coming here. Eddie891TalkWork12:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to give this review the attention that it deserves, but won't be able to respond until at least this weekend, maybe closer to Tuesday. I will move it to the top of the list of FACs I am reviewing, given how long it has been open for, and comment further ASAP. Eddie891TalkWork15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it turns out that what Salenius is really talking about is her teaching in NYC in 1887 (which you already mention ("In 1887, Cleveland moved to New York City to"). So that bit (beginning "She taught American history in New York City.") should be removed from early life. Sorry, I misread the source (although I think its organization is a little bit unclear, to be fair)! I am good to move on to the next section, now. Eddie891TalkWork19:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The increased attention" I didn't get an impression of increased attention from the rest of the para, though.
Changed to "The increased attention she received as a public figure" so it stands as its own statement.
"Victorian dress reform movement, but she limited herself to wearing low-cut dresses" maybe gloss briefly what the dress reform movement was, I don't think it's clear from context what the alternative would have been (what was she 'limiting herself' from?)
Added "that sought to move away from traditional conservative dresses, but her own deviation from the norm was limited to". Open to other ideas if that's too wordy.
I'm surprised that her political activism didn't impact her popularity. These controversial points would seem to contrast with the public image you outline of her in the paragraph before, as a respectable and moral woman. Is there any indication that it might have?
Nothing that I've seen. If I had to guess, I'd say much of this activity probably wasn't widely publicized.
The para beginning Cleveland kept up-to-date on political issues feels very list-y. Is there any way it can be revised to feel like it flows more organically? I don't have an answer, so if this is the best option that's fine.
On the second, it currently has tagging indicating it is PD because the author died over 100 years ago, and because it was published before 1930; can those things be verified? On the fourth, the purpose of use indicates the depiction is "as shown by the similarity to other statues and depictions in the article" - if the other statues and depictions show this, why is a non-free image needed? Depending on how the FUR is developed, it may or may not meet the purposes of use covered by the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, for the second, I don't know, but the current owner states that the artist is unknown and the item is out of copyright; what would be the appropriate tag in this case? On the FU image: the depiction is similar to other images in the article, but completely different in content: a 2D campaign poster intended to promote a contemporary political figure is very different to multiple 3D statues intended to commemorate a long-dead warrior. If you really think the FUR is untenable, I'll remove the image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily that it's untenable; it's just that at the moment, the FUR does not do a good job of explaining why it's tenable. On the copyright question, is it known why it's believed to be out of copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India, any artistic work published within the lifetime of the author is under copyright until 60 years after the author's death. If the item is still under copyright, that means the author was alive in 1965. An artist with the skill necessary to paint this work must have been, at the very very least, an adult at the time of its acquisition in 1857, meaning the artist would have been born in 1839 or earlier. A lifespan of 1839–1965 means that the artist would be the longest-lived person in history. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, under 17 U.S. Code § 302 c), the copyright of an anonymous work "endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". We know that it was created by 1857, so it was in the public domain by 1977 at the latest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to legend, the astrologers attending her birth foretold that she would combine the qualities of the three principal Hindu goddesses: Lakshmi, deity of wealth; Durga, deity of strength; and Saraswati, deity of knowledge. I would move this to section "Cultural legacy".
Why? If it's just because of "According to legend", most of this section is explicitly attributed to sources of dubious measure: "uncorroborated popular legend", "British vs Indian sources", "it is presumed", "popular legend". As pointed out in the introduction to "Biography", these legends and stories cannot be ignored when presenting a comprehensive view of the Rani's early life, because it is all we have.
If the traditional chronology is correct... I understand there are two "traditional" chronologies.
Good point, changed to "traditional Indian chronology".
...the nearby kingdom of Orchha, who had remained loyal to the Company... Is "who" correct in the context?
Changed.
...when they were driven off by the raja of Banpur's troops... Why did he intervene in the conflict?
We don't know.
...a ruler now seen as a "Jezebel"... Some explanation?
Difficult to explain without WP:SYNTH, as the sources don't explain the nickname of "Jezebel", referring to the notorious biblical figure. Removed while I figure out a way of clarifying it.
...in the late 1800s... Ambiguous: around 1809 or 1899?
Clarified.
...such as Alexander Rogers' 1995 novel in verse The Rani of Jhansi or The Widowed Queen, Philip Cox's 1933 play The Rani of Jhansi, and George MacDonald Fraser's 1975 novel Flashman in the Great Game, among others... Why is chronology ignored?
There are some seemingly unnecessary WP:duplinks, some in close succession, which can be highlighted with this script:[31]
There are a couple of duplications of links to deities in separate sections, which I have retained; otherwise I think I've removed everything.
Give dates in the captions for the posthumous illustrations and the battle image?
We don't know when the posthumous illustrations were composed, because their production would have been prohibited in post-rebellion India; added the date of the battle image.
The lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability includes "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source. ... Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. ... Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material: ...material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged". So I would say that at FAC yes, it needs citing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as uncitable with my current resources.
Link Maharashtrian to something?
Done.
"whom he nicknamed "Chhabili"" What does it mean? If we don't know, it doesn't add much.
Removed.
Link Lakshmi?
Done.
"he turned blind eye to" a blind eye?
Fixed by someone else.
"after an unknown someone acquiesced" Seems a bit informal, "an unknown person"? Unidentified person?
I don't think it's that informal, but changed.
"were later found in her palace" Does her palace still exist, and do we have pictures of it?
Yes to the first, no to the second (at least where my Commons-searching skills are concerned).
"both were captured and hung" It seems "hanged" would be more appropriate for UK English, as far as I can Google.
Done.
"The East India Company administration, led by Governor-General Lord Dalhousie" Need some context here to establish it was a British operation, and to what extend it was related to the UK state.
Added a sentence.
"Harleen Singh, an associate professor of literature and women's, gender and sexuality studies at Brandeis University" Seems quite a bit too much, why is the University affiliation needed?
Don't know where that came from, trimmed.
Why are British views presented first under Literature? Seems inappropriate, given the subject. I can see that Indian narratives were prohibited early on, but I don't think that's justification enough, as the British examples given are from the 209th century anyway.
I disagree; most of the paragraph talks about contemporary British attitudes, which is entirely appropriate because her prominence in Britain greatly decreased as the 20th century progressed. The current organisation also reflects that of RS, such as Singh 2020, who starts with discussing "Victoria(n) Rani" and only afterwards discusses the "Indian Queen".
"As a powerful female rebel, she was portrayed as the antithesis of British society and culture, a masculine figure who played a key role in instigating the rape and sexual violence alleged to have taken place." It's hard to decipher what the part after the second comma refers to; the Rani or the British?
Clarified.
One often-copied portrait (see top of article) originally depicted her riding a horse sidesaddle, but the lower half of the painting, found in a family home in Indore, has decayed. The other major depiction (see #Early life and marriage) is less immediately recognisable as the Rani, as it only depicts her head adorned with a sari and jewellery." Given their supposed significance, I think their captions should have more context, also so they are better connected with the article text.
What did you have in mind?
Not a huge deal, just something to establish the notability that the article body seems to give them ("this is one of the most widely distributed images" etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and the film Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi, which was released in January 2019" 2019 film or released in 2019 is enough.
Trimmed.
"he adopted a young relative" Give his name instead of an WP:easter egg link.
It isn't a WP:EGG—the reader expects the link to go to the page on "the young relative" and so it does.
"Hugh Rose attacked" Could give his rank in intro.
Done, in lead and body. Thanks for the comments FunkMonk; responses above, and let me know if you have further queries.
I knew a little about the Rani before reading this (the one thing about the Flashman novels is that they are excellently researched and carry extensive historical notes about the actual history), but this is an excellent potted history that I enjoyed reading immensely. A few comments only:
Link for raja? I'm not sure it's that commonly known
Done.
"massacred all the British in the town": "massacred the British in the town" would be both a smoother read and more accurate as, according to the body, "nearly all of them were killed", not all of them
Seems to have been adjusted to "most".
"Hugh Rose attacked": neither here nor in the body do you introduce who he was
Added his station.
"or six thousand pounds yearly" 1. Any reason you don't give this as "£6,000"; 2. Would an inflation conversion be useful?
1) is done, 2) is perhaps not that useful because all online inflation conversions (such as the Bank of England's) are based on consumer data from the British Isles; 19th-century India is a very different kettle of fish in terms of purchasing power.
some indication of how much £6k was worth would be good - even if compared to the salary of a soldier, or the average income of an agricultural worker - I think readers need to be able to grasp quickly whether this equates a cost of a good meal out or enough to buy a palace in 19th-C India. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"after an unknown someone acquiesced" -> "after an unknown person acquiesced"?
Done.
Any reason you have the capitalised "Rani of Jhansi" throughout but then go with the lower case "raja of Jhansi", "raja of Banpur" and "raja of Scindia"?
Literary convention, as reflected in the sources. "Rani of Jhansi" has become more of a name than a title, as compared to the others.
"still of two minds": "still in two minds" sounds more natural to me…
That is indeed BrE, so changed.
"captured and hung": pictures are hung; people are hanged
Already fixed.
"Britain's then-Queen Victoria": just "Britain's Queen Victoria" will suffice
I am not sure that rani and jara are familiar to the general reader, without any link.
Links provided.
I am also not sure that she should be called "the Rani" before her marriage.
Removed.
Early life
I read "Moropant Tambe" and would by the naming system I am used to call him Tambe, not Moropant. How about a footnote?
What would such a footnote say: "Referred to as Moropant, because that's how his name worked"? I don't think I'd be able to find a citation for that. In any case, multiple different naming systems are used in the article; who am I to say which ones readers are used to, and which ones need explanation? Do I explain them all?
I suggest to move the portrait down to where the name is mentioned.
I suggest to mention the adoption before the day of death, for chronology.
I agree that "rani" (=queen) and "raja" (commonly also "rajah"; = king) should be explained for readers unfamiliar with India. (A few rajas hold the higher rank of "maharaja"). She is not a rani until she has married Gangadhar Rao. "Early life": footnote could be useful (Tambe is not really a surname but the name of a clan). O.k. to move portrait and revise the adoption as suggested.Johnsoniensis (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This nationalist association continued after independence in media and in education" - I suggest to place "independence" to the front, to avoid thinking that it's only "independence in media and in education", unless that is meant.
Done.
Infobox
"Rani Lakshmibai / Queen of Jhansi" remains unclear, - Rani could still be a name instead of a position.
Reorganised. I liked your suggestion below of "Lakshmibai, Rani of Jhansi" below, so although it is technically incorrect per Template:infobox royalty, I've gone with that.
I don't often deal with nobility. It seems that the Duke's article works, - could hers be moved to a similar format? I don't recall any article like "Duke of Somwhere" without any name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, if an RM were opened; I wouldn't oppose it. The issue is that "Rani of Jhansi" is indisputably the WP:COMMONNAME—her notability in India is such that no one really cares about any other Rani who preceded her. If you look at WP:CRITERIA, "Rani of Jhansi" fulfils the first, second, and fourth bullet points better than any other. WP:NCROY is no help here—it only applies to Western monarchs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to something about her birth even if we don't know the dob, such as one year with a footnote that it could be seven years later.
If she goes by a function (Rani), her husband also should have one.
Done both.
Lead
I'd go for footnotes not only for Hindi pronunciation, but meaning of names and titles in all three bolded terms. We read only later that Jhansi is a territory, which is too late.
Not done. I wouldn't carpet bomb the first sentence of e.g. Charles III with footnotes explaining that Charles is a name, that III means he's the third ruler of a series of related political entities, that King is a title for a ruler, that the United Kingdom is a country, and that the Commonwealth is a collection of countries. Same applies here.
Short: the links (below) do it for me. - Longer: "Charles III" is not a good example, because "Charles" is a name, as expected. Rani is not a name, which I understood late. See below for article title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 different links from Jhansi in the same sentence look confusing, - better explain the difference visibly.
Good point, rewritten
"raja" should be linked or have a footnote
Done.
"Manikarnika Tambe married the raja of Jhansi, Gangadhar Rao, at a young age" - I suggest to say "was married" as she - possibly age 7 - will not have been active in that process
Good point.
"the Rani's complicity and participation in these events was and remains contested" - in this sentence, the verb comes too late for my taste
I can't see anything wrong with it.
Well, not exactly wrong, but this "was and remains" places the verb even further "out", almost German ;)
"Although her relations with the British were initially cordial, they decided to treat her as an enemy" - "had been cordial"? - suspicion of participation in the mutiny doesn't sound "cordial" to me.
Adjusted.
"a great heroine" - are there lesser heroines? "great" sounds a bit redundant to me
Yes, there are certainly lesser heroines. "Great" is perhaps an understatement if anything—if, as the body explains, you are regarded in the same category as Shivaji, Rama, Krishna, you are approaching divine status in India.
"she is viewed more negatively in Dalit communities", - probably my English: to me it sounds like "others were negative, these even more so" - is there an word that doesn't compare? "critical" or something better?
Good point, but critical isn't really the right word; I've reversed the voice of the sentence
"Rani Lakshmibai has been extensively depicted in literature, most notably in the 1930 poem "Jhansi Ki Rani" and Vrindavan Lal Verma's 1946 novel Jhansi ki Rani Lakshmi Bai, in addition to artwork and cinema." - how about getting the "most notably" poems to the very end?
Thanks for letting us know. With just a bit of time and without sources, you could make footnotes or other explanations that Rani is not a name but a title/position (and raja the same) and Jhansi not a name but a state/district. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This problem could be lessened if the name of the article was still Rani Lakshmibai. Using "Rani of Jhansi" which is not her name but an appellation of British origin is not ideal (and it is a title belonging also to the other consorts of the rajas of Jhansi).Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continued:- from Newalkar; «Some of the known Queens:
Rani Padmabai (wife of Shiv Hari Rao)
Rani Sakku Bai (wife of Krishna Rao and mother of Ramchandra Rao; Gangadhar's elder sister in law)
Rani Janki Bai (first wife of Raghunath Rao III and his Royal consort; Gangadhar's younger sister in law)(source: Chapman (1986). title. p. 15"the throne: Janki Bai, Raghunath's widow; Krishna Rao, the same adopted son of Ram Chand; Ali Bahadur, Raghunath's illegitimate son; and Gangadhar Rao, last surviving son of Shiv Rao Bhau."{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
Rani Lachcho Bai (second wife of Raghunath Rao III; Gangadhar's sister in law )
The palace has an article of its own Rani Mahal; there used to be a picture of it in the present article but an editor removed it. Commons has a category for Rani Mahal.
Re: objection to Damodar Rao in full; it is better to keep "Rao" obviously since it means "prince" (and he is also the heir to his father). "Rao" could be explained on first occurrence.
"The Rani" is an odd formulation for the lead. I kinda wonder if there are people familiar with Indian history and historiography who could double-check this article. The sources all seem reliable but I notice that only a few seem to be Indian, to the point that I wonder about comprehensiveness. Format seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See comments above for naming—essentially it boils down to "the Rani of Jhansi" being far and away the WP:COMMONNAME and trying to withstand the irregularities that brings. I can ping a few people who I've seen around the topic area of Indian history to see if they can have a look wrt comprehensiveness: @Fowler&fowler, Abecedare, and Vanamonde93: any opinions would be welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic from a period somewhat earlier than I'd consider myself an expert in. With that caveat: "The Rani of Jhansi" is unambiguously the COMMONNAME. But that guideline is about titles, not usage inline. "The Rani" is equivalent to "The Queen", so where the latter would feel awkward I'd suggest we avoid the former, too. I suggest using simply "Lakshmibai", which is her name shorn of honorifics, and is how we typically treat article subjects even when an honorific is included in the article title (see Swami Vivekananda, or Elizabeth II, or Alexander the Great). I lack the time to look at the sources in detail. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did write the lead of Indian rebellion of 1857, my knowledge of the rebellion does not extend to the biographies of the rebels. Generally, though, I do think that the first two sentences of the last paragraph of the
Indian rebellion page,
In some regions, most notably in Awadh, the rebellion took on the attributes of a patriotic revolt against British oppression. However, the rebel leaders proclaimed no articles of faith that presaged a new political system.
As you may have gathered, my response here is not about the use of the definite article before "Rani," but more generally about the historiography. What I say above means that in Jhansi, which is not part of Awadh, the role of the Rani was not a patriotic revolt against British power. In other words, the roots of Indian nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which led to a successful campaign for India's independence, rooted in nonviolent resistance and led by Gandhi, do not lie in the role played by the Rani. It is a much later, even postcolonial, reconstruction.
I have taken a quick look at the sources used. It is a somewhat unrepresentative collection of the historiography. It appears to transition abruptly from a highly detailed 1986 biography of Lebra, based on uncertain sources, including hearsay, to more modern monographs on current special topics. The middle is lacking. Another way of saying this is that any featured article in this topic area should be pitched at the sophistication and coherence of what high school students are reading in India. See in particular, Themes in Indian History, Book 3, chapter 2, page 262. The point is made there that the rebellion was essentially a popular movement which pressured some leaders of the princely states into assuming leadership, and the Rani was one such.
Perhaps the sources used in that chapter, including the books of Tapti Roy and Rudrangshu Mukherjee should also be referenced a bit; see page 285. This is all I can say during a very busy RL period for me. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: supporting Fowler&fowler's suggestion but it looks as if the level of neutrality achieved so far is not enough to satisfy everybody. Of course more Indian historians could be used as sources but this might not significantly improve the article. The revolt at Jhansi became linked to the grievance of the Maratha prince Nana Sahib.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion to use Tapti Roy and Rudrangshu Mukherjee's studies on the Rani has merit, to ensure compliance with FA criteria 1c)Johnsoniensis; I'm less sure about digressions into the rebellion in general. I think I'll be able to do some research on the aforementioned authors tonight. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Easter Oratorio, one of three oratorios by J. S. Bach, the famous one being the Christmas Oratorio of 1734 followed by the 1738 Ascension Oratorio. The Easter Oratorio was - in a way - already composed in 1725, in a clever collaboration of Bach with Picander who would write the poetry of the St Matthew Passion. In their first project together (as far as we know), he wrote the text for a pastoral cantata that was probably performed as musical theatre for the birthday of Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels. For Easter 1725, all music except the recitatives was heard in the Nikolaikirche in the Easter service, now among four Biblical characters instead of shepherds, with different text probably also by Picander. - When Bach thought of oratorios in the 1730s, he could just make a new score with a new title. He must have loved the piece, making more changes in the 1740s and performing it again the year before he died. Find out why. - The article received a recent GA review by 750h+ and additional detailed comments by Michael Aurel. --Gerda Arendt
File:Nikolaikirche_Leipzg_1749_(Kupferstich)_Foto_H.-P.Haack.JPG: under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for status of the original work rather than the reproduction.
Storye book fixed the licensing. --GA
The tagging is now contradictory - it has one tag saying the author's date of death is unknown and another giving a specific author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives,... Could the phrase "only composing" be rephrased with "composing only"?
yes if you say so --GA
Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives, for a church cantata for Easter Sunday. Could the phrase "on Easter Sunday" be used here?
in this case, it's the occasion rather than the date --GA
The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, after Bach had led the his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. There's a typo in this sentence.
The music of the arias and the closing chorus, Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11, correspond to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10,... It should be "corresponds" (not "correspond"), since "music" is singular.
fixed, but perhaps there is a better way, - it's more that movements correspond (regarding the music) --GA
interesting, it was like that, but during GA review, both 750h+ and Michael Aurel requested a change. ("Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" is a phrase I remember from U.S. services also.) --GAGerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To chime in here, I wasn't protesting the use of the phrase "is risen", but the use of the phrase "was risen", which doesn't quite work grammatically. (Intransitive verbs don't take objects; we can say that "X rises", but not that "X rises Y". Here the use of the passive voice places "Jesus" as the object. A more obvious example would be that we can say "John sneezed", but not that "John was sneezed".)
I suggested "has risen" as a replacement, no doubt because the standard, modern phrasing for the verb "risen" came to my mind before the more archaic construction did, but I don't have any issue with using the phrase "is risen". We probably shouldn't start writing "He is come" and "He is fled" about the place, but "is risen" sounds entirely fine to me in a religious context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History (after a re-read)
it's first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet (Come, flee and hurry). "it's" → "its" (possessive pronoun, not contraction).
"well-suited for" → "well suited to" – British usage.
I think there have been some changes since my recent comments, so I'll hopefully give the page another, more comprehensive read. I probably won't be all that prompt with my review, but marking my place here as I intend to get around to it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit tardy (as per my warning above), but here's an initial set of comments. I do notice that you were editing the article at one point while I was reading over it, so apologies if any of the below suggestions don't quite match the current text:
(Latin: Oratorium Festo Paschali), (German: Oster-Oratorium), – I'd suggest placing these beside each other, within one bracket (using a semicolon), as we have "(German: Oster-Oratorium)" enclosed between two brackets, which doesn't quite feel right
done, thank you --GA
Oster-Oratorium (Kommt, eilet und laufet) – Very much a nitpick, but in this field in the infobox I think the brackets shouldn't be italicised
done --GA
for Easter in 1725, when he used most of its music for two compositions, – By "when", are we referring to 1725 or specifically to Easter in 1725? I initially read it as the latter, but if by "used" we mean that he composed these in this time period, then it I think it would have to be the former?
Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a (BWV 249.1) – Hmm, it isn't entirely clear what the relation between "BWV 249a" and "BWV 249.1" is. Are these simply different ways or writing the same thing, or do these refer perhaps to different versions of this work (or to something else)?
they refer to the old style of BWV numbers (with letters, in the NBA) and the more recent style (with secondary numbers, for Bach Digital). The latter is more precise, but the former is better known, and therefore also kept. Wikipedia articles go by the former. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a congratulatory cantata, – The link is about Bach cantatas in general (not necessarily just "congratulatory" ones), so limiting the link to just the word "cantata" might be better
not sure, because the link to cantata is way too general, - it would go to Bach cantata, where congratulatory cantatas are mentioned earlier, and the rest is intructive for all who don't know what a Bach cantata is --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no issue with the link itself. But now (with recent changes) the link is on just the word "congratulatory", but the linked article is about all of Bach's cantatas, not just the congratulatory ones. I'd place the link on the word "cantata" later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), a cantata for Easter Sunday (BWV 249.3) – Per WP:SINGLE, glosses use single quotes. I also think it would be more natural to have "BWV 249.3" next to the title (for example, using commas).
Well, we will have to stick also with the older style (as Bach Digital does, having it in the first position), because, as I said, Wikipedia artile names rely on that one and most of the sources (Dürr, Wolff ...) rely on that one. The other has more numbers, for different versions. What do you think about a footnote, explaining on the first occurrence? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good. I would just point out that double quote marks linger at Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"),. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both works are musical dramas of four characters – "of" isn't wrong, though I think we could be more specific. If there are only four characters in total in each work I would use "involving", and if we mean instead that there are four central characters then I would use "centering around" (or similar).
Both works are musical dramas of four characters; in the secular cantata shepherds and shepherdesses, ... – I suspect you meant for this to be a colon instead (when using semicolons, the part after the semicolon should be a complete sentence). It also feels as though the "four"-ness isn't necessarily being illustrated for the secular cantata; for example, are there two shepherds and two shepherdesses (or one and three, etc.)?
see below, in UC, look for "learning" --GA
Hmm, UC's suggestion is the same as mine, I believe. Whether or not we do use a colon, a semicolon should be followed by a full sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comma doesn't quite work; I would use a colon. For example, this would work: [...] characters: in the secular cantata, two shepherds and two shepherdesses; and in the Easter cantata, four Biblical figures from the Easter stories in the Gospel of Luke and other Evangelists.. I also think the "four" in "involving four characters" slipped out. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter stories from the Gospel of Luke and other evangelists. – I think it would be ideal to avoid "from the" being repeated. I think "in the" would work in the latter case.
taken --GA
Bach performed the secular work, known as the Shepherd Cantata, – I would suggest referencing this alternative name when the work is first mentioned
done before I saw this --GA
Its text was written by Picander, – Not necessarily required, but a brief description of who Picander was might be helpful.
the lead is already longish, and he is well known as the author of the St Matthew Passion. There's more in the body, and here is a link --GA
I think just "German poet" would work (this at least avoids the reader thinking he's a fellow composer, for example), but I'll leave the choice to you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it would promise too much because poetry was only a voluntary free-time occupation for him - who would think of a composer for text-writing? --GA
in both a morning service at the Nikolaikirche and a vespers service at the Thomaskirche. – I'd link vespers. My inclination would also be to use the English names of these churches, though I seem to remember you have a reason for not doing so.
Nikolaikirche is shorter in the image caption, - there is a pic of a church, and where else would the Easter Sunday service be? --GA
All of that's reasonable, but we generally avoid dipping into non-English words when we don't need to (MOS:NON-ENG: Non-English terms should be used sparingly), and the linked articles seem to use "St. Thomas Church" and "St. Nicholas Church". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I have to say I don't really agree (the titles of our articles would suggest that for those other two the German word is the common name), but it's rather minor in the scheme of things, and there's not much sense in pressing the point when it is arguably partly a matter of personal preference. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach made the composition the Easter Oratorio (BWV 249.4) – Not sure "the composition" adds anything here. Very minor, but "created" sounds slightly better here to me. I would also again raise my query as to "BWV 249.4" being in brackets rather than between commas.
but he didn't "create" anything here, as explained in the body, - only minor changes, - how would you word that? --GA
"produced", perhaps? This probably doesn't carry the same implication of creating something original. I would also restate my feelings on "the composition". – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
commas taken - "produced" would still hint at some production, while he only renamed / re-labelled / or what? - If not "the composition" then what? "the Easter cantata"? - We have to be very clear (see the question below) about that the music of the oratorio is the same as for the cantata, besides those very minor changes of a few extra measures, different text layout in the middle section of one aria, and two different instruments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"made" is fine, but it is essentially synonymous with "created", so it will still carry the same implication if that's your concern. As to "the composition the Easter Oratorio", the problem is that it sounds as though we're saying Bach made the composition into the oratorio. (Unless that is actually the intended meaning, and I've misinterpreted the phrase?) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not sure my English is good enough for knowing exactly what "made it into" means. He took the composition, and wrote Oratorium on top when writing a beautiful new score. What is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give rephrasing a go, see what you think: "In 1738, Bach revised the Easter cantata as the Easter Oratorio, BWV 249.4, making only minor changes and adding a new title." Not sure if this is all exactly correct, but this might set you on the right track. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good. I've made a few minor copyediting changes (removed "some", added "the", added italics to "Easter Oratorio" for consistency with the rest of the article, removed the link to autograph (manuscript) as it's linked above), let me know if you disagree with any of them. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
when he wrote a new manuscript copy with some minor changes and a new title in 1738. – Hmm, I wonder if we can be a little more specific here: "a new manuscript copy of ..." (I'm assuming it is the music written in 1725, though I think it could help to make this clear).
it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale. – Possibly this was intentional, but "Evangelist" wasn't capitalised above
yes, because it's a different meaning (with a different link) --GA
In the oratorio, Bach assigned the individual characters of the cantata more generally to four voice parts. – Hmm, I have to say I'm not entire sure what is meant by "more generally" here (can you assign something "more" or "less" generally?)
I'd be happy with better wording, perhaps you can help: in the cantata, it was same history involving characters who lived 2000 years ago. In the oratorio (without changing anything), they are you and I, general people who react to the situation, - involving the listener, - perhaps read below and then come up with a summary --GA
The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, – Hmm, I think when the word "basically" is used it can generally be omitted or replaced. Depending on what is accurate, I'd suggest "largely", "almost identical", or something similar.
similarly: please read the changes below and then tell me how to summarise best --GA
The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, is structured in eleven movements. – I'm not sure the phrase beginning in "basically" quite works grammatically. "cantata" and "oratorio" also need articles of some form. How about something like "The music, which is _____ the same between the cantata and the oratorio, is ..."?
will depend on what you find one question above --GA
are followed by a duet of tenor and bass, illustrating two disciples running to the tomb of Jesus – A "duet for tenor and bass" is better I think. Hmm, I'm also not entirely sure a duet can "illustrate" something; perhaps "representing" is better(?), though I have to say this wording still doesn't seem ideal.
I'd normally say "for" but here - as just explained, they are the characters (formerly Simon and John), - not sure how to do that --GA
"for" should still work, and I think it would sound more natural of the context of a musical composition (cf., for instance, "sonata for violin and piano" and "sonata of violin and piano"). As to "illustrating", how about "followed by a duet of tenor and bass, in which two disciples run to the tomb of Jesus ..." (this might some require some rephrasing later in the sentence). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
giving you "for", but the runs in the music are just an image / symbol / what? for the running - we can't say they run in the duet - especially as in the oratorio (by eliminating the characters) it's more we who move, but again not in reality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We specifically say it's the disciples doing the running, so the readers should understand these are just characters being referenced (not the singers), meaning the "in which" should hopefully be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where they meet two women who had followed Jesus. – The first part here is in the present tense, while the latter part is in the past perfect tense, when it only needs to be in the past tense. (Let me know if this if this needs further explaining.)
past tense taken --GA
The middle movements are alternating recitatives, with the characters mostly engaged in conversations, – "in which the characters mostly engage in coversation"?
thank you --GA
and arias, in which three of them (soprano, tenor and alto) express their emotions facing the empty tomb, – Any reason to not just go for "in which the soprano, tenor and alto express ..."?
I found a bit unfair that the bass was left out, but taken --GA
express their emotions facing the empty tomb, and then on the news that Jesus is risen. – Hmm, I'm not sure you can have emotions "on" news. "upon hearing" perhaps?
changed before I saw this --GA
The music is scored festively with a Baroque instrumental ensemble of three trumpets, timpani, two oboes, oboe d'amore, bassoon, two recorders, flauto traverso (only in the oratorio version), strings and continuo. – Any reason to not link the instruments?
yes, sea of blue, they are linked in the music section and all are mentioned in the linked Baroque instrumental ensemble - consistent with other such articles --GA
Hmm, the featured article of yours which comes to mind is BWV 1 where they seem to be linked in the lead. If you want to avoid too many links, you could just link the ones which are lesser known; for example, while all readers will know what a trumpet is, those without a background in music likely won't know what a "flauto traverso" is. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at three other FAs (4, 23, 56) where they are not linked, - the idea at this point is to give the idea of Baroque instruments and roughly what instruments, but not send readers away to individual instruments, - those interested can find them later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the choir sang only in the final movement. – I think the present tense is more appropriate here, as the work is extant, meaning that choirs today still sing this movement.
not quite the question, that movement stayed the same anyway, - it's the other one - open for advice --GA
I'm not sure I'm quite cottoning on to what you mean. Assuming both these works are extant (which I think they are), I would lean towards present tense. For instance, compare "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano plays arpeggios ..." and "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano played arpeggios ...". The latter sounds either as though the work isn't extant, or that the piano in question has met an untimely demise. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
trying harder to explain: in the 1740s, after three versions, Bach changed towards more choir participation, and then the former state with only on movement was a past ("sang"), - do you see what I mean? Since the change, the choir sings in two, and that is the version performed and recorded. - Better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding correctly, the use of past tense is because these versions aren't (or aren't commonly) performed today? I do have to say that the use of the past tense still sounds to me as though it's suggesting these versions aren't extant. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said somewhere, the version typically performed and recorded is the final one (.4) but the others still exist. Perhaps compare Bruckner's symphonies, or Bach's St John Passion where four versions exist, and people often record the first version, thinking that the second was compromise with the city ... - perhaps you can think of some better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said somewhere, the version typically performed and recorded is the final one: Yup. Reading your responses, I think I might be understanding: is it that with the past tense you're trying here to contrast these previous versions with the "new" revision produced in the 1740s? If so, it could work to make this connection a little more explicit. For example, you could start with "In the 1740s, Bach again ...", and then change the next sentence to "He arranged the third movement partly for choir, whereas in the cantata version and the 1738 oratorio version, the choir sang only in the final movement" (or similar). I think this would hopefully make the connection clear and justify the use of the past tense. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach again revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, in the 1740s, – Having "in the 1740s" at the beginning of the sentence feels a little more natural to me. I might also use brackets for "which he seems to have regarded highly", though this is largely personal preference.
what you want to put in brackets is perhaps the most important information in the whole lead ;) - I'll move the period, but feel that revising again and again is the more important part than when precisely this happened, on top of we know only a timeframe --GA
The short description is "Bach music composition", three nouns which I'm not quite sure work together without separation. How about "Musical work by Bach"?
In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig, – A nitpick, but I'm not sure "as" adds anything here
gone --GA
He took office in the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. – I wonder if it's possible to give any dates from the Gregorian calendar, as some readers mightn't know much (or anything) about the Christian liturgical year.
added date, but don't know it it's in the source given or if it needs an extra one --GA
He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724 – "Good Friday in 1724" or "Good Friday of 1724", I think
"of" then - would I say "Christmas of 2024"? --GA
the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic sacred oratorio. – Perhaps ignorant to the reasons for drawing out this particular distinction, it seems to me that we could just say "the St John Passion, a dramatic sacred oratorio, for ...".
The reason is that his first oratorio, that Passion, was completely different from what he had done before, and - as you will read later - the Easter Oratorio can be seen as it's sequel. --GA
inspired by some question below I tried to expand the Background, by the Holy week, the heavy workload then, the days between Palm Sunday and Good Friday, such things. I'd like to add the exact pages from Wolff, but am in Poland and can't access the book here. I will add that when back home (Saturday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following year, Bach pursued to write a second cantata cycle, – I'm not sure "pursued" is the right word here. It typically refers to running after something, and I'm presuming that Bach wasn't writing the cycle while running. ;)
What would be the right word for expressing his endeavour to do such an unbelievable thing? --GA
Just "wrote" would work. While the achievement was of course impressive, we (per MOS:PUFFERY) generally avoid implying the impressiveness of certain things with our language, though quoting a scholar for this sort of assessment would of course be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very source used says so, beginning on page 275, "Bach could begin with a most promosing cantata project of great homogeneity", and concluding three pages later: "It is hard to imagine that this fascinating, unprecedented project of chorale cantatas was initiated by anyone but Bach himself. ... Bach's artistic borders on the incredible. That Bach went about his grand project systematically becomes immediately evident ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the section, please check, more Easter cantatas, examples not only of the load that season but also reusing music with different text. In the process, I quote Wolff twice, for the characterisation of this cantata cycle and Picander's St Matthew poetry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was followed by the second version – Hmm, by "it", do we mean the second cantata cycle or BWV 1?
BWV 1, on Palm Sunday, followed 5 days later (same year) by the second version of the St. John Passion. --GA
the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday. – "..., which was performed on Good Friday". I would also query as to what year (or years) it was performed on Good Friday.
We talk about the Holy Week of 1724, Palm Sunday (BWV 1), Good Friday (St John), Easter Sunday (our cantata), - a heavy load on the choir (which may explain why it has little to sing in the Easter cantata), - what is unclear? --GA
In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach – I would write "approaching his second Easter as Thomaskantor", as otherwise it might sound as though Bach was two years old!
Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, ... – A change may not be needed here, but the way we use "congratulatory cantata" makes me wonder if this is considered a specific type of cantata in Bach's output. If so, are there specific qualities or characteristics of congratulatory cantatas which set them apart? (Besides, of course, having to do with congratulating someone or something.)
During Lent, a time without cantatas in Leipzig, – By "without cantatas", do we just mean they weren't performed? It might also be worth briefly describing in brackets when Lent is, for non-religious readers who aren't aware.
there is a link, and another one for Liturgical year, and from the context should be clear that it is the time in preparation of Easter (like Advent is the time in preparation of Christmas, also silent): no cantatas performed (which meant no cantatas composed, - he composed for the next occasion, after seven weeks without came Palm Sunday, Good Friday and three feast days of Easter, each with a cantata, all within 10 days). --GA
A paraphrase of "time in preparation of Easter" (in brackets) would work well. I would also be explicit on the point that there weren't performed (or composed) during this time, as "time without cantatas" make it sound a bit as though the cantatas ceased to exist during this period. – Michael Aurel (talk)
while correct, I'd assume that 90% of readers who got reading this far will know what a libretto is and thus a librettist, - it would help them not to get held up, and the others have the chance to learn. - In operas, it's so common that we don't even link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's of course good for those readers who don't know the term to learn, but readers on mobile, for example (the majority of our readers), won't be able to preview that page, meaning they would need to click away to learn what the word means. For example, something along the lines of "The Shepherd Cantata's librettist (the author of the work's text) was Picander" might work, or you could perhaps rephrase to use "libretto" instead, and define that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost tempted to say again "wrote the text", but "libretto" is the standard word for texts of operas, so connects nicely to the character of the piece as dramatic music. "the author of the work's text" seems a lot for the readers who know that already. Would we link to ball in an article about a specific match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh ... I don't really know it's the same, but evidently neither of us with be persuaded, and I suppose I can live with just the link. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
was Picander, in their first documented collaboration. – The other person in the collaboration is of course obvious, but, technically, he hasn't been mentioned in this paragraph so he can't be referred to. "in he and Bach's first ..." would work.
I think it's obvious enough for a simple wording that treats them as equal partners --GA
The issue is that pronouns should refer back to an antecedent, but here the antecedent ("Bach and Picander", or equivalent) is absent. (Also, as "their" can also be singular, it – at first – sounds a bit as though we might be using "their" because Picander's gender is uncertain.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that Bach planned from the start – I think "had planned" works a little better here, as we're technically going back two "steps" into the past. Another nitpick, but "intended" sounds slightly better here to me, as what we care about here are his intentions (not necessarily some specific "plans").
thank you, taken --GA
to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata, – "to reuse", dropping "also", perhaps?
well, I have my doubts, - doesn't re-use imply that first came one then the other? while it looks like he wrote one music (probably with more thought about Easter), and to it came two layers of text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
probably with more thought about Easter: I see, understood. Using "from the start to use most of the music for an Easter cantata as well" would probably be fine. I also wonder then if "adapted" should potentially be "wrote"? Is Picander going back and changing an initial text, or is it that he wrote it for that purpose from the beginning? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Picander would write in 1728 about their collaboration: – Minor, but I'd suggest "In 1728, Picander wrote of their ...", as we presumably care more about what he wrote about it, rather than the fact he wrote about it.
I thought that we are in 1725, at the beginning of their collaboration, when the other date is in a future, no? --GA
and several cantatas, both sacred and secular. – "sacred and secular cantatas" might be slightly better, as otherwise it might sound as though the cantatas were both sacred and secular at the same time.
but how could that be? - changed anyway --GA
Picander published the libretto, of an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses – I'm not sure "of" works here. Perhaps "in which two shepherds and two shepherdesses interact ..."?
taken and I also split the sentence --GA
named after characters in Greek mythology, – You've dipped into my area of interest here, so I'll be extra picky: I generally think "figures" is preferable to "characters" in the context of Greek mythology, in the same way that we maintain a distinction between "mythology" and "fiction", even though mythology is of course fictional.
Out of interest more than anything (it may not be worth mentioning), but who are the mythological figures in question?
no idea, I took that from the source without investigating --GA
Picander published the libretto [...] in 1727 as Tafel-Music. – The two parts of this statement don't quite flow nicely into each other. I'd suggest splitting the sentence in two, discussing the publication part in the first, and the part about the shepherds separately.
look above ;) --GA
as Tafel-Music – I'd link Tafelmusik. It also seems to me that we're using half German ("Tafel") and half English here ("Music").
the answer is already somewhere on this page, but again: this is the exact spelling in the publication. German was different 300 years ago, and less uniform. --GA
Hmm, perhaps, but – unless I've misunderstood, and he published it with the literal title "Tafel-Music" – our article is in modern English, so we should use the form commonly used today (which, judging by ngrams, is "Tafelmusik"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better source for the exact wording in the publication, and think we should preserve it, the same way as we don't subject Bach's German to modern orthography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've read the source you've cited, and it seems that I was indeed misunderstanding what we meant here. To help make this a tad more explicit, we could potentially write "titling it Tafel-Music" or "under the title Tafel-Music". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at Schloss Neu-Augustusburg on 23 February 1723. – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I think it would be worth mentioning that this is a palace
after we said it's for a duke? --GA
Hmm, it's presumably been performed plenty of places that weren't his palace, so I'm not sure this quite follows. If it was his palace in particular, "Christian's palace" (or similar) would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
rephrased the sentence adding palace (hesitating because Schloss means palace), and put the possibly thingy at the end. We could add the full title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, and it addresses this point (so it's been struck). For the overall passage, yes, adding the full title might be good (or describing what it says), just so that the reader understands how we know the date, etc. – 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I do notice that years are included in most of the subheadings in the "History" section, but not for "Secular model, BWV 249.1".
there's only one, - the others are three versions to be distinguished --GA
Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence, – Hmm, this feels as though it's a slightly odd thing to note in particular. Is it surprising that the music is in the same order?
surprising or not, it should be said somehow - In the Christmas Oratorio, the use of the secular pieces is not strictly following the models, for example. - There is an Easter cantata which Bach also used by just underlaying sacred text, which I think I may mention in the Background section, to prepare this. --GA
composing only new recitatives, – Did this involve adding new movements? If so, we might write "new recitative movements", to be specific.
not really, there were recitatives composed for the secular work, but finding words for that music that also made sense would have been difficult, so there were new words and those set to different music, - better wording? - still same order of movements, even: where four characters interacted in the secular work, there are also four in the Easter work, which could probably be said somehow, but I didn't know where and how. --GA
That's all fine. What might help to clarify this is giving a brief definition for "recitative": something similar to "sections in which the singers use the delivery of ordinary speech" could work, if this is correct?
see a link to ball above, - recitative and aria are really the two most common terms in Baroque music, and I don't recall any FA explaining either, - the word recitative is even close to "recite". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). – "but this was soon ..." is better. I would also query as to what we mean by "soon"; for example, could we give a rough (or not rough) idea with any dates?
"was" taken - the source (Dürr) gives us only this --GA
The festive nature of the original material made it well suited – I'd write "The festive nature of the original material was well suited"
fine --GA
can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story". – Either "play, and follows ..." or "play which follows ...", depending on the intended meaning
"which follows" --GA
It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the cantata. – I'd use "for this cantata", or, better, "for the Easter cantata", to distinguish from the cantata mentioned above that Picander wrote the text for.
taken (but isn't that what the topic of this section is?) --GA
This is jumping up to the previous section of the article, but I notice that we say It seems likely [...] that Picander also adapted the text for that purpose, but in the lead we say Picander may also have adapted his text for the Easter cantata.
we are even encouraged not to use exactly the same wording in lead and body, no? --GA
They're slightly different claims: "likely" implies that there is a greater chance that Picander wrote it than there is that someone else wrote it, whereas "may" doesn't imply this. If you'd like to vary the wording between the lead and body, you could use "likely" and "probably", or "may" and "possibly" (depending on which is more accurate). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but who knows what is more accurate? when I wrote the article all sources seemed to agree on likely, but now two of the new ones changed that picture, one even saying "unlikely". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both share the same metrical pattern – Similarly to above, we need to have explicitly referred to two things just before to use "both". "The Easter cantata and the Shepherd Cantata", or something similar (depending on how you change the preceding sentence), would work.
"both texts" --GA
I'll make a general comment here, as this has cropped up a few times in my suggestions. Pronouns rely on the noun they're replacing having been explicitly referred to just before, and this explicit reference is called the antecedent. In some places in the article, the antecedent is absent but you can still tell (or guess without too much trouble) what the pronoun is referring to; the issue is that, from a grammatical perspective, we still shouldn't use pronouns if we haven't clearly and explicitly referred to the relevant noun just prior. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only the recitatives were newly composed. – Hmm, I feel as though we've already stated this above (specifically, when we say composing only new recitatives).
dropped the second time --GA
scenes from the Gospels, – I'd suggest a relevant link for "Gospels"
I come from project opera where we don't link to a composer when their work is linked right next. Whoever doesn't know who Verdi is will find it in Aida. Similarly: whoever does't know what Gospel is will find it in Gospel of Luke. Avoiding too much blue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, assigned to the four voice parts – I'd use "involving", same as above. And "who were assigned to ..."?
taken --GA
the disciples Simon (tenor) and John (bass), – I'd link tenor and bass (voice type) (first mention in body)
well, it would make a sea of blue, and the terms are rather familiar, linked in the lead - I'd go for an exception, also because we'll link soprano and alto, and readers who missed this corner would wonder why tenor and bass are not linked again --GA
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand. Some readers will know what "tenor" and "bass" mean here, though many without a musical background won't. As to the lead, my general assumption would be that if something is linked in the lead, it should also be linked in the body (though this perhaps doesn't always need to hold the other way around). In any case, we link alto and soprano in the same sentence, and things should be consistent between all four. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to have links in the "Music" section (maybe you've already removed them), but yes, I'd avoid linking them a second time in the body. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
appearing in the first duet hurrying to Jesus's grave and finding it empty, – "who appear in ... grave, finding ... empty, and meeting ..." is preferable I think.
taken --GA
and "the other Mary", Mary Jacobe (soprano). – Hmm, is there any particular reason to call her "the other Mary"? In a literal sense, all this seems to be telling us is that her name is also Mary, something which, given her name is "Mary Jacobe", we'd hope the reader would realise. ;)
dropping it, it's the exact phrase from the Gospel but we can offer a link ;) --GA
Bach scholar Hans-Joachim Schulze summarised: – Is there anything "summarise"-ish about his statement in particular? If not, I'd use "According to ..., [quote]".
I reduced it to "wrote", - "On the whole" indicated enough that it summary.
Hmm, perhaps I'm not understanding things completely, but is there a particular reason we're quoting the scholar here? If possible, I would summarise his opinion in our own words.
I think it's written well, and high praise for what others have regarded as a mediocre job of adjusting something to match the music; it is also nicely open about who it was. --GA
the unidentified librettist – This is the first mention of an "unidentified" librettist. Is this who we were talking about above? If so, we should note his "unidentified"-ness there.
We wrote before (as some sources): "It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the Easter cantata." That includes that he is not identified, just likely.
The cantata, different from the secular model, – By "the secular model", I'm assuming we mean the Shepherd Cantata? It's worth noting that (outside of the heading) we haven't called it this, so it might be worth doing that in the section above.
We wrote before: "Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence" - now what else is that than using it as the model? --GA
The use of the definite article in "the secular model" implies that the reader has already been introduced to something called the "secular model", but we haven't actually referred to the Shepherd Cantata as such at this point in the text (except in a heading). This means that the sentence does make sense, but only if the reader recalls the statement you've quoted, from two paragraphs earlier (Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence), and recalls that we used "secular model" in the heading of the section discussing the Shepherd Cantata. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is opened by two instrumental movements that are probably taken – Are these the differences (or some of the differences) between the two works? If so, I think it'd be worth making this explicit; for example, "In contrast to the _____, the cantata is opened ...".
No, there is no contrast. We wrote before "The cantata, different from the secular model, is opened by two instrumental movements." (The other was opened by one instrumental movement, none of the two here.) --GA
To put it another way, we are making two statements in this sentence: that the cantata and the secular model are different, and that the cantata opens with two instrumental movements. Presumably these aren't unrelated statements, so one is led to assume that this is a difference between the two, but we don't actually state this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That the two cantatas are different is no new claim, but I rephrased it. --GA
from a concerto of the Köthen period. – I'd link concerto
That is a highly ambiguous term, and sending a reader away might confuse more than educate. It means here a piece for solo instruments and orchestra (like the Brandenburg Concertos) which seems to be the most normal meaning, but what exactly it is doesn't change the meaning for this piece. --GA
The article concerto seems to include Baroque concertos, and the meaning here (a piece for solo instruments and orchestra) seems to match that page's definition, so I think the link would work. It's worth noting that even if the concept isn't important here, some readers will be unfamiliar with the term. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The work is, like the Shepherf Cantata, a dramma per musica – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I would give a brief explanation for "dramma per musica".
I'd say a drama for music, and that is nothing the term doesn't present (and nothing that hasn't been described by the dialogues in both the secular and the sacred piece. --GA
Hmm, sure, that's the translation of the phrase, though it doesn't really tell us what a dramma per musicais. I'll also note that dramma per musica is mentioned (or is now mentioned) above, so this brief explanation should be included there, with the link dropped in this second instance. I also wonder if the phrase should be italicised, looking at the linked article? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I italicised it on the first instance, but think that the explanation, musical drama, is really close. I used that in the second instance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, – "It was first performed on ..."? Also, by "performances", do we mean it was performed multiple times on this day?
twice, and that's why "it was first performed" wouldn't fit. --GA
"It was first performed" should still work, as it doesn't necessarily imply a certain number of performances taking place on that day. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a week after Bach had led Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern – By "led" do we mean "performed"?
"led" is there to avoid a repetition (performance - performed), - it is also a little indication that the leading was not "conducting" in our sense, but done by playing violin or keyboard. --GA
two days after his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. – St John Passion and Good Friday are linked above
sorry (the above was added later ...) --GA
Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, – Also linked above
delinked --GA
and in a vespers service at the Thomaskirche, with a sermon by Johann Gottlob – I'd specify "the second in a ...", to clearly indicate this isn't the same performance. I'd also link vespers.
Markus Rathey pointed out that this music was Bach's first and only for Easter that matched the dramatic approach of the Passions. – I'm assuming Markus Rathey is a modern scholar, though using the past tense here makes it sound a bit as though he was contemporary with Bach. I'd use "points out" or "has pointed out".
I have done that, but where is the line? Dürr wrote in 1971, past, Rathey in 2016, - yes, that's more recent, but in 20 years, no more, - who would update? --GA
I would generally use the present tense for all scholars whose opinions are reflective of modern scholarship. Exactly where the line is drawn will depend on the discipline, but, in general, if the scholar is not so outdated that their opinion is unreliable, I would use the present tense (and I would say this generally accords with MOS:PRESENT). That said, using the present perfect would also be perfectly fine for such scholars, if you'd prefer (but the tense should be consistent for all such modern scholars). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, – I'm not necessarily sure what he had time for was thinking, specifically, as thinking about "larger musical forms" presumably doesn't take all that long. Maybe something to the effect of "Bach had the time to compose in larger musical forms in 1732"?
we'll have to search, - there was no large composition in 1732 (yet), and the 1733 Missa was a "composition" in the original sense of "put together": many older pieces with new text, therefore "to compose" might be misleading in both senses, no? --GA
"plan", perhaps(?), though I suspect that also mightn't work. Or we could say that the added time caused him to gravitate towards longer forms, if this is what the source says. (I would probably need to see the source's claim to think of a more effective rewording.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
with no festive music – Where did it go? (I'm being facetious, but the point is that if we mean that it just wasn't performed, we should probably say so explicitly.)
not sure what you mean, it wasn't only "not performed" but "not composed, because not needed" --GA
That's fine, but "with no festive music" makes it sound a bit as though previously composed festive music also ceased to exist. If festive music both wasn't performed and wasn't composed, then stating this much would resolve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
intended for use in their church services – "these church services', as the services don't belong to the works. Or, if "their" refers to the aforementioned days (rather than the works), I would write "intended for use in the church services on these days".
sorry, I rearranged the sentence and it ended wrong, - fixed --GA
probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738. &ndash "in" or "of", same as above
"of" --GA
For Easter Sunday, 6 April 1738, Bach could use the 1725 Easter cantata ... – Hmm, did he use it in the way we're referring to here? If so, would it work to just say "Bach used the ..."?
well, perhaps you can help to word that it comes as a surprise that he used it as it was, instead of adding more work for the choir, some chorales, such things - It's unlike the later oratorios, therefore (but he sems to have liked it). --GA
Hmm, I see, I'm not sure "could" is achieving that here, though. I'd just use "used" here, and, then separately state that the lack of meaningful changes before its use was unusual (or something to this effect). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1725 Easter cantata basically as it was – A grumble towards "basically". Does "with minor changes" work? Or "largely unchanged", perhaps?
As the following text shows, the "changes" to the music are so minor that even "minor" seems too much, and "largely unchanged" even more so. The change was to no longer make it a drama involving historic persons, but a drama in which the listener is involved: called to run and to reflect. --GA
If "minor" seems too strong, then perhaps use "very minor', or something more specific. Despite their minor nature, though, there were changes ("basically" sounds a bit as though there were no changes, but that we're unwilling to make an unqualified statement). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see above --GA
He wrote a new autograph score of the music and at this time labelled the work – Not sure "at this time" adds anything
Did you read the DYK nomination, with all the suggestions to say the Oratorio was performed in 1725, and I replied, yes, but it was not yet named Oratorio. It can't be clear enough, - what would you say? --GA
Hmm, no, I haven't. I would think it's clear from context that we're talking about 1738, but, if we think it's necessary, we could restate that it's 1738 at the beginning of the sentence. Either way, "at this time" isn't really needed later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
dropped, also dropped "new" - there was no score for the cantata --GA
labelled the work an oratorio, Oratorium Festo Paschali. – "labelled the work an oratorio, titling it Oratorium Festo Paschali"?
added --GA
He made several changes; – The points mentioned in the preceding sentences would count as "changes" in my eyes. Do we perhaps mean changes specifically to the music? If so, "He made several changes to the music;" might be better.
a different underlay of the text in the middle section of the alto aria – As "underlay" has a specific meaning in a musical context, I'd link underlay#Music, or (probably the much better option, given that link's inadequacy) I'd give give a brief explanation of the term
I'm no native speaker. I never heard the word "underlay" before, - the German is "unterlegen" (so the same): the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music, - but how could that be clarified? --GA
Your explanation, "the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music", seems quite good, and would work with slightly more encyclopedic wording. (Or, alternatively, you could rephrase the bullet point to avoid the word "underlay".) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
calling Michael Bednarek for help wo knows English, German and Classical music: is there a short term for Textunterlegung, and if not how can we best say it in English? In this case, the text also changed a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
English 'underlay' for German Textunterlegung can be seen as a term of art, similar to 'through composed', 'leitmotiv', 'Urtext', 'Sprechstimme', all – including 'underlay' – used in musicology literature. This paper of 30 pages discusses the problems of translating it in-depth. I can only suggest to keep using it with a parenthetical pointer to the related subject prosody (music), or to describe its meaning as attempted above. I prefer the first. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a different underlay of ... and five additional measures – Technically, these aren't changes, and don't quite align with the phrasing in the other points. Something along of the lines of "the use of a different ..." and "the addition of five measures" might be better.
how are additional measures no changes? - how is the different underlay of text, resulting perhaps in different vowels sounding, not a change? like the different sound of another instruement? --GA
Sorry, my wording was a bit oblique. What I'm pointing out is that the wording in this bullet point isn't consistent with the others: "the insertion of a measure ..." vs "a different underlay ..." (rather than "the use of a different underlay ..."). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Derived from the secular musical theatre, – By "the secular musical theatre", do we mean a specific work? If so – and maybe I'm just losing my way in so many different pieces here – which one? Or do we mean "secular musical theatre" as a genre?
should we instead say dramma per musica again? - Perhaps we could drop the paragraph, because the same thing was said about the same music as cantata, but it seemed worth saying that this isn't like his other oratorios (now that it was named Oratorio). --GA
I notice that in some places we use the serial comma (eg. it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale), and in others we don't (eg. an Evangelist narrator, Biblical texts and chorales,. I realise that checking for this is a right pain (so sorry for putting you through the ordeal), but they should technically be consistent.
commas are so different in German, sorry, - can you please just fix when you see it missing? --GA
I've added the serial comma in the quoted passage, and will do so when I read later parts of the article, but a skim of the article on your part, checking for this, would probably be a good idea. (It's minor, but it's worth noting that another reviewer will probably choose to point this out if they notice it.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
based on a scriptures – Plurality clash: "a" is singular", "scriptures" is plural.
I thought I had moved the sentence to later, - my bad. --GA
In a later version from the 1740s, between 1743 and 1746, Bach revised the oratorio once more – Hmm, I'm not sure this is quite right. It sounds a bit as though we're saying the same thing twice. Would dropping "In a later version from the 1740s" work?
he expanded the third movement from a duet into a four-part chorus, at least in the outer section, – Do we perhaps mean "outer sections" (that is, the sections at the beginning and end of the movement)?
yes --GA
in the middle section of the soprano aria (movement 5) – I'd write "in the 5th movement"
Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections. – Hmm, well, they technically need to decide whether or not to use the final version at all (even if it's common practice). A more appropriate statement might be that conductors commonly choose one or the other.
no, not the same thing. Provided they use that last version (and we are in the section about that version), they still have to decide, because it's marked tenor bass but not indicating solo tenor ore choir tenor (same for bass) --GA
I might protest that context doesn't change the literal statement we're making, but I can see your point that readers are unlikely to misinterpret our meaning given the preceding content. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for the last time on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, the year before his death, right after his last performance of the St John Passion. – "and right after his last ...", as otherwise it might sound as though the year before his death came right after the last performance of the St John Passion. I would also query as to what we mean by "right after" (hours later, days later, months later?).
It seems significant that in 1749 he coupled again the St John Passion (on Good Friday) and the Easter Oratorio (two days later on Easter Sunday, as explained in Background), similar to the first (cantata) performance. Rathey calls the Oratorio a sequel to the Passion. - rephrased, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. I'd rephrase it to: Bach performed the Easter Oratorio for the last time in 1749, the year before his death; this performance, which took place on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, again followed a performance of the St John Passion on Good Friday. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach decided to compose new music for almost all liturgical events, which became his first cantata cycle. – Technically this reads as saying that all of the liturgical events themselves became his first cantata cycle.
so how do say in English that it's the new music which ...? --GA
Specifying "new cantatas" in there might be good (eg. "decided to compose new cantatas ..."). Then, maybe ending it with "resulting in his first cantata cycle" could work? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure if this was your intention (or if you just forgot to make the change), but it seems we still have the original wording (decided to compose cantatas for almost all liturgical events, which became his first cantata cycle). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their collaboration led to the 1727 St Matthew Passion and several cantatas, – "They also collaborated on the ...", maybe?
yes, but the St Matthew Passion is not an "also" but a pinnacle --GA
That makes sense, but I'm not sure that comes through, as we're also including "several sacred and secular cantatas" in that "pinnacle". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might try something that their most prominent (best-known, or what?) collaboration was the St Matthew Passion (almost 70 movements) but would probably need a ref, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I would think so, yes. I would probably just go for something like "They later collaborated on the 1727 St Matthew Passion, as well as several sacred and secular cantatas." if you want to avoid "also", though I'll leave the choice to you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title suggests that it was performed as musical theatre in costumes during a meal – I'm a bit confused by "title" here. Do we mean the title "Shepherd Cantata"? Because if so, I'm not sure how we can infer all this from it.
I see, so perhaps I have misinterpreted things in my above comment? Specifically, did he publish[...] it with the literal title "Tafel-Music"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking at the source, this comes from the full title (Tafel-Music bei Ihro Hochfürstlichen Durchlaucht zu Weissenfels Geburts-Tage den 23. Februar 1725). This might be a result of the newly added source, but I think a bit of rephrasing might be needed in the last sentence; we can probably say that the date is "stated" (or similar) rather than "suggested", and that it's just the location of the performance which is "possible". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was clarified by moving the "possible" to the end. --GA
I think you suggested it above, but we should probably include the full title here. Or, if you like, we could state that the title began with "Tafel-Music", and then describe the other information it included. I would then put the "possibly" part into a separate sentence (to give a clear division between what we know from the title itself, and what is conjecture on the part of modern scholars). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement. Just three points: I'd include an English translation of the title (the one in the source would work), I'd keep the "under the title" wording, and I'd probably think of switching up the word "suggests" (the source uses "confirming"; maybe "which refers to", "which indicates", or similar?). I also wonder whether the part about "performed as musical theatre in costumes during a meal" is referring specifically to the 23 February 1725 performance (or just to performances of the work in general)? If it's the latter, I would probably move this bit to the end of the paragraph and elevate the part about the palace. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's better, though I think the two parts might be getting a bit mixed up: I think my "indicates" wording is probably appropriate for the claim that it was performed for the Duke's birthday, but your "suggests" wording is probably appropriate for the claim about the costumes, etc. We probably also don't need to repeat "The performance on 23 February 1725" if we're only talking about one performance. The source for the full title is Schulze (whereas Funk and Grychtolik don't include it), so I would probably try to rearrange things such that Schulze is used for the sentence with the full title (and you might as well include the "possibly took place" part there), and then you can add the part about the costumes and so on afterwards. I'd also ask about the "during a meal" part, as I'm not sure that's explicitly mentioned by Funk or Grychtolik? – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grychtolik: "Als „Tafel-Music“, wie Picander sie in seinem 1727 veröffentlichten Textdruck nennt, wurde die Schäferkantate den damaligen Gepflogenheiten nach szenisch aufgeführt, also als barockes Musiktheater mit einer der Schäferthematik entsprechenden Kostümierung der vier Vokalsolisten. Hierauf weist auch die dialogische Struktur der Rezitative hin. Das Werk kann dem heutigen Sprachgebrauch entsprechend als einaktige Festoper bezeichnet werden. [...]." - this doesn't explicitly say "during a meal", but "Tafel" means a banquet table. I'll try dropping "during a meal". I also closed the sentence after the translation of the title, with the Schulze ref only. - That the performance was on 23 February is not deduced from the title, but confirmed by several other sources, - that leads to a certain duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On its face, that looks improved. Without re-checking all of the sources, here are a few points on reading the passage over again:
to celebrate the birthday of the Duke, – I'd use "in celebration of the Duke's birthday"
took possibly place – "possibly" before "took"
was performed at a banquet to celebrate the birthday of the Duke [...] The performance on 23 February 1725 – Seeing as these are the same performance, I'm not sure I understand the repetition of the date. From what you've said, I gather it is because we have other evidence that confirms the performance did in fact occur on this date? Though we cite Schulze for the date, who gives the title and states that it "confirm[s] the date and occasion for the performance". In particular, my concern is that the beginning of the "The performance on 23 February 1725 ..." sentence sounds as though it is introducing a new, second performance of the work (ie., one not on the Duke's birthday), at least until the reader sees the date is the same as that from the title. Providing I'm not misunderstanding the situation, you could use "on this date" or something similar to smooth this over and avoid the repetition.
I adopted the first two. About the date: if we drop it, it appears only in that later title of Picander's publication. I'd like to say (more) factually that it happened on that date (which is not the day he was born, as our article tells us), with at least Bach Digital for a source, but that source has neither the title nor a possible location. What do you suggest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, that article was wrong (the dates were different to those in the source cited there; I've fixed that). I would probably continue the sentence in which we give the title, adding on a rewriting of Schulze's statement, "thus confirming the date and occasion for the performance", in our own words. I'd then add the part about "possibly took place ..." to the same sentence, behind that. You can cite Bach Digital if you like, though all of the information is in Schulze, so citing just him would be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"occasing" definitely isn't a word. ;) I would try to differentiate the wording from the source a bit more: "confirming the occasi[on] and the date of the performance" is close to "confirming the date and occasion for the performance". Something along the lines of "which records the circumstances of its performance" would work. I would throw in the word "only" in front of "performance" if it can be sourced, but that isn't strictly necessary. I'd also point out that Maul only sources the claim "it was performed at a banquet", but not the claim that "The designation as Tafelmusik indicates that it was performed at a banquet". I understand this seems obvious to those familiar with the term, but it still needs explicit sourcing. If you can't find a source for this particular point, you could just state that it was performed at a banquet, or you define Tafelmusik in a similar manner to our article on the term (ie., including the word "banquet). – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the typo (and not seeing it). I tried your wording, followed by the details, please check. I didn't say "only". The idea that such music is too good for only one congratulatory event and therefore from the start was meant to serve elsewhere came here as before in the Easter cantatas (see background) and later in the Christmas Oratorio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first part looks better. To me, the part about the banquet still sounds as though it's deducing this information from the title (which, as I said, is almost certainly true, but isn't explicitly sourced here). Maybe end the sentence after "of its performance", listing these other details about the performance in the next sentence? – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien in which Johannes Bugenhagen had integrated scenes from the Gospels, including Luke 24:1–13. – I have to say that this sentence has rather confused me. Sorry to hit you with a flurry of questions, but these are the points I think might cause confusion for the reader. By "The librettist", do we mean Picander (or librettists in general)? If we mean Picandar, I'd use his name. What's a "Harmonie aller Evangelien"? Who is Johannes Bugenhagen?
We don't know for sure if it was Picander, so can't use his name. - One of the sources I found recently mentioned this work, and what it is is said: he "integrated scenes from the Gospels" (There isn't one Easter story - like there is one Christmas story - but are different episodes dispersed in four Gospels, and this Mr. Bugenhagen made it all one, - making it easy to build on.) It doesn't matter too much who did this, or does it? --GA
I've been avoiding this one, but here are some initial suggestions:
The librettist could base his work on a – Did the librettist base the text on this work? If so, I'd drop "could" and just say "based his work". If not, I'm somewhat confused by the meaning of "could" here.
on a Harmonie aller Evangelien – I'd try to explain what this is. Is it a kind of compilation of gospels? Or just the title of Bugenhagen's work, maybe?
in which Johannes Bugenhagen had integrated – I'd add "theologian" or something to make clear that Bugenhagen isn't a composer or a librettist.
from the Gospels, including Luke 24:1–13. – Is there any reason we mention these verses in particular?
I adopted "theologian" and called the result "Easter story". The Luke chapter excerpt contains both the women trying to oint the corps and the men running, the key aspects I'd say. The whole Bugenhagen thing came up with a ref found later, which explains elegantly how other aspects (such as the Mary Magdalen view, from the Gospel of John) also came in. I don't know yet how to word that better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, I'd still try to include some explanation for Harmonie aller Evangelien, as most readers won't know what that is. Or, if I've understood what it is correctly (ie., "scenes from the different Gospels [in] one Easter story"), then removing that term might be the best idea to reduce confusion. I'd also tighten "in one Easter story" to "into one narrative". It's a bit hard to tell where page 2 is in the Google Books preview (as it doesn't have page numbers marked), but at least on the page where the link sends you I can't see any mention of Bugenhagen? As to the verses from Luke, I'd probably try to explain their relevance or remove them. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried by turning the order of things around, first describing what Bugenhagen achieved, then giving the title. I called the thing "one Easter narrative", and changed the lead also to "narrative" (where we had "story" before). I have no more time right now, will look at the exact referencing later, and possible somehow mention that the Luke chapter has both the two women wanting to anoint and the two men running, but no meeting - don't know for sure if that was a thing Bugenhagen added, "harmonizing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now looked at the source again (Klek). Only "Harmonie" is from the Bugenhagen title. - I took the Klek page as Google gave it to me. I see the complete chapter about BWV 249, beginning with the text, then a description, next para plot of BWV 249a, next para mentioning Easter and Bugenhagen. This theologian had also written a similar "Harmonie" for the Passions narrative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's much better than the previous wording. I think we may have discussed it above, but, seeing as the link to Gospel of Luke is now absent, I would link Gospel (this is also the first mention of the term in the body). I'd probably also cut "named a Harmonie (harmony)"; it isn't wrong, though I think the content of the work (ie., that it's an Easter narrative compiled from the Gospels) is the main point here, and this would probably need rephrasing, as in its current form it sounds as though it's saying the Gospels were named Harmonie (or something to this effect). – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, – By "he", do we mean Pincander or Bugenhagen?
"he" was the librettist, and still is the librettist, and we don't know if he was Picander. --GA
Understood. I'd suggest replacing "He" with "The librettist", as we do refer to two other male individuals (Bugenhagen and Picander) in the prior sentences. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He also thought of oratorios – Hmm, what do we mean by "thought of". "planned", maybe? Or did he start writing them but not finish, perhaps?
How do we know? --GA
Well, I'm assuming "thought of" isn't the exact wording in the source. Depending on what the source says, I would make the statement more concrete, as "thinking" of a composition doesn't seem that noteworthy (and presumably he ended up doing more than just "thinking" about writing them). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current text is: He designated also oratorios for two other feasts of a celebratory nature, Easter and Ascension Day, intended for use in the church services on these days. This doesn't quite work grammatically. Maybe try starting with "He designated two other works as oratorios, the Easter Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio, intended for use ..."? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can reword better what I would like to say: that Bach thought that two other events of the liturgical year should also be graced with oratorios because of their festive nature. The oratorios were only the result of this idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit rough, but maybe this is closer? "The two other works he designated as oratorios, the Easter Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio, were similarly composed for feasts of a celebratory nature, Easter and Ascension Day, and intended for use in the church services on these days." – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion, - what I miss is that he first thought the occasions worthy of an oratorio, and then composed one and named the other. Perhaps you can manage that also, otherwise I can live with it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, "composed" probably isn't the right word there. Maybe "The two other works he designated as oratorios, the Easter Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio, were similarly intended for use on days marking feasts of a celebratory nature, Easter and Ascension Day."? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach took great care with expression marking in this score. – The immediate relevance of this statement isn't entirely clear to me. If possible, see if you can explain why this is significant to what's being said.
Usually, he omitted all such markings, so it's relevant, - the source meantions it, why would we not? --GA
There's no problem with us mentioning it, it's just that its relevance isn't evident. Your response, "Usually, he omitted all such markings", answers the question of its relevance, so stating this in the article would solve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This just is so, - I wouldn't know source for it, therefore I'd prefer to just say it like the source. --GA
I do notice that the cited source says the work is "unusually rich" in its use of expression markings. Stating something to this effect would probably do the trick. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but we say that three sections down from this part, so the reader won't know about that yet. Hmm, reading the source, I'm not entirely sure which part we're citing for "Bach took great care with expression marking in this score." Is it "This score is unusually rich in expression marks; the only items that Bach did not enter in his autograph are, as customary, the thoroughbass figures."? As to saying something about "unusually", I probably wouldn't worry too much if we end up repeating ourselves in a different section later on. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach structured the work in eleven movements, – Maybe specify Easter Oratorio here, as we've referred to quite a few different works and versions above?
It was vague on purpose: he structured the cantata, and didn't change when he called it the Oratorio. --GA
eleven movements, with two instrumental movements at the beginning. – I think this could sound as though these were two additional movements (ie., that there were thirteen in total). Maybe "the first two of which are instrumental"?
I split the sentence. --GA
Actually, just on the word "instrumental", it's worth considering that it can also mean something like "important" or "influential". Maybe clarify with "feature only instruments" or "contain no vocal parts"?
I think that it's the default meaning talking about music. --GA
The third movement is a duet, originally of ... – I assume by "originally" we're referring to a certain revision of the work? If so, I'd try to be more explicit as to which version this is.
We know from the history that it's a duet in all versions except the last change, and that it's for characters in the cantata, - this would be repetitious and clumsy to say again. --GA
The third movement is a duet, originally of two disciples moving towards the grave of Jesus. – Not sure "of" is the right preposition here. Maybe "in which"?
I don't think so, duet of two disciples (not of two lovers, of two friends, as often in operas). I don't think we'd put anything "in" a duet. --GA
The following movements 4 to 10 alternate recitatives, – A bit of a nitpick, but I notice elsewhere we use words for small numbers (eg. there are instances of "two", "three", "four"). I'd suggest making this consistent.
I don't think so, these are the numerals printed in the score and used as headers (to follow). --GA
The following movements 4 to 10 alternate recitatives, – I'm not entirely sure what we mean by this: perhaps that the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th movements are recitatives but that the 5th, 7th, and 9th movements aren't? I think it could also sound as though every one of these movements contains recitatives which alternate with other musical content.
It should say "alternate recitatives and arias", with each expanded by explaining their function. --GA
in which the characters interact, – Hmm, I'd question whether this is crucial content in a section on "Structure and scoring", under "Music". It seems to be more about the narrative of the text, and it's worth considering that characters interacting probably isn't all that surprising or noteworthy in a narrative, though maybe the statement could also be reworked if there's something more specific you want to say here?
the interaction in the recitatives is contrasted by the expression of a single person's emotion in the arias, - should we drop it as the typical difference between recitatives and arias? (... but usually I'm told that I should expect readers to know such things) --GA
movements 4 to 10 alternate recitatives, [...] with arias – Alright, looking at the table, what I think we mean is that the even movements from 4 to 10 are recitatives and the odd movements in this range are arias. Maybe try reworking the sentence to be closer to how I've expressed it in this comment (this is very rough, but something like "In movements four through ten, even movements are recitatives and odd ones are arias" could work), as I think "alternate" might lead some readers to think the alternation between recitatives and arias happens within each movement.
Perhaps try again after reading the responses above, - the alternating of action and stand-still emotions - typical for baroque operas as well - should come out. --GA
Not a big deal, but I notice we link aria in the lead, but not on its first mention (in the "Easter cantata, BWV 249.3 (1725)" section).
done --GA
in which they express emotional reaction. – "express emotions", maybe? Otherwise it might be worth clarifying what they're reacting to here.
I thought it goes without saying that each aria depict how a character reacts to the action in the preceding recitative, - what would you say? --GA
The music is festively scored with a – I imagine this makes sense to someone acquainted with Baroque instrumentation, but I'd query what it means for a work to be "festively" scored (and what about this set of instruments is more festive than another set of Baroque instruments).
trumpets and timpani are festive, while oboes and strings are standard, - that is part of the linked article Baroque instruments, but also no surprise, or is it. --GA
The music is festively scored with a Baroque instrumental ensemble of – Not sure "with" is the right word here; "for"?
yes, and I forgot the voices ... --GA
two violins (Vn), viola (Va) and continuo (Bc). – The abbreviation for the violin seems to be "Vn" here, but "Vl" in the table.
good catch --GA
and continuo (Bc). – Not essential, and I realise that referring to it simply as "continuo" is common in English writing, but I'd consider using the full name, "basso continuo", so readers aren't confused by the presence of a "B" in the abbreviation.
changed --GA
I haven't looked over the citations as a whole, but I notice that at the end of this sentence the Durr & Jones citation has the page range "pp. 271–230".
In the following table of the movements, in the revised 1740s version, – Not sure the two phrases starting with "in" quite work here. Perhaps "The following table lists the movements of the revised 1740s version of the oratorio", and then start a new sentence from there?
I tried, please check --GA
using the symbol for common time (4/4) – I'd include the symbol itself: . I'd also format the "4/4" as "4 4".
I avoided that because it has a larger font and "disturbs" the text layout. I linked common time, though, dropping the 4/4. --GA
The timpani only play when the trumpets do – By this, do we mean that in each movement they only play at the same time as the trumpets, or just that they only feature in movements which also contain trumpets?
We mean the former but for the table, it doesn't matter. --GA
It's worth noting that the "Rec." in the "Type" column is the same as the "Rec" abbreviation we use for the recorders. I'd use the full word, "Recitative".
done (as in other Bach works, - I was blind for the fact that it was different here) - thank you! --GA
In some places the vocal parts have spaces between them ("S A T B") and in some places they don't ("SATB").
intentionally so, to mark where they sing individually (duet, recitative) and where together (chorus). --GA
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the omission of the key signatures from some movements. Judging by Dürr, these movements modulate, ending in a different key, but I would think they could still be included.
Recitatives modulate, which means have not one key. In similar articles, there's no key in the table, but sometimes detail in the following prose. I checked and found that the keys for #3 and #4 where sort of mixed up, - thank you again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is down to the end of the "History" section. It's an interesting article (so far, at least), and it's always a pleasure to read about Bach. More soon on the way! – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new header for the open questions which can be removed when we are done. I think some look a bit out of context ;) Please clarify the last two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping: yes, I'll make sure to finish off the review. I let Gerda know I wouldn't be very active around this time, and I noticed UC recommencing their review, but things don't appear to be rolling along at any great pace at the present moment, so I can hopefully put out the last part of the review in the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff throughout. Most of the points below are nitpicks on grammar, sense and style, particularly around getting the flow of natural English. In a couple of places, I found the musical terminology tricky to follow: I think we need to make sure that a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation can still pick up what's going on. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy series of comments, all either resolved or moot
He wrote an autograph score in Leipzig in 1738 using this name, matching his Christmas Oratorio and Ascension Oratorio.: using this name makes it sound like we're talking about the name Bach used for himself -- "under this title"?
taken --GA
He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725, when most of it served both a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, and: not sure about the idiom of most of it served -- what's the meaning here? Secondly, I'd use dashes to bracket off the title for extra clarity.
I tried to clarify an admittedly complex situation further, in different order of title and description. --GA
Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry: "Come, Go and Hurry" is a title, so needs to be in title case: depending on how we're reading it under MOS:MINORWORKS, either in quote marks or in italics (probably the latter). Ditto Kommt, eilet und laufet (Come, hasten and run)..
no, "Come, go and hurry" is simply a translation of a title, not a title itself. --GA
My understanding is that they are formatted as titles when they used as titles, such as The Marriage of Figaro. "Come, go and hurry" will never be used as a title, just help understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've seen this distinction made anywhere: translations of X generally follow the formatting rules for X in the target language. The rule you outline would imply that translations of proper nouns don't need to be capitalised, because they're not being used as proper nouns, which is clearly not correct. Have you got a statement of this principle in print that you could refer me to? UndercoverClassicistT·C09:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that but added those to the translations in the lead, trying to please ;) - In the BWV 4, we have two translations that need to be distinguished, but not a title, which would be italic and title case. I don't understand quotation mark for something clearly separated by brackets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brackets and quotation marks do different jobs -- brackets separate things from the main sentence, quotation marks (here) indicate that the terms should be read as the title of a work rather than through their "natural" meaning: so, they differentiate the Charge of the Light Brigade, which was gruesome and traumatic, from "The Charge of the Light Brigade", which is only traumatic if you're a Victorian schoolboy forced to memorise it. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the beginning: some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations. In music, larger works have titles italic in title case, smaller ones (songs, arias, short piano pieces) in quotation marks and sentence case. This is a large work, while its movements are regarded as smaller works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to treating major and minor works differently (per MOS:MINORWORKS), but I really don't understand the distinction made with some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations: a title is formatted as a title whatever language it's in, per the examples I've given above. I'm happy to be corrected if you're following a specific style guide: could you show me it if so? UndercoverClassicistT·C20:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both works have the character of a play of four characters, in the secular cantata shepherds and sherherdesses, and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter story in the Gospel of Luke, 24:1–13.: typo for shepherdesses. I'd go for a colon after characters, and remove the chapter and verse from the text: it's either "Luke 24:1" or "The Gospel of Luke", but chapter/verse numbers are only used with "short" titles (e.g. Ephesians, 2 Kings, Matthew).
taken, dropping the verses numbers in the lead, but I don't think that a colon is wanted when what follows is not a sentence. --GA
You have a habit of putting the adverb immediately after the verbal phrase, as it would be in German (He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725; Bach revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, again in the 1740s; . He thought of oratorios also for two other feasts) -- in English, it's usually better before the verb -- so "He had already composed...", "Bach again revised the work...", "He also thought of oratorios..."
thank you, once more --GA
Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1: comma needed after this.
yes
In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata, to be performed for the 43rd birthday of his patron, Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels.: again, this would be more readable with the title bracketed by dashes rather than commas, to give a sense of the hierarchy of the sentence.
I split the sentence --GA
The author of the Shepherd Cantata was Picander: as a non-musician, I need it to be a bit clearer as to what the difference between the composer and the author of the cantata is.
I replaced it by librettist (but had thought that was the unfamiliar term) --GA
our incomparable Kapellmeister Bach: why do we translate everything else, but not Kapellmeister?
no, - we could link Kapellmeister but shouldn't in a quote, right? --GA
an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses and termed a Tafelmusik,: can we explain what that means -- and attribute inline to avoid the charge of [by whom?]?
I took the wording from the other article: it was the title/genre when published in 1727. - we could get the longish German title in a Main header, - what do you think? --GA
The work can be considered an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story": likewise, attribute inline.
Dürr. --GA
The Easter cantata does not include chorales, which is rare in his liturgical music: from the paragraph, his should be Picander, but I think we mean Bach's.
said so now - it's open though, generally, who picked the chorales, the librettist, Bach, a pastor, or a book of chorales for occasions --GA
1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music: mourning for whom?
the details are in the linked article, and are far away from this music: do we need to name the Elector of Saxony? --GA
Missa for the Court of Dresden: is this a title? If so, it should be italicised or in double quotes; if just a description, "court" should be lowercase.
no, this is not a title, court - my memory was wrong --GA
Would Parody mass be a better link than parody music -- the latter seems to suggest that it was meant to be funny?
A Parody mass is something different (Renaissance). Parody music#Baroque is what Bach did here and often: use music for one occasion also for other purposes. --GA
The Ascension Oratorio, was probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738: no comma here.
yes --GA
Oratorium Festo Paschali: lang tags here.
yes --GA
He made several changes, of which editor Ulrich Leisinger who prepared a critical edition for Carus, mentioned four in his preface: this is not quite grammatical. Suggest He made several changes: Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface. Given that he made an edition, we don't need to say that he was an editor.
taken with thanks --GA
the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument: what's one of those?
linked that flute, but think that solo instrument is known (violin in a violin concerto) --GA
the alto aria (movement 9): should "Movement" be capitalised here?
I dropped it - there's only one, and which number doesn't change the meaning: that all these changes were minor. (I added the details only today, because of questions in the DYK nomination: what is the difference between cantata and oratorio? And the answer is "not much". What Bach called oratorio in 1938 was already heard in 1725, so it's in a way his earliest oratorio, just was not yet named so.) --GA
the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria: this is a bit technical for me as a layman. I notice we link two of these Baroque instruments a bit later.
gave them links --GA
Derived from the secular dramatic action: I'm not sure what this means: it clearly wasn't a secular story?
used now "musical theatre" as further up --GA
Its early performance history suggests that Bach enjoyed the work: Can you explain what about the performance history leads us to this conclusion?
I have no idea. CurryTime7-24 added that, and the source (Wolff) is offline. I added the earlier book by Wolff, Bach - The Learned Musician, but didn't find it there (not in the parts offered by Google that is). --GA
This is an old article by many, - no, I can't vouch for all of it. I'll look into sourcing that bit or drop it, but first wanted to give CurryTime a chance. I'd be willing to rewrite it on sources that I see, but integrating Klek and Schulze has higher priority. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By now, I added from both Klek and Schulze, and I began a Reception section where the Wolff Trilogy stuff went. I left the sentence about Bach's enjoyment in place for now. It seems positive and harmless. - There could be more detail from both valuable sources but might be too much theology.? I also introduced the latest BWV numbers for clarification. I wonder if BWV 249.2 - a lost 1726 other congratulatory cantata with the same music and text by Picander should also be included, for completeness, or if it would rather cause irritation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This final version is usually performed and recorded: not quite idiomatic: suggest "is the one most usually..."
taken --GA
Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections.: why is this any more true here than for any other part -- surely you could make a similar choice with any duet, or indeed any part at all?
no, but perhaps I should place it to the recordings section. - It would just be easier here, where it was described that Bach rewrote the movement "for choir", but left the middle section for tenor and bass, without indicating if solo tenor and bass or choir tenor and bass. --GA
Unlike Bach's later Christmas Oratorio, the music for Easter has no Evangelist narrator providing Biblical text: we seem to have said this at least three times by the "Music" section. Does it need so much repetition?
no, I forgot to remove when repositioning --GA
Alfred Dürr's standard work: this is cited to Dürr himself, who clearly has a vested interest here -- we need an independent source for the esteem in which this work is held.
removed --GA
The timpani always play with the trumpets: can this be put into more layman-friendly terms?
I don't know what to say besides "play with the trumpets": the timpani only play when the trumpets also play, - the table is there to visually show the sound a bit, large forces in the outer movements, intimate sounds in the inner ones. There's no extra information in adding the timpani because they are always together with the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the idiom of "play with", which is WP:JARGON -- it makes sense if you know about music, but those who haven't read a specialised work of musical scholarship (or attended a classical concert with a nicely detailed programme) are unlikely to have come across it. We could shorten very slightly: "the timpani only play when the trumpets do" is 8 words and 42 characters; "the timpani play together with the trumpets" is 7 words and 43. I'm not sure I see a material difference there. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth; I sought him, but I found him not.
2 I will rise now, and go about the city, in the streets and in the broad ways, I will seek him whom my soul loveth. I sought him, but I found him not.
5
8: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, what will ye tell him? that I am love-sick.
Aria
Tell me, tell me quickly, say where I can find Jesus, whom my soul loves!
Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you're proposing based on words from the Song of Songs about searching for the beloved, who is described by as "him whom my soul loveth"? (see minor tweaks there for grammar). I think the idea here is sound but I might be tempted to stretch it out a bit: something like "...her desire to find Jesus. Mary calls Jesus "whom my soul loves", quoting the Song of Songs, in which the same phrase is used of the female speaker's beloved?" In an ideal world, we'd have a secondary source making that point, but it strikes me as one that would surely have attracted comment, given the strongly erotic context of the original text? UndercoverClassicistT·C20:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, I proposed nothing ;) - I propose now to say that the situation and phrasing allude to Song of Songs, 3:1–2. I'd hesitate to say "inspired", because the librettist could probably rely on the audience knowing their Bible enough to understand the allusion.
I found this discussion, reading with interest (especially the Johannine aspect), but can probably not use it as a reference. About the aria, it says, very similarly to Leisinger: "Mary Magdalene’s aria (no. 9), as a Johannine love song, refers to “Jesus, “Welchen meine Seele liebt!” (whom my soul loves!), which is a reference to the biblical “Song of Songs” (3:1)". Perhaps I can give it as a second, supporting ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the Bach Cantatas website would meet WP:HQRS: I did Google around for William (L.) Hoffman, but can find no trace of him outside the website itself. The allusion is discussed in this ebook: the Google Books version isn't paginated, but I found it by searching "Welchen meine Seele liebt Bach Hoheslied" UndercoverClassicistT·C20:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Klek source that you found, and used for that one bit. There could be more but not now (close to midnight. I don't know how to handle page numbering, - why is the linked page 2. I'll think about Schulze tomorrow, can't find a year for that, - some of it reads a bit dated, but the BWV numbers are the latest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: i added more from Klek, including the music section. There could be a section on reception (Spitta ...), and should be clarification of the trumpet part thingy (principale): I reads Klek as that the a part for a third trumpet was in the 1738 score, but the only part for it (for the player) dates to 1749. Which sounds reasonable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the bass (John) summarises joy that Jesus lives again: not the right word: expresses?
taken --GA
added a new principale part in 1749: what's one of those?
part is is the sheet for players, only what they have to play, principal means the principal trumpet, added --GA
A few sources throwing Harvard errors as uncited: the two Bach digital sources and Funk 2025.
used now --GA
What's the thinking behind Rathey in the Further Reading? My usual view on FAs is that if there's something in that work that you can't get from the article, it should be brought into the article (and so the work moved to the bibliography): if there isn't anything in it you can't learn from our article, then why are we asking our readers to go read it afterwards?
That was in the article since 2018, and I can't read it. I have read other things by the author and found them useful. --GA
Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata: given all the commas in the title, I would bracket off titles like this with endashes -- so Bach composed a congratulatory cantata – Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a – known as the Shepherd Cantata
I tried it differently, thinking that in the first approach, we don't need that precise German title which would cry for a translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reconnecting to the court where the music director had just died on 6 February 1725: I'm not quite sure what this means: suggest it might be better as an independent sentence, but it definitely needs a rephrase for clarity.
dropping it for the moment, - the source hints at Bach wanting to bring his name into play at that court, potentially as successor, but this would be more important for the bio and the other cantata than this piece of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that Bach planned from the start to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata: another slightly Germanic idiom with also in that position: to re-use most of the music for an Easter cantata?
teach me English: to me "re-use" sounds as if first came one, than the other, but the thought expressed is that Bach planned both together, the secular work almost a by-product of the Easter work, earlier performed just because of the calendar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
two shepherds and two shepherdesses named after Greek mythology: we seem to be missing characters in Greek mythology or similar.
The work can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story".: quotes need attribution inline.
the quote is from Dürr, - it's only quoted to be not accused of copyvio ;) - I moved the two other refs to earlier in the sentence, and left only Dürr for the quote, how is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien: lang tags missing here: I haven't systematically checked for others.
I've been waiting for Michael to conclude above, as it looks like a lot of movement has been happening. I think it's looking like things are coming down there, so I'll resume soonish. UndercoverClassicistT·C22:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early Bach scholars, beginning with his biographer Philipp Spitta, were critical of the Easter Oratorio because of its libretto and its character as a musical drama, discovered in 1940 as related to the Shepherd Cantata, which added criticism of the parody music. : this needs a look for prose and clarity, particularly the underlined part. I wonder if it would be better split into two sentences and reworked?
tried to split --GA
Hans-Joachim Schulze notes that the oratorio supports the inclusion of the listener: likewise; I'm not sure what this means.
perhaps read the paragraph and suggest how to summarise it, - until then we can comment it out --GA
For Easter that year, he performed on Sunday Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, which he had composed much earlier in his career, and on the following two days Easter cantatas that he could derive from congratulatory cantatas for the court of Köthen by just underlaying the music with new text, Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, BWV 66, from the serenata Der Himmel dacht auf Anhalts Ruhm und Glück and Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134, from Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a, a cantata to celebrate the New Year's Day of 1719 in Köthen: this is an extremely long sentence, and it does get tricky to follow.
I agree, and the reason are the long names, and then in German, - should we drop that part? (But listen to BWV 66, one of the most exuberant choruses Bach wrote.) --GA
which fell on the feast of the Annunciation: cap Feast.
done --GA
They also collaborated on the 1727 St Matthew Passion, described by Wolff as "his finest piece of sacred poetry",: as whose finest piece?
do you think that, talking about the collaboration of a poet and a composer, it could mean any other than the poet if poetry is mentioned? - If we say "Picander" it has to go outside the quote. --GA
The names of the men, Menalcas and Damoetas, appear in Virgil's Eclogues and the Idylls of Theocritus: link Theocritus? Perhaps by the by here, but the reason they appear in Virgil is because they appear in Theocritus, whose work is much earlier.
learning, thank you, - should we mention them both with Theocritus first? I think we shouldn't omit Virgil as probably better known. --GA
(': rogue pipe in here. I'm not sure I understand the logic as to when we're translating and when we aren't.
I can't/shouldn't link from Picander's title, so if we want to link from Tafelmusik (the translation of "table music"), it would get repetitive, no? --GA
The work can be seen as an Easter play which follows a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story": attribute quotation.
how would I do that? - the "custom of scenic representation ..." is a fact, and the part that this piece can be seen as in the tradition seems also obvious, I think. Dürr wrote it, but I see no personal opinion in it. --GA
Bach scholar Hans-Joachim Schulze wrote: a false title, acceptable if suboptimal in formal AmerE and discouraged in BrE. "The Bach scholar..." is better.
done --GA
In 1733, Augustus II, the Elector of Saxony, died, followed by an official year of mourning in the electorate: this isn't quite idiomatic: suggest a split after died, and "His death was followed...".
Easter and the feast of the Ascension: cap Feast.
trying something --GA
The Ascension Oratorio, composed in a way similar to the Christmas Oratorio, was probably first performed on Ascension Day of 1738: similar in what way? We didn't really go into detail as to how the Christmas Oratorio was composed.
that seems rather repetitive, and when I wrote it, I think I meant rather that for the other two oratorios - Christmas and Ascension - there was some activity of "composing": putting together older pieces, from different sources, and connecting by new parts (chorales for example), while for the Easter Oratorio, he just took what was there in 1725. - Perhaps I just drop the similarity? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's important enough to say it, I think it's important enough to make sure readers can understand: conversely, if we don't think it's important enough to explain, I'd question whether it's important enough to include at all. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. This is just background. Perhaps read the rest of history and then come back to this point. I tried to write history to be clear about Bach changing almost nothing from 1725 to 1738, but there are enough sources mentioning some form of expansion, something that happened for the two other oratorios, but not for this one, which makes this one so different. In the end, however, it's probably enough to say it's different from the Christmas Oratorio, and not worth extra explanation at this early point that the same is true for the Ascension Oratorio (which people won't known anyway, although it's a gorgeous piece, - we sang it last year). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is addressing the point: at the moment, we have a sentence whose meaning is not clear to a reader who doesn't already know all of the facts in play. Whether it's true is beside the point -- it either needs to be understandable or it needs to go. If I understand your comment above correctly, it may not be true (or at least not the whole truth) anyway, which raises further question-marks for me. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the thing (for now). Anybody curious enough to click will read in the lead of that article the relation to the Christmas Oratorio. It's more than I feel is justified in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a shot at this. I more or less meet UndercoverClassicist's description of "a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation". I know a little about music, but I'm far from an expert and totally clueless about Baroque.
He wrote the St John Passion, an extended dramatic Passion, for Good Friday 1724.[5] I'd leave out "an extended dramatic Passion" to avoid the repetition. Or maybe "He wrote the extended dramatic St John Passion for Good Friday 1724"?
I'd like to point out that the Passion was an extended piece and a dramatic piece, both in contrary to the cantatas. A Passion is a special kind of oratorio, so I wonder if we could say "an extended dramatic oratorio"? --GA
How about "He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic piece, and of extended length"?
Bach continued to write new cantatas, now composing chorale cantatas again, I'd avoid the repetition with something like "Bach continued to compose new chorale cantatas ..."
Well, yes, but the chorale cantatas are so exceptional that it would sound too harmless, rephrased differently --GA
a format that he kept until Palm Sunday of 1725, when Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, was first performed on Palm Sunday.[6] Likewise, I'd leave off the trailing "on Palm Sunday".
good catch, that was unintended --GA
It was followed by the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday.[1][7] In addition to being clueless about Baroque music, I'm clueless about Catholic holidays, so I was confused about Good Friday coming after Palm Sunday. I had to go look up Palm Sunday to discover that it's the week before Easter Sunday. Would it work to say "... was first performed on Palm Sunday (a week before Easter). It was followed by ... five days later, on Good Friday"?
I would be possible, but most readers who get this far into the article, will know - Holy Week being the highest holidays in all Christianity. (Bach was Lutheran, btw.) There are links, and with the link to Liturgical year, there's now one more ;) --GA
It seems likely that Bach planned from the start ... whose opinion is this? I'm assuming that's from one of the sources, so "Leisinger/Frindle/Veen considered it likely that ..."
I haven't read any source that did not think so. Not all of them would agree that Picander was the librettist, but nobody had doubts about the plan to use the music for both occasions. I just try to not add more than 3 refs to one fact. --GA
composing only new recitatives Give the reader a hint, "composing only new recitatives (spoken sections) ..."
I'd hesitate. (It's not spoken but sung.) recitative and aria are very common in classical music, - perhaps compare some FA about Bach works. --GA
It seems likely that Picander, again, attribute that opinion to whoever said it.
I thought that it becomes clear by what follows: it must have been someone who knew both the other text and the music very well, and there are not many candidates. - Today however, two new sources didn't think it was him, one thinking that Bach did it himself. I'll think about it. (The same situation, btw, is in the very famous Christmas Oratorio, - practically everybody thinks that he wrote its text but he didn't publish it.) --GA
arias of four Biblical character characters (plural)? I was also going to say that Biblical should be lower case, but hunting around I see that it's sometimes considered correct to capitalize it, so whatever.
typo, thank you for the catch, - you are welcome to make obvious fixes yourself! --GA
Simon (tenor) (and likewise for the others) WP:SEAOFBLUE
the brackets are not blue - what would you suggest? --GA
It takes a careful reading (and younger eyes than mine) to notice that the brackets are a different color. I've played with this a bit and can't come up with anything that really works better. Maybe one of the other reviewers might have some ideas?
The cantata, different from the secular model, is now opened by ... I'm not sure what you mean by "now". Are you referring to modern performances in contrast to how it would have been performed in the 18th century?
I added that "now" only today, but will drop it if it causes misunderstanding. Perhaps "in contrast" is clear enough about that - while the major five movements have the same music in both cantatas - the unusual opening by two contrasting movements is only there in the Easter cantata. --GA
Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles,[11] twice, in the morning service ... this seems kind of complicated. I suggest breaking it up: "Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles.[11] They gave two performances; one in the morning service ..."
taken, thank you --GA
The Bach scholar Markus Rathey I think people can assume his area of scholarship is Bach.
I'll try that. I tend to describe a bit when people don't have an article. --GA
For Easter Sunday 1738, 6 April 1738 don't repeat the year.
yes --GA
the assignment of a flauto traverso I'd add "(transverse flute")
it was only that until I noticed that it doesn't mean the same thing, flauto traverso being specifically Baroque, the other any flute blown sideways --GA
He made several changes; Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface, the insertion of a measure in the first movement, the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument in the second movement, in the alto aria a different underlay of the text in the middle section and five additional measures at the end for better proportion, and the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria.[1][33] This is an overly-complex sentence and should be broken up.
My major concern about the Movements section is that it's broken up into a large number of small subsections, which in turn have lots of short paragraphs (some just a single sentence). I think this would work better if you got rid of the level-4 headings and turned it into running prose, mostly one (substantially longer) paragraph for each movement.
I am not sure I understand because the level-4-headers are for the movements. I could, of course, throw everything under one of those headers into one paragraph, but tried to visually brake when one para deals with the secular cantata but another with the Easter work, or 1 and 2 are handled together because they belong together but then comes info about only 1, then only 2, then again common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying but for me, the level-4-headers are almost a must to get oriented. (I like for example that visibly the recitative sections are shorter, providing weight at a glance.) The headers relate to the links in the table, and are consistent with most other GA cantata articles and all other FA cantata articles. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You use a few different styles for translating phrases. Early on you have the German in italics followed by the English inside parentheses and qoutes, i.e. Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). Later on I see both in roman and quoted "Kommt, eilet und laufet" ("Come, hasten and run") and both in roman and just the German quoted "Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares). Looking at the source, I don't see any difference in the markup, and I'm at a loss to explain why different examples render differently, but this should be tracked down.
Oh, I see. The three versions are:
{{lang|de|Kommt, fliehet und eilet}} ("Come, flee and hurry")
"{{langr|de|Kommt, eilet und laufet}}" ("Come, hasten and run"))
"{{langr|de|Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen}}" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares))
The roman vs italic is the use of {{lang}} vs {{langr}} and the quotes are right there in the markup. Pick one style and stick with it.
sorry, no: we have to distinguish two things, titles and text. I don't have German phrases italic, or half the article would be italic, but titles: yes italic (lang). Their translations, however, are no titles, therefore not italic and sentence case. Reviewer UC talked me into giving the translations quotation marks (see that review). Text, however, is just in quotation marks (langr), and its translations just in brackets. It may seem confusing that the same words are sometimes a title, and at other times the beginning of text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and its character as a musical drama The word "character" has (at least) two different meanings. In most places in the article, you're using it in the sense of "a biblical character", but in this place you're using it as "style", which I think it a little confusing, so perhaps find a different word here.
would you know one? - "style" is not it, and English not my first language - I rephrased it. --GA
Are "manuscript" and "autograph" synonyms? You use them both and it's not clear if there's a distinction being drawn.
they are not, manuscript is anything written by hand, and autograph (manuscript) is an author's manuscript - I used "manuscript" in the sentence "when he wrote a new manuscript copy" when it's clear that the author wrote, and about the manuscript parts for which it's not clear who wrote them, - usually scribes would perform that job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
historically informed performances are shown with a green background This causes accessibility problems, per MOS:COLOR.
OK, that does it for me. For the most part, this is very nice and made for an enjoyable read for somebody (i.e. me) with very little famiarity of the subject. Most of the above are minor issues. The biggest thing in my mind is the layout of the Movements section. RoySmith(talk)18:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trumpets play a broken chord, you wikilink chord, but it would be better to link broken chord. Unfortunately, that just redirects to Chord (music) which doesn't actually say anything about broken chords. Arpeggio talks about broken chords but only to the extent of saying that arpeggios are one type. So this could all use some clarification. Perhaps add a short explanation in-line of what you mean by "broken chord"? Does it mean arpeggio here, or something else? Or at least, add something to Chord (music) which explains what a broken chord is (I can't think of anybody more qualified to do that) and then link broken chord directly to that section.
Finally, I return, Roy. I am not sure. It's not an arpeggio, when the notes of a chord are not played at the exactly same time, which is possible on a piano, but in fast succession, like on a harp, but still sounding together. Here, the notes of a major chord form the melody one after the other, like steps or jumps, and I don't know how to say that. I actually thought that it is a familiar phrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the slow reply. I think it's quite nicely resolved now. Tbh I am not sure I was listening to the right place – is it the trumpets at the very start of no. 11, "Preis und Dank"? If so I think fanfare works better than something involving chords, but I am happy to discuss further. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS In celebration of this enquiry I got my natural trumpet out to have a look at the Oratorio. I can confirm I'm still a terrible nat player! DBaK (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not a fan of how the Movements section is laid out, and I still think there could be more explaining of some music terms (such as "recitatives") per WP:TECHNICAL, but overall this reads well and taught me some things about a topic I previously knew almost nothing about, so I'll support on that basis, and with the expectation that music SMEs will be digging deeper into the those aspects of the article. RoySmith(talk)23:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the melody formed by the three first notes sung, text: "Preis und Dank", which are played first by the first trumpet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source says that the first measure belongs to the trumpets alone, and when the voices enter (and the instruments repeat), the voices sing a "Devise" (motto) - the text "Preis und Dank" - to music taken from the trumpets. How can we say that without saying exactly the same (because it would by copyvio)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seen now, will reply only here: I looked now at the score, for some original research. Movement 11, p. 54 in the Leisinger pdf source, no measure numbers. I can see that the trumpets are not written in D major (but C major) which is confusing to me ;) - The bass voices sing "Preis und Dank" on the next page, measures 9 to 10, D A F-sharp, three notes of the D major chord downwards. The trumpets have one measure of triplets in preparation in measure 1, but then the same intervals in measures 2 to 3, just with a dotted rhythm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have much to say since i was the GA reviewer, but i think the lead has too many paragraphs. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 4 or less, but i think 5 is fine. 750h+06:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking! I moved this in chronology after I couldn't find it. The typical FA doesn't have 4 versions, I guess, which should be distinguished for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk me up as another "reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation"!
Should we link less common instruments like oboe d'amore in the lead? (I have a "was in high school band many years ago" level of familiarity with types of instruments, so that and the flauto traverso were new to me). I see they're linked further down in the body, but links in the lead are probably worth repeating.
We can but some may not know violin, and then we get many links, to instruments all featured in Baroque ensemble. --GA
We could but it would feel like a link to ball when talking about an individual game. Also: cantata has so many meanings that it may confuse rather than enlighten. --GA
"It seems likely that Picander who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata also wrote..." - the "who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata" clause should be offset by commas.
done --GA
"Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music." - presumably this should be 1733, not 1732? And can we work in a reference to the death of Augustus II the Strong? Readers will probably question why there was a year of mourning.
1733, thank you. (I shouldn't write from memory). - There seem to be so many things (not mentioned) more relevant to the music than who exactly died eight years after it was written. But if it would help you, we could. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something as simple as "an official year of mourning with no festive music, following the death of Augustus II, the Elector of Saxony". I think an obvious question readers could have is "whose death was so important that they couldn't celebrate for a whole year?" It would probably also be a good idea to situate Leipzig in the Electorate of Saxony earlier in the article, which would make clear the connection between the death of Augustus and the year of mourning.
"In the third recitative, a dialogue of a man and a woman in the secular work, the two women express their burning desire to see Jesus again, "Indessen seufzen wir" (Meanwhile we sigh)," - there are some issues with this sentence, which I think has probably been rewritten one time too many. We're missing a verb in the clause about the secular work, and there's a missing transition to the sacred version in the next clause. It also ends with a comma, not a period.
Splitting. Sometimes I still write English like German. --GA
I struggle with this sometimes when I'm translating German sources ;)
"Dürr's 1971 analysis still showed a critical view,[12] but acknowledged the work as in the tradition of Easter plays." - I assume the footnote should be moved to the end of the sentence? Or do we need an additional reference for the second half of the sentence?
I don't know. A reference for the critical view seems more important that for something said earlier, with a reference to Dürr. --GA
Why do some sources with multiple pages not have page numbers? Leisinger 2003 for example seems to have 104 pages. Some pagenumbers are also linked and others not. Some websites are marked as website and others with an URL in the "website" parameters. What make Musik an sich, Rondo, funk-stiftung, musica-dei-donum.org and Bach Cantatas website a reliable source? Is the Michael Maul de:Michael Maul? Uwe Wolf seems to be a false link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into it.
pagenumbers: I try to link Wolff 2002 and Dürr/Jones
tried to unify websites
source quality:
Musik an sich: ref only supporting, could be dropped
Rondo: magazine for classical music and jazz, review only used to support existence of recordings and different ways to interpret Bach's change to movement 3
funk-stiftung: private non-profit foundation to support different field including culture, ref only supporting
musica-dei-donum.org a review by an author used often for classical music, ref only supporting, could be dropped
Bach Cantatas: for the longest time Wikipedia's only source for Bach's cantatas, the most detailed information about their recordings. In this article, it's used only for the recordings. In one recent GA review, the reviewer accepted it as cited in other cases. I forgot where exactly, sadly. If we don't want to do that, options are to split the discography off, as for BWV 1, or to support each recording by a supporting source.
The only page of interest in the Leisinger (Carus edition) is the foreword, pp VI–VII, which are given.
Repeating: it's only used for the recordings, and Muziekweb is also referenced to support that they exist, but the detail and depth of information available is much higher for Bach Cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work so far Gerda. I think the lead might be too unwieldy; MOS:LEADLENGTH says "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words"—right now, you're sitting at ~525. I don't think this article is long enough to warrent the extra 120 or so. The revision paragraphs (2nd, 3rd, 5th) can be streamlined. – Aza24 (talk)06:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking! - It's not length but that we have to cover 3 and more variants. I will try, and you are welcome to do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the paragraph on Japan, thanks for checking, at least the extra search was not completely in waste! Shapeyness (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
. I'd also format the "4/4" as "4
_(20157463550).jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_2019_World_Championships.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
![[24]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1410070139912-62B4Q52C8TTPPQ71MA6K/image-asset.jpeg?format=2500w){kind=link}
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
![[25]](/media/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bb/20131227014125%21Megalosaurus_dinosaur.png){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
