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

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, 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 allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the ((@FAC)) notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the ((FAC)) template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates ((Article history)). Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating[edit] How to nominate an article Nomination procedure 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. Commenting, etc[edit] Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Narwhal

Also for easier reference:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Narwhal/archive1
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Narwhal/archive2

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. For the past 2 months I've been chipping in and rephrasing this article. I've recruited numerous users who provided useful tips. This is my third nomination, and I'm determined to get this article featured. I feel it's ready. Please provide your reviews below. Thank you, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Paging previous reviewers; let's get this show on the road. @RoySmith, LittleJerry, TompaDompa, UndercoverClassicist, Esculenta, Casliber, Sandbh, Jens Lallensack, Johnbod, AirshipJungleman29, and Draken Bowser: ——Serial Number 54129 18:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

Just some random comments as I spot things. Looking at Special:Permalink/1226680372:

• The rise of science towards the end of the 17th century led to a decreased belief in magic and alchemy. After it was determined that narwhal tusks were not effective antidotes, the practice of using them for this purpose was subsequently abandoned.[101]

  Are you sure you cited the right reference? None of this appears to be mentioned in the source.

• Narwhals are internationally protected and hunting one is illegal. However, Inuit are permitted to hunt narwhals for subsistence. Narwhals are very difficult to encroach and present challenging targets for hunters.[86]

  I'm not finding where the cited source supports this statement.

• The narwhal was one of many species originally described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 Systema Naturae.[5]

  I'm having trouble with this. The citation says "p. 824", but I think what that really means is that there's 824 pages in the book. The URL links to page 56, which, while I can't read the Latin, doesn't appear to be about Narwhals. Also, not clear what "originally" means in this context.

• @FAC coordinators: I'm not sure of the process here; does this nomination require a full source spot-check? RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, it does, yes. And a plagiarism check. If you felt able to oblige that would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly (Mariah Carey song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second single from Mariah Carey's 1997 album Butterfly. It was a commercial disaster for her, receiving the lowest pop radio airplay of any of her songs in the US at the time and ending a five-year run of top-ten singles in the UK. However, it was nominated for a Grammy. Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

• I think a link for programmed drums would be helpful if one is available.

  Added

• I am jumping ahead a bit, but are there any citations to support her performance of the song during The Celebration of Mimi. It also seems that Carey has performed the "Butterfly Reprise" version, and I think that should be included if possible.

  Added

• This part, (While separating from Mottola and leaving their home in December 1996, a melody and the words). reads that "a melody and the words" are the ones separating and leaving the home. To keep this as close as possible, I would say (While Carey separated from Mottola and left their home in December 1996) and change the later instance of Carey's to her.

  Reworded to your suggestion

• For File:Walter Afanasieff and Tamara Gee 1 (cropped).jpg, I would include the year that the photo was taken to the caption.

  Added

• R&B should be linked on the first instance in the article.

  Linked

• I'm uncertain of the wording for this part, (Later in 2007, Carey specified she wrote the song). I get that "Later" is used to avoid repetition with the prior sentence, but I think saying something like (Carey specified in 2007 that she) would be better.

  Reworded

• I believe the audio sample would need a stronger caption to better justify its inclusion in the article.

  Edited

• Should there be any discussions in this article on how butterflies would later become one of Carey's trademarks?

  I think this is more for the album article. Even in the song's video, it's mostly about horses and there are no butterflies lol.

• Thank you for the response. I agree as it seems more pertinent to the album article, but I wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be beneficial to have a separate infobox for "Fly Away" (Butterfly Reprise)? I was only curious as it does have a separate subsection, which is the target for the redirect. I am not saying it is needed, but I wanted to ask as it was something that I thought about while reading the article.

  I tested it out but I thought it was mostly duplicative as the section is only two paragraphs

  Understandable. I had a feeling that would be the case, but I wanted to get your opinion on it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part, (The latter described Carey's persona), I believe it would be better to just say "Gray" instead of "The latter". It would be clearer so that way readers would not have to look back on the previous sentence.

  Adjusted

• I think it would be worth expanding on the KQED review as I find it too vague in its current form (i.e. what do they mean by "peculiar"?). The review itself is interesting, particularly in its interpretation that the music video is about bestiality, but nonetheless, more context would be useful here.

  I'm inferring bestiality as a joke; added "due to the peephole and horse shots"

  The bestiality part is definitely a joke so apologies if I was inferring that should be added lol. I was pointing that out mostly to say that this review was odd more than anything. Thank you for clarifying this in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all of the comments I have for now. I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. I do really enjoy this song, although I admittedly do not really seek it out. I wish it was given more of a chance for commercial success. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments as always. I think the song is probably her most even mix of vocals, authenticity, and production on a ballad. Heartfox (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help, and I agree with you on the mixing. I will go through the article again tomorrow. I doubt that I will find much, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur O. Austin

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever listened to a radio broadcast or admired the pretty blinking lights on a radio transmitter tower? Have you ever wondered how aircraft survive being hit by lightning? Has it ever struck you as odd that every electrical appliance you buy has a label warning you about the dangers of electrocution if you get it wet, but the high-tension lines that bring power to your house do just fine outside in the rain and snow? If so, you'll want to read this article to find out how some guy you've probably never heard of was a big part of making all that work. RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

• All images have good alt-text.
• File:Arthur O. Austin 1933.jpg has been found to be in the public domain. Good to go.
• File:Residence of O. C. Barber, Anna Dean Farm (12840459315).jpg, no known copyright restrictions according to the Miami University Libraries.
• File:Arthur O. Austin 1905.jpg, public domain
• File:US Patent 1968868 (A. O. Austin, Radiotower).pdf Public domain due to being a government document.
• File:Austin Ring WMCA WNYC cropped and annotated.jpg Published under CC B.Y. 2.0, and modified by RoySmith, good to go!
• File:Ohio Insulator Company high voltage lab.jpg Public domain.
• All images are appropriately positioned and relevant to the text. I think we're good to go here; Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

An interesting account of Austin's various exploits. I'm left wondering about two things:

• Did he have any friends or close associates, at college or later in life?

• What, if any, was his impact on local society through politics, association membership and/or patronage?
  • I haven't seen anything that talks about those things.

And two pointers on the "Personal life"-section:

• "The couple were in an accident in 1919" -- what kind of accident?
  • I've filled in some details. It turns out, it was kind of gruesome. I've left the gory stuff out; people can read the source if they want. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's quite enough, no more details needed! /DB

• "By the 1920s, Austin was a wealthy man." -- since this is the first mention of wealth in the body it should be briefly stated how he acquired his fortune.
  • The source doesn't go into details. It does say "He apparently hit it off well with management, and this, coupled with his particular expertise in insulator design, provided him free rein for innovating and developing products for Ohio Brass." from which one can infer he was well paid by Ohio Brass, but I think putting a statement like that in the article would be kind of WP:OR-ish. However, it's good that you mentioned this because it made me see a typo, which I've fixed (1920s -> 1930s). RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to specify "US patents"? He has a lot of Canadian duplicates, but I don't know how these things are usually counted/represented. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. What I've done so far is to use "U.S. Patent" when I'm referring to a specific patent by number and just plain "patent" for more generic mentions. I think that makes sense, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise or to consider any specific suggestions. RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I suggest shuffling the lede a bit to put what he's most known for closer to the start, in the second sentence, say (or maybe even flipping the two paragraphs). Would help to clarify who he is more than all the names of his non-notable companies. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Done. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Stasova

Nominator(s): —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Nadezhda Stasova, an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Maria Trubnikova and Anna Filosofova. Stasova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. The article underwent a thorough GA review from SusunW last December.

Note: if this nomination is successful, I hope to subsequently nominate Filosofova's article for FA. Maria Trubnikova just went through FAC and was promoted last week. The three articles have very similar sourcing, so any reviewers interested in this one may be interested in that nomination as well. Nominators from Trubnikova's review (Serial Number 54129, Buidhe, Gog the Mild, Averageuntitleduser, Ajpolino, Mujinga, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Borsoka) may be interested in this one and will already be familiar with some of the content and most of the sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

• File:Nadezhda Stasova restored higher resolution (cropped).jpg is a retouched version of a public domain, both due to its age. However, I think it qualifies for the preferred PD-Russia-expired license tag, as it has an unknown author and was published prior to 1929. I will say that I am not sure the retouching is useful here? The upscaling has added detail to a point where it seems more like an artists' interpretation of the image, rather than an accurate depiction of the original photo. I would suggest cropping File:Надежда Васильевна Стасова. Деятельница по высшему женскому образованию в России.jpg (with the license change) for this image; and since the following image exists, it might be good just to swap that into the infobox and have the lower res image from the All-Russian League for Women's Equality in-article.
• File:Nadezhda Stasova by Repin.jpg A good image with an accurate public domain tag. Per MOS:PORTRAIT, it should be left-aligned. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, I see your point on the All-Russian League photo. What do you think about leaving it out entirely and just using the Repin portrait, which is very striking, in the infobox? If the body then feels a little under-illustrated we could add a small pair of pictures of Trubnikova and Filosofova to emphasize the close collaboration of the "triumvirate". —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah! That's a great idea. (And I forgot to mention this in my initial run-through, but both images have excellent alt-text.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! I've now implemented the changes to the images as discussed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by SusunW

Sources appear to be reliable. I extensively reviewed them during the GA process and found that while they are English language sources, they relied primarily on Russian sourcing. Comments to follow. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are some publishing locations given and others not given? References should be consistent.

• Fixed: added publishing locations to books where it was missing; the only exceptions are those where the name of the publisher contains the location, or non-books.

• "Stasova was the fourth of seven siblings", Muravyeva p. 526 says 5th of 8; Ruthchild 2009 p 75 1 of 7 siblings; Ruthchild 2008 p 151 says 4th of 7. Any idea why the discrepancy? Perhaps you should just say she was one of the middle children of 7 or 8 siblings?

• Modified along the lines of your suggestion, with a footnote describing the discrepancy.

• Ruthchild 2008 does not have page numbers for her entry. According to this version, her biography appears in volume 4: Seton-Zia, on pages 151-152, which should be in the citation.

• Added

• The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Women's Biography editor1-link=Jenny Uglow; 2nd editor is Maggy Hendry. (Were it me, because it has been tradition to obscure women's names, I would state their given names.) Also note, you do not give what edition you are using for the citation. I only find Nadezhda on page 550 in the 4th edition, which confirms only that Elena was her niece and a revolutionary. The previous page 549 has Elena's biography and shows she became a party official. I would likely change the chapters to reflect both bios and give a page range, for whatever edition you are using.

• Added per your suggestion! Thanks for the comments so far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "retained their stations in the good graces of the upper class", no page numbers given, but both sources are multi-page references. Ruthchild chapter 6 appears on pages 69-84; Johanson chapter 2 appears on pages 28-50. Pages ranges should be given in the reference citation and in the in-line citation should show the specific page for each source.

• Added

• "differed on their preferred approach", cited to Engel p. 76, but that page is not within the chapter cited and is about a completely different group of women. On pp 58-59, Engel talks about the split in philosophy, but does not mention German or Russian factions. I do find that factions are contained in Ruthchild 2009, p 76 and Stites p. 69

• Adjusted to correct this error.

• I am confused about note "a" citation to Zelnick, since the note specifically attributes the information to Stites, which I find on p. 69. Who is Stites, i.e. note should give his full name and the fact that he is a historian specializing in Russian culture so we know why he is authoritative.

• Comment: I think that one got messed up as citations were moved around - it was supposed to be to Stites. I've fixed it.

• "Sunday school movement in Russia", p 154 of Zelnik and p 527 of Muravyeva don't classify who is attending the classes. (Muravyeva does say working class women attended the later courses in Sastova's home). You need to add p. 156 to Zelnick where he describes the students. I also think that it is imperative to add a note that these were not the same as Western Sunday school religious instruction courses, but instead private schools focused on combating illiteracy with classes held on Sunday, which was Russian workers' traditional day off, per Zelnick p. 151

• Adjusted as suggested.

• "Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales" Ruthchild 2008 needs p 152; Stites is not on p. 34 but on p. 69. Neither of these give the number of women involved and I cannot find an accessible copy of Kaufman, but Ruthchild 2009 p. 78 says 27 women were employed.

• Comment: Stites does say "Some forty members" while Kaufman puts it around 35. No doubt the number fluctuated over the years of the artel's existence. I've modified the sentence to be a little less specific, accordingly. Page #s added.

Second comment: Rappaport puts it at "One hundred women" in the collective - some widely varying numbers!

• "printers, binders, and suppliers" Rutchild 2008 needs p. 152

• Done

• "lasted until 1879" Ruthchild 2009 needs pp 78-79

• Done

• "plan of action was agreed upon I don't see on either of the cited pages. Actually just found this. It is in Stites, p. 75, but the version of events is different. Source says Evgenia Konradi presented a motion for a women's university at a naturalists' conference in 1867 and when it was rejected, she gathered those who expressed support in Trubnikova's apartment, where they made a plan.
• "petition to Tsar Alexander II." p. 37 of Johanson says the petition was sent to "K.F. Kessler, the rector of St Petersburg University"; Engel p. 60 says they presented the petition to Dmitrii Tolstoi, the Minister of Education; Rappaport p. 671 says Stasova and Filosova went to persuade Dmitrii Tolstoi, but says nothing about delivering the petition to him. Can you clarify? Stites p. 75 says the women delivered the petition to the rector who supported the idea and sent it to the Ministry of Education to approve. That version is confirmed by Johanson pp 37-38
• I don't see the quote "regular, serious courses" on either on Stites p. 34, although p 75 confirms the university approved the plan.
• I don't see any discussion of widespread opposition except in Stites, p. 76 says the government was hostile to the plan.
• "less-advanced, mixed-gender public lectures" is not on Stites p. 34, but is on p. 77
• "host courses for women in Saint Petersburg", Millyutin allowed medical courses only and Johanson 1979 needs to show p. 437
• I don't see the subjects they were allowed to take in Muravyeva, but the other two are fine.
• "in 1872, the Vladimir college" per Muravyeva p. 528 it happened in 1871

• Comments on all of the above. I was working from an excerpt of Stites which had different page numbers, but citing from the full book, I've fixed the page numbers as you suggest. I've tweaked a number of sentences to make the path of the fight for higher education a little clearer, and fix some details (such as who the petition was actually addressed to - good catch!). I think all of the above comments should be addressed by these changes. Let me know if anything still needs tweaking. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "men's universities was still barred: pages 59-62 and 74-76 are not part of chapter II of Johanson 1987 instead part of chapter 4. Women's Higher Courses: A Domestic Safety Valve pp 59-76. Were it me, I would probably take out the chapter names altogether for Johanson since she wrote the whole book and just cite it as a whole. I get that the PDFs in DeGruyter are by chapter, but if you do it by chapter, then each time the chapter changes, you need to change the reference citation and in-line link.

• Done

• "tuition was therefore high", again not Chapter 2 of Johanson, but chapter 4. (You can avoid changing chapters if you just take them all out and cite only the book.)

• Done

• "for the courses in 1883" should be cited to Muravyeva p 528 and Rappaport pp 671-672

• Done

• "four-year university schedule" is not in Muravyeva or Rappaport. It is in Johanson chapter 4, pp 74-76 and chapter 6. The Bitter End: The Conservative Assault on Higher Education pp. 95-103 (Again you can avoid changing chapters if you just take them all out and cite only the book.)

• Done

• "were shut down in 1886" is not in Rappaport. Same comments on Johanson as previous comment. But, the courses weren't shut down, exactly. Enrollment was suspended pending regulatory changes, which allowed students who were already enrolled to graduate. It does say that without new guidelines the courses would cease but also says a commission "finish[ed] its work" on women's education in 1888, with new regulations pp 97-98 (Perhaps it's a technicality, but if a student enrolled prior to the suspension of enrollment in 1886 they would have completed the 4-year course, in 1890, one year after Alex III allowed enrollment to begin again.)

• Modified the sentence to make this clearer.

• Muravyeva does say p. 528 that Stasova got Alex III to allow enrollment again, but Johanson p. 98 credits that to Elena I. Likhacheva?

• Comment: No doubt both played a role - I've added a parenthetical and a cite to include Likhacheva's involvement, but not gone into detail, as the article is about Stasova.

• "Children's Aid Society" is not in Rappaport.

• Removed stray cite

• "as a kindergarten, hostel, and employment service" is not in Muravyeva's bio of Stasova, nor is p 500. P 500 is from Natalia Novikova and is a bio of Shabanova, Anna (1848–1932) pp 498-502. It does verify the info, but you need to correct the chapter and page range for this reference from A Biographical Dictionary of Women's Movements and Feminisms...

• Added as a separate cite, given the different author

Overall, I find no copyvios. Fixing mostly citation page number discrepancies above should resolve the technical issues. Thorough check of all sourcing reveals no major deviations between sources and article. Minor discrepancies noted above. SusunW (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your extremely dedicated work in fixing page numbers, catching discrepancies, and generally giving the article as thorough of a look as anyone could. I really appreciate all of your comments! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmetal

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having attempted to go around the FAC buoy eight times without success, here’s my ninth nomination. Over the course of its FAC history, the article has attracted 10 supports and two "inclined to" supports, but never with enough clear air.

Your consideration and feedback will be gratefully appreciated.

If it succeeds this time, it will complement the metalloid FA. The long-term aim is to then bring the metal article up to FA status, completing the trifecta. Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've read through this article and commented on some of the previous nominations. In my opinion, it now meets the criteria. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the article is great, but has way too many distracting non-reference footnotes. Footnotes should be rare and only used to clarify non-informational aspects. For example a footnote might explain why a formula in the article differs from a reference. Incorporate on-topic footnotes into the article and use wikilinks for related material. (I made a similar comment on the Talk page).

Johnjbarton (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: Thanks for your feedback. Here’s my perspective on the use of footnotes in the article, in the context of the Wikipedia FAC criteria:

1a. Well-written: Its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.

1b. Comprehensive: It neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.

1c. Well-researched: It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.

Footnotes are particularly useful for the subject matter, which is characterized by nuances, caveats, exceptions, and fuzziness. This is especially true for nonmetals in chemistry, where complex details often require additional clarification or context.

As I understand it, footnotes are often used as an alternative to:

• Comments or annotations
• Additional information
• Longer explanations
• Qualifications

These might otherwise be too digressive for the main text.

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy requiring footnotes to be rare and only used to clarify non-informational aspects. Instead, I believe their use can enhance the article's depth and readability without overwhelming the main content. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, I'm going to review the footnotes, and will let you know. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by YBG

I will add comments here as they occur to me. YBG (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) In § Abundance, we read the following note:

In the Earth's core there may be around 10¹³ tons of xenon, in the form of stable XeFe₃ and XeNi₃ intermetallic compounds. This could explain why "studies of the Earth's atmosphere have shown that more than 90% of the expected amount of Xe is depleted."

My question: are all of three of these facts directly stated in the reference (Zhu et al. 2014, pp. 644–648)?

• (a) The amount & forms of Xe in the core
• (b) The quote re atmospheric studies
• (c) That (a) "may explain" (b)

—— YBG (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(2) § Uses has little cohesiveness; the previous version was better but not by much. The lists of element symbols are understandable only to the expert; replacing them with element names would make it almost as tedious as the previous list of uses.

I suggest developing this section along these lines:

1. Characteristic uses of nonmetals. Uses shared by all (or almost all) nonmetals and by no (or almost no) metals. List three or maybe four; no need to be comprehensive. You’ve got a start to this already, just grab the references from the (to be deleted) table. If you can connect the use to some shared chemical or physical property of nonmetals, so much the better. Expected reader reaction: This set of elements really is a cohesive set with shared uses based on shared properties.
2. Characteristic uses of nonmetal subsets. Maybe start this with semiconductors and insulators which contrast with the use of metals as conductors. Expected reader reaction: This set of elements may be cohesive but also display variability.
3. Variety of uses. A half-dozen or so uses that display the variety and variability of nonmetals, contrasting with the relative sameness of metals and uses of metals. Expected reader reaction: Wow, there is so much variety.
4. Exotic uses. Perhaps an extension of the previous list of uses, perhaps a list in its own right. Expected reader reaction: What a bizarre bunch of elements!
5. Surprisingly common. Here’s where your household accoutrements come in. I see this as a list of all nonmetals with where you would find them used in your home. Expected reader reaction: These bizarre and exotic elements are right here under my nose!

This is just one idea of how to organize this section. Above all, I’d say ditch the tables. I generally prefer tables to paragraphs, but in this case, I think pure paragraphs would be better. YBG (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Yes. The title of the article is relevant: "Reactions of xenon with iron and nickel are predicted in the Earth’s inner core". The authors write:

"Studies of the Earth’s atmosphere have shown that more than 90% of the expected amount of Xe is depleted...under these conditions, Xe and Fe/Ni can form intermetallic compounds, of which XeFe3 and XeNi3 are energetically the most stable. This shows that the Earth’s inner core is a natural reservoir for Xe storage and provides a solution to the missing Xe paradox...The Earth’s core, which contains approximately one-third of the Earth’s mass, has also been considered a potential Xe reservoir...If Xe were captured in the Earth’s inner core, it would have to form chemically stable compounds with Fe and Ni to resist any release into the atmosphere. Here, we establish just such chemical reactions of Xe and Fe/Ni...Our results reveal that XeFe₃ and XeNi₃ are readily stable under the conditions in the Earth’s inner core...Accordingly, the Earth’s inner core is a viable natural reservoir for depleted Xe...the total mass of depleted Xe is on the order of 1 × 10¹³ kg (ref. 2), which is about ten orders of magnitude lower than that of the Earth’s inner core (9.67 × 10²² kg). Thus, storage of the entire missing Xe would therefore make a negligible contribution to the total mass and density of the Earth’s inner core. The present findings might also shed light on the Earth’s evolution by virtue of the model of the missing Xe in the Earth’s inner core. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smokefoot

This article is the hobby horse of a clique of editors who composed the article and defend their turf very effectively. Those characteristics are weaknesses.

Comment. Not so; 80.9% of edits to the article have been made by me. About 83.8% of the text has been added by me. There's no clique of editors. Nor is there any evidence of a clique defending their "turf". Quite the contrary; from the nonmetal talk page there's an abundance of critical feedback, which I've taken into account; ditto applies to the past eight FAC nominations. Along the way, nine differing editors have expressed support, or indicated they were close to, inclined to, or believed they could support. Between them, these editors have made about 13% of edits and roughly 8% of content. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that your position Smokefoot, is compromised by your view that "I am not a fan of classifications within chemistry". I offer this in the context of classification being deeply rooted in chemistry literature, and widely utilised. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by @Smokefoot is not about the article content. Who wrote the article and why is irrelevant and should be ignored. Johnjbarton (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article? Let's see:

• "Fourteen elements are almost always recognized as nonmetals:..."

but

• "Three more are commonly classed as nonmetals, but some sources list them as "metalloids""

still not finished:

• "One or more of the six elements most commonly recognized as metalloids are sometimes instead counted as nonmetals"

So, scope = 14 elements ± 3 ± 6.

The point of the article is unclear. If one wants to read about noble gases or about halogens or about chalcogens, and other columns of the main group, then fine: these articles exist (and always invite improvements). But the article on Nonmetal is a collection of only some of these elements. So who wants to read about a clique's idea of their subset of elements (which ranges in numer from 14 to 24)?

Comment. The point of the article is made clear by its title and hatnote. It's not about groups of the periodic table. As the article makes clear, the classifications involved have a history dating back to as early as 1844. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some elements are nonmetals, which are defined by certain physical properties for those elements. Most of the article is not about the elements, but about compounds. The non-metal aspect disappears once the article crosses into compounds. There is no effective distinction between nonmetal halides and the halides of neighboring elements. Futhermore, even within the group of nonmetal halides/oxides/nitrides... there is little commonality. The article struggles to delineate how the chemistry of these compounds defines them or holds this article together. So, again the scope is unclear.

Comment. As the article makes clear, the literature defines nonmetals by certain physical or chemical propeties, including the acidic or basic nature of their compounds. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The applications section is one area that clearly illustrates the struggle. Carbon is a one of the nonmetals. Does this article usefully summarizes the applications of carbon compounds? The article seems to allocate more words to the applications of radon than it does to carbon. A reader would be misinformed.

Comment. That's a good call Smokefoot; I've adjusted the section so as to show which nonmetals have which uses. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation: The article is packed with factoids and eye candy. Nonexperts will be impressed, because collections of technical facts required advanced knowledge.

Advice: crop the article into:

• discussion of the scope of the term "nonmetal"
• present properties for those elements
• discuss history of the term "nonmetal" (vs "main group", "metalloid")
• transfer other content to well defined article on elements or groups (halogens, noble gases, etc.).

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that the extant structure works well: 1. Definition and applicable elements; 2. General properties; 3. Types; 4. Abundance, sources and uses; 5. History, background and taxonomy Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red fuming nitric acid

.

In the previous FA nomination, I challenged this very visible component of the article, but my challenge was basically disregarded. I reiterate my challenge and invite this tight group of editors to ask the wider community some of the following:

• is Red fuming nitric acid even a compound? (ans: no)
• is Red fuming nitric acid even nitrogen-rich? (ans: no)

My point is this, even when an expert and a colleague (i.e. me) challenges their view, these editors stick with the party line. Now maybe these editors are more expert than me (entirely possible), but jeesh, please break out of the huddle: if one very experienced colleague is perplexed by this caption, certainly nonexpert readers would be even more misled. Here I am only raising one snippet of a long article. The article is packed with claims.

My point is that these editors dont want input, they want to steamroller into FA-dom by relentless effort. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In FAC #8 all you said was, "Some possibly problematic details - nitric acid (which might not even be a compound) is "nitrogen-rich"?", to which I responded, "The term "nitrogen-rich" refers to the presence of dinitrogen tetroxide in red fuming nitric acid, which is responsible for its distinct color." As you say, even what is commonly thought of as nitric acid i.e. HNO₃ at a concentration of 68% in water, is not really a compound due its diassociation into ions. All that said, I've changed the caption so that it now reads, "Nitric acid (here colored due to the presence of nitrogen dioxide) ..." Sandbh (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response: With this HNO3 figure, I needed to challenge and re-challenge. Ditto for the Applications section (radon trumps carbon). These two examples cross the line from the usual glitches to downright misinformation. And we're on the 9th revision! And the responses from the editorial clique were obstinate. So what am I supposed to do now? Comb through this article and gird myself to debate other gaps?

In any case, good luck with your work.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tx Smokefoot. For HNO3 you made a passing comment the 1st time, to which I responded. This time you've made a more substantial comment, with I've addressed. For the applications section you asked if they were for the element or its compounds, which prompted me to add a footnote to the article. Feel free to post your evidence of an editorial clique. Elsewhere, your other sensible comments have resulted in improvements to the artice. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lagonda Taraf

Nominator(s): 750h+ 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My third nomination, following the Aston Martin DB9 and the Aston Martin Rapide articles which both have been promoted. This article is about a drop-dead gorgeous saloon car that was prouduced by the British automaker Aston Martin between 2015 and 2016; less than 200 units were built. Despite being short (just below 1000 words), I believe that it is comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Enjoy the read! 750h+ 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123

Let me look through. A rather short article, but I agree it seems well-written and comprehensive at first glance.

• I think the lead could have more of the technical details that's later elaborated in the body. For now, the lead seems rather short.

done

• "priced at over one million dollars." – I think I would write "priced at over US$1 million".

done

• "Aston Martin's Q division conducted the project" – not sure if conducted is the proper term. Like wouldn't it be "executed" or "taken on"?

done, changed to "carried out"

• "Most of this testing" – "Most of the test"

done

• "that only one hundred cars" ... "increased to two hundred units". Why not just use 100 cars and 200 units per the MOS on numbers? Not that you can't spell them out, however. Just a bit curious.

changed, people might prefer that

• "Manufacture of the Taraf" – I think it should be "Manufacturing of the Taraf"?

Changed to "the manufacture".

• "employs" – might suggest "makes" to sound more encyclopedic and less promo-ly

changed to "extensively incorporates"

• "In lieu of the Rapide's pressed aluminium body" – what does this mean, however? Like, is it due to this pressed aluminum body that the Taraf features a lightweight carbon fibre exterior?

yes, the Rapide features a pressed aluminum body while the Taraf is carbon fibre

• "The interior of the vehicle incorporated elements from other Aston Martin models, particularly the Rapide. It featured console-mounted push-button transmission controls, an advanced infotainment system, a 1,000-watt Bang & Olufsen BeoSound audio system, and leather upholstery."
  • I think it can be combined into: "The vehicle interior incorporates features from other Aston Martin models, particularly the Rapide, including console-mounted push-button transmission controls, an advanced infotainment system, a 1,000-watt Bang & Olufsen BeoSound audio system, and leather upholstery."

done

• "The Taraf features Aston Martin's 5.9-litre V12 engine. It generates..." – can be combined into "The Taraf features Aston Martin's 5.9-litre V12 engine which generates..."

done

• "Upon release, the Taraf received positive reviews" – "The Taraf received positive reviews upon its debut..."

I've removed "Upon release" since the reviews aren't just in its debut

• I encourage in the reception section to use less direct lifting and perhaps a bit more rephrasing.

fixed.

That's all I have. Once these are addressed, I will be more than happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of these comments @ZKang123: i'll leave some comments on your FAC shortly! 750h+ 06:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead little more by incorporating more details from the body. Feel free to rewrite accordingly. Otherwise, I'm willing to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks ZKang123, the comments were helpful, and are very much appreciated! I have altered it slightly. 750h+ 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

• I would link saloon in the lead.

done

• only 100 cars would be built for exclusively for the Middle Eastern market. -- only 100 cars would be built exclusively for the Middle Eastern market.

done

• both cars possess a similar weight. -- despite the latter's larger size, both cars possess similar weight.

done

• most expensive four-door saloon in -- I would link this first instance of "saloon" (and unlink the instance in "Design and technology")

done

• Worth linking "infotainment", seems to be a blend word.

done

• The Taraf received mostly positive reviews, with most reviewers citing -- consider tweaking so "reviews" and "reviewers" don't sound repetitive. Perhaps critics or something similar in liue of reviewers.

done

• "it [does not] ride as well as its rivals, but despite its size and physical presence, it handles better than [you would] expect. -- put end quotation.

done

• That's all from me. Another solid work about a luxury car. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for the comments @Pseud 14:! like i said, the comments are very much appreciated and i'll try to leave some comments on whatever FAC you have next (or FLC/GAN). 750h+ 00:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the helpful comments, Pseud! 750h+ 00:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MSincccc

• I can spot two references in lead. Could they be moved to the article body to comply with MOS:LEAD? It would look neater too.
• In 1947, the entrepreneur and industrialist David Brown acquired both Lagonda and Aston Martin.[13][14][15] In 1961, Lagonda introduced the Rapide,[note 1] the company's earliest four-door automobile.

In 1961, Lagonda introduced the Rapide,[note 1] the company's earliest four-door automobile. In 1974, Aston Martin introduced Aston Martin's second four-door model, the Lagonda, which was produced until 1990, when 645 units had been produced. In each one of the above cases, the comma after the year could be omitted as done in most articles following British English. MSincccc (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @MSincccc: i've addressed them all. 750h+ 05:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Taraf received predominantly positive reviews, with most critics noting the steep price as its primary drawback. This sentence is more preferable for the first sentence under the "Reception" section. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done

The following sentences could be modified as such-

• Angus MacKenzie, reviewing for Motor Trend, wrote that "this $1 million saloon, hand-built by Aston Martin,...

done

• Autocar magazine also criticised its price,...

done

• Mike Duff of Car and Driver magazine emphasised the light yet responsive hydraulic steering and the chassis's impressive lateral grip, even in wet conditions.

done

• You could also omit the "the" before entrepreneur and industrialist David Brown.

SchroCat said that the original layout was more preferable

• Furthermore, could you please indicate the reference which speaks of Angus MacKenzie's review for Motor Trend.

done

Once these suggestions are addressed I would be more than willing to extend my support to this nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: hope my responses were good. 750h+ 06:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+ I will support this nomination, as the required changes have been made. The article overall is well-written and comprehensively covers all aspects of the Taraf, making it suitable for an FA. Regards.e. MSincccc (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support MSincccc, very much appreciated! 750h+ 06:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

• File:2015 Aston Martin Lagonda Taraf (19406457063).jpg - OK. Appropriately licensed.
• File:1964 Lagonda Rapide front.jpg - OK. AGF on self-published image
• File:Lagonda Taraf V12 (34103224876).jpg - OK. Appropriately licensed. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the image review, Pseud! Much appreciated as always! 750h+ 23:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-check upon request. It's not terribly consistent which sources link their page numbers and which ones don't e.g #11 does but #15 doesn't. The NYT does not need an ISSN. Seems like we are mostly using magazines for car aficionados. Is there a source out there that discusses their reliability? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: i've linked the sources with pages that weren't linked. I removed the ISSN for the NYT source. As for the reliability for the car sources, both Car and Driver and Autoweek are owned by Hearst Communications, which publishes many reliable sources like the the San Francisco Chronicle so that should be fine. As for the other sources, like the magazines Autocar and Classic and Sports Car, they are the best I could find; cars--especially with the number of this model produced--are somewhat of an obscure topic that would be covered by reliable sources. I believe that the current sources are reputable 750h+ 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: wondering if you saw the above? 750h+ 09:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. I was kind of hoping that there is some discussion out there about the reliability of car magazines since this is a field where I know absolutely nothing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the WT:CAR archives and it unfortunately doesn't look like there was a discussion. 750h+ 23:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of only 2 Indian generals and the first one promoted to Field Marshal rank. I previously nominated this article for FAC two times. The first FAC, to be found here failed for a bunch of reasons, the article was not mature then. The second FAC, to be found here, failed because I had lost access to 3 books I had cited, and a reviewer could therefore not do the spot checks. I have replaced all citations to those books with accessible sources, and I'm looking forward to work with all reviewers. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, but the problems I identified in the last FAC are still present in this one. Looking at the changes made since the last FAC, the examples of problems are still present, and no work has been done to address other areas. Removing sources from a completed article needs to be done very carefully, and this does not look like that is the case here. Wikilinking magazines and publisher names is a waste of time for an article like this (linking publishers is nearly always a waste of time anyway): it needs much more fundamental work done on the text to source integrity, which is where this article fails yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give specific examples? Matarisvan (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changi Airport MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this up again after I withdrew a previous nomination to work on another article. This article is about Changi Airport station which serves Changi Airport and is one of the most iconic stations on the Singapore MRT network. ZKang123 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please discuss what you have done regarding sourcing given the issues I found in the FAC in January? I recommended in that review that there be a wider check for the accuracy of sourcing and close paraphrasing, as well as further searches for more reliable/independent sources. There have not been many edits to the article since then. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, not much. Just a bit of editing here and there. There are unfortunately no other reliable/independent sources on the station article and mainly local news sources I can find.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

In spite of the comment by Nick-D above, I'll take a look at this article. 750h+ 08:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A rail connection to the airport had been planned since the 1980s but these plans were shelved. I'm a bit confused with this sentence. Why does it say "since the 1980s" if the plans have been shelved?
  • Wrote "in the 1980s" instead.
• On 25 May 2019, it was announced Changi Airport MRT station will be incorporated change "will" to "would"
  • Done
• An MRT branch to Changi Airport was included in early plans of the MRT network in May 1982. You might consider removing the first "MRT" and changing "An" to "A" since you mention "MRT" later in the sentence
  • Done
• would be built to serve increased demand to the airport. ==> would be built to serve increased demand for the airport.
  • Done
• to serve increased demand for the airport. add "the" between "serve" and "increased"
  • Done
• Should "subcontractor-and-supplier" have hyphens?
  • Fixed
• A groundbreaking ceremony was held on 29 January 1999. is the word "groundbreaking" necessary?
  • Yes. Usually signals the start of construction.
• Close monitoring was needed for the construction of the change "for the construction of" to "to construct" (conciseness)
  • Fixed
• various structures which required extensive foundation reconstruction. change "which" to "that"
  • Fixed
• reporting a loss of 20 percent in earnings. "per cent" in used in British English. However, I notice that the % sign is used throughout the article rather than the word itself, so you might consider changing that?
  • Fixed
• Nevertheless, despite developments build around the branch line to boost further change "build" to "built"
  • Fixed
• In 2040, Changi Airport station will be change "In 2040" to "By 2040" since the former implies that it will be exclusively 2040 and not the years that follow.
  • Fixed
• The day's first train departs Changi Airport station at 5:31 am on weekdays and on Saturdays, at 5:59 am on Sundays. this sentence could be phrased better
  • Fixed
• Australian engineering company Meinhardt Facades provided structural-design engineering ==> "The engineering company Meinhardt Facades provided structural design engineering" (something I learnt from SchroCat)
  • Fixed
• cantilever and are supported by other cables that runs diagonally change the verb form to "run"
  • Fixed
• In 2011, BootsnAll rated the station 10th out of the 15 most-beautiful subway stops in the world. why does "most beautiful" have a hyphen.
  • Fixed

That's all I got. Solid work on the article. 750h+ 08:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support 750h+ 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comments from sawyer777

i aim to get through this fully by next week (i've got a busy weekend so no big promises for the next few days) - feel free to ping me if if it's been more than like 4 days ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I hope to leave some commentary here soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Bhatt

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the FAC grind after very many years with another Hindi film actress bio. Might be a bit rusty, but looking forward to constructive comments to get this one to its best version. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Alia_Bhatt_at_the_promo_launch_of_'Student_of_the_Year.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Alia_Bhatt_2016.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria: alt texts added. I've replaced the former pic with a different one that has a working source link, and have updated the sources of the latter pic. Thank you for the review! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

• Is there a citation in the lead's first sentence as it is particularly controversial information or wording?

Her British citizenship leads to a lot of vandalism/edit-warring, which is why the refs & hidden note were added.

• I'd revise "troubling circumstance" in the lead as it is pulled directly from the CNN quote in the article.

Done.

• This part, (One of India's highest-paid actresses, Time magazine), is referring to Time as one of the highest-paid actresses.

Tweaked.

• By "victim of drug abuse", do you mean drug addict? If so, I'd use that. The current version reads a tad sensationalized to me.

"drug addict" wouldn't technically be correct in this context, coz in the film, her character is forcefully fed drugs, so a "victim of drug abuse" seems more apt.

• I do not know about the "titular prostitute" phrasing. I get it is more descriptive, but why not "title character"?

Changed.

• Do you know anything further about where she was born other than just the country?

This has been a bit controversial, and no definitive information exists about it.

• I have a clarification question based on a discussion on the talk page. That discussion claims that India does not allow for multiple citizenship. So is Bhatt no longer an Indian citizen? Would it be worthwhile to clarify that? Also, when did she get her British citizenship? Some further context may be helpful.

Well, India doesn't allow dual citizenship, and she is a British citizen by birth. Unfortunately, no other definitive information exists beyond this.

Apologies in advance for the stupid question. My knowledge about India is extremely limited. How is she a British citizen by birth if she was born in India? I get that according to the citation that she has a British passport, but as an outsider, I am unsure on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times in the UK reported that her mother is British, which is why she has a British passport.

• I do not think it is necessary to say "has said" for the quotes. I believe you can just say "said".

Yep, removed.

There are still a few instances of this in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This quote, ("I don't remember much of the shoot. I would go to the sets only for the food"), seems unnecessary to me.

Removed.

• This quote, ("a washout. Not only is she inelegant in the dance numbers, but her expressions are limited; and the digital retouching of her face throughout the film is a distraction"), is rather long. I think it would be better to paraphrase it.

Tweaked.

• I am uncertain about this part, (Bhatt was keen to play a better role). It implies in Wikipedia's voice that Student of the Year was a bad role, and I think that should be avoided for something more neutral.

Tweaked.

• I would be mindful of WP:SEAOFBLUE in areas like (Imtiaz Ali's road film Highway).

Tweaked.

• I would avoid one-word quotes like ("surprise" and "stupendous") as it does not really add much to the article.

Removed.

• This sentence is trying to convey too much information: (She played a Punjabi girl who has an affair before her wedding, in Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania, directed by Shashank Khaitan, which was described as a tribute to Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) by Johar.)

Tweaked.

• What is meant by "accomplishments" in this sentence: (Her accomplishments in 2014 established her career.)? Critical reviews? Box office? It also seems a bit tacked-on at the end of the paragraph.

Changed.

• Is Central Board of Film Certification controversy with Udta Punjab notable enough to mention in this article? It seems to be more about the movie than Bhatt.

Removed and condensed.

• Would it be possible to find a link for "a ghetto dialect"? I am an American and I likely have a very different reading on this.

Linked and changed wording.

• How did death of Sushant Singh Rajput lead to a debate on nepotism? It is not clear in the article.

Tweaked the wikilinks so people can read up on the nepotism debate caused due to his death.

• I am unsure of this sentence: (The year 2022 was key for Bhatt.) I get it is a topic sentence, but I am not sure if it is worded the best, particularly when done in Wikipedia's voice.

Tweaked.

• Memoirs of a Geisha is about sex work to some degree, but I would not lump geishas and prostitutes together generally. I just do not really think of Memoirs of a Geisha under the header of "films about prostitution" as done in the article.

Removed.

• Because Bhatt's personal life is so separated into its own section, this sentence came off as very abrupt: (Filming and release were delayed by a few months due to her pregnancy.)

Is there any other way you'd suggest to include this?

• For this part, (the unplugged version), is "unplugged" referring to an acoustic performance? If so, I'd use "acoustic" instead.

Done.

• In the "Singing and stage performances" subsection, there are a few sentences that start with "In X year". I would be mindful of that as it does make the prose less engaging and come off more as just a listing.

Tweaked.

Welcome back to the FAC process. This review goes up to the "Personal life" section. Apologies for not doing it all in one go. I hope that these comments are helpful. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. I hope you have a good weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So good to have you review my work again, Aoba. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help. Thank you for addressing everything. I will post the rest of my review momentarily. I have left two responses above. One is a clarification question and the other is pointing out that there are still instances of "has said" in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about missing out on those. Should be done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have similar issue with titular prostitute in the article as I did for the lead.

Done.

• This was recently added to the article: (As per the Netflix engagement report, it received nearly 110 million views, making it the second most watched film in the second half of 2023.) I wonder if there is a way to condense it. Something like (According to Netflix, Heart of Stone was the the second most watched film on the platform for the second half of 2023)?

Trimmed it further to just say "The film had strong viewership on Netflix", which I think is sufficient for her bio.

• I think it would be worth linking trolling.

Done.

• I would condense (for being a beneficiary of nepotism) to (for benefiting from nepotism).

Done.

• I am not entirely sure of the relevancy or need for this part, (which journalist Malavika Sangghvi described as an extension of the dumb blonde stereotype). It is already established that people were trolling her intelligence based on this so I do not think that this specific journalist and this specific stereotype adds much beyond that.

Removed.

• Is "clicking pictures" is correct? I am mostly seen it as "taking pictures".

Changed.

• This is more an observation, but I am unsure about the third paragraph of the "Media image and artistry" section. It comes off more like an indiscriminate listings of lists that involve Bhatt. I would be curious if there was a way to present this information in a more engaging manner. Right now, it seems like a lot of a lot and is a bit repetitious. I am not saying you need to change it, but it is something that caught my attention.

I can understand this, although I've tried to make the text flow in the most engaging way, much like how it has been written in other FAs such as Deepika Padukone or Priyanka Chopra who also regularly feature in such lists.

• I would italicize film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

Done.

• Could you explain to me how works/websites are linked in the citations? I am not entirely sure I follow it. For instance, I do not see The Indian Express being linked.

I've gone through the refs, and have linked the first occurrence of each publication.

• Citation 27 does two authors in the byline (Neha Sharma and Navdeep Kaur Marwah) so that should be added to the citation. Citation 99 also has an author credited in the article (Namrata Joshi), but not included in the citation. It would be probably worth double-checking through the citations to see if there are any other instances of this.

Added.

Thank you for addressing this. The authors are missing for the following citations: Citation 90 (Stutee Ghosh) and Citation 103 (Simon Abrams). Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation 159 is missing a work/website parameter (in this case India Today).

Added.

This should be everything, but once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. I have actually seen Heart of Stone so I was honestly surprised to remember that I have seen Bhatt in a movie. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the detailed review, Aoba47. Do let me know if there are further improvements to be made. Also, Heart of Stone is one of her weakest films, and definitely not a good barometer to judge her abilities. Haha. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Heart of Stone was just okay, but I would imagine that she would be better in a better role (and just a better movie lol). I have three quick comments on the citations below:

• Do you think that The Live Mirror should be linked? There is nothing wrong with red links, but do you think that there is potential for an article here?

I've replaced the source.

• Citation 16 no longer leads to the article. Citation 124 is dead.

I've replaced citation 16 with a better one. Updated the other ref, which is now # 123.

• For Citation 15, I would clarify in the citation that it accessed through Google Books with the "via=" parameter.

Done for both the book sources.

Once these are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All should be done now. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just wanted to point out that my above comment on Stutee Ghosh and Simon Abrams not being attributed in the citation still needs to be addressed. Other than that, the article looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, so sorry. Didn't see that comment. Done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience. I support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thorough review, Aoba! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetricus I

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last emperor of the short-lived but fascinating Gallic Empire, a state that split off from Rome during the crisis of the third century. This article passed GAN some time ago, and I took a run at FAC in the ancient past of 2018 (two degrees and a high school diploma ago) and attracted some supports, but came up short on prose concerns. For reasons that currently escape me, I did not attempt to re-nominate it later, so I am doing so now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:INC-2045-a_Ауреус._Тетрик_I_Старший._Ок._271—274_гг._(аверс).png needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:INC-2045-r_Ауреус._Тетрик_I_Старший._Ок._271—274_гг._(реверс).png

Added.

• File:Map_of_the_Gallic_Empire,_260_AD.jpg: why is this blurry? Also needs a source for the data presented, and see MOS:COLOUR

Replaced with another (sourced) map, fixed alt text.

• File:Map_of_Ancient_Rome_271_AD.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed alt text.

@Nikkimaria: Thanks! Believe I have addressed all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still having some colour issues. Aren't the two Palmyrenes the same colour? Why does the caption differ? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth getting the word "Roman" into the first sentence: perhaps by using the alternative name of "Gallic Roman Empire"? It's usual practice in this part of the article to signpost as loudly as possible the rough area that we're talking about (see United States: The United States of America ... is a country primarily located in North America. Perhaps "was a Gallo-Roman nobleman who became...", otherwise?
• The Gallic Empire is the historiographic name given to a state: I think MOS:REFERS applies here: better as "The Gallic Empire was a state..."
• I am not a huge fan of "Emperor X" (as in "Emperor Valerian") in a Roman context: it is somewhat anachronistic. Better, I think, as "the emperor Valerian".
• It strikes me that practically the whole "Background" section is based on Nicholson: this isn't inherently a problem, but does make me twitchy about possibly copyvio (it's very hard to keep TSI without keeping anything creative from the source if you're only using the one) or balance issues. I have no specific complaints at the moment, but will try to get hold of the source later on just to reassure myself that everything is in order.
• in the words of ancient Roman historian Eutropius: how come Eutropius is "ancient Roman" but everyone else is simply "Roman"? On another note, we should be very careful about presenting ancient historians' words without context and at face value: I'm not an expert on Eutropius specifically, but the general rule is that historians' writings tell us a lot about the historians themselves and their own views, and that we trust them as evidence for their subjects at our peril. The immediate caveats here would be that Eutropius was writing a century after the events, and definitely had some vested interests in terms of government and emperorship.

More to follow.

• Gallienus attempted to invade the Gallic Empire twice but was repulsed both times: do we have dates for this?
• he posted Aureolus, a military commander, in northern Italia: I think you post someone to somewhere, but you station them in there (I'd suggest the latter here, to avoid the awkward to .. to repetition)
• As praetorian prefect is English, it shouldn't be italicised.
• Strictly, Marius couldn't have been commander of the praetorian guard under Postumus, as the (real, original) praetorian guard was in Rome: suggest "of his praetorian guard" vel sim.
• Tetricus's name was changed to Imperator Caesar Esuvius Tetricus Pius Felix Invictus Augustus Pontifex Maximus: how much of this is strictly a name? At least Imperator and Pontifex Maximus would be understood by 100% of Romans (even Gallo-Romans) as titles, rather than personal names: the jury might be slightly out on Caesar and Augustus, but all three of those adjectival agnomina are at least a bit ambiguous. To be on the safe side, I'd frame this as his official style and titles rather than going the whole way to calling it a personal name. I'd also suggest linking some of these titles, particularly Pontifex Maximus.
• Tribune: as "praetorian prefect" above: italicise if using the Latin, not if using the English.
• the Roman tradition of emperors appointing themselves as consul, with Tetricus appointing himself as consul in 271, 272, 273, and 274; the names of the other consuls for 271–273 are not known: it might be worth clarifying/reminding readers that there were typically two consuls at any one time (and perhaps that during this period it was common for there to be many in a single year).
• The unreliable Historia Augusta: I think we have had this conversation before: I would prefer to cast it as "semi-fictional" or similar, rather than "unreliable": the latter implies that it's trying to be a work of history wie es eigentlich gewesen, and that it's somehow deceiving us, which isn't true: it just doesn't share our ideas of what a historical source ought to look like. Even the fictional bits are "true" in the sense that they serve the rhetorical/political-theoretical aims of the text: on its own terms, there's no deception involved: it is entirely what it sets out to be.
• the main threats to the Gallic Empire came from the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes.: consider "peoples" instead of "tribes", which can read as dismissive or condescending: the current framing of this sentence elevates the (rump) Roman Empire above them in a way that I'm not sure is warranted.
• The provinces that did not recognize Tetricus chose instead to recognize Roman Emperor Aurelian: as above on "Emperor X", but more strongly: much better and clearer as "to recognize Aurelian as [Roman] emperor".
• even celebrating a triumph for one of his victories: even is generally editorialising. More cynically, we shouldn't be so credulous as to assume that a triumph required a real victory -- think of Domitian dressing up Gallo-Roman aristocrats in "barbarian" clothes to play his imaginary German captives.
• We have two maps of the Roman empire that are very similar: could these perhaps be grouped into a double image template that would allow us more clearly to point at the (temporal and territorial) change between them? On another note, a zoomed-in map of north-eastern Gaul and environs would be very useful.
• "Empress Zenobia" (see my recurring grouch about the Roman equivalent) is almost unknown on Google Books outside Southern's book: "under its queen, Zenobia" would work better.
• at the Battle of Châlons, near modern-day Châlons.: any chance of an alternative geographical marker that might help a little more? I think most readers will figure that the Battle of Châlons was near Châlons.
• "eripe me his invicte malis": no quote marks for italics, but do stick it into lang templates. A slight quibble on the translation: invicte is vocative, so you want something like "pluck me out, O undefeated one, from these troubles". Suggest also giving its provenance (to Aeneid 6.365), and perhaps some context (it's the shade of Palinurus to Aeneas: the subtext in the allusion being that Aurelian therefore takes the role of Aeneas/Augustus, and perhaps that Tetricus assumes the role of one already dead). There's an ILL to Italian (it:Eripe me his, invicte, malis) that you could include too.
• Lucania et Bruttium: as this is Latin, it should be italicised via a language template.
• In translation, "corrector" should become "governor" consistently.
• comes in c. 283: avoid abbreviations in flowing text: "comes from around 283" vel sim
• I would put dates on David Magie and Alaric Watson (what a name: I assume no relation?), to give an idea of how current this debate is or isn't.
• aurei : italicise via language template.
• Reverse of an Aureus bearing the inscription of a standing Felicitas: decap and lang template for aureus. Nit-pickingly, an inscription is writing, so it bears the image of a standing Felicitas. Suggest linking her here as well as in body text.
• I might clarify in the text that Aequitas etc are deities: something like with the reverses showing Tetricus, either riding a horse or holding an olive branch and scepter, or various deities: Aequitas, Jupiter...
• Gloss "jugate" as (side-by-side)?
• quinarius: lang templates probably best here: this could be taken as either English or Latin, but going for the templates makes the formatting nice and consistent.
• the usage of epigraphs was in decline during the period: not sure this is quite English. "Epigraphic sources" is just "stuff with writing on": do we mean that the habit of public inscriptions was gradually dying? While epigraphers often (largely?) work from big bits of marble with pompous titles on, they can equally work with scribbles on potsherds or animal bones. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Nicholson source in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity seems to be co-credited to P. J. Casey at the bottom of the page.
• I notice that Nicholson cites Drinkwater in the CAH: we don't seem to use the CAH at all. Did you consult it at all during the writing process?

Matarisvan

Hi Iazyges, marking a spot here, will add comments soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider expanding the lead with info from the body? MOS:LEAD says most FAs have a lead with 3 paragraphs, we have only 1 here.
• "or necessary after his defeat": Consider rephrasing to "or a surrender was necessary after his defeat..."? Former is a bit confusing.
• "a few years after 274": Do we have the exact date?
• Isn't the Regnal Name column of the infobox a WP:SEAOFBLUE? Do other rulers' infoboxes have the same template?
• Consider moving the image of the Antoninianus coin a little further down? Rn it is just below the map of the three empires, and then the rest of the section has no images. Wouldn't spacing them be better, wdyt?
• "...by the province of Hispania": "provinces"?
• "Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte": Offer a translation in the body?
• In the biblio, consider linking to British Archaeological Reports, John F. Drinkwater, Franz Steiner Verlag, Oxford University Press, Cornell University Press, Oneworld Publications, David Stone Potter, Routledge, Wayne G. Sayles, Krause Publications, Pat Southern, Bloomsbury Publishing, Fitzroy Dearborn?
• Instead of using PolferA, consider changing the publication year from 2000/1999 to 2000a/1999a? The sfn template allows for this.
• Are Southern 2015 and Southern 2008 works by different authors? If not, consider using a consistent first name.
• In the body, you say David Magie but in the biblio you have David Vagi. Which one is it?
• Could we have a one liner on why Châlons was lost? This would be quite relevant here.
• Has any scholar ever endeavoured to ascertain the total quantity of coins minted by or in the name of Tetricus? When I looked him up on JSTOR, I found about 20 numismatic papers on the first two pages, each paper listing at least 10 coins, with about 57 more pages I did not open. The total quantity then must be quite high, prob in the thousands, and thus their themes would be more in number than the 12 we have here.
• Can we have some details on the Barbarous coins by Tetricus I & II? I stumbled upon this on JSTOR.
• Are there any noteworthy events from Tetricus' work as corrector?

I may post some more comments if the JSTOR results throw up something. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

I am unfamiliar with the topic, which may be helpful to understand what someone unfamiliar may not understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, infobox

• I find confusing to read in the lead "emperor of the Gallic Empire" (no link for emperor), but in the infobox on top "Augustus of Gaul and Brittania", and only later "emperor of the Gallic Empire", then with a link to Roman emperor. While the explanation of the the term there is reasonable, I find the link confusing because I understand that wasn't a Roman emperor. - The best way for us unfamiliar might be to repeat more from the body, because there it's clear. I'd like to see "Augustus of Gaul and Brittania" also in the lead, for the connection.
• The infobox looks fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Union Square riot

Nominator(s): 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2023 Union Square riot. This was a giveaway of gaming-related items gone wrong, meant to be hosted by Kai Cenat. Any comments are welcome and appreciated. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Done. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Cenat image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

In the interest of brevity I'd like to change "while not having a permit for the gathering." into "without a permit for the gathering." or even better "without a permit." I would also like for the lead to briefly summarize the consequences, including injuries, property damage and arrests. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts (comments & source review)

• I've made several edits throughout for concision and grammar/style. Please feel free to discuss them here.
• At this time, Cenat traveled to Atlanta, Georgia At what time?

This one's been stale because the Wayback Machine and other Internet Archive services are currently down. Will get back to it when I can. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Jonah Bromwich of the New York Times, this is not Cenat's first giveaway: in July 2023, he surprised a Massachusetts woman whom he used to visit with, by giving her $20,000, saying she was "a second mother to him", and that she deserved it. The woman, Cathy Parker, was "reluctant to accept the money." Recommend removing this sentence as not relevant to the Union Square riot.

Done. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On August 25, Night, a talent management firm based in Austin, Texas, announced the acquisition of LFM Management, another talent management company based in New York, placing Night as talent management for Cenat and other AMP members. Recommend removing this sentence as not relevant as well.

Done. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any more reactions that can be added to the Analysis section? Anything more recent than August 2023?

I was unable to find any. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review also completed. Currently, some cites are missing wikilinks for work titles (e.g., ref 22 not linking to BBC News) and there's inconsistency between using the publisher vs. work parameter in some ((cite web)) references. I recommend using work for all of them. Ref 40 has www.cbsnews.com for the work parameter. Please go through all of the cites again, let me know when you're done, and I'll take a look. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In progress. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Done. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more notes:

• There's no consensus as to Fox News' reliability, so I wouldn't consider it to be a high quality source per FAC criteria. Can you replace ref 10 with something else?
• The ref for note a (ref 22) is from 2020. It's also unrelated to the actual event. Is there a ref that says Cenat was wrong about the tear gas? Otherwise, I would remove this note.
• Ref 29: WL CBS New York to WCBS-TV.
• Ref 36: WL CBS News.
• The analysis section begins "The incident generated discourse about the outsized influence of internet personalities", but only cites 4 sources. Can you find more analyses to cite there?

voorts (talk/contributions) 16:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Done. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick search, I've found more articles that can be added to the analysis section:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

I think you can find more from additional searches. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts, I can't access the first source. Can you give an identifier (i.e. ISBN, DOI, etc.)? — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's this article: [4]. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts, Done. (I was unable to find any other sources analyzing the event) — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Melangell's Church

Nominator(s): ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Melangell's Church, built over Bronze Age sacred ground, housed a prominent shrine in medieval Wales. The titular Melangell, patron saint of hares, founded a monastery in the area in the 7th or 8th century, and the current church was built during the Norman period. After a period of decline during and after the Reformation, renewed interest in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in the reconstruction of the shrine and extensive scholarly analysis of the site; an entire journal volume dedicated to fresh archaeological discoveries was produced in 1994. This article was a stub marred by a giant blockquote and some very 2009-style references when I found it, but it was a diamond in the rough. I've been working on this on-and-off for around 6 months, and exhausted every scholarly source I could possibly find on this topic. Since this is my first FA nomination, I recently sent it to peer review to iron it out and put the finishing touches on the article. Thank you! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

Putting myself down for this. Usually I get to FAC comments within a week, if I don't, feel free to throw popcorn at me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & Location

• Is Melangell pronounced how it's spelled?
  • to my knowledge, the double L in Welsh is pronounced kind of breathy, almost like a th sound. however, i don't know any Welsh nor really any IPA to be able to add that here... -s
• "commemorate the traditional grave" - "traditional grave" in this context is ever so slightly unclear to the layman. That being said I'm trying to figure out a way to word it without spending like an hour explaining and I'm coming up short, so this may just be intractable (the phrasing "reputed grave" later is maybe better, at least for the lead)
  • i switched "reputed" and "traditional" so that it's hopefully a little more upfront. -s
    • Hmm. It's not my favorite but as I said I think it may be intractable, so I won't fuss.
• Sentences 2 3 and 4 all start "The church" or "The current church", any way to jiggle it around a little? "The building" maybe?
  • sentence 4 switched to "building" as it's talking about renovation, but i think switching the wording of 2 & 3 might create too much ambiguity -s
• I might swap the order of the last two sentences. Right now you go from talking about the building to the archaeology of the area and then back to the building
  • good catch, done -s
• "dismantled again, and restored" channeling the power of Sammi Brie tells me this doesn't need a comma
  • trimmed -s
• "now privately owned" be careful with "now" phrasing; per MOS:NOW they are liable to become outdated. ((As of)) might be better
  • i'm not terribly happy with this either, as well, it's cited to an article from 1994. after trawling around on google maps going "yeah that looks like private land", i'm pretty confident it's still up-to-date. i also worry that "As of 1994," would look a lot goofier than it actually being outdated... not sure what a better solution would be. -s
    • I think the "as of 1994" is better, since it's more specific
      • done -s
• "Glebe" not being a common word, could it be footnoted or possibly contextualized in-text, so the reader doesn't have to click through?
  • added a smidgeon of context -s

History

• "oldest surviving Romanesque shrine in Britain or in northern Europe as a whole" - why the "or"? Is it because the northern Europe claim is uncertain?
  • i've actually got 2 citations saying it's the oldest in northern Europe now that i'm looking at this again, and if it's the oldest in northern Europe then by definition it's the oldest in Britain. i've just been bold and gone with the northern Europe claim. -s
• I might split para 1 under "Medieval period" at " Pennant Melangell was probably founded"
  • done -s
• "Under Norman rule" I know it's in the footnote, but I might put a reference to the time period in the text
  • added -s

• Para 3 under Medieval period feels a little jumbled, chronologically. We have the Normans, then the 12th c. stone church, then we're going backwards to a possible 11th c. timber church, then back to the 12th c. shrine. I might order it something like "Norman whatever, possible timber church but no definitive evidence, 12th c. church & shrine"
  • good point - i've switched it around a little -s
• Also, if there's no definitive evidence, what is the evidence for the timber church?
  • the source doesn't give any specifics - postholes (the kind of evidence one would look for) were found during excavation, but not explicitly connected to a timber church being at the site. -s
    • I would mention that, as currently it's unclear. maybe something like "postholes at the site suggest that there may have been a timber church..."
      • the issue is that the posthole thing specifically would be SYNTH - however, through some advanced techniques (searching "timber" in the journal) i've finally found & added the specific detail that the author is using as evidence. it's one sentence frustratingly split over three pages with an illustration cutting through, which is why i missed it previously. -s
• I quite like that little watercolor, nice find
  • me too! Ingleby's illustrations are lovely -s
• "possibly dismantling the rood screen" if the "current rood screen" still exists, what's this?
  • it was maybe dismantled, presumably reused elsewhere, and later reconstructed. this whole section of Pennant's history is pretty foggy though. if it was dismantled, then the parts of it would have been used to create other features in the church, and it would have been reconstructed at some point. for specificity, i've added "the loft of" the rood screen as it's closer to what's speculated about in the source. -s
• in para 2 under "restoration efforts", you have "restoration work" in two successive sentences
  • trimmed -s
• The lead of the article mentions the "cancer ministry", which leads me to think it'd be hugely important in the body, but it only merits half a sentence here. Is there any more to be said about it?
  • it was a request from Gerda; the cancer ministry is also mentioned in the "modern pilgrimage" section as a reason people visit the shrine. -s
    • I guess, but I still wonder if there's any more to be said about the ministry in the body.
      • there really isn't as far as i know - i wouldn't oppose removing it -s
• Also, the phrasing "a Cancer Help Centre" makes it sound like an official thing readers would be familiar with. What is it? Can we footnote it?
  • this is also something UC asked about; in the source it's capitalized, and i'm not really sure why. i've just taken the liberty of putting it in lowercase because clearly it's giving a weird impression -s
• What is meant by "shrine guardian"? Is it separate from the parish priest, if there still is one? Who's doing the appointing?
  • currently, the shrine guardian is the same person as the parish priest (now that women can be priests in the Churches of England & Wales), but i get the sense that previously it was a position held by women who took leadership of the church's ministries but were outside of the clergy structure. i added a short extra bit of context for the position -s
• "In modern times" same issue as the "now" thing; better to be specific
  • switched to "in the 21st century" as that's what the studies mentioned cover -s
• It only occurred to me now, but maybe we should link pilgrim somewhere
  • linked in the leade & the first mention in the body -s
• This is a nitpick, but I would move the prayer card image up to the first paragraph, it just looks a bit goofy hanging down there
  • moved -s

Archaeological excavations & Shrine

• First three sentences here all have variations on the "cell-y-bedd was excavated" or "Excavations in the cell-y-bedd". Can this be written around? You could maybe replace that last one with "These excavations revealed", which at least gets rid of one repetition of "cell-y-bedd"
  • one issue with switching the third sentence is that the entire paragraph is about specifically the cell-y-bedd, and it would become somewhat ambiguous, but yeah i'm not thrilled about the repetition. -s
    • At the very least could you try to write around the repetition of "excavation"?
      • i've gone straight ahead and reworked it a little bit - i added some more details about the 1958 excavation
• "several layers of medieval flooring, within the" rm comma
  • done -s
• If there's anything more about the filming of that movie, that might be worth putting in the actual history section
  • the source doesn't mention the name of the movie or really anything else about it other than it ruining the soil, so i don't have any leads about this. -s
    • If it ain't there, it ain't there
• Not much of note under the Shrine section except - how are willows and half-pears connected to Ireland? (and what is a half pear?)
  • no idea what a half pear is, but i've clarified the sentence -s

Architecture

• "waterworn pebbles" meaning that they were worn by water before construction? (Maybe this is a technical term I'm unfamiliar with?)
  • i'm actually not entirely sure whether they were already worn or centuries of being on the exterior of a church made them weathered; the source doesn't really clarify -s
• In the lead, you hedge with "reputed grave"/"traditional grave", implying that the existence of the grave isn't certain. In the body you phrase it as "It was possibly built over Melangell's grave" and go on to say "A stone slab marks the site of the titular grave", both of which are a lot less hedgey and a lot more certain about the existence of the grave.
  • part of the thing here is that it is equally likely that she was never buried under there as it is that she was. her relics were probably displayed at the original 12th-century shrine, and the in-ground stone settings of the grave are very very old. above you suggested "reputed" as clearer to the uninformed reader, which i agree with, although i think "traditional" is more precise in this case, because regardless of whether she was ever buried precisely under that spot, it's been mostly uncritically venerated as her grave since at least the 12th century. i've decided to switch "titular" to "traditional" as slightly less certain but still accurate wording. -s
    • I think that switch works, but I still feel like the phrasing of "It was possibly built over Melangell's grave" shifts the uncertainty from "is there a grave?" to "the grave exists, but it may not quite be where the cell-y-bedd is". How do you feel about "It is traditionally believed to have been built over Melangell's grave"? (You'd have to tweak "traditional grave" in the next sentence, but that's not so hard - "putative grave" would work. Actually that phrasing might work well for the lead too since it literally means "commonly accepted or supposed")
      • works for me! -s
• In para 2 under Cell-y-bedd, you're jumping around a bit, going from the demolition in 1989 to the original construction in 1751. I would just start with that, finish describing it, then say it was demo'd and move into describing the modern one
  • good catch, switched (& switched two sentences in the above para for the same reason) -s
• I love the whale rib. Picturing a bunch of 15th century fisherman like "Yeah idk man stick it in the church, it's cool, make a harp out of it"
  • it's very whimsical - bone harps seem to be a motif in British folklore as well; one of my favorite folk songs features a haunted harp made of a woman's breastbone!
    • :O D&D campaign inspo
• "the church also contains" idk if you need the also here; you definitely don't need the comma after paintings
  • trimmed -s
• This may be because my caffeine is wearing off, but you assert that the church contains a number of wall paintings, then describe a) traces b) obliterated inscriptions/coats-of-arms c) one surviving reredos and d) gothic stencils. Only one of those things seems to be what most people would call a painting. Also, "contains" in the present tense implies that those things are extant, but two of the four things you mention are toast. I think this needs rephrased.
  • good point. i think the confusion arose from the fact that the source says "[the] church contains traces of painting from every major phase of the church's existence" - indeed it contains a lot of painting, but i must have mis-summarized it at some point. i've reworded it slightly to give a more accurate sense -s
    • "The church has decorative wall painting dating from the medieval period to the Victorian era (1837–1901)." I'm not sure works either; the present tense implies that the Church still has all those paintings, but it doesn't. Maybe something more radical, something like "The church has had various paintings and wall decorations throughout its history, not all of which have survived. The earliest known are traces of floral and geometric patterns which date to the medieval period"
      • yeah i like that better, done -s
• I'm assuming the gothic stencils are what's meant by the Victorian wall paintings?
  • yes, per above -s
• This is 100% a personal aesthetic preference so feel free to disregard it, but I think the rood sketch would be better placed above or below the paragraphs, not between them
  • agreed & moved sorry Gerda -s
• I don't love para 1 under effigies.
  • It feels too close to the source for comfort; swapping the order of knife-sharpening and cutting of initials isn't quite sufficient, the structure is still very clearly similar.
  • (The source also says they were later moved from the west wall to the chancel, but the article doesn't).
  • I would suggest revising the section along the lines of "the chancel contains effigies, one male and one female. dated to the 14th c., but original location unknown. male effigy in the churchyard until 1876, female location unknown, moved to west wall. moved to chancel in XXXX"
    • good call & thanks for doing the restructuring work for me haha. i've re-worked this section a bit -s
      • If I'm good at anything, I'm good at structure, ngl. Your version looks good.
• As I read it, only the male has initial-cutting damage, the female has knife sharpening damage (and is "broken in two parts" which also isn't mentioned? seems significant)
  • fixed & added -s

Churchyard

• Why is the image of the churchyard dangling from the bottom of the effigies section?
  • good question. moved -s
• "Antur Tanat Cain" who's this?
  • i actually don't know and the source doesn't give any context (presumably this was obvious to Welsh historians & archaeologists in the 1990s, but not to me). my only lead is that google brings up some kind of cultural charity founded in 1980, which may be what's referred to here. i've just removed it, as i don't think it's super pertinent information; this survey isn't even publicly available. -s
• slightly repetitive - "recorded the gravestones" followed by "Records were made for each gravestone"
  • rephrased -s
• "Welsh harpist..." when?
  • added -s
• "said to be the last to perform in an interlude at Pennant" also when?
  • added (no date is given for his actual performance, i just know when he lived) -s

Other

• Footnotes B D and E need citations
  • done -s

That's what I got, take your time responding. All suggestions are open to discussion and I'm perfectly open to you not changing something if you have good reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I responded to a few things above. Anything I didn't respond to, assume is fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i've responded to your responses! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And my response to your response to my responses is that I support this article on prose :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

What a lovely article, and hats off for your work on it. On first glance, it looks well polished indeed. A few comments:

• I don't find the OSM map particularly helpful, since its scale only really shows that the church is in the middle of nowhere -- on my small-ish screen, there's no named or particularly recognisable features depicted. Suggest swapping for a static map of Wales.
  • agreed & done - it was there when i found the article, and i didn't think to swap it out! -s
• between 1987–1994: better as between 1987 and 1994 (you'd use the dash when saying e.g. "in 1998–1999")
  • done -s
• reconstructed for the first time in 1958: do we need for the first time here? Even given the following sentence on subsequent reconstruction, I think it's clear enough.
  • done -s
• A few terms in the lead which you might consider linking: apse, Rood screen, hermit, abbess, nave, liturgy.
  • done -s
• rectoral and vicarial glebe farmland: this could be made clearer for non-experts: suggest "Church-owned farmland held by the church's rectors and vicars as a glebe" or similar. Can we put even approximate dates on "now" (since when?) and "historically" (in 1980, 1890, or 1380?)
  • done & done -s
• more isolated than many other popular pilgrimage churches: we haven't actually shown, yet, that it is a popular pilgrimage church.
  • hmm... good point. i'm not sure how to go about that, as adding that it's a popular pilgrimage destination would be kind of off-topic for the "location and surroundings" section, but i do think its isolation is relevant to this section. -s
• the old village surrounding the church: again, any chance of being more precise on "old"?
  • the source cited gives it as medieval but no more detail, so i've just added that. i've really not been able to find much information about the village itself - when it was abandoned, etc. -s
• St Monacella's Bed: just to clarify -- in English?
  • as far as i'm aware, yes - her name is almost never rendered as "Monacella" in Welsh from what i've read. perhaps it was scratched by a Romantically-minded English visitor... -sm
• We should translate Ffynnon Cwm Ewyn and Ffynnon Iewyn ('Ewyn's Valley Well' or 'Iewyn's Well'), as we have for other Welsh names. Any idea who Ewyn/Iewyn was?
  • it wasn't translated in the source, and i don't know Welsh, so i didn't add a translation, but WP:OR says that translation is not original research, so i've added yours to it. no idea who Ewyn/Iewyn is - an 1894 (if i recall correctly) source speculates that the well is of pre-Christian origin, but i deleted that when i was purging some stuff i'm less confident about - i could add it back if the context is needed. -s
    • I wouldn't include those translations unless the sources do (and they can't get much more specialised than "Place-names and Field-names of Pennant Melangell""!), as Ewyn/Iewyn may not be a personal name. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru defines "ewyn" as foam, spume, froth; often fig. to denote whiteness, purity, frailty..., so cwm ewyn could be 'valley of foam' or something similar. Ham II (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems that Nant Ewyn ('brook of foam') is a tributary of the River Tanat which joins the river at Pennant Melangell (pen nant is probably 'head/end of [the] brook'), and the valley of that brook is Cwm Nantewyn; Cwm Ewyn must be another form of Cwm Nantewyn. Ham II (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • thanks for clarifying - i've removed them since you make a good point. the origin of the name of this well is pretty ambiguous it seems ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Romanesque" is linked in the lead but not the body. So is Yew tree, at least not on first mention (it is linked much later).
  • fixed -s
• late medieval farmstead: hyphenate as a compound modifier. Also, later, Bronze Age burial mound and early medieval stone slab and a few others. Technically, Middle Bronze Age burial activity needs two hyphens.
  • thanks for pointing it out; fixed -s
• centuries before the arrival of Christianity in Wales.: when was that?
  • the sentence was kind of awkward and superfluous anyways, so i just removed it -s
• As we've had "Saint Monacella" a bit further up, with the bed, I think that's the place to explain that Melangell and Monacella are the same person.
  • done via efn -s
• praying with the hare safely under her hem: I'd put a comma after hare so it doesn't sound like he was also getting in on the act.
  • i feel like that makes the sentence too disjointed - i switched "safely" to "safe" which might make it seem smoother. -s
• in the 11th century, shortly after the conquest of England (note 12): seems odd not to be precise that the conquest of England started in 1066, which is after all most of the way through the C11th.
  • reworded -s
• Saints' cults were revived and Normanised: what doesNormanised mean, in this context?
  • unfortunately there is no separate article for Normanization (yet ;]) but similar to the Romanization of indigenous religions of the Roman Empire, it entailed changing of deities' names (or saints in this case), introducing traditions of the conquerors, building new temples/churches, etc. the source cited doesn't give a ton of detail on this process specific to Pennant Melangell, but i've added an efn with some extra context - i'm not super happy about having two efns so close together, but i feel that the paragraph would be kind of bloated if they were in the text, if that makes sense. -s
• Before the construction of the church, no definitive evidence exists for a church existing at the site: as written, this is blindingly obvious, though I suspect it's not quite what is meant. Suggest adding "current church".
  • hahaha good point. fixed -s
• Do we know why it has been suggested that a timber church may have existed? These things are not invisible, archaeologically, and given its extensive investigation you'd suspect something like postholes to have clued the investigators in.
  • several postholes were indeed identified, but i think it'd be a bit SYNTHy to connect that to speculation of a wooden church when the source doesn't do that directly. still, i've added a little bit. -s
• 2 marks, slightly below average for the Diocese of St Asaph.: can we do any more to contextualise 2 marks (was that a lot?) Might be worth clarifying at this stage that the church is/was in the Diocese of St Asaph; we do in the following sentence, at the moment.
  • 2 marks doesn't really mean anything to me and i'm not sure how i'd even convert that currency, so i've just removed it. as for the diocese, i think it's clear as is and i'm not sure how to reword it.
• Melangell's cult remained popular until the Reformation: I would attempt to put a date on the Reformation, if we can.
  • that would require a bit of a deep dive into the Reformation in Wales (something that surprisingly doesn't have an article) - i think the wikilink & immediate dating of 1535 should be sufficient for the reader, hopefully.
    • As we've phrased it (Melangell's cult remained popular until the Reformation; in 1535 the income from offerings at the shrine was comparable to that of other major cult centres in Wales), we're saying that 1535 is before the Reformation, which would certainly push the date of the latter back quite substantially from where most people would put it either in a European or an English context (that's the year that More and Fisher were executed). I'm willing to believe that it took a while for its effects to be felt in Wales, but we need to say so if that's the case. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • i've already gone and grabbed another source for a single bit of requested context (about the Norman conquest) before, so i may as well do the same again here to get a more specific timeline for the Reformation in Wales - who knows, i may even write that whole article at some point ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        also, a little bit of clarification - the Act of Union happened in 1536, which is when Wales was made formally part of the Kingdom of England, so 1535 was indeed the eve of the Reformation in Wales. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        alright, found a book that happens to mention Henry VIII sending his men to reform the Diocese of St Asaph in 1535! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• due to the suppression of saints' cults and pilgrimage: similarly, it would be good, if we can, to say who did this and when. Is this a Cromwellian thing, or more to do with Edward and Elizabeth?
  • the source more or less says exactly what the article says; the history of Pennant Melangell in this period is extremely foggy, and i don't think we could really get more specific about who and when as it relates to this church specifically. -s
    • nevermind - i've found a bit that i skipped over prior -s
• The massive religious reforms: can we say anything about these, or give a link to an article with some more information?
  • i'd think the wikilink to English Reformation in the paragraph would be sufficient for context, as it would kind of WP:COATRACK the section to get into the whole ordeal. i did remove "massive" as it's a bit intense. -s
    • I think it would still be wise to add something very rough: in particular, that all three monarchs pushed English religion in a Protestant direction, including (among other things) suppressing the worship of saints and destroying much church decoration. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      However, by the 1660s the value of the Pennant church once again sunk to below average for the diocese due to the suppression of saints' cults and pilgrimage. The religious reforms under the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I brought major changes to the fabric of the church; the shrine was probably dismantled at this time and the grave chapel blocked off. i would hope this would be enough context? this is what it already says. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Ah -- if those are all intended to be the same thing, a bit of reordering might solve the issue. As framed, those religious reforms are really presented as belonging to the 1660s or near enough: they're not obviously connected to those three monarchs who ruled nowhere near the 1660s. However, we could do something like

      The religious reforms under the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I, which suppressed pilgrimage and the cult of saints, brought major changes to the fabric of the church. The shrine was probably dismantled at this time and the grave chapel blocked off. By the 1660s, the value of the Pennant church had once again sunk to below average for the diocese.

      UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      yeah i like that ordering better (couldn't quite put my finger on what was bugging me about that paragraph) - thanks! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• as well: I would cut this: as well as what?
  • done -s
• the shrine was likely dismantled at this time: wiser editors than me have picked out "likely" in this context as an Americanism; "probably" might be more BrE. See also later it likely would have been threatened and which is likely much older
  • had no idea that was an Americanism - you've caught me! holy moly i use it a lot in this article. done -s
• Picture captions that are not complete sentences (like A 1795 watercolour of St Melangell's Church by John Ingleby, showing the square cell-y-bedd at the east end should not end in a full stop.
  • fixed -s
• The walls were plastered and seating was introduced into the church at some point from the late 16th century.: any reason not to put this in chronological order, before the C17th material that precedes it? By "from", do we mean "after", or "in the late C16th or later"? "From", to me, implies that it was a long process that started but didn't finish in the C16th.
  • it was at an unknown point in the late 16th century or afterwards, and it's not entirely chronological because the preceding bit is also quite chronologically uncertain - the shrine was dismantled at an unknown date at some point in that period, in the 16th or 17th century. -s
• The current church tower was entirely built: I'm not sure we need entirely here. Similarly, later, in the apse was entirely rebuilt.
  • removed -s
• Ralegh Radford might do with an introduction here: most readers, I think, will be expecting him to have been an architect.
  • done -s
• Meifod parish priest Paul Davies' wife recovered from cancer: this is clunky. Suggest "Paul Davies, the parish priest of Meifod, bought a cottage near the church with his wife, following her recovery from cancer"
  • done -s
• Cancer Help Centre: why the capitals?
  • it's capitalized in the source, not sure why -s
• Archbishop Alwyn Rice Jones: archbishop of where? Suggest "Alwyn Rice Jones, the Archbishop of Wales. Might also be useful to note that he was simultaneously Bishop of St. Asaph.
  • done -s
• The isolated, scenic location of the church was also a notable factor in attracting visitors, and played an important role: consider cutting notable and important as WP:PUFFERY.
  • done -s
• visitors to the shrine come from diverse religious backgrounds: can we be more specific here? Are we saying that lots of non-Christians left prayers?
  • added some details -s
• the remains of the medieval apse wall footings, which was semicircular: not quite grammatical here: suggest the footings of the medieval apse wall, which was...
  • good point; fixed -s
• Initials, like R.B. Heaton, are usually followed by spaces: R. B. Heaton. British English would prefer the architect.
  • fixed -s
• many of which are significantly weathered: strictly, significantly should mean that this signifies something: if we just mean "severely", "heavily" or "very", we should say that.
  • TIL; fixed -s
• It is not known what the shrine originally looked like ... The steep gable design of Melangell's shrine: we seem to have contradicted ourselves here.
  • clarified -s
• such as the 'willow' and 'half-pear': MOS:' disapproves of scare-quotes like this: the most MoS-aligned thing to do would be to use double quotes, or something like those known as "willow" and "half-pear".
  • went with regular double quotes -s
• There's a bit of overlap at the moment between the "History" and the "Architecture" section; in many places we seem to be telling the story of demolitions, renovations and restorations twice. I'd suggest having a think about the best way to order and relate this information, and trying to do it only once.
  • i'll work on streamlining some of the repetition here - i can't really think of any way to reorganize the article that wouldn't be pretty clunky and incongruous with other church articles, so i'll just reword some stuff in the architecture section & move a couple sentences around; shouldn't take too long. -s
• Strictly, Asen y gawres is the Giant's rib.
  • done -s (i appreciate your knowledge of Welsh saving me here haha)
    • Alas, the source hasn't got this right, but Asen y gawres actually translates as 'the giantess's rib'. (Y cawr = 'the giant'; y gawres = 'the giantess'. Note how Barclodiad y Gawres is translated.) This is a source that gets it correct. Ham II (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      thanks for that source - i've gone and changed it now ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good eye -- I spotted the one mistake but not the other! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• large whale rib of uncertain purpose and origin: Suggest reworking slightly: its origin is, at least on one level, pretty obvious.
  • switched "origin" for "provenance" as more precise -s
• I'd give a date for the Victorian era.
  • i don't think that's entirely necessary, as the wikilink gives you the dates of the Victorian era in the first sentence -s
    • While the precise application of MOS:NOFORCELINK has been debated, the general principle is that we shouldn't require readers to go to a linked page to get a piece of information that's important to understand this article. There's always a balance to be struck between wordiness and comprehensibility, but I can't really see that adding a date pushes us anywhere close to the wrong side of that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      done ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• it was painted over with a Hanoverian coat of arms in the 18th century, and then plastered over.: as written, it sounds like it was plastered over as soon as the paint dried.
  • switched to "later" -s
• An 1886 copy on wood was located on the altar: was located -- what happened to it, do we know?
  • unfortunately the source doesn't say -s
• Welsh priest John Parker: I'd put a date on him. BrE would prefer The Welsh priest. We need a more subjective word than "noted" for a statement of opinion: simply "wrote"?
  • done -s
• Iorwerth Drwyndwn.: introduce him.
  • done -s
• Looking here, p. 321, it sounds like there's an alternative theory that the effigy is another Iorweth, possibly (or alternatively) a member of the Rhirid Flaidd family. The wolf connection would certainly be worth a note, I think. The same source has another suggestion for the female effigy.
  • Archaeologia Cambrensis is truly a never-ending source for this topic, as somehow i never found this bit of detail. however, i've never seen this claim anywhere else, and there's no author listed (not uncommon for 19th-century scholarship, but not ideal for citations) - i'll keep the tab open, but hold off on adding it just yet -s
    • I've been thinking on this a bit: if we've cited AC elsewhere, we've established that we consider it a reliable source, and so we can't really (under WP:DUEWEIGHT) say that we're going to ignore something published there simply because it isn't replicated elsewhere. If someone else had actually taken on that claim and demonstrated that it was false, that would be another matter, but at the moment there's a danger of trying to have our cake and eat it at the same time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      that's a good point; my issue here is that i use two 19th century sources (Pennant & Parker), and both are cited with attribution (except for the very straightforward description of the rood screen by Parker) since the context of when and by whom they were written is important. how would i attribute this little bit of the "miscellaneous notes" section? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      You don't need to use every bit of the citation template: something like "Mystery of Purple Custard Explosion", The New York Times, April 15, 1974, p. 1 is absolutely fine. Sometimes it is possible to find out the author of an unattributed source: in older periodicals or edited volumes, for example, it was usual practice only to attribute the author when it wasn't the editor, so I'd pull forward to the front matter and see if the editor is named: you can then either cite it as "J. Jones (ed.)" (using |editor=) or more boldly with Jones as the author. It would equally be fine, in the text, to say that In 18whatever, a contributor to the archaeological journal AC suggested that..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      fair enough o7 i'll get to work on that! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      added ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• in which case the effigy would be a cult figure of Melangell: I think we need a probably here: it would be entirely possible for a human being to be depicted with the iconography of a saint.
  • done -s
• contemporary to the building of the gate: contemporary with.
  • fixed -s
• What's the logic as to which sources are included in the bibliography, and which are not?
  • sources which are used multiple times are put in the bibliography & referenced via sfns; everything only used once is just given a full citation in ref tags -s
• Reference formatting is inconsistent as to title or sentence case. I'm also not sure I can immediately work out the ordering system in the bibliography: by date isn't wrong (though it is highly unusual), but how come Heaton and Britnell 1994 comes before Ridgway 1994, but Britnell and Watson 1994 comes after Parkinson 1994? Initials down here also need spacing.
  • chronologically is my personal preference for when there's a large range of time between sources, as in this case. as i'm sure you've noticed, a giant chunk of the sourcing comes from a single volume of Montgomeryshire Collections in 1994 - i've sorted the articles by how they are ordered in the volume originally, but i can order that chunk alphabetically if it's preferred. initial spacing done -s
    • done with the title v sentence case - i just switched them all to title case
• Sources, in general, should have identifiers: usually that's an ISBN/OCLC/OL number for books and an ISSN for journals.
  • i'll dig into this & add them
• Historia Divinae Monacellae should be italicised in the source title.
  • done -s

Over to you: let me know if anything is unclear, or if I've got the wrong end of any of these sticks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wow I was not expecting such a nice review so quickly! i'll try to get all of this addressed today and tomorrow. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist i've responded to everything! ball is back in your court (it might be easier to respond to my responses down here, so it's easier to follow) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: identifiers - i do not think Montgomeryshire Collections has an ISSN. it seems to be more or less exclusively digitized by the National Library of Wales, which has hdl identifiers for each volume, but that's it. Archaeologia Cambrensis, however, does have an ISSN but i can't find DOIs for articles from either. it's an unusual system, but the best i've got. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: repetition between the "architecture" and "history" sections, i'm really not seeing anything that would bother me as a reader - you need a little bit of context to properly describe the architecture, and you need to describe the various renovations, excavations, etc in the history section. there is a bit of repetition, but it's about as minimal as i could get without having disjointed and confusing prose. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few things that I notice:

• We give what was found under the apse in the architecture section, but not the archaeology section: this is backwards, if anything.
• We give the date (1989) for the rebuilding of the cell-y-bedd in the architecture section, but not the history section (we only imply that it was between the 1980s and 1992)
• File:Shrine of St. Monacella in Pennant Melangel Church, 1795.jpg -- a very nit-picky thing, but any chance of rotating this image slightly so that it's straight? The left edge is quite noticeably higher than the right.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• good point, moved
• the reason for this is that those two parts are cited to different sources and were written in different phases - that said, i'll continue to tweak this a bit.
• i wouldn't know the best way to do that, to be honest!

... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: that's all I've got. A lovely article and such a great improvement from where you found it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Generalissima

Put me down for a source review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede adheres to LEADCITE. I don't see any things that would need cites, and I don't see anything that isn't discussed within the body. The only cites within the lede are two for a footnote, which is appropriate here.
• Location and surroundings is fully cited.
• History is fully cited.
• Archaeological excavations is fully cited.
• Shrine is fully cited.
• Architecture is fully cited.
• Churchyard is fully cited.
• The SFNs are correctly and consistently formatted. There are a couple things with pages that don't have SFNs (namely, Morton 2009, Hurlock 2018, Gibson 2002, Williams 1993, Walker 1990, Jones 1954, and Edwards 2002). I would suggest converting these to SFNs for consistency's sake. Websites or other forms of pageless sources are fine to keep as longform citations.
• Bibliography is consistently formatted. Everything has HDLs and ISSNs where appropriate. Author names are linked when possible. Good to go here.
• As this is your first FA nomination, I will do a spotcheck. This might take a hot second though, so stand by. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks for doing the source review! sfn conversions done, + Malim 2018, Crossley & Ridgway 1947, and Archaeologia Cambrensis 1877. i've also removed non-functioning archive links & unnecessary parameters, and added a couple of ID numbers that i had missed previously. i think it looks much cleaner now! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh heck yes, that looks perfect! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot to comment on this, but all of the sources are looking very nice. Mainly to Welsh history and religion journals, which is obviously appropriate here. There's a few 19th century sources, but they're used sparingly and almost always alongside a more modern source. Well done on that front.

Spot Check

• Brittnell, 1994a: "Boundaries of the Parish of Pennant Melangell"
  • 6: Checks out, mentions Llangynog.
  • 7: Indeed.
  • 38: Confirms the dates here.
• Pryce, 1994.
  • 11: Yep, gives the name origin.
  • 18: Summarizes the story of Melangell. Works good enough for me!
• Evans, 1994.
  • 12: Checks out. Side note: There's space to include that gorgeous 1870s sketch of the church, right? I think that'd go good in the "restoration efforts" section, as its contemporary to the early restoration work.
    • i'd absolutely love to - however, i can't find a death date (nor really any information) for the artist. figured it out - added! -s
      • 'Support on image review of this one specific image, since it's newly added, lol. Licensing checks out and it has alt-text. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13: Checks out as well, footnote in the article explains it nicely.
• Keulemans & Burton 2006
  • 15: Indeed talks about pre-Christian uses of the site. Some of this context is however on page 105, so I'd change the cite to 105–106.
  • 40: Checks out.
  • 44: Checks out.
  • 45: Checks out, though you could merge this with the previous cite by changing the page numbers to "103–104, 106–107"
• Parker, 1848
  • 77: Checks out.
  • 78: Quote checks out.
  • 79: This can be merged with the previous cite by switching it to 225–227; you only need to cite quotes at the end of the sentence, but it can be covering multiple quotes when doing that.
• Britnell, 1994b
  • 16: Checks out, but I'd mention that tests indicated it was likely from the second half of the first millennium BCE, and that urn fragments were found. (Oh, I realize this is restated later, including by Gibson 2002. Might be good to bring just a little of that over here?)
  • 23: Yep. Briefly summarized on 94, and expanded on 70–72.
  • 37: Checks out.
  • 47: Checks out.
  • 48: Yep.
  • 50: Yep.
  • 51: Yep.
  • 52: Wow, yeah.
  • 53: Yep.
  • 54a: Yep.
  • 54b: Yep.
  • 55: Yep.
  • 56: Yep.
  • 57: Yep.
  • 58a: Yep.
  • 58b: Yep.
  • 65: Yep.
  • 66: Yep.
  • 88a: Yep.
  • 88b: Yep.
  • 89: Yes.
  • 90: Yea.
  • 91: Mhm.
  • 94: Checks out.
  • 98: Checks out.
  • 100a: Checks out - getting a pattern yet?
  • 100b: Also checks out.
• That last one was a slog to get through, apologize for the delay. I made some minor formatting suggestions, but I wouldn't consider them obligatory, so I will say Support on both source review and spot check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i like your suggestions, and have done all of them! thanks for the source review :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:St._Monacella,_or,_Pennant_Melangel_Church,_1795.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• File:John_Parker_Pennant_Melangell_rood_screen_drawing.png needs a US tag

• File:Pennant_Melangell_Lychgate_1893.png needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  done
  this catalogue listing says it was made to be published in Thomas Pennant's Tours in Wales series, although i'm not sure of an exact date of publishing vs creation.
  done
  done
  thanks for the swift review! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for a lovely article! I'll comment as a read, and return to the lead after the whole thing. Just for now: you may want to reduce repetitions of the words "church" and "shrine". Sometimes "it" would be not ambiguous, I think.

The infobox is fine. I'd like a larger image, but my way of cheating (St. Martin, Idstein) is perhaps not compatible with FA ambitions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval

• "no definitive evidence exists for a church existing at the site", - less repetition perhaps?
  • reworded slightly -s
• is there a link for Valuation of Churches for someone unfamiliar? - value in which respect?
  • the Valuation of Norwich unfortunately does not have an article to link, but i added the word "property" to give the correct sense - it was a recording of all the property values for tax purposes. -s
• I wonder if you can first describe the changes to the building in the 15th century, and then the higher value?
  • there's not a ton more information about the renovations in the 15th century, as the information we have is based on physical evidence, rather than records. -s

    I didn't mean more information, just the order. -GA

Restoration

• too man "also" for my taste in the first para
  • trimmed -s
• I read "transferred" as a move of location, but understand that it means just to which parish the building belongs, - correct?
  • correct -s
• I'd move the pic of the shine in the chancel to where that is mentioned.
  • that section of the article is a bit cramped for images, and the shrine being in the chancel is relevant to the paragraph where it talks about how it was moved there -s

    I tried, revert if you don't like -GA

Read until there, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archeoloical ...

• I had to look up "posthole" but may be the only one.
  • thankfully we have glossary of archaeology! -s

Images

• I am mostly happy but would like File:St Melangell's Church - geograph.org.uk - 3736675.jpg included, for an overall impression, and the hares, File:Shrine of St. Monacella in Pennant Melangel Church, 1795.jpg ;)
  • good catch with the first one; added. i'm not quite sure how i could cleanly fit the Ingleby watercolor into the article, but it is featured on Melangell's article -s

    I tried, revert if you don't like, - I dropped the pic of the balcony which seems a bit redunant to the one added (+ not straight, + rather dark) -GA

• Upright images could be upright.
  • not sure how to do that! -s

    I tried, revert if you don't like -GA

Back to the lead

• I'm mostly happy but would appreciate a hint at how close the building was to demolition, the cancer-retreat, and the pilgrimage beyond veneration of a particular person.
  • added a little bit -s

Again, thank you for an interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt replied to everything - let me know what you think! and thank you for your review :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes. I wonder if in History, you could mention the key things in chronological order, but order of importance is also fine. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i assume you meant the initial paragraph of the history section, in which case done! and thanks for the support! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti

I'll provide a review. It's British Christian history and church architecture. I feel somewhat competent in these subject areas, so let's see what I can add! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just realized this was Sawyer's work! Looking forward any responses to my comments! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• The lead could do with a mention of the church's current denomination, the Church of Wales. I'd prefer this earlier than later in first paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to mention previous affiliations with the Catholic Church or Church of England in the lead.
  • good call - done -s
• The church has a single nave and a square tower, and is built of multiple types of stone. On the east end is an apse, which contains Melangell's traditional grave. Consider leading with the statement on the stone construction to combine the building's arrangement without the brief aside on materials.
  • yeah i like that better - done -s
• The churchyard contains thousands of graves, the majority unmarked, and several yew trees. Consider using em or en dashes rather than commas, as this looks like a list at first blush.
  • done -s

Location and surroundings:

• As of 1994 should be followed by a comma, if memory serves.
  • done -s
    • Nit-picking: it's the Church in Wales (emphasis mine): it wouldn't do to start a schism on Wikipedia. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      the article does indeed say "Church in Wales"! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Glebe is one of my favorite words. Thought I ought to mention that.
  • it's probably in my top 5 ecclesiastical terms, up there with "rood". -s
• I feel like there's enough of a topical shift to start a new paragraph at Other historic sites nearby. This is up to you.
  • yeah that looks more even to me -s
• At some unknown date, probably in the 19th century, the words "St Monacella's Bed" were carved into the stone. Maybe I'm not reading this well, but this feels like a bit of a non sequitur. Is this in reference to the aforementioned rock shelf?
  • it is referring to the rock shelf, but i'm not sure how to reword it. -s
• Note B strikes me as important enough to warrant inclusion in the main body. Again, this is a subjective sentiment that you are welcome to ignore.
  • originally it was, after According to her hagiography, Melangell, but either PMC or UC suggested i move it to the section where the name "Monacella" is first mentioned. i think it would make the sentence kind of cluttered to put it into the prose. -s

Ok, the history section is much longer, so I'll add my comments on it separately. Looking good thus far! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reviewing this & glad to have another nerd about British church history on this article! i've responded to your comments so far. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent responses. Upon second glance, comments that you did not implement are acceptable as-is. More comments to follow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following sections are smaller and, since I'm editing on my phone right now, will be reviewed before the titanic history section.

Shrine:

• Can an approximate date be provided on first mention of the shrine in this section?
  • i opted to omit it in the first sentence because it's been dismantled and reconstructed so many times - the following sentence explains that it's a reconstruction of the 12th-century original. -s
• Per MOS:DATECOMMA, In 1958 should be followed by a comma.
  • done -s
• At the risk of redundancy, I would again mention that the shrine's components were moved to the chancel after they were dismantled.
  • agreed & added -s
• Limewash is presently linked on second mention rather than the first mention. I would swap the two.
  • good catch; the earlier paragraph was added later, which is why i didn't notice it. -s

Architecture:

• The square tower is of the 19th century, with a pyramidal roof topped by a short timber belfry. This sentence has the eloquence often found in British academic writing from the last century, but it could be shortened. Consider "The 19th-century square tower has a pyramidal roof topped by a short timber belfry."
  • i do love flowery writing... done -s
• I would consider a new paragraph starting at The original cell-y-bedd. A citation would have to be appended at the end of the preceding sentence. This is discretionary.
  • done -s
• I recommend mentioning that John Parker is also an artist, as this qualifies him to comment on the artistic quality of the building.
  • good point, done -s
• John Parker is linked both on first and second mention. I think it's ok to only link him once.
  • done -s
• Per MOS:GEOCOMMA, names of parishes like St Pabo, Llanbabo and St Iestyn, Llaniestyn should have a second comma after the name of the place.
  • done -s
• Is the location of the split in the female effigy known from the sources? If so, I'd consider adding it.
  • in the images in the article, it's roughly in the lower-shin-ankle area, but not mentioned in the text (nor is the cause of the break). -s

Ok, that's all I have time for right now. I apologize for the piecemeal nature of my comments. Again, excellent work. I must also add that your prose is clear, ushering the reader through the article without tedious rereading. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

responded! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from TechnoSquirrel69

I brought this up during the peer review, but why is "Pennant Melangell" bolded in the lead? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i re-bolded it because as much as this article is specifically about the church, the sources discuss the church and the surrounding settlement almost interchangeably, as they are inextricably tied together and you can't discuss one without discussing the other. indeed St Melangell's Church is often simply called "Pennant Melangell church" or "Pennant church" in sources. MOS:BOLDLEAD indicates that widely-known alternative names should be bolded, which while "Pennant Melangell" isn't quite that, i'd argue that it fits the spirit here and is helpful to readers. let me know if you strongly disagree or whatever though, haha ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hilary

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a hurricane that struck California last August, causing unprecedented flooding across the western United States. Hurricane Hilary was at one point a powerful Category 4 hurricane. It caused flooding across Desert Valley, which I actually got to witness firsthand, including an image (not the best, but still relevant enough to include in the article). It just passed its GA review (today actually), and I would love to get it featured by its one year anniversary. Enjoy the read, please let me know how I can improve it. Thanks in advance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kes (Star Trek)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fictional character played by Jennifer Lien from the sci-fi series Star Trek: Voyager. She is a member of the Ocampa, a telepathic alien species who have latent psychic abilities and a life span of only nine years. Featured in the show's first three seasons, Kes is primarily shown either handling her boyfriend Neelix's jealousy or helping the artificial intelligence known as the Doctor develop his humanity. The character was removed in the fourth season after Lien's unspecified personal issues affected her reliability on set.

Thank you to @J Milburn: for the GAN review back in 2019 and to @Premeditated Chaos: for the help in the more recent peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

Not the Star Trek character I thought I'd see at FAC, but I'm interested in reviewing. I do have some broad opening thoughts on first read, though:

• Is there are particular reason we start with the development and casting information, rather than an overview? Right now while the lead gives a brief introduction, there's no elaboration on Voyager's premise and the characters met, which I think might be a little backwards; as a Trek fan I don't need that context, but I think that it might dump unfamiliar readers into a lot of behind-the-scenes info without the foreknowledge to get why it matters (for example, the appearances section mentions Kes an an alien with a short lifespan, but we've already talked about that in the development, so it feels weirdly restated, whereas what Voyager is even doing there and why she's meeting all these characters you have to wait for 1300 words before there's any explanation.

• That makes sense. When the article passed the GAN, it had the following sentence in the lead to provide some context: (Set in the 24th century of the Star Trek universe, the series follows the crew of the starship USS Voyager, stranded far from home and struggling to get back to Earth.) Would it be beneficial to add that information back? I agree it is important to make sure the article can be understood by readers completely unfamiliar with Star Trek.
• I had originally started the article with the "Appearances" section, but an editor in the GAN review disagreed with this approach so it was changed to fit with the structure more commonly used in fictional character articles (i.e. production information before the summary portions). I could change the order of the sections again if that would help. For a different idea, I could revise the "Creation and casting" subsection so it starts with a brief part about the producers coming up with the show's main concept and then transitioning to the background on Kes as she is one of the first characters created. I would of course be open to any other suggestions or ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally agree with starting with development first in a lot of cases, but I think this is one where you're either going to repeat yourself stating a lot of the premise and details early and then going into more depth later to be accessible, or just putting appearances earlier so you can contextualize the background details makes the most sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense to me. I think it is always important to look at each individual article to see what would benefit that particular topic the most. I agree with the repetition, particularly with the age and alien species designation. Plus, this is about a very specific part of a specific show so a background would be better for an unfamiliar reader than jumping right into production information. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It strikes me as a little weird the reception section talks about positive reception of Lien's acting, versus leading off with the reception of the character itself, especially since the lead highlights the latter more than the former.

• That is understandable. I was honestly unsure about where to put this paragraph. I heavily revised this section during the peer review process. I could divide the section into two, with one subsection about the character and the other about Lien. It would be similar to what I did with Melanie Barnett. The downside would be that the second subsection would only be a single paragraph. I could also move the paragraph to the end of the section. Please let me know if you have any other ideas though. I have been stuck on this section for a bit to be honest. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As another idea, I could move the paragraph on Lien's acting directly after the more general paragraph about the character. For some reason, I only thought of that option now. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Up to you. I don't mind it being in the reception section personally, I just don't think it makes sense to lead off with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense. I think putting it second makes sense. That way, the section starts off with the more general reviews going from the character to the actor and then to reviews on more specific aspects of the character. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A proper review forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @David Fuchs: Thank you for your comments so far. Take as much time as you need. You have raised some excellent points. I have pitched some potential solutions above, but feel free to let me know if alternative ideas would be better. Apologies for being more cautious and not directly making changes to the article yet. I just wanted to make absolutely sure first. I doubt that anyone would expected to see this character at FAC, but I do often gravitate more toward the obscure topics so that is probably why. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have given this some more thought. I have added a brief sentence to the lead to give an overview of Voyager, moved the "Appearances" section up, and put the reviews on Lien's acting after the more general one on Kes as a character. I did each in separate edits so that way, it can be easily reverted if deemed unhelpful and the changes can be more easily assessed. I would be more than open to any alternate ideas (like starting with a separate "Background" section). Feel free to revert anything if you disagree. I will avoid making any further major edits to avoid interfering with your review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ach, should read through everything before responding -.- I think this layout works much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. Apologies for typing so much. I was trying to think my way through it and I wanted to be as transparent as possible just in case I was going down the wrong road or there is was a better alternative in mind. I admit that I want overboard. I was probably way over-thinking things. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:KesProfileImage.jpg needs a complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for letting me know and apologies for forgetting that. I have completed the FUR using wording from the profile image in the C. J. Cregg article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

Weirdly, I didn't get this ping, but here I am. I'm a support based on the work done at PR, which I basically treated like FAC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I likely messed up the ping somehow. I did not get a notification on my end that it went through. Apologies for that. Thank you for your help as always! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

The only concern I have with the prose is the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Background and introduction", which is quite long. I suggest that this is split into multiple sentences.

• That makes sense. I have split it up into multiple, smaller sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede and infobox check:

• "Set in the 24th century of the Star Trek universe," Could not find in the article body

• Removed. I do not this part was really necessary for readers to understand the summary of the show's main premise. Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Reaction to Kes was negative;"... "Kes was considered a fan favorite and Lien received positive reviews for her acting." This confused me, as it seems to be saying that reaction was both negative and positive. When I read the reception section, I also got the impression that she was initially positively received. I think the wording needs clarification, with discussion on who and why they reacted negatively and that the reception was split between reviewers.

• I must have forgotten to update the lead after changing the "Reception" section during the peer review. I have revised it now, but let me know if further work is necessary. The character received mostly negative reviews in what I could find. There is only one positive critic review in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. I never got the feeling that critics particularly liked the character even from the beginning. There was some negative response to her removal from the show, but that is separate. It seems like viewers liked her more than critics, and I have hopefully clarified that point. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mother and father are not mentioned in the article, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned in the infobox.

• Removed. I do not think the parents are notable enough to discuss and source in the actual article so they seem unnecessary to include in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Linnis is not mentioned in the article, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned in the infobox.

• Linnis is Kes's daughter from the timeline shown in the episode "Before and After". The article does mention her, but does not name her. That being said, she is a one-episode character and I do not think it is really worthwhile to name her in the prose (and potential give her undue weight) so I have remove her mention in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Her position as "field posting" is not explicitly stated in the article body. I'm not familiar with the franchise, so is this mentioned in the article body?

• Star Trek often focus on Starfleet officers with rank being important to the character. An example is Harry Kim being an ensign. Kes is not part of Starfleet so she does not have a rank. It seems pretty unnecessary and potentially confusing to point that so I have removed that part from the infobox. I have also removed "Affiliation" and "Posting" parameters as they seem unnecessary as well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if anything needs further revision. Hopefully, the article was not too confusing to someone unfamiliar with Star Trek. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Putting a placeholder and will get to reviewing soon this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qalaherriaq

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on Qalaherriaq (AKA Erasmus Augustine Kallihirua and many, many other names), a young Inughuit lad who served as a interpreter (after an essential abduction) in the 1850s, converted to Christianity, and tragically died at around 22. This was my first article in a series on Inuit interpreters. I have tried to squeeze as much as I can out of these sources, and it's the kind of story I'd like to run at TFA down the line :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Why two copies of the same image?

• File:Qalaherriaq, 1850s, Inughuit hunt (cropped).jpg is missing alt text

• File:Qalaherriaq_signature.svg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Qalaherriaq,_1850s,_Inughuit_hunt_(cropped).jpg, File:Qalaherriaiq_map.jpg, File:Qalaherriaq,_Buried_Esquimaux.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alrighty, licensing and alt-text should all be fixed. I originally had two of the same because I wanted to show both angles of the double-portrait but also thought the front-facing was the best image of him... but I was able to find a good-quality scan of an 1855 drawing of him, and that I think is a step up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

• • • When and where was File:Qalaherriaq_signature.svg first published? Ditto File:Qalaherriaiq_map.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Signature is from a letter which was later stored in archives, which I guess counts as unpublished. The map I realize was not included in the book about the subject and is also unpublished. Corrected this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777's comments

will be back later; ping me if i seem to have forgotten about it! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (in Wolstenholme Fjord section) especially during an era marked by severe hardship for the Inughuit. some context may do well here - what was particularly hard about this era, compared to other periods of Greenlandic history? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A short biography, Kalli, the Esquimaux Christian, was published by Reverend Murray in 1857, becoming the main primary source on Qalaherriaq's life. i'd like to hear a little more about this biography, if there's more to write about it - what kind of impact did it have? how did it reflect the relationship between Murray & Qalaherriaq? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The crew encountered several abandoned igluit at the site of Uummannaq, now Pituffik. Inside one igloo, the crew found a heaped pile of seven bodies, the survivors were assumed to have fled the area without burying the dead due to an epidemic. presumably the seven bodies were victims of the epidemic, but this definitely took me a second to figure out, especially as the immediate context is looking for victims of a violent massacre. edit: it's also a comma splice ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Suggest including the "HMS" in the ship links, looks awkward splitting it up
  • Fixed. - G
• Forsyth was a commander, not a captain
  • Fixed. - G
• A word or two introducing what Prince Albert and Assistance were doing in the area when first mentioned would be useful. They're currently thrown into the text a little haphazardly
• John Ross should be Sir John Ross - also maybe a word to note that he wasn't actually part of this official search party?
• The text raises some confusion over the different groups of ships looking for Franklin. Initial reading suggests that Penny and the Assistance groups (you should also note who was leading this, because it's currently unclear with the first mention of senior officers being both Forsyth and Ommanney) were separate, but we then get "Ommanney and Petersen returned..." which suggests otherwise. The text should more obviously explain the makeup of this group of ships, what it was doing and who was a part of it
• Considering there's no link, a word or two prefacing what exactly Prince Albert is would be useful
  • Fixed. - G
• "Snow's" - give his full name and explain who he is, why should the reader find his account impactful?
  • Done. - G
• Link brigs
  • Done. -G
• Per above, if you're going to preface a ship with its type then do that for all of them
  • Okay, done. - G
• Suggest redlinking ship names where appropriate, e.g. HMS Sophia
  • Done. - G
• Do we know anything about Lady Franklin? She isn't showing up in any of my lists of Royal Navy ships
  • Ah, she's not Royal Navy it turns out! Private ship built for the purpose. Corrected. - G
• "the life of the party" is there a particular person attributed to this quote?
• "and do not reflect"
• Link midshipman
  • Corrected. - G
• "an Assistance midshipman" suggests there were others, when actually Markham was the only one in the expedition
  • Oh, good point. Corrected. - G
• "of the Franklin expedition"
  • Fixed. - G
• "Qalaherriaq was placed in St Augustine's College"
  • Fixed. - G
• "Qalaherriaq had suffered"
  • Fixed. -G
• "Captain Ommanney"
  • Fixed. - G
• Split out the links for Edward Feild and Bishop of Newfoundland
  • Fixed. - G
• Suggest adding a conversion for the £25
  • Added. - G
• "Memorial University.)" Move full stop outside of bracket
  • Good catch, fixed. - G

Some initial comments here. I will look to come back at a later date for another read through. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger

Nominator(s): LittleJerry and BhagyaMani

I've avoided doing this article for years since there are already felid FAs including lion and jaguar, but the tiger is in a category of its own. Its the most iconic animal of Asia and one which many would consider their favorite animal. Its absence from mammal FAs has left a gaping hole. We've worked on this article for months, preening through each line and cite and rewriting along the way when needed. It has had a peer review. Special thanks to Wolverine XI and UndercoverClassicist.

PS. This article can't make it to the front page in time for International Tiger Day on July 29 this year, but I'll like to save it for next year. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: (close the peer review) 750h+ 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

The most majestic creature to walk this earth, in my mind. Will certainly make time for this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Will try to have a closer look soon, but it seems the subspecies table needs work (below some nitpicks just on the table that immediately struck me, but I guess there are more, so it would be great if you could re-read it to clean it up):

• The table contains information that should better be discussed elsewhere (e.g., "Linnaeus's scientific description of the tiger was based on descriptions by earlier naturalists such as Conrad Gessner and Ulisse Aldrovandi" – that clearly should rather be the second sentence of "Taxonomy", just after Linnaeus description is mentioned, no?).

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bengal tiger skins in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London were described as bright orange-red with shorter fur and more spaced out stripes than northern-living tigers like the Siberian tiger – why has the Natural History museum to be mentioned here (unnecessary detail?), and isn't there a recent source for this quite obvious feature (you cite a paper from 1939 for this)?

Revised. No more recent source than Pocock (1939)'s article with descriptions of skins in this apparently huge collection. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question was rather why this needs to refer to the collection in the first place; isn't this feature valid for the entire population? Other Bengal tiger skins do not show this pattern? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question made me read Kitchener (1999) again who wrote that 14 of the total 51 skins in the London museum collection are from Bengal tigers and cautioned that the variation in colour and striping may be much greater than represented by these 51 skins. While I agree that it is not so important to link to the London museum collection, I think it relevant to mention that all descriptions are based on museum specimens. So I amended text in the 1st paragraph. I also removed statements on number of stripes, as Kitchener (1999) showed that the range of stripes from continental to island tiger specimens overlaps and again emphasized that samples are too small to know whether these are representative of populations. Your thoughts? BhagyaMani (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate that number of stripes – i.e. "fewer" or "more" – is a characteristic of only a few museum specimens, which does not allow to generalise to the entire populations; see Kitchener (1999). – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Authors are not properly introduced with full names (e.g., you say "Illiger's description", seemingly assuming that the reader already knows that Illiger described the subspecies).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it redundant to repeat names of authors in the 2nd column of the table and therefore shortened descriptions. More details are anyway given in the resp. pages on the populations. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. There is still one "Temminck" in the description of the Javan Tiger, I don't think we need that there, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Illiger's description was not based on a particular specimen, but he only assumed that tigers in the Caspian area differ from those elsewhere. – why "but" rather than "and"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the column be named "Population" instead of "Populations"? The column "image" is singular, too.

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• with long hairs and dense coats – should that be "long hair" and "dense fur"?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check for "hairs" at other places, too. We usually use the singular. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• reach as far west as Turkey – "reaching"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was noted to have"; "It was also said to have"; "The skull is described as"; etc. – Why use such convoluted wording? Any reason why simply "It has", "The skull is", etc. won't work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The type specimen from Sumatra had a dark skin. – I'm confused about this sentence. Only the type specimen had, not the population itself? "Had" means that the type specimen is lost? "Skin" refers to the naked skin under the fur?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It has particularly long hairs around the face, a broader and smaller nasal region than other island tigers with many thick stripes. – "It" still refers to the holotype specimen? What exactly is meant with "nasal region" (technical term to be avoided here; better describe where that region is relative to the nose or other landmarks that every reader will understand). In the photograph I do not see "many" thick stripes, only four at the whiskers.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The skull is shorter and broader then the skulls of tigers further south – "than"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• and a broad occipital bone – for another population below, you call it "occipital plate", is that referring to the same thing? Also, this should be explained (state where it is). Is this a feature that is visible in a living animal (if so, maybe write "broad back of the skull" or something if possible) or is this only visible when looking at a skeleton?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For Panthera tigris sondaica, you give the nominate subspecies and author in the "Population" field, but you don't do the same for the Bengal tiger. Why this inconsistency?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You link Temminck twice in the table, but other authors are only linked once.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I found that the "subspecies" section is a bit confusing and difficult to follow. It could be clearer. It starts with the nine tiger subspecies, but at first does not make clear that this view is already outdated. (Not sure, maybe start with pointing out the current classification, and then dive into the issue with the other proposed subspecies?). More suggestions on the issue in the following comments:
• The validity of several tiger subspecies was questioned in 1999. – This is followed by some explanation, but while reading, it first wasn't clear to me that these directly relate to that sentence. Maybe use ":" or directly combine parts of the following sentence with this one to make this clear.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Later, you have Therefore, it was proposed to but it was not clear to me that this relates to the 1999 study. Text could be re-arranged for better flow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This two-subspecies view is still disputed by researchers, since the currently recognised six living subspecies can be distinguished genetically. – Now this directly contradicts your previous text: "Disputed by researchers", you mean by "some" researchers? Currently recognised are only two subspecies, not six, right? And of course populations can be distinguished genetically, even single individuals can be, that does not make any sense to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Its genetic distinctiveness and separation were corroborated in 2021 and 2023. – "Its" refers to what, exactly? I can't follow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Results of a 2018 whole-genome sequencing of 32 samples support the Bengal, Malayan, Indochinese, South China, Siberian and Sumatran tigers being distinct monophyletic tiger clades – Do these researchers propose to recognise the mentioned tigers as distinct subspecies, or what is the conclusion here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 and Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Wilds

Nominator(s): PresN 02:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Outer Wilds is a game that's hard to explain: not because it's complex, but because the less you know going into it, the more you'll get out of it. All you ever have in the game is what's in your head, so I'm doing you a disservice by nominating this if you ever plan on playing it. But I'm doing it anyway, because for a subset of people (myself included), Outer Wilds is the best experience they've ever had with a video game, and I wanted to share that in an article. It's a GA and polished and ready for review and this isn't my first (or 20th) rodeo at FAC and all that, but really I just wanted people who go cared enough to go looking to know that in 2012 Alex Beachum made a sketch of a game about roasting campfire marshmallows while the sun explodes, and a little over seven years later what it became won the video game BAFTA for game of the year without losing that heart. I enjoyed writing this, and I hope you enjoy reviewing it. --PresN 02:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from NegativeMP1

I have never played this game, and I'm not sure if I ever will. I can't tell if this means I am the perfect candidate to review this from the perspective of a casual reader, or if it makes me one of the worst candidates. I'll drop some comments in the coming days. λ NegativeMP1 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the outlook of my schedule in the coming days, it seems I'm going to be doing this review while on mobile and also not in the country. I intend on squeezing in time to review this anyways, but I'll have to be breaking up my comments by section over time. Hoping this is fine with you. λ NegativeMP1 05:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like the screenshot should be moved over to the gameplay section, since seeing the image while reading gameplay may help better understand it. Just a suggestion, though.
• "No longer able to detect the signal, dubbed the "Eye of the Universe", the Nomai built a civilization throughout the system in order to find it again." Unless the "Eye of the Universe" is the dub for something else, it should be "No longer able to detect the signal, the Nomai built a civilization throughout the system in order to find it again, dubbed the "Eye of the Universe." If it is the dub for something else, that should likely be clarified.

Didn't notice anything else right now but I might take a second look later since I did this short on time. λ NegativeMP1 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

• File:Outer_Wilds_screenshot_nomai.png: suggest elaborating the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: Both done, thanks. --PresN 12:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

Comments to follow soon. ♦ JAGUAR  22:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

Reading. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content-wise I think we're covered, but the prose could use some attention.

Lead

• The game features the player character exploring a planetary system stuck in a 22-minute time loop that ends with the sun going supernova. The player explores the system on foot and in a small spacecraft, investigating the alien ruins of the Nomai and finding their history and the cause of the time loop. - Repetitive, I'd prefer introducing the setting and the player's journey in wholly separate sentences.
• The game began development in 2012 as director Alex Beachum's master's thesis, integrating several concepts he had developed while at school. He was inspired to create a game focused on exploration rather than traditional gameplay elements like resources or conquering, and in which the player character was not the center of the game world. - I don't think we need to go into this detail in the lead.

Gameplay

• an unnamed four-eyed Hearthian space explorer - the reader will probably assume this is an alien species, but could we get the relevant context from "settning" to come before this somehow?
• killing them if too much injury is sustained. - how is damaged tracked, a standard hp system or by some other metric?

More to follow. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All above done. --PresN 15:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• requiring the player to counteract their own momentum to slow down while flying, and causing the planets and other bodies to swiftly orbit the sun throughout the 22 minutes and exert their own variable gravity fields. - Not an error, but I think going from general to specific flows better, which would mean switching the clauses. Regardless, "throughout the 22 minutes" can be struck.
• this damage can destroy it and kill the player if there is too much, and can otherwise be repaired by exiting the spacecraft and interacting with the damaged component. Both the spacecraft and the spacesuit can be used to launch a small probe that can light up an area or take pictures. → too much damage can destroy it and kill the player, but can otherwise be repaired by exiting the spacecraft and interacting with the damaged component. Both the spacecraft and the spacesuit can launch a small probe to light up an area or take pictures.
• The player character does not have an inventory, and can only carry a single object at a time. - Do we need to specify that there's no inventory? I'm undecided

• Removed, I think its implied by the second half of the sentence

• and Nomai writing, presented as a branching conversation, can be read with the use of a translator tool. - I'm imagining that reading it is a bit like going through an RPG dialogue, but could it be made more clear?

• Tried - see the image in "plot" for how it works- a statement is a line, and one or more responses branch off of that line, each of which can in turn have responses

Plot

• Optional wl: [[Cloaking device|cloaking field]]
• The ending of the "story" and "Echoes of the Eye" paragraphs mentions "quantum versions", it is not immediately clear to me what this means.

• Removed- I think "versions" probably gets across the idea, which is that the game leaves it ambiguous to what extent they're the "real" people in question and gives no explanation for how they got there, it's pretty dream-like.

• Ok, I don't like the standalone "version(s)", could we go with "alter ego(es)"? /DB

• Eh, they're not alter egos, though, so I'm hesitant to use that term. Echoes maybe? Or I could just leave it as "the player encounters the other members of Outer Wilds".

• I see. I think the idea that something seems slightly out of place needs to be, to the extent that sources allow it, somehow conveyed. Echoes sorta works, doesn't it? Otherwise we could as you suggest omit it entirely. /DB

Development and release

• Might want to lead with "The development of Outer wilds.." or something similar.
• Beachum had created elements that would later make it into the game in previous projects at the school, including a planetary system changing over time, a planet falling apart, and trees that moved when they were not observed, and for his thesis wanted to combine and build on these elements. → Beachum reused elements from previous projects at the school, including a planetary system changing over time, a planet falling apart, and trees that moved when they were not observed.
• and Giant's Deep is loosely on Santa Cruz beach cliffs. - add based or go for "inspired".
• This is intended to train players to not exhaustively check every area, in order to discourage players from spending time searching where nothing is present as well as to steer them towards the paths the team wanted them to find first and not hidden shortcuts. - slightly redundant and can be inferred from the preceding sentence, or add "or empty areas" at the end.

Time for another break. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Above all done, left a couple explanatory comments in-line. --PresN 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Design

• who had worked with Beachum previously - we could tack this onto the first sentence.
• Wl [[Motif (music)|motif]] and then I think we can go with The central motif of the music was based on sitting around a campfire
• Based on the description of the other Outer Wilds explorers, Prahlow gave each of them an instrument based on their personalities to either "He gave each of the other Outer Wilds explorers an instrument based on their personality" or "Each of the other Outer Wilds explorers was given an instrument based on their personality"
• with the concept that they were all playing the same song apart but still together. - from what part of the source is this derived?

• Gah, it's not in that one, sorry- 38:20-39:10 in the Making of documentary (ref 29, which was being used for the next couple of sentences already)

• Prahlow did not write more general background music - remove or replace with "any"
• so that it would only play - replace with "music"

Echoes of the Eye

• They came up with a central motif of light and darkness, with the concept that the truth was hidden in the darkness waiting to be found, but might be scary or unpleasant.
• The team had previously considered the idea of having an invisible planet, including it as a stretch goal in the original Fig campaign, and returned to the concept in Echoes as an invisible artificial structure. → I'm not entirely pleased with my attempt at a rewrite here, but maybe something like: "The original fundraising campaign had included an invisible planet as a stretch goal, and in Echoes the team molded the concept into an invisible artificial structure." and in that case maybe add: "The original fundraising campaign for Outer Wilds"
• Prahlow returned as the composer for the expansion, incorporating new instruments into the tracks to give the impression of stepping into somewhere new and scary but still anchored to where the player character came from. - Is he reusing entire tracks or motifs to make it seem familiar? If tracks, "old" could be added for clarity.

That would be all! Draken Bowser (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Above all done, left a couple explanatory comments in-line again. --PresN 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! I think you forgot to address my comments on the lead or else assert why the current version is better. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Whoops, I did but then I didn't actually save. Now done. --PresN 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1, Jaguar, and Draken Bowser: Pinging as a reminder. --PresN 01:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

John Savage (soldier)

Nominator(s): Grosseteste (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 15th century knight Sir John Savage, who was one of the main commanders of the Tudor forces at the battle of Bosworth Field and a close companion of Henry VII. I significantly edited this article a number of years ago and subsequently it was raised to GA status. I believe it to be close to the required standard to be raised to FA status and would have initiated this review at that time if I had had the time. I would greatly appreciate some feedback as to what would need to be done in order for this review to be supported. Kind regards, Grosseteste (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Coat_of_arms_of_Sir_John_Savage,_KG.png is missing a tag for the design. Ditto File:Arms_of_Arnold_Savage_(d.1375).svg

• File:King_Edward_IV.jpg: the given tag requires that the image description includes information on steps taken to try to identify the author, and when was this first published?

• File:John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk.jpg is incorrectly tagged. Ditto File:Archbishop_Savage.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to be somewhat obtuse (not intentionally so) could you please explain what you mean by alt text, fixed px size and these tagging issues, I've been away from editing for some time but I'm sure I'll pick it up and I will endeavour to resolve these issues. Many thanks and best regards, Grosseteste (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is an alternative description added to an image to support those who are unable to see it to understand what it is meant to depict. Fixed px size is a set image size in pixels, which is discouraged because it overrides user preferences. Tags give information about the copyright status and reuse of an image, and must be sufficient to identify why a particular work is free or in the public domain in the US and (if hosted on Commons) in its country of origin. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your response Nikkimaria. I have removed all fixed pixel sizing from images and I have added more detailed alt text (I believe this has addressed the issue of the description not being specific enough). As for the tagging issues, how would I go about resolving those. Most of the images used were uploaded by other editors and were already on commons. How do I add tags to these images after the fact. To address one specific tagging remark, the portrait of Edward IV is held by the National Portrait Gallery in London and their records merely state that the artist is unknown - https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02029/King-Edward-IV?LinkID=mp01427&role=sit&rNo=0. Thanks again for your help with this (and understanding as I am sure you do not often receive so many questions!) Kind regards, Grosseteste (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to alt text, it looks like what you've done is edit the captions - those are different things from the alt text. Check out WP:ALT for more details.

Wrt tagging and image description pages, after the image is uploaded you can edit the image description page as you would any other page. So for example, to add steps taken to try to identify the author, you just go here and add that information. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the clarification Nikkimaria. I've added alt text to all images now and will try and provide some further information to the images so that they are correctly tagged Grosseteste (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review and source review

This version reviewed.

• IB: Not sure all those relatives are necessary, esp the general familes.
• Can you separate your footnote from your citation (so no [1][1])
• Thos Stanley does not need to be disambiguated as 'the elder' as his son has not been mentioned, and even when he is, the Lord S. who d. 1459 is the only lord.
• Clarify "Sir John Savage died three years before Stanley"; otherwise, which Stanley is referred to?
• "Which included Clifton"
• The second section on the origins of the family should come before the bit about the article topic specifically
• "his younger brother": John Savage's.
• Thos Savage became Abp of Yor (a career). His younger brothers became knights (events). The younger brothers may have been knighted, but those weren't their careers, which, of course, was royal service.
• Personally, I'd call the gentry the gentry for this period. "County" is more of a modernist analysis, whereas the late medieval gentry was literally the political class and not just in the localities.
• Stanley the younger: Sir Thomas Stanley, as he doesn't inherit the barony for another 15 years.
• Link Elizabeth Woodville; she's a queen, not the lass what eats the dung.
• "The now knighted...". We know. Stick to just calling him Savage per MOS:SURNAME.
• Replace "later that same year" later that years with "April... the following month"
• "as well as" doesn't work when discussing events 11 years apart. New sentence, something like, "In 1482 he returned to military service, joining the King's brother..." etc.
• The parenthesised text can be folded into this new sentence.
• "Aiding them to victories", etc. doesn't really make sense; the important thing is that they won, but even that's not directly relevant to the article, as he would have been personally responsible for neither an English loss nor victory.
• Check your duplicate links (This script will create a link in your left-hand sidebar and will highlight them for you automatically). Specifically, I noticed that you have King Ed unlinked in 1471 but then you link—on first name terms!—"close to Edward".
• Lose "he was later found worthy" etc, as it reads like a press release. Stick to something like "Following Ed's death in April 1483, Savage acted as a pallbearer at the royal funeral".

Pausing at this point.

Response

Thanks very much for your review Serial Number. There were some very useful suggestions here which I have taken on board and put into place.

Those which I have not yet enacted.

1) On the separating the footnote from the reference to avoid [1] [1] , I had noticed this but can't seem to separate the two. Is there a simple way to do this?

2) Clarify "Sir John Savage died three years before Stanley"; otherwise, which Stanley is referred to? Do you mean the line that says Savage died three years before his father? As I could not find a line similar to the one you quoted.

3) The second section on the origins of the family should come before the bit about the article topic specifically Could you explain what you mean by this? I presume you mean the Ancestral background section but this is the first section of the article. - Edit - I realise now you probably mean the Family section and thus will incorporate this with the ancestral background section or move it up.

4) Could you please tell me how you install scripts, as I note that you recommended this in the source review section also and I imagine that these could both prove very useful.

Thanks again for your suggestions and advice, I will try and address the referencing issues shortly!Grosseteste (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'll do this after you've got a couple of reviews in. It's a nice bookend to Sir Thomas Neville, of the other side of the parish  :) ——Serial Number 54129 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, some formatting points:

• You're missing several publisher locations, chapter page ranges and in some cases ISBNs or OCLCs. Install this script, it will highlight all the technical stuff FACs reuire in their source reviews.
• For your primary sources, format them (using ((Cite)) template) as you have your secondary material.

Update

I've done a fair amount of reviewing (quite a lot of copyediting required but not insurmountable so), but I'm taking a pause to have a look into the sources. I'm seeing some glaring omissions, frankly. There is almost no recent scholarship from the last 30 years, and this is a period that has been effectively rewritten in that time. Obvious by their absence are Michael Hicks' and Charles Ross's biographies of Richard III (in the Yale Monarchs series). Worse is the absence of material from the reign of Henry VII. Stanley Chrimes's biography is essential; all three of these are into multiple reprints. Probably Thornton's Cheshire and the Tudor state 1480-1560. These are all absolutely fundamental authors and texts, specialists in the reign.

What really highlights the lack of modern scholarship, however, is the reliance on old sources.

Pre-war:

• Crossley's Mediaeval monumental effigies, 1925
• Shaw's The Knights of England, 1906
• Williams, The Rebellion of Humphrey Stafford, 1928
• Weber, Pope Innocent VIII, 1910
  Victorian:
• Seacombe (not Seaacombe), The History of the House of Stanley, 1821
• Magna Britannia is from 1808
• Hales and Furnivall is a reprint from 1888
• Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation of it is a reprint from 1721 (or 1822 if you prefer!),
• Armstrong's Ancient and Noble Family, 1888.
  Of the post-war sourcing, the Thorpe Festchrift is sound (although you need to format it properly and include the actual author, chapter, etc, not just the eds); although, to reiterate, it is from 1976 and much work has been done on the period since. Lockyer & Thrush are sound. Ditto Kauffman. The title of the ODNB page you used is more than what fn67 currently says... it omits almost everything. The ODNB editor is also irrelevant; just use the entry author.
  The bottom line is there's a hell of a lot of primary sourcing and very of little of recent years. There's absolutely no harm in the former at all; they can provide colour and detail not available or suitable to the modern scholar, but they only come into their own when they are backed by solid, modern, independent expert scholarship, or what we call "high-quality reliable sources". I think I'll leave it there for the time being. Best of luck with the nomination. @FAC coordinators: ——Serial Number 54129 17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grosseteste, you need to establish that each source is not only reliable, but also high quality. And that the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The onus is on you. Frankly I don't think that you can, but am willing to give you some time to prove me wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, can I ask why it is that you think that? Grosseteste (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Grosseteste, marking a spot here. On first glance, the lead and body look good but the references are a mess, many sources don't have SFNs, ISBNs or OCLCs. Without these, reviewers cannot do spot checks to see if the information cited is accurate and if it violates copyright or not. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addie Viola Smith

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article, written for WIR #302, is about Addie Viola Smith, the first woman to serve as a Foreign Service officer under the United States Department of Commerce who eventually worked her way up to trade commissioner in Shanghai and consul at the Consulate General of the United States, Shanghai. Smith was also involved with international feminist activism (with a colonialist and imperialist perspective), often working with her life partner, Eleanor Mary Hinder. Thanks to KJP1 for a thorough GA review. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

This is an interesting article. I have the following comments:

• Link Department of Labor in the lead
  • Done.
• "who appealed to Herbert Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce " - Hoover should be linked
  • Done.
• Who rejected Smith's first attempt to be promoted to trade commissioner?
  • Unclear from the source.
• "native Chinese women" - is 'native' needed here? It's a pretty yucky term these days.
  • The sources cited used native, I suppose to clarify non-Western Chinese women, but I agree it's unnecessary.
• Smith's ADB entry noted that she and Hinder spent most of the 1950s living in New York and travelled frequently for the UN; this is missing from the article.
  • Added.
• Eleanor Mary Hinder is red linked twice
  • Removed second instance outside of lede.
• There's a likely-PD photo of Smith in 1929 here. Searching in the National Library of Australia's Trove service returns lots of other stories mentioning Smith, though they're generally pretty lightweight looking.
  • Thanks. Most of the photographs from these old newspapers are not great quality; I'll investigate its PD status.
• It might also be worth including that Smith prepared Hinder's papers to be deposited at the State Library of New South Wales - [5]
  • Done.
• Likewise, the ADB entries note that Smith and Hinder's home in Sydney was acquired from one of Hinder's cousins. It seems that the sources are dancing around acknowledging that they were likely 'out' to Hinder's family who appear to have accepted them as a couple given this and Smith's connections with the family after Hinder's death. This seems also worth noting given that this kind of thing was unfortunately uncommon at the time. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen any sources stating that they were explicitly out to Hinder's family, so I'm not sure how I would frame this without it being OR.
    • I'm suggesting here that you note the various close links like the ADB, etc, entries do which illustrate that they openly lived together (for instance, I just saw a news story on Trove from 1940 that noted that they shared a house in Shanghai together as 'friends'). Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Replied above. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Please see my comment above. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "She was the first woman Foreign Service officer" - I think maybe "She was the first female Foreign Service officer" would read more elegantly
  • Done.
• "Smith studied business administration" - I think changing this to "She studied business administration" would avoid any possible confusion about which Smith is being referred to
  • Done.
• "the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce O. P. Hopkins, denied her application" => "the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, O. P. Hopkins, denied her application"
  • Done.
• That's all I got!

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. Thank you, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Comments soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing looks overall good: there are no unreferenced claims in the body of the article and I didn't spot any unreliable sources. WP:EARWIG picks up one potential case of copyvios with https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8057psg/entire_text/, but this seems to be mainly because of stock phrases like "assistant chief of the Women's Division of the United States Employment Service", "chief of the Information Division of the United States Training and Dilution Service", and "representative of the International Federation of Women Lawyers". To be on the side of caution, maybe our sentence "She studied business administration at Heald's Business College in San Francisco, graduating in 1908" should be rephrased.

A few spot checks:

• The station launched on February 19, 1939.[18] supported by Krysko 2011, p. 90
• She was the first woman to serve as a Foreign Service officer under the Bureau.[6] supported by Krysko 2011, p. 92
• Addie Viola Smith was born in Stockton, California, on November 14, 1893, to Rufus Roy Smith, a publisher, and Addie Gabriela Smith (née Brown) supported by Barker 2006
• where they were "devoted to each other, shar[ing] a house[ ] and creat[ing] a garden".[33] supported by Barker 2006
• During her time as a clerk, Smith requested permission to sit for a civil service examination so that she could obtain a promotion to assistant trade commissioner.[8] supported by Epstein 2008, p. 708
• Throughout her career, Smith prioritized building roads as a means of increasing the import of American automobiles to China.[14] supported by Epstein 2008, pp. 704–705

There are a few cases were a citation can be removed because it is already in the scope of an identical second citation

• As trade commissioner, Smith was responsible for reporting on Chinese industry, infrastructure, and trade opportunities to the Department of Commerce; advising American business interests; serving as a liaison between American and Chinese businesses; implementing U.S. trade policy; and promoting the expansion of American trade in China.[14] Throughout her career, Smith prioritized building roads as a means of increasing the import of American automobiles to China.[14] remove the first citation to [14]
• In 1949, Smith left China and moved to Bangkok, where she worked for the United States Economic Cooperation Administration and the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East.[20] From 1952 to 1964, Smith was the representative of the International Federation of Women Lawyers to the United Nations in New York.[20] remove the first citation to [20]
• where they were "devoted to each other, shar[ing] a house[ ] and creat[ing] a garden".[33] During the 1950s, Smith and Hinder spent much of their time living in New York, traveling often for Smith's work with the United Nations.[33] remove the first citation to [33]

A few other observations

• Epstein 2008, p. 708–709. replace "p" with "pp"
• Epstein 2008, p. 709–710. replace "p" with "pp"
• The Australian Dictionary of Biography lacks an identifier (ISBN or OCLC)

As a side note: during the source review, I came upon some books written by Addie Viola Smith, see [6]. I'm not sure whether her activities as an author should be mentioned in the text. Epstein 2008 p. 704 mentions her book Motor Roads in China. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above done. I'm citing the online version of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, so I'm not sure an identifier would be appropriate. Regarding Smith's writing, I'll think of how to incorporate that. Motor Roads in China, and most of the things on Google Books, appear to be government reports written in her capacity as trade commissioner. She did write a few law journal articles. Maybe I'll add a bibliography to the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PInging @Phlsph7. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. If there are no differences between the printed and the online version, I would add the print ISBN, but it probably doesn't matter much either way. You could let the other sources decide whether her work as an author is important enough to be discussed. The mention in Epstein 2008 p. 704 seems to be more of a side note but maybe other sources have more on that. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the way of a discussion of her as an author as far as I have seen. I'll take a look at the print versions for ADB. It seems like they update posts periodically online so I'm not sure that there's a categorical match between one print version and the online version. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgo interferometer

Nominator(s): Thuiop (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the Virgo interferometer, one of the three interferometric gravitational-wave detectors to have made a detection. This is my first nomination, so I hope everything is up to the standards! Please note that this has been partly peer-reviewed; also, I took the initiative to split part of the article as it had become quite heavy, with the new Ground-based interferometric gravitational-wave search containing informations common to other detectors such as LIGO or KAGRA. Finally, note that I am a member of the Virgo collaboration; I have tried my best to keep to Wikipedia standards for neutrality, but please keep an eye open if I failed somewhere (on the bright side, this also allowed me to get most of the article reviewed by experts). Thuiop (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh

I'll start with the lede.

I was confused by the images. What is the first image supposed to tell me about the interferometer? The article is supposed to be about the Virgo interferometer, but is captioned "The Virgo experiment".

Paragraph 1: Is good.

Paragraph 2: You spell out EGO, which is good. But then you refer to CNRS and INFN, but don't spell out the acronyms, which is bad. The second sentence refers to the Virgo Collaboration but does not explain what this is and its relationship to EGO. The third sentence is clumsy in that it refers to the interferometers, which is fine but then tells us that these other interferometers include two interferometers in the US and in Japan. The double use of the word "interferometer/s" is clumsy. And just where is the Japanese interferometer KAGRA, and what does the acronym refer to? The fourth sentence starts, "Since 2007, Virgo and LIGO..." What is LIGO in the singular sense?

Paragraph 3: Is good.

I will look at the Organization section next. I hope the standard of grammar is not as unsatisfactory as the lede. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments!

Regarding the infobox, I left the original one which is Infobox organization. I think this is fine as the page is both about the detector and the organization, but there is not really a slot for the detector. I am not sure if there is a better one to use? I noticed that the LIGO page uses the telescope one, but I am unsure about that choice since it is not a telescope.

I made some edits taking your comments into account. The only thing I did not change yet is putting the explicit acronym for KAGRA; the name of the detector is basically KAGRA and its non-abbreviated form is very rarely used. The same argument goes for LIGO actually. I can write out the acronym meaning if you still think this is useful but I am not sure it really adds anything to the article. Thuiop (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Rolph

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Upper Canadian lawyer, politician doctor, and medical teacher. This figure's career is characterised by moderate Reform stances and constantly switching between a political life and practicing medicine. I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed researching him. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:John_Rolph_Portrait.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• Source says it was published 1800-1880, so I have updated that on Commons. Source does not say where it was published, and I do not know how to add that to the existing Template:Inforamtion, so I put it in the description. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source says "date" - is that publication date or creation date? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: I am not sure as I don't know how Archives Canada defines "date" on their website. My guess is that it is the creation date as the source is an autographed card and thus was not "published" in a book or album, but rather originally taken for Rolph's personal use. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Third_Parliament_Buildings_1834.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Does the above resolve your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image has a copyright tag indicating it was published before 1929. If I understand your response, you're saying it wasn't published at all - is that correct? If that's the case the current tag will need replacing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Since there is no confirmation from the source that this was ever published, I have replaced the tag with "never published" licencing templates on the image's commons page. Does this resolve the concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I will try to review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lead needs some editing - for instance, it is stated in multiple places that he was elected to the Parliament in 1824. In general it seems that much of the first paragraph is duplicated in the following two paragraphs

• I have done a full edit of the lede, cutting a lot of the information. My goal is for the first paragraph to state why he is notable and the second and third to describe his biography. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it known why he returned to England in 1817?

• I will have to consult Godfrey's book, which I have placed on hold at the library and should have a copy of in about a week. Biographi and Patterson both say that he returned to continue his education, with no special reason given beyond that. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Godfrey explains that he went back to solve financial problems and obtain his education. This has been added to the article (and cited). Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't directly address much why Rolph first entered politics in the 1820s - the brief description in Patterson suggests that opposition to the Family Compact and the treatment of Robert Fleming Gourlay were causes - do Godfrey or other sources go into more explicit detail on this than Patterson?

• I will have to check Godfrey when I get a copy of the book. Unfortunately, the copy of Muggeridge's article that I had access to was missing a page, so I don't have info from that source from 1809-1826. Patterson seems to be giving more of a background of the political scene when Rolph entered politics, so I don't think I can use this. I'll check Godfrey when I get his book but Rolph also did not leave many letters or editorials of his thought process so his motivation for politics might not be in the historical record. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Added info about Rolph's discontent with the political clique of the time. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If Rolph was associated with the Reform party, then why did he run as a Tory for the Toronto city council seat?

• Muggeridge, Biographi, and Patterson do not say why, so I will have to wait for Godfrey's book before clarifying. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I made an error: Godfrey says that the Tories endorsed Rolph, not that Rolph ran on a Tory slate. I corrected this in the article and outlined why he was endorsed. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead refers to Bond Head as a Lieutenant General - this doesn't seem to be accurate and I'm assuming that's an error for Lieutenant-Governor

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "After Rolph submitted objections to Bond Head's tactics in the previous election to the legislature. " - sentence fragment

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobo indicates that he was in the legislative assembly until 1870, but the article indicates that he chose not to run for re-election in 1857?

• Fixed: Biographi verifies that stopped being a legislator in 1857. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. While I did not conduct a formal source review, the sources used all appear to be sufficiently reliable, quick searching doesn't turn up any glaring sourcing ommissions, and I've skimmed through the Patterson source and compared it to the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate supporting; please ping me when you've been able to consult Godfrey again. Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Finally got the book, responses above. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 01:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy document hoax

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting little stir was created in the mid-1990s when it was claimed that a new cache of documents had been uncovered that contained salacious details about the private life of the former US president John F Kennedy. The documents, it was claimed, showed he'd been married before his nuptials to Jackie, that he did a deal with a mafia boss to win his senate seat, and that he bribed the FBI's J Edgar Hoover to keep quiet about his (Kennedy's) sex life. The one drawback is they were forgeries – and not very good ones either. Cue much wailing, gnashing of teeth, law suits, embarrassment and criminal charges. This has gone through a full rewrite recently and then been given a thorough going over by Wehwalt and Ssilvers to remove any lingering Britishness in the writing, for which they both have my thanks. All further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made edits and comments when the article was in draft.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I too commented informally while the article was in draft, and on rereading for FAC I find nothing to add. As far as I can see the article is comprehensive, balanced and well sourced; and it is surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you both for your earlier comments and assistance - it was much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "Cusack Jr was the lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, who was appointed as a guardian of the estate of Gladys Pearl Baker, Monroe's mother, in the 1970s." This is confusing as grammatically "who" appears to refer to the archdiocese. I would delete "the lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, who was" as not important for the lead.
• "a written signature had removed a tiny part of a line typed by using a modern plastic typewriter ribbon". I do not understand what a signature removing part of a line means,
• "Cusack Jr. was also the personal counsel to Cardinal John O'Connor.[13] In the 1970s, a surrogate court judge appointed Cusack Jr. as a guardian of the estate of Gladys Pearl Baker, Monroe's mother. This is the only known connection he had to either Monroe or Kennedy.[14] Cusack Jr. died on October 28, 1985, aged 66. [13] Cardinal O'Connor officiated at his funeral." Putting Cusack/Baker/Kennedy in the middle of Cusack/O'Connor implies a connection between the church and the guardianship. I think the two sentences about Cusack/Baker/Kennedy should be moved to a separate paragraph and the church comments cut down as tangential background.

  I went with keeping them in the same para in the end, although separating them. A separate para was less than a line and just looked lost and stubby. I've kept the church info in for the moment as I think it's good background on the father as a responsible, trusted and upright lawyer, in comparison to his son. I can be persuaded to trim it down if necessary though! - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "audited one of its courses". What does this mean?

  What form the audit took I don't know (ie. audited financially or whether it was a standards audit), as unfortunately the sources do not make it clear. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, in the US, when we say that someone "audited" a course, we merely mean that they attended the class sessions, but did not credit as part of their degree program a grade for classwork. It is done for one's personal educational interest and because one admires the professor or has heard that the course is of high quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "They also purportedly showed that to keep Kennedy bribed J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, to keep quiet about Kennedy's sexual activities." The grammar gets lost here.
• "archives at Cusack & Stiles concerning a transfer of land from the Kennedy family to the New York Archdiocese". Does this qualify the statement that the guardianship was Cusack senior's only connection to Kennedy?

  I've tweaked the first bit slightly to show it was JFK, rather than the Kennedy family. - SchroCat (talk)

• Presumably Cusack could not repay in full but is it known whether he paid part or was pursued through the courts to pay?

  There's nothing in the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An interesting article - one of a number of cases which show how gullible people can be if they think they have got a scoop. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Dudley, Many thanks for these. Shades of the Hitler Diaries, with everyone over-excited about the possibilities without doing some basic checks first! I hope I've done justice to your comments, which are all done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dudley: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Forged_Kennedy_document.jpg could use a stronger FUR and a different tag

• File:Sam_Giancana.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  File:Forged_Kennedy_document.jpg: Done. I've used one of the 'catch-all' FURs as it doesn't readily sit in any of the others. If you think this isn't right either, could you suggest a better alternative?

  File:Sam_Giancana.jpg: I couldn't find any (although I suspect it probably was), so I've removed this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  File:Sam_Giancana.jpg is here in the Baltimore Sun, September 26, 1977, matching the date on the back of the photo – and don't notice a copyright marker in the issue (in fact there's a copyright symbol for just one story elsewhere on the page). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s great Hameltion - many thanks indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Hersh began including information about the documents into his book" => "Hersh began including information about the documents in his book"
• "It was during the checks of the documents by NBC television network" => "It was during the checks of the documents by the NBC television network"
• "His marriage notice in The New York Times stated he graduated" => "His marriage notice in The New York Times stated that he graduated"
• "The documents Cusack forged supposedly showed Kennedy had" => "The documents Cusack forged supposedly showed that Kennedy had"
• "Cusack showed the some of the documents" => "Cusack showed some of the documents"
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Chris; all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Chris - your comments are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim O'Doherty

Marker, ping if I've not started ~10 days from now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. A few points (might be slightly out of order, did two passes):

• according to Kennedy's biographer Richard Reeves, she had previously told people both of the affair, and that she wanted to marry the president - MOS:JOB would have this be "the President". Additionally, (keeping in mind this article is in American English) is the comma before "and" needed?

  I think so. I wouldn't have put it in if it were BrEng, but I think it's needed in AmEng. Happy if a passing AmEng speaker corrects it though! - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comma is not wanted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• She later told a confident - confidant?
• In addition, as of 2024, Hersh has won - is "in addition" needed? "As of 2024, Hersh has won ..."

  I've added to it, rather than removed. If we go with "As of ... then the list doesn't include the Pulitzer, so we need something to link the Pulitzer to the other awards. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to repeat "pulitzer". How about "As of 2024, Hersh has also won..."? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• testified before the United States Senate subcommittee on Education in 1963 - "US Senate" or just "Senate"?
• Cardinal O'Connor officiated at his funeral. - is "Cardinal" unnecessary or American English? [insert British wisecrack here]
• fix the 1960 US presidential election - can we drop "US"?
• an early, secret first marriage - does the source say how early this "marriage" was?
• In November 1993 Cusack, Reznikoff and Cloud - comma after 1993 (for the Yanks)?
• as "a sort of vigorous 9-year-old valiantly combating dyslexia" –[53] - should the ref be before or after the en-dash?

  After, as far as I am aware. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ABC did not tell him in advance that they knew the documents were forgeries - haha. I imagine the temperature in that room dropped quite a few degrees after that.

  Unsurprisingly, he wasn't a happy bunny during the interview, from all I've read! - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link federal prison?

I would not link federal prison. The US system of federal and state authorities is unnecessary to explain. If anyone really wants to know more about federal prison, they can look it up, but the words are clear enough on their faces, and it is not important to this topic to have a specific understanding of which prison system he was sentenced to. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might do another round but I can't see how this is anything but a support. Very interesting case. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim, all covered; thanks for the comments - all much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of tweaks, based on SSilvers's comments too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had another scan and nothing to complain about. Support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim, that’s great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a space -- another fascinating topic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the forged documents supposedly showed Kennedy's dealings with organized crime: as I read that as written, it implies that Kennedy definitely did have dealings with organised crime, but it's dubious as to whether the documents really showed it (compare "the picture supposedly showed the Queen's lover, Geoffrey Boycott"). Suggest "supposedly showed that Kennedy had had dealings with..." and so on.

How about just "supposed dealings"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would work fine for this bit, but I'm not sure how it would mesh with the rest of the sentence, where we list a whole bunch of other false accusations. On the other hand, it is a long sentence, so there might be an argument for splitting it anyway. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cusack sold the papers through memorabilia dealers for between $6 and 7 million: my usual inflation query.
• John F. Kennedy, while the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963, was likely romantically involved with actress Marilyn Monroe at some point during his presidency: not sure about the while here: it reads awkwardly with at some point during his presidency. Also, technically, he remained the 35th president after his assassination. Suggest "John F. Kennedy was likely romantically involved with actress Marilyn Monroe at some point during his presidency, which lasted from ..."

Or just "while serving as president of..."? I don't think the number is important here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: I think the dates are important, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Biographers differ in their opinions of the length or depth of any relationship, while: I think the point would be clearer if we moved "While" to the front of the sentence: the point is that people believe it happened so hard that the actual fact or not of it is moot for our purposes.
• and that she wanted to marry the president: suggest "marry Kennedy": it wasn't that she wanted to marry whoever was president.
• Having the Spoto quote as a pullout (and the last word), in my view, puts the article's weight behind its broad conclusions -- that they were not having a love affair in any meaningful sense, and that Quirk et al were wrong. Do we have a strong enough consensus in the sources to make that claim?

  Yes, I think so. There are degrees of opinion, obviously, but most seem to be in this sort of area. Where Spoto takes a slightly different line to the others, it is in talking about the two being partners in a love affair; the others don't focus on the love angle, seeing it as a more earthy pursuit of two people with high sex drives. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm: I think if we are fairly definite that the two were sleeping together, we should adjust the framing of the article to be less conclusive that "an affair" wasn't taking place -- it sounds like what Spoto is really doing is quibbling the meaning of affair rather than disputing what most people would see as the important thing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I'd rather keep it in. I think we're clear that it is probable that they slept with each other - and don't forget, there is no evidence or proof that there was a physical relationship, just a high probability. The Spoto quote just clarifies the nature of the relationship to some extent, which is important, given what Cusack's forgeries claimed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree, but I think the order is important: at the moment, we have:

  They were likely involved -> they likely slept together -> but Spoto says they didn't have an affair

  I think this could be read as casting WP:UNDUE doubt on the sleeping together: I'd perhaps frame it as:

  They were likely involved -> While Spoto says what they had didn't count as an affair -> Even he says they probably slept together.

  UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, but I don't think it's an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking, slightly morbidly, of WP:ENDURE, you may wish to amend to Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist and political writer, came to prominence... (that is, remove the present tense). Granted, the "as of 2024" section will need changing anyway when that tense is no longer appropriate.

More to follow.

• Many thanks UC, this lot all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Capital letter needed in as of 2024
• Hersh and Little, Brown and Company: consider Hersh and the publishers Little... to avoid the potential ambiguity/clunkiness of going from one name into a single name composed of many (it sounds as if there were four men here).
• Little, Brown thought: this is the normal way of shortening their name, but it does read a little oddly: suggest the publisher?
• Suggest clarifying that both Loyola High School and Columbia are in New York (Loyola is in Manhattan). Is it relevant that Loyola is specifically a Jesuit institution? Can see it either way.

Both Loyola and Columbia are in Manhattan. BTW, does the source specify which undergraduate school he attended at Columbia? Almost certainly Columbia College. Also, the correct name of Loyola is Loyola School (no "high"). -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The school name isn't mentioned, unfortunately - it's just "The younger Cusack, who attended Loyola High School and Columbia University" in the source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the title of Samuels 1997, hyphen should be an endash.
• After his father's death, Cusack & Stiles lent him : would put a date on this. Could we change one of the pronouns to a name: in theory, it could be read that the law firm lent the money to a dead man?

  I was trying to avoid "After Cusack's death, Cusack and Stiles lent Cusack..."! There's no date shown, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could we not bring in "after Cusack Jr.'s death, C&S lent the younger Cusack" or something like that? The "Jr." might be a useful disambiguator. We do know that Lawrence X. Cusack Jr. died in 1985, so could add "after [his] death the following year". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've tweaked this to "After his father's death, Cusack & Stiles lent Cusack ..." - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Works perfectly! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• When he completed his courses, he went to work at his father's firm: strictly, it wasn't his father's any more, was it? "The firm" would do fine.
• Both BrE and AmerE would prefer naval intelligence to "Navy intelligence".
• Cusack had never been either in the Navy or Naval Reserve: technically, the Navy Reserve is part of the Navy, so this isn't an either-or. We should also use the contemporary term consistently: Naval Reserve (as it was until 2005).

I think it reads well now -- it's worth specifying both. The only thing I might change in that phrase is "never *served* in either the Navy or Naval Reserve. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it's grammatically wrong: it's like saying "he had never been either to London or to England": you either need to clarify something like "to London, or to anywhere in England at all", or to rework to something like "had never served in any part of the Navy". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FBI is never spelt out: is it such a common abbreviation that it doesn't need to be? I think the MoS has a list somewhere.

FBI is absolutely unambiguous here. Would European readers find it ambiguous? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very clear which organisation, but technically the MOS says to give the full rendering at some point, so I've dropped it in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• a precious metals dealer: hyphenate: precious-metals dealer (though I'm sure he was precious, too).
• verifications on the handwriting: verifications of or tests on, I think.
• he was not concerned that Cusack's claims were false – instead he was relieved that Cusack was not a spy: personally, I'd always treat someone's internal monologue as unverifiable, and so go with something here like "he later said, in a 1999 interview, that he had not been..." -- we can verify what he said, but not what he thought.

How about just adding "said that", as in he "said that he was not concerned". I think that this confirms that it was something he said (not a controversial fact, I think), and I think it would be distracting to the narrative to lay out exactly when he said it -- the ref supplies the date of the interview. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• August 1996, Hersh and Obenhaus began filming the documentary, but NBC informed them that the network had decided to cancel the project. : that was quick! Any idea of the separation between these two events? We later imply that there was enough time for some text specialists to give the documents a fairly good look.

  Unfortunately not: the sources are hazy on some of the dates. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Obenhaus's research team noticed that two of the letters, written in Kennedy's hand, but on Cusack Jr.'s office notepaper: they weren't actually written in Kennedy's hand: suggest "written on C. Jr.'s office notepaper and purportedly in Kennedy's hand..."
• printed on an IBM Selectric : add typewriter?
• which was unavailable until 1973: it might be worth, at some point around here, reminding readers of when Kennedy died.
• Could we name or at least link Jacqueline Kennedy?
• Suggest linking dyslexia. Is there anything in any source we can add to the effect that Kennedy was a confident or particularly capable writer? It's not out of the question that a US president would have struggled with his handwriting.