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

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Please do not use graphics or 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. The only templates that are acceptable are ((xt)), ((!xt)), and ((tq)); templates such as ((green)) that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and ((collapse top)) and ((collapse bottom)), used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the ((@FAC)) notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the ((FAC)) template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates ((Article history)).

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place ((subst:FAC)) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. 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, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Apollo 5

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... the first flight test of the lunar module. Today, it's somewhat sunk in obscurity but it was important and a big deal at the time. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Comment by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Sorry to say this @Wehwalt:, but I have to oppose the nomination. Many sections are very under-developed, and compare to Apollo 4, Apollo 5 is far, far from being a featured article. I respect a ton of your works at the article, but most people here would prefer to have a good article to review here. Although, I will review the article for good article status if you want to do that now :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot more information on Apollo 4 than 5. If you can point to sources that I'm not using, or underusing, I'll be happy to incorporate them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, after hearing Hawkeye7 argument, I think I need to look at the article for a little bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It's next to the text which discusses it. I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no surviving spacecraft. There were a large number of comments afterwards about Apollo 4 (big rocket!). There are many fewer about Apollo 4, so I folded that in, along with what came after (the next flight of the LM) into the flight section.
I've added it to Apollo 5. I will add it to Apollo 4 as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

I agree that there is more information on Apollo 4 than Apollo 5. Articles are as long or short as they need to be.

I've added the whole stack's.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've done that for Brooks and will continue tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Much obliged for the review. I've done all except I can't find a paginated online version of Moonport and I've left the orbital period and inclination in the infobox since I don't think it would fit well into the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
[1] I have a hard copy of course.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the first FAC about a megalosaurid, one of the few major groups of carnivorous dinosaurs that have not yet been represented at FAC. This particular animal was long thought to be the same as Megalosaurus itself (the first named dinosaur, and historically very important), though was much later recognised as distinct, and that's the gist of the story here. The entire literature has been summarised, and there were some nice free images available. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The fossils themselves can't be copyrighted, as for the imagery on the wall behind, most of it is from the 19th century, and I think it would fall under de minimis anyway, as they're not the focus of the photo by any means. But this is of course debatable. In any case, only the drawing on the far right is recent enough to be copyrighted, and it is partially cropped out and covered by bones, which again, could indicate de minimis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Could be possible to divide it into sections about the upper and lower jaw, I'll have a look tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Made two subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

this name means "the West" or "western". - strictly speaking it's the epithet that means western not the binomial as such....
Later researchers doubted whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus - I'd write either, "Later researchers questioned/pondered/deliberated/queried whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus" or "Later researchers doubted the species belonged in Megalosaurus" (i.e. doubting is not questioning but naysaying)
If you can, avoid having both paras of lead start with "Duriavenator..."
why is freestone in quotation marks

more later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Pali-Aike volcanic field

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a volcanic field in southernmost Argentina and Chile, which was active until the last few thousands of years. It features numerous lakes - including Laguna Potrok Aike where paleoclimatic research has been carried out - and caves, which were inhabited by the earliest people of the region. Editorial note: I've been sparing with archeological and paleoclimatological details in this article as it's mainly about the volcanic aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Battle of St. Charles

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

After a Union army gets bogged down without a supply line in northern Arkansas, a mixed navy and army force moves upriver to resupply them. During a brief action with Confederate fortifications on the bluffs above the river, a stray shot hits one of the Union ships in the boiler, horrifically killing or injuring almost everyone aboard with scalding steam. The Confederates are flushed out, but low water levels keep the ships from successfully resupplying the Union army in northern Arkansas, which eventually extricates itself on its own. Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Query by WereSpielChequers Nicely written. Have you considered breaking Battle_of_St._Charles#Kilty_moves_up_the_White into two sections, Union and Confederate actions in the lead up to the battle? In the current format the second paragraph starts "meanwhile", but then talks of dates preceding the first paragraph. ϢereSpielChequers 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: - Thanks for taking a look at this! I've generally rejigged that region of the article to have one section for Union movements, and the other for the Confederates. Hog Farm Talk 07:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hog Farm, "Fry demanded that the remaining Union sailors aboard to surrender" reads awkwardly to me, I was thinking of removing the "to" but hesitated as this might for all I know be an American English thing. however wouldn't "Fry offered the remaining Union sailors aboard the chance to surrender" be a more normal phrasing for this situation? Afterall they were combatants who hadn't hoist a white flag, and he wasn't in a position to know that he was firing at a boat full of dead and dying men.
I've removed the "to", as it was an error. I've also tried to clarify in the text that it was fairly obvious the ship was a wreck, with scalded men on the decks and steam billowing out of all orifices. The source does refer to Fry's statement as a demand. Also clarified that Fry's firing order was to shoot at those trying to swim away in the river Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
That's better. Firing at men who are swimming from a wreck is clearly worse than firing at a damged ship that hasn't surrendered. ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it might be worth mentioning that unusually for US Civil War actions the dead of both sides are listed on the memorial. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
" those that were armed had only single-shot pistols that had already been emptied at Mound City's survivors." Such guns take a little time to reload, but had this all happened so quickly that people couldn't reload? ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Long Sault Parkway

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 17:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the parkway developed in Ontario when the St. Lawrence Seaway was built. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and includes some interesting images. It's been nearly a decade since I last brought an article to FAC, so hopefully I haven't fallen behind on standards. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: The parkway refers to both the roadway as well as the island chain that it crosses. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Review by Hurricanehink

  • Thoughts on this in the lead? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thought I fixed that with this change, but apparently not.[2] It's fixed now, let me know if that intro looks better! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That was a no? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • My bad, didn't respond to this one. I think it fits in amongst the history pretty well, even though obviously not all 6,500 lived directly where the parkway now sits. I'm sure a lot of the content of this article could be copied into the Long Sault rapids or St. Lawrence Seaway articles though. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is pretty good. I think it just needs a bit more for an FA. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to these shortly, but I guess I should have mentioned that the Long Sault Parkway is both the road as well as the name of the island chain, and that's what I was trying to establish with that 3rd sentence in the lede. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright, so first off, thank you on the animation, it was pretty fun to make! So I've made some adjustments, and in conjunction with the above comment that I made, that should cover everything except the fifth ("I followed the route description to "), and the last point ("Is there any history on the road since 1958?"). Regarding the former, I'm curious if you might have a suggestion on wording the description without overusing the word "causeway"? As for the latter, There have been no significant changes since the parkway opened fully in 1959. The only thing I think could cover the time period after that would be attendance and perhaps seasonal operations (as pointed out by Hog Farm below); the St. Lawrence Parks Commission only seems to track overall attendance throughout the entire system, and not park by park. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Wait, so the "Long Sault Parkway" also applies to the islands? If so, then I think there should be a separate section then for the islands, where you could mention the names and stuff (instead of the route description). Like, the opening sentence says that the parkway connects the group of islands - perhaps you should specify something like: "The Long Sault Parkway is a 10.1-kilometre (6.3 mi) scenic parkway that connects, and is the name for, a group of eleven islands west of Cornwall in the Canadian province of Ontario." I'm not sure if that exact wording is ideal, but the article needs to reflect that it's not just a road article. It vaguely reminds me of Afsluitdijk, which is the name for a causeway and a dam in the Netherlands. It makes sense that the name and history would be the same for the road and the island group, but that just needs to be made clearer. Ref 3 calls them the "Long Sault Parkway Islands", FWIW. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case (as it appears to be), then I think the "islands" section should be a bit broader. You'd need to include the size of the islands, and as mentioned below, the flora/fauna, the climate. I think the islands section should include the naming, so the route description can be a bit more focused on the roadway itself. I hate to ask, since the article is now on FAC, but the entire topic might be better focused if all of the information was located in the Lost Villages article. There's a lot of overlap between the roadway, the islands, and the villages themselves. As it stands, the article has an unclear focus, being kinda about the road, kinda about the islands, and a large portion on the dam and the flooding. That equally applies to the Lost Villages article. I'm not going to oppose the article on those grounds, as you might want to still pursue this article at FAC, and the suggestion of a refocused article might be unactionable. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't feel as if flora/fauna/climate is of any purpose in this article. It's a par system that doesn't differ from the nearby mainland that it was once part of... that and there is really no coverage of it whatsoever. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
A featured article on a group of islands would talk about more than just the road and how the islands were made. If it was just a road article, then it wouldn't need to carry it. As for whether it has any purpose, one of the picture has several bird-like creatures in it, and the article mentions beaches and nature trails. So I think they're relevant. But I don't want to oppose on those grounds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


These are just some quick comments, full review to follow later

More to come. Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am leaning oppose here, because this doesn't seem to be properly complete and has an unclear scope, as well as the internal inconsistencies. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Floydian - I know a lot of roadway articles contain traffic statistics - would those be available for this roadway? Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've contacted the St. Lawrence Parks Commission to see if they have traffic or attendance levels. I only have stats for provincial highways. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Fearless (Taylor Swift album)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ignore this part if you do not care about pop culture—POV: it's 2009 and you turn on the radio. After some electronic Gaga-esque songs, you hear acoustic guitars and mandolins? It is so cheesy, but you can't resist the adrenaline rush of the refrain, "Romeo take me somewhere we can be alone," and you begin singing along. One night you tune in for the VMAs because pop culture is fun. Some moderately attractive blonde girl is speaking, and out-of-nowhere Kanye West snatches her mic and says, "Yo Taylor, I'll let you finish but—" Oh, snap, grab your popcorn fast. But your attention is now wholly on that blonde girl: Taylor Swift. You realise she is the author of that cheesy guitar-mandolin-whatever tune. Damn it, you listen to the whole album, and you find the songs insanely catchy with beefy hooks that engrave in your brain.

Main point: this article is about the 2008 album by Taylor Swift when she was a country music goody-two-cowboy-boots. Although it contains skippable cookie-cutters and Swift's below average vocals, it offers a mildly pleasant listen. After an extensive GAN and a thorough copyedit, I nominate this article for FAC candidacy, believing it satisfies the criteria. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Source Review by Guerillero

Why are these high quality reliable sources?

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You cover the popular press, but there is little mention of academic work. What did you do to make sure that this article is comprehensive? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of the material I found through Google Scholar are either self-published sources (dissertations, theses) or re-published news articles. I used the Wikipedia Library Platform but most sources discuss Swift's career in general. The most comprehensive one I have found so far is the Spencer book which discusses much of the album's conception and recording. Regarding the album's content and impact, the popular press is comprehensive enough to give readers how significant this album is. Trusted music critics such as Jody Rosen or Jon Pareles are, I believe, on par with academic sources. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TheSandDoctor

Overall I think that this is okay, but have one point here:

Otherwise I think it looks okay. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thank you for removing that. I support this nomination. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support. Ippantekina (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Image and media review (pass)

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I will look through the images and media. Apologies for that. My comments are below:

My only real issue is with the "Fifteen" audio sample. It's a great song, but I do not see a strong rationale for its inclusion. I have a minor suggestion for the "You Belong with Me" audio sample, but it is super, super nitpick-y. I hope this is helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review. I have tweaked the TimedText to "You Belong with Me". I believe a sample for "Fifteen" should be included because many critics singled out that song in Fearless album reviews. A 21-second sample does not do justice to the very intricate narrative, but a glimpse of it, through this sample, is pretty sufficient (the opening line "Abigail gave everything she had to a boy who changed his mind" is pretty striking, don't you think?) Ippantekina (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the instrumental part to "You Belong with Me". I am still somewhat on the fence with "Fifteen". I do not think lyrics alone is a great rationale, but I can see how an audio sample would help readers to better understand how these themes are explored and performed in the song rather than by just reading it. For that reason, the audio sample works for me. This FAC passes my source and media review. Best of luck with the FAC! Taylor Swift is very well represented on Wikipedia because of editors like you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your image/file review. Should other editors deem the "Fifteen" rationale too weak, I shall remove it. Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Aoba on the "Fifteen" sample. The FUR implies that it is used mostly for its lyrics, which is replaceable with text and therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I was uncertain if I was being overly harsh with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I added a review from Jody Rosen which is quite significant. Though it does not reappear in the prose, I believe it justifies its inclusion here. Ippantekina (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

Just some minor notes:

These comments are all fairly small. Having read the article with a critical lens, I wanted to find something to oppose the article’s candidacy over, but my comments are quibbles, and I’m sure quite easy to fix/address. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments. I have addressed them all except the final one; I believe the section should prioritise Fearless alone, that's why I left the Bruce Springsteen comparison in the note. Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
That's fair! Thanks for the quick reply. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful Parliament

Nominator(s): ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud. ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Done
  • Added
  • Westminster abbey changed its file Removed PD-old, left PD-US and PD-art.
  • Ditto, the above, re-pointed link. Thanks Nikkimaria, hope this finds you well. ——Serial 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

David Berman (musician)

Nominator(s): DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

He wrote sad songs and got paid by the tear. They’re motel masterpieces about dream attacks and beer drinking robots. His mother named him after a king and he was the son of “possibly the most evil man in America”. In 2003, he was hospitalised for approaching death; shined out in the wild kindness; and left this world behind on the back of a black camel. Here's hoping he gets that Pulitzer for the "frontline series 'Iowa Jima' published in the 2022 A.D. Pittsburgh Daily Humanoid," his words. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from blz 2049

Hi DMT! Having skimmed the article as a whole and explored a few crannies in detail, I'm already hugely impressed by the scope, depth, sophistication, and sensitivity of the article, which is immensely deserved for a subject like Berman. I've already started with some direct edits to the article; please let me know if there are any issues with these edits. I have three initial, intertwined, article-wide comments:


These two comments are intertwined in the sense that breaking up long sentences should also generally make it easier to use more precise citation. More clarity in citations also makes it easier to later revise/split/combine sentences. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 13:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blz 2049: thank you for these comments and the relevant examples. They're the type of in-depth assessment befit for here. I intend to fulfil them but should perhaps explain their predication. The article is somewhat of a chimera; despite his acclaim and pithy prose, Berman has received little academic - or otherwise in-depth - attention. To be properly comprehensive I've essentially had to glue together ephemera.
With regards to the long sentences, that's more a matter of personal viewpoint. My, admittedly idiosyncratic, style favours citations to be as intrusive as possible; invisible, if I had my way. Previously there were sequences of 8 plus citations. It was far from great. But I very much see the value in your suggestions. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Blz 2049: I believe I have done all the relevant copyediting. If there' other areas you wish to flag up feel free to say. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about The Empire Strikes Back, which modern critics argue is the best film in the Star Wars film series. A conflicting reception at first its legacy is now one of setting new standards in blockbuster trilogies and advancing an overarching narrative. This is a former featured article from a very long time ago, in a galaxy very far away, and now it's back with a vengeance for modern audiences to enjoy once again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I'll probably post a full review, but first some random comments:

A lot of the article discusses the budget of the film and the massive inflation it goes through, so I thought the cost of the music was an interesting addition to it. The instruments mentioned are specifically to note what was involved in the score, for example it doesn't mention guitars. I don't know if that is a full list of the instruments involved it's just what I've found.
I can rewrite it a bit if you'd prefer but per the previous reply, it's in essence discussing things which contributed to massive delays and budget increases because of the extreme cold and technical issues and then they returned with damaged footage anyway.
The Vader's entrance part is just a fun anecdote about filming for me personally, the idea that Kershner wanted the characters to have grand entrances and someone stepped on Vader's cape and they all went flying. I can move it to the Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back if you'd prefer as I'd like to keep it in some form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
It's meant to be the skiers who were paid in a donation. I've reworded it a bit.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's my full review. In short, the article is in great shape, except for one section:

I'll have to look up what Kurtz's issues were, it doesn't mention specifics in the book, bear with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
It was on the Han torture room scene because of the steam, I've elaborated a bit. It gets a bit confusing because I've obviously had to move a lot of content to the special effects page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Working reception section for comments 4-8.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Working for more detailed sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
OK Nick-D, I think I've addressed all these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Support I still don't love the 'Critical response' section (still a bit too long and much too US-centric), but I think that my comments are sufficiently addressed given the strength of the rest of the article: nice work. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Crit reception sections are the bane of my existence, especially for older films like this. The reviews that are available are mainly US and they barely mention things like the cast, it's all comparisons to the first film so there isn't much info to work with unfortunately. Thanks for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


I'll probably want to give this a review but haven't got the time at the moment. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's not screw this up:

That brings me to #Filming. I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Pamzeis (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing another review Pamzeis on these long articles. I've done all of these apart from the one about Ford. In the source he literally just says "I had no difficulty deciding I would do part two. In fact, I was happy to do it again because I thought I could do it better. I also felt iI had a moral obligation." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

Not a lot. That brings me to #Thematic analysis. Pamzeis (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pamzeis I think I have fixed these, thanks again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

Been a while since I have review an FA. This looks bigger than the Star Wars' Empire itself, but here's a couple of comments so far:

👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you considering too many bundles, so I know what to look for? The difference in the NYT references is that some are the website and some are the physical paper. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I get the NY Times thing now. As for the cite bundles, it's not the cite bundles themselves or that there are too much of them. In fact, I encourage them as much as possible so that the highest verification of details and opinions is there. It's just we have to make the prose readable at the same time; see the reception sections for Bubsy 3D (recently passed to GA) and Wetrix to see what I mean. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 00:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi HumanxAnthro, I've attacked some of the more egregious examples, not sure where to draw the line so I stuck to anything with >4 references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd draw it at three, though that's a good limit too 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Awesome. Ping me if I forget to comment more on this review in the coming weeks. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Marx Was Right

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A quite long-term project of mine (including a long off-wiki writing process), Why Marx Was Right is my third article nominated for FA status. I've written lots of book articles before, but neglected to take many through feature-quality processes. A lot of research went into this article, perhaps the most of any of the 125 or so articles I've created. I look forward to all constructive criticism. — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from czar






czar 20:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments, Czar. I've read them all and begun addressing some, but it may take me a few days to properly respond to them all. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Czar: apologies for the delay, but I think I've responded to each of your points now. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment from Nick-D

Support from Aoba47

I will wait until czar completes their review before I post my own. This is admittedly outside of my usual area of expertise, as I have not worked extensively on book articles and it has been a while since I learned about and discussed Marxism in college. I just have one quick question. Why is the second edition cover used rather than one from the first edition? From my experience, the featured articles on books go with the first edition covers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, the reason is that I find the first edition cover horrendously ugly (not unusual for an academic text). I am happy to change it if you feel that the first edition is inherently more encyclopedic. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I was more so curious if there was a policy in place about this. If not, then the current choice should be fine. I would have honestly done the same. The second edition's cover seems more engaging to me, and I also have preferences over certain covers from certain editions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful. Again, this is well outside of my comfort zone, but I wanted to do my best to help. I trust that czar and others would be able to provide a more complete and thoughtful review than myself. With that being said, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once my comments have been addressed. Great work with the article and I hope you had a wonderful end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, they are very useful. :) — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything! I am glad that I could help. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time and/or interest. Again, wonderful work with this article. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

I may not do a full review, but these points caught my eye:

  1. ^ Singh (2013).
  2. ^ Miller (2011).
  3. ^ University, Lancaster. "Terry Eagleton - English & Creative Writing - Lancaster University - Lancaster University". Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  • I appreciate the feedback here, as this one of the paragraphs I most struggled to write. Take a look at the new description in the first paragraph of Background (which also incorporates more of his early leftism based on another review comment) and let me know if you still have concerns. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Julian of Norwich

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Julian, one of England's most important mystics. In May 1373 Julian completely recovered from a serious illness that had caused her to have revelations (or shewings), all of which she went on to describe in detail. Her writings are now published as Revelations of Divine Love, the earliest known book in English to be written by a woman. I would be great if her article was to be promoted before the 650th anniversary of her revelations, in 2023. It has been peer-reviewed and copy-edited since gaining GA status in 2019. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Done. The church drawing (made in 1828) is now not there, as a larger map caused a sandwiching issue. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: I could try to remake the map with less dead space, if you think it would be helpful --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Thanks, not sure if it's worth the effort, as it's a complicated map to remake. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the none of the articles with the template Template:Christian mysticism have been at FAC before, so the image has never been challenged. It was uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia in 2005, and it's source is not given. I'll see if I can replace the image in the template with one whose source can be verified.Amitchell125 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Image now gone (see comment above). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap

Fascinating article on a major subject.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Caption amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, your version is definitely better. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
All done (I've put some of the Newman details in a note). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's all from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Chiswick Chap, all now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

With the caveat that I am no domain expert or even a native speaker, I have some comments about this interesting article. Mostly minor things, but I have 2 comments about the structure.

I've amended the the text of the article to reflect the comment you've made here, which is I think an entirely valid one. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Italics/quotes now gone, wictionary link inserted instead to help readers understand the word is archaic. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Nun Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I've worked on the text using your suggestion. I can't cite the most obvious bit (that her book is best-known work by an English mystic), so that's now gone. The rest I have cited using Leyser and Windeatt. Thanks for your help here. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that looks better. Just one thing about where it now says "some anonymous devotional works may have been written by women". By using devotional you make the reader wonder about anonymous non-devotional works. I don't think devotional is needed or helpful here. Same in the lead.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Sentence amended to reflect the idea that she wasn't daring at all (not sure how that managed to be slipped in). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done.Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that, text deleted accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Happy to do a spot check of the sources later on, if needed, once a few more reviewers have given support. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon, your comments are now addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, all fine except the "devotional" I mentioned above. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
All fine now. I Support on prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

In the infobox it says; "Died: After 1416 (aged 73–74)" - if we don't know the specific year when she died then how do we know that she was 73 or 74? If all we know is that she died after 1416, does that not mean that she could have lived until 1420 and died aged 77? Or 1430 and died aged 87? Apologies if I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude—infobox amended, as i agree with your comment. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I think this is an outstanding article – beautifully written, well presented, admirably illustrated and well and widely sourced. I have struggled to find anything to quibble about, and these are my meagre gleanings:

Not ignored. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "As plague epidemics were rampant … as a result of plague" – I think you could profitably lose the last two words, avoiding the repetition without harming the meaning.
Thanks, done as suggested. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "almost no references were made of her writings" – unexpected preposition: wouldn't "to her writings" be more usual?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "according to the British historian Henrietta Leyser" – is Mrs Leyser's nationality relevant here?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Julian's shorter work … was likely to have been written" – We have a slight muddle of tenses here. I think perhaps either "is likely to have been written" or "was probably written".
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "the medieval scholar Caroline Walker Bynum" – You might tweak this. We infer that she is a modern scholar of mediaeval history, but that isn't quite what the sentence says. The phrase "medieval scholar" conjures up a Roger Bacon or an Alcuin of York rather than a 21st-century academic.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Point taken, sentence now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And that is all I can manage by way of carping. I am most impressed. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 02:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley—thanks for your praise, and also your comments (now all addressed). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A Canterlot Wedding

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... a wedding in Canterlot. Well, kind of. A My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode, "A Canterlot Wedding" follows Twilight Sparkle, who learns her brother will be marrying her old "foalsitter" Princess Cadance. She gets suspicious of this pink pony princess who isn't as perfect as she remembered and decries her evilness to everyone. And... everyone abandons her; she's left with Cadance who comforts her and then tells her "you will be [sorry]" and uses green magic to... banish her. So, yeah. That's what happens in part one. This article passed a GA review by Parcly Taxel in May 2012, less than a month after it was created and the episodes aired. FAC was brought up a few days later but was dismissed due to a lack of coverage about development and review coverage. Since then, this production and critical reception have been expanded and a themes section has been added. With three full(ish) reviews, these episodes have the most coverage from critics. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Great Western Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is part of two lose series that have been on my back burner for a while (railway company war memorials and Charles Sargeant Jagger's war memorials). It follows on from my previous nominations of Jagger's works, the Royal Artillery Memorial and Portsmouth War Memorial. I've been working on it on and off for a couple of years but only recently got round to giving it a full overhaul when I had a bit of time on my hands and wanted a project I could complete without having to buy any more books (I already have a bookcase full of material on war memorials!). It's not a very long article becuase the subject seems to have been overlooked in favour of larger, outdoor works, but I hope the bibliography shows that that is not for want of research, and I think it contains everything that can be expected. As always, I'm eager to hear any constructive criticism. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Comments by Thryduulf

Comments from Extraordinary Writ

Looks to be in good shape. A few nitpicks below:

More soon. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, thanks for your comments. I'm back at work and on early earlies for the next couple of days so it might take me a day or two to act on any further comments. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

A railway I remember my boyfriend mentioned, made an Oooo sound when seeing this FAC. Here we go.

Lead and infobox

Other than that, nice article. Comprehensive and detailed, using RS-es. If my comments are resolved, I'll support this. GeraldWL 02:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I haven't been able to enact all your suggestion for reasons given above, but thank you for taking the time to read the article and leave a review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the responses! I've responded to them back; you would want to see those in the Commissioning part. GeraldWL 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: replies inline above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Pomona College

Nominator(s): ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a liberal arts college in California, one of the four level-5 VA liberal arts colleges.

I have been working intently on it for the past year or so, hoping to create a new model article for WikiProject Higher education, which has seen a devastating trend: of its 15 FAs on extant institutions in September 2020, all but 4 have now been delisted after failed FARs, and most of the remainder are in poor shape.[a]

I am grateful to have already received substantial feedback on this article in three prior venues: a thorough GAN, the previous FAC, and most recently an extensive peer review and source spot check. It includes some novel elements, like an interactive campus map (the first of its kind for a college, I believe) and 360° interactive panoramas accompanying some photos. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to addressing your comments! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Delistings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Remaining: 1 (from 2007 but maintained), 2 (from 2010), 3 (from 2009; at FAR), 4 (from 2009).

Image review


Will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 07:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just now getting to this - have had some stuff coming up. The review will probably be in a few chunks due to article length and Thanksgiving

More to come later. Hog Farm Talk 06:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come later. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


This one's in pretty good shape. It was interesting to read about Pomona - the college I graduated from not long ago was the polar opposite - a fundamentalist Christian college that banned on-campus dancing. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from HAL

1996–97 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Following on from five successful nominations, here is another eventful season from the history of English association football club Gillingham. In this particular season, the "Gills" defeated a team from the top division of English football for the first time in nearly 90 years and had a player miss a match because he'd been shot!! Never a dull moment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

That's it for the article, I'll take a look at sources at some point if that's useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Mike Christie

Support. I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with. I only have one comment, which is that if we're going to mention Hessenthaler setting a transfer fee record in the lead, I think we should also mention in the lead that the record was surpassed mid-season by Akinbiyi. I'm not going to hold up support over that; this is a straightforwardly written article that covers its ground well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

This is in fine shape. Not much to quibble about.

That's all. I might unwillingly have become a Gillingham supporter by now :) I will do a spotcheck of sources soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Socrates Nelson

Nominator(s): TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The year is 1848. The California Gold Rush is on, and America expands westward. In its northwestern-most territory lies the fledgling logging village of Stillwater, Wisconsin Territory. Situated near the St. Croix, pioneer lumbermen send white pine from this wilderness down the river. Little did these pioneers know that this small town would become the epicenter of the creation of a new territory, known as "Minnesota" for the region's longest river. An ad hoc convention is formed in Stillwater to petition Congress for territorial independence, and among these men is Socrates Nelson.

Born in 1811 in Massachusetts, Nelson moved westward at the young age of 25 to prospect and sell furs. As an early settler of Stillwater, he became a general store owner, a log boom and lumber mill operator, a real estate speculator, and an incorporator of numerous businesses. He quickly became involved in local politics and, in 1848, co-authored a successful petition to Congress to make Minnesota its own territory. He soon also became a founding member of the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Democratic Party, and the Minnesota lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, as well as a member of the University of Minnesota's first Board of Regents. In 1859, he became a one-term state senator, and in 1864, he voted for George B. McClellan as a delegate in the 1864 Democratic National Convention. In 1867, during his twilight months, he all but donated a block of land for what is now Minnesota's oldest standing courthouse – not out of generosity, but to spur development near (and, by proxy, sales of) lots he owned. Nelson died of tuberculosis in 1867 with an estate of over $100,000, and his death resulted in the closure of most of the city's businesses in observation.

I found this article through the 'Random article' function last December. It had thankfully been created by RFD, and I decided to expand it a bit; eventually, it became a passion project that got way out of hand. Sorry for the middle-school-tier book report; I just wanted a hook to grab your attention. Face-smile.svg

PS: I've spoken to the executive director of the Washington County Historical Society, and he has doubts to say the least that a picture of this subject exists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What sort of alt text? If I feel the captions are descriptive enough, should I add something like "See caption for more information"?
  • Alt texts are designed for people who can't see the image, whether because of a visual impairment or because their device doesn't load images. Telling the former group to "see" the caption would not be helpful; if you feel the caption adequately conveys the contents of the image, "refer to caption" may be appropriate. See WP:ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd meant "see" as in the encyclopedic sense, but I agree that "refer" works better for sensitivity toward its target audience.
  • @Nikkimaria: I added alt text to all of the images used in the article. Please let me know if you think it's too detailed, not detailed enough, etc. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably on the too-detailed side, but not going to fuss over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • Those are for the photos. I'm asking about the plaques themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: The plaque was erected August 26, 1948 by the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, so the copyright of the plaque itself is technically unknown. The MTCC seemed to be working under the Minnesota State Bar Association. The marker was erected by the Minnesota Historical Society, and the MNHS took the picture and licensed it under CC-BY-SA 2.0. So literally no issues with the second one (the same people who erected it and would own the copyright uploaded a picture of it to Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0), and the first one seems to be at least fair use insofar as it's a) just large enough to be able to make out the text written thereupon and b) not replaceable by some other work. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Any way of determining status? If no, what would be the rationale for including as fair use? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could email the Minnesota Bar Association and ask them if they have any copyright on it; if not, then nobody should own the copyright, and the work would have lapsed into the public domain. If not, fair use rationale is as follows: image is small enough that much lower resolution would probably detract from readers' abilities to read parts of the text on the plaque (namely the bottom); image of the plaque commemorating the Stillwater convention is the only one of its kind; the use of this media contributes substantially to the article, as Socrates Nelson was at the center of the Stillwater convention – most importantly, he co-authored the petition to Congress. I've been in touch with Brent Peterson of the Washington County Historical Society and may be able to ask him if he thinks the plaque is copyrighted in any way. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Typically in the US state works - as opposed to works by the federal government - are not in the public domain by default. I'm aware that there are some exceptions - does one apply here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In all seriousness, though, I can't find any statute saying that public works are copyrighted beyond the fact that statutes are copyrighted. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately not ;-). My reading of this page is that the Minnesota government asserts copyright over its eligible works. However, this particular work may be PD due to its age - do you happen to know if there was a copyright notice associated with the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I agree with your interpretation. A requester can do whatever they want with it for personal use, but redistribution isn't allowed should the Minnesota government assert copyright. The MTCC erected the plaque on the centennial date of the Stillwater convention: August 26, 1948. So it's not old enough to be inherently in the public domain, but at the same time, I can find no copyright associated with the plaque. Also, since I just realized that I said "Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee" before, I believe they were under the MTCC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • See WP:HIRTLE - that age plus no copyright notice does give a path to PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ayy. So would you say that all of the media check out copyright-wise? Like I said, I've found no notice whatsoever of copyright on the works of the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, let alone this specific work. If so, I can add alt text and then move on to finish addressing Wehwalt's comments. If you'd like to read through as well and add feedback about the prose, I'd say it's worth it if you enjoy super obscure US history. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Since there is no visible copyright notice, you should use ((PD-US-no notice)). I've taken the liberty of adding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks — Pass

Version reviewed — this

  • @Kavyansh.Singh: "Father Michael Murphy paid the astronomical sum of $4,000 for three of the best lots in the city".
Bah. I hate it when I miss nagging little technicalities like this; fixed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it was me being too nit-picky, but thanks for fixing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, looking at it here, it's a complete mouthful; I'll break it up into two or three sentences. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I review this article for GA, and also during the peer review. The spot-checks look very good. Clarification in needed on just few points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up everything. Pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the spot check! Your peer review helped me find some inaccuracies as well, so I think thanks to you, this article is now 100% factually supported by RSes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • A one-paragraph lede seems rather short. Can it be expanded at all?
  • Possibly, but I'd have to really brainstorm for that. The intro was originally created by RFD, drastically expanded by Howcheng in light of new information I'd gathered, and then expanded by me after more new information became available. It may require a complete rewrite to expand it to more than one paragraph, and I do really like how concisely it conveys the gist of the article right now. I could try drafting a rewrite and see if you think it's any better.
  • @Wehwalt: Sorry for taking so long on this. I've expanded the lead out somewhat, but I did want to give you an example of an FA with a lead approximately the size of this one. The lead section for Socrates Nelson was 135 words long, while James A. Doonan – an article of approximately the same length – has 148. The lead for Socrates Nelson is now 201 words (I didn't mean to push it just over 200; that was a coincidence). Beyond this, I think I'm pushing it as far as lead length goes. Kavyansh.Singh and Nikkimaria, your thoughts as well? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." I suspect the term is "chartered", not "organized".
  • Easton (1909) describes it as "organized", so that's what I went with.
  • " He would use it scarcely over the next ten years," Perhaps, "He would rarely operate it during the next ten years"
  • I prefer "scarcely" simply because I think it conveys "very rarely" or "basically not at all". The text states he "operated [it] but a portion of one or two seasons for the next ten years". In essence, I think "scarcely" in its connotation more strongly conveys how rare something is compared to just "rarely". I did, however, change "use" to "operate", since that's more descriptive. However, this is another instance of my "would [do thing]" addiction (see farther down), so please tell me if you think that needs fixed.
  • The 1857 real estate activity sounds like they were trying to create a townsite. If this is true, can it be more clearly stated?
  • I couldn't find anything about them creating a townsite. Zion's Hill, where the lots were, borders entirely on Stillwater (if you look at the sketch used as media, you can see the hill), so I think they were just trying to expand Stillwater. It's just that nobody wanted to build on lots up there because the trek to the top of the hill was way out of the way. Nelson donated land for the courthouse to spur development of infrastructure that would make getting up there easier.
  • "On January 27, 1867, during his twilight months," Twilight sounds a little too poetic. Is the fact that Nelson died soon after really relevant to this?
  • "twilight years" is a common turn of phrase for somebody's final years alive; I don't think it meets the standard for MOS:EUPHEMISM or MOS:CLICHE. As far as relevance, I just like to occasionally keep readers grounded as to where they are in the person's life (like, for instance, the near-tautology "in 1839 on a prospecting tour at age 25"). I feel like doing this sparsely, while very slightly extraneous, helps keep readers better grounded than just "in 18xx this, then in 18xy that".
  • While it's conventional to use "would" to indicate passage of time in the past, it isn't always necessary, as, for example, the account of the trustees under Nelson's will. I would change that to past tense.
  • Done. I think I need some sort of rehab clinic for using "would [do thing]" in the past tense.
  • "$1000" should be "$1,000", plus any others that may be similar.
  • MOS:DIGITS states: "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped [...] with consistency within any given article." It's just a personal preference thing.
  • You should make it clearer if the area around Stillwater was at one time part of the Wisconsin Territory, that it became part of the Minnesota Territory.
  • I actually just realized that the only indication I gave was "St. Croix County, Wisconsin Territory"; I'll figure out a way to fit this in, since it's crucial context for unfamiliar readers.
  • @Wehwalt: I tried with this one. The best I could come up with was: "On November 26, 1849, Nelson was elected to serve as treasurer for the newly formed Washington County, Minnesota Territory, into which Stillwater would later be incorporated [as the county seat]." (Bolded indicates new text; brackets indicate extraneous text that could still be added in.) I have a source for the new text, but it just feels long-winded to me. Your thoughts?
  • I see his nomination for state senator. Can anything at all be said about the election?
  • I don't recall seeing anything about this election specifically. There may be raw numbers I can find (and I think there are), but certainly nothing about debates or campaigning or anything. I'll be able to find these more easily in a couple days when I can get to my desktop and access the MNHS' newspaper collection.
@Wehwalt: Update: those numbers were for local elections, not the state senate. The numbers for the local elections are pretty much extraneous (we're talking a few dozen votes), and I can't seem to find anything for the 1858 election. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There should be some mention of Minnesota statehood in the political narrative.
  • As it turns out, our featured article on the History of Minnesota doesn't have a single mention of the Stillwater convention; I'll have to change that! As far as this article goes, I can say something like how he was elected in 1859, "three years after Minnesota was admitted as a state to the Union, but I'm really not sure how to fit it in super organically. Maybe "In 1858, two years after Minnesota was admitted to the Union, Nelson organized Baytown Township..."? The problem is that Nelson had literally nothing to do with statehood. If he'd served in the first state legislature instead of the second, it'd probably fit in more organically.
  • Minnesota, I assume, at some point here went from two representatives per district to one. Can some brief mention of that be included between Nelson's two legislative elections?
  • I actually have literally no idea why Minnesota went from 37 senators to 21. I can research this and get back to you.
  • Several times, Nelson's estate is alluded to, and mentioned as continuing into the 20th century. Why?
  • I could just address it up until November 1880. I just thought it was a noteworthy way to end 'Business ventures' — namely that Nelson's son-in-law basically squandered everything he'd built up through said ventures. I don't personally see it as distracting from or is extraneous to the overall article. As far as the 'Later life and death' mention, Nelson's estate is mentioned because of very severe disagreements between Nelson's wife and his son-in-law that are prominently discussed in Empson (2002).
That's all on first reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I'll address these as best I can over the next couple days and see what you think. I know you said you didn't have much time for new commitments, so I appreciate you taking time to perform this analysis. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Homo antecessor

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only great ape FAs are Solo Man and orangutan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

That's how I normally word it, since it's recorded in the fossil record during this time period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"more conventional"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
NPOV is for debated subject matter. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is by people for people   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This is explained later in the Fire section. They only inhabited Iberia during warm periods and presumably fled southeast towards the Mediterranean during cold periods   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Iberia is a southern peninsula of Europe. They could only have fled north by land (not southeast as you say), which they would presumably not have done in a cold period. I only have access to the abstract of the source but it says that they probably lived on the Mediterranean coast during cold spells and recolonized Iberia via the Ebro valley (not river) when the climate warmed (not that they fled via the Ebro when it was cold as you say in the article). The implication seems to be that they died out in Iberia during cold periods and fresh groups migrated there during warm ones. This also seems to rule out the Happisburgh hominids being antecessor as it would be too cold for them there. You appear to be using sources which take different views of how cold adapted antecessor was without pointing out the contradiction.
I don't understand the contradiction with Happisburgh. They inhabited the English coastline during an interglacial as well, albeit a different stage of the interglacial. Sierra de Atapuerca is in northern Spain, if you follow the river to the mouth, you're going southeast towards the Mediterranean, so I'll re-add Mediterranean to make it clearer. I moved "(probably via the Ebro valley)" to the part about migrating in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
1. The climate in Iberia at the height of the last ice age is described in [7] as 'temperate dry steppe'. Happisburgh is 1000 miles further north and it seems unlikely that the climate there in "the cooler beginning or end of an interglacial" would be better than in Spain during a glacial, so if they could stand Happisburgh they would not have needed to abandon inland Iberia. 2. I see that Atapuerca is at the north west end of the Ebro valley, but I was taking you to mean Iberia in general - presumably there must have been many other populations. I think it would be clearer to say that they migrated from the high inland plateaus to the coast without mentioning Ebro. 3. The Waalian interglacial dates to before antecessor. See [8]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I changed it to "They may have followed water bodies while migrating, in the case of Sierra de Atapuerca, most likely the Ebro River." The source specifically says Waalian Interglacial. As for Happisburgh, they didn't necessarily have to stay in England all year long as Britain wasn't an island at the time. I can add more about Happisburgh if you'd like using [9], I wasn't sure how in depth I should go since the site is only associated with H. antecessor by chronology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Migration looks fine to me now. The source for the Waalian is 2008 and may be out of date. The table I linked to above produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy dates the Waalian to 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. Happisburgh would have been cold even in summer during the transition to or from a glacial, but I see that you suggest above that antecessor was probably cold adapted, so maybe the high inland plateau was too dry during ice ages, not too cold. I do not think you need any more about Happisburgh as the association is merely based on the lack of any known alternative. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya, and it's not like temperature plummets that much even after 100,000 years. The average temperature of Happisburgh today is warmer than what's predicted for Gran Dolina then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
You say the source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya. Current thinking is a bit earlier but either way it is before the antecessor dates of 1.2 to 0.8 mya. Also all sources say the Waalian is north-west European, so it is not relevant to Iberia. We have to use our judgment what to quote from sources, not use them uncritically. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Presumably the source explains why the Iberian Mediterranean coast could not have provided refugia? After all, Gorham's Cave is in Iberia, it is the southern most point in Europe and it was occupied by the Neanderthals. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
It's because I left out the word "inland". Oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
added to the Fire section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I did, Stringer didn't say anything in specific, just acknowledged someone said H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Stringer just included it in a list of the views on the subject. That is not echoing a concern. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I included Stringer because Castro specifically accredits the usage of "H. mauritanicus" to only Hublin and Stringer, "Some authors have considered the possibility of combining the two samples in the same species: H. mauritanicus (Hublin 2001; Stringer 2003)."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Stringer wrote "Some workers prefer to lump the earlier records together and recognize only one widespread species, H. erectus2 (shown in a). Others recognize several species, with H. ergaster and H. antecessor (or H. mauritanicus) in the West, and H. erectus only in the Far East". You say "Chris Stringer echoed this concern". It was not a concern but a mention of one theory in a list of theories. Stringer did not echo a concern. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
what's the difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The specimen is about one million years old. I would replace "specimen" with "child". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
We see two sentences down "The most notable traits are a completely flat face and a curved zygomaticoalveolar crest (the bar of bone connecting the cheek to the part of the maxilla which holds the teeth)". Neanderthals are not Middle Pleistocene. Middle Pleistocene Western Eurasian and African specimens are conventionally assigned to H. heidelbergensis, but in Europe some people wanna classify certain populations as late H. erectus, and in Africa rhodesiensis, late ergaster, helmei, and recently bodoensis. This time period is called the "muddle in the middle" because there's no wide agreement on species classification, which I think is better discussed at Homo heidelbergensis. Sometimes I see authors not mentioning species names at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The Neanderthals were Middle Pleistocene, which ran from 770 to 126 thousand years ago. However, I accept that it is correct to refer to West Eurasian and African species without specifying since as you say there are several and no agreement. What is the position on East Asian? I only know of erectus. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
That's like calling H. sapiens Middle Pleistocene, technically true but when you just say the name you generally think of late-sapiens. The Middle Pleistocene of East Asia is even less resolved. I see some people wanting to lump them into heidelbergensis, but opponents don't offer an alternative. We know there were the Denisovans but we don't know what they looked like. Someone recently erected Homo longi and revived "H. daliensis" so now there's more names to argue over. Some fossils have been assigned to H. erectus with little debate, Nanking Man, Solo Man, Peking Man, etc. but certainly there're a lot of fossils that can't be comfortably classified into H. erectus.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It's odd because it wasn't retained in contemporary or later archaic humans beyond Africa and southeast Asia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe clearer if you said unlike other contemporary Eurasian archaic humans? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
how?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
A femur is a bone, not a human. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
glossed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


Older nominations

Jim Lovell

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Balon Greyjoy (talk)

This article is about the second oldest living American astronaut after his Gemini 7 and Apollo 8 crew mate Frank Borman. He also flew the Gemini 12 mission with Buzz Aldrin, who is two years younger. Lovell was part of the Next Nine group of astronauts selected in 1962 that also included Neil Armstrong, and he was Armstrong's backup for the Apollo 11 mission. Today he is probably best known for his unsuccessful final mission, Apollo 13, which was made into the 1995 film Apollo 13, in which he appeared. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I've made a number of hands-on edits, mostly minor grammatical and such.

  • "Naval aviator" Our article on same says "naval aviator".
    De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Can more be said about the astronaut selection process Lovell passed? If I recall, Lovell describes it in some detail, including the interview.
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "at Albrook Air Force Station in Panama" I might describe it as being in the Panama Canal Zone.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps something more can be said about Lovell's experience on Gemini 7? From what I recall, the flight was so long that in the final days they were uncomfortable and just counting down the time to the return to Earth.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, did Lovell have in NASA's recovery from the Apollo 1 fire?
    Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that Lovell led the crew that spent two days in April 1968 in a CM in the Gulf of Mexico testing the effects of seawater on the CM?
    Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps in the Apollo 13 mission material, a bit more about Lovell as an individual, perhaps mention he echoed Swigert's "Houston, we've had a problem" and his comment that NASA wouldn't be returning to the Moon for a while that got him into slight hot water.
    Added the former. Do you have a source for the latter? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's page 323 of the 1998 edition of Chaikin's book. On the chance you have different pagination, it's the episode described as April 16 at 3:21 am Houston time. I think Lovell talks about it in Lost Moon, too. There's brief discussion of it in the Lunar Flight Journal here (search for

"last lunar")--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Okay, I retrieved Chaiken from the library, which is open again, and have added a paragraph about this too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

Should be able to get the rest of the article from Gemini down tomorrow. NoahTalk 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? NoahTalk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


That takes me to "NASA career", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Gemini 12", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


I've read the lead and had a couple of minor quibbles but I'll wait til you've addressed TRM's comments so we're not duplicating each other. Ping me when you're ready for me and I'll get to it as soon as I can. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Beowulf and Middle-earth

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about J. R. R. Tolkien's use of the Old English poem Beowulf in his Middle-earth fantasy writings, especially his 1954–55 work The Lord of the Rings. Like the Beowulf poet, Tolkien was a Christian looking back at a distant pagan past; and he hoped to echo the poem's symbolism that managed never to be a mere allegory. The article was generously reviewed by Amitchell125 and I hope that FAC reviewers will similarly find it worthwhile. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Support from Hurricane Noah

  • "In terms of" is used too many times.
  • Edited.
  • I would consider splitting this up into multiple sentences as it quite massive.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Rearranged.
  • Added.
  • Split.
  • Fixed.
That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? NoahTalk 01:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
All done. I'll take a look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....(fascinating topic)

  • Done.
  • Unhyphenated it is.
  • Done.
  • Glossed.
  • Removed.
  • Moved it down there.
  • Removed.

An interesting read and in good shape. Am wondering whether the sections are a bit small and numerous - if any can be combined might be good for flow....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Merged two sections in the Rohan chapter. The others seem to work well, each corresponding to a subsidiary article for further information. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I have a couple of questions:

--Mirokado (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: thanks for the quick response! A well-written, well-sourced article. --Mirokado (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bad Times at the El Royale

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In 2018, 20th Century Fox released Drew Goddard's Bad Times at the El Royale, a thriller set in the 1960s. The film features an ensemble cast including Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson, Jon Hamm, and Chris Hemsworth. It was praised by critics but bombed at the box office. I rewrote the article in 2020, adding over 100 references. It is a GA and has appeared on the main page through DYK. I believe it can become an FA. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Done the first two. I am confused about the third image. The public domain tag says it could be in the public domain if "it is a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work that does not include the year." There are other reasons listed that would put it in the public domain, including: "Notice does not include the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."" Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the original, it does include the word "Copyright"; is there another of those reasons that you feel may apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I guess not. The image has been replaced. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Two week update/reminder. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Still think the first item could be improved - why is this essential to reader understanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have removed it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


That's what I got on a first pass (not a lot). Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: All done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – great work! BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

This is my only comment for now, but I will read through the article again later in the week. I have made some minor edits, mostly involving linking. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Upon reading the article again, this is the only note that I have for my review. Once it is resolved, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Aoba47: The image has been removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I support the FAC for promotion. Great work with it! Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from indopug

I haven't read the whole thing because I want to watch the film first, but the lead currently seems very bare bones and workmanlike, giving very little idea about what is unique about the film and its making. Much of the second paragraph is basically redundant to the infobox ("it was shot by X, scored by Y and edited by Z"). Just glancing through the Production section it's clear you can write a more substantive paragraph, going beyond dates and a role call. You can also add something from Themes (perhaps summarising it) to the first paragraph.

On the other hand, I feel there is some stuff you can trim. For e.g., "took place until April, in British Columbia, specifically mostly on a large studio set in Vancouver"? Also, what was well-received about the film is repeated twice ("its ensemble cast, soundtrack, and cinematography, ... story, cinematography, writing, and acting"). Is "Best Thriller Film at the 45th Saturn Awards" an accolade even worth mentioning? Lastly, I'm confused as to how "grossing $31.9 million against a $32 million budget" constitutes a bomb.—indopug (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indopug: done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Indopug: Two week update/reminder. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hamilcar's victory with Naravas

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Another obscure North African campaign involving the Carthaginians. This went through GAN a couple of months ago and I have worked on it a little since then. I believe that it is now up to FA standard. As with several similar submissions, scholarly discussion is limited enough that I believe that I have covered everything of note, but sufficient that I believe that there is enough to warrant an FAC. Feel free to disagree, on this or anything else. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Oops. The former. Standardised.
Lead expanded to clarify.
It is called an encyclopedia, but it isn't. It is a straight forward set of history volumes.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, I think that I have now sorted everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

Serial Numerus LIVCXXIX

A battle so obscure we don't know where it took place, excellent. Suggest this is raised far sooner than it is: at the moment, 1st para of fifth section and nothing in the lead. So perhaps Hamilcar's victory with Naravas was a battle that took place in 240 BC.... Although remember that per WP:AVOIDBOLD, there's no pressure on you to shoehorn the title into the lead if it reads uncomfortably. (Here's an example you won't find at all memorable!) For instance, you could remove the bolding and say something like In 240 BC a battle was fought at a now-unknown Tunisian location between.... Either way, however it's dealt with in the lead, suggest an etymology section before everything else, perhaps just transposing the explanation from where it is now to the top. By the way, welcome back to FAC! ——Serial 15:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


I'll stick this onto my to-do list. Ping me if I haven't gotten to this over the next few days. Hog Farm Talk 06:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The caption includes "The numeral "7" represents the Battle of the Saw, although the location is extremely approximate". Is this insufficient?
Good spot. Typo for Hamilcar - too many Carthaginian generals whose names begin with H!
Gah! Spelling corrected.

Good work here, that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Hog Farm. All sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


I just changed the redirect link of Ancient Libyans to go to the above instead. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

1937 Brazilian coup d'état

Nominator(s): FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1937 coup which created a dictatorship in Brazil. I have created and worked on it for the past few months and believe it satisfies the featured article criteria.

It was recently copyedited by Twofingered Typist (talk · contribs) and received its GA review from Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) in September.FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
  • File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is tagged as lacking author info, and when was this first published? What is its status in the US? Ditto File:São_Paulo_flag_burned_in_1937.jpeg
I am unsure. I uploaded both as not knowing what license it should be under, and both were reviewed by the same two users as public domain.
Images uploaded locally should be public domain in the US (or claimed as fair use), so these will both need tagging for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Both have been tagged for fair use in the US, public domain in Brazil, and the resolution for each has been reduced.
These will need a stronger FUR, and suggest using the generic fair-use tag rather than unique historic image.
Tags have been replaced. What do you mean by "stronger"?
Non-free content needs a fair-use rationale that justifies why each of the non-free criteria are met and why a non-free image is necessary for illustrating the article. At the moment the rationales presented do not adequately accomplish this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Added rationales for why File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is necessary.
  • File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg: when was this first published? Ditto File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg
Unsure, but the permissions for these two images should not come into question because they were uploaded from the National Archive. Also, since they take place in two historical events, File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg is in October 1930 and File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg is in November 1935.
We do still need to ensure the tagging is correct, particularly with regards to US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
They are, though, I believe. Both photos have tags of the National Archive. FredModulars (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, why do you believe the tagging is correct if the publication date is unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
There should be no question about it if it was uploaded from the National Archive. See the first licensing and summary for each image.
Is there a link to this work on the Archive website? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
All National Archive photos uploaded have identification in their summaries, so a link is not required.
If we're not able to verify from the Archive site what licensing information is provided there, then yes, there is a question. It would be unusual for a non-US site to identify the status of a non-US work in the US. This applies also to several other images throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Both images were uploaded by the National Archive. They have identification in their summaries, licensing, and are said to be of the "Brazilian National Archives GLAMWiki Initiative". For US copyright purposes, the licensing on Commons is fulfilled by the file. It was first published in Brazil and not published in the U.S. within 30 days. Being that the Correio da Manhã (newspaper) shut down in 1974, it was first published before 1 March 1989. Fundo Correio da Manhã is also a part of the National Archives. Finally, it is a "cinematographic, phonographic, photographic and applied arts works completed before 20 June 1938" and/or a photographic work "not considered to be 'artistic creations' produced before 20 June 1998" from my understanding of the copyright law. Looking at the dates of the files (October 1930 and 25 November 1935, respectively), both are before 1938 and 1998. Therefore, both files are public domain in the US.
We know the images were created before 1938/1998, but you've indicated above you're not sure when they were published. It's very possible for archival materials to have never been published. This applies to other archival images as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I have indicated the publication was before 1989. Since they are part of the Fundo Correio da Manhã, they were published in that newspaper, and before 1989 since the paper shut down in 1974. See above.
Does the Archive specify that everything in that collection was published, as opposed to just part of that collection? The latter is more typical. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
They were published. If you want more proof, which I believe is unnecessary since the archive is of the newspaper's photos, after p. 130 in "Vargas of Brazil: A Political Biography" by John W.F. Dulles, File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg appears, albeit in a worse condition. It is sourced from the Correio da Manhã, the newspaper itself. For the other image, see here. Page five of the newspaper, middle of the three bottom images.
  • File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg: is there evidence to support that the uploader was the copyright holder and could therefore release the image under the given license? Ditto File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, File:Francisco_Campos.jpg
The first's permission in the table is "Fotografia com mais de 70 anos, domínio público." Being more than seventy years old, it is in the public domain (as should be most of these photos from my understanding of the law). There is no evidence for File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, or File:Francisco_Campos.jpg.
Being old does not automatically make something public domain; even if this is in the public domain due to age, the current tagging is incorrect and will need to be corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png has little information and has been replaced by Plínio Salgado, 1959.tif.
File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg was uploaded from Facebook and there is little more information. It has been replaced by File:Pintura Oficial de Armando de Sales.jpg.
What's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone has just added a license that seems right: The same as File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg.
The source link is dead - is there an alternative available to confirm those publication details? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) This should suffice.
File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg has been replaced by File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg.
When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for this publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I got confused with the date it was made and the publication date. I have removed the image entirely.
File:Francisco_Campos.jpg has been replaced by File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg, a file I have uploaded from the Ministry of Justice.
Why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Found on a government website. Campos died in 1969, so it was commissioned before 1983. With that, it satisfies all the requirements of the licensing.
That's for the Brazilian licensing - my question is with regards to the US licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I meant it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing, sorry.
Okay, but again, the information you've listed is with regards to the Brazilian licensing, so why specifically do you believe it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Updated the license with one from Wikimedia, the same one for File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg. It "was first published in Brazil (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)" and "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities" and it is a photographic work not considered to be an artistic creation. It was made before 20 June 1998 since Campos died in 1968. Removed the image entirely; can't find when it was first published.
  • File:José_Américo_de_Almeida_no_Catete._(cropped).tif: why is this believed to be a government work? Ditto File:Deputado_José_Antônio_Flores_da_Cunha.tif, File:EstadoNovoaddress.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The first two were uploaded to Wikipedia by the National Archive of the Ministry of Justice. With that, they are in the public domain. The third is one that I was not sure of when I uploaded it, so it was put to discussion for deletion and it was marked as being government work.
It appears that the first two were uploaded by individual users, one of whom has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns; what leads you to believe either is affiliated with the National Archive? For the third, do you have a link to the deletion discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Of the first two, both are sourced from the National Archive. Their permissions are attributed to the National Archive. I believe the user you are talking about is Avrelianvs Magnvs. The image they uploaded is extracted from another image (that they did not upload) which, again, is affiliated with the National Archive. Here is a link to the third image's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 25. It is the third image being discussed. FredModulars (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That discussion does not determine that this is a government work; the file was deleted because it existed on Commons, but it does not seem that the underlying issue was addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I have reached out to the user who closed the discussion and uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons to inquire on why they concluded it was a government photo. I am awaiting a reply.
@Nikkimaria: The user was confused with the copyright and the photo has been deleted from Commons. In the article, it has been replaced with File:EstadoNovoRadioAddress1937.jpeg, awaiting a size reduction. FredModulars (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This should use the generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Plano_Cohen_-_Correio_da_Manha.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Done. For the license, it meets the first two formalities as well as "an anonymous work or a work deemed to be anonymous, or a work by a collective person whose authors were not individually identified, published or disclosed before 20 June 1938."

I apologize for my delay. I will address the issues above soon. FredModulars (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have responded to the image review.
@Nikkimaria: I believe your concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Done; I didn't know fixed px was an issue. Added alt text.
If you mean in the newspaper itself, no. I can't find copyright notice on their photos.
Same situation; see below for Flores da Cunha photo. Here is the photo per the National Archive. Produced by the Agência Nacional, it is under their license.
The current tags on the image are contradictory - either it's a government work or it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
PD in Brazil, CC for United States as below
Is this a government work, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a government work.
I was able to find it here as part of the web archive. Information can be found here. It was produced the Agência Nacional, proof here (this link may not work since it is on the archive's SIAN website and a login is required) and already mentioned on its page. Added the agency's license. I don't believe a link is necessary since the accession number and collection are provided.
As above - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
PD in Brazil since it is in possession by the National Archive, but CC for United States (and also Brazil, I would suppose) since it was produced by Agencia Nacional.
Added US licensing. I am a bit unsure on this one, but it should meet first two requirements and the last of the four.
When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It is a radio broadcast from 10 November 1937. That is stated in its documentation and in the first minute or so of the broadcast itself. Assuming by "published" you mean when it was disclosed to the public or when it was broadcast through an agency, that should be the date.

@Nikkimaria: I have gotten around to the new comments. FredModulars (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I hope this isn't excessive pinging, so my apologies if it is, but your question has been answered. FredModulars (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
That's fine. The bit I'm still unsure about is the overlapping licensing (CC and PD). Our article on Agência Brasil indicates it was founded in 1990 - is that correct? Do these images appear on the AB site? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Agencia Brasil is a successor to the Agencia Nacional, and, according to the pt article, was established by President Vargas by a decree in 1937. I couldn't find them on the AB site.
Okay. The CC tag specifies content on their site - do you have a reference supporting that it applies also to the predecessor works? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
No. I thought the language of the tag would allow for anything produced by them, but I will try to look again for anything on their site and a reference saying it applies to older works.
Update: I have been unable to find anything on their site or a reference you requested. Without any suitable alternatives for Cunha and Almeida, I have removed both their images. All other portraits of people alone in the article have been removed, and the presidential candidates' images have deteriorated from replacements and now Américo lacks one, so I just decided to remove the other two.

Source review - pass

Notes (non-issues)

@Iazyges: A new source has been added. I don't know if that would change the outcome of the source review.

Support from Hurricane Noah

Unfortunately, there is no article on the constitution on the en Wikipedia. I linked it to the section on it in the article History of the Constitution of Brazil.
Changed to "With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. After having his state's militia be incorporated into federal forces by a state of war commission in his state, Rio Grande do Sul Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. State governors of Bahia and Pernambuco were also attacked by commissions in their states." This should clarify that the state of war allowed the federal government to pursue more interventions in the states.
Clarified. Linked to a section in the History of the Constitution of Brazil.
Done. Changed "nothing stood in the way of" to "little stopped."
I meant it as a general reaction to the coup, but that makes more sense.
The paragraph explains the causes for the revolution. I believe it would be unnecessary and repetitive.
Added a semicolon.
It's not a list, and this may be confusing. The assemblymen were the supporters of the ANL. The ANL was a leftist front. I have reworded the sentence: "who were supporters..."
Changed to "existed only de jure, as the states..."
Changed to "arose in the aftermath of the communist insurrection."
Yes. Added "again."
I believe this was written to convey the writing was of mid-September. Nevertheless, it makes no difference. Done.
This is all for now. I will do the rest of the article later. NoahTalk 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Changed to "Most appointees had succeeded themselves. Intervenors in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco, however, were replaced."
Changed to "Instead, he presented a new program of activity, including new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and the implementation of "a great steelworks" that was to provide local minerals and offer employment."
Changed to a series.
The lengthening of his term does not imply he was allowed re-election. Reworded to ", and he was now eligible to run for re-election."
This was supposed to contrast with the idea of the entire paragraph. The section implies Vargas had unlimited power and leaves the reader thinking he was totalitarian or fascist, which is only partially true (and completely false by the end of the Estado Novo) and contrasts with historians' view of him. Since these encompass two different ideas, I have separated them into two paragraphs.
I originally wanted to exclude this because it is drifting a bit too far from the direct aftermath of the coup. Added a paragraph at the end of A new regime to summarize how he lost, regained, and again lost power. After Vargas dies the political scene slowly shifts away from him and his crew and his memory is slowly forgotten, so that is enough. Many things are details (e.g. "a political crisis") because explaining them would drift too far away from the idea of the article.
That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? NoahTalk 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: Addressed all issues presented. Thanks for the review, I'll check out your candidate. FredModulars (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.