Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc 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. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Independence Day (Nigeria)

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Nigeria's Independence Day, known colloquially as October First, is observed annually on 1 October to commemorate the country's independence from British rule in 1960. It marks the end of colonial governance and the establishment of Nigeria as a sovereign republic.

Disclosure: I plan on making sure this article appears on the main page as today's featured article for 1 October 2025 (I guess it's better to reserve the spot earlier :-)). So, I am literally ready to do any reasonable work suggested of any editor :) Thank you in advance of your comments and assistance. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption - it should supplement the caption for those unable to see the image

  I did some fixes to the alts, can you check and see if they're okay? thanks! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:National_Pageant_1st_October_1960.jpg: where is this licensing coming from? Ditto File:Jaja-Wachuku,_Abubakar_Tafawa_Balewa_and_Princess_Alexandra_of_kent_on_Nigeria_s_Independence_Day_October_1,_1960.jpg, File:The_Prime_Minister,_Sir_Abubakar_Tafawa_Balewa_on_Independence_Day,_October_1,_1960.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: These images are in the public domain because they're photographic works and 50 years have passed since their publication. c:Template:PD-Nigeria. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

2009–10 Notts County F.C. season

Nominator(s): Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered what happens when a struggling lower league football club is taken over as part of an elaborate attempt to defraud (among others) the North Korean government? Well, as far fetched as that might sound, you can find out! This article is about Notts County's 2009–10 season, a hugely successful one on the field, but one largely overshadowed by off-field events, as the club found itself unwittingly embroiled in a massive attempted fraud. This was unquestionably the most bizarre season in Notts County's (and maybe any football club's) history, and the story is complex and sometimes scarcely believable, but I hope I've been able to bring it all together in a sensible and understandable way. All comments and feedback gratefully received. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - alt text added Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

Putting my name down to do a review of this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Donkey Kong

Nominator(s): JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

DK, Donkey Kong, DK, Donkey Kong is here (at FAC!). As the franchise that put Nintendo on the map, Donkey Kong's got one of the most bizarre and entertaining histories of any media franchise—did you know, for instance, that the 1981 original began as a Popeye game? Or that Shigeru Miyamoto, widely regarded as the Spielberg of video games, had never designed a video game before he had to create the big ape to save Nintendo from bankruptcy? Or that the franchise got a musical TV adaptation in the late '90s animated entirely through motion capture?

I've spent almost two years working on this article, from February 2023 until now. I think it paints a complete picture of the franchise's history, inner workings, and influence. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

FM

• Probably won't get to it soon, but marking my spot, because I have to read this! And I sure know the TV series, because it turns out I'm apparently one of the only people who recorded the Danish dub, which is commercially unavailable now... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• At first glance I'm seeing a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1]

Fathoms Below

Hey Joe, it's been a while right? This is a big step up from DKC so I'll save a spot here and I should have some comments up by next week. I also have a FAC open and would really appreciate some quick comments if you're available. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

I'll have a proper run-through later, but some driveby thoughts for now:

• For the purposes of the lead, how important is it to list all of the supporting characters? I ask partially because the "Rare's games expanded the cast" sentence is trying to pack a lot of information in, is a bit confusing (when you get to the end and we're talking about antagonists instead) and hits you with a ton of names that most people are not necessarily going to know anyhow.
• In both the lead and body, the text says "to provide a new game that could salvage the unsold Radar Scope cabinets", and I'm wondering if "salvage" makes sense here? They were taking the cabinets and putting a new game into them, correct, versus scrapping them for parts or the like, so "repurpose" maybe makes more sense?
• I get trying to show the variety of games with File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png, but from a practical standpoint, especially given that the core formula is unchanged between them in terms of platforming and with the limitations of non-free content, I think it would make sense to use a single, higher-resolution screenshot.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. Some of its main topics include the categories of being, the concepts of possibility and necessity, the nature of spacetime, and the relation between mind and matter. It is relevant to many fields, ranging from other branches of philosophy to the sciences, which often implicitly rely on metaphysical concepts and ideas. Thanks to 750h+ for their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima's comments

Mark me down for a prose review here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurra-yi Khuttali

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am renominating this article after it failed the first nomination only because of a lack of engagement from reviewers. This article is about a minor figure in the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty, the dynasty that ruled what is modern day Afghanistan and eastern Iran. Hurra-yi Khuttali was a princess from this dynasty and is regarded as the most politically active woman of her era because she interfered in the succession of her brother. Small details are known about her life, therefore the article itself is quite short. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

ThaesOfereode

Hi Amir, it looks like you have Arabic transliterations in the {{Lang}} template. Unless the Arabic script is used, you should use {{translit}} instead. Other issues below:

• "free woman" → 'free woman' per MOS:SINGLE (also want single quotes around "agnomen").
  • Done
• Deitalicize established loan words like "amir", "harem", and "sultan". All of these are common enough terms in English that they don't need italics.
  • Done
• First instance of amir should be delinked to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation (i.e., before Mas'ud of Ghazna)
  • Done
• Any reason you picked the spelling "Seljuq" over the more common "Seljuk"?
  • Force of habit; changed it to Seljuk

More to follow later. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, the following are suggestions, not demands:

• "considered the most prominent woman in Ghaznavid politics" this is not quite what the body says—that an action she took was the most prominent by a woman in Ghaznavid politics.
  • Changed it
• Not sure if "in modern Afghanistan" needs to be in the lead.
  • Deleted
• Two consecutive sentences starting "she was" could be combined.
  • Done
• "a direct cause for" "a direct cause of" sounds more natural.
  • Done
• "who was deemed unfit" this omits that she was one who deemed Muhammad unfit.
  • Deleted
• " Her letter was one of the main reasons for Mas'ud's usurpation of the throne." a bit vague, you could go into more detail about what actually happened.
  • Done
• "the Ghaznavid dynasty, who were a dynasty of Turkic origin" could be simplified to something like "the Ghaznavids, a dynasty of Turkic origin..."
  • Done
• "she sought to learn sciences" this is slightly ungrammatical, probably needing a "the", and also a little unclear—which sciences?
  • This was originally 'other sciences' beside theology, but one reviewer commented that theology is not a science, so I omited the 'other'. I'll add 'other' again since the source itself considers theology a science.
• The map provided is not that useful—a better one would show the Ghaznavid territories, which are referred to more often, instead of intricate details of Khwarazm. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg seems ideal, if you can find a source that verifies it.
  • Done
• "The latter" is unnecessary—it wouldn't be the person who's died, would it?
  • Replaced with 'He'.
• "patriotist" is not a word, is "patriotic" meant? If yes, I suggest "nationalist" instead as more suitable.
  • I myself prefer 'patriotic' since the source uses it
• "the rebels killed Ma'mun because of his submission" if the whole rebellion broke out because of the submission, I would suggest mentioning that at the start of the sentence, not the end.
  • I reworded the sentence. Thoughts?
• You could mention that Muhammad and his brother were twins.
• "inviting him" is a bit oddly phrased, would suggest "encouraging him" or similar.
  • Done
• "Mas'ud marched east to claim the throne, and continued to receive letters from Hurra and his mother regarding the situation in Ghazna. On his arrival in 1030 in Ghazna, Mas'ud captured Muhammad and took the throne." these sentences are quite clunky; try to trim to reduce duplication.
  • Done
• "who had assumed total power in Ghazna after Muhammad's ascension to become the real power behind Muhammad's government" this also essentially says the same thing twice.
  • Amended
• The last paragraph of the "Biography" section needs a thorough copyedit—it really lacks clarity.
  • Done
• Too many commas in the last sentence of "Assessments".
  • Amended

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Support - I seem to be the only one to have completed a review last time around, so here is my support again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

• "Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010 and was succeeded by his brother, Ma'mun II." - If I'm reading the source correctly, the source says The date of ʿAlī’s death and the accession of his brother Abu’l-ʿAbbās Maʾmūn II is not definitely known, but must have been ca. 399/1008-9
• "He, with the same intent as his brother, married Hurra in 1015" - source says 1015/1016 which doesn't seem to be quite the same as what's in the article?
  • When I was writing the article, I based the dated on the dates in the Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam article, which uses the Hijri calendar. I had to use an app that converts the dates, that is why the year is specified. For example, in the article the year of Hurra's second marriage is recorded as 406 AH, which in turn could be converted to 1015. I'll correct the date now.
• "a dynasty of Turkic origin whose realm included modern day Afghanistan, eastern Iran and northwestern India" - source specifies Baluchistan, rather than "eastern Iran"; is this really the best way to phrase this, as from what I can tell eastern Iran is more expansive than Baluchistan?
  • From the source: "GHAZNAVIDS, an Islamic dynasty of Turkish slave origin (366-582/977-1186), which in its heyday ruled in the eastern Iranian lands, briefly as far west as Ray and Jebāl; for a while in certain regions north of the Oxus, most notably, in Kᵛārazm; and in Baluchistan." The source doesn't single out Baluchistan, it is mentioned with other regions.

I was going to check Bosworth 1963 as well, but the Internet Archive is acting up again today. I'm a bit concerned about source-text after some issues came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabuktigin/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Decided to try getting another movie shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000 to Featured Article status. This time around its Overdrawn at the Memory Bank, a major for public television movie starring the late great Raul Julia. A very bizarre science fiction film that tries its best to be profound but ends up being pretty confusing at times. Still a fun movie to watch and I believe that the article meets FAC criteria. Always looking forward for critiques, however. GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "It premiered on the CBC" - might be worth clarifying that this is a Canadian station. I for one didn't know this and just assumed it was American.
  • I unabbreviated it. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Can you unabbreviate it in the body too......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I have also been looking at a few related articles and think maybe it would be more appropriate to say it was broadcast on CBC Television...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Changed it to that. GamerPro64 20:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "working for conglomerate Novicorp" => "working for the conglomerate Novicorp"
  • Added. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "assigns him mandatory prophylactic rehabilitation" - is there an appropriate link for "prophylactic"? I don't know what it means......
  • I wikilinked it. Its basically preventative healthcare. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "changing both his and Apollonia's identity" => "changing both his and Apollonia's identities"
  • Changed.
• "It was directed Douglas Williams directed the film" - some mangled wording there
  • Looks like it was left behind during the copyedit. Fixed. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Paul Chaplin voiced his hatred" - is he also a cast member?
  • Cast member and writer for the show. Clarified. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "PBS and its pledge drives were also satirized throughout this episode." - source?
  • That does happen in the episode, more satirizing public access stations and their pledge drives. Don't think I can find a proper source beyond the show so I'll remove it. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "saying the film was ahead of its time and gave praise for the acting" => "saying the film was ahead of its time and giving praise for the acting" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Voss (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's late 2000. You've had it up to here with the jerks at LVMH telling you how to run Givenchy, with the press making snarky comments about your weight, and with the whole bloody madhouse of the fashion industry top to tail. Do you quit this all and become an accountant now? Hell no. You're Alexander McQueen, and you're going to channel your rage into the most beautiful showcase of your entire career: Voss.

Combining incredible showpieces, virtuoso staging, and – the biggest middle finger of all – beautifully wearable designs, Voss was McQueen at the top of his game, all killer no filler. I hope this article does it justice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51611p).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 38 (Voss blouse).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51590).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Publicité pour Elizabeth Arden 4 by Adolf de Meyer.jpg, PD, including a PD-US tag
• Two good fair-use images with appropriate rationale
• File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 15 (cropped to jacket).jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Platos Atlantis at Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY 2.0
• File:ErinOConnor (cropped).jpg GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Everything looks good to me. :) Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Your Girl

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a short article about a somewhat obscure 2005 song by Mariah Carey. I believe it meets the criteria. Pinging Sammi Brie who kindly reviewed it for GA, if they wish to comment. Thanks to all, Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Any reason why "extended play" is not linked?

  Linked

• "It incorporates the same acoustic guitar ..." I don't get this, the same guitar as what?

  Changed to "It incorporates the acoustic guitar from 'A Life with You'"

Ah! Light bulb! You mean "It incorporates the acoustic guitar music as in 'A Life with You'". Er, yes?

• "it is a derivative of the Motown sound." I am not sure that is grammatical. Maybe 'it is a derived from the Motown sound' or similar?

  Changed to "derived from the Motown sound"

• "for her Las Vegas concert residency". Minor point: why "for"? 'at' or 'as part of' may flow better.

  Changed to "at"

A nice little article. But my big gripe is:

• The mentions of belting in both the lead and the article jar. "She uses belting as part of her vocal performance." The sentences just sit there, like factoids in a bullet list, unconnected to the sentences before and after. What is belting? Why does Carey use it? What do the critics think of her using it? How well or badly does Carey use it, or is considered to use it? What, if anything, does it add to the composition? There must be something you can say about it.

  Tried to make more clear by connecting her use of belting with the direct nature of the song. Added a note describing belting.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Heartfox (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Just when I was about to sign off on this I realised that you now arguably have more information on belting in the lead than in the main article. And why put the description of belting into a footnote? This means that a reader can only understand the part of the sentence after the semi colon if they have diverted via the footnote. And even then you haven't explicitly stated the link (as you do in the lead). Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I got it: "The lyrics are about Carey confidently addressing a prospective lover. She uses belting, a "brassy, full-throated sound" common in musical theatre, to project this in her singing." Heartfox (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "She wrote the track with Marc Shemer, who also produced it with her, as Scram Jones" => She wrote the track with Marc Shemer, who also produced it with her under the name Scram Jones" (current wording could be taken to imply that Scram Jones was a joint pseudonym for both of them)

  Agreed

• I can't actually see a source in the article to confirm that Shemer and Jones are the same person

  I added a newspaper article that says "Marc Shemer, a k a Scram Jones, is a hip-hop artist/rapper and DJ from New Rochelle, N.Y. ..."

• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

UC

I enjoyed reading this one: in places, it feels a little thin, as if being excessively parsimonious about which pieces of information it passes on to the reader. I particularly felt this in the "Reception" section. More specific nit-picks below:

• In reviews, music critics compared Carey's vocals to their state in the 1990s.: It feels as if we're burying the important thing here: it seems from the body text that they generally thought the comparison was unfavourable, though admittedly there's not a whole lot of data points to go on down there.

  Changed sentence to "Some critics viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi and others criticized her vocals."

• She uses belting as part of her vocal performance, which aligns with her upfront delivery: I admit to complete ignorance on the musical side here, but I have no idea how these two clauses would follow from each other (or, honestly, what "upfront delivery" is).

  Changed to "The lyrics of "Your Girl" are about Carey confidently approaching a potential lover. She uses belting as part of her vocal performance to evoke this sentiment in her singing."

• Critics described the music as containing disco, gospel, jazz, pop, and soul influences: do we need to hedge this behind the critics -- can we just say "the music is influenced by..."?

  Changed to "The music contains"

• Some viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi. : as further up, this seems like a slightly misleading thing to put in the lead as the only real judgement on the song's quality, since it seems that some viewed it as pretty ropey.

  Changed sentence to "Some critics viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi and others criticized her vocals."

• She performed the song live: suggest She has performed..., which implies that she might perform it again, as opposed to the current phrasing, which implies that she won't.

  Changed to "she has performed"

• For its follow-up, The Emancipation of Mimi (2005), she intended to displace overwrought ballads with more simplistic and authentic compositions: what does displace mean here? Are we talking about her changing her own musical style, or pushing others' ballads out of the market? Minor NPOV concerns on "overwrought", which is a loaded (negative) description, and "simplistic", which means "dumbed-down": I think "simple" was intended?

  Changed to "she intended to move on from singing elaborate ballads and instead create more simple and authentic compositions"

  I am inherently pretty wary of these kind of retrospective statements from creative people as to their intentions: they're inherently unverifiable, since we can never know what someone was thinking, and there are clear vested interests at play (with a few noble and notable exceptions, no artist is going to say "I wrote it like that because I thought it would sell more records and make me a whole load of money".) It's wiser, I think, to couch them as reported statements: for example, "in a 2020 interview, Carey said that she had intended...", which is absolutely verifiable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Prefaced by starting the sentence with "According to her,"

  • A small thing, but advise "simpler": as written, it's unclear whether more modifies simple or compositions. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks, done. Heartfox (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retrospectively, Entertainment Weekly writer Michael Slezak attributed its lack of radio airplay to the number of other worthy tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi: perhaps this belongs in the Reception section, but it might be relevant to say which songs were considered more worthy?

  The author doesn't specifically mention any, only: "It says something about the depth of Carey’s latest disc that this lovely little ditty hasn’t yet made it to radio"

• Chris Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter described the song as a deep cut: similar to the bullet point above. Any idea what led him to say this?

  Added to the sentence: "described the song as a deep cut on the album in contrast to the commercially successful "We Belong Together", "Shake It Off", and "Say Somethin'""

• "Your Girl" was later promoted as part of the #MC30 campaign marking three decades of Carey's career: when was this?

  The sentence introduces the date in the next sentence "On January 29, 2021". There is also a link to MC30. I could add another ref to support "2020–2021 #MC30 campaign" but I feel that might be excessive.

  Indeed: it's the next sentence, so doesn't imply that the two happened at the same time. Compare: The United States fought a war of independence against Great Britain. Last week, the King visited the White House. That's a perfectly coherent statement of the same construction, but no reader would take away the implication that the War of Independence happened last week. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to ""Your Girl" was later promoted as part of the #MC30 campaign marking three decades of Carey's career in 2021. On January 29 that year, she issued an extended play..."

• All work occurred at various locations in New York City.: what does work mean in this context?

  Changed to "The production process occurred at various locations in New York City"

• Pat "Pat 'Em Down" Viala: is "Pat 'Em Down" a stage name? Suggest Pat Viala (also known as "Pat 'Em Down") or similar: we wouldn't say Stefani "Lady Gaga" Germanotta.

  He is credited as Pat "Pat 'Em Down" Viala in the liner notes, so that's what I used in the article.

• It incorporates the acoustic guitar from "A Life with You": suggest the acoustic guitar part or similar, to be clear that we mean the musical track, rather than someone playing the same instrument.

  Changed to "acoustic guitar part"

• a party for the group's record label: might be worth making it absolutely clear that this is Adeaze, not Jones and his collaborators. Does this mean "the record label owned by Adeaze" or "the record label to which Adeaze are signed"?

  Changed to "after performing at a party for Dawn Raid Entertainment, the record label to which Adeaze were signed."

• The arranger and guitarist of "A Life with You", Dominique Leauga, alleged he was not credited for his contributions: seems like an odd phrasing -- surely it's easy enough to find out whether he was credited or not? Presumably, he means that he wasn't credited, but felt that he should have been. This might need a bit more explanation.

  Changed to "was not credited for his contributions".

• a "brassy, full-throated sound" common in musical theatre,: per WP:NFCC, quotes should be attributed inline, but I need some convincing that we need this one as a quotation (as opposed to a paraphrase) anyway.

  Paraphrased as "full-throated technique common in musical theatre"

• In The New York Times, Jon Pareles said she uses an impersonal delivery: I think wrote is better than said, as it's in print (but stated would be fine).

  Changed to "stated"

• The song is "innocent, yet still a bit grimy" according to Carey: comma after the quotation?

  Added a comma after quotation

• There's something a bit "off" about the reviews section to me. We have four named reviews -- three are local news, and one is a fairly small British online newspaper. Where are the big hitters? Is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, with its circulation of 48,000, really a major voice in music criticism?

  I looked at over 90 album reviews of The Emancipation of Mimi, and this is what I could extrapolate. I would definitely prioritize citing major publications, but for whatever reason the song didn't receive much attention from them. The section is still a thorough and representative survey of the literature that exists.

  I'm sure it is, but I think we could still do with giving the reader a bit more, rather than asking us to trust us. Out of all those 90 reviews, we seem to have four points of analysis: 1) her performance was confident; 2) her singing was good, because it was restrained; 3) her singing was bad, because it wasn't restrained; 4) her voice was "weaker", in some undefined way, than it had been before. It's a pretty dire comment on the music reviewing industry if that's the best that all ninety of them could do! Even then, if those views are widely held, we're doing a disservice by saying e.g. "Dave Tianen said...", if we really mean "Dave Tianen and another thirty-three reviewers said...". I would suggest both adding a few more names and fleshing out the points of praise and criticism a little more. It's a rather more complicated and studied piece of work, admittedly, but I think it would be illustrative to look at the relevant section in Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, a recently promoted song FA: that section does an excellent job of distilling a lot of reading while still giving the reader a sense of the scale of the writing about the song. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I added a sentence "Carey's vocals received largely negative reviews" to flesh out this theme more. Other than that I don't think there's more I can do. I would love for there to be more literature, but there isn't, and so I literally can't add more names to the section.

  I'm a little confused as to how this chimes with I looked at over 90 album reviews of The Emancipation of Mimi. Did eighty-six of them not mention the song at all? There seem to be some useful unused analytical comments in the reviews that have already been used to say that the reviewer thinks the song is particularly good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the vast majority of album reviews did not mention the song. I looked through the reviews again and didn't find anything new to add; if you can specify what are you are referring to that would be helpful. Heartfox (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, just from the ones in the article, we have:

  • "Carey comes off as confident and utterly carefree" (The Atlanta Constitution), which would seem to merit equal billing with the similar, if less poetic, comment from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

  This is already cited supporting the sentence "Her presence received positive feedback from Marino and Kevin C. Johnson of St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who viewed her as exuding confidence" – is "who both viewed her as exuding confidence" clearer?

  • The chorus is an exercise in exhilaration that arrives in a high-registered delirium ... It’s a transcendent moment so bright it’s nearly blinding (Pitchfork): this is much better than the trivial amount of commentary we currently have on the chorus (that it's catchy, and sounds a bit like gospel).

  Added the quote.

  • Billboard calls it a "fan favorite" as well as a deep cut, which gives the opposite impression to what we have currently said: as we've framed it, nobody really listens to it.

  I don't really view this as encyclopedic. "Carey's fans like the song a lot" doesn't add much to the article. The link to "deep cut" at wiktionary already implies this with the listed definition: "Any obscure work, a thing likely to be recognized only by a connoisseur" (ie Carey fans).

  • The rather unkind Independent review goes into much more detail as to the reviewer's problems with the music, particularly lyrical unoriginality and what he sees as lazy production, when talking about the album as a whole.

  I would never cite general comments about an album as a whole as relating to a song when the song is not explicitly mentioned. This leans too much into synthesis and the reviewer's opinion is more relevant for the album article.

  I could only access one review in addition to those, and that's four quite big bit bits of useful additional context from five sources. That doesn't give me much confidence that there's nothing at all to be gained from any of the other eighty-five. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• It's usually spelled a cappella: any reason for the single p?

  The source used the single "p" – I don't really care either way

  The double p is "correct" (it's Italian for "from the chapel", and the Italian for "chapel" is cappella: the single-p spelling is a mistake so common that it's sometimes accepted as a variant, though I don't think any significant publication prefers it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to double p

• In 2005, Slezak listed "Your Girl" among the 10 best songs of her career. Escobedo Shepherd considered it one of Carey's top 20 tracks in a 2007 Vibe article. Billboard ranked it at number 38 on their 2020 list of Carey's 100 greatest songs: there may not be much you can do about this, but the shifting dates create a comparability problem here: presumably Carey has written a lot of songs in the past 20 years, so being in the top 40 in 2020 might well be more impressive than being in the two 10 in 2005?

  I think moving chronologically flows fine.

  The direction of travel is not the problem; the problem is that there's an important piece of missing context to these numbers (the increasing scale of Carey's discography). However, as I said, that might not be a problem we can fix here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As ever, I hope this is helpful, and please do counter-quibble where it's warranted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you for the helpful comments, I have replied above. Heartfox (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Pulgasari

Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Pulgasari, an absurd 1985 North Korean/Japanese/Chinese monster movie by a kidnapped South Korean filmmaker. It's been 39 years since its production, and the film has become a cult classic worldwide. I have done some major reworking of this page over the last few months, and so far it has since been listed as a good article and received a copyedit. This is my third time nominating an article for FA. Thanks in advance to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg has a dead source link and incomplete FUR

• File:19660529申相玉.jpg has a dead source link and is missing info on first publication

• File:Pulgasary.png has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the link and FUR problems on File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg and File:Pulgasary.png but there's not much I can do for File:19660529申相玉.jpg, as that one's source appears inaccessible, not dead. Could remove that and Kim's photo and replace them with a non-free one of Shin and Kim together. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just changed File:19660529申相玉.jpg to the Non-free use file File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png from the year of the film's production. I will remove it if its use is deemed unacceptable by anyone. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See my comment about this file's non-free use at User talk:Eiga-Kevin2#File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png for more details, but I don't think this non-free use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

cseefooddiet

• For romanizing South Korean author names in references, are you following the procedure in WP:KOREANNAME? Some of the romanizations are non-standard; e.g. "Kim, Joo-won" should be "Kim, Ju-won" per KOREANNAME. seefooddiet (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh no I didn't follow KOREANNAME, I just went by consulted my Korean friend about the English spelling of them a few times and went by Google Translate elsewhere. I'll do my best to re-write the names based on WP:NCKOREAN henceforth but might need more assistance. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You can try this automatic converter [2] to get the Revised Romanization spellings. The converter is sometimes incorrect though; if you give it your best effort I can go through later and correct mistakes seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Google Translate doesn't produce the romanizations we prefer for Korean; see MOS:KO-ROMAN, second row of the table seefooddiet (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Northern Bank robbery

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The still unsolved Northern Bank robbery took place in 2004 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Working with military precision, an armed gang took family members of workers hostage, in order to force them to hand over £26.5 million in cash. The reaction of both the UK and the Irish governments was that the IRA was behind the heist, causing a rupture in the then ongoing peace process. It's now twenty years later and nobody has ever been directly convicted for the crime. Whilst Ted Cunningham does continue to fight his money laundering conviction, the article is stable and I hope ready to be a featured article. Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "£4.5 million in used notes supplied by other banks" This would include Bank of England notes?

  Moore says these other used notes were "made up of Bank of Ireland, First Trust, Bank of England and other notes". I could be more specific if you think it's necessary? Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm wondering why the hundred-pound notes did not cause more of a problem than they did. Do they pass that freely in Northern Ireland? I know the Bank of England only goes up to fifty pounds.

  I don't remember anything in the sources discussing that unfortunately Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The arrests were made under the Offences against the State Act.[19] " Does this convey something that I'm missing? Also, Offenses against the State Act is double linked.

  It's in the source and since the act was mentioned earlier, seems worth mentioning (and linking) again, but that's as far as my rationale goes. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "After the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ..." At least the first half of this paragraph has the feel of background rather than legacy.

  I can see what you mean, if it's OK I'd like to see what other reviewers think Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Ripe for the picking: The inside story of the Northern Bank robbery" Should be in title case.

  I've used sentence case in the refs so perhaps it makes more sense to have sentence case here as well. But in that event, then Northern Heist should prob be Northern heist, so I've changed that one Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why the Portuguese bank note crisis of 1925 is a see also. That was nothing like this, that was someone forging the authority for the bank note printers to print new currency and passing the resultant currency. It's not a particularly close case of money laundering to this.

• • Sure, removed Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, I've replied on everything. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

  good point, fixed Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:NorthernBankNI20.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  could you give me some guidance here on what is required? to me it makes sense to include the image since it improves the article to see an examplar of a note which was withdrawn from circulation as a result of the heist. this was also discussed regarding Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8 at the GA review with @HJ Mitchell: - who actually I forgot to alert about the FAC! Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria thanks for the comments, replies made Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• There's some explanation at Template:Non-free use rationale, but what you're really looking for is a rationale as to why a non-free image is necessary for reader understanding. What does a reader get from actually seeing the note, on top of them just being told a note was withdrawn as a result? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Great thanks so we are also talking Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8 and I don't think the image "significantly increases" the reader's comprehension of the article, so I've removed it Mujinga (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Sinn Féin, however, denied": you can lose the 'however': it does nothing useful here
• "On the other hand,": You can lose these four words happily: they do nothing and are unencyclopaedic filler
• "in compost and Cunningham": As this stands, the money was discovered after being found and after the couple were taken for questioning. A semi colon in place of the 'and' would work better.
• "The PSNI stated it was a stunt attempting to divert attention from the heist yet it was being investigated": there's a couple of bits awry here, including the word "stunt". Maybe better framed as "The PSNI stated it was an attempt to divert attention from the heist, but was being investigated".
• "Hugh Orde described": Just "Orde", as you've already full named him
• "went in 25 Land Rovers": is this level of detail necessary?
• "Ted Cunningham was found guilty": Just 'Cunningham' is necessary
• "Bertie Ahern suspected Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness" -> "Ahern suspected Adams and McGuinness"
• "meeting with Ted Cunningham" -> "meeting with Cunningham"
• "When Gerry Adams denied" -> "When Adams denied"
• "regarding the murder of McGuigan": who is McGuigan and where does this fit in with the robbery in which no-one was killed?
• "the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)" -> "the House of Commons by UUP" (the common name for the Commons will suffice, and you've already full-named, linked and provided the abbreviation for UUP a couple of lines above.
• Check your linking of sources - I see the Daily telegraph is linked, but many are not, and consistency is key.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Claire Redfield

Nominator(s): 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red jacket and ponytail. The article recently received copyedits. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to add a template to the talk page for this. GamerPro64 02:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops, missed it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness

Hi Boneless Pizza!, thanks for your work on the article! Here are some comments from a first read-through, mainly to do with style. Shapeyness (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Critics have positively responded to Claire's personality and as a strong female lead character. Should this be "and her role as a strong female lead character"?
• Several journalists also considered Claire significantly less sexualized than other female game characters; she was also cited as an example of a female character who was as competent and skilled as her male counterparts, though her costumes and design in the Resident Evil 2 remake were criticized. Minor one but imo this is a bit long and awkward (and repetitive), optionally might want to reword/restructure the sentence and/or split it up into a few shorter sentences
• Producer Michiteru Okabe believed that this was a good thing since it shows that he consider them to be entirely different personalities rather than simply their gender. Not the best worded, maybe something like would be better: Producer Michiteru Okabe reflected that they had not reduced the two characters to their gender and had instead given them unique personalities, which he felt reflected positively on the direction of the video game industry at the time.
• He also landed on the idea that the players can play multiple roles and stated that "it isn't two against the world, it's one against the world with a helper". Why is this relevant?
• Okabe also hinted that Claire's experience would be more traumatizing than other protagonists' as she is not prepared for such a situation This should mention that it is other protagonists in the Resident Evil franchise. The sentence also doesn't really explain why she isn't prepared for the situation or how this feeds into her design/characterisation.
• They were excited to do so because they really prefer Claire Previous sentence already mentions that they were a fan of the character so I don't think this is needed (it is also less encyclopedic in tone)
• Voice-over and live-action actresses section - maybe adding a picture for the live action actresses would be helpful, what do you think?
• She encounters a young girl named Sherry Birkin in the Raccoon Police Department building, including the mutated scientist William Birkin. The bit after the comma doesn't make sense in this sentence I don't think so needs rewording
• and finds the vaccine to let Sherry's scientist mother Annette Birkin cure her daughter before dying from her injuries The her in "before dying from her injuries" is ambiguous
• director Paul W. S. Anderson and producer Jeremy Bolt decided to bring Claire into the film because they thought her inclusion was important Why did they think it was important?
• She plays a major role in Resident Evil: Degeneration (2008), reuniting her with Leon I think this should be something like "in which she is reunited with Leon" or "where she is reunited with Leon".
• IGN editors and Kimberly Wallace of Game Informer both praised with Wallace stating that Claire is her favorite Resident Evil character Both praised what?
• as well as her portrayal in the horror game This is a bit vague
• An essay in Nadine Farghaly's Unraveling Resident Evil also compared Claire to the "typical trope" of "a virgin or tomboy" This might need explaining a bit more - why does the essay say this?
• In general, I think the reception section could do a better job of identifying key themes from different writers and exploring them, atm it feels a bit directionless

  Hi Shapeyness. Thanks for the review. I already dealth with all of your concerns. Some of them have been removed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Corleck Head

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD, ie only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. The article has received a number of skilled copyedits (by John especially), became a GA during the summer (after a review by Hog Farm) and recently went through an exhaustive and very rewarding peer review (mainly UndercoverClassicist). Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

UC

Good to see this here: will review once a few others have been past, as I've already said my piece on the current version at PR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

sawyer777

i've also already reviewed this at the PR, and said i'd support it at FAC once it got here. i stand by that; the prose & sourcing on this article is excellent (indeed i spot a couple of my textbooks). i've given it another look-over and have nothing new to contribute. i'll keep up with this FAC though in case anything comes up. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your help and support over the last few months. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

Some prose nitpicks. I also did some hopefully uncontentious fixes myself in these edits.

• "The three faces may represent an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future or ancestral mother figures representing strength and fertility": is there a way of rewriting this sentence so as not to say "represent" quite so many times in close proximity?
• "Archaeologists do not believe it was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure ... This suggests that the larger structure may have represented a phallus" seems self-contradictory. Was it or was it not an element of a larger structure? (Or is the point that it was part of a larger structure but not a prominent part, in which case that is not at all clear currently?)
• "on Corleck Hill in townland of Drumeague": I would expect "in the townland" here: is the omission of the article intentional? I know some varieties of English omit the definite article in some contexts where Br.Eng. speakers include it...
• The second paragraph on §Discovery has three mentions of "Barron", but his full name and the link to his article is only given in the following section.
• "only a small number three-faces": I would expect either "three-faced" or "have three faces" here.
• "only around eight known prehistoric Nordic stone heads have been identified": are both "known" and "have been identified" necessary here? It seems to me they are giving the same information and you can cut "known".
• 'Strabo wrote that heads of noble enemies were embalmed in cedar oil and exhibited to strangers"': unmatched quotation mark. Either the opening one is missing or this can be deleted.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Very interesting.

• Although its origin cannot be known for certain, – I would say "never say never". Wouldn't "although its origin is not known for certain" be sufficient?
• a major religious centre during the late Iron Age that was a major site of celebration – no need to have "major" twice, I think.
• As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. – I don't think that's true. As with the first issue, this is an absolute statement and I am sure there are exceptions. "As with many stone artefacts" maybe?
• They all have a broad and flat wedge-shaped nose and a thin, narrow, slit mouth. – "both" instead of "all"?
• One has heavy eyebrows; another has – "the other", as there are only two?
• is extremely difficult – do we loose anything if we remove "extremely" here?
• It may be not clear to readers what precisely "modern period" means; you should at least link it.
• More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Re: "As with many stone artefacts"....have found a source that goes into deeper discussion on the basis for the dating; will add shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:JanusandLustymoreFigures_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Have swapped out the image. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Socompa

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano along the border of Argentina and Chile, which has been noted for the giant landslide that removed part of the structure six thousand years ago, the occurrence of fumaroles with mosses and a neighbouring important pass between the two countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, based on my (unofficial) PR. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Graham Beards

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits to the article rather than list suggestions here. I have a problem with this phrase: "The collapse removed about 70° (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[45]) of Socompa's circumference on its northwestern side". It's the "of radius of..circumference" that is confusing me. Is it just me? Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to say that the landslide took out part of the volcano, like you'd cut off a slice of cake or pizza, equivalent to 70° of the circumference. The 9km refers to the width of the slice and 7.5km to its length. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just say what volume of the volcano was lost as a percentage (on the volcano's northwestern side). Graham Beards (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that this can simply be computed. Is there an alternative way to formulate the slice bit? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is circumference is not measured in degrees. Why not just say "a 70° sector"? It's simpler and much easier to understand. Graham Beards (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Did an edit, is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with that. I am happy to add my support now. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

• Is there nothing that topographical dominance could be linked to in that footnote? Having a redlink for a not well-known geological term is not useful for reader understanding.

  This is User:MAXIMOKAUSCH's addition, and I'm afraid it means no more to me than to you. Unfortunately, I don't even know where to begin when looking for sources on mountaineering terminology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The occurrence of the large landslide at Mount St. Helens probably aided in the subsequent identification of the Socompa deposit as a landslide remnant" - can I please get the underlying quote from the source for this?

  Here you go. It's an image PDF so I can't quote it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not a huge fan of "probably" here. This appears to be making guesses about what the authors of the study used in their rationales. They do indicate that the Mount St. Helens incident factored into their conclusions as a comparison, but I don't think the current phrasing really approaches this the best. Hog Farm _Talk 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  This source says "The eruption of Mount St. Helens on 18 May 1980, focused attention on the importance in the evolution of large composite volcanoes of catastrophic collapse events and the rockslide/debris avalanches that result. Since 1980, several previously unknown major debris avalanche deposits have been described " and some examples would that work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still not a huge fan of "probably", which is pretty close in my view to a minor form of OR where we're guessing the not directly-stated methodology of a source. I think this can be rephrased to something using these two sources indicating that the knowledge learned from the Mount St. Helens incident contributed to the recognition of such structures as what they were. Hog Farm _Talk 16:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oy. From the same source: "Recognition of the deposits as those of a major debris avalanche took place only in the wake of the collapse of Mount St. Helens in I980 which drew attention to what had hitherto been a poorly understood phenomenon. " that seems to be clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• It is stated in the lead that it was once thought this was a nuee ardende deposit, but that term is not used at any point in the article body

  Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "the name "Negros de Aras" was given to the deposit before it was known that it had been formed by a landslide" - it is unclear what the significance is. I'm assuming Negros de Aras has some meaning that would be unusual for a landslide deposit given the context, but it's unclear what this is signifying.

  That's not clear even from the source. I've rewritten this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why does the infobox say the easiest approach is "glacier/snow" when it is stated in the article that there are no glaciers on Socompa?

  Some volcanoes here have snow but no glaciers. But since it's not sourceable, I've taken it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• What makes Andes Specialists a high-quality RS? This looks like some sort of commercial mountaineering site

  Took it and peaklist out. What's the preferred style for citing Google Maps? 'cause that might be sufficient to cite the geolocation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm personally of the opinion that simple, obvious, and unambiguous coordinates can be considered to be self-sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, then I'll leave them in their current (after the edit) state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Jorge González (2011). Historia del Montañismo Argentino." and "Federico Reichert (1967). En la cima de las montañas y de la vida." - both of these are incomplete citations. The publishers are needed, as are page numbers

  Took it out entirely, since I can't verify anything there. And asked on WP:RX to see if someone has access. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• The body of the article is treating the 5250 BP date as preferable, which the infobox is treating the 5250 BCE date as preferable

  Rewritten in the text. This is one case where a source apparently misread another. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions need editing for grammar

  Done, I think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:El_Negrillar.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Swapped, but apparently that URL isn't meant to be the source link anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

Support. I figured I'd review since I have an FAC of my own.

Lead

• Since you link Bolivia in the lead, maybe also link Argentina and Chile? I get why you didn't, since you linked them in the infobox. And speaking of, what about linking Central Volcanic Zone in the lead?

  Hmm, CVZ at this moment is still a redirect to Andean Volcanic Belt which is the preceding link. Granted, it's a redirect that could be expanded to an article in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "about 44 active volcanoes" - I gotta ask, why is "about" used here when 44 isn't a number rounded to a nearest 5 or 10? I'm guessing you mean something like "an estimated 44 active volcanoes", since there's probably a good guess for the number, but it's not precise?

  So, the source says 44 but a few more volcanoes have been discovered since then. Would "more than 40" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I like the stuff about the collapse 7,200 years ago in the lead. I just feel that the second sentence is too long, and that it's out of order. The part about the collapse being "among the largest known with a volume of 19.2 cubic kilometres (4.6 cu mi) " - that's all interesting and good stuff, and I think should be before the Mt. St. Helens bit personally, but either way, the lead could be improved here.

  Rearranged a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Notable are the large toreva blocks which were left behind within the collapse crater." - the "notable are" construction is difficult to understand for non-English readers, or even people who don't have a great sense of English. Could you dumb this down a bit and make the sentence structure a bit easier? "The collapsed crater left behind large toreva blocks", or something.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Socompa is also noteworthy for the high-altitude biotic communities that are bound to fumaroles on the mountain and form well above the regular vegetation in the region." - again, cool stuff, but could you split this into two sentences so you could expand on this a bit? That would make the 3rd paragraph feel a bit more complete.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "due east of Monturaqui" - wish you mentioned that this was an impact crater, that's cool shit

  'fraid that the source refers to the railway station with that name, not the crater which is north of Socompa and much farther away. I've rewritten this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The mountain is considered to be an apu by the local population, and Inca constructions have been reported either from its slopes[10][11] or from its summit." - any Simpsons fan with ADHD is going to click on the link to figure out what an apu is. I'd add the explanation for what it is. Also, the second part "Inca constructions" feels like a completely different thought.

  Well, the Inca constructions exist because of the mountain's status as apu, and there isn't much detail in the sources about these constructions, so putting it elsewhere would leave it pretty stubby. A sourceable definition of "apu" is hard to come by. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "5,600 to 5,800 metres (18,400–19,000 ft)" - is there a reason you use a different construction for metric versus imperial? You could do "to" or the dash for both of them.

  No, changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you don't abbreviate to km at a certain point?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The existence of a lake in the summit area within the scarps at an elevation of 5,300 metres (17,400 ft) has been reported." - is there a lake or not? I'm not sure why the "has been reported" is needed. Also, is that "Laguna Socompa? If so, the parts about the lake should be together.

  No, Laguna Socompa is at the foot of the volcano. "has been reported" because many other sources don't mention its existence. It might be ephemeral or somesuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "On the northeastern flank a pumice deposit is clearly visible." - not to someone who's reading the Wikipedia article. Is "clearly visible" the best description?

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The collapse removed a 70° sector (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[42]) on Socompa's northwestern side, descended over a vertical distance of about 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and spread over distances of over 40 kilometres (25 mi),[25] at a modelled speed of c. 100 metres per second (220 mph)." - awesome stuff, but that's a lot for one sentence.

  Split it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The occurrence of the large landslide at Mount St. Helens probably aided in the subsequent identification of the Socompa deposit as a landslide remnant." - "probably"?

  Already under discussion in Hog's section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• under the weight of the volcano these layers can deform and "flow" outward from the edifice - why the quotation marks?

  It's a very slow type of flow, akin to glass or rock deforming over time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "petajoules " - should link to "Joule"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "A 200-kilometre (120 mi) long lineament known as the Socompa Lineament is associated with the volcano." - I don't know what this means unless I click on "lineament"

  Clarified this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In addition, directly north-northwest of Socompa lie three anticlines probably formed under the influence of the mass of both Socompa and Pajonales: The Loma del Inca, Loma Alta and La Flexura." - similar here, no idea what it means unless I click on "anticlines"

  Footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The fumaroles on Socompa also feature stands of bryophytes such as liverworts and mosses[e] as well as lichens and algae, and animals have been found in the stands.[102][103] These stands" - wait what are "stands"? There's not even a link here.

  In the sense of "grove"; how does one say groups of mosses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "After the sector collapse 7,200 years ago, activity continued filling the collapse scar. The explosion craters on the summit are the youngest volcanic landforms on Socompa,[6] one dome in the scar has been dated to 5,910 ± 430 years ago.[112] An eruption 7,220 ± 100 years before present produced the El Túnel pyroclastic deposit on the western side of Socompa.[113] The youngest eruption was dated to have occurred 5,250 BCE." - consistency with dating would be nice. The last one "youngest eruption" would've been 7,250 years ago, which would be before the sector collapse by... 50 years? Or potentially the cause of the collapse, right?

  I've recast this whole thing. GVP hasn't updated yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 2011, the Chilean mining company Escondida Mining was considering building a geothermal power plant on Socompa to supply energy;[125] the Argentine Servicio Geológico Minero agency started exploration work in January 2018 for geothermal power production." - I was curious what's happened since. this says that the work completed in 2020, with an estimate for how much power could be created. That's from 2023.

  Doesn't seem like it amounted to much, going by recent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

All in all a good read. Pretty easy to follow, just a few spots I recommend including a bit of basic words instead of forcing the reader to rely on links. That's the main recurring theme I noticed. Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the fixes/replies, happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

Introduction

• "Socompa has a large debris avalanche formed 7,200 years ago when most of the northwestern slope collapsed into an extensive deposit." Maybe "Most of the northwestern slope of Socompa collapsed catastrophically 7,200 years ago to form an extensive debris avalanche deposit."?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The Socompa collapse is among the largest known with a volume of 19.2 cubic kilometres (4.6 cu mi)". I assume you mean one of the largest known collapses on land. Much much larger collapses have taken place on the slopes of submarine volcanoes (see volcanic landslide).

  Aye, but the source apparently doesn't know about the submarine ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then it's a false claim that would be better off removed. Volcanoguy 14:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Found a different source that does know the claims, so I added that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "Many of these systems are in remote regions and thus are poorly studied" I think "systems" should be clarified here.

  It's only a way to not repeat "volcanoes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see the problem in reusing "volcanoes" here since most people probably won't know what "systems" means. Volcanoguy 19:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Several dacitic lava flows form the summit area of the volcano, the youngest of which originates in a summit dome." Should "the youngest of which originates in a summit dome" instead be "the youngest of which originates from a summit dome"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "On the southern and eastern side the scarp is 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) long and 200–400 metres (660–1,310 ft) high, while the southern side is about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) long." This sentence doesn't make much sentence since the southern side is mentioned twice with differing measurements.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all I have to comment on. Volcanoguy 21:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I get the feeling the nomintor in areas doest fully understand the sources; apart from typical not first language issues there seems to be a wood from the trees issue. The statement "not witnessed in historical records" about an event that occurred 7,200 years ago gives pause, as does the fact that the dating is so low in the lead, and in the lead the geography is confusing. And the focus on measurements and all the overcitation is confusing and missing the point. However, I do respect this nominator's work, and hope they can meet these general points. Have been making trivial edits and enjoying this facinating article very much otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that arguing examples isn't normally the right way to go about this, but I don't think that we can assume people know that events 7,200 years ago have no historical records left b/c historical records don't go that far back. And the "activity" - unlike the collapse - has only been dated recently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, a collapse and an eruption are definitively not the same thing. I get the point about the (over)use of "collapse", though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo Jo, hopeful and confident this will get over the line, and I well know the dept of research that wnt into this. I'll better articulate prose issues in a few days. As I say, the article is fascinating, and am very happy it has been brought to such a standard. Its also very impressive the expertise of the reviews above. I'm just stalling for now. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil, please check your spelling before publishing your changes; I've had to correct some of your typos. Volcanoguy 18:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats fair. Will post here only re rewording before my eventual support. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Labyrinth (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, arguably the biggest pop star right now. She has loads of chart-topping hits, but this one, "Labyrinth", is not one of them. It's a lesser-known entry in her oeuvre, but it knocked me sideways after maybe the 4th or 5th listen and now ranks among my favorite Swift songs. For a song article, I believe this is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. I'm open to any and all comments :) Ippantekina (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

Placeholder. From a scan last night and read through today, the article is very well written and the music and production is well and informativly described. The article is appropriately concise, and the sourcing seems fine. Leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As an update, will be supporting this article as per above once the reception section flows better; it seems very jumbled atm, tying to gather thoughts to articulate concerns (and making light edits). For one thing there are way too many slight quotes (eg "airy") that could be paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ceoil, I'm looking for ways to improve the flow of the "Critical reception" section. Ippantekina (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: how does the section read now? Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Media is appropriately justified, but are there any images that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding a photo of Swift performing on the Eras Tour, but it might not be directly related to prose.. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

• In the infobox one studio is given as Brooklyn and another New York City, but aren't these the same place?

• I'm assuming NYC = Manhattan in this case, but I'd keep the places as they are printed on the liner notes. Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• ""Labyrinth" peaked at number 12 on the Billboard Global 200" → "Billboard Global 200 singles chart" would help clarify for readers unfamiliar with this term

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• "In the Associated Press" → Maybe "For" or a rewording would work better as Associated Press doesn't feel like something written "in" like a newspaper or magazine

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would try to paraphrase more quotes in the critical reception section

• Did some polishing. Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Heartfox. I've replied above, let me know if there are any outstanding concerns :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Pagtatag!

Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the second extended play by SB19 released back in 2023, which spawned their hit single, "Gento", which sparked a TikTok trend. I previously worked with the "Gento" article last year and was promoted to FA, and I'm here to get its parent project to get to FA as well. I already attempted to get Pagtatag! promoted last June 2024 but was unsuccessful due to prose issues. I think the article has had substantial improvements since the previous nomination, and I do think this article has the potential of becoming one of the featured content here on Wikipedia.

This is part of my ongoing efforts to improve SB19's coverage here on Wikipedia. Once promoted, it will be the first Filipino album to attain such status (and could be a little cool milestone as SB19 reaches their 6th anniversary). Feel free to leave any constructive criticism, feedback, and suggestions; thank you, reviewers, in advance who will take their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by NØ

Given how much I enjoyed "Gento", I am excited to review this soon!--NØ 09:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, MaranoFan! Nice to see you here again! I'm looking forward to your review. – Relayed (t • c) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think you could split "released by Sony Music Philippines on June 9, 2023." into its own sentence as it doesn't work as good as a run-on in the current sentence.
• The 2020 debut album's name should be written out in the prose.
• "Development on Pagtatag! began in 2022" - Should this maybe be "development of"?
• Apologies if I am missing something, but where is the fact that "Gento" received critical acclaim sourced in the article? Also, the claim that it achieved commercial success seems to not be repeated in the article body and just the chart positions are. Whereas, this type of claim would require a reference to a secondary source.
• "Pagtatag! has been featured on 2023 year-end rankings and nominated for Album of the Year at the 2024 Awit Awards" - Why "has been" instead of "was" when 2023 is over?
• "They were able to release three singles" - "were able to release" seems unnecessary to me, maybe "released"?
• Other than two Nase (brothers?), I am counting three additional producers on Pagsibol, so the claim that they "worked with several record producers" seems excessive and I would recommend "worked with a few other record producers" or something to that effect.
• "and that, in it, they would continue to explore different genres and life experiences" - "in it" could be removed
• Two samples for a six-track EP seems to be pushing WP:NFCC#3 a bit. Do you have a preference between these when it comes to conveying the EP's sound, and could the other one be removed?
• "Critics were fond of its lyricism" - maybe "praised its lyricism"?
• "The local press considered the release a significant one" - Admittedly, it is quite a bold claim that the local press thought so, when it only seems to be supported by the Bulatlat review. Which are the other ones?
• "Pagtatag! was nominated for the Album of the Year at the 2024 Awit Awards" - Don't think "the" is required. Also, if this ceremony has already happened I would suggest more clearly making the sentence about it in the lead past tense too.
• Awards and nominations for songs are not included in the awards table of their parent album/EP
• Do you think the EP could go into Category:Hip hop EPs, Category:Soul EPs, and Category:Contemporary R&B EPs since these genres are included in the infobox? Also, I believe Contemporary R&B is usually used instead of Rhythm and blues in articles for modern releases like this.

Those would be all the comments from me. Based on my reading, I find the article to be a strong contender for FA status so it is quite the mystery why the nomination hasn't attracted that much attention, lol. Anyways, I hope you enjoyed the review!--NØ 07:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the comments, MaranoFan. I will be looking over at them soon. And yeah, unfortunately, that's the case at the moment, but hopefully, this can get more traction sooner, not later. – Relayed (t • c) 08:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Virgo interferometer

Nominator(s): Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the major current gravitational wave detectors. This is the second nomination; during the first one, the article was found lacking in copy editing, so I submitted a request to WP:GOCER, which was completed a few days ago, hence the resubmission. Looking forward to your comments. Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thuiop, have you considered persuing Good article nomination first? It's not technically required for featured articles to be successfully nominated as good articles first, but it is almost always done and is strongly recommended—especially given that this is your first nomination. Good articles have less strict criteria, and a one-on-one dialog is often more efficient to identify and correct certain common problems, compared to the FAC process. Remsense ‥ 论 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Remsense, I was not aware of that. I did know about Good articles though, but considered it as a second option; I usually contribute to the French Wikipedia, where "FAC" are usually not already "GA" before the nomination. If you think this is a better idea, I am ok with rescinding this nomination and go to GA before. Thuiop (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend it, but keep in mind that it sometimes takes a prolonged period of time before an editor will pick up your submission for review—often days or weeks, sometimes even months. I think this one wouldn't sit too long though. Remsense ‥ 论 08:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I will do this if there are no other comment against this idea in the next one or two days. Thanks! Thuiop (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

I don't think a GA nomination is needed. I have made some edits to the article, which can be found in the history. The images look a little cluttered, at least on my screens, but this is no big deal. In my view this is an excellent, and fairly lay-friendly, introduction to an exciting new field in cosmology. I am interested in what other reviewers have to say, but I am happy to add my tentative support. Graham Beards (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I have placed {{cn}} tags in a few places; note that image captions do require citations if the information within is not sourced elsewhere in the body. In my opinion, the prose is good but in need of improvement; I cannot comment on the technical and scientific details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I added the missing citations. Thuiop (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• How does the gallery here align with WP:GALLERY?

• File:Logo-virgo.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:GW170814.png

• File:GW170814_signal.png: where is this licensing coming from? The source site has an all rights reserved notice

• File:Virgo3_1.jpg: is a more specific source available? Ditto File:BestVirgoSensitivityCurveVSR4.png

• File:VirgoDetectionBench2015.jpg is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, it seems it does not. Do you think it would make sense to move it at the beginning of the instrument section, replacing the already present File:Virgo aerial view 01.jpg ?
• Fixed.
• I added the original paper which is indeed under CC.
• I added extra sources in the caption. Did you mean to add the sources in Commons? These files were directly uploaded by the collaboration, but I can link articles where they were used, although those articles are not necessarily under the correct license.
• Fixed.

Thanks for the comments! Thuiop (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Commons page for each image should include sourcing that confirms that the image is available under the licensing given. Do you mean that the licensing given is not correct, or that the articles where they are used don't credit them properly? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, no, I meant that these two files were produced by the Virgo collaboration and upload by someone from the collaboration in its name, falling under the "own work" category. It was also used by the collaboration in other places (including a journal paper), but these do not fall under the same licence as far as I know. If you think this is important, I can contact the person who uploaded it and have them confirm this officially. Thuiop (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes please - this should go through VRT. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Understood, I will get this done in the next few days. Thuiop (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The Suicide of Rachel Foster

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a video game that proved somewhat controversial upon its release due to tackling taboo subjects like suicide and pedophilia. A game in the vein of Firewatch and Gone Home, The Suicide of Rachel Foster is a walking simulator where players navigate the eery Shining-esque hotel owned by the player character Nicole's family. There, Nicole hopes to uncover the true nature of 16-year-old Rachel's suicide, who seemingly killed herself after the community found out about her "affair" with Nicole's father and ensuing pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, the game's depiction of pedophilia and suicide were some of the topics most-discussed by journalists. Outside of the more sensationalistic aspects, the game's setting and characters were well-received, but the story and gameplay proved less interesting to reviewers.

Image review by Nikkimaria

• Suggest adding alt text
  • I've added alt text to both images, though I can never be sure if it's an adequate description or not.
• File:The_Suicide_of_Rachel_Foster_-_Gameplay.jpg needs a stronger, more unique FUR - at the moment it's almost identical to the lead image. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I changed the template that is used and also the fair-use rationale.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from BP!

I'll get back to it as soon as possible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Be consistent with whether or not the citations use title case for the titles. Make sure to italicize game titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Unless I missed something, I've made sure to italicize references to the game (and other games/films) in titles, as well as capitalizing all words except words like "if". PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  After reading it again, I will Support this article for promotion. Though, I'll admit that I didn't like that piece from Screen Rant at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I guess I shouldn't be surprised you wouldn't like the Screen Rant source; still remember Ada's FAC. I did check the reliable sources list, and Screen Rant is considered appropriate when discussing entertainment-related pages, such as this. However, if someone else raises concerns about it, I could remove it. Admittedly, it's not used much as is.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

I've had this on my backlog for ages. Will review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• the abuse between Leonard and Rachel - Implies that Rachel was also abusive of Leonard, which seems incongruous with what's been presented so far. Perhaps "Leonard's abuse of Rachel"?
  • Honestly, that's one of the hardest parts of this video game. How something is versus how the game depicts it as. Although Leonard groomed Rachel and their relationship is pedophilic, the game never really calls their relationship for what it is. Should the word "abuse" be changed to "relationship", or something else?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Relationship does seem to be the more neutral term.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

      Understandable. It is also how the game frames it as. Made the appropriate changes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks. Give me a shout when you're done the below, and I'll revisit.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• such as child sexual abuse and suicide, to portray them with sensitivity. - Not sure the comma is correct
  • Removed.
• Three sentences in a row start with variations of "it" in the third paragraph of the lede. Worth reshuffling?
  • Changed.
• Nicole's attempts to do so anyway, but is unable to do so, angering her. - Do so ... do so
  • Given that this part isn't all that significant to the plot, I just removed the sentence.
• Rachel might still be alive, collecting various clues - Is Rachel collecting clues, or is Nicole?
  • Clarified that it's Nicole collecting clues.
• Irving is Rachel's younger brother and in their abusive household, only his sister brought him joy. - Perhaps "Irving is Rachel's younger brother, and she was the only one who brought him joy and in their abusive household."?
  • Made a few changes; hopefully for the better.
• The game was developed by the Italian studio One-O-One Games using Unreal Engine 4 and published by Daedalic Entertainment.[6][7] The game was directed by Daniele Azara and its music was composed by Federico Landini. - Repetition
  • Changed.
• From the beginning of the game's development, the studio wanted the narrative and gameplay to complement one another, rather than finishing the story first and then choosing an appropriate gameplay style. - Perhaps "Rather than finish the story first and then choosing an appropriate gameplay style, from the beginning of the game's development the studio wanted the narrative and gameplay to complement one another."? Feels a bit more logical in flow.
• being set in an enclosed space to increase the claustrophobia. - The hotel itself wasn't in an enclosed space. Perhaps "being replete with enclosed spaces"?
• the Overlook Hotel, featured in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980) - Perhaps "as featured"? That better distinguishes the Overlook from the one in the novel or the television series.
• Two "according to"s at the beginning of the Reception section
• handling of suicide, especially regarding Nicole's suicide attempt at the end, - Worth recasting to avoid double mentions of suicide?
  • Reworked the sentence and expanded on what Bell had to say about the subject.

Overall, very tight.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Thank you. :) I believe I've made most of the necessary changes, though I've also changed a few things a bit, so I'm not sure if said changes also need revision.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good. Happy to support! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments. :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review from Aoba47 (pass)

For clarification, I am using this version of the article for my source review. My comments are below:

• Have you looked through to see if there was any academic coverage on this game by using tools like Google Scholar? I have found some potential sources here, but for some of them, you would need to go through the Wikipedia Library to access them: A Review of Indie Games for Serious Mental Health Game Design, Narrative Space in Videogames, and Using Indie Games to Inform Serious Mental Health Games Design. These are all conference papers so I am unsure how that works for Wikipedia, but they were published by Springer Publishing, which is a notable publishing company. It may be worthwhile to look into this type of coverage further.
  • Good idea. I'll be looking into it.
    • Take as much time as you need, and let me know if there is anything that I can do to help you with this part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I looked into all three sources. I went through both sources talking about Nicole's attempted suicide. Admittedly, I didn't read in-depth every thing these two chapters said, but I believe I pinpointed the most important details; as with other critics, they didn't like the ending. The third book source is about the Timberline. Although I do for the most part understand what it's trying to say, it's a bit too theoretical for my taste and focuses on something that never really interested me when analyzing texts; the geometry/geography of physical spaces. It also has A LOT to say about the Timberline, so I'm not sure how I could even consense all of that. Even the other book sources talking about Nicole's suicide still came out to almost 8 whole lines.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the response. I understand that it can be difficult to incorporate academic sources into a Wikipedia article. I think that the final paragraph in the "Critical response" section could be condensed. I am not sure that the serious game classification or the Actual Sunlight comparisons are particularly useful, and I believe it would be better to focus on the discussions regarding the critique that the game uses suicide for shock value. I would think this could folded into the paragraph directly above it, which already focuses on the game's handling of suicide.
          • All right, I've condensed it. I think its size is more appropriate now, and the section fits better with the paragraph about suicide.
        • The Narrative Space in Videogames article is primarily saying that the hotel is set in such a way to intentionally confuse the player and their connection to the story and characters. It might fit in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" section as that is already about the hotel, but since it is more of an analysis than a review, it may not work out that well. I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• The citations for the most part list both the website/work and the publisher, but there are some spots where only one is listed, such as Citation 6 including only the website (The Washington Post) and Citation 13 including only the website (JeuxOnline). I do not think it is necessary to include both, particularly for well known citations such as Metacritic, but it is important to be consistent.
  • I just wanted to add a reminder that this part has not been addressed yet. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    • @Aoba47: Regarding the Unreal Engine, Nintendo, Italian Video Game Awards, and DStars sources, I'm not quite sure how else to cite them. In the case of the first one, I could label "Unreal Engine" as the website and "Epic Games" as the publisher, but I'm not sure if that's right either.
      • I think that the question then becomes how useful is it to have both the website/work and publisher if they cannot be applied consistently throughout the citations. It may just be me, but I am not sure how useful it is for readers to have the publisher for citations like Bloody Disgusting or Metacritic, but I looked at recent FAs on video games, such as Islanders (video game), which has a similiar inconsistency, but was passed as a FA without issue so I think that this is just a matter of personal preference so it will no longer be an issue. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• I would be consistent on whether title case is used for the citation titles or not as there are some instances, such as Citation 30, where it is not being used.
  • Oops. This point was raised a few days ago by Boneless Pizza. I made sure to use title case everywhere, but didn't add the source for the sequel until later, and in my excitement I forgot to use the title case.
    • That is understandable. I was only made aware of the title case stuff relatively recently, and I completely understand getting caught up in the moment when you find something new. I would not have expected a sequel for this game, and I am curious on how it will turn out. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Citation 9 is no longer active and currently redirects to a spam website. The archive link also leads to an error screen. I also cannot open Citation 25 as it leads to an error screen (at least for me), but the archive link does work for me.
  • Regarding Citation 9, the archive page actually works just fine for me. However, since you also mention further down that this is one source that's unreliable, I decided to remove it altogether. It's unreliability was actually raised by IceWelder during the GAN, so I kinda expected that I'd have to remove it. I guess I was just waiting for someone to say so.
  • Regarding Citation 25, on my end it actually said that it's a malicious website (probably from my antivirus program) so I removed that as well. Besides, the second source I used there already shows that Rachel Foster got nominated but lost.
    • Thank you for the responses to both. I am glad that you were able to have a citation that would cover the second part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• I partially relied on the WP:VG/RS to judge the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. I am not as familiar with the non-English sources so could you please explain how/why the following would be appropriate for a FA? To be clear, I am not saying that they should be removed, but I wanted some more insight on these: L'Ambidextre, Nikoofar Music, and ProSieben Games.
  • Regarding Nikoofar Music, I explain more above why I removed it. Having checked L'Ambidextre out again, it seems to be a blog, so not all that reliable. As for ProSieben Games, I'll admit I don't really have any information about this specific site and how reliable or not it is. I do know that ProSieben itself is a news channel, and from the little I do know, ProSieben is considered reputable.
    • Thank you for addressing this for me. I agree with your rationale for the ProSieban source. I noticed that you did remove Graziano Pimpolari as the game's artist, but I think that you could cite this information directly to the game's credits, where they are listed as the art director and user interface artists. I have used credits for this kind of thing for Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King without any issue, and it may be helpful to use so more key information is included in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• This is not part of the source review, but I would re-examine short sections, specifically the "Accolades" subsection and the "Sequel" section. The accolades could be folded into the general reception section, and until more information on the sequel comes out, I do not think a one-sentence section is necessary.
  • I can definitely place the "Accolade" subsection into the "Critical response" one and just remove both subsections. However, how could the "Sequel" section be placed somewhere else. Could we "in good faith" leave it there under the assumption more information will come out in the coming months about it?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    • That's fair. As I said above, this falls outside of the scope of a source review so I will leave this up to reviewers who are looking at the prose. I can understand your perspective on it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
      • It seems like the "Accolades" subsection has been put back into the article. I will not dwell on it as again, it is outside of the scope of my source review, but I just do not think that this particular structure is the best approach. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

These are my comments for now. Either tomorrow or later in the week, I will do a spot check to make sure that things said in the article are supported in the citations and to make sure the information in the citation structure (i.e. authors, publication date) are accurate. I hope that this review is helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, I am looking at this version for this set of comments:

• For this sentence, (Players take control of Nicole as she explores the Timberline Hotel), Citation 2 does not use the name of the hotel. This is nitpick-y as Citation 2 does talk about the family hotel, but I would add Citation 3 here as well just to support the actual hotel name.
  • Done
• It may be helpful to include examples of the puzzles in the prose. For instance, Citation 3 lists "hunting for a screwdriver or a generator switch" as examples of the "very light environmental puzzle" in the game. Citation 18 mentions using the flash from the polaroid camera as way to navigate during a blackout. Citation 4 talks about a map feature that may be useful to bring up in the article. I am mostly just bringing some gameplay areas that could be expanded with the sources already in the article.
• For Citation 11, I think it would be more beneficial to use the interview citation template instead.
  • I think I did that correctly.
    • Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• I did a spot-check and the authors, publication dates, etc. match between the sources and the citations.
• I am uncertain about using quotes from non-English sources. Examples are "central to the horror experience" and "religious population and legal framework that offered a plausible setting for the narrative of psychological horror and moral taboo [the developers] were making", which are both tied to Citation 11. However, neither are really direct quotes, and are translated versions of these quotes. I think it may be best to paraphrase in this context, and I would double-check the article for other instances of this type of quote.
  • @Aoba47: I might be wrong, but I checked the non-English sources used in this article, and none of them exist in the article with quotations. Citation 11 does come from a French website, but the article itself was actually presented in English. I think there was also a French-language version of the same interview, but the one cited here is the English-language one.
    • Apologies for that. That is what I get for doing a review later at night when I am tired. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• This is outside of the scope of a source review, but I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction when possible as it is something that is often pointed out and discouraged in FACs. I do not have a particularly strong opinion on it, but I still thought it was worth drawing your attention to it. An example of this would be (with Nicole and Irving's relationship and voice actors also being commended) in the lead.

Thank you for your patience with my review. I believe that should be everything, but once everything has been addressed, I will double-check through everything just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything, and apologies again for my mistake with the JeuxOnline source. Everything looks good to me in regards to the sources. They are reliable and appropriate for a potential video game FA, support the information provided in the article, and are formatted correctly. This passes my source review. I hope that this was helpful, and thank you again for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do a source review. And for going above and beyond to not do just that, but also give me suggestions on how to enlarge and improve the article's content. And also informing me that those academic sources could be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am just glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Joe

Forthcoming. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Feather (song)

Nominator(s): NØ 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sabrina Carpenter, who thankfully does not need much of an introduction in 2024, found her first taste of success with the song "Feather" before, um, swiftly rising to superstardom the following year. The song's music video was a classic display of her twisted humor and got a priest in a world of trouble... I probably still have the Meghan Trainor demo of her debut single on an old laptop somewhere. What a great song it was but such a far cry from her raunchy music now. Also, her new album cover bears an eery resemblance to the Title cover. Would be pretty cool if Ms. Carpenter can gain her first FA within her breakout year. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• believed it was easy to listen to - That's... nondescript. Is there perhaps a more meaty means of summarizing critical views?

• Critical reviews generally hovered around calling it light, feathery, digestible, breezy, and airy so this seemed like the best way of capturing that. Open to suggestions.

• Perhaps explicitly say "Music critics praised the production of "Feather", describing it as light and breezy."? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)T

• Done--NØ 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• number 21 on ... first number one - Inconsistency in spelling of numbers ("Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.", per MOS:NUMNOTES)
• Mia Barnes - worth a redlink?

• She does not seem to be notable based on a search.

• It depicts several men who mistreat Carpenter dying - This could be made a bit clearer, perhaps "It depicts the deaths of several men who mistreat Carpenter, who then dances at their joint funeral in the Our Lady of Mount Carmel/Annunciation Parish church."
• her set list for the Emails I Can't Send Tour, the Eras Tour, and the Short n' Sweet Tour. - Maybe "her set list for the Emails I Can't Send, Eras, and Short n' Sweet tours to avoid repetition?
• perceived to be an answer song to Olivia Rodrigo's 2021 single "Drivers License". - Perceived by whom?
• Carpenter's manager - if we had a name, we could avoid some repetition.

• I kept the name out since she isn't really a public figure and is non-notable.

• Hard to imagine that the manager of a multi-million dollar pop star is not a public figure, but I defer to you.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Feather" is a pop,[20] dance,[21] dance-pop,[2] disco,[22] and neo-disco song,[3] - Given how subjective genres can be, I think it may be worth something like "'Feather' has been identified as
• which lasts for three minutes and five seconds - Is this the sped-up version, or the original version? Or are both 3:05?

• It's the original version. Since the sped-up version didn't really gain notability, I think its duration would be excess detail.

• Then at least specify which version, as the sentence immediately preceding mentions how there are two versions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Done--NØ 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Reminiscing their memories together - I believe "reminiscing" is generally followed by about when used as a verb
• send him pictures - "send him pictures" could be pictures of the dog, food, whatever, which would not necessarily be "stereotypical". If the source supports what this sentence seems to be implying ("nudes"), it should be made explicit.

• "You fit every stereotype, 'Send a pic'" is the lyric so it being nudes isn't stated but the behavior being stereotypical is.

• Do the sources discuss this lyric?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• It's cited to American Songwriter, where the lyric appears. I haven't encountered any sources inferring a nude is being discussed, unfortunately.--NØ 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• With 37 weeks, it is her longest-charting track on the ranking - Two things... "with 37 weeks" is unclear (you seem to mean "Spending 37 weeks in the Billboard Hot 100"). Second, this information could end up dated and as such should use {{as of}}.

• Is there a guideline stating the use of the as of template is necessary? I would prefer to just remove the statement when it is no longer true.

• Yes. Wikipedia:As of stipulates that "If you suspect that a fact in an article will become dated at some point in the future, and want to ensure that people will update it, include a tag of the form {{As of}} or {{As of}}".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Done--NØ 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• her achievements in 2024 - Being...? As someone unfamiliar with Carpenter, this only raises questions.

• This falls out of scope of the article but I have incorporated it as a note since it is a valid question, really.

• sharing a clip of it on Instagram - I'd nix "of it"
• before getting ran over by a truck. - "run"; this is the present perfect tense, which requires V3 ("run", see Collins)
• I'd link Knee highs
• gruesomely is a value judgment, and thus should be attributed or removed (per WP:WIKIVOICE, point 1)
• She pulls his tie while exiting it and puts it between the elevator shaft, decapitating him in the process - pulls ... pulls

• I didn't understand.

• Sorry, nix that. I read "pulls" there twice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Tulle - Probably should be linked to Tulle (netting)
• afront - Ironically, per Merriam-Webster this means "next to" ("abreast"). You probably mean "in front of"
• Others also likened the visuals to Jennifer's Body, - We already had Jennifer's Body mentioned immediately before this... is it really necessary to repeat?

• I think it is necessary so we are representing all three of the critics that had this opinion. It is to give additional weightage compared to the movies that only received comparisons by two critics.

• I see your point, but at the same time having the title repeated immediately after its first mention does not meet the "professional quality" standard at WP:FA?. There should be a bit of reworking.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Done--NØ 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• character "the Girlfriend Reaper and compared it to the Grim Reaper. - Missing a closing quote, and this could be handled a bit more gracefully to avoid repeating "reaper" (for example, "the Girlfriend Reaper")
• the Emails I Can't Send Tour and the Eras Tour - Another repetition of "tour"
• She opened her KIIS-FM Jingle Ball set with the song in December 2023, clad in a red mini-dress and gloves on one date and a white corset top, shorts, and gloves on another. - Probably worth mentioning explicitly that this was a two-day event (in which case "sets" probably works best)
• I'm seeing a lot of focus on Carpenter's outfits during these performances. How relevant are they to the topic?

• I generally let the sources decide this. If reliable, secondary sources cover outfits I usually give them some air time in the article. In this case, the dress being decorated with feathers seems relevant to the song topic and the Jingle Bell outfits seem to be Christmas color-themed and relevant to the event.

• Not a formal source review, but I'm seeing some references are not in order (see, for example, [62][60][63] and [65][63])

Overall, this is fairly easy to digest.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Chris! I hope the changes are satisfactory.--NØ 18:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you! Supporting on prose; as someone whose musical tastes mostly stop at 2010-ish, I can't comment on comprehensiveness, but the prose appears solid.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ""Feather" is song" => ""Feather" is a song"

• This drove me crazy so I tracked it back and apparently it has been in the article since April... Crazy how I just kept skipping over the first sentence assuming it must be correct.

• "Island Records released its sped-up version for digital download and streaming on August 4, 2023." - is this the only version that was released?

• The digital download and streaming release on that date was indeed just the sped-up version.

• I was more meaning....was there no other version released at all? Seems odd to mention the release of the "sped-up version" (what even is that, anyway?) but not any other version....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I added that the original version was later promoted to airplay, if that helps? I know it's a bit odd but the sped-up version's release did begin the promotion of this song as a single so it seems to be the appropriate one for the lead.--NØ 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• "became Carpenter's first one to reach the top 40" => "became Carpenter's first song to reach the top 40"
• "puts it between the elevator shaft" - I don't think you can put something "between" a singular object
• "which People's Jack Irvin believed was upraised" - what does "upraised" mean? Never seen this word before......
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the review, ChrisTheDude. I think I got everything!--NØ 17:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

This time I'll let File:Feather screenshot.png pass, even though it illustrates a subtopic, because this subtopic is apparently more relevant than usual to the article topic. Otherwise, it seems like image use, rationale and placement are OK. ALT text is OK. Sources seem to be mainstream and I guess adequate and consistently formatted. What is rollingstoneindia.com, is it affiliated with Rolling Stone? What makes The Fader a high-quality reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, according to Reuters, Rolling Stone India is the Indian version of the Rolling Stone magazine, which is considered a prestigious source for musical commentary. The Fader is considered a reliable source according to WP:RSMUSIC and the author, Raphael Helfand, has contributed to the publication Pitchfork. Although I have removed it since the cited information appears in the other sources. Agreed with you about the music video screenshot. Do the reviews pass now, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Best, NØ 11:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think so, yes, although I must state a caveat that this isn't a topic where I know the sources well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

MaranoFan, how could you write good-quality articles about both Sabrina and Olivia? I thought the had a feud or something! Anyways, gonna leave some comments very soon. My review is prose-focused btw. I haven't listened to this song yet, but "Espresso" is a catchy (albeit a little annoying) one. Ippantekina (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ippantekina, doing my seven-day reminder a day early. I've heard Halloween is a good time to enjoy the music video, so you might be interested in finally checking out the song :) Although, the performances are a good option too. Have you ever tried this one?--NØ 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Gao Qifeng

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a Chinese painter, one of several who sought to introduce a "new national style" of painting that blended traditional approaches with Japanese and European ones, as part of a broader aspiration to create a new China. If this is promoted, it will be my first FA in... eight and a half years. I would like to thank Rollinginhisgrave and SchroCat for their comments at the GA and Peer reviews, respectively. The article is looking in really good shape! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Minor thing, but can the caption for the lead image say roughly when it was taken? If that information exists in sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sure thing, PARAKANYAA. Source was published 1931, so I've added c. 1931 to the caption.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

BP!

I'll get back to it as soon as possible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm kinda late to the party but it seems like most of the issues I found before were already resolved below. After reading it again, I found no issues (for me) at all. Support 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Good to see something about China here.

• The lead section seems to assume that the reader knows many things already, and could be improved by making some things clearer:
  • You could state "older brother" instead of just "brother", to give a hint why he was following this brother.
    • Sounds good. Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Gao joined the Tongmenghui – You explain this term in the main text but not in the lead; since the lead should be as accessible as possible, it makes sense to explain it there too.
    • See below. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • where he established the Tianfang Studio – I had no idea what this "Tianfang Studio" is supposed to be. Perhaps add that he teached students there, which gives the reader a good impression.
    • changed to "he took students and established the Tianfang Studio." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• In the lead: he published The True Record to challenge the Qing dynasty – the main text does not state this fact; instead it seems to say that the Qing dynasty has already ended at that point.
  • Fair. They were still very anti-Qing, based on my review of available documentation (putting Yuan Shikai back in his Manchu garb, for example), but by that point Pu Yi had abdicated. I've changed to "While abroad, Gao joined the revolutionary organization Tongmenghui challenge the Qing dynasty; after he returned to China, he published the nationalist magazine The True Record, which later fell afoul of the Beiyang government. " — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Lead: later, the Beiyang government. Although offered a position in the new Republic of China, – The chronology seems wrong here, which is confusing. He was offered that position before he criticised the Beiyang government, but this sentence seem to imply it was the other way around, which makes little sense.
  • I've nixed "new". The sources aren't entirely clear as to how early in the timeline of the ROC this was, just that it was before 1920.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• You sometimes provide translations, or the originals of translations, and sometimes not. For example, the "Chinesische Malerei der Gegenwart" lacks a translation (it should be "Contemporary Chinese Painting"). Also, you have the Chinese original in explanatory note e, but not in m.

• I'll get a bit of a footnote ready for the German exhibition. I've been unable to obtain the original Chinese for [m]; Chu does quote the passage in her 1981 publication, which was bilingual, but I only requested the English at REFEXCHANGE. I could nix the original from [e] to standardize. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I won't withhold support because of this rather minor issue; I just noticed the inconsistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've added a footnote on the Berlin exhibition. The source also indicates that Liu Haisu was the primary organizer, so I've noted that.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Writing for the Southern Metropolis Daily, Wang Jingjing notes that Gao favoured vigorous yet delicate brushwork and vivid images. – This is supposed to be in source 8, the Guandong Museum site, but I can't find it there (which might be because I can't really read Chinese, so I'm just checking here).
  • It's cited to [15]. I see that I did misattribute the quote, however. It should be attributed to Li Gongming of the Guangzhou Academy of Arts, as he was the one being interviewed and who mentioned a "vigorous yet elegant" style. Fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    • But cite [15] is in the middle of a sentence; from my understanding, it would only support that particular part of the sentence, not the preceding sentences? It should be behind the sentence (behind the dot) to imply that it supports multiple sentences? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I've always understood citations as supporting all preceding materials in the same paragraph, which is how the ref is used here. Referring to WP:CITETYPE, an in-line citation is "close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote;" it doesn't specify a leapfrog effect. That being said, since there is an attributed statement here, there is definitely an argument to duplicate the reference, which I have done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
        • If that is the case, my inline citations are incorrect in all my FAs. What about a case like this: who has been described as his goddaughter[36] or adopted daughter,[9], would cite [36] also support all preceding sentences of the paragraph, even if the sentence would be at the end of the paragraph? I always assumed it would, in such cases, only support this particular fact, since it is provided within the sentence, not at the end of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
          • Sorry, it's been a long day. I meant to say "all preceding materials in the same paragraph up to the previous reference." I certainly did not mean to imply that there were errors in any previous FAs.
          • This is how all of my previous FAs have been written. As an example, the section #Release and reception at Panggilan Darah starts with "Panggilan Darah debuted at the Orion Theatre in Batavia on 30 June 1941. It was reported as a modest success," It cites two references, both of which are used to support the information. The next clause, "making most of its money from lower class audiences." is supported entirely by Biran. Likewise, Jacobus Anthonie Meessen cites everything from "He was one of the few photographers" through "opened a studio" to the same reference. The Encyclopedia of Jakarta reference is used exclusively to support what sort of materials were being sold at Meessen's studio/shop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
            • That is different from how I do it; I need to look into that (and yeah, we don't seem to have any guideline here). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• used as settings for animal subjects – dot missing.
  • Good catch. Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Otherwise, reads very well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'll get something ready on the German exhibition, but everything else should be done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks, Jens. I believe I have addressed everything.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • While abroad, Gao joined the revolutionary organization Tongmenghui challenge the Qing dynasty; – something missing here now, is it "to" before challenge? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks, done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support on prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per my comments at the PR. – SchroCat (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima review

Since it seems you're good on prose supports, I'll do a source review.

• Publishers are wikilinked inconsistently; the museums have links, but the university presses are not. The same is true for websites, where you wikilink Sina.com but not Grove Art Online.
  • All removed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be just "Urban Council" or "Urban Council of Hong Kong" as the publisher? And see above.
  • The book uses Urban Council, Hong Kong. I've trimmed it to Urban Council for ease.
• The translated title for Chen 2009 isn't capitalized the same as the others.
  • Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• You give the location for Brill, but none of the other publishers. Again, choose one or the other, but be consistent.
  • Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• For sources without authors, you give the SFN as the name of the work in two instances and the name of the author in the other; I'd cite The Art of Gao Qifeng as "Urban Council Hong Kong 1981" to resolve this.
  • Agreed, done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'm a bit confused why there's shortened footnotes like "Guangdong Museum, Gao Qifeng", "HKHM, The Heavenly Breeze", and "Ou, Gao Qifeng" (the former of which doesn't include a date). Why not just "Guangdong Museum 2017", "HKHM", and "Ou"? It wouldn't be ambiguous.
  • I've changed Guangdong Museum to {{sfn}}. The other two are a vestige from when I write articles with multiple newspaper sources. I can go either way, but I think as long as it's consistent it should be okay.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Why no page number on Floriani 2023?
  • The Google Books version didn't have page numbers, and I forgot to revisit when I was able to get a paper copy through the exchange. Fixed! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving on to the good part: These are good quality sources that seem fitting for the topic and seem to cover it quite well. It's a suitably in-depth article. @Crisco 1492: Just a bunch of stylistic and formatting tweaks and we're golden. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks! That means a lot coming from a period expert.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the corrections/clarifications! Happy to Support on the source review. (Though "period expert" might be a bit too flattering XD) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm an Indonesianist who wandered into these topics via a statue. You're the one doing the Republican coin articles! Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like this still needs an image review, and potentially a spotcheck due to the time since my last FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Requested it 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review & spot-check

File:Tomb of Gao Qifeng 2010-11.jpg needs a note about the copyright of the structure (e.g a freedom of panorama note). File:高奇峰 鹿.jpg has a broken bare URL as a source. Image placement and ALT text seem fine.

Spot-check: * 4 Can I have a copy of these sources?

• 6 Seeing only snippets, which endorse most of this save for fourteen being an age.
  • " If he did, the period was brief for by age 14 he was enrolled in a modern Christian school in Canton; not long after, Jianfu brought him to Japan for further art education." (Will be able to see full source when I send it). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• 11 (now 10) Can I have a copy of this source?

  Doesn't mention these artists or "boneless", but maybe it's just the PDF acting up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Tanaka Raisho is mentioned in Chu 1998, as is discussion of the nihonga style. Kano and Hashimoto and their link with Nihonga (rendered "New National Schoool") is made explicit in Croizier 2023, p. 48, and thus I have moved the ref. "Boneless" was page 6, but is more explicitly stated by Croizier and Liang; corrected. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• 18 (now 17) Seeing only snippets, which support part of the claim; can I have a copy of this page?

  I don't see the precise dates or issue numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  "It ran for seventeen issues between June 1912 and April 1913." This was the Floriani source. "March" is provided by Liang, so I've added "March or April" and added the Liang source to the ref. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• 19 Going by Google Translate: Don't see woodblock and Sun Yat-sen apparently only commented on two of these. Granted, the syntax is apparently being mangled ("Mr. Yu Qifeng specially consulted with Mr. Yu Qifeng" isn't a correct translation, is it? "and the bonds of relatives and friends will be burned" likewise looks suspect)
  • [41] also includes " Gao Qifeng’s three symbolic paintings of a sea eagle, a white horse, and a roaring lion were highly applauded by Sun Yat-sen as he appraised these works signifyied the “beauty of a new age” and were deemed sufficient to represent the “revolutionary spirit” of the period, and these painting were eventually purchased by the Nationalist government for the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall in Guangzhou". I can replace this citation with the English-language one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Probably better that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done. As for learning printing processes, the phrase is "旋復東渡，研究製版學" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
        • I don't think that the woodblock thing is resolved yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
        • How so? Do you feel that 旋復東渡，研究製版學 would be better expressed as "printing processes"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
          • Ah. I dunno Chinese so I'll defer to you on that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• 21 Can I have a copy of this source?

  Apparently it was Jianfu that founded it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're right. Removed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• 22 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 23 Mostly supported but The Young Companion isn't mentioned on this page.
  • Picowicz uses the Chinese title Liangyou, which does appear on the page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• 26 Which source says Zhujiang Nursing Home?
  • DuteNews. Quote is "一九二九年，高奇峰以瘁力绘事过度，积劳成疾，由岭南大学迁到二沙头岛珠江颐养园养病。" (GTranslate may give "Pearl River" nursing home, with Pearl River being Zhujiang. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• 29 Again using Google Translate, I am not sure I see this.
  • Sorry, Chen supported the involvement of Sun et al. Have moved the citation further to the left.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• 32 Seeing only snippets, which support part of the claim; can I have a copy of this page?
• 35 (now 33) Can I have a copy of this source?
  • I had accessed it via the Internet Archive's "library" functionality, which is being persnickety right now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I notice that it doesn't explicitly discuss "prestige". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Source says "In some ways it was not quite so tragic as the sudden death of the youngest of the Gao brothers, Jianzeng (sic), seventeen years earlier. Qifeng (who had been suffering from tuberculosis for many years) had still had time to reach maturity and gain fame as an artist." The juxtaposition of the two indicates that Jianseng had not had time to reach maturity and gain fame (paraphrased as prestige here). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• 36 OK
• 39 OK, kinda wonder if the "plagiarism" thing in the source is a bit more negative than how the article frames it.
  • Gu doesn't go into detail, but I wanted to be careful in casting this. One of the Six principles of Chinese painting is "Transmission by copying". Gao Qifeng mentioned them in his lectures, and Croizier (p. 198) writes, "In an ingenious, if forced, reinterpretation of the last of the classic six principles for painting laid down by the Tang dynasty theorist Xie He, Gao [Jianfu] claimed that "to copy ancient masterpieces" originally referred to copying foreign works, i.e., paintings brought from India in the wave of cultural borrowing that accompanied the spread of Buddhism from India to China." The Gao brothers clearly understood, or at least presented an understanding of, traditional Chinese painting principles as allowing the direct imitation of existing works. The Art Institute of Chicago goes into more detail, noting that copying has a long history in Chinese art. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Didn't know this. Perhaps a footnote is needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• 41 Doesn't mention "idealism" or "beasts"
  • Beasts was my paraphrase for animals, as in "Gao Qifeng’s Autumn Eagle (undated) is typical of the heroic bird-and-animal paintings in which he excelled.". Have recast "idealism" to "romanticism".
• 42 Google Books doesn't show this quote.
  • Will be in source I send.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• 43 Seeing only snippets, which endorse most of this save for the "most influenced brother" part.
• 44 OK, assuming that Google Translate is correct.
• 49 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 50 (now 48) Seeing only snippets, which support part of the claim; can I have a copy of this page?

  I can't find riverbank or Taoist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Riverbank was Page 76 ("Pure landscapes, as opposed to a tree and riverbank setting for a bird or figure picture, are relatively rare."). Fixed; somehow p. 102 got inserted there. Taoist is rendered "Daoist" in the source. That being said, I see that this sentence was focused more on Jianfu. I've removed the mention entirely.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like the Daoist is on p.102, not p.76. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Daoist has been removed from the article, as the source is focused more on Jianfu in this discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that these ref numbers are based on this revision. Images have been addressed, and I will prepare a ZIP file with the requested documents. Specific comments above.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Email sent.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    I'll reply tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    'fraid that the Google Drive thing requires permission. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    I knew I was forgetting something. Fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck passed - several minor issues (now resolved), not enough to call the unchecked cites into question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Lead

• give founding of school a year
  • The Lingnan School was more of a movement than a proper school, and thus cannot readily be given a specific year.
• give a footnote explaining that - due to the brothers often being mentioned, together and individually - that they will be referred to sometimes by first name, and that Gao alone means Qifeng?
  • I think it's implied, as standard practice for articles with people who share names. Furthermore, in writing about Chinese artists, there is a tendency to repeat both names where clarity is needed (viz Croizier, etc.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• his older brother" - unclear at this point that there were more brothers, and that here Jianfu is meant
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• give travel to Tokyo a year
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Early ...

• "One of six brothers": I suggest to be at this point - instead of close to the end - more explicit about other brothers' names and age, especially how much older Jianfu was, and which "number" Qifeng was
  • The sources don't really provide ages for most of the brothers. I have added "ten years his elder" for Jianfu. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• I suggest to first mention school, then art specifics
  • In most cases, I'd agree with you. In this case, the sources basically say that he had the techniques, but his attendance at the school cannot be confirmed. As such, the priority is the techniques. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Should his art name be mentioned in the lead, bold as a redirect?
  • Referring to Hu Zhengyan, that doesn't seem to be precedent.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Gao Qifeng studied directly"- by footnote suggested above, Gao would be sufficient. (will not mention this all occasions)
• Ralph Croizier - when a person mentioned has no article, I suggest to give a short explanation about why we should listen to them. Same for other scholars cited later, without extra mentioning.
  • He is given an introduction as a person who did a study of the Lingnan School, which implies the field of expertise. Having "Ralph Croizier of the University of Victoria states in his study of the Lingnan School feels like too much. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Artistic ...

• The lion image should be right, to let him look "in"
  • Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• " seventeen issues" - 17 issues ?
  • Per MOS:NUMERAL, both are acceptable — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Sun Yat-sen" - explain why the liking of this person is relevant?
  • Added Tongmenghui leader  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Later ...

• "Before his death, he asked" - "Before his death, he had asked", unless you mention it before his death which may be better
  • I agree. Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "He died on 2 November 1933" - I commonly see the sentence about death being a new paragraph, with the name and also the location, for people who don't read the whole thing. (I come from the - few - composers' articles without infobox, where this is the only way to determine the POD.)
  • Moved down to let it stand out.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• perhaps offer the word "legacy" in the section header?
  • I don't think Legacy really fits this section.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• I am not sure that the history of road naming is of encyclopedic value
  • Standard practice when referring to historical locations.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• A conversion of the government cnntrib to a better-known currency might be of more help
  • Yes and no. I agree that it would be nice to have, but it runs the risk of overfilling the article with numbers. I know SC generally has his currency in footnotes, and that may allow for more detail, but at this point we already have quite a few footnotes. Thoughts, other reviewers? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relation...

• Together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren, Gao is recognized - how about "Gao is recognized, together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren,"?
  • Sounds good. Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• How about mentioning the names of the (later) 7 when the studio is first mentioned? Then we coud see better who is linked and who is not.
• I think that the wife deserves a new para however short
  • Not big on the small paragraphs, but reworked to be three sentences, and combined the brothers footnote with the paragraph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "after he became ill she tended to Gao" - better: "to him", - as clear from the context (or use Gao the first time in this sentence)
  • Reworked.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Analysis

• other section headers could be Art, or Work - I don't believe that the value comparisons fit "Analysis"
  • The value being the prices?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• please find a way for the left image not displacing the next section header, - easiest to have it right, others to make it much smaller with less caption, or place in the following section, or combine the two sections
  • Not done. Having the tiger face inward is a bit more prominent than an evenly split header. I also note that many FAs have subheaders that are indented. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• the prices fetched might be lead material to give the ignorants (like me) a rough idea
  • How's this?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Gao's angry lions and roaring tigers evoke a "bold and unyielding spirit" + "depictions of animals to reflect a revolutionary spirit" - some of that might also be lead material
  • I see where you're coming from, but I'd not want to add something that requires attribution in the lede. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'd first mention the rare landscapes and figures (now at the very end), and end instead with the quote , on "charms" ;)
  • Not done. I feel like introducing with his own words and then following with others' analysis flows a bit better.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

General: I miss a link to the commonscat.

• The Commons category is on the left-hand side, as is the Wikidata item.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  In "old look", perhaps ;)

  That's a fair point. Added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for an interesting life and work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you. Done with this edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the changes. I learned a lot about articles of Chinese people, thank you for that also. The displaced headers bother me, also in the other FAs you mention, but that's just me and my "old training" ;)

  Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Littlehampton libels

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Littlehampton libels are one of those footnotes to footnotes of history. Some mildly insulting letters were sent round a small town, and it resulted in four trials and two appeals, and involved the Director of Public Prosecutions, the senior Treasury Counsel, a senior Scotland Yard detective and the Lord Chief Justice. The culprit, Edith Swan, fooled three juries and two judges, had another woman sent to prison twice and was declared not guilty before finally being convicted. And then Olivia Coleman played her in a film. This is a new article and I look forward to any constructive comments. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

UC

Saving a space for now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would advise putting "England" somewhere in the first sentence, per the bit of WP:FIRST which can be summarised as "state the blindingly obvious in the first sentence".
• The letters were sent from Edith Swan: sent by is the usual idiom, isn't it -- but why not written by, which seems to be the more important thing?
• two notebooks were found in Littlehampton. They contained further libels: being very picky, is it a libel if it hasn't been sent/published? We're in meteor/meteorite or lava/magma territory here, perhaps.

• Legally they could be argued to have been released into the public domain, which is the legal point of 'published'. Point taken, though, and reworded. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• A similar case of libellous letters ... which drew parallels: I think a person draws parallels (between X and Y), and therefore we need some kind of different phrasing that uses some group of people as its subject (or else "parallels were observed..."). I'm not immediately coming up with a good one, but will think on it if helpful.
• It is based on England's south coast : Any reason not to cut based? I think that only really applies to e.g. an institution in this context.
• She had a child, Dorothy, from a previous relationship. The couple married in Lewes in 1913 when she was twenty-two and he was thirty-four: I would clarify the second she as Rose rather than Dorothy.
• they moved to Littlehampton in 1916: as you touch on in the footnote: is it accurate to talk about them as if that includes Bill, or was he away at sea for this period? What did he do after the sinking of the Nigel?

• Information on their early lives is a bit scant. However, I think that as he would have spent recuperation time and shore leave with his wife, it's fair to say that "they" moved (and the source uses "they" too). There's also nothing about his post-Nigel work (during the war, at least). - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Although Ruth's children had been born out of wedlock, she called herself "Mrs Russell",: this is not, strictly speaking, a contradiction: we need to clarify that Ruth never married the father.
• Bill accused Rose of having an affair with another man while he was away at sea, and she had to stay at a neighbour's house for several days, after he had hit her and thrown her out of the family home: slightly ambiguous whether this is Bill or the unnamed Casanova.
• The couple argued occasionally and there was, according to Hilliard, "a persistent hum of conflict" between the two.: the word occasionally reads as "only rarely" to me, which makes the "persistent hum of conflict" an odd match. Can we find a word that gives more of a sense of this being a running if sporadic theme?
  • I've just left it as "the couple argued": does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• lived in a rented cottage at 45 Western Road ... The Swan family were natives of Littlehampton and had lived at number 47 Western Road: there's an inconsistency here: would personally leave out the "number" in these and similar addresses.
• Edith Swan was one of thirteen children of Edward and Mary Ann Swan: the thirteen children?
• In May 1920 Swan wrote to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), falsely accusing Gooding of maltreating one of Russell's children on Easter Sunday: can we clarify the date of Easter Sunday to make the gap evident to readers? Appreciate it might take a little digging.
• Is it worth clarifying what the NSPCC is? The way we write about it, it sounds like a government agency, rather than a charity.
• and the impact they had on Rose's name: perhaps reputation for name as a more international and comprehensible term?
• Bill went to many of those who received letters and pleaded her innocence: I think you can only plead your own innocence, but perhaps asserted?
• Wikilink bail, if we're doing so for solicitor? I think we have it on second mention.
• Superintendent Peel of Littlehampton police: he would have been of [West?] Sussex police, surely? Was he in command of the Littlehampton station?
• Nicholls interviewed twenty-nine people connected to case: connected to the case?
• Note e: we give the impression here that Wells was arrested for breaking the bank; suggest clarifying what his crime was, and that it happened much later.
• Frederick Peel, the former superintendent, but by then the deputy chief constable of West Sussex, was present at the case and Bill Gooding overheard him saying that he still believed Rose was responsible for the letters: why not Gooding?
  • Both for clarity and to avoid "Bill Gooding overheard him saying that he still believed Gooding was responsible", with the close repetition
• she petitioned the Home Office for both a reduction in sentence and on the basis she was innocent: I think we need to swap both and for to make this grammatical.
• Is "eye-witness" better as eyewitness? I notice that we've not hyphenated "blotting paper", which seems oddly hyphen-averse given our hyphen-happiness here.
• Swan died in a home: I think this is quite BrE: can we clarify that it's a nursing home (or an old people's home) rather than just a dwelling?
  • Tricky one to phrase this. The source has "Edith died at her last place of residence, the North View Home in Littlehampton. The building had been the town workhouse". I've done some general searches, but the only references to the place are in unreliable sources, half of which are about Swan living there. It's not clear what sort of "home" it was, or of what standard. (I was going for the blandest description so as not to point the reader toward any type of "home".) Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  If we can't find anything else, I'd give its name: "in the North View Home", which at least makes clear that it's some kind of institution. We do have this local news article calling it a council-run residential home: I know we don't normally consider local news to be RS, but this does seem to be exactly the sort of thing that local news would be able to get right, especially as here they're reporting on a local museum exhibition. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Found something better: it's referred to on the National Archives page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• age sixty-eight: either aged or at the age of.
• many of the houses on Western Road—including numbers 45, 47 and 49—were all designated: need to lose the all here, I think: it's a minor contradiction at the moment.
• the letters had been sent for over two years: does this mean "it was over two years since the letters were sent" or "the letters were sent over a period of two years"?
  • Many thanks UC, All dealt with in these edits, except where questioned or commented on above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • UC, a gentle nudge on this one, now the 'died in a home' point is sorted. If you have any more comments, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

    Support: the solution here works well, I think, and everything else looks good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

    @SchroCat: a very minor one, but I don't think we ever cleared up "Littlehampton police" vs. West Sussex Police or similar. Shouldn't impede promotion, but any thoughts there? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

    It's a little awkward, as the sources use both interchangeably. The Littlehampton police (or the members of the police based in Littlehampton) were part of the wider West Sussex Police force, and would have thought of themselves as both West Sussex Police and Littlehampton Police, in the same way many police officers would think today. Neither of the labels is any more or less correct than the other. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Lede feels a bit hefty - any chance of simplifying a bit?
• "Two women in the thirties, both with black hair. " - In their 30s, or in the 1930s? Given that the source is dated 1921, I'm thinking the former, but I wanted to confirm. I think a less ambiguous phrasing would help.
• in December 1920 she was found guilty and imprisoned for two weeks - Subject in this sentence was "Swan". Might need to be reworked
• It is based on England south coast - Is this correct in BrE? I know I want to add an 's after England.
• Kent - Might be worth a link for non-British readers.
• by several neighbours - probably as explicit as the source gives, but "several neighbours" feels weasel-y.

  That's as good as I can frame it, based on the source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• although had been dismissed - Same question, is this correct in BrE? I'd normally go "though she had been"
• At my current resolution (4k, 200%+125% zoom) the two maps are stacking, resulting in the prose having a "finger gun" shape. Is there a way to break the text a bit more gracefully?

  I don't think so (trying to format based on image placement is a way to madness, I feel). I have a wide screen and it doesn't cause issues, and improves with narrower screens. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• pretending Rose was still in the house, to try and trick the Swans into thinking she was still in Littlehampton - still ... still
• National Registration forms - worth a redlink?

  I don't think so (caveat: that's based on a web search alone, rather than any major digging_. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Swans and Goodings houses - as these are possessives, should they have apostrophes?
• that Gooding and Russell had both borrowed blotting paper from her. Bill Gooding and Russell both denied ever having borrowed it from her - Feels like we're repeating the names here.

  It's trying to clarify that it was Rose in the first instance and Bill in the second. I've tried to be consistent by referring to Rose as "Gooding" and then flagging up when I'm talking about Bill. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• In July 1921 an appeal was heard before the Court of Criminal Appeal; Travers Humphreys was the barrister appearing on behalf of Gooding; he told the court that he was appearing having been personally instructed by the Attorney General and that the appeal had the approval of the Home Secretary, the court quashed both of Gooding's convictions without hearing any of the evidence. - This is a bit of a run-on. Aside from the two semi-colons (IIRC, outside of a list with commas, the prescription is a maximum of two sentences joined by a semi-colon), it feels like there is a verb missing between "the approval of the Home Secretary" and "the court quashed both"
• To fucking old whore May, 49, Western Rd, Local - Comma after 49 in the original? (judging from the spelling neybor, I suspect so... and speaking of neybor, it may warrant a {{sic}} based on WP:SIC)

  The comma is there. It's the way I was I taught to address envelopes way back when, although the etiquette has now changed on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• they recommenced in early 1923. ... By October 1922 - Feels like there's a typo in one of these years
• two sureties of £25 - each, or combined?

  It's not clarified in the source, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• The small matter of insulting letters - "small matter" sounds like a judgment call, and thus likely needs attribution.

• That's it from me. Excellent, like usual.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Cheers Chris - all sorted, except where commented on above. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent! Supported... interesting read. Hell hath no fury... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris. Yeah, it's an interesting matter - the real mystery is why Swan suddenly turned on Gooding. As she never admitted doing it, there's no explanation as to why it all went so wrong between them, or why she went down the rather bizarre pathway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Several images use PD-UK-unknown - as per that template, please ensure the image description discusses the steps taken to try to identify the creator
• File:William_Stocker_Shaw_postcard.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  All dealt with, thanks very much - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the draft a little while ago (on the article talk page), and my few quibbles were satisfactorily dealt with then. On rereading I find the text clear and very readable, the tone neutral and balanced, and the sourcing wide and apparently sound: there are, it is true, fifty citations to the main source, but they're balanced by multiple citations to four other important sources. You've done surprisingly well for illustrations, too. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I'm happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. Your help in the process was much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Source check from PMC

Just did the GAN, so won't have much to add prose-wise; I'll do a source review since I already tackled some of them at the GAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As usual, a solid mix of contemporary sources and later publications. No concerns with reliability; historical sources are used sparingly and generally supported by modern sources. As a nitpick, for refs where the date is unavailable (mainly some of the internet ones), you can use |date=n.d.. Otherwise I don't see any formatting problems. A few things I noticed when skimming:

• I've added |date=n.d., but really dislike the outcome, which just looks odd and confusing in the citations. It doesn't work with one of the templates used, but I've added it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Refs 43 and 44 don't seem to support the content. Hilliard p 47 does not seem to discuss correspondence between Blackwell and Williams, although it does get into the police believing Swan over Gooding because of her respectability. Ref 44 is a listicle summary of Cockayne's book, it also doesn't mention Blackwell or Williams. It briefly mentions the same respectability issue, but in such a broad way that it doesn't really add much here. Honestly, I might chuck it entirely.
  • [Now refs 44 and 45, not 43]: Oops - I popped in the wrong name. It was between Peel, not Blackwell, and Williams. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I was going to protest that it doesn't mention Williams either, but footnote 33, the citation after the large quote from Peel, mentions that it's a letter to Williams, so fair.
• The other use of Ref 44 could be replaced with citing Cockayne's book, p 133, which from GBooks preview looks like it supports the content.
  • [Now ref 45, not 44]: OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• It was a bit difficult to find how Ref 57 supports the content, although I eventually realised it had to be the Dec 21 one that the "strong language" warning is about. Would you consider putting a location parameter to point directly to the letter that contains the quote? Something like |location=Sussex Autumn assizes indictments 1921 would work.
  • [Now refs 58, not 57]: that's a bit tricky (unless you have a workaround). The NA reference is used to support two different bits in the article. while adding |location=Sussex Autumn assizes indictments 1921 would work for one of them, it wouldn't for the second. Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    • You can do sfns with |loc= instead of page, so you could point each one to a different spot on the page
      • Doh! Of course! Now done for all three uses of the source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Our article says the film was "based on" Hilliard's history, but it looks like it might have been Cockayne's actually. The source cited in article only says that Hilliard "brought the case back to public notice", while this Guardian article says Cockayne had the film deal and worked as a consultant on it.
  • I've reworked it to focus on the connection with the history, rather than the historians. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all, folks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PMC. Mostly dealt with, but there is a query on one of the points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, happy to do it. I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PMC. The last point now addressed. If you have any more, I'd be happy to see them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, did another skim and I'm satisfied that this passes the source check :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

750h

• I'll start when all reviewers above finish. 750h+ 09:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

feel free to refuse my suggestions (with justification).

lead

• given the length of this article i doubt it should have five lead paragraphs. I'd merge the third and the fourth paras.

background

• several days, after Bill
• although she was dismissed after she was accused ==> "although she was dismissed after being accused"

events

• Some of the post was in the form of a letter ==> "Some of the posts were in the form of a letter"

  I think the original is slightly stronger, grammatically speaking. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• was in the house, to try and trick is this comma necessary?
• to "Bloody buggering old Russell", the other to "Bloody old whore Miss Swan". i'd add "and" before "the". personal suggestion.

  It sounds odd to me with the 'and' - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• who came to the conclusion that, with ==> "who concluded that, with"
• The same week a red i'd change "The" to "that". sounds a bit weird to me. personal opinion though.
• all of them, and obtained their remove the comma
• sheets of blotting-paper i think "blotting paper" without the hyphen is more common.
• had both borrowed blotting-paper from her ditto
• Gooding's handwriting or spelling i'd use "nor" instead of "or".

  I think I'll stick with or, which sounds more natural. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• cottage was let to Violet and Constable George should it be "let" or "lent"/"left"?

  'Let' is right. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• the writing, then threw it ==> "the writing, and then threw it"
• with invisible ink which they add a comma before "which"
• shown to her; she replied add a comma after "replied".

  Not needed in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• assumptions made on the basis of the ==> "assumptions made based on the"

aftermath and legacy

• was released 2023 ==> "was released in 2023"
• MOS:GEOLINK: [[Shiptonthorpe]], [[East Yorkshire (district)|East Yorkshire]] ==> [[Shiptonthorpe|Shiptonthorpe, East Yorkshire]]

  I don't think GEOLINK supports that: it seems to suggest leaving the second location unlinked (with the example [[Quothquan]], South Lanarkshire, Scotland), so I've changed to that format. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

that's all I got @SchroCat:! thanks for the article. 750h+ 03:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks 750 - all sorted in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. 750h+ 10:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• Hope I'm not queue-jumping, 750h.
• Would it be possible to mention in the first paragraph the general timeframe and/or subject matter of the libels?
• "who lived with her parents" This is worth mentioning in the lead paragraph?
• "libel" (linking to "defamation") This should probably pipe to criminal libel, the crime (whereas defamation is a civil matter), or arguably defamatory libel (but that article is in terrible shape).
• "Swan sued again" Can a private prosecution be referred to as "suing"?

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Bill accused Rose ..." I might split this sentence somewhere, the "he, Bill" has the feeling of awkwardness.
• "the bruises he caused." Perhaps "the bruises he inflicted."
• "meaning the recipients had to pay for the delivery of the messages" I think they had the option of refusing, and if they accepted, they had to pay double the postage rate, see here. To add injury to insult, postage rates apparently went up about then!
• "Hillard notes ..." perhaps this could be a footnote?

• It was in an early draft, then I thought to add it to the article; now back where it belongs. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• You have blotting-paper red-linked. Is it worth it?

• I've added a redirect to blotting paper - it's hyphenated in BrEng, which I only found out recently. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In December 1923 she petitioned the Home Office both for a reduction in sentence and on the basis she was innocent." Perhaps the end, ...and for her release on the ground she was innocent."

That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

All done, bar the postage rate one. I'm trying to find a stronger source than the local paper, which isn't the clearest description of the 'double penalty' charge. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, Wehwalt. All done in these edits. Many thanks for your eagle eye, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Dennis

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Dennis, the first major hurricane to hit the United States during the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (it would be one of four). Dennis used to be a featured article from 2006 to 2010. Over the years, Juliancolton (talk · contribs) created a number of sub-articles for Dennis involving the United States, and the article was close to being a featured topic, only the main article was extremely short (for a retired storm article). So following the merger of the sub-articles, plus additional content and copyediting, I now feel that the article is among the most thorough accounts of the hurricane. Hopefully I can address any of your concerns, should they arise. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Some images are missing alt text

• File:Dennis_2005_path.png: formatting of the image description page appears to be broken - could you confirm what's meant to be appearing and not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria (talk · contribs). Zzzs (talk · contribs) helped fix the first two points. As for the third, I'm not sure if I understand correctly. The page for Dennis 205 path has the standard information that appears in every tropical cyclone track map, such as the fact that it's in the public domain, what the symbols mean, when it was made. Compare to other featured hurricane articles' track maps here and here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I fixed that one too FYI. The code was broken by the standard file info format. That's all I'm going to be doing for this nomination. _ZZ^Z'S 16:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh sweet thanks for fixing that too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Comment: Just a drive-by, but I could not tell from the lead paragraph whether it briefly attained the record strength and held the record permanently, or whether it attained the record strength for its duration and held the record only briefly (or possibly both). An alternate option might be "...tropical cyclone that briefly became held the record for the strongest Atlantic hurricane ever to form before August"? Mrfoogles (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• The lead does have - "Six days later, Dennis's record intensity was surpassed by Hurricane Emily." That being said, I used your wording to tweak that first sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

EG

I might be able to leave a few comments later. Feel free to ping me if I haven't left any comments by Friday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

John Wick (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 action film John Wick, or John Vick as some of the Russian gangsters may say. This has had two previous nominations: the first had some good responses and improvements added/suggested by TheJoebro64, Piotrus, Pamzeis, TompaDompa, zmbro, and The Corvette ZR1, although the second sadly failed due to a general lack of responses. Since the first nomination in 2023, new books have been released which has allowed me to significantly beef up the Thematic Analysis section which was a common criticism as I had struggled to identify sources that specifically discussed the first time as they were more focused on evolutions in its sequels, particularly the lore around the High Table and underworld which is only really touched on briefly in John Wick. It is also the tenth anniversary of the film this year, so it would be nice to get it to FA status before the end of the year if possible. Your feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Looking over this, the article is strong. My only (minor) highlights for improvement would be having the writing and development sub-sections reversed as I find them slightly confusing. The "Retrospective assessments", while short is ok, though I will leave that up to others to offer their thoughts. Since you struggled on finding some good sources, I took a look around and found a couple with some (minor) info pertaining to this film. You can add or not add them.

• “In Brief.” Film Comment, vol. 51, no. 4, 2015, pp. 79–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43577930. Accessed 15 Oct. 2024.
• SWEENEY, R. EMMET. “Muscle Memory.” Film Comment, vol. 54, no. 1, 2018, pp. 16–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44991186. Accessed 15 Oct. 2024.

Paleface Jack (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that Paleface Jack. I did check the references you've provided but they seem to relate more to the stunt company and one of their stuntwoman respectively. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thought so. Was worth a look. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply to your comment on the DEvelopment and Writing sub sections. Typically on films this would be the other way around, but in this case the development section can't happen without the writing section since all the writing happened first as an independent script rather than as part of a planned project. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It just occurred to me, if you are having trouble with information on some sections, there are behind the scenes videos that you could possibly include if you are still having problems. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not having any trouble with sections, it was just the Thematic Analysis section was fairly brief because noone really discussed the first film, they focus on the later ones which have a great deal more lore around the High Table and the assassins. But I've rectified that now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. It seems improved from last year, and it was pretty much good enough back then. Well done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Support I never had any issue with the article to begin with: DWB writes some of the best articles on WP. But I do agree the analysis section in particular looks better this time around. My only critique would be that the picture of Ian McShane in reception (as of this revision), does not appear relevant to the section itself (compared to the image of Lance Reddick in analysis). I'd advise making the McShane caption more relevant to the section or remove it. Other than that I support. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Zmbro, fixed the caption, the image was there since he was singled out by a few critics but I too felt the caption made it look like a weak addition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Support This is a well-done article; I like the organization of the meta and reception of the movie. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Support It was very interesting to read the analysis on the memetic mythologization of Mr. Reeves, having grown up on the internet and watched the process first hand. This looks like a quality piece, so I'll just leave a few short comments:

• Baba Yaga - is this a personal nick-name invoking the old slavic legend? If so we might want to surround it with quotation marks.
• experienced actor rather than an elderly one. - considering we've just mentioned Eastwood and Ford the contrast doesn't fully make sense. Sure, they're old, but also experienced.
• Variety praised the idea for targeting the same male audience as John Wick without the cost of making a full game based on it. - maybe I'm overly sensitive, but could we rephrase their analysis of the merits of this marketing campaign to not use the word "praised"?
• There seems to be some confusion on the internet about Ballerina being John Wick 5. Should we clarify also, if that is indeed still true, that 5 hasn't begun filming as of 2024?

And with that, I'm all out of ideas. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Draken Bowser, good notes, this is how I found out there is a planned spin off starring Donnie Yen. I've made the changes you've suggested. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• Typical fair-use cover art, no worries there.
• All other photos are appropriate CC licenses.

The photos in "multiple image" templates don't have alt-text, although that is not an FA requirement, it'd just be nice to have. The photos all seem relevant to the film. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Generalissima, I think the alt text may be a technical issue as they do have alt text included per the template for Template:Multiple image, but it doesn't show for me on Microsoft Edge when hovering over the image. The images under the Production section had "alt_fotter" but I've added individual alt text as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh interesting! Scratch that then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

It doesn't seem like the sourcing notably changed from the review I gave this article last year. There are a bunch of naked URLs though that need fixing. Is a spotcheck needed? My usual caveat about this not being a topic I know well applies, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know a few bare links had snuck in but I've sorted them, thanks for spotting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

TompaDompa

In the interest of not making it necessary to read through the entire article, I'll re-ask the question asked by AirshipJungleman29 in the second nomination: Can you give specific examples of how you have addressed the issues I raised in the first nomination? TompaDompa (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The context section was removed, the article was copyedited for tone, effort was made to remove as many quotes as possible and turn the content into prose, the thematic analysis section has expanded by about three times, and the commentary on best action film lists was reduced down to the mildest and vaguest of mentions despite the support of its inclusion by other editors. There have been a lot of changes, but these areas seemed to be the biggest bugbears for you last time around.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Joe

I'll take a look today and tomorrow, looks like the article's improved a lot since I last reviewed it JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Big Black River Bridge

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 19:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

After Raymond, Grand Gulf, and Lake Providence, here comes the next article in my Vicksburg series. Loring's division of Pemberton's Confederate army had been cut off after the disastrous Battle of Champion Hill. Pemberton, not knowing that Loring had found himself unable to rejoin Pemberton, held the crossing of the Big Black River with John Bowen's elite but decimated division and John Vaughn's brigade of inexperienced conscripts of dubious loyalty. Michael Lawler's men used a dried-up river channel to draw closer to the Confederate lines, and when Lawler's men charge, they hit the part of the line held by Vaughn's conscripts. Vaughn's men don't put up much of a fight, Bowen's troops on the flanks are forced to retreat to avoid being cut off from the river crossing, and it takes about three minutes for the entire Confederate line to collapse. Over 1,700 Confederates are captured, and the Confederate lose their artillery because the horse teams needed to move the guns were left on the wrong side of the river. Pemberton falls back into the Vicksburg campaign and surrenders about a month and a half later. Hog Farm _Talk 19:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed px size hardcoding. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Some images are missing alt text
  • Have attempted to add alt text. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• File:The_Battle_of_Big_Black_River_Bridge,_Harper's_Weekly,_June_20,_1863.jpg: source link is dead
  • This is a known (temporary) issue with the Internet Archive; I think the expectation is that this will be back online soon. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• File:Big_Black_River_Bridge_Battlefield_Mississippi.jpg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed image as I don't think this can be easily made compliant. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

• Why do we not have the casualties and losses in the infobox when we do have them in the lead and body? Also, are the strengths of the units before the battle known?
  • I haven't seen a good estimate of Union strength at the battle in any of the sources I have consulted for this. I don't know how relevant it is to post casualties when there's no strengths listed in the infobox for proportionality comparisons and the Confederate loss records are so incomplete. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Fewer than 300 Union soldiers became casualties": Sounds a little odd, consider rephrasing to "The Union army suffered less than 300 casualties"?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• "capture" of New Orleans, Louisiana: Link "capture" to "Capture of New Orleans"?
  • Linked Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Consider linking to field of fire?
  • Linked Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Osterhaus replaced by": "Osterhaus was replaced by"?
  • Corrected Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Might we consider adding the DOI and JSTOR ID for Smith 2024?
  • I haven't in the past done this for books, only for journal articles. Is this is a standard practice? Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't yet for non-hard sciences articles but I think it should be. JSTOR IDs and DOIs allow direct access to the source if you're logged in through The Wikipedia Library. ISBNs on the other hand are relatively tougher to access. Matarisvan (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Is this book on JSTOR? I thought JSTOR was more for journal articles. I tried to bring up the Wikipedia Library JSTOR but my internet connection is not great at the moment and I couldn't get the library to load properly. My understanding is that doi's are used to point to online documents - would this be helpful for a print hardcopy book? Hog Farm _Talk 01:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well this is not a deal breaker at all. Adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• In Smith 2013, is the first editor Stephen Woodworth or Steven Woodworth? Google Books lists the latter. Guess this is a passing error.
  • This is the same author as Woodworth 2005. Corrected & linked. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That is all from my end. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! I have one question above. Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

UC

A small protest on the use of men as an equivalent for troops, soldiers, forces etc -- we know that at least a small, but very much real, slice of the fighting forces were not covered by that label, before we even start to think about the ones we haven't been able to spot. Per MOS:GNL, gender-neutral language should be used when doing so does not sacrifice precision, and I think there are enough good synonyms here that the guideline should be applied. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I've caught all of these. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: I made two small edits on GNL, but otherwise have no further concerns. As ever, the article is thorough, detailed, accessible and scholarly, and in my view meets the FA criteria soundly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A few more:

• During the retreat from Champion Hill: I struggled to get my head around the movements here -- I think I was hampered by ignorance of the directions involved. Do I understand it right that Pemberton and co were retreating westwards, that the main body of the force had crossed the BBR, and that he told a small force to wait behind so that any Union advance wouldn't cut off the opportunity for Loring's division to do likewise?
  • I've tried to clarify this a bit - Loring was cut off during the retreat from the Champion Hill field (trying to cross a creek, but not really detail for the lead of this article), and I've noted later in that Pemberton was falling back westwards when he held the BBR bridgehead. Is this better? Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• an old meander scar: is there such thing as a new meander scar? By their very nature, they have to have a certain antiquity.
  • Removed "old" Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• The collapse of this portion of the Confederate line forced the troops on either side to withdraw: possibly ambiguous, grammatically if not by common sense, as to whether we mean "the rest of the Confederate troops" or "both the Union and the Confederates".
  • Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• On May 18, the Union army crossed the Big Black River. The surviving Confederate soldiers entered the fortifications at Vicksburg: does this include Loring's troops?
  • Clarified that this is Pemberton's men. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• the Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan, which was a strategy to defeat the Confederate States of America.: I think we generally take as read that military planners seek to defeat their enemies: perhaps add "by blockading it" or something to clarify the anaconda-ness of this particular plan?
  • Added a brief clarification Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• a joint army-navy: MOS:DASH wants an endash in this and similar.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• An attempt to cut Williams's Canal: I wonder whether cut might be misread as "interdict" rather than "build"?
  • I've rephrased to "construct"; I think "build" would be a weird word to describe making a big hole in the ground. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• In late November, about 40,000 Union infantry commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant began moving south towards Vicksburg from a starting point in Tennessee.: any idea roughly how far this was?
  • I'm trying to find a source that provides a clean figure for this; no luck so far. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• and was spearheaded by Major General John A. McClernand's XIII Corps troops: troops seems superfluous, unless we mean that it wasn't all of them, in which case I think we need elements of Major General John A. McLernand's XIII Corps or similar.
  • Dropped "troops" Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Any reason why the Vicksburg campaign map is left aligned? MOS:ACCESSIBILITY advises right, for a consistent left margin, unless there's a good reason to vary.
  • I can't think of a particular reason why it's like that, so I've moved that one (and another map later in the article) to right align. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• the lead elements of Grant's army, McClernand's corps, crossed the river at Bruinsburg, Mississippi.: two comma-ed off phrases are a bit awkward. Suggest "McLernand's corps, which formed the lead element of Grant's army, crossed...", or else putting dashes around "McClernand's corps" instead of commas.
  • I've shuffled the sentence around to address this (hopefully). Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Why doesn't David Dixon Porter get a rank -- almost everyone else seems to?
  • Footnoted (a bit of a non-standard situation). The research for this led me to correct an error in Porter's article. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• McClernand advanced on the Union left with his corps, Sherman and the XV Corps in the center,: whose corps is this? Looks like McClernand's troops are in two places at once.
  • I've tried rephrasing this to clarify - McClernand with XIII Corps on the right, the center was Sherman's XV Corps, and McPherson was on the right with XVII Corps. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Pemberton decided that Johnston's orders were not compatible with previous directives that he had received from the Confederate president.: any idea what those directives were (and, incidentally, should we name that president?)
  • I've clarified and have name-check Jeff Davis Hog Farm _Talk 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• forgone utilizing is a tautology: simply forgone. What had Grant done instead?
  • Dropped "utilizing" Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• towards Edwards: suggest the town of Edwards; it reads like a person's name here.
  • Let me look into this a bit further when I get back to my sources; I think it was more of a rail depot/station than anything else at the time. Our article suggests that it wasn't an incorporated town proper until 1871. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I've gone with "Edwards Station", which is pretty common in the relevant literature. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• To the south lay Gin Lake, the Confederate right flank was at the lake with the line running north to the Big Black River: first comma needs to be a colon or semicolon, or a full stop. Personally, I'd favour the first.
  • I've gone with a colon. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I know they're comparatively junior, but should we name the commander of the 4th Mississippi Infantry Regiment, as we have for other formations deemed important enough to name-check?
  • Even Bearss' magnificent trilogy, perhaps the most detailed work ever published on this campaign, only mentions the commander of the 4th Mississippi's name at BBR in an order of battle that lists all regimental commanders in the action, so I don't think this would be due detail. I've generally been mentioning the regimental commanders' names when the sources do. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• as Carter L. Stevenson's division: for consistency, would give his rank.
  • Added, although it's a bit annoying as I've had to add an isolated page number from the beginning of the source to support that Stevenson was a Major General
• the East Tennessee region, which was loyal to the Union: would rephrase was loyal to the Union, which most naturally reads as "which had not seceded" rather than "in which most people supported the Union, despite it being part of the Confederacy"
  • Is "heavily pro-Union" better? I'd had "disloyal to the Confederacy", but someone had objected to that phrasing at the A-Class review on the grounds that the Confederacy itself was disloyal. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but you might want to make absolutely that it was the population rather than the government of the region to which this applied. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Have clarified this further. Hog Farm _Talk 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• While they were fresh their loyalty to the Confederacy was uncertain: comma needed after fresh, and I would change while to although to remove ambiguity (were they more dependable when they were exhausted?).
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Bowen's division was the elite unit of Pemberton's army, but they were exhausted after hard fighting at Port Gibson and Champion Hill and had suffered nearly 1,000 casualties in the latter battle: I think we need a sense of how big this division was to begin with to put that number into context.
  • It took some digging, but I finally found a figure - 4,500 per Smith 2006. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• held the southern portion of the Confederate line and the area where the Jackson Road crossed the line: crossed it?
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Lindsey advanced his brigade along the railroad 300 yards (270 m),: might be a BrE thing, but don't you normally give the distance before the direction: 100 miles to the north?
  • Added the direction Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• This advance was accomplished without significant casualties: might consider adjusting significant to many or similar: do we mean "few people died" or "nobody important died"? As a frequent flier around here would ask: what did they signify?
  • Have gone with "many". Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• In the 1st Missouri Cavalry (dismounted): I would rewrite the bracketed word as a clause: "which was employed as dismounted infantry"? At the moment, it seems like (dismounted) is part of the name. If it is part of the name, shouldn't it be capitalised?
  • This is how this unit's name usually appears in the sources. For instance, from Smith 2024 p. 136 Bowen sent Colonel Amos C. Riley's 1st Missouri Cavalry (dismounted) [an error; Riley commanded the 1st and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Consolidated)]. Or, more generally, this Google books search. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Strange, but you're right to follow the sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 90 men and the unit's commander, Colonel Elijah Gates, were captured: my overarching point on "men" notwithstanding, here we've implied that Gates was a woman.
  • This has been addressed in the rewriting for GNL. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Two other Confederate steamboats, Charm and Paul Jones, who had been located downstream from the bridge were also burned: I don't think we use who for ships, even if we're going for she.
  • Is "which had been" better? Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• The 4th Mississippi, one of Vaughn's regiments, and Cockrell's brigade: could this be reworked: it's currently a bit unclear whether we're talking about two units or three.
  • Reordered to have the 4th Mississippi at the end, which I think resolves the ambuguity. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• not report losses: does this mean that they reported that they had suffered none, or that they made no report as to their losses?
  • Have rephrased for clarity. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Should Fred Grant be named as Frederick? We wouldn't talk about Abe Lincoln or Ike Eisenhower in a formal context.
  • I think using "Fred" is appropriate per the sources. See Ballard, pp. 316-317 Fred Grant, the general's twelve-year-old son, strayed too near the river and received a slight wound in the leg. Fred insisted he "had been killed", but he recovered quickly enough his reassured father showed little concern. Smith 2024 p. 367 Fred's enthusiasm was quickly dampened when a Confederate sharpshooter hit him in the leg. Also, I've found and corrected some pretty blatant errors in Fred/Frederick's article as a result of this. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Grant launched significant attacks on May 19 and 22.: another significant where I think we need to distinguish big from important.
  • Is "major" better? Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think it would be. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Consider linking the West Point Atlas map further up as external media? It looks, to me at least, much clearer than the PD map we already have.
  • I've actually added it as a map (I moved the burned-out bridge map down to the aftermath section to make room) and have removed the EL. The map was on Commons and is I believe PD. (heads up Nikkimaria that something has been added post image review). Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    • New map has a dead source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Dammit. Are either this (Library of Congress, lower-quality scan from the book, and numbered as map 105 instead of 21) or this (USMA, converted from the original 1960s book map into a more modern jpg) close enough? Hog Farm _Talk 04:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
        • And yet another LOC version, but with this as map 87. Frustrating that the highest quality version is the one I can't replicate. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
          • IMO the second would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot for now: mostly nit-picks, as ever, but I hope some of them are helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: - Thanks for a very detailed review! I've replied above; this led to me finding and correcting issues in the David Dixon Porter and Frederick Dent Grant articles. Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Eddie891

I can do a source review here Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sources all seem high quality and reliable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Assuming there's nothing worth adding from the Further reading? I checked a newspaperarchive to see if there was anything super relevant about preservation of the battlefield but didn't find anything. Hoping to head to the library tomorrow just to confirm that there aren't any relevant books missing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I own a copy of the Fullenkamp further reading source. Those battlefield guides are usually just primary source quotations and then some description about how what you have just read from the participants' writings relates to the stop at the battlefield that you are currently at. I will check tonight after work to make sure there isn't anything useful to add though. I've looked at Grant's Lieutenants (don't remember where; I don't have a copy) before and didn't think it looked useful - it's just biographies of various officers Grant interacted with. I'll try to verify that that isn't going to be useful either, though. Hog Farm _Talk 20:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I've removed Grant's Lieutenants as it doesn't have a whole lot to say about this battle based on Google Books preview. I've left the guide in for now, although it doesn't have anything worth adding to this article. Hog Farm _Talk 00:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'm satisfied with that answer. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• I've just spot-checked some of the citations to Woodworth, Ballard, Smith 2013, Shea and Winschel, and every citation lined up how it should. This makes me very happy :) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Finally, I've looked at Schultz The Most Glorious Fourth and Groom Vicksburg, 1863 (which, after skimming, are less academic than I had anticipated), and neither had anything really to offer, and I'm reasonably satisfied that this is a sufficiently comprehensive account. Source review - Pass Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ferrari FF

Nominator(s): 750h+ 02:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a stunning station wagon built by the prominent Italian automaker Ferrari. This article recently underwent a good article review by Arconning for which I am very grateful. At 1,300 words long it is the second-shortest article I've brought here, after the Lagonda Taraf. Thanks for all reviews received, and they will be responded to in a timely manner. Best, 750h+ 02:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi 750h+, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Ferrari_FF,_Blu_TdF,_front_left.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrari_612_Scaglietti_front.JPG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Ferrari_FF,_Blu_TdF,_rear_left.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrari_SP_FFX.jpg

The first three are own works published under CC BY-SA 3.0, the last one is from Flickr published under CC BY 2.0. All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have alt texts and the images in the body of the article have captions. I think the caption of "2013_Ferrari_FF,_Blu_TdF,_rear_left.jpg" should name the model to avoid confusion since we also have images of other models. Otherwise, I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the review Phlsph! 750h+ 09:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• " Under the direction of Lowie Vermeersch—former Design Director at Pininfarina—and Flavio Manzoni, work on the shooting brake after the creation of the Pininfarina Sintesi, a concept car." I'm struggling to understand this sentence.
• "wanted the car developed": which car? The FF or the Pininfarina?
• "at the facility in" "their facility"?
• "manage airflow over and around its body efficiently" might work a shade better as "manage airflow efficiently over and around its body"
• "helping minimize lift and drag": "minimize" should be "minimise"
• The review section is a bit repetitive in the formatting, with 'John Smith of The Paper said...' appearing for every review – a little variety in the structure would be beneficial

It's quite short for a Ferrari than was produced for five years, but I guess you've squeezed every drop out of every source you can. That's my lot on the comments. - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the review SC (also five years of production in the car industry, believe it or not, isn't very long [but that may depend on model). 750h+ 09:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review: Pass

I'll pick up this while I'm here too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Bunker, Ted (1 August 2024) isn't used in the article and should be removed
• "Quick Spin" should be "Quick spin" for consistent capitalisation
• "Geneva Auto Show" to "Geneva auto show" for the same reason (Its proper name is the Geneva International Motor Show, so 'auto show' is used descriptively here
• It's worth considering archiving all the weblinks (I think there's a bot or script that can help, but I don't know what it is). Not part of the review, just a suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @SchroCat: all done, except for the archiving (doesn't seem like IABot is working). Much thanks for the reviews! 750h+ 09:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Pass of the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Seems like IABot worked. 750h+ 10:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Coming to a topic I know nothing about, with thanks for Bach cantata GA reviews! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• I think that Italy is default for the production of an Italian car.
• I'll look at the lead again after reading, but find a bit confusing that first comes debut then design.
• Is the successor lead material?

  yep, Elizabeth II has it too

History

• I'm not sure that the predecessor has to be pictured. This particular photo doesn't only sandwich the text but also "looks" the wrong direction ;)
• "Official manufacture of the FF began" - do we really need "of the FF", - I mean: of what else?
• "Italy" as in lead
• I'd have expected a higher number compared to the prediction, - worth a comment?

  yes, it is a luxury car, and luxury cars usually have lower production outputs with a higher price.

  small, sure, but I expected 5*800 = 4,000 based on the prediction --GA

Design ...

• I didn't get "four-wheel" from the name in the lead, - should it perhaps be mentioned there?
• "wheel wells" - no idea what that is but I may be the only one. (I learned an estimated 15 words already but those were linked.)

Reception

• The Los Angeles Times' David Undercoffler - I'd prefer a construction without "Times'" which I'd have problems pronouncing, and which makes the paper's name similar to "The New York Times". The NY paper: I remember rules requesting that the "the" be lower case. Wrong?

  i don't see why. "times" is part of the name?

  We have two papers, The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. The placement of the LA one makes it look as if "The" was part of their name. I also dislike a possessive, for a long term, for a term ending on "s", and for the description of the relationship between paper and person. - For the NY one, I believe there's a rule to have lc in prose, or was that changed since I saw that we have to say "the Beatles", not "The Beatles"? --GA

  I have fixed the Los Angeles Times one. "The" in The New York Times should be capitalized, as "The" is part of the newspapers' official name, per this, this, and this

• Hannah Elliot, writing for Forbes, claimed that the FF was "the most perfectly balanced car I can ever remember driving". - I am no friend of a construction that has a third-person subject and then suddenly "I", - that could be helped by a colon before the quote, no?

  nothing wrong with the current one i don't think, i changed it to [she]

• no idea what "rakish" means but understand that you can't link from a quote.

  linked to wiktionary

• Patrick Hoey of Motor Trend called the FF "docile" and "user-friendly" and appreciated its light steering. Hoey, however, criticised ..." - by the time I reached the second "Hoey" I had forgotten the first, - how about simply: "Patrick Hoey ... appreciated its light steering, but criticised ...". One "however" less ;)
• general: I think that there's a lot of quotes in the reception, - could that be summarized, there or in the lead? Some of the quotes read to me as if the author wanted to be unique, at the cost of clarity, but again: that could just be me.
• "That year, the magazine Top Gear gave the FF the Estate Car of the Year 2011." - Isn't 2011 redundant, after "that year"?

How pleasant not to need five nights for a review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Addressed these, with some responses. Thoughts now @Gerda Arendt:? 750h+ 06:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for changes and explanations, - all understood, two comments above. I missed that FF compares to royalty ;) - I'd like one sentence in the lead about reception that is more qualified than "mixed", and would prefer that summary (if length is a concern) to knowing the exact name of the successor which can be easily found in the informative infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thoughts? 750h+ 07:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Having read the lead again: I don't need the predecessor either, at least not before I even learnt what FF stands for. (In other words: that sentence got too complex when the 4-wheel was added.) How about a sentence of summary about reception? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: predecessor is necessary, in fact i've included it in the lead of every one of my FAs, and Elizabeth II also has it too. I added a sentence about the reception. 750h+ 08:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Accept, but still hope you will have the capability to split that sentence in two ;) - Support for FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Review by Generalissima

Will get back to this posthaste. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: just checking in. 750h+ 01:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations

Anactoria

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a figure mentioned in the poetry of Sappho -- though it isn't clear exactly how often, who she was, and even if she existed at all. Anactoria emerges from the fragmentary pages of Sappho with almost no biographical detail, which of course has not prevented scholars, from antiquity to the present, engaging in bold conjecture and outrageous speculation as to who she might have been. She then has an interesting (honest) Nachleben in Roman poetry and in English, where she provided a springboard for Swinburne's "frankly pornographic" "Anactoria", and for Robert Lowell to fill in many of the gaps left by Sappho's account of her. The article underwent a Good Article Review from Simongraham in April, and has recently received extremely helpful pre-FAC comments from Caeciliusinhorto. The inevitable errors and infelicities remain my own. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Spence_disciples_of_Sappho.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Author died 1918 (per Wikipedia and a few others) or 1903 (per Sotheby's and a few others); first exhibited at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition (which is free and public) in 1896, per Sotheby's UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

support from caeciliusinhorto

Nice to see another Sappho-related article at FAC (I'll finish up Sappho herself one day, I swear)! A few remaining textual comments from me, though you've cleared up my Sappho-related nitpicking already...

• "Ancient Greek poet" – is "Ancient Greek" a proper noun here or should it be "ancient Greek"?
  • It should -- and now is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• The lead says that Anactoria has been suggested as a pseudonym for Anagora of Miletus; the body says that Page suggested that Anagora was the pseudonym. Which? (Or has it been suggested both ways?)
  • "Anactoria" is the supposed pseudonym (naming her after a poetic name for her place of origin) -- now fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• "The digamma (Ϝ) written at the start of Anactoria's name, with a sound value similar to the English w, is unlikely to have been pronounced in Sappho's dialect." The Greek spelling given for Anactoria in the lead is without an initial digamma, and Neri's edition of Sappho 16 doesn't say anything about a digamma; it may be worth noting where the digamma comes from. (I'm not a linguist, but I presume because Anactoria is related to anax? Did Aeolic retain the digamma there after it was dropped from Ionic dialects?)
  • I don't think there's any basis for assuming that the digamma ever was *written* in actual Greek (though one would assume it was pronounced at some stage, since as you say it's a derivative of (w)anax -- but you can see it in the painting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay, so the fact that Alma-Tadema has it is just Victorians Victorianing? I'm not missing a surviving Greek source for "Ϝανακτορία"? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

      Precisely so -- though I'd put money on there being a non-surviving Greek source, and hence the slightly cautious wording (rather than e.g. "the digamma is wrong"). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, one more thing: most of the sources look good, but I am sceptical of Paul Chrystal – see Talk:Cleitagora#Citogenesis: Cleitagora as the "female Homer" for my previous run-in with this work. This looks like another case in which he has copied from Wikipedia: our article in 2016 read "Algernon Charles Swinburne wrote a long poem in Poems and Ballads titled Anactoria, in which Sappho addresses Anactoria in imagery that includes sadomasochism, cannibalism, and dystheism"; Chrystal's book, published 2017, says "... Anactoria, in which Sappho addressed Anactoria with imagery that includes sadomasochism, cannibalism, and dystheism ..." (that's all I get from Google Books' snippet view, but it's an exact match). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, very good spot. I've managed to find some good scholarly articles saying the same thing, so have swapped them in. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There's not much more for me to say except to offer my support. I spot-checked a couple of sources I had on hand and everything looked fine; the ancient literature part of this article is certainly pretty comprehensive and while I'm less confident on proclaiming with certainty on the post-classical receptions there's nothing missing that I would expect to see. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you -- for this and your advice beforehand. Looking forward to seeing Sappho (surely an FA-in-waiting if there ever was one) here in due course! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Not much from me. My few comments are all on the prose rather than the content (adolescent boys in the 1960s were not exposed to Sappho's verse in their Greek lessons).

• "It has also been speculated…" – I am not one of those absolutists who think using the passive voice is the sin against the Holy Ghost, but the passive leaves us a bit short-changed here, I think. "X, Y and Z speculate …" or some such would have more impact.
  • I'm not sure I disagree, but it's an old and widely-made speculation -- attributing it to the two sources cited would wrongly give them credit (which, to be fair, neither of them claim) for coming up with the idea. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I understand, but it's still a woolly construction. Something like "Several/many writers over the years have speculated ..." would have a bit more oomph. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

      Will keep chewing on this: might come down to how much ammunition I can find in the sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• "written to another of Sappho's female companions" – "companions" seems to me rather a woolly, even evasive, term. Does it mean lover? Good friend? Colleague?
  • The ambiguity is deliberate: I touch on why in footnote c. Words like "lovers", "students", "followers" and "fellow-poets" would all be found in the scholarship, but different people would argue as to how far each one applies. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • OK. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• "the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia known as the Suda" – it's mentioned in the previous para, where the link and probably the description oughter be.
  • I don't think it is, unless I'm missing something? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • My mistake. Apologies. What can I been thinking of? Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Glenn Most points out that …" – rather a loaded term, perhaps implying Wikipedia's endorsement rather than a neutral report of his comments.
  • I think we do want to endorse this -- it's self-evidently true from looking at the poem. I'd agree if we were saying e.g. "Glen Most believes [this statement of opinion], but Most hasn't actually come up with this -- he's just read the text. However, I think it would be SYNTHy to just come in and say, in Wikivoice without giving a name, that all the aforementioned scholars are speculating wildly (on which see the article's Talk page). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced, but I shan't make a production number of it. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Socrates and his male acolytes such as Alcibiades" – Order, order! I think "acolyte" is much too condescending a term for Alcibiades. The OED defines the word in this non-Christian context as "an attendant or assistant in some ceremony, operation, or the like; (also) a devoted follower or admirer; a novice or neophyte". A devoted admirer, I grant you (I know, or rather used to know, my Symposium) and I think "admirer" rather than "acolyte" would be the right word here.
  • Hm -- here I dissent slightly: the point is that these weren't just detached admirers, but actually his students, followers, entourage and intellectual descendants -- these are the people that the court were talking about when they executed Socrates for "corrupting the youth of Athens". I think "admirer" is a little weak for that, and implies far greater distance than we're talking about with a very close-knit (in various senses) group. Conversely, I think a devoted follower or admirer; a novice or neophyte is right on the money. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I still think "acolytes" is generally a pejorative word when used in this sense (as opposed to its original meaning of "altar boys", from the Greek ἀκόλουθος). If anyone referred to me as an acolyte of anyone I should feel I had been slighted. If you're talking about "students, followers, entourage and intellectual descendants" why not say so? But I shan't press the point. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

      Ah, I see -- I'm not sure I'd share that pejorative reading; you certainly hear people describe themselves as "acolytes" of distinguished professors, particularly in obituaries of the latter. But I'll keep thinking on it -- there may well be a better phrasing that gets the point across more effectively. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all I can find to quibble about. It would be a work of supererogation to praise the pithy and readable prose or the admirably wide-ranging sourcing (no book cited more than three times). We expect no less from this editor. Tim riley talk 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you as ever, Tim. I'm afraid I've been more than usually obstinate above, but I hope the replies make sense -- happy to keep discussing where I've misunderstood or erred. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Shall look again tomorrow. I'm not going to oppose or withhold support on any of the above points, but meanwhile I don't rule out a spirited brawl before I sign on the dotted line. Tim riley talk 17:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

My concluding comments, above, are not of such gravity as to prevent my supporting the elevation of this article to FA. The sources look admirable to my layman's eye, the text is clear and a pleasure to read, and I'm sure you have had no alternative to the ghastly Victorian paintings, which are undeniably relevant. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim -- as ever, wise and thought-provoking. I'll keep thinking on the points you've raised above: hopefully, better solutions will present themselves. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• I wonder why a complete translation of Sappho 31 is provided but no quote of Sappho 16, even though much of the discussion is about the latter, and it was described as "the finest lines in all Sappho's poetry"? Having the original as reference could help with appreciating the article.
  • It's a length issue -- the problem is that she only refers to Anactoria halfway through, but you need the first half to make sense of it, and quoting the whole poem would, I thought, be a bit long. A version is here -- what do you think? I worry that it would make the infobox/illustration outsizedly big. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    • As a reader, I personally would much prefer the Sappho 16 quote, which is the one that actually mentions Anactoria. It is slightly longer, but I don't think that is a big problem. Without it, the article feels a bit like the discussion of a painting that you can't see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

      Yes, I agree. There's another issue here, however, which is finding a good PD translation -- Storer didn't do 16. The one I linked isn't PD, so we can't include it here: so far, the only ones I can find are here and here (search "Anactoria" in either case). Honestly, I don't think either of them are great, and if the translation we offer can't do at least most of the job of showing why people like Robinson admire it so much, it's not going to do a whole lot of good. Pinging @Caeciliusinhorto: do you know of a good translation of Sappho 16 that will be usable (ie, published before 1929, probably by an author died before 1954?) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

      Most of the pre-1929 translations of Sappho 16 which I am aware of are based on John Maxwell Edmonds' edition, which I don't love. It both differs in a few key places from modern readings (in the second stanza Edmonds' Loeb, for instance, has "Helen surveyed much mortal beauty" whereas the modern Loeb has "she who far surpassed mankind in beauty, Helen,") and has some of Edmonds' characteristic reconstructions, including e.g. adding "for woman is very easy to be bent" at the beginning of the fourth stanza (not translated in the modern Loeb; Rayor 2014 has "... [un]bending ... mind".
      The papyrus was initially published in vol.X of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and I think Grenfell and Hunt were still doing exempli gratia translations at that point so you might try checking that, but I don't have access while archive.org is still down until the next time I drag myself to a library which has it so I can't comment on that for certain. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks -- I'll see if I can dig anything out when Archive.org comes back. I did wonder if there was some suitable equivalent of Template:External media that would work here, but I don't think there is for a purely text source. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

      Pardon me for butting in. I agree that if you're going to quote a fragment of Sappho here, it should be frag. 16, not frag. 31. There is no evidence to suggest that the latter has anything at all to do with Anactoria (whether you consider her a real person or a poetic construct). The fact that Victorian readers associated frag. 31 with Anactoria is an aspect of Sappho's reception, but it has nothing to do with Sappho herself, or with the text as we have it, and it really shouldn't appear in a section headed "In Sappho". Since frag. 16 contains the only surviving instance of the name Anactoria in the wreckage of Sappho's poetry, it seems to me the only rational choice for this particular article.

      As for translation, I agree with Caecilius that Edmonds should be avoided. His Loeb editions of Greek poets (not just lyric but also elegy and bucolic) are among the worst Loebs ever published. But I don't understand why you need a PD translation at all. Quoting a translation of a single fragment of 15-20 lines, with proper attribution, out of an entire volume devoted to translations of Sappho in particular (like Barnard's or Barnstone's) or Greek lyric in general (like Lattimore's or West's), is a textbook example of fair use, at least according to US law. So pick any modern translation you like and use it. There is no copyright problem here. Choliamb (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

      If the article is going to quote a modern translation, I would be inclined to go with Rayor 2014. IIRC the 2014 discoveries improved our text of Sappho 16 very slightly, so earlier translations are now a little outdated. If we're not concerned about going with an out-of-copyright translation there's no reason not to use the most up-to-date version Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

      That's a good point. I don't think I knew that the text of 16 had been improved by the Obbink papyrus, or if I did I had forgotten. I just took a look at the edition in The Newest Sappho (Bierl and Lardinois 2016), and unfortunately "very slightly" is an accurate description. The gains are small and the fourth stanza (the one that contains Anactoria's name) is still terribly lacunose, so any English version that offers more than a few words in the first part of the sentence is going to be a hypothetical modern restoration rather than an actual translation. (Not saying that Rayor does this; I haven't seen her translation, so my comments are based solely on the new Greek text.) Happily, the standard interpretation of the end of the stanza (≈ "reminds me now of Anactoria in her absence") is not in any doubt, even if the subject of the verb remains unclear. Choliamb (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks, both -- I've added Rayor's translation of 16. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why is "In other classical literature" a subsection of "In Sappho"? It does not seem to fit there; in the section "In Sappho", I would expect content about Sapphos literature only.
  • Another one where I felt between a rock and a hard place: we could change the L2 heading to "In classical literature", but that would seem not to give Sappho her due weight: it would elide that writing about Anactoria in classical literature is, fundamentally, writing about Sappho. On the other hand, those other mentions in classical literature are direct derivatives of Sappho's portrayal, whereas the modern ones have at least a tenuous claim to be adapting (e.g.) Ovid. I had a bit of an idea here -- brought the classical subsection down into an expanded "Reception". How does that look? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• A reference in the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia known as the Suda to "Anagora" – I found this a bit difficult to read, and it is not entirely clear if "known as the Suda" refers to the encyclopaedia or the reference. Maybe "A reference in the Suda, a tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia, to Anagora"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I've done this slightly differently for flow and clarity, but think I've got the point across -- agree with your diagnosis here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks as ever, Jens. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi UndercoverClassicist, my comments:

• Link to Glenn Most in the body and biblio?
• Why have we not linked to Denys Page in the biblio when we have done so in the body?
• Link to Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer in note 1 and the biblio?
• Link to Richard Aldington in the biblio, if he was indeed the translator along with Storer?
• Link to Patrick J. Finglass in Purves 2021?
• Link to William Smith (lexicographer) in the biblio?
• Link to Garry Wills in the body and biblio?

I could also do the source review if needed. That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• • All very wise and all done. Would be glad of a source review if you're up for it! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist, adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Matarisvan (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Choliamb

I'm traveling right now and I'm terrible at typing with one finger on a tiny mobile keyboard, so I'll confine myself to two quick comments about the authenticity of the Ep. Sapph. (Her. 15):

• It's fine to cite Rosati and Rimell (neither of whom I have read), but you really should give credit to Tarrant's article in Harvard Studies for 1981 (this one) , which single-handedly turned the ship of critical opinion around and tilted the consensus against authenticity. If a majority of scholars now believes that the poem is not Ovid's (and I think that is probably true), it's largely due to Tarrant.
• I think the note as it stands slightly misrepresents Murgia's view of the probable date of the poem. On the page cited (p. 472) he says "a poet of the next generation", which is not quite the same thing as "a poet around a generation later", which is what the article now says. What Murgia actually means by that phrase is explained on p. 466, note 24. It could have been written any time after the Epistulae ex Ponto and before Seneca's tragedies, but Murgia thinks the most likely time was shortly after Ovid's death, not a generation later.

- Choliamb (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Choliamb -- all done. I've added Tarrant to the relevant footnote (has anyone put it like that in print, to give him a bit more credit?) and expanded the Murgia note. It's now a bit closer to what Murgia actually wrote, but I think here the close paraphrasing is justified by the need for precision: Murgia wrote something that's difficult to express in other words without (as I did previously) changing the meaning. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

A marker for now - SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Just two comments from me:

• You begin with "Anactoria is named by Sappho, who wrote in the late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE": maybe just a few words to explain Sappho was a poet – and one who wrote mostly about love? Not every reader will have heard of them and will need a little help there. And maybe a link for Sappho, as it's the first reference in the body?
• "in fragment 16". Some may think this is an odd name for a poem, or just be confused by it. Maybe something (even if a footnote) to explain that nearly all her work only survives in fragments which have subsequently been numbered?

That's my lot - the rest is a delight to read. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Both very wise and done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Was it a conscious decision to have "See Gordon 2002, pp. v–vii, and Goff & Harloe 2021, p. 396." inline, rather than as a citation? - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It was, as they're discussing the topic in general: you'll get all of that information from reading them, and a lot more besides, but you won't find it phrased as such a neat sentence. However, it's not a decision I'm particularly wedded to. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fine: I thought it may have been, but felt I needed to check. Some other reviewer may disagree, but I think it's a good way to show what you're trying to - particularly in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Passing comment

• The first image. What is the relevance of the second sentence of the caption to the image? And what is the connection of the image to the article, if any? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Gog -- the point (of both) is that this is a painting of Sappho's disciples, and Anactoria (if we believe Sappho, anyway) was one of those. They're not labelled or individually identifiable in the painting, but this is essentially a visualisation of who Anactoria would have been, and it's reasonably likely that Spence would have identified one of the figures in white as Anactoria. Compare the Alma-Tadema painting further down, which has a seat labelled as Anactoria's, and again is almost certainly a depiction of how LA-T imagined her or people like her, even if we can't point at an individual figure as her. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So how's about "Disciples of Sappho (1896) by Thomas Ralph Spence is [a 19th-century?] reconstruction of Sappho delivering some of her verse, with Anactoria in the audience" or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Would be a great caption, but unless we can somehow find a published source who cares equally about a) Spence and b) Anactoria (and there aren't a great many who care all that much about either, as far as I can tell), would need a CN tag. I think the second sentence of the caption gestures readers that way without actually having to say "Spence intended to paint Anactoria here", which is going to be a tricky one to get past WP:V. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

UC, the current second sentence is truly naff. Why not just say what you can cite? "Disciples of Sappho (1896) by Thomas Ralph Spence is [a 19th-century?] reconstruction of Sappho [publicly?] delivering some of her verse" would be fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Very well: changed more-or-less as you suggest -- I wouldn't want to be accused of spreading naffness around here! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

Will pick this one up shortly - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Formatting. Just the one comment on this, and it’s minor and petty: you could use the ISBN Converter to ensure you use a consistent format. Aside from that, all good on this point.
• Coverage. A review of the available sources (from the point of view of a non-specialist) shows no obvious gaps or missing works that I can see.
• Sources used are all high quality and reliable, with no concerns. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Schro. Unless I've missed something, we do have a consistent format: ISBNs are hyphenated and written as displayed on the book (essentially, this means ISBN-10 pre 2007, ISBN-13 thereafter, or OCLC where no ISBN exists). Per WP:ISBN: if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm... interesting: I think that goes entirely against all the practice I've seen on WP! I've been nagged for years by several source reviewers to have them all in either one format or another, as long as they are consistent. Anyway, given your version is in line with the guidelines, pass for the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

2003–04 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! Did you read and enjoy my last FAC nomination, all about when Gillingham F.C. achieved their highest ever finish in English football? Well, read this one and see how the wheels began to fall off almost immediately! This one's got it all - mobs taking to the streets to protest the colour of the players' shirts, the team going through goalkeepers like they were going out of fashion, the manager getting ejected by the referee and (almost certainly just to make a point) immediately entering the game as a player, a goalkeeper suffering a career-ending injury after managing to collide with the other team's goalkeeper, and a streaker! Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

• In the infobox, Agyemang is said to have been the club's sole top goal scorer in the league with 6, but in the players table, Spiller and Shaw are also shown with 6 goals.
• For consistency, I would put something like (pictured in ...) in the text under all five photos in the article.
• "after an error by Brown" ==> Jason or Wayne Brown?
• I made two small corrections in the article.
• That's it from me. Excellent read! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Eem dik doun in toene: - thanks for your review, all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• "league table, only two positions above the bottom three places in the 24-team league table": duplicate links
• "More than 20 years later": probably best to say that "As at 2024"

Just two points from me, both minor. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: - many thanks for your review, both points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice work as always - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• I usually focus on grammar/comma issues and everything seems to be alright with regards to that in this article. It is a support from me. Great work!
• The images are all correctly licensed with alt texts so the image review passes as well.--NØ 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

To follow - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about linking the publishing locations in the Works cited section. Links are supposed to "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand", and linking Nottingham, Durrington and Stroud doesn't achieve that aim. I'd also suggest the same for publisher names, as these are also fairly useless in giving readers an understanding of the Gillingham season.
• Check the capitalisation on article titles, which goes awry in places. Most are in sentence case, but for some (FNs 3, 6 and 127) caps have sneaked in there
• Formatting all OK aside from that.
• Searches have shown no obvious gaps in the sourcing, and the ones used are appropriate
• The newspaper sources are used properly and within reason.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: - all done, I think. Thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff: this is a pass on the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

TRM

Back with a bite. Small start on comments, please ping me as I'm only around sporadically right now!

• "league season were inconsistent; a run of four consecutive defeats in September and October left the team in 20th place in the First Division league table, only two positions above the bottom three places in the 24-team league table" how many "league" mentions? And double table?
• "The team's final two games of 2003 both resulted in victories," bit fluffy/passive, repetitive: "The team won their final two games of 2003"...
• "first time Gillingham had won two consecutive league games during the season, leaving them 15th at the end of the calendar year" perhaps me being subserviant to our American superiors, but do normal readers know that our football season doesn't run per the calendar year?
• "slightly superior" probably remove "slightly".
• "two knock-out tournaments" does anyone in the UK ever refer to cup competitions as "knock-out tournaments"? Perhaps stick with British English and link accordingly. I know this will rile up some of the yanks but hey-ho.
  • I certainly do! And in fact I am pretty sure that the "yanks" don't, because they call them "single-elimination tournaments". What do you see as a better UK English alternative....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• "defeated Charlton Athletic of the top-tier FA Premier League in the third round before being eliminated in the fourth round." by whom? Someone useless?
• "eliminated in the fourth round. They were eliminated .... in the third round" jarring repetition.
• "Gillingham played 51 competitive matches..." You mean "During the 2003-04 season, Gillingham played 51 competitive matches..." start a new para or something here.
• "for a league" surely "for *the* league*"?
• Where are home/away colours referenced?
  • In the final paragraph of the background section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• " 2003–04 season was Gillingham's 72nd season " season ... season
• Finding it hard to sequence the first and second sentence of "Background and pre-season"... Maybe it needs some filler to say how the club went from re-election to the 1999/2000 season playoffs?
• "finished in 13th place.[5] The following season, they bettered this performance, finishing in 12th place,[6] and in the 2002–03 season they finished 11th,[" season ... finished ... season ... finished ... season ... finished. Not brilliant prose for me.
• "Andy Hessenthaler was the team's" probably need to reiterate this season.
• "since 2000.[10] Wayne Jones held the post of coach.[11] merge?
• "the club's promotion in" don't we relink once into the main body?
• "decision.[22][21] " ref order.
• "Significant redevelopment took place..." looks better as a new para after all the disquiet about kit.
• "As of 2024, the new stand has never been" -> maybe "As of November 2024, the new stand has not been...."
  • The ref isn't specifically from November (not least because we are still in October! :-) )
• "who were in 24th place in the table " most of our yank friends won't know this means dead last.
  • We already established earlier (in the background section) that there are 24 teams in the division -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• "which left them in 16th place " who is them?
• "victory, the team's first victory" repetitive.
• "was broadcast live by Sky Sports" this is insignificant to almost everyone who doesn't support a shit team.... I know it.
  • I don't think it hurts to mention it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• "past Bertrand Bossu" maybe make it clear he was the goalkeeper?
• "just five minutes" bit emotive.
• "final minute and the game finished 2–2.[64] Gillingham beat Stoke City 3–1 in the final game " not in the same context, but final and game repeated here, making for lacklustre flow in the prose.

That's enough for me for now, been a while since I've been here, done this. Happy to continue now the dreadful "oversight" from genuine non-English speakers has dissipated to a degree, let me know if/when you'd like more on the remainder of the article. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: - all addressed other than where noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Continuing...

• "promotion-chasing" technically isn't every team promotion-chasing? It just has a feel of journalistic overtones, maybe note what position the Blades were in, or recent form, and let the readers make up their own minds.
• "game of February;[79] the game " game game.
• programme - have you linked matchday programme?
  • Linked in the background and pre-season section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• "with in a long time" can you "quote" this as this statement is very vague.
• "first appearance in the starting line-up since November.[81] In the same game Brown made his first appearance" first appearance first appearance.
• "The team ended the month" last team mentioned was Spurs.
• "12 professionals available" this might be a complex situation for non-Brits to handle, that there's a difference between youth team players not being fully professional and first-team players, in general, being fully pro. Is there a way to cover off the standard non-expert response to this?
• "the result left them in 21st" last team mentioned was West Brom.
• "conceded three goals ... but then conceded" conceded conceded.
• "Stoke's manager, had" shouldn't manager have been linked a few sections back?
  • Player-manager was linked, but not manager (association football). I don't think the link hurts -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Bradford and Sunderland are A.F.C., not F.C. but redirects aren't prohibited....
• "before the half-time interval" probably could add who scored here.
• "scored an early goal, Gillingham scored" scored scored.
• "The random draw" is random needed here?
  • People commented in multiple earlier FACs that it was needed, otherwise people not as au fait with British football would think the FA Cup had a pre-determined draw for the whole competition like Wimbledon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• "they played well in the second half" according to...?
• Ref 112: p. 621, 623. should be pp.

That's it for now! The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - thanks for this thorough review. Everything in the second chunk addressed other than where noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as usual, another excellent piece of work from Chris, great working with you again! The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 19:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - thank you, sir :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Lars_Hirschfeld_with_CMNT.jpeg: where is that licensing coming from? I don't see it at the source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - no idea, I just yoinked it off his article without actually checking the licensing - my bad :-) I have replaced it with an image whic I have checked ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Busbridge War Memorial

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is another Lutyens war memorial. Probably the last of his memorials in England that has enough coverage for an FA, but then I thought that about the Cenotaph and and I've managed to bring two others through FAC since then! This one is in a tiny village in what (at the turn of the 20th century) was a rural part of Surrey, to the south west of London but it tells an interesting story. Lutyens became a nationally renowned architect, responsible for an array of famous buildings, but his career kick-started in Busbridge when he was in his 20s and the village contains several of his works. Indeed, it was here that he first heard the term "cenotaph", a term he indelibly linked with war memorials, so it was only fitting that he should design the village's war memorial.

I created the article way back in 2016 but I've always felt there was more to say. A recent trip to Busbridge inspired me to see if I could "finish" it. I'm indebted to @Carcharoth, KJP1, and SchroCat: for their help and advice, including digging up some difficult-to-find sources. It's not a long article, but I think it tells the story comprehensively. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria thank you! Remiss of me. Now added to the other two images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• "7-metre (23-foot) tall" -> "7-metre-tall (23-foot)"
  • I see why that might be seen as desirable (and thanks for the template magic!) but it interrupts the sentence flow without clarifying anything that is likely to be misunderstood so I'd rather not unless it's a dealbreaker.
    • I'd rather it this way because 7-metre-tall is a compound adjective, so it shouldn't be separated, and this seems to be the specific situation where adj=mid should be used in Template:Convert.
      • Fair enough. I think it's more jarring this way but you are technically correct the best kind of correct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "and was upgrade to" -> "and was upgraded to"
• I recommend linking Surrey upon first mention in the body. Also, I recommend linking Berkshire and Somerset.
  • Surrey done. I don't think Somerset or Berkshire are directly relevant enough to require links in such quick succession to the war memorials (which are linked) located in those counties.
• "and possessing "the same over-developed sense of volumetric relations as" The Cenotaph." -> "and possessing "the same over-developed sense of volumetric relations as" the Cenotaph."
• A non-breaking space should be put between "H. M." as per MOS:INITIALS.
• "he unveiled several war memorials in the county" -> "he unveiled several other war memorials in the county".
• "national anthem." Can God Save the King be linked?
• There are several instances of brackets being used where I think commas would be better. I recommend these changes:
  • "Historic England (the government body responsible for listing) recognised Lutyens's war memorials" -> "Historic England, the government body responsible for listing, recognised Lutyens's war memorials"
  • "The cross was unveiled by General Sir Charles Monro (the colonel of the local regiment) on 23 July 1922" -> "The cross was unveiled by General Sir Charles Monro, the colonel of the local regiment, on 23 July 1922"
• The lead says this: " the relationship led to many commissions for Lutyens for country houses in the early days of his career." But in the body, the part mentioning Gertrude Jekyll came after the part about the country houses. Was Lutyen's relationship with Jekyll really the reason why Lutyen had many commissions for country houses?

  It's a little complicated without getting too far off-topic. He already had his own practice and was designing country houses, but his career really took off after Munstead Wood, from which he earnt a string of commissions for Jekyll's friends and extended family. This is the point that he became fashionable, though it's hard to tell whether that would have happened had he not met Jekyll. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Either way, the lead should be changed to be consistent with the body or vice versa. Steelkamp (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: I still think this should be changed so that the lead is consistent with the body. The lead could be changed to say "Lutyens built his early reputation on designing country houses. His connection with Busbridge began in the 1880s when he partnered with Gertrude Jekyll, a local artist and gardener who lived at nearby Munstead Wood." This then does not imply something that the body does not. Steelkamp (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp Sorry to keep you waiting. I've made just about all the suggested changes except where I've commented above. Happy to chat if there's anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Steelkamp, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  After my one comment above is addressed, I will support. Steelkamp (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

• "and he spent much of his time from 1917 onwards on memorialising its casualties." - not seeing where the source specifically references 1917
• "The memorial was designated a Grade II listed building on 1 February 1991." - citation placement issue; the following citation is [17] which doesn't mention this, although it is supported by [1] which is cited later in the paragraph

Good work; I expect to support. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Supporting; not much to complain about here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Excellent article. A few minor quibbles:

• "His connection to Busbridge" – unexpected choice of preposition: usually, a house is connected to the gas mains, but a person is connected with somewhere or something.
• "and was upgrade to Grade II*" – upgraded?
• "led to multiple other commissions" – I don't think you need the "other", which looks a bit odd
• "The war memorial in Busbridge was one of several by Lutyens …" – and presumably still is.
• "he executed multiple designs for Jekyll's sister-in-law" – I'm not sure how one designs a sister-in-law. It might be less Frankensteinian if you changed "for" to "commissioned by", "on behalf of", or some such.
• "a lozenge-shaped tapered shaft" – chancing my arm, and quite prepared to be told I'm talking rubbish, but I thought a lozenge was shaped like the symbol of diamonds in a pack of cards, which the picture of the memorial doesn't resemble.
• "by The Reverend H. M. Larner" – a lower case t is usual for "the Reverend" in mid-sentence.
• "all are Grade II listed" – no real danger of your being misunderstood, but it might be as well to add "three memorials", lest someone determined to misunderstand think it was the three people who were listed.

That's all from me. I hope some, at least, of these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley, @Hog Farm Apologies for the delay. I think I've addressed all your comments. Please let me know if not! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Still not convinced by his designing a-sister-in-law nor what is lozenge-shaped. Tim riley talk 22:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley I've worded the sister-in-law; open to further wordsmithing. We share an understanding of what a lozenge is, but I assure you the memorial is lonzenge-shaped. Possibly slightly squat but it has four roughly diagonal sides. It's more evident towards the top because of the tapering. The photos we have on Commons (including some of mine) don't do it justice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

OK – that will do me fine on both points. Very pleased to add my support for this top-notch article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Rather sad if this is the last of Harry's articles on war memorials we'll be seeing here. Tim riley talk 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. It's probably the last Lutyens (unless I do some of the memorials abroad) but it won't be the last war memorial. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Good! Tim riley talk 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Carcharoth

Only a few comments:

• I would quibble with "the Cenotaph in London, which he named after a garden seat at Munstead Wood" in the lead. Learning of the term 'cenotaph' and using it elsewhere is not the same as naming something after a garden seat. Would also quibble with the stained glass windows being said to "commemorate the war" (slightly clumsy phrasing - see also next comment).
  • I don't think it's inaccurate. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but for the sake of concision in the lead.
• Saying "a pair of stained-glass windows by Archibald Keightley Nicholson" mis-represents what is there. There are six 1919 stained glass windows by Nicholson, forming three pairs. One pair is for "the war" (the one you describe). The second pair is for two Old Shirburnians who fell in the war. The third pair is for Charles Henry Tisdall (another of those who fell).
  • It's not a misrepresentation to say that a pair exists when three pairs exist; the others are of limited relevance to the war memorial. Nonetheless, I've added in a note to be clear.
• Saying "locations of much fighting during the war" for Amiens Cathedral seems slightly odd. It overlooked the Somme battlefields, and would have been familiar to veterans who passed through or were garrisoned in or near there. Scapa Flow could also be slightly better explained. This is a case maybe of 'explain properly' rather than too briefly?
  • I was never very happy with this form of words but I can't come up with anything better and even that half a sentence is getting away from the subject at hand so I've culled it.
• Where can a curious reader go to read the 42 names? (Online, not on the church wall!) The names on the church wall include Francis McLaren who (as you note) is buried in the churchyard with his own memorial. I am unsure if McLaren (who was not a local, but married into the Jekyll family - a point that may be worth mentioning) is in the roll of honour for Busbridge (it looks like he met the inclusion criteria for the local war memorial committee that would have decided such things).
• Given that the memorial does not list the names, arguably the book of remembrance in the church is 'part' of the memorial, so might there be a case for including File:WWI book of remembrance in Busbridge Church (cropped).jpg? It is not the most visual picture, but would add to the article, IMO (the stained glass windows are shown in the church article, and we really should have a proper listing of Nicholson's windows).
• Can anything useful be used or cited to (or found elsewhere) from this page where the decision making process is outlined? Warning: the link to the 'names' has been cybersquatted. The names are available here (IWM Memorials Register). Surely there must be more details on the approach made to Lutyens to design the memorial? Are all the sources silent on this?
• One of the names of those the memorial commemorates is that of the 7th Earl of Shannon, Richard Bernard Boyle. No idea what the connection is with Busbridge. He inherited his father's earldom at the age of nine, and died aged 19 just over ten years later (EDIT: Apparently, at the time of his death his address was a house called 'Trusca' in Ramsden Road near Busbridge, towards Godalming. His younger brother [the next earl, aged 16 or 17] was in India in 'Havelock House' and was named in the probate as adminstrating the estate's affairs).

That last point was a bit tangential, but I mention it in case there is anything useful in a suitable source (it looks to me as if the inclusion criteria were quite broad here, but I doubt anyone has written about that - it is not entirely clear if it was a parish war memorial or a more broadly defined 'local' war memorial for those with connections with the area, or simply relatives in the area). Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Just a reminder that there are still comments to address above. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support on prose following my PR checks and the additional work done since. The only query I would have on a further readthrough is that you link First World War, but not Second World War; is that a deliberate choice? - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why is NHLE linked every time but Historic England not?

• Ranges should use endashes, including in titles

• How are you ordering Bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, many thanks for taking a(nother!) look. The bibliography was supposed to be alphabetical but I put a later addition in the wrong place, now fixed! Dash also fixed. The NHLE citations are produced by {{NHLE}}; apparently there's a "fewer links" option but that's actually "no links". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

A high-class article which I can support off the bat. Just a couple of comments:

• Maybe just note the dates of WWI at its first mention in the body?
• Do we know who commissioned this particular memorial?
• I would switch the ordering of the second and third paragraphs of the "History" section, because the discussion of what the different "listing" classifications mean in the current third paragraph will reveal more about the actual listings in the current second.
• If the Abinger Common memorial is of similar design and nearby, maybe it's worth mentioning in the body?

Otherwise, very nice and moving work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Tumor necrosis factor

Nominator(s): AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a chemical messenger that mediates the immune system and is a key factor in several autoinflammatory conditions. This article passed GAR a few days ago, so I am now nominating it for FA status.

AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi AdeptLearner123, any chance of some response to the outstanding reviewer comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yup I will take a look today and address outstanding comments. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning ‘In 1975, Elizabeth Carswell and…’ is unsupported. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed after rewrite of History section AdeptLearner123 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• All images past the lead should be scaled up

• All images past the lead also need sources for the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, lmk if the images should be scaled up more, and if the references are valid. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Hi AdeptLearner123, welcome to FAC. I'm glad to see you're interested in continuing to improve this article. I'll work my way through the article and try to summarize feedback below. Right now I think the article needs quite a bit of work to meet the FA criteria, which are a higher bar than the GA criteria. Unfortunately we don't get many molecular biology FACs; in fact I can't recall one in the several years I've had a lazy eye on FAC (though someone cleaned up PfEMP1 for WikiJournal of Medicine in 2017, so perhaps that's a decent model to consider). I'm still going through the article, and of course you're most welcome to ignore me, but my suggestion would be to withdraw the nomination and start a WP:Peer review to try to solicit more feedback on improving the article to the FA standard. At the same time, keeping an eye on – and participating in – the FAC process will help you move through the process yourself. Alright comments below, separated by FA criterion. All are suggestions, rather than demands.

First-round of commentary

1c. Well researched - Sourced to high-quality, reliable sources History - We try to build our articles from secondary sources (i.e. we are volunteer non-experts summarizing experts who are summarizing the literature). You may be used to writing academic science articles where the goal is slightly different (there your name/institution/reputation establishes you as the expert, and you wield your expertise to summarize a topic). So instead of summarizing key papers and citing those papers, find reviews on the history of TNF and summarize those. That way the established experts are guiding us as to which moments in history are important, rather than the reader trusting that a Wikipedia editor has curated the history appropriately. You might find Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts a useful skim. History#Isolation - "When TNF was ... weight of 45,000 kDa" I'm not a biochemist, but I think the distinction in the paper is that in the first case they denatured what came off the HPLC column with SDS PAGE (and so you get the monomer). In the second they used non-denaturing conditions (and so you get the trimer). If I had to summarize reverse phase HPLC in a few words (which no one would trust me to do) I'd say "which separates molecules by their hydrophobicity". Your summary "which breaks proteins into constituent molecules" would be my short summary of tandem mass spectrometry. The publisher MDPI has a checkered reputation, and is often (though not always) a place authors will publish if they lack the results, prestige, or mainstream acceptance to publish elsewhere. Since our goal is to summarize the best sources available, we often avoid MDPI journals, or at least carefully consider why each adds irreplaceable and reliable information to the article. You cite three articles in International Journal of Molecule Science. Ditto Frontiers Media journals, though my personal opinion is that folks are less wary of Frontiers journals than MDPI journals. 1a. Well-written, "Prose is engaging..." Lead - I'm not sure if "mediates the immune system" will have much meaning to most readers. Could we clarify to something like "... messenger produced by immune cells that induces inflammation." Lead - "target receptors" not sure target contributes any meaning. Lead - Is there a difference between "immunocytokines" and "cytokines" (which this redirects to)? Lead - "without dependence on the synthesis of other proteins." I'm not sure this distinction needs to be in the lead. Lead - "include... [list]... among others" is redundant. Lead - "TNF plays a role... such as contributing to..." the grammar is a bit weird. "Roles... such as..."? Or if that's the only non-immune role you can just drop the "such as". Lead - "Excessive production of TNF is a key factor in inflammatory disorders..." you already told us this at the end of paragraph 1. Lead - "Due to the important and complex role of TNF in the immune system..." you can probably cut that. We know it from the rest of the section. Reads as editorializing. History#Isolation - "with the protein-rich segments identified by their absorption of 280nm light." this seems an unimportant detail. That's just how protein chromatography works. History#Isolation - I think the experimental detail in this section could be trimmed a bit without losing the thread of the TNF story (e.g. do we care that they used a 42 bp probe?) History#Physiological - "June 1981" it reads odd to mark every discovery with just a year, except for this one which gets a month. Do we care that this discovery was in June? History#Physiological - "The accumulating evidence...cancer treatment" reads as editorializing, and comes as a surprise since it seems poorly related to the rest of the section (which is a walk through history). In general, the history section is a choppy read. "In year X, this happened. In year Y, this happened. Etc." And the steps back in time for each subsection are a bit unnatural. It would be great if the section could run chronologically instead, as is typical for histories. That said, I appreciate that there are several semi-overlapping lines of research; so perhaps a chronological story isn't possible. Gene#Expression - "TNF is denoted as TNFSF2 in the tumor necrosis factor superfamily" what does this have to do with gene expression? Gene#Enhanceosome - "The composition... compatible binding site" This feels like unnecessary detail. Gene#Enhanceosome - "The CRE and ... and transcription machinery." I don't really follow the distinction you're drawing here between core and anchor complexes. Is this a common concept in gene regulation? Gene#Other - "The transcription factor NF-κB ...to the promoter" seems to have more detail than is necessary for the TNF story. Gene#Regulation - "Several studies... Other studies" is WP:WEASEL WORDS, or maybe just scientist speak. You could start every sentence in the article with "Some studies have shown..." Gene#Regulation - "have also been found to regulate" = "also regulate" The latter is shorter and clearer writing. Evolution - maybe this is personal preference, but I think Evolution could be elevated to a full-blown section. The material really relates to TNF as a whole, moreso than the rest of the Gene section. Protein - I think the beginning of this section could be written more clearly. E.g. you tell us it's a type 2 TM protein with no definition. Then a few sentences later you define the orientation. Might be clearer to just give us the orientation and save the jargon. It doesn't need to be readable to a full layperson, but it should still be readable and interesting to a university student studying biology. Protein#Transmembrane form - "N-terminal is... C-terminal is" unless this is a regional thing, the grammar isn't quite right here. You could say "N-terminus is..." or "N-terminal end..." Protein#Soluble form - The prose here is sufficiently boring that I thought "Gee, I bet a crystallographer wrote this" and sure enough the text is lifted in places from the cited paper. The sentences/fragments are similar enough to the copyrighted text that I think it's a problem: "similar to the "jelly-roll" structural motif of viral coat proteins" vs the source "similarity to the "jelly-roll" structural motif characteristic of viral coat proteins" "The upper β-sheet consists of three long β-strands supplemented with a loop of two additional β-strands, while the bottom β-sheet consists of five β-strands of steadily decreasing length. The middle β-strand of the bottom β-sheet contains the last 9 residues of the C-terminal, locking it into position." vs. the source "The upper sheet (sheet 1) is kinked with three long strands supplemented... by a loop of two additional strands. The lower sheet (sheet 2) comprises five strands of steadily decreasing length. The middle strand of this sheet consists of the last 9 C-terminal resides." "the inner surface" I was momentarily confused thinking this meant the core of a monomer, and was surprised. I see now instead "inner surface" means the monomer surface that touches the other two monomers in the trimer. Maybe you could word it more clearly. "Inner surface" sounds almost oxymoronic. Continuing, just have to step away from the computer for a bit! Stay tuned. Ajpolino (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC) I'm going to stop here for now, and stick to my recommendation above. If you're interested in further improving this article to the FA standard (which I recommend! It's rewarding!) and would like further feedback, please let me know and I'm happy to help. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive feedback! I have rewritten the history section using secondary sources, which omit experimental details. I noticed that the referenced article, Plasmodium_falciparum_erythrocyte_membrane_protein_1, cites primary sources and includes experimental details in its Discovery section. As such, I'm confused what is the proper scope of a protein history section. Any guidance around this would be appreciated! AdeptLearner123 (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've revised the Gene and Protein sections. Let me know how it looks now, and if anything else should be changed. I'm also wondering if the Function section contains too many details about cell signaling that should be moved to the TNFR1/TNFR2 pages. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Great! Will take another look. Beginning presently. Will wrap it up asap.

1c. Well-researched

• Evolution - "before the Agnatha and Gnathostomata split" any chance the source gives some sense of when this was?
• Evolution - "This ancestor gene was dropped from the Agnatha ancestor but persisted in the Gnathostomata ancestor" - I'm not well-versed in evolution things, but at a glance it looks like the paper is suggesting there are TNF family members in Agnatha, and several (nine in Fig. 3) TNF superfamily members. Also "this ancestor gene" it looks like they're proposing a bunch in the vertebrate ancestor. The OG TNF gene would be somewhere way above this.

1a. Well-written

• Lead - "TNF also contributes to homeostasis in the central nervous system" is there anything more specific we can say here? This is kind of like saying "it does some stuff in the brain".
• Function - I feel this section gets so focused on the details of how TNF signals that we miss the bigger picture of what TNF does and why. Think about what the main messages you want someone to get out of a TNF Function section are, and make sure the material is organized in a way to make those clear. I'd suggest the main messages are something like (in order of importance) (1) immune cells make TNF in response to signals of infection/damage, (2) TNF is an inflammatory signal; it activates other immune cells, (3) it does this by a signaling pathway that leads to NF-kB et al., (4) if a pathogen blocks elements of the pathway, the immune cell kills itself to release inflammation-triggering molecules... I don't know anything about the reverse signaling, the CNS role, or the reason that non-immune cells express and signal through TNFR2 so you'll have to sort out how those fit into the overall story. At a minimum I'd suggest moving the "Immune response" subsection to the top of the section. I'd gently suggest reorganizing the section by function rather than TNF receptor, but I'm not super confident on that. Within the current text, some trimming and clarifying is probably in order, but I suggest you deal with the bigger changes first.

Nitpicks:

• Lead - "by the immune system that induces inflammation" is it fair to say "by immune cells to induce inflammation"? I think it slightly snappier and more precise.
• Lead - "assemble together" redundant
• Lead - "effectively treated" the adverb isn't carrying its weight ("can be treated" implies "effectively")
• History - "Studies on recombinant TNF confirmed the anticancer potential of TNF" a bit redundant, maybe "Studies... confirmed its anticancer potential"?
• Evolution - "believed to be descended" science-speak filler words. you could write "believed to be" before every fact in an article.
• Protein - "Remarkably" is best avoided as editorializing (see MOS:EDITORIAL).
• Protein - "Small molecules... present a potential mechanism for inhibiting TNF." seems speculative for the Protein section. Maybe this would be better in a Research section (or cut)?

Made it through Protein. Will make it through everything by the weekend's end. Ajpolino (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Evolution - Doesn't look like the source gives a time for when the split occurred. TNF is one of many proteins in the TNF superfamily. The ancestor gene referred to is the TNF/lymphotoxin gene (TNFSF1/2). In Figure 3 of the source, the 1/2 gene is present in the vertebrata ancestor, and then deleted in the agnatha ancestor. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Function - I'm thinking that the specific cell signaling pathways should be moved to the articles specific for those TNF receptors, whereas the TNF article can just summarize each receptor. What do you think? AdeptLearner123 (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser

My pre-clinical knowledge is in a state of decline, so I had "the professor" take a look, which generated some of the following suggestions:

• binding to its receptors on other cells. - suggest spelling out "TNF receptors" and wikilinking.
• and TNF-blocking drugs are often employed to treat these diseases. - I think it's a little early in the lead to start talking about applications and suggest we leave this to the final paragraph.
• endotoxin shock - isn't it usually endotoxic? And suggest wikilinking.
• This led to the approval of the first anti-TNF therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. - I think we should name infliximab (and etanercept?) here.
• stimulated in macrophages by antigens. - suggest "antigen exposure" alt. "exposure to antigens".
• Consider inverting TNF is produced rapidly |in response to many stimuli <> by multiple cell types|.
• Suggest adding a sentence early in the "protein"-section clarifying that TNF is synthesized in the ER.
• reverse signaler - doesn't appear anywhere on the web outside this article.
• OVLT - suggest using the full term in lieu of the abbreviation.

That's it for the first pass. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

1 Wall Street

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about yet another building on Wall Street in New York City. This time, it's an office skyscraper that was built in 1929–1931 as a bank headquarters before being converted to residential use. The building has some notable architectural features including a curtain-like limestone facade, a polygonal red room with glittering mosaic tiles, and (originally) an executive lounge with a triple-height ceiling. Even the site, at the foot of Wall Street, was once deemed one of the most valuable sites worldwide. The structure may not be the tallest building in the area, or even on the street, but in my view at least, it's one of New York City's lesser-known Art Deco masterpieces.

This page became a Good Article four years ago after a GAN review by SurenGrig07 and Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

SC prose

12 days and no visitors?? I'll start the ball rolling shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Voorhees, Walker Smith Smith": should be "Voorhees, Walker, Smith, Smith & Haines" – including two commas
  • Oops. I've added these. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Upstate New York" should be "upstate New York"
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Upon the building's opening, Irving Trust occupied the basements, lowest ten floors, and uppermost three floors of 1 Wall Street": "of 1 Wall Street" isn't needed as you open with "Upon the building's opening"
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "the Red Room did not have permanent furniture, but it did have chairs and desks": I'm not sure I follow this?
  • Whoops, I must have gotten distracted. Suffice it to say that it had chairs and desks, so I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "black on the ceiling.[28][69] The mosaic gradually becomes lighter near the ceiling, thus drawing visitors' attention toward the ceiling": is the ceiling involved here...?! Maybe trim or rework slightly here
  • I have reworded this too. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of History. More to come. Overall, an enjoyable read, with not much for me to pick up on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the initial comments SC. I've fixed the prose issues you've raised so far. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Continuing...

• "18-story Manhattan Life Building, completed in 1894, was located in the middle of the block at 64 Broadway.[113] The Manhattan Life Building": a bit of tweak to avoid the close repetition?
  • I've reworded this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "mid- and late 1920s": hyphen for late-1920s
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "though the windows were shaken": This reads like anthropomorphised windows a little; maybe just "though the windows shook"?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Voorhees, Walker Smith Smith & Haines were hired": should be "Voorhees, Walker, Smith, Smith & Haines" with commas

• I fixed this yesterday when I was addressing your first point.

Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Bank of New York": as you refer to BNY shortly afterwards, this should be "Bank of New York (BNY)"
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "BNY Mellon opened a museum on the 10th floor in 1998": I though the BNY/Mellon merger and renaming was in 2006 or 07? I'd be inclined to keep the name as "BNY" for all references pre-merge, then move to "BNY Mellon" post merge (with a passing reference to the name change)
  • Oops, yeah, that slipped my mind. BNY didn't actually merge with Mellon until 2007, so I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Additionally, in 2007,": I don't think the "additionally" adds anything here – it makes it look like a forgotten add-on.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. A long, but interesting read that I enjoyed going through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review @SC. I've addressed the rest of your issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me - nice bit of work. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll pick up on this too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Check the capitalisation on the titles – there are some lower case in there that need to be capitalised (FNs 12, 63 are the ones in the first column that caught my eye, but these are examples only and there are probably more)
• Ditto there are some caps that should be lower case (FNs 8, 34,43, 97 are the ones in the first column that caught my eye, but these are examples only and there are probably more)
• FN24 " Skyscraper Style :" Rogue space before the colon
• Wider searches show no major sources overlooked, and the coverage seems to be adequate for FAC requirements

- SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review SC. I'll fix the ref titles on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I've fixed all the remaining titles now. The tool I was using didn't consistently capitalize or lowercase some conjunctions, so I changed these manually. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Pass

• All images appropriately licenced, so a pass on this one - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Prose review by Generalissima

Very solid piece. I went through and fixed some out of order cites, and wasn't able to find anything errant or out of place - so support from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

Support. I figured I'd review since I have an FAC of my own.

• "1 Wall Street (also known as the Irving Trust Company Building, the Bank of New York Building, and the BNY Mellon Building) is a primarily residential skyscraper at the intersection of Broadway and Wall Street in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S. " - that's a lot for the first sentence. I get including the other names, but I think the "primarily residential" part could be mentioned later, since so much of the first sentence already talks about the business names for the building. Maybe also simplify the location? The existing featured article, 23 Wall Street, has it as such:

"23 Wall Street (also known as the J.P. Morgan Building) is a four-story office building in the Financial District of Manhattan in New York City, at the southeast corner of Wall Street and Broad Street. "

I have reworded this bit, moving the exact location into the second paragraph of the lead. (The previous location was imprecise. It wasn't just at the intersection of Broadway and Wall Street, it occupies a full city block, and these streets are only two of the four streets that surround the block.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "On the lower stories are narrow windows with mullions" - this sort of sentence might be difficult to understand to a non-English reader. "Windows" is the subject of the sentence, but here "On the lower stories are" is how the sentence begins.
  • I have reworded this as well. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• "The original portion of the building and its Red Room are designated city landmarks, and the structure is a contributing property to the Wall Street Historic District, a National Register of Historic Places district." - this seems like an afterthought, but perhaps add the year it became designated as landmarks? That would contrast better with it being ignored.
  • I've added the years. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• "There are also five basement levels under the original structure, three of which were below sea level." - small point, but are/were those basement levels still below sea level? The past tense "were below sea level" just seems striking compared to most of the article being in present tense.
  • I've changed this to "are". The sea level hasn't decreased over the years, so these three floors are still below sea level. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• "The top stories of the annex (completed in the 2020s)" - we're in the 2020s, but people in the future might read that and think plausibly that the event might not happen for another five years (2029). When were the top stories completed?
  • I've added the year 2023. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• You might want to indicate somewhere that all currency figures are in the original year's USD, like in a note or something. I noticed one spot where you don't indicate the year - "which added $40,000 to the construction cost"
  • I have added inflation figures, which should hopefully clear this up. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "An air-conditioning system was installed at 1 Wall Street in 1953."

• I got curious about this, and found this link, which says that it was one of the largest installations of air conditioning in NYC. Not sure if it's worth adding, but thought this bit could be expanded a tad.
  • @Hurricanehink, nice find. I've added that to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "at which point it was 85% occupied" - minor point, but the rest of the article says the word "percent"
  • I've changed this for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "A new entrance was also constructed on Broadway, with a design based on one of Walker's unrealized plans for the building,[43] and five stories were added to the southern annex." - the last part feels like an add-on, but five additional stories sounds a lot more significant than a new entrance. Unless I'm reading something wrong here.
  • Good point. I have rearranged the order of these phrases. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Any more news/history since May? I did a Google news search and didn't find anything, but felt it worth asking.
  • Aside from the landmark designation in June, no, but the landmark designation is already covered in its own section. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

All in all, a great read. Lemme know if you have questions about my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Hurricanehink. I'll respond to these comments over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments. I think I have now addressed all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies! Good job on this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. Also, I just noticed that you linked your FAC above - I didn't notice it before but can definitely take a look over the next few weeks. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

I'm shocked to see you writing about another building in New York. Comments within the week :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

La Isla Bonita

Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of American singer Madonna's most iconic and known songs, "La Isla Bonita". Having nominated this article previously, and having read the comments left by other users, I went source by source, making sure everything mentioned is properly cited. Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Review from Hurricanehink

Support. As a musician familiar with this song, I figured I'd review it, due to having an FAC of my own.

• She also said: "[Pat and I] both think that we were Latin in another life [...] [because] Latin rhythms often dominate our uptempo compositions". - seeing as previously Pat was introduced as Patrick Leonard, perhaps the name should be Patrick here for consistency, especially since it's in a bracket.Done

• Did you fix this? It still says She also said: "[Pat and I] both think that we were Latin in another life ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• What about this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thoughts on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 2014, while working on her thirteenth studio album Rebel Heart (2015) with producer Diplo, Madonna recorded a dubplate of "La Isla Bonita" with new lyrics that referenced trio Major Lazer.[15] This version premiered in March 2015 on BBC Radio 1Xtra." - I had to look up what a dubplate is... seems like this version is for vinyl release, right? I think a lot more people are aware of vinyl records. Either way, it sounds like it's a new recorded version, correct? If so, are the new lyrics in the form of a new verse, or is it just new vocals? This part comes out of left field and I'm not sure what to make of it. Shouldn't the dubplate version also be included under "Track listing and formats"? Done I aditionally changed the mention to the Composition and Lyrics section

• Should this get a mention under "Track listing and formats"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't found any sources mentioning a release that merits being under the forementioned section, just YouTube and SoundCloud links.

Isn't digital release a format? It just seems odd this version of the song isn't included in this section. ♫ Hurricanehink (

It is not on itunes/spotify/amazon music; like I mentioned, it is only available on YouTube and soundcloud, and there are many links, and none from an official source.

Yea but Youtube and Soundcloud both cound as release format, don't they? Also, it seems like the remix version is available from the Madonna channel, which is considered the official Madonna channel on YouTube, having almost all of her stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The dubplate Diplo Remix is not included on neither Madonna or Diplo's official YouTube Channel.

talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The song is set in the key of C♯ minor, with Madonna's voice spanning between G3 to C5." - because of the key signature, those notes should be G#3 and C#5. I appreciate you including this information, however. Done

• If you're going to be linking to the notes though, it should be linked to G# and C#, not G and C respectively. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not a complaint, but I also really appreciated the balanced reviews of the song, plus its place in Latin music history in the US.
• "and became the most requested video in the channel's history for a record-breaking 20 consecutive weeks." - was that for TRL? How did people request the video on MTV pre-internet? This was a bit before my time. That's how/what the source mentions, that it was the most requested. I tried looking for sources that specify how it was requested (my guess is that people usually phoned the channels) but didn't find any valid sources

• Yea I see this repeated in a lot of sources, but I don't see any clarification. No huge deal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 2018, it is one of her most viewed music videos on YouTube." - what about 6 years later? Or I'm guessing you might not have an updated source, no biggie if that's the case.
• "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours: Who's That Girl (1987), the Girlie Show (1993), Drowned World (2001), Confessions (2006), Sticky & Sweet (2008–2009), Rebel Heart (2015–2016), Madame X (2019–2020), and Celebration (2023–2024). On the first one, she wore a Spanish cabaret dress, and was joined by her backup singers Niki Haris, Donna De Lory, and Debra Parson. - just doing a random spotcheck here, but the references here are from 1987 and 1988, so how could those references cite the rest of the tours? Perhaps a source for the songs from Madonna's concert tours? Or otherwise a grouped citation? I could cite the tour's program, which mentions the vocalists; it does not, however, specify their participation on the performance

• Then perhaps just a lumped citation for each tour? Similar to how you have the note saying "attributed to multiple references". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• What about this one? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just checking back! I quite personally like how this section looks/is structured; lumping citations for each tour, I believe would causeemore notes than necessary.--Christian (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind how the section is structured, but there isn't a citation that proves "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours. It's implied that the song's appearance is in refs 103 and 104, but that's not the case. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

All in all a great read, and I'm shocked no one else has commented yet! Let me know if you have any questions about these comments. Cheers - ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your great comments @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Few replies. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me see if how I've left it works @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just checking how you're doing about my last few comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just got back home from a trip so I hadn't got the chance to log in. I have included the citations that mention the song's inclusion on the mentioned concert tours. Let me know'--Christian (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support now. I just fixed the one comment on my own, the one about linking Patrick Leonard, and changing the quote from [Pat and I] to [Patrick and I]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

As per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, please refrain from using graphics like {{done}} as they slow down the page load time. FrB.TG (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next five or six days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Madonna_-_La_Isla_Bonita.ogg needs a more substantial FUR, particularly purpose of use

• The FUR for File:La_Isla_Bonits_screenshot.jpg indicates that it is replaceable - if that's the case, why do we need a non-free image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria:! Thank you for your comments; both files are meant to showcase the mentioning of the San Pedro line, and Madonna's Flamenco dancer character from the video--Christian (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

In both cases the rationale should be elaborated in the FUR template on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria:! Let me know if how I've mentioned on the image talk page is correct.--Christian (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the change you've made on the second - is it replaceable, or is it necessary to illustrate what you've said it's illustrating? And I'm not seeing any changes on the first? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is is replaceable, but I mentioned why this particular screenshot was used. If it were to be replaced, it should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Same for the audio file; I explained the purpose on the section it's used. Let me know @Nikkimaria:! Christian (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, following corrections. Vera (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Hi, article overall looks good at first glance. Here are some points from a quick view,

The Massachusetts Daily Collegian | It is a student-newspaper, and not sure if is enough reliable to use it.

Charts: West Germany (GfK) (weekly) vs West Germany (Official German Charts), you should use one only. Or GFK or Official German Charts to keep consistensy. The same goes to Iceland (RÚV) while in ref's parameter RÚV is italicized. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin F. McAdoo

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin McAdoo Jr. was the first Black licensed architect in the state of Washington. He had a long and productive career, featuring work in the Seattle area, Jamaica, and Washington, D.C. He also (unsuccessfully) attempted to run for the Washington state legislature. I had a very fun time writing this article, and hope that people enjoy reading it! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review from PMC

Already did my GA review with an eye to this being a FAC in future, but will have another read through. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Decided to go with a source review since I already read a bunch for the GAN. Sourcing is based on newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and publications by non-profits. No concerns about reliability of any of them. Formatting is consistent, organisation is clear.

Nitpicks:

• Drosendahl is missing the website or publishing organization or what have you
• Refs where the date is unavailable like Houser and Michelson 2 should use |date=n.d..
• These 2 refs and Williams also don't have retrieval dates
• Why is Michaelson 2 sfn'd as PCAD when we have an author name?

I did some spot checking at the GAN, which was all addressed, but I'll poke at a few more since I'm here.

• Cottrell-Crawford & Heuser 2023 - text with refs to this source are supported by the source
• Drosendahl 2016 - supports the building of the Des Moines library, which isn't in Shaping Seattle, so not redundant
  • Did the firm complete any other notable projects? The Shaping Seattle source doesn't mention any. If there aren't any, I think it might be somewhat redundant to say they went on to construct other projects - if the firm survived for 20 years, surely they were doing architectural work during that time.
• PCAD/Michaelson 2 good
• Mahmoud 2022 no issues here

No rush on responding, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Good call on the Drosendahl; fixed everything else too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Passes my source review. (I made a slight tweak to the Des Moines sentence, but feel free to revert if you don't like it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Lead image is missing alt text

Also, not an image comment, but I would suggest a review for MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire

Nice work. Usual disclaimer goes here that these comments are suggestions, not demands. A few comments:

• He became interested in architecture, motivated by his belief in [[Right to housing|housing as a human right]]

Not sure this is the best phrasing. Is this from the Mahmoud article? Because it writes "He was very concerned about human rights…. Not only did he believe in fair housing, he felt that he should participate in fair housing." I'm not sure that's quite the same thing, and the Right To Housing article talks about it as being a 1990s concept that would come later. He's clearly someone who did believe in affordable housing, but I'm not sure if the current phrasing is the best way to express that, unless there's another source tying this connection together more clearly. (EDIT: I see that you added this because PMC recommended it in the GA review. Well, up to you I suppose, I'd say to rephrase and/or not link, but it's fine no matter what your call is.)

• • Ultimately felt it was right to unlink it. Ty for looking that over! - G
• the heavily Black 37th District

I'm not sure this is quite what the source says? "This district contained the Seattle’s predominantly Black neighborhoods." Despite the typo, I think it's saying that to the extent Seattle had Black people, they lived here, but that doesn't mean it was "heavily Black" overall. Seattle had a bit of a reputation as being lily white outside the International District in the era, to my vague understanding. I think we need a better source if the 37th really was heavily Black.

• • Found a source. - G

• 1954 election

There are various schools of thought on the proper level of concision, but I think the current text is too concise, and will lead to readers having to click wikilinks to acquire enough context to understand what was really going on. As is, the comment on Charles M. Stokes looks like it might just be historical background about black politicians in Washington, and it's not immediately obvious that it's linked to the vacancy. Also, non-American readers may not realize that many state legislature districts elect the top 2 candidates and will be confused for why #3 sued #2. Finally, quoting a lawyer for the losing side tends to be a bit dubious in general - they often state the case as their clients understand it and is a highly partial account. (Not saying it can't also be true, but it's not a very impressive source in general.) In particular, based on what the article says, it sounds like the #3 person had a point - McAdoo's home really wasn't in the 37th district. (Of course, it's possible McAdoo's lawyers also had a point in that the rules might not have been enforced so strictly for a machine-blessed candidate.) I'd suggest something maybe like "Charles M. Stokes was elected to the Washington House of Representatives for the 37th district in 1950 and 1952 for two-year terms, but opted to run for State Senate instead in 1954. McAdoo ran in the Democratic Party primary for the seat that Stokes was vacating. His platform..." (And then have something about the top-2 nature of advancement.) But up to you.

• I did my best to reword this section. - G
  • Hmm, is it accurate that Stokes resigned? I checked the sources on his page and they don't mention a resignation and simply say that he served 3 terms (1950, 52, 56). The main source cited here says "Stokes had decided to step down in 1954" but I would probably read that as an implicit "stepping down", i.e. simply not running again for that office, rather than straight-up resigning. If nothing else, the mood is about a decision, which implies that for McAdoo specifically, all he knew was that Stokes would at some point leave (whether it be a belated resignation or as a result of his term timing out).
• He was a licensed architect in five jurisdictions; Alaska, the District of Columbia, Montana, Oregon, and Washington state.

This is quite a minor point. I understand that for less famous figures there's more room for minutiae, but I don't think that most architects / lawyers / etc. have the states they were certified for mentioned, unless it's somehow relevant (e.g. they didn't actually have a certification and were doing under-the-table architecture or the like). Maybe either remove it, or verify the relevance of this list. SnowFire (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• • I removed that part. - G

Okay, part 2.

• African-American

Style guides differ here on if a hyphen is merited, and you can't control categories or see also link to other Wikipedia articles, but I'd say to be consistent within this article. You use both the unhyphenated version and the hyphenated version; I'd say to just pick one.

• Picked the hyphenated one. - G
• he began to receive commissions designing private residences.

Mega-nit: The intent of this is clear, and feel free to keep it as-is if this is how it's expressed in architecture, but maybe "commissions to design private residences"? This could theoretically be misread as the commissions themselves somehow designing private residences.

• • Fixed. - G

• working nights and attending classes during the day but was forced to withdraw from the university for financial reasons

Arguing about commas is often a style issue not worth the time, but I'd say that despite all the earlier commas, to still include one after "day" to hint at the time gap.

• • Fixed. - G

• He chose to enroll in UW

Optional: Is it worth stating that yes, he and his family moved to Seattle? It's just that we said above that he relocated with his family to Portland, and it's not entirely uncommon to leave the family back and commute around on weekends or the like.

• • I couldn't get that to flow right, but I made it more heavily implied that he moved. - G

• 887 sq ft (82.4 m2), 620 sq ft (58 m2)

Meganit: Convert has a sigfig param, so I'd recommend {{convert|887|sqft|m2|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}. The extra 0.4 square meters is not really germane or relevant. Similarly, was that exactly 620 square feet, or just 620ish square feet? My guess is the latter, so I'd suggest to sigfig that conversion to just 1 and ~60 m^2.

• • Good idea, fixed. - G

• the integration of the design into the surrounding landscape

Is this from the Mumford article? It's not on Wikipedia library, alas. This is more side chatter than a request for change, but this is a little surprising... the "House of Merit" idea & the modular homes in Jamaica seems to suggest more "affordable & efficient" was McAdoo's usual goals, while "integrating into the landscape" suggests more of a bespoke, artisanal, and expensive approach to me (i.e. the Fallingwater's of the world). Did he really do both small homes that also integrated into landscapes and the like? Impressive if so!

• In the late 1960s, he returned to private practice full-time, where he specialized in civic and educational buildings such as the Southcenter Blood Bank (1970), the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Center (1972), and the Queen Anne Pool (1977).

Side chatter: This is the source's fault not yours, but it's too bad that it's real vague as to what precisely McAdoo did for these buildings and what his role was. Did any of the other sources go into more detail on his 1970s career?

• • I couldn't find much on these. I think it's because his early career was highly publicized in architectural press, while by the time he was doing these big civic commissions he didn't really need the publicity to attract new clients. - G

Looks very solid overall, great work!

• @SnowFire: Sorry that took a second! I think I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, looks good. I made one minor comment above on the political campaign, but should be good to go otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

    @SnowFire: Ok! Fixed that part too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. That said, I have two other comments that don't affect support status:
  • Why did you remove the "Personal life and political ventures" section header? I think it's kinda handy to have a section end on his death, and then clearly delineate the switch to a retrospective on the non-architectural, non-career parts of his life.
    • Accident, I switched it back. - G
  • I see that Gog the Mild suggested switching NAACP to its spelled out form, but I don't agree. MOS:ACRO1STUSE is a little unclear - it writes "If there is an article about the subject of an acronym (e.g. NATO), then other articles should use the same style (capitalisation and punctuation) as that main article" but then also in the next paragraph restricts acronym-only use to just to a short list of exceptions. I'm not 100% certain what the guideline is saying (the first sentence suggests honoring our article being at just "NAACP", the second for spelling it out) but the NAACP is clearly way closer to NATO IMO - they're known by the acronym 99.99% of the time in 2024, and even in the 1950s & 60s were generally known as just the NAACP. NATO isn't directly in the list, but I don't think there's anything unusual about using NATO unadorned either. I respect that you're getting conflicting advice here, but if Gog is right about the MOS, then I think the MOS should be updated - the old style of just "NAACP" is better and how sources would write it and how Wikipedia titles the article. SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm inclined to agree there too; IMO, the fully-spelled name is significantly less recognizable than the acronym. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Having followed the link I think you are being very North-American-centric. The majority of English-speaking readers will have no clue what a NAACP is. The MoS actually lists the - handful of - exceptions to the in full at first mention rule. Remember that this is an encyclopedia; the reason we are writing is to explain things to readers that they didn't know before. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That might be true, but these non-North American readers won't have a clue what the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is, either. It is significantly more educational to learn the term they are actually known by and use, NAACP, then a vestigial name from the 1910s that they can't really change because it'd change the acronym. Readers can click a wikilink for more detail, if desired, just like all wikilinks to side mentions.

If we were really desperate to include more explanatory context for non-American readers, then "the NAACP, an African-American civil rights organization" would be more helpful, because I really cannot stress enough how vestigial their old name is. Colored was a neutral term in the 1910s but was dated by the 1960s and very dated now. There's a reason that it's not highlighted by the organization itself. SnowFire (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "A residence designed by McAdoo in Burien was declared the "Home of the Year" by the Seattle Times " — I've always believed and used in all my articles that if the title of a newspaper contains the word The, the, we shouldn't be omitting it. Same with " residence three times in her Seattle Times coverage"
• "Benjamin Franklin McAdoo Jr. was born in Pasadena, California to" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
• "He attended school at Pasadena High School " — repetition of school
• "In 1940, he won second place" — I would have used the word achieved, but its totally upto you. Just a suggestion.
• "with their newborn daughter to Portland, Oregon for McAdoo" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
• I have made some table formatting errors ([3]) per MOS:DTAB. Please refer to it. Center align all the references.
• Please check the formatting for sources. The Seattle Times should be italicizes in th sfn as well the sources.

Solid work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you very much! I implemented all of this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Sure, Support. Hope you are doing well, Gog! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "was declared the "Home of the Year" by The Seattle Times in association with the American Institute of Architects." "Home of the Year" for Seattle, for Washington, or some other area?
  • Clarified. - G
• "After designing a number of low-income houses and apartments throughout the 1950s, including eighty single-family houses in his "House of Merit" design". Having "design" twice in the clause, once as a verb and once as a noun, is a little confusing.
  • Fixed. - G
• "he participated in the NAACP". MOS:ACRO1STUSE says "an acronym should be written out in full for the first time, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses ... if it is used again in the article".

See my comment elsewhere on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I note that this has now been resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• • Fixed. - G
• "Early life and education" The first sentence of this section should give a date of birth.
  • Fixed. - G
• "McAdoo grew up in a ..." "McAdoo" → 'McAdoo Jr.'
  • Fixed. - G
• "He then began work at a number of private firms in Los Angeles." Were any of these employments connected to architecture?
  • Clarified. - G
• "He entered employment at the firm of James J. Chiarelli and Paul Hayden Kirk". 1. Was this one firm or two? 2. Is it known either what the firm did or what McAdoo did while there?
  • Elaborated. - G
• "He was initially hired for remodels and alterations, designing seventeen such commissions during his first year of business." Maybe "designing" → 'undertaking'?
  • Fixed. - G

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Unlike other apartment complexes in the area, these apartments were not limited to White tenants." Did this have anything to do with McAdoo?
  • Clarified that McAdoo also owned these. - G
• "His 1955–1956 design for the Kenneth & Kimi Ota house, the residence of a Japanese-American family living in Rainier Valley, Seattle." This is a sentence fragment.
  • Fixed. - G
• "which had no enforced laws against Black property owners." This implies that Bothell had such statutes, but did not enforce them. Is this what you mean?
  • Source has weird phrasing on this, so I followed it more closely. - G
• "Such ventures were unsuccessful". "Such ventures" or 'This venture'?
  • Fixed. - G
• "He served as the coordinating architect". Is there a link for "coordinating architect", or could you give a brief in line explanation.
  • Clarified to avoid using the term. - G
• "the USAID". What is this?
  • Defined. - G
• "Upon returning to Seattle" Is it known when?
  • Clarified. - G
• The title of the table "Architectural designs by Benjamin F. McAdoo" suggests that what follows is the full list. I assume this is not the case, in which case it needs retitling.
  • I restricted the scale of the list to just designs mentioned in the article. If this is weird, I could take it out; I couldn't think of another clear criteria. - G

The list is fine. Maybe 'A selection of McAdoo's designs'? Or ' A sample ....' or similar?

"Select" works. - G

• "After his death, architects Garold Malcolm and Richard Youel continued his firm". Is it known if it still exists?
  • It lasted about twenty years, clarified. - G
• Titles in the References should consistently be in title case. (Eg, see Sprague, lower case c for "contributions".
  • Fixed. - G

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Okiedokie, @Gog the Mild:, thank you very much for your review. I'm glad to hear that you're feeling better, btw. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Really good tweaks and responses. One come back above, and a last thought: Is McAdoo's cause of death known? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild Good idea on the list name; also, I couldn't find a cause of death mentioned in any of the obituaries or articles. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: may I nominate another article? (also to minimize needing to bug yall in the future, should I just presume its okay to nom a second article when it gets up to the required amount of source and prose reviews?) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. To start a second, as a rule of thumb, things need to be ticking well after three weeks or so and the nom have source and image passes and three general supports. There may be other reasons why the coordinators would not want a second nomination opening, but in this case that is moot as the nomination only has two general supports - Snowfire's and from someone called Gog. Feel free to ask again once this attracts a third general support. And this sort of thing is why we ask that a nominator check in separately each time they wish to open a second nom. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, apologies for being premature on that - I thought Kavyansh had responded but I misremembered. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

Ill try to review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 22:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "That July, he joined the United States Marine Corps at Camp Roberts, California, where he continued to work as a draftsman." - where is the Marine Corps coming from? Both Cottrell-Crawford and Sprague say he was working for the Army Corps of Engineers. And Sprague refers to this as the "civil service". I highly doubt somehow who had formally joined the Marines would be allowed to go transfer to Kaiser in the middle of World War II
• "Benjamin McAdoo Sr. worked a variety of jobs, including as a general contractor," - where are you getting "general contractor"? Ref [3] state his father was an auto mechanic in 1917 and a hardwood floor contractor in 1930. Ref [1] also mentions tree hauling. This doesn't really fit well with what general contractor usually entails
• "After graduating in 1938, McAdoo attended Pasadena Junior College; at this time, he was living alongside his parents and siblings with his paternal grandmother, who ran a grocery store in the area." - Again, a bit nit-picky, but the source mentioning him living with his grandmother has this being according to the 1940 census; there doesn't seem to be evidence for when this living arrangment began, but the current phrasing of the article strongly implies this was ongoing in 1938
• "He became interested in architecture, motivated by his belief in fair housing and by his admiration for California African-American architect Paul R. Williams. " - both this and the lead imply that he became interested in architecture as a college student, but then there's Sprague p. 21 which has In ninth grade, he took a mechanical drawing class and, showing great promise in his drawing ability, focuse on becoming an architect from then on. Cottrell-Crawford does have him becoming interested in architecture in college, but I don't think we can just pick one source over the other here without a great reason, especially when Sprague is probably the stronger source
• "In the April of the following year, he left Chiarelli & Kirk to found his own practice, working from his apartment in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. " - this doesn't seem to be right. Sprague says his office was in the University District, Seattle. The version of Shaping Seattle Architecture on Wikipedia Library Project MUSE has the McAdoo chapter in a different page range (328-333) rather than the 50s cited in this article, but it appears to be the same source. It references the Capitol Hill office as being "after 1951"
• "McAdoo graduated with a Bachelor of Architecture degree on June 22, 1946" - your citations are off here. This is cited to Sprague, Dunham, and Mumford, but the exact date is found in none of this and is actually from Cottrell-Crawford
• "He participated in a small homes design competition in 1947, designing a 887 sq ft (80 m2) ranch house featuring a butterfly roof. Although the design did not receive the prize, it was reviewed favorably in a column in The Seattle Times." - why is this mentioned after his 1949 move? It would fit better in the chronology to have it earlier.
• "Financed with profits from his previous residence commissions and mortgage insurance from the Federal Housing Administration, " - is "Financed with [...] mortgage insurance" really the best phrasing? Mortgage insurance isn't a type of financing. It's a sort of secondary backing of the mortgage to allow to get the borrower to get a better financing rate, but it's not really financing per se. Instead the financing was provided by that mortgage company that he had previously rented office space from. And I'm not quite seeing where "financed with profits from his previous residence commissions" is coming from unless you're getting that from "As a successful profession, McAdoo began acquiring other properties in Seattle"
• "with around eighty constructed over the following three years" - actually four, per the source. '51, '52, '53, '54
• "he purchased an office building for his firm in 1951" - is "office building" really the best way to describe this? Sprague describes a house purchased and then converted into an office space, while "office building" usually implies something purpose-built
• "McAdoo and his wife chose to relocate from Montlake into a residence outside of the Seattle city limits in 1958," is from the article, but the cited source states By 1957, as new suburban residential tracts proliferated, McAdoo and his family chose to leave the Seattle city limits,. The source does talk about characteristics of Bothell in 1958, and doesn't directly say he moved in 1957 vs 1958, but I don't think we can use the "chose to relocate [...] in 1958" language when the source says the decision had been made by 1957
• "which had nonexistent or unenforced laws against Black property owners." - a nitpick, but the source has and restrictions on people of color may have been either nonexistent or laxly enforced. which is a somewhat weaker claim

Ready for Overseas and D.C. section, but I can't stay up any later or I'll have trouble getting around to work tomorrow morning. The source-text integrity isn't quite there; I'm at an oppose right now. I've been having to go line-by-line through here since I've found a number of sourcing issues and I really don't have the energy right now to keep doing that. Hog Farm _Talk 03:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough review, Hog Farm. I'll try to address this over the next few days and get the source integrity into shipshape condition. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Roswell incident

Nominator(s): Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a conspiracy theory which alleges that the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico was actually caused by an extraterrestrial spacecraft. With extensive polished sourcing, the article details the actual events of 1947, the later rise of UFO conspiracy theories, the emergence of the Roswell conspiracy theories, their evolution and eventual debunking. Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Marcel-roswell-debris_0.jpg: where is that tagging coming from? It's not consistent with what's at the source site. Ditto File:Ramey-dubose-debris.jpg
  • The images were published without copyright notice in July 1947 and never renewed, entering public domain. While previously-unpublished images in the UTA collection would fall under the blanket Creative Commons release, UTA can't actually assert copyright on a faithful 2d replica of a public domain image. Feoffer (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Is it known that these particular images were published in 1947? I'm not seeing that at the source site either. If that can be shown, I'd suggest ditching the CC licensing on the basis of the images being PD. If it can't, though, the CC license UTA uses is BY-NC, not BY-SA which is what the images are currently tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
      • fixed Ramey-dubose by adding first publication and ditch CC licensing. Feoffer (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

      UTA's stated license is probably not relevant. I don't see any reason they'd have the rights to the photo, so the license would be for the scanning and uploading. If the photos are in the public domain then the UTA license is not needed, but if the photos are not then the UTA license is not valid. J. Bond Johnson took both photos for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 8 July 1947. The Telegram and other papers ran the photos on the 9th and 10th. The Telegram didn't have a copyright notice. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:Aztec-hoax-pic.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder here
  • Fixed, uploader field now reflects derivation from image published in 1950. Feoffer (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• File:Screenshot_of_Alien_Prop_from_Roswell,_The_UFO_Cover_Up_(1994).jpeg needs a stronger FUR. Ditto File:Alien_Autopsy_Fact_or_Fiction_1995_screenshot_cropped.png, File:Jose_Chung_alien_autopsy_screenshot.png
  • Have improved the first. Open to more advice. Feoffer (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Also improved the other two. Feoffer (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:Rosewell_Reports,_Volume_1.ogv: source link appears to go to an unrelated video, please check

• fixed Feoffer (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• also renamed the file. Rosewell->Roswell Feoffer (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:Roswell_Sign_01_(cropped).jpg: what's the copyright status of the sign? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have advice on how I could find this out? The sign was created by the city as part of their 70th anniversary tourism campaign, is on public land, and there is no indication the city asserts copyright: NYTimes credits only their own photographer. Feoffer (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is it known when the sign was erected? See commons:Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Dug into this for you. The signs were created by EG Structural of Phoenix for the city of Roswell. It was formally unveiled in May 2017. Feoffer (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Updated description at Commons to reflect sign origin. Feoffer (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria and Feoffer: I swapped this image out for File:Roswell NM Main Street.jpg. The "alien" eyes applied to the streetlights are just a pair of common geometric shapes and not themselves copyrightable. I tried emailing the city and EGS last week, but didn't hear back from either one. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from HAL

Staking out a spot. Comments to come soon. ~ HAL333 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for feedback -- great username and sig. Feoffer (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not a huge fan of the wording of "1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico was actually caused by an extraterrestrial spacecraft". It implies that a UFO caused a balloon to crash.
• "metallic and rubber debris was" --> "were"
• "Trust in the US government declined and acceptance of conspiracy theories became widespread" - can you explain why this is the case? Maybe mention the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Watergate — I think a mention of the latter is especially appropriate since you then use "Cosmic Watergate".
• "On September 20, 1980, the TV series In Search of..." — Can you mention that this episode was hosted by Leonard Nimoy?
• Stanton Friedman is linked more than once
• "decomposing from exposure and predators" — I think "scavengers" is more apt than "predators".
• I would wikilink Oliver Stone
• "Thomas DuBose... acknowledged the weather balloon cover story" — This sentence is confusing. He acknowledges that the balloon story, or that it was a cover? Or that it was a cover for Mogul? Or a saucer? Please clarify.
• "a New Mexico congressman" - Could you name him/her?
• "Santilli would admit years later" --> "Santilli admitted years later" per WP:WOULDCHUCK, and can you give the actual year of the admission?
• This issue pops up elsewhere:
  • "The Air Force would later describe the" --> "The Air Force later described the
  • "New Mexico emerged that would later form elements"
  • "alien bodies that would later become associated with Roswell"
  • "Independent researchers would find patterns"
  • "Doty would later say"
• Terminator 2 should be italicized, not put in quotations
• I would wikilink Kodachrome
• I would remove the months from "In September 2017," and from "In February 2020,". They're not necessary to the reader's understanding, are not given for most older dates and strike me as recentist.
• "weather balloon" is linked in the Project Mogul subsection, but not in its first mention much earlier...
• "Thomas DuBose" also has duplicate links but is still not linked in his first mention
• "Ufologists had previously considered" — "previously" is redundant since you use the past perfect

Very nice work. Kudos to you for tackling a subject like this. ~ HAL333 14:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Great points all! I think we've got 'em all. Feoffer (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 05:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, just need to flag that I've coincidentally identified a copyvio concern related to a major contributor to this article. I have not assessed to what extent their contributions persist in the present version, but careful spotchecks will be warranted here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Thanks for looking into it! Glancing through diffs and running "Who Wrote That" (assuming I have the right editor) I see copyedits, references, formatting, and deletions. More scrutiny never hurts though, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I also looked through the edits of the user with the copyvio (assuming I have the right one), but it's mostly deletions and ref polishing. Feoffer (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

• On June 4, researchers at Alamogordo Army Air Field launched a long train of these balloons...the balloon subsequently crashed Why not "a balloon/one of the ballons subsequently crashe"?
• Where is Alamogordo Army Air Field located? (For instance, near X in state Y)
• Where is Brazel's ranch located?
• Publicity of Arnold's report incited a wave of over 800 sightings... I would avoid the verb "incite".

• I would also avoid the verb "trigger". Could a more neutral language be used? I think nobody could prove that Arnold's report triggered each sighting?

• Where is Roswell Army Air Field located?
• Where is Fort Worth Army Air Field located?
• Why is not Associated Press italicised?
• Where is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base located?

So far no major issues, more to come... Borsoka (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link (and possibly decrypt) USAF when it is first mentioned.
• I would write "the alleged Majestic 12 group" instead of MJ-12 because the abbreviation is not introduced anywhere in the text.
• ..., many of whom still accepted earlier hoaxes like the Aztec crash,... I would delete it to avoid possible original synthesis.
• The reports of bodies came decades later. Delete, because the core of the statement is repeated in a following sentence ("The claims of alien bodies – made decades later by elderly witnesses,...")
• He identifies six distinct narratives... Could these be listed in a footnote?
• The 1994 film Roswell was based on the book UFO Crash at Roswell by Kevin D. Randle and Donald R. Schmitt. Delete (the info is covered twice in previous sections, and this section should not be an exhaustive list).
• Could section "Popular fiction" be expanded from international perpective?
• I think section "Statements by US Presidents" is the only weak point of this otherwise excellent article. As it is not introduced, it reads like a random collection of quotes about Roswell from randomly chosen US presidents. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• I am wandering whether the article could be expanded to become more international. As far as I know, Roswell is an important topic of conspiracy theorists all over the world. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Great suggestions all! We've addressed them with the following exceptions:

  • Alamagordo, Roswell, and Ft. Worth are place names, so we can't add "near X" without being redundant (e.g. "Roswell Army Air Field, near Roswell".
  • Per desire for international fiction, search yielded no results. Also looked at French, German, Russian, and Japanese wikipedias, -- only one non-English fictional work mentioned, with only a minimal link to Roswell.
  • per desire for international influence of the story, searched was conducted, but it's unclear if RSes exist on its international influence. @Rjjiii might have more ideas on these last two points.

  Thanks again for the feedback. Feoffer (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two minor issues pending but they cannot prevent me from supporting the article's promotion, even if I know this article is only a new attempt by the US government to conceal its cooperation with blood-sucking grey aliens. The Truth Is Out There. Thank you for this thoroughly researched, well-written and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Boot Monument

Nominator(s): ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a strange monument located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It is shaped like a boot. However, the monument's honoree is never mentioned on the monument because his name was Benedict Arnold, someone who betrayed the Continental army to the British army. I've brought this article from Start-class to GA-class (review), and then had it reviewed for A-class, which it passed. I think that it's now ready for FAC. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Working Sorry, I'm inexperienced with alt text. I'm working on reading up on how to add that to an image in an infobox. Hopefully I'll find out soon. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I just added draft alt text for the two images. Relativity, feel free to edit the text as you see fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

I was a reviewer at the ACR and can support the article for promotion to FA class. I also did the source review and spot checks at the ACR which passed, I can do these again if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and he was court-martialed" => "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and was court-martialed"

• Done

• Link Arnold on first use in body

• Linked in Background section; not sure if I need to link it elsewhere

• "American Major General Benedict Arnold had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga" - can we get a bit more context around this? I doubt that almost anyone outside the United States has the faintest idea what/when the Battles of Saratoga were, so you need to explain that this occurred during the American Revolutionary War and potentially even add that this was fought between the Americans and British

• added "two crucial battles of the American Revolutionary War that took place near Saratoga, New York."

• "a writer of several military histories about the Battle of Saratoga" - singular? It was plural earlier

• changed to "battles"

• "the only monument in Saratoga National Park that does not say the name of its honoree" - as a monument can't speak I would suggest that "show the name" would be better

• Done

• "The toe of the Boot Monument was stolen by college boys on a visit" - any idea when this was? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• As I stated in the ACR, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• On the last point, I think you should at least state that the "mysterious informer" bit occurred in 1931, because that seems indisputable. Currently there's nothing to give any sort of timeframe whatsoever within the entire 130+ year history of the monument...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done. Thanks for the review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "However, at the end of the conflict, Arnold's leg and horse were shot. When the horse fell, Arnold's leg shattered." This doesn't really make sense, it is given almost in bullet point. It needs unpacking a litle and expressing in full prose.

• I tried changing it to "While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold's left leg was severely injured after it had been shot and crushed by his horse, which had been hit by gunfire as well.". Let me know your thoughts.

How's about something like 'While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold was shot and severely injured in his left leg. His horse was also hit by gunfire and fell on Arnold, crushing his already injured leg.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I like it :). Done

• "This contributed to Arnold's bitterness ... This along with the fact that his ..." Could we avoid two consequecutive sentences starting with "This"?

• Both sentences changed

• Also, suggest rephrasing the first 'Along with his combat wounds, business troubles, Congress having promoted some rival and younger generals ahead of him, and a court-martial which resulted in him being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit, this being overlooked caused Arnold to develop a growing bitterness towards the revolutionary cause.' or similar.

• Changed to "In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further angered Arnold.", although I'm not sure how I feel about it.

"in his report of the aftermath of the battle". Delete "of the aftermath", I assume the report was on the whole battle. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Would 'which angered Arnold. In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further embittered him.' work better for you?

Better, yes. I've changed it.

• "with Sir Henry Clinton finally offering". Introduce Clinton.

• I added "British General." Hopefully that's enough...

• "and remained as a general there until the war ended." Could we be told the year it ended?

• Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In a Saratoga Monument Association (SMA) meeting in July of 1882". Introduce the SMA.

• Done

• "There were no objections to the stake." It is a little unclear by this.

• Tried "No one at the meeting objected to the stake being placed"

• "The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Is it known when this restoration took place?

• As I said above, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned.

• but it was later moved after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, which was the more southern end of the main redoubt line." This is not clear and could probably be usefully rephrased.

• Tried "The monument was originally located further to the north at the top of the hill at the Breymann Redoubt site, but after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, the monument was moved further south to where the main fortifications of the redoubt were"

Suggest removing the second "further", but otherwise that looks good.

Removed

• "Appearance" section. This should start with an overall description - not with the inscription. This could be resolved by swapping the first and second paragraphs of the section

• Done

• References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.

• Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I think I've addressed everything you've brought up above. Thank you for taking the time to review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Grand. A couple of come backs and suggestions above. If I don't respond to something it means I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Addressed everything. Thanks again ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

I'll do this in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few comments to start:

• Aryes should be Ayres

• Fixed

• Ayres: I recommend replacing the url with this one that links directly to the book listing, rather than to a word search within the book.

• Fixed

• I can't find the Ayres book in WorldCat, but I can find a 2006 print book with a similar name by the same author. Is the 2008 e-book a less-distributed update on the 2006 print book?

• I suppose so, although I'm not 100% sure. There's a 2006 edition that has less pages than the 2008 edition.

• Ducharme and Fine: the pages parameter should show the page numbering, not the number of pages. For this entry, it should be 1309–1331, not 23.

• Fixed

• Ducharme and Fine: Social Forces appears to be published in Chapel Hill, NC. Where did you find the publication place to be Athens, GA?

• I believe that I had seen that Ducharme and Fine were both from the University of Georgia, and found that the university was located in Athens. Fixing now.

• Duling: I recomment this url in place of the one the article currently uses, for the same reason as the one above for the Ayres book.

• Fixed

• Frothingham: This listing makes it seem like it is for an article called "The Turning Point of the Revolution" by Frothingham and and Nickerson, whereas it is a review by Frothingham of Nickerson's book The Turning Point of the Revolution. You should remove Nickerson as author of the article and change the article title to "Reviewed Work: The Turning Point of the Revolution Hoffman Nickerson". Also add the full page range.

• I'm not sure how I messed this up, but this citation is for the actual book by Hoffman Nickerson. Oops. Hopefully I've fixed that accordingly.

I'll continue looking through the sources and add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• Wikilink Benson John Lossing

• Done

• Lossing: add New York, New York as location of publication.

• Done

• Lossing: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Lossing: the url goes to volume 2. If the citation is to that volume, then add the volume number to the works cited listing.

• Added volume number

• Lossing: In a works cited list otherwise entirely composed of publications from the 20th and 21st centuries, this work stands out. Is there not a newer work that can support the claim that Arnold fled to New York to join the British?

• Yes, Philbrick's book works as well. Should I replace it?

• I recommend that you do. WP:OLDSOURCES indicates that newer scholarship should be preferred over older. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed

• I recommend Wikilinking Savas Beatie. It's a redirect to the founder of the company, which is not the most helpful, but I suppose there's a possibility someone will convert that redirect into a real article someday.

• Linked

• Murphy: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Tonsetic: I recommend this link.

• Done

• Williams: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Citation 5 is Luzader 2008, p. 388–390 but should be "pp."

• Fixed

• Citation 14 is Randall 1990, pp. 448–540. Is that supposed to be 448–450? 122 pages is way too long a range for this citation to be useful.

• I'd added the wrong pages anyways so I've fixed it now.

• This citation (citation 13 now) still gives 448–540 as the page range. That range is way too long to be helpful to the reader. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've lost access to the book, but I'll message someone or ask at WP:TREX t. rex... :) to see if they know which pages that appears on specifically.

@Dugan Murphy: Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leopold: I recommend using a citation template like Template:Cite document to fix the formatting issues.

• Done, but now there's no link to the actual document. Is that okay?

• Oh, that url is important. I just changed it myself to Template:Cite report, which supports the inclusion of a url and archive url. The source listing has the important information and it is formatted better, so I think it's good now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'll add more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the rest of my comments:

• MOS:DATETIES tells me the date format for both the body and the citations should MDY instead of DMY. The exception listed there for articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military doesn't seem to apply well to a history marker commemorating an 18th-century figure.

• I think I've now fixed all of the instances of dmy.

• When using Template:Poem quote, don't use the source parameter for the citations. That parameter is for the name of the person being quoted, which the reader already knows is the monument. Instead, move the citations to the main body so they attach to the end of the inscription, rather than appear on a new line, preceded by an emdash.

• Moved. Is that what you're looking for?

• I just moved the citations myself. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you (again)

• Watson: Add a publication place since this is not a super well-known publication.

• Added

• I recommend piping The Telegraph Wikilink so "(Nashua, New Hampshire)" doesn't show up in italics.

• Done

• "Find Clue to Missing Monument": Wikilink goes to wrong paper.

• It does? For me it goes where it should. Where does it go for you?

• It's the second use of that newspaper article, which is currently citation 28. The Wikilink goes to The Daily Telegraph instead of The Telegraph (Nashua, New Hampshire). You should use "ref name" anyway so both citations show up as one in the references list. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed

• "May Find Toe of Only Statue to a Left Leg": Since there's no Wikilink for the newspaper, I recommend adding the publication city.

• Done

• Thompson: add publication date.

• Done

• Rather than including "(U.S. National Park Service)" in the web page title, you list National Park Service in the publisher parameter.

• Done

• "Digital Collections": It would be helpful to add New York State Archives using the publisher parameter. Also, capitalize "dedicated". Also, why is this the only web item without an archive link?

• Added publisher, capitalized, and added archive link.

• If The Washington Post is Wikilinked, so should The New York Times.

• Linked

• Coe: Capitalize the article title.

• Done

• I would say you should pipe The Evening Tribune Wikilink, but it goes to the wrong paper anyway. If there isn't a Wiki article for this paper, you should add Providence as the publication place.

• Unlinked and added location

• Duffus's initials appears to be R.I., not R.L.

• Fixed

• I'm of the opinion that information in the infobox shouldn't need citations because it should only summarize information that is already cited in the body. In that regard, I recommend adding to the body the monument's location within the historical park (that info seems to be indicated in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the History section, but it says it is in "Saratoga National Park", not Saratoga National Historical Park, as the lead and infobox indicate. Anyway, once that information is clearly indicated in the body, I think you can remove all citations from the infobox because all that info is already cited in the body.

• Done

Summary: Everything in the works cited list are either books held by university libraries (with the semi-exception of Ayres, per comment above) or articles in academic journals. The inline citations includes a few other sources, which all seem reliable. There's an impressive breadth of scholarship and journalism represented in this article for how short it is. Earwig finds plagiarism unlikely. Most of the similarities it can find are quotes. Citations are consistently formatted with the exception of minor issues, outlined above. Overall, the sources look great and I think all the issues above are very fixable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above, although I have a few questions about the comments you left about Leopold's source, Template:Poem quote, and "Find Clue to Missing Monument". This is a very impressive review and thank you for taking the time to do it! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy to see articles about esoteric history markers being improved. I've responded to a few things that still need work. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing a few more things. At this point, I think the only thing holding back this source review from passing is the Randall 1990 page range issue above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Great work with this article, Relativity! I see no other issues holding back this source review from passing. I have an FAC nomination of my own that needs more attention. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate it. You'll find it here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

SC - Support

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The most accepted version of Arnold's contributions,[2] supported by Arnold biographer James Kirby Martin,[3] is that he led troops on the battlefield." The references here are in an odd position. Ref two is only supporting the first seven words of the sentence, while the final eight words are not supported by either of the citations that are supporting it. It would be better to move both to the end of the sentence where they will be supporting everything they need to.

• Done

• "Arnold to start making communications with": This is a bit clunky. Would "Arnold started to communicate with" be an improvement?

• I'm not sure. It sounds a bit odd with the "caused" in front. I changed it to "caused Arnold to start communicating with" though— let me know your thoughts

• "These troubles, along with the fact that his wife, Peggy Shippen, came from a family of Loyalists, caused Arnold to start making communications with the British army, with British general Sir Henry Clinton finally offering Arnold £20,000 (equivalent to £3,353,000 in 2023) for the capture of West Point,[11] a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River" This is a monster sentence of sixty words. There are a few places where it could be split in two, but I think that after "British army" would be the best place for a full stop.

• Fixed

• You have "British general" Clinton but "British Major" Andre – consistent formatting would be good

• Fixed— capitalized "General"

• "July of 1882": just "July 1882" would be more in line with the MOS

• Fixed

• Caption of "The Boot Monument from the back": "The reverse of the Boot Monument" may be a bit better?

• Changed

• "It never mentions Arnold": ->"It does not mention Arnold". Even better would be to reframe the whole sentence as "Because of Arnold's defection to the British it does not mention him by name"

• Reframed

• "(see damnatio memoriae)": Dropping a Latin tag, unexplained, in brackets into the prose isn't the best way to deal with it. Either inline ("in an example of damnatio memoriae—Latin for "condemnation of memory"—etc") or include as a footnote.
• Additionally, if it's in Latin, you should use a ... template, which also has the benefit of italicising it
• "Similarly to how Arnold's name does not appear on the Boot Monument because of his betrayal to the British side, the Saratoga" is a bit cumbersome and wordy: "As with the absence of Arnold's name from the Boot monument, the Saratoga" would be better for readers. Again, the two references are floating in the middle of the sentence, not supporting the final part of the sentence - probably best to move them to the end of the sentence.

• Fixed

An interesting piece. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: Definitely helped. Thank you for giving it a read! I had one minor qualm with your second point, but otherwise, all is resolved (I hope). ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

American Writers

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

America's #2 novelist travels to London in 1823 to become #1 and reverse British disdain for US literature. Pretending to be English, he hooks up with a Scottish publisher and becomes a regular contributor for a leading Edinburgh magazine – the first American to do so! One of his submissions is the first attempt anywhere at a history of American literature and the first critical survey of the new nation's authors. British readers appreciate it and American readers go nuts in their hatred, the biggest hater being a young newspaper apprentice named William Lloyd Garrison. In the long run, the words bear influence and the critic is to a degree absolved by scholarship. This is my 9th FA nomination (7th on a John Neal (writer) topic). I very much appreciate reviewers taking the time to read the article and leave comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hello Dugan Murphy, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spine_of_American_Writers_by_John_Neal_edited_by_Fred_Lewis_Pattee_1937.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Neal_by_Sarah_Miriam_Peale_1823_Portland_Museum_of_Art.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Blackwood.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blackwoods_Edinburgh_Magazine_title_page_volume_16.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broadside_Decrying_John_Neal_1827_in_Portland_Maine.jpg

They are all in public domain, mainly because the underlying works are not covered by copyright anymore due to their age. All images are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The only minor issue I spotted is that the caption of "John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale 1823 Portland Museum of Art.jpg" says "1823" but wiki commons page says "circa 1823". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the image review and for picking up on the Peale painting date issue. I just made the recommended change to that image caption. Does the image review pass? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

EG comments

I'll leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• The two lead paragraphs are a bit long, which is not bad in itself. However, for readability, I recommend splitting off the sentence beginning with "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" (currently in paragraph 2) into its own paragraph. This new paragraph seems like it would roughly correspond with the "Contemporary reactions" and "Modern scholarship" sections.

Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: The phrasing "later critics decades later" is a bit clunky. I'd reword this, e.g. changing the first "later" to "subsequent"

Great point. I chose "other" instead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Moving there from Baltimore, his goals" - This has a dangling modifier. Neal, not his goals, moved to the UK from Baltimore.

I swapped "Moving there from Baltimore" to "Having moved there from Baltimore". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "That edition remains the most accessible of Neal's literary productions." - Pattee's edition?

Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Blackwood engages Neal

• Para 2: "Neal's resources were running low after living in England with no income for three months." - This also has a dangling modifier (Neal's resources didn't live in England; Neal did).

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "a period in which such periodicals were more influential than ever before" - Should this be "a period when..."?

Yes, I think so. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "The magazine had not, however, published a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." - Unless June 1822 was when Blackwood's was first published (which it wasn't), I would rephrase this to "The magazine did not, however, publish a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." Otherwise, it may sound like it had never published a single piece on an American topic, ever, and that June 1822 was when its first piece ever was published.

Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank you for noticing all these! I have addressed each comment so far. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'll have some more comments on Thursday or Friday. Thanks for getting to these so quickly. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about this. I will leave comments on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Hog Farm's review is complete. Feel free to jump back in when you're ready! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll leave some comments shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Steady contributorship:

• Para 1: I might have been missing something, but why would Blackwood reject Neal's articles after learning who Neal was? Was it because Blackwood didn't want to accept an American's submission?

It was Walker, not Blackwood. The rejection was because Neal was American, so I edited the sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "The first installment of the American Writers series came out in the September 1824 issue" - The phrasing "out in" sounds kind of awkward so I would just use "was published" in place of "came out".

Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Anonymity:

• Para 2: "under the name X.Y.Z." - Technically this would be an initialism or an acronym.

Changed "name" to "initials". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Paras 2 and 3: "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" ... "Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American" - In light of the second statement, the first seems repetitive. I think you could rephrase this section to only include the second statement ("Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American").

I didn't follow your suggestion exactly, but I changed the first sentence of the last paragraph in that section to remove the reference to British readers. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Content:

• Para 1: Do any of the sources explain why there is a discrepancy between the quantities of names? (For instance, were there instances in which several people were covered in the same paragraph?)

None that I can find. My understanding of the discrepancy is explained below in answer to one of Hog Farm's comments, but that's not appropriate to include in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"" - Later on in this section, the article mentions that Neal wrote about all of these authors from his own memory. If I'm reading this correctly, was the proportionality of the description of each author based on how much he remembered about them (rather than being based on their importance in the American literary scene)?

I believe Richards in that quote was saying that Cooper (top US novelist at the time) deserved more than half a page if Neal was to give himself 8. None of the sources say that all the authors who got less coverage from Neal got that little because of Neal's poor memory. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "He wrote it all in a style unique to himself" - Do the sources describe this style at all?

I changed "style" to "conversational tone" to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 4: "Richards considered that coverage to be far out of proportion to his role in American literature" - Nothing wrong with this sentence, I just found it funny that he believed himself to be one of the few writers of "truly American literature" and wrote eight pages about himself.

That's John Neal. He was about as shy about praising himself as he was about taking himself down. He did both in American Writers, as the article states. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 4: "Neal's critique of William Cullen Bryant was likely the basis for the section on Bryant in James Russell Lowell's satirical poem A Fable for Critics over twenty years later" - Was this critique parodied for being inaccurate?

Not at all. The source quotes Neal's critique of Bryant and says: "Lowell later put this into metres in his Fable for Critics." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for these comments! They are all addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them so quickly, and my apologies for being relatively slow with these comments. I'll leave more feedback this weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom:

• Para 1: "many used quotes to substantiate" - I'd clarify that they used quotes from American Writers.

Clarified! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "with ushering a brief period of increased critical attention of his novels among British reviewers" - Would the British Critic review (in the previous sentence) be one such example of increased critical attention?

Yes. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• In general, I take it that British periodicals reviewed American Writers much more positively than American periodicals?

Yes, that's what the second sentence of the "United States" section says. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

United States:

• Para 1: "Neal wrote five novels in Baltimore" - This is referring retrospectively to Neal's authorship of these novels, so I would say "Neal had written five novels in Baltimore...".

Recommendation accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: Were there any other notable American authors, besides Fairfield, who reviewed the piece positively?

Not that I can find in the sources. Richards introduces that Fairfield quote by saying that Fairfield represented a minority in the US on the matter. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Portland, Maine:

• I wonder if this section should be retitled to reflect that it's about Neal's return to Portland, Maine. The way the section is currently titled, it gives the impression that this is solely about commentary from people in Portland, Maine.

The parent category is "Contemporary reactions" and this subsection is "Portland, Maine". The way I see it, each of these subsections is thus understood to be "Contemporary reactions in <UK/US/Portland>". It feels beside the point that the contemporary reactions presented in the previous two subsections are all printed in periodicals, versus in Portland, where they were printed on broadsides and communicated with a racist prank and fistfights. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Influence on American writers:

• "By claiming the US did not yet have a distinct literature, it is possible Neal helped authors of the later American Renaissance" - Did any specific person say this? The text that I've underlined gives the impression that there may be disagreement over whether Neal did help authors of the later American Renaissance.

I don't mean to give an impression of disagreement, so I've reworded to hopefully better reflect the source. This is what it says: "In his essays on American literature as of 1824 in Blackwood's Magazine, he described all American writers—including himself—as failing to imagine or enact a genuinely American literature suited to express the energy, newness, and difference that elsewhere distinguished the new nation from its English forebears. In brief, Neal suggested that Charles Brockden Brown, Washington Irving, and James Fenimore Cooper were little more than transatlantic reproductions of, respectively, William Godwin, Oliver Goldsmith, and Sir Walter Scott. With the decks so cleared, Emerson and his associates could imagine for themselves a fresh start, so disregarding fifty years of American writing since independence." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll have more by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank you for the additional comments! I have addressed them all. Looking forward to more. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am going to finish my review today. Sorry for the delay.

Modern scholarship:

• I take it that this section is about 20th- and 21st-century scholars. The 20th century isn't exactly modern, so this section is more like "retrospective scholarship".

Fair. I changed it to simply "scholarship". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "Scholars have called American Writers the first history of literature from that country" - I presume you mean "the first history of American literature"?

Definitely. This is my attempt to avoid two Americans so close together. I changed it to "US literature". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "and according to one scholar, his most interesting to a modern audience" - Is it worth mentioning this scholar's name?

Why not? Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "An example of Neal's misinformation and unfairness was captured by the 1930 biographer of Fitz-Greene Halleck, who referred to Neal's critique of Halleck as "difficult to match for hopeless inaccuracy and unabashed egotism." - Nothing really wrong with this per se, I just found it interesting that this critique is wedged in between praise for the publication.

The praise is definitely balanced in other parts of that paragraph, so this sentence doesn't feel like a departure in my reading of it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also, were there any other notable retrospective commentaries that criticized the inaccuracies in this series?

The intro to the John Neal section of the DiMercurio book says "Neal's essays favor passion over accuracy, however, and are known to be riddled with factual errors." I ended up not using this item in my notes, which feels fine to me because it is the only notable mention of American Writers in that piece. It is also a very brief piece, as opposed to the lengthier pieces that get cited more in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Publication history:

• Para 1: "Their first collection in one publication" - Was this the first time they were all published at once? Or were they published in different issues of the same publication?

American Writers was originally published serially over multiple issues of the same magazine. The first time the separate installments were presented together in one publication was 1937. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "This was the first republication of a substantial work by Neal since his death and the first of a series in the twentieth century that also included Observations on American Art: Selections from the Writings of John Neal in 1943, "Critical Essays and Stories by John Neal" in 1962, Rachel Dyer in 1964, Seventy-Six in 1971, and The Genius of John Neal in 1978, the last of which includes Neal's review of Irving from American Writers and his review of Cooper from "Late American Books"" - This sentence is quite long, and I would recommend splitting it up. For example, "This was the first republication of a substantial work by Neal since his death. It was also the first of a series..."

Suggestion accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's it from me. Overall, this is a pretty good article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! I have addressed them all. Do you see any other issues with the article worth discussing? Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not. I support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this once Epicgenius has completed their review. Hog Farm _Talk 13:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, feel free to review the article. It might take me a while to get through this page due to real-life work commitments, and I can resume my review once you're done. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here we go. I'm trying to multitask between reviewing this and listening to the KC Royals playoff game, so apologies if some of this doesn't make any sense. Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• " The first postmortem republication of any of his works was 1937," - the phrasing in the body says that this was the first republishment of a substantial work by Neal; would it be better to weaken the statement in the lead similar to how it is phrased in the body?

Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Neal did not publish anything else substantial in Blackwood's until September, however" - how are we defining "substantial" here? Because this would imply what is mostly a gap between February 1825 and September 1825, but we've earlier state that he published an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826

Thank you for bringing this up. The Sears book does say he had an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826, but checking that against other sources, it seems that Sears has a typo and meant to say Feb 1825, not 1826. I have changed Feb 1826 to Feb 1825 in the first paragraph of that section and left the last sentence of that section alone. By saying he didn't publish anything substantial between Feb 1825 and Sep 1825, I could also say that the only thing he published in Blackwood's between those two issues is what Richards describes as a "short note" on Maximilian Godefroy. I think it's better as it is rather than adding this detail, but let me know if you think otherwise. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is it intentional that the minimum number of authors detail in this work is 120, but the list of author critiqued at the end of the article only contains 119 entries?

The list of authors at the end of the article is based on the table of contents for the 1937 edition, which lists out the authors covered in each installment. Your comment gave me reason to double-check for differences between this part of the article and the TOC. I found 3 authors missing from the Wiki article, so now the Wiki list includes 122. There are two cases in which Neal lists one author name, but Pattee clarifies in each case that the name is a pen name shared by two different authors. This is to say that, if I used the pen names in this list instead of the authors' individual real names, there would be exactly 120. For the scholars who count 135, I think they are counting not only the 122 in this Wiki list, but a few authors mentioned briefly by Neal in the 5 core installments who did not make into the 1937 TOC, as well as the extra authors mentioned in "Late American Books", which is often lumped in with the American Authors series and was included in the 1937 edition. However, those authors are not mentioned in the 1937 TOC, so I decided not to include them in the article's list. Thank you for reading all that and let me know if you have any thoughts on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Check the page range in the long citation for Strachan et al? The long citation indicates that you are citing the introduction, which is pp. xxii through xx, but you end up citing p. 257 of that work

Good catch! The roman numeral citations are for the introduction to volume 6; the page 257 citation is to the introduction to the chapter on American Writers. I've added a separate entry in the source list for the item on page 257 and edited the inline citations to fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work here; I fully expect to support. Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the compliment! I have addressed all your comments. Do you think any of those comments warrant further discussion or do you have other comments? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The changes look good to me; supporting Hog Farm _Talk 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• What makes Project Britain a high-quality reliable source?

Now that I'm looking at it critically, I don't think it is. I've replaced that source with Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which also supports the 21 shillings conversion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This will need formatting to match the other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I added the location of publication, which I believe was the change needed to make the formatting match the other refs. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest formatting FN13 as a list

That's the citation that pops up when you use {{Inflation-fn|US}}, so I guess that's a comment for the template design and not this article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Brennan publisher is misspelled

Good find! I committed the same typo in two other FAC-approved articles and nobody noticed. I've fixed it in all three. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how locations are formatted

I believe they are consistent now. Some lacked state names and there was a New York vs. New York City discrepancy. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether publishers are linked

Standardized! I went with unlinked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Including both JSTOR URLs and JSTOR IDs is redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

JSTOR IDs removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for reviewing the sources! I have addressed all your comments. Does the article now pass or do you see issues that still need to be addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I see your one reply and I believe it is now addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Neal's disproportionate coverage of many figures and much disinformation about them". "disproportionate" is vague. Does it mean too much on some writers and too little on others in the view of later critics? This should be clarified. "writers" would be better than "figures". "disinformation" means intentionally misleading, which is presumably not what you mean.
• "in-person hostility". Why not "personal hostility" I would take in-person to mean with the participation of the person concerned.
• " it was republished by the New European" Presumably soon afterwards and it would be helpful to say so.
• "Neal later wrote about this period to indicate he was already on a mission to write about American topics in the UK, but biographer Irving T. Richards argues Neal likely found the opportunity with Blackwood after he arrived." This is unclear. You say above that he wanted to raise the prestige of American writing, so what is the contrast? If you mean that he only decided to write about other US topics when encouraged by Blackwood, then you should clarify this.
• "He dedicated half a page to James Fenimore Cooper, six pages to Charles Brockden Brown, eight to himself, and ten to Washington Irving—a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"." I do not understand this.
• "attention of his novels" I would say "attention to his novels"
• "Neal expected this reaction and was aware before he returned to the US." I would say "aware of it", but maybe your usage is AmerEng.
• "We cannot express sufficiently, our Indignation [sic] at this renegade's base attempt to assassinate the reputation of this country" Why sic?
• There is excessive use of the word "likely". I suggest sometimes using other words such as "probably".
• Linking John Neal and other people in the citations is overlinking. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

I have no expertise in this subject. All I know is from reading this article.

• Spelling:
  • "rioutous" should "riotous"
  • "cleverist" should be "cleverest"
  • "anglophone" should be "Anglophone"

• "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" How do you measure influence?
• "Blackwood and his editors likely figured out quickly they were dealing with an American" I am not fond of speculation in Wikipedia's voice.
• Similarly, "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" is not only speculative, but kind of WP:WEASEL-y as well.
• "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated" I have no idea what the point is here.
• "If you go in your natural shape, in the true garb of your nation, you will never be laughed at." hahaha. Great line. (Australians find irony very funny.)
• " Literature scholars Alfred Fiorelli, Benjamin Lease, and Hans-Joachim Lang counted 120 names among the authors covered by Neal. Both Richards and scholar Alberta Fabris put the number at 135." But you have 122. Please explain.

All looks very good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Relativity

A marker for now. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Otto Hahn

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Otto Hahn, the German chemist who was awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission. Today Hahn is something of a divisive figure. A century ago, there was much less of a distinction between chemistry and physics. Hahn was involved early in the chemistry of radioactive substances. Their presence could be detected from their radioactivity, and their unique half lives. Unfortunately, most of the new elements he discovered turned out to be isotopes, a concept that had not been invented when he began. He also had to deal with a lot of disapproval from more traditional chemists, for whom chemistry involved substances you could see, and smell and taste. Early on he formed a professional relationship with a physicist, Lise Meitner. Among his generation, he was regarded as progressive in his attitudes towards women, even a feminist. But women like Meitner still considered him a male chauvinist pig, and their historians have been much less reticent about publicly calling him one. After World War II, his cause was to resurrect the reputation of German science, which had been tarnished (to say the least) in the Nazi period. In this role, he sought publicity and downplayed uncomfortable truths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Otto_Hahn_1970.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?

  Image was donated by the Dutch national archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is there UTRS or other confirmation of the licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  See Commons:Nationaal Archief for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• File:William_Ramsay.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag

  Added URAA and archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• File:Ernest_Rutherford_1905.jpg: source link is dead

  Dead. Unable to locate in archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can the licensing be otherwise confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I found the book on the Internet Archive, and can confirm it is on p. 132

• File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg: what is the author's date of death?

  Not known. Otto Hahn had the negative, and it was published in his memoirs in 1966. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  In that case tagging will need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?

  Not known. Otto Hahn published in his memoirs in 1966, so he had a copy, but other copies exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  In that case tagging will need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• File:Ottohahn1915.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in country of origin?

  Not known when it was published. (Probably Hahn in 1966 again) Donated to Max Planck Society, who released it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Released it under what license? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• File:Otto_Hahn_Nobelpreis_1945-a.jpg needs a US tag

  Not sure what tag applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• File:Edith_and_Otto_Hahn,_1959.jpg: the uploader has a large number of files deleted for copyright-related issues - why are they believed to be able to license this?

  No idea. I can remove it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• File:Hahnfch.jpg is tagged as being not PD.

  Not attached to this one either. Under review on Commons and will remove if Commons decides to delete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, how is this now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:Ernest_Rutherford_1905.jpg needs a US tag. File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg, File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg, File:Otto_Hahn_Nobelpreis_1945-a.jpg, and File:Ottohahn1915.jpg have pending issues above. Given the above, suggest removing File:Edith_and_Otto_Hahn,_1959.jpg and File:Hahnfch.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

LittleLazyLass

• This is just a flyby, but I really think could do with more organization. Currently it had a whole nineteen major top level sections and zero subsections. A quick look at other FA biographies within the Science and Academia subject area doesn't seem to indicate this is a standard I'm not aware of. Some basic level of consolidation with his scientific advances in one section, personal life in another, and the Nobel Prize could probably make a section with his other honours seems doable and would make a big difference. Failing that even rudimentary sorting the events into subsections by time period would be an improvement of being bombarded with everything separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You're quite correct; there is no standard. There are 33 featured article biographies of physicists and chemists, of which I brought 23 of them to featured. The article is written in chronological order and follows the layout guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I will consider your proposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How are your considerations going? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• " "The Open Door Web Site : Chemistry : Visual Chemistry : Protactinium". Archived from the original on 16 December 2022. Retrieved 16 December 2022." - what makes this a high-quality RS? I would expect that it should be not overly difficult to find a better source for something as basic as what this is supporting

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• ""Entdeckung der Kernspaltung 1938, Versuchsaufbau, Deutsches Museum München | Faszination Museum". YouTube. 7 July 2015." - what makes this YouTube video a high-quality reliable source?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Originalgeräte zur Entdeckung der Kernspaltung, "Hahn-Meitner-Straßmann-Tisch"". - citation needs the publisher and any other information added

  Added publisher and access date

• ""Father of Nuclear Chemistry – Otto Emil Hahn". Kemicalinfo. 20 May 2020." - what makes this a high-quality RS?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• " Brown, Brandon R. (16 May 2015). "Gerard Kuiper's Daring Rescue of Max Planck at the End of World War II". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 27 June 2020." - Scientific American is a decent source, but can we give their blog network the same level of quality?

  Brandon R. Brown is professor of physics and astronomy at the University of San Francisco. He is the author of Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War (Oxford, 2015), which won the 2016 Housatonic Award for nonfiction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• " "NS Otto Hahn". Germany's Nuclear Powered Cargo Ship. Retrieved 28 June 2020." - what makes this a high-quality RS? And "Germany's Nuclear Powered Cargo Ship" is not the publisher in this source

  It was the source used by the article on the ship. Switched to a couple of other sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is it really on-topic to list all of the physicists that Meitner became friends with in an article on Hahn? That content seems more suited for our article on Meitner

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link phosgene?

  Linked

Will continue this; hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Needs a link or gloss for "tantalum group"

  Linked to Refractory metals Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link pitchblende?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• "This set up is on display in the [[]]." - something is wrong with this in the caption

  Fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I anticipate supporting, but want to give this another read-through first. Hog Farm _Talk 02:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi HF, any further thoughts on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I was waiting on the source review to be completed; I'll try to read through again tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Like the source reviewer, I'm not a huge fan of how much Hahn's autobiography is used, but it's mainly used to cover detail in his early life that the sources focused on his career wouldn't cover as well. Leaning support. Hog Farm _Talk 01:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

I am working on this now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are some initial comments:

• Given the criterium that states a featured article should be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", why include a separate list of further reading?

  There are two groups of books here. One group were added as sources in 2007, but without inline references or page numbers. I moved them to the Further reading section when I created it in 2020. All were from the 1960s and 1970s and I preferred more recent sources due to the scholarship that has been going on since then. Two books were added directly to the Further reading by another editor in 2020. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you feel that the cited sources present a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature without using any of these? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I believe so. However, I have prioritised more recent scholarship over works from the 1960s and 1970s. Hence, the preference for Hoffmann Otto Hahn: Achievement and Responsibility (2001) over Berninger, Otto Hahn 1879–1968 (1970) and Macrakis, Surviving the Swastika: Scientific Research in Nazi Germany (1993) over Beyerchen, Scientists under Hitler (1977). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Looking up Otto Hahn and the Rise of Nuclear Physics on WorldCat and Google Books, it doesn't appear to be a multivolume set. However, both the Badash and Berninger entries in the source list say those chapters appear in volume 22.

  It is volume 22 in the The University of Western Ontario Series in the Philosophy of Science [4]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Bernstein: "Recordings" could be capitalized.

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilink Physics Today?

  I have not linked any journal names in the footnotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Crawford 2000: I think "Against" should be capitalized.

  The sources do no agree. [5][6]

  MOS:5LETTER says prepositions of 5 letters or more should be capitalized and I think that is the determinant here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I learn something new every day. I wasn't aware of that 2017 addition to the MOS. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilink Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences?

  I have not linked any journal names in the footnotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hahn 1988: change the hypehn to an endash.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep looking and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I replied to a couple items above; otherwise, I consider those initial comments addressed. I'll have more fresh comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I see my comments above are all satisfactorily addressed. Here are a few more:

• Hoffman 2001: Add the publication place (NYC).

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilink Max Planck Society?

  Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm looking at citation number 33, so actually the Wikilink should probably go to Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, which redirects to the MPS article. I think it's worth adding the Wikilink to the citation so the reader can more easily verify that the source is reliable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The citation style is not to link publishers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Stolz: Add publication place.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• In the References list, I'm seeing an autobiography, a book by Hahn's son, and works by a few other people like Frisch who appear to be Hahn's contemporaries. That tells me those sources are closer to being less reliable for how close they are to the subject, as opposed to, say, a work by a 21st-century scholar. What makes them appropriate for this article?

  There is no book by his son; Dietrich Hahn was his grandson. This is noted in the article. He was only editing Hahn's papers. Wikilinked. Frisch wasn't really a contemporary; he was a generation younger, being Meitner's nephew. He is quoted twice: once for his own contribution to the physics of the discovery of fission, and once for his obituary of Hahn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Aside from Dietrich Hahn, I'm looking at books by Otto Frisch and Walther Gerlach. What are your thoughts on their appropriateness as sources given their relationship to the subject? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Gerlach seems fine to me. Scientific biographies are often written by a fellow scientist with an acquaintance of the subject. See the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, where each bio is written by another Fellow. No reason to consider Gerlach's works to be unreliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  What about Frisch? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I answered this above; Frisch is quoted twice: once for his own contribution to the physics of the discovery of fission, and for his own tribute to Hahn, as someone who knew him well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hughes 2008: Can you get more specific with the pages? Also, The url and DOI number don't go anywhere helpful. Perhaps the HDI link could be the main url. Or the pdf link. Also, I can't find that December 29, 2008 date anywhere. What I do see seems to indicate that volume 29 is 2009.

  DOI works fine for me. Changed date to "2009". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Daily Telegraph 18 March 1905: I recommend using Template:Cite news to reformat this. It would be helpful to add the article title, author if known, &c. Is there a link to view it online?

  I don't have access to an online version the newspaper. Used template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Now the title just needs capitalization. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Dictionary of Art Historians: Add Lee Sorensen as the author.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll continue looking at the sources and more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Having finally gone through the rest of the citations, here are some more comments:

• Citation 40: Wikilink Lise Meitner for consistency and to help readers.

  Linked. 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Scerri: If this is a chapter in a book, add page numbers for the chapter and page number for the part that supports the relevant claim in the article. Also add the publisher and location of publication. I also think it is worth writing out the whole title, for the benefit of the reader: The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance.

  Publisher, location and title are already there. Added page range. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• For consistency, add the language tag to the second instance of Meitner 1918 citation.

  I'm not sure what is being asked for here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  When I wrote this comment, Meitner 1918 was cited twice slightly differently, so it showed up as citation 40 and again as citation 43. It appears that you have fixed this issue, so now it is showing up as just citation 40, formatted with the language tag. That is to say, it is already fixed! Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The two "Nomination Database" citations: The website uses the term "Nomination Archive", so I think the citations should too. Where does the 9 June 2020 publication date come from?

  Should have been access date. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• PubChem: I think "PubChem" should be used for the website parameter and "National Library of Medicine" for the publisher parameter. I also think it is worth Wikilinking both names.

  Changed as suggested. Not linking publishers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not a source review comment: Hahn was now confident enough that he had found something that he named his new isotope "uranium Z", and in February 1921, he published the first report on his discovery. The first "that" is unnecessary.

  Deleted "that" . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hahn 1923: why is Hahn's name written twice?

  Not seeing this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is another issue that was fixed between when I wrote this comment and when you replied to it. It is fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Feather Bretscher Appleton 1938: Could you get more specific with the page number?

  Yes. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Max Planck becomes President of the KWS" should be "Max Planck Becomes President of the KWS".

  Capitalised Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The KWS introduces the 'Führerprinzip'" should be "The KWS Introduces the 'Führerprinzip'"

  Capitalised Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Originalgeräte zur Entdeckung der Kernspaltung, "Hahn-Meitner-Straßmann-Tisch"" should be "Originalgeräte zur Entdeckung der Kernspaltung, 'Hahn-Meitner-Straßmann-Tisch'" per MOS:QWQ

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sime 2010: capitalize the first "the"

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sime 2010: could you get more specific with the page number(s) being referenced

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Fergusson 2011: same.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hahn Meitner Strassmann 9 June 1937: same.

  That one is there to provide the reader with the whole paper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  This citation is used twice. The first instance seems to be the paper as a whole backing up the claim that it exists, which means it is appropriate to include the entirety of the paper. However, the second use is shared with Sime 1997 in supporting 5.5 sentences, including a quote. In that second instance, I think it is appropriate to get more specific with the page numbering. Furthermore, as it stands, it is not clear which of the two sources includes the quote on which of 22 pages. I think the quote should be followed by the one citation showing which page in which of the two sources includes that quote. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't the fact that the the article says it was in the conclusion tell the reader that it appears on the last page? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that's fine. I realize, however, that I was confusing two different citations in my last addition to this comment thread. Let's consider this comment addressed. I'll write a new comment just below this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• NEW INSERTED COMMENT RELATED TO THE ONE ABOVE – Hahn Meitner Strassmann May 1937: The second instance of this citation is paired with Sime 1996 in such a way as to make unclear which of those two citations is where the reader can verify the quote that immediately precedes the two citations. Which is it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Frisch Feb 1939: capitalize "Under".

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hahn Strassman Feb 1939: add language parameter

  Already there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The same website is variably cited as "Nobel Media AB", "Nobel Foundation", and "NobelPrize.org". You should standardize that. Also, it is Wikilinked in one of those instances; if that isn't being done elsewhere, it shouldn't be done once.

  Standardised on "Nobel Foundation"; unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Statutes of the Nobel Foundation": where does the 2018 publication date come from?

  The metadata. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The end of the war and transition. Max Planck is Interim President of the KWS" needs capitalization for "end", "war", and "transition".

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Citation 137 is "Macrakis 1993, pp. 189–189": should that be just 189 or should one of the two 189s not be 189?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The birth of the Max Planck Society": capitalize "birth".

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The founding of today's Max Planck Society": capitalize "founding" and "today's".

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "NATO chief backs Germany's vow to keep war-ready US nukes": capitalize everything but "to" and italicize Defence News.

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  The title of the publication is still not italicized. That's because it is showing up as the publisher rather than the title of the publication. It appears to be the publication title. Swapping the publisher parameter for the title parameter will fix this issue. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Preparing earth constitution": Capitalize the title.

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Preparing earth constitution": The title seems to be just "Preparing earth constitution", so "| Global Strategies & Solutions | The Encyclopedia of World Problems" doesn't appear to be part of that title.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Preparing earth constitution": I think "The Encyclopedia of World Problems" is the title of the website and "Union of International Associations (UIA)" is the publisher. Right now, "The Encyclopedia of World Problems | Union of International Associations (UIA)" is written out as the website title.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The www.friedhofguide.de link is broken. Got an archive link? And what makes this website a reliable source?

  The internet archive is still down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's working for me! Here's the archive link for July 18, 2021, which hopefully provides the information it did on June 28, 2020. It's actually archive for the web address to which the listed address forwarded at the time, which appears to support the claim this citation purports to support. I'm unfamiliar with this website. What makes it a reliable source? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Still not working for me. The source is a guide to the cemetery. Cannot locate an alternative; all the ones I have looked for are archives on Internet Archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  What organization publishes the website? And none of the books or articles about Hahn mention where he is buried? Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am sure they do. I do not have them here, though, so there will be a delay of up to a week while I retrieve them from the library. (Libraries don't keep books on the shelves any more, so they will have to be fetched from the archive.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• If I'm reading this right, the obit written by the Max Planck Society is claimed to have been published in "all the major newspapers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland" and that claim is backed up by citing 5 newspapers in those 3 countries. Do you have a reliable source that says which newspapers were "all the major newspapers" in those countries at that time? Also, for consistency, this citation should be broken into separate citations using the Cite News template.

  Probably what it says but deleted "all the". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the three newspapers listed. Does the Sgantzos et al. source describe them as "major"? I also still feel like the three newspaper citations should be separated and formatted with Template:Cite news to be consistent with the other citations. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strassman 1968: add publication place.

  National newspaper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, it is published in Berlin (I just looked it up). If Die Welt is not to be Wikilinked, I think adding the publication city could be helpful for the reader who wants to check the citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wikilinked. Added Hamburg as the city. (It moved to Berlin in 2021.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Fischer 1999: unlink Focus to be consistent and add a volume number.

  Unlinked. A magazine, so no volume number. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "U. S. Department of Energy" should be "U.S. Department of Energy".

  Removed the space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "NS Otto Hahn - the first German nuclear ship" should be "NS Otto Hahn - The First German Nuclear Ship".

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov link is broken. Got an archive link? Also, both uses of "crater" should be capitalized, unless that's a typo.

  Corrected the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I can't find that title at the link. Where does it come from? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Works for me. Comes from the U.S. Geological Survey. Added publisher. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• The minorplanetcenter.net link is broken. Got an archive link?

  Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll have to assume good faith on that one. The link works neither on my laptop nor on my phone. It brings up a blank white page on both devices. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is "e.V." really part of the name "Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker e.V."?

  Yes, but we can leave it off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Otto Hahn Medal": I think it is worth writing out the whole title "The Otto Hahn Medal - An Incentive for Young Scientists".

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Otto Hahn Medal": Why is this citation written out twice in a row (citations 182 and 183)?

  One is the medal, the other is the award. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary: Everything in the References list are books held by academic libraries or articles in academic journals. Everything in the "notes" section looks reliable and primary sources are used appropriately, with the exceptions noted in individual comments above. There are a lot of works from Hahn's lifetime by people in his life, which makes me wary, but I'm willing to accept the reasoning you stated above in reply to one of my earlier comments on that topic. There certainly is a wide breadth of sources included here. With the exception of a few cases addressed in my above comments, the citations are consistently formatted. This article represents a lot of work and I can appreciate it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dugan Murphy, have your queries been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in! There are a number of unaddressed comments. One of them is about the Hahn Meitner Strassmann May 1937 citation and another about Defence News. I also have a standing question about who publishes www.friedhofguide.de (trying to establish its reliability), which might be made moot if Hawkeye7 decides to replace that source with one of the scholarly print sources, as per the discussion above. Another standing question regards "the major newspapers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland". All of my other comments have been been satisfactorily addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I have moved the Sime reference to make the source of the quotation clearer.
2. The print sources on Hahn did not give me the burial place. I have added another reference, from a brochure put out by the City of Göttingen.
3. I changed the text to read: "The Max Planck Society published the following obituary notice"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that you also replaced the primary newspaper citations for the obituary quote with an academic source that supports the same quote. I see no other issues keeping this source review from passing. Thanks for your work on improving this article! I have my own FAC nomination that is still in need of reviews. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate the input. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

• "the post-war West Germany": remove the "the"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "educated at Klinger Oberrealschule": "educated at the Klinger Oberrealschule"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link through ILL to Wilhelm Muthmann?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "(In fact, it was an isotope ... the British chemist Frederick Soddy)": Remove the brackets?

  removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "that he rubbed then against the sleeves of his suit": do we mean "that he then rubbed against the sleeves of his suit"?

  Deleted "then". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "100 marks a milligram", 5,000 marks; 66,000 marks: If possible, add the inflation template?

  During the review of Lise Meitner, I discovered that this could be done. Pretty amazing really, since the currency has changed three times since then, and there was a period of hyperinflation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Leverkusen?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Translate "Die Muttersubstanz des Actiniums; ein neues radioaktives Element von langer Lebensdauer" in the body?

  Translated as ""The Parent Substance of Actinium; A New Radioactive Element with a Long Lifetime" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "protoactinmium": Extra m and o in there.

  Deleted the extra "m"; the extra "o" is deliberate. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

More to come tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, my next set of comments:

• Link to uranium-234?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Cornell University Press in the body?

  I am not seeing any use in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why did Planck order the expediting of the shipment to Freundlich?

  Sources don't say, but expanded a bit on this incident. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link through ILL to Ernst Telschow?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• "While Hahn was in North America": What month and year?

  Y Do not have the month. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to the Zeitschrift für Physik and the Chemische Berichte?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Werner Heisenberg?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Could we also add the inflation template for the 12 million and 47 million marks?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Lawrence Badash in the body and biblio?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to the University of Frankfurt?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Dubna?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do we have ISBNs or archive.org links available for Hahn's four books? If so, consider adding to the "Publications in English" section?

  They are all too old for ISBNs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Add URLs for refs #6, #164, #165, Yruma 2008?

  Don't have them for the newspapers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Add translated titles for refs #49, #50, #73, #74, #75, #99, #165, #168, #170, #177, #184, Gerlach & Hahn 1984, Hahn 1988, Sime 2004, Stolz 1989?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Add the language parameter for refs #49, #50, #99, #165, #184?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Jeff Hughes (historian) and Kristie Macrakis?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Add ISBNs or other identifiers for Feldman & Ford 1979 and Kant 2002?

  Cannot find them. Deleted Feldman & Ford; added OCLC for Kant Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Could we add the WPMH tag? The biography is notable enough for MILHIST since Hahn did work on the German chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

Had a read of Lise Meitner last week; found it most illuminating. Very nice article this too. A few points (as always, suggestions not demands):

• All the headings are level-2; perhaps if some were turned into level-3, and new top-level sections were created, it could ease navigation for those unfamiliar with the timeline?

  There is no advice on whether people prefer multiple levels. On mobile, the menu structure is not so obvious, making it harder to find the section you are looking for when there are multiple levels. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 1938, Hahn, Meitner and Fritz Strassmann discovered nuclear fission, for which Hahn alone was awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Nuclear fission was the basis for nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons." I think it would look nicer if the first paragraph ended on the Nobel Prize, so I would move "the basis..." to follow the "nuclear fission" in the first sentence.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Working with the Austrian physicist Lise Meitner in the building that now bears their names, he made a series of groundbreaking discoveries" surely it should be "they" not "he"?

  Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• "he became the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry" the full name probably doesn't have to be said again

  Replaced with the abbreviation on subsequent use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• "It was the first of over 250 scientific publications of Otto Hahn in the field of radiochemistry" bit wordy

  Trimmed wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  • This paragraph is slightly too-narrative like; a little bit more focus would be nice.
• The discussion of the Hanno and Ilse Hahn Prize is somewhat oddly placed in the Marriage section, considering it was established in 1990; perhaps move it to one of the ending sections?

  Moved down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 1918 the German offensive in the west smashed through the Allies' lines after a massive release of gas from their mortars." seems a little off-topic

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps Seaborg's lengthy quote would work better in a {{quote box}}?

  Put in a quote box. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Similarly, Hahn's quote on Fermi's discoveries could be easily paraphrased.

  Paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing to comment on for several sections
• "Hahn was shot in the back by a disgruntled inventor in October 1951" any more details on this?

  Not much at all. Added a few more words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps a short "Legacy" section would be nice? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted

Nominator(s): Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a virtual reality game released as part of the Five Nights at Freddy's franchise. Last year after I helped promote the original game to FA status, I've been curious on whether another FA could be made with this franchise. This game probably has the best chance overall. In summary, Help Wanted adapts the first five games in the series in an anthology format, while also including some new minigames. So let's see what we can do here. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Add translated titles for Ref 1, 3, 6, 8, 26
• Change Ref 22 website to UploadVR

Done second point, @Vacant0, is there a specific policy requiring the translation of the source titles? Just curious, because I'm not sure if that would be required. My previous FACs used a few non-English sources and I wasn't asked to translate the titles. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one, but I might be wrong. I know that there's a policy about foreign quotations, but not foreign titles. I was told to add translated titles at a GA review some time ago, so I've been doing it since then. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I checked around at some pertinent policies and guidelines (WP:NOENG, and WP:FOOTQUOTE) and it seems like translating the titles into English is not required, though quotes not in English should be translated to English. I might ask around and see if translating the titles to English is preferable or if they should be kept as-is. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fine then. I do not see it is an issue that should bar the article from becoming FA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The prose is relatively short so I'll go through and read, and leave any recommendations if I spot any. If the article does not receive a source check, you can ping me and I'll do that too. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Help Wanted is a virtual reality survival horror game" – It's up to you, but I'd change Help Wanted to Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted.

Done

• Optionally wikilink virtual reality (it's already wikilinked in the lede, so why not do it in the body too?)

Done

• Add (VR) as the abbreviation of virtual reality in the same first sentence.

Done

• Jump scare is wikilinked twice. Remove the second wikilink.

Done

• Possibly explain the warped graphics element.

The reviewer says "distorted visuals" and there isn't much that I could find that went into detail on the graphics.

• Who published the game?

Scott Cawthon via his company ScottGames. I'll add that to the infobox

• I'll look at the lede and reception tomorrow.
• There's not too much information about the sequel, so per WP:VGLAYOUT it can stay where it is right now under the Reception section.
• Lede: The downloadable content called Curse of Dreadbear.

reworded

• Reception:
  • I personally feel like the wording could be slightly improved.

A lot of the sources weren't in English and it was hard to summarize their thoughts. This section was the one that I thought might need some extra eyes

I'll have a deeper look in the next few days and leave some comments that could improve the section. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• • "UploadVR called it a worthy adaptation or the franchise's games" I assume this is a typo.

Done

• • IGN Italy should be italicised.

Done

• • "the power of the jumpscares"?

Should I change it to "effectiveness"?

Yes, that sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• • "Some reviewers called the jumpscares effective, but said that they would become repetitive over time" – remove said

Done

• • Optionally move "The game was nominated for the Coney Island Dreamland Award for Best AR/VR Game at the New York Game Awards in 2020." to the first paragraph.

Done

• • Do we have reception for the sequel?

Metacritic lists only one review for the sequel from UploadVR. Should I include it?

Sure, why not. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a great way to integrate the review to be honest. Is there a way you think I should add it somehow. Say something like "UploadVR called the game ___ and ___?" Just curious, I just want to make sure that I'm doing this right.

Vacant09, a few replies above. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll go paragraph by paragraph.

• The first paragraph does not have any issues.
• Second paragraph:
  • What do you mean by an "accessible" entry?

Easy to get into, especially for people unfamiliar to the franchise

• • "Destructoid felt that it would appease longtime fans and people unfamiliar with the series,[2] and The Games Machine said that it would appeal to players who were not fans of horror media through its simple mechanics" → "Destructoid saw that longtime fans and those unfamiliar with the series would be appeased with the game, while The Games Machine wrote that players previously not fans of the horror genre would be appeased because of its simple mechanics"

Reworded a little to be more in line with the source. Does this work?

Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• • "worthy adaptation"?

Decided to add a quote from the article instead. Does this look better?

Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• • "IGN Italy said that it was" – change to present tense

Done

• Third paragraph:
  • "UploadVR said the atmosphere was intriguing and increased the power of the jumpscares, writing that the virtual reality made the game feel immersive" → "UploadVR said the game's atmosphere was intriguing and increased the power of jumpscares, and that virtual reality made the game feel immersive"

Reworded. Does this work?

Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• • effective, in what sense?

Effective at scaring the player

• Fourth paragraph:
  • I doubt that "the" is needed before "different minigames".

Reworded

• • "The Games Machine called the levels diverse"?

This was a tricky one, but I reworded it. Does the new version make sense? I think I got it more in line with what the reviewer was saying.

Yes, it sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Thanks for addressing my comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from NegativeMP1

I've done work on every other game in the Five Nights at Freddy's series and conducted several source searches for this article before this FAC at the request of the nom (hell, we nearly co-nom'd), while also reading through it countless times. So knowing the subject matter and what all is out there, I firmly believe that this article clearly meets the FA criteria (though I did choose to wait for Vacant to finish his review before I supported), and I hope that this passes. λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

For clarification, I am looking at this copy of the article for my source review. My comments are below:

• Nintendo Life should be linked in Citation 4. Even though it is a redirect, it would be helpful for readers. I'd also encourage you to link IGN Italia in Citation 6 rather than separating the website out by only linking IGN as the redirect would be more beneficial to readers.

Done

• Is there a reason why Citation 18 uses GamesRadar rather than GamesRadar+?

Changed as suggested

• Destructoid is not linked in Citation 21 even though it seems that the website/publisher is linked in every citation, such as Metacritic being linked in both Citations 24 and 25. Destructoid should be linked in Citation 21 to keep everything consistent with the formatting.

Done

• Titles for non-English citations need a translation. I am seeing this with Citations 1, 3, 6, 8, and 26, but all of the citations should be double-checked to make sure that this is fully addressed.

Translated all the titles I think

Apologies for not being clearer with this one. The original title should be included alongside a translation. You would use the |trans-title= parameter in the citation for that. Just to be clear, the citation should have the original non-English title alongside the English translation (i.e. it should not be a replacement of one for the other). Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• It may be helpful to link European Spanish in the relevant citations. It may just be me, but I have never heard of this phrasing before, and while I obviously get it from context, it may be helpful for readers to have some avenue to look into it further.

Done

You can disregard this one as I do not think such linking works with how the template is set up. Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the "Sequel" subsection briefly cover the reviews/critical consensus for the sequel?

There sadly isn't a critical consensus on the sequel (no review scores for OpenCritic or Metacritic) so although numerous websites report on the existence of the sequel, I sadly wasn't able to summarize a critical consensus

That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is not required for a FAC/FA, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches in the future. It seems like most of the citations are archived, but I am bringing this up as Citation 34 is not.

Will do that real quick

• Citation 3 shows for me a publication date of March 14, 2021 rather than March 15, 2021. I know that sometimes depending on where the person accesses a site, the publication date can vary by a day or so. Could you double-check this one for me?

That looks right, fixed

• The "Reception" box in the "Reception" section should list IGN Italia to be more specific and clarify that this review and score were not done by the main IGN website. This should also be clarified in the prose as well (and it should be consistently IGN Italia with IGN Italy removed).

Done

• For the final paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would match the Kotaku and Nintendo Life citations to the appropriate sentences rather than lumping them together at the end. Nintendo Life should also be linked on the first instance in the prose.

Done

• All of the citations are reliable and high-quality and in my opinion, they are appropriate for a potential FA on a video game. I used WP:VG/RS to double-check things and I did not notice any issues.
• I did a brief spot-check to make sure the information is supported in the citations. Citation 2 is being used to support a part on "Night Terrors", but I do not see that phrase in the article. I do see a discussion on a similar mechanic known as "Dark Rooms". Is that what is being referenced?

Yeah I think that was a mistake on my part, I must have confused Dark Rooms with another minigame in Help Wanted with similar mechanics called Night Terrors. Fixed.

• Citation 14 is being used to support a part on the delay in the game's release, but I do not see that discussed in the actual source. I see that citation talks about the April 2019 release, but I do not see any mention of a delay unless I am missing it.

Missed that too. I rephrased it to say that it was planned for release in April, but was initially launched in May. Should I look for another source to confirm the delay if possible?

The current wording should be fine. It is pretty clear that some sort of delay took place as the announced release date did not end up happening. You could look for another source to add the "delay" wording back in the article, but I do not think it is really necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope that this review is helpful and best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for the review. A few replies above. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I have left a few comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47 follow-up to the above. Added the translated title parameters. Again, thanks for the review! Fathoms Below (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. I have a quick side question, but does anything from this game tie into the next one (i.e. Five Nights at Freddy's: Security Breach)? Again, this question is more so for me as I am curious and does not affect my review at all. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Not much ties into the next game. Although the plot of all the games and books is loosely connected, the most Help Wanted ties into Security Breach (without getting into excessive detail) is the teaser at the end with the Christmas tree farm and building that is under construction. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added some alt text @Nikkimaria. Anything else needed? Thanks, Fathoms Below (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's it for the image review. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Joe

Forthcoming JOEBRO⁶⁴ 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Sims 4

Nominator(s): Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 social simulation game The Sims 4. Initially released to mixed reception due to its limited variety of content and gameplay features, the game has since been significantly expanded upon by its developer Maxis, who has continued to support the game via free updates and many many DLC add-ons (thanks EA!). The game differentiates itself from previous entries in the series in several ways, such as: its stronger representations of gender identities and sexual orientations, fully-featured versions of the game on consoles, built-in online features (thankfully optional, unlike Maxis' SimCity, at launch), and being free-to-play from 2022 onwards.

This article achieved GA status in November 2022, after its third nomination (That was my fault, oops! I was a way more inexperienced editor back then.), and I have done a lot of work to the article to make it happen, including basically re-writing the whole thing. It's my first time attempting an FAC, so I am receptive to feedback and changes (including major ones, if necessary), but I do believe that the article has reached a point where it qualifies for FA status. Thank you in advance! Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Welcome to FAC! I'll have a look and review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 114: Change title to "The Sims 4 Review", add website: The Escapist
• Add the website for Ref 117, 122
• Ref 143: Change VGC to Video Games Chronicle
• Try to find a replacement for Ref 158 (Dexerto)

@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Please mention the EU/AU and UK release dates in the prose.
• Remove references for release dates in the infobox.

@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some parts of the prose this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilink the first mentions of macOS and Windows in the Gameplay section.
• "The newborn and infant life stages were introduced to the game in a 2023 update, and replace the baby life stage." → "The baby life stage was replaced by newborn and infant life stages in a 2023 update."
• "A new feature introduced in The Sims 4, is the ability to resize" – remove the comma
• "When constructing a building, buildings can have multiple floors" → "Buildings can be constructed with multiple floors."
• I did not notice any major issues in the rest of the Gameplay section. Everything looked understandable and clear.
• No issues spotted in Development.
• "A free playable demo of the Create-a-Sim feature was made available for download on August 12, 2014" – on which platforms?
• No issues were spotted in Release and marketing.
• In Missing features controversy, change "AI" to "artificial intelligence". Add the abbreviation AI in parenthesis if it's mentioned further in the article.
• I'm curious, but was there any reception regarding the soundtrack?

Another thing, @Theknine2:. Considering that this is your first nomination, FACs need to be assessed by several reviewers in order to get promoted. This also includes source and image reviews. It's soon gonna be a month since you've nominated this article for FAC, and so far, I've been the only one who left a review. So as a recommendation, you should follow the advice at §How to get the best from the process or simply ask WP:VG FAC editors to leave a review. Cheers and good luck, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve made the above changes. Thank you for your feedback so far! Theknine2 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the article tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Did not spot any further issues. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I’ll get to working on this within the next two weeks! I’m still committed to working on the FAC. Theknine2 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't your fault @Theknine2! Gog let's you know about this out of formality. It's possible for FACs to close simply due to a lack of user reviews, unfortunately. Panini! • 🥪 13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Review from Hurricanehink

Support - I figured I should since I have an open FAC with Hurricane Dennis. I've never played The Sims 4, just the first three, so I'm curious about the read.

• "The game was released in North America on September 2, 2014, for Windows" - odd to specify the release of North America, but not mention the rest of the world in the lead. And I get it, Europe/Japan was two days later, followed by the UK, so North America was the release to the world. But it was basically a worldwide release in September 2014. Also a nitpick, but you don't mention anywhere that the game was released in Japan, South Africa, or India, but that's available in ref 84.
• "It is the fourth major title in The Sims series, following The Sims 3 (2009). " - there should probably be a mention of The Sims 3 original release date with a citation, since the 2009 bit isn't backed up anywhere.
• Since you mention that it became free-to-play, is it worth mentioning how much the game cost at release?
• "Sims primarily make money by getting a job, and Sims need to develop skills for jobs; for example, Sims in the Culinary career track need to be proficient in the Cooking and Mixology skills." - I get that it's called the Sims, but could you find a way of saying "Sims" just once this sentence?
• "Paid downloadable content (DLC) packs expand the number of features, objects, worlds, and gameplay options available to play with." - the ending "available to play with" seems clunky, and would work fine ending at "options".
• "where individual Sims and families can be created and placed in the game world" - here is another example where I think you're saying "Sim" too many times, and just saying "where individuals can be created and placed". I mention that because you can also create two sims at the same time in Create-a-Sim and have them as roommates but not related, so it's not just necessarily families.
• "A new feature introduced in The Sims 4, is the ability to resize, move and duplicate entire rooms and buildings, along with all objects placed within the room or building." - should this be in new gameplay features?
• "A Sims-themed gaming headset, mouse, and "Plumbob" USB light designed by SteelSeries were released alongside the game's launch in 2014" - I feel like just quoting Plumbob doesn't do it justice what that word means, and how iconic that symbol is to the series. Might wanna explain what that is, at least until there's an article for Plumbob at some point in the future.
• "Content and feature updates continue to be developed for the game, as of 2024." - this might be a spot worth mentioning the upcoming expansion pack, since it's unsourced right now.

A pretty good read! Nothing major stood out to me, so it won't be much to get my support. Let me know if you have any questions about these comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the review.

• According to WP:VG/DATE, release dates for non-English markets should not be included, since this game was developed and published in the US. I’ve changed the phrasing to simply reflect its earliest official release date.
• Added in prose
• Price probably isn’t necessary for the article (WP:NOTPRICE)
• Done
• Done
• Done - changed it to “households”, which is the term used in the game.
• It’s an enhancement of the Build Mode portion of the game (present in all Sims games), rather than a completely new feature.
• An explanation of the “Plumbob” probably belongs in the The Sims article rather than here. (It is a good suggestion) I can’t currently find citations specifically discussing the Plumbob, so I’ll leave it as is for now.
• I’ve added a relevant citation, though it’s not about the expansion pack.

Theknine2 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies, happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Leaving this here to lock myself into making sure I do it. Ping me if it takes me a while. Panini! • 🥪 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Sims4CAS.png and File:Sims4_Room_BuildMode.png have largely identical FURs to each other and to the lead image. Generally speaking, the more non-free imagery is used, the stronger the rationale needed to justify each. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Done! Theknine2 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

• Prose is generally clunky. From the lead:
  • "The game was moved to a free-to-play model on October 18, 2022, monetized by the purchase of various paid downloadable content packs that have been developed since its release." This sentence faces a severe lack of clarity. Grammatically, it means that the game was monetized by whoever did the moving then purchasing various content packs—if you were to keep it in the passive voice, you'd need to say "selling" instead of "purchase". Then, we have the unnecessary date—just say October 2022 or 2022—and "that have been developed since its release", which says pretty much nothing.
  • "the new emotion and personality systems" the article should be removed, because you have not referred to it before.
  • "Development of The Sims 4 began as an online-focused title" does not make sense, what you actually mean is "The Sims 4 began development as an online-focused title"
  • "but plans were shifted to a single-player experience" again, unnecessary use of the passive voice, and what exactly does the word "experience" mean here? Sounds like something out of a brochure.
  • "In the months leading up to the game's release, Maxis revealed that several features present in prior The Sims main titles would be omitted at launch" in addition to being wordy, this omits what seems to be the main relevance—that the cuts were controversial and heavily criticised by the playerbase.
  • "the lack of content compared to prior The Sims titles...and missing features" the difference being?
  • "numerous paid downloadable content packs, namely seventeen expansion packs, twelve game packs, and several stuff packs and kits; expansion packs are the largest content packs" excessively wordy, you can probably cut everything before the first comma and after the semicolon, and add "larger" or "smaller" where necessary.
  • Why do the "free content updates" get details of what they include but not any of the expansions or game packs?
• Lead needs work to match MOS:LEAD. Per MOS:OPEN, the first paragraph should define and identify the topic while providing context. Currently, the first and third sentences are good, but they are surrounded by sentences on release dates and pricing. Would suggest moving the latter information later in the lead, combining the second paragraph with the remainder of the first, and reorganising appropriately.
• "The most recent expansion pack, The Sims 4: Life & Death, is set to be released on October 31, 2024." is likely WP:RECENTISM and should be removed.
• Would expect worlds to be at least touched on in the lead, considering the frequency with which they come up in the body.
• At a glance, much of the infobox, such as the directors, producers, designers, and artists, are uncited.

Such extensive problems before we reach the body does not bode well for the article, and a quick skim shows quite a few issues. Lack of clarity, such as how can you construct a lot? Slightly promotional tone in the downloadable content packs section, see e.g. "Explore ruins, uncover artifacts, and encounter challenges in a Latin American-inspired jungle world. Learn about local cultures and collect unique ingredients"

I'm going to note an oppose for this nomination; I would suggest working it over with the help of a copyeditor or an experienced video game writer before renominating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review :). I have generally addressed the above points mentioned. The lead for this article has been a little difficult to write, due to the open-ended scope of the game, and its many changes over the years. I hope it's clearer now, as of the latest article revision. If you're willing to further evaluate the article, I'm happy to cooperate. Also, I hope this citation for the credits is suitable, as I am not 100% sure how to cite game credits. Theknine2 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T6

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

T6 was a dinky little steam-driven torpedo boat that started life as an Austro-Hungarian vessel. She saw extensive service in the Adriatic Sea in the latter stages of WWI, performing convoy, escort, patrol and minesweeping tasks, and anti-submarine operations. After WWI she was taken over by the new South Slav state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – which was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and despite her age the Italians put her to good use on coastal and second-line escort duties in the Adriatic. When the Italians capitulated in September 1943, her crew tried to reach an Allied port, but scuttled her when this proved impossible. This article is part of the 36-article Featured topic, Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, that I am slowing improving to the point where every article and list is Featured (I'm about two-thirds of the way there). Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

File:Yugoslav torpedo boat T3.jpg - a reprint of the source just credits the image to "Photo, Official" - could you please explain where the indication is that this is a British official photo, rather than a Yugoslav one?

The answer to this is with reference to the captions of photographs of RN ships in the same book, which have exactly the same annotation, "Photo, Official", whereas French ships for example, have "French Navy, Official" (see page 139 for an example of the latter). I consider it is entirely reasonable to assume that because it does not say "Yugoslav Navy, Official", but uses the same annotation as RN vessels, that it was taken by a RN source (probably the naval attache, or by a RN ship on a show the flag visit). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that the caption doesn't quite work right now - it's technically unsourced since the distinction is never made in this article that T-3 was of the T type instead of the F type. The same source this image is from does include a photo of one of the two-funnel models of these torpedo boats, but it's of much lower quality so I can understand why it is not used. Hog Farm _Talk 23:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to cite the fact that T3 was a T-group boat as it is very unlikely to be challenged. I could add it and a citation to the caption if you think it is necessary, but it seems like overkill to me. An explanation of the distinction is made per "The F-group had two funnels rather than the single funnel of the T-group" under Description and construction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

G'day Hog Farm. See what you think of my responses above. Thanks so much for having a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay - passing on the image review. Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

Solid article. Paragraphs and sentences occasionally need splitting, and I have some thoughts on commas. Ping me when all of this is handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• she was armed with two 66 mm (2.6 in) guns and four 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes, and could carry 10–12 naval mines One subject: "she". Remove the comma. WP:CINS

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Background:

• Would a paragraph split be useful?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• In such circumstances, there would be a need for a torpedo boat that could sail from the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine, Hungarian: Császári és Királyi Haditengerészet) base at the Bocche di Cattaro (the Bocche or Bay of Kotor) to the strait during the night, locate and attack blockading ships and return to port before morning. Consider converting the translation note to a footnote to improve readability in this complex sentence.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• as diesels with the necessary power were not available, and the Austro-Hungarian Navy did not have the practical experience to run turbo-electric boats Remove comma as this is part of one clause.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Description and construction:

• The 250t-class F-group boats had short raised forecastles and an open bridge, and were fast and agile Remove comma CinS

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd recommend splitting the first paragraph unless it is like this in other articles of the FT.

Good point, it has become larger over time as more material has become available, and is now a bit unwieldy. I have reorganised it a bit, then split it. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• with the forward gun mounted on the forecastle, and the aft gun on the quarterdeck Remove comma
• with one pair mounted between the forecastle and bridge, and the other aft of the mainmast Remove comma

Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• 93 F was laid down on 9 January 1915, launched on 25 November, and commissioned on 4 April 1916 Remove comma after 25 November to be consistent with this article's non-use of serial comma. (There is one serial comma later that is fine because of the complexity of the phrase)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Career:

• The original concept of operation for the 250t-class boats was that they would sail in a flotilla at the rear of a cruising battle formation, and were to intervene Remove comma

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• On 29 October she underwent Comma after "29 October" for consistency with the other date prepositional clauses in this paragraph

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• In June, 93, along with 96, and Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit were try the comma order In June, 93, along with 96 as well as Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit, were

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• During 1917, 93 conducted further minesweeping missions, and escorted 36 convoys. Remove comma before "and" (CinS). Think of it this way. Is the part after the conjunction a standalone sentence conceivably? Not "Escorted 36 convoys.".

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• of Pag, but had to terminate Remove comma.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• On 20 August, 93 was transferred to the Bocche, and was part of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla Remove comma (CinS)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96, and the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok try On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96 plus the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok,

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• As the end of the war approached in November and the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke apart, on 1 November 93 was ceded to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Restructure so "1 November 93" is not stuck together and could be mistaken for a date. Splitting the description of the SSCS into its own sentence ("This was...") will help.

I think I have addressed this, perhaps not exactly as you envisaged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Skradin where the population begged them to leave the harbour to avoid the town being bombed by the Italians. Add comma after Skradin for readability

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor, and the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident, where T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired and she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik. Split this sentence: In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor; the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident. There, T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired; she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• the Axis puppet fascist state, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) try the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Axis puppet fascist state

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• T6's commander, a Slovene, was not interested in serving in a Croatian navy, and abandoned Remove comma after "navy" CinS

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• join NDH navy missing "the"

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

G'day Sammi Brie, all done I reckon. See what you think? Thanks for taking a look, apologies for the delay in addressing your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Happy to Support after taking a look. My issues are rectified. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Pendright

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

PM - I seem to be awash in projects, so for now I'm wiggling out of this one—my apology. Pendright (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:

• Why have we not linked to the Skoda 7 cm gun article in the lead when we have linked to it in the infobox?

Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• "...Schwarzlose M.7/12 machine gun carried for anti-aircraft work": prefix "carried" with "was" for grammatical accuracy?

Wow, not sure how that got through previous reviews... Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• In the WWI subsection, "the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel" is too long, just "Freivogel" may bw enough since he was introduced just two paragraphs ago.

Ah yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Brijuni islands?

It is already piped to the Fasana Channel, but no harm in linking directly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Strojne Tovarne (Iskra)?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• How exactly did the ship make a good impression in Malta? Was it the sailors' conduct, the ship's power or something else?

Presumably the sailor's conduct and the appearance of the ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Zablaće (Šabac) or Zablaće (Čačak), whichever one the source is referring to?

It's neither, both those villages are landlocked ones in Serbia. This is a different place, a village on the coast of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "so took the": "so he took the"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "join NDH navy": "join the NDH navy"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• In the biblio, link to Norman Friedman and Velimir Terzić?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Add 44888337 as the JSTOR ID for Vego 1982?

I'm not a huge fan of adding extra identifiers, the task is to enable verification, not provide every possible option to access it. Unless the MoS has changed and it is now mandatory, I'll stick to one I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• As an aside, would you be ok with adding DOIs for the books? These enable easier access than ISBNs and I faintly recall that there is an MOS on providing as many access options as possible. If you do wish to, then Djukanović 2023 and Ramet 2006 do have DOIs available.

See my response above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, will do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Matarisvan. See what you think of my responses above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding my support, will do spot checks soon. Matarisvan (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't garnered a single support. Unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's most likely going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, any progress on the reviews above and below? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Crisco 1492

• Reserving a spot.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• They were the first small Austro-Hungarian Navy boats to use turbines, - Previous sentence had "Austro-Hungarian Navy", which may be misunderstood as "They". Perhaps "The 250t class"?
• On 11 May 1917, 93 F, 96 F and 78 T, accompanied by the Huszár-class destroyer Csikós, unsuccessfully pursued the British submarine HMS H1 after the submarine had stalked 78 T off Pola, missing her with two torpedoes. - Feels like this could be simplified. Perhaps "after the submarine had fired two torpedoes at 78 T"?
• Bojana river - As a proper noun, shouldn't this be Bojana River? Same with Brijuni islands and Istrian peninsula
• World War I - Question... I thought World War I was preferred in American English, with First World War preferred in British English.
• When the navy was formed, she and the other seven 250t-class boats were the only modern sea-going vessels in the KM - Would "were its only modern sea-going vessels" work better?
• I'm not seeing consistency in your use of the Oxford comma.
• Bay of Kotor - You referred to it as Bocche earlier. Why the shift?

Overall, the prose is quite tight. Well done! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "second-line escort duties". What does "second-line" mean here? This needs explaining.
• "Kraljevska Mornarica, KM". Not "Kraljevska Mornarica (KM)"?
• "New torpedo tubes of the same size". Presumably the same as the old ones but this should be clarified.
• "accompanied the light cruiser Dalmacija, the submarine tender Hvar and the submarines Hrabri and Nebojša". New KM ships? As you say above that originally there were only eight ships in the KM navy you should clarify.
• I find the second paragraph of WWII confusing. Šibenik Command was presumably a naval command of the NDH, so why should it need to be evacuated and why did Italy capture the boats of its Fascist ally?
• There is a CS1 maint error notice on the Freivogel ref. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Apocalypse of Peter

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...)

This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

HF

I don't know that I'll be able to do a full review here, but I do own and have read a copy of Edmon L. Gallagher's and John D. Meade's The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, published by Oxford University Press (I own the 2019 paperback edition).

• "Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna which perhaps comes from the 3rd or 4th century" - we're presenting these dates as a scholarly consensus (sourced to something from the 1960s?) but I don't know that this is actually the scholarly consensus. Gallagher & Meade refer to these as both fourth-century, and contains the following interesting footnote: These two fragments [Bodleian and Rainer] possibly (definitely, according to Van Minnen 2003: 35) derive from the same manuscript; see Bauckham 1998: 257. The Bauckham citation they are referring to is the Fate of the Dead book cited here and Van Minnen 2003 is "The Greek 'Apocalypse of Peter' which is apparently pp. 15-39 in the Bremmer and Czachesz 2003 source cited in this article.
• Gallagher and Meade also specificy that the Ethiopic versions are in Ge'ez
• "The Apocalypse of Peter is listed in the catalog of the 6th-century Codex Claromontanus, which was probably copying a 3rd- or 4th-century source" - this seems to be a bit misleading, per Gallagher & Meade p. 184 There are also some books beyond the traditional New Testament; the list concludes with mention of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter, but the first and last three of these titles are preceded by a horizontal stroke that appears to be an obelus, probably indicating their dubious status
• I do wonder if the text should contain an explicit reference to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter being a separate work given the similar names and ages. At least in my opinion, there is a greater degree of potential confusion between these two things than what most subjects handled with a simple hatnote would be
• Is it worth noting that the Akhmim manuscript also contains the Gospel of Peter and I Enoch?
• A bit more detail on the reception by Eusebius - Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 3.3.2) claims that no ecclesiastical writer ever made use of the Petrine apocrypha, [elsewhere in the work Gallagher & Meade do mention that Eusebius actually attests to usage of the work by Clement] and in his canon list he classifies the Apocalype of Peter as a spurious antilegomenon, but not a heretical work (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4)
• Lastly (for now) Gallagher & Meade cite Elliott, J.K. 1993 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James by OUP pp. 598-600 as collecting seven patristic citations. This article references all but one set of two citations: Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.19

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, but that's what I can contribute to this. I've been considering acquiring and reading a copy of Metzger's work on the canon for awhile; I liked his work on the textual history. Hog Farm _Talk 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy feedback!

• The Maurer 1965 write-up is a good one IMO, but it's just there as a supporting chorus and more proof of what goes in the shorter write-ups (one problem that happens sometime when compressing 300 page books into Wikipedia articles is that it isn't obvious it is the "most important" stuff; citing some shorter articles helps cut against that). (Side note, on age of references... similarly, all of the citations to M. R. James generally are "extras" that are conveniently available online, except when citing opinions attributed to James, as a little too dated; there's a "real" current-scholarship citation next to all of them. But I figured he was good to throw in thanks to Wikisource scans for easy verifiability on a few, along with general historic flavor.) Van Minnen 2003 is definitely cited in the article (ref 3 in the version of Aug 29), although annoyingly enough I don't own a copy and my interlibrary loan long since expired for easily re-checking it - was a good article though. Yes, I've read the theory that Rainer & Bodleian are from the same manuscript, but my thought at the time was I didn't want to stick in every bit of scholarly speculation. That said, checking... it looks like both Beck 2019 and Dochhorn 2024 buy it, and so does Kraus/Nicklas 2004, the most recent full book-length treatment of just the Greek. So it seems you're right that most recent scholars have switched over - updated the phrasing. (A little annoying since various other sources refer to the Rainer fragment as the "oldest" which wouldn't be quite true if Rainer = Bodleian is accurate, but oh well.)
• Ethiopic and Ge'ez are the same thing (see Geʽez). For reasons that I do not know, scholarship on the Apocalypse of Peter calls the language of the d'Abaddie / Lake Tana manuscripts "Ethiopic" 99% of the time - perhaps there's some technical distinction that makes Ethiopic correct and Ge'ez incorrect? I figured I should honor that and just use Ethiopic everywhere as well. (And even if they're pure synonyms, it's one less term for a reader to keep track of.)
• Hmm, what's misleading here? That Gallagher & Meade sentence sounds like what is trying to be communicated. If you meant "in the codex itself" I'd argue that's already implicitly indicated by specifying that it was (only) in the "catalog" (if a copy of ApocPeter was in it, that'd have made the scholarship way easier!). If you meant the "dubious" part, the topic of that paragraph is "indications ApocPeter was used, but disputed", so that's keeping with the general sense of examples the paragraph is trying to provide. Open to suggestions for rephrasing if that isn't being communicated as well as it could be.
  • Side note: Now, there IS something that I'd like to go into more detail if this was really scholarly-paper certified... specifically, that the idea that the Catalog was copying a 3rd- or 4th- century document is circular. That is, we think that's true precisely because we think the Apoc Peter would still have been current at the time (and 2nd century is too early for such a full catalog of the New Testament), but would have been unlikely in the 5th century... basically it's scholarship on ApocPeter informing the dating of the Codex, not the other way around. But I figure that point is too minor for a general audience (and besides, this isn't the "Date of authorship" section so it's not being used as faux-evidence there).
• On the Gnostic Apocalypse: Hmm. I did include two sentences in Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter#Literary_influences, because this text preceded that one and an obvious question is if the Gnostic Apoc. Peter author read "this" ApocPeter. But since most scholars think "no", it feels a little artificial to include here... "there's another work with the same title written later that has nothing to do with this?" Especially since the Gnostic work appears to have been obscure - until it was dug up, we had no idea it existed. I'd prefer not to add it, but can add a similar statement if really desired - I just have no idea where it won't stand out as irrelevant. ("Later influence"? Except about a work it didn't influence?)
• On Akhmim & Eusebius: Same answer here for both - I was just trying to keep the length of the article under control, and be a summary and not a total deep dive. The Akhmim manuscript including the Gospel of Peter is mentioned indirectly in "Manuscript History" when it's relevant for how the Akhmim version was probably rewritten, but I don't think including Enoch is that relevant (the Ethiopic manuscripts include a bunch of other stuff not mentioned here too - see [7] & [8]), just it feels off-topic to mention them. Eusebius is simply wrong when he says nobody else quotes Apoc Peter, but beating up on him for overstating the case seems petty. And I figure people interested in Eusebius dividing books into good; disputed; orthodox-but-spurious (our ApocPeter in this category); and heretical can hit the references for more. I can certainly expand it into a full sentence if desired, just that paragraph is already on the long side, and I thought "dubious" gets the gist of Eusebius's opinion across.
• On Theophilus: Buchholz deep dives all the patristic references and alleged references, and is rather skeptical of this one (and in the realm of side chatter, so am I, this is a total stretch). Both Theophilus's line and Akhmim Gr. 15 talk about a cool place with both light and beautiful plants, but to quote Buchholz p. 49, "The evidence is not convincing because it was normal at that time to describe paradise with much light and beautiful plants." It'd be an indirect reference at best that suggested Theophilus had read ApocPeter and was loosely quoting it. I suppose I can add it, but I'd rather kick it to a note, similar to the Acts of Paul and Thecla possible reference. (But even then, that one is more "interesting" because it's touching on a theological issue. This one is just vaguely similar flowery descriptions that could have easily happened by chance with no particular significance.)
• diff changes here. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with your replies above except on two points - as to the mention in the Codex Claromontanus, for the other references here the article is indicating generally how the list or church father viewed the work. For instance, in the next sentence it doesn't just say that Stichometry of Nicephorus lists the work, it states the general classification that it gave it. I don't think much is needed to add here, but it's necessary I think to indicate how this was actually viewed, given that the early canon lists covered a fair bit of ground. Likewise, I think "Eusebius considered the work spurious but not heretical" is more informative and useful to the reader than just a simple statement that he found it dubious. I think there's a way to provide clarification in both of those cases without meaningfully adding to the length. Hog Farm _Talk 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough; expanded the Eusebius bit into two sentences, but I don't think the overall length was blown up. (I'll also try and get ahold of Gallagher & Meade myself and make sure I didn't miss anything in there.) SnowFire (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm missing something, I think everything significant in Gallagher & Meade is currently being included. I still think we need a brief clarification for the Codex Claromontanus listing to indicate how exactly this canon list viewed the apocalypse. I'll try to complete a full review after UC finishes their review below. Hog Farm _Talk 19:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
        • I added another sentence on Claromontanus. (The ApocPeter-specific sources don't see fit to talk about it - my suspicion is that it's because they're interested in the hypothetical original 4th-century catalog that was being copied that we don't have, which probably had no such mark because why would you even bother including such a work if you already don't fully trust it. But still useful to note that the later scribe marked it up.) It's unfortunate that the sources don't seem to clarify which obelus, presumably because it was obvious to them - I presume the dagger version, but I linked it to the top-level Obelus page since I'm not fully sure. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • I'll try to do a full review soon. I'm probably not going to have time this weekend, though. Hog Farm _Talk 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• @Hog Farm: Do you think you'll be able to perform a fuller review? (No problem if not, just a reminder ping.) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't have the time tonight. I'm hoping I'll be able to tomorrow or Wednesday, but I can't make promises. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and no other;" - but yet this is stated to include an account of the ascension, which is not directly found in Matthew. Is the argument here that this reference to the ascension is drawing on independent Christian tradition from outside the Gospels? But how exactly does one confidently demonstrate this and not that the account of the ascension is being taken from another gospel? I'd be interested to see what Bauckham is using to draw this conclusion.
  • It's page 173 of Bauckham, where he's citing himself on 4723-4724 of this article (on Wikipedia library). Checking... "Dependence on Matthew is especially clear in E1-2 (cf. Mt. 24:3-33) and E15—17 (cf. Mt. 17:1—8), with possible further allusions in E3, E5—6, and E14=R" (the R is "Rainer" here, and the E#s are Ethiopic chapter numbers). It does seem to be something of an argument from silence though - that because there aren't direct Lukan literary references, it wasn't used, even if the author knew of some circulating stories that also ended up in Luke. It looks like Bauckham goes into more detail in "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter" (on Wikipedia library as well)... as mentioned, the author seems to be quoting specifically Matthew's version of the Little Apocalypse. On the Lukan Parable of the barren fig tree, Bauckham says that there are no direct quotes, and further the version quoted seems to have "considerable differences", which suggests knowing of the parable from independent tradition rather than reading Luke. (He doesn't discuss the ascension, but my understanding is that this was thought to be a common piece of Christian tradition in the era, and the literary dependence is clearly Matthew's transfiguration.)
  • I should add that there is at least one scholar who argues against this, but in the reverse direction... Beck brings up Robert C. Helmer arguing that the author wasn't familiar with Matthew, either, and was only working with "Tradition" and lost sources! This was for an unpublished dissertation, though, that is inexplicably listed as "withdrawn" on the website ([9] - maybe only from e-publication?). Considering the high-quality of sources elsewhere, I'm not sure an unpublished view is important enough to discuss. I've repeated Bauckham's Fig Tree journal article as a reference to this line though, since that seems relevant.
• Is the link to wheel of fire really useful? Besides the fact that that article is currently a mass of OR ranging from Ixion to Frodo, it seems bold to pick a specific link for a topic that the scholars are considering to be unclear
  • The reasoning behind a wheel of fire being involved is unclear, but the punishment being a wheel of fire is clear enough. As is, the link is kinda worthless since the article is worthless, but given that there is an "In mythology" section, it seems potentially relevant? It's not a big deal and I'm happy to remove it, but if hypothetically the wheel of fire article was improved and sourced and continued to have a myth / religion section, I think the wikilink would be fine.
• "Sinners who perished in the Great Flood are brought back as well: probably a reference to the Nephilim, the children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women described in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Genesis." - I don't know that there's an easy way to rephrase this, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to approach this. Yes, the Nephilim are described in Genesis, but they are not described as "children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women" in Genesis; yes this is how some traditions have interpreted "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them" but we can't say that this is what the Genesis narrative explicitly describes
  • Fair enough. I was worried that not including Genesis might imply that this was entirely an Enochian tradition with no basis in the Torah, but I suppose the Genesis connection is already in the footnote. Removed the mention of Genesis here.
• One last thought I have with this - from what I've read, there seems to be a fair number of scholars who take the stance that apostolic authorship was part of the criteria for determining the canon in the early church. Does any of the scholarship on the apocalypse bear on this idea? Another angle is whether or not the scholarship gives any thought to considerations of if this work was recognized as pseudepigrapha in the early church, or if there was belief that this was an authentic Petrine revelation.
  • Absolutely! The canonicity section was refactored recently to include " A common criticism of those who opposed the canonicity of these works was to accuse them of lacking apostolic authorship" - hopefully that's enough for casual readers, but can add another line to add the reverse that canonical works had apostolic authorship if you think it'd help. As best we can tell, the number one argument used to buttress the authority of a document was to claim apostolic authorship for it, and the number one argument used against the authority of a document that did claim apostolic authorship was that it wasn't really written by apostles. Eusebius calling the Apocalypse spurious-if-orthodox probably indicates he doubts Peter wrote it, yeah. However, while this was the argument used, few surviving ancient authors approached the question like a modern scholar would - i.e. examining grammar, word choice, attestation. Rather, it was the somewhat circular criterion of "if it speaks the Word of God, then an apostle might have written it, and if it spreads heresy, then an apostle couldn't possibly have written it." Or more cynically, if you disagree with the content, then that means Peter didn't write this. So Apostolic authorship is the criteria, but most writers used theological criteria to decide the matter, rather than literary criteria.
  • Ehrman cites Serapion of Antioch saying as much about the Gospel of Peter - Serapion directly argues that because the Gospel of Peter could be read docetically (not even necessarily advocating docetism outright!), obviously the real Peter couldn't have written it. Ehrman's argument in reasoning by analogy is that if "could be read as promoting heresy" = "no aposotolic authorship", and we have condemnations of Rainer Fragment-ish universal salvation, maybe there was some influential Church figure condemning the Apocalypse of Peter as not apostolically authored, a la the Serapion example.
  • Anyway, any ancient authors positively quoting the Apocalypse should be assumed to think Peter really wrote it (or dictated it, or had some Mark-esque secretary record the story, etc.), and anyone speaking poorly of it should be assumed to think it was pseudepigrapha.

SnowFire - I think that's all of my thoughts on this. I guess as full disclosure, I'm approaching this from an evangelical Christian perspective, although I think I've kept my personal religious beliefs out of this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm: No worries. (And Bauckham is usually considered somewhat on the traditionalist side of scholarship FWIW, although not to the degree of the strongest and most traditional of apologist-scholars, i.e. the Talbot folks.) Thanks for the review; made a few changes and can easily make a few more if you think it'd help. SnowFire (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Great work, supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 02:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

UC

Resolved

A small issue throughout -- AD dates are given as e.g. AD 120 (AD before the number), while CE dates are given as e.g. 120 CE. We have quite a lot of 120 AD in the article. I used to enforce this myself, but I gave up that fight since English usage seems to have shifted here. MOS:ERA says "AD appears before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)," i.e. both are valid. Since most Wikipedia uses seem to place it after, I figured I might as well do so as well. The Apocalypse of Peter is influenced by both Jewish apocalyptic literature and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture: Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture doesn't quite sit right with me as a phrase -- Hellenistic, after all, means "Greek (with some asterisks)", and of course much of what we know as Hellenistic literature, philosophy etc was being done in places like Egypt and Syria by people whose cultural affiliation was complicated. Personally, I'd cut after philosophy, but I can see the argument for the current framing. To be clear, it means "Greek" culturally, not "from the place Greece." But yes, since this is the lead, this is really hinting at what "Hellenistic" is to casual readers, many of whom won't know that already means (mostly) "Greek". I agree with your phrasing if this was deeper in the article, but I figure giving a glossary clue here is important. Casual readers already have to deal with a blizzard of unfamiliar terms. The (pseudepigraphia) is a bit unclear -- how does that word fit into what preceded it, especially given that few readers will know it? I'd try to work it into the the text -- something like The text is pseudepigraphical; it purports to be written by the disciple Peter, but its real author is unknown. I agree few readers will know it; I was trying to make the lede accessible by avoiding scary, unfamiliar Greek words, explaining in simple English, and hiding the technical term in a gloss. That said... done, I'm just worried about keeping accessibility high in the lede, and think it needs to be the friendliest of all the sections. The article makes heavy use of false titles, such as French explorer Antoine d'Abbadie, English scholar M. R. James, and so on. These aren't considered wrong in AmE as they are in BrE, but they do strike a journalistic (rather than academic) tone, particularly when used so frequently. Would advise The French explorer... and so on. Yeah, obviously an American here, and adding "The" reads a touch "fancy" to me ("Look at me, I'm The Wikipedia Editor SnowFire!"). That said, done, changed (most? all?) of these, tell me if I missed any. I would advise swapping around the first two body sections, remembering that the body is meant to be able to stand apart from the lead. We currently start with From the medieval era to 1886, leaving us in the dark about the text's life before the medieval period until quite a lot further down. I might even be tempted to put "Manuscript history" quite a lot later -- down after "Debate over canonicity". Most readers, I imagine, will want to start with what the text is, then what it says, then why it matters, and only then to get into the weeds of manuscripts and philologists -- plus, this arrangement makes things a bit more chronological. On swapping the first two body sections: Done. There is a problem with doing so though, which is that now the "map" which is intended to go with the "Date of Authorship" section won't display next to it on desktop because the giant New Testament Apocrypha sidebar pushes it down. So if others feel strongly, happy to swap them back, but will presume that this is just a price to pay for the moment. On moving manuscript history even further down: In most articles, I would agree (I've hidden the boring "Manuscripts" section at the end of Arabic Apocalypse of Peter#Later_manuscript_history for example). Unfortunately, I believe we're stuck with doing it first for this topic, because Akhmim & Ethiopic & Rainer all differ, and readers will be totally confused if we're saying "Akhmim says X, Ethiopic says Y, Rainer says Z" before what that means is explained. Ah, of course -- that's fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Double quotes on "an eye for an eye" and similar. Done. (This one is a little odd because it's more setting off a phrase than being a true quote, but sure.) from Arabic, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original: we're missing a noun in the first clause here -- something like an Arabic version (or some other noun to avoid repetition). Done. Jesus, Moses, and Elijah: suggest explaining who these other two people were. I've added "the prophets", but I don't really want to add much more detail for something not really that relevant (these were sorta just name-drops that only appear in one version of the text). Explaining messianic expectations around Moses & Elijah would be an entire separate article - I think if readers are interested in more, they can find it in the Transfiguration article wikilink, or the links to them. Yes, I think that's the right level of detail here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) The Apocalypse of Peter fits snugly into the genre: MOS:IDIOM applies here, I think. Hmm, is this even an idiom? I guess "fit" is metaphorical, but that's not uncommon. Changed regardless, went with "is a predecessor of and has similarities with" instead. We should put a date on Eusebius. Done. The Apocalypse is quoted in Book 2 of the Sibylline Oracles (c. 150): how confident are we (and our sources) on that date? My limited understanding is that the dating of the Sibylline Oracles is extremely tricky. It is tricky, but my understanding is that the dating of just Book 2 is somewhat more secure. It looks like a recent work on this isn't on WP Library (JJ Lightfoot's "The Sibylline Oracles" is 335 dollars on Oxford Academic!), but JJ Collins in 1983 wrote "the Christian redaction should probably be dated no later than A.D. 150." As this is providing a later bound, using the latest reasonable time is valid. For an older source, Alfons Kurfess in NT Apocrypha (the same 1960s book the Christian Maurer writeup on ApocPeter is in) was apparently pretty confident in 150 too. Sources only on ApocPeter just seem to mention 150, footnote it to Kurfess or the like, and move on. "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners.": period outside quotes. Likewise, later, within "an eye for an eye." and a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." (MOS:LQ) Switched. (I was thinking that these aren't, strictly speaking, quotes, and that LQ only applies to [Bob said "Oh no"] type deals, but no big deal either way.) In general, most scholars: this is tautology, unless those scholars frequently change their minds. Cut. Most famously, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy would become extremely popular and celebrated in the 14th century and beyond: See above re. Most famously. Cut. Mirror Punishment: decapitalise, I think, per MOS:CAPS (Wikipedia generally errs on the side of few capitalisations, relative to other publications) Done. for both divine justice as well as divine mercy: a tautology -- either both .. and or just justice as well as ... I don't follow the concern here with the old phrasing, but your phrasing is fine too, so switched to "and". God's Commandments: decap commandments unless in a phrase like the Ten Commandments. Done. gives evil spirits that inhabited idols and led people astray physical bodies: I found the object here a bit unclear: suggest gives physical bodies to evil spirits that... Switched. "Nephilim" is capitalised. Done. a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." : see MOS:LQ point above, but also -- which language? Greek. (As for why it was romanized "Temelouchus" in sources on ApocPeter yet our Wikipedia article on the named angel is at "Temeluchus", I don't know. Probably just random chance. Not a fan at how it's probably suggesting a phantom distinction, but that's what the sources seem to use...) I've looked it up: the former is correct. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) involving going up to a high fiery place (perhaps a volcano?): the last bit of this reads as an editorial note, which isn't right for an article -- could do a high fiery place, perhaps a volcano, or even attribute this: a high fiery place, which Smith conjectures to be a volcano. Switched. a popular 4th-century work: if popular here means "widely beloved", it's a tautology -- we've established that in the preceding clause. I don't think we have? We established that ApocPaul became more popular than ApocPeter, but eclipsing #28,742 on the Amazon "religious apocalypses" bestseller list could mean you're #27,458, or it could mean you were #2. ApocPaul was absolutely a top 3 apocalypse for centuries, and indicating that is important IMO (since unlike Dante, most people aren't familiar with ApocPaul now). This is backed by the sources which call out this special prominence: "very popular and widespread" (p. 66 of Buchholz), "the most popular medieval apocryphal Apocalypse" (p. 302 of Bremmer 2009), etc. There are a decent number of other Christian works name-dropped in this article that might have been a Random Book in the library of one monastery that lucked out and happened to be preserved, but Apoc Paul is qualitatively different from them. The Apocalypse of Peter is an early example of the same genre as the famous Divine Comedy of Dante: two things here -- one, we've established earlier that it might be a relatively early katabasis, but there are/were also plenty of earlier examples, usually inset into longer works like the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Secondly, famous is WP:PUFFERY and should be consigned to Limbo, at the very least. Well, many readers probably already know Dante at least, but for those who don't, I think it's relevant to indicate that Dante is a Big Deal. This isn't being included to puff up Dante, but rather just to indicate that the Divine Comedy is a cultural touchstone, a work in the literary canon of vast influence. Open to suggestions here, but this is relevant IMO, and if anything "famous" is an understatement. As far as earlier examples, I would definitely say that Dante is way closer to ApocPeter than he is to Odysseus, most obviously in the vibes of Inferno which aren't really that close to "shades attracted by blood who want to dump some backstory". So don't think it's unreasonable to call it out as a forerunner. I would strongly advocate for cutting famous -- I can't see a reading of the relevant PAGs (WP:V, WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASELWORDS in particular) that allows it. if you want to demonstrate that Dante is a Big Deal, do so in a way that is verifiable -- "Dante's Inferno, described as "the most important work of Christian poetry ever" by Scholar McScholarson". However, even then I'm not sure it's important to do that here -- readers will, I think, naturally infer from the prominent presence given to the work in the lead that it's particularly important, even if they've never heard of it, and can of course click on the link to find out precisely how important it is. On the other comment -- I don't see that naming it as a forerunner (which is fine) requires the specific phrasing of "an early example" -- why not do precisely what you've suggested and call it an important influence upon/forerunner of the poem? I think my issue is with the word "early", which has slippage between "earlier than Dante" and "early in absolute terms, relative to other examples of the same genre". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Changed to "is a forerunner" if you prefer that over "early example" if it's not worth qualifying exactly how early in comparison to what. I guess the dispute here is that I don't see "famous" as puffery, but rather as simply factual in this case. Calling it the "greatest" would be puffery, to me, but "famous" is the equivalent of writing that a blockbuster film sold many tickets at the box office - a measurable and relevant item to discuss, and exactly the kind of thing WP:PUFFERY suggests as a better alternative. For example, Jaws (novel) (a GA) writes "[The film] Jaws is credited as the first summer blockbuster movie and was the highest grossing film in motion picture history up to that time". The fact that the film was a mega-smash is relevant as far as "this novel was the basis of something that's a big deal," and there's no need to qualify this as an opinion because it's measurable. (Presumably you could count quotes, references, book sales, etc. to "prove" that the Divine Comedy was indeed "famous" to a hardcore skeptic). Basically, if it's supported and relevant (i.e. not "an Indie magazine said my garage band was popular"), it's not necessarily puffery to make claims about popularity and influence, especially for works of towering influence. (Side note: not a GA/FA, but our article Divine Comedy writes it is "the pre-eminent work in Italian literature and one of the greatest works of Western literature" as a general consensus opinion in the very first paragraph. That one might be pushing it! But... not wrong, either.) You also write on readers "naturally infer"ing from placement - maybe I'm just swayed from working on some articles on other old works of literature, but many of them also have statements like "X influenced Y" but sotto voce the "Y" is obscure, so a reader assuming that Y was particularly important would be incorrect in so doing. This topic is a rare case where, even if the original work became obscure, its influence resonated indirectly via something raised to the Western canon. I don't think WP:WEASEL is violated here either. All of the sources in the section in the body on the topic support the weak claim that the Divine Comedy was famous. It's WEASEL if you claim people say it but it's never referenced who is saying it, but that's checkable in the sources. You can make very bold claims as long as they're backed - checking other literature FAs, Uncle Tom's Cabin writes it "had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery", not as a quote or attribution to one scholar. Which is true! Similarly, I think it's true and verifiable that The Divine Comedy was famous. Of course, this is an article on an entirely different work, so I don't want to sidetrack with an attributed quote about The Divine Comedy: was it important or not. The word "famous" is there for a reason though: it's explaining why we're bringing this centuries-later connection up at all. We haven't discussed The Divine Comedy at all before here, and we're suddenly bringing it up: why? Because it's famous. I could obviously rephrase a number of ways, but presumably they'd have the same issue if merely acknowledging its influence is inherently puffery. A circular problem here because that influence is exactly what needs to be raised. That was a lot of verbiage on one word. I strongly disagree here per the above valid examples of discussing fame, but I'll remove it anyway, for now. If my above comments convinced UC, or anyone else out there reading this wants to offer a third opinion though, happy to hear it though, whether in favor or against. There has to be some way to differentiate a mega-popular work from an obscure work, and this is a factual enough question that it shouldn't be regarded as mere opinion.... but I've already written way too much on this and don't want to trap people in "DEBATE ME!" loops more than I already have. In Greek (note 1), Πέτρου is a proper noun, so is capitalised. Generally, so too are the first letters of titles, so Ἀποκάλυψει. Are you absolutely certain that Ἀποκάλυψει is intended, however, rather than Ἀποκάλυψις? The latter is the usual form in Ancient Greek; in modern Greek, it's Αποκάλυψη, but that's very much a post-1453 spelling. In the Romanisation, we've given the stress on Petrou, but not on the Apocalypse word. The tricky thing is that Akhmim, which is in Greek, doesn't ever call itself the Apocalypse of Peter, so we're stuck with old Greek quotations. I picked one from Macarius Magnes - p. 30 of Buchholz indeed uses "ει". I double-checked this wasn't a transcription error, and it wasn't - 4,6 of Magnes is in a 2013 edition on De Gruyter on the Wikipedia library (link), and has "1. Περιουσίας δ’ ἕνεκεν λελέχθω κἀκεῖνο τὸ λελεγμένον ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Πέτρου." (I suspect the capitals & accents are from brushing up the raw version - those aren't in Buchholz's which uses lowercase alpha, lowercase pi, etc.) But I'm not a Greek expert so I'm flying blind here. If this was a modified form or just a scribe being bad at spelling, happy to switch to the "usual" version; otherwise switched to the 2013 transcription. (Also threw that into G Translate and grabbed a transliteration there, which threw an accent on the y, added it in - but I will defer to you over trusting the machine if that's incorrect. Or just flat removing all the accent marks.) Ah -- your quotation has it in the dative case -- that writer would have put it as Ἀποκάλυψις if writing it in the context you have. We should do likewise (there's a grammatical explanation here, which I'm happy to go into if you want, but we can think of it as a routine calculation as described by WP:OR) UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Done. Thanks! that the punishment may fit the crime: is may fit the right word here -- should fit, surely? This isn't exactly the lex talionis, which is much more about reciprocation/compensation (that the perpetrator should experience the same suffering that they have inflicted upon others, and no more), but I think the framing here is fine. Switched. parchment leaves claimed to be deposited in the grave of a Christian monk: claimed by whom? A chain of two claims I believe - Maspero claimed that the unnamed Egyptian guy he got it from told him this. It's... possible... but also what Maspero would have wanted to hear. Also some archaeologists of this era just lied all the time to disguise when they stole stuff or dressed up the provenance as more compelling than it really was - "found in a tomb of a monk" sounds more valuable than "bought from a shady guy". The methodology was awful by modern standards - they basically told the local Egyptian population to go grab what they could as document mercenaries, and then lots of it ended up on the antiques market. But I think going into the weeds loses focus here - "claimed" is a hint that we aren't really confident that this story is true, which is enough. See p. 25-27 from Nicklas/Kraus 2004 for more - features words like "Unfortunately" and "everyone keeps citing Bouraint as if it were given facts, but..." and "used with caution" as far as the "tomb of a monk" story. Do you think it's worth adding a Note on this? I'm a little worried about the number of side notes creeping up, but happy to add it the source of the skepticism there. I think we need to be clear about whether Maspero claimed this, or whether (as it sounds) he claimed that someone else claimed it -- personally, I'd include a footnote, but I'm not shy about including silly numbers of efns and quite like a good archaeological story. It does sound like this is a particularly dubious claim, and I think readers should be given a sense of that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Added. (And yes, he claimed someone else claimed it, so there's two places where someone could have possibly made stuff up.) In a bulleted list, the MoS (MOS:CITE?) would like each citation no later than the end of the corresponding bullet. This would be crazy overkill, though? I picked three lists of the punishments and they're the same references for each line in the list. I'm happy to ask for clarification on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources if desired, but my presumption is that if there's a Wikipedia list but there's a single cite for every entry, it's okay to throw the citations at the end of the list. If nothing else, IAR suggests that 21 copies of the same 3 citations in a row is off, and an IAR case. Personally, I find it weirder to come to the end of a sentence/paragraph and not see a little blue number (if you're using SFN templates, those would all link to a single footnote). I think the MoS is pretty clear here -- it's not a huge matter, as readers can tell where the material comes from with the current framing, but I do think it would be more bomb-proof for WP:TSI (imagine, for example, that a future editor adds another bullet point) if done by the book. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) If another bullet point is added, either it's getting reverted, or we've found another manuscript and need to re-source the whole thing anyway! I went ahead and replicated the citations, but still suspect this is a case of citation overkill. I'll bring it up on the Citing Sources talk page later but not tie it to this particular article and we'll see if anyone bites on an opinion, as this is a general issue not specific to this article that probably just needs a standard. the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife: I think this whole sentence can be cut, but if it stays, we need to do away with the metaphor and probably the word influential. See above - I think this is a "summing up" statement on what is the other half of why people still write / care about ApocPeter (half are interested in the theology of salvation, half are interested in depictions of hell that would lead to Dante). This is another case where it might be a metaphor, but it's a metaphor used all the time, even in academia - Himmelfarb has got a bunch of fancy graphs & maps of parent works that influenced other daughter works that went on to influence yet other works. I now wonder if changing "important" to "influential" even helped above if you object to influential as well, but this is one of those "writing for a general audience" matters IMO - this is where I'm trying to say "this is the part that mattered!" And per above, "influential" is already a vast understatement on Dante. I do sympathise with "this is how it is done in academia", but Wikipedia isn't an academic chapter -- for one thing, it's written for people with a whole range of linguistic abilities and educational backgrounds, whereas academic works are invariably written for people with an extremely strong command of English and an almost excessive level of erudition. There are quite a few PAGs (e.g. WP:MTAU) to the effect that our articles should not always look like our sources, and I think this is one case where that applies -- an academic journal article has different aims to a Wikipedia article, and we should expect the writing style to diverge accordingly (in this case, because catering for non-experts and second-language speakers is far more important to us than it is to them). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) In this I fully agree! I just think that second-language speakers are exactly who I have in mind (similar to the above discussion on who would need to be told that Dante was "popular"), hence the recap sentence at all (for an academic audience, I would consider cutting the sentence entirely, as you suggest, as mildly redundant). I just don't think these general audience folk will be at all confused by "parent" here - to the extent it's a metaphor, it's an obvious, helpful one. That said, I cut it and went with attributed quotes to Fiori / Bremmer instead. (Which make the passage slightly longer, so maybe we're going in the wrong direction here since you suggested an outright cut of the entire sentence, but hopefully won't have the other issues at least.) Anyway, changes so far are here. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Looks good, just remember to attribute the Fiori quote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Done. one of the borderline works that came closest to being included: does borderline add anything here -- surely a work that came close to being included is, by definition, borderline? It could be removed, but I'd argue it reads better with it? i.e. imagine a sentence like "TITLE is an apocalypse, an (insert description of apocalypse here)." You could technically either just say "it's an apocalypse" or "it's (description of what an apocalypse is)" but combining them makes a little definition for a casual reader so they know to connect the two, and can now use one word to think of many. Or it wouldn't be odd to read "[SPORTS TEAM] was on the cusp, the highest-ranked team to still be relegated" even though "on the cusp" could be similarly cut. That said, removed anyway since we don't really discuss other 'borderline' works, but eh, I still think it made it a slightly easier read. More generally, I don't understand the relationship between the bibliography and the references section -- what's the logic as to what makes it into the bibliography, and what is only cited as a reference? Given how long the references section is, the overall effect is confusing -- it is very difficult to get a sense of how this article's sourcing is constructed. The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag. Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.

Some impressive scholarship on display here. I think my comments will mostly have to stick with Wikipedia minutiae rather than really getting to grips with the subject matter, but I hope they are useful. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the points below each one, rather than in a list at the end -- I can see this review getting even longer and more confusing otherwise!

• • Thank you so much for the prompt and detailed review! I wouldn't disclaim your subject matter knowledge too much - you clearly know plenty here, and more than me on the matters of Koine Greek itself. (There are a few points I have some pushback, but don't take my whining too seriously - if you feel strongly on it, I'm happy to adjust anyway. Just figured I'd just raise the "other side" first on the ones I disagree on.) SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• be pierced by sharp fiery stones as would beggars: not sure what as would beggars means in this context -- do beggars get the same punishment, or is this (apparently) what happens to beggars in the real world?
  • What happens to beggars in the real world, yes. i.e. "clothed in filthy rags and having calloused feet from stones cutting through their bad shoes". The burning part maybe not as much, but that's kinda the standard hell addition in ApocPeter. (Although who knows, the ground can get pretty hot in the Middle East...) Fun fact on the side: I forget where exactly, but someone wrote an article with a long analogy about how this was fore-runner of the medieval Danse Macabre, i.e. in the sense that noble & commoner alike do the dance, and maybe the rich people are being forced to dance into the stones? I didn't really buy the connection, but it was cool anyway.
    • I think that could do with a little bit of clarification -- at the moment, what is written isn't quite compatible with that (very good) explanation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I've expanded this to make the analogy more clear.
        • I'm afraid I still found it a bit unclear in the lead; I've made a tentative edit there to assist. I now don't see anything about mirroring the existence of beggars in the body? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Added a sentence in the "lex talionis" section. I also switched "beggars" to "poor"... I personally think beggars are fine, but the text uses "widows and orphans" which seems to be synecdoche for the poor in general. So beggars might be over-specific.
• Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna: as phrased, this sounds as though the second fragment was discovered in Vienna. Suggest adding "held by..." or similar to the institutions.
  • Rephrased the sentence; take a look.
• The Rainer fragment was originally dated to the 3rd or 4th century; later analysis: can we put dates on these?
  • For the first, yes, and done. For the second, I'm not so sure there's a clean date when this becomes accepted (there are still recent-ish publications that use the old date), nor do I think it's that relevant - it seems like it started as a hypothesis that got better backing with later close analysis.
    • Right, but are we talking (more or less) about the early medieval period, or more or less about modern academia? I'm not suggesting that we need to pin it down to the 24th of March, 1893, but giving the reader an idea of vaguely what sort of timescale they're imagining would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Went with "2003" as when Van Minnen published his chapter in "The Apocalypse of Peter," although see disclaimer above. (I'd rather go for either pure hand-waving in this case or one specific event, as I don't think I have a source that says "over the course of the 2000s decade and 2010s...", although that's my personal guess).
• the Stichometry of Nicephorus: can we explain what this is and why it matters? We sort of introduce it right at the end of the article.
  • I feel that this is off-topic. I agree most readers won't have a clue what this is, but context provides everything that the reader needs to know - there was a source saying the Apoc Peter should have X lines, and the Ethiopic version is pretty close to that, and here's a wikilink to the source if you want to learn what a Stichometry is.
• Note 2 is long and generally well formed, but I think we should put in the body the fact that Bauckham's views have been challenged.
  • Open to suggestions, but the fact that this is attributed in-line to a specific scholar and uses "argues" (rather than just stating as a fact it's from Palestine) hopefully communicates it's not a scholarly consensus already (along with "Other scholars suggest [something else]"). I feel like that might also make the Egypt theory seem stronger than it really is - Bauckham's views have been challenged because a lot of people buy them, while the Egypt origin view doesn't seem as popular and thus people don't bother to swat it down. (The main competing view, as best I can tell, is flat "we don't know." But I'm not sure we need to write that one out.)
    • I'm not sure I agree -- it sounds like there's a debate with two sides, both of which have equal levels of scholarly acceptance, so WP:DUEWEIGHT says we should present both equally. Putting one in the body text and relegating the other to a footnote places greater weight on the first, which we should not do unless it is clearly the majority position (WP:FRINGE). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • But both are in the body text? Both the possibility of a Egyptian and a Palestinian origin are discussed in the body. Unless you mean the "we don't know" option? That's just some OR from me, nobody publishes a paper arguing "I've unsolved the problem, we have no idea." I've added a brief sentence cited to Bremmer acknowledging that provenance is still a matter of scholarly debate and uncertainty, with Palestine & Egypt the lead two options - does that work? (p. 153 here if curious)
• File:Near East 0100AD.svg -- political maps like this are a very tricky business. I can't find any sign of the source data for this one, and we definitely need some reliable source to be making claims about territorial boundaries and levels of effective control in this period. A smaller thing, but I'm very unconvinced by some of their Latinisations (like Myos Hormus for Myos Hormos), and they've used a frustrating variety of fonts.
  • I was just doing some basic translation of German from a map and leaving the Latin alone. @Enyavar: who created this series. From looking at the upload, a list of sources are at File:Ancient_Orient_History_Map_basis.de.svg#Beschreibung - anything else to be aware of in using the map?
    • That list seems to be specifically about the Bronze Age -- wherever a page is cited, it's specifically BA material. It does cite books that we would expect to have maps of the Roman period in them, but I don't see a definitive statement that those maps were used in the map we have. Of course, if you can find other sources which verify the information and append them to the Commons page, it doesn't particularly matter whether they were originally consulted, but we do need something for the included claims like, for example, "the Roman Empire had only weak influence over Nabataea in 100 CE". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I asked Enyavar directly - stay tuned. As for Nabatea itself, it looks like Rome only took over in 106 CE (Nabataean_Kingdom#Roman_annexation), so to the extent the map is "exactly 100 AD", it seems sorta justified as a heavily Roman-influenced but client-y state.
        • I'm not disputing any of the ideas in the map (except possibly that anyone ever called it Myos Hormus), only that we need to cite those claims, just as we would in text. We couldn't write "Nabataea was a Roman client state in 100 CE" without a citation, and it's the same to do so with an image. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Sorry about that! My own maps I try to carefully document (File:BattleofTordesillas.PNG for an old example), but this one was pre-existing, hence it being tricky for me to do directly. Enyavar replied at Benutzer_Diskussion:Enyavar#Question_on_Ancient_Near_East_maps, and I used that to add this addition to the file description. Is that enough information, do you think?
            • As I read it, it's (slightly harshly put) a vague handwave towards "go check the bibliography in the relevant Wikipedia article?" I don't think that's enough, really: one, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, two, that bibliography isn't necessarily stable, three, "it's somewhere in at least some of this huge list of books" isn't really precise enough. Really, we need something at the level of "For the geographical information, see maps on [these pages] of [these books]; see also a discussion of toponyms in [this gazetteer], and I've followed the view of [this book chapter] on the matter of [whatever]". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) Haven't forgotten about this, just was traveling over the weekend and am back at work now. I put in requests at the library for atlases & maps; we'll see what they turn up. Unfortunately the easy-to-access batch was mostly not showing much detail, or was dated like the 1923 Shepherd map. (Side fun fact: did you know that the 2023 Atlas of the Classical World has a "Rome under Trajan" map advertised in its Table of Contents? It's a map of... the city of Rome, specifically, during the reign of Trajan. Sad trombone noises go here.) SnowFire (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay. Attempting to make an entirely new map at the level of detail of the original map is way, way too much work, so there's no way that's going to finish "in time" here. I've elected to just use a less detailed map instead. I've uploaded File:Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg which has the original sources in the original map, and I've adjusted some of the city names to follow Talbert (2023) and verified a few others with other recent atlases. The Arabia Petraea region also follows the more conservative territory seen in most maps of the Roman Empire after 106 than the old 100 AD map. Hopefully this is considered sufficient enough sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• a Greek katabasis or nekyia: how come only the second gets italicised? I don't think katabasis is quite naturalised in English, at least among those who aren't Greek scholars. Smaller, but is a nekyia the right comparison here -- that usually involves, as Odysseus's does, standing more-or-less in the "real" world, being approached by the dead and asking questions of them?
  • I'm mostly mimicking Ehrman 2022 here. He leaves "katabasis" unitalicized (except on the very first introduction of the Greek term) but italicizes nekuia (with a u) everywhere. Bauckham 1998 does italicize katabasis though, and a quick search through the 2024 "In Context" shows two italicizations by Bremmer. I suppose I can switch it over, it's not a big deal. And I don't think there's a firm distinction, it's borderline, but to the extent that Peter & the disciples are tripping on a spiritual vision but while on Earth, you can argue it's a nekyia if your criteria is "happens on Earth" and if your criteria it that a true katabasis would involve actually VISITING a la Dante / ApocPaul, which is of course impossible in this case as it'd involve time travel.
• The link to Jewish Christians shouldn't cover "and achieve martyrdom", since being a martyr is, thankfully, not necessarily part of being a Jewish Christian.
  • Done, although now I'm a little worried it looks like the shoots are achieving martyrdom (when in the text, it's definitely the Jewish Christians).
• One theological issue of note: I would rephrase this sentence -- we generally avoid saying that things are notable, or should be noted -- it's taken as read that everything in a Wikipedia article is notable, and we do well to minimise the volume of our editorial voice.
  • I think this is a good general rule of Wikipedia writing, but similar to the concerns on "popular" above, this one I think needs some sort of callout. This is the theological issue and half the reason people are still writing about the Apoc Peter still today. It consumes a huge amount of what Beck, Ehrman, Bauckham, etc. have to say on the work; Ilaria Ramelli wrote a whole book on early Christian universalism that cites ApocPeter as an example for her thesis. Open to suggestions, but I think the importance of this passage needs to be emphasized in some way that makes it distinct from comparatively piddly stuff also discussed, like the names of angels.
    • OK, so let's say as much -- Beck writes that "the central theological issue of the text" is.... If we can't find anyone actually willing to put it in writing that it's so important, it's WP:SYNTH to infer it simply from the volume of scholarly writing on it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • We can, it's just that qualifying it in-text makes it sound like it's just one scholar's take, and it's broader in this case. It also calls even more attention to the matter up front before even describing it, rather than a brief side comment that's promising "read on and you'll find out why." Hence me preferring to simply state it as a fact - it's proven by all the referenced stuff later on to the pages and pages written on it.
      • I've removed it for now, though - the proper person to cite, if anyone, is Ilaria Ramelli here (for all that others think she overstates her case), and the Brill access for the Wikipedia Library is still down. :( If it comes back up, I'll re-check her $405 book to see if there's a suitably saucy quote to use, in the reference if nothing else.
• The Greek word "apocalypse": technically speaking, apocalypse is not a Greek word: I would transliterate apokalypsis here (and see note above on Greek words).
  • Done. Good idea, agree we should use the raw Romanized Greek here rather than the Latinized version.
• the work is pseudepigrapha: pseudepigrapha is plural, so I think you're on safer grammatical grounds to make this an adjective: pseudepigraphical.
  • Done.
• Christian-Jewish: this should be an endash, but I'm not sure what the join is meant to be here. Are we saying that it belongs to Jewish Christianity -- in which case, Jewish-Christian (with hyphen) would be better?
  • Switched to an ndash. And it wasn't restricted to Jewish Christianity, so that wasn't the intent... it's more like it belongs to Christianity, but had major Jewish influences.
    • Generally speaking, these kind of doublets are better written out with a full explanation. (I think MOS:DASH or MOS:HYPHEN says something to that effect. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I just cut "Jewish" - it's probably accurate, but it can be covered in the section on Himmelfarb's opinions.
• Plato's Phaedo is often held as a major example of the forerunning Hellenistic beliefs: this needs a bit more supporting material -- Plato's Phaedo is not Hellenistic.
  • It could be misread, but I feel that anyone capable of that misreading also knows enough to know what is "really" meant, that Plato was still current in the Hellenistic era and there were people called Platonists etc.? I switched it to the simple "Greek" though to avoid confusion.
    • Oh, yes, and Neoplatonism is a huge deal that might well need some sort of mention here. Switching to "Greek" solves the problem, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Later scholarship by Martha Himmelfarb and others: as before, can we be more specific as to the date?
  • Himmelfarb's book was published in 1983, but "others" is harder to pin down. I suspect picking a date would be problematic though - it's not like everyone instantly agreed Himmelfarb was right (in fact, just as Dieterich was a maximalist "everything was Greek with minor Jewish flavor" that was probably wrong, Himmelfarb's maximalist "this is all based on lost Jewish stuff" hasn't actually found much support at the other end of the spectrum), and the process was probably somewhat gradual as people filtered in the parts of Himmelfarb's argument that were the best supported in the 1980s & 90s. (And I'm sure there were some scholars in the 1960s arguing for more Jewish influence who are annoyed if Himmelfarb took all the credit.) I think this one is best left for "click the wikilink on Himmelfarb, or hit the references, for more."
    • As above -- would "twentieth-century" of similar work? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Rephrased to include that.
• Some scholars get introductions, others don't -- who was Albrecht Dieterich, for example? There are arguments on either side, but I think it's best to pick a lane -- either introduce everyone, or only those who aren't what you'd expect. This essay puts forward one common and very sensible approach -- essentially, if it's (e.g.) a classicist doing a work of classical scholarship, leave out the introduction as obvious, but do introduce them if they aren't' a conventional subject-matter expert -- for example, if a poet or mystic commented on the text.
  • I've usually used the "no intro" style except for very early in the article. I removed "The scholar" before Bauckham - if I missed any others, happy to remove them. The one intro I believe remains is for M. R. James, and that's because I want to mention he was English (but reading French translations of Ethiopic documents for fun, and connecting them to German translations of Greek he read & translated earlier. Just normal stuff).
• I struggled to get my head around the layout of the Predecessors section -- the chronology and provenance of texts involved seems very mixed, there's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" going on, and a few very short paragraphs. What's the logic at work here?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't really a "story" to tell here past the Greek vs. Jewish influence debate. It's more like "Scholar A detected a claimed influence here. Scholar B detected a claimed influence over here. Scholar C..." And some of these claimed influences really do need a "probable" disclaimer, because it's not like the passage says "As Ezra said in that one Greek book of his work..." Beck writes "It is important to acknowledge the uncertainty of source critical discussions". I've done my best to have something of a "narrative" here, but also want to avoid SYNTH.
  • On short paragraphs, here and elsewhere: My stance favors the "paragraphs should have a topic" writing style. Sometimes this leads to long paragraphs (as in the Canonicity section), but sometimes it leads to short paragraphs if there's just one person making one claim or the like. I'd rather avoid glomming together unrelated thoughts that suggests the Psalm 24 quote is linked with the postmortem baptism or the like. (And looking back, including Matthew in the "Greek katabasis vs. Jewish apocalypses" section is a little loose as is... Matthew does have an apocalyptic section but I don't go into that here.)
• the Apocalypse of Peter is distinct among extant literature of the period, and may well have been unique at the time: aren't all works of literature unique in some respect? I'm not a fan of the distinction between "being unique" and "adapting earlier writings" -- leaving aside people like Virgil, Dante and so on, we have things like the Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi, which is entirely original and unique despite not containing a single original line. Suggest getting to the meaty material as to what's distinctive about it sooner, and ideally offering more than one example.
  • I think Beck would agree with you! ("It is important to recognise the originality of the Apoc Pet"). The reason he's bringing up this seemingly anodyne point is... well, a lot of earlier scholarly literature is obsessed with proving X copied from Y and Y was stealing from Z and the like. He was agreeing with this sentiment, that let the work stand on its own (and implicitly criticizing all of the previous paragraphs of claimed sources).
  • As far as offering more examples - that's a little fraught. Honestly the example that's there is not great, because Beck himself is very much on the "ApocPeter is 80% mercy and 20% judgment" side of the debate, yet I've included an example on the judgment side (it's not sourced to Beck, but it is placed right after his statement). Beck's example is, of course, the extent of post-mortem salvation, that ApocPeter is a unique early proponent of universal-ish salvation. But that's already covered in detail elsewhere, so bringing it up in "Predecessors" too would feel a little odd.
• it is not known when the Clementine sections of the Ethiopic manuscripts containing the Apocalypse of Peter were originally written. Daniel Maier proposes an Egyptian origin in the 6th–10th centuries as an estimate, while Richard Bauckham suggests the author was familiar with the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter and proposes an origin in the 8th century or later.: this seems like it belongs in the section on manuscripts -- I don't really see its relevance in a section on the work's influence.
  • I'd say it counts. This isn't about the manuscript so much as the content of "The Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead" and "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners" - i.e. when were they written (probably before the manuscript itself) and what were they based on? Since it's right next to the ApocPeter and seems to mention it, it seems clear ApocPeter was a huge influence, in the same way that a 2024 sequel to a Shakespeare play is influenced by, well, the Shakespeare play itself it's adding to. That said, this section was called out as a bit confusing in the GAN review too, so maybe there's clearly an issue. Perhaps it could be demoted to a footnote? That feels a little Western-centric though, these Ethiopic additions were the only attention ApocPeter was getting for centuries, even if the Ethiopian church of the 8th-18th centuries isn't well covered in English.
• Later apocalyptic works inspired by it include the Apocalypse of Thomas in the 2nd–4th century, and more importantly, the Apocalypse of Paul in the 4th century: more importantly reads as pretty strong editorialising to me.
  • See above comments on the lead. I've changed it to "more influentially" to perhaps make less bold claims about Importance with a capital I, but make no mistake, the Apoc Paul was the important one here. It's really hard to understate how weirdly popular ApocPaul was - while most surviving apocrypha involve scholars poring over just 1 or 2 manuscripts carefully, we've got hundreds of surviving ApocPaul manuscripts in a variety of languages. It'd be like writing "The noodle incident inspired a number of early 20th century authors, including Fergus MacForgotten, Bob Irrelevant, and Agatha Christie." For the reader not familiar, there should be some call out that one member of this list is way, way more important the others.
• One notable tweak that the Apocalypse of Paul makes; see above re. notable, and MOS:IDIOM -- I would just axe this perambulatory clause.
  • While the origin might be as an origin to real-life things, I think a "tweak" as a term for any "small change" is fine? I checked Merriam-Webster, and it has "a small change or adjustment" and its first example is to tweaking a menu (which clearly is more metaphorical than a radio dial). I removed "notable". Can switch "tweak" to "change" if desired, but since this is on ApocPeter's influence on ApocPaul, I think "tweak" hints that ApocPaul was modifying an already-existing framework better, while a change could simply be a difference.
    • To me, "tweak" reads as more informal than we're going for: I think "change" would work. On the other hand, a more direct sentence structure might be even better -- something like The Apocalypse of Paul diverges from that of Peter in describing personal judgments to bliss or torment as happening immediately after death (the bold bit is I think a necessary change for clarity, in any case). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• medieval monks that copied and preserved manuscripts in the turbulent centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire: I would do without turbulent centuries -- the third, fourth and fifth centuries were hardly serene and peaceful by comparison with the sixth, seventh and eighth.
  • Hmm, from the perspective of my armchair, I'm more convinced by the "the Roman Empire's fall was followed by a substantial crash in living conditions and economic disaster" camp. Not trying to imply that the 4th-5th century Western Roman Empire was particularly peaceful (3rd is too early for ApocPaul) of course, but they probably were substantially better for book preservation? My understanding is that these early centuries post-Fall were indeed very rough for manuscript preservation in the West by non-monks, since there were fewer rich nobles, scribes working for government officials, etc. that might have done it otherwise. And even if we take it as accepted that the 4th & 5th centuries were bad, that just means they were also turbulent. Despite the above, I'm happy to cut it if you feel strongly, just don't see the issue with a little bit of context that seems non-controversially true. (Really the best fix would be if we had a term that meant "late antique and Medieval" and we could just apply that modifier to the monks and then say "ever since it was published", but I can't think of any. And my vague understanding is that knowledge of ApocPaul in its first centuries is real vague anyway.)
    • It's really not non-controversially true, though -- it's not that the Early Medieval period was rosy, it's that the Late Roman period was pretty chaotic too. As I've said a few times, if you have a concrete statement in mind, like the idea that this was a particularly bad time for book preservation, it would be a good idea to say and cite that directly -- what we have at the moment is vague and fluffy, so it gives the reader an impression without actually presenting anything that could be falsified, and therefore without saying anything that could really be verified either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • What I mean is that this statement, strictly speaking, doesn't say anything about the late Roman period at all, just the periods afterward (and thus does not take a stand on exactly how bad the late Roman period was). It doesn't seem that vague and fluffy to me (it is bringing up the role of monks / monasteries in book preservation, yes), but as this is on a side topic anyway, I'm happy to kick it to the Apoc Paul article and let people click the wikilink. Cut to just "medieval monks".
        • Improved, I think. Now we have Despite this, it would go on to be popular and influential for centuries, possibly due to its popularity: firstly, this is a tautology (it was popular because it was popular -- what attracted monks to it in the first place?); secondly, can we adjust the repetition? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Rephrased to avoid the close repetition.
          • On why it was popular: I was happy to spend some text on explaining why monks mattered more than you'd expect (book copying / preservation), but going into why exactly the monks liked it is getting off-topic IMO. It's in the Apoc Paul article, but the short version is that it's very flattering to monks and spends time on monk interests - like, if you finish your vow of fasting, you will get a super-awesome apartment in the City of God near the center, but if you screw it up, you will be super-punished and thrown in a hole. Clergy & ascetics are the stars and get different fates than vanilla Christians - either much worse if they screw it up because expectations were higher, or much better if they do it well. But I don't think that's the relevant part for a section on ApocPeter's influence. I've tried to focus on the parts of ApocPaul that were clearly modifying existing Peter frameworks, but this aspect was just kinda new. (See Beck's comment elsewhere on Peter perceiving the righteous as a unified group - it's definitely a difference between Peter & Paul, as Paul thinks there's winners & losers even among the saved.)
          • On if it's a tautology: The current passage is describing who the "base" of support was (e.g. the equivalent of the Rocky Horror Picture Show superfans who kept would could have been an obscure commercial failure of a movie alive). Something like "Roger Ebert's strong advocacy of Hoop Dreams helped win the work wider popularity and acclaim." If you have a better suggestion on how to phrase that kind of message, happy to hear it, but as is I think it gets the point across?

More to follow -- greatly enjoying it so far, having just dipped my toe into apocalyptic literature for another (much less impressive) article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• The damned themselves admit from their own lips: from their own lips is tautological here, and a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia. This sentence might also be clearer if in a dialogue with the angel Tatirokos, the keeper of Tartarus were moved to the front.
  • Switched the order. And while flowery (in an evil flower kinda way), it's definitely a powerful rhetorical technique still used today (in the same way that, say, political parties love to quote whenever a rival agrees with them, or just make up a quote on Twitter of the other side confessing to being super evil). See? They admitted it themselves, therefore we're right and it's okay.
    • I don't disagree, but powerful rhetorical techniques aren't our wheelhouse: neither the purpose of the website nor the (zero) authority claimed by its authors suits them, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Cut.
• It is possible that where there is no logical correspondence, the punishment has come from the Orphic tradition and has simply been clumsily attached to a vice by a Jewish redactor.: can we give some examples? I also think we could perhaps have done more to introduce Orphism further up.
  • We could, but the problem is that for every example, there will be someone else arguing that no, this one totally makes sense. Fiensy offers "unchaste maidens are clad in darkness and have their flesh torn and sorcerers are tormented on wheels of fire" but we actually introduce proposed explanations for these later (i.e. bodily correspondence in that the skin/flesh that sinned is torn, and mirror punishment for sorcerers). I've seen elsewhere that the punishment for usurers is weirdly lenient compared to the others (up to the... knees in excrement? That's not fun, but it's not nearly as horrible as some of the other stuff.) and is also rather disconnected, but it'd be weird to offer that as an example when Fiensy doesn't. Maybe I just need a better reference for this than Fiensy - will look for one, stay tuned.
  • As for introducing Orphism, I'm not even sure where to start. I'm not sure there's even a consistent canonical Orphism to go over - it'd be like introducing 1st century Judaism, there are entire books written on it. I think we may be stuck with "click on the wikilink for more".
  • SF from the future: I added in a line in Callon's paragraph clarifying that the sorcerers example is one of the ones Fiensy thought made no sense. Still trying to figure out if there's any way to sneak in a better descriptive bit for Orphism that doesn't side-track, but I feel like I'd need to read a book to turn that into a non-contentious, non-distracting adjective other than the existing "er it was Greek-philosophy influenced tradition."
• contests classifying the ethics of the Apocalypse as being that of lex talionis: those of, since ethics is plural. A short paragraph: can we close it up with something else?
  • I guess we could combine with the Callon paragraph as an "alternative non-lex-talionis views" but I don't think Ehrman and Callon actually agree. Would rather let them stand on their own, but I'm willing to do the merge if you feel strongly.
• often more symbolic in nature: more symbolic than what?
  • Than simple eye-for-an-eye. In Callon's example, eye-for-an-eye would be sorcerers suffering whatever harm their spells inflicted on others to themselves, while a poetic justice approach is more like the tool they used to gain power is now used to torture them, isn't that ironic.
    • So "more symbolic than reciprocal" or similar, or perhaps "determined more by symbolism than by the lex talionis? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Went with your second suggestion.
• The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished: better to lose the quotes her per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
  • These aren't scare quotes though; it has the number "ten" in the text, it's an actual quote. I'd read it without the quotes as potentially implying that the actual text lists 10 specific women (a la Dante calling out specific people for punishment) but the Wikipedia article isn't bothering to list them. Normally I would fix this by making the quote longer and thus more obviously a quote, but the problem is the text literally says "10 virgins" or "10 maidens" are having premarital sex which I presume reads fine in Ethiopic, but will read confusingly in English where it'll sound illogical/impossible.
    • Well, yes, but "John states that he ate ten apples" also implies that John said the word "ten". If you want to make clear that it's ten fungible women, "a total of ten" would do well. The quotes don't strike the right tone -- they read as scare quotes, even if they aren't (this is the point of MOS:QUOTEPOV). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I just went with dropping the quotes - "a total of" seems to draw even more attention to it and raise questions.
• {{Green|The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature to feature an anti-abortion message}: another very short paragraph.
  • Attaching this to another "thought" seems unwise; it's not really that connected. I'd rather keep it separate.
• The "Christology" section is very short indeed. Is that really the sum of all that has been written on the topic? If so, suggest rolling it in with another section. Ditto the "Literary merits" section, which could perhaps be repurposed as a sort of introduction to the "Analysis" section, without the subhead, unless there is more to say. Per MOS:FIGURES, don't start a sentence with a numeral.
  • Switched the sentence order.
  • I think placing the Literary Analysis section up front would give too much prominence to James' poison pen, IMO (The Ehrman reference discusses James opinion here only to criticize it as overly the-right-canon-prevailed triumphalist). I used the pre-section bit as an "intro" in Contents / Influences, but there isn't really much of an overall "Analysis" to be had which is already something of a grab-bag for "other stuff scholars talk about." I don't think these are that linked so would rather just have short, one-paragraph sections.
• which might have partially explained a lack of elite enthusiasm for canonizing it later: we haven't actually talked about this yet, so it comes across as vague and confusing.
  • A bit, but I don't think this is THAT confusing. We did mention already in the lede that it wasn't in the canon, so it's a minor flash-forward. More generally, I think this section is mostly on the "do scholars think this is actually well-written, coherent, etc." with the canonicity bit more a side comment. I think the article has a strong ending currently with the canonicity debate - moving this afterward would add a side "eh and here's another thought" afterward would dull the impact.
• One of the theological messages of the Apocalypse of Peter is generally considered clear enough: there are a couple of perambulatory phrases and sentences in the article like this one -- as in previous notes, I would advise simply cutting them and getting to the point of what we want to say. If you mean to indicate that most of the other theological points are unclear, state that explicitly.
  • I think you're reading this a bit more harshly than intended. I do describe a scholarly debate later in this paragraph on the "real" intent of the ApocPeter (both in its author and its early readers), but just wanted to set up that there do exist some baseline grounds scholars do agree on. And there's a subtle difference between "unclear" and "there is a scholarly debate" - the scholars on side A say it's very clear and obvious, just side B is wrong, and vice versa. I think it'd be a little bit editorializing to throw my hands up and declare that the problem is the text is unclear. (But yes, there is internal-to-the-text dissension on many of the messages, but the "monitory" message is clear. I'm citing Beck here because he is very much on the "ApocPeter as a scary morality play is overrated, it's not just about scaring people into compliance with the threat of hellfire" 'side', but even he grants that there's something of that in the story, just not the main thrust to him.)
• how can God allow persecution of the righteous on Earth and still be both sovereign and just?: similarly, in an encyclopaedia article (rather than an essay or an academic book chapter), we generally avoid direct/rhetorical questions in Wikivoice.
  • It's definitely not a rhetorical question, but a very hard one! Open to suggestions, but I cannot think of any other way to explain theodicy that doesn't introduce theology in Wikivoice, which is presumably worse. The article on the problem of evil even introduces the topic as a "question", and older theodicies were often explanations for major practical questions like "Why did God allow (disaster to happen)? Because...". Presumably atheists & Christians alike can agree that this is an issue that the author was trying to address, but elevating it from a question to a statement seems like it'd inherently annoy one side (e.g. simply stating the problem as a fact would annoy atheists as assuming a God did indeed allow anything, while including qualifiers like "so-called" would annoy theists).
    • We should make it an indirect question: "the problem of how God can allow...", to quieten down the authorial voice and make it clear that it isn't a rhetorical question. I'm sure the theodicy article does it a few times. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Rephrased as you suggested - take a look.
• and contains elements of both messages: similarly, this is simply a rephrasing of what was said before -- best cut.
  • Strong disagree here. Your wording is certainly more concise, but concision isn't everything; this one is intentional, for emphasis and clarity, and does indeed add something IMO. It's not as if there's a mercy-o-meter that there's a single setting for consistent across the work; the extra comment is hinting that while passage A might strongly indicate a preference for justice, passage B might do so for mercy, and passage C for both simultaneously. I think it's better writing to include this, and makes the sentence read much better to my eyes. (Side note: I'm not an expert here, but while on the topic of old religious writings, a theme seen in old Hebrew is repetition-for-emphasis as well - random Psalms will say something like "God is [X] and [CLOSE SYNONYM FOR X]". I don't think it's a mistake, and it can read rather well in English too.) I dunno, this might be a weird one to plant my flag on, but this one I feel significantly stronger about than the others - this passage is my writing style and I'd rather keep it like this unless there's an outright error here. We're allowed a few spare words to dress things up, and this particular issue is one of the top most useful places to spend them IMO. (Apologies in advance if I come across as an eccentric on this!)
• may not have fit the mood: I think this is a bit too informal, and perhaps on the wrong side of MOS:IDIOM.
  • You say "informal", I say "accessible to a general audience." ;-) But more seriously, I could replace with "intellectual milieu" or "zeitgeist" or the like but those seems both less accessible and less accurate, so I'm not super keen on doing so. Do you have any suggestions? It's tricky because Christianity was hardly a monolith in that era, so it needs to be a word indicating a similarly vague current-of-thought.
• three tabernacles here on Earth: here is best cut for concision -- those few people who read this article on the International Space Station can complain on the Talk page if needed.
  • In a vacuum, I agree, but there's an issue here. The text actually just says "My Lord, do you wish that I make three tabernacles here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah?" In other words, "here" is the word original to the text, and "on Earth" is an in-sentence gloss. I think we'd need to cut "on Earth" first if we wanted to shorten this, but then Jesus's objections would come across as somewhat nonsensical, hence clarifying Peter's proposed tabernacles were in the mortal realm and Jesus's tabernacle was heavenly.
• Make sure that Latin titles, such as Hypotyposes, are in lang templates.
  • Done.
• Quite a few of the citation templates used in footnotes are throwing Harvard errors -- use this script to catch them, then add |ref=none to fix them.
  • (I saw this, but will hold off, since it involves installing scripts. To be edited later.)
  • Well, these were warnings not errors, and they're acceptable warnings in this case IMO. Still, I fixed this in the "Bibliography" section. Elsewhere, I'm more inclined to "blame" the script - User_talk:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors#Citation_bundles indicates that this is a known quirk, where the script doesn't get that citation bundles shouldn't have such a warning. I can still change it if truly desired, but per above, it doesn't appear to actually be an error in the citation.
    • Adding |ref=none solves the "problem" in either case, and improves readability for those regular editors who use that script with no real loss for anyone else. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I've added ref=None for the remaining warnings.

That's my lot on a first pass -- quite a few comments, but please don't take the quantity as a reflection of the quality of the article -- most are very small and will be quickly resolved. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the extensive review! Here's a diff of changes so far (no section swap), and the section order swap separate diff. Will investigate the other comments as well. SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt replies -- I haven't got to all of them; most are absolutely find and need no reply, and I've put a few responses above where I think one is needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I haven't forgotten about this - just had an unexpectedly busy Labor Day weekend & travel + not wanting to do some of these fixes before I could hit the books again. Will hopefully respond soon-ish now that I have a tad more free time. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not at all -- I still have a few of your replies that I need to get my head around. If they're still below the "Resolved" collapse box, I'm meaning to get to them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! Did another pass - see diff. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm working my way through; it's going a bit slowly but hopefully steadily. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• A small one, but we're inconsistent about whether scholarship should be related in the present or past tense. I was taught to use the present for "live" views and the past when discussing the history of scholarship (with the implication that views related in the past tense were no longer considered mainstream), but as ever with these things any consistent system is fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I did a tense pass. Here's the tentative rules I applied: Dead scholars get past tense. Scholars who argued a position notably but later changed their mind also get past tense (don't think that ever comes up - maybe Bauckham softening some on 2 Peter vs. ApocPeter timing? That's hidden in a reference anyway.). Living scholars get present tense. Scholarly summations - your system sounds good, so went with past tense for when the vibes are this position is dated, but kept present tense if there are notable scholars still propounding the position. Some constructions not directly about scholarly views remained as is (i.e. "the fragment is dated" where it's talking about something else).
  • Anyway, most recent diff. Also feel free to speak up if I said I did something but then didn't do it - that's probably just an error (I seem to find myself responding to these at 3-4 AM while unable to sleep...). SnowFire (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    Just gone through looking to close this off -- I've made some copyedit suggestions, including one to the "fit the mood" problem above. One remaining issue: I see considering the reservations various church authors had on the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation), it is possible similar considerations were in play. -- do we ever say what those considerations were? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

    Your changes look fine to me.

    On Revelation: Unfortunately, I don't think either set of considerations / objections are known (hence the "it is possible" wording). That said, that line was added very early in my expansion and it looks like I was a little loose on sourcing it at the time. I do think it's true but should probably get a direct attribution to scholar XYZ - I've commented it out for now. If I find a good source to restore it, I'll see what it says and if it includes any hypotheses. (Just it's often speculating at gaps - why did writer XYZ not mention it? and why did writer ABC just call it disputed? Very vague.) . SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

    • Has nobody taken a stab at it -- or said that it's unknown? I think one or the other would help: as we've phrased it, it sounds like there are known reasons about Revelation, which might apply to ApocPeter. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @UndercoverClassicist: I've reorganized the section and placed in a reference to "The Oxford Handbook of Revelation." It's still mildly sketchy since it's tying together a thought spread across two sources, but I think it's fine given that Nicklas does directly raise the matter of the Apocalypse of Peter's status as being comparable to Revelation.
      • Also, on an earlier note, I've snuck in a reference outside the Hatnote to the Gnostic & Arabic Apocalypses of Peter - in the name footnote, of all places. Added in another 2022 source as well (Batovici) - it's nothing new, but useful as another layer of verification. Also, see above, but I've uploaded a new map and verified it against recent Atlases, and have more pictures of scholarly Atlases if really required. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

        Support: almost all of this article is well outside my area of expertise, but it certainly has the look, feel and flavour of an FA, and I'm satisfied with all the amendments and fixes made during this (lengthy!) review. Credit to SnowFire for their patience and good humour with the process, and I hope they feel it has been of benefit to the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• The citation style of the article is inconsistent. Several sources referred to in the "Reference" section, are not listed in section "Bibliography" (for instance, Metzger). Some references are rather notes (I refer to, for example, references 16 and 43). Do not verify a statement with a note (for instance, this is the case in the two last sentences in section "Date of authorship").
  • I explained my citation style above in discussion with UC, and it's consistent and keeping with WP:CITEVAR. I'll copy-paste what I wrote there:
    • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
    • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.
  • Metzger is used in more than one spot but it's not mostly on the Apocalypse of Peter, while the sources listed in Bibliography are. I'd rather keep it as is unless you feel this is truly a problem, but I'd be curious why it's a problem - clicking a Metzger page range will show the Metzger book just fine.
  • On long references: 16 isn't really appropriate as a note, IMO. It's a "see these original sources for more" which is exactly what a reference is. I've reserved notes for "prose that a reader might be interested in, but keeping it in the main article would distract the flow on a minor point and it isn't strictly required." A bunch of links to old journal articles is useful IMO, hence including it, but it's clearly a reference. 43 is more borderline, but that is again a reference IMO. I'm trying to avoid the antipattern many articles use of, when there's scholarly dissension, just citing both and letting the reader figure things out by saying up front that you can see different slants at different references. I could see a reverse complaint where if I only had the scholarly references, someone might complain about text-source integrity that actually, this other reference says something slightly different than what the text does. A more fully explained reference fixes the problem IMO. I believe my style is valid per CITEVAR where explaining some references does not automatically qualify something for footnote status. WP:EXPLNOTESECT explicitly says that having a notes section at all is optional, and there are FAs that entirely eschew a notes section and stick everything in references, including detailed note-like references. Given that, I have to assume that there is discretion on the article author to choose what qualifies for a note and what qualifies as a reference.

• • I would not expect explanations in references. I think the present method is not fully in line with WP:CITEHOW
    • A simple "Lastname Year p. 100" is the basic case, sure, but I would say that WP:FOOTQUOTE covers this - "Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting." For ref 43, say, I don't think Lapham's view on the transfiguration parallel is so significant that it merits discussion in a full reader-facing footnote, but that including Lapham as a reference unadorned could create a complaint that it's missing subtleties in the position. There's no perfect fix here, but having a somewhat fuller citation is basically harmless and not at all unusual, and makes a lot of sense for articles with strong references yet sometimes contrasting results.

• • The notes in "Date of Authorship" all have detailed references (5 refs in the Bar-Kokhba note, say). I suppose I can replicate all of them again in-prose, but I really don't see the point, and it makes it harder for a well-meaning reader to actually get sent to the note of approachable prose I want them to read, rather than the reference that they probably don't care about. I checked 3 FAs at random, and all 3 of them were using notes-with-references-in-the-note as well, suggesting this isn't an unknown style (and not just "middle of the paragraph" stuff - I'm talking notes at the end of the paragraph, with the ref in the note).
• Introduce people when they are first mentioned in the text: Richard Bauckham > the theologian/Biblical scholar Richard Bauckham; Gaston Maspéro > the Egyptologist Gaston Maspéro, etc.
  • Unfortunately, if you read Undercover Classicist above, he recommended doing precisely the reverse of this in his review and not introducing anyone unless it's surprising or out-of-field, and so I just went around removing some of these recently. I can't comply with both requests. If someone wants to offer a third opinion, I'll vary it up with whatever the majority says, as I think this is purely a stylistic preference where both ways can work.

• • @UndercoverClassicist: your thoughts? I would like to know who Richar Bauckham, Gaston Maspéro, etc in the article because their name provides no information about their relevance. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a few schools of thought on this -- to me, the overarching principle here would be the FAC mantra that "if it's consistent and it works, it's fine". Personally, I used to be in the school of "introduce everyone", but discussions at some FACs here (from memory, this was prominent at Beulé Gate) have pushed me more towards not generally introducing people where that introduction would be "this person is the sort of expert you'd expect to see quoted here). Some of the reasons for this are:

• False distinctions -- particularly in a field like this one, there aren't bright lines between e.g. "theologian/religious historian/scholar of Judaism", and choosing one epithet over the other can give a misleading impression that two people are coming at this from very different angles, or else misrepresent the field. Even worse, titles like "scholar" or "writer" sometimes disguise the fact that the person isn't really an expert in this topic at all.
• False precision -- if we implicitly endorse someone as "the historian X...", we give readers the sense that they are all equally qualified and worth listening to, which isn't often the case. The oft-cited user essay on this point uses the example of David Irving, who would need a lot more context than that.
• Repetition -- readers will generally assume that we don't quote people who aren't worth listening to, so if the introduction does nothing more than say "this person is worth listening to", it's tautological and adds needless words (and so takes away from the article's clarity). This is a similar argument to why we don't write things like "a notable fact is..." or "it is important that...".

With that said, if the person being quoted is not a run-of-the-mill current expert, there are good arguments for introducing them -- particularly if:

• The article is very interdisciplinary, and people are coming at it from very different perspectives (see Ove Jørgensen, where I had to introduce practically everyone to be clear if they were a classicist, a ballet scholar or a personal acquaintance of the subject).
• The view is particularly dated, or otherwise considered obsolete.
• They are being used as something other than an academic expert: this came up a lot in Homeric Hymns, where classicists/philologists/literary scholars were generally not given epithets, but people like Ezra Pound, who passed judgement on the topic from a different perspective, were introduced to make clear that their expertise was different from that of the (many) academics mentioned elsewhere.

That's quite a lot of verbiage to say "it's really a moot point", but I hope it helps. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I still think that introducing the scholars mentioned in the article is the best method: if a scholar is to be named in an article for whatever reason we should not be forced to make a research for them and a scholar's name itself is not informative. Encyclopedic approach itself leads to simplifications: we are summarising the content of lengthy scholarly studies. I would ignore the "oft-cited user essay" for it has only been visited 41 times this year (5 times on the same day indicating that somebody referred to it in a discussion [10]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why are not the titles of works/texts italicised?
  • See MOS:NEITHER, where "religious texts" aren't italicized. e.g. Revelation, not Revelation.
• The first section's title does not reflect the text.
  • I've switched the title to "Authorship and date" if that helps better make clear the scope.
• The Apocalypse of Peter seems to have been written between 100 AD and 150 AD. 1. Another cited source writes of a different timeframe (Metzger (1987), p. 184). 2. None of the two years mentioned in the sentence are certain. 3. Rephrase to avoid PoV language.
  • For 1, I wasn't citing Metzger there? He's writing a 3-page short summary. I'm trying to use the highest quality sources for the main topic, which means scholars who have dedicated a bit more space to ApocPeter. There is already some dissension here that is already discussed (i.e. Bauckham arguing for a more specific dating); I didn't feel Metzger's narrower range was worth going into because he doesn't explain why at all and he's not an ApocPeter expert. It's just a difference, that happens all the time, it'd blow the article up to 5x the length if every small scholarly difference was discussed. (Metzger is a fantastic source overall on the topic of the formation of the canon, but the scholarly estimates of when precisely ApocPeter was written? Probably not. More sources say 100 as the start date, or even earlier if the 4 Esdras reference is discarded as too weak.)
  • For 2, I absolutely agree, but that's why I wrote "Seems". I guess you're arguing for a "circa"? But having both "seems" and "Circa" would be essentially repeating, and including only "circa" would be too subtle for some casual readers who might not catch the abbreviation.
  • For 3, I don't see anything POV here at all. If this means "seems" again, to be clear, the authors themselves acknowledge a range of possibilities. Text-source integrity requires communicating this uncertainty in text.
• These Ethiopic versions appear to have been translated from an Arabic version, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original. Who says this and why?
  • First off - I refactored this section during the FAC, and I think the ref to this got shuffled around. I've replaced it; Bauckham p. 162 covers it (as well as p.254, but that's just repeating it). I also threw in a ref to Müller 1991 (Which is a bit more acknowledging of the possibility of it not being accurate.)
  • As for who says it: Everyone, pretty much. Beck writes "if the Ethiopic text of the Apoc Pet was translated from Arabic, as many have suggested" (p. 161 of his thesis) and then cites 7 full sources. While it's not proven (no Arabic manuscript exists; Müller writes "That the Ethiopic translation could be very old, and made directly from the Greek, remains a possibility"), most scholars seem to accept it as the most likely, and it's not controversial to my knowledge. As to why: well most of the scholars don't go into this, just pass by as accepted knowledge. Since I haven't seen any scholars argue against it, I didn't go into detail, but used the weaker verb "Appears" to indicate it wasn't conclusively shown.
  • As for why: This is a frustrating question! Lots of scholars said this as already noted, but the references often go to just other scholars saying it too (and one to a very bum reference... the 2010 paper on Z'RL cites Bratke 1893, who was fruitlessly searching for an Arabic-Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter via mishmash of quotes before d'Abbadie was publicized, i.e. worthless). Well, from SnowFire, Buchholz talks about how essentially many works in Ethiopic came from Arabic translations, so it wouldn't be weird. And the Ezreal thing already mentioned in-article seems like it'd fit with coming from Arabic / Islam. But I'm not seeing a lot here. The best I can say is that C. D. G. Müller was specifically an Ethiopanist and linguist of languages of the region, not a scholar of religion who happened to be interested in an Ethiopic document, and if he thinks that the document was probably a translation from Arabic, I'm fine with deferring to him. (And he's a recent-ish source, writing in the 1980s.)

• • I think the sentence could be rephrased to avoid PoV language: "According to scholarly consensus/Most specialists think that/.... these Ethiopic versions were translated from Arabic rather than from the original Greek text."

• • • • Done, but I'm not a fan of this as a general principle. Most of the article is an attempt at describing scholarly consensus, and I don't want to imply other sections aren't - that should be the default on Wikipedia when not attributing a fact.
        • As a general principle I am not a fan of this either but if reliable sources verifies the statement we should inform our reader that they are reading a well established theory, not only the assumptions of one single scholar or an editor. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• The d'Abbadie manuscript is estimated to have been created ... By whom and why?
• ...the Lake Tana manuscript is from perhaps the 18th century According to whom?
  • These are both in the reference already given for the sentence. Buchholz cites Carlo Conti Rossini for dating the d'Abbadie manuscript (a 1912 article just ~2 years after Grebaut's publication), and Ernst Hammerschmidt for dating the Lake Tana manuscript (the same 1973 Hammerschmidt paper already mentioned in another reference, actually). I can add these details to the reference if desired but I figured that as an overview article rather than a book, these details are too much in the weeds. In general, the style I've gone for is to only cite people who are arguing for controversial positions, and state uncontroversial stuff as fact with "who said this" in the reference. (The dating of Akhmim was attributed in prose only because there are a wide range of estimates there, so those more specific estimates had to be attributed.)

• I do not want to read references to have basic info. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. That said, in side chatter, there's already quite a lot of "scholar X said this" in the article (and if you check the page history of the cited scholars, you'll see that I created the Wikipedia articles on them). So it's something I personally am interested in, but my impression is that general readers are only interested if there's actually a nerd fight to be had (e.g. Martha Himmelfarb criticizing the ghost of Albrecht Dietrich), not just simple attributions of who said something noncontroversial first.

• Mention that the Bodleian library is in Oxford. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Despite some pushback above, thanks for taking a look and doing a review! Happy to answer any questions or discuss the above further. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: Made some changes (diff). SnowFire (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: Ping again - any other feedback? I think I've answered most of the above, just tell me if I missed something. (And some sort of cautious approval with the disapproval of the "Context Considered Harmful" essay / style is fine too - if there's ever a wider consensus shift there, I'm sure the article will update as well to put back the word "scholar" in front of various people's names.) SnowFire (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I doubt that the word "scholar" is missing in front of various scholar's name. I would surely be more specific. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Borsoka, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay but I was uncertain. By now I concluded that I support the promotion of this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks now without a single support for promotion. I'm afraid it's at the risk of archival if there's no significant progress over the next three days or so. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Pretty clearly there, after a good going over by others. Just a few nitpicks:
• Is there a convention that we don't italicize the titles of even apocryphal New Testament texts? New Testament apocrypha is a mess in this respect. Things like The Shepherd of Hermas should certainly have italics.
  • I'm mostly going off MOS:NEITHER which seems to recommend no italics as a Wikipedia convention. As for what the sources do, it's a mess - some italicize, some don't. In general, I think the Wikipedia standard is attempting to draw the line at "did people take this seriously as scripture" vs. works that might have had religious opinions, but nobody took as even an attempt to be "apostolic" (e.g. Dialogue with Trypho for a contemporary example). And if that is indeed the line, than ApocPeter and Shephard of Hermas both don't qualify, as they were indeed taken as scripture. (Even stuff like 1 Clement was in old copies of scriptures!) The expansion under "religious texts" says that "relatively obscure" religious texts can be italicized, but then also talks about books published in modern times - e.g. stuff like The Urantia Book. On balance, I think the current guideline suggests no italics, but happy to discuss a sharper standard on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works if desired?
    • I don't really agree with this, though clearly the area is messy. I think the style used at our articles should probably be followed, so The Shepherd of Hermas. Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Well, chose our poison, consistency within this article or consistency with other Wikipedia articles. I'd rather have what's within one article consistent and not italicize, it seems jarring - especially in areas like the lists of works when nobody was sure what later centuries would deem apocryphal and what wasn't yet (e.g. Eusebius does not know that Jude will become canonical but Barnabas won't, so he certainly isn't setting out such a distinction). That said, I have switched it over anyway, but I think it reads weirdly. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• "and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture" also sounds very odd to me. There are links for the appropriate "Greek culture", but a reword is also needed, or a cut.
  • On adding a link: Hmm, I'm not so sure! We aren't sure where this was written, so the kind of Greek culture would vary between Egypt, Judea, Christian Rome, etc. I'm open to suggestions - as mentioned to UC above, the idea was to hint to casual readers what "Hellenistic" means (since casuals read the lede but nothing else), but I give up for now and just cut it. Happy to hear any suggestions for alternative ways to sneak in what Hellenistic means.
    • Well, Hellenistic period is the obvious one, but repeats the H word. Maybe "and later Greek philosophy from the Hellenistic period"? Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done, although I cut "later" as that might make it sound like the work was inspired by "later" philosophy in the sense of after the work's creation.
• the link from "extant" to Ancient literature seems pretty useless. "Surviving" is often a better word choice than "extant".
  • Removed link (I don't think I was the one who added it). And while I agree in general, I think "surviving" reads a little oddly here - it's used in the next paragraph but with "earliest surviving" which I think provides more context, so I think "extant" hopefully works. (But can still change it if you really feel strongly.)
• "After inquiring for signs of the Second Coming of Jesus" - is "inquiring" the right word here? Or explain who is inquiring.
  • Expanded to "the disciples." And yeah, they inquire ("And we asked him..."). My only worry is that now we're suddenly introducing the disciples in the lead when they barely matter (they appear as just background flavor as an entourage for Peter), but oh well.
• "and details both heavenly bliss for the righteous and infernal punishments for the damned" odding phrasing - participles needed and "sets out" or something.
  • Usual "I'm an American" comment goes here, but it sounds fine to me? I ran your comment past a person who once was a professional copyeditor I know and he wasn't sure what the complaint was either. "Details" is an unusual verb but not unheard of.
• ridiculous imo to object to the Divine Comedy being described as "famous", but whatever.
• Personally I'd put all or most of notes 2 & 3 into the main text. Maybe n. 4 too
  • Hmm. I'm tempted, but there is a reason I did it this way... for the somewhat-casual reader reading sequentially, the part they're interested in is "Contents". But as mentioned above, the manuscript history is unfortunately necessary to cover first, so that "Ethiopic vs. Akhmim vs. Rainer" debates make sense. As such, I've tried to have those sections be written tightly and concisely so that the general gist is acquired, and why I stuck the deeper scholarly debates in footnotes. It's extra tricky because the scholarly debates on the specifics of authorship require knowing something about the contents, which we haven't read yet if we're a hypothetical reader reading sequentially! If this was a book, it'd be something like "Intro -> Contents -> More about Authorship" but I don't think Wikipedia style is to have an "Authorship, part II" in analysis. As such, moving it into a footnote (I'm using the noisier, longer "Note 1" as well to signify this isn't just a citation) lets the content be in the article in the expected section, but without disrupting the flow. Well, that's my argument at least. Do you think that's good enough reason here, or would you still rather have more info moved out and into prose?
• link "risen Christ"? Also "Moses and Elijah", "Elysian field" at first mention, "Sibylline Oracles" at 2nd rather than 3rd mention, Clementine literature at 1st, Alexandria,
  • I was trying to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but don't feel too strongly about it, so added the Risen Christ & Alexandria link. Moses and Elijah are already linked? Unless you meant them together, but that's just the Transfiguration which is also already linked. Elysian field is linked at first mention in the prose (rather than in the quote, since it's in both the quotes). Sibylline Oracles are linked at first mention in "Authorship and date". They aren't linked in "Prayers for those in hell", but I think you're referring to the link in the quote - but I don't think such links in a quote attribution "count" per usual standards on say image caption links not counting either. Clementine literature is linked at first appearance in "Manuscript history", then linked again in a separate section (in compliance with the updated WP:DUPLINK guidelines) in "Later influence" but again first appearance in that section.
• "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of apocalyptic literature in genre" reads a bit oddly - "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of the genre of apocalyptic literature" perhaps?
  • Those read identically to me, but I don't feel strongly, so sure, switched.
• "was on determining its predecessor influences" reads awkwardly imo
  • I'm not a huge fan of the existing phrasing myself, but it's a relevant point - a works "influences" can mean both forward & backward, and I want to specify it was specifically the earlier influences that this scholarship was interested in. But they can't be called "predecessors" directly as that's highly contested and probably not accurate, they're just influences. Open to suggestions, but I think the somewhat awkward "predecessor influences" is at least precise to what is being meant.
• "possibly a loose callback" - too slangy
  • It's an overloaded word that has other problems, but if you dislike callback, I've switched to "reference" instead. (But I'm somewhat worried about it being misread as the encyclopedia sense rather than the literary/traditional sense.)
• "with a high Christology" - is this a term often used? Perhaps needs explaining. I doubt the link will help much.
  • This one we're stuck with - it's an academic term, but it's definitely the one used. Both Beck ("The use of such titles in these chapters reveals a high Christology") and Buchholz ("These titles are evidence of a high christology") specifically use the term, so not much to do other than wikilink it for people to look it up. I think the context and the term itself gives a pretty good guess to what it means.
    • Ok Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• "is generally dated to the last quarter of the 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD)" slightly jarring maths failure here. Just use the dates?
  • It's historical guesstimate ranges in this case, was not intended to imply a precise 25-year period nor a precise 30-year period. That said, changed, went with "late 2nd century".
    • Ok Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• You are right not to be pressured to change your citation method.

Btw, if we can get this finished by Thursday it would be good, as then I'm away for 10 days. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• • @Johnbod: Thanks for the review! Made some changes (diff). (Sorry about the delay, got absolutely slammed at work yesterday.) SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: Some more edits - diff. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Ok, thanks, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It is the earliest-written extant document depicting a Christian version of heaven and hell in detail." This is clumsy and misleading. I thought at first it meant an original 2C document. Why not " It is the earliest detailed depiction of a Christian version of heaven and hell."
  • Including "extant" is important because at least some scholars think that there indeed might have been preceding versions (Himmelfarb) that have been lost to time.
  • It isn't misleading either, although I will grant that it is a somewhat complex situation (but that's the fault of the situation, not the sentence). All of our most ancient manuscripts of this period long postdate when they were originally written. That said, scholarship is usually more interested in the original date of writing of such works, not the date of the oldest surviving manuscript that happens to include them. Saying "earliest-written extant" is correct because it means that of extant works, it was authored the earliest (regardless of the 5th & 6th century fragments we have from later). Leading with this information is correct and offers due weight to what the sources are most interested in, the date of authorship. I've substituted "document" for "work" if this will make this interpretation less likely, although we have a close repetition of "work" now, so it's not ideal.
  • As for "clumsy", I don't see a significant difference between "depicting" and "depiction". It reads fine to me as is. Switching "in detail" to "detailed" can subtly change the sense, too... "in detail" is a sop that there are some brief depictions of hell elsewhere that are earlier (e.g. in the Revelation of John), but this work goes into detail (i.e. full chapters devoted to it). "Detailed" doesn't portray this as strongly; to me, something can be called "detailed" but only be one or two sentences long, if it's just evocative or the sentences are crowded.
• "The text is extant in two diverging versions". "diverging" is the wrong word. It means moving apart. Maybe "different"?
  • That's the intended word. If you read further, scholarly speculation is that there was an original ApocPeter (perhaps partially preserved in the Rainer / Bodleian fragments), and it diverged into different "editions" by editor, the Ethiopic version (which made some changes to the hypothesized original) and the Akhmim version (which made a lot of changes to the hypothesized original). So yes, the editions did indeed split and become further apart literarily.
• "The Apocalypse of Peter is a forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante". This does not seem fully supported in the main text. You say there that the Apocalypse of Peter influenced the Apocalypse of Paul, which influenced the Divine Comedy, but "forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante" implies a larger set of medieval works.
  • The body writes that ApocPeter is a "Christian katabasis, a genre of explicit depictions of the realms and fates of the dead", which the Divine Comedy is also. When the word "forerunner" is used, it's mostly as a sop that later journeys to the afterlife would make some significant revisions, but they're both still broadly a katabasis. It's including the full range of later katabases in that statement (e.g. ApocPaul), not just the ones of Dante's day. (Although, as a side note, even if a reader somehow did interpret it as about medieval katabases specifically, then it's still accurate - there were indeed medieval examples, albeit more obscure than Dante - the Legend of the Purgatory of St. Patrick for one. I agree the body doesn't go into detail on specifically medieval katabases, but that would seem off-topic.)
• "After reading the French translations, the English scholar M. R. James realized in 1910 that there was a strong correspondence with the Akhmim Greek Apocalypse of Peter, and that an Ethiopic version of the same work was within this cache." This needs clarification. What does a "strong correspondence" mean in this context? How could it have told him that there was a version of the Apocalypse in the cache?
  • It means that the passages were very similar, so similar as to suggest it was not a quote but a full translation of the same work. You can read James's 1910 article in the reference if you're interested in more - it's public domain / on Wikipedia library ( JSTOR link). He does a side-by-side of the Akhmim Greek with Grebaut's French translation. I don't think any clarification is required - this is just the normal meaning of correspondence, and James uses that word exactly (e.g. "Here begins the equivalent of the description of Hell which we possess in Greek. The opening words are corrupt in the Ethiopic, but the correspondence is unmistakeable.") James had previously argued in journal articles that he thought it was likely there were some fuller copies of the Apocalypse of Peter (which he'd already studied via patristic quotations & Akhmim), and here's a source that matches patristic quotations very well and Akhmim tolerably, so maybe we've found a translated version of the original Greek Apocalypse of Peter.
• "the Lake Tana manuscript is estimated by Ernst Hammerschmidt to be from perhaps the 18th century". "from perhaps" is clumsy and ambiguous. Does is mean around 18C or maybe 18C but maybe from a very different period?
  • It sounds ambiguous because it is ambiguous. I'm just reflecting the source here. Here's a fuller quote from Buchholz: "The manuscript is not dated, but its style of letter formation is quite different from that in T (the d'Abaddie manuscript). Hammerschmidt ventures to guess the eighteenth century but follows this with a question mark to indicate how uncertain is the date." Hammerschmidt himself isn't certain, so "perhaps" is required to accurately represent his position.
• More to follow. Done to end of Later influence. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look! Replies above. SnowFire (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, your use of language is sometimes clumsy and confusing, but other editors obviously disagree, so I will discontinue this review and leave it to them. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• Apocalypse of Peter Akhmim Plate vii.png - PD
• Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg - CC BY SA
• File:Bodleian fragment Apocalypse of Peter MS. Gr. th. f. 4 (P).jpg - PD
• File:Eugène Delacroix - The Barque of Dante.jpg - PD
• File:Ethiopic Prologue Apocalypse of Peter.jpg - PD
• File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 1 and 4 color.png and File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 2 and 3 color.png - PD

All images are appropriate and captioned. They have alt-text and are formatted correclty. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review by IntentionallyDense

I will be doing the source review for this article. I usually do this by filling out a table as I go. I will ping the nominator when I'm done but anyone is welcome to make comments as I work. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Section	Status	Sources I couldn't access	Comments
Authorship and date	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Manuscript history	Done	Skipped the ones I couldn't access	I spotchecked this section and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Contents	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The Second Coming	Done	Your eyes will be opened : a study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter	I wasn't able to access the one source but otherwise everything was verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Punishments and rewards	Done	I just used the Bauckham 1998 ref and that verified everything	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Prayers for those in hell	Done	Spotchecked with sources I had	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Influences, genre, and related works	Done	none	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Predecessors	Not done
Contemporary work	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Later influence	Not done
The punishments and lex talionis	Not done
Christology	Done	Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter	I was only able to verify about half the sentence because I couldn't access the other source but I'm going to assume in good faith that the other half is verified by the other source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Angels and demons	Not done
Literary merits	Done	"The Recovery of the Apocalypse of Peter".	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Theology	Not done
Debate over canonicity	Not done

• I'm going to take a bit of a break with this source review till the IA is back online since quite a few of the sources appear to be accessible through the archive. If this is a problem or if the IA doesn't come back online in a timely manner I can continue to just download pdfs of the books but that is very time-consuming. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Seeing as archived books still are not back up I am going to go ahead and vote Support for the source review. While I didn't source review each section I found absolutely zero issues in any of the other sections which leads me to believe that I would not find issues if I continued to look. If anyone feels my vote is premature let me know but it is very rare that I don't find a single issue when doing source reviews. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Srnec

The following are suggestions after a quick read:

• Like Johnbod, I disagree with MOS:NEITHER and would prefer italics for the titles of works. I don't think extending a convention usually applied to the books of the bible beyond that is clarifying. (Obviously, this won't hold the article back.)
• From note 1: it is sometimes referred to as the "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". Does this mean that it is sometimes referred to as either the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the Ethiopica Apocalypse of Peter
  • It means exactly what's inside the quotes, parentheses included - so literally "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". I think it's weird too.
• The first line links apocalyptic literature, but shouldn't it be the more specific apocalypse?
  • It could really be either - I think the current distinction between those two articles isn't how I'd distinguish them and they both seem to be talking on the same topic at the moment. But sure, switched to apocalypse, although it's a bit of an easter egg link now.
• Congratulations on earliest-written extant work. Concise and clear. I'm baffled by the criticism above. Should "version" perhaps be "vision"? Or perhaps "account"?
  • "Account" works - seems mostly synonymous, I think any of version / vision / account are accurate.
• No link for Jewish apocalyptic literature, but we do have Jewish eschatology.
  • Noted, but not quite the link I'd prefer - ApocPeter is a bit on the "end times", but I wouldn't call it the major focus, while the eschatology article seems to have that be the main concern. It'd be another link to apocalypse or apocalyptic literature.
• [[Hellenistic philosophy|Greek philosophy]] of the [[Hellenistic period]] looks like it should just be a link to Hellenistic philosophy.
  • This one's changed around a lot in the above back-and-forths, and I would agree with the suggestion deeper into the article. However, it's the lead, the section that casual non-scholarly readers read, and I think it's important to include the word "Greek" somewhere here as a clue for a casual audience who won't recognize "Hellenistic" or know that Greece is "Hellas". I'm fine with other suggestions, but that's the reason for the current longer phrasing.
• by Peter through Christ. After the disciples inquire about signs of the Second Coming of Jesus I don't think we should switch betwen Christ and Jesus like this in the lead.
  • Was just trying to avoid close repetitions. Changed to spell it out as "risen Jesus Christ".
• a forerunner of the same genre Somewhat awkward to have a nameless genre.
  • Do you think it's worth repeating "katabasis" here? My assumption was that we should reduce the number of technical Greek words in the lede, as the scholarly name for the genre isn't really the important thing and readers probably know Dante more than they know katabases.
• No need to use the technical term terminus post quem and then avoid the corresponding terminus ante quem.
  • Wasn't avoided, just the sentence " All of this implies it must have been in existence by around 150 AD." was clear and sufficient already IMO. That said, went and added it.
• Where there are multiple footnotes, they are not always in numerical order.
  • This one I'll push back on. WP:CITEORDER specifically says that numerical order of references isn't important and there's no consensus that numeric order is even desirable.
    • I was unaware of this.
• Other scholars suggest Roman Egypt as a possible origin. Redundant to the first sentence in the paragraph. Consider incorporating some of the two long notes in this paragraph into the main text.
  • This section was adjusted some after some back-and-forth above where I put in a direct, substantive statement on the state of scholarly opinions of origin rather than implicit DUEWEIGHT. It is a bit repetitive as a result. I moved a sentence from each of the notes into the main to flesh things out a bit more.
• when the manuscript was compiled Should this not just say 'copied'?
  • Hard to say! IMO, "compiled" is more vague. At some point, someone made the modifications to the Akhmim ApocPeter, and maybe it was the scribe who created this manuscript, rendering it not exactly a simple "copy." I think being vague is a little better here.
    • To me, "compiled" means "put together", as in when the manuscript came to be bound. This could be long before a particular text was written in it if the text was added to a blank page. Or it could be long after a text was written, if the manuscript is a composite. So to me, the date of compilation is only relevant here if it is the same date as the "copying" of the text. Unless we are dealing with a manuscript that can be called an autograph, I think "copy" is correct.
      • I don't think either of those scenarios are very likely. As the article notes, the Apocalypse is right next to a fragment of the Gospel of Peter, implying the whole manuscript was created as a set, rather than pages being filled in later. I get the impression that for liturgical books, a practice of leaving blank pages to fill in later like a diary or a ledger would be rare. Even if something weird did happen - so what? I don't think very much is lost if it turns out that the papers were written in the 6th century, but they were bound into a new manuscript in the 8th century. The "written" part is the interesting one and what's being referred to from context.
      • As another example, take 2 Maccabees, which openly says it's an epitome of another work. It's not an autograph, but some passages seem to have been copied verbatim from the original, lost history. Yet calling it a "copy" of Jason of Cyrene's history would seem to be more misleading than helpful - the writer of 2 Maccabees was sometimes an author themselves, and sometimes an epitomist compressing other text. Even if we presume that people really into old manuscript creation would agree that there is a sense of "copy" that still applies to heavily modified documents, I think this is where writing for a general audience comes in. The casual reading of "copy" in 2024 for many will assume something a lot closer to "faithful reproduction, perhaps with occasional scribal error" like a copy machine. So why use a word that at least could be read as implying something else when we have a word that doesn't have that implication?
• In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia I don't like asking the reader to pick a link. Also I'm a little confused. The work as described does not seem to me to fit either category. Specifically, both katabasis and nekyia seem to conflict with a discourse of Jesus to his faithful, unless Jesus is regarded as similar to a spirit in a nekyia.
  • It's less about Jesus and more about the vision / visit to the land of the dead - i.e. it's the people in heaven / hell who are the nekyia equivalents. As far as making a choice, Beck writes "The terms nekyia, katabasis/descent, and tour of hell all apply to different and, at times, overlapping texts that share common features." Maybe I should add that the genres are overlapping to clarify why we're mentioning two to the reference? Would that be enough? Just don't want to side-track too much.
• hypothesized by many scholars to be later additions In light of what has been said, this clause is redundant. Perhaps it should be stated explicitly in the Most scholars believe that the Ethiopic... paragraph if the Rainer and Bodleian texts are superior to the Ethiopic where they diverge.
  • I think talking about it above in the Manuscripts section with the "Most scholars believe that..." sentence would be a little premature. The Rainer & Bodleian fragments are pretty short, so the ability to compare them only comes up for a few passages, and we might as well discuss those passages in one place rather than flash-forward to it IMO. By discussing it in "Prayers for those in hell", there's context for why these fragments are considered a better fit.
  • As far as redundant, I agree that an attentive reader should be able to take a good guess that this is the case from context, but I don't think we've confirmed it or stated it outright. As in, hypothetically this sentence could have been followed up with "but while the manuscripts differ here, scholars think the Ethiopic is actually original and Akhmim removed these lines". Which would be surprising, but not strictly contradicted by anything above. So it isn't redundant to clarify that isn't the case and it's considered not in the original IMO.
    • I raised this issue because it forced me to go back and check what's what, since I clearly remembered the Ethiopic text be called superior yet here it was being trumped by a Greek text. I think we need to qualify the comment about the Ethiopic text where it is made, is what I'm saying. Not that we have to flesh out the details at that spot.
      • I think it already is qualified, though. The manuscripts section writes Ethiopic is "closer to the original text" - closer doesn't mean "perfect". That said, I've changed it to "usually closer", but think this is double-qualifying.

That brings me to the influences section. So far so good. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look! Replies in-line above. diff with some of the changes. SnowFire (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, is there more to come here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Concluding...

• You really like semicolons.
  • I saw you removed more in your copyedits. To be sure, I too argue for short, simple sentences myself (including above - e.g. I was arguing against some of the extra detail in expansions that have happened) and have split up over-long sentences in other articles, but these semicolons weren't just used randomly. There were a lot of "linked thoughts", and using separate sentences without a "continuing on..." connector can make it read abruptly or unclearly for why we're bringing something up. Neither version is strictly wrong but this comes down to stylistic preferences rather than mistakes, and I'd prefer to keep at least some of it as is. (For example, if we don't use a semicolon, then in the two fragments on the Matthew influence, it can read as a bare assertion followed by randomly talking about a Beatitude quote from Matthew. If we get rid of the semicolon, we'd need a new intro to the split sentence like "As evidence, blah blah Beatitude quote.")
• Personally, I do not like the mixed citation formats.
• I think In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia should be nixed where it is and dealt with under "Influences, genre, and related works", where katabasis is linked again. I still find the piling up of genre terms a little disconcerting.
  • While this is mostly discussed in the Genre section, I think this is relevant as a summary overview of "Contents" as well. If a novel is both a murder mystery and a spy thriller, I think it's fine to open with that in an overview of the plot as well as discuss it again if reviewers had more detailed opinions on genre. Or for more contemporary examples, articles on epistles in the New Testament will generally state that yes, they're an epistle when summarizing their contents. I don't really see why this is disconcerting, at least to most readers.
• emphasizes the strong Jewish roots of the Apocalypse of Peter as well I wonder if this is really an "as well" or an "on the other hand"
  • There's nothing contradictory about it deriving from both. Apparently some older scholarship did believe there was a sharp divide where a work was either one or the other, and never-the-twain shall they meet (and by older I mean like "19th century" level older, so applicable to Dietrich but not really others)... i.e. there was some sort of "pure" Judaism untouched by Greek beliefs out there. But the consensus is that this wasn't really true - all Judaism in the era was touched by various Hellenistic beliefs. (And interestingly, there are some who argue that Greeks were influenced by Judaism a bit, too.)
• cosmological interpretation as a prophecy of Jesus's entry into heaven I do not understand the word "cosmological" in this context
  • I can cut it if desired. It just means "metaphysical"/"spiritual" in this sense, i.e. that it's talking about heavenly gates rather than say Jerusalem's earthly gates.
• predecessor influences reads awkwardly to me, yet is used twice
  • Do you have another suggestion? The problem is "influences" unadorned could mean things that the author was influenced by, or later works that were influenced by it, so some sort of qualifier is necessary.
• I don't think the link at lost earlier writings is needed.
  • Removed.
• Why say eternal destruction and link to annihilationism? I would just say "annihilation". I think it's clearer.
  • Jost, the source, uses both "annihilation" and "eternal destruction" in his article, so I think both are fine. To me, "Annihilation" more strongly signifies the scientific meaning, i.e. matter colliding with antimatter, than a theological one. Meanwhile, "eternal" and "destruction" are both common words, so they seem clear enough to me and preferred.
• At footnote 65, is Beck the one refuting Adamik? Should be made clear.
  • Correct, Beck says this. Beck is approvingly citing Kraus & Nicklas. I expanded the footnote a tad.
• One change that the Apocalypse of Paul makes is describing personal judgments to bliss or torment that happen immediately after death, rather than the Apocalypse of Peter being a vision of a future destiny that will take place after the Second Coming of Jesus. I do no think this sentence is grammatical. One does not make "judgements to".
  • I am open to alternative suggestions, but do not agree that the current form isn't grammatical. "The court monitor described judicial sentences to parole or prison that happened immediately after the trial" reads fine to me. "Sentence" and "judgment" are synonymous enough here, so if "a sentence to prison" is grammatical, so is "a judgment to prison."
• The Apocalypse of Peter thus was the forerunner of these influential visions of the afterlife: Emiliano Fiori wrote that it contains the "embryonic forms" of the heaven and hell of the Apocalypse of Paul, and Jan Bremmer wrote that the Apocalypse of Paul was "the most important step in the direction that would find its apogee in Dante". As written, this sentence has a synth-y feel.
  • I guess, but it isn't actually SYNTH - Fiori writes "just as Dante's divine comedy" and Bremmer's article is titled "From the Apocalypse of Peter to the Apocalypse of Paul", so both Fiori and Bremmer agree that there's something to a Peter->Paul->Dante train and mention all three. The reason why two separate scholars are cited for each half is just to show this isn't a controversial connection and multiple scholars think there's a connection there, not to chain together some SYNTH.
  • (As a side note, this used to say "Directly or indirectly, the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife." as I feel that was an accurate summation of scholarly thoughts on the matter. UC's review above felt that this was too opinionated to state in Wikivoice, hence switching to two cited quotations instead, which also works IMO.)
• The article does not tell us where the chapter and verse numbers come from. Are the chapters original or at least Ethiopic?
  • The chapters and verses are not original, but are constructs of the modern era (same as the normal Bible, actually). Different scholars have used subtly different chapter & versifications of the Ethiopic ApocPeter as well, starting from Grebaut's base. As best I can tell, most later scholars (e.g. Bauckham, Beck) use Buchholz's 1988 versification, but I don't think anyone talks about this directly, not even to state "By the way these verses are not original", perhaps because it's considered obvious to scholars.
• while girls who do not maintain their virginity before marriage (implicitly also a violation of parental expectations) have their flesh torn apart. This is possibly an instance of mirror punishment or bodily correspondence, where the skin which sinned is itself punished. The text also specifies ten girls are punished – possibly a loose reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins in the Gospel of Matthew, although not a very accurate one if so, as only five virgins are reprimanded in the parable, and for unrelated reasons. This passage raised more questions than answers for me. Why the shift from "flesh" to "skin"? Why imply inaccuracy in the text on the basis of a parallel drawn by scholars? What does specifies ten girls even mean?
  • On flesh vs. skin: it's just reducing close repetitions.
  • On ten girls: See conversation with UC above. Originally that said The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished with quotation marks to emphasize that the word "ten" is in the actual passage, but UC argued that this will be read as scare quotes even if they aren't scare quotes. I'm not a fan of the current phrasing either and would be happy to put back the quotes if you think that would help clarify the intent.
  • On inaccuracy: To back up a moment - busted references exist, e.g. someone trying to reference Shakespeare or Homer but messing it up and/or changing things. If an author has a notable novel where two characters named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent on a mission to England, an analysis might write "This is a reference to Hamlet, although unlike Hamlet the two are given cushy government jobs and not executed in this story." Also, busted references happen all the time in classical literature from people trying to recall quotes from memory or just vaguely making allusions. So what's going on here is that scholars are puzzled at why the passage says "ten" when other sinners are generally unnumbered, and the best guess they have is that it's a bad reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins since we think the author knew the Gospel of Matthew. But if I just write "it's a parallel to the Parable of the Ten Virgins" in the Wikipedia article with no further qualification, that will make it sound like an accurate reference, and it really isn't. So that's what the passage is trying to express. Given that, do you think the current wording works?
• M. R. James is linked three times in the text. There are quite a few multiple links but I don't know what the standard is.

MOS:BTW says "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in file captions. But as a rule of thumb, link only the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

James is a central figure in all three of those references, so I would prefer to keep those links- he was truly the main English-language scholar of the work for its formative decades. I'm very much on the side of the reform to MOS:DUPLINK that allowed more repeat linking - especially on mobile, people can read whatever section they like first, and aren't guaranteed to read section-by-section in order or to scroll back up. I'd actually repeat link more if I was solely going off my own preferences. (But regardless, think this is within the letter of "once per section".)

• The last paragraph, Although these references..., is a little long.
  • Hmm, I think that might be an unlucky line-break making two paragraphs blend together? That's the second-to-last paragraph for me - should be a break before "One hypothesis..."
• It would be nice to replace the Ethiopic transcription with an actual photo of an Ethiopic manuscript.
  • I had similar thoughts myself a few months ago, and you can see I uploaded File:Ethiopien DAbbadie 51 131 recto.png. https://www.nasscal.com/manuscripta-apocryphorum/paris-bibliotheque-nationale-de-france-ethiopien-dabbadie-51/ says that ApocPeter starts on "131r" and you can see that the page is clearly marked with "131" in the upper right. However, I don't actually read Ethiopic and can't verify that the Apocalypse of Peter actually starts here. I looked for similar words by sheer shape-matching to what's in Buchholz and couldn't find it either. Whether I'm just really bad at the Ge'ez script, or there's some kind of prologue before it gets to the actual ApocPeter, I don't know, but I'm not comfortable with using it unless I'm sure it's actually right. (Side comment: This article before I took a look at it linked an image of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, i.e. completely the wrong document, back in 2021 [11] , and this incorrect image had spread to other language wikis. So there's something to the idea of "Don't use an original in a language you don't speak unless you're sure. )
• Please vet my copyedits and see some replies above.
  • Most of them looked fine - I put back two semicolons per above though. If you feel strongly, I'm happy to separate the sentences again but then would prefer to include a linking introduction per above.

That's a complete read-through. Srnec (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Srnec: Thanks for the latest batch of comments. I made some changes at diff. For some of your comments above, I'm flexible and happy to change things, but wasn't 100% sure if there was a change that would actually improve things - happy to discuss on any concrete proposals, as firing off a random rephrasing didn't seem like it'd necessarily help. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the second largest Nazi mass killing, also one of the least known. I'm not a fan of the title, but I think the article is now ready for FAC after going through GAN and GOCE, for which I thank Catlemur and Miniapolis (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Joeyquism

There was a good point brought up on this article's talk page about its title. What I'm primarily concerned about is WP:NPOV with regards to the word "atrocities" - while anyone with a working conscience would, of course, label these acts as atrocities, I'm not sure if this is neutral phrasing. There's mention of using the term "war crimes" instead; perhaps this would be a better descriptor? If that term is incorrect due to sources saying otherwise/definitions imposed by authoritative bodies or simply just not to your taste (it would make the title longer and introduce another instance of the word "war"), let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe: I might add that I should be able to commit to a full review soon, and I will likely start after my move in a couple of days (though moving efforts will ultimately take precedence). If I don't get anything down here within the next one-and-a-half to two weeks, you are welcome to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. My main objection to the title is that the article's scope is more broad—it covers the totality of experiences of prisoners of war, which were not necessarily atrocities or war crimes. In a lot of cases, the sources don't specify whether something is a war crime, although they are clear that many violations of the Geneva conventions occurred. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This reasoning seems fair enough. I will not press on the title any further. joeyquism (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

UC

I will try to come back for a "proper" review, but two small points for now:

• As we only have the one map in the article, I worry that it gives the impression of representing the total scale of German advances into the USSR, when of course it shows only quite a small fraction of it. Two options, I think -- either add another one later on, to show advances up to Moscow/Stalingrad, or replace it with one that shows the whole campaign, perhaps phased by year.
• If we're going to use a German noun, like Blitzkrieg, as a native word in italics, we need to capitalise it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The map was chosen to show the quick advances at the beginning of the camp which enabled the Germans to capture so many prisoners. I'm not attached to that map in particular, but I didn't see any others that made the speed of the advance as clear. I wonder if any confusion could be alleviated by explicitly pointing it out in the caption. Fixed the capitalization issue. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, pros and cons to each. Two maps might be the way to go? I might have a look on Commons and see if I can suggest anything sensible. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

buidhe and UndercoverClassicist, Here's a map that might work as an addition or replacement to address the concerns raised above. Its based on the [[this map|unused map]] buidhe mentioned above that has conquered areas colored by date, such as UC suggested (if I'm understanding colored waves correctly). It has the Soviet army pockets, whose placement is based the two West Point maps (one used in this article) on the Eastern Front (both linked in the map description). It varies from the base map in that some of the schematic advance lines were adjusted to make the formation of the pockets more clear, and it has some minor cosmetic changes. I think it helps cover the bases implied in the above discussion:

• It highlights the Soviet army pockets, which play a major role in this article, whereas they are somewhat hidden in the West Point map.
• Almost all the schematic arrows correspond to an actual line of advance, but avoid all the military designations, which aren't germane to the article.
• This map extends beyond August, going to the Battle of Moscow in December.
• It shows the later pockets, such as Kiev, Vyazma, and Bryansk.

This is just a suggestion on an issue already discussed. If it doesn't serve the article's needs, its construction was an interesting way to think a bit more deeply about the article. Wtfiv (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a great piece of work: certainly looks clear and that it would do the job well, though I'm not really qualified to pronounce as to its accuracy or whether it fits the purpose needed in this article: I will leave that to buidhe. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks wftiv! Your map looks great :) (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Captured Red Army soldiers (in infobox): is this quite complete -- wouldn't some prisoners have come from e.g. NKVD formations or the naval infantry? Suggest "Captured Soviet troops".
  • Ok
• The Nazi leadership believed that war with its ideological enemy was inevitable: consider expanding this a little -- I know it's a long story, but it's somewhat germane to the point why the Nazis thought of the USSR as such an inevitable and hated enemy.
  • Clarified the reasons the source gives for this belief
• preventative killings: sounds a little euphemistic: is this the term used in the literature?
  • Yes, well, the source says "preemptive killings"
    • Even worse, perhaps! But the point is clear enough, and perhaps "murders intended to terrorise the population into compliance" is a little mealy-mouthed: what we've got here works fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• War aims included securing natural resources, including agricultural land to feed Germany, metals and mineral oil for German industry: cadence is better if you either lose the first comma or add one before the final and: at the moment, it's a little loose as to how each part flows together.
  • I shortened the sentence by removing the last clause
• The vast majority of German military manpower and materiel was devoted to the invasion, which was carried out as a war of extermination with complete disregard for the laws and customs of war.: changing tone a little, can I just put on record my approval of this kind of phrasing -- it would be easy to shy away from being so straightforward about it out of mistaken NPOV concerns, but you do an excellent job of being absolutely explicit about what we are talking about while keeping everything well within what can be supported from the evidence.
• Informed by Nazi racial theory and Germany's experience during World War I,: I understand the first bit, but what does Germany's experience in WWI have to do with the idea that Muslims are "better" than Ukrainians?
  • This factor was separate from Nazi racial theory (according to the source), which doesn't elaborate much but cites another highly reliable source that I can't check. During WWI the Germans recruited some nationalities into the war effort, but faced problems with "unreliability". (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• by killing communist functionaries and Soviet Jews, it was expected that resistance would quickly collapse: the passive voice is tricky here ("by whom?"): suggest "they expected".
  • Done
• Soviet prisoners of war were held under tighter control, and had a higher death rate: as this is a comparative statement, I would make it an explicit comparison: "than those of other nations"; "than those of western European ethnicity"? I'd be interested to know what the Nazis made of e.g. African and Asian troops fighting for the western Allies.
  • Compared to those mentioned in the last couple of sentences : Soviet urbanites and ghettoised Jews. Made it more clear
• generally adhered to it with prisoners of other nationalities: perhaps not totally to the point here, but did this apply to e.g. black American soldiers, those believed to be gay, or Jews?
  • Violations of the Geneva Convention with regard to other nationalities besides Soviet and Italian were the exception. Even yugoslav Jewish soldiers were not mistreated. It's true that there were some homosexuality cases involving pows but it was rare and probably not violating the Geneva Convention.
    • That's ... good, I suppose? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• there were no legal gray areas: consider ambiguities per MOS:CLICHE?
  • done
• Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few high-ranking officials: can we say what his position was?
  • As the article says he supported treating all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, is there a way to make this more clear?
    • Sorry, I meant “position” as in his rank, job etc — we’ve said he was important, but can we be more specific? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      • he was in the Abwehr (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

        Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- was he really all that high ranking? His job seems to have been fairly ordinary: when I hear "high-ranking", I think senior government ministers, generals, heads of agencies and so on: was he anything close to that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

        Pohl says that "hardly anyone" (presumably on the German side) supported treating POWs according to the Geneva Convention. Revised (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

        • As we've presented it, we've claimed to know that almost all people in Germany supported war crimes against Soviets. That's a big claim -- is that something Pohl a) alleges and b) could reasonably be able to prove? Otherwise, something like "Nazi officials", "figures within the regime", or similar might help. I don't think the point is wrong at all, but that makes it all the more important to be ironclad on the details. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

          @Buidhe: I think this is the last unresolved issue here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

          Sorry I missed this. The reason I wrote it the way I did originally was that I thought he was referring to officials with some influence on the actual policy, but technically there isn't explicit support for this in the text. After looking at the context I think it's clear that he is referring to views within the Wehrmacht, but it's unclear exactly which group of Wehrmacht personnel he is referring to. "The murder of Soviet prisoners of war was undoubtedly controversial within the Wehrmacht... Hardly anyone, however, advocated treatment of Soviet prisoners of war that was fully in line with international law; one of the few who did so was Helmut James Graf von Moltke." (t · c) buidhe 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

          Current phrasing is good, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• the rapid encirclement actions that the German commanders expected in the blitzkrieg: you will know more about this than me, but I gather that military historians are increasingly sceptical of the idea that Blitzkrieg was a coherent doctrine, rather than a post-facto myth that conveniently explained the rather inadequate Allied response to the invasion of France.
  • I don't have any knowledge of this, actually, so I rewrote not to use the word blitzkrieg.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Mark Edele gets the microphone for practically all of the section on why Soviet soldiers surrendered. Does this represent WP:DUEWEIGHT -- are there other voices of equal/greater weight that could/should be brought in here?
  • None of the other books really address this topic.
• The Waffen part of Waffen-SS needs to be italicised (really, the whole thing should be in a lang template, but I'm not sure how well that plays with links plus regular italicisation).
  • When Oxford, cambridge, Taylor&Francis and Elsevier don't italicize, I think Wikipedia should follow the more common usage.
• Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the Wehrmacht: we've usually avoided gratuitously Germanising perfectly normal terms, which I think is the right way to go (I think this reddit thread puts the case quite well), but this seems to be an exception: why not "German Army" (or "German armed forces" vel sim), as we have used elsewhere? If we are desperate to use a German word, we should italicise and use lang templates.
  • I've taken out all mentions of Wehrmacht in the article
• The number of Soviet soldiers captured fell dramatically after the Battle of Moscow in late 1941: is it worth being explicit that this was because the Germans started losing at this point?
  • Pohl doesn't make this connection, I searched through the relevant chapter in Hartmann and he doesn't either. I will check if it's in the Quinkert book.
• Why does Dulag get an explanation but stalag not? The latter also needs a capital letter.
  • Rewrote
• , when the Commissar Order was rescinded: I would rework this section a little, to initially explain what the Commissar Order was, then what happened under it, then what happened after it was rescinded. At the moment, we rely on the reader knowing or being able to infer what the order demanded.
  • Done
• Contradictory orders were issued for the execution of female combatants in the Soviet army, who defied German gender expectations, but the orders were not always followed: can we be a little clearer as to what some of these orders were -- presumably, as with the commissars, a spectrum between "kill them all" and "treat them with particular respect"?
  • Rewrite
• the OKW's Allgemeines Wehrmachtsamt.: see comment earlier about German terms -- if this one is really untranslatable, we should at least explain what it was in English.
• the Korücks,: likewise -- can we explain who these people were?
  • To be honest, I don't really understand. I may do more research, or it may be that the intricacies of the chain of command are not WP:DUE (given that they aren't even mentioned in most of the sources). Update: I decided take out these couple sentences. (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• A figure of 200,000 to 250,000 deaths in transit is provided in Russian estimates: we imply here that other estimates are available, or that these might not be above suspicion -- can we expand on either side?
  • I only put it this way because both of the cited sources state explicitly that it is a "Russian estimate" (apparently from Rossija i SSSR ν vojnach XX veka. Statisticeskoe issledovanie. Red. G. F. Krivoseev. Moskva 2001)
• Make sure that date ranges, including in work titles, have endashes (I noticed Moore 2022).
  • Fixed
• "barbed-wire fences" should have a hyphen, as a compound modifier.
  • Done
• the encirclements of Vyazma and Bryansk: can we put an explicit date on this?
  • Done
• The vast majority of prisoners (ethnic Russians) : I think this would be more grammatical as "Ethnic Russians, the vast majority of the prisoners, were not..."
  • Done
• prisoners were released so they could volunteer for the Wehrmacht or the police: see my point earlier about the word Wehrmacht.
• About one-third became Hiwis: suggest explaining what Hiwis were.
  • Reworded
• Wehrmacht soldiers often conducted the executions: as above.
• a stereotypically-Jewish appearance: MOS:HYPHEN says not to use a hyphen when the compound modifier is formed by a regular -ly adverb.
  • done
• With Wehrmacht cooperation, Einsatzgruppen units: I think Einsatzgruppen may have to stay as untranslatable, but see earlier comments about Wehrmacht and lang templates.
  • As with Waffen-SS, the majority of scholarly English language sources don't italicize.
    • Very well, but we should then use lang templates (with |italic=no) to ensure that screen readers handle them correctly. Apologies if you've already done that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• five to 25 percent escaped detection: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
  • Done
• Invalid soldiers were in particular danger when the front approached. invalid meaning "sick" is only usually a noun: suggest "disabled", "soldiers too sick to work", or similar.
  • Done
• if their responses were unsatisfactory, they were discharged from prisoner-of-war status: I think we should be a little more explicit as to what this means -- "discharged" often means "released", especially in a military context.
  • Done
• Suggest knocking the "were" out of the "killed at Mauthausen" link to break the sea of blue.
  • Done
• Hitler opposed recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions, blaming non-German recruits for defeat in World War I.: would this point be useful further up to explain what we meant about Germany's WWI experience causing animosity to certain eastern European ethnicities?
  • I could move it up but then it wouldn't explain in this section why Hitler opposed their recruitment, but his underlings disagreed.
• some having living conditions similar to Wehrmacht soldiers: another beat on the same drum, I'm afraid.
• 14 in the Turkestan Legion, nine in the Armenian Legion, eight each in the Azerbaijani and Georgian Legions, and seven in the North Caucasian and Idel-Ural Legions.: MOS:FIGURES again.
  • Fixed
• Employers paid RM0.54 per day per man This and similar values a little later -- it seems intuitive that these are small amounts, but can we contextualise them vs. the price of something worth buying, or the wages of someone like a soldier?
  • Add currency conversion, although I'm not sure how meaningful it is.
• the Channel Islands, where many died: my impression is that Jersey, at least, was a fairly 'tame' (by Nazi standards!) place to be, both for the soldiers and for the prisoners, at least until Germany started losing badly and food became more scarce. Is the conflation of Norway and the CI justified here?
  • Maybe not for Soviet POWs because the cited source says "They also suffered the same privations and treatment as other Soviet prisoners". And according to another source hundreds or thousands of Soviet citizens died there.
    • I stand enlightened. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Unlike the Holocaust, where killings occurred far from Germany's borders : we need a mostly in here -- Dachau and Ravensbrück, for example, were certainly in Germany.
  • The vast, vast majority of Jewish holocaust victims were killed east of Germany's 1937 borders. None of the death camps, ghettos, or mass execution sites were located in Germany's prewar territory. Unless they were in the army, a German could well have seen their Jewish neighbors rounded up but would not have witnessed anyone being killed, except perhaps at the very end of the war. Dachau and Ravensbrück, and other concentration camps (except Auschwitz and Majdanek which were located in Poland) were not used for mass executions of Jews.
    • No, but Jews died in Dachau and Ravensbrück, didn't they? I agree there's a difference of degree, but we still surely need something like "almost all", unless we mean to exclude someone who starved or was beaten to death there from the victims of the Holocaust. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
      • What the cited source says is: "After 1945, many Germans claimed that they had not known about the murder of Jews, which had happened far away... Soviet POWs were dying in huge numbers in camps inside Germany by 1941 – a fact that was widely known and was occurring before most of the Jews had been deported and killed"
        • I'm only going on what you have quoted here, but the word claimed is doing a lot of work there. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that most Germans must at least have had a very strong inkling of what was happening to Jews (see e.g. here), even if they hadn't physically seen a death camp. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
          • We have an entire article on the subject, but I have rephrased the text. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• The caption on the Hess at Minsk photo has a lot of links on common terms that were linked much earlier -- and, I'm afraid, I must ask about "Wehrmacht" again...
  • It's often recommended to repeat links in captions
• About 500,000 prisoners had been freed by Allied armies by February 1945: is this just on the Eastern Front, or in the West as well?
  • Only the Red Army, clarified
• German Army scorched-earth tactics: I would cut Army, as the air force played its role too. One might even consider cutting German too -- didn't the Soviets carry out scorched earth tactics as they withdrew?
  • Source says German Army. I don't know if the Red Army used scorched earth tactics but the vast majority of war destruction seems to be attributed to the German occupiers.
• who fell into enemy hands or was encircled without capture: this seems rather harsh! Am I reading correctly that being surrounded made you a traitor if you didn't surrender?
  • While Moore states, "Servicemen who had been captured and escaped, or who had been encircled but not captured—something that may have applied to up to a million men in the first weeks of the conflict—had been dealt with under the Soviet criminal code as though they had committed high treason and were therefore subject to execution and the confiscation of their property." I was curious about this and tracked down the source he cited (Pavel Polian, ‘The Internment of Returning Soviet Prisoners-of-War after 1945’, in Bob Moore and Barbara Hately-Broad (eds), Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace (Oxford: Berg, 2005) p. 127.) Polian does not say that this class of people was considered universally traitors, only that they were screened after the war to find traitors. I rewrote the sentence based on Edele and Polian; it seems like in theory you were not a traitor if you surrendered due to the impossibility of continuing resistance, but in practice you would fall under suspicion.
    • That makes more sense: I suppose the (twisted) Soviet logic would have been that getting yourself encircled might show a less-than-stellar desire to fight and win: perhaps you only got into that situation because you weren't aggressive enough, or were hoping to be captured. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• classified all surrendering commanders and political officers culpable deserters : better as as culpable deserters, or culpable as deserters. If the former, could cut culpable -- you can't be a not-culpable deserter.
  • Done
• Trawniki men were typically sentenced : I would explain who these people were.
  • It's explained in the military collaboration section. Should I repeat it here?
    • I must admit that I missed it, so take from that what you will. It is quite a way up, even for more attentive readers. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• According to official statistics, "57.8 per cent were sent home, 19.1 per cent were remobilized into the army, 14.5 per cent were transferred to labour battalions of the People's Commissariat for Defence, 6.5 per cent were transferred to the NKVD 'for disposal', and 2.1 per cent were deployed in Soviet military offices abroad".: an odd place to quote -- this is just bare facts, so better as a paraphrase. It's minor, but the WP:NONFREE case here is not strong.
  • Rewrote
• Different figures appear in the book Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II: better as a colon, not a full stop, between title and subtitle -- but why give the title at all, rather than the author, as we've normally done with scholars' opinions?
  • Non-notable authors, rephrased
• They were excluded from the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future fund: this could do with a bit of explanation -- it sounds from the article as though this was a Soviet thing.
  • Done
• others belonged to the NKVD, People's Militia, were from uniformed civilian services: not grammatical: "to the NKVD or People's Militia, were from..."
  • Done
• Christian Streit's landmark Keine Kameraden : landmark is a bit WP:PROMO, and I would translate the title for Anglophone readers.
  • Rewrote

That's a first pass -- my admiration continues. Clear and authoritative throughout: purely on prose, I found the "death toll" section slightly less sparkling than the rest, but that may be a reflection of the difficulty of conveying what is essentially a long list of (rather harrowing) statistics. As ever, my respect for taking on such a challenging and important topic and conveying it so well. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do take them as the beginning rather than the end of a conversation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support -- apologies for a long and no doubt torturous review, but I hope it's been to the article's benefit. Once again, huge respect for doing an excellent job with such a challenging subject. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Commentary from fifelfoo on all of 1, 1c (inflation specific), all of 2, 3 (textual quotation), 4, including plagiarism samplings

I appear to be liable to assist, for various reasons of past personal reading. And in that matter, if people believe my past editing in historiography of state murders would bias me or cause the appearance of bias, please ask me to cease my contributions immediately? I haven't done one of these in a while, so this may take some time, and my standards may be out of alignment with current standards (I did check back on customs and practices last year). If I can have 4 days to get through the major headings? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• General query: Why skip MILHIST-A? Not enough review contributors? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1a: reviewed: oppose

• I am aware that I'm reviewing a GA
• Now that is a lede sentence. That's a masterful lede sentence. It is also a masterful lede.
• "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the execution of captured Soviet commissars." => "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the order for the execution of captured Soviet commissars." Otherwise it appears that the executions happened before the war due to verb chaining issues across comparative verbal clauses.
• "military planners decided to breach it with the Soviet prisoners" => "with Soviet prisoners" the collective noun doesn't need an article
• "Soviet Jews, political commissars, and some officers, communists, intellectuals, Asians, and female combatants" => ", some officers," unnecessary "and" within a comma separated noun list.
  • Unsolicited advice, but the point has been missed here: the and is needed to clarify that the some applies to officers, communists etc, but that all Jews and commissars are included. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • That is correct. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Completely agree with decision to exclude historiography from lede: article isn't "Historiography of…". The implicit historiographical summary of "but far less studied" is an appropriate historical conclusion of interest to the general reader. Really well handled here. Historiography is often too danke for the general reader, but necessary in body. Picked the right lede point in complex terrain.
• "To increase the speed of conquest, the Germans" do note that I'm reading for stuff like this. The correct noun choices based on the historiographical arguments around "Ordinary men" are observed by readers like me, and I have read for these observations of "avoidance of Clean Wehrmacht" type myths. Correctly handled here, as a note, will observe if ever incorrectly handled (do not expect it to be.) I note that merely a paragraph later Nazi is used correctly to typify a view not universally held, compared to standard German myths of the East. This reinforces my belief that tonal choices of collective agent nouns will be correct.
• "World War I led to increased antisemitism" => "World War I had lead to increased antisemitism" consider? My en_AU_scholarly views of which English past tense to use may be atypical though. The point being that WWI didn't simply produce a result, but was an active process producing a result in the past.
• "and recognition of the need to secure food supplies" whose need? Unnamed noun. Suggest "recognition of Germany's need" as this dolchstosselegende myth isn't Nazi specific.
• "they were less effective than expected because of flight" whose flight? "because of civilian flight" missing noun. Alternately civilian and military flight if more representative of HQRS scholarly judgement? Scholars may have generalised all kinds of flight, regardless of STAVKA's hopes.
  • The source says : "Many managed to flee other large Soviet cities that were under German occupation" so I cannot explicitly say civilian if the source doesn't.
• "Although the mass deaths of prisoners in 1941 were controversial within the military, Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This is a bit of a mess. Complex multivalued expression with subtle nods to variations. "Although the virtue of mass deaths of prisoners…was controversial… [for purely instrumental reasons of policy?], Abwehr…according to law." I'm not sure what I'm meant to read here as a reader? Sure von Moltke might be admirable because he likes law of war, but what's the controversy about then?: Shoot them now or shoot them later?; Oh we don't want to starve slaves to death, we want to work them to death, work them in conditions of life unworthy of life, demonstratively punish them indefinitely, while your racial views are admirable they are of military detriment to defeating our enemy? Dangling an implicit controversy without explaining it in the sentence leads me unable to read von Moltke's legalism appropriately. Was he legalist in comparison to now/later policy views; was he legalist in comparison to military efficacy is death/ military efficacy is preservation of surrender as possible? This one is really troubling for me as I can't read it to an adequate conclusion of what kind of barbarism OKW/OKH policy level leaders were controverting over.
  • The source does not allow me to elaborate on Moltke's views, which would probably be WP:UNDUE because the article is not about Moltke.
• "Little planning was made for housing and feeding the millions of soldiers to be captured as part of the rapid encirclement actions that German generals were planning." I've read enough mass human death studies to understand what "little planning" indicates. The general reader may not have? "were planning, the absence of plans implied necessarily deficient ad hoc solutions regardless of intention."? I'm reading here for language, not for OR/HQRS representation obviously. The follow on sentence implies the hermeneutic gap: absence of planning results in deficient outcomes regardless of intention. (With the intentions I'd anticipate supplied below during implementation).
  • I'm not sure what you want me to add here. Some sources highlight the lack of planning and suggest that the mass death was driven by logistical factors rather than malice. Others imply the lack of planning is indicative of malice, or at best depraved, callous, and criminal disregard for human life. But there is one point on which they agree and that's what is encyclopedically included as an undisputed fact; my inclination is to WP:Let the reader decide on the rest.
• I love the section headings. I hate that I love the section headings (appropriate for the article). They are perfectly chosen, encyclopaedic, representative, NPOV.
• "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed in action;" comma unnecessary for clause, "In 1941 three or four Soviet…"
• "the ratio of prisoners was reduced later in the war" agents "reduce" ratios. Which agent decided to kill more prisoners? Passive voice here is an enemy to good writing in an agentic situation. "German forces reduced the number of captures later in the war." "Soviet operational and strategic art reduced the capacity for German forces to capture more POWs later in…". Do you see what I'm getting at here? Dangling an unspecified agent might be "safe" but it isn't "safe" for a history encyclopaedia article in an area of history where agents ordered people not to surrender or invited people out for a nice clean "partisan" hunt to be off the front lines?
  • Edele's argument isn't that more captured soldiers were killed—but that fewer defected and others were more inclined to put up a fight rather than surrender. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC) I have clarified this point (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "By mid-December 1941, 79 percent of prisoners (more than two million) had been captured". 79% of what period? All of the GPW? Of 1941? Of the period of rout and retreat to the turning point? And which prisoners? I know it is implied by the article title but it's a dangling absent noun. "in thirteen major cauldron battles."? 79% of prisoners to mid-December 1941 were captured in cauldron battles specifically?
• "military factors such as poor leadership, lack of arms and ammunition, and being completely overwhelmed by" "and [who] being completely". Soviet soldiers? Soviet commands?
  • I could add another couple "Soviet" modifiers here but that would be repetitive and I believe that the intended meaning is 100% clear from context.
• "The [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) " lmftfy. Why is there a de link against Waffen-SS? What editorial decision led to this? does this indicate cross-wiki porting? I'd appreciate an answer as it would go to another section (plagiarism detailed detection). Not a threat by the way, but a request for explanation of the editorial decision.
  • No, the article is entirely original (not translated); this template was suggested by UndercoverClassicist above. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• "The Red Army shot prisoners [less often]", German aligned combatant prisoners? Soviet or formerly soviet-aligned prisoners?
  • Clarified
• "this contributed to a mutual escalation of violence" how did the Red Army shooting fewer prisoners contribute to escalation? It violates the conceptual structure of the initial verbal comparative. Try breaking into separate sentences?
• "Killings before reaching the collection point [de] are not counted as part of the figures for Soviet prisoner deaths." Okay… so why is there a trailing de link? Whose figures for Soviet deaths? Where has this content come from? Seriously, from a plagiarism basis where has this come from? Stranded sentences that are incoherent in the paragraphs' argument that reference cross-wiki content make me really bloody worried about copyvio/closepara. Separate from cv/cp issues, whose figures, and why do we care? "OKH compiled figures ignored deaths prior to concentration at collection points." "Post-war Soviet figures neglected as POW deaths deaths prior to collection by OKH POW authorities." See the issue with a lack of a collective noun?
  • The link is a result of trying to avoid jargon (see some of UC's comments above), not copyvio from a foreign language source. The death statistics referred to are the German ones, since Soviet collection of information naturally cannot distinguish between missing and prisoners. Nevertheless, I have clarified. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" were ordered by whom? STAVKA? OKH? Kinda matters there. One's a lawful order, the other is an order given to unsurrendered combatants by OPFOR. The collapsed nouns are causing real problems in reading. I know what you're saying because I'm already aware of which institutional authority is responsible for which abhorrent preventable killings, but "average reader" won't be.
  • The interpretation that Soviet authorities would order their soldiers to surrender hadn't occurred to me, but I rewrote to clarify. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• "Despite the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) order, prisoners were often taken under such circumstances;[57][54] thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed on the spot as "partisans" or "irregulars"". So we have a comparative between "Despite X: prisoners were taken; thousands of Soldiers were shot." That's not a good construction. Break into sentences to avoid spanning comparatives. "OKH ordered shootings. Prisoners were often taken by Heer units despite OKH commands. Yet thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed." Breaking into sentences prevents OKH orders spanning opposed comparatives.
• "Others evaded capture " which others? OKH, Heer, Soviet soldiers? There are three major nouns in the prior multi clause sentence, you need to reestablish the central noun.
• I have reached "Processing." I believe this is a sufficient basis to oppose on 1a. Failed noun targets, verbal clauses which avoid comparatives correctly, and passive voice avoiding assigning agentic power to responsible state authorities is sufficient. The clarity of the lede isn't present in the body where implied subjects and objects have to be read for aggressively exist. I will of course continue the review in other areas I identified I'd review, and expect good results there. (rest of 1, 2, plagiarism). Generalised editing on the points above throughout the article would be required for reassessment of this criteria (which I'd be happy to do.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've rephrased in most of the above cases, while there are a few where I felt the suggestion was not an improvement. While I appreciate your feedback helping to improve the article and reduce the potential for misunderstanding, other editors seem to feel there is sufficient clarity from context. Some vagueness is inevitable, indeed appropriate, when dealing with many agencies issuing conflicting orders and people on the ground not necessarily following any of them. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

1c Well-researched inflation specific: improvement needed

I am not attacking the sources selected, or the choice to make a calculation for the purposes of the readers' benefit. Nor am I attacking the choice of calculation for comparison (USCPI). But there are two problems with the inflations: US cents are not specified (a wide variety of nations use cents); Current footnote 190abc Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019. doesn't indicate that the calculation was a triviality performed by editorial staff. Consider "Approximately 13 cents in contemporary US dollars,[189] or $2 today." and "Calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019." Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, I'm not attached to this way of indicating inflation, but I used it because it was already in other featured articles, including the Holocaust in Slovakia. I did add "United States" for clarification. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not troubled by the editorial decision to use a post-war interstate arbitration of values between RM and USD, or your choice of CPI as appropriate inflator: these are good editorial decisions in inflation. Wages of unskilled workers (as Soviet POWS were forced to labour) is an appropriate CPI inflation use. I'm concerned about attribution of the calculation, and indication that the "modern comparator" is in USD. I think many people across the world can readily recognise USD values in beer and skittles, rent and hours of labour. Please see this edit: attempted indication of calculation for me indicating a fix. If you like the fix, please incorporate it. I am going to indicate that I'd 1c Inflation Only oppose over attribution of calculation, by I understand FAC moderators know who I am, and what bee I have in my bonnet over inflation calculation and the potential for original research in this domain, and that in my oppose they would read that I do not consider the underlying choice of inter-state value transformation or CPI as incorrect. They would weight my oppose on 1c inflation only appropriately. (compared to my expectation that every other category of my review would be support / resolved). Do you see what I'm getting at with the sample edit? We're showing that the calculation is Wikipedia's because the calculation is trivial here. Trivial equalling "not OR". Thank you for indicating the reference cents are USD cents.
  • Additionally in relation to other FAs: "Other stuff exists." I'm reviewing the high quality article that your editorial community has put time into on its merits in front of my eyes: FAC coordinators know how to value my opinion and would not overweight it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1e Stability: support

I'm convinced the article is stable, I noted a series of 3K additions, and removals, the talk page appears to have been functioning when these emerged and raised them, and editors on the talk page sought as editors to reach a proper editorial resolution including asking for external assistance without prompting or conflict requiring such. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

3 Media: query (resolved)

Have you considered using blockquotes drawn from primary sources which are themselves used in secondary sources as "typifying" of individual experiences? Text can act as media. It is useful for blending "colour" with "personal experience" and "voice from the era"? This is a query only, not a decline. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that the encyclopedia's goals include capturing "colour", "personal experience" and "voice from the era". Furthermore, you don't find many similar quotations in a lot of related articles, including FAs. I'm not opposed to quotations but I only add them if I feel that it increases the reader's encyclopedic understanding more than paraphrasing/rewriting, per MOS:QUOTE. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding to this query. I was following MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE's concept of media as "an important illustrative aid to understanding." While I've got the reading to experience the illustrative affect (emotional reaction) to the image files presented. From your MOS:QUOTE: "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional." My personal editorial opinion is that History articles can benefit from illustrative blockquotes from primary sources acting "as Media," for the purposes we use other media for. I must admit that I contributed significantly to the essay, which includes the observation at WP:HISTIP, "A fact qualifies for illustration when a major scholarly text explicitly demonstrates a point by reference to a primary source, or quotes a primary source in demonstration of a major (as weighted) fact." Text causes me to react in ways illustrative image media doesn't. I'm not suggesting quoting Idi i smotri. As the sponsoring editor you may have read the most reputable scholarly sources who themselves cannot avoid quoting primary sources to illustrate the impact on humans that encamped starvation or sub-survival calorie slave labour do not have when referred to technically. I trust your judgement entirely here, but was suggesting a category of historical media that is sometimes neglected. If a more versed editor than I could recommend an example of a recent historical FA that quotes a primary source in terms of WP:HISTIP's suggestions I would value their example of style, as I've been on an extended wikibreak. Thank you again for considering this query, I've noted it as resolved based on your consideration. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Statistical graphic "Soviet prisoners of war by year of capture" almost certainly requires sourcing for its stats. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  The data is cited in the Commons image description as recommended, which you get to by clicking on the image. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

4 Length: support

I am satisfied the length suits the topic, and the section lengths suit the importance of the sections to the encyclopaedic presentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate your review. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Fifelfoo, can I just confirm that your oppose still stands, on the basis of criteria 1a and 1c? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support by Shushugah

• Specify USD$ in the footnotes
  • Done
• Consistently italicize and capitalize the German words used, e.g Abwher -> Abwher and lebensraum -> Lebensraum
  • I capitalized lebensraum but I don't agree with italicizing when most English sources don't (Abwehr, Waffen-SS, etc.)
• Use Umlaut consistently or not (ä replaced with ae etc..) e.g Flossenbürg becomes Flossenbuerg
  • where is it not used?
    • Militaergeschichtliche Zeitschrift, Wuelfel, (note: Neuengamme is correct)
  • Fixed both thx (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I understood the comparison of Polish/Russian prisons of war, but given it mentions other civilians of Russian citizenry, I am surprised by lack of mention of World War II casualties of Poland which is one of the highest in WW2.
  • why is this relevant to include? It's certainly not true in absolute terms, where the Soviet losses dwarfed everyone else's. Losses were proportionally higher in the western Soviet union as well
• I was confused by the racial hierarchy paragraph; Nazi racial theories § Slavs left me more confused what is meant by Asians, and what is meant by Russian, particularly with counter-examples of Georgians being consider Aryan potentially on one hand, and Ukrainians being called "Untermentsch" on the other.
  • Where Soviet citizens were concerned there was a clear hierarchy of treatment in practice, which was only partly based on Nazi racial theories." Asian does not mean Georgian but Central Asians, Siberians who looked" Mongoloid ". I can try to source more explanation on that point
• @Buidhe and Shushugah: is there more to come from either of you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild @Buidhe thanks for the ping! The link to Mongoloids for Asians helped me better understand what is being referred within local racial hierarchies. I am happy to give my suppport and wanted to mention some small nitpicks (not blockers for my support)

  • Wikilink military or police collaboration and recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions with link Collaboration in the German-occupied Soviet Union
  • Remove MOS:FULLSTOP from images captions. Some have them, some don't. Better to be consistent and remove all of them.

  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Shushugah. Without actually checking the captions, I assume that the perceived problem is because they adhere to MOS:CAPFRAG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild exactly. I see that consistency between sentence and caption fragment is not explicitly required. Some of the captions could easily be converted into sentences, but not required nor beneficial. So strike my feedback on MOS:CAPFRAG. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the wikilink, appreciate feedback and your support :) (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

It's great to see a high quality article on this very important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• I agree that the article seems miss-titled given it covers all aspects of how the Germans treated Soviet POWs. The current title could give readers the impression that only some Soviet POWs were subjected to atrocities or that this was a sub-set of the German policies.
• There's a fair bit of over-linking. I'd suggest using one of the tools to identify duplicate links.
  • Guidance on MOS:REPEATLINK has changed and I believe the article fulfills the new standards (it's now recommended to repeat links each section where that aids reader understanding): many readers don't go in order.
• "To increase the speed of conquest, the German invaders planned to feed their army by looting" - from memory, Adam Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that this was also due to the weakness of the German war economy
  • I'm not sure if that is worth mentioning in this article, it's not mainly about pillage.
    • The statement that this was done only to "increase the speed of conquest" is an oversimplification. The strain that the German war economy was under is relevant to the topic of this article, so it seems a good idea to get details like this right. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks for the tip. I mined the Tooze source for information and revised the sentence in the article. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Because prisoners of war were held under tighter control than urban or Jewish civilians, they had a higher death rate from starvation" - this seems out of place
  • How so? It is intended to build on the previous sentences and explain similarities and differences between Nazi policies
    • This looks fine on second reading Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• The text starting with "It is disputed if the German command" doesn't really cover the differing views and who holds them
  • OK, I have attempted to rewrite. I think sources agree that as time went on the labor of prisoners was prioritized, but where they differ is emphasizing logistical vs ideological factors, and whether it is a "mass killing" or only "mass death".
• "Especially in 1941, the German Army often refused to take prisoners on the Eastern Front and shot Soviet soldiers who tried to surrender." - this sentence seems far too categorical. It would also be good to explain whether this was the actions of individual soldiers or whether they were directed to not take prisoners (or a bit of both)
  • clarified that these do not seem to be ordered from above, but tacitly tolerated by the military leadership
• "Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered by the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" - how could and did the German high command order Soviet soldiers to do this?
  • "Schon am 25. Juli 1941 befahl das OKH, versprengte Rotarmisten hätten „sich sofort bei der nächsten deutschen Wehrmachtsdienststelle zu melden. Geschieht das nicht, sind sie von einem gebietsweise festzusetzenden Zeitpunkt ab als Freischärler anzusehen und entsprechend zu behandeln."" and what was the result? "Im Rahmen der Partisanenbekämpfung wurde nicht nur in Zivil untergetauchten Soldaten, sondern sogar aufgegriffenen Uniformierten die Erschießung angedroht." Yes, the order was actually directed at Red Army soldiers, although the extent to which it reached them was debatable: "Mit Hilfe von Fristen sollte das deutsche Besatzungsgebiet „von Versprengten gereinigt" werden53. Aber war es realistisch und vor allem fair, die in den Wäldern und Sümpfen vagabundierenden Uberlebenskünstler mittels Plakaten und Flugblättern erreichen zu wollen?"
• "An estimated 20 percent or more" - what is this a proportion of? The total POWs taken during this period or something else?
  • Clarified
• "Shooting prisoners was encouraged." - by whom, and who were they encouraging to do this?
  • Clarified
• "about half were recaptured,[92] and around 10,000 reached Switzerland." - surely far more would have returned home to German occupied territory, cross the front line to Soviet territory or become partisans?
  • that's true but we have no figures for that.
• "Due to its clear-cut criminality, the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was mentioned in the International Military Tribunal's indictment" - can you say why?
  • It was particularly illegal because the Geneva Convention was very clear, in contrast to other crimes some of which were less well defined and others that were invented almost from whole cloth at Nuremberg
    • Sorry, I miss-read the text here to include a 'not' between 'was' and 'mentioned'. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Viktor Zemskov says" - I'd suggest identifying who this person is (e.g. is he a historian?)
  • Done
• "Thousands of books have been published about the Holocaust, but in 2016 there were no books in English about the fate of Soviet prisoners of war." - this seems over-simplistic given that the topic is routinely covered in English language works on the Soviet-German war, sometimes in quite a bit of detail.
  • While it's not a perfect metric, I've seen it in multiple sources. It's clear to me that the topic is vastly under studied compared to the number of deaths, even in comparison to other atrocities that killed large numbers of Soviet citizens - such as anti-partisan warfare. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Surely something can be said that acknowledges that there is in fact a sizable English language literature on this topic while also noting the lack of dedicated books? (the English language literature on the Soviet Union's war experiences continues to be very patchy across the board). The topic is usually covered as part of popular works on the war, so English language people with an interest in the conflict should be aware of it as a result. For instance, I first became aware of his issue in the 1990s through Anthony Beevor's enormously popular book Stalingrad, which includes a focus on the experiances of the Soviet prisoners who ended up fighting with the Germans at Stalingrad. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

      While that's true, I don't think it's verifiable to make such a claim about the English language literature specifically. Quinkert et al. discuss Russian and German literatures but not publications in English. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

      • I've had a poke around academic journal databases, and haven't hard any luck here either. I really don't like this text as it misrepresents the literature, but I guess it's technically accurate. I'd suggest continuing to look for sources here, perhaps in PhD thesis literature review sections and the like. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'd suggest briefly noting the far right narrative that has attempted to present the way in which the western Allies held German POWs in 1945 as being directly comparable to the treatment of Soviet POWs. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Seems UNDUE given that I didn't see this anywhere in the sources and even the crank stuff like Other Losses doesn't focus on this comparison. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I needed to weed a lot of it out of Wikipedia articles a few years ago, and some sources on Holocaust denial note that this comparison gets made. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Nick-D, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I've posted some replies above. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, though I've left a further response above. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

I am surprised that there has not been an image review so far. Here goes my attempt at one, Buidhe:

• All images have appropriate sources and licenses. Only the link in the German advances map is no longer online, you will have to add an archive URL. Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest adding an alt for the infobox image. All other images have appropriate alts. Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Added archive link (t · c) buidhe 12:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    The image review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Text review:

• "Although more than a million": "Although" is not necessary here, consider removing?
• "mass death of prisoners, with": prefix "along" before "with", since we have a conjuctive here?
• "Little planning was made": "done" instead of "made"?
• "that was fewer": "the actual number" instead of "that"?
• "ordered from above": "by the high command" instead of "from above"?
• "while escaped": "after their escape" would be better grammatically?
• Link to Gestapo on first use instead of second?
• "1,487 calories": consider providing the required calories per day for an adult male as a comparable?
  • This is a bit difficult. Many were required to perform hard labor which increases calorie requirements. I did mention that it's a starvation amount even if the POWs received it, which they didn't.
• "and by the end of the war around a million were": "and the total number released was around a million by the end of the war" would be grammatically better, wdyt?
• "With the army's cooperation, [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) units": Fix the lang template?
• "Soviet Muslims mistaken for Jews were sometimes killed": are any numbers available? If so, consider adding?
  • No
• "when the front approached": what does "front" mean here? Frontline? Do we intend to say "when the frontline was closer to the camps"?
  • Linked Front (military)
• "advocating the transfer": add "for" after "advocating"?
• "under the control of the SS": "to" instead of under?
• "Officers were over-represented": are any percentages known?
  • Not in any of the sources consulted
• Link to Hanover-Wülfel?
  • There isn't a good link, even on de wikipedia the closest is de:Döhren-Wülfel, no en wiki article for that
• Is the 2015 reparations amount known? If so, consider adding along with an inflation adjusted figure?
  • Done (still recent enough that I'm not sure inflation is helpful to include)
• "Hartmann's 3 million": Introduce and link to Hartmann here instead of in the legacy section?

Source formatting review:

• Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide them. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.
  • I have no objection if you want to do it.
• For Quinkert, Keller, Kozlova, Meier & Winkel and Latyschew 2021, I don't think the following text is necessary if you're using harvc: "Dimensionen eines Verbrechens: Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im Zweiten Weltkrieg | Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II (in German and English). Metropol Verlag. ISBN 978-3-86331-582-5." Just using in1, in2 and year parameters would be enough.
  • I don't understand in1 and the documentation doesn't explain it, as far as I can tell. Could you reformat one of the refs so I can see what you mean?
• Add archive URLs for "Consumer Price Index, 1800–", Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 1968, Otto & Keller 2019?
  • I don't have the script or bot that does this, but I don't have any objection to it.
• Remove the links to USGPO, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press, Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift and Russian History? Otherwise you will have to link to all other publishers and journals to maintain consistency.
  • I should now have bluelinked everything that has an enwiki article.
• Consider adding series and volume numbers for sources which provide these? For example, Pohl 2012, Otto & Keller 2019 etc.
  • I guess I'm not convinced that this is particularly helpful (it isn't needed to find the book) and I try to keep the info in bibliographies to what is actually going to be useful.
• Is there any material in Keller 2011 which we could add here? Otherwise, if it is similar to the works cited here, then you may have to remove it.
  • It goes into a lot of detail on a particular group of Soviet POWs that are a minority of the total, thus WP:UNDUE to add. We already cite a bunch of info from his summary of his research in Keller 2021. The full book is listed for readers desiring more information on that specifically. If there was a separate article for Soviet prisoners of war in Germany I would remove it and list in there instead.

I'll try to do a source review with spot checks soon. Overall, I found the article impressive and well written, congratulations to you on writing such a great article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, I have actioned everything except some of what I mentioned above. (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I have done the biblio formatting, please let me know if my format is ok with you. On the text and source formatting, a support from me. Will try to get the spotchecks done in 1-2 days. Matarisvan (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! All the formatting looks good. Note: I added a source, Westermann 2023, in response to comments above (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I should be able to get you pdfs of almost all the sources if you can't access them (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not a problem, I had noticed that addition during my edit and formatted it too. For the spot checks, I will be going through 15 refs which is roughly 6% of the total refs. For generating the ref numbers I will use a random number generator to get as random numbers as possible. Here goes the source review, @Buidhe:

  • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
  • #9, #14, #39, #43, #47, #49, #80, #93, #106, #117, #134, #156, #190: all ok
  • #28: mostly ok but I couldn't find the supporting text for "several weeks after the start of the war", since no date is given for Hitler's rejection of POW terms.
  • #254: The second sentence is ok, but the first is not. The source says "Post-war German rationalizations and apologia for the Soviet mortality even included claims that it was the long-term undernourishment of Soviet soldiers by their own Government that had led to their widespread deaths in German captivity" while the article says "After the war, some Germans made apologetic statements about the 1941 causes of mass death". I think you misunderstood what apologia means here, the Germans were not apologizing for the Soviet deaths but trying to defend themselves, one definition of apologia can be "a formal written defence of one's opinions or conduct". So you will have to change the first sentence to some variant of "After the war, there were some German attempts to deflect the blame for the 1941 mass deaths".

  Matarisvan (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  For #28, based on the text it occurred before another Soviet order that was dated in August. I'm looking for another source that gives the time frame more explicitly. It is supposed to be in Streim's chapter of this book, but I cannot access it :(

  For #254, I mean apologetic in the second sense listed in the dictionary, but evidently that's not clear so I rewrote it. (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can't find anything else for #28, but I could remove it if you want. (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, let me check by using Streim's book's DOI and JSTOR, I'll wikimail you the page or page range. Matarisvan (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, Google Books has the access to the relevant pages, namely 295-296, but these also do not have any dates. I think you will have to remove the phrase "several weeks after the start of the war". Matarisvan (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you look at page 296, these diplomatic communication are dated to July and August 1941—aka within the first several weeks of the war. (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  The source review a pass then, @Buidhe. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Graham Beards

There are redundancies in the prose. I have made some edits to the Lead as examples [12]. The main problem is the excessive use of "numbers" as in "numbers of" and so forth. Can we check that these are needed and for variations where possible? Graham Beards (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the copyedits. I went through the body and reduced the use of the word "numbers", but I cannot think of a better rephrasing in the remaining cases. Although some could be replaced by "amount", I don't think it would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I am pleased to add my Support. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "The German military did not record Soviet prisoner deaths that occurred prior to arriving at the collection points." Slightly clumsy. Perhaps a slight rephrase? Eg 'The German military did not record Soviet deaths that occurred prior to prisoners arriving at the collection points' or similar.
• Only one work has a publisher location (Foreign Claims Settlement Commission). Could we have consistency?
• "Two-thirds of them died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942". Perhaps 'Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942'.
• "ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." Really! Surely there were plenty with a 100% death rate? I note that the same phrase is used in the main article, but the greater context makes it more reasonable to take "rate" as meaning 'number'. I suggest tweaking the wording in both cases, certainly in the lead.
  • "Death rate" doesn't refer to the percentage of people who died, but the ratio of deaths per unit of time, in this case deaths per month: "one of the highest rates of human destruction in history". Is there a way to rephrase it so it's clearer what the source means? (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so currently you have "Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942—ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." I think that if you are going to go with this it needs to be based on a number rather than a fraction. Eg 'By early 1942 over two-thirds of the more than three million Soviet military personal taken prisoner had died.' Then, perhaps in a separate sentence, 'This is one of the highest sustained rates of killing for any mass atrocity in history.' How does this or something like it sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• "More prisoners were shot for being wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches." Optional, → 'More prisoners were shot because they were wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches.'

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Actioned everything else besides that raised above. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. I keep coming across niggly issues in the main article, so I am going to recuse and review in full. I anticipate that much of it will be copy editing. I will do some of it straight into the article. If you disagree with or don't understand any changes, could we discuss that here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Foreign language words, eg Lebensraum, should be in lang templates, not just italics.
  • Done
• "the German military's High Command (OKW) ... The OKW said ..." OKW only needs introducing once, similarly linking the short form.
  • Previously this was the case, but the guidance on overlinking changed because we can't assume readers are viewing the article sections in order. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This seems a bit odd. Why cherry pick this one German soldier to have his opinion detailed?
  • Not cherry picking by me, but he is the only dissenter mentioned in RS (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "intent to use the prisoners as a labor reserve before and during the war." Use as labor before the war? (Ie, before they were captured.)
  • There is a better way to phrase this, but the controversy is over whether, before the war and during its first months, Wehrmacht planners intended to feed their prisoners so that they could be deployed in large scale forced labor projects (which would occur once the war started and prisoners were captured) (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "During the invasion of France in 1940, 1.9 million prisoners of war". Just the invasion of France or the whole Western Campaign?
  • Source says France. EC&G gives a total of 1.8 million French POWs and significantly more than 2 million for the Western campaign as a whole. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed, indicating widespread surrender". This is a tautology. I mean, a PoW pretty much assumes a prior surrender.
  • Removed as the later sentences in the paragraph state Edele's conclusion from these numbers. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "thirteen major cauldron battles". Rather than going with the (unexplained) technical term, how about 'thirteen battles where large Soviet forces were surrounded' or similar?
  • Done
• "a collection point at the division or army level." There were no corps level collection points?
  • Not mentioned by the source; EC&G is silent on this point so I took it out as unimportant. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild do you have further input? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

David, I do, I do. Apologies, I am fighting my way out of a nasty, six-day dose of Covid. (Unless I go radio silent again, in which case keep counting.) I shall get onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Some prisoners had to live in the open for the entire winter, in unheated rooms." Living in even "unheated rooms" is not living "in the open for the entire winter",
• "Following setbacks in the military campaign, Hitler ordered on 31 October". What military setbacks occurred prior to 31 October?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The first 200,000 Soviet prisoners of war were deported to Germany in July and August 1941". The first 200,000 to be captured or the first 200,000 to be deported?
  • The latter, clarified (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Everything looks good with just "Following setbacks in the military campaign, Hitler ordered on 31 October". What military setbacks occurred prior to 31 October? left to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Buidhe ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus

I was negatively surprised some minor (but I believe DUE) content was removed since I added it last year. I've readded it and I was immediately reverted by Buidhe. Discussion (started by me few minutes ago) ongoing at artcle's talk: (Talk:German_atrocities_committed_against_Soviet_prisoners_of_war#Relevance_of_the_mention_of_German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war); I'll update this when it is finished, but from my perspective, the article is not comprehensive (and not neutral per WP:DUE) without mentioning this topic in at least a sentence or two (and I am flabbergasted that even a see also mention that was present before was removed...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your sources aren't about the article topic so they don't show wp:due. That is why the content has been removed multiple times. If the article is supposed to include allied soldiers fighting alongside the Soviet army (it doesn't), it is cherry picking to shoe horn in polish soldiers without mentioning those from Czechoslovakia and other countries. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Like Buidhe I fail to see the relevance, or at least the pressing importance, of this information to this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild The article should briefly mention that Germans committed similar atrocities to other groups of POWs, and link to relevant articles. To me, this seems quite relevant in the context of comprehensive coverage. In addition, we should also (briefly) mention that Soviet themselves committed similar atrocities on POWs they captured (Germans and others), although right now we don't seem to have a relevant article to link to (I'll try to remedy this shortly). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

PS. Remedied: Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II and added as a 'see also' to the nominated article. Wonder if this will also be removed? Ideally, of course, this should be incorporated into the article in a relevant place as a blue link, as it is an obvious topic. I will also note that the nominated article is linked from that article as well as from the mentioned Polish article, and nobody is suggesting to remove those links, as the topics are obviously closely related and should be linked from corresponding articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic is discussed in various sources. For example, it is misleading to discuss the fate of Jewish Red Army soldiers without noting that the same fate befell (often, earlier) Jewish Polish Army soldiers. See ex. Shmuel Krakowski, "The Fate of the Jewish POWs of the Soviet and Polish Armies," in The Shoah and the War, ed. Asher Cohen, Yehoyakim Cochavi, and Yoav Gelber (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 217–30. Krakowski's work was called, btw, "groundbreaking work on Soviet-Jewish prisoners of war" ([13]) - I am surprised it is not cited at all. Linked article by Polian could also be used to expand the article; I think it needs a section dedicated to the Jewish Soviet POWs. This is how it is done in the German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war#Fate_of_the_Jewish_POWs. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Echoing Gog and Buidhe above, I don't think there should be a detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in this article: it is about German atrocities against Soviet prisoners of war. The article certainly doesn't claim, imply or even allow the reading that the Germans only committed atrocities against Soviet PoWs: detailed discussion of the Germans' treatment of e.g. American, Belgian or Polish PoWs would not be WP:DUE except where it is clearly relevant to the Soviet story. For example, at one point the article and its sources use the relatively good treatment of prisoners taken in the Fall of France to demonstrate that the Germans' treatment of Soviet PoWs cannot simply be explained through incompetence or impoverishment. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist FYI there is no detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in the article. After discussion on talk, the mention has been further reduced to short two sentences, and it is primarily used to demonstrate that Soviet POWs were treated much more harshly then Poles (I've just added a precise estimate to back up an imprecise claim made by an article). What puzzles me is Buidhe's repeated insistence of removing even the blue link to a relevant article (i.e. German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war). Please take a look at the current version and discussion on article's talk. One sentence and a single link is hardly a "detailed treatment"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Edit: It looks like I may have to withdraw the FAC because in my opinion the content added fails the FA criteria (specifically 1c, 1d, and 4) as there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war. Unless User:UndercoverClassicist, User:Gog the Mild, or others wish to weigh in on the article talk page, Piotrus is claiming that the content he added has consensus and needs to be kept. (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Krakowski's source is not a HQRS, nor is one of the sources that Piotrus cited. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree on them not being HQRS. Krakowski's work has been influential and should be mentioned, at least in historiography; without that I don't think 1c would be met. If his claims have been replaced by more modern research, we don't need to cite him, but we should mention his work in the context of bridging Holocaust and POW discourse. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  PS. Regarding the other source you recently criticized, Piotrowski, while I also disagree on him not being HQRS, as I said elsewhere, it is not necessary and can be removed, go ahead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  PPS. Copying from another discussion: "Oh, and on 1c, you should consult Polish and Soviet/Russian historiography on this topic. [2] for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), [3] ("Crime, Politics, Humanitarism. Tragedy of the Soviet Captives on the Polish Land during the World War II") seem quite relevant, for example. I expect 'Legacy and historiography' section could be expanded much more than its current three short paragraphs with German, Russian and Polish studies." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's a lot more that could be cited on legacy from the sources I cited, however, I think the article already goes into the right amount of detail.

  Jewish POWs were a tiny percentage of the total. They are already discussed adequately, to discuss them any more would probably be disproportionate, leaving aside HQRS issues. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  While I am not opposing based on that, since to some degree this is just a matter of structuring content, and not comprehensivity (well-researchedness...) I find is strange that we (I...) could find room to have a section on Jewish POWs in the articles on Polish POWs, but that cannot be done here. IMHO having a section dedicated to discussion of Soviet Jewish POWs would be a good idea and due, and supported by RS. This topic has been covered in dedicated academic articles and likely needs its own subarticle. In addition to Krakowski: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Of the Polish POWs who were targeted by "atrocities", a large percentage were Jewish so it makes sense that the other article would lend significant coverage to it. Of the Soviet POWs that were mistreated, only a tiny percentage were Jewish. The subject is already adequately covered in the "selective killings" section. It may be a notable subject for its own article, as are other subjects related to this one, such as Soviet prisoners of war in Nazi concentration camps (there is an entire book on this)... (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  PPPS. " there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war". This is not correct. First, I did not add the mention of Polish POWs; I just added a clarification and a blue link to the content already present there, added presumably by Buidhe and cited to a source that makes exactly this connection (Gerlach 2016:165). That source states “The treatment and death rates of Polish and Soviet POW differed in the extreme, although in ‘racial’ terms there was not much of a difference between them"; and our article stated that "Polish prisoners of war were considered racially similar to Soviet prisoners, but their conditions differed greatly and death rate was an order of magnitude lower". All that was added was a precise estimate (similar to the precise estimate already present in the article for Italian POWs) and a short sentence (~15 words) mentioning that Germans also committed atrocities against Polish POWs and linking to a dedicated article; that sentence contains a further estimate of Polish fatalities, serving to clarify and reinforce the previously imprecise (but roughly correct) claim of "magnitudes". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  The 2-3 percent figure is already in Gerlach and if you think including it is so important, I could be persuaded on that. I just don't find the added content about Polish prisoners helpful or informative. War crimes were also committed against some Allied prisoners of different nationalities (US, UK, France, etc.), but the overall point that these were exceptions continues to to be true. I also think it is misleading to include this sentence about Polish prisoners but not cover other Allied nationalities, as it might lead the reader to conclude that more atrocities were committed against Polish prisoners when it was not necessarily the case. Indeed, after Soviet and Italian prisoners, it was not Poles but Yugoslav nationals who faced the worst treatment and highest death rates. Yet another reason not to shoehorn in content about Poland. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  As per discussion on talk, I've rewritten the sentence to remove the focus on Polish POWs. It now refers to Allied POWs. I fully agree that the magnitude of crimes and treatment of Soviet POWs was different; but I think we need to briefly mention that (as you did) and link to other related articles which contain detailed information. I'd support adding information that Yugoslav nationals were the third group instead, it seems relevant - do we have any article covering their situation that we could link to? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

wtfiv

It's good to see an article on an this: As you mentioned, western coverage of the suffering and atrocities that Russian soldiers suffered at the hands of the Nazi regimes seems sparse. This carefully written article fills that gap.

You've been going through a rigorous review process already, but I wanted to provide suggestions too, waiting until my Featured Article Candidate had cleared. Most of my comments and observations are structural and stylistic as much of the content has been addressed.

Note: I've provided alternate examples illustrating the points I made on the this talk page. They're not meant as suggested rewrites, but just samples that hopefully clarify the points made in the review below.

Background

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider changing to terrorize to "terrorizing" to stay parallel with preceding gerund "looting".

• Paragraph 2
  • Consider putting The vast majority...invasion in the first paragraph, which is about the resources and effort dedicated to the war. Maybe a clause at the end of the first sentence "..., devoting the vast majority of their military manpower and materiel." This would keep focus of the second paragraph on the ideology.
    • Then begin something like "The invasion was carried out....
  • Is the "with" in with Ukranians needed? The sentence is a list, the other elements following the commas don't use a preposition. Perhaps reword colon followed by list: "ranked according to a racial hierarchy: Soviet Germans...at the top, Ukrainians in the middle, Russians toward...lowest." This also has the advantage that it doesn't lead to an initial misreading(quickly corrected) that Soviet Germans, Balts and Muslims are leading the categorization effort.

• Paragraph 3
  • This paragraph is about food supply. Consider moving ...suspicion of Jews...defeat to Paragraph 2, as that is the ideology paragraph. It seems an edited version of this would go well before The Nazis believed...conspiracy. This would put the two aspects: The Jews being blamed for German defeat and the perception of a Jewish concpiracy together as an ideological whole, with its focuse on race prejudice.
  • Would making the second half of the first sentence in para 3 and recognition of the need..., somewhat modified, be a better start for paragraph 3, as the focus of this paragraph is control of the food supply.
• Side by side of current and alternative example for all three paragraphs provided here. (All three provided to illustrate that suggested changes are interlinked across paragraphs.)

Planning and legal basis

• Paragraph 1
  • The last sentence states that there was controversy about the treatment of prisoners, but only Moltke favored the law (assuming the law refers both to the Hague and Geneva conventions?) If there was no other advocate for following the law, it's unclear what other sources of controversy may be. It's particularly unclear because in the previous sentence, it stated that no one objected to a war of extermination. So a reader might see this: There was no objection, there was controversy, only Moltke- who favored the law- was the source of controversy. Consider rewording. My understanding is that the military went along with the policy, and it sounds like Moltke was the exception. But if something else is meant, I think it needs clarification.

• Paragraph 2
  • Consider reworking this paragraph a bit. Current order seems to mix issues: .(a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) little planning by Germans and many prisoners captured, (c) less captured than expected (d) Still disagreement on controversy, (e) treatment of prisoners in France 40 cited that its not just logistics.
  • Suggested order: (a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) evidence against it being just logistics- intentional lack of planning for prisoners, less than expected captured, ability to care for France 40 prisoners. (d) Sums to evidence in favor of ideology. Here's more details.
    • Consider reworking to put the ideas of two sentences Anti-Bolshevisim, antisemitism...labor and There is still disagreement...labor reserve together, as they are addressing the lead point of this paragraph. The details on planning and number of prisoners would seem to go better as they are addressing the controversy.
    • Related to the previous point. The last sentence in Paragraph 3 of Background implies that the overall starvation was due to the German policy on food supplies. It seems the paragraph should open with food supply or logistics, as it has been established in the narrative. Consider something like. "The regime's demands for food...contributed to the mass death of prisoners, but anti-Bolshevisim...are often cited as the main reason."
    • Consider ending the paragraph with the marshalled evidence- lack of planning, less prisoners, treatment of Western European prisoners- and an overall conclusion for ideological evidence.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
    • (Minor suggestion) Does Kay's name have to intrude in the narrative here? Aren't there more than one historian who state that supply and logistics cannot explain the mass deaths that could be cited. Three lines of evidence are given.
  • (Minor suggestion) Consider deleting military setbacks. The original numbers were based on optimistic planning, which rarely bears out. Many prisoners, such as at Kiev, were captured opportunistically in situations not initially anticipated in the first plans.
  • (Comment only) I see why security and labor needs are mentioned here, but it is a bit awkward because these concepts were not introduced early and just pop up here. They are addressed later, but their introduction assumes a reader is already aware of German labor needs and partisan security issues. I'm not sure much can be done about this.

Capture

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider reorganizing paragraph.
    • Currently it is organized as such: (a) high ratio of capture in 1941 that declines but remains lower than German, (b) Russians capture in encirclement, (c) Number of soviet soldiers decline after 1941. This starts by comparing 1941 capture rates, then describes overall capture rates with caveat that they declined, then gives way they were captured, then repeats that rates fell after 1941. Combining would merge points about decline, starting with 1941 and then explaining the change in capture rates later in the war.
    • Consider: starting (a) By mid-December 1941...surrounded, (b) "Three or four Soviet...killed" as the encirclements explain the high capture rate, (c) Ratio declines after the Battle of Moscow, but (d) remains higher than the German side.
    • (Minor comment) Consider reducing mention of 1941 in the paragraph, where it show up three times.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
• Paragraph 2
  • Consider deleting the sentence The behavior of Soviet soldiers...defect. Does this tell us something unique about Soviet soldiers? Isn't this true for soldiers in any army anywhere? If this is deleted, consider beginning the following sentence with "Soviet soldiers opposition to their government...defections., which"

• Paragraph 3
  • Consider reorganizing paragraph
    • Currently two sentences of front-line troops (also whose troops need mentioned, the focus has been on Soviets for this section.) are separated by interlude on camps: (a) Soviets captured by frontline (b) sent to collection point (c) transit camp (d) transit camp closed (e) permanent camp (f) frontline takes their clothes, (g) wounded sometimes got care.
    • Consider starting: "Soviet soldiers in encirclements were usually captured by Axis front-line troops, who took them to a collection point. Sometimes, the prisoners were stripped of their winter clothing..." This would result in (a) Capture by frontline troops (b) Discussion of collection point to transit camp and permanent camp. (c) treatment of the wounded and sick.
  • (Minor comment) Consider rewording final sentence. "Most often" already implies "sometime", so why not just state: "Most often wounded and sick Red Army soldiers did not receive medical care."
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Summary executions

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider moving the final sentence The German military...points right after first sentence. The first sentence gives numbers, this sentence qualifies those numbers, as they weren't recorded. It also allows the paragraph to end with the idea that the shootings escalated violence.

• Paragraph 2
  • On the first read, I found this paragraph a bit confusing.
    • Current structure: (a) Germans order encircled, captured Soviets to turn themselves in. (b) Prisoners not taken in these circumstance (c) Some soviet soldiers executed as partisans. (d) Some Soviet soldiers evade capture. This structure feels like it is almost contradicting itself because it deals with two issues, prisoners ordered to turn themselves in and soldiers evading capture. It can be read that the German orders weren't successful as few turned themselves in, yet soldiers were shot as partisans, some evaded capture even though in the paragraph they aren't being captured by asked to turn themselves in.
    • Consider how this rearrangement sounds: (a) Soldiers shot as partisans. (b) Soldiers ordered to turn themselves in. (c) Few did.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
      • (a) Consider a variation of last sentence as first, topic sentence: "Thousands or ten of thousands ...as partisans"
      • (b) Followed by a merge of the last clause of sentence two with sentence one: "To prevent the growth...movement, the Supreme Command...(OKH)...ordered Red Army soldiers overtaken to present themselves...execution.".
      • (c) The third sentence Despite the order...circumstances strikes me as confusing. "Despite the order" implies few soldiers turned themselves in, "More often than not" implies soldiers were were more likely to turn themselves in, "circumstances" is plural, but the situation- being overtaken- is singular, prisoners is the subject-but the actual subject is bypassed soldiers who were ordered to become prisoners, but usually refused. Consider reworking this. Here's one suggestion: merging this with the last clause of the last sentence to something like: Despite this order, few soldiers turned themselves in; some evaded capture and returned to their families."

• Paragraph 3
  • consider deleting as expected, isn't it implied? Remove the comma after expected as the following is not an independent clause.
  • Consider editing the section of female combatants to make it a bit clearer and to follow more seamlessly.
    • At first read, the lead "although" on the sentence on female soldiers initially reads as a qualification of the previous point on commissars, but it's a new topic.
    • Here's where the section may need clarity. It seems to read like this: (a) OKH says they defy gender expectation so treat them as prisoners of war. (b)other orders- whose?- called for them to be shot on sight. (c) Some units did not execute female combatants, but most died. Here's the issue I see: Most units shouldn't have based on the OKH directive, but some may have taken their own initiative unless "other orders" came from a higher level than OKH. This needs clarification.
    • (in Germany not needed, as there were camps in other countries like Poland).
    • Here's a possible suggestion addressing these points: "The OKH ordered female combatants in the Soviet army be treated as prisoners of war; but these female soldiers, who defied German gender expectations, were often shot on sight. few survived to reach prisoner-of-war camps."

Prisoner-of-war-camps

Paragraph 1- No comments

Death marches

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider reordering structure.
    • Current structure: (a) no rail cars (b) death marches, being shot and escaping (c) rail transport in open cattle wagons (d) additional death marches (e) total killed.
    • Here are the issues I see: The paragraph starts assuming the reader knows the topic and talks about train transport not being usually available, the marches, then back to train transport using open cattle cars when earlier it said train transport usually wasn't done, then it returns to death marches.
    • Consider (a) Start with description of the death marches, which is the topic. Maybe mention there were additional ones (b) Note that rail transportation wasn't usually available but when it was it was in open cattle cars that killed 20%. (c) total killed.
    • consider deleting typically on foot...areas, as "death march" implies "on foot"
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Housing conditions

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider reordering structure for clarity.
    • Here's the current structure I see: (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Germans systematically roll out housing (c) through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (c) poor housing and cold cause mass deaths (d) mass death eases situation. The idea that housing and barracks were systematically rolled out implies to the reader that housing was well done, but this is then contradicted in the following sentences that show it is inadequate.
    • Suggested reordering. (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Poor housing and cold cause of mass death: through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (d) Germans systematically roll out housing housing, but inadequate (e) math death eases situation. (f) death toll. This would start with the statements of the causes and the experience of Russian soldiers, then address the inadequacy of the German response that was only solved by mass death.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

• Paragraph 2
  • one minor suggestion: consider replacing "the" with "recaptured" in escape, the prisoners...camp as the previous sentence refers to prisoners that successfully made it to Switzerland.

Hunger and mass deaths

• No comments

Release

• No comments

Selective killings

• Paragraph 1- No comments
• Paragraph 2
  • Consider this reordering. Follow Those unable...die. with Disabled soldiers...approached. End with "Sometimes mass executions were conducted without a clear rationale." This has the strength of putting "unable to work" and "disabled" together, allowing unstated method of execution to be more easily inferred from the preceding "unable". It also ends the paragraph on the idea that many of the mass executions were senseless.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
• Paragraph 3
  • Consider swapping the order of these sentences: As the war progressed...executions and After March 1944...escape this would put the Mauthausen killing next to the other camp systems, and make the issue of curtailment a kind of final statement before the tally statement.
  • Consider rewording After March 1944...escape. If the prisoners escaped, how were they killed? If they escaped, what does an attempted escape have to do with them. So based on context, I'd suggest one of the two rewordings: "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers recaptured after an attempted mass escape in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen." or "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers implicated in a mass escape attempt in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen.", depending on whether only the escapees were killed or everyone suspected of taking part in the escape.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Auxiliaries in German service

• No comments

Forced Labor

In the Soviet Union

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider detaching and others died from the sentence Many prisoners ran away... and shifting it to the next sentence by semi-colon or colon to the following sentence, which illustrates the modes of death of forced-laborers.

Transfer to Nazi concentration camps

No comment

Deportation elsewhere

• Paragraph 1- No comment
• Paragraph 2
  • Consider deleting the "any" from any significant improvement. Then consider shortening Not all prisoners....disease to "Prisoners remained vulnerable to malnutrition and disease." The reason for these suggestions is as mentioned, real improvement is politically impossible. Thus, there's no reason to talk about benefits, which according to the previous sentence were nil.
  • (Comment) The clause at the end of the last sentence where many died seems to raise unneeded questions. Norway and the Channel Islands were relatively low conflict zones. Did they die by starvation working at these locations, were they executed by the Germans, the population, or Allied occupation forces? Maybe its best to just remove the clause?

Public perception

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider moving According to Secrity Service...reason. right after the first paragraph. The sentence ends for this reason", but the preceding sentence mentions Holocaust ignorance and the murder of prisoners first. Moving the sentence would make the paragraph progression clearer: (a) Soviets portrayed as monsters, (b) Many Germans wanted them killed because of this (c) Russians were being murdered early on.
  • Can the sentence Although many Germans claimed ignorance...deported be reworked? It seems out of context here. I do think a link to the German alleged ignorance of the Holocaust is important to put in this article, it doesn't seem to go here. The topic of the paragraph is the dehumanization and approved destruction of Soviet prisoners.
  • This sentence begins with mention of Holocaust denial, which is not a topic here, and follows up with the claim that many Soviet prisoners died before German Jews had been deported. This sentence would be more contextually appropriate if it were the last in the paragraph, and the clause Although...war, is deleted.
  • (Additional comment) If the above suggestion makes sense. I'm not sure I'd want to lose the Claimed German ignorance of the holocaust link. Could it go elsewhere in the article, or reworked so that it makes more contextual sense?
    • (later thought- brainstorming) Perhaps a final sentence to the effect that "Just as much of the German population claimed ignorance of the holocaust, they also claimed to be unaware of the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war." would work? Though something like this would need a citation.
• Paragraph 2
  • This is fine as is, but consider rewording the first sentence to begin "Soviet propaganda ...as early as July 1941." This would make a cleaner contrast with the structure of the proceeding paragraph: Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda both being their own initial topic. As written, the initial flow, makes the reader think they are reading a continuation of the previous paragraph until they arrive at "Soviet propaganda" at the end.

End of the war

• Paragraph 1
  • Maybe the redundancy is a good thing in an article of this length, but weren't the deaths caused by late death marches already covered in Death marches? Could the information be consolidated? (Personally, I think removing the late death marches from Death marches and leaving it here.
• Paragraphs 2, 3, & 4- No comments

Death toll

No comments

• (observation) Deaths in Norway is mentioned here where it seems to make more sense than in the end of forced labor, which put Norway together with the Channel islands. This seems to support that the clause where many died at the very end of Force labor isn't needed.

Legacy

No comments

I'm done for now. This article represents an incredible amount of work. After having combed through this article, I very much appreciate the service it is doing in raising the awareness of further atrocities during WWII. Wtfiv (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Support by Biruitorul

From what I can see, this is a great article on a neglected topic. Nice variety of recent, quality sources, good use of images, clear layout. If I see any issues as I continue to work through the text, I will note them, but at a first pass, this looks like a worthy FAC candidate. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

One afterthought, given an ongoing controversy: given its contextual relevance, I’d like to see a brief mention of German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war retained here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support I worked with PerfectSoundWhatever to punch up the article prior to this nom, and I think it's in a solid spot. The references are good, the prose (imho) reads nicely, and the topic is comprehensive without being unnecessarily exhaustive.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

lead

• make the lead two paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
• The album was recorded on analogue tape ==> "The album was recorded on analog tape" (AmEng)
• The album was recorded on analog tape, and Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections. ==> "Recorded on analog tape, Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections"

background and recording

• came to increasingly trust his musical abilities. ==> "came to trust his musical abilities increasingly."
• Prior to It Was Hot's release ==> "Before It Was Hot's release" (conciseness)
• between September 24, 1999, and March 6, 2000 at Dub add a comma after "2000"
• on analogue tape, which ==> "on analog tape, which"

music and themes

• merge the first paragraph and second paragraph (single-sentence paragraphs are generally unfavorable)

release and reception

• droning, distorted guitars and organs" ==> "droning, distorted guitars[,] and organs"

That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ""The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which was explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." - this reads a tiny bit oddly, as you refer to this album in the present tense but then a later album in past tense. Maybe this could be dodged by saying "which would be explored".......?
• "as well as the extended play Window:." - is that colon part of the title, rather than a typo.....?
• Check for overlinking - drones is linked multiple times, as are K Records, Phil Elverum, the Microphones, PopMatters, and more....
• That's all I got. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! "was" changed to "would be". The colon is intentional.

  Per MOS:REPEATLINK, repeat links are allowed if in different sections. I don't think removing many of the links you mentioned would be beneficial to the reader, although I removed some. Let me know your thoughts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review and spotcheck

Images seem well-placed. File:ItWasHotWeStayedInTheWaterCover.jpg has a broken source URL. Where on the source for File:Will Oldham 2017.jpg is the licence? File:The Pull - The Microphones.ogg's rationale probably needs to describe a bit more why a sample is needed. File:Eric'striplive.jpg from which one file is derived has a broken source. I don't see ALT text anywhere. Source-wise (spot-check contained therein):

Thanks for the review: will reply to each point in order. Source URL fixed; per diario.madrid.es website, "With few exceptions expressly indicated, the contents of the daily website.madrid.es are published under Creative Commons CC by 4.0 license" (google translate); file rationale expanded; can't find the Eric's trip file anywhere else, not sure what else I can do, deadlinked content doesnt necessitate removal; alt text added. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• #1 doesn't mention "The Pull" anywhere. It also doesn't say that "The Glow" is the climax or that it has segments.
  • It Was Hot opens with lightly-strummed acoustic guitar switching rhythmically from the right to left channel of your speaker. Don't need to cite that the opener is "The Pull".
  • leading up perfectly to the album's climax, the laid-back yet riveting charms of the Microphones' otherworldly cover of Eric's Trip's "Sand," and the epic "The Glow." [...] The latter [...] weaves several loosely connected segments together into a disjointed, yet brilliantly self-referential epic.— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• Where does #2 speak of liner notes?
  • It's kind of a WP:BLUE. The liner notes not giving individual contributions is an obvious fact and is used to introduce the following quote. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• In #3, the article text resembles the source's "It was his first LP in a streak to revolve around an element of nature – here, of course, water — before 2001’s The Glow pt. II captured fire and air and 2003’s Mount Eerie did rock. " a bit much. Is the "B" in the sidebar supposed to source the 4 out of 5 star thing?
  • 4/5 changed to B. For the wording, honestly, I disagree. The parts that are similar are mostly the parts that are facts and have to be kept— the albums, the element names, use of the word "element". I don't see ways to reword without making the sentence less clear but open to ideas. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • Let's see if anyone else has input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I would be more than happy to provide an additional opinion on this as I have worked on several music-related FACs in the past. Apologies for being dense, but @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, could you please clarify the question for me? I just want to make sure that I am looking at and providing an opinion about the right thing. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

        The question is whether the text in the source is too similar to that in the article, to be a problem per WP:CLOP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

        Thank you for the clarification. I can understand the WP:CLOP concern as the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the one used in the citation. I agree that with certain word choices being kept, (i.e. the albums, the element names, the word "element"), but I wonder if there is a way to structure this differently. Maybe start with saying that It Was Hot's central theme is water and then go into saying that this would become a continuing theme for the next two albums, and then end with The Glow, Pt. 2 and Mount Eerie being themed around fire and rock respectively. This is of course just a suggestion. Jo-Jo Eumerus may have (and likely has) better ideas. Again, I think it is more about the structure, and less about the word choice, which I do agree will be similar as those words would need to be carried over into the article. I hope that this helps, and apologies in advance if it does not. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

        Thanks for your insight, and sorry for the delayed response. I've taken your suggestion to introduce It Was Hot's theme first. See this [19]. Pinging @Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: what do you think? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

        Thank you for the response and the ping. No need to apologize. I think that the edit addresses the concern with close paraphrasing, but that is my opinion and I would of course respect what Jo-Jo Eumerus has to say about it. For me, I would say that the current wording is appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

        This edit seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• #4's "because even though he collaborated with other musicians on the project throughout the years, the Microphones name is really synonymous with Elverum himself. " might resemble "Although the project has involved many collaborations with other musicians, it is considered synonymous with Elverum" too much.
  • Reworded. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #6 Again sentence structure very similar to source. What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Reworded. Considered reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Generally, print music magazines that have been around for a while can be trusted. It's oft-cited on wiki. [20] — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• #8 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #9 Does Johnson still own the studio?
  • Yes, assuming this page is up to date. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • That might actually be a better source for this claim. I know, company About Us webpages will be inappropriate 99% of the time but they are ideal to specify the owners and staff of a company. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• #10 What makes this podcast a reliable source?
  • I'd argue that interviews can be treated as primary sources, making this fall under WP:ABOUTSELF and therefore reliable. Some discussion is at Wikipedia:Interviews (essay): Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • My understanding is that the interviewer still has to be reliable. The world is full of fake quotes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #11 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #12 What makes this website a reliable source?
  • Print regional newspaper. Author has written for Pitchfork, Seattle Weekly.
• #13 Archive is broken.
  • So, that's odd. I keep trying to archive this and it isn't going through. I'll remove the broken link for now. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• #15 says "chaos", not "noise"
  • No, “Ice” starts in chaos, [...] ending in vinyl hang-up noise — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #16 What makes Heather Phares a reliable source? "presents delicate, almost folky melodies wrapped up in and surrounded by waves of droning, distorted guitars" isn't there, either.
  • Allmusic is generally considered reliable for opinion. WP:ALLMUSIC. Adjusted quote to be accurate. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• #17 where does it say that The Breeze has experimental bits?
  • #13 describes that, this source places it as an interlude. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #18 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #20 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #21 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented, but the URL may not be working.
  • It is working: it's ProQuest, so you need to sign into TWL. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • That doesn't work, either. The problem seems to be that the URL isn't valid in the first place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
      • It works just fine for me. I log into TWL and click ProQuest. After it redirects, I click the link and it goes through. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

        OK, now it works, and it checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I adjusted the formatting of the bullet points, hope you don't mind. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for taking the time to review! All comments have received replies — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you confirm if this is a pass on the reviews you've conducted here or are there any outstanding issues? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Only the question under #3 needs input. And if someone can access #18-#21 that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So #3 is resolved. I am still AGFing on #18-#21 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Given the brevity of the article, is the K Records link in the release and reception section necessary?
• shipped alongside extras - I was going to ask if this was worth linking to feelies (to use the term at TV Tropes), but apparently we don't have an article on the concept of physical goods shipped alongside media releases. :/ I may need to rectify that at some point.
• from four publications - feels a bit overly specific, given that there could have been zines or other media that covered the release but have never been digitized.
• [,] - I believe MOS:PMC would allow the Oxford comma to be added without the square brackets.
• None of the listed personnel are discussed in the article. Have they never gone on record to discuss it?
• I've made a few edits, almost exclusively commas. Please review

Overall, this is a tight little article that I'm basically already ready to support, aside from the personnel question and the "four publications". Most of this is nitpicks.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the review! Your comma edits look good. I've removed the first K Records link but feel like the release section is far down enough that readers may miss the lead link. Let me know thoughts. Re: personnel, I couldn't find really anything just on google. I did find a description of Mirah's contributions to "Ice", which have been added. I also found that Karl Blau re-recorded the album in 2004 [21] however I can't find reliable sources talking about it, and not sure how it fits into the scope of this article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Excellent! I'm happy to support this for FA status.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "frontman Phil Elverum recorded It Was Hot at Dub Narcotic Studio in Olympia, Washington". What do you mean by "recorded"? I took the opening sentence of the lead to mean that it was "recorded" by the Microphones.
  • Per a lower footnote, "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum". Maybe the explanatory footnote could be also placed there, would that help? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)

• "Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections>" What does this mean? (If it is meant literally, why did he?)
  • I'm not sure what the non-literal interpretation is— he embraced the lo-fidelty of analogue tape rather than trying to avoid it. For the reasons why, I think it was a necessity due to the recording studio, but later became part of his musical style. From Don't Wake Me Up (album): " The studios in which Don't Wake Me Up was recorded lacked high-fidelity recording equipment. Johnson said, [Elverum] didn't have the attitude that this wasn't a real studio. He was more like, 'Hey, this is fun.'" I've added a sentence to help clarify this, sourced from the book: The equipment at Dub Narcotic was modest and relatively primitive compared to what was housed in the Northwest studios that had emerged during the grunge boom of the previous ten years, but it was far beyond what was available to Phil in Anacortes. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "which would be explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." Which is what?

  Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. What does "what" refer to? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

Introduce "2001's The Glow Pt. 2" properly. Tell a reader what it is, else they won't know.

• Lead: "It was released by K Records on September 26, 2000."; main article: "Microphones frontman Phil Elverum released Don't Wake Me Up in 1999." Which?

  Clarified that Don't Wake Me Up was released under K as well. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

• Note a "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum." This does not make grammatical sense. Who had "involvement with many collaborators"?
  • The project/band (Microphones). Reworded to make more sense — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "The review was published prior to the album's 2013 reissue, per this archive; Phares has been writing for AllMusic since before the album's release, per here." It is not necessary to cite in line. Just write in Wikipedia's voice and cite normally.
  • Changed — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "setting "a new precedent" for K Records". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named '''in article text''' if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • Attributed quote — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "was also used for Elverum's previous albums." Assuming you mean 'was also used to record Elverum's previous albums' could you say so.
  • Changed — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Elverum's previous albums." Albums plural, although only one has been mentioned so far. Have I miscounted or are there other unmentioned albums?
  • There are other albums, like the 3 demo tapes at The Microphones discography and Tests (album). However, the tests were only partially recorded at Dub Narcotic, so I've changed "albums" -> "album" — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Initially, when Elverum began working". I would suggest that one of "Initially" or "when Elverum began" is redundant.
  • Sure — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• "the album's lyrics were inspired by the poetic nature and mysteriousness of Will Oldham's work." Cold Oldhan and/or their work be briefly introduced.
  • Added — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "The Gleam" and "(Something)" use drones similar to "The Glow", and the two-minute interlude "The Breeze" uses experimental elements. "Between Your Ear and the Other Ear" uses elements of freak folk and audio feedback. The album's closer, "Organs", uses a swell of guitars and keyboards". Could we cut the four uses of "use" or "uses" by using a synonym or two?
  • Changed 2 — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Sputnikmusic's joshuatree reviewed the album in 2008, praising the "unpredictable nature of the album", and called it Phil Elverum's second-best album". A synonym for the first use of "album"? (And, ideally, the third.)
  • Trimmed quote and reworded. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Douglas wrote, "Not many artists can say they wrote their masterpiece". Can we avoid using "wrote" twice in eight words?
  • Reworded — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• Baumgarten, book titles should be in title case.
  • Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
  • Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi PerfectSoundWhatever, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder, will go through these now. Didn't realize this is the oldest active FAC haha ! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: Everything's been replied to, have a few things that need clarification, thanks. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

Looking good. Some come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)