Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Apollo 5[edit]

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

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

Oppose Comment by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

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

There's a lot more information on Apollo 4 than 5. If you can point to sources that I'm not using, or underusing, I'll be happy to incorporate them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, after hearing Hawkeye7 argument, I think I need to look at the article for a little bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The insignia is in a pretty odd place
  • In Apollo 4, there is a Aftermath, assessment and spacecraft location section. Why aren't there one in Apollo 5?
  • There is no alt text in the images (even in Apollo 4)
  • more to come

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

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

  • Suggest moving the sentence starting with "To make way for SA-204" and the from the equipment section to up here, since this is needed for the reader to make sense of it, and it isn't really part of equipment
  • It begs the question though: why use SA-204 instead of SA-206?
  • "Just after New Year's 1968" New Year's Day?
  • The first paragraph should be moved up into the Delays section, where it is already partially covered.
  • "metre" should be spelled "meter"; the US asserts ownership of the metric system (NASA and our MOS recommend the dd mm yyyy date format)
    Re the date format, since all of the Apollo mission articles re using month day year, this one probably should too. It would be a lot of work to change them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's no work at all - I can change them at the push of a button - but we should leave it as it is. (MOS:RETAIN) However, the article is one of those that makes the benefits of the US government format pretty obvious. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest incorporating the launch mass from the infobox.
I've added the whole stack's.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "UT" should be "UTC", with a link
  • Suggest splitting the first paragraph after fn 1
  • "Mission Control, under Kranz's command, quickly saw what had happened" Not really; it was not understood until much later. suggest removing the second clause
  • "The first crewed LM flight took place on Apollo 9" Suggest adding when this was.
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding orbit inclination and period from the infobox. Footnotes can then be removed from the infobox, as it will all be in the article.
  • Except that the SATCAT number is not referenced
  • Given that the NASA books are available for download, I would much prefer references to the books with page numbers for fn 6, 8 and 18
I've done that for Brooks and will continue tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest moving the books to the sources section
  • Apollo 5 isn't referenced from the NASA navbox
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Gene Kranz
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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

  • Image review
    • File:Megalosaurus display.JPG isn't the display copyrighted?
The fossils themselves can't be copyrighted, as for the imagery on the wall behind, most of it is from the 19th century, and I think it would fall under de minimis anyway, as they're not the focus of the photo by any means. But this is of course debatable. In any case, only the drawing on the far right is recent enough to be copyrighted, and it is partially cropped out and covered by bones, which again, could indicate de minimis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Other images look OK for licensing
  • The "Description" section is quite long. Would it be possible to separate into subsections for increased readability? (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Could be possible to divide it into sections about the upper and lower jaw, I'll have a look tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Made two subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Pali-Aike volcanic field[edit]

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

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

Image review

Battle of St. Charles[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the battlefield map. There's also a MOS:COLOUR issue with that map - the two line shades are quite close, and there are multiple regions that have a colour that could be called "green"
    • I've got no way of fixing the MOS:COLOR issue, so I've swapped it out with a photograph of the battlefield itself
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

@WereSpielChequers: - Thanks for taking a look at this! I've generally rejigged that region of the article to have one section for Union movements, and the other for the Confederates. Hog Farm Talk 07:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hog Farm, "Fry demanded that the remaining Union sailors aboard to surrender" reads awkwardly to me, I was thinking of removing the "to" but hesitated as this might for all I know be an American English thing. however wouldn't "Fry offered the remaining Union sailors aboard the chance to surrender" be a more normal phrasing for this situation? Afterall they were combatants who hadn't hoist a white flag, and he wasn't in a position to know that he was firing at a boat full of dead and dying men.
I've removed the "to", as it was an error. I've also tried to clarify in the text that it was fairly obvious the ship was a wreck, with scalded men on the decks and steam billowing out of all orifices. The source does refer to Fry's statement as a demand. Also clarified that Fry's firing order was to shoot at those trying to swim away in the river Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it might be worth mentioning that unusually for US Civil War actions the dead of both sides are listed on the memorial. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Long Sault Parkway[edit]

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

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

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

Review by Hurricanehink

  • ”The islands, which were created by the flooding of the Long Sault rapids during construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the late 1950s, include two public beaches and three campgrounds.” - that’s a lot of info for the second sentence of the article, especially the way it’s structured. I suggest switching the clauses, like “The islands, which include two public beaches and three campgrounds, were created…”
  • ”A road also known as the Long Sault Parkway serves to interconnect the islands.” - you just said this two sentences prior.
  • I think you should include “rapids” in the wiki link for “Long Sault rapids”, as you also mention the town of the same name, and it’s the name of the Parkway.
  • Thoughts on this in the lead? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thought I fixed that with this change, but apparently not.[1] It's fixed now, let me know if that intro looks better! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • is it worth mentioning the 6,500 displaced people because of the project? It’s not directly related to the road, but IMO it’s interesting.
  • That was a no? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • My bad, didn't respond to this one. I think it fits in amongst the history pretty well, even though obviously not all 6,500 lived directly where the parkway now sits. I'm sure a lot of the content of this article could be copied into the Long Sault rapids or St. Lawrence Seaway articles though. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I followed the route description to Hoople Island, then I got lost how we got to Dickinson or Heriot
  • While The Wedge described it as "an oasis unlike any other." - this isn’t a complete sentence
  • That animation of before and after the spillway is awesome!
  • ”At 8 am” - specify time zone
  • Is there any history on the road since 1958?

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

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


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

  • "Beginning immediately east of Inglewood, the Long Sault Parkway branches south from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (SDG) County Road 2 and passes a parkway information booth, with the Ingleside Sewage Treatment Plant located on the southeast corner" - source only covers that the treatment plant is on the Long Sault Parkway, not the other details
  • Accessed this off Google Scholar, it includes the statement The Long Sault Parkway was initially popular with motorists, with cars often backed up at the entrance gates on weekends. Initial enthusiasm tapered off, however, and tourism and camping on the islands remains mostly seasonal, limited to warm months. which looks like information suggesting material lacking from the article

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

  • "The later contains a nature trail as well as a boat launch" - should be latter, not later, shouldn't it?
  • Some of the connections between the island ain't clear - Heriot-Vankoughnet, Vankoughnet-Philpotts, and Macdonald-Mille Roches
    • Should be fixed with latest edit. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's unclear what the 11 islands are - route description says McLaren and Moulinette is out, but then the list of islands includes Moulinette but not McLaren
    • Fixed, I did that list quickly yesterday and put Moulinette and forgot MacLaren, also the misspellings you pointed out. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • For the sake of stronger sourcing, can the list of what exact islands are part of it be sourced to a stronger source than a map?
    • How is a map not a strong source? It clearly labels the eleven islands. I haven't been able to find a reliable text source that lists them, just the ones with amenities. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Referring to the map heading the list, it does clearly show the 10 connected. But how does it clearly and strongly support the inclusion of Snetsinger? It's connected to the 10 main ones, but so is Moulinette. And the color used Snetsinger and the other 10 is the same as used for unconnected Wales island, so that map isn't a good source for excluding Moulinette/Wales but including Snetsinger. Does Dunphy contain a stronger listing that could be used to back it up? Hog Farm Talk 18:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
        • After extensive searching, it appears it does.[2]. Added the ref to the island list. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Learn about Battle of Crysler's Farm". Upper Canada Village. Retrieved April 20, 2021." - ref appears to be nonfunctional?
    • Worked back in April... I've added an archive link. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "while the latter saw a monument installed at Upper Canada Village" - first source only announces plans for it, and the second doesn't work, so this isn't well-supported
    • Fixed by above. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Brior 1960 appears to be self-published. What makes it high-quality RS?
    • Appears or is? I'd say regardless that having a forward written by one of people in charge of building the seaway, or being carried by the University of Michigan or Archives of Canada, makes it quite reliable. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Will look at the credentials of author after work, but being carried by those libraries does not indicate reliability. The library of my college contained books from the 1950s with ethnic slurs in the titles and a book claiming that the Native Americans were the 10 lost tribes - being held in libraries doesn't necessarily mean it's high-quality RS for the purpose of FAC. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I can find pretty much nothing that would support Brior being the sort of high-quality RS required for FAC, aside from a single citation to one page of the work in a Yale UP book. I'd be willing to accept it for GA, but probably not for FA. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This article really doesn't feel complete - has literally nothing of note happened here since 1958? I really don't think there's adequate coverage of post-opening here
    • Not really. The parks were closed in 2020 because of Covid, but otherwise all the existing beaches and campgrounds are the same as they were in 1959. I don't mind working in something based on the source you found in your first comment. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Iroquois is only mentioned in the lead
  • There's a number of spelling inconsistencies in here - Mille Roches Island vs Milles Roche Island, Vankougnet Island vs Vancougnet Island
    • Mistakes in my addition of the island list yesterday, fixed. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Scope here is unclear - is this about both the islands and the parkway? Because a FA about islands would need information about such as plant life, fauna, climate, etc, but we mainly just have the human history of the road here. But the lead seems to suggest this covers both.
    • It's about the parkway, which is both a term for a roadway lined by parks, as well as a line of interconnected parks. These islands were part of the mainland and have the exact same makeup of flora and fauna that any other part of the St. Lawrence region would have. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Striking oppose for now. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the animation
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Is there an unaltered replacement for File:Long_Sault_Parkway_near_Lansdowne.png available? See WP:WATERMARK. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I've upped the image size, not sure if it's too big now or not. Alt text added. I've contacted the Flickr author, but I'm not sure they're still active; might have to take this to the photography workshop to have it removed. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I should be able to remove it if you want or need me too. - Tcer99 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
        • @Tcer99: That would be very much appreciated, thank you! - Floydian τ ¢ 00:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
          • @Floydian: Consider it done. I uploaded the new version of the file. It should update on the article in a couple minutes. Tcer99 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Fearless (Taylor Swift album)[edit]

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

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

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

Source Review by Guerillero[edit]

Why are these high quality reliable sources?

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

    • It is more or less a blog and the author seems to have done little other work --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I replaced it with the Spencer book ref. Ippantekina (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

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

  • Can we define what the ""Triple Crown" of country music" is? I linked to Academy_of_Country_Music_Awards#Triple-Crown_Award as it was the only thing I could find, but she isn't listed there? We need to confirm this and define (or link to) whatever it is because, as it stands, I have absolutely no idea what this is talking about.

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

    • I tried to figure out what Billboard means by "Triple Crown" but it is not the same as the Triple Crown Award by the ACM. Since Billboard is the only source discussing this type of "Triple Crown" (three top prizes for a country album by the ACM, CMA, and Grammys), I removed it as it is potentially UNDUE. Ippantekina (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ippantekina: Thank you for removing that. I support this nomination. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support. Ippantekina (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Image and media review (pass)[edit]

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

  • File:Taylor Swift - Fearless.png: The cover has a completed WP:FUR, appropriate WP:ALT text, and a clear purpose in the article.
  • File:Colbie Caillat playing in Paradiso, Amsterdam 03.jpg: The image has a clear purpose in the article since it is situated next to information about Caillat and Swift. It also has clear ALT text. The source link is active and the licensing seems clear to me.
  • File:FifteenSample.ogg: I am uncertain if this audio sample is entirely necessary. I've been told to keep non-free media to a minimal and only to use it for instances where it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. The audio sample is currently being used to discuss a common theme through the album's lyrics, and I believe readers can understand that just by reading the prose.
  • File:You Belong with Me by Taylor Swift.ogg: By comparison to the above, this audio sample has a clearer purpose as readers may not be familiar with these genres and sounds so it adds a better understanding to the topic that cannot be accomplished with just prose. The WP:FUR is complete. For the timed text, I'd recommend adding text for the instrumental part (something as simple as instrumental would work) as I honestly thought the timed text was just not working when I first listened to it.
  • File:Taylor Swift at 2009 MTV VMA's 2.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article.
  • File:Taylor Swift Fearless Tour 03.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. It is a good image choice as it fits the space allotted without crossing over into the other section headings (at least in my view of the article).

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

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

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

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

Just some minor notes:

  • ”and has sold twelve million copies sold worldwide.” - as of?
  • ”The album won Album of the Year” - I suggest “Fearless won Album of the Year” to avoid saying album twice in such close succession.
  • ”Released on October 24, 2006, it was the longest-charting album on the US Billboard 200 of the 2000s.” - I suggest linking 2000s to the decade, so it’s a bit clearer you’re referring to the decade, and presumably not the ongoing millennium.
  • ”"The Best Day" is Fearless's most understated track, featuring a stripped-down production accompanied by guitar strums.” - most understated feels a bit POV to me. Maybe just “The Best Day features stripped down production…”?
  • Ah Kanyegate. Good way of mentioning it without going into too much detail.
  • ”This made Fearless the first album since Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. (1984) to have five top-ten hits with none reaching number one.” - that seems important enough to be in plain text and not a note, IMO, but no biggie.

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

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

Wonderful Parliament[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • Check caption grammar - full sentences should end in periods, others should not
  • Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Added
  • File:Richard_II_of_England.jpg: source link is dead; is there a reason to have both life+70 and life+100?
  • Westminster abbey changed its file Removed PD-old, left PD-US and PD-art.
  • File:ThomasWoodstock.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto, the above, re-pointed link. Thanks Nikkimaria, hope this finds you well. ——Serial 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

David Berman (musician)[edit]

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

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

  • Image licensing looks ok. I'm not sure about the non-free media and will let someone else evaluate that (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from blz 2049[edit]

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

  • Lots of long sentences here—there are semicolons and em dashes galore; I even found a sentence that had both a semicolon and an em dash. I'd advise curbing these wherever possible in favor of more bite-size sentences.
  • Implementation of the Harvard-style citations with {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} looks OK throughout, but the cites are often bundled together in ways that make it difficult to quickly ascertain which source(s) contributed which bit(s) of info within a given sentence. This can be particularly unclear when a footnote attached to a direct quote provides a range of sources. For example, in the "Poetry" section, nine sources are cited within a single footnote for a list of eight distinct qualities critics have found in both Berman's poetry and his lyrics. But are all nine sources in unanimous agreement about all eight items...? There should be eight footnotes here splitting out exactly who said what.
  • In the case of some complicated-yet-necessary multi-source footnotes, I'd also recommend using the |nps= parameter to provide a brief snippet quote indicating what exact language is backing up what portion of a particular claim and how. This is especially useful when each source supports a certain phrase of a sentence but not the rest, or where sources say the same thing in a different way that may be worth clarifying to avoid confusion or disagreement. For instance, if one critic describes Berman's poetry as "direct" while another said "blunt", both words would reasonably support a claim that critics have found a quality of "directness" in his poetry, but without a parenthetical quote in the cite a reader may find it slightly more tedious to try to pinpoint where the second critic's article says anything about the poetry being "direct" at all (⌘-F would be no help).
    Here's an example from one of my articles to show you what I mean; each of the three sources provided some of the information I needed, but each was missing necessary components, too, and I wanted to clarify for future reference (and my own future sanity). Plus here's a second example that's more quotation-heavy. Plus plus, here's some example code for you to try (the weird manual HTML space thing &#32; seems necessary to force the first "ps" space, fwiw):

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

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

The Empire Strikes Back[edit]

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

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

Support by Nick-D[edit]

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

  • Watch out for excessive detail. For instance:
    • " at a cost of about $250,000", " the instruments included oboes, piccolos, pianos, and harps" (the LSO doesn't work for free and has lots of instruments, so this is unremarkable)
    • the last para of the 'Commencement in Norway' section is full of unimportant facts
    • "While filming Vader's entrance, the snow troopers preceding Prowse tripped over the polystyrene ice, and the stuntman behind him stood on his cape, breaking it off, causing Prowse to collapse onto the snow troopers" - trivia
  • "the second unit remained through March to film explosions, incidental footage, and battle scenes featuring thirty-five mountain rescue skiers as extras; their work was compensated with a donation to the Norwegian Red Cross." - surely the crew were paid? Or were they working as a donation? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the article discusses the budget of the film and the massive inflation it goes through, so I thought the cost of the music was an interesting addition to it. The instruments mentioned are specifically to note what was involved in the score, for example it doesn't mention guitars. I don't know if that is a full list of the instruments involved it's just what I've found.
I can rewrite it a bit if you'd prefer but per the previous reply, it's in essence discussing things which contributed to massive delays and budget increases because of the extreme cold and technical issues and then they returned with damaged footage anyway.
The Vader's entrance part is just a fun anecdote about filming for me personally, the idea that Kershner wanted the characters to have grand entrances and someone stepped on Vader's cape and they all went flying. I can move it to the Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back if you'd prefer as I'd like to keep it in some form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
It's meant to be the skiers who were paid in a donation. I've reworded it a bit.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

  • "Lucas considered replacing producer Gary Kurtz with Howard Kazanjian because of issues that arose when Kurtz had not fulfilled his role while filming Star Wars, but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" - this is beating around the bush a bit. Say what Kurtz didn't do.
  • "Mayhew fell ill from wearing a wool suit in 90 °F (32 °C) heat" - where was this? (given that the article up to this point has stressed how cold conditions at the studio were)
  • "This was a rare feat; only 10% of films typically achieved this figure" - surely few films tried to hit the figure though as they had much lower budgets though? The previous material in this section notes that the studio was very confident the film would be a hit, so this seems out of place.
  • The 'Critical response' section is over long and heavy going - it is unclear who all these critics are, and we don't need anywhere near as much about their views given the article has very good sections providing thematic analysis of the film and how perceptions of it have developed. The quality of the prose is notably inferior to the previous sections, which are very well written and enjoyable to read. I'd suggest a major revamp of this section to simplify and shorten it.
  • "Arnold wrote it is an irreplaceable connecting work, but lacked Star Wars's self-contained narrative and asked audiences to wait two years for a resolution." - this sentence is pretty clunky
  • "was critical that" - also clunky
  • Sentences like "Critics were consistent in their praise for the Yoda character as both a performance and a technical achievement" need a reference that says that 'critics were consistent' or similar, not a bunch of examples of this.
  • "Although Arnold praised Kershner's direction, others believed that Lucas' oversight was obvious because Kershner's influence in his other films was not evident." - this is unclear
  • "and groundbreaking piece of cinema" - it's not clear how the film was 'groundbreaking'?
  • " is now considered as arguably the best film" - is the 'arguably' needed here? This feels unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I'll have to look up what Kurtz's issues were, it doesn't mention specifics in the book, bear with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
It was on the Han torture room scene because of the steam, I've elaborated a bit. It gets a bit confusing because I've obviously had to move a lot of content to the special effects page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Working reception section for comments 4-8.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Working for more detailed sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
OK Nick-D, I think I've addressed all these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Let's not screw this up:

  • "its realistic expressions and" — "realistic expressions" is WP:VOICE
  • "In case the film had failed" — not entirely sure which film the article is referring to
  • "Fox had the right of refusal for a sequel. ... Fox had already given Lucas controlling interest in the series' merchandising" — I'm kind of confused because the article implied earlier on that Lucas did not sell the film to Fox
  • "replacing producer Gary Kurtz with ... that arose when Kurtz had ... but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" — Kurtz's (last) name is dropped three times in this sentence. Try to reduce it
  • "accident after filming Star Wars, (Lucas told Hamill his character would have been replaced if he had died), and" — this seems kinda awkward, probably because the sentence in brackets is a full sentence
  • "embraced their interesting ideas" — "interesting" is WP:VOICE and doesn't add anything IMO
  • "improve his Star Wars performance" — can this be more specific? Did Ford act badly in the original film and want to act better? Did fans dislike him leading to him want to improve his popularity?
  • "According to Fisher, Williams struggled to remember his lines during filming." — not sure why this bit is relevant

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

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

More comments:

  • "103 days of filming two days later" — per MOS:NUM, be consistent with figures vs spelled-out numbers
  • "Including crew and special effects teams, around 700 people worked on Empire." — I don't see the point of the first part of the sentence because crew and special effects teams would obviously work on the film
  • "Adjusted for inflation, the North American box office is equivalent to $920.8 million, making it the thirteenth highest-grossing film ever adjusted for inflation." — repetitive
  • "His realistic expressions impressed" — WP:VOICE

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

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

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

  • Inconsistent citing: Why are three New York Times pieces cited the Harvard way, but others are full references?
  • A lot of sections are filled with cite bundles that make the article unreadable. I would do what I and Cat's Tuxedo do and place the cite bundles into notes.

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

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

Why Marx Was Right[edit]

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

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

Image review

pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't duplicate captions in alt text
  • File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942_flipped.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD in Russia?
  • File:Karl_Marx_001_(cropped_2).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: done the first. For the second, I believe the Library of Congress record shows it was first published at least before 1944, when it was transferred to the LoC, and there's been no author identified in 70 years (plus 7 more). Is that okay, or would File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg be a more clear-cut PD usage?
      And on the last point, it was created by John Jabez Edwin Mayall and published in the International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam) in 1875. Mayall died in 1901. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • On the second, I don't see that LOC specifies it was published before being transferred? On the third, suggest adding that to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I've switched out the second image for File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg, as I can't find any more information about the image we were using. I've updated the image description as requested for the other image. Thanks very much for your feedback, Nikkimaria. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from czar[edit]


  • Had more to say than I anticipated. :) It was an interesting read—thanks for the heads up!
  • Most of my comments below are structural. Anything phrased as a question is rhetorical—no need to answer them; feel free to address or ignore. If I have time later, will return for more.
  • Listing page numbers and database identifiers would make source verification so much easier for readers (or a FAC source reviewer)
    • Page numbers should now be added. Not sure what exactly you mean by database identifiers—experienced Wikipedians should be able to see most sources within ProQuest on TWL but readers (and editors) might be using JSTOR or their university's search system, so I'm not sure how universal an identifier would be (or how to get a DOI out of ProQuest). — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It's possible to add database links like so (for ProQuest), which makes source lookup easier down the line. I personally add JSTOR, DOI, and PQ or EBSCOhost where relevant, so readers have options, but that's very much optional. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
        • There's now a ProQuest (or other database identifier) for each reference that does not have a direct URL link. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


  • Are all 10 objections needed in the lede? It's somewhat excessive to me as a general reader when a few examples would suffice. The list in the synopsis section would make sense, though.
    • Now just summarising some, and each objection is listed with a bit more detail in the new synopsis. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How do you know the reception was "mostly negative" without an aggregate reviewer saying so? Believe that's original research
    • Removed. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • General readers don't need exact dates in the lede since they have it in the infobox and, if necessary, in the relevant section. They just need to know the gist of when the book was released.
    • Now just gives the years 2011 and 2018. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "criticised by others as humourless, filled with poor analogies or lacking strong arguments" introduce a parallelism for better reading: "as lacking humour, strong arguments, and good analogies"
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "the prose style", "the commentary on historical materialism" sound detached; it's either "its prose style" (referring to the book) or "Eagleton's prose style" (referring to the author's role in writing the book)
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "historical moment" doesn't need ersatz quotes (or, then, a ref)
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • were no reviewers strong enough to warrant mention in the lede? If not (and that's fine), consider how the reception section could mirror the lede; i.e., where is the group citation for how the prose style can be summarised as witty, entertaining, and easy to read? If that's a point important enough for the lede, I would want to read a part of the Reception that explains why, perhaps starting with that topic sentence and followed by the supporting evidence
    • I'm not sure any reviewer is worth quoting specifically in the lead, but the paragraph is intended to be a clear paragraph-by-paragraph summary of Reception, which in many cases did repeat topic sentences. Take another look at the new version and if you still think it's not clear where the content is verified (with citations) then I'd appreciate more detail. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there anything worth adding about Eagleton's approach or background with Marx in the lede? Like what about his prior experience with the subject or reputation in this aspect
    • None of the sources really brought in past works of his; the only real commentary on his approach is that he's an Irish Catholic, given a paragraph in "Background" and Gray (2011) believes Eagleton understates Marx's objection to religion based on his Catholicism, as mentioned in "Reception", but that's not lead-worthy. I could maybe add "Eagleton's approach to Marxism was informed by his Catholicism", or equally leave it out? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah that sounds more like it fits in Reception than as Background. To the question, he's writing in defense of Marxism: Is he a Marxist and if so, is there anything published on his background as a Marxist? czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Yep, I've added a couple of sources that give more background context on Eagleton's involvement with Marxism and leftism (whether he calls himself one or not, his writing is heavily influenced by Marxism). — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


  • There are parts of this section that would fit better in a Publication section (history of publication, development of the work, relationship with publisher, editions, release) if there's enough for a dedicated section (check for interviews); Background should be the truly Background topics needed for a general reader, e.g., what does the reader need to know about Marx to make the synopsis intelligible for a general audience?
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean here. None of the section is about background Marxist theory—as the book is for laypeople, the synopsis should be intelligible to the general audience (at least on the latest rewrite, or with further refinement). Are you suggesting, then, a re-title to "Publication" (as I've now done), or is something else needed? (As for interviews, the couple that exist are included already.) — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • re: editions, it would be sufficient to put the reprint information in prose as four identical citations are redundant
    • Is the current version what you had in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • That works. I'd personally condense down to just the year and no ISBN for subsequent releases, unless the specific date and edition is particularly noteworthy (reprints and paperback editions generally aren't). czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Alright, I've condensed to years and removed the other ISBNs except for the 2018 second edition, which had a new preface at least. (Thinking about it again, is "reprint" technically wrong if there was a new preface? That's the only change.) — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a few parts here that would be better served by saying what the source means instead of their flourish: What is "something of a revelation"? (To what? About what? In what way?) What is "newly perceptible as as a system"? (More apparent to non-theorists? More present in everyday life and rhetoric?)
    • Done this for those two and a couple more. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Room for concision: "The New Republic's John Gray argued that before the economic crisis, Marxism had been at its most "unfashionable", due to the failures of the Soviet Union and modern China.[8] However, the crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought.[8][9] " >> "While Marxism had been "unfashionable" due to ..., the financial crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought." (this should be a fact, not an attributed opinion, if the source is reliable)
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "its fallout" whose? Or in the spirit of concision, "resurgence in Marxist thought, including the books ..." But I don't think you need to list five books to make your point—picking the best one or two would be sufficient. The rest can go to a footnote if important.
    • Down to two. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "obselete" typo
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The most interesting parts of this section are the background on the historical moment. For what it's worth, I don't think the background on Eagleton's motivation, professorial history, or favorite chapter was particularly important background, though perhaps relevant in a Publication section.
    • As above, they're all in "Publication" now. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


  • This section isn't very accessible to a general audience—it's trying to convey a lot of information in the space of a plot summary when it would be better served by taking more time to explain each "objection" and the substance of Eagleton's rebuttal. For this reason, it would be much more helpful for this section to have citations such that you could introduce outside context where needed for each description without needing to work around rules for foregoing summary citations. There are plenty of reviews so I would imagine there is plenty of content here.
    • I guess I was worried that more words would make the section too long. For instance, I could do a paragraph on each chapter, but is that not too much detail? I tried to make the synopsis just about self-contained, and I can probably give quite a lot more context with another 100–200 words, but where do you think the limit is? Or are you talking about a more fundamental restructuring? — Bilorv (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • re: potentially too much detail, it might be—I'm not sure. I can defer to other reviewers. To my ears, ten shorter paragraphs sounds appropriate since the point of the article is to explain the role and importance of a book, which involves understanding its argument. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Okay, take a look at the new section, which is still just a synopsis of the book, but contains more explanation of terms (based on Eagleton's definitions in the book) and expansion on Eagleton's arguments. Let me know if this is still not accessible. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
          • It's better but it's still hard to follow. For each section I just want to know, "To the claim that Marxism results in mass murder and political repression, Eagleton [counterargument]." As currently written, it's hard to piece together what exactly his counterargument is in response to the "objection". Insofar as it's possible to outline the objection and the thrust of the counterargument in the same topic sentence, that would make for much easier reading, and perhaps wouldn't need so much text to back it up. Are all the term explanations necessary? I'm mainly trying to understand his argument, not learn the terms. If the terms are important for understanding Marxism than in context of the synopsis, another option is to have a paragraph or two explaining the basic language of Marxism in the Background section. czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I.e., "against the irrelevance of Marxism to the 21st century" this is academic language—what does this mean to a general reader? Is it "argues against the objection that Marxism is outdated for 21st century purposes" (which would still need explanation)?
    • That was the meaning, but now there's more detail: "he sets out a brief argument that Marxism is irrelevant in the post-industrial, classness Western world". — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
      • If I can pull this thread a little more, still not sure what that means. How is Western society (socially) "classless"? Is class less important or deemphasized? It surely isn't eradicated or fully classless, no? Is the objection that "social class plays a lesser role in post-industrial societies, making Marxian class theory less applicable"? czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


  • It's very hard to follow the cavalcade of reviewer names and frequent quotes. For instance, when "Barry and Rundle found it the weakest part of the book", should I be backtracking to figure out who Barry is and what qualifies his opinion? This is a common Reception section issue and I've found that the best solution is to not name individuals unless they are noteworthy critics (with their own WP articles) and instead refer to reviews by the outlet name, when it's necessary to even attribute the sentiment. The smoothest Reception sections group each thematic paragraph into a narrative. For example, it's much easier to understand that, "Multiple reviewers [or Publications X, Y, Z] criticized what they considered weak argumentation throughout the book. Supporting example 1 of assertion instead of argument. Supporting example 2 of glib approach. Supporting example 3 of general weakness. Dissenting example or caveat 4, e.g., who were generally convinced." But by setting up what the paragraph is about (argumentation more than rhetoric), it becomes much easier to follow what you want the reader to take away from the paragraph.
    • CRS is my Bible, but I have worked quite hard to try to theme the comments and draw a narrative from them. If you look at the wikitext, there's a hidden comment for each paragraph which roughly describes its topic, and the first sentence should be a topic sentence. I'll work on restyling the names (though I really dislike quotes with no prose attribution so I might shorten just to outlet), but can you give some more guidance on the rest? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I was once given advice by a historian who made the point of how many pieces of evidence are needed to prove a point: Five? Ten? Two? Only as much as needs convincing. So when I hear that reviewers had varying opinions on whether the book met its objectives (which were what again?) as a general reader, I expect to see which reviewers (X, Y, Z publications) thought it did and which reviewers thought it didn't, followed by one or two compelling examples per side that give color or help elucidate the most convincing cases for and against Eagleton's writing. If Eagleton's "stated objectives" were to convince the reader that the ten objections are mistaken, then I'd want to read something like: X, Y, Z thought Eagleton was most compelling in arguing A because B. D and E were thoroughly convinced throughout, though E generally thought [contrary position]. Since this is also a highly partisan subject, it would be useful for me to know as a general reader if an author or source is writing from a pro- or anti-Marxist position. (I.e., not surprising that The American Conservative did not find the arguments compelling, but is there more to it than that?) But the main benefit of this approach is, instead of writing three different ways that three different reviewers thought the book met its aims, it's possible to combine them in a single sentence (see XYZ above). It's perhaps even more compelling to see one strong sentence reinforce a central narrative than three relatively weaker sentences about minor aspects of the paragraph's thesis. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I've given it a rewrite, with just publication names (except for a review published in two different newspapers and two different reviews in the same newspaper). Hopefully these names and links are enough for readers to identify clearly pro- and anti-Marxist positions, but I don't think I can be more explicit without engaging in original research. I've grouped things together more, reduced reliance on quotes and cut some things where they aren't going to fit into a flowing narrative (i.e. some of the points that were only raised by one reviewer). Take a look now and see if the section has moved in the right direction. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
          • This is so much easier to read now. Nice work! czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Critics were divided on whether the topics covered were well-chosen." Generally can avoid passive voice by putting the author or book in there: "Critics disagreed on Eagleton's selection of topics."

czar 20:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Drive by comment from Nick-D[edit]

  • The references to journal articles, the hard copy magazines and The Communist Manifesto need page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • These should now all be added, Nick-D, except for Brown (2011), Maclean's (2011a) and Maclean's (2011b), where ProQuest doesn't show any page numbers. Does it look right now? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • No. You need to provide page numbers for all the specific references to these works. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Okay, how about now, Nick-D? — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, that looks good. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

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

To be honest, the reason is that I find the first edition cover horrendously ugly (not unusual for an academic text). I am happy to change it if you feel that the first edition is inherently more encyclopedic. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I was more so curious if there was a policy in place about this. If not, then the current choice should be fine. I would have honestly done the same. The second edition's cover seems more engaging to me, and I also have preferences over certain covers from certain editions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a nitpick, but for this part, Written for laypeople, Eagleton outlines ten objections to Marxism that the average person may, could "the average person" be replaced with "they" as it feels somewhat repetitive since "laypeople" was already established earlier in the same sentence?
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Soviet Union is linked twice in the lead.
    • Unlinked on second occurrence — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • For File:Culture Wars - Kulturkriege. Luxemburg Lecture mit Terry Eagleton (8720387921).jpg, I would include when the photo was taken in the caption to provide more context for readers. This information is likely unnecessary for the more historical photos, but it would be nice to know if the Eagleton photo was taken around the book's release or at another time.
    • Added year (2013) — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not sure "The author" descriptor is necessary for this part, The author Terry Eagleton is an academic. If you would like to keep this, I would remove the determiner to just say "Author" as it reads a little odd to have this part before the actual book is introduced in the article itself.
    • Dropped — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would add a link for leftism in this part, He turned to leftism.
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have a clarification question about the "he's dead, actually" part. I get that it is joke, but has Eagleton ever seriously answered this question?
    • No, I don't think so. I couldn't find any other comments he made about the title or any others he considered (maybe more apt given the book's structure of responding to misconceptions would have been Why Marx Wasn't Wrong). — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The Karl Marx wikilink should be moved up to the "Publication" section where he is referenced (only by his last name) for the first time.
    • Yep, broken the quote into two to give Marx's full name and link there. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In the "Reception" section, you discuss the book's sales in Canada. Is there a reason why its sales in other countries are not mentioned? It just seems a little odd to only mention Canada here, when the books was written by a British academic and published by an American university.
    • Yeah, it is a strange one, but I couldn't find any sales details in any other countries, and I believe it didn't make any Bestseller lists in the U.K. or U.S. I don't particularly know why it seemed to do so well in Canada. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
      • That is interesting. Maybe something in this book just resonated more with a Canadian audience or it could have been just better marketed there or something alone those lines. Thank you for answering this question. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

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

  1. ^ Singh (2013).
  2. ^ Miller (2011).
  3. ^ University, Lancaster. "Terry Eagleton - English & Creative Writing - Lancaster University - Lancaster University". Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  • I appreciate the feedback here, as this one of the paragraphs I most struggled to write. Take a look at the new description in the first paragraph of Background (which also incorporates more of his early leftism based on another review comment) and let me know if you still have concerns. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Eagleton is an Irish Catholic." No, he's not, not in British English anyway! He lacks the essential qualification of being Irish, since he was born & grew up in Salford, effectively Manchester. You should work in an adjectival form such as "Irish Catholic family/background".
    • Changed. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You only have a 3-para lead; I think the article justifies 4.
    • There's now a new second paragraph, more synopsis of the book with a focus on basic concepts to make the rest of the article accessible to more readers. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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

  • All good - thanks. I may complete a review , but if I don't, I'm certainly not opposing, & please don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Julian of Norwich[edit]

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

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

  • Support: This is my first time participating in FAC. I copy-edited this article as requested by Amitchell125 and corrected/updated citations and template usage. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 03:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map and the stained glass multi-image
Done. The church drawing (made in 1828) is now not there, as a larger map caused a sandwiching issue. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: I could try to remake the map with less dead space, if you think it would be helpful --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Thanks, not sure if it's worth the effort, as it's a complicated map to remake. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Preobrazhenie.jpg needs a US tag
I'm guessing that the none of the articles with the template Template:Christian mysticism have been at FAC before, so the image has never been challenged. It was uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia in 2005, and it's source is not given. I'll see if I can replace the image in the template with one whose source can be verified.Amitchell125 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Map_of_Norwich_(c.1300)_by_Woodward.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
Sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:St_Julian's_Church_Norwich.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Image now gone (see comment above). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap[edit]

Fascinating article on a major subject.

  • The 'Background' sentence "Julian was alive ... " needs to be split into two. Probably shouldn't be using "overwhelmed" twice in succession either.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "a number of them" - perhaps "some of them".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Map of Norwich: perhaps "south of the castle" or "towards the bottom of the map" would help those who don't know where Ann's Staithe is.
Caption amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "refers to Kempe travelling to Norwich" - perhaps "mentions that Kempe travelled to Norwich".
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Julian was largely unknown until 1670," - clearly this doesn't apply to her lifetime.
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "It became known still further" - perhaps "It became still better known".
Agreed, sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Contemporary monastic and university authorities might not have challenged her theology because of her status as an anchoress." Perhaps the intended meaning is "Her status as an anchoress may have prevented contemporary monastic and university authorities from challenging her theology."
Thanks, your version is definitely better. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Eliot actually uses "All shall be well" not once but three times in "Little Gidding", surely worth saying. It might be appropriate to quote a few lines of the poem including one of the mentions. Eliot's use of Julian's saying is discussed by Barbara Newman; she notes that it serves "as a refrain, much as it does in Julian's own Revelations of Love", that it was a "very late addition" to the poem, and that Eliot corrects Julian (as he saw the matter) by adding "By the purification of the motive" before Julian's line "[In] the ground of thy beseeching", as he disagreed with her theology. Perhaps something of all this deserves saying, though the detail probably belongs in the article on the poem.
All done (I've put some of the Newman details in a note). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Support Edwininlondon[edit]

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

  • It looks like the body of the article assumes that the reader has read the lead, a very fair assumption. But I've always thought the body has to start from scratch and pretend this is not the case (I've looked around but so far have been unable to find a relevant rule in MOS). In this article it is assumed that the reader has read the lead and thus does not introduce topics in the body I expected to be introduced. For instance "Little of Julian's life is known. She provided a few scant comments about the circumstances of her revelations in her book Revelations of Divine Love," to me does not really introduce the revelations but assumes the reader already knowns about them. This approach is unusual. But perhaps it is still fine. Perhaps more knowledgeable reviewers can shed light on this issue.
I've amended the the text of the article to reflect the comment you've made here, which is I think an entirely valid one. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • why is shewings in italics? why in quotes?
Italics/quotes now gone, wictionary link inserted instead to help readers understand the word is archaic. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • being completed soon after her recovery, and a much longer version, today known as the Long Text, being written many years later --> do we need these 2 uses of "being"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The English city of Norwich --> link Norwich
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • During her lifetime the Black Death --> link Black Death
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ruthless to the point of vandalism". --> ruthless to the point of vandalism." see MOS:QUOTEMARKS
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • 15 visions of Jesus, and a sixteenth --> 15 visions of Jesus, and a 16th, according to my interpretation of MOS:NUM
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ever became a nun --> delink nun, instead link first instance of nun
Nun Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The book now commonly known as Revelations of Divine Love was written in manuscript form by Julian in two versions, now known --> would it be possible to avoid the repetition of known?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Julian's writings are unique, as no other works by an English anchoress have survived, although it is possible that some anonymous works may have been written by women --> This confuses me. The lead says "She wrote the best-known surviving book in the English language written by a mystic, Revelations of Divine Love, which is also the earliest surviving book in English known to be written by a woman." These are not the same sets of statements. Perhaps you mean to say here something along the lines of "Julian's writings are the earliest surviving English language works by a woman, although it is possible that some anonymous works may have been written by women. They are also the only surviving English language works by an anchoress, and the best-known surviving book in the English language written by a mystic." But I don't know if the sources support these claims.
I've worked on the text using your suggestion. I can't cite the most obvious bit (that her book is best-known work by an English mystic), so that's now gone. The rest I have cited using Leyser and Windeatt. Thanks for your help here. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that looks better. Just one thing about where it now says "some anonymous devotional works may have been written by women". By using devotional you make the reader wonder about anonymous non-devotional works. I don't think devotional is needed or helpful here. Same in the lead.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Julian's writings was largely unknown until 1670 --> were
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • based his book on the 86 chapters and about 63,500 words of the Long Text --> this may be personal preference but I would restructure this section and start this section with descriptions of the short text and the long text, including the number of chapters and words, and not fold that information into a sentence about someone else writing centuries later.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • by his Providence." --> by his Providence".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • a daring likening --> is this a neutral enough point of view for an encyclopedia?
Sentence amended to reflect the idea that she wasn't daring at all (not sure how that managed to be slipped in). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • me or anybody else". --> me or anybody else."
Done.Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • one is able to radiate it". --> one is able to radiate it."
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his general audience --> do we really need to say this twice? And if yes, then we should have consistency in the spelling of General Audience.
Thanks for spotting that, text deleted accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Anglais 40. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Retrieved 11 November 2021 --> other reviewers are more knowledgeable than me but I'm not sure you need that retrieval date here. Only in the reference I think.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Drive-by comment[edit]

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

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

A Canterlot Wedding[edit]

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

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

Great Western Railway War Memorial[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Of course. Done.

Comments by Thryduulf[edit]

  • Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them. This feels too detailed for the lead and is also contradicted by the railway company built a stand on platforms and 2 and 3, and moved wagons into the tracks between the platforms in the history section. Were the stands built across the tracks or not?
    • I think it's relevant to the lead that there was such a crowd that accommodations had to be made. I've clarified in the body that there were stands on the wagons and it was one continuous crowd.
  • The GWR was also responsible for running a train to remove the Austrian ambassador. More detail please - where was he being removed from and to? Why were they being removed? Why was a special train needed, and why the GWR? Some of this would probably be better provided by a link to where this information is elsewhere, if it's anywhere, an offline reference that may or may not include this information is not helpful in this case.
    • I don't think any more detail would be relevant here. The aim here is to provide a brief overview of the GWR's activities in the war as background to the memorial. We don't have an article on the Great Western Railway in the First World War or even anything similar, and the coverage of WWI in the main GWR article is two sentences so we don't have anywhere useful we can point readers.
      • I see your point, but the current sentence jars me out of the narrative with a "wait, what!?". As Extraordinary Wit suggests, toning down the language and adding a destination will resolve that. If you don't want to do that then remove it all together. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Hmm. Having slept on it, I think it's venturing off topic, and it's distracting (there could be an article to be had there, there's definitely enough sources for an article on the GWR in WWI, but neither is within the scope of this article) so I've removed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • the GWR ran ambulance trains and ... and ... too many "and"s.
    • Reworded.
  • the modern successor to the GWR suggest linking this to Great Western Railway (train operating company)
    • Not sure this is helpful or necessary; the casual reader doesn't need to know about the modern TOC to understand the article, and introducing a second GWR is likely to cause confusion.
      • What I'm suggesting is "the modern successor to the GWR", providing a bit of relevant context for those who don't know or aren't sure what organisation you are referring to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I see your point, I just don't think it matters. Those of us who already have a detailed knowledge of 21st century UK railway operations already know where that article is, and those who don't and just came to read about a statue probably don't care. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • but it explicitly include in the grade I listing change to "but it is explicitly included..." Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Extraordinary Writ[edit]

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

  • Comissioning – typo
    • Fixed.
  • The GWR considered several schemes... – this sentence would probably flow a bit better if you split it into two.
    • Done.
  • During the Covid-19 pandemicour article has COVID in all caps (and I would too), although that's certainly not a hill I'm going to die on.
    • Not the hill I'd choose to die on either. I think I prefer it in sentence case because it's not an acronym where each letter corresponds to a word so it feels a bit SHOUTY, but if there's a consensus or a MoS subsection that says I'm wrong I'll concede the point.
  • Gloucesterhsire – typo
    • Fixed.
  • a train to remove the Austrian ambassador – "remove" to me connotes some sort of involuntary expulsion, which (to Thryduulf's point above) really makes the reader curious. I see the source uses "return"; perhaps something like "a train to transport the Austrian ambassador back to ____" would be best.
    • I've removed this. See my response to Chris above for rationale.
  • its ships – perhaps link Great Western Railway ships?
    • Might be helpful. Done.

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

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

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

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

Lead and infobox[edit]
  • "who were killed in the conflict." Link World War I in "the conflict".
    • I think that would be an Easter egg and not particularly helpful to the reader. It's not necessary to link every topic solely because the article exists.
      • Oh God sorry for this bit. I think this point was a mistake.
  • Link Archbishop of Canterbury.
    • This one is helpful. Done.
  • "British Army's postal service"-- link either History of the British Army postal service#The Volunteer Movement and formation of Army Post Office Corps (1868–82).
    • I don't think this is necessary in the lead.
  • "Covid-19" must be capitalized.
    • Must? Do you have a source or a MoS link for "must"? I'm going to capitalise it, but because most of the style guides I've found online advocate "COVID" rather than "Covid".
      • Yeah there's no particular MOS for that, however the title case version is a sort of colloquial version. Most formal sources use "COVID-19", even if there are formal sources that use title case the capitalised is the most encouraged.
  • Infobox looks good.
  • Link History of rail transport in Great Britain in "Britain's largest railway company", per the lead of Great Western Railway article.
    • That would be an Easter egg again, and contrary to the MoS (and thus the featured article criteria)
  • Link ambulance train.
    • That one might be helpful. Done.
  • "As well as manpower, the GWR gave up the majority of its ships for military use." I'd suggest moving the "as well as manpower" to the end of the sentence, as putting it in the front makes it confusing; putting it in the end I think makes it more straightforward.
    • The previous sentence discusses manpower, which is why this one begins the way it does.
  • "Thomas Tait"-- add the "S." and link Thomas S. Tait.
    • Done.
  • Link Royal Artillery Memorial and Realism (arts) in the image caption.
    • Done for the RA memorial. Always nice when I can cross-reference another of my FAs. "Realism" I feel is plain enough English that a link isn't necessary.
      • Reasonable objection to the latter. And I mean, who doesn't like cross-referencing another of their FAs? (Not saying I have an FA but I guess I'd love to cross-reference)
  • "The Great Western established a war memorial committee"-- is this referring to the GWR? If so it must be referred to as "The GWR" for consistency.
    • From the context, it couldn't possibly be referring to anything else, and we don't have to be repetitive in the name of consistency.
      • I disagree. At the Background sec, it is already abbreviated as GWR, so readers expect for it to be continuously referred to as GWR. If all of a sudden there's the word "Great Western" there might be two possibilities: either this is GWR, or another Great Western. There shouldn't be that type of confusion. As far as I see, this shouldn't count as repetition.
  • "on the approach to Paddington"-- Paddington station? If so it must be a "London Paddington station" and link.
    • It couldn't really be anything else, but I added "station" just to be sure.
  • "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625"-- link £.
    • That would be contrary to WP:OVERLINK.
      • But does it though? MOS:OL does not specify currency, and I've seen plenty of GAs and FAs that link to currencies.
  • "The GWR began commemorations for its war dead"-- is "war dead" an actual phrase? Does it mean casualties? If so, I'd prefer to change it to "war casualties".
    • Yes, it's an actual phrase, and commonly used in such contexts.
      • Got it, apologies ESL guy here.
  • Unlink Thomas S Tait here; it should be at the background section.
    • Done.
  • "The second inscription was added after the Second World War"-- link Second World War.
    • That would be overlinking; most readers know what WWII is.
  • "20th-century British art"-- link 20th-century art and British art.
    • Also overlinking.
  • Should it be Citations first, then Bibliography? Because almost all articles I've seen using this style puts Citations first. But if it's normal then no problem.
    • It's the format used in almost all my 31 FAs and it's not normally a problem.
  • I think the works/publishers should be linked per consistency with ref22, 12, and 30; it'll be weird if one ref is linked but the other isn't.
    • I used to link publishers and people objected to that. Now I tend not to bother. Refs 12 and 22 are generated by templates so there's not much I can do about those; 23 and 30 the work is linked (mainly because it's relevant to the subject and not necessarily well known) but not the publisher. I think that's as consistent as I can be unless I don't link anything.
      • Understandable. Personally I've linked to publishers for ages and people have never objected to that. But it does no harm, so I'll let that pass.

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

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

Pomona College[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

  • This article includes a large number of images, which is causing some layout problems
    I've focused on ensuring that there are no layout problems on New Vector, as that's what will be in widespread use shortly. If you have any particular concerns, please let me know. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Skin isn't the only thing impacting layout - also screen size. On my (average-sized laptop) screen there is extensive sandwiching, particularly in the Campus and Student life sections, as well as headings getting shifted right. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    You're correct that screen size has traditionally been a main determinant of sandwiching—with the old skins, on a big enough screen, any article with any images on the left will have sandwiching. But New Vector limits content to a maximum of 960px. When it is deployed soon as the default mode, it will be the experience for 99% of desktop readers, so that's what I'm designing around. Let me know if it's different for you, but when I read the article with New Vector, the only place where sandwiching concerns might arise is the athletics section.
    That section presents a tricky scenario, as it would be a significant loss to the article to remove either the table of athletics teams (a pretty standard element) or the sole photo of contemporary athletics, and it is not really possible to retain both without creating a minor sandwich. To alleviate that concern as much as possible, I ensured that both the table and the photo are thinner than average width, so the text is still as wide as it'd be with something like {{Multiple image}}. Ultimately, it boils down to whether minor sandwiching or the removal of useful content is the greater loss for readers, and my view is that the content loss would be more significant, making this an appropriate instance to invoke the note at MOS:IMAGES that occasional exceptions may apply. Do you find that rationale satisfactory enough? We can explore what to do if it's a dealbreaker, but I think it'd be a loss. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that there is a free logo, what is the justification for also including a non-free logo?
    Having both a seal image and a wordmark is built into {{Infobox university}}. The "free logo" in this case is just a wordmark that doesn't pass the threshold of originality. It would be insufficient to fulfill the seal's purpose of use as described at the file page, as it is the seal, not the quite generic and undistinctive wordmark, that is the primary visual identifier of the college. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Suggest elaborating on this in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Done here. Let me know if I should change anything further. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Exterior_view_of_Pomona_College,_Claremont,_1907_(CHS-3857).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:President_Roosevelt_speaks_at_Pomona_College,_1903.jpg, File:Men_protest_opening_of_Frary_Dining_Hall_to_women.jpg
    For the first one, I'm not aware of the initial publication date, but the current rights holder is USC, and per the description page they've released it into the public domain. For the second, it was published 9 May 1903 as can be seen here. For the third, it was published in the 1957 Metate, Pomona's yearbook, per here and my correspondence with the Pomona archivist (see here). I looked through the copyright renewal logs to confirm that the Metate copyright was not renewed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    For the first, if this is believed to be PD because of a release the tagging should be changed to reflect that. For the second and third, that information should be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    PD tag for first adjusted. Information added for second and third. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Pomona1.jpg is tagged as lacking a description
    Description added. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Johnson_spanish_music_1916_4.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    I added PD-US-expired. Did I do that right? My understanding is that both the sculpture and the photo need to be properly licensed. For the photo, that's pretty easy, as it's own work by Seauton. For the sculpture, it was created in 1916 and the artist died in 1927. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


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

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

  • Exact quote of "college of the New England type" is only in the lead, although a paraphrase is found in the body. Shouldn't the exact quote be used in the body as well, if its significant enough for the lead?
    Done. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "On October 14, 1925, Pomona's 38th anniversary, the Claremont Colleges were incorporated." - specifically state that it's a founding member of the Claremont Colleges? Implied but not directly stated
    Done. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "He and dean of women Jean Walton also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life," - maybe mention that this was how the college ran things before mentioning that it was ended? It comes a bit out of the blue in the current form
    Done here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The 21st century section is a little WP:PROSELINE-y. Not a terrible example, and not a sticking point for me, but could the paragraphs flow together a bit better than all starting with various constructions of "In 20XX ..." or "In the ..."?
    I attempted a small fix here. The reason the more recent history is like this is that the most recent scholarly history of the college ends in 1969, so most of what came after has to come from newspaper reports of individual events. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

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

  • "and are designed to facilitate both indoor and outdoor use" - Maybe I'm overthinking this, but how do you have outdoor use of a building
    Here's the relevant quote from the source: Throughout all its history, though, a strong emphasis on spaces that facilitate both an indoor and outdoor lifestyle have remained. Almost every single residence hall, for example, is situated by or around courtyards, with calm bubbling fountains, benches and tables for lounging and socializing and cool, inviting trees and lawns. Most dining halls have patios for outdoor eating, and there are many spots with tables outside where students frequently study or hang out. As a brochure guide to Claremont's campuses puts it, "As open spaces the courts are not merely voids between structures; they are compositions of space and landscape elements." {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "They include the Carnegie Building, a neoclassical structure built in 1908 as a library" - specify/link that it was a Carnegie library
    Done. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • " The college has 821 total employees as of the fall 2020 semester" - through in the full-time educational faculty number, as well? Since the majority are non-educational faculty
    I mention that in the Academics section a little further down. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Its operating budget for the 2019–2020 academic year was $229 million" - is the 2020-2021 operating budget available, since that academic year has been completed
    Not yet, at least from here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Is bond rating encyclopedic?
    I'm not a finance expert, so someone who is might be able to address that question better. But the reason I added the sentence is because this section ought to give readers a sense of the institution's overall financial situation, and the credit ratings agencies seem to be the best independent source for that information. When I read the Fitch rating commentary, I was struck by the level of detail it went into about the college's financial operation—there seems to have been a lot more that went into it than just "it has a giant endowment so it gets AAA". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Makes sense, then. (I'm an auditor who does some work with government entities, and any random road board or high school can get a bond rating. But this sounds more significant than those minor ones) Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Note g probably needs a source
    The ref for note g is Enrollment Policies (currently 218), which appears at the end of the sentence in which the note is embedded. The schema I've been using for note references is to include a separate reference for them only if it's different from the reference supporting the sentence. When a note appears at the end of a sentence (as is the case for most of the others), I place it before the body reference if that's the reference supporting it and after the body reference if it has its own reference. This did come up in the prior FAC; is it something you think I ought to change? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "During the 2015–2016 academic year, 175 employers hosted on-site informational events at the Claremont Colleges and 265 unique organizations were represented in 9 career fairs" - somewhat dated, anything newer available? If not, maybe remove as this is old enough that relevance is questionable by now
    I wasn't able to find anything newer, unfortunately—the office seems to put together a comprehensive annual report only once every several years, and this was the most recent one. I wouldn't imagine that the numbers have changed all that much, though. I included the sentence since I think the paragraph on career development ought to have some quantitative information on the level of recruiting that happens on campus. Does that seem reasonable or should I take it out? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Student life - note sure the tooltip note for 5C is needed - it's already been introduced in the article
    I've been musing lately about MOS:REPEATLINK and related issues, given research that most readers jump around and read only parts of an article, rather than going top to bottom. I'm not sure it's safe to assume that someone in the student life section has read the academic affiliations section, and an {{abbr}} tooltip seems like a low-cost way to inform (or remind) them if needed. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, though. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Golden Antlers publishes satirical content" - recommend a better source than the Golden Antlers itself to demonstrate significance
    Yeah, given the purported 1726 establishment date, I think we'd be wise to steer clear of the Golden Antlers about page even for WP:ABOUTSELF info haha. I've swapped to this feature from Scripps, which has the most detailed info I could find, and I could add this article from The Student Life if you'd like a secondary source. I think it's important to mention the Golden Antlers not only because of its significant presence on campus, but also because, as an online publisher, it has a bigger presence off-campus than most 5C clubs—a reader researching Pomona is far more likely to encounter a Golden Antlers article than they are e.g. something about the orchestra. Having a mention helps contextualize it, which is particularly important for a satire publication. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • " and undocumented or DACA recipient students" - DACA's already been linked, don't think you need the tooltip
    See above. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Pomona Student Union (PSU) facilitates the discussion of political and social issues on campus by hosting discussions, panels, and debates with prominent speakers holding diverse viewpoints" - recommend a better source than PSU's weebly site to support significance of this activity
    I added a post from the American Association of Colleges and Universities to supplement the WP:ABOUTSELF source. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


  • Post-2013 Newsweek is listed as iffy at WP:RSP, is this good enough for FA standards?
  • What makes the Hidden Pomona podcast a high-quality RS?
  • "Trendacosta, Katharine (May 28, 2013). "The Longest Running Gags in Science Fiction Movies and Television". io9. Gawker Media. Retrieved April 7, 2020." RSP does not say positive things about Gawker, recommend replacing
  • Burt, Brackett, and Bernard are in the bibliography, but not used? Moved to further reading, as they seem to be generally dated and don't represent gaps in the research here?

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

Support from HAL[edit]

  • I have already made extensive comments on this article, and I'm very satisfied with the work done by Sdkb. I'm happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

1996–97 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

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

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

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

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "the 1995–96 English football season, the" maybe pipe to "previous season"?
  • "65th season playing" do we need that quick repeat of "season".
  • "The most notable new signing" that's POV.
  • "£235,000" could inflate since it was 25 years ago (*gulp*).
  • "club, both as a ... the club's" repetitive.
  • Bradford City is an A.F.C. as is Wrexham and Swansea City.
  • "against Bristol City. New" overlinked.
  • "and scored the" to score (to avoid the and ... and...)
  • "scored two goals from penalty kicks against" perhaps tighten to "scored two penalty kicks"?
  • "suffering a serious injury" what was the nature of this?
    • I don't know, I couldn't find a source that was that specific. I've downgraded the description to simply "an injury", as on re-checking the sources it isn't described as "serious" (although he did miss five games....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "and Watford.[23] It " overlinked.
  • "away to Burnley, who" ditto.
  • "Due to the postponement of a number..." what caused the postponement, bad weather?
    • I guess so, but I don't have a specific source for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "to Crewe Alexandra, the" overlinked.
  • "placed Watford, Butler" same.
  • " Rotherham United and Bristol City.[28] " both of these too.
  • "ended the month of March" no need for "the month of".
  • "against AFC Bournemouth in identical" overlinked.
  • "defeating Millwall, Walsall and Shrewsbury Town." all overlinked.
  • Link Chapman consistently.
  • "the 1996-97 FA Cup in" en-dash.
  • "of the Third Division." overlinked.
  • "due to the state of the frozen pitch" is "the state of" needed?
  • "all unavailable" why?
  • "the 1996-97 Football League Cup in " en-dash.
  • "level opponents.[48] Gillingham's opponents" repetitive.
  • "played Cardiff City of the" overlinked.
  • Consider telling us when the pictures of the players were taken, Akinbiyi's looks like it was 12/13 years after this specific season.
  • "the 1997–98 season mounting" perhaps "following season" instead.

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

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

  • @Mike Christie: - that's a good shout - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Looks good. Another comment: have you considering pulling the occasional quote from newspaper coverage? For this season I would think only the defeat of Coventry would warrant it, but sometimes match reports are entertainingly written and it seems like something that could liven up the article. This is a general comment about season articles, not a criticism of this one, and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Added a match report quote about the Cov win -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

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

  • Gillingham played poorly and lost 2–0 --> is that "poorly" your point of view?
  • Aftermath: a bit too much detail of the next season I think. 1 line should suffice. What I would expect is a summary of players who left the club after the season.

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

Socrates Nelson[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • What sort of alt text? If I feel the captions are descriptive enough, should I add something like "See caption for more information"?
  • Alt texts are designed for people who can't see the image, whether because of a visual impairment or because their device doesn't load images. Telling the former group to "see" the caption would not be helpful; if you feel the caption adequately conveys the contents of the image, "refer to caption" may be appropriate. See WP:ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd meant "see" as in the encyclopedic sense, but I agree that "refer" works better for sensitivity toward its target audience.
  • @Nikkimaria: I added alt text to all of the images used in the article. Please let me know if you think it's too detailed, not detailed enough, etc. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably on the too-detailed side, but not going to fuss over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Done.
  • File:Stillwater,_Minnesota_-_15645910519.jpg: what's the copyright status of the plaque? Ditto File:Washington_County_Courthouse-Historic_Marker.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Those are for the photos. I'm asking about the plaques themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: The plaque was erected August 26, 1948 by the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, so the copyright of the plaque itself is technically unknown. The MTCC seemed to be working under the Minnesota State Bar Association. The marker was erected by the Minnesota Historical Society, and the MNHS took the picture and licensed it under CC-BY-SA 2.0. So literally no issues with the second one (the same people who erected it and would own the copyright uploaded a picture of it to Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0), and the first one seems to be at least fair use insofar as it's a) just large enough to be able to make out the text written thereupon and b) not replaceable by some other work. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Any way of determining status? If no, what would be the rationale for including as fair use? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could email the Minnesota Bar Association and ask them if they have any copyright on it; if not, then nobody should own the copyright, and the work would have lapsed into the public domain. If not, fair use rationale is as follows: image is small enough that much lower resolution would probably detract from readers' abilities to read parts of the text on the plaque (namely the bottom); image of the plaque commemorating the Stillwater convention is the only one of its kind; the use of this media contributes substantially to the article, as Socrates Nelson was at the center of the Stillwater convention – most importantly, he co-authored the petition to Congress. I've been in touch with Brent Peterson of the Washington County Historical Society and may be able to ask him if he thinks the plaque is copyrighted in any way. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Typically in the US state works - as opposed to works by the federal government - are not in the public domain by default. I'm aware that there are some exceptions - does one apply here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In all seriousness, though, I can't find any statute saying that public works are copyrighted beyond the fact that statutes are copyrighted. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately not ;-). My reading of this page is that the Minnesota government asserts copyright over its eligible works. However, this particular work may be PD due to its age - do you happen to know if there was a copyright notice associated with the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I agree with your interpretation. A requester can do whatever they want with it for personal use, but redistribution isn't allowed should the Minnesota government assert copyright. The MTCC erected the plaque on the centennial date of the Stillwater convention: August 26, 1948. So it's not old enough to be inherently in the public domain, but at the same time, I can find no copyright associated with the plaque. Also, since I just realized that I said "Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee" before, I believe they were under the MTCC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • See WP:HIRTLE - that age plus no copyright notice does give a path to PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ayy. So would you say that all of the media check out copyright-wise? Like I said, I've found no notice whatsoever of copyright on the works of the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, let alone this specific work. If so, I can add alt text and then move on to finish addressing Wehwalt's comments. If you'd like to read through as well and add feedback about the prose, I'd say it's worth it if you enjoy super obscure US history. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Since there is no visible copyright notice, you should use {{PD-US-no notice}}. I've taken the liberty of adding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks — Pass[edit]

Version reviewed — this

  • Ref#2 — link — 5 instances
    1. Infobox children: "Emma A. Nelson" — OK
    2. "On September 22, 1848, Nelson and Betsey had two children – twins Emma A. and Ella Nelson – but Ella later died in infancy on October 23, 1849." — OK for first part. Rest is sourced to other references.
    3. "Months after the Panic began that August, Levi Churchill died in St. Louis on December 24, ceding his estate to Elizabeth" — OK
    4. "Demoralized by deflated land prices, Slaughter and Hancock forfeited their claim to the lots." — OK
    5. "Owing to development sparked by the courthouse, the lots began selling for sometimes upward of $1000 apiece" — Which part of the source cites this?
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: "Father Michael Murphy paid the astronomical sum of $4,000 for three of the best lots in the city".
  • Ref#4 — link — 1 instance
    1. "Infobox children: Hettie Carson (adopted)" — OK
  • Ref#5 — link — 6 instances
    1. "Infobox education: Deerfield Academy" — OK
    2. "Nelson lived in nearby Greenfield and attended Deerfield Academy, taking a partial course before returning to his hometown to become a merchant." — OK
    3. "There, he met his future business partner Levi Churchill and his wife Elizabeth Marion Churchill (née Proctor)." — The source supports that Nelson met Churchill, but does not state that Nelson also met Elizabeth.
Bah. I hate it when I miss nagging little technicalities like this; fixed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it was me being too nit-picky, but thanks for fixing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    1. "That same fall, Nelson took a steamboat farther north to the recently settled town of Stillwater and opened its first general store, known as Nelson's Warehouse," — OK
    2. "Note c: located near the St. Croix by the intersection of modern-day Nelson Street and South Main Street." — OK
    3. "With the Churchills remaining temporarily behind in St. Louis, the two parties would exchange goods through the Mississippi River – Nelson's furs for Churchill's merchandise." — OK
  • Ref#8 — link — 1 instance
    1. "to Socrates Nelson and Dorothy Boyden," — OK
  • Ref#15 — link"Note a: but US census data from 1850 records her given name as 'Betsey D.'" — OK (for 'Betsey D')
  • Ref#23 — link — 1 instance
    1. "and another calls both Nelson's and Walter R. Vail's the first" — OK
  • Ref#33 — link — 1 instance
    1. "Nelson entered the lumber business in earnest on February 7, 1851, as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." — OK for some part, rest supported by other sources.
  • Ref#46 — link — 1 instance
    1. "and the Minnesota Western Railroad Company" — OK
  • Ref#47 — link — 1 instance
    1. "In 1854, a stock company consisting of Nelson and others published Stillwater's first newspaper, the St. Croix Union – a Democratic-leaning, weekly periodical which was printed until 1857." — OK
  • Ref#54 — link — 1 instance
    1. "In April 1867, hoping to spur development and drive demand for nearby lots they owned," — Perhaps, OK.
  • Ref#63 — link — 1 instance
    1. "That fall, Nelson was appointed master in chancery for the county by Territorial Governor Henry Dodge." — OK
  • Ref#79 — link — 1 instance
    1. "As part of the committee on railroads, Nelson co-authored a report with Lucius K. Stannard on February 4, 1860, recommending the expungement of Article IX Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution – known as the Loan Amendment – which was introduced in 1858 to expedite the development of railway infrastructure and authorized a total of up to $5 million (equivalent to $144,000,000 in 2020) in loans for railroad companies." — Perhaps, OK. But please break the sentence. Its a long one!
  • Yeah, looking at it here, it's a complete mouthful; I'll break it up into two or three sentences. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref#88 — link — 1 instance
    1. "Reiner won the election held on November 6, 1860, defeating Nelson as part of a string of legislative gains for Minnesota's Republican Party." — OK
  • Ref#97 — link — 1 instance
    1. "having been ill for several months and bedridden for several weeks." — OK
  • Ref#100 — link — 2 instances
    1. "Four years later, Emma married attorney Fayette Marsh, a former engineer and chronic alcoholic who had studied law and moved to Stillwater to co-found a firm." — OK
    2. "before Emma died on November 23, 1880, at age 32 of what was described by her obituary as "a short but painful illness"." — OK for death date. The quote is from another source.

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

Homo antecessor[edit]

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

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

  • Image review: pass (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca from 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago during the Early Pleistocene". This needs rearranging. The species was not recorded a million years ago.
That's how I normally word it, since it's recorded in the fossil record during this time period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "supplanting the popular H. heidelbergensis in this function". popular sounds odd to me. Maybe "widely accepted"?
"more conventional"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "merely an offshoot". This is POV. It is true that we think that fossils matter more if they are of direct ancestors of modern humans, but a Wikipedia article should not says so.
NPOV is for debated subject matter. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is by people for people   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "they consequently only inhabited Iberia during warm periods". This is confused. Above you say that they have only been found in Iberia, here only in warm periods, below that they went to Iberia during cold periods. Surely they must have been in Iberia all the time as it is unlikely that they could have crossed the sea to refugia in Africa.
This is explained later in the Fire section. They only inhabited Iberia during warm periods and presumably fled southeast towards the Mediterranean during cold periods   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Iberia is a southern peninsula of Europe. They could only have fled north by land (not southeast as you say), which they would presumably not have done in a cold period. I only have access to the abstract of the source but it says that they probably lived on the Mediterranean coast during cold spells and recolonized Iberia via the Ebro valley (not river) when the climate warmed (not that they fled via the Ebro when it was cold as you say in the article). The implication seems to be that they died out in Iberia during cold periods and fresh groups migrated there during warm ones. This also seems to rule out the Happisburgh hominids being antecessor as it would be too cold for them there. You appear to be using sources which take different views of how cold adapted antecessor was without pointing out the contradiction.
I don't understand the contradiction with Happisburgh. They inhabited the English coastline during an interglacial as well, albeit a different stage of the interglacial. Sierra de Atapuerca is in northern Spain, if you follow the river to the mouth, you're going southeast towards the Mediterranean, so I'll re-add Mediterranean to make it clearer. I moved "(probably via the Ebro valley)" to the part about migrating in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
1. The climate in Iberia at the height of the last ice age is described in [6] as 'temperate dry steppe'. Happisburgh is 1000 miles further north and it seems unlikely that the climate there in "the cooler beginning or end of an interglacial" would be better than in Spain during a glacial, so if they could stand Happisburgh they would not have needed to abandon inland Iberia. 2. I see that Atapuerca is at the north west end of the Ebro valley, but I was taking you to mean Iberia in general - presumably there must have been many other populations. I think it would be clearer to say that they migrated from the high inland plateaus to the coast without mentioning Ebro. 3. The Waalian interglacial dates to before antecessor. See [7]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I changed it to "They may have followed water bodies while migrating, in the case of Sierra de Atapuerca, most likely the Ebro River." The source specifically says Waalian Interglacial. As for Happisburgh, they didn't necessarily have to stay in England all year long as Britain wasn't an island at the time. I can add more about Happisburgh if you'd like using [8], I wasn't sure how in depth I should go since the site is only associated with H. antecessor by chronology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Migration looks fine to me now. The source for the Waalian is 2008 and may be out of date. The table I linked to above produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy dates the Waalian to 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. Happisburgh would have been cold even in summer during the transition to or from a glacial, but I see that you suggest above that antecessor was probably cold adapted, so maybe the high inland plateau was too dry during ice ages, not too cold. I do not think you need any more about Happisburgh as the association is merely based on the lack of any known alternative. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Presumably the source explains why the Iberian Mediterranean coast could not have provided refugia? After all, Gorham's Cave is in Iberia, it is the southern most point in Europe and it was occupied by the Neanderthals. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
It's because I left out the word "inland". Oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "was first explored for fossils by archaeologist Francisco Jordá Cerdá [es] in a short field trip to the region in 1966, who recovered a few animal fossils and stone tools". I think where he recovered would be grammatically better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "and found human remains 2 years later". Presumably additional archaic human fossils as you say they had been found two years earlier?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "This recovered nearly 100 specimens". Presumably human fossil bones but it would be helpful to says so.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "were discovered in Happisburgh". No change needed, but is it known how the temperatures compared during warm periods in England and cold periods in Iberia? If they could survive at any time in northern England then surely they would have no trouble at any time in Iberia?
added to the Fire section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2001, French palaeoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin postulated (without a formal analysis) the Gran Dolina remains and the contemporaneous Tighennif remains from Algeria (usually classified as Homo ergaster or Homo erectus, originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus") represent the same population". I think it should be "postulated...that", but the sentence has too many subclauses for easy reading.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2003, American palaeoanthropologist Chris Stringer echoed this concern." This raises several points. 1. Stringer is British. 2. "echoed this concern" is vague and unclear. I take it you mean that he agreed with Hublin, but you should say so. 3. You only cite the refutation of these views. I do not think this is valid. You should check and cite the original papers to be sure that they have not been misinterpreted.
I did, Stringer didn't say anything in specific, just acknowledged someone said H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Stringer just included it in a list of the views on the subject. That is not echoing a concern. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "because the type specimen was a child so the supposedly characteristic features could have disappeared with maturity". This is ungrammatical. I would delete "so".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues suggested the modern humanlike face evolved independently several times among Homo." This is uncited.
oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The stratigraphy and family tree diagrams are uncited.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen" The child not the specimen is 10-11.5 years old.
what's the difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The specimen is about one million years old. I would replace "specimen" with "child". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen ATD6-69 is strikingly similar to modern humans (as well as East Asian Middle Pleistocene archaic humans) as opposed to West Eurasian or African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans or Neanderthals". This is vague. Which archaic humans? Why the distinction between them and Neanderthals? Neanderthals were a species of archaic humans.
We see two sentences down "The most notable traits are a completely flat face and a curved zygomaticoalveolar crest (the bar of bone connecting the cheek to the part of the maxilla which holds the teeth)". Neanderthals are not Middle Pleistocene. Middle Pleistocene Western Eurasian and African specimens are conventionally assigned to H. heidelbergensis, but in Europe some people wanna classify certain populations as late H. erectus, and in Africa rhodesiensis, late ergaster, helmei, and recently bodoensis. This time period is called the "muddle in the middle" because there's no wide agreement on species classification, which I think is better discussed at Homo heidelbergensis. Sometimes I see authors not mentioning species names at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The Neanderthals were Middle Pleistocene, which ran from 770 to 126 thousand years ago. However, I accept that it is correct to refer to West Eurasian and African species without specifying since as you say there are several and no agreement. What is the position on East Asian? I only know of erectus. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Though, African Middle Pleistocene humans (the direct ancestors of modern humans) would later evolve this condition." This is ungrammatical.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The upper incisors are shovel-shaped (the tongue side is distinctly concave), characteristic of other Eurasian human populations." Maybe "a feature which is characteristic".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "An adult radius, ATD6-43, which could be male based on absolute size or female based on gracility, was estimated to have been 172.5 cm (5 ft 8 in) tall " A radius was 5' 8" tall?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You say that the radius is "oddly long and straight for an archaic human" and explain it "as retention of the ancestral long-limbed tropical form". Isn't this a contradiction as retention of ancestral form would not be odd?
It's odd because it wasn't retained in contemporary or later archaic humans beyond Africa and southeast Asia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe clearer if you said unlike other contemporary Eurasian archaic humans? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Like other archaic humans, the femur features". This is ungrammatical.
how?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
A femur is a bone, not a human. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The long trochlea caused a short neck of the talus." This is incomprehensible to a non-expert and the term are not linked.
glossed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2010, Castro and colleagues approximated ATD6-112, represented by a permanent upper and lower first molar, died between 5.3 and 6.6 years of age". "estimated that" would be better than "approximated".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, limestone is duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Jim Lovell[edit]

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • Two of his classmates were Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra, but Lovell graduated first in the class I think it would be better as "however," instead of "but".
    Dome editors dislike "however". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • He became McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager. I believe this is missing an article after became.
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Add a nonbreaking space to the infobox to keep Apollo 8 from going to two lines. Same thing with United States.
    It's a link, so this is included automatically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    I added it in and fixed it. It actually doesn't occur for links automatically when there is a space. NoahTalk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • achieved Eagle Scout, the organization's highest level I think it would be more appropriate to say rank instead of level.
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Upon his return to shore duty, he was reassigned to provide pilot transition training for the North American FJ-4 Fury, McDonnell F3H Demon and Vought F8U Crusader Serial comma.
    Seems okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Most of the article uses the serial comma. If this is intended to be in American English, then the serial comma would be required. NoahTalk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Should be able to get the rest of the article from Gemini down tomorrow. NoahTalk 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why you are using nautical miles instead of statute miles? Most readers do not understand the unit.
    Nautical miles was the old measurement used for orbits, and was used in the contemporary sources. (After the loss of a spacecraft due to unit confusion, NASA now uses metric only.) For the readers, metric conversions are provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • After the flight this was traced to the fact that they had an old type of laminate in the thrust chamber instead of the new type that had been developed to solve this problem. Comma after flight.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • By day thirteen a warning light was burning continuously and it was feared that the cells Comma after thirteen.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • However tests were carried out in St. Louis that demonstrated that Gemini 7's batteries could sustain it for the remainder of the flight. Comma after However.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Instead Aldrin, who had written his PhD on the rendezvous, Comma after instead.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • and aftwerwards it underwent a series of qualification tests Typo
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • On Christmas Eve the crew broadcast black-and-white television pictures of the lunar surface back to Earth. Comma after Eve.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In 1999 the Lovell family Comma after 1999.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Duke of York.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Link to Richard Nixon.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? NoahTalk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


  • "the 1970 Apollo 13 lunar mission" this could be read as if there's e.g. a 1971 Apollo 13 lunar mission. Maybe "the Apollo 13 lunar mission in 1970".
  • Could link Mission control center for "mission control".
  • Also worth linking night fighter as it's jargon.
  • "Class 20. His classmates ... the class" thrice class in quick succession.
  • "He became the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager." rather brief and without temporal context.
  • Infobox mentions total duration in space of "29d 19h 03m", where is this referenced?
  • Interestingly, his occupation in the infobox is listed as "Test pilot" yet that is not listed in the lead, where it says he's a retired "astronaut, naval aviator, and mechanical engineer".
  • "outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. To avoid this prospect..." doesn't flow right, "this prospect" appears to be the outbreak of the Korean War.
  • Could link liquid-propellant rocket.
  • "while they ... While she" quickly repetitive.
  • "NAS Pensacola " can we spell out NAS first time?
  • Especially as you subsequently have "at Naval Air Station Patuxent River"...
  • "His classmates included Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra.[18] Conrad gave Lovell the nickname "Shaky" could we not reverse the order of Conrad and Schirra in the first sentence and then merge it with the second to avoid these two very short sentences?
  • "sets.[20][18]" ref order.
  • "time John Young served " are we supposed to know who that is?
  • Any need to have (USC) when you never actually use the initialism?

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

Beowulf and Middle-earth[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Rolfs_sidste_kamp_-_Louis_Moe_(17009)_-_cropped.png needs copyright tag for the original work - under US law reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Added PD-old on Commons, Louis Moe died in 1945. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • This will also need a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Added PD-1923 on Commons (published 1898), happy to be advised if other licenses are more appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • J. R. R. Tolkien, a fantasy author and professional philologist, drew on the Old English poem Beowulf for multiple aspects of his Middle-earth legendarium: in terms of elements such as names, monsters, and the structure of society in a heroic age; in terms of style such as creating an impression of depth and adopting an elegiac tone; and in terms of its larger but hidden symbolism. Multiple issues with this.
  • "In terms of" is used too many times.
  • Edited.
  • I would consider splitting this up into multiple sentences as it quite massive.
  • Done.
  • The names of races including ents, orcs, and elves, and placenames such as Orthanc and Meduseld, derive from Beowulf Should be a comma after races.
  • Done.
  • That symbolism, [...] , Tolkien worked to echo in The Lord of the Rings. This is a bit clunky.
  • Rearranged.
  • Beowulf also rid Heorot of Grendel's mother. Source?
  • Added.
  • The name "Beowulf" can indeed be read as "the Bees' Wolf", that is, "the Honey-Eater", in other words "the Bear", the man who is so strong that he snaps swords and tears off the arms of monsters with his enormous bear-like strength. This is clunky and likely should be split into two sentences.
  • Split.
  • Smaug enraged when Bilbo steals golden cup missing a verb.
  • Fixed.
That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? NoahTalk 01:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
All done. I'll take a look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Supporting now. NoahTalk 12:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now....(fascinating topic)

  • Lead looks a little choppy at 3 smallish paras...I might consolidate into two.....
  • Done.
  • werebear looks odd to me hyphenated....(but then again I've played D&D for over 40 years..)
  • Unhyphenated it is.
  • Beowulf was in the Tolkien scholar and fellow philologist Tom Shippey's words "the single work which influenced Tolkien most" - scans oddly when I read it - also, last segment can be reworded and dequoted.
  • Done.
  • Describe who Verlyn Flieger is
  • Glossed.
  • Among the many poems in The Lord of the Rings are some fine examples... - "fine" strikes me as POV...let words speak for themselves
  • Removed.
  • I'd probably put the The road of life segment at the bottom as a nice way to finish the article
  • Moved it down there.
  • Another large theme, in both.. - "large" strikes me as an odd usage...
  • Removed.

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

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

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I have a couple of questions:

  • Trolls
    • 'Noting that Tolkien compares them to beasts as they "came striding up, roaring like beasts ... bellowing", she observes that they "remain wordless warriors, like Grendel", although they are sentient, with intelligence and a single language, unlike the varied tongues of Tolkien's orcs.' I didn't understand this at all, are they wordless or do they have a single language?
      • Clarified. In The Lord of the Rings they never speak; in The Hobbit they use the common speech (represented as English). Tolkien regretted that early decision, as having language implied to him that they had souls and were not simply monstrous beasts. He never fully resolved the matter, which is discussed further in Troll (Middle-earth)#Speech, sentience, and souls. It's probably off-topic for this article.
        Thanks for the detailed reply (I've corrected the troll link above). The article is now clear in referring to The Return of the King and I agree that details of how the concept evolved are off-topic here. The further information link to Troll (Middle-earth) is there for the interested reader to follow. I may have a detailed look at that article one quiet evening... --M
  • Elegaic tone
    • "The Lord of the Rings, especially its last two books in The Return of the King": two books? one book?
      • The Lord of the Rings is in 6 books, which are printed in either 1 or 3 volumes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
        • There is no other mention in this article of the separation into six books, so this is a bit confusing even if correct. Perhaps change to: "The Lord of the Rings, especially in its last part The Return of the King", this provides all the information without any distraction about different presentations. --Mirokado (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Bad Times at the El Royale[edit]

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

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

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Hotel_Sets_and_Design_by_Martin_Whist.jpg is missing a fair-use tag and the purpose of use field in the FUR should be strengthened
  • File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Character_Posters.png: the fair-use rationale currently seems to be based on the image being used for identification purposes; that's not really what it's being used for here
  • File:Kubrick_on_the_set_of_Barry_Lyndon_(1975_publicity_photo)_(cropped).jpg: the given tag says year is required for a "literary, musical, or dramatic work " - which this is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Done the first two. I am confused about the third image. The public domain tag says it could be in the public domain if "it is a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work that does not include the year." There are other reasons listed that would put it in the public domain, including: "Notice does not include the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."" Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the original, it does include the word "Copyright"; is there another of those reasons that you feel may apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I guess not. The image has been replaced. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Two week update/reminder. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Still think the first item could be improved - why is this essential to reader understanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have removed it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


  • 2018 American neo-noir thriller film writtenWP:SOB?
  • and slow pacing. It — "slow pacing" is WP:VOICE
  • and Goddard Textiles, Goddard produced — repetition of Goddard
  • Furthermore, Erivo would also go on — "furthermore", "also go on", seems kinda redundant
  • chronological order, due to most of the story taking place in the same location, to improve — kinda awkward
  • was working on The Greatest Showman in 2017. — if, according to TGS's article, filming began in 2016, wouldn't that be 2016 and 2017
  • Working with "distinctive characters" he believed — comma after "characters"?
  • respectively, on October 12, 2018. — remove respectively as redundant
  • while a digital rerelease on → while a digital re-release on
  • included two additional songs, "This Old Heart — I think a colon, instead of a comma, would work better in this case
  • and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed → and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed (edit to see)
  • Following its rerelease, the soundtrack → Following its re-release, the soundtrack
  • know about the characters so far." — per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside of the quotation mark
  • high runtime, slow pacingWP:VOICEy
  • Wikilink weighted average
  • average reviews." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
  • and slow pacing.[3] AdditionallyWP:VOICE
  • gets too clever." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Bad Times at the El Royale should be italicised in citations

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

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

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I do not really see the benefit of File:Bad Times at the El Royale - Character Posters.png. When looking at it in the article, the individual posters are rather small, and I could not clearly make out the differences in appearance that are discussed in the caption. The eight character posters are also discussed in the prose. I am just uncertain about how useful this image really is in the article due to the size of each individual character poster.

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

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

Comment from indopug[edit]

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

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

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

Hamilcar's victory with Naravas[edit]

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

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

  • Image review—pass indeed I think I've seen all these images before (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Autaritus or Autharitus?
Oops. The former. Standardised.
  • "The rebels were finally defeated in 238 BC. " - the text is not so certain on this; which is correct?
Lead expanded to clarify.
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
  • Eckstein ref is misformatted - this appears to be an encyclopedia entry
It is called an encyclopedia, but it isn't. It is a straight forward set of history volumes.
  • Scullard: current title should be split across multiple parameters.

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

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

Support from Iazyges[edit]

Serial Numerus LIVCXXIX[edit]

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


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

  • "under Auharitus" - possible typo?
  • Link Polybius in the lead?
  • Map in the prelude section - which number is this battle, or what relative area? It's not marked
  • " If Hannibal was to avoid starvation, he was going to have to leave his camp " - this is the first mention of Hannibal, can his role be better introduced before this point?
  • "was a young Numidian noble named Navaras" - wrong spelling/link?

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


  • Oh, seems like one of the few times recently that Gog's FACs has lingered far enough for me to get in on it in time. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "south west of their capital." What does "their" refer to?
  • Wouldn't the "Modern recreations" photo make more sense under Opposing armies (and right aligned)?
  • "describes to this as "a gross oversimplification" Remove "to"?
  • The link here to Libyans goes to Berbers, which is already linked. Something more specific to link to? Ancient Libya?
I just changed the redirect link of Ancient Libyans to go to the above instead. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Both Spain and Gaul" Anything to link?
  • War elephant is duplinked.
  • "with widely separated possibilities being suggested" Could we get some examples? With the article being so short, I don't think it would hurt elaborating on this point.
  • Navaras links to Indian aesthetics... I guess it's just a typo for Naravas. That spelling is used at least once, with a wrong link..
  • Where were the Romans in all this? One might expect them to support the rebels? Or perhaps that's covered in the article about the wider mercenary war?
  • "An illustration by Victor Armand Poirson which envisages the crucifixion of Spendius and his lieutenants in front of Tunis." Where is this identification from? Neither the Commons description or the source it is taken form are this specific.
  • Link Numidian cavalry in the article body too.
  • "Polybius to term it the "Truceless War"" This particular battle, or the mercenary war in general?

1937 Brazilian coup d'état[edit]

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

@Nikkimaria: I have responded to the image review.
@Nikkimaria: I believe your concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Some of the new images have fixed px size and are missing alt text
Done; I didn't know fixed px was an issue. Added alt text.
  • Did Correio da Manhã include a copyright notice?
If you mean in the newspaper itself, no. I can't find copyright notice on their photos.
  • File:José_Américo_de_Almeida_no_Catete._(cropped).tif: what is the status of this work in the US?
Same situation; see below for Flores da Cunha photo. Here is the photo per the National Archive. Produced by the Agência Nacional, it is under their license.
The current tags on the image are contradictory - either it's a government work or it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
PD in Brazil, CC for United States as below
Is this a government work, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a government work.
  • File:Deputado_José_Antônio_Flores_da_Cunha.tif: what does the Archive state about the provenance of this work? What is its status in the US?
I was able to find it here as part of the web archive. Information can be found here. It was produced the Agência Nacional, proof here (this link may not work since it is on the archive's SIAN website and a login is required) and already mentioned on its page. Added the agency's license. I don't believe a link is necessary since the accession number and collection are provided.
As above - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
PD in Brazil since it is in possession by the National Archive, but CC for United States (and also Brazil, I would suppose) since it was produced by Agencia Nacional.
  • File:Discurso_do_presidente_da_República_Getúlio_Vargas_na_instalação_do_Estado_Novo_no_Palácio_Guanabara..wav: what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Added US licensing. I am a bit unsure on this one, but it should meet first two requirements and the last of the four.
When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It is a radio broadcast from 10 November 1937. That is stated in its documentation and in the first minute or so of the broadcast itself. Assuming by "published" you mean when it was disclosed to the public or when it was broadcast through an agency, that should be the date.

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

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

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Fausto, Boris; Fausto, Sergio (2014) per WorldCat it looks like all editions were either published in São Paulo, Brazil (currently presented location) by the Universidade de São Paulo, or in New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press (current publisher). Currently used ISBN gives New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press. Whichever edition you used, standardize to that, and if it's São Paulo, Brazil by Universidade de São Paulo, you'll need to change the ISBN to whichever is used in the text.
  • Dulles, John W.F. (1967) what is the year of the edition you used? The ISBN provided links to a 2012 edition; if you used the 2012 edition change the date to 2012, and insert an orig-year of 1967. If you used a 1967 copy, change the ISBN to whatever is used in the text.
  • Pandolfi, Dulce Chaves (2004) add a |trans-title parameter of the English title.
  • Skidmore, Thomas E. (2010) add identifier; a common ISBN for the 2010 edition is 9780195374551, but check your edition.
  • Young, Jordan M. (1967) add an id from whichever you used; it will likely be an OCLC.
Notes (non-issues)
  • For Hudson, Rex A. I fixed the template used; Country study has its own template, and cite web isn't really appropriate.
  • Meade, Teresa A. (2010) Facts-on-file is not the greatest publisher but she has been published by university presses, so I won't object to inclusion.
  • @FredModulars: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • Vargas had risen to power in 1930 with the backing of the military following a revolution which ended a decades-old oligarchy. Comma after military and it should be "that ended".
  • Under a new constitution, Vargas became the constitutional president of Brazil. Probably should link the constitution in this sentence.
Unfortunately, there is no article on the constitution on the en Wikipedia. I linked it to the section on it in the article History of the Constitution of Brazil.
  • With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. With few other options, Rio Grande do Sul's Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. Im not seeing the connection. Did the declaration of war grant Vargas additional powers that made him more of a threat to the governor? Something else?
Changed to "With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. After having his state's militia be incorporated into federal forces by a state of war commission in his state, Rio Grande do Sul Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. State governors of Bahia and Pernambuco were also attacked by commissions in their states." This should clarify that the state of war allowed the federal government to pursue more interventions in the states.
  • Francisco Campos [pt] was drafting a new constitution. Why? Was this to give Vargas more power? Something else? Link the new constitution as well.
Clarified. Linked to a section in the History of the Constitution of Brazil.
  • By November, the president held most of the power in the country and nothing stood in the way of the intricate plan from taking place Comma before the "and". The second part after the junction is a bit clunky.
Done. Changed "nothing stood in the way of" to "little stopped."
  • In the coup's aftermath, a semi-fascist, authoritarian state was propped up in Brazil based on European fascist countries. Comma after Brazil.
  • Foreign reaction was mostly negative. Wouldn't it be reactions and were?
I meant it as a general reaction to the coup, but that makes more sense.
  • The First Brazilian Republic ended with the Revolution of 1930 You should elaborate a bit more in this overview sentence (a generalization of why it ended).
The paragraph explains the causes for the revolution. I believe it would be unnecessary and repetitive.
  • By now, the military and figures such as military politician General Góis Monteiro [pt] supported Vargas. by now doesn't make much sense. I would say something like "At that time" or "At that point".
  • The aftermath was harsh. Historians Boris and Sergio Fausto note, "it opened the way for far-reaching repressive measures and for an escalation of authoritarianism". Could these two be merged together? It likely is a with/ing kinda deal.
Added a semicolon.
  • became a permanent organization lasting until 1945. Comma after organization.
  • ending with the arrest of several assemblymen, supporters of the pro-National Liberation Alliance, a leftist front; No "and" in this list?
It's not a list, and this may be confusing. The assemblymen were the supporters of the ANL. The ANL was a leftist front. I have reworded the sentence: "who were supporters..."
  • The 1934 constitution essentially existed only de jure. The states of emergency, police actions, and the anti-communist climate violated it. These could likely be combined.
Changed to "existed only de jure, as the states..."
  • arose in its aftermath You should clarify which aftermath since you mention the coup and the revolt in the same sentence.
Changed to "arose in the aftermath of the communist insurrection."
  • Vargas found support from all sides, and three constitutional amendments were passed by Congress to bolster Vargas's power --> "Vargas found support from all sides, with congress passing three constitutional amendments to bolster his power"
  • Luís Carlos Prestes assumed responsibility for the movement after he was caught in March 1936, sentenced to seventeen years in prison by the TSN Change the comma to a semicolon and add "he was".
  • Through late 1936 to early 1937 Through should be from since it is the starting time.
  • supported Armando de Sales Oliveira ; Extra space here.
  • Congress refused a request to prolong the state of war I assume a request to extend it even further?
Yes. Added "again."
  • The military joined in the effort making a plethora of accusations against Cunha Comma after effort.
  • Maciel Filho described the atmosphere in mid-September writing Comma after mid-September.
I believe this was written to convey the writing was of mid-September. Nevertheless, it makes no difference. Done.
This is all for now. I will do the rest of the article later. NoahTalk 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • On 1 November there was a parade of the Integralist militia Comma after November.
  • national plebiscite detailed in the new constitution was held Phrase from detailed through constitution should be offset by commas.
  • those in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo,[e] Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco's intervenors were replaced. This is a bit clunky.
Changed to "Most appointees had succeeded themselves. Intervenors in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco, however, were replaced."
  • Instead, he presented a new program of activity, with new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and implementing "a great steelworks" that could use local minerals and offer employment. verb tenses don't match throughout the sentence.
Changed to "Instead, he presented a new program of activity, including new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and the implementation of "a great steelworks" that was to provide local minerals and offer employment."
  • Civil rights were curtailed and individual liberties were nominal. The proposed Congress never met. Could these be combined?
Changed to a series.
  • Vargas's term was lengthened by six years, and he could now run for re-election --> "making him eligible to run for re-election" has a better flow.
The lengthening of his term does not imply he was allowed re-election. Reworded to ", and he was now eligible to run for re-election."
  • Political parties were outlawed on 2 December 1937. However, Vargas saw no reason to build support using a political party or an ideological program. Im not seeing a contrast?
This was supposed to contrast with the idea of the entire paragraph. The section implies Vargas had unlimited power and leaves the reader thinking he was totalitarian or fascist, which is only partially true (and completely false by the end of the Estado Novo) and contrasts with historians' view of him. Since these encompass two different ideas, I have separated them into two paragraphs.
  • During this new period, Vargas ruled as dictator; his term ended on 29 October 1945. Why did it end?
I originally wanted to exclude this because it is drifting a bit too far from the direct aftermath of the coup. Added a paragraph at the end of A new regime to summarize how he lost, regained, and again lost power. After Vargas dies the political scene slowly shifts away from him and his crew and his memory is slowly forgotten, so that is enough. Many things are details (e.g. "a political crisis") because explaining them would drift too far away from the idea of the article.
  • United States ambassador to Brazil Jefferson Caffery Ambassador should be capitalized in this case.
  • Sources are out of order in multiple locations.
  • Portuguese is a duplicate link in the lead.
  • Hora do Brasil is a duplicate link.
That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? NoahTalk 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: Addressed all issues presented. Thanks for the review, I'll check out your candidate. FredModulars (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe everything has been addressed appropriately so I am now supporting. NoahTalk 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

  • You have quite a few "Further information" links at the top of the "Brazil in the early 1930s" subsection; I would suggest you cut the links that are already in that paragaph, which is most of them -- links like that are for the benefit of the reader who wants more information and has no opportunity to seek it via links in the text. I'd also suggest linking to the 1930 revolution from "armed revolution in October that year".
    I removed all but First Brazilian Republic and Brazilian Revolution of 1930. Though they are linked already, they are the most vital in my opinion. Linking to the 1930 revolution from "armed revolution in October that year" is unnecessary since it is introduced at the beginning of the paragraph and, therefore, already linked. If you think it would be better to conclude the paragraph with the revolution, I can change it around.
    No, it's fine as is; I missed that link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The 1929 economic crisis was undermining an oligarchy which had dominated Brazilian politics since the 1890s and concentrated power in the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais. The oligarchy collapsed when then-president of São Paulo Washington Luís violated the agreement by..." The oligarchy and the agreement are two separate things, but here they're treated as if they are the same -- or else the "agreement" has no referent. It's also not clear to me why we're mentioning the 1929 economic crisis -- we don't say in what way the economic issues undermined the oligarchy. I would either make it clearer how events of 1929 affected "coffee with milk", or remove the reference and start with the nomination of Prestes.
    Changed to "the oligarchy's agreement..." Also changed the second issue to "The 1929 economic crisis was undermining the power of..." A crisis of any sort would truncate the rule of any group, or at least diminish their influence. Details like "why" and "how" aren't necessary for the reader to understand this topic, that's what further info and links to main articles are for. Right now, the idea of the oligarchy breaking apart should be conveyed to them.
    That's better, and I take your point, but can we make it "had undermined", or perhaps just "undermined"? I don't think the continuous present adds anything. Also, reading it again, I think we might be able to simplify it a bit more -- you explain the agreement towards the end of the sentence, so can we cut the reference to it at the start, making it "The oligarchy collapsed when then-president from São Paulo Washington Luís nominated another person of his home state, Júlio Prestes, to succeed him instead of acting within the terms of the inter-state agreement and nominating a candidate from Minas Gerais"? Or "terms of the oligarchy's agreement"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    Changed to your first proposal (The oligarchy collapsed when then-president from São Paulo Washington Luís nominated another person of his home state, Júlio Prestes, to succeed him instead of acting within the terms of the inter-state agreement and nominating a candidate from Minas Gerais). Also changed to "undermined".
  • You describe Luís as "then-president of São Paulo" but he was president of Brazil at that time, surely?
    Originally, it was "and paulista" with a link to Paulista. After another user added an unreferenced note clarifying he was born in Rio, I wanted to clarify he was of São Paulo, i.e., his home state, without it remaining unreferenced. Changed to "from São Paulo."
    I don't think that's enough -- I had no idea reading this that he was president of Brazil. It was only when I went to the linked articles I realized I'd missed that, and your edit still doesn't tell the reader that directly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    Changed to "when then-President Washington Luís, from São Paulo, nominated..."
    Struck, since I think that does make it unambiguous, but here's another phrasing you might consider that's even more direct: "collapsed when the President of Brazil, Washington Luís, who was from São Paulo, nominated". You don't really need "then-president" since you have "when" indicating this is of a particular time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    Removed then-.
  • "At that time, the military and figures such as military politician General Góis Monteiro supported Vargas." I'm not clear why Monteiro is worth mentioning here. Is it the case that generally military figures supported Vargas but other political figures did not, so that Vargas's support in the political arena was restricted to ex-military figures such as Monteiro? (Or was Monteiro still on active service at this time?)
    Right now is a good time to introduce Monteiro, not only as an example of a military figure supporting Vargas, but also because he was a revolutionary leader and, something that is later mentioned, an architect of the 1937 coup. I can see the confusion, so I have just removed "military politician" entirely.
    I'll let this go if you feel strongly that this is the right way to introduce Monteiro, but I think it distracts rather than informs. You don't mention Monteiro for several more sections, and it's not clear why Monteiro is picked out -- and now that you've removed "military politician" and retained "General" it's not clear why he is separate from "the military". I don't know if this fits the sources, but could we do something like "At that time, the military supported Vargas, as did some [or many?] politicians with a connection to the military, such as General Góis Monteiro, later a significant figure in the 1937 coup?" Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    In these early sections, there is the reoccurring dilemma of wanting to exclude information that is generally unimportant to the 1937 coup but important to this era as a whole. The result is that the information is poorly condensed. For context, though I am sure you have inquired into him already, Monteiro was an influential military figure and a leader of the 1930 revolution, which is why I wanted the reader to at least acknowledge he was active in this time period if they were to research further. Seeing how this is an issue, and how the reader will most likely forget about this man when they get to "Preparation", I have just introduced him there and slightly reworded this sentence.
    I think that's better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What does "paulistas" refer to? Just a link might be enough.
  • "Until then, Vargas was the provisional president": here "then" refers to the Constitutionalist Revolution in the previous sentence, but that's not what you mean. I think it would be better to mention his title at the point he assumes it, which is presumably in 1930. Can we make the first sentence of that paragraph "...and assumed all policy-making power, taking the title of provisional president" or "... as provisional president"? Then just cut the 1933 sentence to start "Vargas permitted elections in May 1933 to a National Constituent Assembly..."
    That sounds better. Changed to "In the revolution's aftermath, Vargas became provisional president," and cut the 1933 sentence to your suggestion. I was only concerned that the reader may think elections were a result of the 1932 revolution, but I don't think that should be an issue.
  • "From 23 November to 27 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte." This isn't quite right, is it? Unless I've misread the linked articles, the attempted coup begins on 23 November in Rio Grande do Norte, but giving a range of five days as you do must refer to Recife and Rio de Janeiro as well; the way you have it, those events "followed" those in Natal but the reader can't see that the dates you give refer to them.
    The events in Natal, Recife, and Rio were interconnected. They were all the same revolt, just in different locations and varying in size. It is worded this way because the revolts began in Natal. The communist insurrection wasn't limited to only Natal, which is why the sentence is worded as "began in Rio Grande do Norte."
    I see that, but I think this doesn't say what you want it to. How about: "On 23 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte, and over the next four days the movement spread to Recife and Rio de Janeiro. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until it was defeated. The army's response in Rio de Janeiro was especially bloody..."? That makes it clear that the 23 November date applies only to Rio Grande do Norte, but that the movement is the same coup attempt in all three places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    Reworded it a bit, but retained the general idea. "From 23 November to 27 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until it was defeated. The movement proceeded in Recife and Rio de Janeiro, where the encounters between tr