Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

MSincccc

Lead

• Delink "New York City".
• Link "Façade"?
• You could link "25th Street" in the lead.
• The Appellate Division Courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and its facade and interior are both New York City designated landmarks.
  • Do we need the comma in this sentence?

Site

• You could change The Appellate Division Courthouse occupies the northeast corner of the intersection of Madison Avenue and 25th Street in the Flatiron District neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S.

to The Appellate Division Courthouse occupies the northeast corner of the intersection of Madison Avenue and 25th Street in the Flatiron District neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City.

• Delink "New York City" in the above sentence.
• “occupies a site directly to the north” → “occupies the site directly to the north”

MSincccc (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments. I've done most of these, except "The Appellate Division Courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and its facade and interior are both New York City designated landmarks." Per the essay WP:CINS, I think a comma there is preferable. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Noleander

• Looks like another excellent article. In the lead I see Shortly after their discovery of penicillin, the Oxford team[clarify] reported... with a "clarify" tag (and the bolded text is displayed in a non-standard font). Is there a plan to eliminate that tag? Noleander (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  It appears to have been added last week. No discussion on the talk page, so I have removed the tag. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

This is a long article, so I'll poke at the review bit by bit over the next bunch of days.

• I, like all right-thinking people, support the Oxford comma. But whichever way you feel, pick one and be uniform. I mostly see not, but also "Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and diphtheria bacillus" and "Chongqing, Bombay, and Cape Town."

  As we say in Australia: "A wombat eats, roots, shoots, and leaves." I was awaiting the outcome of the latest discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Fewer commas but I have gone through and removed the superfluous commas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• However, ancient practitioners could not precisely identify or isolate the active components in these organisms.[1][2] Is "precisely" needed? I suspect plain "could not identify" would be more correct?

  Sure. Deleted "precisely". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• He also described the antibacterial action on human tissue of Penicillium glaucum but did not publish his results.[6] If not published, where was it described?

  Added "in his notebooks". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• French biologists Louis Pasteur and Jules Francois Joubert if we don't have an article on enwiki (and I can't find one), you could link to fr:Jules Joubert.

  Added a {{ill}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Likewise for fr:Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences

  There is an English language article on Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• It seems odd that you mention that various people got Nobels for their work, but not Koch.

  Because it was not for the work described. Added a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• I inoculated on the untouched cooled [gelatin] plate alternate parallel strokes of B. fluorescens Why "B. fluorescens" not "P. fluorescens"? I'm guessing there is a historical reason for this, which deserves an explanatory footnote.

  If you have one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't, but maybe Sailing moose could write something? RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Name changes as more is learned about the organism...continuous since the advent of genome sequencing. Try keeping track of plants :-) Sailing moose (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• But these findings received little attention as the antibacterial agent and its medical value were not fully understood, and Gratia's samples were lost.[19][20] I think this would read better as "These findings, however ..."

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• While working at St Mary's Hospital, London in 1928, Alexander Fleming, a Scottish physician was investigating comma after "physician"?

  Comma added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Fleming resumed his vacation and returned in September this is a bit odd given that he was already there on 3 September. Maybe "returned to the lab again later that month"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• He collected the original mould and grew it in culture plates this is a little confusing, since earlier you said he preserved the plates in formaldehyde.

  Deleted phrase to avoid any confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• On testing against different bacteria I would have written "Upon testing", but maybe either way is fine.
• The source of the fungal contamination in Fleming's experiment remained a speculation for several decades. there's a word missing somewhere. "a topic of speculation", perhaps?

  Added additional words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• because penicillin is only effective on bacteria when they are reproducing. link to Bacteriostatic agent

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Penicillin is bacteriocidal. However, bacteria have to be actively replicating to be killed, since penicillin interferes with cell wall synthesis. Sailing moose (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• former research student of his who had studied biochemistry, to study the chemical properties rephrase to eliminate the repetition of "study". Also, this is in an overly long and complicated sentence, so break that up.

  Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(that takes me through the end of Discovery, I'll pick up again another time).

• In 1939, at the Sir William Dunn School of Pathology ... might be a fruitful avenue of research.[49][50] overly-complex sentence could be broken up into smaller chunks.

  Split sentence in twain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Howard Florey led an interdisciplinary research team ... Generally, use the full name the first time (i.e. in the previous sentence), then just the surname (here).

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Howard Florey approached the MRC in September 1939 Spell out Medical Research Council the first time and link to Medical Research Council (United Kingdom)

  Spelt out and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• allocating £250 (equivalent to £20,000 in 2023) to launch the project, with £300 for salaries (equivalent to £23,000 in 2023) and £100 for expenses (equivalent to £8,000 in 2023) Maybe just say £1450 (equiv to ...) over three years for easier reading with no significant loss of information for this article's purposes.

  £250 + £300 + £100 = £650. I like the breakdown though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Florey wrote in the application letter, "in addition to its theoretical importance, may have practical value for therapeutic purposes."[59] In the last paragraph, you said they didn't think it had any clinical application. I'm curious what changed their mind about this.

  Mellanby. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding £300 (equivalent to £21,000 in 2023), what I've done in the past is to use that construct the first time, then switch to the less verbose "$2 million ($70 million in 2024)" which is produced by $2{{nbsp}}million (${{format price|{{inflation|US|2000000|1908}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US}}). It's absurdly complicated in the source, but I think makes for easier reading in the end result. Just a suggestion.

  While working on Manned Orbiting Laboratory, where every sum was in the millions, I proposed enhancing the inflation template, but my proposal was rejected in favour of the cumbersome formula you describe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• The pH was lowered by the addition of phosphoric acid and the resulting liquid was cooled.[72] Chain determined that penicillin was stable only with a pH of between 5 and 8, but the process required one lower than that. This is confusing. If adding the phosphoric acid brought the solution out of the stable range, why was it done?

  Re-worded . Linked Dissociation (chemistry). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  It occurs to me that all the things described here (adjusting ph, temp, solvents, filtration, etc) are standard tools for doing chemical separations. I know that because I still have some dim memory of doing these things in organic chem lab, but to many of our readers it will probably totally mysterious why they tried these things. So, it might be worth a brief mention that these were common techniques and link to some article which talks about extraction/separation.

  Yes, totally routine for any chemist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Short glass cylinders containing the penicillin-bearing fluid to be tested were then placed on them Unclear what "them" is referring to.

  Sigh. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• By then the fluid would have disappeared where did it go? Evaporated? Consumed?

  The source says:

  By the end of incubation most of the fluid in the cylinders has disappeared and each cylinder is surrounded by a circular zone where no bacterial growth has occurred.

  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• fifty mice, half of whom received penicillin. All fifty of the control mice I assume either 100 mice total, or 25 controls?

  Oops. Should be 25, not 50. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• doses of penicillin were administered to two patients at the Presbyterian Hospital in New York City, Aaron Alston and Charles Aronson. what disease did they have?

  Bacterial endocarditis. Added and provided a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Penicillin was recovered from his urine as they say on the ISS, "Yesterday's Penicillin is tomorrow's Penicillin" :-)

  That it is excreted in this manner became important for the treatment of urinary tract infections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Kembel, Bishop and Company delivered its first batch of 910 litres how many doses that that yield?

  Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• a byproduct of the corn industry that the NRRL routinely tried in the hope of finding more uses for it. And here we are, 80 years later, still looking for ways to subsidise the corn industry.
• 300 milligrams of penicillin per litre of mould per "liter of mould culture" perhaps?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• (image caption) A 1957 fermentor used to grow Penicillium mould in the Science Museum, London clarify that it's just on display at the museum, not that they are growing mould in the museum. Or are they?

  Good question. They have a huge collection of moulds. (video) Re-worded to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• By 1944, CSL was producing 400 million Oxford units per week Enough for how many doses, and/or to treat how many people?

  About 400. It takes about a million per treatment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Two 23,000-litre (5,000 imp gal) tanks became operational in 1948, followed by eight more what year did the other eight appear?

  Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• and Glaxo ceased production in 1975 and CSL in 1980 the double "and" is awkward.

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Likewise with and one was sent to Heinz Öppinger at Hoechst in Frankfurt, and he began conducting experiments with moulds ... and Öppinger developed a rotating drum

  Tweaked working. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Fragner Pharmaceutical Company might be worth mentioning "Now Zentiva".

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• with plant and expertise from Canada it's not clear what "with plant" means in this context.

  Changed to physical plant and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• to be built in Rome near the Sapienza University of Rome I'd drop the "of Rome"

  Deleted "in Rome". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• production shifted thereafter to a new plant that produced 300 million units per week.[151][152] In 1947 ICI decided to construct a new plant to produce 32,000 litres (7,000 imp gal) of penicillin per day by the deep submergence method.[153] Again, it's unclear how units and liters should be compared to each other. How many units in a litre? How many doses that that produce? I'll stop bugging you about that, but take a look at the whole article to see if there's other place this could apply to.

  It sort of depends on the purity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• t in September 1943 it switch to using corn steep liquor switched (past tense)?
• US penicillin production rose from 21.192 billion units in 1943, to 1,663 billion units in 1944, and an estimated 6,852 billion units in 1945 even if reporting production to five significant digits is justifed in the literature, I'd shy away from it here. It's just noise. 21 billion, 1.7 billion, 6.9 billion seems more user-friendly.

(I'll pick up with "In the field" next time)

• Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Florey considered that the source of infection in many cases was from the hospital link to Hospital-acquired infection

  Linked. This is really far-sighted; Florey would be quite at home in a 21st century hospital. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• there were large numbers of venereal disease cases, against which penicillin was particularly effective VD covers a wide range of infections; was it effective against all of these, or specifically just gonorrhea?

  All bacterial types, including chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'm reading Chemical analysis now and reminded of a question I had earlier. Way back at the end of "Isolation", you said had worked out the chemical formula as 24H32O10N2Ba. I was surprised to see Barium in there. I'm guessing that was just some salt contaminant and not actually part of the penicillin molecule itself? If there's anything that talks about that, it might be worth a brief mention, either here or above.

  The source says: "The barium salt is strongly lsevorotatory in aqueous solution." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Glaxo paid almost £500,000 (equivalent to £15,763,091 in 2023) please use the r= parameter to set some reasonable number of significant digits. 2 or 3 at the outside.

  Rounded to five. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, that does it for me. This is an exceptional article and it was a pleasure to read. All of the points noted above are really nits and I see no reason to hold up my Support waiting for you to address them. RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Sailing moose

I am a microbiologist who studied antibiotic resistance for many years. This is a fantastic article explained at a level a non-specialist can understand. My only quibble: the following sentence with references to penicillins K and G comes out of nowhere; the different penicillins aren't discussed until much later in the article. "This produced more than twice the penicillin of X-1612, but in the form of the less desirable penicillin K.[c] Phenylacetic acid was added to switch it to producing the highly potent penicillin G. This strain could produce up to 550 milligrams of penicillin per litre.[126][120]"

I had trouble with this too, so I added footnote d, which says: "See § Chemical analysis for the different forms of penicillin" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

What a delightful article! I had to think for a moment as to whether the King is descended from Henry VII. (Of course he is!) Nothing to add (numismatics is beyond my area of expertise.) One question:

• Why are all the details about mass, diameter etc in the infobox but not the body?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• I've added some prose on that. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:British threepence 1967 obverse.png, File:British threepence 1967 reverse.png, File:1937 Edward threepence obverse.jpeg, File:1937 Edward threepence reverse.jpeg, File:1937 George threepence obverse.jpeg, File:1937 George threepence reverse.jpeg: Coin minted before 1975 - okay
• File:Decimal currency board.jpeg - Crown copyright, published 1971

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the image review. Heritage Auctions comes through again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm on their Christmas card list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• You could consider adding the "Use British English" template.
• Link the "Royal Mint"?
• "12-sided. coin bearing a woman's head"→ “12-sided coin bearing a woman’s head"
• Drop the commas before by and after Kitchener?
  • I meant changing The initial reverse design, by Frances Madge Kitchener, of a thrift plant, was altered... to The initial reverse design by Frances Madge Kitchener of a thrift plant, was altered.... MSincccc (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Inception

• , it was unpopular in England, and especially in London, The penny
  • A comma splice.

MSincccc (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Designs

• You could link today the article Abdication of Edward VIII in this sentence:

By the time of King Edward's abdication in December 1936,...

• You could link to the Royal Mint Museum as well.
• I leave it you but we have an article on the Formalities when Elizabeth II became queen.

**By the above, I meant you could link to accession in this sentence: With the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952,... MSincccc (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say leave it be. We really aren't talking about the ceremonies and whatnot.

Production

• Link "numismatics?
• You have linked "Prince of Wales" in the previous section; consider doing so for "Duke of Windsor"?
• “well-advanced” → “well advanced”
  • Since British usage avoids hyphenating "well" compounds when used after a verb.

Production (Edward VIII)

• How about naming "Wallis Simpson" explicitly in this section?

I added Wallis.

• There is an article on John J. Ford Jr. of the New Netherlands Coin Company.

Designs

• You could link to the article Abdication of Edward VIII in this sentence:

By the time of King Edward's abdication in December 1936,...

• You could link to the Royal Mint Museum as well.
• I leave it you but we have an article on the formalities when Elizabeth II became queen ("accesion").

Production

• Link "numismatics?
• You have linked "Prince of Wales" in the previous section; consider doing so for "Duke of Windsor"?
• “well-advanced” → “well advanced”
  • Since British usage avoids hyphenating "well" compounds when used after a verb.

Production (Edward VIII)

• How about naming "Wallis Simpson" explicitly in this section?
• There is an article on John J. Ford Jr. of the New Netherlands Coin Company.

That's all for the time being. I hope these have been of help. MSincccc (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Great help, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

General

• As a matter of fact, even "legal tender" has a Wikipedia article on the subject.

Production (George VI)

• According to Richard Farmer in his journal article on the introduction of the brass threepence,...
  • Is the name of the journal or the specific article known?

It's in the "Sources".

• Link "Second World War"?
• You could link "Post Office" to General Post Office.

I've read upto the end of the Production section. MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, made those changes. If I've missed anything, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The comma splice in the Inception section exists and the "Use British English" template is still missing from the mainspace. MSincccc (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added the template and I think fixed the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Collecting

• You could link "Spink" to Spink & Son.

Bottom line

Except for a minor suggestion in the Collecting section (see above), the article is in good shape, and I enjoyed reading through it. Thank you for bringing it to FAC. Support. MSincccc (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review. I'm grateful for it and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Support from MisawaSakura

Now that Wehwalt has fixed MSincccc's concerns, I fully support. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Image review

Here shall be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• File:Donkey Kong character.png - Fair use
• File:Cranky Kong.jpg - Fair use
• File:Shigeru Miyamoto at E3 2013 1 (cropped).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0 de
• File:Donkey Kong design evolution.png - Fair use
• File:Grant Kirkhope by Gage Skidmore.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Seth Rogen at Collision 2019 - SM0 1823 (47106936404) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:King Kong 1933 Promotional Image.png - Public Domain
• File:Monster Jam - 2008 - Tacoma, Wa (3453973810).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• All of the images have appropriate alt-text for accessibility, all have proper captioning and are relevant to the article.
  • Happy to give a pass for the image review!

TheNuggeteer

I am new to the process of FA reviewing, so I might make some errors.

• "where he became a corporal his sophomore year and a supply sergeant the following year." I believe you need to link "corporal" and "supply sergeant".
• Kindly link "battalion training officer".
• "A daughter of a rural fisherman-farmer in Stornoway, of the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, at eighteen Mary Anne emigrated to the United States." This sentence seems confusing.
• "Fred indoctrinated Donald by repeating to him, "You are a king...You are a killer."" How is this relevant and is there any more context about this?
• "The Trumps moved into the nine-room, Colonial-style mansion in 1948" I assume you need to uncapitalize "Colonial-style".
• "but he was ornery and bored" who are you referring to: Freddy or Donald?
• "Trump had a poor batting average of .056 in his final year, according to box scores" can you add how this is poor?
• "Division III football club as a punter, but quit" kindly remove comma.
• "notes in class, but" same with this.
• "He participated in Fordham's Reserve Officers' Training Corps program, but" same with this.
• "often elevated their grades ensure" to "often elevated their grades to ensure"
• "insistent that his son graduate" to "insistent that his son had graduated"

This is my full prose review. This is a nice article, yet some issues remain. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

In order:

1. I did not intentionally link "corporal" and "supply sergeant" because those are military ranks. The New York Military Academy used those ranks for their own purposes, but Trump was not actually in the military.
2. There is no page for "battalion training officer".
3. I did not write this and I went ahead and reworded it.
4. I did not write this and I went ahead and reworded it.
5. As far as I know, "Colonial" is capitalized when referring to Colonial America—a proper noun—and lowercase when it is used generally.
6. I did not write this and I went ahead and reworded it. There was an aspect that you had missed, because "but" implies that he should not have been "ornery and bored".
7. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It was a poor average.
8. Fixed.
9. Fixed.
10. Fixed.
11. Fixed.
12. Not a mistake. Fred sought to it that his sons attend an Ivy League institution. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

MisawaSakura

• EFNs - same are like this "[11][b]", others are like this "[b][11]". They need to be consistent. They're supposed to be like this: "[11][b]" MisawaSakura (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

SusanLesch

Thank you, this article is needed. The main Donald Trump biography where I have been contributing perennially runs into Wikipedia's WP:PEIS limit (tracking). It's nigh impossible to add much there.

Only one thing missing here that I know of. Biographers Kranish and Fisher write (p. 81) that Trump considered two people to be his mentors: his father and Norman Vincent Peale. Haberman and O'Brien and maybe Blair are additional sources for Peale. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I seem to recall something in Craig and Buettner about Peale's book, but perhaps I'm confusing it with Haberman. I'll take a look at some of the literature there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

Ref 193 Yu, Brandon (October 16, 2025) and 208 have an error. Ref 147 (Collider) is a Valnet source so I'd suggest finding a replacement. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0:, thanks for these, should be fixed. 750h+ 14:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• “acheived” → “achieved”
  • Typo.
• He earned critical acclaim and a nomination for Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for portraying an amateur police officer
  • Hawke's character is a rookie cop, not an “amateur".

Read upto the end of the Early life section. MSincccc (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Career

• Robert Ebert→ Roger Ebert
• one of the survivors of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571
  • Missing the definite article before "Uruguayan".
• A New York Times writer observed→ Caryn James...
  • Since we know the author, who is notable enough.
• Entertainment Weekly is linked twice in the same subsection.

MSincccc (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc thanks for these. 750h+ 12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Career (continued)

• while The New York Times noted that Hawke showed "a novelist's innate gifts...
  • Even this review was written by Caryn James.
• with one from New York Daily News stating that Hawke and co-star Laurence Fishburne made the film work, "supported by a mostly strong cast".
  • Jami Bernard, of the New York Daily News, has a Wikipedia article and could be named here.
• while Peter Travers, writing for Rolling Stone,...
  • Link "Rolling Stone"?
• including New York Daily News reviewer
  • As a matter of fact, only "Daily News" is italicised in the article's title.
• Replace "garnered" with "received"?

MSincccc (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: mostly done. Nothing wrong with ‘garnered’ I don’t think, adds a bit of variety. 750h+ 15:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, since it is an encyclopedia (more that it is a potential FA-in-the making) I thought "received" fits in more than "garnered" does even though I leave it for you to decide. MSincccc (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Career (continued)

• “he and Delpy's character” → “his and Delpy’s characters”
• “universal acclaim from critics” → “critical acclaim”
  • So as to keep it simple and encyclopediac.
• "A writer for The Hollywood Reporter" → "The Hollywood Reporter"
  • Since the article has not been attributed to a specific individual.
• "His role as abolitionist John Brown" → "His role as the abolitionist John Brown"
  • It would be better to avoid the false title here, though I leave it to you.
• Collider said that Hawke played "at his best as the Grabber"
  • Link "collider"?
• “writin in” → “writing in”

MSincccc (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: thanks for these! 750h+ 02:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Artistry and screen technique

• You could link to "Esquire" magazine and "blockbuster".

A solitary suggestion for this section. MSincccc (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: done. 750h+ 10:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Personal life and other ventures

• “A caucasian woman” → “A Caucasian woman”

MSincccc (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: done. 750h+ 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

That's a support from me. By the way, I have a GA nomination which has been open for quite some time now; you could take a look if interested. MSincccc (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Good grief! You don't let the grass grow under your feet. It's less than two hours since I posted my informal review of the article, and as all your replies to my minor quibbles were completely satisfactory I am happy to sign on the dotted line here. The article is fairly brief – though three times longer, if you please, than her article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography – but looks to me to be pretty comprehensive. Well sourced, evidently neutral and balanced, a jolly good read and surprisingly well illustrated. Gladly supporting. Could we have a more salubrious subject next? One of your pioneering British cooks, perhaps? – Tim riley talk 15:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your earlier comments, which helped a lot. More death com8ng up with my next one, I’m afraid, but I’ll have a cook along after that. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from MisawaSakura

I 100 percent agree with Tim riley. I am very impressed with this, especially since it was just posted to FAC. Images check out good too. MisawaSakura (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from Jim

A lovely lady! No criticisms from me, many thanks for this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

UC

• A reader who gets to the end of the article is rewarded by the revelation that the lead image looks nothing like Lyon. Can we say that in the caption?
• It might be worth footnoting on the first day-month date that Britain used the Julian Calendar until 1752, so e.g. 4 September in this article is not the same as 4 September today. On the other hand, we're still before most other places adopted the Gregorian Calendar, so I don't think this is essential.
• We have "fl. 1722–1726" in the lead, but the first date on which we attest her existence is given as "1722 or 1723" in the body. We also raise a possible attestation in 1721. Suggest therefore sticking a "circa" on that first date.
• At her instigation, Sheppard soon began his career in crime: it's good practice to restate the antecedent ("At Lyon's instigation"), as you do for a similar phrase in the next paragraph.
• Lyon and his brother became his accomplices: "and Sheppard's own brother" is better, as we've put a new person in between, and avoids the momentary confusion as to whether Lyon is the antecedent of "his".
• the pair broke out of New Prison into the adjoining Clerkenwell Bridewell prison, then breaking out of that to freedom: breaking isn't grammatical here, but we can just cut it.
• men who were involved in housebreaking: a touch of "officer-involved shooting" here?

  I think it's worth keeping the slightly cumbersome phrasing here, as some were already involved and some were persuaded by Lyon. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  If that’s so, we need to rephrase somehow anyway, since our phrasing suggests they were all already involved. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I had a look in the body for the material corresponding to seemingly accompanying them to assist in perpetrating the crimes -- wondering whether we could do without "seemingly" -- and couldn't find it at all. Could you help me out here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Because it's not clear she always did. There are certainly references to her accompanying a couple of the men, but not all (there's no reference with Little, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm raising the query under MOS:LEAD -- if it's mentioned in the lead, it should be stated, ideally in more detail, in the body. When I turn to the body, I don't see the same thing: I see her being convicted of going thieving with a shopkeeper's son, maybe persuading Little into crime (but no mention of actually committing crimes with him -- are you trying to suggest or allow for that in the lead?), and definitely going stealing with John Smith. It sounds as though either the lead needs adjusting or more material needs to be added to the body. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• transported to the Province of Maryland: in lead and body, I'd add "in [British] North America", since a lot of the place names for colonial locations have changed over time, and transportation is usually associated with Australia.
• Lyon's name and notoriety is based on her connection to Sheppard: are based, but I would suggest keeping the verb as is and cutting name and: "name" is ambiguous ("the fact that she was called Elizabeth Lyon"?) and I don't really see what it adds that's different from "notoriety".
• or for stealing a gold ring—: I think the MoS is to put the citation on the near side of a dash, as we do for brackets, but it might be dubious when (as here) the dash is unspaced.

  I've been told at various FACs to swap it round, whichever position I initially place it! - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• The gaoler had heard that Sheppard had escaped from his previous imprisonment, so fitted him with chains and weighed down with two weights: weighed him down.
• When Lyon visited him the next day, she was arrested as a possible accomplice and held; they were both then placed in the New Prison in Clerkenwell; they claimed they were husband and wife and were therefore given a cell together: a long sentence. Suggest making at least one of thos two semicolons into a full stop.
• After some friends visited and smuggled some tools to the couple: cut the second some?
• drilling through a 9 inches (23 cm) oak beam: "a nine-inch oak beam", surely, but we really need to specify the dimension: "an oak beam 9 inches thick"?
• The couple scaled the 22 feet (6.7 m) walls and escaped: similarly, singular foot here, surely? "The ship was fitted with three six-inch guns", for instance.
• Jonathan Wild—a vigilante known as the "Thief-Taker General: are we in the time period when thief-taking was as close to official justice as existed? "Vigilante" without some sort of explanation implies "criminal", or at least someone operating outside the law: some context here would help.

  He very much was outside the law in all sorts of ways. I think an explanation would be too long for this article, but we have a half-decent article on him should anyone find themselves interested. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• After the escape Lyon and Sheppard went to a tavern <in> Westminster and the to another in Holborn,: typos.
• As Lyon had given details of his whereabout to Wild: whereabouts?
• His execution was scheduled for 4 September and he was returned to Newgate where he was given the Condemned Hold, the cell given to prisoners awaiting the death sentence: they had already received the sentence of death, so we either need something like "the implementation of the death sentence" or, simply, "execution".
• On 31 August he had created enough space to squeeze through: given the "had", I think we need the preposition to be "by".
• . It was the last time the two would meet; Lyon was held for three months. She was arrested the day after his escape: I think this would be better in chronological order.
• given emetics to force her to say where Sheppard was hiding: can we call this torture, as it clearly was?

  We can, but I don't see the need to add quite such a weighted, emotive term: we describe clearly what happened (per the sources), without adding too much to it. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• seducing a shopkeeper's son to go a thieving with her: a-thieving, at least per MOS:CONFORM?
• By the middle of the year, she was living with a painter, James Little. James Guthrie, the chaplain of Newgate, thought that Lyon "hurried him headlong to his destruction", although he had been involved in crime before the couple met: we seem to have missed something in the middle here -- presumably Little ended up in Newgate?

  That's not covered. He was star witness for the prosecution, so maybe not, but I'm not sure the sourcesclarify, although I'll check, obviously. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

All done, bar where commented otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems consistent. I take that the alternate use of OCLC and ISBN is because not every book cited has an ISBN? I looked at reviews and authors and publishers and I don't see anything problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo. Yes, that's right - I default to ISBNs wherever possible, but for those too early, I go to the next best thing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• P vs pp errors:
  • Sheff & Eddy 1999, p. 300–301.
  • Sheff & Eddy 1999, p. 304–305.
  • Ackerman 2016, p. 118–119
  • Sheff & Eddy 1999, p. 307–308.
  • Kent 2001, p. 379–380
  • Ackerman 2016, p. 226–227

Fixed Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Is it possible to clarify this: "... (clearing lines with multiple pieces in a row)" .. I cannot picture what action that is trying to describe.

How about "clearing lines consecutively"? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• The wording "After a press advertisement campaign, Tengen released ..." is not as smooth as it could be: at first I thought it meant "pressed for time" or stressful. May be simple to simply say "After a marketing campaign ... "?

Revised accordingly. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Cite uniformity: It is customary to use the same style of capitalization for the titles of all sources. This article has a mixture of styles: e.g.
  • "A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental methods for modulating intrusive memories following lab-analogue trauma exposure in non-clinical populations"
  • "Video Game History Falls into Place in Tetris Forever"

First example is cap only for first word; 2nd example is all words cap'd. Suggest use one convention or the the other. The WP MOS guidelines do not require the source/cite to use the exact capitalization that the original source uses for itself.

Fixed. All titles should be title cap now. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Is it possible to include a link in "External Links" section pointing readers to a web site that summarizes the history/progression of the Tetris world record? I see https://www.speedrun.com/tetrisnes but that appears to be fixed-score speed runs. It would be interesting to see the historical dates & scores in a list format within an external web site (not in body text).
  • If not in the External LInks, the same link (if it exists) could instead go in the NavBox at the bottom of the article.

Such a link would perhaps be best reserved for the article on the NES version. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Ambiguous: " JAMDAT acquired Blue Lava Wireless in April 2005, granting them a ..." who is "them"? JAMDAT or Blue Lava?

JAMDAT Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Grammar? " ...HoloByte and Mirrorsoft started licensing the game to other companies for platforms beyond what Stein and Elorg had agreed to... not sure if "beyond what" is correct there, but I'm not a grammar expert. Maybe make entire sentence simpler? such as " ...HoloByte and Mirrorsoft started licensing the game for platforms that were not covered by the contract that Stein and Elorg had agreed to ... " or something like that.

Revised accordingly Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Clarify: " ... the Tetris Company started to standardize features that were not in the original versions ..." Not sure what "standardize" means in this context? To implement features (that were in some versions/platforms) into other versions/platforms? So the goal was that all versions/platforms had a similar feature set? or similar look/feel? In any case, can the article explain "standardize" a bit more in this sentence?

Revised to be clearer. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a WP article for the full Tetris franchise? I'm looking in the Tetris NavBox at Template:Tetris and it looks like this Tetris article is doing double-duty as covering both the orig game and the franchise. Within WP, other games with families such as Halo (franchise) or Doom (franchise) have separate articles for the franchise and the original game. If this Tetris article is doing double-duty as covering both the orig game and the franchise, that is fine, but extra care is required to help readers.

This article is essentially the franchise article, and I think it covers the original versions just fine. The "original" original game is the Elektronica 60 version, which isn't notable enough for its own article separate from this one, and I believe it's properly summarized here. Do you disagree? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• If "Tetris" is both the original game (as implemented on several platforms, and slightly updated over time) and is also used to mean the brand/franchise ... then those two meanings must be explicitly stated at the start of the article: certainly in the lead, maybe in the first paragraph.

I've revised the first paragraph to explicitly state this meaning as part of the article's scope. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Uniform terminology: The word "Tetris" by itself is a bit ambiguous: it is an umbrella term in some usages. The article uses different approaches to identifying the different aspects or components of the Tetris family, e.g.
  • "..across its numerous versions. ..."
  • "... among Tetris variants include ..."
  • "Tetris is a puzzle video game with a ..." - Singular. The entire family is one gamee?
  • "Another game on the Nintendo 64, the Japan-exclusive Tetris 64 (1998), allowed for four players.." - Here, a variant of Tetris is its own game.

Clearly the sources use a mixture of terminology, which is to be expected. But here in this article, the terms should be clear, consistent and uniform. I'm not a tetris expert, but let me toss out a suggestion for uniform terminology:

• Tetris - is both the original game, and also a term to identify the brand/franchise, which includes the entire family of variants, sequels, and spin-offs.
• Variant - Any of the various spinoffs or sequels of the original game. Shares the same essences as the original game, but is a new game.
• Version - I would recommend not using "version" as a synonym of "variant", because "version" has a very specific meaning in the software world. I suggest that "version" only be used to mean an one of series of updates or enhancements, often identified by increasing numbers. E.g. the original base game might have versions as it is slightly enhanced; or perhaps a new version for a new platform. Again, I realize that sources may say "version" to mean variant, but that does not mean WP must follow, especially if it confuses readers. And it confused me.

I've updated the terminology accordingly, such as replacing most instances of "version" with "variant". Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• When the word "Tetris" is used by itself, in some contexts the reader may understand that the usage is "original game" and in other uses is the "brand, franchise, or family of games". But when the context does not make it crystal clear, the the word "Tetris" should be qualified as:
  • ".. Tetris game ..." or
  • "... Tetris brand..." or
  • "... Tetris franchise..." or
  • "... Tetris family of games ..."

this is no different from how "The Tetris Company " or "Tetris Holding" are currently (and helpfully) qualified.

Tried to address this suggestion as best I can. How is it? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Tetris navbox at Template:Tetris is a bit confusing: it uses the word "Version" in the left side to designate distinct games or variants. Compare with Template:Halo series or Template:Doom series which avoid the word "version" to designate variants or entirely distinct games. Suggest updating Template:Tetris and change "version" to another term that is more consistent with other WP game franchise navboxes.

Changed to "Variants". Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'm getting more and more confused. In the Tetris navbox Template:Tetris this Tetris article is used for both
  • The top title bar (for the full franchise) as well as for
  • The "Handheld" subgroup, which is a collection of about seven games; but there are a also couple dozen games that are outside that "Handheld" family, underneath the NavBox title bar. Does the Tetris article include all those non-handheld games also?

I'm not sure what this means? The article, encompassing the variants of Tetris as a whole, would of course include non-handheld games, especially since Tetris was originally a computer game. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. It is not clear if this article is supposed to include the full franchise or not. You could solve this dilemma by creating a small, new article called Tetris (Franchise) (maybe just a stub); and change the NavBox title bar to point to that stub; and then redefine this Tetris article to be focused only on the original handheld game (and a few variants).

• That's all for now. Noleander (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments. I'll work on addressing them soon. Lazman321 (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Other than this one issue (clarifying the focus of the article: game or franchise?) the article seems fine. The prose and citations are in good shape. Noleander (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: I've tried to address your comments above as best as I can. For some clarification, this article is the "franchise" article. However, it is unique in that most of the entries within the franchise are treated as variants of the same game. As a result, per an RFC earlier this year, Tetris is primarily defined as a video game, one that happens to have multiple variants. Do you have any further concerns? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Can your provide a link to the RfC? Noleander (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris. Lazman321 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The RfC has 5 !votes for "a series of games" and 7 or 8 !votes for "a game". That is not a slam dunk one way or another. The closing editor wrote "The conclusion to this is a bit mixed. "

Looking in the NavBox, I pick a random link: Tetris: The Grand Master, that article has "The basic gameplay of Tetris: The Grand Master is similar to that of other Tetris games." Which tells me there are multiple games in this series/brand/franchise.

The Tetris article starts with "Tetris is a puzzle video game created in 1985 by Alexey Pajitnov, a Soviet software engineer" Is that 1985 game the same as Tetris: The Grand Master? or is it not? Wouldn't it make more sense for the first sentence of Tetris to say something like "Tetris is a puzzle video game series [or franchise] originated in 1985 by Alexey Pajitnov, a Soviet software engineer"

I'm not trying to be a nuisance. I've played hundreds of video games in my life (tho not Tetris), yet I'm genuinely confused about the scope of the article. The first sentence of the article tells me that this article is about a "game" singular. Then the NavBox tells me there are dozens of games (well, it uses the word "Variant" but the individual articles call them games").

I respect the RfC process, but the consensus of 13 editors in the RfC does not overrule the simple FA requirement of a clear scope for the article. I think the scope of article is not sufficiently clear for FA.

I think a solution is to improve the article's first sentence to say something like Tetris is a series of games... or Tetris is a game franchise... or Tetris is a 1985 game and its numerous variants ... . And to carry that notion through the article (as you've already started to do by adding qualifiers to the word "Tetris", as discussed above). Noleander (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most reliable secondary and tertiary sources refer to Tetris as a video game, even when discussing multiple variants. I've edited the first paragraph, including the first sentence, of the lead to help address the scope. How does it look? Lazman321 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, many sources say:

1) "Tetris is a game" or "Tetris is a game with variants".

But there are also many sources that say:

2) "Tetris is a series of games" or "Tetris is a series of variants of a game" and "{Variant X] is a game ...".

The latest incarnation of the first sentence is emphasizing sources of type (1) and de-emphasizing soruces of type (2). My point is that emphasizing (1) will confuse most readers, whereas emphasizing (2) will benefit readers.

The NavBox has about 30 games listed in it. Nearly every one of those articles begins with the sentence: "ABC is a video game ...". So the Tetris "game" contains 30 other games? Readers will not understand that. Readers will understand "The Tetris series of games contains 30 games" I'm running out of ways to tell you that the current Tetris article's lead is very confusing. Noleander (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I don't think the lead will confuse most readers. I think many will understand that games listed in the navigation box are variants of the Tetris game. Furthermore, there are articles on game remasters such as Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered and ports such as Pac-Man (Atari 2600 video game) and Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game) do introduce themselves with "[X] is a video game" despite being variants of pre-existing games themselves. The same precedent applies to the variants of Tetris.

Like I said, most reliable sources refer to Tetris as a game, not as a series, even when discussing multiple variants. Just look at the number of publications used to source Tetris's inclusion in List of video games considered the best, or the encyclopedia entries, which are meant summarize secondary sources, from reputable publishers that call Tetris a video game: . In keeping with the spirit of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, I would prefer to emphasize the majority view for this article, which is that Tetris is a video game with hundreds of variants. Lazman321 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the article is FA quality, because the scope of the article is not clearly defined (for lay readers) in the lead. So I cannot Support it, but I won't Oppose it either. Noleander (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

I've briefly had a look at the article when it was nominated for PR but I'll do a thorough review now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

HF

I'll take a look this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 01:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Why exactly did Caldwell request the move to NYC?
• "The band also produced a music video for "She's a Miracle", one of the first to be aired on the television network CMT" - this seems to be overstating the earliness a bit. The source just says that it was part of the early CMT rotation, which is a bit broader than just the immediate early days. CMT was launched in 1983 and the Kentucky Hearts album was released in 1984, so clearly there were quite a few videos shown on CMT before "She's a Miracle"
• "Roger BonDurant briefly joined their touring band in late 1989 as a backing vocalist and rhythm guitarist, but was not considered an official member." - I can't access the source but it has a date of February 1989 so how can it support something happening in late 1989?
• ", the fourth single, "There You Go", under-performed on the charts" - isn't it a bit more useful to tell the reader where the single charted rather than being a bit euphemistic like this? "under-performed" could mean anywhere down to barely charting. And it's not like this was a part of the band's career where they could expect every single to be top-5 or anything
• "were unsuccessful due to radio backlash against Exile in the intervening years" - what exactly was Exile doing to create "radio backlash"?
• "Despite this, the band's tour bus was robbed after a concert in 1993, " - the use of "despite this" seems odd to me. It suggests that this would be unexpected given the prior-discussed information, but there's no real contrast there between the events. Touring more as a late-career band doesn't make the bus less likely to be robbed
• Some of the dates noted in the members section do not appear to be sourced directly in the article - for instance, the exact dates of Salyer
• What's Westbrook's credentials? I'm not familiar with Acclaim Press, although it doesn't appear to be part of the tier of publishers that anything published by them could be presumed to be a high-quality RS as required by the FA criteria. The Acclaim author page for Westbrook doesn't appear to contain an actual bio. I don't think I would question this source for GA, but FA requires a higher standard.

This is my first batch of thoughts. Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Sorry for not responding sooner. My modem died and I only got it back last night, and I've also been battling severe allergies. I think I've taken care of most of your issues to this point. I always mess up timelines when I try to edit them, so I'll try to corroborate the dates and then someone else can fix the timeline graphic. (Actually, given that some of the shorter-lived members' tenures are unknown, would removing the timeline entirely be acceptable?)

Randy Westbrook is a music professor with a Ph.D in musicology. This is corroborated by this independent source, and further searching yielded even more sources corroborating his credentials. I admit I'm not well-versed on this level of source quality when it comes to FAs, but I would think a Ph.D in a topically relevant field lends credibility to the book. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

For history books, we'd generally expect something more than just a Ph.D but admittedly music criticism is not an area that I am familiar with. My inclination is to hold off on a decision regarding the suitability of Westbrook until we can get a more familiar source reviewer there. The dates for members issue involves more than just the timeline - there are dates in the member section that aren't directly supported (again, Salyers is an example). It's also not immediately clear what the black lines in the timeline chart are intended to represent - are those albums the band put out? Hog Farm _Talk 20:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope it is acceptable, because it'll kill like the entire first four paragraphs otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

ETA: Usually when timelines are involved, the black lines do indicate album releases. That said, since some members are relatively unknown, I felt a timeline was too complicated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ippantekina

Prose review coming soon. I don't know much about this band, so my review should be NPOV. Ippantekina (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:HIGH_AND_LOW_JP_.jpg needs a more expansive FUR

• hopefully should be done.--Plifal (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• File:Kinema-Junpo-1960-February-late-4.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• given the lack of concrete authorship i have been unable to ascertain whether this has been published in the usa, but i would hazard a guess that according to the hirtle chart it probably isn't in copyright for quite a while yet. i've replaced the image with a picture of the kodama express train, hopefully this should be ok and not in contravention of japanese panorama laws?--Plifal (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, apologies, forgot to ping you initially.--Plifal (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Purely utilitarian objects don't generally get copyright protection so the train is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Excited to see this here! I'd be more than happy to put down a few comments in the next week. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

thank you for all your help and guidance to this point!!! you've been an excellent shadow contributor to this. i look forward to working with you again!!--Plifal (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

And here we go! Here's a few prose comments to get us started. Please keep in mind that these are all suggestions; you very well may have reasons not to implement some of my comments (I'm no expert on this film), so please feel free to do so if that's the case. Citation numbers from this revision.

• "the studio bought the rights ..." does not follow from "Produced by Toho". Maybe "The film was produced by Toho Studios, who bought the rights ..."?

• done.

• 2 September 1962, and took place → 2 September 1962, taking place (to reduce the and repetition in that sentence)

• done.

• Is the sentence about the single-shot sequence a significant enough detail to mention in the lead?

• i decided to include a brief sentence highlighting this scene because every major source that talks about the film's production dedicates ~half of its content to this scene, the article dedicates a paragraph to this relatively short section of the film, and most other details are not generally so specific, so i don't think it's undue.

• under a month, and after → under a month and, after

• done.

• I might swap the places of the "received generally positive reviews" and "highest-grossing film" bits for flow. I can elaborate if necessary.

• done, i think, but if i misunderstood, please do elaborate!

• A couple issues with the parenthetical inflation calculations: first, they should probably be in footnotes (you do this further down); second, they present an accessibility issue since the tooltips over the years cannot be seen by mobile readers. I realize the latter is actually a problem with the template, but I would recommend replacing instances of it for those reasons.

• done.

• I find § Themes to have quite a lot of technical jargon. For example, "Film scholar David Desser refers to High and Low as containing three chronological planes of action that "reveals Kurosawa's fascination with process". He notes this attention to process as part of a tension that occurs between Kurosawa's humanistic sentiment and formalistic tendencies." It's difficult for me to glean what Desser's argument is here. I know academics tend to use a lot of jargon, but it's our job to parse it and present it for a general audience. I would take a closer look through this section for issues like this.

• should hopefully have fixed this specific instance, but i don't think i'm very good at doing this, either i overestimate or badly explain, and this is the fourth time someone's brought this up. i need more concrete examples and fixes i think. now reads: "Film scholar David Desser divides High and Low into three sections, describing the shift from Gondo's home, to the detectives investigating, and the kidnapper's world as "planes of action" that follow a chronology, moving from 'high' to 'low'. He notes the process of the police investigation as a thematic tension between Kurosawa's humanistic sentiment and formalistic tendencies." but i recognise this is still somewhat imperfect.

• "have been analogised" in the image caption sounds weaselly. I would attribute the argument to Richie as in the prose.

• done.

• Mifune's Gondo

• done.

• Dante himself

• done.

• Is the reportedly in "kidnappings in Japan reportedly increased" supported by the source? We don't want to be casting doubt on something the source says explicitly.

• wild says: "an apparent increase in the crime in Japan in the months following the film’s release." which i don't think is misrepresented by the use of "reportedly", but galbraith is more assertive, so i've axed the use of wild here and removed the word.

• "In emphasising the lenient sentencing of Japanese kidnapping laws" reads like this detail was already mentioned earlier in the article, but I don't think it was.

• changed to: "Kurosawa had intended to inspire harsher punishments by emphasising the crime's lenient sentencing, but was instead blamed for an increase in kidnapping cases."

• "but was instead blamed" by whom?

• unfortunately, galbraith doesn't elaborate.

• sentences—but → sentences, but

• done.

• Considering "the Kurosawa household" is already mentioned, "director's daughter, Kazuko Kurosawa" could be "director's daughter Kazuko".

• done.

• Maybe we could use a different word than grounded , to avoid the implication that she was punished for whatever reason?

• changed to: "forbidden from leaving the house"

• 35mm prints → [[35 mm movie film|35 mm prints]]

• done.

• "Awards and accolades" These are basically synonymous, so I would pick just one.

• done, chosen 'awards'.

• False titles are used inconsistently; for example, "the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes" as well as "Filmmaker Takashi Miike
  • For the record: per MOS:PSEUDOTITLE, consistency about this is not necessary. TompaDompa (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

    Good catch, thanks for the reminder. —TS

  • i'll go through and check these, but i might miss some.
• Some of the High and Low (1963 film) § See also links seem a bit too general and only vaguely related to the subject, like Cinema of Japan. I would whittle these down to only the ones that are encyclopedically beneficial.

• done.

• The inflation calculations in the footnotes need citations. (I did similar digging for Princess Mononoke — maybe that source would be helpful here?) Lose the periods per MOS:CAPFRAG.

• done.

• Italicize the names of works in the citations per MOS:WEBITALICS — this also works inside {{sfn}}s.

• done. i have left rotten tomatoes, golden globes, and edgar awards unitalicised though, since that seems generally consistent with their usage. i was also wondering about italicising BFI, which i have italicised, but wouldn't normally expect to see as such.

• Slant Magazine seems to be the proper name of that publication, so use that in the {{sfn}}.

• done.

• Make sure titles of works (mostly just High and Low) are italicized in the citation titles and aren't inside quotes.

• done.

• I would suggest making the casing of the citation titles consistent.
  • (on this point i have a query: i write the titles as they're presented on the website/book. in this respect they're consistent? unless you mean in title case, for example.)

    This RfC recently established that following the casing used by sources individually was not considered a consistent citation style by the community. I would go with either sentence or title case. —TS

• The book citations mention the publication location inconsistently.

• done.

• The works are linked to their Wikipedia articles inconsistently (for example, Rotten Tomatoes isn't).

• as with above, i will probably miss some of these last few on the point of standardising citations, but will do my best!

I'm considering doing a source review, but not sure if I'll have the time this week — I'll let you know, of course. Please let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

thank you so far! i have a few questions, and i need to still go through the inflation calculators, but i've gone through most of these.--Plifal (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

TechnoSquirrel69, responses above.--Plifal (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Generalissima

I plan to get to this sometime in the next week! Great seeing a new face around :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

i look forward to working with you!! i've long seen you around wikipedia and have so much respect and admiration for your contributions (especially to chinese and japanese history), so thank you kindly for looking over this!!!--Plifal (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Generalissima, nosorry!! thank you so much! my responses are below.--Plifal (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Pifal Oops! My apologizes, I have been travelling and I tottaly forgot i didn't respond. The changes look good to me, made some specific responses. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Lede is good, appreciate the use of interlanguage links. There's a bit of 'sea of blue' with all the actors listed. I don't edit film articles usually, so I'm unsure if its convention, but do we need to list a bunch of them at once, esp. if the infobox already includes them?

• it's generally common practice to list the stars of the film in the lead, but have cut miyazaki yamazaki tsutomu (edit: absolutely not miyazaki tsutomu!--Plifal (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)) and sada yutaka. reasoning being that only the first four appear in separate title cards in the film.

• Official Selection is fine in the lede, but it isn't defined in the body, and I'm unsure what this actually means. Are only some Venice Film Festival films Official Selections?

• yes. because the venice biennale is technically an exhibition, some films are shown in competition and some films are shown out of it. any film that's shown in competition is part of the official selection and nominated for any of the awards (unlike e.g. the oscars, where certain films are only eligible in certain categories via a nomination process). of these, the golden lion is the highest reward. i used the golden lion as a stand-in to indicate that it received the honour of being selected, but did not win anything. is there a better way to indicate this?

• • • Hmm.. Maybe a parenthetical (allowing it to be shown in the competition) or something like that? Just for those unaware of how the festival works.-G
• No comments on plot
• "Credited as Ed McBain" without the context that its his pen name makes it sound like they just got his name wrong lol

• added.

• Had Kurosawa worked with those co-screenwriters before?

• yes, but i was under the impression it's not normal to mention it unless the sources make a point of it.

• Also, how did he encounter this novel? Was it translated, or did he just read English? (I understand this may not be known)

• kurosawa couldn't speak english (at least in his public appearances in america he used a translator). likely he read a translated version, but the sources don't say. i also added some clarifying information to this section in order to further elucidate other information given later.

• This is legitimately so well written, I'm finding it hard to even nitpick.

• i'm very glad to hear it!! all credit to others who have looked over it!

Source formatting nitpicks:

• ISBNs are not consistent, but should be made so (some are 13 digit, some are 9. Several books lack ISBNs at all)

• in all cases that the 13 digit isbn is available to me i've used it. otherwise i've used the 9 digit isbn. other books with no isbn identifier (as far as i can see ito 1976 and bock 1991) don't have one, ito in particular was really difficult to track down.
  • You can use Google Books or WorldCat to find ISBNs. For example:

• Bernstein 2000 - 978-0-813-52814-4
• Deleuze 1983 (sure this one isn't 1986? Not seeing any 1983 edition) 978-0-816-61400-4
• Dresser 1983 978-0-835-71495-2

• Burch 1979 has a sentence case title for some reason

• i used the title as seen in the source, but switched to title case.

• This is a common way of formatting it, but the MoS specifically says titles have to be made consistent across your bibliography (MOS:TITLECAPS)

• You include the publisher for the Kinema Junpo and Sight and Sound, but not any of the other magazines

• done.

• You don't link Knopf Doubleday or Stone Bridge Press in Further Reading

• done.

• Is The Illuminerdi a reliable source?

• for factual reporting, no, but i'm using it here as a primary source for an interview, which i think should be ok.
  • Ah, i missed that. Go ahead.-G

• Spotlight appears to be a journal (an undergrad journal, but its used sparingly enough I'd accept it)

• yes i was a little unsure about this, but the fact that it had academic oversight from an associate professor led me to accept it. should i move it to the books and journals subsection?

• • • Yeah, that'd probably be a good idea-G
• At least one journal and many newspapers are missing ISSNs

• i apologise but i'm unsure which journal you're referring to. i hopefully should have fixed the newspapers.

• Should the newspapers be under web, actually? They feel like their own thing

• i categorised it based on how i found the information, which may not be correct but which made sense to me. all the references in news & magazines are either print copies i have in my possession or archive scans of print documents. everything in web is based on readily-accessible website links. the other thing that would confuse me is where to put articles from, e.g. filmmaker magazine, the a.v. club or slant magazine? these are online magazines, or articles which may only appear online even if there's a print version; i'm not sure i'd be able to verify whether the article was included in a print copy.

• • Fair enough!-G
• You don't link Golden Globes

• done.

• You don't link Liveright publishing

• done.

• Just link Holt McDougal for " Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada"

• done.

Comments from TompaDompa

As noted in the nomination, I looked at this when it was at WP:Peer review/High and Low (1963 film)/archive1. I'll try to find the time to take another look at it here at WP:FAC, but I think I'll wait until the fresh sets of eyes from the reviewers above have gone over it—if I haven't weighed in when a week has passed since the others finished their reviews, feel free to ping me anew. My impression from PR is that this should not be very far off from WP:FA quality and, given the nominator's clear willingness and ability to collaborate productively with reviewers as well as their apparent in-depth familiarity with the sources, getting it that final stretch towards meeting all the WP:Featured article criteria should not be too much of a hassle. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

again, thank you kindly!! your comments were such a help, and i do so appreciate your commitment. please take as long as you need!!--Plifal (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from Jon698

• Link Yokohama in the lede

• done.

• "The film secured a budget of ¥230 million." -> Is it possible to add a yen to USD conversion with Template:JPYConvert?

• not done, i think this would clutter the information and complicate the conversions. to me it makes more sense to adjust for inflation via its own currency unless stated by the source.

• However film critic Atsushi Kobayashi -> Add comma after However

• done.

• The film was test-screened in mid-February. -> Link to Test screening

• done.

• I think the Music section could be reworked for readability. I made an edit here to turn the single paragraph into three different ones. Please review this.

• done something similar, kept the stuff related to Sato in one paragraph before splitting the information to talk about the use of music more generally.

• Donald Richie, scholar and acquaintance of Kurosawa -> Is Richie a scholar of Kurosawa or he is just a scholar? If he is just a scholar then you should add "a" before scholar.

• done.

• In January and February 2023, the BFI -> Use the full name British Film Institute and then use the initials for "The British Film Institute released a DVD" later in the article

• done.

• High and Low's screenplay was co-written by Akira Kurosawa, Hideo Oguni, Eijiro Hisaita, and Ryūzō Kikushima. -> Link to Eijiro Hisaita's Japanese page as you did in the lede

• done.

• Include a wikilink to Evan Hunter in the photo description in the development section

• done.

Jon698, addressed your concerns above. thank you for taking the time to review!! just fyi though, the {{xt|}} template shouldn't be used.--Plifal (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no further comments. Jon698 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Jon698, thanks again! do you support or oppose at this time, or reserve judgement?--Plifal (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Jon698 (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

thank you very much!!--Plifal (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Paleface Jack

Emerging from my place in the void to offer my comments on this second nomination. My only concern here and advice would be to split the awards and nominations of the film into its own article. This is due to the length, and there is a significant amount of accolades and nominations for the film, which takes away from the article. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I was initially concerned about the total number of awards not being enough to justify a page, but Hundreds of Beavers won or received nominations from 15 festivals/organizations while The Sixth Sense received it from 20. I will be making a page soon. Jon698 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Done List of accolades received by Hundreds of Beavers Jon698 (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Making sure you are notified. Jon698 (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Support--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

MisawaSakura

• Comment. You may want to ensure refs are in numerical order, instead of "[3][1]". There are at least two cases of this. MisawaSakura (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Added! Thanks for reminding me on this :) 19h00s (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ceoil

Placeholder as a reminder to self. oh wow love the pieces and article. comments soon. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

UC

Welcome to FAC -- and congratulations on your first nomination. Some points below, down to the end of the "Description" section. I need a bit of persuading on the prose: at the moment, it doesn't feel really clear to me or as useful as an FA needs to be as an introduction to the uninitiated. The Background section is very lengthy but not always particularly readable; I don't really feel like I come away with a full grasp of what these things are or where they came from. Conversely, the Description section gives me very little, well, description. When you compare it with other visual-arts FAs like The Four Stages of Cruelty (also on a series of works), the difference stands out. In part, I think greater use of illustration would go some way to solving this problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

First round of replies below, more tk before Saturday, thank you for this. On the illustration front, I would say that this feels far more complicated to me than just finding a few images of these sculptures; I've always interpreted the language in the non-free content guidelines and upload wizard for copyrighted 3-d buildings and sculptures to mean that photographs of non-free 3-d works must themselves be freely licensed. I've always assumed we needed someone to go make a freely licensed image that we could then use, scaled down. I was under the impression that we can't just take any old image of the sculpture and scale it down as fair use (I've already searched high and low for free photos of Some Bright Morning, and I've not encountered it in person to make my own photos [or, not yet, lol]). Have I been misunderstanding the nuances there? --19h00s (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

We can use non-free media under certain conditions -- the general rule being that it adds important encyclopaedic value which cannot be obtained from a free work that exists or might reasonably be created. There is a "more free" provision that says we should prefer (for example) a GFDL-released photo of a copyrighted artwork to a photo that is itself in copyright, but I don't think there's anything in the NFCC that absolutely prohibits using a non-free photo if the encyclopaedic rationale is solid. Nikkimaria is the expert here, and as she's already in the review, she may be able to advise? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh OK, I guess I was getting tripped up on the "more free" provision, I misremembered that as a prohibition as opposed to a preference. I'll go ahead and grab a picture of the work to scale down, pending confirmation from Nikkimaria that this is the case. Thanks for clearing that up for me! 19h00s (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Added another round of replies/edits! Will add an image once NikkiMaria confirms and I'll grab a few more visual descriptions from cited reviews to flesh out the "description and process" section a bit. Thanks again! --19h00s (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Non-free images are permissible, but the "double" non-free makes it harder to argue that a freer alternative could not be created. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Added a sized down fair use image of Some Bright Morning last night, searching for some additional images to help break up the text. A few ideas I had: maybe one additional image of a sculpture for the description section once it's fleshed out; an image of/relating to Ronald Stokes; the front cover of Ginzburg's book depending on copyright; an image of Edwards that's different from his article infobox; images of the Gonzalez or Smith works depending on copyright; and possibly a few images of people named in the titles of works (this feels like low hanging fruit to me, though). Any other suggestions or thoughts on images? 19h00s (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Still need to do some more addition to the description section but I added several additional images after some searching. Would love feedback on whether the restructure is a good direction before I jump into the descriptions. Thanks again y'all! 19h00s (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to give the impression that any particular structure or scheme has to be followed -- all that matters is that we cover the necessary ground and do so in a way that's clear to an uninitiated reader. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• The artist began the series in 1963 and has continued it throughout his entire career, aside from two periods in the 1960s and 1970s.: This confused me a little, so I read through the article, and I'm still a bit confused. Has he been working constantly on this series except during those two breaks? If not, how do we differentiate the time between sculptures from breaks in the process? If he's actually produced at least one in every year except those noted, I think that might be a clearer way of saying things: I notice that he seems to have actively decided to stop in January 1967, but I don't see the same for 1973.
  • Yes, per the literature, he has been working on them constantly since 1963, except for 1967-1972 and 1974-1977. There is no exact date on the end of the 1973 sculptures, Brenson and Craft only say he stopped by the end of the year. I've never read anyone explicitly say "in every single year in this date range he completed at least one work from the series", I've only read language to the effect of "he has worked continuously since..." or "the series has been ongoing since...", with caveats about the pauses. It does seem quite possible to me that he has gone at least a year at some point without completing one of these sculptures, but the information about his process (working on pieces over several years) implies that even if he wasn't completing a work in any given year, he was still working on them. Whereas during the pauses, he intentionally stopped work on any of them at all. - 19h00s
• In 1963, this experimentation resulted in a small relief sculpture that began his Lynch Fragments series. The first work in the series, titled Some Bright Morning, comprises: is this all talking about the same sculpture? It's not wonderfully clear. As that sculpture is discussed in detail in the text, you could consider adding a fair-use image.
  • Yes, this is the same work; I think maybe changing "The first work..." to "This first work..." could clear that up? And I wish I could add an image but I do not have a freely licensed image to scale down for fair use. Haven't seen this sculpture irl myself to make a photo and haven't found any free images on Flickr/etc. (but per my note up top, have I been incorrectly assuming that photographs of 3-d works must themselves be freely licensed?) - 19h00s
• All footnotes should end in full stops (I noticed notes 9 and 10 don't).
  • Done. And not pushing back here, but for my own reference in the future, I'm wondering where this is written in the MOS or a Wikipedia guideline - couldn't find anything documented, I had always thought it was preference. - 19h00s
• The title of the first sculpture in the series, Some Bright Morning, alludes to an account in Ginzburg's anthology. Writing in 1982, Edwards described the narrative of the referenced story:: we probably don't need to introduce the sculpture again. I'd also suggest trying to get all the discussion together -- we explain the genesis of this work twice, in different ways. Firstly it's an outgrowth of his welding experiments, then it's a response to police violence.
  • See below. - 19h00s
• Some Bright Morning is a piece dedicated to a black family: I think we need to be clear that he's talking about the Ginzburg work here, not the Edwards one. Or is he talking about his own work? That would resolve the "error" you note a bit later.
  • It's kind of hard to put this plainly without using the quotes or copying what I wrote, but: The Edwards quote is indeed about his own work, the sculpture, while the family he is referring to is the family from the Florida story in Ginzburg's anthology. But he must have mixed up the stories and phrases in the anthology when creating/titling the sculpture and writing his explanations about its genesis, because the phrase "some bright morning" does not actually appear in the story about the Florida family. That phrase appears in a different story concerning a man in Georgia from the same anthology by Ginzburg, per Craft's explanation. So Edwards did make an error, as Craft notes, attributing the phrase to one story (Florida) instead of the actual narrative it came from (Georgia); it's not like a moral error or anything but it seems important to note that the explicit connection between the title of the sculpture and the Florida story is not textually accurate. - 19h00s
• quoted in Brenson, Michael, "Lynch Fragments", in Gedeon, Lucinda H. (ed.). Melvin Edwards Sculpture: A Thirty-Year Retrospective, 1963–1993 (1993): these long in-text attributions for the blockquotes are distracting, and they don't seem necessary when we have a footnote to give all this information anyway.
  • Adjusted to just be the author, title, year, let me know if you think they should be shorter. - 19h00s
• He has reiterated several times that he did not want the sculptures to be understood purely in a formalist context: what does that mean, bearing MOS:NOFORCELINK in mind?
  • He didn't want critics to view the sculptures solely in the context of formalist art discourse, or the study of art purely through a visual lens without historical or social contextualization; he wanted critics to understand the sculptures' social context as inextricable from their visual content. Fully defining formalism in the article - which is kinda the only way to further explain this - seems like asking for trouble though, that would take up so much space. - 19h00s
    • You could probably rework the first sentence of your reply here into something that would fit well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
      • Done, let me know if that seems clean enough. Feels a bit of a run-on sentence but it is a complex thought. - 19h00s
• González's peasant mother and child of 1936-37: endash here, not hyphen.
  • Done. - 19h00s
• so he turned his focus to his other bodies of work, saying that the move from California was also an opportunity to move past his old work: two things: can we give an idea of what he did instead, and can we avoid the repetition of work ... work?
  • Added details on what he moved on to (outdoor painted works, barbed wire/chain), rephrased to avoid repetition - 19h00s
• As I read through the "Background and history" section -- it's very long and starts to meander a bit. Suggest splitting it up and adding some images (see above, perhaps) to break down the "wall of text" effect.
  • (this is the "see below" reply) OK, I took kind of a big swing here. Not sure if this was the best approach, but I tried splitting it up into a few subsections (alternate section headings welcome) - the timeline of the creation of the works, the meaning/intent behind the titles along with the political/social context that informed them, and the artistic inspirations. I think it both breaks up a bit of the wall of text issue (before adding image[s]) and makes it feel a bit less meandering. But I would love feedback on whether or not the divisions seem clean. Importantly, I did make an adjustment to the phrasing on the social/political background to the sculptures after going back to the sources again based on your comment. He was not really inspired to start the series by the Civil Rights Movement and death of Stokes, but rather was inspired by these things to title the series as he did, in order to imbue the works with the social/political context/implication. I think it's a subtle but key difference. Let me know what you think about this overall restructure. - 19h00s
• Edwards mounted a retrospective exhibition at the Studio Museum in Harlem, giving him the opportunity to view a large number of the Lynch Fragments sculptures together for the first time in several years: the note says sixteen -- is that really a large number? Also, could he not have seen them in his studio, or wherever they were before being put into the museum?
  • Adjusted the phrasing to be more clear; it was the first time he had seen a large number installed together, as opposed to just in his studio/in small numbers. 16 does appear to have been a "large" number for him at the time. Craft actually has a footnote on this point which notes that Edwards only had a "small number" in his studio at the time, small in comparison to 16; added that footnote to the citation location for clarity. - 19h00s
• Note 27 quotes Edwards, but needs to explicitly say that it's doing so.
  • Done; and adjusted two others that weren't explicit. - 19h00s
• a Shona word for elder or grandfather: MOS:WORDSASWORDS, so italicise or use double quotes.
  • Done. - 19h00s
• the Lynch Fragments sculptures from post-1978 do reference: not quite grammatical: from after 1978 is better.
  • Done. - 19h00s
• among which are the Soweto uprising and the Iraq War.: suggest putting dates on these, as they're quite far apart, and potentially explaining their relevance per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
  • Added dates and very slightly rephrased, happy to add more context if you think necessary. - 19h00s
• in the 1970s, '80s, and beyond: not sure this is quite encyclopaedic phrasing, and we don't usually abbreviate '80s etc (WP:TONE; WP:NOTPAPER).
  • Done. - 19h00s
• The pieces in the series are among Edwards's best-known and celebrated: most celebrated or similar needed here.
  • OK thank you haha, that's how I had it originally but someone else adjusted it to the current state, I'm glad my first instinct was right. Done. - 19h00s
• Suggest converting the various imperial measurements for non-US readers.
  • Done, I think I converted them all. - 19h00s
• the works needed to be spaced three feet apart, preferably installed in groups of multiples of 16: MOS:NUM would prefer both numbers to be in words or figures.
  • Done. - 19h00s
• Having found the Background section a bit word-heavy, I'm finding the Description section very sparse. Most of the discussion here isn't actually describing the sculptures, but rather how Edwards made them and how he likes to have them exhibited. We get very little sense of what they actually look like.

Borsoka

Congratulations on your first FAC! As this is your first, please remember that you can accept or reject any of my suggestions — just let me know your reasoning so we can keep things clear. Borsoka (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...historians believe that her writing suggests that she was likely... "Believe, suggest, likely" - I think one of them is enough to indicate uncertainty.
  • Cut "suggest" and "likely"
• The historian Lucy Sussex has speculated... See MOS:SAY for "speculated". Why present perfect instead of present simple?
  • Changed to present simple. In this case I think "speculated" is probably appropriate, as Sussex herself uses a lot of caution in how she presents this (e.g. she says "This is conjectural", "I do not know for certain, but I think not", "The most likely explanation"). MOS:SAID says to be cautious of using "speculated" because it can carry implications that are not verifiable, but in this case I think Sussex is explicit about the fact that what she is doing is engaging in speculation
• She likely travelled by rail to Maine and then by ship to England, before embarking on a voyage from Glasgow to Melbourne aboard the ship Briseis. Do we need to know these details in an encyclopedic article?
  • Fair point, removed
• The day after Fortune's arrival in Australia, she... Could you rephrase it? (I thought that "she" is somebody else.)
  • Done
• ...who had opened a store in one of the goldfields settlements...he had opened a store near Castlemaine... I would rephrase the first text to avoid repetition of the same info ("who had settled in one of the goldfields settlements", or something similar.
  • Done
• She first lived in Kangaroo Flat near Mount Alexander... I would clarify, that she settled somewhere near her father.
  • Clarified that the town near Castlemaine where her father had opened a store was Kangaroo Flat
• ...panoramic journalism ... Is this a term borrowed from the cited scholar?
  • Brown describes the genre of Fortune's journalism as panoramic, ethnographic, as flânerie, and a few other descriptors largely interchangeably across different sources. I've added quotes around "panoramic" and added a citation to another one of Brown's papers where she uses the term panoramic explicitly
• ...it is believed that Fortune may have begun to work... By whom? "Believed, may" - I think one of them is enough to indicate uncertainty.
  • Upon another reading it turns out the source actually states this as fact, so I've removed both "believed" and "may"
• Fortune attempted to have him released, but without success. ... Fortune's application for George's release was ultimately refused. Repetition of the same info.
  • Removed the repetition
• The historians Lucy Sussex and Megan Brown have speculated ... Sussex is alredy introduced in a previous section. See MOS:SAY for "speculated". Why present perfect instead of present simple?
  • Changed to present simple and to "believe"
• But by the time the book was published, her appeal for George's release had already been refused. I would delete it.
  • Done
• Upon reaching the "Writing" section, I noticed that some information is repeated from earlier sections. As a general rule, I would recommend keeping it only here and deleting it from the previous sections. Borsoka (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Borsoka! I've responded to all of your comments above. I've also tried to further minimise the repetition between the "Biography" and "Writing" sections by moving details about the contents of her work out of the biography section. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• A well-composed and informative article. I am happy to support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Not much from me. This is an admirably well-written article, and ultimately what a sad one! I shouldn't myself hyphenate "the newly-founded Australian Journal" or "locally-written fiction", but I do not press the point. Otherwise the article meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see, and I am glad to have read it. Thank you, MCE89, and I hope we can look forward to more articles from you here. – Tim riley talk 14:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Tim riley! I've de-hyphenated in those two places. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Not a great deal to add to my pre-nom comments

• I agree with @Tim riley:, I don't think -ly adverbs should ever be followed by a hyphen

• "Scholar" is overworked and vague, you refer to almost all the people commentating as such, in the case of Brown and Sussex multiple times. I'd suggest some variation, such as historian or biographer, and only using a descriptor once for each writer.

• Linking Sussex twice in consecutive items of Short story collections is a bit excessive.

Otherwise excellent, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Jimfbleak! All fixed. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• “who is believed to have been the first woman” → “widely regarded as the first woman”

General

• Is it necessary to describe Lucy Sussex as "the historian" on four occasions?
• The text includes "the historian Megan Brown", "the scholar Megan Brown", and "the researcher Megan Brown".
  • Since they all refer to the same person, introduce Brown once each in the lead and the body (as appropriate), and thereafter refer to her simply as "Brown". You might consider doing the same for Sussex.

MSincccc (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @MSincccc! I've edited the lead per your suggestion, but have left out "widely" as I think that would be overstating the evidence slightly. I've also removed the excess introductions of Sussex and Brown. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Biography

• In 1856 Fortune and her father moved their store to the town of Buninyong near Ballarat.

Here a comma has not been used.
In 1855, she moved with her son to Australia...
In a similar case, a comma has been used.

• • How about bringing consistency in the usage of commas?
• "November of that year"→"November that year"

A few more. MSincccc (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Removed all of those commas that had slipped in, and changed to "November that year". MCE89 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Writing

• You could reduce the number of times "Mary Fortune" is used and simply use "Fortune" instead.
• "Mary Fortune wrote at least six serial novels during her career." → “Fortune wrote at least six serial novels during her career.”
  • “a number of” is wordy.
• ...as perhaps Australia's first truly gothic novel.

Themes and style

• “gothic elements” → “Gothic elements”
• “in the course of just one year” → “in just one year”
• “Fortune's autobiographical writing and journalism demonstrates” → “…demonstrate”
  • Plural subject.

MSincccc (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Done, although I kept "Mary Fortune" in a few places where it might otherwise create confusion with George. MCE89 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Bottom line

My interest in the works of Christie and Conan Doyle brought me here. At this juncture, I'm a support. MSincccc (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment

@MCE89 You could include 'journalist' in the short description, since she earned an income from it; it’s also mentioned in the lead’s first sentence. MSincccc (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but the short description is already 39 characters so per WP:SD40 I'd prefer not to add to its length. I think her nationality, primary genre and lifespan are probably the key things to include. MCE89 (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi TheNuggeteer, not much to add since the image review of the last nomination. As far as I can tell, the only image-relevant change is the addition File:Kai-tak 2017-12-16 0445Z.jpg, which is public domain. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Phlsph7: There ought to be alt text for the images in order to satisfy MOS:ACCESS. 2600:387:0:80F:0:0:0:96 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for raising the point. Currently, only the lead image has an alt-text. I recommended adding alt-texts in the last review and I still do. I'm not sure that they are strictly speaking required, but I think their addition would be an improvement. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Review

Reviewing. Will leave more later as time allows. 2600:387:0:80F:0:0:0:96 (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• Link landfall

• Done.

• "Ports were disrupted causing tourists" - Comma after causing

• Placed it after disrupted.

• Ah, my tired brain put the wrong word. Yes, that's good. 2600:387:15:1E12:0:0:0:C (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• "heavy flooding to Brunei and Malaysia" - Should be in instead of to

• Done.

• "damages" - Damages are from lawsuits. The correct form would be singular damage.

• Done.

Meteorological history

• Be consistent in the usage of conversion templates; abbreviations can be used in all occurrences since km and mi are commonly recognized.

• See this and this by Hurricanehink in the peer review.

• Fair enough 2600:387:15:1E12:0:0:0:C (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Link JTWC

• Done.

• Link Low-pressure area

• Done.

• Link to wind shear#vertical component

• Done.

• "At that time, it was 480 km (300 mi) " - Since two nouns are used in the prior sentence, I would replace "it" with the storm.

• Done.

• Link to ridge (meteorology)

• Done.

• Link to rainband on the mention of banding and Atmospheric convection on convection

• Done.

• "Hours later," How many?

• Changed to "after".

• Link to outflow (meteorology)

• Done.

• "Outflow was stronger poleward than equatorward, though forecasts anticipated further intensification." - This is technical and should be explained in simpler language since the layman will not understand

• Reworded.

• Be consistent with your times. UTC times should have a 0 in front of a single-digit number (ie 02:00, not 200)

• Fixed.

• "95 km/h (59 mph)" - Should be rounded to the nearest five

• Fixed.

• "in San Policarpo, Eastern Samar at approximately" - Comma after Samar

• Fixed.

• "on Mobo, Masbate at approximately" - Comma after Masbate

• Fixed.

• "and Malay, Aklan at 18:00 PHT (10:00 UTC)" - Comma after Aklan

• Fixed.

• "on Cuyo, Palawan at 23:00 PHT (15:00 UTC) and on Taytay, Palawan " Commas after both instances of Palawan

• Fixed.

• Link to Maximum sustained wind

• Fixed.

Preparations

• "with possibility of flash floods and landslides in nearby regions." Should be with a possibility

• Fixed.

• Link to Tropical_cyclone_warnings_and_watches#Philippines on the first warning mention

• Linked in the lead.

• PAGASA website refers to these warnings as Tropical Cyclone Wind Signal (TCWS)

• Fixed.

• "raised in Eastern Samar, Samar and Biliran" comma after Samar

• Fixed.

• Be consistent in using either # or No.

• Fixed.

• " Bicol Region (Region V)" I think the Region V can be removed since you already stated the location.

• Fixed.

• When before a noun, "moderate to heavy" should be moderate-to-heavy

• Fixed.

• 4.1–14 metres (4.5–15.3 yards) Please make sure the number of sigfigs is consistent

• What does "sigfigs" mean?

• "At least 728 families (1,418 individuals)" I would just give the number of people since family sizes are not a consistent measure

• Fixed.

• Please avoid starting sentences with numbers if they are in numerical form.

• Fixed.

• Comma after "Tabaco, Albay"

• Fixed.

• "perceived 8,831 families or 38,846 individuals" similar situation here for families and individuals

• Fixed.

• "said that 89,000 people fled to evacuation centers" should be "had fled"

• Fixed.

• "placed sandbags in the roof of their homes for protection" The source states that the sandbags were "on" rather than "in". Also, it should be roofs instead of roof.

• Fixed.

• "In Malaysia, the government closely monitored the storm and notified nearby villages." Notified them of what?

• Fixed.

Impact

• "The study also exhibited that 1,800,000 individuals were affected by the storm." I would generally avoid saying people were affected by the storm since that is too vague. Simply receiving rain would mean someone was affected.

• What will I say then?

• "The mayor of Ormoc placed Ormoc in a state of calamity" I would change the second instance of Ormoc to "the city"

• Fixed.

• "Flooding reportedly affected 98% of Boracay." Was it true? Reportedly expresses there is doubt. How bad was the flooding?

• Fixed and added.

• "Families were affected in Mimaropa, the Western Visayas, and Caraga as well" too vague

• That is why the next sentences describe the effects in the areas.

• "5 km (3.1 mi)" number of sigfigs

• What does "sigfigs" mean?

• When you mention ports being affected, how were they affected? It's often better to avoid using affected and use a word that better clarifies the situation since that word is vague.

• Fixed.

• "543,000 (US$9.5 thousand)" This should be 9,500

• Fixed.

• "A car swerved into the floodwater in Limbang, Malaysia." You can make this "into floodwaters" rather than "into the floodwater"

• Fixed.

• "causing several coastal areas to be flooded and debris to accumulated in roads." Two things here... Should be "to flood" and "to accumulate on"

• Fixed.

• "A flood in a river " Can be "A river flood"

• Fixed.

Response

• Could you change the links on "Salcedo, Eastern Samar and Mercedes, Eastern Samar" to remove the Eastern Samar and change Eastern Visayas to Eastern Samar?

• Fixed.

• "On December 22, Typhoon Tembin[e] impacted the Philippines, resulting in 266 deaths." Did it strike the same regions and worsen the effects of Kai-tak? What's the relation between the two?
• "On December 21, Government assistance gave supplies to the affected individuals" Which government?
• "provided assistance and donations to flood affected areas" What kind of assistance?

Rebuilding

• "more than ₱1 billion (US$17 million) in damages" Should be damage

See also

• "Typhoon Tembin (2017) – wreaked havoc southern Philippines a few days after Kai-tak" This should be removed since it is mentioned in the article.

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

I made a few minor copyedits.

Three comments by Choliamb about the arches of Titus in Rome

I don't have the knowledge to comment on the blow-by-blow account of the war itself, but I did spot a few minor inaccuracies in the descriptions of the two commemorative arches erected in Rome in the aftermath of the war (in the section "Roman commemoration of the victory"):

• the Arch of Titus in the Forum, completed after his death in 81 CE. The surviving Arch of Titus referred to here, and shown in one of the photos in the article, is not "in the Forum", but a short distance up the slope to the southeast of the Forum, on the Velia, a low saddle of land between the Palatine and Oppian hills. The arch spanned the Sacra Via, the road that ran down from the Velia to the Forum, at its highest point, an area sometimes called the summa Sacra via ("the highest point on the Sacred Way") in literary sources. It's not far from the Forum (and it falls right on the edge of the modern Forum excavation zone), but it is emphatically not part of the Forum itself as the Romans defined it.
• The first, still standing ... was dedicated by the Senate and People of Rome to the divine Vespasian and Titus. This is not true, at least not according to the dedicatory inscription (CIL VI 945; photo here), which states that the arch was dedicated to Titus alone, not to Titus and Vespasian. Vespasian is not mentioned in the inscription except as Titus's father. (The translation in the Arch of Titus article is correct.)
• another at the Circus Maximus ... The second arch's inscription proclaims ..." The wording and the present tense of the verb "proclaims" make it sound as if the location of this arch is certain and the inscription can still be read, but that's not the case. Nothing at all remains of the arch, and the inscription (CIL VI 944) survives only in a mediaeval copy included in the Einsiedeln codex, probably written near the end of the 8th century, which may or may not be accurate. The inscription was said to have been seen near the Circus Maximus, and most scholars assume that the arch stood there, but it's an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps add "probably" here to hedge your bets, and change "proclaims" to past tense?

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Choliamb, I've made the important corrections you suggested, all three are now done. Thank you! Mariamnei (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has picked up just a single support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I've asked a few more people to provide feedback (tagging here too @Hawkeye7, @Hog Farm, @UndercoverClassicist). Hopefully, this will help generate some more movement in the next few days. Thanks again for all your help! Mariamnei (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

I rarely submit FAC reviews for articles I have already passed at GAN, but I am making an exception this time. This article covers a topic that attracts over 800 pageviews a day (around 280,000 a year) and was nominated by a new contributor. It would be a real shame if the nomination were archived simply due to a lack of FAC reviewer activity. If we want to remain competitive with AI-generated encyclopedias, we need to be more inclusive. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is still the article's length, so I will suggest some ways to make it more concise.

• ..., who vied for the throne after the death of their mother, Queen Salome Alexandra Delete, and introduce his sons in the previous text as "brothers" or "brother-kings".
• Recognizing the nationalist character of Hasmonean rule, the Romans sought to suppress it by instituting a new, loyal dynasty. Delete, because this is clearly a scholarly PoV and the subsequent sentences explain neutrally the circumstances of the emergence of a new dynasty. A short reference to the end of Hasmoneans would be sufficient.
• I would add the full name of Pilate (Pontius Pilate) or refer to his governorship ("During Pilate's governorship,...").
• ...was initially stable under restored Roman rule but... Delete.
• I would name Poppaea Sabina.
• ..., a rare instance of indigenous sovereignty in this period,... Delete.
• ...their adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era... I am not sure I understand.
• ..., first manifested by Judas' "Fourth Philosophy" Delete.
• ..., who were led by Judas' descendants Delete. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

I'll be back with detailed comments after a thorough perusal, but from a quick first glace I notice a persistent and not very welcome tendency to write "he would" when a plain past tense is what is wanted. It becomes rather wearisome for the reader. To summarise Fowler, "would" used in this way expresses habitual action in the past ('These he would produce with a flourish during our Wednesday and Sunday-evening sessions') and the future in the past ('She realised they would have to come back at some point and face the music'). Fine for such constructions, but these thirty or so extracts from the article don't need anything other than "he joined Hampshire", "his Test career was sporadic" and so on:

• Overlooked by Surrey, he would join Hampshire
• His Test career would be sporadic
• This would be attributed to hostility toward his status as a professional batsman,
• Mead would continue to play
• He would then play two seasons of minor counties cricket for Suffolk in 1938 and 1939, whilst employed as a cricket coach at Framlingham College.
• He would retire to Bournemouth, where he died in hospital in March 1958, following an operation for internal bleeding.
• He would also play for the combined London School's team.
• He would be spotted playing in a school's match at The Oval by C. B. Fry, who encouraged him to pursue cricket as a profession.
• Aged 15, Mead would join the staff at Surrey
• He would make his first-class debut for Hampshire in 1905
• (a feat he would repeat for the next 27 consecutive seasons)
• He would take a further 27 wickets
• Warner's hostility toward Mead, which would remain for the rest of his career
• he would score seven centuries during the season. His highest score of the season,
• he would score nine centuries.
• He would again record two centuries
• first-class cricket in England would be suspended until 1919.
• Mead would be rejected from active service during the conflict because of varicose veins, alongside other medical issues.
• During the war, he would play for Frank Hopkins
• Mead would have his most successful season
• For Hampshire, he would make scores of 224 and 113
• He would make a half century (66 runs) in the Fifth Test
• Mead would end the 1923 season
• Mead would make 3,027 runs
• he would make thirteen centuries
• and would not appear in Test cricket again
• His average would drop to 38.37
• Bill Frindall would later write
• Arlott would later write
• he would score two thousand runs in a season
• He would take 277 wickets at a bowling average of 34.70

I think these need fixing if the article is to meet FA criterion 1a. More anon. Tim riley talk 10:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

All eliminated/reworded! AA (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Detailed comments

Very little more from me. The article seems to me of FA quality; I particularly admire the way the main author has avoided trotting out a litany of statistics and has given us a real narrative. A few minor points on the prose:

• "the combined London School's team" – the possessive looks a bit odd: I suspect just Schools is correct here.

• Done. AA (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Two weeks after being released by Surrey, the county decided to offer Mead a contract, however he had been to Hampshire" – two points here. First, the sentence opens with a dangling modifier: it was Mead, and not "the county", that was released. Secondly, "however" needs a stronger stop than a comma in front of it.

• Done. I have added a semi-colon on the second point. The first now reads "A fortnight after Mead was released, Surrey attempted to reverse their decision by offering him a contract". It did briefly read "A fortnight after being released, Surrey attempted to reverse their decision by offering Mead a contract"... though I felt the latter version was again dangling! AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• "the same amount of matches the following season" – can you have an amount of plural things? Perhaps the same number of matches?

• Done. I have changed this to your suggestion. AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• "considered the strongest touring team to be sent to Australia at the time" – I'm unsure of your meaning here. Is it that the team was considered at the time to be the strongest ever sent to Australia?

• Comment. Your interpretation is correct. At the time it was considered to be the strongest England team to be sent to Australia. I have done a slight rewording of this sentence: "...his form led him to be selected for the MCC's 1911–12 tour of Australia, led by Plum Warner and was considered to be the strongest touring team that had been sent to Australia at the time."

• "he was not chosen to partake in the 1912 Triangular Tournament" – "partake in" strikes me as odd. I think you mean "take part in".

• Done. Reworded to your suggestion. AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• "He again record two centuries against Leicestershire" – "recorded", rather than "record"?

• Done. Good spot! AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• "all five Test matches in the tours itinerary" – "tour's" needs a possessive apostrophe

• Done. AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Mead was unable to play in the first two Test matches" – you don't tell us why: was it just that he wasn't chosen or was he unavailable for some reason?

• Done. So I was unable to uncover some newspaper sources that shed more light on this than the book sources and obituaries I have to hand. He was not selected in the 12-man squad for the First Test, but his recall came ahead of the Second Test. However, in a County Championship match days before, Mead injured his hand and was ruled out. The start of the paragraph now reflects that with additional references. AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• "went onto win the match by 155 runs" – "on to" needs to be two words here.

• Done. AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Afterthought: Lord Tennyson could do with a blue link at the first of his three mentions.

• Comment. Tennyson's first mention is in the first paragraph of the "Post-war career" section which is a blue link! AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. I'll be looking in again to support and sign off. Tim riley talk 07:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley. Many thanks for your review and your kind words at the start of the review. Please find above my responses. Thanks for pointing out my "he would" repetition that has crept into my writing, I have no idea where it has come from as none of my previous FA's have it!!! Have made me recheck my recent contributions and low and behold, Jack Newman and Alec Kennedy were full of it. I am now acutely aware of that unwelcome new habit! AA (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

We all have bad habits in our prose writing that we need to be prodded about. I was told off as a schoolboy for opening a subordinate clause with a comma and neglecting to close it with one at the other end and dammit I'm still doing it sixty years later. But I digress. Very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. There must be something about cricket that attracts good writing (of footer and the rest I say no more) and this article upholds the standard. Highly readable, comprehensive but concise, neutral in tone, as well illustrated as I suppose it is possible to be given copyright rules, and, as far as I can see, well and widely sourced. Gladly signing on the dotted line. More, please. Tim riley talk 12:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Who knows what other habits I have picked up over the years! Though having been late to academic writing, I'm hopeful I have improved somewhat. Thanks for your support. Cricket articles do seem to have attracted some good writers over the years. Sarastro1 (sadly inactive for the last 3 years) and YellowMonkey (15 years AWOL) spring to mind. Glad you enjoyed the article :) Many thanks for the support. I have many more lined up... this chap hopefully next! AA (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Serves me right for interfering, but I took the liberty of asking the wizards in the Photo Workshop if they could clean up the top image a bit. Instead they've replaced it with a slightly different shot. If you don't like it, by all means revert the image to its original state when first uploaded and accept my apologies for putting my oar in. Tim riley talk 11:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I like it. It shows him in full batting flow. Much appreciated "putting your oar in"!!! Hoping the 2nd image in the article can be kept, very important one given it captures the last time he took to the field in Test cricket. AA (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow shortly(ish) - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• "He is the fourth-highest run-scorer in first-class cricket,": I think you need "As at 2025 he is the..." (formatted as "{{As of|alt=As at 2025|2025}}") per some bit of the MOS

• Comment. I'm not too sure about adding a year, mainly because with the advent of limited-overs cricket, his tally will never be surpassed as less first-class is now played. AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "bowling was utilised by Hampshire", "was utilised less", "He utilised clever", "Mead was utilised as a": anything wrong with "used"?

• Done. "Used" actually reads more concisely, have changed! AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "five wicket haul" – hyphenated, I think

• Done. AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Test debut

• "MCC's 1911–12 tour of Australia": I think you need something (possibly even just a footnote) that explains that the MCC was the England team at the time. You interchange the terms a little (perfectly correctly and reasonably), but it won't be clear to many

• Done. Good point, this will be less obvious that the two were the same entity to people are less familiar with cricket, and cricket of that era. I've added a footnote with ref. AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Australia, led by Plum Warner and was considered to be the": the grammar goes a little awry in this sentence with a feeling of a run-on happening at the point quoted

Personal life

• Comment. I have broken the sentence into two, and reworded: "...his form led him to be selected for the MCC's 1911–12 tour of Australia.[note 1] Under the captaincy of Plum Warner, it was considered the strongest touring team that had been sent to Australia at the time." How does this read now? AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "He had a variety of business ventures": the last 'he' mentioned is Frank Englefield

• Comment. Done! Good spot! AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That's my lot. Nicely written and nice to see a sporting article that doesn't just rely on lists of stats to get the story across. – SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat Many thanks for your review, much appreciated. Please find my responses above. Pleased you enjoyed the article and the story it tells of a remarkable cricketer. AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me, although I do think you should reconsider the “As at 2025” point, per WP:AS AT. That, however, is not enough to stop my support. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Cheers :) Is the "as at" the wording required, or could a more specific date be entered? Just to reflect that his tally won't be surpassed by anyone... unless first-class cricket becomes as popular once again... I can but dream! AA (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 03:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Critchley's first speech to the assembly was brief, " - this is sourced to the Hansard only. Is it a truly obvious statement to be able to refer to this as brief, when the source won't be (presumably) describing it as such?

I was working on the basis of WP:BLUE, the other first speeches on the adjacent pages of Hansard were a fair bit longer, but happy to delete. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Is the Carr website considered to be a high-quality RS?

For what it provides, yes. He's a respected journalist and psephologist with a PhD in Australian history. His psephos website is an expert SPS and has been archived by the National Library of Australia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Critchley was particularly concerned for the mental health needs of those suffering from what was then known as "war neurosis" " - again, I'm a bit uncomfortable drawing the conclusion that it was a particular concern of his only from a few Hansard transcriptions, although I'm sure it's true

Have reworded to make it about the content of his speeches. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• According to his family, when the ALP split over the issue of communism in 1955, Critchley refused to join the Catholic-dominated breakaway Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist) – later the Democratic Labour Party – despite being offered the position of party leader in the Senate." - source does not support that the breakaway party was Catholic-dominated that I'm seeing?

Well picked up, its sort of common knowledge politically in Australia, but I agree it should be cited. Added Maddox and cited to her. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• "John Victor Ryan, Senator (19 June 1956). "Question: Question: Compensation Payments to Trainee". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Commonwealth of Australia: Senate. p. 1605." - source link is not working for me - is this content only available in Australia

Yeah, I don't know what is going on there. It works for me. The wording of the question is:

Senator RYAN.—Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Army supply the following information relative to representations made by Senator Critchley and myself concerning the compensation claim of E. Luxton of Moonta, South Australia, for physical disabilities occasioned during his national service training

. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I will note that a lot of the article is actually derived from the Haskett source, with primary source Hansard proceedings inserted as additional sources where Haskett points out particular points. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Haskett is essentially the official biographical entry for Critchley as a senator, and while I acknowledge it is a tertiary source, it is well footnoted and is akin to a national dictionary of biography entry. Of course instead of using Haskett directly, I could use the citations that Haskett used in the biographical entry, but I'm not sure that either advances the quality of the article or is worth the effort given the material isn't controversial in any significant way. I agree there is a quite a bit from Hansard, which I have used to flesh out what he spoke about during his career. There are however, plenty of contemporary newspaper articles about various aspects of his life which are used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

G'day Hog Farm, thanks for having a look and apologies for the delay in responding. I think I have addressed your comments? See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Supporting - sourcing seems to be on the thin side in many areas but I'm not seeing evidence of sources that should be used that aren't and the sourcing is generally appropriate for what it is supporting (given that the Hansard usage can be backed up by the other sources for significance). Hog Farm _Talk 22:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

MCE89

A few comments below. (I'm pretty new to FAC reviewing, so please feel free to disregard any of these suggestions!) MCE89 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...but was defeated in 1933 after the Labor Party split over austerity measures and his expulsion from the party - I think the syntax here could be made clearer (i.e. to make it clear that the party didn't split over his expulsion)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• He also argued for fertile land in the south east of the state to be compulsorily acquired and used to settle unemployed people, sought to reduce the number of members of the assembly and sought to abolish the state upper house, the Legislative Council - Missing a verb in the final item of the list

Thanks, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• A practising Catholic, he nevertheless opposed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill when it was presented by the government of Prime Minister Robert Menzies in 1950. - I think this could use slightly more of an explanation of why the fact that he was a Catholic makes it unusual that he would oppose the bill. At the moment I imagine that this could read as a bit of a non sequitur to those unfamiliar with that historical context

Good point. Added a bit cited to Duncan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• A vehement supporter of the ALP's banking policies... - Could a sentence be added on what these policies were? I think that would help give a bit more context to the later discussion of how he helped block the Menzies government's banking bills

Great point, added some more from Duncan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• ...and was elected sixth of the ten seats available - The grammar here sounds a little awkward to my ear, perhaps "elected to the sixth of the ten available seats" or "was the sixth of ten candidates elected"? The same goes for "and was elected first of the five seats available"

Adjusted as suggested.

Thanks for taking a look, MCE89. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for almost four weeks and has yet to gain a support. Unless there's notable progress towards a consensus for promotion within the next few days, I'm afraid it will be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'm afraid that I've never heard of Critchley before, but it's good to see this article here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• " Joining the Australian Labor Party (ALP),[2] he became president and then secretary of the local party committee," - it would be good to comment on why he joined the party, and that it was (and officially remains) the political wing of the Australian union movement - more background on the party and its status at the time and during the early years of Critchley's political career would help to put things in perspective, especially for readers not familiar with Australian political history.
• "unsuccessful candidate for South Ward " - should this be "the South Ward"? This would seem to read better.
• The sentence starting with " Critchley worked as a motor registration clerk" is over-complex.
• The first para of the 'Federal politics' section should note that the ALP was in power at the time Critchley entered the Senate
• Do any sources comment on why he didn't serve as a minister or shadow minister despite his considerable political experience and prominent position in the SA Labor Party? Was he seen more as a loyalist and enforcer type character than an administrator?
• The ALP tends to laud its stalwarts more than is common for other Australian political parties: can anything be said about how Critchley has been memorialised by the party? Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments from HurricaneZeta

General

• There is a sandwich in the meteorological setup section with the infobox, could you fix that? Maybe move the risk map a bit lower. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed the sandwich problem Hoguert (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• "After the dissipation of the Pekin tornado, the super-cell quickly recycled and soon dropped the Washington tornado." — super-cell -> supercell HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   Done Hoguert (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• "After the Washington tornado dissipated, the supercell recycled and produced another tornado" — the supercell recycled -> the supercell recycled again or something along the lines of that HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   Done Hoguert (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Source review (HurricaneZeta)

• Refs 1 and 2 link to the same outlook on November 12, probably a mistake, you need to link to the November 13 one in ref 2 HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed Ref 2 link Hoguert (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• The outlook retrieved dates are from 2014, not 2024 HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Updated the dates Hoguert (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• "At around midday on November 15, the SPC issued a slight risk for severe weather for the 16th in regions concentrated primarily around Iowa and Missouri, forecasting the possibility of storms particularly during the evening to overnight hours of November 16.[5] The system associated with those storms was to track eastward and strengthen; as a result, the SPC also issued a Day 3 slight risk earlier on November 15 for a large swath of the Eastern United States in effect for November 17. The slight risk included a 30% chance of severe thunderstorm activity for an area concentrated on Indiana and Ohio.[5]" You could cut out the first reference since it's the same reference for both of them. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Removed first ref Hoguert (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• "However, at 0600 UTC on November 17, the SPC upgraded to a high risk for severe weather on the 17th (the second latest date in the year a high risk has been issued since 2000, and the latest in the Midwest)." 17th is said twice (at 600 UTC on November 17 and severe weather on the 17th) so it's redundant. Is there a source for the second latest date in the year claim? (courtesy ping User:Hoguert) HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  Removed the redundancy and claim. Hoguert (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• The tornado was on the ground for two minutes and reached a width of 100 yards; no one died, but the tornado caused ten injuries and $45 million in property damage.[11] - this citation just links to the DAT without a specific date HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  The link next to DAT one is the one that provides that info, removed the DAT source. Hoguert (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi HurricaneZeta, is there more to come from you on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I will continue today HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 17:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

HurricaneZeta Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My bad, not feeling too well, but will try to work on this Z E T A³ 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support by EF5

Will get started tomorrow. ^EF⁵ 03:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• was an unusually powerful is there a source for this? EF4 tornadoes happen yearly (minus 2018 but we won't talk about that). ^EF⁵ 14:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  The reason I say "unusually powerful" was the time of year it occurred and the state it touched down in. A tornado of Washington's intensity is very uncommon in November in Illinois, in fact its considered the strongest tornado on record in Illinois.[1]Im trying to communicate to the general viewers how much of an oddity this tornado was. Hoguert (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  Unless there are sources that state that the tornado was "unusually powerful", the inclusion of "unusually" is WP:OR, which includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'll compensate, I'll remove the "unusually" part since NWS does call this tornado powerful Hoguert (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• It was tied for the deadliest tornado of the outbreak, tied with another intense tornado that "tied" is used twice.
• The tornado was the eighth violent tornado of the below-average yet destructive year of 2013 source? I believe it was recently made that page links themselves do not count as sources in statements.
• The tornado caused $935 million (2013 USD) link USD
• Additionally, a controversy began as Federal Emergency Management Agency declined add "(FEMA)" after
• Can the captions in the image be cut down a bit? They are longer than normal.
• The "multiple image" in the meteorological synopsis section needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
• Same for the second multi-image in the article.

More coming shortly. ^EF⁵ 14:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Removed the first "tied"
• Reworded
• Linked
• Added (FEMA)
• Cut down the caption a little
• Added the alt texts

Hoguert (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• This long-lived supercell produced five tornadoes near Pekin, Washington, Dana, Coal City, Manhattan, and Frankfort, the strongest and longest-tracked being the Washington, Illinois, tornado all of these towns need linked
• Then, at 10:52 am CDT, the supercell produced a strong but short-lived EF2 tornado over at Pekin Remove "at"
• width of 100 yards needs a {{convert}} template
• $45 million in property damage in what year?
• E Reed Road I doubt this is the road's actual name - maybe "East Reed Road"?
• Crossing E Spring Road same as above.
• inflicting $12.75 million in damages in what year?
• W Burns Road, S Schoolhouse Road, W Draffle Road none of these are the actual road names unless I'm missing something.
• issued a Particularly dangerous situation lowercase the "P".
• Overall, the tornado caused $110 million in what year?
• English Oak St change to "English Oak Street" as I'm noticing the road names in the article are inconsistent.
• W Cruger Road per above.
• A farmstead on N Main Street per above.
• causing $800 million in damage in the city in what year?
• and $910 million in damage in the county in what year?
• initially destroyed by another violent tornado change "initially" to "destroyed".
• crossed Illinois 117 this isn't the road name; it's Illinois Route 117.
• along E 7th Road per above.
• The tornado caused nearly $1 billion in what year?
• $800 million of that in Washington and another $110 million in East Peoria in what year?
• it inflicted $25 million in damage in what year?
• In the table, swap "Source" for {{Reference column heading}}.
• The names in the table aren't sorted by age or alphabetical last name; it would be preferable to have them sorted in one of two ways.
• At the OSF Saint Francis Medical Center and Medical Methodist Center, both in Peoria, treated dozens of patients worded weirdly
• On January 23, 2025, Anthony W. Lyza with the link Anthony Lyza
• departments like the Department of Insurance helped this department does not exist when looking it up to a federal level.
• more than $400,000 in and donated $100,000 to tornado in what year?
• of the EF4 tornado to benefit the residents I don't see how the rating is particularly relevant here.
• generating $2,570 that was later donated to Washington Illinois Area Foundation tornado relief, with the bricks valued at $7,000 in what year? If all of these are the same I would suggest using an EFN at the first mention of money
• and less than twelve hours later, forget the MOS shortcut, but numbers over ten are not spelled out.

More to come. ^EF⁵ 13:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Added the links
• Removed at
• Coverted 100 yd to m
• Is it really necessary to have every millions/billions damage estimates to have year and USD? I feel like the general reader would understand what year and currency the tornado occurred in by now, especially since its established what year and currency the tornado occurred in in the lede and infobox.
• Fixed the road names
• Lowercased "Particularly"
• Removed "initially"
• Replaced and linked Illinois Route 117
• Fixed the table section.
• Reworded to "In Peoria, the OSF Saint Francis Medical Center and Medical Methodist Center treated dozens of patients"
• Linked Anthony Lyza
• Don't really know what to say for that, so ill just remove that "departments like the" part
• Removed the rating
• Numbered the twelve

Hoguert (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi EF5, just checking where you have got to on this one. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thanks, I forgot to remove the "more to come" message, as that's all I have. I've supported as I don't think the below issue is a big deal prose-wise. ^EF⁵ 15:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by from UC

There is a missing comma in the article title, per MOS:GEOCOMMA. This is handled correctly in the first sentence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I assume the missing comma should be after Illinois. So "2013 Washington, Illinois, tornado"? Hoguert (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Hoguert (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru Hoguert (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hoguert:, thanks for the ping. A controversial page move requires an RM, and this one has already been reverted before so it shouldn't be moved boldly. These sorts of moves, proposing to add an extra comma into the name after the state name, are routinely opposed anyway - see Talk:2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado and Talk:2015 Columbus, Ohio mayoral election for examples; simply because the form with Washington, Illinois, tornado looks awkward, like it's a list of separate things rather than an article title. I would support a move to 2013 Washington tornado, since there wasn't any other such notable tornado in any other Washington (either the state or the city), although it seems that was also rejected via RM. Best to leave it alone I'd suggest, it shouldn't be a deal-breaker for FAC. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Not convinced here: FAs have to follow the MoS, and titles aren't exempt from that. The MoS is always amenable to exceptions in exceptional circumstances, but "I don't like the way that looks" isn't really one of those -- it's really a blanket statement of disagreement with MOS:GEOCOMMA rather than a proposition that the specifics of this situation mean that we should overlook it. I don't see how we could promote an article where it's acknowledged that it's breaking the MoS simply out of disagreement with it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

UC raises a good point. FAC is a place for establishing consensuses. As they point out, you will need a better reason that I don't like it to establish an exception to the MoS. Eg, how does this appear in the HQ RSs. And re not being a deal-breaker, non-adherence to the MoS is pretty bulletproof should a reviewer wish to oppose on that basis. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

In case it's needed procedurally, I'd oppose promotion of the article under the current title unless/until consensus can be demonstrated that a specific reason exists to make an exception to the MoS for it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Consensus mostl reached that the addition of the comma is opposed, are you still steadfast with your opposition of this article getting FA status? Hoguert (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you point me to that consensus? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This one Talk:2013_Washington,_Illinois_tornado#Requested_move_12_October_2025 Hoguert (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not impressed that I was not informed of the discussion after expressing an interest in the matter. (Above.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Aviationwikiflight

Some preliminary comments:

• This long-lived supercell produced five tornadoes near Pekin, Washington, Dana, Coal City, Manhattan, and Frankfort, the strongest and longest-tracked being the Washington, Illinois, tornado. – The source doesn't mention that the supercell was "long-lived." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  A source that calls the supercell long-tracked source so I could reworded it a little. Hoguert (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• After the dissipation of the Pekin tornado, the super-cell quickly recycled and soon dropped the Washington tornado. – I can't see where it's mentioned in the source that after the Pekin tornado dissipated, the supercell then formed the Washington tornado. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Reworded and added a new source. Hoguert (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• The weather did no favors in helping the recovery efforts. Through the rest of the month of November, it only got above 50 °F (10 °C) once, with the temperature getting down to a low 10 °F (−12 °C) on November 24 (20 °F [11 °C] below average) with snow being reported. What followed was one of the worst winters on record for the area, with nearby Peoria reporting a record 57.6 inches (146 cm) of snow through the winter and the state of Illinois as a whole having its 9th coldest winter on record. – The two sources cited are records of historical weather data (primary sources) . The first sentence is not verified; "What followed was one of the worst winters..." is a personal opinion; unless there are secondary sources that talk about this, the paragraph should be cut since there's isn't much to suggest that this is relevant. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Nah, it actually seems like the harsh winter did indeed have an affect on the recovery and rebuilding effort [1] [2][3] Also the "What followed was one of the worst winters" claim isn't a personal opinion, NOAA themselves directly claimed it, though they did say "since 1978" so maybe that claim could be reworded a little.[4] [5] Hoguert (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Then they should be added into the article. As it currently stands, none of the two cited sources verify the content. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Included the sources  Done Hoguert (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• As of the 2020 United States census, Washington, Illinois, had a population of 16,071 people, an increase from 15,134 people in the 2010 census. – Other than the census cited, do secondary sources mention this in the context of the tornado? Like, I'm not sure I see how it is relevant to mention Washington's population count. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well its relevant to show how tornadoes affect the population of towns and cities afterwards. Hoguert (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  https://www.ci.washington.il.us/category/subcategory.php?categoryid=18 Would this be considered a secondary source? Hoguert (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aviationwikiflight, anything to add here? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry, I’ll get back to it this weekend. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Aviationwikiflight, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In progress. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

For the lead:

• The 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado was a powerful and devastating tornado that caused catastrophic damage to the city of Washington and several farmsteads in rural central Illinois during the late morning of Sunday, November 17, 2013. – Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, the opening sentence should be rephrased (e.g. see Greensburg tornado). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• The tornado caused $935 million... – Unsourced and not directly stated in the article body (only mention of damage totals in the article: "The tornado caused nearly $1 billion in damage"). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done Fixed and added sources. Hoguert (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• The tornado was one of the nine violent tornadoes of the below-average yet destructive year of 2013. – Unsourced and not verified in the article body. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/tornadoes/201313 Could this partially work as a reliable source for the second half of the statement? Hoguert (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• …becoming one of the costliest tornadoes of all time. – Same here. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done Claim removed Hoguert (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• The tornado was also the strongest to occur in November in the state of Illinois since records began in 1950. – Same here. This phrase also contradicts this journal article which states that [the tornado] was the strongest November tornado in Illinois since at least 1950 and one of the nation's three most damaging November outbreaks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done Reworded and added a source Hoguert (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• ...covering a path length of approximately 46.2 miles (74.4 km) and reaching a maximum peak width of 0.5 miles (880 yd; 0.80 km). – Unsourced and not stated in the article body (as far as I can tell). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done Fixed Hoguert (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(Also I want people to give me a complementary ping to notify me when they're adding entries to FAC so I could reply more quickly) First paragraph reworded Hoguert (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This has been open for nearly four weeks and has just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather Notifying them to the discussion Hoguert (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

MCE89

Some initial comments on source quality and reference formatting below. Further comments including spot checks to follow. MCE89 (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Yola (2010) appears to be a working paper that was written by an author who was a PhD student at the time. Was the working paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal?
  • As advised by UndercoverClassisist, this seems to be the publication of a conference talk under the auspices of IFRA [fr], one of the French overseas research institutes; the author is a university academic. That would seem to meet WP:RS on the surface of it.
    • I had missed that the author was a graduate student at the time: we do allow PhD theses under WP:THESIS, but the advice there is to look for corroborating evidence of review and to prefer theses that have been cited in academic literature. I'd suggest that it would be a good idea to apply similar standards here, and to look into whether the talk was ever published in any form, or cited more widely, or whether the author ended up putting the same ideas into an unquestionably reliable source later. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree with UndercoverClassicist. I would expect that a final version of this paper would likely have been published elsewhere, which would be preferable to cite instead. In my experience, presenting a working paper at a conference typically involves much less scrutiny than final publication in a journal (although it does vary), since it's often intended to be an opportunity to get feedback on a work-in-progress piece of research. Often the review process will just involve a panel screening your abstract, not a proper peer review of the paper itself. Unless there's any information about this particular conference's review process or evidence that the working paper has been cited elsewhere, I'd be a little hesitant to use it. MCE89 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

      @MCE89 Does this help? , with the editorial committee here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

      My concern is that those guidelines say the series is for "field materials and preliminary analyses", which suggests that it's for work-in-progress preliminary results rather than final research outputs. It does indicate that there is a degree of review, but doesn't make clear whether this is a proper peer review or just a working paper screening. Given that this paper doesn't seem to have been cited anywhere else and doesn't seem to have been published as a final research output in a peer reviewed journal, I'd suggest at the very least relying on it less heavily in that section. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

      @MCE89 Okay thank you. Should I start cutting it now or wait till you finish your spot checks? Per the cutting, I cited Yola 2010 twelve times, would having that number be a definition of what you mean by "relying less heavily" on it in that section? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• The "Further reading" section is very long, and I'm not sure most of these sources would help the reader to learn more about the subject. For instance, I don’t think this relatively insubstantial article about a church choir singing for Independence Day is useful further reading. I would suggest incorporating any sources that are useful into the article as references, and cutting most or all of the remaining sources in "Further reading"
  • Done. I trimmed the section.
• There are a few pieces of information cited to primary sources that I'm not sure are WP:DUE for inclusion. If there are secondary sources available I would suggest that they be used instead, and if not I would query whether the information should be included:
  • In Canada, the Province of Manitoba formally recognised Nigerian Independence Day in 2024, citing contributions made by Nigerians to the province. - This feels like a bit of a cherry-picked example, as it seems that many other cities/states/provinces have also taken steps to recognise the occasion. The source also doesn't quite verify the article's claim, as the citation is to an announcement that a bill to recognise the day had been introduced, not that the province had yet officially recognised the day
    • I replaced the source with a more appropriate one. Speaking of cherry picking, the paragraph actually started with "Nigerian communities abroad also commemorate the day" and I didn't mention only the Manitoba one. I have no problems with removing it entirely if you think so.
  • During the Cold War, independence anniversaries became opportunities for diplomatic signalling...analysts working for the Central Intelligence Agency described the event as emblematic of Soviet efforts to build influence among newly independent African states. - Is there a better source than this CIA report?
    • I couldn't find any other.
• The third paragraph of the "Interruptions and controversies" section essentially recounts the views of one professor as quoted in one 2010 VoA article, which seems like potentially undue emphasis. Did this article have some kind of influence or secondary attention that demonstrates that these particular views are worthy of this level of focus?
  • I used this because the individual is a university academic, and on top of it, this piece was also televised/broadcast elsewhere; at the BBC, The Nigerian Voice.
    • This still feels like quite a lot of focus to give to the views quoted in this one particular article. The fact that he's a professor and that some quotes were pulled by other outlets doesn't really show that this merits a full paragraph of discussion under the heading "Interruptions and controversies". Were there other figures who commented on how Nigeria's development after 50 years compared to its aspirations at independence?
      • As recommended by Pbritti below, I removed the quote and paraphrased. Is that sufficient? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
        • Not exactly — my question is more about why we are spending a full paragraph on quotes from this one source. There must be hundreds of op-eds and other articles where academics and experts give their views on Nigeria's development in the context of these anniversaries. Unless there is something about the views expressed in this 2010 VoA article that turns it into a noteworthy "event", it seems a little strange to dedicate such a significant portion of the section on "Interruptions and controversies" to it. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

          @MCE89 I removed large portions of the commentary and merged it with the protest paragraph. If this is not okay, please let me know, I am not opposed to removing it entirely, if not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

          BTW, I sorted out the spot-check queries below too. Thank you so so much. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

          @MCE89 Thanks. How about the aboves? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Reference formatting

• Capitalisation of titles should be consistent (i.e. title case or sentence case) for sources of the same type
  • Okay, thank you so much. I maintained title case across all types of sources.
• The main list of sources contains some primary sources that should be moved to the "Primary" section of your bibliography (e.g. the 2016 Buhari speech)
  • Done.
• Refs 26 and 29: p -> pp
  • Done.
• Odesanya, Nosayaba (2019a) should have a more specific date, and doesn't need the "a"
  • I am following the recommendations at Template:Sfn#More_than_one_work_in_a_year; this is also not the first time I have used sources by same author in same year.
    • Ah got it, I didn't see that there was a 2019b down in further reading. I'd still include the full date for consistency with your other newspaper sources though.
      • Done. I tagged the further reading one with |ref=none and added full dates across both.
• Gero, David (1999): Full title needs to be in title case for consistency with other book sources
  • Done, thank you.
• Adefolaju, Toyin; Adeyemi, Odedokun (30 June 2017): Link is dead, and missing ISSN
  • Fixed, added ISSN, and direct link to PDF instead.
• "Nigeria Becomes Free Nation October 1, As Whole World Watches". Minneapolis Spokesman. - You haven’t included OCLCs for other newspaper sources, is there a reason one is included here?
  • Removed this one.
• Arinde, Nayaba (7 October 2010) and Arinde, Nayaba (1 October 2009) - Inconsistent title capitalisation
  • Fixed this one too.

Source spot checks

I've listed the results of my initial spot checks below. All numbering is as of this revision. Just let me know if I've missed something when reading the sources for any of these. I'll do some final spotchecks once these have all been resolved. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 1 - Page number appears to be wrong, should be p.6 instead of p.154?
• Ref 2 - Good
• Ref 4 - Good
• Ref 11 - I can’t find most of this, including the location or crowd size, on the cited pages
• Ref 12 - The ceremony was attended by international dignitaries, including United States Vice President Richard Nixon, British Colonial Secretary Iain Macleod, and Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd - I can’t see where the cited pages of ref 12 mention any of this. Ref 15 says that Nixon would be attending, but doesn't mention Macleod or Lloyd
• Ref 14 - I can’t find this on the cited pages
• Ref 19 - Many highlife artists operated nightclubs, hotels, and sometimes recording or rehearsal spaces in preparation for the festivities. - The source says that many artists began to run hotels and nightclubs to attract attention to their music, but I don’t think it says that they started businesses specifically in order to prepare for the independence celebrations
• Ref 20 - Good
• Ref 23 - Good
• Ref 24 - On 1 October 1960, the Independence State Ball and other events in Lagos were organised as part of the national celebration. - No mention of the Independence State Ball on the cited page
• Ref 26 - Good
• Ref 28 - Good
• Ref 31 - A central part of the national programme is the military parade of the Nigerian Armed Forces, followed by the ceremonial raising of the national flag. - The cited source says that the 1960 military parade and flag raising were inspiring events, but I don't think it verifies the claim that they remain a central part of the celebrations
• Ref 31 - State-wide observances usually complement national ceremonies with parades and cultural displays, drawing large crowds. - I don't see where the source verifies this
• Ref 32 - Good
• Ref 38 - Good
• Ref 42 - Good
• Ref 43 - During the Cold War, independence anniversaries became opportunities for diplomatic signalling. - I don’t think the CIA report supports this broader claim that independence anniversaries in general became opportunities for diplomatic signalling
• Ref 48 - Good
• Ref 51 - Good
  • I sorted all of them out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  @MCE89 Do we have any progress? Tysm! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Vanderwaalforces Sorry for the delay! I'm planning to do some further spot checks tomorrow. MCE89 (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Spot checks were much cleaner this time. I just found two remaining issues:

  • Ref 10 - Doesn’t look like the link goes where it should
  • Ref 50 - Confirms that Henry Okah had been detained in South Africa, but doesn’t verify the claim that he ended up standing trial on terrorism charges

  MCE89 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @MCE89 Thank you.

  • Ref 10: I fixed the link to a static image
  • Ref 50: I quote from the source that Amid the furore over responsibility for the Abuja bombing is the leading figure in MEND, Henry Okah, whose own statements on the matter are as tangled as the government’s. In February 2008, Okah was arrested in Angola for traf- ficking arms for MEND and detained by the Nigerian Federal authorities. Under an amnesty he was released in July 2009 and took refuge in South Africa. After the Abuja bombing, South African police arrested him at his house in Johannesburg on suspicion of terror- ism and at President Goodluck Jona- than’s behest. He now faces extradition to Nigeria, where subsequent claims and counterclaims have cast confusion over the bombers’ identities and motives. Okah says his arrest on ‘‘terrorism’’ charges is part of a political plot by President Jonathan, a native of the Delta, to discredit his opponents ahead of elections in early 2011.

  Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  That quote verifies that he was arrested in South Africa for terrorism and that he was facing extradition to Nigeria, but it doesn't verify the claim that he stood trial in South Africa on terrorism charges MCE89 (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  @MCE89 More quotes... ‘‘It is about these elections and the Nigerian government’s belief that I’m working on the side of the opposition,’’ he said. Okah says he received a text message from one of Jonathan’s advisors after the blasts asking him to have MEND retract its claim of responsibility for the attacks. He claims the government planned to place the blame on the Pres- ident’s political rivals from the coun- try’s predominantly Muslim north. ‘‘The President doesn’t want it to seem that his government is being fought against by people from his place,’’ he said. In evidence presented to Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on October 21st, the prosecution alleged that the 45-year old former marine engineer had been in contact with the people who coordi- nated the October 1st bombings, This Day reported (22 ⁄ 10). Reading from an affidavit, state prosecutor Shaun Abra- hams said Okah had been in contact with Chima Orlu, one of two men wanted in connection with the bomb- ings. While in South Africa, Okah had allegedly instructed his co-conspirators to drive the cars to where the attacks would be launched. In a responding affi- davit, Okah denied his involvement in the attacks. Speaking from his cell in Johannesburg on October 17th, he called the case against him ‘‘ludicrous’’. ‘‘If I was lead- ing militant activities I wouldn’t be here in South Africa, I should be there on the ground with them,’’ he told AFP. ‘‘You can’t lead operations by phone. It’s impossible. I would have been there with them. But of course I’m not doing that. I’m more like a political leader of our struggle. ‘‘I’m a voice that the people listen to. The real fighters in the Niger Delta lis- ten to my voice.’’

  The passage refers to "Johannesburg Magistrate's Court" and "state prosecutor Shaun Abrahams", describing affidavit evidence presented there. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  @MCE89 Does this work? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yep that works, sorry I missed that bit. Comfortable that this passes the verifiability standard. MCE89 (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  @MCE89 Tysm, I'm sorry for the pings; please, what do you think now, generally? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Pass on verifiability and reference formatting, but I think this still needs a second opinion from a more experienced FAC source reviewer to confirm that the sourcing is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and that all sources are high-quality reliable sources. MCE89 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  @MCE89 Tysm!! Do you know anyone I could ask to take a look? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, do you have any thoughts regarding MCE89's comment on the sourcing immediately above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Took a look. Most sources seem good but I wonder what makes Legit.ng and Prime 9ja Online RS. Can't speak about comprehensiveness, since my knowledge about Nigeria essentially starts and stops with African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much Jo-Jo, (re Prime 9ja Online) as I said in this discussion, both Legit.ng and Prime 9ja Online pass basic reliability checks, for example, they publish articles with bylines, they have editorial guidelines and fact-checking standards, have corrections policies, and are not sponsored by a state or the federal government; fully independent. CR: Policies and Standards at Legit.ng, Legit.ng Manifesto, Values and Mission, Editorial Guidelines / Code of Ethics - Prime 9ja Online, How Prime 9ja Online reporters avoid getting personally involved in politics - Prime 9ja Online, Fact-Checking Policy - Prime 9ja Online, among others.

  I have no reason to question their reliability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Do they have an editorial board? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo perhaps, For Legit, For Legit, for Prime 9ja Online. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Legit seems to work, then. With respect to Prime 9ja I can't find much on these people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo I just looked and realised I didn’t really cite Prime 9ja in the article’s prose; it’s in the further reading. We could assume good faith, otherwise I could remove it from further reading if you think so? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Meh, OK, assuming that Prime 9ja is prominent enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Right. Okay then. Thank you so much for your comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild Looks like we're done here. Thank you for pinging Jo-Jo, In had pestered others, but they were either too busy for or didn't reply at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Support from Pbritti

Intermittent comments will be forthcoming. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Why not use File:NAF911 - Lockheed C-130H Hercules - Nigeria Air Force at Oberpfaffenhofen Airport (OBF) in August 1989.jpg, which depicts the aircraft involved in the accident?
  • Thanks, Pbritti, I replaced that one with this one now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• I generally find "recently released" and similar wording to persist long after the recency has worn off. I recommend futureproofing with something along the lines "then new" or a specific date.
  • Done, thank you!
• Per MOS:PROFESSOR, I'd advise against "Professor Kabiru Mato", especially since there's an adequate gloss that follows him name.
  • Done.
• The quote attributed to Mato regarding the "$20- to $30-billion dollars" does not appear to be a verbatim quote and should not be attributed to him directly. I recommend paraphrasing. Perhaps this is an Engvar, but I don't believe that numbers are hyphenated, as they are not adjectival.
  • I checked again, and it is, in fact, verbatim. Did I miss something?
    • The article says "Mato said, despite the fact the Nigerian government might have spent over $20- to $30-billion dollars during the last 12 years since the beginning of civil rule in 1999, to improve electricity supply, most of the country is always in darkness." The article does not put quotation marks around that statement. It is a summary or paraphrase of something he said and should not be presented as a direct quote from him.
      • Oh, thank you so much. I understand now. I have worked on that.
• "(serial 911)" is perhaps a tad too much detail for this article.
  • Removed.
• I'm only finding some unreliable sources on this, but maybe you know where to look: Coffman Memorial Union seems to have hosted Nigerian Independence Day celebrations in recent years, so it's perhaps worth mentioning that continuity.
  • Pbritti I could not find RSes to lean on too. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    • No surprise there. Not a big deal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• I'm looking around and believe that there's a good chance Sarkin Taushin Katsina is notable. I also suspect that there may be an article we can link using {{ill}}, but I don't know what languages to search.
  • Pbritti I'm telling you, Sarkin Taushin Katsina is actually notable, I'm as well surprised we do not have an enwiki article. I also found out that hawiki does not have an article either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Pbritti Do we have any progress? Tysm! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have taken note of the coordinator comment below (I'm in a slightly similar situation on my own current FAC). I need to reread the article in full tomorrow and compare against other reviews, but your responses to my comments have been satisfactory. Thanks for the ping. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Here are some additional comments as I do another read through:

• "the Northern and Southern protectorates" You should repipe these to read as Northern and Southern Nigeria protectorates.
• "followed by the Macpherson Constitution of 1951 and the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which established a federal structure" My understanding is that the Richard Constitution also introduced elements of a federal structure in Nigeria. This may be a good place for a semicolon to effect a clearer delineation in what these constitutions accomplished. Additionally, consider fixing those redirects that you link to so that they go straight to the relevant sections of the Constitution of Nigeria article.
• Consider linking Prime Minister of Nigeria on first mention
• I'm fairly surprised that "decolonization" does not appear anywhere in the background to this event. While I am greatly appreciative of how Nigerian agency is centered in this article, Nigerian independence did not occur in a vacuum and clearer discussion of who exactly the Nigerians were gain independence from would be good for readers.
• Minor glosses of what the Union Jack is and who Elizabeth II, Nnamdi Azikiwe, and Jaja Wachuku were are probably worth considering, as not all readers will be familiar with these names and their relevance to this subject.
• Refer to Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as just "Balewa" on second mention of him in the body.
• "represented the United States President" specify Dwight D. Eisenhower here and link his name. In the succeeding sentence about Nixon, just call him "Eisenhower" with no title.
• Link military tattoo, as many readers with a poor familiarity with British military culture will not be familiar with these events.
• "and Edo as well" put a comma after Edo.

More comments may be forthcoming, but that's a start. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti TYSM, I fixed all. Regarding the decolonisation thingy, per my reply to Simongraham below, things like these belong to a dedicated article about the entire history of independence in Nigeria, not an Independence Day article. I once had a version that was criticised because it had too much focus on independence history and not the day. I added a "Main article" hatnote at the beginning of that section for a reason :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Thanks for your reply! I will take a closer look at everything once again. I apologize if you feel like reviewers give you a pendulum-like feeling with contradicting requests; I will assent to the desires of earlier reviewers and consider the hatnote good enough. I am presently leaning strongly towards supporting this as an FA. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti Oh, I missed this. Thank you so much. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti Sorry for the ping, lol, but any luck on a final read? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Only the most minor quibbles before I offer my support: for the source presently listed as Eisenhower 2001, you might consider using the |orig-date= parameter, as well as the url-access=subscription parameter. Otherwise, I'm pretty much on board here! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti Done! Thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti Luck? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for no immediate reply! I am going to support on prose. I am now noticing that the references are not organized in the bibliography in a fashion I am familiar with, but that is insufficient for me to feel comfortable considering this something other than FA in quality. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Tysm, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from simongraham

• Image review:

Young kids celebrate Nigeria's independence in 1960.png has appropriate PD tag.

Nigerian Air Force C-130 (6837681965).jpg has an appropriate CC tag.

These both pass.

I agree with the comment by Pbritti that NAF911 - Lockheed C-130H Hercules - Nigeria Air Force at Oberpfaffenhofen Airport (OBF) in August 1989.jpg could be used instead. It has an appropriate CC tag. The file notes a discrepancy in the coordinates but that is not material to this article.

I wonder if it is worth including any images of more recent celebrations. Wikimedia has NIGERIA MODELS CELEBRATION OF INDEPENDENCE.jpg and Nigerians celebrating their country's 61st independence anniversary in Mogadishu, Somalia (51539145387).jpg, both with CC licenses, although I am not sure that they are appropriate as the only examples. There may be more at the Online Archive: African Independence Days, for example. I suggest it is worth looking at this to see if any are relevant and have appropriate licenses.

• The Times on Thursday September 29, 1960, in an article titled "First Steps Towards Balance of Payments" (accessible through the Wikipedia Library) commented that "over 100 manufacturers wll be showing their products in the "Made in Nigeria" section of the Nigeria Exhibition opening in Lagos on Independence Day." (p. 38) I suggest this is worth including.
• There is also an interesting report of a statement from Iain Macleod after the day also in The Times, on Thursday October 13, 1960, in "Mr. Macleod's Pledge On Duty To Colonies".
• A publication Nigeria: A Special Independence Issue of Nigeria Magazine October 1960 was produced with 232 pages plus appendices. It has this quote "Now that independence has been achieved, the main problem as it is seen by Nigerian leaders is how to encourage those elements in the history and constitution of the country that make for national unity, and how to discourage those that emphasise tribal differences and regional separation." (p. 11).
• Suggest looking at Musa and Oyeleye's chapter titled Nigeria: Nationalism, Mass Media, and the Crisis of National Identity in Fuller's book (available on archive here), which gives a critique of the celebration of independence day.

@Vanderwaalforces: Great to see this article and the work you have done to get it to this standard. Please tell me if you would like any more on these publications. simongraham (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Could you clarify why File:Young_kids_celebrate_Nigeria's_independence_in_1960.png is believed to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that, in Nigeria, copyright for photographs generally expires 50 years after the publishing date so it has been in the public domain in the place of publication since 2010, and it was first published before 1964 without copyright renewal so is public domain in the US. "Cinematograph films or photographs get into the public domain 50 years after first publication. An example are the images and videos taken during Nigeria’s Independence are in the public domain because they have existed for over 50 years after they have been published." However, I am not a lawyer and am happy to be proved wrong.

When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The entry in wikimedia says October 1960, which seems reasonable. simongraham (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It gives that as a date - it doesn't specify that that is a publication date, as opposed to creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Speaking of the date of creation; I think it is fair enough to say these images were "created" on that same day of Independence, although based on our previous conversations, the publication date does seem to be very confusing to tell, but I see that Cartwright 1961 used some of the images in question in their publication. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree re: date of creation. Wrt publication, was this particular image included in Cartwright 1961? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Not this particular image. Question: Would any of these independence day picture which were published in works as of that time or two/three/five years after be considered published? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I follow - if they were published, they were published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I also couldn't understand what you meant. Did you not understand my question? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No - could you rephrase? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: To clarify what you need to prove, you need evidence that the image was published publicly (in a newspaper, book, magazine) in 1975 or earlier. If the image was taken, kept in a box for decades years, published for the first time in a book in 2023, then we can't use it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti Ah I see. I found a radio broadcast by ARD Audiothek released in 1960 at https://www.ardaudiothek.de/episode/urn:ard:episode:a4907a3ebe3e0215/ with this image, is this sufficient?

@Nikkimaria too Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

A radio broadcast wouldn't have had an image associated with it, when originally released. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti, @Nikkimaria I have removed the image, will find others that are appropriate and freely licensed so that I can add. Thank you both. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham Thank you sm for the comments. So, one of the major issues this article had was that it was focusing more on the general history and story of independence in Nigeria, and NOT the DAY of Independence. I worked extensively on making sure the article focuses on the Day of Independence of Nigeria and not the broad spectrum of Independence History as I think that belongs to something like an article that discusses the History of Independence in Nigeria.

I have gone ahead and added the Made in Nigeria thing from The Times' "First Steps Towards Balance of Payments" article. Please can you show me how to access ? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the archive does not seem to be online any longer but the materials list is available. Anne Brandstetter at JGU seems to the contact; her details are linked from the webpage. simongraham (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham That so sad. I was really looking into getting of the images. But I guess if I ever get contact with her, I could always add the images? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham Do we have any progress? Tysm! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Conditional on the concerns raised by the other editors, I am happy to support the application. simongraham (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

BorgQueen

• Per MOS:ORDER, the See also section should precede the Notes section. BorgQueen (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you sm BorgQueen, sorted out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Any other thing that would withhold your support on this nomination please? Tysm, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to add my support. simongraham (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild Hi there. Any updates on this, please? Tysm! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The additional support, coming from a solid review removes the imminent danger of archiving. But the nom could do with a further couple of solid reviews. I have added it to Urgents and for whatever help it may be paste below my standard boilerplate on finding reviewers.

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• John Rawls (1971 photo portrait).jpg: PD because it failed the formalities of US copyright
• Portrait Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (cropped).jpg:PD, scan of a PD image due to age-1862

When was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe that's irrelevant- 163 years ago is long enough for the assumed tag of PD. HSLover/DWF (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree: Proudhon died in 1865 so we should be fine in terms of copyright. Beecher 2021 p. 241 says the photo is from 1862. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The current tagging says it's PD in the US because it was published before 1930 - is that known to be the case or should a different tag be used? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Which tag do you suggest? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

To determine that, it would be helpful to know when and where this was first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If you are just interested in proof that it is from 1862, see the source above. I'm not sure that there is a good way to acquire hard proof about the US publishing history other than going through all Proudhon-related books published before 1930 in the US to look for that image. This would be a very time-consuming activity. Do you have serious concerns that this is not PD even though it is from 1862? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

In case you are not concerned about the PD status but only about its justification, do think https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US would be better as a tag? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

What I'm concerned about is whether we can prove it's PD, per Wp:IUPC. I appreciate that can be difficult to do with an unknown publication history. What is the first publication that is known? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I asked at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_the_photo_File:Portrait_Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon_(cropped).jpg_public_domain_in_the_US? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I found some information on the publication history that hopefully solves our problem: from Bibliothèque nationale de France: "... Publication date: 1854-1865 ... Rights: Public domain ...". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that works. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Edmund Burke EMWEA.jpg:PD due to age-1873 (technically the image is missing the US PD tag, so you can add that if you like on Commons)
• John Locke.jpg:PD due to age-1697 portrait
• Marx-Engels-Denkmal (Berlin-Mitte).jpg:CC BY SA 4.0, own work of uploader
• Portret van Niccolò Machiavelli, RP-P-1909-5432.jpg:PD due to age-1850 portrait
• Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg:PD due to age-17th "century portrait
• Half Portraits of the Great Sage and Virtuous Men of Old - Confucius.jpg:PD due to age-13th century portrait
• Bust of Ibn Khaldun (Casbah of Bejaia, Algeria).jpg:CC BY SA 4.0- own work of a statue, but Algeria has freedom of panorama
• Hannah Arendt auf dem 1. Kulturkritikerkongress, Barbara Niggl Radloff, FM-2019-1-5-9-16 (cropped) (cropped).jpg:CC BY SA 4.0-was donated to source by original copyright holder

Images in article are all good. However, needs images or diagrams in lead and maybe in "Government, power, and laws". Will pass image review after that is done.

Skimmed through the article too- if it means anything, support on the prose. Well done, Phlsph7, another great article, as is usual for you. HSLover/DWF (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@HSLover/DWF: Thanks for the image review and the support on prose! I added an image to the section "Government, power, and laws". For this type of wide topic, it's difficult to find lead images representative of the topic as a whole without being associated with one specific tradition, so it may be better to have no lead image. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

New image is great- and PD due to age- copy of a 1509 fresco. What you are saying about lead not having a image does feel correct, so passing the image review. Keep up with the great work! HSLover/DWF (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Btw, would you like to review an article I have nominated for GA? HSLover/DWF (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently a little busy but I'll look into it when I get the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! HSLover/DWF (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If you give Hunter Schafer a prose review as well, I promise to give a prose review to Political Philosophy. HSLover/DWF (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. As I said, I'm kind of occupied at the moment. You could try asking for reviews at Wikiprojects that are directly relevant to the topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, should have made clear that I meant whenever, not necessarily now. I have reasons for not wanting to ask on wikiprojects relevant to the topic. HSLover/DWF (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments by voorts

Review forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think it would be due for the discussion of power to discuss Foucault. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  I added a sentence on topics associated with Foucault. Foucault is mentioned by name later in the history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• How did you determine what are considered the "basic" concepts of political philosophy and its "major" schools of thought? I think, for example, that "rights" is a basic concept and that populism is currently a major school of thought. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Primarily by looking at how overview sources treat the topic. For example, Moseley, § 3 Political Schools of Thought and Vincent 2009 have separate sections on anarchism, conservatism, liberalism, and socialism but not on populism. You are right that populism is an influential force in contemporary politics but political philosophy is more about general underlying principles. Our article discusses populism in the section "Major schools of thought#Others", so technically, it's included as "another" major school. I added a sentence on rights. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  I agree political philosophy looks at underlying principles. Have any overview sources come out in the last 10ish years? How do those sources treat the major philosophies? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Section 2 of The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy from 2025 is dedicated to political ideologies. It does not have a chapter on populism and the book does not list populism in its index. I could look through more sources, but my impression is that populism overall gets less attention from political philosophers than the other schools mentioned above. This could be particular to political philosophy and political scientists may give more attention to the matter since they are usually more focused on describing the contemporary political landscape. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Other key liberal topics include the defense of private property and the rule of law. This sentence feels misplaced. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• In the history section: Max Weber/sociology?; late-20th/early-21st century (Žižek on ideology?) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  I added a sentence on Weber. Texts on the history of political philosophy often end somewhere in the 20th century. One reason may be that when summarizing a field spanning several millennia, it can be difficult to assess the importance of more recent developments. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• In China, Marxism was reinterpreted add "under Mao Zedong (1893–1976)". voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Voorts and thanks for reviewing the nomination! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna do a deeper dive. Those were just some initial thoughts. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Just checking whether you have had the time to take another look at the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the time. I'll support on prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

750h

Leaving my mark. 750h+ 13:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

lead

• principles outlining how society should ==> "principles that outline how society should"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

definition/related fields

• branch of philosophy studying the theoretical ==> "branch of philosophy that studies the theoretical"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• concepts like state, government, i might recommend changing "like" to "such as" for formality, just a preference though.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

basic concepts

• control a good such as the ==> "control a good, such as the"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• concerns the abilities to vote for someone and ==> "concerns the ability to vote for someone and" (i believe, not too sure)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• political thought stating that well-being is ==> "political thought that states that well-being is"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

major schools of thought

• arguing that the prioritization of the status quo ==> "arguing that prioritizing the status quo"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• than the abstract ideals of reason i think this "the" is redundant

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Central commitments for most liberals are support of various forms of liberty this is grammatically incorrect

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• with the relation between humans and nature should this be "with the relationship between humans and nature"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

methodology

No problems here.

history

• of states, such as king, ministers ==> "of states, such as the king, ministers"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Meanwhile in China starting roughly 960 CE ==> "Meanwhile, in China, starting roughly 960 CE"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: that's all I got for the prose; thanks for the article! 750h+ 15:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi 750h+, thanks for the review and the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support! 750h+ 16:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The Blue Rider

Should leave a review shortly; I will note that this will be my 1st FA review. The Blue Rider 17:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi The Blue Rider, I appreciate you taking the time for another look at the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Allen (2011) says «political» comes from politikos and that means «belonging or pertaining to the polis».

  Changed: using the adjective as the etymological root is more intuitive. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• The phrase, has been practiced in many different cultures, seems a bit out of place without further context; Miller (1998) develops this a bit.

  Slightly expanded. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• It is sometimes characterized as the art... shouldn't this and the previous sentence be in the definition section then?

  It could also appear in the section "Definition". It's a characterization of politics rather than political philosophy so I have the impression that it fits better into the section "Basic concepts". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Doesn't the constitution get enough focus by the literature to warrant more sentences to it?

  I added some additional information on its role and goals. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

More suggestions to follow. The Blue Rider 17:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• There could be a sentence about how contractualism and contractarianism differ from each other.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Here are some recommendations for political philosophers that are missing in the history section: Wollstonecraft; Tocqueville; and Gramsci.

  I added sentences on Wollstonecraft and Tocqueville. Gramsci could be included but he may not be influential enough. For example, the The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy only mentions him one time in a list covering several other philosophers. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Happy to support on comprehensiveness. The Blue Rider 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That's all I have for my comprehensiveness' review. The Blue Rider 12:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Pinging Voorts for their deeper dive and 750h+ to redeem their mark. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Some reviewers are planning to continue their reviews or start new ones. With this type of topic, finding reviewers and doing reviews can take a while, so lenience regarding timeframe would be appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Arcticocean

Placeholder --Arcticocean ■ 20:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Arcticocean, thank you for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

This will be a review of prose quality, section by section.

• Lead:
  • Paragraph 1 is generally fine.
  • This field should perhaps be "the field" (WP:NEWSSTYLE?).

    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Other schools of political thought – consider phrasing other than 'school of thought'. Perhaps 'other political ideologies' would link back to the start of the paragraph and improve coherence.

    Reformulated. I didn't use the exact term "political ideologies" because it's sometimes used with a more narrow meaning that does not cover all the items in the list. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  • The final paragraph appears to be overly abridged. If there is little to say about the long gap between the ancient and modern political philosophies, that perhaps should be positively dealt with in the lead, as its summary of the history feels incomplete as is.

    I added some additional information. Chances are that it still feels incomplete, but expanding the paragraph more might incur balance-issues by giving the information of this section more weight than possibly more important information from other sections. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

More to come --Arcticocean ■ 17:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Definition and related fields
  • the best organization of collective life: I like the turn of phrase, but perhaps 'collective human life' or some more specific phrasing would work best. As always, if you think it's best as-is, no problem.

    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • the values guiding political decisions: could this be clarified – does this refer to values that ought to guide political decisions, or something else?

    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • This field examines: as above – as it's the subject, the definite article works best.

    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • rather than how they ideally should work: as it's a subordinate clause, consider inserting a comma beforehand.

    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • The content regarding political theory feels incomplete. Consider wiki linking to other articles or else defining political theory more extensively within this paragraph.

    I tried to clarify but I'm also not particularly happy with it. I'm not sure that we can do much about it since the confusion is part of the academic literature itself. These terminological difficulties are discussed in Heywood & Chin 2023, Stevens 2010, and Scruton 2007. A more in-depth explanation of the difficulties may not be particularly helpful to our reader.

  • focusing on the political domain: I don't think this is clear or substantive enough. While abstractions and generalisations are welcome, indeed essential, in an article of this kind, I think this particular sentence is not really saying what it means. As a reader, I was left not really entirely clear on the distinction being described. The example given in the footnote is helpful, but does not resolve the issue.

    I expanded the explanation a little. There are more specific theories about the relation between ethics and political philosophy that could be discussed but this may go too much into detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • This is generally a very good treatment of the topic.

More to come --Arcticocean ■ 19:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Arcticocean: Do you have more comments? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes – sorry, I'm working through the article as I get time to do so. Arcticocean ■ 19:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Basic concepts:
  • The first paragraph doesn't seem to cohere with the rest of the section. I don't have a specific suggestion about how to improve it, but I do see the first sentence as sitting somewhat disconnected from the rest of the paragraph, and the rest of the paragraph as feeling a little out of place. Perhaps an obvious improvement will occur to you.
  • Are you able to edit the article to better specify what is meant by the Linguistic power dynamics?
  • the harm inflicted on an offender is proportional to their crime perhaps needs to be 'should be proportional to their crime', as the concept normatively expresses an ideal.
  • It would be useful to expand on the Competing schools of thought which are described but perhaps need to be specified and further explained.
• Major schools of thought:
  • This section is very strong, using pace and volume of prose to good effect.
  • It promotes social structures based on voluntary association to advance universal egalitarianism – can this be made any clearer?
  • For clarity, consider replacing In a free market… by supply and demand with "…services occurs. Instead of minimal state control and regulation, privately-owned businesses…".

More will follow: Arcticocean ■ 19:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Source review

This is another of these broad-scope topics where assessing "comprehensive" will be impossible for a non-expert. I must note that since Google Books displays different pages to different people, it might not be a good idea to link pages on the principle "a link whenever Google Books displays these pages for me". I believe I have assessed some of these sources in Phlsph7's other FACses, nothing jumps out to me as inappropriate although I must qualify that I didn't do much spotchecking here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thank you for the source review! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Early life and education

• “the only child of Leroy Gordon Cooper Sr. and his wife, Hattie Lee Herd” – fine, but “his wife” could be dropped; “Hattie Lee Herd” is sufficient.
• "Pacific theater" → "Pacific Theater"

MSincccc (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! I have capitalised "Pacific Theater". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Later life

• You could link at least once to "Ford" and "Chrysler". MSincccc (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Links made. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

UFO sightings

• You could mention the full form of "NASA" at least once in the article.
• Introduce "Bruce Henderson" briefly?
• “ground breaking technology” → “groundbreaking technology” (compound adjective).

MSincccc (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Full form written. I'm not sure what you mean by introducing Bruce Henderson. Also, where's the term "ground breaking technology" used? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• By introducing Henderson, I meant specifying his role in the article — as "the author" or the "journalist".
• ...understanding how someone so connected with ground breaking technology and science...

MSincccc (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Added that Bruce Henderson was a journalist and author. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:SIC: Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced. Two words in the source Changed to a single word. We will see if anyone complains. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

General

• Reference no. 81 – The access date precedes the article’s publication date.
• “He believed these anomalies may be the locations…” mixes “may be” with past tense (“he believed”). It might read more clearly as “might have been”.

Overall, the article is well written. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 and @QuicksmartTortoise513 Two more comments above, but the article is good and hence support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Corrected ref #81, which was a duplicate of #71. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and this has gained little attention. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support: Just a few things.

• Do we really need so much material on Cooper Sr.?

• It is only a paragraph, and provides important background such as the family military and flying traditions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• "senior high school year" "senior year in high school" feels more natural in Among.

  Changed as suggested. We don't use junior/senior etc in Australia, as high schools are six years or 4+2, and university undergraduate courses are three years long. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• "he played halfback in the state football championship." I might phrase as "he played halfback, and his team played in the state football championship."

  Tweaked the wording. In Texas playing at state was a really big deal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• The UFO section is as long as the section on his Apollo involvement.

  The Apollo section would have been longer if he had actually flown. I did cut back the UFO nonsense. Leap of Faith contains a lot more. In later life, Cooper enjoyed being a celebrity to the UFO movement. An astonishingly large percentage of Americans believe that aliens visit Earth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Didn't Cooper give a ticked-off press conference upon his non selection for Apollo 13/14?

  I have no source for that. The tiddlywinks remark was after he was forced to pull out of the 24 Hours of Daytona race. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• No problem if the source doesn't specify, but "He unofficially soloed when he was 12 years old" is interesting -- do we know if he just took the plane up without anyone's permission at all?

  His father let him fly the plane. Set him up with cushions so he could see out the windows and blocks on the pedals.

  By the time I was eight, with the help of blocks Dad built for the rudder pedals and lots of cushions so I could see out the window, I was allowed to take over the controls from the front seat with Dad behind me in the main cockpit... The head of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) in that region of Oklahoma was a close friend of my father's (my mother and father seemed to know just about everybody in the area). He knew I was flying without a licence - I was a long way from sixteen, the mandatory age to get a licence - and never said a thing. By the time I was twelve I was flying solo, even though I had not yet had any formal lessons.

  Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Do we know why Marcus Cooper recommended that Cooper not volunteer for astronaut training?

  "I don't want my best pilots involved in some idiotic program." Added this.

• "however, this debacle did not make Cooper popular with senior NASA management": "debacle" seems a bit strong -- maybe just "incident"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Did Cooper buzz Hanger S because of the argument with Williams?

  Yes. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Suggest retitling the "Later life" section, since some of it relates to his activities while still an astronaut. Perhaps "Other activities and later life"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Are date available for his involvement with GCR and Teletest?

  Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• "The ashes were then launched on the Explorers orbital mission on August 3, 2008": suggest linking "Explorers" to Celestis#Flights.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• "The 2017 Discovery Channel docu-series Cooper's Treasure followed by Darrell Miklos as he searched through Cooper's files to discover the location of the suspected shipwrecks": something wrong with the syntax here -- a missing word?

  Deleted "by". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Suggest combining the last three short paragraphs.

  Reordered and combined the short paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks very good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review

• https://history.nasa.gov/40thmerc7/cooper.htm is broken

  Added archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• http://veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=70/ what makes this a reliable source?

  It is correct. But removed and replaced with abnother source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• https://www.vintagehydroplanes.com/ what makes this a reliable source?

• It reproduces the Regatta brochure. I have a New York Times item ("Cooper, Wallace Take Boat Race". The New York Times. 2 January 1967. p. 30. Retrieved 30 October 2025.) but it does not mention Adair. If we had access to newspapers.com, we could use these. I have some small town newspaper sources like "The Wikipedia Library". access-newspaperarchive-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org. Retrieved 30 October 2025. {{cite web}}: Wikipedia Library link in |url= (help) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe the folks at WP:RX can help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Added a request for help there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  They came through with a couple of newspaper sources, which have been added to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-082415a-gemini5-50th-8daysorbust.html, http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-052212b.html and http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-071700a.html what makes this a reliable source?

  collectSPACE is a highly regarded news source. It is used on hundreds of pages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• The New York Times is inconsistently linked.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• https://nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame/detail.php?id=53 is broken

  Added archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• http://www.heavens-above.com/SatInfo.aspx?satid=38349&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT takes so long to load that I am not sure it actually works

  Took ages to load for me, but did load eventually. Did you time out? Added archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• http://freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/masonic-astronauts/ is erroring out

  Added archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/coopers-treasure/about-coopers-treasure/ redirects to https://www.foodnetwork.com/not-available.html which doesn't work for non-US users

  Added archive, but had to set |url-status=live Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Is "We Seven: By the Astronauts Themselves" used anywhere?

  Added one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Where? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• I trust that "Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" is still referenced?

  Yes, it is. The article was originally a copy-paste of the NASA bio. When I rewrote it, the original article became the lead. The lead still contains a great deal of that material, but the body does not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Can I have some quotes supporting "His parents owned a Command-Aire 3C3 biplane, and he learned to fly at a young age. His father sat him on cushions so he could see and rigged the rudder pedals with blocks so he could reach them. He unofficially soloed when he was 12 years old, and earned his pilot certification in a Piper J-3 Cub when he was 16"?

  See the response to Mike Christie above. For the plane, "Dad bought a Commandaire biplane" (p. 102) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I kinda wonder if we can rely on autobiographical/self-quotes for such a strong claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Now about the files:

• File:Gordon Cooper 2.jpg one of the source links is broken.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• File:USAF Experimental Flight Test School Class 56D.jpg, File:Mercury Suit Gordon Cooper.jpg, File:Astro TrudyCooper daughters.jpg, File:Gemini5insignia.png, File:Cooper Mitchell Eisele.jpg, File:KSC-04pd1006~orig.jpg and File:Astronaut Gordon Cooper at Patrick Air Force Base for parade DVIDS687652.jpg have a bare URL as source, hard to repair in case of a failure.

  The images are on Commons. Presumably they have a bot that handles this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  In my experience, repairing such bare URLs isn't yet a bot job over in Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Prose review by TGSC

Terribly sorry about my delayed response. Although I'm not as familiar with music as I'd like to be in comparison to my video game knowledge, I do have just a few thoughts on this article's prose as a general reader:

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Question by Gnomingstuff

Did you use AI for this? Some of your edits around the same time to other articles, such as this, display strong indicators of LLM output, and so I was wondering whether the same was true here.

This is a fact-finding question, a yes or no will suffice. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! @Gnomingstuff I did not:) Christian (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see the comments on this and other talk pages for articles you have created. If you didn't use AI -- which I doubt -- then you are inserting false statements about what your sources actually say. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

At any rate, regardless of where they originated, there are other problems here specifically:

• The "Recording and composition" section has a lot of overly close paraphrasing in wikivoice -- for instance the "lifted directly..." clause from The Independent, the "surging bridge" and guitar "snarls," etc.

Has been fixed. Let me know how it works.

• The whole "Critical reception" paragraph blurs the lines between contemporaneous and retrospective coverage -- the "In retrospect, "Rain" has been repeatedly ranked..." paragraph implies that the previous section was all contemporaneous, but a lot of those prior sources are recent internet-era articles.

To clarify, the structure of the section is intentional: Paragraph 1 focuses primarily on contemporary reviews from the release of parent album Erotica in 92-93, establishing how "Rain" was received upon debut. Paragraph 2 concentrates on commentary about Madonna's vocal performance (includes both contemporary coverage, though a few later writers are included) Paragraph 3 summarizes mixed and negative reviews drawn from both time periods. Paragraph 4 is clearly demarcated as retrospective evaluation, covering later critical reassessments, rankings)

Hi @Gnomingstuff, please see my comments on "La Isla Bonita" :) Again, rest assured everything here is properly backed. I'm willing to go source by source if needed :) --Christian (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Image review by EF5

Should go quick, so I'll get to it tomorrow (busy tonight). ^EF⁵ 20:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• File:Romerolagus_diazi_-_Zoologico_de_Chapultepec,_Ciudad_de_México_-_Cropped2x.jpg - Quality isn't the greatest but that's fine. Has alt text.
• File:Lepus diazi 02.jpg - has alt text. There's some MOS:SANDWICHing going on with the infobox; I'd suggest either removing this image or moving it down to the beginning of the #Behavior and ecology section, as that's the only place it could reasonably fit.
• File:Romerolagus_diazi_distribution.svg - no issues, has alt text.
• File:Taxidermied romerolagus diazi.JPG - no issues, has alt text.
• File:Volcán Popocatépetl.jpg - has alt text. From what I'm reading in the prose, nowhere is it directly stated that the rabbit "prefers" Pinus hartwegii (instead that they're "abundant" in volcano rabbit habitats).
• File:Romerolagus_diazi_2018_(cropped).jpg - no issues, has alt text.
• File:Recta a Cholula.jpg - no issues. I feel like a little bit more could be added to the alt text but that's probably just me.

I'll check the licensing when I get home this afternoon; Commons is blocked on our network. ^EF⁵ 12:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I added more to the highway's alt text and clarified the relevance of Pinus hartwegii. If the sandwiching is a major issue, I would prefer to remove the image rather than move it elsewhere, since it pertains to the taxonomy more than anything else. -- Reconrabbit 20:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Commented out for the time being. -- Reconrabbit 19:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@EF5; have you had the chance to check the image licenses? -- Reconrabbit 21:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, image licenses look good, so this is a pass on images. ^EF⁵ 15:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'm not sure if I'll do a full review, but I did just notice something that may need tweaking.

• " there is evidence that the species loses a significant amount of genetic diversity when it reproduces in such conditions": this phrasing makes it appear that it's the nature of the captive environment that causes the loss of diversity in some way. I can't access the source, but I would expect this to be because the captive population have not been bred as part of a breeding program designed to retain genetic diversity. With a small captive population, inbreeding is almost guaranteed without a management plan. That's the standard approach for captive breeding, and I think the article needs to make it clearer what the cause is of the lack of diversity. If I'm wrong and there really is something else causing the loss of genes, I think we should say what that is.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Montiel et al state in their 2009 work that "The results of this study differ from what was expected", though it does seem self evident that the small founding group of the captive population is the main source of lower genetic variability, they suggest something else contributes. The conclusion gives that "some alleles of the wild population have been lost in the Chapultepec colony, with the average heterozygosis approximately 2.17% greater in the wild population" - is this something that can be readily explained in the text beyond just "evidence"? I tried to expand on what the "significant loss in diversity" is, but genetics are not something I know a lot about -- Reconrabbit 17:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That's surprising. I can't access the paper; would you mind sending me a copy, or screenshots of the relevant pages? I'll send you a Wikipedia email so you have my email address. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I think is the relevant quote: "Although there has been interest in the reproduction of the species both in laboratory conditions and semi-captivity, at this time the only known reproductive nucleus is located in Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City, which originates from a small number of founders in a random breeding structure during 20 generations. Given this situation, the objective of this study was to estimate the loss of genetic variability in a captive population in relation to the wild population of Romerolagus diazi through the use of a RAPD analysis." This is a clear statement that there was no managed breeding, and a small gene pool to begin with. I would suggest rephrasing the last two sentences of the first "Conservation" paragraph to something like "Since then, further attempts have been met with varying success, but captive-bred infants have high mortality. The only breeding group in captivity, in Chapultepec Zoo, began with a small number of rabbits, and over the course of 20 generations has lost genetic diversity in comparison with the wild population." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This has helped a lot. I will adopt this wording. Captibe breeding is an unfamiliar subject to me, especially since it does not come up often in the main reference book I am using (Smith et al 2018), where it is only referenced in regards to the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit and Corsican hare, which I haven't really researched. -- Reconrabbit 11:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• "Its type locality was "near San Martín Texmelusán, northeastern slope of Volcán Iztaccíhuatl [Ixtaccíhuatl, Puebla], Mexico": I can see why you might use past tense for the type locality, but I think present tense makes more sense. I also don't think you need to keep quotes when so much of what's quoted is place names which are not paraphrasable. How about rephrasing to avoid the issue: "The type specimen was collected on the northeastern slopes of [Ixtaccíhuatl], a volcano near San Martín Texmelucan, in Puebla, Mexico"? And I see that the "s" in Texmelusán is in the source; I don't think that matters -- it might be a typo or alternate spelling but it's not meaningful so we don't have to preserve it.
  • I'm used to a preference where the type locality is quoted directly when the specific names don't match up to the current day, but the suggestion sounds better to me. -RR
• "The article noted a type specimen that was collected at "Mt. Popocatepetl, Mexico (altitude 3,350 meters or 11,000 feet)" by Edward William Nelson, an American naturalist for whom the species was named." Suggest "Merriam noted a type specimen that was collected on Popocatépetl, a volcano about 10 miles (16 km) south of Ixtaccíhuatl, at an altitude 3,350 meters (11,000 feet) by Edward William Nelson, an American naturalist for whom Merriam named the species."
  • Changed to the suggested wording -RR

    Struck, but I think it would be better to set the convert precision so we get "11,000" instead of "10,990". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "This is a result of agouti-like coloration, with each hair being black at the base and tip and antimony yellow in the middle." The source doesn't mention agoutis, as far as I can see -- at least I searched the text for "aguti" and didn't find it. The colour description doesn't seem to match either -- the only mention of antimony yellow in the article seems to be El Romerolagus presenta el dorso, costados y corona, de color Antimony yellow (amarillo antimonio), fuertemente veteado de negro; los lados de la nariz y las áreas orbitarias son Light buff (ante claro> ; la base de las orejas es Warm buff (ante calido) which Google Translate turns into The Romerolagus has an Antimony yellow back, sides and crown, heavily veined with black; the sides of the nose and orbital areas are Light buff; the base of the ears is Warm buff. This doesn't seem to match what you have in the article.
  • I used the agouti term not as directly referenced but to describe the type of fur pattern (as a general descriptor of "hairs that have banded color"). Velazquez and Gopar-Merino (2018) state "The dorsal pelage is a yellowish brown, and individual hairs are black at both the tip and the base", and Rojas Mendoza's thesis (as quoted above de color Antimony yellow (amarillo antimonio), fuertemente veteado de negro) corroborates this (though the buff details could be added). If "agouti-like" is an undue descriptor I can remove it. -RR

    Hmm. I follow you; I'm having to think about the sourcing. If you used "rainbow-like coloration" for something in which the source did not mention rainbows, I wouldn't expect a source. In this case though I don't think the descriptor adds much since most people won't know that this is a characteristic of agouti hairs. I speak as one of the (probably small number of) readers who already know what an agouti is and what it looks like. I think you could cut it, but if you think it's worth it you could find a source for this description of agouti hairs and draw the comparison more explicitly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

    I'll cut this descriptor. The exact wording isn't used elsewhere in the texts I can search through, research on the gene has been focused on Oryctolagus, Sylvilagus, and Pentalagus, and it's hard to look for it online due to the existence of the agoutis. -- Reconrabbit 18:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "... as do other rabbits[48] besides the European rabbit." Does this mean that some rabbits do this, but not the European rabbit? If so I would simplify this to "... as do some other species of rabbit".
  • That is fair - I wanted to single the European rabbit out since it's well known for making burrows and isn't included in this "other rabbits", but "some other species" is just as well. Changed. -RR
• "a behavior unique among rabbits, but similar to those produced by pikas": it's too easy to parse "those" as referring to "behavior", so perhaps make this "a behavior unique among rabbits, but also seen in pikas".
  • What about "a behavior seen in pikas that is unique among the rabbits"? -RR

    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Female volcano rabbits are more dominant than males, with aggression between females being more violent and occurring more often than aggression between female and male rabbits." This doesn't mention a couple of points in the source that I think are worth including: that dominant individuals in groups were always females, and that males were never aggressive to females, but females could be aggressive towards both sexes. And why is this sentence in the middle of a sequence of sentences about reproductive behaviour? I think a short paragraph of two or three sentences about aggression behaviour could be split out from the paragraph on reproduction.
  • As a single sentence I didn't have a good place to put it. It seems strange to add a whole paragraph on the dominant behaviour of female rabbits, but the supporting evidence is there in Cervantes, so I'll expand on that. I don't find it mentioned in Romero and Velazquez 1994 but it does come up in the 2018 text. -RR
• "The young wean off the mother until they are roughly 28 days old": this doesn't make sense, since "wean" means to stop a young mammal from taking milk from the mother. Do you mean "The young are not weaned until ..."?
  • That's my misinterpretation. Should this be "the young are weaned when they are roughly 28 days old"? -RR

    That looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• "These nests are 11 centimetres (4.3 in) in depth and 15 centimetres (5.9 in) wide." The source says this is an average, and we need to say that too; that also means the conversion to inches is too precise.
  • Changed. -RR
• "When little undergrowth is available, as can be the case when the animal is kept in enclosures, breeding is more difficult." This is a bit vague. Does the source give more details?
  • The source isn't precise, but I tried rewording (has a preference towards areas with dense cover). I've added page numbers for Fa 1992 as well. Hoth & Granados (1987) is cited here only based on the introduction - for specifics I'd have to get access later, which I'll try to get. -RR
• "but it does not actually provide the necessary energy and protein needs of the rabbits": I was going to copyedit this to something like "but by itself does not provide the rabbits with sufficient energy and protein", but I would want to check with the source first to make sure the new wording was still supported. I started to look but that's a 12-page paper. You might consider giving more specific citations to page ranges within the papers; 12 pages is too much to scan through looking for the supporting material. I know scientific articles don't usually do this so up to you.
  • Page numbers provided - there were some confounding parts of this that I removed later on but "does not provide with sufficient energy and protein" is fairly soundly supported, but I did copyedit - and a new sentence after that states "other more digestible plants" make up the rest of it, implied that the analysis didn't pick up on that. -RR
• "The rest of the rabbit's required nutrition is obtained from 15 other forms of plant life": this makes it sounds as if this is all they ever eat; presumably this is just the list of plants that they've actually been observed eating.
  • Martinez does state that The botanical composition of the diet of R. diazi comprises up to 15 plant species but I have reworded. -RR
• "In captivity, volcano rabbits are often given pellet food typical for chinchillas": the source does not support "often".
  • Supplementing this since Martinez gives other feed options. -RR

I'm going to pause there to let you respond to these. I'm a bit concerned about the slight imprecisions I've found; I'm not opposing at this point but if I were to keep finding issues like this I would oppose. I would suggest that whoever does a spotcheck for this article keeps an eye out for this sort of thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I have responses all over - my main question is how the use of "agouti-like" can be interpreted (possibly as synthesis of how the fur is from its descriptions). I was confused how I came to the conclusions I did reading Martinez-Garcia et al., 2012, only to find that was another part that I didn't write. -- Reconrabbit 19:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixes look good; one point left above. I will read further and hope to get more comments entered tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Continuing:

• "It is parasitized by the mites Cheyletiella mexicana and Cheyletiella parasitovorax, which is notable as mites in genus Cheyletiella do not tend to occur on the same host". I took a moment to parse this. Does this mean that for any given host species, there is typically only one Cheyletiella mite that is a parasite of that species? Or that for any given animal parasitized by Cheyletiella mites, there is usually only one species of Cheyletiella mite on that animal? I think the former must be what's intended. If so, how about "It is parasitized by the mites Cheyletiella mexicana and Cheyletiella parasitovorax, which is notable as there is usually only one species of Cheyletiella mite found on any given host species"?
  • That's correct. I was trying to avoid what the source text says ("the occurrence of these two mites on one host species is unique because otherwise species of Cheyletiella exclude each other") and ended up with some awkward phrasing, I'll use that instead. -RR
• "Unsound management policies of its habitat in National Parks and outside, mainly by afforestation, have also threatened volcano rabbit populations": Just checking that "afforestation" is correct, rather than deforestation -- this is surprising because in the habitat section it appears the rabbits like alder and pine forests.
  • Velazquez and Gopar-Merino describe "the most striking management practice significantly impacting the quality of the habitat of the volcano rabbit" as the digging of (ineffective) water infiltration ditches and reforesting alpine grasslands with pine trees that have not grown there in 30,000 years. Hoth criticises the poorly-evaluated programs of the CONANP commission that has been doing this in the cited conference presentation (YouTube video). There is a paper published through SCIRP (yes, I know, but I'm not using it in the article) that goes more in depth (but doesn't discuss the volcano rabbit) here. It's more frequently referred to as reforestation (in the 2018 work at least) but Hoth notes as early as 1987 that a region with heavily depleted soil that was being re-afforested had no present Romerolagus. -RR
• The first paragraph of "Threats and decline" gives a summary of the threats, but some are then repeated with more detail. For example that paragraph mentions livestock grazing and urban expansion, and then when Mexico City is mentioned, we say "rapid agricultural and urban expansion". How about moving this summary paragraph to the end, and have it only mention those threats that have not been covered by the other paragraphs?
  • I got rid of the summary paragraph and distributed the relevant information throughout the rest of the section (I have trouble with this kind of small summary a lot). Highway construction has been lumped in with urban expansion. -RR
• "it is unclear if the volcano rabbit is being pushed to their mountain habitats due to": singular "is" doesn't work with plural "their".
  • Changes and made this "other species" but could be made more specific to "rabbit species" if that helps -RR
• "It is illegal to hunt under Mexican law": this sounds like a general prohibition; if as I suspect the intended meaning is that it's illegal to hunt these rabbits then that needs to be clear.
  • Reworded this starting with "Under Mexican law, it is illegal to hunt the volcano rabbit..." -RR
• "though the colony failed as the only male successfully brought to the colony died of coccidiosis": you could avoid the repetition of "colony" by making this "successfully brought to Durrell's zoo", and linking to Jersey Zoo.
  • Done -RR
• "The IUCN created an action plan for the volcano rabbit in 1990 proposed several measures to conserve the species": looks like a missing word?
  • Added the missing "that" after 1990 -RR

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixes look good. I will look through one more time and expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

A few minor points from a final read-through. These are all minor.

• Why the square brackets around Ixtaccihuatl? Did you mean to link it?
  • It was part of the exact wording from Hoffmann & Smith 2005 as the type locality - since we reworded it, the brackets don't make sense to keep. -RR
• It's a pity the image has poor contrast with the background. What do you think of this image? I cropped and rotated it from another one on Commons.
  • I avoided using that one because of how insanely post-processed it is from the Galaxy camera. If we are going to use digitally altered images, here's a slightly better one I made of the current infobox picture in GIMP: File:Romerolagus diazi - Zoologico de Chapultepec, Ciudad de México - Cropped2xAlt.png
• "would be one that credits Ferrari-Pérez as well, which has been accepted ever since. The current scientific name and authority of the volcano rabbit is Romerolagus diazi (Ferrari-Pérez in A. Díaz, 1893)". Can we make this "would be one that credits Ferrari-Pérez as well. Since then the scientific name and authority of the volcano rabbit has been Romerolagus diazi (Ferrari-Pérez in A. Díaz, 1893)"?
  • Done -RR
• "Volcano rabbits are endemic to Mexico.[34] Specifically, the rabbit is native to the alpine scrublands surrounding four volcanoes (Cerro Tláloc, Popocatépetl, Iztaccíhuatl, and El Pelado) just southeast of Mexico City[36] in an area of only 386 square kilometres (149 sq mi)." I think these could be shortened by combining them: "Volcano rabbits are endemic to an area of only 386 square kilometres (149 sq mi) just southeast of Mexico City, in the alpine scrublands surrounding four volcanoes (Cerro Tláloc, Popocatépetl, Iztaccíhuatl, and El Pelado)."
  • Changed to your suggestion -RR
• "As of 2019, the International Union for Conservation of Nature no longer mentions": perhaps "mentioned", given this is in the past.
  • How is "By 2019, the IUCN no longer mentioned"? -RR
• Is the article in British or American English? I see both "colour" and "behavior".
  • I wasn't sure what was best but settled on American English just because of Latin American ties (had to switch unit conversion spellings). -RR
• "In captivity, the first confrontation between a male and female volcano rabbit resulted in the female attacking the male, but later conflicts were less violent": from the phrasing I would guess this is not a statement about all volcano rabbits but about a particular captive group. If so perhaps "In observations of a group in a captivity, ..."?
  • Changed to make this clearer -RR
• Our article on Cheyletiella does not list Cheyletiella mexicana, which is given here as a parasite. This is not your problem, but if you happen to know if it's a synonym of one of the species given there perhaps we can make it a redirect.
  • Fain & Bochkov, 2001 actually recommend that the species described as Cheyletiella mexicana was the same as a previously described species Bicheyletiella romerolagi, which is the currently accepted Chelyletiella romerolagi. I added a citation, since Velazquez 2018 didn't pick up on that. -RR

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Spotcheck from LittleJerry

I checked the first sentence of "Behavior and ecology". We have "The volcano rabbit lives in groups of 2 to 5 individuals" vs "Zacatuches live in groups of two to five individuals" The wording is too close, see WP:PARAPHRASE. I'd rewrite it as "[volcano rabbit] groups consist of between two and five members". Its still early, so I would check the paraphrasing in the rest of the article to be safe. I made a slight change here. LittleJerry (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I did another spotcheck and the term "...relatively slow and vulnerable in open habitats" is taken directly from the source. I will have to oppose this nomination until my concerns are taken seriously. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am going to review the entire text as it was before I started working on it in December 2024. I am confident in my ability to summarize sources without copying and any instances of this are almost definitely going to come from the article as it was in this revision. I will ping you once I am done. -- Reconrabbit 14:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@LittleJerry I have tried my best to excise the text from the article as it once was and make source-text integrity more solid in those places where there was close paraphrasing or copied text. -- Reconrabbit 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked two more and they're fine. Switched to support. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from Noleander

• subtraction "2.0.3.31.0.2.3 × 2 = 28 — two" The m-dash after "28" kinda looks like a subtraction sign, as if the arithmetic is continuing after 28 (minus 2?). Is there a way to re-phrase so readers will clearly understand that the numbers end after "28"?

  Does substituting the m-dash with ", indicating that it has..." to clarify that the following information is a description of the dental formula in words?

Yes, that would work ... anything other than a hyphen or number. Noleander (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Volcano name "Mt. Pelaco" - Google maps says the name is "Volcán Pelado ", is the latter a better name?

  Where does Mt. Pelaco appear? Velázquez (and this later thesis) refers to the mountain as El Pelado, which is why I used that name in the list of habitats "(Cerro Tláloc, Popocatépetl, Iztaccíhuatl, and El Pelado)". A 2018 paper refers to it as simply Pelado. I discounted Volcán because it is often used in texts not as a title, just describing that the feature is a volcano.

• The range/location map: very difficult to see the tiny dots. Much better would be using the Template:Location map many. To use this kind of map within the InfoBox (e.g. range_map = Romerolagus diazi distribution.png ) probably need to do a screen capture into a PNG File If you need assistance with that, I can help. E.g.

  Would a solution like that which I provided on Helan Shan pika work? In that case, I went to OpenStreetMap and took a screenshot, then overlaid the IUCN range map on top of it. -RR

Yes, that Helan Shan pika solution looks excellent. The current map in Volcano Rabbit article is File:Romerolagus diazi distribution.svg which is a vector diagram that contains the range boundaries, tho probably not in lat/long coords. (PS: I am commenting-out the three sample maps above, because the WP:FAC page transcludes all active nominations, and it is considered rude to have graphics in the nominations. ) Noleander (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The result is at File:Romerolagus diazi topo range.png. Could crop it differently or change the overlay transparency, etc. -- Reconrabbit 19:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)