Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2025

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2025 [1].

The All-Story Magazine

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an influential early pulp magazine. All-Story published many writers who were either already famous or went on to become famous, but it is best remembered for launching the career of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Under the Moons of Mars, better known by its book title of A Princess of Mars, was his first sale; he followed this up almost immediately with Tarzan of the Apes. All-Story wasn't a science fiction magazine, but it did publish a lot of sf and fantasy. At the end of the 1930s these stories (and those in Argosy, its sister magazine) were hard to find for fans of the genre, so two more magazines were launched with the sole purpose of reprinting these old classics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

I intend to review this (but make no promises). As an initial comment, more images would be nice, assuming of course that there are appropriate ones to add. TompaDompa (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the covers are out of copyright, so I can add at least one more -- space is the main consideration, given that I don't want the images to interfere with the tables of issue data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two more images added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Put me down for a review, probably after Christmas. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was published monthly until March 1914, and then switched to a weekly schedule. Munsey merged it with The Cavalier, another of his pulp magazines, in 1914,: can we put a more specific date on the second one (we've changed levels of precision midstream)?
I made it May 1914. It was weekly at the time and I could give the actual issue date but I think that detail isn't necessary in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1920 it was merged with Munsey's Argosy; the combined magazine was retitled Argosy All-Story Weekly. The editor was Robert H. Davis;: this sounds as if Davis was the editor of Argosy All-Story Weekly.
Switched sentence order, which I hope takes care of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1912 All-Story printed Burroughs's Tarzan of the Apes, and more stories of Tarzan followed, along with two instalments of another of Burroughs' series: the MoS prefers the first style. See, later, Mary Roberts Rineharts' first story and Burroughs' Pellucidar series.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
two magazines created to reprint old stories from the Munsey magazines.: anything to be done about the repetition here?
Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of changes of names and two merges in this story, and I'm intrigued that we've treated them differently. When the magazine merges with The Cavalier, we treat this as if All-Story is trundling on uninterrupted; meanwhile, when it merges with The Argosy, we treat it as if All-Story is no more. I'm not disputing this decision, but what's the thinking behind it?
This is surprisingly complex in general. The short answer is that I follow the treatment in the sources on the history of these magazines. One common way to look at it is to see which magazine's volume and issue numbering is continued -- that's the magazine that is considered to carry on from the merge. Another is to see what happens to the name -- it's common to carry the secondary name as a subtitle of some kind for a while, but if that disappears after a year or two (as in this case) it's a sign that the magazine was absorbed into the other title. There are some cases where it's really not clear what happened at all, such as Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories, which is why those two are covered in a single article. The reorganization of the Munsey magazines in 1929 is another example: before the change it was Argosy All-Story Weekly and Munsey's Magazine; afterwards it was Argosy and All-Story Combined with Munsey's, which is generally considered to be a completely new magazine, retitled All-Story Love Stories or some variation of that for most of its life. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first issue included the first instalment of five novels: first instalments, I think (cf. "the invaders cut off the heads of twelve villagers").
Fixed. Sounds like you're getting the hang of this pulp fiction lark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
which science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz commented "caused some to class Serviss as the equal of Jules Verne".: not necessarily your problem, but it strikes me that Moskowitz is doing a classic bit of WP:WEASEL here. Can we substantiate this any further: does he give names, for instance?
There's no more in the source. I would guess he's talking about the readers' letters, but that's just a guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Italics versus quotation marks for titles: is the thinking that one-shot short stories are WP:MINORWORKS and so get quotes, while longer serialised novels are major works and so get italics?
Yes, exactly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the March 15, 1919 issue: this kind of structure needs a comma after the year (it's the same idea as MOS:GEOCOMMA). There are quite a few later in the "Bibliographic details" section.
Done, but some of them look hideous to my eyes. If leniency is available for any of these please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree: I looked this up in the Chicago Manual of Style (with which the MoS usually agrees) to make sure I wasn't leading you the wrong way, and I'm afraid that I wasn't: the double comma is correct. The CMoS suggested going DMY in contexts when lots of dates will be used: another approach is to try to get that second comma to line up where you would want to put a comma anyway (so phrases like "on March 15, 1919, All-Story introduced a new character."). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look and I don't see any immediate places where it would be easy to fix; I'm OK with just letting them be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All-Story also published poetry, including work by Djuna Barnes: can we give the reader any sense of why we've singled her out: I don't think she's famous enough that most people will get it automatically. Presumably it's not just that she's got a Wikipedia article?
That was in the article before I began working on it, and the source is sufficiently scholarly that I thought it was worth keeping. Plus it's nice to have examples of authors of each of the genres, including poetry, particularly as I don't cite many other women or any other modernists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I agree with the inclusion: I was wondering whether we could gloss something like "later known as an important figure in modernist and lesbian literature" to give a sense of why we were drawing attention to her above all the other poets who wrote for the magazine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your wording; added that and found a couple of sources to cite it to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston McCulley's Zorro series began: do I take it right that this magazine was the birthplace of Zorro? I think that would be worth mentioning in the lead. More generally, you could perhaps restructure the lead slightly to pick out the "big takeaways" that All-Story was an incubator for a couple of really famous characters that came out of the pulp era into the wider media world. Tarzan is mentioned there, but he gets a little lost among many other stories that are now mostly forgotten.
Added a sentence to the lead. I added "the vigilante" as he's not as well-known as Tarzan but perhaps that's unnecessary? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's always better to over-explain than under-explain, especially when we're trying to judge which bits of popular culture are well known (I'd suggest Zorro might have quite a strong generational skew, even before we start to factor in geography, language etc), though I wouldn't be too distraught if those words fell out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When magazine titles appear in chapter/website/book titles, they should be in italics.
Italics added for one website title. For the other two, the form is not that of the magazine title so I'm reluctant as it implies that was a title of a magazine at one point (Argosy, The, and All-Story (Cavalier) Weekly/Magazine). For the chapters in Tymn & Ashley, those are not italicized in the source; they're bolded chapter headings (and often don't match the magazine title, though in these cases they do). I can do this if you think it's necessary, and indeed I used to do this, but I now think these are better not italicized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of e.g. The Argosy and All-Story (Ashley 1985): is that not two titles? If so, should be The Argosy and All-Story. We've routinely used All-Story (italicised) as a shortened form of the title, just as you sometimes see e.g. Freewheelin', Fellowship or "Sultans", either in less formal writing or in contexts where the title is being used a lot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that one, and two others where the exact form of the magazine title is available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
popular science-fictional love stories: science-fiction is the usual adjective, I think. There's a possible inconsistency with having a hyphen here but not in science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz, but I think your choice is fine: one is more likely to be misconstrued than the other, since popular science is a thing. However, see later short science-fictional tales, where I think you've broken your own rule.
Changed them all to "science fiction". "Science-fictional" (with and without the hyphen) does have a long history; see here for a handful of citations, for example (the website is run by Jesse Sheidlower, who used to be the American editor of the OED). But I think it's fine to use the better-known form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand enlightened -- but still think you've made the right decision by changing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a historical romance of knights and damsels in distress: consider linking damsel in distress, which would help to avoid the misreading that Metcalf wanted stories about knights in distress.
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burroughs responded with The Outlaw of Torn at the end of November, which Metcalf rejected: might be worth adding an EFN to explain what eventually happened to it?
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next three Barsoom novels appeared in All-Story over the next four years: I think something has gone awry here: we haven't yet mentioned Barsoom in the body, though we have mentioned Under the Moons of Mars.
Oops, yes. Fixed. I'm tempted to put in more, since the series was enormously influential, but this isn't an article about Burroughs and as you say below there's plenty about him in the article already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gods of Mars was serialized from January to May, 1913: no comma here.
Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial rate of less than a cent per word that Burroughs received for his first sale began to increase: it might be worth flagging at the first instance, for readers who are slow with their math(s), that $400 for a manuscript of 70,000 words is just over half a cent per word.
The trouble is that I don't know what the final word count was. It's quite likely that the final version wasn't exactly 70,000 words, and I don't have a reference that says how much it was, so I don't want to imply a final word count by giving an exact rate. I can confidently say the rate was less than a cent per word given the numbers Porges quotes but I can't get much closer than that without guesswork. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did notice that we'd elided whether Burroughs actually met the word count specified. Probably can't be too precise here without OR, so will have to leave this one where it is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burroughs gets the overwhelming majority of the airtime in the section on Contents and Reception. That clearly isn't a reflection of how much of the magazine his work occupied, but is it an accurate reflection of what the scholarship on All-Story looks like? I note that a lot of it is cited to Porges, which is a work about Burroughs rather than about the magazine.
There's no question that Burroughs is the most important author to have been published in the magazine, but it's also true that the article simply spends more time on him because of the availability of the details in Porges. The other sources generally list a few names and a few stories, but don't go into nearly that much detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Victor Rousseau" should link to Victor Rousseau Emanuel: Victor Rousseau was a Belgian sculptor.
Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cover illustrations did not at first have any relationship to the stories in the magazine: you may wish to show this by putting an early one and a late one side by side?
Done, and thanks for fixing the sequence -- I ran out of time to make that change last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Popular brought back Fantastic Novels for another 20 issues between 1948 and 1951: missing a period at the end. Popular demand -- or do we mean Popular magazine? While looking for an answer, I noticed that the word "popular" is used frequently here: you may wish to vary it a little.
This was opaque; I was referring to Popular Publications, a pulp magazine publisher. Now clearer, I hope. I've substituted one of the usages of "popular"; let me know if more need to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the magazine had reached 200,000 circulation: is this idiomatic? I'd say "a circulation of 200,000", but will defer if the professionals do otherwise.
Changed; you're right that that was a clumsy way to say it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2006, a copy of the October 1912 issue of All-Story, featuring the first appearance of the character Tarzan in any medium, sold for $59,750: inflate?
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1 and Note 2 are identical: clever use of the |name= parameter could avoid this.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All replied to now; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all sorted and another worthy addition to the pantheon of pulp-fiction FAs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

" founded in 1905 and published Frank Munsey" - there's a word missing in there
"whose first sale was Under the Moons of Mars" - shouldn't the story title be in either italics or quote marks (not sure which is correct for a story title but I am pretty sure it should be one of them)....?
""The Conquest of the Moon Pool", a sequel to latter story," - missing "the"
"followed in 1919, and were very popular" - the subject of the sentence is just a single story, so the verb should be singular
Minor possibly, but in the lead you have Frank Munsey and Robert Davis whereas in the bosy you have Frank A. Munsey and Bob Davis
That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All dealt with. It's amazing how one can't see missing words in one's own writing. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Would a pulp magazine link in the lead's first sentence be helpful? It is linked in the article, but I do not think it is linked in the lead, unless I am overlooking something of course.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it may be helpful to qualify in the lead that Thomas Newell Metcalf worked as a managing editor, as I was a bit uncertain on my first read-through on why Metcalf and Robert H. Davis are presented as editors for the magazine, but presented in two different parts rather than together. By the way, I do appreciate the note in the article that defines the role of a managing editor to those unfamiliar with this type of industry.
Done, though maybe I should just remove the mention of Metcalf -- he doesn't have his own article. He's important mainly because of the interactions with Burroughs, but I don't know if that requires him to be in the lead. I'll think about that some more and might cut him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I will leave that decision up to you as I believe that you would know best about it. I can understand the argument for removing him as it avoid having to define the managing editor role in the lead, but I am not familiar enough with Metcalf or this type of article in general to say either way confidently enough. That being said, I could understand keeping him in the lead or keeping him in the article and removing him from the lead for the reasons you have said above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (and more stories of Tarzan followed), it may be useful to link to the Tarzan (book series) article. I was also wondering if this part, (set on Mars), would benefit from a link to the Mars in fiction article, but I am admittedly less certain about that or if it would be too forced or ambiguous in the prose.
Both links added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about the selection of File:All story weekly 19200410.jpg for its particular spot in the article? It is a striking cover that is visually interesting, but I was wondering why it was paired with the paragraph about Burroughs. Why not use File:Under the Moons of Mars.jpg instead, which while less visually interesting, is more directly related to the Burroughs paragraph and provides readers with a look inside the magazine and not just at the cover? This is more of a suggestion than anything, but I did question the image usage and placement on my first read-through of the article.
I decided not to pick a Burroughs cover at that point because the Tarzan one is at the top of the article, so I picked one that illustrated a story by one of the other named authors -- Max Brand. I could swap the two images, but Tarzan is so universally known that it seemed the natural image to put at the top. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I didn't answer your question about the internal image. I like that image, but I don't think I have room to include it -- I'm afraid someone with a wide screen would see sandwiching issues if I add another one. I don't think it's a good idea to have only Burroughs-related images -- he was important, but the magazine was important for other reasons too, and I don't want to give the impression that Burroughs is the only reason the magazine is remembered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me, and I honestly did not consider that. I agree that it is best to not over-emphasize Burroughs in this article. I did not think about the lead image when making this suggestion. I agree that the Tarzan image is best kept at the top because of its popularity. And it is always best to keep in mind how readers will access the article, and Wikipedia in general, through different devices and platforms so I agree with the sandwiching concerns. With all of that in mind, I agree that the current image makes more sense in this context. As I said above, I really like the image, and it does show more of the art style and the variety of stories associated with the magazine, which is always a plus in my opinion. It was likely a case of me just over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Tarzan image is a good choice. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any other notable auctions related to the magazine other than the one for Tarzan's first appearance?
Not that I'm aware of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that was the case, but thank you for clarifying it for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this review is helpful. I always find it a joy to read about this kind of stuff as it always reminds me of my brother as he loves more pulpy stories. Also, reminds me that I should read more short stories in general. I did not have that much to comment on to be honest, but after everything has been addressed, I will read through everything again to just make sure I do as thorough a job as possible as a reviewer. I hope you are having a great end of your year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hope you're having a good holiday season. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that I am able to help with this review. I could not find anything further to bring up here, and I have added my responses above. I agree with your comments, and I will leave it up to you on how to best handle Metcalf's inclusion in the lead as I trust your opinion on that. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a great holiday season as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi Mike Christie, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain because of their age. The images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The source links of the last two were dead but I was able to fix them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and for fixing those links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of the same age now added; it has alt text and I just fixed the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

What makes https://web.archive.org/web/20230128191052/http://www.philsp.com/data/data018.html#ALLSTORYMAGAZINE1905 and https://comics.ha.com/heritage-auctions-newsletter/rare-pulp-brings-record-price-at-heritage-.s?inFrame=yes&id=1823&date reliable sources? Mike Ashley and Michael Ashley seem to be the same person, so perhaps they should be given the same name. Greenwood Press is linked on its second mention. None of the sources seem questionable, checked the reviews of some and they seemed fine too. I assume that we are going by "OCLC, if that's not available ISBN" as the source formatting rule? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philsp.com is maintained by bibliographer Phil Stephensen-Payne; per this he is treated as reliable by The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
The ha.com page is used only to support information about Heritage Auctions in their specialist field, that of auction prices for collectibles.
For Ashley I've used the form of the name on the books themselves, which has changed over the years.
Have now added publisher links in all source listings where there's an article to link to.
ISBN I think you meant to say the reverse? Which would be correct: ISBN unless it's too early, in which case use OCLC.

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, got the numbers of OCLC and ISBN mentally confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Jo-Jo, is this good to go? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

The "Contents and reception" section is a little long: I suggest splitting this section or using level 3 headings to break up the text.
The third paragraph of "Contents and reception": This is quite a long paragraph that I suggest breaking up or shortening.
I don't think the quote in the third paragraph that starts with "I was very much ashamed of my new vocation" is necessary. This quote seems to be about Burroughs's career and not the magazine and feels like it is off-topic. If it is to stay, I would prefer that it was summarised with prose instead to make it shorter.
"("Barsoom" being the name of the planet Mars in the series)" I don't think this is necessary for this article. As a reader who knows nothing about this topic, I didn't need to know this information to understand that this was Burroughs's series.
"In 2006, a copy of the October 1912 issue of All-Story, featuring the first appearance of the character Tarzan in any medium, sold for $59,750 (equivalent to $90,000 in 2023) in an auction held by Heritage Auctions of Dallas." This feels very off-topic for the section that it is in, and almost like it was added as trivia. Perhaps this can be moved to another section, like "Legacy"?
Speaking of "Legacy", why no legacy section? I think some of the information in "Contents and reception" could be placed in a legacy section. "Reprint magazines and anthologies" also speaks a little bit about the legacy when talking about reprints of stories.

Those are my thoughts. Feel free to ping me when giving responses. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved a paragraph in order to collect all the material about Burroughs together; I hope that takes care of the first point. I've also deleted half of the quote from Burroughs -- you're right that it's a bit off topic but I hope it's now short enough to keep. For your second point, it's a little shorter now that I've trimmed the quote. I think it might look longer than it is because the image is there. Do you think it needs to be shorter still? I'm a bit reluctant because it's not easy to see where to put the break, plus that would give a paragraph break against the image, which can look ugly.

The paragraph about the sale price of the magazine is now a bit more on-topic, I hope, since it's in a section specifically about Burroughs. Re "Barsoom", it's something that aficionados of the field would be surprised to see omitted -- the series had an enormous influence on the planetary romance genre and I think it would be wrong not to name it.

That leaves your suggestion of a legacy section. I did think about having a section like that, but decided against it because the sources generally discuss the magazine in terms of what stories appeared in it -- in other words, there's not much distinction between the contents discussion and the legacy discussion. The magazine was merged into Argosy, and there's an "Assessment" section there -- I could add the quote from Clute to this article, but I would put it just above the Burroughs section rather than adding a "Legacy" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up the section with Burroughs helps a lot. I still think the paragraphs are quite long, and typically, I suggest 4-6 sentences per paragraph. My preferred option is to reduce the prose size in those paragraphs. Some things that could be cut are "Burroughs was thirty-five years old in the summer of 1911, and unsuccessful in business." (moved to Burroughs's article) "Metcalf suggested Burroughs follow up Under the Moons of Mars with a historical romance of knights and damsels in distress. Burroughs responded with The Outlaw of Torn at the end of November, which Metcalf rejected." (move to Burroughs's article). Removing information like this will help the article stay focused on the magazine, not Burroughs.

Some additional questions: is George Allan England referring to George Allan England? Does Rhoades, Shirrel in the "Sources" section refer to Shirrel Rhoades? Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the details about the rejected novel. I'd like to leave the sentence about Burroughs being unsuccessful -- I think it's interesting to the reader that this wildly successful sequence from Burroughs came from someone who was treating writing as an embarrassing admission of failure in business. Re the links: yes for England and done. For Rhoades, I don't know -- I'm traveling and can't check the book for bio details that might settle it. I don't think it's the same person but will check when I get home. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me. My concerns were addressed, with justifications and answers to some questions given. I trust that MC will look into the Rhoades wikilink when they are able to. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also now added a one-sentence "Assessment" section that includes Clute's quote, mentioned above. I don't like one-sentence paragraphs, let alone sections, but I don't think there's a better option here as it needs to come after the Burroughs section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not thrilled with the one-sentence section. Can a sentence be added to explain why Clute thinks the magazine is important? Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to wait till I can access that source to see what else Clute says. I took that quote and the citation for it from Argosy, which I took to FAC recently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now I've moved it to the contents section, which is not ideal since as I said above I think it would be better after the Burroughs section, but this will work for the moment. If Clute gives enough background for me to add at least one more sentence I'll move it back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I've linked Rhoades as it turned to be the same person. I checked the Clute quote and there's nothing more there -- what I've quoted is almost all he says on the topic -- so I plan to leave the quote where it is, above the Burroughs section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple from me:

"the New York Sunday News, but that ceased publication in April": I think a year would be good here, as it could be either 1904 or 1905 from the preceding text. (I tried to get clarity from the linked article, but that's confusing and shows a picture of Carmen Miranda "published by the New York Sunday News in 1941"). It's way out of the scope of this FAC and won't affect my opinion on this piece wither way, but if you have any sources that can clarify the situation with the NYSN, at least it would stop the confusion if anyone else clicks to that article from here.
I have two sources for this, Moskowitz and Britt; I took "ceased publication" from Moskowitz, but checking Britt it appears Munsey sold it in April 1904 and it didn't cease publication for a couple more years. I've changed the text to go with Britt's version as he was a newspaperman of the era so this is his area of knowledge; Moskowitz was writing much later and was a genre fiction historian. I don't have a good source to hand for the details of the newspaper's history -- I've started acquiring books on the newspapers of New York, as part of the research I've had to do for these early magazines, and may end up writing about them; if so I'll look out for anything that might clarify it further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"mystery writer; Western writer Raymond S. Spears;[14] science fiction writer Murray Leinster;[3] horror and fantasy writers Tod Robbins and Perley Poore Sheehan,[14] and Jamaican writer W. Adolphe Roberts.": it's a bit jarring to have a list of "genre writer X" people, followed by "nationality writer x". I was wondering for a second what the Jamaican genre was.
Roberts was from Jamaica and later was a leader of their independence movement, which is why he's often mentioned in conjunction with the island, as far as I can tell. I've rephrased this to make the mis-parsing less likely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another great article - thanks Mike - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2025 [2].

Octopussy and The Living Daylights

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book is a collection of initially two but now four Bond short stories. It was published the year after Fleming's death and it comprises the remaining work about Bond that hadn't already been published up to that date. It wasn't widely reviewed and hasn't been as analysed as any of his novels, but it has some points of interest and some nice writing in it too. A profitable PR saw help from Tim riley and Dudley Miles, to whom many thanks. Any more constructive comments are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose readthrough

Lede good.
Bond sees Trigger get in position to kill him and he realises that it is the cellist I might be sleepy, but I have no idea what "it" refers to here. I assume you mean the cellist is Trigger; Why not "she was the cellist"?
employee known to be a double agent working for the Soviet Union whose employee - the secret service? Might be easier to say "one of their employees" or something similar
"Background and writing history" good to me.
Development and style also good.
Release and reception good, well written reception section. (wow, they still used Guineas as a unit of currency?)
Only as an invoicing mechanism to squeeze an extra 5% onto the bill, rather than the coin, which stopped in 1816! I remember seeing bills from professionals in the 1980s in guineas, but that was just an affectation by then, although it's still used in some animal auction houses (the extra 5 pence per pound being the auctioneers commission) - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
plot device of auctioning of a Fabergé egg maybe "the auctioning"?
Went through and corrected some misordered citations.

@SchroCat: that's all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Generalissima. All your suggestions duly enacted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me, good job. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

I apologise for this, but on rereading for FAC I've found a few things I must have overlooked at Peer Review. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency but worth a mention, I think:

On reading the latest text I'm not wild about "an octopus that lives off his beach". The OED defines "live off" as to subsist on, derive food, etc., from; (figurative) to be supported by. whereas you, I think, mean Octopussy lives (i.e. dwells) offshore of the beach.
"While in New York he sent her a telegram that he needed time ..." – might be better with "saying" after "telegram"?
I'm sure you have excellent reasons for capitalising and including the definite article in the link for The Sunday Times but not for that for the Express, but it looks a bit odd to me.
- Because The Sunday Times is the correct name for that publication, while Daily Express is as low class as it's contents suggest and drops the article. If only it would drop the poisonous articles in its pages too, the world would be a better place... - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"too long and specialised for the target audience, so he wrote the story" – you know my antediluvian views about pressing "so" into use as a conjunction in formal prose.
"Although he liked New York, his experiences on the trip soured his view" – this is the first we're heard of a trip there. Perhaps "on a recent trip" or some such.
- I reworked the earlier sentence which gives the better context. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the part of the story where Smyth hunted ... Smyth is a semi-autobiographical portrayal of Fleming ... Fleming and Smyth were ex-military men ... Smyth is one of only two British villains" – but back in the Plots section he's "Smythe", with an e, six times.
- Now with "e"s thrown around like confetti. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"reprinted in Playboy in January 1964, while "Octopussy" was serialised in the March and April 1966 editions – I suggest a plain "and" or semicolon instead of "while" which seems too temporal for comfort here (the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson)
"published daily in the Daily Express newspaper – it is necessary (or even accurate) to identify the Express as a newspaper? You don't identify Playboy as a magazine or The Observer, Manchester Evening News et al as newspapers.
- I toyed with changing for "comic" or "rag", but dropped it altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot, I hope. Over to you. Tim riley talk 16:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim; your suggestions all followed, except where noted otherwise.

Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria; it's a good read, well and widely sourced, seems balanced, is well illustrated (I bet you had to do a fair bit of digging), and strikes me as comprehensive. I look forward to seeing it on our front page – as another of your Fleming articles is today, I see. Tim riley talk 13:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

You know it! I'm a bit backlogged so maybe a bit longer than the usual one-week turnaround, but I'll get to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"published in different publications" reads a little awkwardly because of the repetition, although I understand if it can't be written around
Tweaked a little around this - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely floored to learn that Octopussy was the name for an actual Octopus, what
Nothing to remark on until the Style section, which is unfortunately a little skint. I might even make it a subsection under Development, but won't insist
Let me have a think about this - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In "Octopussy" he sees the hooks in action, keeping the pace of the story moving, despite no passages of action." - Repetition of "action", and also to be honest I'm not entirely sure what this means
Tweaked a bit - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The story, which he considers a morality tale uses the flashback technique that Fleming liked." - needs a comma after "tale", but also how does the morality tale aspect relate to the flashback technique? Does he elaborate at all?
Comma added. He doesn't link the morality tale to the flashback (neither do we, explicitly) but doesn't make too much of the point either, so we either have a medium sized sentence like this, or two very stubby sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all I've got. There's not much left to go over, following the PR and the other prose reviews already at this FAC. Nice to see you making your way through the entire Bond archive. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, PMC. All addressed. Happy to talk over any of them further, particularly the final one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Happy New Year :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikkimaria; I think this is a first for me, that there hasn't been a single quibble over any of the images. It's only taken a decade to get a clean sheet...! - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco

Octopussy, starring Roger Moore as James Bond, was released in 1983 as the thirteenth film in the series and provided the back story for the film character Octopussy; - The short story provided her backstory, or it was new to the film?
Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, while attending a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office and knew the area well; the experiences were used as the part of the story where Smythe hunted for the gold. - Feels like the comma is misplaced. Would "Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, having attended a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office, and knew the area well; the experiences were used as the part of the story where Smythe hunted for the gold." work better?
Reworked it in a different way: how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
who he named "Pussy" - I believe this should be "whom" or "which", as the subject is Fleming rather than Pussy
he wrote an article about the animal for The Sunday Times in 1957 "My Friend the Octopus" - Would a comma be better after 1957?
partly based on Amaryllis, Fleming's half-sister. She was a concert cellist with blonde hair, and Fleming managed to get a passing reference to her in the story, saying: "Of course Suggia had managed to look elegant, as did that girl Amaryllis somebody. - You have two links to Amaryllis in two sentences
Fleming also used her name as Bond's own housekeeper, May - Would "for Bond's own housekeeper" work better? The name is not the housekeeper; the woman with the name is.
The historian Jeremy Black sees Bond's colleague, the officious Captain Sender, as the antithesis of Bond and an echo of Colonel Schreiber, the head of security at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, who appeared in the 1960 short story "From a View to a Kill". - How so? Did they relish killing?
In their officious manner - quite the opposite of Bond's approach. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the daughter of a character Bond had allowed to commit suicide, rather than face the shame of arrest and imprisonment - Is the comma needed here? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Chris. All sorted, more or less down the lines you suggest, except where commented up above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the elements of the stories derive from Fleming's own interests and experiences, including climbing in Kitzbühel, Austria, wartime commando deeds and the sea-life of Jamaica.
I think I'll stick with what's there - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of the lead is fine.

MSincccc (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Could you describe John Griswold and Henry Chancellor— in short?
We already do. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of this section is fine for the time being.

MSincccc (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations and reprints

Yaroslav Horak could be described.
We describe him as illustrating the work: I think it's a little superfluous to describe him as "the illustrator Yaroslav Horak" as well. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... he was adapted to be the father of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the leader of the criminal organisation Spectre, and the former legal guardian of Bond in his youth.

Release and reception

Anthony Burgess could be described.
Paul Bacon (designer) could also be described.
Like Horak, he's described as illustrating the book, which is enough of an indication, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Within the James Bond series, Benson identifies what he described as the "Fleming Sweep", ... Could the full name be used here given that his name is being taken for the first time in the new section and that he was introduced in a previous section?

We could, but the previous full name and introduction was not too far above that people are likely to forget. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirations

Blanche Blackwell could be linked and described as the Jamaican heiress... as it's the first instance of her being mentioned in the article.

Characters

According to Matthew Parker and Jon Gilbert,... The two could be described in short.
We already do. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat The rest of the article is fine though I will take another look at it later. Minor comments above. MSincccc (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming was so unhappy with the final piece, he wrote to Wilson and refused payment for something he considered so lacklustre. Could be reworked for clarity and concision.
It's all good as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dissatisfied with the final piece, Fleming wrote to Wilson, refusing payment for what he deemed a subpar work. What about this one? MSincccc (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've indicated, I think it's fine as it is. There are lots of ways we can phrase it, but I don't see this change as an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, while attending a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office and knew the area well... Could be reworked. Id you ask, I have an alternative sentence.
This doesn't appear in the article: it was reworked based on a comment from a previous reviewer. - SchroCat (talk)

@SchroCat Two more only. The rest of the prose appears flawless. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support MSincccc (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Why are #5 and #53 formatted differently from the other paginated sources? What makes Slashfilm, Mutant Reviewers and Empire reliable sources? Otherwise, I see little that seems problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

##5 and 53 (and 57) all now have pages nos added, which I think is all of them. I think these three are considered generally reliable sources (there was nothing at RSN that debars their use on film topics), and they are the highest quality I could find that deal with the level of information being cited. Many thanks for your review, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, does that do it? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

@SchroCat: i'll review this. ping me if i don't get back within seven days. 750 h+ 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750 Ping. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!! been a but stressed but will try fit a review in within the next 2 days! 750 h+ 16:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately will have to withdraw from this review. I really haven't had much time on Wikipedia lately, but much thanks to SchroCat for making such a good article nonetheless! 750 h+ 08:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 January 2025 [3].

James Scott (boxer)

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott became the WBA's #2 ranked contender and defeated two #1 contenders for the Light Heavyweight Championship. He was named boxing magazine The Ring's light heavyweight champion. That's impressive enough as it is, but Scott did it while in prison.

Welcome to the bizarre story of a man convicted of armed robbery, and later of murder, who fought professional boxing matches inside the walls of Rahway State Prison in New Jersey. And make no mistake; he would likely have been a champion had the WBA not denied him the opportunity over his incarceration. James Scott's story is among the most unusual I've ever encountered, so much so it captivated me to leave my usual video game-related editing to research and tell this story. It speaks to the will of a prison inmate to stand out and show his talents, or as Scott called it, the "gold in the mud". Red Phoenix ^talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"After picking up boxing as an amateur" - I would personally say "After taking up boxing as an amateur"
"This led to Scott being offered to be managed by an architect" - this reads slightly tortuously. I would try maybe "This led to Scott received an offer of management from an architect"
Unless I am missing something, there's nothing to indicate when the whole thing with Russ happened. You say "While in New Jersey on a visit to the state on May 8, 1975, Scott was arrested and charged with murder and armed robbery." but had the murder only just happened? Or was it an earlier event which he was only arrested for in 1975?
"In one account, he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone" => "In one account, he stated that he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone"
"and called him "the Great Scott", his boxing nickname" - I think "and nicknamed him "the Great Scott"" is fine
"Muhammad offered $15,000 to Gregory for the fight, while Scott was scheduled to make $2500" - inconsistent use of commas in the numbers (here and elsewhere)
"However, he started to receive controversy on why he should be allowed to fight" - I think "However, he started to receive controversy surrounding whether he should be allowed to fight" would read better
"According to boxing promoter Bob Arum, the WBA had only then found out " - when is "then"?
"His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, who he defeated by decision " => "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, whom he defeated by decision "
" Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round, and the second knockdown occurring late in the second round" => " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round and again late in the second round"
"Scott also held an escrow account" - is there an appropriate link for whatever an "escrow account" is? I may be because I am not American but personally I have absolutely no idea what this term means
"There, Scott worked with kids" => "There, Scott worked with children" ("kids" is too slangy)
"after speaking with the trainers and kids from the boxing gym" - same here
Opponent column in the table does not sort correctly (it should sort based on surname, not forename)
That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, and thanks for your feedback! I've addressed all of your comments, with a couple of exceptions. I did see one use of "$7,000" with a comma and I removed the comma. Per MOS:DIGITS, four digit numbers are acceptable not to have a comma, so I did fix the one time it was inconsistent. I also did not change the comment Murad Muhammad made about Scott's nickname, since Muhammad doesn't actually directly say he gave Scott the nickname; he says "we" but doesn't identify who else, so he's a bit ambiguous here. Aside from that, I mostly used your wording and got the table corrected to sort by last name. Let me know if you have any more feedback, and I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi Red Phoenix, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JamesScottBoxer.jpg
Non-free image with a valid non-free use rationale
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jackie_Gleason_Theater.jpg
Own work published under CC BY-SA 3.0
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EastJerseyStatePrison.jpg
Own work published under CC BY 3.0

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt-texts. I'm not sure that the building in the second image is "blue-colored". I think the alt-text should be changed to something like "A white and pale green theater building". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per your suggestion. Thanks for the review! Red Phoenix ^talk 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. This takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

"the license plate number, which came back to Scott's car": suggest "which was that of Scott's car".
"However, he started to receive controversy whether he should be allowed to fight and make money while incarcerated": suggest "However, controversy began over whether he should be allowed to fight and make money while incarcerated".
"Although a prison guard told Family Weekly in 1980 that Scott was a changed man because of his passion for boxing, in 1981 a judge ordered Scott to stand trial again for the murder of Everett Russ." Why "although"? The two statements don't appear to be connected.

That's all I have; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie:, thanks for your review! All comments addressed; mostly used your wording and did some sentence and paragraph restructure on the third comment. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

I will be taking a look at this after I get around to reviewing Virtual Self (EP), as I alluded to here. Not sure how long it may take, but based on my upcoming schedule, my review here should be done by the end of the week. λ NegativeMP1 06:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Self got archived before I was able to complete my reviewer over there, so I'm here now. Overall, I think the article reads pretty well and should be up to FA standard. The only thing that somewhat stuck out to me was the sentence "Dickens claimed that he convinced Scott to consider boxing instead of "running around breaking heads with an iron pipe"", where I'm not sure if the quote could be paraphrased or not. That's all though, and I'm happy to give my Support. λ NegativeMP1 04:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased. Thanks for your review! Red Phoenix ^talk 16:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: PASS

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

FN1. "JAMES SCOTT" should be "James Scott"
Your capitalisation goes awry in several places. It is mostly in title case, but a. capitals are used inappropriately in a few places; and b. some titles are in sentence case. These need to be made consistent
No other issues with formatting
- FN1 addressed. Also unified all capitalization to title case. Previously my mentality on this has been to use the capitalization each source uses itself, but I can roll with all one case format for all refs. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

Given this and some of the comments in this, what makes the SB Nation article (currently at FN 4 and used heavily within the article) a reliable source?
No major sources are missing (as far as I could tell from additional searches). - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, I’ll try and get to fixes later today; it’s been a busy couple of days. On the SB Nation source, I can tell you that the two authors both have extensive histories with writing about boxing. Brin-Jonathan Butler is a member of the Boxing Writers Association of America, and Kurt Emhoff has been a boxing writer as well as manager and various other roles in professional boxing for decades. I can go deeper later about this if needed. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Red Phoenix, that's great - and no major rush on this. Given the comments at RSN, if you could add a little more on the SB Nation source that would be great - just as protection against any possible future challenges, as much as anything else. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so yes, this piece was published by SB Nation. But let's not assume this was written by a bunch of randoms. These are established boxing writers who collaborated for this piece, along with a professional staff.
I mentioned Brin-Jonathan Butler is a member of the Boxing Writers Association of America already. He's also written for ESPN The Magazine, Vice (magazine), Men's Health, Deadspin, and a bunch of other places. On top of that, he's written a couple of books about boxing.

Kurt Emhoff, the other author, is an attorney for boxers, but has also been a boxing writer, manager, and various other roles for multiple decades. He has written for ESPN before, as well as a number of other places.

This article's producer is Chris Mottram, who was previously the managing editor for Uproxx.

Glenn Stout, the editor, is the series editor for The Best American Sports Writing. The article also employed a separate copyeditor and designer.

Long story short, this isn't some "blog post". This is a researched article written by professionals with lots of experience in sports writing, with the authors specializing in boxing specifically. I can't imagine such a group working together, with each of them having the reputation they do, wouldn't ensure there has been proper fact-checking in this piece. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks RP. This source review is a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

"Eleven of those fights were contested while he was in prison, and Scott earned pay and WBA rankings from many of those fights". Could we avoid "of those fights" twice in the sentence?
"While on a visit to New Jersey, in violation of his parole, he was arrested and charged with the murder of Everett Russ". I don't see how being arrested and charged violates parole, more importantly the main article makes no mention of any violation of parole. Maybe 'He visited New Jersey, which was a violation of his parole, and while there he was ...'? And something similar in the "Arrest for murder and armed robbery" section.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I’ve got these addressed. It was actually mentioned in the last sentence of the section on Scott’s career before he was arrested for murder that it was a parole violation for him to return to New Jersey, but I just cut it from the lead anyway because I don’t think it’s that important. Also reworded the “of those fights” as well. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 January 2025 [4].

Battle of Morlaix

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my long running Lance and Longbow series, this article is about the first significant clash on land of both the Hundred Years' War and the Breton Civil War. A large French army attacked a smaller, possibly much smaller, English force and it ended badly. I am much reminded of Wellington on British cavalry 500 years later.

Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve.

This has recently been much expanded by me and is fresh from a GAN review by Serial Number ^Redacted so thorough as to approach the rigorous. All comments, concerns and complaints are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He was released in 1943 on condition that he gave up the struggle. " - ~~Was he released by the Free French or the Vichy?~~ The date appears to be wrong

Vichy. His goalers freed him in the chaos of the German take over. Clarified.

" By July Joanna had been forced back to the far west of Brittany" - is this an alternate name of Jeanne of Flanders?

Sorry, as this is the English language Wikipedia they should be standardised as "Joanna". They are now.

Is there a link for cog as referenced in the caption?

Linked.

"Northampton's 1,350 men are described by the historian Jonathan Sumption as being half men-at-arms and half archers. while Kelly DeVries says most were archers" - comma after archers instead of the period, or were you intending this to be two sentences?

Whoops. Comma inserted. (Not something I type very often.)

The sources all look to be reliable from a quick glance. I don't think I have anything else to add to this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Is that it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good to me. The GA reviewer didn't leave much for later reviewer to complain about. Supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

Hi Nikkimaria, can you confirm that you are referring to the infobox image? (As the other five images don't use px.) Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CarlosIdebritania.jpg needs a US tag

Done.

File:Miniatura_dei_Carmina_regia_02.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped for another, similar, image.

Comments Support from Tim riley

Another clear, well sourced and highly readable article from Gog about the Hundred Years' War. I look forward to supporting its elevation to FA, but first a few quibbles and carps.

"and was shot to pieces by the English archers using longbows, it then broke without making contact" – needs a stronger stop than a comma.

Replaced with a semi colon. That do?

Yup. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"his younger half brother, John of Montfort, claiming the dukedom; Joan was married to Charles of Blois, a well connected and militarily orientated French nobleman" – and there will be fisticuffs if Gog again persists in forgetting my wise words about three missing hyphenations and, in "orientated", two superfluous letters.

Oh deary me. Clearly old - and incorrect - habits die hard. Fixed. Um; I can only fond two missing hyphens. Should "militarily oriented" be hyphenated?

You're right, I think that the last doesn't need a hyphen, and I withdraw.

"Philip found the idea of having a relative as the duke attractive, it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control" – another comma splice that needs a stronger stop.

Semi coloned.

"Their fleet of 260 ships, including an unknown number of galleys, took the Genoese by surprise and 11 of their ships were burnt" – 11 Genoese ships, I presume, but it isn't entirely clear. If my assumption is correct may I suggest "took the Genoese by surprise, burning 11 of their ships"?

Restructured to, hopefully be clearer.

"a force far inferior to that of the French" – we've been here before, too. Numerically inferior no doubt, but let's not get judgemental here. Perhaps just "a force far smaller..."?

Tweaked.

"Edward III was planning to follow on with a substantial force, so Northampton's first mission was..." – I write as an old codger, and many younger non-codgers may disagree, but I don't regard "so" as a proper conjunction in formal English prose. In my view you need "and so" here.

Humf I say, as an old codger myself. Now "proper".

"Morlaix is approximately half way between Brest and Guingamp" – I was going to ask for a hyphen here, but to my surprise the OED renders "halfway" in this sense as a single, unhyphenated word, so there you are!

:-)

"Charles left it well-provisioned and well-garrisoned" – neither hyphen is wanted.

SOme people are never happy. Repositione elsewhere in the article.

"Charles' force greatly outnumbered the English" – we've been through this before: if Charles is to be pronounced à la française then plain ess-apostrophe is right, but as John isn't Jean in your text and Philip isn't Philippe I think we are firmly in the realm of anglicised renderings of French names, and so Charles would be pronounced with an "s" on the end and the possessive would be Charles's.

A barbarous usage. Reworded to avoid the necessity.

But there are still five incidences of Charles' without an ess-apostrophe-ess. Or are you saying that just ess-apostrophe is right? Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pronounce it "charles" and struggle with the idea of it being pronounced "charleses", but I shall have a look at the others and see what might be done.

Hmm. I have cut it back to two cases, but we still have a disagreement as to whether even one is acceptable.

"Even this was only sufficient for perhaps fifteen minutes continuous shooting" – either fifteen minutes' continuous shooting (with apostrophe) or fifteen minutes of continuous shooting.

Drat! Good spot.

"although as the battle wore on the rate of fire would slow" – you and I are at one about eschewing superfluous commas, but I think a comma here would usefully break up "the battle wore on the rate"

I try hard not to argue with you over such things, if only because I usually lose. But for the life of me I cannot see where a comma might permissibly fit, much less improve the flow; although any possibility would certainly break up the flow. You have my permission to insert a comma into the sentence wherever you think best.

I'd put a comma after "on", but it's your text and I don't presume to pontificate. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern historians differ as to its composition." – This is the fourth "as to" in the text and one does begin to notice it. Perhaps just "about" here and there?
"was made more difficult for the French by their mercenary crossbowmen having deserted" – have I bored you before about gerunds? Well I'm going to again. Grammatically this sentence should be " ... their mercenary crossbowmen's having..." but as that is a lumpen piece of prose, may I suggest "made more difficult for the French because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted"?

You certainly may. (I am pleased to hear that your AI Gog is all but indistinguishable from the real one.) Changed.

"the first time the English tactic of deploying their men-at-arms on foot with massed longbowmen on either flank was used outside Britain" – this is bound to pique your readers' interest, and it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying when and where it was used in these islands. And are you sure "Britain" rather than "England" is wanted here?

Re Britain, unless you wish to claim just outside Perth as English, which would be likely to pique some readers. I was considering adding a short paragraph to the main article about where historians consider Morlaix fits in the development of the English tactics. It seemed a bit of an overloaded, but this morning it seemed more reasonable. What do you think? Whatever it is I shall either footnote or main article the information, although it may not be for a couple of days due to social committments.

It was just a suggestion and I leave it in your hands. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a natural daredevil, and having been egged on by you, I am going for it. I shall ping you once it is done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope some or all is helpful. Tim riley talk 15:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, all of it is most helpful Tim. Thank you. Most comments actioned and all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After final rereading I'm happy to sign on the dotted line and support the consecration of this article as an FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I wonder if the The Battle of Crécy, 1346 sauce should be sfn'ed not by year, but by chapter title. Looked through the sources and their reviews, seem OK (worst thing I read is "redundant") but I am beginning to wonder if the lack of French sources creates a reliability problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for looking at this. Regarding your comments:

BofC, I am not sure what you mean. Could you point me to an example of sfn'ing by chapter title? Thanks
And for our purposes "redundant" means 'already well established in the literature', so good.
There are, obviously, HQ RSs in French. I own some of them. I even accessed some when putting this article together. I could easily replace several of the existing cites with French language sources saying much the same thing. Which I assume would make you happy but would fail the FAC because WP:NOENG "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance" which is policy. I can confirm that I have checked the French-language sources, such as they are, and found nothing of note not covered by equal or better quality English-language sources; note that the French version of this article only uses English-language sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I must note though that NOENG does not say that it overrides DUE/UNDUE points, so I want the assurance that there aren't aspects covered better/differently in the non-English sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, just to clarify, when you say you want the assurance (present tense), is that a general statement and you're satisfied in this case that Gog has given such assurance, or did you want to hear further from Gog? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hear a bit further. The Battle of Morlaix was part of a war between England and France, so relying solely or mostly on English sources runs the risk that we give an one-sided presentation. Historiography has had problems before with this bias; The Myth of the Eastern Front spring to mind. I'll grant you that it's been five-plus centuries, but better safe than sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, I am not sure that I can add a lot to what I have written above, so I shall chunter on about sourcing and we'll see if we can get a bit more specific as to what your qualms are. All serious historians of the period are using much the same set of primary sources. Very few of these were in English. A summary of the chroniclers of the period can be found in DeVries, Kelly (2016). "God, Leadership, Flemings and Archery: Contemporary Perspectives of Victory and Defeat at the Battle of Sluys, 1340". In Rose, Susan (ed.). Medieval Ships and Warfare. Abingdon, Oxfordshire; New York: Routledge. pp. 223–242. ISBN 978-0-7546-2485-1. which looks at how they handle a battle in 1340 - just two years before Morlaix. It is in English but written by an American - Kelly DeVries. The same author's DeVries, Kelly (1998) [1996]. Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press. ISBN 978-0-85115-567-8. has a chapter on the battle of Morlaix where he summarises all of the - at the time - detailed modern accounts of the battle; none of them are French. (I own a paper copy of this.) The French language Wikipedia article on the battle mentions four sources; all are in English. I own three of them in paper and use all of them in the article. There are general references, eg Georges Minois, La guerre de Cent Ans, Perrin 2008 or Jean Favier, La Guerre de Cent Ans, Fayard 1980 or biographies of the French monarchs such as Jean Deviosse, Jean le Bon, Paris, Fayard, 1985. None make more than passing reference to Morlaix and none add anything to what the contemporary chroniclers or modern English language sources say. None of them come near covering it in the level of detail Sumption or Burne or DeVries or even Bennett. Differences of opinion or view between these and the French sources, so far as I can see, are non-existent. There are several French works on Charles of Blois, all concentrating on his beatification and - surprisingly to me - saying nothing new about his (embarrassingly poor) military record. The best work on the life of Geoffrey of Charny (IMO) is in English - Kaeuper, Richard W. & Kennedy, Elspeth (1996). The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi de Charny: Text, Context, and Translation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-3348-3.. Even Jones, Michael (1988). The Creation of Brittany: A Late Medieval State. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 978-0-907628-80-4., largely but not entirely in French, is written by a Briton [!] and makes no mention of the battle. Putting "La Guerre de succession de Bretagne" into Google Scholar throws up a couple interesting looking hits, but they turn out to be studies of documentation or specific areas. The coverage of the battle and the war is overwhelmingly in English and while I would love to find a nationalist PoV in the large amount of French language HQ RSs, I can't. Some of the best work on things like French archives and tax records is done by UK or US academics. Although as Sumption laments, scholars often have to use an English approach because many French organisations (eg towns and religious establishments) deliberately destroyed their records so as to be able to obfuscate over tax demands, and many central records were similarly destroyed during the French Revolution. I don't really know if any of this addresses your concern. Either way, perhaps you could unpack it a little further and I'll dive back into the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess unless/until someone raises a concern about significant French sources, we can just assume that the article covers the aspects adequately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers I think this could do with a bit of a re-organization, perhaps Brittany was a province of France, as the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, however they governed the duchy as independent rulers or something similar.

Well now. As it happens I prefer the first version, I find that your suggestion causes me to jump back and forth a little. More pertinently I used the same form of words for the opening sentence in my other current FAC after the wording was thrashed out with a couple of reviewers. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breton Civil War, 1341/archive1#Support by Borsoka. UC raised much the same point as Borsoka in their earlier review. If you feel strongly about this I could ping both of them into this discussion to try and reach a consensus?

There was a single usage of "Brittainy" here (and in the Breton Civil War article) that I assumed was supposed to be Brittany, and changed accordingly, but just wanted to double-check.

You are quite right, I just keep having a mental blip.

John's wife, Joanna of Flanders, was in Rennes with her two-year-old son, also John and the ducal treasury when news of John's capture arrived for a bit of clarity, consider also named John; present sentence at first read to me as if John was a third person, not the son.

You are quite right. Changed as you suggest.

(ie, very many) suggest just (very many)

Done.

fifteen minutes' continuous shooting consider fifteen minutes of continuous shooting

Done.

I did notice that there is inconsistent metric to imperial translation, sometimes from meters into feet, and other translating meters into yards. Suggest standardizing all to be meters translated to feet.

Done.

That is all of my suggestions, a fascinating article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iazyges, thanks for the review and I'm glad you liked it. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

Upon kind invitation, I will review in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 22:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine, that's kind of you. I shall brace myself. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lede

~~had sided with John of Montfort's faction in the Breton Civil War might be useful to also specify when this conflict began? E.g. 'the recently erupted Breton Civil War' or something similar.~~

Done

When the French sighted them they deployed 'they' is not entirely clear, perhaps 'When the French sighted the English position, they deployed...'?

That seems worse. I have gone with "When they sighted the English position, the French deployed", that work?

Much better indeed. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~first major land battle of the Hundred Years War for consistency, 'Hundred Year's War'~~

Done.

~~This was the first major land battle of the Hundred Years War. I would also add that it set the tone for English encounters with the French in this conflict, as noted in the Historiography section.~~

Done.

Background

~~Regnal years for Edward III?~~

If you mean either in the infobox or the lead, or both, I don't do them there, just at first mention in the main article.

Just for clarity: was English support for John the result of the French backing for Charles? The sequence of statements currently suggests otherwise, or leaves the causal connection between the two unclear. It would help if This army overran all of eastern Brittany apart from Rennes and captured John were given a date.

Done.

No, the French backing for Charles was because John tried to insure his position by secretly negotiating with Edward.

Perhaps add 'In response' before The French declared Charles the rightful heir? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejigged the paragraph to get that in in chronological order.

Thanks, IMO much improved. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as the faction's figurehead what was that faction? Put another way, were the Bretons divided in their allegiances, or did some of them support the Blois claim? Did these allegiances have a geographical variable (it is suggested thus further down)?

Added.

Background is possibly getting a bit bloated now. And whatever point one stops explaining the nuances is going to be a bit arbitrary

I agree, and am always prepared to accept a refusal to add more details on these grounds. However the conflict is not just an English-French one but also an internecine Breton one, so some context should be given. The additions are also more than sufficient for me. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English intervention

~~arrived under Sir Walter Mauny in May add 1342 just for clarity~~

Done.

~~Relink Genoese to Republic of Genoa? I also assume the first instance of galleys was left unlinked to avoid the sea of blue? Perhaps 'fourteen galleys, hired from Genoa,...' instead?~~

Good thinking, done.

Do we know how large the French army besieging Brest was? There are mentions of the size disparity, but if any numbers (or estimates) are known, it would help. For example, Charles was now aware that his force greatly outnumbered the English, although not by as much as Charles had hoped is confusing for me: if the French army 'greatly' outnumbered the English, what does this mean? Going by the next section they were three or even more times as large, which is scarcely grounds for Charles to have hoped for an even more lopsided ratio. And if Charles was initially not aware that the English were numerically smaller, why did he hope to outnumber them by a wide margin in the first place?

Re Brest we have no clue. The modern sources have phrases such as "a vast host", "an enormous French army".

I can't help it if you're confused. Charles wanted more men than he had. He probably shared this with every military commander ever. Maybe he could then besiege some towns as well as attack the English Perhaps he realised how incompetent he was. Perhaps it was a status thing. (Yeah, I like that one too.) The sources don't say. They say Charles lost a lot of troops to the army in Picardy and wasn't happy about it. I have no objection to editing out Charles' unhappiness if that jars.

If it derives from the sources, that is fine to stay. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the French mistakenly believed it would be used in northern France, probably disembarking in Calais. An army was gathered to confront this imagined threat So German WW2 generals were not the only ones to fall for that... More seriously, Calais was not in English hands then, was it? So the French feared that the English would seize Calais and not just disembark there?

Oh, very good point, I shall check. (Off hand Sluys seems more likely.) Nooo! My fault, the source says "Edward's real intention must be to land in the Pas-de-Calais" and I saw what I wanted to. Sorry. Changed.

Fine, but why the change to Picardy instead of Pas-de-Calais? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. So as to avoid over-close paraphrasing. 2. Because the coast of Picardy is (more or less) the same as the French coast of the Pas-de-Calais.

Opposing forces

~~The men-at-arms in the French army were equipped similarly to the English is that not redundant since The men-at-arms of both armies...?~~

Fixed.

The reference {{sfn|Prestwich|2007|p=155}} is now double and redundant. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that may teach me not to do edits during the gaps in the Christmas festivities. Thanks for double checking. Fixed.

Battle

~~decided to attempt to relieve Morlaix suggest 'decided ~~to attempt~~ to relieve Morlaix' as the decision was not to attempt, but to succeed.~~

Done.

~~because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted any indications as to why? Professional soldiers deserting after a lost battle is known, but here the outcome appears to still have been open...~~

Nope. Some of the modern sources don't mention crossbowmen at all. My guess is that they mean they fled after getting shot up in the first attack. But that is OR.

Aftermath

when Edward III arrived at Brest on 26 October the siege was abandoned and Northampton marched to join him Why? This move seems illogical, since he was victorious and was about to receive even more reinforcements.

No source gives a reason. Almost certainly Edward pulling in his forces for his big push across Brittany to besiege Vannes. But that is OR.

~~Link Edwardian phase to Hundred Years' War, 1337–1360?~~

Done.

Historiography

~~Perhaps a mention of this battle being part of the broader "Infantry Revolution" in 14th-century warfare?~~

To my surprise, you are the second reviewer to ask for more in the Historiography section. I shall work something up.

I have added a fair bit on the English combining longbowmen and dismounted men-at-arms post Bannockburn, but don't think it appropriate to wade into the "infantry revolution", assuming it is still alive as a theory to be waded into. I think it is put well in Bachrach and Bachrach Warfare in Medieval Europe.

The regular deployment by English commanders of archers alongside dismounted men at arms who were positioned in a phalanx has been described by a number of military historians, including most prominently Clifford Rogers, as marking a revolution in military affairs. In numerous articles and books, Rogers has identified what he describes as a particularly English approach to combat in the field, whereby English commanders undertook the tactical defensive in battle while maintaining the strategic offensive in the various theatres of the Hundred Years’ War in Scotland, France, and in the Iberian Peninsula. English commanders, and particularly Edward III, inculcated the imperative among their subordinates that it was crucial to force the enemy to attack them, after the English army had established a sound defensive position. It certainly is appropriate to observe the enormous success enjoyed by the English armies during the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, it also is important to understand that Edward III was not the inventor of the tactical deployment of a phalanx supported by troops equipped with missile weapons.

They continue at chapter length - very readably IMO.

Fair enough. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: That's it, the article is in great shape already, and as usual, written with clarity and care to provide context to its readers. Constantine ✍ 12:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's late. I shall try to wrap up what's left in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine and thanks for the expert review. I have come back to all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure Gog the Mild, that's it from me. Well done and a happy New Year! Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criterion #3

For now at least. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

Festive greetings to all @FAC coordinators: Given the progress of this - 3 supports, source and image passes, another review from Constantine pending - could I have permission to nominate another one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well why not, I can't think of anything better at Christmas than more medieval death and destruction... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command, oh mighty coordinator. Another slice of death and destruction coming up. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720

Non-expert prose review. I made some copyedits: feel free to revert if they are not helpful. Additional thoughts:

"The historian Andrew Ayton concludes like Sumption that the English consisted of about the same number of archers as men-at arms" Why is this in a different part of the article than Sumption's and DeVries's analysis? I think they should be together.

I disagree. The numbers engaged, their weapons and similar - however uncertain it may be - needs to go before the information on the battle, as it is needed to make sense of the events related about the fighting. Similarly, the analysis needs to go after the battle section, as that is needed to make sense of it.

The "Historiography" section: many parts have an "X said Y" structure and I am not sure if naming each source is needed. If no other sources disagree with a statement, like in the first paragraph, why does the article need to outline each individual source's analysis? Can the information not be presented as prose instead, without naming the source in the text, and using inline citations to specify where the information comes from? If naming the sources is going to stay, I think new sentence starters are needed.

"If no other sources disagree with a statement" then you are completely right. I have stripped all names out of the first paragraph and it reads more smoothly, is shorter and has no quotations. Thanks for spotting that. In the second paragraph I have got it down to three names - two required by the MoS - and rewritten to reduce the "A said X, but B said Y" effect. See what you think.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, thanks for that. Very insightful. Comments responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the Historiography section prose is a lot better, as I just get the information without the constant "X said Y" structure. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely put together and lovely summary style, cramming a lot of info into a very readable article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 January 2025 [5].

Beauty Revealed

Nominator(s): — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an audacious miniature by Sarah Goodridge that challenged established norms and played on contemporary tropes: a portrait of her bared breasts. She gave this miniature to the man who bested Satan himself, Daniel Webster, shortly after the death of his first wife, and it has been seen as a sort of "come hither" gift. It is now held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, having been sold by Webster's descendants more than a hundred and fifty years after she gave it to him.

I wrote this article in 2014, around the time I did September Morn, and it has been a GA since then. I've tidied up the article, expanded a bit with since-published material, and gotten everything ready for FA. As an aside, this is also the most popular article I've ever written, having accrued almost two million views in ten years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Sarah_Goodridge_Beauty_Revealed_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Miniature_Painting,_Sarah_Goodridge_Self_Portrait.jpg, File:Daniel_Webster_(1825)_by_Sarah_Goodridge.jpg

File:Beauty_Revealed_MET_DP221518.jpg: this tagging applies to the photo only, not the artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All addressed. Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

Centimetre -> Centimeter in American English (along those lines, probably should give the inch units first with the cm. in parenthesis)
- Done. That template gets tricky. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we objectively state that the breasts in question have "balance, paleness, and buoyancy" (esp. since that appears to be a direct quote)? It might be better to rephrase that to be how critics have described it.
- Reworked completely. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
who was a frequent subject and possibly a lover -> "who was her frequent subject and possible lover following the death of his wife" seems like better phrasing to me
- Not done. The sources don't indicate that, if they had an amorous relationship, it began only after the death of his first wife (Kornhauser describes Goodridge's 1827 portrait of him as a romantic presentation, referring specifically to his smoldering eyes). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"contemporary" is always a messy adjective, esp. when it begins a thought; "contemporary United States" could be read as "modern-day US" at first glance. To avoid it though, you might have to work "during the period" or similar phrasing in there somehow.
- All instances reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be good to introduce what Public Domain Review in a couple words
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sext goes to the article you think it does :P (it might also be good to put "proto-sext" in quotations, as thats an on-the-spot coined term)
- Oh, that was good for a laugh. Fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be good to restate who Chris Packard is, as he's mentioned on the other sde of the article
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: that's all my thoughts! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

Thanks, Generalissima. That should all be fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me after the fixes and clarifications. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Johnbod

I've done minor changes; ok I hope.
- Most everything looks good. I've reworked "made by" to "collected by", as "made" may be misinterpreted as "prepared"/"produced". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the descriptions of either the original or current framing/packaging very clear. It's now in a box, like a set of silver spoons, yes? Was there an earlier box? Where does the leather case fit in?
- The box is the leather case. The sources use the term "case" (or, in the case of Johnson, casework). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok, I think you need to expand to clarify. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when the current box was added?
- Not in the sources, unfortunately. It was added at least as early as 1990, since Plate 19 of the Johnson source shows the same case. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes it sound like she worked the ivory herself. This doesn't seem very likely; I'd imagine smooth and flat plaques could be bought.
- The source very explicitly says that she was known to prepare the ivory herself. "She would master the art of cutting fine shavings of ivory into the desired shape for a portrait, preparing the surface for watercolor by sanding it and treating it with gum arabic." I've added "shavings" to the sentence to make it clear she wasn't working directly with the horns/tusks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine my "smooth and flat plaques" = the source's "fine shavings of ivory", a phrasing which rather suggests something like wood-shavings, which wouldn't make much sense. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have replaced with "shaping and preparing ivory plaques", which appears to be a fair paraphrase of the source. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it elephant ivory?
- Not in the sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More later, I expect.

Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so far with changes. Further points:
"perspective" is used twice. This usually means Perspective (graphical) in talking about paintings, but here it just seems to mean "view"; better to use that. so "She employed a frontal view that showed only the area from the collarbone ...". The other: "Presented from a frontal perspective,[2] the painting depicts the area from the bottom of the collarbone to the area just underneath the breasts ..." would be better as just "The painting shows a frontal view of the area from the bottom of the collarbone to the area just underneath the breasts ...".
- I used a different approach for the second "perspective", but both done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the breasts presented in a gradation of color, which gives a three-dimensional effect" - short of a verb ("are"), but the term form this in painting is "modeling". The best link is to the rather overlong Light_in_painting#Pictorial_representation_of_light. Maybe "the breasts are modeled in gradations of color and shade, giving a three-dimensional effect"

Agree, done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"eventually auctioned through Christie's in 1981,[17] with a list price of $15,000 (equivalent to $50,000 in 2023)," - auctions don't have "list prices", they have auctioneers "estimates" before, then on the day a hammer price (as seen on tv, but before seller's and Buyer's premium and any tax applicable).

Thanks for the point. Updated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you can only see the same snippet as me, which doesn't make it clear, but I would expect such a source to give the "hammer price" actually realized, unless it was an "upcoming sale". Generally the estimates are designed to be 10-20% lower than what they think a lot will actually fetch on the day. One could ask Christie's NY - the info is essentially public. Otherwise all good. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. Unlike when I first wrote this article, the magazine is online. It confirms that the painting was sold at Christie's New York on June 26, 1981, and given that the instructions on page 2 recommend including an additional ten percent for buyer's premium it confirms that this is the hammer price. I've updated the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod. I appreciate the careful review - and it's always good to have someone better versed than I am in writing about art have a look! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - happy to Support. Nice article on a true one-off piece!Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I'm still recovering from SchroCat's Secretum (British Museum) FAC, and I doubt if I ought to be exposed to such things at my time of life. I could quibble about "following the death of his wife; she may have intended to provoke him" (who was "she"?) but in practice nobody is going to misunderstand you. I also wondered about "potentially from looking at herself in a mirror", where "possibly" might perhaps be more accurate. I boggle a bit at the suggestion that the clothing indicates a performance similar to the curtains of vaudeville, as Goodridge was decades dead before vaudeville started in the US, but my quarrel there is with the author of the source and not with Chris's citation of it, which is fine. The article is far outside my area of expertise, but all things considered I am happy to add my support for its promotion to FA. It is a good read, well and widely sourced (with 18 sources for a 1,500-word article), judiciously illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know about that article. Will have to read it - sounds interesting. I have used "potentially" as "possible" is used in the next sentence. As with vaudeville, it does make me wonder when the proscenium curtain came into wide usage; our front curtain article is decidedly ahistorical. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

I read through the article's prose and had no concerns. The "Explanatory notes" section uses parenthetical referencing, which per WP:PAREN has been deprecated: these should be replace with inline citations. Let me know if help is needed converting these. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720. Per WP:PAREN, This includes short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). (emphasis in the original). The notes do not qualify as "within the article itself", and this style has been used since 2020 in Gao Qifeng and The True Record. Personally, I prefer harv in this context as it allows readers to reach the referenced material with the same number of clicks as the SFN templates used in the body of the text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the above quote is that it emphasizes that inline citations are deprecated within the article body text, but doesn't comment on notes. I do not see text anywhere within WP:INLINE, WP:PAREN, or the original RfC that gives an exception to references within notes. The RfC says that harv templates can be used within ref tags. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720. The footnotes are not part of the article text itself (again, emphasis in the original). As I noted previously, prior consensus at FAC has been to accept harv templates in explanatory notes. I can post to the MOS talk page for clarification if you would like, and in this instance the content of the footnotes can be reasonably worked into the body without overburdening the text or excised without detrimentally affecting the meaning. However, I am vehemently opposed to SFN in explanatory notes; it looks sloppy and is unfriendly to readers by requiring yet another click. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out one footnote and recast another into article text. I have also posted an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources regarding the question.

Regarding the treatment of explanatory notes, I note that MOS:FNNR treats them as though they are equivalent to citations (If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function.). Template:Efn also treats explanatory footnotes as similar to citations, defining explanatory notes as footnotes which provide something other than, or more than, a reference to a source that supports the accompanying text (emphasis mine). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for starting that conversation at Citing sources. Since this is my only concern, and the discussion will help find a resolution, I can support this article. I am confident that, if changes/reverts are required, they will happen once the discussion reaches a conclusion. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

There's a variety of sources, and thus also of citation styles. What is https://publicdomainreview.org/? International Art Market 1981 and Nichols 2019 probably need pagenumbers. Was "American Beauties: The Cult of the Bosom in Early Republican Art and Society" reviewed by something to establish that it's a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus.

The Public Domain Review is an online non-academic journal that highlights works in the public domain as part of a general effort to promote an understanding of the public domain and works therein. It has received coverage in The Guardian, and according to our article essays in the journal have come from several notable curators.
Added the page number for International Art Market
Nichols 2019 is a website and thus does not have a page number. The author has a PhD from Oxford University, with the dissertation "Human Curiosities in Contemporary Art and Their Relationship to the History of Exhibiting Monstrous Bodies" in 2014, and has served as a curator at the Dowse Museum of Art. I thus believe that this source thus meets WP:SPS guidelines.
"American Beauties: The Cult of the Bosom in Early Republican Art and Society" was a PhD thesis successfully defended at the Virginia Commonwealth University. It was supervised by Eric G. Garberson, who has published extensively on art history and archives since the 1990s (meeting the "supervised by recognized specialists in the field;" component of WP:SCHOLARSHIP). A graduation requirement at VCU is a successful thesis defense, meaning there was some level of peer review. I have not been able to identify who the reviewers were; the CV for Rivka Swenson of VCU's English department lists her as an outside reader for the dissertation. I believe that this meets the WP:SCHOLARSHIP requirements, especially for the material cited to it, none of which is particularly controversial. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess though that for paginated websites, giving a page number is a good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it should be included where available (Kompas sources have been like that, occassionally). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, although more information on the thesis reviewers would be nice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided all the information I have available to me. The VCU webpage does not go into further detail about to whom the dissertation was defended. I will reach out to Dr. Gerhold, but there is no guarantee that she'd answer. As I stated, I believe that there is sufficient information available to accept the dissertation as meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As I noted above, it also meets the criteria set by WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (recognizing SCHOLARSHIP's note, that "Completed dissertations ... are often, in part, primary sources.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for coordinators

@FAC coordinators: - I count three supports (and another review still in progress), a media review, and a source review. Would it be possible to nominate a new article? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment from me. I think I'd like to see an inline attribution for the quote "delicate sense of touch". That's the lot from me; aside from that, I am a support for this very interesting article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, SC. I've modified the sentence in question. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Works cited: There are 2 books with publisher locations and 3 without. Could you be consistent? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Done with this edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2025 [6].

Chris Redfield

Nominator(s): Boneless Pizza! (talk) and StarScream1007 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a main character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for punching a boulder at the active volcano in video games.

After Aoba47, Crisco, and Shapeyness (from their talk page) peer reviewed the article I feel like the article has improved a lot. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media review and support from Crisco

File:Chris Redfield RE8.png - Source is a bare URL, which is subject to linkrot. A bit more detail is necessary.
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chris Redfield.png - Same as above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments:

Video game magazines have been polarized in their critiques of the character, - Pretty sure it's not just magazines. Journalism is not synonymous with magazine.
Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some critics have referred to a scene of Chris punching a boulder in Resident Evil 5 (2009) as one of the most memorable within the Resident Evil series, which was also subjected to internet memes. - "Which was ..." is a dangling modifier and could be read as "the series was also subjected to internet memes", which is true but not what you intended here.
Replaced to "Which is" 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged like this — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris joined the special operations unit of the Special Tactics and Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.). - Isn't S.T.A.R.S. the spec-ops unit of the RPD? I'd rephrase this as "Chris joined the Special Tactics and Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.), a special operations unit of the Raccoon Police Department.
Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Character designer Tsutomu Kawade noted that Chris' signature was his powerful arms, and they were aware of that. His concept color is green, and Kawade wanted it to be visible, so they designed his attire in blue-tinted green. - These sentences are clunky. Perhaps something like "Character designer Tsutomu Kawade noted that the team was aware of Chris' powerful arms being his most distinctive feature. Their design thus accentuated his arms, with attire in blue-tinted green that continued his concept color."?
Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
photo realistic depiction - isn't photorealistic one word?
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the director of Resident Evil Village, Kento Kinoshita, the production team initially had a different plan for the game's downloadable content (DLC); Kinoshita said that the crew initially preferred a DLC with Rose Winters as the main character, rather than with Chris rejoining the action. - This doesn't really segue with the rest of the paragraph. Also, it doesn't really communicate that a Chris-based DLC was initially discussed.
I guess it doesn't habe enough detail, so I ended uo removing it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a bio-terror attack - Bioterrorism is unhyphenated above
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You use "Rose Winters" above but "Rosemary" below
Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also makes a cameo appearance in Fortnite Battle Royale (2017),[68] Nintendo crossover video game Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (2018) as one of the 'Spirit' power-ups,[69] Dead by Daylight (2016) and Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (2019) as an alternate skin,[70][71] State of Survival (2019),[72] digital collectible card game Teppen (2019),[73] Dead Rising Deluxe Remaster (2024) as an outfit for Frank West,[74] and a robot dressed as Chris makes a cameo reference in Astro's Playroom (2020) and Astro Bot (2024).[75][76] - Might be worth splitting
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
particularly since his more muscular appearance in Resident Evil 5. - particularly since his more muscular appearance debuted in Resident Evil 5.
Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internet - Capitalized or not?
Maybe not, replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
videogames - With a space, I should think? —
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris Woodrich. I've addressed everything. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BP. Looks good, and happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to the review! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I would remove the second comma in this sentence: (Several actors have portrayed Chris, including Wentworth Miller and Robbie Amell, in the live-action Resident Evil films.) It does change the meaning. With the second comma, it is saying that several actors have played Chris in the live-action films with Miller and Amell as just two examples. Without that comma, it is saying that several actors have played this character, including these two live-action instances. I'd go for the meaning without the comma.
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (with particular focus on the frequent modifications to his design and inconsistent appearance), I do not think that "particular" is necessary as that is already assumed with the word "focused". The final bit seems a bit repetitious to me as it is saying the character is receiving criticism for his design being frequently changed and then saying again that his appearance is inconsistent. Maybe something along the lines of (on the frequent modifications and inconsistency in his design)?
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that "subjected" works in this context, (which is subjected to internet memes), as I always perceive the word as having a more negative connotation. I would use a different word choice here.
Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (modeler Yosuke Yamagata), would it be helpful to have a link for modeler?
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would more directly attribute the following quote, "pretty dramatic". I believe that this is said by Jun Takeuchi based on context, but since this quote comes in for a new sentence, I think it would be good to clarify who is saying this quote.
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid using the following sentence construction, (with X verb-ing), when possible as it is something often discouraged on the FAC level. An example of this is, (with the two leading a group to destroy Umbrella's only remaining research facility), as well as this, (with fans using it to demonstrate Chris' masculinity).
I believe this is done. I found three instances, but please let us know if I missed anything. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be consistent with using title case for the citation titles. I know that this is a pain, and I was honestly only made aware of it somewhat recently, but it does seem like another common point made in FACs.
This should be done as well. Please let me know if I missed something or if any the titles still need adjustment. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that these comments are helpful. I believe that should be everything, but I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I am always happy to see more fictional characters in the FAC space. Great work as always with that. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @StarScream1007. Anyway @Aoba47, done. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for reviewing! Sure, I'll review it tomorrow. =). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Lazman321

As you requested, I'll be conducting spotchecks soon here. Lazman321 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza!: I think that will be all for my spotchecks. Definitely an improvement over my spotchecks for Claire Redfield. Willing to support once addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321 Hi again. I've addressed all of your concenrs now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support based on spotchecks. Lazman321 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tintor2

I will be doing the source review. Tintor2 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I'm reading count as WP:Reliable sources as approved by the project of video games:

PCGamesN, Engadget, IGN twice, Bloody Disgusting, GameSpot, Polygon, Platinum Games, Kotaku (this sound lately became controversial in discussion but it's older), 1UP.com, Gameinformer, Eurogamer, GamesRadar+, VG247, Nintendo World Report, Push Square, GamePro, Edge, The Gamer, Den of Geek (lately discussed by the project but still not decided if it's bad), The Escapist, Shack News (I'm not sure about this but the wikilinks leading me to such article seems to make it strong for reliable), Gematsu (lately more approved than Siliconera, I often visit that site and it well written), Anime News Network (probably the most reliable site that deals with anime and related projects), Yahoo News, Siliconera is pretty much like Gematsu and a lot of websites tend to borrow content from it. Destructoid, Gamepur (I'm not familiar with this website but still it seems well organized), Screenrant (kinda like GameRant the commentary might be too subjective but it's pretty useful as far as I've been told), GameSpy, NintendoLife, GameZone, Complex
Twitter accounts: @aesthetics_re seems to official.
5-8, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 39-40, 48, 49: Credits to the original games
14, another official twitter account.
Bibliography: all of them possess wikilinks so they are accessible to every user
All citations possess the writer's name and dates and are consistently linked.

@Boneless Pizza!: This is all I read. I'm not too experienced with FA reviews but I tried doing everything a source review has to do. I hope this article passes so I give it a pass. If I missed anything, somebody feel free to correct it.Tintor2 (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku and Den of Geek are reliable, while Screen Rant is reliable for pop culture purpose and as a valnet source, it shouldn't be used a lot; that's why I used only once (BTW, GameRant is a low quality, thus I wouldn't def use it). Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's that I remember recent discord talks about Kotaku and Den of Geek not being approved by the project but since nothing was decided I'm sure they count as reliable. Tintor2 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the content were obviously written like it was made from AI; that's a different story and its unreliable. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

Reviewing. Feel free to refuse the suggestions with proper justification. 750 h+ 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead

character, with focus on the frequent ==> "character, with a focus on the frequent"

concept and design

he had trained intensely in order to fight the series' ==> "he had trained intensely to fight the series'" (conciseness)
Chris' actions serve as a major mystery ==> "Chris' actions served as a major mystery"
His appearance was once again redesigned, with ==> "His appearance was again redesigned, with"

appearances

biological warfare activities, and ultimately comma here is unnecessary
private organization with the goal of exposing Umbrella's biological ==> "private organization to expose Umbrella's biological"
a man identifying himself as "Redfield" arrives "himself" is unneeded
Mia and Rosemary are rescued, Chris and his team head to the BSAA's European ==> "Mia and Rosemary are rescued, and Chris and his team head to the BSAA's European"

critical reception

mass throughout the games in repeatedly changing remove "in"
by IGN and in a Famitsu's reader survey remove "a" or remove the " 's"

@Boneless Pizza!: fine work on the article. address my comments and i'd be happy to leave a vote. best, 750 h+ 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've addressed all of your concerns already. Many thanks for the review. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

happy to support. 750 h+ 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Emerging from my home in the void to offer a few pointers for this review. From my own experiences with FA, you dont need to link all the publishers when you are using the same source, as it risks overlinking things. Other than that, I am not sure what else I can say about this, other than good job.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

Is it possible to have page ranges for Grimes and Crowley?

You mean at bibliography? Added it

"He was introduced as one of the two playable characters of the original Resident Evil (1996), alongside his partner Jill Valentine, as a member of the Raccoon Police Department's Special Tactics and Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.) unit." A minor point, but having two uses of "as" in the sentence jars a little. Any chance of rephrasing one out?

Made it into 2 sentences, not sure if its fine already. Tagging StarScream1007 just in case he disliked or can rephrase it into a better one.

"novelizations". Really? Any reason we can't just have 'novels'? I mean - 'filmifications'?

Reword

"he has been recognized for his sex appeal and is considered one of the sexiest video game characters". 1. What does "recognized for his sex appeal" mean? 2. Is this not saying much the same thing twice? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed

Hi Gog the Mild. Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have just realised that the works in the bibliography aren't in alphabetical order. There is a bot or app thing that will do it for you, but I don't know how to find it.

Hey, it's fine. Anyway, done Gog the Mild. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2025 [7].

Tesla Model S

Nominator(s): 750 h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second candidacy, following this one. About an electric sedan produced by Tesla, Inc.. Asking previous reviewers @Epicgenius, Femke, and UndercoverClassicist: for a second review on this one. 750 h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG

Thanks for the ping. I looked at these changes and have only one additional concern:

Environmental impact, paragraph 2: "its 68 percent higher manufacturing emissions are offset within a few years of average driving" - Do we have a more specific time frame besides "a few years"?

This is not a major concern, so my support from the previous FAC still stands. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not per the source, no. I'm assuming it means half-decade, but that's an assumption. Thanks for the support. 750 h+ 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke and UndercoverClassicist: pinging in case. 750 h+ 05:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but avoid sandwiching text between images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by (sorry...) from UC

May not have time for a full review, at least not in the near future, though I note the article seems to be in pretty good nick following its last round at FAC.

In the footnote for "Rollover", we have This means it has a 5.7 percent chance of rolling over.. That needs some more context to me -- is that a 5.7% chance of rolling over while parked on your drive, or while taking a corner at speed? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: late response sorry. fixed the footnote. 750 h+ 10:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

Lede:

- I don't think we need the month or location of the first fire for a lede level overview.
- Should "Best 25 Inventions of the Year" be in quotes? (genuinely not sure here)
  - - bit confused here, since it was never in quotes
- I feel we should mention the Model S Plaid at some point in the lede if its so important as to change critical opinion on the car.
  - don't really think so since it was one review.
  - Fair enough. - G

Development:

- Wasn't the Roadster also electric? That should be mentioned for context.
- Maybe a little bit about the state of electric cars at the time for context? I'm not a car nut, but I remember the Teslas being quite novel at the time.
- You can combine the $50,000 and $70,000 figures into a single "$50,000–70,000" to avoid needing multiple parenthetical statements of the modern equivalents.
- Shared a chassis design, or were they taking the same chassis off one car and placing it on the other? I'm assuming the former.
  - to be fair, it's both.
- Did Franz von Holzhausen have any relevant experience beforehand?
- I think you can shorten the background context about the Fremont plan - i don't think we need to know when it was built - and avoid having to jump back in time. Maybe something like "Toyota and Tesla announced a partnership and a transfer of an factory in Fremont, California, which had been abandoned by General Motors and Toyota during the Great Recession" — but like, better worded than that.

Design

- Some stuff here is a bit technical. We don't need a crash course (heh) on all the parts, but if there's a simple way to explain the difference between an induction motor and a permanent magnet synchronous reluctance unit, and what that move accomplished, that'd be nice.
- I think a portmanteau of "front" and "trunk" could be EFN'ed or even omitted

Models and updates

- This is all quite solid, good job.
- Lowest drag coefficient of any automobile or any consumer automobile? That seems crazy if true.
  - This was at the time
- That bit on the restyled taillights drifts a bit into OR for my tastes; as its such a minor tweak, it might be best to just omit it until a magazine explicitly mentions that.

Technology

- Also quite solid throughout.
- What is a "yoke" steering wheel? That isn't really explained.
- Entirely personal preference here, but I think an image that shows what the supercharger stations looks like would be good context for viewers - we already know what the car looks like by this point.

Environmental impact

- Since we're citing a claim by Tesla directly in the image caption, it may be good to cite it.

Production and initial deliveries

- Don't see any problems here.

Safety

- Reception and legacy

It might be good to try to merge a bit more of these lesser known names and big quotes into general summaries of critical reception - obligatory plug for Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections.

750h+ That's all from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: i think i've addressed these, but if you have anything let me know. 750 h+ 08:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

I'm not really familiar with this or a car person, but I will try to read this article tomorrow. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 183, website isn't linked yet
What makes CNET reliable? They are treated in WP:VP as low quality for FA.

🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSP CNET was a reliable source before 2020 when it was bought by Red Ventures. All of the sources are from 206 or before. I fixed the other concern, @Boneless Pizza!: 750 h+ 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read the article, but I think I dont have any concerns left. So, I Support this FAC. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FN206: Not sure why Emissions has a capital E
FN273: Ditto the M in Most
FN279: "Review, Pricing, & Pictures" should all be lower case
The ISBNs should be formatted in a similar manner (XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X, for example)
You don't need to link the publishers of the books (I'll lay money that someone will remove them at some point in the next year)
The sources are all appropriate to their required goals.

That's my lot - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: all done. Thanks for the review. i'll try to get to one of yours hopefully within the week. 750 h+ 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist and Femke: do one of you think we could fit a review in? this candidacy might require a large review from one of the previous reviews who had extensive concerns. thanks. 750 h+ 18:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

The development section is quite large. Can this be reduced or broken up with level 3 headings?
"a year before the company introduced its first vehicle, the battery-electric Roadster," I am not sure what this has to do with this model of car, and I think it can be removed as off topic.
"As of February 2024, the Model S has had seven product recalls." I think this might be against MOS:CURRENT, as someone would have to keep track of and keep updating it. I'm not sure if the exact number is necessary, especially if each recall is going to be explained later in the article. I would suggest removing it, and letting the reader count up the recalls if they want.
"Following the recall, Jerome Guillen, Tesla's vice president of sales," is this Jérôme Guillen?
The "Reception and legacy" is quite long and falls into the "X said Y" sentence structure. I think WP:RECEPTION's suggestions on grouping critiques by type of commentary, and reducing the quotes, will help make this section more appealing to readers. A quote from every source is not necessary.

I hope this helps. Please ping me when the comments above have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: what do you think? 750 h+ 10:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the reception section might still be a little too long, with a lot of "X says Y" (especially in the first paragraph). But this is not enough to withhold my support. It might be beneficial to take another look at each quote, and see if every single one is needed or if any of their quotes can be merged together and summarised. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Citations: All article titles sound be in title case, regardless of how they appeared in the original.
- @Gog the Mild: mostly already done, but if I missed anything let me know. 750 h+ 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h+, I think you are misunderstanding. The rules for title case are here - MOS:5. Pretty much all of your article titles in the "Citations" section are in sentence case. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are consistently in sentence case. Ok, I guess I can live with htat.

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2025 [8].

Bejeweled (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bejeweled is a 2000 match-three video game developed and published by PopCap Games. If you're even slightly interested in casual gaming, then even if you haven't heard of this game, you will most certainly recognize the ubiquitous match-three mechanic, which Bejeweled popularized. This passed a GA nomination back in October, and after several copyedits and a peer review, I believe it is ready for a FAC. Lazman321 (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the following reviewers: GAN reviewer @ProtoDrake: and peer reviewers @TrademarkedTWOrantula: and @Vacant0:. Lazman321 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks for pinging me! (Not sure if I'll have time to review; the holidays are coming up, and I need some time to relax.) TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I remember playing Bejeweled 3 on the Nintendo DS - I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Foxy Poker - would Sexual content in video games be a better link that what is currently given? Per the Kotaku source, this was a strip poker video game, while the current link target is focused on the more standard online smut

Done Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Astraware ported Bejeweled to Pocket PC on August 8, 2003,[21] and Windows Mobile on May 3, 2004.[22]" - any hope for a seconday source for this information?

For the release dates, unfortunately no, my search turned up nothing. But thanks to my search, I did find a little more information about the PDA versions. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"such as over 2,200 match-three games on the Apple App Store" - I think this number here would be best with an as of date, since this is likely to change over time

Done Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" "Sprint PCS announces the launch of Multiplayer Bejeweled on Sprint Vision". DemiVision. May 13, 2003. Archived from the original on July 31, 2003. Retrieved September 23, 2024." - I'm unfamiliar with this source - is it a high-quality RS? This isn't on WP:VGRS, which tends to make me think this is a fairly obscure source

DemiVision is a primary source; JAMDAT bought technology from DemiVision in order to achieve the multiplayer gameplay of Bejeweled Multiplayer. They also happened to be the only source I could find for Bejeweled Mutliplayer's release date. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in Category:Cancelled Game Boy Advance games but there isn't any reference in the article to the Game Boy Advance - is this appropriate categorization?

GBA ports for Bejeweled and Bookworm were announced in January 2004 to be released by Majesco later that year. Although the Bookworm port was ultimately released, the Bejeweled port wasn't, and literally the only other information I can find of it was an entry on Kotaku claiming it was canceled, though it states the wrong year. Given how dubious and minimal the sourcing was, I chose not to include it in this article. For now, I'll remove the category, though would you prefer I include a mention of this unreleased port in the article? Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, we've got Category:Video games scored by Peter Hajba, but not reference to Peter Hajba

Removed the category. I removed Peter Hajba from the infobox because there was no secondary sourcing of his involvement in this particular game and he was credited under a pseudonym in the readme. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment does make we wonder if there's anything to be said about the music of the game? I never played this version, but the music of Bejeweled 3 was definitely a part of the ambience of some modes of the game.

While I myself do like the music for Bejeweled Deluxe, unfortunately, I couldn't find any information on it. I couldn't even find a soundtrack album. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here; only a few comments above. Hog Farm _Talk 00:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I have addressed your concerns above. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Sorry, forgot to ping you. Lazman321 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decision to leave out the Game Boy Advance information due to the weak sourcing for it. Supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 02:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

This game makes me nostalgic. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At References. Perhaps rename all PocketGamer.Biz into "Pocket Gamer" only?

Although both have a similar name and are owned by the same company, PocketGamer.biz is a separate, more industry-focused site. I see no reason for the change. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 8, GameSpot wasn't italicized

Done: Good catch. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes GamesWelt and Wireless Gaming Review reliable?

GamesWelt is considered reliable per WP:VG/S due to its editorial policies and extensive staff. As for Wireless Gaming Review, see my response to Vacant0's similar question here. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rename the section from "Sources" into "Bibliography"?

As per MOS:REFERENCES, "Sources" is a valid name for the section. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. The article is obviously written very well. Btw, I was wondering if you're able to do spot chekcing/source integrity at Chris Redfield's FAC? Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza!: Thanks, I have addressed your concerns. If I have time, I may be willing to do spotchecks for your FAC. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I tried to read the entire article again to find any errors, but I couldn't. Thanks for addressing some of my concerns. I'll Support this FAC; looking forward to Tetris soon. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TTWO

I have no recollection of this game. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"with chain reactions potentially following" - Chain reactions (as far as I can see) aren't noted in the gameplay section.

Done: Removed. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"JAMDAT's Bejeweled Multiplayer includes an additional multiplayer mode" - Is it the only version that does so?

As far as I'm aware, yes. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though the term "simple video games" isn't precise enough. However, if you feel this term works, feel free to keep it in.

Done Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead says the team discovered Colors Game, while the gameplay section says, "Vechey discovered a match-three browser game titled Colors Game".

Removing mention of who discovered the game in the lead.

"...significant monetary revenue from that success." - Could cut "from that success"

Done Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Mac OS X release date come before the Windows Mobile release date? Normally, a release section is supposed to go in chronological order, but I get it if you want to leave this unchanged.

I think I'll leave it unchanged for conciseness; I'd have to repeat that Astraware published a port otherwise. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"were developed for multiple years" - As in the code was updated for the game ports? Not sure what you mean here.

It's not referring to ports or updates; the full sentence is "...games such as Bookworm, Peggle, and entries of the Bejeweled series were developed for multiple years." Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Thank you, I have addressed your concerns above. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks like you've earned my support! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

Loved this game and played it alot 20 years ago - I read this on the plane and honestly couldn't see any glaring errors on comprehensiveness and prose so consider this a tentative support pendign how others feel about it. 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review (passed)

File:Bejeweled Deluxe cover art.jpg - Source is almost a bare url, which is subject to link rot. More comprehensive sourcing information will help ensure continued verifiability.
File:Bejeweled deluxe sc1.jpg - FUR definitely needs to be beefed up more - for example, the C pathway indicated won't exist on most computers.
File:John Vechey, Brian Fiete, and Jason Kapalka at the Bejeweled Twist launch, 2008.jpg - Source is a bare url, which is subject to link rot. More comprehensive sourcing information will help ensure continued verifiability. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Thank you for your image review. I think the screenshot originates from the game's files, though honestly, given how well-known the match-three concept is and how the gems are already illustrated by the cover art. As for your point on link rot, I've honestly never been asked to address this regarding images before, even in FACs, so I'm not sure how to address it. I've replaced the links with archived links so they're less likely to be impacted by link rot. Lazman321 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally it's better to have a bit more detail so that, if we have to go hunting, we know where to start. It still falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability, similar to the requirement to format references.

As for File:Bejeweled deluxe sc1.jpg, you'll note a) the file path does not indicate whether this screenshot is something that came packaged with the game, or was taken by the user, and b) it simply says "add image" as the purpose; that is insufficient under WP:FUR, which stipulates that we must address "What purpose does the image serve in the article?" (i.e., we need to show why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Oh, for clarification, I removed the screenshot; I don't think it's necessary given how well known match-three gameplay is and how the cover art already illustrates the gems. As for the other images: what? WP:V is the policy stipulating that information in an article must be attributable to a reliable source. The relevant policy for images would be WP:IUP, which says that the required information for uploaded images include "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" (emphasis mine). This means a URL is all that is needed for sourcing an image; nothing else. Lazman321 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is an image aside from a type of information? And flagging bare/near bare URLs is not new; Gao Qifeng had one marked at its FAC, for example. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more information about each source on each of the images. Is this sufficient? Lazman321 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good. Thank you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

The game was inspired by a similar match browser game, - Match was already used above, so similar covers it sufficiently here.
At the time, the PopCap team consisted of John Vechey, Brian Fiete, and Jason Kapalka. - Reads as a non-sequitur, since the preceding and succeeding sentences both deal with the game.
Bejeweled has since been ported to many platforms, particularly mobile platforms - Platforms ... platforms
trial run - Why not link game demo instead of Wiktionary?
and included the game in their Hall of Fame in 2005,[46] becoming the only puzzle game alongside Tetris to do so - "to do so" -> "to be inducted"
Worth mentioning PopCap's use of Bejeweled mechanics in their other games? (Beghouled in Plants vs. Zombies comes to mind). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: I have addressed your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: It has been two weeks since my reply; could you please respond? Lazman321 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to not have saved my last comment. I support this article as an FA. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Just ended my wikibreak. Will jump in and leave some comments! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I peer reviewed this article, I noticed that only one of my recommendations were left undone:

The style of reference titles is currently inconsistent. It is recommended to have all titles use title case capitalization.

I've already reviewed rest of the article and from my point of view it meets the FAC criteria, but I had to re-read Reception and Legacy considering that they had been slightly rewritten. Once the reference titles get fixed, I'll support this nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Thank you very much. I left the titles as is because of a post I made at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 96#Title case. According to its responses, the guidelines on title case in reference titles largely only applies to major works; minor works such as articles and chapters can use either title or sentence case based on what the source uses. Lazman321 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Considering Gog the Mild also requested this, Done. Lazman321 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Who is John Walker from https://kotaku.com/from-bejeweled-to-plants-vs-zombies-how-popcap-got-jus-1844338169? Are pages like https://kotaku.com/15-years-later-november-2004-might-still-be-one-of-the-1839905549, https://archive.ph/aqd0P, https://www.gamespot.com/articles/polishing-bejeweled/1100-6301815/, https://www.pcgamer.com/popcap-week-john-vechey-on-founding-popcap-making-bejeweled/ and https://www.gamesradar.com/the-legacy-of-match-three-games-from-bejeweled-to-candy-crush/ subject to some kind of editorial review? Seems like sources are consistently formatted and reliable otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Is there a reason you're suspicious? John Walker is a well-established video game journalist and editor who founded Rock Paper Shotgun, and aside from the PocketGamer.biz article about Gardenscapes, which is a blog post from a guest author that I have no problem with replacing, I find no reason to suspect that these articles didn't undergo the same editorial review as any other article. Lazman321 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am trying to be a bit more rigorous with videogame sources than I usually am because I am not sure if WP:VGRS is still up-to-date and I don't have the expertise to judge VG sources otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post on WT:VG/S for help. Lazman321 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: After some consideration, I will remove the Kotaku article about November 2004 and replace it with a primary source, as the Kotaku article does seem to have citogenesis and fall under the "blog/geeky posts" that WP:VG/S recommends avoiding. Per responses to the post on WT:VG/S, the rest should be fine. Lazman321 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the second reviewer who has asked this, I guess I might as well. Surprised you didn't request this for my prior FAs. Done Lazman321 (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Pinging. Lazman321 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS went through a period of flux, where it was just about reasonably possible to argue that the position wasn't clear, so I stopped asking for it. It has since firmed up, so I have started again. Sorry if you got caught out in the middle of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Lazman321 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2025 [9].

Operation Matterhorn logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the logistics of Operation Matterhorn, the use of Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to attack Japan from bases in China during World War II. As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics off into its own article, since this was my primary interest. The challenges of conducting operations from remote bases in China supported only by air were formidable, and only partly overcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article at ACR and can support. Matarisvan (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

In the second paragraph of the End of Matterhorn section, War Department should link to United States Department of War. XR228 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Normally disambigs get highlighted, but this was set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial B-29

Yo, acc. Worldcat, Haulman is 'Tannenberg Publishing: San Francisco, 2015'. Also I'm getting a 404 on Romanus, although that could just be me. No mention of the Burma Rd reopening? Nice article, cheers! SerialNumber54129 14:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh. The Center of Military History has been moving stuff around, and the URLs have changed slightly. I have corrected them. And added a sentence on the reopening of the Burma road. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. It's a really good read, and provides interesting background on why the US wanted the British Empire to disassemble after the war. Cheers! Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $51 billion today),: why not use the inflation template to get a dynamically updating year? Would seem both more durable and would reassure readers that the information remained in date (some Wikipedia articles are twenty years old). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used the {{Inflation/year}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance: this is a little ambiguous: was it difficult to maintain the bases or the aircraft? The former seems more likely, so "creation and maintenance of..." would be better.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should explain the term "staged" per WP:JARGON.
Piped to staging area Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need some convincing that the design process for the B-29 is appropriate material (under DUEWEIGHT) in an article on a particular operation involving them. We don't start the article on the Battle of Agincourt with a description of the invention of the longbow. Was this the first use of B-29s in action, or some other milestone that obviously feeds in from their development?
Rewritten the first paragraph to highlight the key points from a logistical point of view. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Netherlands East Indies, which were the source of ninety percent of Japan's oil supplies. : I understand the desire not to spend half the article explaining the fundamentals of the Second World War, but I think it's germane here to say that they were under Japanese occupation at the time, since the name gives the impression of their being under Dutch control.
Deleted the bit about alternative basing in SWPA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the war against Germany had priority: link (and perhaps briefly explain) Europe first?
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the only line of communications with China was over "the Hump", as the air ferry route ~~to China~~ over the Himalayas was called: could cut as indicated? Seems fairly obvious that a line of communication with China would end up in China.
Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the Burma Road could be reopened by the ground forces, all the fuel, ammunition and supplies used by American forces in China had flown over the Hump.: were these American forces limited to the B-29s we just discussed? It sounds here like there was more involved. If this was the only American presence there, I think it would be good to explain that briefly when we talk about the decision to put the B-29s in China.
It was not; added a bit about the Fourteenth Air Force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with a target date of 1 May 1944: as we have WP:TIES to the United States, the US date order is preferable.
Per MOS:MILFORMAT: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage
China-Burma-India Theater : dashes, not hyphens (or spaces?).
It is the form used in all the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Twentieth Air Force: can we introduce who these people were and what their stake in the operation was?
Oops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No full stop needed on the "Black Jack" caption.
deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When US Army Engineers: engineers should be LC here.
De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To save time and concrete, dispersal areas were omitted: not knowing much about the business of constructing airfields, this went completely over my head.
Is it the US Army or the U.S. Army? The article varies.
Used U.S. form consistently. The MOS favours inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a tank farm : What's one of those?
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Navy tanker delivers fuel. Master Sergeant Gerino Terenzi (right) is the section foreman, constantly checking his pumping stations and storage tanks.: Is this (and similar) the original caption? It reads a bit like a propaganda release, especially with the "constantly checking..." (and, honestly, naming the individual). This should be clarified if so; if not, we should rewrite with a more encyclopaedic tone.
Yes, it is the original. Tweaked the caption a little. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thin, light-weight, "invasion-weight" pipe: perhaps better as "thin, lightweight pipe, known as "invasion-weight", as "invasion-weight" doesn't add or change anything from "thin" and "lightweight" (is the hyphen normal in AmerE? It isn't in BrE).
Changed to "lightweight", but the AmerEng sources use the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery.": this quote seems to come out of nowhere. Who said it?
There is a footnore. Added that it was from the American official historians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
leaking 100-octane gasoline could be dangerous: leaking any sort of gasoline is dangerous, isn't it?
100-octane is more volatile than 80-octane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but would it be safe to have a leak of 80-octane gasoline? We've implied that it would. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Five days later, a vapor explosion set fire to thatched houses in the village. Seventy-one people died in the ensuing conflagration.: conflagration may not be quite encyclopaedic in tone (sounds more like journalism to me): simply set fire to thatched houses in the village, killing seventy-one people?
I think that is just too matter-of-fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He personally reconoitered: reconnoitred, but I would also cut personally as potentially WP:PUFFERY.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
on the black market an American dollar fetched up to 240 Chinese yuan: as phrased, it's difficult to see the comparison here. Suggest "at the official rate of one dollar to 20 yuan".
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur N. Young, the American financial advisor to the Chinese government was critical: comma after government.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
averaged about 25 Chinese yuan per day (worth about $1 in 2023: this doesn't smell right: if the official exchange rate was $1 to 20 yuan, this implies that the US dollar is worth more now than it was in 1940.
Ooops! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transliterated Chinese needs to be in a transliteration template, not a lang template (use that for writing in Chinese script).
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Men, women and children shaped them : this is the first time we've mentioned that the workforce included all three groups; I would have done so when we talked about the assembly of the workforce a few paragraphs ago.
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was well-situated for the proposed B-29 missions: no hyphen in "well situated" here.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sea-air service: endash needed here.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cargo ships usually went to Calcutta and troop ships to Bombay, which was safer: what was safer, exactly -- was the crime rate in Bombay lower?
Added "as Calcutta was within range of Japanese bombers". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, hopefully. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a bit more:

there remained critical shortages in some military occupational specialty codes,: This is slightly military-ese, I think: it's not the code that was in short supply as the people holding it. Suggest "shortages of certain specialist personnel", with a link to MOS if you wish.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
moved from the port at Calcutta to Assam by rail and barge, from whence they had to be flown across the Hump: not ideal structure with the from whence, given that the antecedent (Assam) is on the other side of a big block of meaning ("by rail and barge"). Grammatically, at least, we could be implying that they were flown from the barges. Suggest "barge; from Asasm, they had to be flown..."
Tweaked the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
90-days' temporary duty: no hyphen here.
Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that the temporary-duty ATC pilots continued to fly them until they had to return to the United States: the pilots or the aircraft?
The pilots. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would receive 1,650 tons out of the first 10,250 short tons: is tons different here to short tons? If not, would cut it: if so, would find a clearer way to say this.
Added another conversion template. Short tons is an unusual unit, but was used by the ATC for convenience in calculation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
one crewman was wounded. In turn, they claimed to have shot him down, but all the aircraft involved landed safely: Would clarify they as the Japanese; it's a bit tricky in context.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no supplementary rations, no additional personal or orginizational equipment, no clothing: typo. What do we mean by "personal or organizational equipment" -- anything that isn't strictly military? Would "personal or administrative" be clearer and accurate? I also have a slightly bizarre image in my head of these people working in the nude.
Changed to "spare clothing" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Air Transport Squadrons: typo in piped link.
Looks okay to me. Oh, I see. The page was moved. It is not a typo though; just the official name, which in in American English, which we don't use on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In late 1944, the Japanese Operation Ichi-Go offensive in China probed relentlessly toward the B–29 and ATC bases around Chengdu and Kunming.: not sure about this adverb: a probing action is, by definition, hesitant, at least by comparison with a regular offensive, while relentlessly implies a high level of pace and aggression.
Changed to "advanced". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That month, the Burma Road was reopened, and the inaugural convoy reached Kunming on 4 February 1945.: I'm not sure you can have an inaugural convoy on something that is being reopened.
Changed to "first". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chennault considered the Twentieth Air Force a liability: might consider reintroducing Chennault; it's been a while.
Changed to "his Fourteenth Air Force". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final quotation is a long chunk of a non-free primary source: these are generally discouraged under a whole range of PAGs. How strong is the encyclopaedic argument for including all of it? It strikes me that most of it (from "Because Japan...") restates factual material that has already been stated in the article.
Paraphrased it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and MoS: I am not qualified to pronounce on the content or sourcing, but can see no issues there either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

Lede solid throughout.
The cumulative effect of so many advanced features was more than the usual number of problems and defects associated with a new aircraft Might just be me, but this sentence is a little confusingly worded. Maybe something like "The large number of advanced features resulted in more problems and defects than what was usually associated with a new aircraft"?
Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "shek" in Chiang Kai-shek is generally lowercased.
Yes it is. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink B-17 at first mention.
Wikilinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the 653rd Topographic Battalion under? Might be helpful to link.
The 653rd Engineer Topographic Battalion was a mapmaking arm of the USAAF in CBI, stationed in India. The battalion produced maps for a host of military situations, including the major USAAAF activities in and around China. The battalion also produced "walk-out maps" for the Office of Strategic Service. Unfortunately, it has no article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luftwaffe Henschel Hs 293 radio-controlled, rocket-boosted glide bomb I feel this is excessive detail; you can just say a Luftwaffe bomb.
Changed as suggested.
- (also you should use the lang template as opposed to just italicizing Luftwaffe)
  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda confused if this uses American or British English; I'd swing towards the latter here, and if so it should be totaling, not totalling.
American English. Corrected spelling of "totaling". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a military nerd, but reconnoitered was a very unfamiliar term to me; maybe worth wikilinking (perhaps to wikitionary)
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were many double spaces and a couple typos - i went through and fixed these, but feel free to double-check.

@Hawkeye7: That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! And the corrections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

I kinda wonder about the zigzag image placement. I know MOS:SANDWICH is frowned upon in FAs and I am not sure if there are browser settings for which the images would end up sandwiching the article text. A fairly pedantic question but does File:Rows of fuel drums in front of B-29 Superfortress 42-6281 in China.jpg need both the raw URL and a source template? File:AAF-V-map5t.jpg has a broken URL. File:Building B-29 bases in China February 1944.jpg, File:B-29 airfields in Ceylon.jpg, File:C-109 Liberator Express tanker unloading.jpg, File:B-29 Princess Eileen in China.jpg, File:Boeing-B-29-Superfortress-20BC-Andy's-Dandy-under-going-engine-repairs-in-India-16th-Mar-1945-01.jpg and File:Hundreds of Chinese laborers pull a roller to smooth a runway for an airstrip.jpg have a raw URL. File:Kharagpur Area Airfields.jpg and File:Chengtu Area Airfields.jpg might need some more information on what the source is. ALT text is OK as is image placement. What makes https://www.cbi-theater.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Sources seem OK. I suspect this is a topic on which there won't be (m)any Indian or Chinese or Indochina sources, but did anyone look for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use zigzag placement in all my FAs, per MOS:SANDWICH: "Multiple images can be staggered right and left." Added URL to the map. Raw URLs are normal on commons because there are no citation templates there. I made use of Li, who uses many Chinese sources. One Indian source was used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, any come back? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be much more to add. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [10].

Metaphysics

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

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

Generalissima's comments

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

Hi Generalissima and thanks for taking a look! I was wondering whether you had some initial comments. Please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my delay on this, Phlsph7! I knew I was forgetting something.

Lede is very solid throughout.
For ontology, in definitions, you need to italicize using the em template or em tags per MOS:EMPHASIS (I think this is for accessibility concerns.)
- Same with bare particular, Haecceity, red, coming before, being next to, etc. later on. There's just a lot of these. The only time you shouldn't be using the em tags/template is for foreign language term, which should use the lang template.
  Done. I'm a little confused about which cases fall under MOS:EMPHASIS and which ones under MOS:WORDSASWORDS. For now, I used the em-template for all cases that do not use expressions like "the term...", "is called...", "means...", etc. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should ontological deflationism be bolded, or redlinked? I feel if it's a possible split in its own right, itd be better to redlink it (especially as the bolding is a bit distracting so far into the article).
You are right that having bold link target so far into the article can be confusing. I can't add a red link since we already have a redirect with that name. As an alternative, I put an anchor right to the paragraph where the bold terms appear and changed the redirect targets so they don't link to main section but right to the anchor. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, not really any prose issues through the thing. I wasn't confused at any points,
Yay, a Deleuze mention. Love that guy.
All images are properly licensed. They also have alt text which is nice to see.

@Phlsph7: Not much here to fix! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for reviewing the prose and the images! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

Another amazing article on a core topic in philosophy! Here are some initial comments from my first read through Shapeyness (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shapeyness, it has been a while. Thanks for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes characterized as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry. It is probably best to attribute this idea, e.g. "Some philosophers, including Aristotle, designate metaphysics as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry."
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Universals are general repeatable entities that characterize particulars, like the color red. Would suggest simplifying or rewording this sentence a bit for the general reader
Done. It's probably still not ideal but I hope it's better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's better! :) Shapeyness (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
metaphysics was once declared meaningless, and then revived with various criticisms of earlier theories and new approaches to metaphysical inquiry. imo this is a bit vague and awkwardly worded
Done. The new version is hopefull less awkwardly worded but I'm not sure I can do much about the vagueness without making it longer. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's clear enough now, don't need to make it any longer. Shapeyness (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phillips 1967 and Haack 1979 are relatively old sources to be using for the sentence about Strawson
I found a newer source to replace them. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Should the MacDonald source be citing page 18 instead? Shapeyness (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, page 18 supports our text more directly. I changed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 - are these appropriate for the etymology section? On that note, the sources for "Metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" could maybe be better, I would expect them to be from historians/historians of philosophy focusing on Aristotle or etymologists, but maybe I'm missing something?
I removed Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 since the paragraph is already well-covered by the remaining sources. I found a source on the history of metaphysics for the part about the historical accident. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the quote you are using from that source? Shapeyness (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Hamlyn 2005, p. 590: The term ‘metaphysics’ originated, however, as a title given to some of Aristotle’s works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the second half of the first century bc (although it may have come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works which followed those on physics in the catalogue. But those works, which were concerned with being, both as such and in respect of various categories of it, especially substance, contain discussions concerning matters which have an obvious continuity with later metaphysical theories. Hence it is reasonable to see Aristotle’s Metaphysics, untidy though it is in the form in which it has come down to us, as the first systematic treatise in metaphysics... Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I was wondering if it used the term historical accident. It doesn't use that phrase but paints the same picture as the other sources. Potentially could attribute "historical accident" phrasing but I'm not sure if that is necessary or not. Shapeyness (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I weakened the claim about the historical accident. The exact term "historical accident" is found in the other sources. This became an issue during the DYK nomination since one of the suggested hooks used that expression. See Talk:Metaphysics#Did_you_know_nomination for the discussion and more quotes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metaphysicians often regard existence or being as one of the most basic and general concepts Very minor one but Gibson 1998 and Vallicella 2010 are slightly weaker inclusions in the citation here imo
I removed them since the other references should be sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exist outside space and time This is often used to get the idea across, but really "outside" is an inappropriate concept to use here as it is a spatial concept. The sentence is also quite long, although I didn't have any issue parsing it.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part on the problem of the many could do with some rewording so it's as clear as possible for the general reader
Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, it raises the issue of whether a dust particle on a tabletop is part of the table. I think this could still do with some motivating, or the reader might just think "why would anyone think a dust particle is a part of the table?" I've not read the cited sources and whether they use particular examples, but could be worded in terms of atoms maybe, not sure what the best way to do it simply is. Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a different example about a coffee cup and a printer. Another common example focuses on the boundary of a cloud and whether a cloud is one or many. We could also use something else if you have a different idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to remember what example I'd heard before and it is the cloud one you mentioned. I think that is a more intuitive hook into the question because it it clear that the boundaries of the cloud are ambiguous, and hence that the question of which molecules of water it is that compose the cloud is also ambiguous. Shapeyness (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope the cloud example is more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They belong to modal metaphysics, which investigates the metaphysical principles underlying them This is a bit weirdly worded
Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possible world is a complete and consistent way of how things could have been This is also a bit weirdly worded
Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the sources and I think the wording I'm finding strange is "a way of how", but I guess this is an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing? I would word it A possible world is a complete and consistent way things could have been. I don't think "way things could have been" being a shared wording with some of the sources should be a problem per WP:LIMITED and the fact that a few different sources all seem to use the same wording as a kind of standard definition. Shapeyness (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possible world is a complete and consistent way the totality of things could have been might also work. Shapeyness (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used your second suggestion. I agree that for the short definition itself, WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE shouldn't be a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McLaughlin 1999 - should this have a chapter/entry?
Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Züricher 2021 - is this a high quality source for metaphysics, it seems to be a psychotherapy handbook
Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imaguire 2018 - this is a bit more specific compared to the other sources in this citation, I think it isn't needed
Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because there exists a red tomato as its truthmaker - as far as I'm aware, truthmakers are generally not identified with ordinary objects like tomatoes, they are usually identified with facts, states of affairs or tropes. Slightly nitpicky but also quite important to the debate I think (I can provide sources if useful).
I think you got a point that various truthmaker theories focus on facts. I tried to reformulate it in a way that leaves either option open so both thing ontologists and fact ontologists can read it the way they want. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this still say that the red tomato is the truthmaker? A truthmaker of a statement is the entity whose existence makes the statement true. For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the existence of a red tomato as its truthmaker. The problem with the tomato being the truthmaker is that there is a possible world where the tomato is not red, so the tomato doesn't necessitate the truth of the statement. My understanding is that truthmaker theorists will generally say that the truthmaker is "the tomato's being red" or "the redness of the tomato" or "the fact that the tomato is red". Shapeyness (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the expression "a red tomato" refers to a particular. The question is probably whether the expression "the existence of a red tomato" can refer to a fact.

The issue of necessitation most likely also depends on how we interpret the expression. Interpreted in a simple manner, a red tomato can't be blue at the same time, so we would be on the safe side. However, if "a red tomato" means "a tomato that is red in the actual world" then the tomato could have a different color in another world.

Our source, Tallant 2017 p. 1–2 (chapter 1. An introduction to truth-making), says: that ‘a tomato is red’ is true is due to there existing a red tomato. ... when we say that ‘ “the tomato is red” is true,’ we say this because there exists a red tomato.

Some alternative formulations:
For example, the existence of a red tomato or the tomato's being red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red".
This version covers several variations.

For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the fact that a tomato is red as its truthmaker.
This version focuses on facts. It might sound too tautological to some readers.

I'm also open to other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about For example, the fact that a tomato exists and that it is red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red"? It mirrors the kind of language the Tallant source uses for other claims (except I explicitly added the word "fact"). I think maybe there isn't a perfect way to reflect the nuance here in a way that will be picked up on by the someone who doesn't know anything about the topic without being overlong. Fwiw I'm drawing from thoughts similar to those in these overviews:
Take an alleged contingent truth about a certain rose, say that <The rose is red>. Clearly, the rose itself cannot be the truthmaker for this proposition, since given that it is contingent that it is red, it is possible for the rose to be another colour. But if it is possible for the rose to be another colour, then the rose itself does not necessitate the truth of <The rose is red> and so it is not its truthmaker. (Rodriguez-Pereyra 2006)

The existence of such an object is not sufficient to satisfy [the truthmaker principle], however. The existence of something which happens to satisfy ‘x is a rose and x is red’ does not entail the truth of 〈The rose is red〉, since the object in question—a rose, which, as it happens, is red—might not have been red, and so there are possible worlds where that object exists yet 〈The rose is red〉 is false. (Beebee & Dodd 2005)

—Shapeyness (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I implemented the suggestion and added these two sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ryckman 2005 - why is a book on philosophy of physics being used as a source on phenomenalism
Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The transcendental method is... do we need the sources other than Stern & Cheng 2023?
I also kept Pihlström 2009 since it has a section explicitly dedicated to the transcendental method but I removed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should label Hume a skeptic in Wikipedia's voice when that is a matter of controversy. According to the most recent philpapers survey only 37% of philosophers label Hume a skeptic vs 55% that call him a naturalist (when you filter by those specialising in 17th/18th century philosophy, that goes up to 63%)
I think it uncontroversial that Hume has a skeptical outlook about metaphysical knowledge but I changed the term to "critical outlook" to avoid problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about the discussion in the criticism section but I guess you're right that there's a difference between being skeptical of metaphysics and being a skeptic full stop. Do the sources generally phrase it using the term skepticism? If so then there's probably no problem. I don't have access to all of the sources used for those sentences. Shapeyness (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Rea 2021, pp. 210–211: A priori theorizing about the world ... has long been viewed with skepticism ... One of the most well-known expressions of this sort of negative attitude toward metaphysics comes from David Hume

From Koons & Pickavance 2015, p. 4: A number of significant thinkers began to sound a new note in the late eighteenth century, raising doubts about the right of metaphysics to stand as a science among other fields of knowledge. David Hume, the great philosopher of Scotland, stands out as pre-eminent among these new antimetaphysicians.

I can look for more, but I think they should be sufficient for the way it is currently worded. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep they should be good. Shapeyness (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing and inspired new metaphysical theories I think this should be something like "New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing metaphysical theories and inspired new ones."
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History - do you think there is room for a sentence on Locke to fill out the major empiricist philosophers
I found a way to mention him in relation to Hume. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the turn of the 20th century in analytic philosophy, philosophers such as Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and G. E. Moore (1873–1958) led a "revolt against idealism" Maybe this can be explained slightly (e.g. why? how?), obviously we don't want lots of detail
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shapeyness, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Have left some final comments below

Shapeyness (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to those Phlsph7! Some more below, should hopefully be the final set of comments. Shapeyness (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or not, as continuum theorists contend. I think it would be clearer to list both options here, e.g. "A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or whether everything can be endlessly subdivided into smaller parts, as continuum theorists contend."
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history of metaphysics examines how the inquiry into the basic structure of reality has evolved in the course of history. Imo this is redundant and the following sentence would be a stronger start
Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The American Heritage Dictionary Entry: Existence" Believe the title should just be "Existence"
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved date seems to be used inconsistently unless I'm missing something, not sure if that needs to be consistent per 2c or not
I removed them from all Google Book links, where they don't really belong. Did you spot other inconsistencies? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what the logic behind which have a retrieved date and which don't but this is such a minor point anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sources have urls linked from the book title that I think should be linked from the chapter title
I think this happens for cite templates that use the parameter "url". For all templates that specify a chapter, I changed the parameter "url" to "chapter-url". I hope this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chen 2023 - is this a high quality source for history of philosophy?
This is one of the sources by a non-Western publisher. For them, I'm usually a little less strict since they can be hard to find. But let me know if you think otherwise. The sentence is covered by the remaining soures and this one could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duignan 2009a - why is this 2009a and not just 2009?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goffi & Roux 2011 - this is missing editors
Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind 2018 - I think part of the book title should actually be the series title
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Macnamara 2009 - is this a hiqh quality source for philosophy?
Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mumford 2003 - this is missing editors
Mumford is given as the editor in the template. I didn't add an author. The author would usually be Russell since the book is mostly a selection of Russell's writings but the passage in question is a comment by Mumford. I'm not sure if this is the best practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops no that was a mistake from me. Shapeyness (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poidevin et al. 2009 - this is an edited collection, should an individual chapter/chapters be cited?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some more general comments: reading over the overview sources, there aren't any major areas that aren't covered although a few cover social metaphysics a bit more (having said that, some don't mention it at all). Also, the article mentions truthmakers, but it doesn't go much into theories of truth - a few of the overviews have truth as a high level section. Obviously there can never be a completely comprehensive article so fine to leave out if you think these would overexpand the article. This might be a reflection of the discipline across history, but I also can't see any philosophers mentioned that aren't men.
I added a sentence on theories of truth. In principle, it could be expanded, but I'm not sure that we should. I found a way to mention Hypatia. I'm open to more suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a broad enough knowledge of the history of philosophy to know which female philosophers would be the best to include sadly, but Anscombe might be worth a mention in relation to the idea that causation can be non-deterministic. Her SEP article has a good section if she isn't mentioned in any of the sources in that part already. Shapeyness (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote to the section on causality. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: While I think it would be nice for there to be more representation of philosophers who aren't men in the main body of the article, and perhaps more discussion of social metaphysics, I don't think either of these prevent the article from meeting the FA criteria. The article is as accessible as possible throughout, covers all major areas to at least some extent without delving into too much detail, and is well-structured, illustrated and cited. Shapeyness (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

Will review once the above leaves their final comments. 750 h+ 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 750, I think we are ready for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry will get to this 750 h+ 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have too many comments as I reviewed this article as a GA. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification. Will begin tomorrow (it's late night in Australia at the moment). 750 h+ 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead

have more recently also included ==> "have recently included"
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

definition

Meta-metaphysics[d] is the this shouldn't be bolded (or would be preferable to mention/bold it in the lead)
I removed the boldface. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

topics

a table is made up of a tabletop would reduce number of words for conciseness (comprises, consists of)
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a cloud is made up of many droplets ^^
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
numerical identity when the very same entity is involved is "very" required?
Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
principle, known as identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law ==> "principle, known as the identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law"
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

methodology

metaphysical systems by drawing conclusions from these ==> "metaphysical systems by concluding from these"
I kept the original formulation to avoid misunderstandings since "concluding" can also mean "bring to an end". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

criticism

point is called metaphysical or ontological deflationism i don't think these should be bolded
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relation to other disciplines

often used by metaphysicians as a tool to engage "as a tool" seems redundant
Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

history

No problems here.

As always great work on the article @Phlsph7: I do apologise for the late review. 750 h+ 11:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 750h+ and thanks for your help with the article both in this review and the earlier GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Thanks for the article. 750 h+ 13:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

File:Aristotle, Metaphysics, Incunabulum.jpg: checks out (there is a more elegant way to display the licences -- see the Hume painting -- but the necessary information is all there)
I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kant_gemaelde_1.jpg: likewise.
I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png: The licensing here is fine, but it includes statements of fact, and I don't see a citation on the image page for that information. If we wouldn't be able to write "Cartesian duality sees both matter and mind as fundamental" in the text without a citation, we can't write it in an image without one either.
I added a source to the caption in the article and to the wiki commons page. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg: checks out.
File:Yin yang.svg: checks out.
File:Boethius.jpeg: really needs to be licensed as PD-Art (like the Hume painting etc).
Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:ANWhitehead.jpg: I don't see any publication info for this one?
I added the relevant information and an external link. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alt texts are not always particularly helpful -- for instance, we have "Painting of Immanuel Kant" for, well, a painting of Kant. The point of an alt text is to substitute for the visual image for a reader who cannot see it -- can you, here, describe what Kant looks like in the picture? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UndercoverClassicist and thanks for the image review! I add some information to the alt texts but more could be added. I'm not sure what the right amount of detail is since the different aspects of body posture, dress, and background are not really relevant to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to try and think: "what do I expect a viewer to take away here?". After all, I included that image for a reason, not just to break up the text or to make the article look prettier. For Kant, for example, most readers will clock that this is an eighteenth-century, old-ish, posh, white guy, so I might write an alt text to that effect: "An oil painting of a European man in his seventies, wearing eighteenth-century formal dress, leaning on a table with pens and ink." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I gave it one more try. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good for the portraits, but doesn't seem to have been done for the other images. Same principle applies: what visual information (so: not the name of the artist, because you can't see that in the picture) should the reader take away from this image/diagram? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the alt-texts of the images of Aristotle's metaphysics, the dualism-monism diagram, and the yin-yang symbol. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I am not certain that I can possibly comment on the "comprehensive and thorough" part of the FAC criteria, so keep that in mind. Also a whole lot of sources, which suggests comprehensiveness, but means I might miss some bad sources. What's the logic between some sauces having retrieval dates and archives and others not having them? Why are some references linking to Google Books pages and others aren't? Looks like we are using major albeit mostly Western publishers, and the few I didn't know I checked the sources up a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I added retrieval dates for "cite web" templates. For the purpose of verification, this may be relevant in case the website changes so reviewers know which version to look for. Retrieval dates are also automatically added if an archive link is added to a template, which also makes sense so reviewers know which version is archived. I don't think there are any other templates in the article with retrieval dates but I may have missed some. As for the archives, InternetArchiveBot has not been working for me recently, so I can't add any new archives. One solution for consistency would be to just remove all archives. I'm not sure if that is desirable.

I usually link to Google Books pages if they provide a page preview to make it easier for reviewers to assess verifiability. However, not all Google Books pages offer page previews, so this is not always possible. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject. It can be challenging to track down sources from other regions that fulfill the FA high-quality requirements, but I could try to find some more if it is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that Google Books tends to be geolocked and personalized. So a link working for you doesn't mean that it will work for anyone else. Thus I generally don't think that putting links to Google Books pages is useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these links are not ideal and that it is preferable to use non-commercial sources. However, other sources often do not provide page previews. Without simple previews, the problem is that running to a library or buying a book is a significant barrier to verification, especially if it's just about a single sentence. Clicking on a link to verify a sentence, on the other hand, requires very little work. Overall, I think the links are worth having in cases where no non-commercial alternatives are available. This matter is also discussed at Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus anything further to add to the source review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that links that are only useful to a fraction of readers (unlike a paywalled link, I don't think there is a way for a Google Books link to be usable) are necessary, so I wouldn't keep the Google Books links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Google Books links are common in FA articles. For example, each of the most recent TFAs (Apollo 12, Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims, Algebra, Len Deighton) has Google Books links. We could try to resolve at WT:FAC whether they are acceptable in principle. However, I presume there have already been various discussions without any consensus in favor of a hard rule against them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you think that the article can pass the source review without removing the links to Google Books? If not, I would ask at WT:FAC whether their use is prohibited by the FA criteria. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could. There are a fair amount of things I see in FAC that I don't like seeing in FAs but which I am unsure about challenging at FAC b/c it's not always clear what's just my preference and what's an actionable issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

@FAC coordinators: Could someone take a look at the nomination? It just entered its 3rd month and has 3 supports, a source review, and an image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PJW comments

Hi Phlsph7,

Great work here, as usual. I wasn't planning to review this again, but I was pinged by one of the coordinators seeking the opinion of someone with a philosophy background. (That is just to say, sorry for coming in so late and raising new issues.)

Other editors should please feel free to interject—especially if you think I'm being overly pedantic or otherwise unreasonable.

I want to raise one general issue, which I don't intend to pursue too far — since it seems not to be shared by previous reviewers — and a handful of specific issues that I think should be fairly easy to address.

The general issue:

Many metaphysical positions are named without any sort of context. There's some stuff that I know goes back to antiquity, and other stuff I'm pretty sure didn't emerge until the 20th century. In some cases, though, I don't know, and I find that disorienting. Is this something that was argued over in the Roman Forum and has been ever since? Or was it first presented in the pages of Noûs? This makes a difference to me, and I suspect it will also make a difference to other readers who, like me, are not experts, but who have enough existing knowledge to be actively trying to organize and assimilate new information from the article.

In some cases this would probably just be awkward or distracting, but I think there is room for improvement. For instance, I was grateful to read The regularity theory of causation, inspired by David Hume's philosophy, states... just because I knew we were somewhere in the modern period. More of these kind of contextual clues is what I have in mind, wherever feasible.

If it would be helpful, I could flag instances with inline maintenance tags for your consideration.

More specific notes:

Kant distinguishes transcendent metaphysics, which aims to describe the objective features of reality beyond sense experience, from critical metaphysics, which outlines the aspects and principles underlying all human thought and experience. Kant does not use the term "critical metaphysics" (or at least not in the Critique of Pure Reason or Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science). If it comes from Allen Wood, it's fine, but if it's not from a Kant scholar, we should figure out something better. (Some very quick research turns up A841/B869ff. as a strong primary source from which to take guidance, should that be useful.)
This is the term used in Loux & Crisp 2017 p. 7 and Bengtson 2015 p. 23, but the exact expression is not important here, so I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applied metaphysics is a relatively young subdiscipline. Can this be made more specific? It's unclear what counts as young in a 2,500+ year discipline.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To exist means to form part of reality "To form" reads strangely to me, and it might also be a problematic formulation since form is, itself, a metaphysical concept. I would be fine with just "to be". Another option would be "to be a part of reality".
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Descriptor for Meinong?
Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plato held that Platonic forms, which are perfect and immutable ideas, have a higher degree of existence than matter, which can only imperfectly reflect Platonic forms. Maybe a footnote on the scholarly disagreement about how much of what he put in the mouth of his Socrates character Plato himself actually believed?
Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Wikipedia has its own conventions, "e.g." needs a comma just like the English equivalent "for instance".)
Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand the footnote on individuals? Or, maybe better, just remove the claim that it's interchangeable with "particulars"? In the German philosophy I know, particularity (Besonderheit) is logically distinguished from the singular (Einzelne), which is further distinct from the philosophical term individuality (Individualität) introduced by Leibniz. I see no reason to introduce this kind of confusion into such a general article.
I removed the claim about alternative terminology. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Causality is the relation between cause and effect whereby one entity produces or affects another entity. I think that "affects" is indeed correct here, because "effects" would be redundant. But maybe change it to "changes" or "alters" so that readers don't get distracted trying to figure out whether it's a typo?
Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to idealism, everything is mental, including physical objects, which may be understood as ideas or perceptions of conscious minds. The three most famous idealists are probably Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel. This description is at best tendentious as a characterization of Kant and it is false of Hegel. Maybe a footnote on the distinctions between subjective, transcendental, and objective/absolute idealism? The idealism article draws heavily on a recent work by two excellent scholars. You might be able to crib something from there.
I remember we had a similar point for the article Mind. I adjusted the terminology and added a footnote to inform the reader that this position is not necessarily true for other types of idealism. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I knew we'd discussed this before! Just couldn't remember where.

My ideal version of the article would go into a little more detail, but I think the footnote is fine. Interested readers can follow the Wikilinks or look at the sources. Patrick (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Criticism" section would benefit from a paragraph on the first Critique probably highlighting the Transcendental Dialectic. I could draft something if you want.
I think a full paragraph is too much since the criticism based on limited cognitive abilities is already discussed in the first paragraph. I added the example of Kant there. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to push back on this one. Feel free to say so if you think I'm unduly influenced by my own philosophical sympathy for the tradition of German Idealism.

The current version of language is precise and accurate. It is misleading, however, to present Kant's arguments as an extension of Hume's, to whose skeptical arguments they were explicitly a response.

Kant uses the language of faculty psychology, but he claims to be defining the a priori limits and contradictions of pure reason itself. He took himself to be overthrowing over a thousand years of allegedly "dogmatic" metaphysical thought, and many philosophers in his day and ours have at least partially accepted his contention.

Even in the 21st-century United States, it's basically mandatory to have someone who can teach Kant in even small philosophy departments—and it's not unusual for larger departments with graduate programs to have more than one Kant specialist. His influence is much larger than that of logical positivism or Heidegger/Derrida, which both have their own paragraphs, and I do not think this is only because he has century on them. Patrick (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version does not present Kant as an extension of Hume. It says that according to one type of criticism, humans cannot aquire metaphysical knowledge. It gives Hume and Kant as two examples of this position. The sentence on Hume is a little longer than the sentence on Kant so we could add a little extra information on Kant. Do you have something specific in mind?

Looking at Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?, it has one sentence specifically on Hume, one sentence specifically on Kant, and roughly two paragraphs on logical positivism. Since this source is quite short, we could have a look at more sources, but I'm not sure that Kant is significantly more important in this specific context than Hume or logical positivism. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say that Kant is an extension of Hume, but it is misleading to describe as presenting as "a similar objection" a book that explicitly claims to refute the basic position of Hume.

The content I have in mind is what I have already described, which is found mostly in the Prefaces to the first Critique and at the overview sections at the beginning and end of the Transcendental Dialectic. This material will feature prominently in any general introduction to Kant and will also be included in any general introduction to Western philosophy.

I'm afraid, however, I must beg off any sourcing debates, as these have been non-productive in the past. I'm going to give either support or weak support for promotion depending upon whether I think you've adequately addressed the concerns I raise. Just please take what's useful. Patrick (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I reformulated the introductory clause to avoid the term "similar" and I expanded the explanation of Kant's position to include ideas from the Transcendental Dialectic. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still find the paragraph on computer science to be off-topic—even under the header "Relation to other disciplines". It's perfectly well-written and appears well-sourced, but it's just not what's described in the "Definitions" section at the beginning. Maybe another reviewer could weigh in so that there is a consensus of at least two in either direction? It's hardly a deal-breaker for FAC, but I think this article would be stronger without it.
This topic is discussed in Hawley's 2016 article "Applied Metaphysics" as one of the main sections, so I don't think it's off-topic. The question would probably be more whether our article gives too much weight to this topic. The paragraph currently stands at 165 words. On solution might be to reduce the length. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good middle ground. Maybe though give other editors at least another day to weigh in on entirely keeping or removing it? If I'm off-base here, I'd rather just be overruled than make a compromise that leaves neither of us quite happy. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting in the 4th century BCE, Hellenistic philosophy explored the rational order underlying the cosmos and the idea that it is made up of indivisible atoms. This is true, but atomism predates the Hellenistic period. I would consider leaving that part out and maybe just expanding on the conception of the universe as an ordered cosmos.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It maybe just seemed too obvious to mention, but the influence of Christianity on Medieval thought merits at least a sentence or two.
I included this in the first sentence of the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
William of Ockham (1285–1347 CE) proposed Ockham's razor, a methodological principles to choose between competing metaphysical theories. Unless he actually did name it after himself, I would find some way to reword.
Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add some kind of description of the social context marking the beginning of the modern period. For this article, it would probably be enough just to say something about the Scientific Revolution.
I mentioned the Renaissance instead since this is how Hamlyn 2005 proceeds. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbes is mostly known as a political philosopher today, but he took a very strong metaphysical stance that scandalized many at the time. I'd give him a sentence along with the others in that paragraph. (Nice to see Wolff included, by the way—massively influential, even if no longer read by non-specialists.)
Which specific position of Hobbes do you have in mind? Hamlyn 2005 does not mention him and Hancock 2006 only has two sentences: "Thomas Hobbes, for example, argued that the accidents of body, such as shape or hardness, are the very "manner of our conception of body." To ask for a description of body apart from its accidents would be, for Hobbes, a senseless request." Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of the first seven or so chapters of Leviathan. I haven't studied Hobbes closely enough to have a position on him that would be OR, but I don't recall what I read that left me with such a strong impression of his controversial materialism. In spite of his professed Christianity, he was widely regarded as an atheist not to be associated with. A very quick skim of the SEP entry seems to support this. Patrick (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep the idea in mind in case I come across an overview source that gives more attention to Hobbes but the ones I checked so far don't seem to give him a particularly prominent role in the history of metaphysics. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) developed a comprehensive system of philosophy that examines how absolute spirit manifests itself. It's just spirit that manifests itself; what's absolute is just a certain form of its self-knowledge. It might be best, though, to find some less cryptic way to describe Hegel. Readers who don't already know are unlikely to correctly guess much of what he means by "spirit".
I removed the word "absolute" but I'm also open to other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The centerpiece of Hegel's metaphysics is his Logic, in which spirit is mentioned only incidentally. What about something like this: "Hegel's idealistic contention is that reality is conceptual all the way down, and being itself is rational."
Sources:
- Houlgate, Stephen (2005). An introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth, and History (2nd ed.). Blackwell. p. 106
- Stern, Robert (2008). "Hegel's Idealism". In Frederick C. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Hegel and Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 172
Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Dialectics,_speculation,_idealism could also be mined for alternatives. Patrick (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I replaced the sentence with your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heidegger's philosophy inspired general criticisms of metaphysics by postmodern thinkers like Jacques Derrida (1930–2004). I would nix "postmodern thinkers". Aside from the issues with this being an American term applied quite sloppily to a disparate group of French philosophers, the main thing that actually does (at least kind of) unite them is disillusionment with Marxism, not any metaphysical commitments.
Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am following and will try to respond promptly to queries. I do not expect to propose any changes beyond those above.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patrick and thanks for answering the call to take another look at the article! Concerning the general issue, I don't think there are hard rules about how much historical context to provide. If a position can be traced back to a single author, this is often easy to do without distracting from the main point being discussed. In cases where the historical context is more complex, I usually find it better to focus on the position itself and leave the discussion of its historical evolution to the history section or the child article dedicated to the topic. If you have some specific cases in mind, you could list them here and we could have a look at how feasible it is to briefly mention their historical context. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that historicize everything, which would indeed quickly become unmanageable. More historical markers, however, would help orient readers who have a little knowledge of the history of philosophy (which is probably not unusual among those who read past the lead). This would also assist such readers with their comprehension of the subject matter because they would be able to supply background context not possible to include in the article.

The first section where I became confused was the opening paragraph of "Particulars". The language of "substratum" made me think of Aristotle and hypokeimenon, bundles made me think of Hume, and haecceity is Scholastic. Even if there's no specific philosopher to whom substratum theory can be attributed, it would be nice to at least have some indication of the period in which they were synthesized into a unified theory (this, of course, on the assumption my associations are correct). This could be as general as "in the modern period" or "analytic philosophers, building on a lengthy tradition, formulated".

"Mereology" is a daunting word, but it would be easy to mention that the topic goes back to at least Plato. (Incidentally, I've pretty much only seen what the article calls the "problem of the many" called "the problem of the one and the many". Follow the sources, obviously, but readers looking for more would probably have better luck searching for the longer name.)

In the next section, "Universals" a clause could be added to mention that the nominalist—conceptualist debate began in the Middle Ages or that it is Scholastic in origin.

Wherever it's not possible to include this kind of information with the addition of a simple clause or a very short sentence, I agree that it should be omitted.

If you're set against this, I'm not interested in arguing the point. But I don't think it would take long or noticeably add to the length of the article to go through add such information where this can be done in a way that will not distract readers from the actual topic of discussion.

Oh, and a Happy New Year to you and the other editors who have been working on this!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found ways to include your suggestions, either as brief remarks in the text or with help of footnotes. I think the terms "the problem of the many" and "the problem of the one and the many" are both used, possibly with slightly different meanings. Our explanation follows the Stanford Encyclopedia article "The Problem of the Many", so in terms of terminology, we should be on the safe side. Happy New Year to you as well! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. I would have continued to go through and include more historical markers. But, although I think this would further improve the article, it is a matter about which reasonable people may disagree editorially and philosophically. I'm not going to insist.

Just a few final point:

According to the orthodox view, existence is a property of properties I missed this when transferring my markup of the article to this page. "Orthodox" is quite strong. Are the sources strong enough to support it? If in doubt, perhaps chose a different word or add some kind of qualification or attribution.
Should "substratum theory" wikilink to Substance theory? If so, would it be worth also creating a redirect?
Since no one has spoken up about the computer science material, perhaps just shorten it a little, if possible?

Otherwise, I have reviewed your edits and am satisfied that my concerns have been addressed.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casati & Fujikawa use the term "orthodox view" in their lead section. I changed it to "traditionally influential view", which I hope gets the same message across. I added the wikilink to substance theory and I reduced the computer science paragraph to under 100 words. Thanks again for your review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome!

I've now read the article from start to finish several times. It was in great condition when I started this review, and I hope that my comments have further improved it. Although I have not responded to all responses here (because I'm trying to work quickly and there are a lot of separate threads), I have individually reviewed all edits. Even where the nom proceeded differently than I would have, I understand and accept their rationale.

For these reasons, I am happy to add my support to the promotion of this article. Patrick (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

I ran (just) the draft TFA blurb past a philosopher of my acquaintance. She was happy apart from querying "some theorists view it as an inquiry into the fundamental categories of human understanding", as she would have considered this epistemology. She did not read the article, so would I be correct in assuming that 1. this was a misunderstanding caused by her missing the significance of "categories", and 2. that this is still a view held by a significent proportion of theorists? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gog and thanks for the draft of the TFA blurp! The alternative definition is discussed in our article in the 4th paragraph of the section "Definition". From Loux & Crisp 2017 Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction p. 1: [The aim of metaphysical knowledge] is to delineate the most general structures at work in our thought about the world. This Kantian conception of metaphysics continues to enjoy popularity among contemporary philosophers, who insist that metaphysics has as its aim the characterization of our conceptual scheme or conceptual framework.

Your philosopher acquaintance is right that there is a connection to epistemology since one of the reasons for this definition of metaphysics comes from epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and some philosophers argue that we can't know ultimate reality but we can know the conceptual framework of human understanding, which is why they define metaphysics this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I replaced "fundamental categories" with "conceptual framework" to avoid misunderstandings about the term "categories" and to stay closer to the language in the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 159: Remes 2014 should be 'pp.", not "p.".
Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ásta 2017, any reason why her full name is not given? (Ásta Kristjana Sveinsdóttir)
In the book, the author is simply given as "Ásta" and our article says that she publishes as "Ásta". I'm not sure what the best approach is for this type of case. An alternative would be to give her full name and cite her using her last name "Sveinsdóttir". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Icelandic name; the last name is a patronymic. Icelandic people are generally referred to by their given name only, even in formal/written contexts, unless there's some potential ambiguity with another person of the same name. If you did want to distinguish her in this way, you'd call her "Ásta Sveins".UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah. :-) I believe the usual treatment of Icelandic names is Sveinsdottir as the lastname and Ásta as firstname. Ambiguity: try Professor John Smith. My favourite is [11].

Not quite: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland/Style advice. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few other publications like [12] and [13]. They also just use "Ásta", so I think we are following the established practice here. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: where a source is a chapter or similar of a book or similar the page range should be given.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I had to skip a few that are primarily available online, such as the articles from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [14].

I Got That

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, American rapper Amil seemed poised for stardom. By this time, she had already been featured on a string of successful Jay-Z singles. Her album, All Money Is Legal, seemed to be the moment to build on this momentum. This article is about that album's lead single, which includes Beyoncé in one of her earliest features outside of her girl group Destiny's Child. However, the single and the album underperformed, and Amil dropped out of the public eye. This song is now just a footnote in Jay-Z and Beyonce's larger careers.

I have always been interested in reading about artists who are seemingly so close to success, but things just do not work out for them. Thank you to @Courcelles: who did the GAN review back in 2018 and to @Medxvo:, @MaranoFan:, and @Heartfox: for their help during the peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed)

File:IGotThatSingleCover.jpg Recommend providing more detail in the source field, to ensure that we have sufficient detail to find it should it go missing.

I have removed the Amazon.com source link as it is likely best to avoid using that website in this context. I have followed what the "I'm Goin' Down" article did for its cover image. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AmilBeyonceIGotThat.ogg Recommend providing more detail in the source field, to ensure that we have sufficient detail to find it should it go missing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the YouTube video link as it is not on either Beyoncé or Amil's official YouTube accounts. Amil does not even have an official YouTube account anyway. I have cited the album directly as I have seen this being done for song FAs, such as for "All-American Bitch" for its audio sample. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments:

In the United States, "I Got That" topped the Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart in September 2000 - Is that a Billboard chart? Worth mentioning. Same issue later.

Revised and added the link to the Billboard chart. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning why Eve featured in the music video when none of the other female rappers mentioned appeared?

The article does not connect the other female rappers with the music video. The comment about them is a critic's opinion about why this song might have underperformed, as there was was a lot of competition with female rappers at the time, and it even comes after the discussion about the music video. There would be no reason to assume or wonder why anyone else is not present in the music video. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me rephrase: do the sources say why Eve was included? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the source just says that Eve makes a cameo appearance in the music video without going into further detail. I would guess that she was included as the song is all about female independence so there was a decision to include more women, but that is just pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see much to comment on otherwise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything both in the image and prose reviews. Let me know if there is anything that could be improved upon. I hope that you are having a great day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba. Support - seems to be sufficiently detailed, and prose is tight. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and for your support. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

I've previously suggested the "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart" wording instead of "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Billboard chart", but I think another good option would be "Billboard Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart"—something similar to Billboard Hot 100, instead of having two wikilinks

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think chorus can be wikilinked in the article (since we're already linking verse)

Added. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyoncé's vocals were described as breathy by Unterberger, and as "buttery" by Camille Augustin in Vibe" - why quotation marks for "buttery" but not "breathy"?

I did not use quotation marks for "breathy" as from what I have read, it is a more common description for a vocal performance, while "buttery" seemed like a more uniquie description so I kept the quotation marks for that one. Hopefully, that makes sense, but let me know if this could be improved upon further. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense to me, thanks for the clarification Medxvo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all. Amazing work :) Thanks for pinging. Medxvo (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: Thank you for your help and for your kind words. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there was something that I either missed or that could be improved upon. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

"She co-wrote the track with its producers" I think "wrote" should suffice

Agreed. I was likely over-thinking it when I added that. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"being promoted as its First Lady" is the First Lady moniker supposed to be in quotation marks?

I do not think that it would need quotation marks as it is commonly-used title even in a non-political context, but I have added a link to hopefully assist with this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"still a part of the girl group Destiny's Child" inconsistent use of false titles

Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated but I listened to the sample and this song has "Y2K" written all over it lol, so nostalgic

Agreed. I also get a nostalgic vibe from this song. Everything about it definitely screams Y2K, and these vibes carry over into the music video as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"shopping at stores, including René Lezard" is this French-sounding store notable?

Probably not. This store was singled out in the source, which is why I included it here, but since it does not have a Wikipedia article or appear to be notable on its own, I have removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A Billboard reviewer" only "Billboard" would do imo

I would prefer to keep it if possible. I do understand and appreciate your suggestion, but I was trying to keep the prose consistent as in other instances I used the critic name when it is known so I was trying to avoid going between using the name and work/publisher to just the work/publisher and back if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Says Who of the Michigan Chronicle" is this a pseudonym?

I believe that it is a pseudonym. Weirdly enough, the clipping, and the entire newspaper issue, are no longer available on Newspapers.com. I have removed the link from the citation. I still see the preview of it in my clippings on Newspapers.com, but clicking on it leads to an error screen. Do you think I should remove the citation because of this? I was honestly quite surprised by this, but it did help me to find an additional source in ProQuest. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Ippantekina (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: Thank you for your help. I believe that I have addressed everything. I have run into some issues with Newspapers.com where it seems like an entire newspaper issue was pulled so I did ask above about what you think the best course of action would be for this. I could not find this article on other newspaper archives or on other places online. It is quite frustrating and odd as I was able to access this just fine only a week or two ago. Apologies for ranting about that. I hope that you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link was archived. Heartfox (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, and I am sorry for not thinking about checking for an archived version of it. I was just more so surprised and confused by this change. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments and kudos to Heartfox for the archived URL. Support on prose. If you are available, I'd appreciate your comments at my latest FAC :) Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for the kind words. I will look at your FAC in the near future, but please message me on my talk page if for whatever reason, I have not posted anything by this time next week. I hope you are have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

Two reviews on GenealogyBank may be of use:

Heartfox (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for the resources. I have incorporated both of them into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

I am not missing another Aoba nom :) comments within the week hopefully! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hope that you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for the delay, I got a cold and my brain was full of goop that made me stupid. Been slowly working through my backlog of stuff I'd said I'd do, and here I finally am.

No need to apologize. I hope that you are feeling better. There has been a lot of cold and flu going around in my area, and it is always best to prioritize your health and well-being first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"as well as with Jay-Z" - "along with" might flow a little more smoothly

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving the lyrical content earlier, perhaps before the production and sampling details

Moved around. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might revise the sentence about Beyonce a bit. For the first half, I thought it was saying Amil had been in DC, and was surprised to see Beyonce. It might also be worth noting that it was her management lending her. Something like "Beyoncé performs the song's chorus and backing vocals, as her label was trying to assess her viability as a solo artist outside of her girl group Destiny's Child." maybe?

That does makes sense. It is better to not bury the subject of the sentence, especially when introducing a new person and making such a strong pivot from one person to the other. I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

suggest trimming the retrospective sentence a bit, perhaps to something like "According to retrospective articles, the song has largely been forgotten or overlooked since its release"? "not well-remembered" is fairly redundant to both of those

Trimmed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized para 2 a bit so it went song info, chart performance, then reception; feel free to revert if you don't like it

Thank you for that. It looks much better to me. I have changed some of it as the reviews on Beyoncé are actually all retrospective and not contemporary to the song's release. I have tried to clarify that in the lead, but please let me know if it needs further work. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" would continue to collaborate with" can probably be trimmed to "collaborated with"

Shortened. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably trim "during this time", I think it's clear from context

Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the vocals for "Girlfriend" need to be called out, since DeLuca was also referring to this song

Taken out. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might give some context for Eve, since if you don't know she's an early 2000s rapper, you might think of the Biblical Eve and have lots of questions

Agreed. I have added "American rapper" as the description. I was on the fence between that or "female rapper", as her being a woman seems more relevant to her appearance in a music video for a song about female independence, so let me know if that would be a better option. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! It's a nice tight little article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for your review and for your edits. Both were very helpful and have helped to improve the article a lot. Again, I hope you are feeling better, and I hope you are having a great end to your year. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aoba, I hope you're having great holidays as well. It's always a delight to work with you at FAC whether it's your article or mine. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words and for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you maybe mention that The Source and Vibe (magazine) are magazines? I was confused at first about what is "The source", and it almost reads like Camille Augustin is Vibing instead of "Vibe". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I have revised both instances. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the entire article again, but I couldn't find any problem. I will Support this FAC based on prose. Well done! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Source formatting seems consistent. I've been told once that the via parameter shouldn't say Google Books, but I am not sure that it is correct at all. Did some light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the source review. I would be more than happy to remove the Google Books via parameter if necessary. I just thought it would be nice to fully inform readers about the citation before they click on it so they are not surprised by anything, in a similar way to how I have used the Newspapers.com via parameter. But, again, I would be okay with removing it if there is a consensus against it. Thank you again for your help, and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I am not sure myself if that parameter use is right or wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

I read through the article and didn't notice any prose concerns.

Thank you for checking this, and I am glad that nothing major jumped out in regards to this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the lead and infobox: the only thing that wasn't cited is "Work It Out" as Beyonce's next single chronologically, but I don't think that is incredibly important for this article.

I could add a part about this in the article, but that single is quite removed from this particular song so it would feel a bit random. From my experience, song articles really do not cite the information about the preceding and following singles, especially when they are from unrelated albums. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Release and reception" section is a little large, both in the content it covers and its prose size. I suggest splitting this section into two: "Release and music video" (first two paragraphs) and "Reception" (last three paragraphs).

That is fair. I had gone back-and-forth with this one. I kept the chart information in the release section as that has always seemed more tied into how a song is released as a single and is promoted as opposed to the critical response. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third and fourth paragraphs of the "Release and reception" fall into the "X says Y" pattern. I think that these paragraphs can be better formatted, and rely less extensively on the quotes. WP:RECEPTION is an essay I constantly re-read for ideas on how to do this.

I have attempted to revise this, but let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything else that could be improved upon. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your new year! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed and resolved. I like the split into "Release and promotion" and "Critical reception" and the latter fixes the "X says Y" concerns. Thanks for your responses. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I am glad that you liked my edits. I find reception sections to be difficult to write in general so I am always happy when I go in the right direction when revising them. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [15].

Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song)

Nominator(s): N Ø 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving onto a (somewhat?) bigger hit from Guts to spice things up, here is "Obsessed" from the album's deluxe edition. The song was a major highlight from her Guts World Tour and a fan-favorite long before she finally got around to releasing it as a single. There is something about Rodrigo's music that can make one feel like an angsty teenager no matter how old they are, and this song is a good example of that! I am sure reading it will be just as fun as it was writing it. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.N Ø 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

I'll review this one as compensation for failing to review Can't Catch Me Now when it was at FAC. I'll get to this when I clear out the backlog of other articles I'm reviewing at the moment, shouldn't take any more than a few days. λ NegativeMP1 22:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I waited for Chris and Medxvo to complete their own reviews of the article before I went ahead and did mine since I knew it'd take a bit, and I think after that there's no prose issues I can really identify. The article looks great, so I'm giving my support. λ NegativeMP1 22:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

"two minutes and 50 seconds long" - "2 minutes and 50 seconds long" / "two minutes and fifty seconds long"—MOS:NUMNOTES
"He plays guitar; St. Vincent plays guitar; and Garret Ray plays drums" - "played"?
"Obsessed" is also about insecurity, channeling the negative inner voice in teenagers' minds and their persistent obsessive and envious thoughts" - shouldn't there be an oxford comma here? otherwise it's kind of confusing
"described "Obsessed" as a "banger" ..... added that it was a "banger" like Katy Perry's song ..." - too many bangers here? :d
"Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'" - "Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'"
"It concludes with her cleaning up ..." - "The video concludes with her cleaning up ..."
"On the Guts World Tour, "Obsessed" appears ..." - "On the Guts World Tour (2024–2025), "Obsessed" appears
"the "most badass moment" ..." - "the show's "most badass moment" ..."
Why are we not including the certifications in the lead?
Check if you can use this source instead of the YouTube reference

That's all I've got, hope the comments are helpful. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful comments! All of these should be addressed now. I hope you are enjoying the weekend.--N Ø 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Medxvo (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

""Obsessed" became Rodrigo's seventh song to reach the top 10 on the Pop Airplay chart and ninth on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart. " - given that these charts don't have "country-specific" names and you just named a load of different countries, maybe specify that these two charts are American.....?
"Dan Nigro produced every single track on it" - the word "single" is redundant and can be removed
"12 of the 25 songs recorded made it onto the standard edition of Guts" - probably not technically wrong but I always think that a sentence starting with a number written in digit form doesn't look great. Any way to reword....?
"St. Vincent played guitar" - link St. Vincent, who hasn't been mentioned at this point
"It later incorporates ripped guitars, warped vocals" - not sure what either of these adjectives means in this context, is there a link or an alternative explanation?

There is no relevant wiktionary entry on either, unfortunately. I have swapped out "warped vocals" for "distorted vocals", but replacing "ripped" with "shredded" like the Billboard Philippines source states might hurt rather than help so I have kept the current wording.

"He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths described "Obsessed" as a "banger"" => "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths both described "Obsessed" as a "banger""
"it was a good song like Katy Perry's "I Kissed A Girl" (2008) and Charli XCX's album Sucker (2014)." - this wording is a little odd - the writer thought that "Sucker" (an album) was "a good song".....?
Not critical to this review, but bear in mind that the various present tense verbs describing her performances on the Guts tour will need to be changed to past tense once the tour ends
That is what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great review, as always, ChrisTheDude. All addressed!--N Ø 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

I kinda wonder what File:OlivaRO2150524 (56) (53727618955) (cropped).jpg adds. Otherwise, don't notice anything untoward. I am pretty sure I've reviewed these sources on other articles already, they might be a bit so-so at times but the only one I wonder about is this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks a lot for doing the image and source reviews. I am pretty sure the image is of Rodrigo performing this song (performance), and as a CC image is an appropriate one to accompany the adjacent section about the tour performances. The Forty-Five was discussed by WP Albums very recently and is an extremely high-quality source "created by a collective of female-led music journalists, creatives and photographers".--N Ø 12:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments

Even when sourced within the prose, it seems redundant to list "rock" in infobox when the subgenres pop rock and dance-rock are already there

I would omit rock had the same source described the song as all of these genres, but Billboard blanket characterized it as a "rock song" and only that, which is noteworthy and meets our EXPLICITGENRE guidelines.

Component charts aren't even half as important as primary charts when the former doesn't represent overall popularity within a nation unlike the latter. I think we can safely take the components out of the lead, and either way singling out the US with a whole sentence focusing on the country feels arbitrary at best when that wasn't even where the song got its highest peak (that instead would be the UK at number 10). Let's not tilt this too far into Americanism.

While this might be true in general, "Obsessed" has only entered radio charts in North America and achieved the milestone of going top 10. A Billboard author described it as a "radio hit" in the context of this, so I would prefer to keep it. An artist's home country being the first column in Discography tables is also common practice, and that is not considered to constitute Americanism, so I would make a similar argument here.

I get what you're saying here, but my point on Americanism wasn't about mentioning one's home country first. It's actually concerning the fact that the lead puts more detail/emphasis there (especially when going out of its way to mention that debut instead of simply focusing on highest spot reached) than anywhere else. I would've had an easier time understanding the increased focus for cases where a nation has its highest overall peak or perhaps achieves a certain record with their stats in that market. Without components, what I would've gone for was a singular sentence consolidating multiple peaks of primary charts. At least you thankfully did add non-American certifications to balance things out somewhat (therefore it's not entirely US-centric) and aren't just blindly taking an oversimplified stance along the lines of "treat US numbers as most important because America matters the most no matter what". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved things around to place emphasis on the only country where it reached the official chart's top 10, the UK. Hopefully, this is satisfactory.--N Ø 11:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking "certification" isn't necessary per WP:OVERLINK when that's a widely known term

Removed.

What exactly is "if she was cosmopolitan" supposed to mean?

Well-traveled, aligning with the Cambridge definition of the word as "someone who has experience of many different parts of the world" and the Collins definition as "a person who has lived and travelled in many countries".

In that case, just use "traveled" or "well-traveled" when those would read less awkwardly. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--N Ø 11:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it's relevant to give years for "I Kissed a Girl" or Sucker within "Critical reception". Same goes for the other Rodrigo tracks named under "Live performances".

I think it is best to make this information available without readers unnecessarily having to click on links to find it. I could see somebody else not including them, though, and the removal would not be too detrimental to readers' understanding.

There's an odd discrepancy with File:Olivia Rodrigo - Obsessed.ogg where the file page says 17 seconds while the article here gives a total of 18 (unless I click to play it). Which total is accurate? Remember that we can only have 10% or less of the total duration per WP:SAMPLE when songs are under 5 minutes long (in this case 170 seconds).

I had only uploaded 17 seconds, and clicking play on or downloading the file shows the same duration. This issue remains unresolved for 10 years now...

Maybe you could trim them to slightly below 17 (or other limits) prior to uploading in the future to avoid it rounding up. That might help to some extent. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this looks pretty close to FA material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, SNUGGUMS. I am glad you are enjoying reading the Rodrigo articles. I feel like I started working on this project so randomly? Lol.--N Ø 07:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, and I left replies above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now support following the article's improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [16].

Pulgasari

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

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

Support

Emerging from the void to offer mt support. Looking over the article, I don't see any issues with sources or prose. The only issue would be making sure the image licenses are fully clarified as free to use and (or) have the right attributions to satisfy the WP:NFCC#8. Other than that, well done. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nikkimaria: @Marchjuly: My apologies for changing File:19660529申相玉.jpg to a non-free use file. I believe I have now done the right thing by replacing it with a fairly rare photo of Shin that is in the public domain in the United States and South Korea. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shin_Sang-ok_(1964).png: when specifically did this become PD in South Korea? Did its publication include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's publication did not include a copyright notice. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it known when it became PD in South Korea? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything else about the image, no republishing no nothing anywhere else. It's seemingly PD in the US regardless because it was published without copyright notice and outside the US. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that make it PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the PD template: since it was first published outside the U.S. & "before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That template requires that all three points be met, including the last: "it was in the public domain in its home country (South Korea) on the URAA date (1 January 1996)". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that image until I can find proof it was PD by 1996 in the US. Do you think all the other images' FUR are fine now by the way? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FURs are fine; Kim image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the swift reply. I've now added the alt text. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seefooddiet - support

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

I didn't look at KOREANNAME, I just went by consulted my Korean friend about the English spelling of them a few times and went by Google Translate elsewhere. I'll do my best to re-write the names based on WP:NCKOREAN henceforth but might need more assistance. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can try this automatic converter [17] to get the Revised Romanization spellings. The converter is sometimes incorrect though; if you give it your best effort I can go through later and correct mistakes seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

My apologies for not replying sooner, I've been quite busy lately. I'll fix any romanizations that are incorrect over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of the romanizations now as far as I can tell. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible mistakes in ref romanizations. What would make these not mistakes is if you've seen these specific people using this spelling for their surnames.

"Moon" -> "Mun" for "Moon, Seok"
"Noh" -> "No" for "Noh, Sun-dong"
"Choi" -> "Choe" for "Choi, Yeong-chang"
For the Kim, Jung-ki ref I'm not seeing the author's name given on the article website. Is his name spelled 김중키 or 김중기? I suspect it's the latter; former is uncommon. If so, it should be "Kim Jung-gi".

Other comment:

Cast and production section also need to be romanized per WP:KOREANNAME. These spelling systems will unfortunately vary by person, depending on who is North Korean and who is South Korean. North Koreans use McCune–Reischauer, South Koreans Revised Romanization. If you don't know a person's nationality, I think assuming North Korean by default is fine.

seefooddiet (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Moon", "Noh", and "Choi" per your suggestions. Kim Jung-ki's name is spelled 金重基 in the source and I've found it hard to directly translate. And for the staff and cast, I've already done some research on most of them and it seems Shin is the only one whose nationality is confirmed to be South Korean (IMDb does claim the film's star, Chang Son-hui, was born in South Korea but I can't find their source for that and a source in this article indicates otherwise). So probably keeping their names as McCune–Reischauer translations would be fine I presume. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[18] 基 -> "gi". Unfortunately "重" can be read either 중 (jung) or 동 (dong). I can't find for certain what his name is through googling, but I suspect it is "Jung-gi". Think it's minimally harmful to put that down.

The MR for the cast and production crew are incorrect; I'll fix them. I'll just leave Shin Sang-ok's name as it is. seefooddiet (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a pass; you'll need to verify that the new spellings are consistent throughout the article although I gave it a solid try.

Notes:

I try to avoid putting Korean text glosses in infoboxes; some of the names in there are not in the body of the article and effectively unsourced I think. Once you also put them in the body, you should also move the glosses to the body too.
It's possible that 유경애 (Yu Kyŏngae)'s surname should be changed. It's reasonably common for the surname 柳 to be written 류 (ryu) in North Korea and 유 (yu) in South Korea due to dialect (similar to how 李 is 리 (ri) in North Korea and 이 (i) in South Korea), although this is not universal practice. Some South Koreans use Ryu and probably vice versa. South Korean sources sometimes South Koreanize these surnames by default, regardless of the personal preference of the person, although they did give "리" consistently. Tl;dr to be extra correct this person's name could be researched; probably a North Korean poster with Korean writing would work.

seefooddiet (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These translations seem mostly fine but I think Chŏng Kŏnjo should be changed back to Chong Gon-jo since that's what Satsuma and Western sources call him. Also, maybe we could hide the translations within the article's source (using the  thing) and use those translations featured on the English-langauge poster instead? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for long answer, romanizing Korean is complicated.

Yes you can change back "Chong Gon-jo" if you have know of wide attestation to that spelling, per step #1 of WP:KOREANNAME.
For your second use of "translations", do you mean the orig Hangul text? See here for an explanation of why we would want to display Hangul. Also few non-Wikipedians know about invisible comments (), which is why we generally display Korean text in article.
It's nice that we have an English-language poster, but some complications. Korean romanization is such a mess that a single attestation is often not enough to be confident in what spelling to use. E.g. on that poster it says "Pulgasary" on top; do we use that spelling? Instead of using the ad-hoc romanizations on the poster and risking confusion, it's often safer to default to a systematic romanization. This is what the community has settled on so far.
The above confusion is why we have the steps laid out in WP:KOREANNAME. Chong Gon-jo meets step #1, I'm not sure if the poster is sufficient evidence of step #2; it may be, but often enough romanizations for people names differ by appearance or even across time so it's hard to be sure.

seefooddiet (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright understood;

I've changed the co-director's name back to Chong Gon-jo and added sources for this.
Yes I meant the Hangul text. I think it's fine to have them on display, and was mostly asking because I'm just not a fan of them being in the infobox if the translations are mentioned elsewhere on the article.
As for the poster text, it coincides with how some older sources give the film the English title of "Pulgasary" so I'm thinking of mentioning that in the note for the film's title. And I don't think the name spellings on the poster apply with step #2 of WP:KOREANNAME after checking.

Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good, thank you for working with me! Romanization of Korean is unfortunately complicated. If you ever run into a similar situation with Korean feel free to poke me.

On another note, I think the footnotes subsection and the citations subsection should possibly be merged; they're functionally the same thing. seefooddiet (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Will notify you if I experience any further problems romanizing Korean. And I've considered merging those sections btw, but the GA reviewer and a friend of mine seemed to like how the References section is formated (also it's something pages like Mission: Impossible – Fallout feature). Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say—I support this article's FA nom. seefooddiet (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZKang123

If I'm correct, if this passes FAC, this might be one of the first North Korea-focussed article (outside of those related to the Korean War) to be given the bronze star. Let me have a look.

Lead:

Shin and his wife had remained in North Korea since 1978, when their kidnapping was initiated by Kim Jong Il, the country's heir apparent. – This wording is a bit odd, probably especially the use of "remained" as though the couple voluntarily stayed in North Korea. I might reword as: Shin and his wife were in captivity in North Korea since their kidnapping by Kim Jong Il in 1978. or another wording, if you prefer. Also wikilink their abduction.
Pulgasari was submitted in February 1985 – submitted to who and what for? Did Shin propose the film and submit it to Kim for approval? Also reading later, I would add "The pitch for Pulgasari was submitted..."
Its Japanese critical reception was positive... – Critical reception in Japan was positive...

I don't as much comments for the plot and cast list.

Production:

A collection of around 15,000[11][32] to 20,000[7][34] titles was reported to be in Kim's possession. New releases from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after opening in theaters. – Kim was reported to have a collection of 15,000 to 20,000 titles of Shin's films. Every new release from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after their opening in theaters.
the film industry there – the country's film industry
while a larger studio was under construction for the film. – while a larger studio was constructed for the film.
The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May. Nobuyuki Yasumaru was in charge of modeling it – The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May, with Nobuyuki Yasumaru in charge of modeling it
loved the reboot so much he sought – loved the reboot so much that he sought
Shin recalled that Kim had suggested making the monster resemble a cow. – Shin recalled Kim’s suggestion to design the monster resembling a cow.
For the sentence Pulgasari was ultimately set in Goryeo but..., I think it's a bit too long and could be split such that ...was based on the Forbidden City complex in Beijing. The special effects crew...
which covered approximately 20,000 pyeong – I think a conversion to SI units might be in order here. Especially for other mentions of pyeong.
Satsuma said about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film, he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie". – Satsuma mentioned he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie" when talking about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film.

Release:

According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas in the wake of Shin and Choi escaping North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fleeing to the United States. – According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas when Shin and Choi escaped their North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fled to the United States.
On January 21, 1995, Twin released Pulgasari on VHS in Japan – I was initially confused what is "Twin". Might clarify that.
but were all turned down. – but all were turned down
due to a cultural exchange agreement for the June 15th North–South Joint Declaration – Shouldn't it be "in the June 15th..." or "as part of the..."
Johannes Schönherr said contemporaneous publications cited many reasons – "...said... cited..." I might just say Johannes Schönherr cited many reasons or reword in another manner like Johannes Schönherr cited reasonings by contemporaneous publications on its failure in South Korea.

Reception:

South Korean reviewers also criticized the acting. – can further elaborate in what way from the source?
Shin rejected interpretations the film may have conveyed a message about North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict. – Shin rejected interpretations about the film's messages on North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict.

That's all I have. Great work for this article so far.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just revised everything here based on your suggestions, clarified that Kim's film collection was not just of Shin's movies, and specified what kind of company Twin is. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Additionally, I found another review by a freelance journalist on the film. --ZKang123 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks! I've recently added that content from that review btw Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck

Reviewing this version. What makes "レイジング・サンダー・ホームページ""大怪獣プルガサリ", "북한영화를 아십니까", アジア映画にみる日本", Incheon Ilbo, II Maeil Shinmun, www.fromthefrontrow.net and vantagepointinterviews.com a reliable source? The first three non-English sources also need some extra information on who is the publisher etc. Also, not necessarily an issue, but some citations are throwing incorrect "sfn error: no target: " errors. Spot-check:

4 This needs a Japanese reader.
6 Why does our article say republished?
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10 This needs a Japanese reader.
12 Doesn't have that much to say about politics.
17 "Satsuma later said he adored Pulgasari and that he fondly remembered performing in it" doesn't show here. Everything else OK, but I note this source says that the film premiered in Osaka and Tokyo, not just Tokyo
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
22 OK
23 OK
26 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
30 Assuming that Google Translate is translating this correctly: Doesn't mention Raging Thunder or the under-1000?
39 Doesn't say that Pulgasari was the seventh.
OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
40 OK
63 This one uses a different page number format than the other sources. OK assuming that Google Translate isn't making stuff up.
65 OK
67 OK
81 OK - I figure our article saying "controversial ideology" is a reasonable reading.
86 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
87 OK
90 OK I guess.
94 OK
95 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorting out most of these now. The main issue is most of the Japanese publications are out of print. That's why I decided to translate their contents from Google Books. I've been learning Japanese for a while now and tried my best to make these things as accurate as I could. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, "レイジング・サンダー・ホームページ" is Raging Thunder's official website; "大怪獣プルガサリ" is the PDF of the film's 1995 flyer available on the Japanese archival website for movie flyers; "북한영화를 아십니까" is an article from the magazine Cine21 (which is generally conisdered reliable); アジア映画にみる日本" is a book by Takashi Monma (who's a critic and professor at Meiji Gakuin University); many articles also use Incheon Ilbo and Maeil Shinmun as sources because these are major newspapers in South Korea; fromthefrontrow.net is by a freelance journalist and was suggested by @ZKang123: in their review here; and vantagepointinterviews.com is a nonprofit site by very prolific interviewer Brett Homenick. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just added publisher info for the first few non-English sources. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eiga-Kevin2, is this ready for Jo-Jo to relook at? If it is, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. @Jo-Jo Eumerus please take a look over the references again and my remarks. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marked some, but others still need review by someone who has source and language access. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that anyone will have physical access to all these sources tbh but ok. I just used Google Books for most of the non-English ones. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus do you suggest I go ahead and remove some of the non-English books I've cited but only could access via Google Books since we can't verify directly? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd prefer if someone checked them directly. I don't think verification convenience is a good reason to exclude sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eiga-Kevin2, if there are English language sources which cover much the same material as a foreign language source and are HQ RSs you are required to give preference to the English language source. See WP:NOENG "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that policy is what I had in mind when removing the non-English books yesterday Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eiga-Kevin2 I think you need native or near-native speakers to endorse the non-English sources and translations to pass a source review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eiga-Kevin2, what is the state of play with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I've replaced those non-English print sources and what they were used to cite with different content sourced from English books and articles. Also consulted a Japanese friend of mine on the Japanese websites sourced and he said they were accurate. Sorry for the late reply by the way I'm on holiday and lacking internet access this week. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Jo-Jo, does this help at all? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tepid OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall add "Tepid ok" to the Jo-Jo source quality scale. And many thanks for struggling on through this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

"that also depicts an eponymous creature from Korean folklore": the use of "eponymous" is not helpful here since the two films have slightly different names. Suggest "that also depicts the Pulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore".
Pulgasari is used in North Korea to refer to the monster (based on how the cast pronounced the name within the film) and Bulgasari in the South. Sources on the creature's article suggest it is called Bulgasari. I think eponymous is fine since it isn't inaccurate. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now realize there are two romanizations used for transliterating Korean, and per Bulgasari (creature) the creature's name can be rendered in the Latin alphabet as Bulgasari or Pulgasari. Are we relying on the cast's speech to pick "Pulgasari" for this article, or does the film have a standard transliteration in reliable sources that uses the "P"? And re "eponymous", since it mean "giving its name to something", I think it's confusing because it's not yet clear to the reader that Bulgasari and Pulgasari are the same creature -- in fact that sentence is how we tell the reader that, but it relies on them understanding that "eponymous" refers to both. You're certainly right that it's not inaccurate, but I think it's not clear to the reader what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the cast saying "Pulgasari" that I'm replying upon here. Western sources covering the film's plot and other details usually say Pulgasari when refering to the legendary creature the monster is based upon as well as the film's title. Sources just covering the legend of the creature itself call it "Bulgasari". I could write "that also depicts the Bulgasari/Pulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be better than the current wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"who brings to life a metal-eating monster her late father envisioned": judging from the plot summary, he didn't just envision it, he created a figurine of it.~~
Changed "envisioned" to "created" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Shin and his wife, Choi Eun-hee, were in captivity in North Korea since their kidnapping by Kim Jong Il in 1978.": Suggest "Shin and his wife, Choi Eun-hee, were kidnapped in 1978 by agents of Kim Jong Il, and held captive in North Korea." It wasn't Kim Jong Il who kidnapped them after all, and I think it's clearer to give the kidnapping and subsequent captivity in chronological order.
Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Pulgasari was pitched in February 1985": "pitched" is a word from the film industry with the wrong connotations here -- it implies there was a pitch meeting at which a production company assessed the likely commercial success of the movie before deciding whether to make it. In fact it appears the movie was made under Kim Jong Il's direct orders, so there was no pitching involved. However, I do see further references to the pitch in the body of the article. If that's correct, who was it pitched to? Kim Jong Il?
Changed "pitched" to "put forward" & the source directly says "The project was proposed in mid-February 1985" but never specifies who pitched it and who to. I could change it to say that's when development started. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth mentioning in the lead that there are doubts over whether Chong Gon-Jo really did finish the film; currently you say "allegedly" but I think it would be better to make it clear that it's not definite.
Added "some sources suggest" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"With an estimated ¥200–300 million ($2–3 million) budget": I think the "¥" sign is used for both yuan and yen, so I can't tell what currency this is in, but why isn't it in North Korean won? And is the dollar amount based on 1985 exchange rates or has it been inflated to give the current value? If not I think we should do that.
Added link to the yen page; source never specifies if the $2-3m is based on contemporary exchange rates or inflated. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"is imprisoned and forced to starve for defending his people": "forced to starve" is an odd thing to say: to force someone to do something implies they must actively do whatever they're being forced to do, but starving is not active. Suggest just "is imprisoned and starved to death for defending his people. Shortly before he dies, ...". That's assuming his death is from starvation, as seems to be the case.
Ok I've changed that. Yes the character dies of starvation in the film. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Pulgasari shares a special bond with Ami; after eating a farmer's tools, it turns into a powerful figure." The first half of this sentence appears to be unconnected to the second half; any reason to put these two details in the same sentence?
Fixed Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The peasants become fed up with being penurious and suffering": "penurious" is too formal a word for this context -- "... with their poverty and suffering" would do.~~
Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The monster lets itself be trapped and is set ablaze to save Ami". The generals set it ablaze, and they don't do so to save Ami; the monster lets itself be trapped to save Ami.~~
Changed to "The monster lets itself be trapped to save Ami and is set ablaze"
~~"which its enemies readily provide for hostilities": odd phrasing -- I think you mean that the weapons are often made of metal.~~
Changed to "The king runs into Pulgasari, who wins many battles against his army because it devours their metal weapons." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"After defeating the king, Pulgasari becomes problematic; it starts eating the rebels' weapons and farmers' tools": "problematic" is the wrong word here. It might be easiest to cut the descriptive phrase and just say it starts eating the rebels' weapons and the farmers' tools.
Agreed, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Kim Jong Il, the heir apparent of North Korea": suggest "Kim Jong Il, the heir apparent to Kim Il Sung, the ruler of North Korea".~~
Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Shin and Miyanishi stated that the film's story is based around Pulgasari or Bulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore." Do we need to attribute this inline? It's not as if there's any doubt about it, is it? Similarly, do we need "Furthermore, according to retrospective sources" in the next sentence? The titles alone and the existence of the folklore creature seem to make this clear enough.
That's there because Shin nor anyone on the production team said anything about it being a remake, at least as far as I can find. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the sentence doesn't say anything about whether it's a remake; it only refers to the mythical creature, which (at least per our article on it) can be spelt either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've removed the "Shin and Miyanishi stated that" bit Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any coverage of why Toho decided to work on the film, despite Shin's involvement, or of the media reaction? I would have thought anyone apparently condoning Shin's kidnapping would be subject to a lot of media criticism.
Can't find anything as to why they did but Satsuma seemed excited that he was going to work overseas. Nobody seemed to know Shin was kidnapped at the time. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing in the sources there's nothing you can do, but it's surprising. Particularly as I see that the announcement that Shin and his wife had been kidnapped (rather than were just missing) came less than a year earlier; you'd think South Koreans would have been very aware of the situation. Anyway, I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The planning of Pulgasari was accredited to Shin": I think you just mean "credited".~~
Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Shin showed no apparent interest": "showed" is redundant with "apparent"; you only need one or the other.~~
Removed "apparent". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"to design the monster resembling a cow": poor syntax. Perhaps "to design the monster to resemble a cow", or "that the monster should resemble a cow".~~
Went with the latter. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"to set the film in China during the Three Kingdoms period if the historical research and costumes made it match": I don't know what "made it match" means. The Pulgasari is a folklore creature, so what historical research are we talking about? And what would the costumes have to match?
Idk source spell that out. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~What does Shin mean by "ask the Chinese side to adjust it accordingly"?~~
Source also doesn't spell that out. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For both this and the point above I don't think we can use material we don't understand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Removed them. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Through his Japanese office, Shin invited": but Shin was trapped in North Korea, so in what sense could he still be working with a Japanese office? And why "his" -- did he have an independent business in Japan that still existed?
Shin was allowed to travel so long as he was supervised by North Korean bodyguards. He set up several offices (i.e. branchs of his North Korean company Shin Films that he and Kim set up) in other countries during his abduction. I've somewhat noted he had a branch in Vienna on the article already too. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Satsuma allegedly became the first foreigner to appear in a North Korean film." Why "allegedly"? Is there some doubt about the reliability of the source?~~
Changed to "Satsuma believed that he became the first foreigner to appear in a North Korean film". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The body qualifies the 13,000 extras with "some sources" but the lead doesn't qualify the number. If there's genuinely some doubt about it I think the lead should reflect that, or the number should be removed from the lead. And the body sources the comment about the Korean People's Army and the number of extras separately, so can I just check that the source does say those 13,000 came from the army? I had a look via Google Translate and as far as I can tell it doesn't say that.
The army contributing the extras was based on Satsuma's statement underneath that sentence. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, since you've cut it from the lead and changed it in the body, but I don't think Satsuma's comment does support it -- rather the reverse, in fact, since he says the army would go and get the people, implying the people they brought were not in the army. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~The 20,000 pyeong figure needs an inline equivalent in square yards or acres or something similar.~~
Will sort that out shortly Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Converted it to sq m & sq ft Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"filmed the Pulgasari suit wandering around a miniature village": the suit containing Satsuma? Or claymation or other animation?~~
Unspecified in source Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"which the Chinese crew had already been creating": we haven't been told about the Chinese before this -- is this Beijing Film Studio? What was their role?~~
Just specified in the pre-production section Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"due in part to electrical constraints and equipment theft": what were the electrical constraints? And more details about the problems with theft might be interesting, if the source says more about it.
Electrical constraints aren't clear but one of those two sources mentions a power outage. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Satsuma named a scene in which Pulgasari rises over a hill while the rebels and king's army fight below the "Marusan", which he said is the name of the mound at which they filmed it." Why is this worth including? Is this just Satsuma's own name for the scene, or is it a famous scene in some way, with the name used by others?
Not that notable so removed it altogether. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"purportedly reluctant to publicize Shin was the director": I think you mean "reportedly", not "purportedly", and perhaps "reluctant for Shin to be acknowledged as" would be better.~~
Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. I'm going to stop here and oppose. I'm only halfway through the article and this is a fairly long list of issues. Some are cosmetic and I've suggested fixes where I can see an easy solution, but some might be harder to fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Many of sentences you've asked me to change I'd previously changed based on the suggestions of other reviewers here and they seemed fine with them btw. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be frustrating for a nominator, I agree. If you can point me at a couple of examples I'll see if I agree with them or if I can justify why I don't. I've struck a few points above and will go back through and reply to or strike the others, today if I have time. I have also struck the oppose for now since you've been quick about responding and have fixed many of the issues, and I wouldn't want to see this archived while we're going through the remaining points. I do still need to go through the rest of the article too, though I don't know how much time I'll have over the next couple of days. By the way, you might take a look at WP:INDENTMIX -- I corrected the indent syntax for your replies. For sighted editors it makes no differences, but editors who have to use a screen reader find mixed indent syntax very disruptive, so it's worth getting right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from reading the remainder of the article:

Did MBC broadcast Pulgasari on TV once the judge decided the broadcasting rights belonged to the production company? We don't actually say whether they did or not. And if they did so in 1999, that would have been before the ruling on whether the film contained Juche -- is that right? That is, the ministry has to rule on whether a film contains Juche before it can be distributed in theatres, but not before it airs on TV?
No, I couldn't find anything to say they did show it on TV or not in the end. Seems like they gave up on that idea and decided to move on to try and show it in theaters. Yes, it all happened before the ruling anyway. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"and was under consideration to acquire screen quotas": I don't follow this -- this was a proposal to have a minimum quota for North Korean films? That seems unlikely.~~
Specified it was being considered for screen quotas benefits in case they decided to handle films from the North like something of a domestic release. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. How about making it ".. was attracting controversy on whether films from North Korea should be handled as foreign or domestic distributions, and that it was being considered for classification as a domestic film, which would lead to it benefitting from the South Korean screen quota system"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is the Muju Film Festival worth a redlink? Currently it's an empty section in Muju County; probably not worth linking to that.~~
Gave it a redlink for now. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"the book was also published in April 1994": I would cut this unless you have a reason why the reader needs to know the book was reprinted.~~
Rewrote and removed the date. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"suggested that Pulgasari was more evocative of": I don't think you need "more".~~
I think the fully sentence it's apart of [i.e. "Pulgasari was more evocative of The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920) than the Godzilla series, which it is commonly compared to"] won't make sense with "more" because the reviewer is saying they think it is more like that movie than Godzilla. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I misread that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why do we can that Ryu Deok-hwan watched the film? We don't report his opinion of it.~~
Source just says (per DeepL Translator): "To play Dong-gu, [Ryu] watched over 70 movies, including Billy Elliot and Hana and Alice [...] He even watched/studied the North Korean movie Pulgasari in case it would help." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without that context the mention in the article seems random. Given that he watched scores of movies in preparation, and that there's no reason given as to why he thought this film would be helpful, I would just cut this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the issues I was concerned about have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

"the film follows a blacksmith's daughter". Does "the film" refer to the film mentioned immediately prior, or to Pulgasari (or both)?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the film" is referring to only the one that the article covers. So I'm going with just changing that text to "Pulgasari follows ...". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 January 2025 [19].

Donkey Kong

Nominator(s): JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've spent almost two years working on this article, from February 2023 until now. I think it paints a complete picture of the franchise's history, inner workings, and influence. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

Probably won't get to it soon, but marking my spot, because I have to read this! And I sure know the TV series, because it turns out I'm apparently one of the only people who recorded the Danish dub, which is commercially unavailable now... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance I'm seeing a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[20]
- I believe I've nuked all of 'em JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"and the success of Taito's Space Invaders (1978)" While most readers would know, could add "Taito's video game Space Invaders".
- I added "arcade game" JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" The $280 million windfall" I had no idea what this meant, could add "gain" to the term, as in the linked article, so it's easier to deduct.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Four programmers from Ikegami Tsushinki spent three months turning them into a finished game." A bit unclear what "them" refers to, as the preceding sentence is very long.
- changed to "Miyamoto's design". This was the result of some sentences being shifted around due to me adding more info during the GA review JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"had won a lawsuit years prior" Perhaps more interesting and informative (and less wordy) to just give the date?
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Popeye became Mario" Perhaps worth stating in a footnote it was originally "Jumpman"? Here it makes it seem like if he had the Mario identity from the beginning.
- This is actually a common misconception—he was always known as Mario, as evidenced by the sales brochure. The "Jumpman" name was only used in the instructions. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Donkey Kong's appearances in the years following Donkey Kong 3 were limited to cameos in unrelated games" Worth mentioning them in a footnote, or even in-text.
- Unfortunately the sources don't elaborate and I wasn't able to find any that did JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It begins as a remake of the 1981 game before introducing over 100 puzzle-platforming levels that incorporate elements from Donkey Kong Jr. and Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)." I think it's worth mentioning that Mario was again the protagonist.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Miyamoto named "Beauty and the Beast" and the 1933 film King Kong as influences" Perhaps clarify "named the fairytale "Beauty and the Beast"", so readers don't assume the film.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but the sprite was too big to easily maneuver" Perhaps add "the sprite graphic" or similar for clarity, as many readers might not understand what's implied.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but was moved to the Wii with support for the peripheral dropped" should that be "when support for the peripheral dropped"?
- I changed it to "moved to the Wii with no support for the peripheral"—the Wii does support the DK Bongos but for whatever reason Paon decided not to let you use them. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"as closer in spirit to his work on Banjo-Kazooie than Wise's Country music" Maybe "than to Wise's Country music" for clarity?
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"before it shifted to producing and importing anime" What is meant by "importing"?
- distributing outside Japan, changed to "distributing" JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A Donkey Kong cartoon produced by Ruby-Spears aired as part of CBS's hour-long Saturday Supercade programming block in 1983" You give the number of episodes for the other series mentioned, why not for this one?
- So it's two things. (1) It's not in the sources. (2) A lot of Saturday Supercade is considered lost media because rebroadcasts and rereleases are very rare and much of it was never recorded, I think it's possible that there were more episodes beyond the 13 ones listed at the Saturday Supercade article so that number could be inaccurate. Best to omit it if we don't have the sourcing. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eveline Novakovic's lastname was Fischer at the relevant period, would it make more sense to use the name she was credited as back then?
- Done. (I think the only DK games she worked on under the name Novakovic were the GBA ones.) JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intro says "The franchise has pioneered or popularized concepts such as in-game storytelling" while the legacy section mentions "The franchise's lack of storytelling". Seems contradictory? I'm also not seeing the former explained in the article body.
- It's discussed in the legacy section, under effect on the industry. The "lack of storytelling" was referring to the fact the franchise doesn't have a super deep official backstory so I've clarified that. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some games without the Country branding" feels a bit convoluted, why not just "outside the Country series"?
- I just removed it outright as it wasn't necessary. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You provide a long list of characters in the Country section under gameplay, perhaps worth mentioning the new player characters in the DK 64 part?
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Other villains include" Could specify that these are all post-Rare?
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A model of an original Donkey Kong (1981) arcade cabinet" Why use a miniature model? While perhaps not as nice an image, I think it would be more authentic to show an actual machine, like this free image:[21]
- I chose a model as that was the one that was already on Commons, haha. I'll look into replacing it shortly JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked into replacements, I think the model is actually the way to go. It actually shows gameplay and the joystick and buttons are a lot more discernable. Seems like other cabinet pics have been deleted but this has been scrutinized and deemed ok for Commons as well. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, I see four unaddressed points. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll be coming back to those shortly. I've been busy with school and work so my wiki-time's been a bit limited. I should have everything from everyone addressed by the weekend. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great to see this here, and hope to see more DK articles at FAC. I still think an authentic arcade machine would be better than the miniature, perhaps a suitable photo will turn up one day. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a better arcade photo, might make a trip to a local arcade that I know has a cab if I get the chance JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fathoms Below

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

Update: working on comments right now! Fathoms Below (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you got a lot of comments on this one. Since my feedback would probably be less valuable at this point, I'll leave some prose comments and if you have a GAR or FAC in the future, you can ping me and I'll see what I can do. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from David Fuchs

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

For the purposes of the lead, how important is it to list all of the supporting characters? I ask partially because the "Rare's games expanded the cast" sentence is trying to pack a lot of information in, is a bit confusing (when you get to the end and we're talking about antagonists instead) and hits you with a ton of names that most people are not necessarily going to know anyhow.
- How's it now? I chopped it down to only the characters who have articles (e.g. Mario and Pauline). I think "friendly Kongs" should suffice for the supporting characters; I kept mention of the Kremlings since they're the only recurring antagonists. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In both the lead and body, the text says "to provide a new game that could salvage the unsold Radar Scope cabinets", and I'm wondering if "salvage" makes sense here? They were taking the cabinets and putting a new game into them, correct, versus scrapping them for parts or the like, so "repurpose" maybe makes more sense?
- Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) I said the same thing here. You have disgraced the Kongs by not staying true. Panini! • 🥪 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - lol, since more than one person has now taken issue with it I determined it was best to change JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get trying to show the variety of games with File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png, but from a practical standpoint, especially given that the core formula is unchanged between them in terms of platforming and with the limitations of non-free content, I think it would make sense to use a single, higher-resolution screenshot.
- Looking for a decent screenshot right now, will update this when I get one JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with a screenshot from DKCR that I think has every element that the three screenshots were trying to illustrate. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi David, anything you want to add at this time? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've got more comments coming, I just decided to let everyone else get theirs in first :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circling back with a few more comments; I did some minor copyedits, but I think it's for the most part in a pretty great place there, and I think the layout is sensible and straightforward—I appreciate the reduced focus on stats tables at the bottom end, and think I'll steal the approach for other franchise articles. A few other things:
While they were initially limited to including Donkey Kong Jr. as a playable character in Super Mario Kart (1992), the discussions led to the production of the Game Boy game Donkey Kong (1994),[1] the first original Donkey Kong game in ten years. — who or what was initially limited? If the idea is that ideas of reviving the franchise were limited to the inclusion of the character, it should probably be written more clearly.
- I expanded it a bit with more information from the source. Should be clearer now—the implication was that Nintendo staff were too spread thin to start a large-scale DK project so including Jr. in Mario Kart was the best they could do JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It achieved greater success when it was ported to the Switch in 2018, outselling the Wii U version within a week of release." No edits here, but noting my shock at how hilarious this line shows the success of the Switch/failure of the Wii U. Dang.
- Yeah, it's insane. And the Switch port of Tropical Freeze actually didn't do that great compared to other Wii U-to-Switch conversions! JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Two Rare characters, Banjo the Bear and Conker the Squirrel, were introduced in Diddy Kong Racing ahead of starring in their own games,[1] Banjo-Kazooie and Conker's Bad Fur Day (2001).[1][2]" This is a bit duplicative of Banjo and Conker's mention earlier, and given that they're essentially cameos that aren't important to the DK franchise I would cut their mention here.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Donkey Kong 64 blends Country elements with "collect-a-thon"" As a gamer I understand what collect-a-thons are, but I think it might be worth for the casual reader stopping and explaining this a bit better rather than just comparing it to other games they might not have played.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wise drew inspiration from" since this sentence immediately follows "Wise composed a replacement soundtrack [for the 2005 game]", it's unclear whether Wise drew inspiration for his work on DK in general from X, or whether he drew inspiration for the 2005 game.
- Rearranged JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably be nice to have the sales table sortable.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the statements that have more than three citations after them should probably get ref bundled.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoebro64 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: sorry for the wait, I believe I've addressed everything JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy to support now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Nice to see this at FAC. I'll review it during this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does make Ref 214 (Madison) reliable?
- I actually removed it as part of addressing another reviewers' comments JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I did not spot any issues with reliability of sources. Some sources are situational but do not have any issues upon checking them. I don't think that I'd have enough time to do a proper source spotcheck though.

The article is quite long, so I'll only take a look at the lede and some parts of the body in detail and draw up my conclusion from it.

I did not spot any major issues in the lede. It reads to me quite well and covers important aspects of the franchise. Same goes for "1981–1982: Conception and first game" , 1995–2002: Franchise expansion", and "Original series".
"IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form, and musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised it." → "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form; musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised the soundtrack".
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not spot any major issues in the Cultural impact section too.

This looks like a short review, but I really do not have any complaints for the prose I've read. It reads okay to me and some aspects are explained in detail, which is also good especially for readers with little knowledge about the franchise (e.g. in 1995–2002: Franchise expansion). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: thank you for taking a look! Responded above JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have another look at the article tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did not spot any major issues after having another look. Congrats and good job on the article! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Panini!

I reviewed the GAN and I can't remember if there's a rule withholding me from reviewing and supporting here. But regardless, just wanted to say thank you! For swapping around those gameplay images! Those are definitely some excellent choices, considering that most of the games are dark jungles and finding good ones can be tricky. The second one does have a dark background, but the lack of intractable gameplay elements on top of that besides the barrels, which are the object of discussion, keep the image clear for demonstration. Panini! • 🥪 22:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rule. Reviews from editors already closely familiar with the article are welcome. Disclosing this is helpful mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bowser

Looks good and I enjoyed the read. Here's a few ideas:

Rare began working on Donkey Kong 64, the first Donkey Kong game to feature 3D gameplay - since Diddy Kong Racing has been introduced, should we call this a "regular" Donkey kong game? Also, should we mention the N64 expansion pack?
- changed to "first 3D DK platform game". I'm not sure about mentioning the Expansion Pak because I don't think it's really important to the franchise as a whole. It's definitely a neat tidbit about the game itself but this article's more about the grand scheme of things so I don't think it's necessary. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2023, Rogen said he saw "a lot of opportunity" in the prospect. Eurogamer wrote that Diddy and Dixie's brief cameo in The Super Mario Bros. Movie was obvious setup for a Donkey Kong film. - I think these sentences could be struck.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
though Playtonic declined to label it a spiritual successor. - same
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and journalists have described him as a mascot for both Nintendo and the video game industry. - could we just state this without attibution, as in "he has been described"?
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to which Wise expressed approval. - it's been a while since he was last mentioned, full name?
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo Life described one fansite, DK Vine, as "highly respected". - not sure about this one, feels a bit odd "reviewing" the fandom.
- I think this should stay. Discussion of fandom is definitely noteworthy cultural impact and DK Vine is the most well-known DK fansite, having broken a few stories that ended up making the mainstream press (notably the canceled Vicarious Visions game, for which they were cited in Eurogamer and VGC) JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the storytelling contradiction needs to be straightened out. Once that's done I plan to support this nom. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: thank you for taking a look! I believe I've addressed everything JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I stumbled over the answer to who the doubters were (FMs question) in: Wesley, David; Barczak, Gloria (2010). "Shigery Miyamoto and the Art of Donkey Kong". Innovation and Marketing in the Video Game Industry. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315588612. ISBN 978-1-317-11650-9. It seems the american marketing team had concerns (pages 11 & 13). I think it should be accessible through the wikimedia library, but otherwise I could share the pdf. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: thank you! Can't seem to find it in the WP Library so if you can, I'd definitely be interested in reading that JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 01:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rjjiii

I'll add notes as I read through this week:

With regards to Popeye, the very next arcade game that Miyamoto does for Nintendo is the licensed Popeye game. Is there any connection here? For example, was code reused, do the cabinets share hardware, or did Donkey Kong play any role in Nintendo getting the Popeye rights?
- My understanding of the situation is that Nintendo's inability to secure the Popeye license for what would become Donkey Kong was due to negotiations taking too long. I'm doing some research to see if there's any relation between the two games. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few more details from Sheff's book in a footnote to clarify the relationship between the two. Couldn't find anything specific regarding the cabinets or code but it's mentioned it was produced under the production system Nintendo adopted following Donkey Kong. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Miyamoto named the fairy tale" I found the verb/phrasing confusing.~~
- Changed to "cited" JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He placed an emphasis on jumping to avoid obstacles and cross gaps. Miyamoto's ideas were uncommon in contemporary arcade games," This also confuses me. Note "a" reads like this game introduced the mechanic, not that it was uncommon.
- I did some rearranging to make it clearer. Let me know if that clears everything up JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"was told it would be a failure," Does the source say who told them this?~~
- No JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Game & Watch version" Would "adaptation" be more accurate than "version" here?~~
- yeah, done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The victory helped cement Nintendo as a major force in the video game industry." I would cut this per WP:IMPARTIAL. If the sentence is making an objective statement about the court case, it's going over my head with the current wording.
- Done. I guess what it was trying to say was that the case brought Nintendo, which was then basically an upstart, a lot of prestige in the entertainment industry because it was able to swat away a titan like Universal like it was nothing, but Nintendo becoming a big company after Donkey Kong is mentioned anyway both in the section and later in the article. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nintendo wanted a game to compete with Sega's Aladdin (1993), which featured graphics by Disney animators,[34][35] when Lincoln learned of Rare's SGI experiments during a trip to Europe." This sentence is hard to parse. Is Lincoln the company's lawyer? "when" seems an odd way to connect these thoughts.
- Lincoln became an NoA executive following the Universal suit. I clarified his position and split it into two sentences without the "when". JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Mortal Kombat influence is unclear to me. Were they not already planning to do pre-rendered graphics with the SGI workstations they had bought?~~
- Leftover from when I was integrating my research from DKC over here, haha. Mortal Kombat inspired the art direction Stamper wanted to go with. I just cut it since it's not important in terms of the larger franchise. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~How common was the usage of these high-end SGI workstations to do video game graphics? Beyond being "groundbreaking" was anyone else in the UK or in the industry doing this?~~
- It was extremely uncommon—Rare was the first UK developer to get them, and it immediately made them the most technologically advanced developer in the UK according to the sources. I've clarified this. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and the designers could not replicate the detail of Country's pre-rendering with real-time graphics" I think this could be slightly expanded so that a less-technical reader could better understand it.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"to create a new experience" I'd consider removing or rephrasing this. In some sense, any new media is a new experience.~~
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"but it sold poorly in comparison to Returns" Is this due to the smaller market for Wii U games?~~
- Primarily yeah. It also came out at a terrible time (I think there was a massive storm in Japan the week of release) and had an awful marketing campaign, but the Wii U itself failing was definitely the big reason. Clarified within the article JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"was working on a Switch Donkey Kong game" Do we know if they still are?~~
- No word on what's become of the project. I would imagine it's gotten moved to the Switch's successor if it's still a thing but that's all that can be said for now. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for "History", Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"characterize him as the descendant of the Donkey Kong character" I found this kind of hard to follow. In Rare's games, is the Donkey Kong character the son of the original Donkey Kong? If so that would be more clear than descendant. Also, regarding the organization of material, it would be more clear to me if Cranky Kong or Rare's Donkey Kong was introduced and then the other. That would allow for placing the explanation about whether he is Donkey Kong Jr. closer.
- I did some rewriting and rearranging to try and make things clearer; let me know if you like how I reworked it. The problem boils down to the Rare games being inconsistent as to whether Donkey Kong is Cranky Kong's son (and thus the grown-up DK Jr.) or grandson (and thus the son of DK Jr. who's now MIA). And unfortunately for us, Nintendo has continued this inconsistency! (Super Smash Bros. Brawl's Snake dialogue refers to Cranky as DK's grandfather, whereas the movie last year refers to him as his father.) JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Donkey Kong Country introduced Diddy Kong," ← this is really clear. No changes needed, just wanted to note that it does a good job of explaining his in-universe role and character background.
~~"from a distance" This seems redundant to me. I would either cut it or specify the distance.~~
- Cut. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~", with the second increasing their health." I'm not sure that someone who had not played the games would understand what this means.~~
- Changed to "acting as a second hit point." Is that any better? JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and helped it avoid the video game crash of 1983" I checked the two end-of-sentence citations and the end-of-paragraph citation and they don't quite match this. TIME says, "Nintendo, powered up by Mario’s successes, largely managed to dodge the market’s profit-crushing projectiles."^[22] The Japanese source seems to talk about how the Famicom/NES was based on the Donkey Kong arcade hardware. This Guardian article talks about how Donkey Kong was "a key driver" for the design and launch of the Famicom in Japan. I think there a lot of sources out there to pick from that would say that Nintendo's success with the Famicom in Japan is how they weathered the 1983 crash (which most affected the North American market) so well. I realize that's kind of pedantic, but I do think the article should lay out the connections (Donkey Kong→Famicom→survive crash, instead of Donkey Kong→survive crash).
- Done, just cut that clause. I can incorporate the Guardian article if you think the article should use it, though I think the sequence of events should be clearer now. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a few sources say that Gunpei Yokoi invented the cross-shaped d-pad for Nintendo's Game & Watch adaptation of the original game.[23][24][25] If sources about Donkey Kong mention this, it would be relevant to add somewhere. I haven't checked any longer sources though, so I'll leave it up to you if the inclusion is (un)due.
- This is actually a common misconception—Yokoi was the head of the department that created Game & Watch games, but was relatively uninvolved with the individual games. Ichiro Shirai, one of Nintendo's hardware engineers, created the Donkey Kong D-pad and both filed and was awarded the patent for it. However, he did not create the D-pad! The D-pad was actually created by William F. Palisek for Tiger Electronics in 1979, and was awarded the patent for it in 1981, a year before the Game & Watch version of Donkey Kong came out. Nintendo's own patent for the Donkey Kong D-pad even mentions Palisek by name. (Sorry for the long-winded response, just felt this was worth clarifying!) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh no, it's like when I found out that the sewer gators were an urban legend all over again! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do the sources say if Nintendo has the trademark for "it's on like Donkey Kong" now?~~
- No; according to Trademarkia, the trademark expired in 2020. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's it for the page overall. Nice work; I was surprised at the music being so influential, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoebro64 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the situation, and I hope things go relatively well. Real life comes first, of course. Take care, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: thank you for being patient, responded to everything above. Let me know if I need to do anything else. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem at all. The article looks good. Describing the Rare version as a separate character is more clear. I don't think the the Guardian material needs to be added since there is already the clause beginning with "which rejuvenated..." addressing the NES and North American crash. Notes struck and heading changed to support, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by LEvalyn - Support

This looks like a fun article! I've used a random number generator to pick 10% of the citations for checking. That will be citations 19, 32, 39, 51, 66, 69, 98, 113, 115, 117, 121, 130, 132, 133, 136, 140, 147, 150, 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 232, 233, 255, and 269, based on the numbering in this diff. It may take me a few sessions to go through them but I'll work my way through! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19, 32, 66, and 69 check out, no comments. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 39 says Lincoln was NOA's then president and CEO, which gives a slightly different impression than the article's gloss of a Nintendo of America executive. That's possibly a quibble so I don't insist on a change; otherwise, 39 checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to access 51, "The Making of: Donkey Kong Country 2" in Retro Gamer. No. 181. It looks totally plausible to me, but for thoroughness, can you share the quote from this source which supports the cited claims, or offer advice on accessing the original? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
98: This is another quibble, but I'm not sure that this source strictly verifies that both games blend Country elements. Jungle Climber definitely does, but King of Swing is only mentioned in relationship to Country in order to contrast their graphics. Maybe just say that both games use DK characters/settings? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I added another IGN ref and tweaked the text accordingly. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for revisiting this, but I don't see any prose changes for the specific sentence Meanwhile, Paon also developed DK: King of Swing (2005) for the GBA and DK: Jungle Climber (2007) for the DS, which blend Country elements with puzzle gameplay inspired by Clu Clu Land (1984). This is really splitting hairs, but that sentence makes it sound like King of Swing "blends Country elements", but the cited source only compares King of Swing to Country to say it has different graphics. I'd be happy with something like ...King of Swing (2005) for the GBA and DK: Jungle Climber (2007) for the DS, featuring puzzle gameplay inspired by Clu Clu Land (1984)., or you could throw in a clause about the pegboard navigation style which that source says is unique to these two games. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
113, 115, 117, 121, and 130 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For 132, Milne's "The Evolution of Donkey Kong Country", again I haven't been able to access this issue of Retro Gamer. Can you share the relevant quote? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll send you the articles via email. I'll shoot you an email as soon as I finish everything; just respond and I'll send the screenshots. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
133, 136, 140, and 147 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For 150, the Nintendo Power article, this doesn't feel right. I found the article about DK in issue 66 of Nintendo Power here, but it's not called "Now Playing". And I don't think it verifies The player begins in a world map that tracks their progress and provides access to the themed worlds and their levels. I can't find any mention of the world map. I'm honestly not entirely sure it's kosher to use this for the second sentence either, They traverse the environment, jump between platforms, and avoid enemy and inanimate obstacles, since the source itself is just maps and guide tips which basically imply that the game consists of traversing, jumping, and obstacles. Is there a more traditional review, rather than a map guide, which could verify these simple basics? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I think I made a mistake when condensing information / refs from other DK articles here. I replaced it with an already-present HG101 article and the GameSpot review of the GBC version of the first game. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I thought it might be a mistake like that! The new sources are great and clearly verify the info. Thanks for revisiting it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to counterbalance the quibbles that so far that this is a really "clean" article and extremely easy to source-check-- you've done a great job! I'm taking another break for now but will finish the check over the weekend. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'm glad to hear! JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 233, and 269 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to verify 232, 2021CESAゲーム白書 (2021 CESA Games White Papers), due to the language barrier. (I am not confident I can locate the right source.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have screenshots of the pages I can email to you! JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
255 is also in Japanese but since the link was provided, I used Google Translate and it appears to verify the content. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, TheJoebro64, that concludes my source review! I raised a few clarification questions above, but my only real concern is source 150. I'd like to hear a defense of that source or see a different one provided, since I'm not convinced it verifies those sentences. I also had two pedantic quibbles and some sources I couldn't access, but those don't impede my support, since overall the quality was very high. Thanks for your hard work here! Please ping me in your response. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: thank you for the review! I should get around to addressing these within a few days. Just a bit chaotic right now with the holidays and school work. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 23:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn and David Fuchs: just wanted to apologize I haven't finished addressing your comments; in addition to exams, I've been tied up with a family situation (my grandmother is on her deathbed), which has greatly limited my time on-wiki. I will aim to address them sometime this weekend; I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten, real life just got in the way JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have my sympathies! Of course "real life" must take priority over Wikipedia. You and your family have my best wishes, and just ping me whenever you do have a chance to turn your attention back to Donkey Kong. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoebro64, I have just seen this after giving you two nudges above. My sympathies regarding your situation and I shall try to be as flexible as I can re timescales. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. I should have some time tomorrow and Monday to get everything done. Appreciate the well wishes. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 00:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: Responded to everything above! I'm shooting you an email right now; just respond and I'll send the Retro Gamer / CESA pages for verification. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I look forward to getting your full email for further verification, and anticipate finishing this source review soon with a very strong support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: sources sent. (Had to switch emails because Apple's having server issues rn, but managed to get them to you!) JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Having looked through them, everything checks out. I also skimmed through the full list of references in case there were any questionable-reliability sources that didn't happen to hit my random sample, but no red flags. Overall, then, this looks like a meticulously-sourced article and I will happily support promotion! Well done pulling together an effective overview of so much information! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Is File:DK-Bongos.JPG an utilitarian object? Going by commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Utility objects the copyright status of such a thing might depend on what it's used for. I am somewhat doubtful that File:Donkey Kong 94 and 64 characters.png meet the "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" part of the non-free use policy, since it only illustrates a subaspect of the article topic. File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png might have a similar issue. From looking over WP:FFD it seems like opinions often vary in such cases, though. File:Steve Weibe.jpg I presume we don't have an archive of the source, yes? ALT text and image placement seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've removed File:DK-Bongos.JPG just to be safe. I can move File:Donkey Kong 94 and 64 characters.png to list of Donkey Kong characters if you think it doesn't fit here. I think File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png should definitely stay as there's a fairly significant contrast between the original arcade gameplay and the Country gameplay; I can do some tweaking to strengthen the FUR if you think that's necessary. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitively need to strengthen the FUR for the second image. I am kinda doubtful that the 94 and 64 image would meet NFC criteria on the list article, but my question here is only about whether it fits on this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've expanded the FURs for both images, let me know what you think JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they need to discuss the importance vis-a-vis the article topic a bit more. Illustrating the subsection topic often isn't sufficient at FFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoebro64, how is this coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, Christmas/family stuff.) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've just removed both images, the DK and Mario lists have images of the characters and the Country articles have screenshots of gameplay elements so I've concluded having them here isn't 100% necessary. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 00:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves File:DK-Bongos.JPG as the only question, perhaps commons:COM:VPC might help here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already removed that image from this article just to be safe. I'll start a discussion at the village pump once I can find the time. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

There are several P/pp errors.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations: The titles of all works should be in title case.
- Done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do either Akto or Andy have first names?
- Not given in the magazine. I believe that Andy is Andy Dyer but it seems that Atko was a pseudonym for another writer or writers, which wasn't uncommon in review publications of the time. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No publisher location for Epstein?
- Fixed JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Now playing" (1994) is not cited.
- ah, forgot to remove the citation when I removed a reference. Fixed. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The franchise went on a hiatus". Grammar - one can't 'go on a hiatus'.
- Fixed—now "Nintendo placed the franchise on a hiatus" JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"until they were acquired by Microsoft in 2002". The games or Rare?
- Changed to "it was", I usually refer to devs/pubs as "it" rather than "they" but there were a few instances where I flubbed up. Fixed those other instances too. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The most recent major game was". As of when?
- 2024, done JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Donkey Kong's role shifts between the antagonist as in the arcade games and the protagonist as in the Country games." It is not clear - to this non-aficionado - whether this shift is within a game or between games.
- clarified JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Donkey Kong has also crossed over with other franchises". Should "with" → 'to'?
- I rewrote the entire sentence, now reads as "Donkey Kong characters also feature in crossover games..."

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: responded above! JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 January 2025 [26].

The Suicide of Rachel Foster

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As people say, second time's the charm. This article is about an Italian-made video game that received attention for its treatment of suicide and pedophilia. A walking simulator in the style of Firewatch, players control Nicole Wilson as she explores the Timberline Hotel, inspired by the one from The Shining. Years prior, her father Leonard had groomer her classmate Rachel Foster, and after this "affair" was discovered, Rachel killed herself. Despite attempt by the developers to treat the game's topics sensitively, most critics seemed to think they failed, romanticising the Rachel/Leonard relationship and forcing players to kill themselves in the ending. A sequel is in the works, so I guess we'll have to see if the developers took some of the criticism into account for creating The Fading of Nicole Wilson. Article has undergone some work since the previous nomination and has also been copyedited. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and Support from Crisco

Returning from the first go, prose seems to have been tightened a bit. I've made some edits; please review. Only concern right now is the sequel; it's standing on its own in a one-sentence section, which doesn't really say FA to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I just remove the section and put the citation in the lede? PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might work under release, especially if the company cited commercial/critical success as a driving factor. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, outside of briefly mentioning that a sequel is in the works, nothing else is brought up in the source. Which is also the only one to even discuss the development of a sequel. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Maybe merge to "#Release"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has been merged, per our discussion. I'm happy to reiterate my support for this article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I saw you removed the contractions from the article and I was wondering why? I assume it is just less encyclopaedic but if there was any other reasoning I'd like to know so I can be better. Moritoriko (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moritoriko. We are not supposed to use contractions in Wikipedia's voice, per MOS:CONTRACTIONS. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to the relevant section of the MOS! ~~It's~~ It is so big that I am sure I have read that section before and then forgotten it. Cheers~ Moritoriko (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Nikkimaria's recommendations were implemented at the first nomination, and have been maintained here. Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by and support from Jon698

This is included in the release section: "The Suicide of Rachel Foster was developed by the Italian studio One-O-One Games—using Unreal Engine 4—and published by Daedalic Entertainment.[9][7] It was directed by Daniele Azara and the music was composed by Federico Landini.[8]" Wouldn't it be more fitting to have this at the beginning of the development section? Jon698 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lede would be better as the first sentence of the third paragraph. You could also change the current first sentence to "It received mixed reviews from critics." if you did that. Jon698 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698: Both done. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Okay just answer these few questions and you will have my support.
1. Is "particularly" necessary for "The ending, particularly"?
2. Could "The Washington Post's Christopher Byrd described the mystery as apparent and lacking in scares." be changed to "The Washington Post's Christopher Byrd criticized the "lack of scares and the lack of mystery".? Jon698 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698: Revised #2. I also removed the word "particularly" from #1, and also changed the sentence a little bit. If you think it was better as it was before, let me know and I'll change it back. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Everything is on the up and up. I now support making this a FA. Jon698 (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have other issues at all, but I want to point out that the 2020 Screen Rant as a source and its content should be removed since it is considered "marginally reliable" starting 2021. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Boneless Pizza!:. I've removed the source. Thankfully, I only used it a few times throughout the "Reception" section and it was always at paragraphs that already had enough content. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I found no issues so far and I would like to Support this nomination. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck

What makes JeuxOnLine a reliable source? Not seeing much else. Spot-check of this version:

3 Where is radiotelephone or dialogue tree? Not sure I get "revealed at Gamescom" from this, rather than from #8 alone.
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Switched radiotelephone to mobile phone. The source also mentions "branching dialogue".--PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 Need some help with "simplistic" and "second half" and the voice actor bit.
- In the review, Edwin Evans-Thirlwell brings up how the tasks in the game consist of an "undemanding to-do list" that mostly consists of going from Place A to Place B. He also acknowledges that there's a "lack of gamey elements" to the game's puzzles and tools Nicole picks up. I guess "simplistic" could be changed to "unengaging"?
- Regarding the "second half" portion, it concerns the second-last and third-last paragraphs of his review. Having said that, rereading the article, Evans-Thirlwell doesn't actually split the game in half, so I could revise it to something like "Evans-Thirlwell enjoyed the earlier portions, but criticized the final chapters and ending as melodramatic". Or something like that.
- Evans-Thirlwell states the game is "effectively written and acted". Granted, he could be referring to how Nicole and Irving act as participants in the story. What do you think?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to specify that "effectively written and acted". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I quoted the author just to avoid incorrectly translating his words. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5 OK
7 OK given #9
8 OK
9 OK
10 OK
14 OK
16 OK
17 OK
18 OK but assuming that Google Translate isn't making errors.
20 Not sure that I get praise for the hotel design here. Nor "puzzles"
- In the review, Bremicker says that he would have liked if the game had one or two puzzles, saying that the players are presented with "small problems", but those can't really be described as puzzles.
- As for the hotel, he says "An sich gefällt uns die Spielwelt von The Suicide of Rachel Foster aber ganz gut. Das Hotel ist detailverliebt gestaltet".
21 One might prefer to say child abuse/exploitation here rather than paedophile. OK otherwise.
- In the review, it say "not that he started shagging a 16 year old who he was teaching, for God's sake". Taking that into account, I changed it to say Leonard exploitating Rachel as you suggested.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
22 Where does it say the earlier characterization was contradicted?
- Maybe I'm reading too much into Vikki Blake's quote @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, but concerning Nicole's suicide attempt at the end, she says "Beyond the fact I'm struggling to believe that the arsey, obnoxious but undeniably feisty woman I've just spent two and a half hours getting to know would do this, I'm furious [her emphasis]".--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23 OK
25 Says "won" not "nominated"?
- Just checked again. It shows that Close to the Sun won, not Rachel Foster.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
26 OK
27 OK
28 OK
29 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The JeuxOnline source wasn't an issue the first time around at FAC, but I have started a discussion to clear that up.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for intruding on this conversation, but I did the source review for the previous FAC. I thought that JeuxOnLine was an appropriate source for a FAC/FA in the context that it is a review and it being cited and used to support information directly from the game's creators. I saw it more as a primary source in that regard. I cannot speak for JeuxOnLine's relability as a whole, but from my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong), it is not being used as a review or for anything beyond the interview. Apologies again. I just thought it might be helpful to share my perspective on it as I did the last source review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but even an interview needs to be run through a reliable source. Fake interviews and stuff aren't uncommon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure, but I think a few years ago I saw the official Facebook / Instagram account of the game share this interview (and a few others) so clearly the developers approved of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, if you or someone else can find this account, we could link that instead. Official Insta or Facebook should be reliable enough for this type of information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The Facebook account of One-O-One Games shared the interview here. I also looked into the 2 shares the post has, and one of them is from Daniel Azara. If you want, I could also try to find whether the Instagram or Twitter accounts of the developers / publisher posted about this interview. I'm still waiting to hear whether JeuxOnLine is treated as a reliable source or not from the WikiProject Video games. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems like the interview is reliable (for its own content) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, just checking: is that a pass for the source review and a pass for the spot check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One last point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I believe the plot summary in the lead's first paragraph could be made more concise. The following is a suggestion, but feel free to use what you think is best: (Set in December 1993, the story follows Nicole Wilson who returns to her family's hotel to inspect and sell it. Ten years earlier, Nicole and her mother left the Timberline Hotel after learning of her father's affair with the teenaged Rachel Foster. After being trapped inside the hotel by a snowstorm, Nicole investigates Rachel's mysterious suicide, with the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agent Irving Crawford.) I took out the bit naming Leonard as the prose did not name him earlier, and I think it can be assumed that Nicole would be looking into that while investigating her suicide.
- Revised it.
I think the part on the Overlook Hotel could be better integrated into the lead. It feels a bit tacked-on at the end of the paragraph. It may be better to place it after the first sentence in that paragraph as it goes more with the choice to make a horror game than with the discussion on the more delicate topics present in the story.
- Done.
I am not sure about the use of "however" in the lead when discussing the critical reviews. I understand its purpose as a transition, but it does stick out to me, and I wonder if a better transition would be possible to have this read more smoothly.
- Changed, but I'm not sure if it's better.
  - It looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source link for File:The Suicide of Rachel Foster - Gameplay.jpg does not support the image.
- Seem that the developers changed the website or something. Used an archived version.
Irving is only mentioned by his first name in the "Gameplay" section, (uses a radiotelephone to communicate with Irving), which is his first appearance in the article, and he is only fully described and introduced later on in the "Plot" section.
- Done.
I am uncertain about the order for this part, (in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, in the Helena National Forest), as I think it should read as (in the Helena National Forest in Lewis and Clark County, Montana) instead. In my experience, I thought the more specific area, such a forest, would go before the more broad area, in this case the county and the state.
- Done.
Federal Emergency Management Agency should be linked and fully spelled out in the first instance in the article.
- Done.
I am not sure about the "remains" word choice for this part, (because Rachel remains there). Are they saying that Rachel is alive and lives there? If so, I would use "lives there" or some other version, as I believe "remains" could be read a number of different ways, such as her body remaining there.
- I went by what the person on the phone (Irving) says to Nicole. I guess it was intentionally on his end to be ambiguous.
  - That makes sense then. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be more helpful to link "carbon monoxide poisoning" directly to the article about it or to part of the suicide methods article that discusses this form of suicide?
- Done.
I saw a YouTube video saying that out of the two endings, an achievement was only given for the one that Rachel kills herself, and that it was later removed from the game. I was wondering if there was any reliable coverage on this? It would add another point of criticism about the ending as the achievement for one and not the other would seemingly push one as the true or canon ending.
- I actually didn't know about that. Interesting. From what I've read online, it seems that the developers have actually often changed the criteria for unlocking this achievement. At one point, you'd only unlock it by having Nicole kill herself, at other times simply by finishing the game, etc. But having checked online, there doesn't seem to be any actual coverage on all this.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. I would be a little bit surprised if there was coverage on something specific like this, although it is an interesting topic. I would be curious on how the sequel handles these endings. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These parts, (as well as the depiction of their relationship) and (Watts enjoyed their relationship), are placed very closely to one another, which makes the prose quite repetitive.
- Moved a few sentences around.
I would be mindful about using the same words in close proximity. An example is (Bell criticized the framing of Rachel) and (criticized the characters' and narrative's framing), in which "criticized" is used in the same context for two sentences in a row.
I would avoid the sentence construction "with X verb-ing" as it is something that is often discouraged in the FAC process. Examples are the following, (with Péter Nagy of IGN Hungary similarly commending it) and (with some critics arguing it was romanticized).
- Done.
Could this part, (The handling of suicide, particularly Nicole's interactive suicide attempt during the ending, was criticized.), be shortened to (Nicole's interactive suicide attempt was criticized)? It seems like all the criticism is focused for this paragraph is focused on that and not other elements of suicide in the game.
- Done.
I would revise this sentence: (Specifically, how suicide is employed as a plot device used solely for shock value, which detracted from the game's "potential to tell an emotional story".) The attribution should be more clearly defined.
- Done.

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I am glad to see this back in the FAC space, and I hope that this time it will be successful. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments, and I hope you are having a great day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: All right. I believe I'm done with almost everything. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. Just a reminder that it is discouraged to use graphics, like the one for done, for the FACs as I think it messes with the loading time for the main FAC listing. Everything looks good to me, and I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the lead not count as "the article" for purposes of fully naming a character or having FEMA be written out? Moritoriko (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It does not. The lead acts as an overview of the article and thus, it functions separately. It is similar to how items should be linked in the first instance in both the lead and the article itself. The lead should not have new or unique information that cannot be found in the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if it does include new info, for whatever reason, it should be cited. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, pls see para toward the top of the FAC instructions re. {{done}} templates and revise your replies accordingly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Gog the Mild

I have made a few copy edits. If you disagree with any, could we discuss that here? Thanks.
Is "One-O-One Games" worth a red link?
- I checked a few of their other games, and none of them have pages on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how notable the company is. Besides this game, the have a recently-released survival horror game called Aftermath, and adventure game,band a few VR titles.
"A sequel, The Fading of Nicole Wilson, was announced in October 2024." This should be included in the main article.
- @Gog the Mild: Initially, the article had its own section about the sequel, but it consisted of just one sentence, so it was moved to the "Release" section. Personally, I don't think that makes much sense. Do you think I should just put the information back there again?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it can't go in the lead and not the article. It the sentence in the lead is the total of the information known about the sequel [?] then maybe copy it to the end of "Release" as a run on sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Reinstated the material in the "Release" section. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2025 [27].

1914–15 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my 37th nomination of a Gillingham F.C. season, we jump back 90 years from my most recent nom. This particular season took place against the backdrop of the first year of the First World War and the decision to play on was controversial. Following the football authorities finally giving in to public sentiment, the final game of this season would prove to be Gillingham's last game for more than four years. As ever, any feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

"Gillingham, founded in 1893 under the name New Brompton, had played in the Southern League since the competition's formation in 1894, gaining promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895 and remaining in Division One ever since, albeit with little success." - Kind of long. How about something like "Founded in 1893 as New Brompton, Gillingham joined the Southern League in 1894. They gained promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895 and have remained in Division One, though with limited success."?
"Gilligan scored twice in a 4–0 victory for the home team, which The Sporting Life said was 'thoroughly deserved', but it would prove to the last game which Gillingham won for more than four months." => "Gilligan scored twice in a 4–0 victory, which The Sporting Life called 'thoroughly deserved', but it would be their last win for over four months."
"Glen sought the permission of the club's board of directors to get married on Christmas Day and therefore miss the game that day; his request was refused." => "Glen asked the club's board for permission to miss the Christmas Day game to get married, but his request was refused."
That's it from me!--N Ø 18:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review, all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--N Ø 08:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 01:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - giving a very gentle nudge on this one. If you feel you no longer have the capacity to review the article, that's honestly not a problem -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this by Sunday at the latest; it looked to be in very good shape based on my initial skim of the article. Hog Farm _Talk 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" "Bee", a writer for the Liverpool Echo, described the signing as an "excellent capture",[15][16] " - a minor quibble, but this all seems to be in the first reference, with the second one not really adding anything. Is the Manchester Courier reference really supporting or adding anything? It's just a very brief annoucnment of the transaction
I don't think Category:English football clubs 1913–14 season is the correct category; I've gone ahead and moved the article into the 1914-15 one.

I'm going to go ahead and support; I usually don't like to review with only minimal commentary but this being the nominator's 37th in the series, they've got the formula pretty much perfected. Excellent work on this article for a very bad team; this was worse than the 2023 Kansas City Royals season that I recently endured as a fan. Hog Farm _Talk 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - thanks for fixing my dumb typo there. I don't recall why I added that second reg re: Hafekost so I just went ahead and removed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie

Support. I've read through and made a couple of very minor copyedits; this is up to your usual standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Is there a source for the kit in the infobox? ALT text and image placement are OK. Sources seem consistently formatted. What makes "Conway, Tony (1980). The "Gills". Meresborough Books. ISBN 978-0-9052-7026-5." and "Elligate, David (2009). Gillingham FC On This Day. Pitch Publishing. ISBN 978-1-9054-1145-0." reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - source added for kit. Both the books you mention were not self-published but published by mainstream publishers with extensive catalogues. Pitch Publishing is one of the UK's leading publishers of sports books whose titles are carried by all major bookstores, and Meresborough Books, whilst now defunct, published over 300 books by various authors over its more than 20 years of existence. Not really sure what to say beyond that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess I couldn't find much through my searches, which may say more about the searches than the sources... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Z1720

I made one edit to the article: feel free to revert if it is not helpful. I also checked the lead and the infobox, and all information there is cited in the article body. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2025 [28].

History of infant schools in Great Britain

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if a history article but with cute pictures?

This is my second nomination of this article. It was previously nominated under the title "infant school" (see) but as there were concerns about that article's scope it's focus has been made more specific. I will link everyone who commented on the original nomination so they can decide whether to say anything about the articles current state; Wehwalt, Generalissima, Nikkimaria, WhatamIdoing, UndercoverClassicist, Gerda Arendt, Crisco 1492 and Serial Number 54129. Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Llewee: you're supposed to wait 2 weeks before starting another nominations. It's been five days. {{@FAC}}~~ 750 h+ 23:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, said that doesn't apply in this case when they closed the last nomination--Llewee (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that. My bad 750 h+ 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

My support from the previous nomination still stands. I'm seeing that discussion of Ireland has been removed, and I think the change in scope has helped keep the article more specific. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

An instructive article by a writer clearly in command of the subject. A few minor quibbles about the prose:

"It was somewhat common for children" – you like the word "somewhat" somewhat: it crops up five times in your text. Like "however", "somewhat" is usually better omitted. I think the prose would be less woolly without any of the five here.
reworded to take out the somewhats, in some cases I've tried to keep the meaning the somewhat was conveying--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the societies did not aim to cater for the younger age group" – you are even keener on "however" than on "somewhat" – there are eight "however"s throughout the text, and you could, and I suggest should, lose at least the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of them.
I've gotten rid of most of them. I'm not sure if they are the ones you suggested as I lost count a bit.--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Various other figures also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject. David Turner, an academic, wrote ..." – I think it would be helpful to your readers to make it clear that Turner was not one of those writing contemporary books about the subject but was writing in 1970.
added "who studied 19th-century infant schools" after "an academic"--Llewee (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"By the mid 1830's" – does the source really have the naff apostrophe?
"some schools were too dominated by religion" – a bit judgemental without a citation.
I have taken that bit out as the point is also said in more neutral way in the quote.--Llewee (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"W. B. Stephens, an historian" – unless you are aged 90+ and cling to the pronunciations 'otel and 'istorian, I'd make "an" "a".
"According to historians Helen May, Baljit Kaur and Larry Prochner" – clunky false title.
dealt with in the same way to the David Turner issue--Llewee (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He was not primarily interested" – the last person mentioned was "the pupil", and it would be as well to replace the pronoun with the name.
done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"some of the questions indicate to desire to avoid rote learning –should the first "to" be "a"?
done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of children under seven in schools ... In 1840 the Council on Education in England and Wales" – the whole of this paragraph is given a single citation. Does it cover all 196 words?
I've broke this and other long chunks of text into multiple citations.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Many more of the less financially secure working classes" – is this a posh way of saying "poorer"?
It is a bit jargony. I think I was trying to emphasise the distinction from the "skilled working classes" mentioned previously. I have changed it to "Many poorer families".--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The expansion of young children attending school" – I take this is meant to mean that the numbers rather than the children expanded.

I don't think child obesity was as much of an issue in those days. Changed to "rise of".--Llewee (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the under five's" – we could well do without the apostrophe.

Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"More middle-class parents" – this is ambiguous: were the parents more middle class or were there more parents from the middle class?
I have changed "more" to many" to clarify this point.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the first year, the 'reception class', children" – any reason for ignoring the MoS's preference for double quotes?
fixed--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This method quickly became the principle method" – you mean "principal", I think.
changed this--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope some of these points are of use. – Tim riley talk 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Tim, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment of principle/principal was the final change I was looking for. After a last read-through I am now happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the 1830s thing is in the source sorry.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Images seem well-placed. What's the copyright status of the painting in File:Flickr - USCapitol - Weaving.jpg? File:British Central School Borough Road.png has a bare URL, as do several other images. Some files may need a commons:Template:PD-scan. Viz File:Infants of the British school, Llanymddyfri NLW3363470.jpg, do we know when the photographer lived? File:A practical guide to the English kinder-garten (children's garden) - for the use of mothers, nursery governesses, and infant teachers - being an exposition of Froebel's system of infant training - (14596479949).jpg needs an actual copyright tag. OKish ALT text. Sauce-wise, is #37 really saying "infant school"? I figure a government or education website would be a better source for such a claim, too. What makes https://education-uk.org/history/index.html a reliable source? Are the ITV report, Morgan Thomas 1936 and Grimshaw 1931 influential enough to warrant mention? Nothing jumps me as unused or questionable otherwise, but I must caution that this isn't a field where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, The first image's page on commons says that it is in the public domain because it was created by an employee of the American government. I have added John Thomas's age range; he died in 1905. I have fixed the URL and PD-scan issues. The man who created History of education in the UK (See) appears to be a retired teacher who has a Diploma of Education; he says in his autobiography that he has strong political views but the history itself seems very well written and based on academic sources (for example, see the first section of chapter one). It appears that citizensinformation.ie is run by a agency of the Irish Government (See). The cited page doesn't mention infant schools but it does mention infant classes and the point when children enter them. The two early 20th century biographies correspond to what Whitbread says about the period; I included them in order to give more tangible examples as the academic sources can be quite abstract. The ITV News report received a little discussion recently; though Wales doesn't have much of a public debate. I included it mainly in order to add a bit more detail to the Welsh paragraph and as balance to a article cited slightly earlier which criticises phonics.--Llewee (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is OK, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Per my comment at the first fac, my concerns were pretty much solely 1B orientated; that the scope has been sufficiently adjusted that I see no major obstacles to promotion. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

Always love seeing your attention to education - such an undercovered subject on-wiki!

Lede solid, good length.
Terminology good.
I'm interested by the relatively limited mention of religion as a motivation for early childhood education within Great Britain itself; it seems to mainly come up in its spread elsewhere. Was there just not as much religious advocacy for these institutions?
The second half of the article is especially very well-written. I like how you cover smaller details like teaching methods without ever getting too niche.

@Llewee: Really just have the one question about religion and I'll be happy to support; I'm not an expert in the subject matter, so I'm curious. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima There was some religious influence on infant schools which is mentioned a bit in the article. I have added a quote to illustrate the point in the home and colonial infant school society section. But sectarianism wasn't a major issue (which it definitely was in other aspects of 19th century English and Welsh education).--Llewee (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I forgot I never officially supported. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

I took part in the more general review for Infant schools and return to an article with a more specific focus. I am not sure if that limitation is already complete, seeing a level-2 header about Worldwide spreading. Or what do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The movement quickly spread across the British Empire, Europe and the United States. It was used by missionary groups in an effort to convert the empire's non-Christian subjects." - Besides that spreading seems not exactly "in GB", which empire?
clarified British empire--Llewee (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
taken this bit out, per article body--Llewee (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Why a Boston illustration when the focus is GB?
I chose that image because it shows a pre-industrial family business. It is quite hard to find relevant images on commons and my searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn't have much success. I've found a fairly relevant image which is meant to be depicting a British family now. But its not ideal as it was drawn much later in the early 1900s.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"New, more punitive, forms of child labour", - more p. compared to what?
clarified--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why Dame school capital?
its after a full stop, unless I have missed something--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide ...

As said before, I wonder about the scope. Do we exclude Ireland, but include the World, or at least the Commonwealth?
I have taken out the worldwide spread section and moved the relevant links to further reading--Llewee (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalisation and expansion

This seems a too general header, followed by subheader Home and Colonial Infant School Society which seems too specific - I never heard that term. It seems about adopting Pestalozzi's concepts, no?
I hope the new headings are an improvement--Llewee (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardian ...

Will the article for the longish red link be written soon?
I added that link on the advice of another editor. I'd like to write an article on the subject at some stage but I haven't got any immediate plans to do so.--Llewee (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

I am not happy about the four articles, thinking, that the first should contain the later three, in which case the whole bunch could be replaced by one link to the first in the prose, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be already there; so I have taken them out this article. I'm not sure where the education in the UK article could fit in prose.--Llewee (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes, support for FA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

Salmon and Hindshaw needs an OCLC. (776414455)
Added here and for the 1930s biographies.--Llewee (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The first infant school was founded in New Lanark, Scotland, in 1816." Either 'in Great Britain' needs adding, or it needs deleting from the similar statement in the main article, depending on what the sources say.
It says "first infant school in Britain" in the source, so clarified in the lead.--Llewee (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2025 [29].

Teddy Wynyard

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Teddy Wynyard, a noted sportsman and soldier. As a cricketer, he played Test cricket for England and had a substantial domestic career with Hampshire, where he was instrumental in their return to first-class status in 1894. He was also a footballer, playing in the infancy of the game. He played for the Old Carthusians and won the 1881 FA Cup with the team. He was also adept at winter sports, winning the International Tobogganist Championship at Davos in 1894, 1895 and 1899. In the army, he saw action in the Third Anglo-Burmese War (Burmese Expedition), for which he gained the DSO. He would retire from military service in 1903, but returned to serve in WWI. He was also an important administrator in cricket. Altogether, an interesting character who led a varied life. AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

Putting my name down to review this one when I have sufficient time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One drive-by comment - as per the footnote immediately below them, football stats shown in infoboxes are "Club domestic league appearances and goals" only. As his Corinthians appearances were in friendlies, these should not be shown (and for the other teams you can remove the ?s and simply show blanks as league football did not even exist in that time period) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @ChrisTheDude I have removed the football teams/stats from the infobox, as I don't think the other teams need to be shown as they were not league clubs, and they are mentioned in the prose. AA (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Teddy_Wynyard_c1900.jpg: when and where was this first published?
- Comment. @Nikkimaria: so far, the only version of this photo I can find is on ESPNcricinfo here, which attributes it to Hampshire County Cricket Club. Will see if I can find a publishing date, though undoubtedly prior to 1908 as he is wearing a Hampshire county cap, and his playing career with Hampshire ended in 1908. AA (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teddy_Wynyard_Vanity_Fair_25_August_1898.jpg needs a US tag
- Done. Tag added. AA (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old_carthusians_1881.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published, and what research was undertaken to try to identify the author?
- Comment. It would appear to be from this source using the Wayback machine. AA (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I've conducted a reverse image search, which doesn't bring up anything not searchable through certain keywords in Google. I can drop a message on the WP:FOOTBALL talkpage and see if anyone knows if it might be from a book. AA (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. @Nikkimaria:. I have contacted Charterhouse School who have confirmed this picture comes from an album in the Charterhouse School archives, and have provided permission for the image to be used in the article. I have filled out a reproduction agreement form and sent this back to their archivist. How do I proceed from here in updating the Wikicommons page? AA (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - VRT would usually be the way to go for documenting permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AA, have you resolved this? If so, could you ping Nikkimaria. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no reply from Charterhouse with regard to the template VRT requires. AA (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I have emailed them again. They are away until 8th January (and may periodically check emails, according to the out of office). Shall I remove the image for now, then re-add once the email template for release has been sent back to me? AA (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem sensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild done :) AA (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, he was born" - I feel like the body should "start afresh" after the lead, so I would be tempted to say "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, Edward George Wynyard was born"
- Comment. Have gone with your suggestion, it reads much nicer and with a better flow. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It was speculated, that had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved" - comma is in the wrong place, it should be "It was speculated that, had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved"
- Comment. Comma moved about! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"His actions were praised by General's Sir Robert Low and Sir George White" - there should not be an apostrophe in the plural form of "general"
- Done. I have removed the apostrophe. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In recognition of his actions, he was appointed to command a company of the Welsh Regiment" - it was spelt "Welch" in the lead......?
- Done. I have changed to Welsh in the lead as it wasn't known as the Welch Regiment until 1920. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status since his departure for India, following a number of poor seasons." - I feel like the words "since his departure for India" are a bit redundant here
- Done. Removed. I did toy with putting in "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status in 1885, following a number of poor seasons", but it doesn't quite read right I don't think. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"who had noted that both Wynyard and fellow soldier Francis Quinton, had been missing" - that comma should not be there
- Done. Nice spot on the rogue comma! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"With the outbreak of Second Boer War" => "With the outbreak of the Second Boer War"
- Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"During the winter which proceeded the 1904 season" => "During the winter which preceded the 1904 season"
- Comment. The final paragraph of the previous section talks briefly about the 1904 season. The section which follows begins by talking about his tour West Indies which happened in the winter which followed the 1904 season. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gotcha. In that case I think it should simply say "the winter which followed the 1904 season". I'm not 100% sure that "proceeded" can be used as a transitive verb in the sense of "came after" (i.e. can you really say "Thursday was the day which proceeded Wednesday"......?) - if it can it must be an archaic/obscure usage and I cite myself as an example of it being confusing to readers ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Yeah, I've always disliked using "proceeding", I'd prefer something more fancy! Have changed it :) AA (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"with Wynyard heading the teams batting averages" => "with Wynyard heading the team's batting averages"
- Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent.;" - there's a stray full stop before the semi-colon
- Done. A good spot! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"forming his own club, "The Jokers" which was drawn" => "forming his own club, "The Jokers", which was drawn "
- Done, comma inserted. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These very minor points are all I got - ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude:. Many thanks for your comments :) Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi AA, my comments:

"played at domestic level": "played at the domestic level"?
- Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link "Warwick Militia" to Royal Warwickshire Regiment, both in the lead and body?
- Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I was unsure as to their connection! AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he enrolled in the fee-paying Oxford Military College": what year?
- Comment. I can't find a specific year(s) mentioned, nor do there appear to be any records available to view online from the college (it went bust in the mid-1890s). The 1885 book Oxford Military College looks like it might be a register, but the only UK copy is 200 miles away in North Wales!!! AA (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link "India General Service Medal" to India General Service Medal (1854–95)?
- Done. I'll add the redlink the MILHIST article request page. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate, the link here should actually be India General Service Medal (1854); I had transcribed the title improperly. Also, could you respond to points number 3, 6 and 10-12? Matarisvan (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I will amend, just working my way through them. Have been on a radiology reporting course most of the day, been taking one point at a time during breaks! AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link "Thornhil" to Thornhill, Southampton in both lead and body?
- Done AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"1897 ... prestigious North v South fixture" and "1900 ... North v South fixture": who won, and what was Wynyard's score?
- Done. "Prestigious"... North v South? Not how I would describe it... yikes, that should have been Gentlemen v Players! Amended, and summary of his performances commented on. Have double-checked the article, no other glaring mishaps from me :) AA (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"alluded to be the": remove the "be"?
- Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"heavy defeat on the Jamaicans": by how many runs/wickets?
- Done. Victory margin added. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"though did earn selection": "though he did earn selection"?
- Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he struggled against the leg spin": what were his scores?
- Done. Have given more of an overview of his struggles on the tour, mentioning his average and that he only passed fifty once in six matches. AA (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"representative matches for London": What London FC was this? Consider linking if details available?
- Comment. The source isn't specific. I would hazard a guess Warsop is referring to a London-wide county representative team (likely post-1889), similar to other county representative teams? AA (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"captained Hampshire": was this Southampton F.C.?
- Comment. The source is very specific that he captained Hampshire in three sports (cricket, football, hockey). There's no mention of Wynyard in any of the annals of Southampton F.C., so I am pretty certain it was for a representative county side; however, there is no mention of dates, but with the formal organisation of football in Hampshire occurring in 1889, I'd say it was probably after then. AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wynyard was survived by his wife": do we have her name?
- Done. We have her name and their year of marriage, and they had just one child. AA (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Girdlestone, Hardman and Hay 1911; Humphris and Creagh 1924 need locations of publication, though for the first it would just be a formality.
- Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to do spot checks soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan many thanks for your comments. Please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AA, can support on prose. Will try to do spot checks soon. Btw, are your recent FACs part of a featured topic? Say cricketers and soldiers, or team members of Hampshire or the MCC during a particular year? Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan cheers! A lot of my recent expansions have been Hampshire cricketers who were also soldiers, the two are sort of where my interests lie. I have several more Hampshire cricketers who were soldiers lined up to bring to FAC in the near future! No such featured topic though! Doesn't a featured topic have to have a featured parent article for the other articles to branch from? AA (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I will be out of the UK from 19/11 to 24/11, so might not be able to respond during that time. AA (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AA, if you are back, perhaps you could address these comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! AA (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I can support this nomination based on my prose review. Matarisvan (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Source formatting seems mostly consistent. I am kinda dubious of using late 19th century newspapers from the now-UK; are these really high-quality reliable sources? And what makes the CricketArchive a high-quality reliable source? Did some spotchecking which didn't turn up anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for your comment. I consider the late 19th century newspapers to be reliable, none of them deviate from the narrative of the article. In fact, I'd consider them more reliable than modern-day cricket coverage, which is lacking and often shoddily written! CricketArchive is regarded as an authoritative source. It's run by the people from The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, who are trusted by the International Cricket Council to maintain and expand the statistical and biographical history of players, so it is a highly reliable source. AA (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus just wondering where you might stand with your review? AA (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing this decade-old post here since it and what I've heard about British newspapers in other occasions (e.g Leveson Inquiry) are the reasons why I am so dubious about the British newspapers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, modern British media is "gutter", which is why I turned off long ago! But older newspapers and their editors arguably more integrity and less spin. In fairness to the BNA references used, they are all from reputable (per WP:SOURCE) Hampshire-based newspapers (with two in Buckinghamshire, who cover his life and death there, as that is where he retired to). None of them make any controversial or outlandish claims, simply backing up the chronology of events (such as him succeeding Russell Bencraft as captain in 1895 [ref 33], or being recruited by the South African Cricket Association in 1908 [ref 64]). AA (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus any followup for this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really sure. Perhaps this needs a second or third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, the discussion you linked actually gives cricket facts as an example of the sort of thing British newspapers can be relied on for. Is there some usage in the article that you're doubtful about? If they are being used solely for straightforward and unsurprising facts I think they should be treated as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a general concern I have whenever I see these newspapers mentioned. But if they can be relied on for cricket stuff, then I guess my question is answered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, 2nd or 3rd opinion

There seems to be some confusion about British news sources here. They are not generally unreliable or unsuitable and should, on the whole, be treated as trustworthy as any other nation’s newspapers. On some small number of topics, a small number of them are unreliable, and these are all detailed at the WP:RSN. For pretty much all papers (except where forbidden by the RSN), sports coverage is uncontroversial and reliable, as their use is at this article. I would say this is a source review pass from the standard of press coverage here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Five weeks in and discussion seems to have stalled without a clear consensus to promote. If the nomination doesn't get additional comments, it may be liable to be archived in the next few days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs just wondering if this nom is at the stage where a decision can be made? Cheers :) AA (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited a little; please feel free revert any changes you don't like.

"partaking as a tobogganist in the International Championship": I think "participating" is an apter word.
- Done. Agree, "participating" is much better. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As a career soldier, Wynyard was commissioned into the Warwick Militia in September 1879": I think this would read more naturally as just "A career soldier, Wynyard was ...".
- Done. It does read more naturally, the "as" is unnecessary. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wynyard cleverly disguised himself": we shouldn't say "cleverly" in Wikipedia's voice. I'd just cut it -- the cleverness is apparent in the success of the disguise.
- Done. He fooled them all! AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wynyard retired in 1903": suggest "Wynyard retired from the army in 1903", since the previous sentences are about cricket rather than his military career.
- Done. Per your suggestion, now makes it clearer to the reader. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "[sic]" in "all round [sic]" because it's normally "all-round"? If so I don't think it's needed. Or are you concerned that someone will correct it, thinking it's a typo? A hidden comment would probably suffice for that".
- Done. It should be "all-rounder", but I have no removed "[sic]" and inserted a hidden comment so nobody changes it! AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection is titled "Early first-class career", but some of these matches were not first-class -- some of the Hampshire matches, of course, as you state, and perhaps some of the ones in India? Could we make it clearer if any of the other matches were not first-class?
- Done. I have expanded a sentence to make it clear the matches in India were not first-class. Haven't done that with the school matches, as I think that is more obvious! AA (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"With his presence in the regimental team, it is believed they only lost one match between 1883 and 1890": this wording implies his presence is probably the reason they lost only one match; does the source make this assertion?
- Comment. The source says: "...whilst he was with the 8th King's Regiment in India, we believe that they only lost one match between 1883-90, and this is easily understood when we learn that the Old Carthusian averaged 100 runs per innings to his own bat. I have taken that as the source making the assertion that it was his presence in the team which was largely to thank for that record. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" this had been alluded to the Hampshire committee in 1897": presumably this should read "alluded to by the"?
- Done. Good spot! AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This was exemplified by the fact that he made just three appearances for the county ..." I don't think "exemplified" is quite right here. Suggest cutting this to just "He made just three ..." as the previous sentences have told the reader what is coming.
- Done. Hmm, yes, it has already set the stage so this is unnecessary. AA (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited a sentence in the last paragraph of the "Hampshire's return ..." section, starting "His retirement", but I think it's still not quite right. It was a long and complex sentence, and it's now two sentences, which I think is an improvement, but "Wynyard was assisting in running" is a bit ugly. I cut the mention of Lords as unnecessary but perhaps it should be returned?
- Comment. Yeah, each time I convinced myself it was alright, it suddenly didn't look alright! Now reads "...which Wynyard assisted in running at Lord's". How does that read? AA (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"though given his lack of appearances during the tour he was mostly utilised in the touring team as a reserve player": this doesn't make sense to me -- it seems to be saying that because he made few appearances he was used as a reserve player, but it would be logical the other way round. What does the source actually say?
- Comment. The source says "It seems obvious that he was mainly selected as a reserve player, as he played in only two first-class matches..." I have reworded and shortened the sentence. AA (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'... and "a fine, free hitter" who "used a great variety of strokes, especially those in front of the wicket".[68] It was noted that he was effective in utilising a number of different strokes ...': The second sentence repeats Wisden; I'd cut one or the other.
- Done. Have cut the second mention and left the part which talks about his developing a method of hitting left-handed bowlers over cover-point. AA (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent": I don't understand what happened to her -- "following" implies she was walking along beside a stream.
- Comment. I have changed "stuck" → "drawn". The source and other reports of the time sadly are not specific as to what she was doing by the stream to end up in such a predicament! AA (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. There can't be many people who've scored a goal in an FA Cup Final and also scored runs at Test level in cricket. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Mike Christie:. Please find above my comments. He is certainly an interesting man who led a very varied life. I can't think of too many who have scored a goal in an FA Cup final and runs in Test cricket. From a Hampshire perspective, C. B. Fry played in an F.A. Cup final but never scored. Denis Compton played for Arsenal in a final too, but also never scored. Perhaps Wynyard is unique?! AA (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

The last paragraph of the lead uses "served" three times. Would it be possible to synonym away either the first or second?
- Done. Have kept the first use of the word, but changed the wording for the second and third. AA (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He retired from military service in 1903, but returned to active service in the First World War, where he initially served with the Middlesex Regiment, before being seconded to the Labour Corps, where he was commandant of Thornhill Labour Camp in Thornhill, Southampton." A busy sentence. Perhaps break it.
- Done. Have broken up the sentence! AA (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:, how does it look now? AA (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2025 [30].

Steele's Greenville expedition

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a little-known operation during the Vicksburg campaign, not to be confused with the better-known Steele's Bayou expedition. Grant and Sherman sent Steele's division up to Greenville, Mississippi, and then down Deer Creek, destroying cotton and supplies along the way. Additionally, the operation served as a bit of a diversion of Confederate attention from the main show further downriver. Some historians have opined that this operation is evidence of shifting Union views on forced emancipation, the use of Black troops, and the application of total war. Ironically, Sherman, who has historically known as a proponent of hard war, objected to some of the actions against civilians during the operation. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits, which I am happy to discuss. There are a few other expressions that I think can be improved:

Here "The naval historian Myron J. Smith and the historians William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel state that around 1,000 slaves were freed, while the historian Timothy B. Smith states that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville." Why do our US contributors always have to write "state that" instead of the simpler "said" or "say"?
- I've rephrased these; it's an Americanism but I'm not sure why. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here "Both Sherman and Steele believed that Union troops had gone too far in behavior that affected civilians, rather than just targeted the Confederate war goals." Should this be "targeting"?
- Yes, I've fixed this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Going forward" is such a cliche!
- Rephrased this sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here "although other operations such as Grierson's Raid also played a role in that." I think the "in that" is redundant.
- Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I might have more comments later~~. Graham Beards (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
- I've added alt text, although I would appreciate if someone checked what I used for the maps. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest scaling up the second map
- I've scaled it up to upright=1.6; please feel free to adjust to a different scaling if you think it would be an improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Frederick_Steele.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: - Would this clear derivative of the photo published in 1893 be sufficient support for pre-1929 publication for a PD-US tag? Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco

The next morning, the boats reached Smith's Landing; Smith's was 20 miles (32 km) south of Greenville. - Smith's ... Smith's
- Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Lee - Either missing a word or one too many
- Should have been "that"; corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as at least $3 million - Value today?
- Have used {{inflation}}; let me know if you think there's a better way. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd probably round to avoid being too specific. Adding |r=-3 to the template will round it to the thousands. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, done. I want to look to see what the source exactly says for the final point before making a rephrasing. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks HF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
notes that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville - Maybe "notes that an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the current phrasing; the way the source is wording is that Smith is noting that these are estimates made by other people, but he does not endorse a specific estimate here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review! I would review your FAC but I think the images would be hard to explain to my wife if she walked by my computer while I was reviewing it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL, no worries. Thanks for the offer, though! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

~~"While much of Steele's force remained the Washington's Landing area": missing word?~~
- Yes, fixed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"continued on inland": I think "on" is unnecessary.~~
- Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The presence of Lee's force became known to Steele": can we say how?
- A scouting patrol; added. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"While Ferguson had withdrawn his troops, the Union soldiers found large quantities of supplies and cattle, which they brought back to camp": suggest "Ferguson had withdrawn his troops, but left behind large quantities of supplies and cattle, which the Union soldiers found and brought back to camp". I misparsed "while" as "During" on first reading.
- Done. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"While the Union troops had been ordered to avoid disturbing local families who were peaceful and remained at home, these orders were ignored": suggest "The Union troops had been ordered to avoid disturbing local families who were peaceful and remained at home, but these orders were ignored".
- Done. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do we need the corn volume in four different units?~~
- Have reduced it to US bushels and liters Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~"estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column": missing word or some editing debris here?~~
- Have rephrased this a bit, is it better now? Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Tweaked it a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"rather than just targeting the Confederate war goals": is "goals" the word you want here? I would have expected something like "men and materiel".
- I have rephrased this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All very minor, and I'll be supporting once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

Will pick this up. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very straightforward one this. Formatting is consistent and appropriate. Sources are all reliable, appropriate and high quality. Source review pass. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"Major General William T. Sherman hoped that Steele might reach to where Deer Creek met Rolling Fork". You mention Sherman four times, but never explain his position and role. This needs clarification.
- I have clarified this, although this adds a new source (pinging the source reviewer as a courtesy) although I don't expect Welcher to be controversial as a source. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the ping. No issues with the new source - just a minor tweak on the formatting (which I sorted). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"any baled cotton marked with "CSA"". You should add "(for Confederate States of America).
- I've added this. None of the sources directly say this, but it's fairly obvious so I think it's fine. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Steele's troops left the Young's Point, Louisiana, area late on April 2," The location needs more explanation than a red link.
- I've put this as a footnote to keep the digression out of the main text - is this sufficient or do you think I ought to move this into the main article text? Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Two regiments and the Union Navy tinclad steamer USS Prairie Bird were left at the landing point to guard it". As you have specified the strength of the expedition as 5600 men, I think it would be clearer to give the strenght of the guards in number of men rather than regiments.
- I don't think this is possible. The closest I can find is Bearss calling the regiments "understrength"; I've tracked down the primary source that Bearss used and the relevant quote (from a document prepared by Steele on April 5) is "The gunboat Prairie Rose will remain there with the transports. I have left two small regiments as a guard, and have ordered six of the steamers back to report to Commander Graham". Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a footnote giving the standard strength of a regiment and stating that they were understrength? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: - well, this isn't the greatest solution either. The standard size of a regiment when the war started was 1,000 men, but that didn't hold up for very long due to disease, casualties, etc. There was no real standard strength by 1863. Bearss's listing of the units that accompanied Steele on this expedition includes 15 infantry regiments, two companies of cavalry, and two batteries of artillery. Even if you exclude the cavalry and artillery, that's less than 400 men per regiment on average. So the average unit of Steele's was at less than 40% of the nominal standard strength - the two understrength ones must have been particularly bad, but the 1,000 man standard strength would be a bit of a red herring here. Hog Farm _Talk 19:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you say here is well worth inclusion in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about the best way to accomplish this. I really don't want that 1,000 figure in there without significant context. Hog Farm _Talk 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Henry Halleck had written to Grant". You should state Halleck's position.
- I have added some context for this. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks fine. Just a few nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dudley Miles: - Thanks for the review! How do the changes made look? Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have made a suggestion above, but whether you adopt it does not affect my support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - May I have another nomination, or would you rather that I determine what to do with Dudley's final suggestion first. Hog Farm _Talk 22:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Dudley's comment I don't think we need wait, feel free to start another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

I made some copyedits as I read the article, but spotted no concerns. Did a lead check, and all of that facts there are cited in the body of the article. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.