Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Daytona USA[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chances are if you've ever been to an arcade or a bowling alley, or anywhere that has arcade games, you've seen one of these machines. Daytona USA is iconic and anecdotally considered one of the best-selling and greatest arcade games of all time, so much so that it's still reasonably common to see around today. Its success was a good way to kick off the run of what was arguably Sega's most successful arcade system board, the Model 2 — a board so advanced for its time that its graphics were built by US military contractor GE Aerospace, which later became part of Lockheed Martin.

It's been three years since I last brought an article to FAC. This has been an article I've worked on and off since about 2019, and it's taken me waiting to find sources to flesh out what I felt was missing to ensure this article was covered in depth and could be considered complete. I'm taking a deep breath and a leap of faith on this one as I've only written one FAC on an actual video game and that was one that had been canceled, so this feels like new ground to me. But, it feels as ready as I can possibly make it. I thank all reviewers in advance for their feedback. Red Phoenix talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radoje Pajović[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radoje Pajović dedicated his life to studying the history of Montenegro and taught history at what is now the University of Montenegro for forty years. The author of twelve books, and editor of more than twenty, he mainly concentrated on the history of Montenegro during World War II, but in his later years he wrote about earlier periods. He was notable for his resistance to the historical revisionism aimed at the rehabilitation of collaborationist WWII Montenegrin Chetniks like Pavle Đurišić, which became a trend during the 1990s. He first came to my attention when I was developing the Đurišić article over ten years ago. After Pajović died in 2019, I thought that it was time to improve his article. It has gone through GAN and the Milhist A-Class review process recently, and I think it is ready for a run at FA. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead[edit]

Reviewing soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • He has been dubbed "the most prominent Montenegrin historian of [the World War II] period" by the Montenegrin historian Srđa Pavlović: I find it strange that this quote is in the lead (without citation), but is summarized in the body. Should it not be the other way around?
  • "His most notable works were...": I would replace "were" with "included".
  • "Pajović married Ljilja...": You mention Ljilja as if she was brought up before, but this is the first time the reader has heard about her. I would introduce her ("Pajović married a woman named Ljilja...") and perhaps mention more. Do we know how they met? Do we know any details about their relationship prior to marriage?
  • Probably not necessary, but link medieval?
  • "...the most notable of which were...": This teeters towards NPOV; do the reliable sources state that these publications were the most notable?
  • "...difficult period of the breakup of Yugoslavia": While I am sure that the breakup was difficult, calling it such in a neutral encyclopedia might be too opinionated. Just a nitpick.
  • "... in which Amfilohije stated that Montenegrins were "oxen", "faeces", and "bastards" of the World War II Montenegrin Partisan leader Milovan Djilas": I did not understand this?

Short and sweet. I cannot give an opinion on the sourcing of the article, but I can confirm that the prose and coverage generally seem in good quality. Wonderful work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You (Meghan Trainor album)[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's sophomore album, Thank You. It produced hits like "No" and "Me Too", which you may have heard on the radio or TikTok. There's an interesting backstory, as Trainor rewrote most of the album after her label rejected doo-wop material in the style of her previous one. The result was, well, "a bit of a hotchpotch" as one critic put it. Many reviewers thought Trainor lost her artistic identity, and sales were lower as well. Thank you in advance to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media review—pass[edit]

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you and I have expanded the caption.--NØ 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "which respectively peaked at numbers three and 13 on the US Billboard Hot 100" - for consistency I would write both those as digits
  • "Reviewers were divided about Thank You, a few thought" => "Reviewers were divided about Thank You; a few thought"
  • "Trainor's artists and repertoire" - this makes it sound like these are people who work for her, rather than the label. Maybe "Trainor's artists and repertoire contact".....?
  • "she confirmed collaborations with R. City and her mother" => "she confirmed collaborations with her mother and R. City" so it doesn't sound so much like the "her" refers to R. City
  • "and the target version" - assuming this refers to the store, Target needs a capital T
  • "and Ibiza reggae song" - is "Ibiza reggae" really a thing.....?
  • "the Billboard 200 issued for June 4, 2016" => "the Billboard 200 dated June 4, 2016"
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Apologies in advance for being super nitpick-y. For this part, (with several public appearances and televised performances), I would remove "several". It does not serve a purpose and is more of a filler word in this context.
  • I would remove this part, (failed to showcase her talent), from the lead. When I jump down to the "Critical reception" section, this part is tied to the (not showcase Trainor's artistic identity), which is already represented in the lead with this part, (believed it lacked artistic identity). I would replace it with a brief part on the critiques on the album's "themes of female empowerment", which is not represented in the lead at all.
  • This is purely a suggestion so feel free to say no, but do you think it would be beneficial to include an image of Ricky Reed (since one is available) to the "Recording and production" section as he appears to have a major role in the development of the album. Also, is there any reason why he is not marked as a executive producer in the infobox?
  • Thank you so much for the image suggestion. Template:Infobox album discourages mentioning the exec role in the infobox and encourages mentioning it in the body later.
  • Thank you for the clarification and for the link. That makes sense to me. It always looks rather unnecessarily bulky and odd to have links and parentheticals in the infobox for this kind of information. The last time I worked on an album article was back for this FAC in 2021, and I hate thinking about how much time has passed since then lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apologies again for being super nitpick-y, but for this part, (Trainor also co-wrote songs with its frontman), I would remove "also" as like with "several", it is mostly a filler word in this context.
  • The citations are not always in numeric order. Is this intentional?
  • The order corresponds to the order of sourced information in each individual sentence.
  • Is there any background information on the album being an Apple Music exclusive for a week? It just seems like an odd choice so I am curious if there was any discussion about it or a press release or something.
  • USA Today covered it as a "Mother's Day present" but it's not quoting a primary source so I was doubtful about including it.
  • I completely agree that it would not be great to use that as it could just be source saying something on its own. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again, I am being super nitpick-y, but I would move the citation that is currently after this part, (The first two), to right after the song titles. I think cutting off this sentence in this way hinders readability and just looks off.
  • I would add a part about how people thought her performance and fall on The Tonight Show was a PR stunt so this was also raised with the "Me Too" music video.
  • I've covered this in a note, if that's okay. This performance was positively reviewed by a majority of sources so it might have been undue weight to highlight one critic's opinion in the prose.
  • Apologies for that. For whatever reason, I misremembered and I thought more critics had held this opinion. A note works for me, but I could understand if this is removed later if other reviewers think it is giving this individual undue weight even as a note. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Woman Up" was featured on "Reality Stars: The Musical", an episode from season nine of RuPaul's Drag Race. Is that notable enough to mention in this article? I did find two solid sources for it. This Billboard article claims the song gained more attention from this appearance. This Out source is solid; the article is still active, but for whatever reason, it will not load for me correctly so I used an archived link here.
  • Added.
  • Thank you. I appreciate that you added Mother's Day as well. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Just so you know, I will be primarily focusing on the prose, and I will leave the sources up to the source reviewer. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Congrats on all the work you've been doing lately. I am sure Meghan Trainor would love all the work you do on her articles on here. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the helpful review and the kind words, Aoba47! I anticipate your re-read and any follow-up comments.--NØ 06:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I plan on reading through the article again either on Thursday or Friday just so I can take some time away and come in hopefully fresh. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, this has been at FAC twice before but maybe third time's the charm. This article is about a dim star that happens to host a system of 7 possibly Earth-like planets, two or three of which may have temperatures that allow the existence of liquid water. It's featured in science as a case study of habitability on planets around such low-mass stars, including the important question of whether such planets can host atmospheres. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments by Nimbus 227: As an amateur astronomer and experienced Wikipedian I thought I should read through this, it's a long article so I didn't get very far but I noticed a couple of things that should be corrected for FA level text.
The first sentence of the lead describes the temperature with a surface temperature of about 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F). 'About' is an odd term to use when the temperature is given to an accuracy of 1°, the exact same temperature is repeated in the body text without 'about'. The temperature uses the abbreviation 'K' which is not explained, not everyone will know that it is Kelvin, it should be linked, explained or possibly better still left out so that only the familiar centigrade/Fahrenheit remain (and Kelvin is in the text for readers who want that level of detail).
Let's see if it now displays links and spell-out and rounds to a multiple of 10. Or do you recommend a different roundination? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Featured Articles with numbers in the lead often have them rounded to prevent readers' eyes glazing over, there is some guidance at MOS:LARGENUM, I would round the light year and parsec distances to 41 and 12.5, the precise distance being in the body text. Of course other editors come along and change it back because it's 'wrong'!!
The word 'transit' appears about 20 times but it is not explained or wikilinked, it should be linked to astronomical transit at the first instance (third paragraph in the 'Description' section) and possibly linked again later.
Added one link to begin with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try to read further down this evening (UTC!), cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Continued) Some terms are not wikilinked at first instance (or at all), exoplanet could be mentioned in the lead as that's what they are, orbital resonance and stellar eclipse.
Added links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list of planets seems to be disconnected from the planets section above by the atmosphere section, could the two tables be combined? Perhaps the section header levels need adjusting?
Hrmm. I think I deliberately wrote it that way because the question of atmospheres is really front and centre when we discuss the habitability of exoplanets around red dwarfs. That and I begin writing first about the planets as a whole and only later lead into discussing the specific planets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'As of 2020' appears a few times, have there been any discoveries in the last three years?
Yes, but not all of the "unsettled as of 2020" questions have had new answers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could the 'as of 2020s' be changed to 'as of 2023' so that the article appears to be up to date? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd prefer not - sourcing a text "as of 2023" to a 2020 publication when there is no new information is a bit too much original research. I don't want to treat "absence of evidence" as "evidence of new evidence". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Footnote A is not cited (appears to be the only one).
I believe this falls under WP:CALC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Referencing, have not looked at formatting or quality of sources, some facts are cited twice, looks unnecessary for uncontentious facts. Citations and footnotes appear mid-sentence which seems to be against WP:REFPUNCT.
That's going to be hard to fix - sometimes a sentence needs to stand on more than one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might be worth asking one of the FA co-ords for advice on this. The effect is jarring while reading, perhaps that's why REFPUNCT was devised? Some of the sentences are quite short with only one fact stated but two citations. I like the footnote explanations, caters for the PDF version where blue links don't work. It is possible that an editor working on a potential FA sees this article's citations and copies the style. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
REFPUNCT was devised way back in the olden days when people placed citations before punctuation, and we even had scripts going around fixing them. Nowhere does any guideline say you can't place a citation mid-sentence, AFAIK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea that references cannot be placed mid-sentence is a misreading of WP:REFPUNCT. That guideline tells us the citations are placed after punctuation, and says nothing about citation placement in instances where there is no puncutation, and it never says citations can't be placed mid-sentence (as in practice they often are). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exoplanet navbox (Template:Exoplanet) does not contain a link to this article, strictly it could be removed per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL though I see its usefulness, the navbox is also used in the related planets articles with the same problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The infobox links apparent magnitude six times and color index four times (WP:OVERLINK) and 'Luminosity (bolometric)' is not linked (the only parameter that's not linked), it could be linked to Luminosity. Template:Starbox character (and its related templates) coding should be revised. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments by WereSpielChequers
This is an important topic, thanks for your work on it. If found it an interesting read and not too impenetrable for someone who knows little of astronomy other than what one would expect of any hardcore Science Fiction fan. I have made some tweaks, hope you like them.
"and would, in many cases, appear larger than Earth's Moon in the sky of Earth"; Surely that would be "at closest approaches"? Most of the time these planets are going to be far further away than at their closest approach and sometimes will be on the other side of the star. Especially when we are comparing planets to each other rather than a planet to its moon.
Yes, it's just not spelled out like that in the source. Worth adding anyway? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Its mass is approximately 9% of that of the Sun,[27] being just sufficient to allow nuclear fusion to take place." and "With a radius 12% of that of the sun, it is only slightly larger than the planet Jupiter." these two statements in combination give the impression that Jupiter is only a little short of becoming a star. But there is a big gulf between Jupiter and TRAPPIST-1, a gulf bigger than a Brown Dwarf. My back of the envelope calculation shows that if TRAPPIST-1 had a few Jupiter masses less it would be a Brown Dwarf. So perhaps "just sufficient to allow fusion of hydrogen and only a few Jupiter sized masses heavier than a Brown Dwarf star". And with a radius more than 10% greater than Jupiter I think we can go with something stronger than only slightly larger, also it might be worth adding their respective masses, Jupiter's being around 1% that of TRAPPIST-1.
Mmm, this is where my background knowledge kicks in - star radius is extremely unrelated to star mass. I don't think 10% is a big radius difference, even if the mass difference is indeed substantial. And I don't like linking to Brown dwarf because that implicitly assumes that the mass cutoff is a fixed value, when in reality it depends on metallicity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Eventually the surfaces would cool until the magma oceans solidified, which may have taken between a few billions of years, or a few millions of years in the case of TRAPPIST-1b." As Trappist-1b is the closest to the star I would have thought it would have taken longest to cool?
Clarified with a small transposition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System is largely independent on planetary properties such as mass" should that be "independent of" or is this some sort of astronomy jargon?
No, just a bad word choice; resolved it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the age of TRAPPIST-1 has been established at about 7.6±2.2 billion years" with such a wide margin of error I don't think we should use the word established.
I admit that I am not sure what other word to use here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's all for now, but I enjoyed reading it and will likely be back for more ϢereSpielChequers 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication[edit]

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is kind of a 'curiosity FAC', looking to see how it goes. It's gone through GAN and pre-FAC PR during my last period of heavy activity, which was...some time ago, but for such a niche topic it's unchanged since. I searched in-depth a couple days ago to see if anything new has been written on the subject lately; it hasn't. I got the consensus the last time around that it was about as developed as it can be, and I don't personally see further developments.

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication is a 2014 essay collection on an unusual little topic -- the sociological and anthropological consequences of human-alien interactions. It's interesting reading, and freely available as a NASA publication. It's also a fascinating microcosm of its own subject (the perils of communication across long inferential distances); much of its claim to notability comes from news reports misinterpreting it as an 'ancient aliens'-type claim of prehistoric monuments being made by aliens. In an era where large language models have reignited the question of how to interact with non-human intelligences, it feels particularly resonant. Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Excellent, excellent. So niche it makes '1001 Facts Regarding the Inside of Ping Pong Balls' look positively best-selling coffee-table airport-lounge populism. At first glance—and this is just a thought—how set are you on keeping the sentences on each essay as discrete subsections? They are basically mini-paragraphs of a couple of sentences apiece, and I wondered whether you might run them together. As a lit. rev. might. But it might improve the flow; it's more of a list at the mo. Just a thought; maybe it's already been discussed. SN54129 12:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm up for quite a few different ways to handle the essay section; it went in about three different directions over the course of the PR :) Is your proposal combining the paragraphs of each subheader (into one-long rather than multiple-short), and ditching the subheaders, or keeping the subheaders? "What to do with subheaders' is really the one part I was least sure about -- slightly too short to definitely have them, but slightly too long to definitely not. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I was thinking merging the sentences of each subsection into one longish para, as you say, but keeping the subheaders. Not so much out of appearance but I guess that's how the author divides up the book? In which case the three sections should probably be treated as stand-alone, even if the essays within them are all on a common topic. I'm a bit convoluted, but do you know what I mean? I took the liberty of tweaking '"Historical Perspectives on SETI' as an idea, here. Obvs, I'm perfectly happy to let you get other editors' opinions first, as mileage varies of course. SN54129 13:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, that's how the book is divided. I get what you mean and like the demonstration -- will experiment (and see what suggestions roll in). Vaticidalprophet 13:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm. I've consolidated a little further, but not fully. Trying one-para sections looked a little too wall-of-text, but I note the concerns about the very sparse paragraphs (and didn't especially like how they read either), so I've got two-para sections now for each. This does introduce the problem of the paragraph breaks being slightly arbitrary, but none of the other solutions are ideal either. Will see other opinions. Vaticidalprophet 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's a great improvement personally; see what others think though. SN54129 15:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I presume these "unsourced" paragraphs are, in fact, sourced to the essays themselves? I am not sure that "in this section" is a good formulation in terms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, they're unsourced under the same principle as PLOTCITE. I wasn't entirely sure about it in the PR (though was encouraged to take PLOTCITE as applicable), and I can cite it all to the essays if deemed necessary. WP:SELF seems to be about not referring to things as 'in this Wikipedia article', rather than cautioning against referring to something in a book's section -- am I misunderstanding it? Vaticidalprophet 15:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems a natural enough formulation to refer to a section of a book as 'this section'. And WP:SELFREF refers explicitly to Wikipedia referencing itself ('A self-reference in an article usually mentions Wikipedia directly or tells readers to take an action on Wikipedia, such as editing the article.'). SN54129 15:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Traphagan033.jpg appears to have been copied from the ASU website - is there any evidence the uploader has the right to release it? Similarly File:Douglas_Vakoch.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was curious about this when setting that multi-image template up. The Traphagan image was, to put it delicately, uploaded by an account that was seemingly interested in the subject of John Traphagan to the exclusion of all else; it's not improbable to me that it could actually be chased up to someone with the right to that image, but obviously, I need to chase it up first. (Vakoch image, probably not.) My current plan is to see if potential rights holders are willing to release definitely-OTRS-cleared images, but in the meantime I'll look for images-not-of-authors. Vaticidalprophet 06:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nikkimaria, I've replaced them with frankly better/more relevant images about previous interstellar communication attempts -- do the licenses check out on these? I assumed they were all PD at base, but... I'm also curious about the best way to present such closely related images in the article. Multi-image seems technically ideal, but it forces fixed width, which I know is undesirable. A gallery seems overkill. Separate images entirely, maybe superfluous? But I think they're both (and maybe all three, I'm unsure yet on Arecibo) worth having, to highlight the diversity in the ways humans have tried to communicate with aliens (which ties into the book's point). Vaticidalprophet 06:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Reusing to review.

  • "The book is focused on the role that the humanities and social sciences, in particular anthropology and archaeology, play in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The seventeen essays explore issues such as ..." It seems to me that this would be a more accurate description if "play in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence" were rephrased to something like 'play in extraterrestrial communication'.
  • "The significant positive response to the book",. Suggest removing "significant".
  • "inspired NASA to bring forward the e-book release". Do you mean 'inspired NASA to bring forward its release, as an e-book'?
  • "and misreported in headlines." Only in headlines?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! Responses so far:
  • Have dropped 'significant' (and also 'freely' from 'freely available', which I notice now I never introduced at the PR despite agreeing with the rationale).
  • Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is a term-of-art that I wanted to introduce early, but it's true it's a bit of a broad one. Will see about phrasings; saying "extraterrestrial communication" does strike me as making the first sentence come across like a repetition of the title.
I understand the term, but it doesn't seem to be what "the book is focused on".
  • Have rephrased "the e-book release" as "its release in e-book form"; to my understanding it was always going to be in both e- and print, which isn't totally clear from "release, as an e-book" in either direction (imo), but on review not totally clear from the original phrasing either.
The way it is phrased, it is unclear if the dead tree version had already been released. My suggestion makes it clear (I think) that this was the first release, and that this first release was as an e-book.
  • "Only in headlines?" It's complicated -- some of them used it purely as clickbait and admitted it wasn't actually the case, some seemingly took it at face value throughout (discussed in the relevant section). Might be a way to make this clearer in the lead?
Delete "in headlines". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vaticidalprophet 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raymond III, Count of Tripoli[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the last Count of Tripoli in the Outremer from the House of Toulouse. Raymond was still a minor when he inherited Tripoli from his father. He spent many years in captivity in Aleppo, and after his release he assumed the regency for the underage king of Jerusalem, Baldwin the Leper. His rivalry with Baldwin's sister Sybilla and her husband Guy of Lusignan brought the Jerusalemite kingdom to the brink of a civil war. He made an alliance with the powerful Saladin but his vassals persuaded him to join the Crusaders' army when Saladin invaded the kingdom. He was one of the few Crusader leaders who fled from the battlefield at Hattin in July 1187, but he died likely of pleurisy before the end of the year. Many of his contemporaries blamed him for Saladin's triumph at the battlefield. Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review
  • File:RaymondIIIofTripoli.jpg wrong licensing, I would use PD-scan The source link is dead; how to I verify that this image depicts what is claimed?

(t · c) buidhe 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Good spot. The picture may not depict Raymond so I changed it. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead[edit]

Looked at this at PR, happy to review it here as well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "...pillage the Byzantine coastline..." and "...sent them to raid the Byzantine coasts and islands...": Link Byzantine?
  • Done.
  • "...vengeance on Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos...": Should not it be "...on the Byzantine Emperor Manuel..."? I am unsure myself.
(talk page stalker) Either is acceptable grammatically; they mean slightly different things, but either works here. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I left unchanged.
  • Done.
  • "Baldwin reached the age of majority in 1176 and Raymond returned to Tripoli, although the king suffered from lepromatous leprosy": "although" implies some kind of contrast, which is not evident in this sentence.
  • Modified. I think there is some kind of contrast.
  • "Baldwin married his sister and heir, Sibylla, to the Courtenays' supporter Guy of Lusignan and Raymond had to leave the kingdom": Perhaps it is worth briefly noting that Baldwin married his sister to Guy in a sudden panic. Maybe panic is not the right word, but it should be made clear that this marriage was rushed.
  • Modified.
  • "...scholarly opinions are divided with some historians accepting William of Tyre's assessment, while others emphasizing Raymond's selfishness and failures": Some kind of grammar issue here- I think "emphasizing" should be "emphasize".
(talk page stalker) I would suggest either 'with others emphasising' or 'while others emphasised'. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done.
  • Why is "political agent" in quotes? Are these scare quotes or a quotation from someone else?
@Borsoka: ? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to check the source. I will address this issue later. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Baldwin held an assembly after the burial...": It is understood that the burial here refers to that of Raymond II, but this needs to be said.
  • Done.
  • Done.

I believe the comments from Tim and myself at the PR have sufficiently addressed any major issues with the article, hence my list of minor quibbles. More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • William of Tyre should be introduced in the body; interestingly he is introduced in the lead but not in the actual text.
  • Done.
  • "loyal vassals": Another instance of scare quotes?
  • Modified.
  • "He could persuade Nur ad-Din to release...": He could or he did? Or do you mean "could" as in "was able to"?
  • Modified: he was able to ...
  • "According to historian Kevin James Lewis...": Another false title?
  • Modified.
  • "An other contemporanous Muslim scholar...": Why "An other" instead of "Another"?

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "After a two-year absence, Raymond decided to again visit Galilee in April 1182 but Agnes of Courtenay and Joscelin III persuaded Baldwin IV to forbid his entrance to the kingdom": This sentence implies that Galilee was a kingdom.
  • Modified.
  • "Saladin seized Aleppo, the Zengids' last important stronghold in Syria, on 12 June 1183; he soon decided to invade the kingdom...": Which kingdom?
  • Modified.
  • Done.
  • "The king was still alive when Raymond sent envoys to Saladin to begin negotiating an armistice": When was this?
  • The previous sentence writes that we do not know the exact date of Baldwin the Leper's death but he must have died before 16 May 1185. We do not know exactly the date when Raymond sent envoys to Saladin.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "The fall of Jerusalem and nearly the entire Holy Land after the Battle of Hattin was a terrible blow to the Christian world": I agree, but this sentence sounds somewhat opinionated. Can we have a citation specifically for this sentence?

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It does not only sound somewhat opinionated but it is clearly opinionated: it reflects the opinion of the vast majority of late-12th-century Christians. Even so, I think we do not need a specific attribution or citation because this sentence is verified by a reference at the end of the third sentence in the same paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I highly appreciate your comprehensive review. I think I left one of your remarks unaddressed. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed; once that is complete I will have no qualms about supporting this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Marking my spot, interesting to see some FACs about the crusader side too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Raymond is appointed regent for the child Baldwin V of Jerusalem by the child's uncle King Baldwin IV" Not sure how to solve it, but the repeated "child" is a bit clunky. Perhaps call him "minor" or "underage" instead of the first "child"?
  • Done.
  • I wonder if the ethnic origins of his family should be mentioned? Now this and similar articles just assume the reader already knows many of these dynasties originated in France.
  • Done.
  • "Her husband's jealousy gave rise to scandalous matrimonial strife during the early 1150s." The juxtaposition of this text with the image of another man in her arms leads the reader to believe the two issues were related. Looking at the article about the father gives no further clues about the relation to that image or what the strife was about, so remains confusing. Could be elaborated on in a related article or in a footnote.
  • "report about Raymund's captivity" Raymond's?
  • Done.
  • You mix ise and ize endings, should be consistent.
  • Done (?). Sorry, I am not sure to what you are referring.
You seem to have fixed it by changing organise to organize. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and destroyed the Templars' castles at Halba" Interesting, I have family who live nearby, didn't know there used to be a castle.
  • It was called Castrum Album, according to Lewis.
  • Link Arabic?
  • I think it is a common term.
  • "An other contemporanous Muslim scholar" Another? Also, contemporanous misses an e.
  • Both done.
  • seneschal links to two different articles, perhaps at first mention "seneschal of Jerusalem" (if that's correct) could be spelled out?
  • Done.
  • "the prisoners included the hostages held as a guarantee for the arrears of Raymond's ransom" and "agreed to release the hostages who were surety for Raymond's ransom" Would make sense to mention and link "surety" at first mention of these hostages instead of second? Also, the second elaboration seems superfluous, I assume both sentences are about the same hostages?
  • Done.
  • "Raymond attacked a group of Turkmen and seized considerable booty from them in 1178 or 1179" Where?
  • We do not know.
  • "when the Flemish knight Gerard of Ridefort came to Tripoli Raymond pledged the first wealthy heiress in his county in marriage to him" Comma after Tripoli?
  • Done.
  • I'm not sure what the standards are for these genealogical trees, but perhaps Raymond's name could be bolded to make it stand out more?
  • Done.
  • Anything relevant to link dinar to?
  • Done.
  • "with the assistance of the local Christian garrison" What is meant by local, crusaders or native Christians?
  • Modified.
  • "Baldwin V died unexpectedly in Acre during the summer of 1186." By what?
  • Expanded.
  • "According to Arnold of Lübeck and Ali ibn al-Athir" Stat if they were historians or what?
  • Done.
  • Link Occitan and Franks?
  • Done.
  • You repeat Ali ibn al-Athir at random in full, though you would only need that at first mention.
  • Done.
  • You use both the spellings "Marj Ayyun" and "Marjayoun" for the same town.
  • First option.
  • Present Abu Shama.
  • Done.
  • "regard Raymond as a leader of the pullani (natives)" What is meant by this? Native opposite to what?
  • I think the following sentence makes clear the context.
  • Link Holy Land.
  • Done.
  • Present Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani.
  • Done.
  • As many readers may consider assassin a general term, perhaps say "order of Assasins" or "Nizari Assassins" or similar to specify?
  • Done.
  • You say in the blurb here that he was the last count of Tripoli, but the article only says "after bequeathing Tripoli to his godson, Raymond of Antioch". Could it be elaborated on what happened to the county after he died, and specifically said if he was the last count?
  • Sorry, I do not know where the blurb is and I have not found the text you refers to above in the article. He was the last count of Tripoli from the Toulouse dynasty.
Oh, I mean your introductory text to this FAC. But yeah, I now see he was just the last count of his house, not count in general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The infobox image is very small, and pixel size forcing is discouraged, so you can just remove the 180px and it will look fine on most screens.
  • Done.

Thank you for your thourough review. I highly appreciate your work. I think only one pending issue was left. I will address it by weekend. Borsoka (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes look good, I should be ready to support when the last issue is solved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Reserving a spot here, will review in a few days. Constantine 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Man (Tamar Braxton song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a 2017 R&B and soul song, in which Tamar Braxton calls her man's mistress a "heifer". The lyrics focus on infidelity and are partially inspired by Braxton's parents and their divorce after her father's affair. Along with Laurieann Gibson-directed music video, the song was promoted with a very dramatic performance at the BET Awards 2017, which led to lip syncing accusations.

I have received a very helpful GAN review in 2017 from Cartoon network freak (who has since retired) and some very helpful comments in the peer review from @Dank:, @Pseud 14:, and @MaranoFan:. @Ippantekina: expressed interest in participating in the FAC on their talk page. Thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Image review
  • No licensing issues and there are succint captions and alt texts.
  • A clean version of the single cover without the PA sticker is available from Apple Music, which it could be replaced with. I would also suggest replacing ThatGrapeJuice as the source link since it is not the best source.
  • Support on prose on the strength of my extensive comments at the peer review.--NØ 18:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for the very quick reviews. I greatly appreciate your comments (and links) about the infobox image. To be honest, I did not even think about the PA sticker, and it is seemingly showing up still on my end even though I uploaded a new image. It might just take a moment for it to change over to the new version. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

  • "...produced by Bob Robinson It was released..." Punctuation error here.
  • Very good catch. I have added the period (or full stop) there. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unlinked. One of these two instances was a later addition, and I must have forgotten to unlink one of them at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The 3:47 (Radio Edit) version of the song is not mentioned in the article.
  • I have added it to the prose. It was originally sourced through a track listing section, which was removed as only two versions of the song were released (i.e. the album version and the radio edit) so a separate section seemed unnecessary. Thank you for catching this as I forgot to source this after that part was removed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall not a lot to say. Although quite short, this is an article well-done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Unlimitedlead: Thank you for the kind words and helpful comments. I appreciate that you took the time to do this. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article, feel free to let me know. I hope you have a great rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are just one of the sweetest people I have ever met here! I will be happy to support this wonderfully-researched and written article. Your work is quite impressive, and I hope to see more soon! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the very kind words and for the support. I try my best, but I have certainly had moments that I very much regret and I try to learn and grow from those experiences. Looking forward to working with you more in the future as well! Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - looks like the editors above already picked up any potential issues, I couldn't find anything at all. Great work! BTW I have an open FAC which is struggling a bit for traction if you fancied taking a look. If you don't fancy it, or don't have time, no problem :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and kind words! I would be more than happy to review your FAC and will post comments sometime today about it. Aoba47 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Thank you for the support! I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • article titles should have a consistent capitalization style, currently varies from sentence to title case
  • Apologies for the brain fart on my part, but could you explain this to me further? I primarily just copied-and-pasted how the original citations formatted their titles, except for removing all caps and putting in italics and single quotations for albums and songs, respectively. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe it is a reference to WP:FACR 2c "consistently formatted". WP:CS1 "Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic. Use either title case or sentence case consistently throughout the article." MOS:CT "WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used in an article." Is a particular citation style requiring certain titles to be in sentence case being used here?
  • Thank you for the explanation. That is interesting. I was not aware of this, but it is always good to learn new things. I believe that I have addressed this all with the citation titles. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Billboard R&B Songs Chart August 26, 2017" → Billboard (also check charts section)
  • Very nice catch! I am not sure how I missed those instances, but I believe they now should all be appropriately done. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would change "Worldwide" release to "Various", "worldwide" implies that something occurred in like North Korea, but "various" allows for exceptions. Another ref should be added to support other than US Apple Music. Also supports streaming release, not just digital download
  • Changed to "worldwide" per your suggestion. I changed things to use the US Apple Music citations to support the streaming and digital download portions. I have added a citation from The Source to confirm the single's original release date. Thank you for catching these parts as they are very silly mistakes on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant that only citing US Apple Music simply supports a "US" release not "Various". There needs to be another country's Apple Music cited. Additionally, I would add "streaming" to the table as it is already in the prose.
  • No need to apologize. Thank you for clarifying this point. I have added an Apple Music citation from the Japanese store. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best, Heartfox (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for your review! You have helped improve the article immensely by pinpointing a lot of the things that I just read over so I appreciate that. I addressed everything, but the point on the article titles as I would like further clarification on that matter. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This passes the source review :) Heartfox (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help and for the source review. Have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Ippantekina[edit]

  • A short introduction of the Braxton Family Values show would be helpful i.e. it's about the Braxton sisters etc.
  • That is a great point. I have added something to the sentence as you have suggested. Not to be overly-dramatic, but felt a little sad typing up Traci Braxton because of her death last year. It was also a shame that Braxton Family Values kind of faded away near the end and got caught in a lot of negativity. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the Los Angeles Times' Libby Hill viewed this moment as a highlight, writing:"
  • Fair enough. I do need to be better at being concise. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Rap-Up's Andre" the writer is credited as Andres though
  • Thank you for pointing this out to me, because while this is a very silly mistake, it made me notice that I did all of the Rap-Up citations incorrectly as I did not put the authors in the sources and did not format the footnotes correctly because of that. I have since fixed all of that, but holy cow, I think that might be up there as one of my worst mistakes/oversights in a while so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pretty sure we can just use last names i.e. Smith, Kantor, Leight in the "Critical reception" section
  • I prefer to use the full name again for the first time in a new section as I just personally find it rather jarring to just use the last name. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I personally deem "while" not the best wording... unless it means "occurring at the same time as another thing happens" I would use an alternative or not use it at all. Examples below
    • "and while writing for Rolling Stone, he said it" → and in Rolling Stone, he said it...
    • "While [D]iscussing the first verse, "Stood right by your side through everything that you went through…Why is she around", SoulTracks' Justin Kantor compared..."
    • "However, Elias Leight said while although songs"
    • "Braxton performed "My Man" on the BET Awards 2017 while accompanied by back-up dancers"
      • That is a fair and valid point. I could see and agree with the rationale that outside of the context you brought up above, that "while" is not a great word choice for potential FAs or strong writing in general so I have made the adjustments per your suggestions above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some comma issues
    • "She identified "My Man" as her most personal song,[6] and said the single" no need for comma
    • "Dan Rys praised Braxton's vocals, and highlighted her mic drop..." ditto
    • "Michael Arceneaux also thought this, and jokingly asked..." ditto
    • "Braxton said she is close friends with Davis, and added that Lil Mama" ditto for the comma
      • Thank you for the suggestions and for catching these instances. I fully admit that I am not the greatest with commas, and I will be much more mindful of them in the future. I believe that I have revised all the instances you have pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all I have. Short, sweet, and well-written article. Great work as always! :) Ippantekina (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Ippantekina: Thank you for the review! I appreciate that you took the time to do this, and as I have said already above, you have helped me catch a very dumb mistake on my part. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything further that could be done. Thank you for the kind words, and I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for addressing my comments. No need to be hard on yourself for a minor mistake - we all get caught up in that sometimes. I read the article again and I am happy to support this FAC for promotion. Great work as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the support and for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josette Simon[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the award-winning actress Josette Simon, who appeared in the fondly-remembered UK sci-fi series Blake's 7 and went on to play leading roles for the Royal Shakespeare Company. No doubt some improvements to the article will be required, but I'd like to thank Mike Christie who conducted the GA review, and Mujinga and SusunW for their peer review contibutions, for their valuable comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review. The existing image is appropriately licensed, but is there an image of the actual subject that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I have searched several times and failed to find a free-to-use image. I contacted Simon's agency, who were really helpful, but the forwarded pemission from the photographer wasn't acceptable and the photographer did not respond to later requests. (see Commons discussion). I did think about whether a fair use image could be used, e.g. because some sources discuss Simon's constume in particular roles, but concluded that there wasn't a stong enough case. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Put birth year in the lead and infobox, not just the first sentence of the body
  • "Cleopatra in Antony And Cleopatra (2017–18)" - no need for capital on And, also should be italicised
  • "She was awarded the Order of the British Empire in 2000" => "She was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 2000"
  • Antony And Cleopatra is again written (twice) with a capital A on And in the RSC section
  • "Nightingale described her performance as " vivid and vital"" - there's a stray space after the opening quote mark
  • "In 2017, Simon took the role of Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra for the RSC" - no need to relink the play, it was linked earlier
  • "broadcast on the same channel in 1992" => "broadcast on the same station in 1992" ("channel" is not normally used when referring to radio)
  • Most of the "radio" section refers to TV and film roles. Has a subheading gone AWOL....?
  • "Rick Groen of The Globe and Mail wrote that Simons "riveting performance" - apostrophe missing in Simon's
  • "a mismatch between the thriller plotline" - between the plotline and what else......?
  • Note a isn't a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've made most of the changes - with one exception. As per the hidden note in the article, "The year of birth has been removed from the lead and infobox per WP:BLPKIND, at the request of Simon's agent, who edits Wikipedia as TomDale90. It should remain in the body of the article." I'll see what the consensus from reviewers is, before making any changes relating to this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, if her agent doesn't want people to know her age it seems bizarre to remove it from the lead and infobox but not the body but fair enough...... Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from SusunW[edit]

Having reviewed this in detail during peer review and monitored its improvement, I am happy to support. In a final read through I noted minor issues, but they are not significant enough to impact my support, i.e.:

  • Something appears to be missing here "appealing an tough"
  • "The play transferred" begins a paragraph but the reader hasn't yet been told what play. I get that I am old school, but new paragraphs should always introduce the subject before replacing it with pronouns or generic terms. (Alternatively, you could just remove the paragraph break.)
  • Sentence beginning "Her character is married" seems a bit jarring with the verb tense in the present in the sentences about the role. (Yes I get that a role is active and can always be revived, but her portrayal happened in the past. And, I freely admit here as previously that I am totally unaware of conventions in speaking about film, TV, etc.) Same holds true in the following paragraphs "Joanna, who leaves Jamaica", "characters discover", etc.
  • "altered storyline" seems to be missing a "the", i.e. altered the storyline.

That's it from me. Well done Benny on the Loose! SusunW (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Many thanks for your advice here and at the peer review, SusunW. Hopefully I've now addressed your points above but let me know if I've missed anything. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me, BOTL. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from mujinga[edit]

  • As noted I gave comments at peer review and thought it was close to FA standard then
  • "the first principal part taken by a black actress for the company" - I added "by" and as I did so noticed "playing roles traditionally taken by white actresses" just above it, so perhaps one "taken by" can be rephrased
  • "when it was unusual for black women to feature as leads in leading Shakespeare plays, Simon played several major roles for the RSC. Her first leading role," - three "lead"s in a short space of time
  • per MOS:…, ellipses should have a nbsp before them
  • "the couple had one daughter together but are now divorced" - maybe " the couple had one daughter together AND are now divorced" reads better but it's just something to consider
  • just a few nitpicks really, thanks a lot for bringing an article about a woman to FAC! Mujinga (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Mujinga: Thanks for providing helpful feedback here and at the peer review. Let me know if there's anything else to address. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Igor Stravinsky[edit]

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Rite of Spring, The Firebird, Petrushka, L'Histoire du soldat, Threni... all iconic works by Igor Stravinsky, one of the most important composers of the 20th century. His approach to rhythm in The Rite revolutionized modernist music, influencing composers like Aaron Copland. Stravinsky was named one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century by Time, and the "Sacrificial Dance" from The Rite was included on the Voyager Golden Records. This article was promoted to GA on March 10, and I put it up for peer review soon after. Excited for everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • File:Stravinsky_Igor_Postcard-1910.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:Nijinsky_Diaghilev_Benois_Stravinsky_Beausoleil_c1912.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Ballets_Russes_Apollon_1928.jpg
    • Added to both. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The former will need an earlier publication to confirm the tagging. For the latter, I don't understand how it could have been published pre-1928 when it's dated circa 1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Added another source and fixed the date, it was actually in 1911. The title of the image says 1912, but I'm getting an error when I try to move it, so I'll fix that part later. As for Ballets Russes Apollon 1928.jpg, I tried finding a source that contains this image via Google Image Search, but to no avail. It seems this image was (as far as I know) first published without an author in the source, which is a 1929 Czech magazine. Because no copyright tag is visible anywhere, I added a defective copyright notice tag. Please let me know if this isn't the right tag to use, and if possible, which one is. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Vera_Sudeikina.jpg needs a US tag and the source link is dead
        • Apologies on the first/third issue, this was from another point. Where is this believed to have been published pre-1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:И._Стравинский_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Igor_Stravinsky_(1962).tif, File:Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky.tif
  • File:Igor_Stravinsky_by_Arnold_Newman.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Stravinsky_picasso.png, File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš.jpg
    • Newman photo has date and place of publication in the licensing tag. The Picasso sketch has the estimated date explained under the Description, and the location of publication is explained in the Permission box. Date is present for the Blanche painting, and I assume the location is France- added. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • For Newman, what specific publication is being referenced by the tag? Keep in mind that creation date and publication date are not necessarily the same - the fact that Picasso created a sketch in 1920 does not ensure that it was published before 1928, if we don't have a source confirming that, and the information in the permission box does not provide any information on where it may have been published. And we really can't make assumptions. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Newman: After further research, I'm getting conflicted information- the initial sources that made me think there was no copyright was this one and this, which said no copyright notice was written around or on the photo. Additionally, the source on the Commons listing did not have a copyright notice. But, this source and this source say it does have a copyright stamp, and the latter says it was printed in 1980. I'm not sure what to think now- what do you think?
  • File:Stravinsky_rimsky-korsakov.jpg: source link is dead, and when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Solovey_by_A._Benois_01.jpg
    • So I've encountered an issue with Stravinsky_rimsky-korsakov.jpg- the URL isn't archived, but I was able to find the same article somewhere else on the site (which I added to the image paage). But, the image is missing within the article. It seems that many other sources pulled the image from Commons. I'm having the same issue with Solovey_by_A._Benois_01.jpg- the image isn't showing up on the archived page. Forgive my lack of experience regarding Commons, but what should I do with these? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Absent the original source, can you find other information to confirm the tagging given is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Nikkimaria, I cannot seem to find any information about Stravinsky_rimsky-korsakov.jpg. I've scoured every depth of the internet, including multiple reverse image searchers, but it seems most websites seem to have gotten the image from Commons. In the same vein, I can't find any evidence that it was ever published. All I can find are confirmations that it was taken in 1908, but I can't find any other place of publication after that, nor can I find the "Russian newspaper" mentioned in the description. I still have the same issue with Solovey_by_A._Benois_01.jpg- most sites pulled from Commons, can't find any info on publication or date, and I also can't find it in any catalogs of Benois' works via Internet Archive's library. What're your thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC) I realize I just double-pinged you in a short time span, sorry about that. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I'd suggest replacing if possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:RIAN_archive_597702_Composer_Igor_Stravinsky_and_cellist_Mstislav_Rostropovich.jpg: source link is dead

I'm going to oppose at this point simply due to the number of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for your image review, I'll admit the images were the (hopefully) one thing I completely forgot to check. I've fixed most of the issues, but have some comments/questions to some. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just going to add a general comment at this point that will hopefully clarify some points above: creation date and publication date are not the same. If you want to include a tag saying something was published by X date, we need to be able to identify a publication before X. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I've made a number of changes since your previous comment. I have a few questions above, but other than that, I think I've addressed everything. Also, I added a number of images to compensate for the removed ones. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • When and where was File:Bakst_Diaghilev.jpg first published?
  • File:Nikolai-Tcherepnin.jpg: source link is dead. If the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Why specifically is this believed to be PD?
  • File:Nijinsky_Diaghilev_Benois_Stravinsky_Beausoleil_c1912.jpg: where is this believed to have been published before 1928? Ditto File:Rimsky-Korsakov_by_Repin.jpg, File:Lyadov_by_Repin.jpg, File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš.jpg, File:Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky.tif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment from Airship
why is there practically zero biographical information in the lead? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This (the lead) is probably the article's biggest defect as stands, besides image licensing. I would recommend looking at other composer articles and shortening the lead quite a bit. Claude Debussy, Ned Rorem and Hector Berlioz are different approaches you could look at. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and @Aza24, I've edited the lead to try to reflect the general style of your suggested articles. The idea I followed was: first paragraph = name, citizenship, known for what; second paragraph = start of his musical career and rise to fame; third paragraph = more talking about his musical compositions and styles; fourth paragraph = reception, influence, death. Does this make sense, or is there a different structure I should follow? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's put it this way MyCatIsAChonk, if the only biographical information I, a complete music noob, can get from the lead are: 1) his birth/death dates, 2) the years he gained citizenship of countries and 3) what he died of, I think you might need to do a bit of refocusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I've added some more to the second and fourth paragraphs. Thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Aza24[edit]

Going off the above, there are still a lot of issues in the lead

  • I don't think it makes sense to call him a pianist, he is not known as one and never actively performed on one throughout his life. He is not called such by Grove either for example
  • Attributing his importance in modernist music entirely to "rhythm" is at best very misleading and at worst incorrect. His usage of modal techniques, innovative orchestration decisions, polytonality (!), effect on Dance music etc. is hugely important to his influence
  • The marriages are rather irrelevant to Stravinsky's importance
  • the "Stravinsky's reception was mixed [...]" is hugely misleading. With Schoenberg, Stravinsky bolstered the entire Western Classical music world into a new era, so to say that all "composers" disliked his music is simply incorrect (this is implied by "composers and academics of the time disliked the avant-garde nature of his music"). He had many supporters in his lifetime, and there were probably very few critics who would entirely dismiss his first three ballets. The later works were more controversial (though eventually accepted after his lifetime, but still never played as much). Saying "reception is mixed" also makes him sound like a movie, there should be more nuance here
  • I would include some more examples than just Copland and Glass (Craft should not be there at all and his influence on conductors is too comparatively irrelevant to include), particularly some who are not American. Examples include Bartok, Boulez, Ligeti, etc. Also remember that his neoclassicism influenced Les Six, Kurt Weill and others... That being said we don't want to overload the lead with examples.
  • More thoughts later... might have to be later next week. Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aza24, I've made a number of changes to the lead and tried to address your comments, though I'm unsure about whether I did considering my previous lack of success. Look forward to your comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Question about Vera's surname[edit]

  • Posted this question on the talk page, but it probably is relevant here too. Is there any reason why Vera Stravinsky is referred to as "De Bosset" throughout the article, even in sections covering periods when she was married with IS? Walsh refers to her first as "Vera Sudeykina" then later simply as "Vera". Next to my desk is a book entitled The Salon Album of Vera Sudeikin-Stravinsky; its book information page says that its subject is "Stravinsky, Vera". Anecdotal, but my recollection is that she is typically referred to as "Vera Stravinsky", "Vera Sudeikina", or "Vera Sudeikin". Her name was legally one of the latter two when IS met her. I think he even referred to her by that surname initially in his letters. According to WP:COMMONNAME, if any of those names are more often used to "De Bosset", then the article ought to be amended to reflect that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, thanks for bringing this up. This point was brought up in the PR (the article used to refer to her as just "Vera") and I used de Bosset since that what her article uses. But, you raise a good point regarding her commonly used name. I've replaced instances of her name prior to marrying Igor with "Vera Sudeikin" (as to clear any confusion reading whether Stravinsky actually had an affair with Serge Sudeikin) and instances of her name after marriage with 'Vera Stravinsky" or just "the Stravinskys" if both of them were the subjects. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Wretchskull[edit]

Very happy to see this article on FAC!


  • Remove the ref in the infobox image caption. Image descriptions and details are not sourced in prose but in the original Commons source. Igor Stravinsky LOC 32392u.jpg is featured and contains all things necessary.
  • His legacy in the 4th paragraph still needs some work. Some opinions on whether or not his works live up to the rite shouldn't even be there, as I highly doubt that this is the consensus among musicologists, so I would remove that opening clause altogether.
  • Again regarding the previous point, early reactions to his works, such as the one in the 2nd paragraph, are good inclusions, but to synthesize that with his legacy and insinuate it as a mixed reception in the 4th is incorrect. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most important composers and this is maintained by scholarly consensus. These inclusions can be amended and kept in the body but not in the lede, where firm consensus of his standing should be highlighted, free from minority opinions.

Early life, 1882–1901

  • Why is Tchaikovsky not linked? I noticed that you only link the second mention of some people and musical jargon in the Music section. I understand that this is a more fitting section, but the first mentions in prose must be linked. Either only link the first mention or link both the first in the biography and the second in the Music section. Also, I would probably write the persons' full names at least once in the article.
  • "Stravinsky composed Funeral Song, Op. 5, which was performed once" - add "in 1908".

Education and first compositions, 1901–1909

  • "He wrote many of his first compositions there." Perhaps an example or two? Either specific compositions or genres/forms.

Ballets for Diaghilev and international fame, 1909–1920

  • Link Hans Christian Andersen. Ditto about the links.

Life in France, 1920–1939

  • Along with 1926, this section basically skips 1929-1933. Is Stravinsky living in Voreppe really the only thing authors are fixated on? No works? No important conversations? No deals? Why not mention his Violin Concerto, and the fact that he revised a bunch of works in this period? Just food for thought.

Last major works, 1945–1966

  • 1948-1952 is skipped except for a mention of premiering the rake's progress. Nothing notable?
  • 1955-1960 is skipped. Ditto.
  • "In August 1967, Stravinsky was hospitalised in Hollywood for bleeding stomach ulcers and thrombosis which required a blood transfusion." Source? I'm surprised this wasn't caught earlier.
  • "While there, Stravinsky's son Fyodor held the manuscript of The Rite of Spring while Stravinsky signed it before giving it to de Bosset." Why is this relevant? Is there missing context? Did the manuscript end up somewhere?
  • Anything about his last words?

@MyCatIsAChonk: After a relatively quick read, I'm a little worried about the leaps the article makes in biographical details here and there. Still optimistic! I'll continue the review tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian period[edit]

  • The recent addition of four images relating to influences upon Stravinsky during his "Russian period" seems a bit like WP:SYNTH. Taruskin's comments are not about the period, but only refer specifically to the first act of The Nightingale ("The musical idiom of the first act adheres closely to what Asaf'yev called the 'modest, rationalized impressionism' of the early 20th-century St. Petersburg school ... there is little in the exuberantly decorative score that cannot be associated with the idiom of such older Rimsky-Korsakov pupils as Anatoly Lyadov and especially Nikolay Tcherepnin"), which he completed years before the "Russian period" designated by Noble and Bartók. Moreover, the influences mentioned for that period aren't borne out in the music or discourse about it. I know that Walsh and Craft have mentioned R-K, Mussorgsky, and Scriabin as being important influences during this period, at least at its outset, which IS later downplayed. Also, the section's final paragraph should be moved to the beginning of the section that follows. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Dando[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Dando was a rather odd, slightly soiled character. Not much is really known about him (sources even disagree about his name and nationality), but what is known is that he came to public attention in London for stealing oysters, once consuming 300 of them in one sitting. Indeed, his consumption of oysters was so prestigious, William Makepeace Thackeray based a short story on him and Charles Dickens compared him to Alexander the Great. A small footnote to London history, but an interesting one. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 01:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "once having eaten 25 dozen" => "once eating 25 dozen"
  • "had been arrested 2 years previously after consuming 2 pots of ale and 2 pounds" - I would write all those 2s as words
    • Ordinarily I would, but with a plethora of numbers over a couple of sentences (including fractions and those over 10), I've gone with all digits, so we're in line with the consistency part of wp:NUMBERS. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "coming to 3s. 6d" - maybe link the d as well as the s......?
  • "in the first he ate oysters and bread to the sum of 3s and 6d" - different way of writing 3/6 to how you did earlier......
  • "cost between 1d each and sometimes three for a penny" - reads slightly, partly because of the "sometimes" and party because you put the more expensive price first - I would suggest it would be more natural to put the cheaper price first
  • "and .25 imperial pints (0.14 L) of rum" - looks a little odd with the 0 before the decimal point in one case but not the other
  • That's it. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from UndercoverClassicist[edit]

I reviewed this at GA: it's one of my favourite articles. Will hold off until a few more people have chimed in, but very glad to see this here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Happy to support the elevation of this pleasing article. A few minor drafting points, none of which affect my support:

  • "Dando had been arrested 2 years previously …." (and the rest of the sentence and following) – I suspect we shall end up agreeing to differ about this, but I think it is better to mix and match figures and words for numbers within a sentence or paragraph than to write "2 pots" where the normal form would be "two pots", and so on. This wouldn't be in breach of MoS diktats as far as I can see.
  • Ditto for "ate 13 dozen (156) oysters and a half-quartern loaf, washed down with 5 bottles of ginger beer" – if the odd-looking "5 bottles", why not "a ½-quartern loaf"?
  • "the poor, who purchased them from oyster stalls" – "purchased" seems a very formal, not to say grand, word for such a humble transaction: perhaps just "bought"?
  • "News of his next arrest and court appearance" – a while since Dando's name has been mentioned: might be better to use it rather than a pronoun here.
  • "… and followed Dando eating 11 dozen (132) large oysters, a half-quartern loaf and 11 pats of butter without being able to pay for it." – two things here. First, "eating" is here used as a gerund – a noun in effect – and grammatically needs a possessive: "Dando's eating" or "his eating". Secondly all those oysters, bread and butter need a plural pronoun – "them" rather than "it"
  • "sixpence-worth of brandy" – Looks a bit odd. The OED has "sixpennyworth", which I suggest would be preferable.
  • "The jacket, I think, came from Brixton; the waistcost ..." – is "…cost" a typo for "…coat"?

That's my lot. The article strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria and I add my support without further ado. (Anyone wishing for further ado may leave a message on my talk page.) – Tim riley talk 07:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, I'm much obliged to you for your comments here and at the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking smashing now. Excellent stuff – a pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 20:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edith of Wilton[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the late 10th century Benedictine nun, abbess, and saint. This is the second FAC nom; I withdrew the first one because a reviewer requested that I consult other sources. I've done as they requested, so I believe that this bio is now ready for its review to continue. These souces were the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I used mostly to support other claims already made, and Rollason's Saints and Relics in Anglo-Saxon England, which was slightly more helpful. I also went through the unaddressed comeents from the first FAC. St Edith is an interesting and at times humorous individual, so please enjoy. Looking forward to further feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 03:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not fixed: Hudson, Yorke, Pratt, Watt § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 05:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All done now. I'll go on the record, though, that it's not my practice to put the sfn template for websites or sources I only use once. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment
  • British spellings should be used per WP:TIES. I can see "canonization" in the lead, so check for any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that was the last word to fix. If anyone else sees any that I've misssed, please point them out. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some further dodgy spellings:
  • "center" (probably not too important as is in alt-text).
  • "Yorke inisist that Edith's seal was another indication of her status and independent weath" – this doesn't appear to be in English of any kind.
  • "is skillfully juxtaposed" – the source spells the adverb the English way: "skilfully".
  • "Edith "had obtained forgiveness from the Lord for all but one of Ælfgifu's offenses, and that she would not cease to intercede for Ælfgifu until she obtained pardon for this offense" – the source uses the English spellings – "offences" and "offence".
  • "her mother's favor" – should be "favour".
General comments to follow shortly, Tim riley talk 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tim riley: I believe that I've dealt with the British spellings, with some much-appreciated assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • "of abbess for three convents" – "for" seems a strange preposition here: one might expect "of"
  • "after the murder of her half-brother ... she might have been offered the English throne" – I think you probably mean "may" rather than "might" here: that is, it is possible that she was offered it, rather than that she could in unspecified circumstances have been offered it.
  • "praised by their contemporary, William of Malmesbury, for their prayers" – as they had more than one contemporary, the phrase "William of Malmesbury" is a restrictive (defining) one rather than a non-restrictive (describing) one, and the commas should not be there.
The above three points all fixed.
  • "her innocence and "virginal fecundity" – I realise this is a quotation, but it would be helpful to have a gloss of this seemingly oxymoronic phrase.
Ha ha, I dunno what it means either, which is why it's a quote. I suppose the easiest fix is to remove the phrase.
  • "an indication of her status and weath" – typo
  • "According to Ridyard ..." this sixty-word sentence could do with chopping in two; I got lost half-way through and had to go back to the start.
Yah, too-long sentences are something I'm working on. Easy fix; I just separated it into two, after "heavenly."
  • "and as Ridyard states, was "firmly grounded ..." – I'd be a bit cautious about the "as" here, which reads like Wikipedia's endorsement of Ridyard's view. (And regardless of that there is either one comma too many or one too few.)
Removed the phrase "as Ridyard states"
  • "Goscelin claims that he wrote the Vita" – another phrasing I recommend caution about: "claims" may suggest to some readers that Goscelin's assertion is untrue or at least dubious.
Okay. There were actually two instances; I replaced "claims" with "reports" in the first, and with "states" in the second.
  • "Dunstan received another vision by St Denys" – does one receive visions by rather than of a saint?
  • "For instance, after King Cnut was saved from a sea storm through Edith's intercession" – this is mentioned twice, and at each mention it is stated as a fact that Edith's intercession saved the king from a sea storm. No doubt Cnut believed this, but I doubt if it can be recorded in 2023 as objective fact.
Well, I disagree. I think it's a real-world perspective problem, but I went ahead and changed it to the Historical present tense.
  • "The only other miracle Goscelin records that occurred during Edith's lifetime was his anecdote about Æthelwold's attempt" – the prose here says that the miracle was the anecdote rather than the attempt and its upshot.
Removed "his anecdote about"

I hope these few points are of use. – Tim riley talk 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, they are. Thank you very much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on sources[edit]

Hi Christine. In my comment on your previous nomination, the principal source I suggested was Yorke's article, "The Legitimacy of St Edith". This is possibly the most important and certainly the most extensive discussion of her. It should be consulted, although of course I do not know whether it has points you have not already covered. As I said, if you email me, I can send you a copy. Other sources which may be helpful are the ODNB articles on Wulfthryth and Wulfhild

Also, you said you would delete Dunbar but it is still there. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for emailing me the Yorke article; you'll see that I used it quite a bit. I checked the ODNB articles you suggested, but choose not to include anything from them because they either supported points already made or were irrevelant to Edith. I also deleted Dunbar as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a related note, several paragraphs end without a citation; I would suggest rectifying that early on in the FA process. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: there was just the one; fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See [1]] on churches dedicated to Edith. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For discussion on this see User talk:Dudley Miles#St Edith and sources
I've added the info from this source and even found an image of one of the churches dedicated to Edith. I've always thought that this bio could use more images, so I'm happy that I was able to find it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think some care is needed in using Bugyis. She is obviously an RS, but her book is about the central Middle Ages, and she may not always be reliable on the tenth century.

You cite her for saying that Edith was abbess of Wilton, but she cites the Wilton Chronicle of 1420, written over 400 years after Edith's death. William of Malmesbury also said that she was abbess of Wilton, but Goscelin does not, and it is rejected by Anglo-Saxon specialists. Sarah Foot points out that it cannot be true because Edith lived under the authority of her mother as abbess of Wilton until she predeceased her. (Veiled Women, II, p. 231).

Goscelin doesn't write about Edith until over 100 years after her death, and he's an accepted authority about Edith and Wilton. I think this brings up the challenge we have in writing WP bios about medieval figures: scholars don't always agree about every aspect of their lives. Some say Edith was abbess; others don't. It's not up to us to make a decision as to who's correct, but it's our responsibility to summarize what the sources say. I could add something about this controversy, and cite Foot by stating something like, "Sarah Foot disagrees that Edith was abbess at Wilton because Edith lived under the authority of her mother." Scholars also disagee if Edith was abbess anywhere, which is addressed her. Anyway, what do you think of that solution?
Bugyis' specific area of medieval studies may not the tenth century, but she's a well-respected scholar and trustworthy, anyway. She discusses Edith in The Care of Nuns to support her point that medieval nuns served the Church and their abbeys in non-traditional ways in roles that were traditionally for males. Bugyis cites Edith as an example of one of the women who did that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your description of Edith as Wilton's patron saint is also problematic. You cite Hollis, but she does not use the term. You also cite Bugyis and say "A seal was created during Edith's lifetime and was adopted and used as its official emblem until Wilton Abbey was dissolved in 1539." Also "The seal demonstrates the Wilton community's "confidence in its ability to represent their patron saint as the guarantor of their documents' authenticity, and in her guarantee's enduring significance to those in and out of the community"." Both statements cite Bugyis, but she was referring to the later history of the abbey in the period leading up to its dissolution in 1539, and you give the impression that she is talking about the whole history the abbey after Edith's death. I have never seen the term "patron saint" used in an Anglo-Saxon context and it seems anachronistic, although I cannot find a source to say when it came in. The earliest usage cited in OED is 1703. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bugyis is the only one who specifically refers to Edith as a patron saint of Wilton and it's in a quote, so I kept it and removed the other references. Perhaps Bugyis is using the term in the general sense, as a figure that supports another person, institution, or community? Hopefully, this addresses your concern. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Related to the sourcing, there are no citations pointing to the ODNB, but the source is listed as being used. I find that strange because I clearly remember the ODNB being cited several times in the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Unlimitedlead, I corrected the mistake, so the ODNB is fully represented now (p. 1, ref27). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Some of my comments are follow ups on point in the comments on sources section.

  • You state in the lead that Edith was abbess of Wilton and below that she was appointed abbess of three convents including Wilton. You cite Bugyis for this. Bugyis states that the original source, Goscelin, does not give the name of the third convent but a chronicle of 1420 names it as Wilton. There is a distinction in Wikipedia between High Quality and Reliable Sources. Bugyis is an RS but she is a specialist on the later Middle Ages, and she is not an HQ for the Anglo-Saxon period. RSs should not be used unsupported for controversial statements. HQ sources are Anglo-Saxon specialists, and they all say that the third convent is unknown. You are using an RS to make a claim denied by HQs. This is wrong and the claim should be deleted. Sarah Foot specifically denies that Edith was abbess of Wilton and she is sceptical of the whole story of Edith's appointments as an abbess. She describes it as "somewhat implausible" and suggests that Goscelin confused her with other women called Edith (Veiled Women, II, p. 231). I have made these points above but you insist on retaining the statement that Edith was abbess of Wilton.
Okay, I've made some cuts as per your request. Please let me know if what I did fulfilled your requests; if not, I'll do my best to remedy them.
  • The paragraph starting "A seal was created during Edith's lifetime and was adopted and used as its official emblem until Wilton Abbey was dissolved in 1539." is misleading, as I have pointed above but you have not replied to my points. This statement and one below about Edith being a patron saint are by Bugyis about the late history of the abbey up to its dissolution in 1539. Other statements in the paragraph are about the Anglo-Saxon period, but you mix the points together to make them all apply to the whole history of the abbey after Edith's death. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I cut most of Bugyis' statements about the seal, including her reference to Edith as patron saint. Please let me know if I resolved your concerns; if not, let me know how I can better do that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1919–20 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't plan to nominate any more Gillingham F.C. season articles, as I got the impression that people were a bit fed up of them, but then I found myself inexorably drawn into working on this one and now here we are..... So please enjoy reading about another rubbish season in the history of my favourite football team, one of the few highpoints of which was the performance of a player with a metal plate in his head. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • competed in the first and second sentence successively. Perhaps a variation, I think in your other articles you've used played or something along those line.
  • first round proper -- Is there a definitive term for the round following qualifying? Otherwise this is not a hold-up for me (as I do not follow football)
    • First round proper is the usual term - see eg this
  • the team had been promoted from Division Two in 1895 -- I think this can be split into a separate sentence.
  • The team followed this up with a home win -- should it be The team followed this with a home win
  • were absent for the next game -- should it be absent from
  • to be replaced by Robert Brown. -- was replaced
  • That's all I have. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review - all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part, (said it would go down in the history of the mining village), would it be beneficial to link "mining village" to the pit village article. I think the meaning is rather obvious (i.e. a location with a mining-focused economy), but since there is a separate article on this topic, I thought I should ask if linking would help.
  • Alf Bluer and Bert Nash both had red links. That is obviously more than okay. Just wanted to double-check with you that it was intentional on your part, and that you think these individuals have potential for an article.
  • For the "Works Cited" citations, shouldn't Gillingham F.C. be linked in the Bradley/Triggs source?
  • I am not sure if the citations required the "url-access=limited" parameter since clippings are used and they can be viewed by even individuals without an account.
    • I dunno, I was told in a previous FAC that this was needed because the whole site isn't freely available. I have no idea if this is correct or not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Understandable. I will leave this matter to the source reviewer. I can see arguments on both sides. The clipping allows readers to see the article without a subscription, but to get more information or context from the actual newspaper, a subscription is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. You have done a wonderful job with the article, and I could not find anything major. All of my comments are incredibly nitpick-y. I have made some edits to the article on my own, but feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. I hope you are having a good day or night so far. Aoba47 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your review, responses above! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the very quick responses. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another tale of misery and woe for early 20th-century football in Gillingham, although this season feels lower than the others I reviewed!

Background and pre-season
  • "The 1919–20 Southern League season was the first to take place after the First World War; Gillingham had not played a competitive match since the 1914–15 season": It's not clear from this that the whole league was stopped between 1915 and 1919 – a slight addition to clarify would, I think, be beneficial
FA Cup
  • "T.Turner" should be spaced after the initial

That's it – rather scant fare from me. - SchroCat (talk)

@SchroCat: - many thanks for your review, those three points now addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Another excellent article in this series which passes the FA criteria and provides a decent and enjoyable read too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nuremberg trials[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the withdrawn FAC last year, I expanded the article with more information on the origins of crimes against humanity, the American, French, and British prosecution efforts, and the defense section. I incorporated new sources and also looked at Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (1977), but I did not see anything worth adding from that book. I'd like to thank everyone who commented on the article, particularly Brigade Piron and Ealdgyth. (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Are the countries listed in the Origin section's first sentence in a specific order?
    • Yes, chronological and also that used in the cited source.
  • "On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States issued the Moscow Declaration to "give full warning [...] justice may be done" - It is a bit unclear who this quote came from. Is it written in the Declaration itself?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • "The British government, in light of the failure of trials after World War I, disinclined to endorse retroactive criminality, and unconvinced of the benefits of lengthy proceedings, still preferred the summary execution of Nazi leaders" - A long sentence, might benefit from a split
    • Rewrote
  • "Germany surrendered unconditionally" could be piped to German Instrument of Surrender instead of the redirect German surrender
    • Done
  • There seem to be over 700 usages of the word "the" in the article currently, so you could consider cutting some down. e.g. "Jackson's focus was on the aggressive war charge, which he described as the root of the crimes against humanity and of war crimes"
    • I rephrased this sentence but am having a hard time wrapping my head around overuse of the word "the" as I'd never heard of it as an issue before. I read over parts of the article but am unable to identify cases of "the" that are detrimental.
My review is very general due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter. This is a very important topic of course and the article is engaging and well-researched in my opinion.--NØ 16:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - The "the" comment is more of an observation than a criticism. Satisfied with the changes.--NØ 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • Between 1939 and 1945, Nazi Germany waged war across Europe, invading Czechoslovakia,... Can the German occupation of Czechoslovakia be described as a war? Even if it can, it was not part of WWII (which is linked).
    • Rephrased. The point here is not that the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939 was part of WWII but it was an act of aggression according to the prosecution, although the tribunal also accepted the argument that the annexation of Austria was "a premeditated aggressive step" despite "the strong desire expressed in many quarters for the union of Austria and Germany"—which was deemed "immaterial". (Sayapin pp. 151–152). I am not sure that the annexation of Austria can be designated an invasion, so I did not list it.
  • My concern is that the link still suggests that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was part of WWII.
  • Removed from the list as the exact membership is not so important here.
  • ...the systematic murder of millions of Jews... I miss a reference to other groups.
    • The Jews are especially relevant considering the Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations which Hirsch mentions on the cited pages. I am not sure that others are relevant to mention specifically. From the Soviet perspective what mattered was not the individual groups of victims (especially given their "do not divide the dead" approach) but the war devastation and losing a lot of population. Western Allies encountered a mass of former KZ prisoners and they also did not have a good understanding of Nazi persecutions of specific groups of people.
  • I think the emphasis on Jews in the article's context should be explained.
  • Rewrite to show an evidenced link with the trial that does not exist in the case of other groups. Sellars writes, From the outset, the Allies had justified the prosecution of the leaders of the Axis powers on the grounds that the conflict had been unique in the annals of warfare because of its totality and barbarity. This argument rested primarily upon a singular event: the Holocaust. Although the judges at Nuremberg declared crimes against peace to be the ‘supreme international crime’,28 it was in fact the existence of the death camps that formed the moral core of the Allies’ case against the Nazi leaders.
  • ...1⁄7th... Why not one seventh?
    • Fixed
  • ...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
    • Done
  • ... eight governments-in-exile... Perhaps a very short explanation between dashes?
    • Done
  • ...Axis crimes... So far the article only referred to Nazi Germany's aggression. Why is Axis not linked?
    • Corrected to "German" after checking the source
  • ...war crimes... The term is only linked in the lead.
    • Fixed
  • ...without Soviet participation... Why?
    • According to Hirsch, the reason they did not was because in exchange for recognizing the participation of British Dominions, the Soviets wanted each of the Soviet republics to be admitted individually, including countries such as Lithuania that the Western powers did not recognize as part of the Soviet Union. (p. 30). This seems too tangential to include
  • According to the corresponding article, China also signed the Moscow Declaration.
    • According to the official text, the Statement of Atrocities referred to here was joined by USSR, UK, US but not China (as Heller states).
  • ...Allies' intent... Allies is not linked yet. Did it declare of the Allies' intent or the intent of the signing powers?
    • "the aforesaid three Allied Powers, speaking in the interests of the 32 United Nations", so I've revised to signatories
  • ... those high-ranking Nazis who had committed crimes in several countries... Perhaps it indicates the limits of my English, but for me the sentence suggests that those Nazis who committed crimes in only one of the occupied countries were not intended to be persecuted.
    • Clarified
  • Nuremberg Charter is linked twice (once as London Conference)
    • I think these conference is separately notable from the final document that was approved, so I prefer to leave in the extra redirect.
  • Nineteen states ratified the charter... Could they be listed in a footnote?
    • I'm actually not convinced that this detail is relevant to include since Gemahlich does not actually list them and I cannot find references to ratification by other states in Hirsch, Priemel, Heller, Sellars, and other sources I checked. Their role in the trial seems to have been nil so I've removed it.
  • Murray Bernays, a War Department lawyer, proposed the conspiracy charge. For me, this statement comes out of the blue. What is conspiracy charge? Why is his proposal relevant?
    • Removed
  • Briefly introduce Hartley Shawcross, Auguste Champetier de Ribes and Robert Falco.
    • done
  • Consider linking indictment.
    • Done
  • ...the three official languages of the tribunal... Could they be listed?
    • I thought it was obvious, now spelled out
  • ...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
    • Done
  • Institutional rivalries hampered the search. Some context? My concern is that this sentence is too general, it could be mentioned in any context where at least two institutions are to cooperate.
    • I could just remove this sentence.
  • Could the intitutions involved be mentioned or an example be added (to be more specific)? Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will continue the review in one or two days. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Jackson is first mentioned in section "Legal basis" but he is introduced and linked in section "Judges and procedures".
    • Revised
  • ...even resorting to implausible lies Could you mention some examples?
    • Douglas says that this tactic was used when denying knowledge of the final solution, for example Kaltenbrunner claimed that he thought Sonderbehandlung referred to prisoners getting privileged conditions. He lied so much that a prosecutor asked him, "Is it not a fact that you are simply lying?" Arthur Seyss-Inquart claimed that he sent people to Auschwitz but it was not bad there because there was an orchestra.
  • ...expecting that the German people would favorably regard his loyalty to Hitler after his death I assume this is a PoV not a fact.
    • I've tried to word this better but maybe I should just take it out.
  • ...far more than any other group Could it be linked to an article?
    • I don't know
  • ...Despite the lingering doubts of some of the judges Could you mention some examples?
    • It's not stated in the sources and perhaps not known which judges had doubts about the retroactivity of the crimes against peace charge.
  • In France, some verdicts were met with outrage from the media and especially from organizations for deportees and resistance fighters, as they were perceived as too lenient. Could you mention some examples?
    • Done
  • Two pictures depict aggression against the USSR (File:RIAN archive 2251 Destroyed Stalingrad does not give up.jpg; File:Men with an unidentified unit execute a group of Soviet civilians kneeling by the side of a mass grave.jpg). I suggest that the first picture be replaced with a picture about the Destruction of Warsaw.
    • I've removed the pictures which is what Brigade Piron suggested repeatedly. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will continue the review tommorrow or on Monday.

Comments from UndercoverClassicist[edit]

A really important article and, I appreciate, not an easy one to write or get right. I'm not an expert in the subject matter, and thse comments come with a context of a great deal of admiration for the article and the work done on it so far. The writing is extremely impressive.

  • German aggression was accompanied by immense brutality in occupied areas and the systematic murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust: I'm with User:Borsoka that it feels odd to implicitly exclude e.g. the disabled, LGBT people and Romani people from the "systematic murder" category. I appreciate that including them in the Holocaust is a very thorny topic, and that brevity is important here, but could we have something like German aggression was accompanied by immense brutality in occupied areas, including the systematic murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust and that of millions of people from other groups the Nazis termed "subhuman"?
    • See the edit made to this paragraph
      • Happy with this: now threads the needle nicely.
  • Why one seventh but two-thirds? Personally, I'd hyphenate throughout.
    • Done
  • representatives of nine governments-in-exile from German-occupied Europe issued a declaration on Punishment for War Crimes: not sure the capitalisation works here (as it's only correct for the title of the declaration, not the concept of the same name): either make Punishment for War Crimes a title and capitalise, so a declaration, Punishment for War Crimes, which... or make it a description, as here, and decapitalise. The link can stay either way.
    • Done
  • and bogged down in the scope of its mandate: became bogged down, surely?
    • Done
  • The Soviet Union wanted to hold a show trial similar to the 1930s Moscow trials, in order to demonstrate the Nazi leaders' guilt and build a case for war reparations to rebuild the Soviet economy, which had been devastated by the war.: I worry that this might be heading slightly towards an NPOV problem: did the Soviets openly want an unfair trial, or did they argue that a short, fairly perfunctory operation would be sufficient to establish the Nazis' guilt? Similarly, I imagine both sides would have called their proposal "fair". Appreciate the need for brevity here, but it might help to be a little more specific on the concrete differences of rules and procedure that each side wanted.
    • On this point: this review of Hirsch gives the opposite impression: that the British and Americans were the ones originally pushing for extra-legal punishment, while it was Stalin's influence that ensured a courtroom trial was held at all.
    • That is accurate. The Soviet Union wanted a trial in which the defense would not be given the chance to make a case, thus not a fair trial by Western standards. The trial would be held for propaganda purposes, not with the aim of securing a fair outcome. The UK especially was wary of the prospect of war crimes trials, as stated in the article, thus favoring summary execution of Nazi leaders. Indeed Hirsch argues that the trial may not have been held at all if the Soviet Union hadn't pushed for it (although this is not a claim made in the article).
      • Understood: I think the recent edits are a big improvement. I would still replace "fair trial" with a more neutral term to explain what would be fair(er) about it (for instance, including that point about the defence not being allowed to speak in the Soviets' definition of a "trial"). After all, whether the Nuremberg trials were fair was (and perhaps still is) something of a bone of contention, and the US's stipulations were certainly not all about ensuring fairness. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the United States' new president: is it worth explaining briefly why he was new?
    • I don't think it's relevant.
      • I think it's worth thinking, then, about why his newness is relevant: the point is, I think, that Truman is having to play the hand that Roosevelt, via Yalta etc, has dealt him. I don't see Roosevelt's name in the article at all: it would be good to make a little more explicit that the person who decided the US was doing this thing and the person who had to carry it out were different people. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sellars gives the impression that Roosevelt was not much involved in these plans at all and it was Truman who made the decision to announce an international court. (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • negotiated the exact form that the trial would take: "exact" could be omitted as needless here.
    • Done
  • upended the traditional view of international law by holding individuals, rather than states, responsible for breaches of international law: will defer to the sources here, but is that quite correct as stated? For instance, the Leipzig war crimes trials of 1921 prosecuted individuals for war crimes under international law, such as sinking hospital ships on the high seas. The implication I read from the sentence as written in the article is that previously, a state would be put on trial rather than an individual, but that wasn't always true. From what I can tell, the difference is that the court itself was international, as opposed to justice being done under the law of one of the involved nations.
    • The Leipzig trials were held by Germany under classical jurisdictional rules which include the provision that states have jurisdiction over their own citizens and can prosecute alleged crimes committed beyond their internationally recognized borders (extraterritorial jurisdiction is not the same as universal jurisdiction). There was a concept of war crime as a criminal violation of the laws of war, but it was effectual in Leipzig because of German ratification of various treaties such as the Hague and Geneva conventions that called for prosecution of violators. It is not the case that states were subject to criminal responsibility, but the principle of state responsibility was used in litigation when states sued each other at the Permanent Court of International Justice.
    • What was different at Nuremberg was trying individuals for violations of international law, such as the acts of aggression and systematic crimes against humanity. They were not tried according to German military law (as at the Leipzig trials) but a separate legal code. The previous legal immunity for acts of sovereign states, and superior orders as a defense, were abolished in the case of international crimes. This was "the true beginning of international criminal law" according to Sayapin. It's possible that the article could do a better job of explaining this for a reader who might not know much about legal systems. (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • That makes sense: I agree it could (and should) be explained more clearly in the article. The implication I get from the second paragraph of "legal basis" is that the idea of trying an individual for war crimes was novel. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The British proposal to define crimes against humanity as widespread and systematic attacks on civilians was accepted: this sentence is a little ambiguous: did the British propose "widespread and systematic attacks on civilians" as a definition of war crimes (so The British proposal to define crimes against humanity as "widespread and systematic attacks on civilians" was accepted?
    • Technically, the wording of "Widespread and systematic" postdates Nuremberg; it actually is the wording used in the Rome Statute. I've added in a direct quote from the charter.
  • The final version of the charter limited the jurisdiction over crimes against humanity to those committed as part of a war of aggression: this one took me a minute to parse: "limited the tribunal's jurisdiction"?
    • Done
  • Each state appointed a prosecution team and two judges, one being an alternate: alternate might be a touch WP:JARGONy: do we mean something like a prosecution team, a main judge and an alternate in case [what, exactly?]
    • The difference was that the alternate was not allowed to vote on the final verdict unless the main judge was incapacitated. All the sources use "alternate", which I don't really see as jargon.
      • Perhaps not, but it's certainly not a word where readers will naturally know and assume the meaning intended by the article (it could very well mean that someone was going to choose between the two later, for example): I'd suggest explaining what you've just set out. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Are you happy with the wording change done by another editor? (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As the numerically strongest delegation: why not "largest"?
    • Done
  • The American intelligence agency Office of Strategic Services also assisted the prosecutors: it's usually referred to as the OSS, so suggest The Office of Strategic Services, an American intelligence agency, also...
  • The Soviet personnel's lack of knowledge of English: "personnel's" like this reads unidiomatically to me: style guides often advise avoiding the possessive of indeclinable nouns, because we end up with this awkwardness where it's inflected as if singular but semantically plural. Suggest either The Soviet delegation's or the influence of the Soviet personnel was limited by their....
    • Done
      • Grammatically, I think it does need to be either "its limited English", "their limited English", "its members' limited English" or something like that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm down to the top of "Indictment" at the moment: more later. Again, my hat off to you for this vital but demanding piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • The British worked on putting together the aggressive war charge: suggest hyphenation: aggressive-war charge per MOS:HYPHEN, since it's the war that was aggressive, not the charge. We'd do the same for e.g. short-story writers even when we wouldn't write "A Sound of Thunder is a short-story". The same has been done for "crimes-against-peace charges" further down.
    • Rephrased
      • the French and Soviet delegations were assigned the task of covering crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the Western Front and the Eastern Front, respectively: now a little unclear: did the French get crimes against humanity and the Soviets get war crimes on the Western and Eastern front? It sounds more like we mean that both delegations were to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes; the French would have responsibility for those committed on the Western Front, and the Soviets for those committed on the Eastern Front. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Fixed
  • It was also a way to indirectly charge crimes committed before the beginning of World War II, which the charter placed outside the court's jurisdiction: slight grammatical ambiguity here as to what, exactly, was outside the court's jurisdiction (was it World War II, its beginning, or crimes committed before its beginning)? Suggest "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II [or a specific date, since when WWII began is not a straightforward question], which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction"
    • The Nuremberg charter neither gives a date range for its applicability, nor does it strictly speaking limit its jurisdiction to the war itself. However, because the enumerated charges were crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity only when there was a nexus with the preceding crimes effectively its jurisdiction was limited accordingly.
      • Gotcha: I think "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II,[EFN if felt helpful] which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction" is clearer then: it's the crimes, not the war or its beginning, that were outside jurisdiction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conspiracy charges were especially central to the cases against propagandists and industrialists; the former were charged with providing the ideological justification for war and other crimes, while the latter were accused of enabling the war with the economic mobilization necessary for the German war effort: lots of war here, and it's better to use a colon to link sentences where the second explains the first. Suggest Conspiracy charges were central to the cases against propagandists and industrialists: the former were charged with providing the ideological justification for war and other crimes, while the latter were accused of enabling Germany's war by facilitating its economic mobilization.
    • Done
      • Ends a little abruptly now; "enabling Germany's war effort" would be better than simply "enabling Germany's war", if a full explanation is felt unnecessary. I appreciate the need for brevity (on which see my comment far below about the article's scope), but the prose still needs to thread the needle with quality and clarity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the three official languages of the tribunal—English, French, and Russian—as well as German: was German not an official language of the tribunal?
    • That's correct, but all proceedings and documents were required to be translated into the defendant's language. See Nuremberg charter Article 25.
  • difficulty in recruiting interpreters should be difficulty of in this context, I think.
    • Done
  • Jackson also rewrote the indictment with the intent of keeping the proceedings under American control by separating out an overall conspiracy charge from the other three charges: I don't understand how separating this charge would keep the proceedings under American control.
    • Rewrote
  • Lodging a mild protest against "committed suicide", though I understand that it's permitted by the MoS.
    • Changed 2/3 uses to "Killed himself"
      • Out of interest, why not the third? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think "Killed themselves" sounds kind of awkward and I don't really like other suicide wordings. In this case no one can object to stigmatizing Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler although suicide was the least of their crimes. (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The final list was based on one drawn up by the British Foreign Office in 1944 and haphazardly added to: do we know who added to it? Was it just the British?
    • Removed, see Priemel 81-83 for wrangling over the list but I'm not sure it's relevant to mention
  • Observers of the trial found the defendants mediocre and contemptible.: can this be nuanced a little: all of them (on both counts)? What does Priemel base this statement on?
    • This was the general impression, based on Priemel's reading of caricatures and private papers among other sources
  • Jackson demanded changes and expansion of the defendants list: we wouldn't say changes of the defendants list, so "changes to and expansion of" would work, or else "Jackson demanded that the list of defendants be changed and expanded as late as October."
    • Reworded
  • tried in absentia: italicise in absentia, as is normal in HQRS?
    • Done
  • What exactly does headlined the trial mean?
    • Reworded
  • they prioritized the Wehrmacht's reputation over the lives of the generals on trial: I'd suggest that this might be better placed where it would have some tangible consequences: did any of the lawyers throw their defendants under the bus, so to speak? Also, a question mark on the term Wehrmacht, firstly for accuracy (not everyone on trial was military or a part of that organisation, so do we mean "German national honor" or something similar?). Secondly and more vaguely, there's a tendency in Anglophone scholarship to use German-language terms (Wehrmacht, Panzer, Reich, Luftwaffe...) for Nazi institutions where we'd translate the equivalent term in other languages (it's always French tanks, never French chars, or the Japanese Empire, or the Italian Army...), which can have the consequence of giving them a sort of exotic gloss. I'm not saying that it's doing that here, but I'd always think hard about whether translating is a better option, given that not doing so can put us in some unsavoury company. More prosaically, if Wehrmacht is staying, it should be wl'd (only) on first mention.
    • Priemel does say that the lawyers seemed to be in general agreement that the Wehrmacht’s reputation mattered a great deal more than Keitel’s and Jodl’s lives but on reflection I've removed it as the article already has enough other coverage about defense of the Wehrmacht's reputation.
  • The American and British prosecutors focused on documentary evidence and affidavits rather than testimony from survivors, as the latter was considered less reliable and more liable to accusations of bias, but at the expense of reducing public interest in the proceedings: a run-on sentence which becomes ungrammatical: "at the expense of..." grammatically modifies "focused" but describes a consequence of downplaying survivor testimony. Suggest The American and British prosecutors focused on documentary evidence and affidavits rather than testimony from survivors, as the latter was considered less reliable and more liable to accusations of bias, a strategy which reduced public interest in the proceedings., or else split the sentence after "testimony from survivors" and say something like "This strategy increased the credibility of their case, since survivor testimony was considered less reliable and more vulnerable to accusations of bias, but reduced public interest in the proceedings."
    • Done
  • After the American prosecution flooded the trial with untranslated evidence: a nice metaphor, but would suggest rephrasing into more literal language for accessibility. Did the judge want the evidence read in translation into the record?
    • Reworded
  • both substantive and conspiracy charges: perhaps a legalism, but are conspiracy charges not substantitive?
    • Reworded
  • forcefully countered this strawman: a very internet-native turn of phrase. Suggest "and made forceful arguments against the notion". Has Priemel explicitly said that the idea that Nuremberg wanted to create collective blame (a la Versailles) was false? If so, we could more neutrally add "which Priemel has described as "utterly bananas", or a similar phrase.
    • I am not sure that this is an "internet-native turn of phrase"; references to strawman arguments have been common since around 1960 per the NGRAMS results and it doesn't seem like unencyclopedic language to me. I have mulled it over and cannot think of another way to concisely convey the same information in different words. Priemel makes it clear that the prosecution did not seek to present the entire German nation as guilty as the defense claimed.
  • Jackson's focus was on the aggressive war charge and the crimes against peace charge: see comments on hyphenation above.
    • Reworded
  • American prosecutors were not any more effective: "no more effective"?
    • Done
  • documentary evidence on the conspiracy: of the conspiracy, surely?
    • Reworded
  • a "saturation point of horror": per WP:NONFREE, this quotation needs to be attributed: we've got two sources cited in the sentence, but it isn't clear which one the quotation is from. Ideally we'd have "reached what Soandso has called...".
    • Reworded
  • Italicise Einsatzgruppen as in the eponymous article?
    • Done
  • Unlike Jackson, he attempted: suggest "Shawcross attempted", as the last person mentioned is Lauterpacht.
    • Done
  • the complicity of the Foreign Office, the German Army, and the navy.: as there is a British Foreign Office, suggest "the German Foreign Office, army and navy.".
    • Done
  • Sonderweg is linked for a second time under "French prosecution".
    • Fixed
  • I'd briefly explain the technical term mens rea, as it's quite important to understanding the sentence it's in.
    • Done
  • instead focused on forced labor, economic plunder, massacres, and Germanization.: this reads a little like arson, murder and jaywalking: is there a better way to phrase "Germanization" (Cultural genocide?) to get across the seriousness of it to the French prosecutors?
    • If it sounds like arson murder and jaywalking that is the same impression that the judges must have gotten, because many of the French prosecutors' charges seemed much less serious than the crimes presented by the other delegations, particularly the Soviet Union.
  • The focus on economic exploitation was in part in order to substantiate reparations claims: "in part in order" is a little inelegant: "partly in order"?
    • Done
  • Unlike the British and American prosecution strategy: are we presenting these as a single, unified strategy? If not, suggest strategies and, later, cases.
    • Done
  • calling eleven witnesses: were these themselves victims?
    • I believe they were all or largely members of the French resistance but am unable to find sources saying so. The most famous was probably resistance fighter and Auschwitz survivor Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier.
  • The only part of the French charges that were accepted: prune to "the only part of the French charges accepted"?
    • Done
  • The next week, the Soviet prosecution suddenly produced former field marshal Friedrich von Paulus,: suddenly could be read as a little sensationalising: had they not revealed that they would be calling him in advance?
    • There was no advance announcement, it was a surprise when he showed up.
      • I think it would strike a better tone to state the first part of that: perhaps "...von Paulus, who had not been disclosed as among their witnesses", or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • at times they blurred the fate of Jews with other Soviet nationalities: it was the two fates, not the fate and the nationalities, that were blurred: so, "they blurred the fate of Jews with that of..."
    • Done
  • casting the entire proceedings into question: either "casting doubt on the entire proceedings" or "calling the entire proceedings into question".
    • Done
  • poet Abraham Sutzkever, who eloquently described: I'm sure he was eloquent, but is it encyclopaedic to say so in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of a secondary source?
    • Removed as unnecessary
  • None of the defendants tried to assert that the Nazis' crimes had not occurred.: I understand the importance of saying in this article that the defendants accepted the reality of the Holocaust, but I'm not sure that the link quite works here, since more than just the Holocaust was in contention.
    • The only relevant article I can find to link is the Holocaust denial article, but I could unlink it if you don't find the link helpful.
      • I think the link might be a little misleading: it implies that we're talking strictly about the Holocaust here, but we're not: we're also talking about waging wars of aggression, massacring PoWs, and so on. How about "None of the defendants tried to assert that any alleged Nazi crimes, including the Holocaust, had not occurred..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • arguing that because Germany was a civilized country few Germans could have supported Hitler: we've got a parenthetical clause in here: either comma it off ("arguing that, because Germany was a civilised country, few...") or rearrange ("arguing that few Germans could have supported Hitler, because Germany...")
    • Done
  • Many of the defense lawyers prioritized the reputation of the Wehrmacht above the defense of their clients.: this is repeated from earlier: is that intentional? As before, I think it would be useful to say something concrete about how this made a difference, if indeed it did.
    • Removed, see above
  • Other absent and dead men including Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, and Bormann were also blamed: again, comma off the clause "including Himmler... and Bormann".
    • Done
  • To counter claims of conservative defendants having enabled: suggest better as "claims that conservative defendants had enabled..."
    • Done
  • expecting that the German people would favorably regard his loyalty to Hitler after his death: Hitler's or Goering's?
    • Reworded

Stopping for a bit, halfway through "Defense". An extremely complex subject navigated extremely skilfully. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • a tu quoque defense: as with mens rea further up, I'd explain this: it isn't ideal for non-Latin-speaking readers (apparently we have some of those!) to have to click a link to understand the sentence.
    • Done
  • and their lawyers argued that this invasion was undertaken to prevent a British invasion;: it only becomes clear from the wikilink that this is a British invasion of Norway (rather than, say, of Germany). Suggest a rephrase to something like "this invasion was undertaken to frustrate a British plans to invade the same country".
    • Done
  • effectively incriminated the defendants: effectively can mean either "to great effect" or "more-or-less"; I don't think the ambiguity works in our favour here.
    • Reworded. The point is that defense lawyers called witnesses who actually/inadvertently bolstered the prosecution case.
      • Nice job: can we say "inadvertently" here, or is there any chance that some of them were doing it deliberately? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Priemel strongly implies that the damage was inadvertent, but on the other hand I am not sure that he directly states it as necessary to avoid WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Midway through the trial, Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech denouncing the Soviet threat delighted the defense: suggest Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech denouncing the Soviet threat, made in the United States midway through the trial, delighted the defense}}: current phrasing could be read as implying that Churchill delivered it at Nuremberg.
    • I ended up removing the sentence because I'm not sure it's essential to include.
      • Hm: there is a definite thread in this article about how the trials go from being a (fairly) all-Allied affair and basically situated in WWII, to an early-Cold-War face-off between the Western Allies and the Soviets: I think the Iron Curtain speech is important to that narrative. At the risk of beating a worn-out drum, this is another point that makes me suggest that the IMT needs its own article to allow sufficient comprehensivity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Re-added. See my comments below about the scope (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The United States ... tried its best to shut the Soviets out of the proceedings: this is a little vague and could do with some concrete substantiation. Given that the statement is almost at the end of the trial, I'm not really clear on how it intersects with what went before: is this a general feature of the whole proceedings or did it emerge during the defence portion?
    • It seems like during the defense the US and British prosecutors split up most of the cross-examinations between themselves, but did allow French and Soviet prosecutors to intervene, so I removed it.
  • In the context of the brewing Cold War, the trial became a means of condemning not only Germany but also the Soviet Union: likewise, I think this could do with some explanation or expansion to ensure that the article is comprehensive.
    • The main examples are already given, namely Seidl's shenanigans and the Western judges letting the defense use the trial as a platform to criticize the Soviet Union.
  • A master of self-promotion, Speer managed to give the impression of apologizing, although without assuming personal guilt or naming any victims other than the German people: I'm not sure "a master of self-promotion" is quite encyclopaedic in Wikipedia's voice, and although should be followed here by a finite verb: although he did not assume... or name...
    • If anyone can be described as a master of self promotion in wikivoice it would be Speer. Nevertheless, removed and reworded.
      • Yes, entirely fair: I'd be happy with it as "described by a later biographer as a 'master of self-promotion'" vel sim. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • because war in general is evil: not sure about the read of this one: how about "stating that war was evil in itself, and "to initiate..."
    • The actual words were "War is essentially an evil thing"
      • Yes: it just reads a bit Sunday-School to state that so baldly in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of the tribunal. I like the solution of making it a direct quotation: still suggest linking malum in se on "essentially an evil thing", which also helps to disambiguate "essentially" as meaning "in its essence" rather than "more or less". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The judges did not attempt to define aggression: italicise aggression per MOS:WORDSASWORDS?
    • Reworded
  • The judgment found that there was a premeditated conspiracy : sequence of tenses (the conspiracy was done by the time of the judgement): "the judgement found that there had been..." More optionally, consider "Austria had been a victim..." later.
    • Done
      • We still have The judges ruled that there was a premeditated conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, which implies that the conspiracy was still ongoing when the judgement was made ("John said that there was a cat behind that tree" means that the cat was still there when he spoke; "John said that there had been a cat behind that tree" means that it's gone.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the Soviet judges preferred a broad interpretation: I'm not sure what exactly a 'broad interpretation' would be in this context.
    • Reworded
  • The war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants who were charged being acquitted on those charges: a little confusing in the phrasing: suggest "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants charged on those grounds being acquitted", or "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best; only two defendants charged on those grounds were acquitted."
    • Done
  • The judges interpreted crimes against humanity narrowly: this seems to mean something closer to "the judges interpreted their jurisdiction over crimes against humanity narrowly".
    • Done
  • as disproving its criminality: perhaps clearer "as asserting its innocence"?
  • It's taken me until about this point to realise that some of the people we talked about earlier - the industrialists, and possibly the propagandists - weren't actually on trial. It certainly seemed from the "Defendants" section that Krupp would be part of the legal proceeding that was described afterwards, but now it turns out that he was part of a different trial. More generally, I'm still a little confused as to how the IMT and the NMT fit together, and the extent to which each "counts" as "The Nuremberg Trials".
    • Both industrialists and propagandists were charged at the IMT; although a greater number of industrialists were charged at the NMT. As stated in the article, Gustav Krupp was charged at IMT but not tried because of his poor health. Prosecutors had actually meant to charge his son Alfried Krupp but the error wasn't caught in time. Combining the IMT and NMT makes sense from a US and German perspective but less so from the other countries' perspective. When I started working on this article, I wanted it to cover the IMT exclusively. But now I realize that there are prominent works such as Priemel and Weinke that do deal jointly with the IMT and NMT as "Nuremberg trials", which justifies the article organization. (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I think it would help considerably to set out the scope of the trials more clearly - in particular, the division between the IMT and NMT - before we dive into the IMT. This might need a bigger structural rethink. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'm not sure about that. The form that the NMT took and their scope was heavily affected by the fact that plans to hold additional international trials fell apart. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The case law of the trials fleshed out the skeleton provided by the Nuremberg charter: I would generally shy away from metaphors like this in encyclopaedic writing, as above: they trade precision and accessibility for literary flair, when we generally want to do the opposite.
    • Reworded
  • resistance fighters: wikilink to French resistance?
    • It would be a duplicate link as the French resistance is wikilinked earlier in the article
  • Many Germans at the time of the trials focused on finding food and shelter; few followed the trial closely: this could do with fleshing out a little more. Presumably, the basic point is that most Germans were in too miserable a physical condition to care much about a trial?
    • Rewrote, a more recent source presents evidence that a majority of Germans actually did follow the trial despite their circumstances.
  • Many Germans considered the trials illegitimate victor's justice and the imposition of collective guilt: an imposition, surely?
    • Done
      • Is it worth pointing out that "collective guilt" had an emotive legacy in Germany: did the German press draw a link to Versailles, for example? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Priemel mentions that the defense lawyers tried to mention Versailles, but the judges wouldn't let them pontificate about it. I'm not sure about the public in general, but I'm not sure it would be WP:DUE since most results for searches of Nuremberg trials Versailles focus on aspects of the treaty that could be seen as a legal precedent. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were vociferous proponents of amnesty, which had cross-party support in West Germany, which was established in 1949: the double relative clause is awkward (and vociferous is a loaded word: close to line of WP:NPOV). Suggest "The German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were determined proponents of amnesty. The idea also gained cross-party support in West Germany, which was established in 1949."
    • Done
  • By then, the Americans were hoping to use the offer of pardon to convicted war criminals in order to bind West Germany to the Western Bloc.: who exactly was receiving (and so in a position to accept or decline) the offer: the criminals themselves or the West German state? Not sure "in order to" works here: you use something to do something.
    • Reworded
  • High Commissioner John J. McCloy: High Commissioner of what, exactly?
  • The last prisoner was released in 1958: would be worth saying who this was. Also worth being extra-clear that this is specifically the last prisoner sentenced by the NMT, as we find out soon after that IMT prisoners were still behind bars.
    • Reworded
  • The International Military Tribunal, and the drafters of its charter, invented international criminal law essentially from nothing: I think this has to be framed as a secondary source's judgement: international criminal law definitely existed before 1945.
    • I have changed "invented" to "developed".
      • Not sure the meaning has substantially changed (if you develop a vaccine from nothing, you invent it): I'd be much happier with "have been credited with" or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • During the two decades after the trial, opinions were predominantly negative: opinions of what, exactly?
    • Reworded
  • The charge of crimes against humanity, the charge of conspiracy, and imposing criminal penalties on individuals for breaches of international law were also novel but attracted little criticism: difficult to follow with the long final list item: suggest "Other novel concepts, such as the charge of crimes against humanity, the charge of conspiracy, and the imposition [don't mix gerunds and participles] of criminal penalties on individuals for breaches of international law, attracted little criticism}}
    • Reworded
  • Some defenders of the trial argued that the legal principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law) was not binding in international proceedings: could this be expanded slightly to make the implications explicit: were some defenders acknowledging that no law prohibited what the defendants had done, but arguing that they could legitimately be tried for it anyway? IF so, how about adding "...was not binding in international proceedings, and so the defendants could be tried under natural law" (or whatever justification they came up with).
    • Clarified. But the argument was mainly that retroactive application of criminal law was acceptable in international proceedings.
  • The trials were the first use of simultaneous interpretation: since simultaneous interpretation only technically involves the interpreter not waiting for the speaker to finish, should this be something more like "the first use ... in a major criminal proceeding" or "the first documented use"?
  • For comprehensiveness, it would be good to have a link to the legacy of the trials (specifically, the precedent of "crimes against humanity" and universal jurisdiction therefor) in France (see and Google-translate French Wikipedia) and for Eichmann in Jerusalem.
    • The legal legacy of the trials is more closely connected to the ICC, ICTR, ICTY (all mentioned) than the Eichmann trial, which was based on a law only partly inspired by Nuremberg (other countries like France also adopted crimes against humanity into their domestic law, but I think it is more relevant to crimes against humanity than this article). Universal jurisdiction is unrelated to the justification for prosecution at Nuremberg.
  • There's a lot of material in the Russian FA that I don't see here, for example:
    • On the accommodation of defendants, soldiers and lawyers during the trial, and the (extensive) security operation around this.
    • The substance of the final statements made by the defendants, only briefly alluded to here.
    • A short section on how the simultaneous translation worked, which is notable as this is part (admittedly, one smallish part among many) of the trials' legacy.

A more general comment on sourcing: we have an article, Nuremberg Trials bibliography, which is roughly four or five times the length of this article's bibliography. I notice in particular a lot of reliance on Hirsch and Priemel, who together seem to account for a substantial majority of the citations. Given the contentious and sensitive nature of the subject matter, I think it would be useful to weave in a greater range of authorities, even if that would simply involve swapping a citation from one source for another that says the same thing, to ensure that the article reflects and can be seen to reflect the scholarly consensus. The French article has a lot of bibliography not used here, as does the Russian FA (not just books in Russian); I notice in particular that there's only one book in German: again, there's a lot of works cited heavily on German Wikipedia that don't appear here.

OK, that's me. I know there's a lot here: please take that as a measure of the article's scale and importance rather than its quality. Overall, most of the above is polish for the prose or questions for clarity: if there are any question-marks, they are over whether the article is fully comprehensive on this huge subject, and how thoroughly it has been able to integrate and reflect the volume of scholarship on it. Again, it's a hugely impressive piece of work, and it's important that Wikipedia does this one well, so thank you for taking it on in such a way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The current article length is nearly 7,000 words. At this point if I were adding significant new content I would also be looking to see if I could reduce the article length elsewhere. I'm certainly willing to consider if there are overlooked aspects but the length also should be kept under control.
  • I know there are different approaches to citing sources. I used to use a more "kitchen sink" approach but now my opinion is that the best way is to start with the most high-quality, well-regarded and recent overviews of the stated topic (in this case certainly Hirsch and Priemel), filling out any gaps with other sources. This approach leads to a smaller bibliography and I don't really believe in citing other sources simply for the benefit of having a larger bibliography. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some thoughts

  • 3 of the sources are in French and 3 are in German. Can you make the case for completeness grounds with such a limited use of non-English sources?
  • Tusa & Tusa 2010 and Musa 2016 come from smaller publishers. Of the millions of words that have been written about the trials, are these two sources the best option?

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Tusa & Tusa and Musa were both added as a result of Brigade Piron's concerns about covering the British contribution. I would be ok removing Tusa & Tusa as it is the oldest and weakest source cited but I wouldn't call Brill a "small publisher". (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I appreciate that there's conflicting concerns here, and something of a difference of philosophy. Personally, I would be much more comfortable erring on the side of including more sources: this is a much-studied topic, and I'd see it as a corollary of WP:DUEWEIGHT (specifically, the stipulation that articles need to reflect the balance of HQRSs) that we're going to have some big articles where the subject matter doesn't split well but has a huge historiography. On the approach to sources, again, there's pros and cons, but secondary sources and monographs always embody a particular author's interpretations: how does a reader of this article, or we as a scholarly community assessing it, know what's the communis opinio versus what's Hirsch's own pet theory? This is particularly true when we're implicitly assuming or stating that you can get practically everything you need to get in the historiography of this topic from English-language sources, and I'd be amazed if that were the case given how differently these trials were viewed in (particularly) France, the Soviet Union and Germany. At the moment, this is more a hypothetical concern, since I can't point to much specific that I know hasn't been included (though I do think the closing statements are significant and should be in this article), but others who know the field better may be able to pronounce with more confidence in either direction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Further to this: from reading some of the comments below, it seems that we've got here an article originally intended to be on the IMT, which has now (sensibly) expanded to include the NMT. We're also now brushing up against problems where we can't really be comprehensive on the IMT without introducing page length concerns (which, in my view, are far less of a concern that comprehensiveness, but that's perhaps a philosophical difference). Given that, I think there's a very strong argument for hiving off the IMT, like the NMT, into its own article, and using this one to summarise the process as whole: which could include, as User:Piotrus states below, why Nuremberg was chosen as a site, and some more detail, as discussed above, as to the precise place of the trials vis-a-vis the understanding of international law that came before and after them. In turn, the split would then allow more detailed coverage of the IMT itself in the corresponding article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Piotrus[edit]

1. This is possibly out of FA scope, but it is a bit jarring to me: interwiki problems. This may also be within FA scope as it may concern article's scope or name. On English Wikipedia, International Military Tribunal ( does not have an article, it redirects to Nuremberg trials, a term used to cover 1945-1946 trials. Then we have an article on Subsequent Nuremberg trials for American-presided trials for 1946–1949. Assuming we are happy with the name and scope of our articles, should we crate an article about the IMT? And I do find it a bit confusing that the concept of "Nuremberg trials" on English Wikipedia is limited to the IMT only, with the other trials split of the to "subsequent" article. Is this really how historiography defines the topics? For the record, pl: Procesy norymberskie (lit. Nuremberg trials) links to IMT, and our Nuremberg trials article does not have interwikis to pl or de wikis at all (since those go to the IMT one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. My second comment is about comprehensivness. Polish Wikiepdia article has a section 'Poland and the IMT' (pl:Międzynarodowy_Trybunał_Wojskowy_w_Norymberdze#Udział_Polski). It contains some information that seems relevant, yet that is not present in our article. For example, only one of two Polish witnesses is mentioned (I added a link to his pl wiki article - this raises the minor technical question of whether FAC require checking if red links have articles on other wikis and using some form of {{ill}}? There are few other red links in this article which I did not check against Wikidata). Seweryna Szmaglewska is not mentioned. The article doesn't discuss the controversy related to limiting the IMT to only Big Four (Poland, for example, was not indepdently represented). See for example [3] ("The thesis also reviews Poland's participation in Nuremberg trial, Poland's omission in the indictment..."). See also, for example, [4] (article is in Polish, my translation from open mirror): Even before the end of the war, the Allies decided that only representatives of the great powers would sit in the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Poland, through its representatives, unsuccessfully demanded that it be granted special status due to the ravages wrought by the Nazis. Poland's complaint that the official indictment of Hans Frank did not take due account of the suffering of the Polish nation went unnoticed. Eventually, thanks to Soviet support, the Polish delegation was accredited and brought its own indictment, but its role was limited to providing evidence to the Tribunal; in addition, she gained access to the relevant documentation and the right to interrogate persons suspected of crimes committed on Polish soil. The Polish government, which sought formal recognition and wanted to counteract what it saw as the downplaying of Poland's suffering in the international arena, and wanting to achieve its goals in domestic policy, decided to establish its own tribunal and give it appropriate publicity (Supreme National Tribunal). Our article does not even mention the SNT. I think the article needs to discuss the Polish dimension in a dedicated paragraph in order to be comprehensive --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well that's the thing. Poland did not participate in the trial, there was no Polish dimension. Overviews of the subject don't cover this aspect significantly; for example, in Priemel there are 12 mentions of "Poland" in comparison to 54 for "France". I believe it makes more sense to write about what actually happened, not what might have happened. Not every witness is mentioned because there is finite space in the article. Most of the 37 prosecution witnesses and 89 defense witnesses are not mentioned, including none of the eleven French witnesses. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering WP:NOTPAPER, and the fact that this stuff is covered in some academic sources, I think you've just helped to further illustrate the problem of this article not being comprehensive (a concern that seems to have been raised by others above). The French section seems too short anyway in my view, but that aside, it is ~200 words long, so a ~40 words mention of the Polish dimension (which, yes, is a thing, per soruces cited) would not be too much. And the article is not too long, a rough word count suggests it is only 80% the size of our article on The Holocaust, for example. The French article on fr:Procès_de_Nuremberg is more than twice the size our English article, and covers more aspects (for example it has a section dedicated to why Nuremberg was chosen as the site of the trials, something our article does not seem to touch upon). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't disagree with adding a mention about Poland (or possibly Czechoslovakia and other countries) trying to get a role in the proceedings but not being accepted; what I disagree with is adding an entire paragraph. As for comprehensiveness / length, I think there is room for some expansion but at the same time there is so much written about these trials that I want to keep in mind balance, summary style, and conciseness. There is no reason that Poland and the International Military Tribunal couldn't be created if it is a notable topic. (So is the Office of Strategic Services and the International Military Tribunal which gets 1 short sentence in the article at present). (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few sentences are required to address the case of Poland. Now, I don't think it would be bad if that single paragraph discussed not just Poland but also some other countries in similar situation. Perhaps that would be a reasonable way to deal with that. A separate issue concerns other aspects of comprehensivness, from location to the mention of Seweryna Szmaglewska (her testimony is mentioned in a number of works, ex. here, here or here (this is another work that discusses the "Polish dimension" of the trial in at least several paragraphs). I am not sure if we should mention all witnesses, but I think her name should be somewhere in the article, her testimony is seen as relevant by a number of scholars writing about the trial. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separate article on the IMT[edit]

Since this has been suggested above, I'm going to leave this here: only 411 words—under 10 percent of the article's non-lead content—are not about the IMT, so even if this article scope was limited to the IMT and moved accordingly, which I don't really oppose, it would not give much additional space for expansion. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMT =/= the trial. Although they are closely related, sure (this tribunal held only a single trial, right?). At minimum, we should wikidata-link the redirect (International Military Tribunal to Q1667613). Analyzing how the information is split in those other wikis may give us more idea on how to divide the content. Anyway, I think this term might be a disambig to the Nurember trials (International Military Tribunal)/Nurember trials (1945–1946) and Subsequent Nuremberg trials/Nurember trials (1946–1949)/Nurember trials (U.S. military courts) (and I am still waiting for a discussion regarding whether the term 'subsequent', and the split we have, is common in literature?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that, in practice, one can cover the IMT separately from the trial held before it. As far as I can tell, sources don't make that distinction. It also doesn't seem right to talk about "Nuremberg trials" when just the first trial is meant.
You can find sources just about the IMT (i.e. Hirsch, Mouralis) just the NMT (Heller) or both (Priemel, Weinke). There has been dispute over the title of the subsequent Nuremberg trials article, I am one of those who supported the official name, "Nuremberg Military Tribunals". (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support a move to NMT if you were to start another discussion (and if you do, please ping me). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neptune (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC(talk) 04:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those of you who have read my previous McQueen articles have seen the man at his best and most brilliant: the legendary armadillo shoe, the masterful Widows of Culloden, and Twisted Bull, which managed to balance commerce and creativity. Here I present to you a different McQueen: exhausted, commercial, and worst of all, boring. No one liked this collection and no one liked the runway show, both of which lacked any sense of the theatrical. It barely rates in his biographies, and not a single piece appeared in the blockbuster retrospective Savage Beauty. Nevertheless, against all good taste, in all its tacky 80s faux-Greek glory, I love it. ♠PMC(talk) 04:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pulling up a chair and saving a spot. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • This is super nitpick-y, but in the first paragraph of the "Concept and collection", the word "said" is used two sentence in a row in a similar context so it does create some slight repetition. The second instance, (said it was a transitional collection), could be easily revised to say something along the lines of (described it as a transitional collection).
  • Fixed
  • I am not sure about presenting this part, (whose work hovered between seductive and tawdry), in Wikipedia's voice. It reads more like something I would find in a review rather than a more objective article.
  • I've revised it to a "has been described" sort of thing. The opinion is reflected in the cited refs, so hopefully that works.
  • Since nationality is mentioned for other people from the paragraph, I've re-added the other two being French - it was there but got lost in copyediting somewhere
  • Yeah, I've ditched Nutbush and revised the order.
  • I have noticed a few instances where the citations are not put in numeric order. Is there a reason for this ordering?
  • Nah, just carelessness. Should be fixed now.
  • I have a nitpick-y comment for this sentence: (Neptune was poorly received at launch for a number of reasons.) I do not think "for a number of reasons" is necessary, and I would cut it as filler.
  • Cut
  • I am not sure about the current structure of the "Reception" section. It currently puts each review as its own paragraph when I think a more thematic approach could be more beneficial. The first paragraph already has solid themes to aid with this organization, such as this instance: (Several critics drew unflattering comparisons to costumes from genre fiction.) which could be paired with the Xena and Wonder Woman comparisons.
  • Yes, you're right. I've overhauled it, see what you think.
  • For this part, (Andrew Wilson does not even discuss the clothing), I think the "even" pushes the point a little too hard, and I would suggest removing it.
  • All else being equal, I would prefer to keep it, as it feels genuinely remarkable for Wilson not to even mention the designs. Almost every other collection gets at least a paragraph, usually more. Even the equally-boring previous collection, The Man Who Knew Too Much, gets a couple of sentences telling you what the clothes looked like.

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I did not miss anything. I appreciate that you brought this article to the FAC space. McQueen is remember as such an icon in the fashion world that it is nice to read more about his collections that were not as successful. Maybe it is because my Wikipedia work is primarily focused on obscure topics, but I feel it better rounds out a reader's understanding of McQueen has a whole. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Cheers Aoba, thanks for taking the time to review! Always appreciate your comments :) ♠PMC(talk) 06:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to everything and for your very kind words! I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisThe Dude[edit]

  • "the work of artists influential that decade" => "the work of artists influential in that decade"
  • Fixed
  • "Sarah Burton, then his assistant" - when's "then"? No dates have been mentioned in the body thus far
  • tweaked
  • "In the years preceding Neptune," - could do with specifying at this point what the date of Neptune was
  • I've added the season in the body, how's that?
  • "primarily 1980s rock music, represented by songs from Siouxsie and the Banshees, Suzi Quatro, and the Ike and Tina Turner single "Nutbush City Limits"," - this reads like Nutbush is an example of 80s rock, but it actually came out in the early 70s.....
  • hah yes this was me accidentally replicating an error from the ref. I've ditched the track name anyway.
  • "Bare legs and gladiator sandals with stiletto heels further emphasized" - McQueen was British so I think that UK spellings should be used and therefore the last word should be "emphasised"
  • They should be, I'm just terrible at remembering
  • "English supermodel Kate Moss; who at the time of the show" => "English supermodel Kate Moss, who at the time of the show"
  • Done
  • "Some reviewers found the second phase bore" => "Some reviewers found that the second phase bore"
  • Done
  • "Although she did not criticize" => ise
  • Done
  • "However, they found the collection overall had" => "However, they found that the collection overall had"
  • Ditched that wording anyway
  • Caryatid image caption needs a full stop
  • Done
  • Thanks for the review Chris, tweaks made! ♠PMC(talk) 06:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting down a marker. I'm enjoying this series of articles, and I doubt I'll be disappointed with this one either! - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Shouldn't "Imprimerie nationale" be italicised? (and ditto in the Runway show section)
  • MOS says "A proper name is usually not italicized" and then specifically says organizations and institutions shouldn't be.
  • Good to know - I've de-italicised it in the main article, where the use was mixed
Runway show
  • "emphasised the stature of the models": "emphasised their stature"? (It will remove the three uses of "models" in quick succession)
  • Done
  • "cut-outs" is hyphenated in BrEng (and ditto in the Legacy section)
  • Fixed
  • "Pantsuit" is American: "trouser suit" is BrEng
  • Also fixed

That's my lot - all rather trivial fare. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Cheers SC, thanks for the review. All fixed now. ♠PMC(talk) 14:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Happy with this. Another excellent article in what is becoming a very strong topic. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! It should only take me 3 or so years to get to FT, given the sheer number of collections :P ♠PMC(talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A[edit]

Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A is about an airline flight from Oakland to South Lake Tahoe that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, the aircraft, and the aftermath of the investigations that were launched when the aircraft crashed into a mountain.

After its initial expansion, the article appeared on the WP front page's Did You Know? section? It received a GA review by The Rambling Man. Since then, I've poked around from time to time refining some of the prose, but at this point, I feel that it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Anti-icing_system.JPG needs a source for the data presented
  • File:Lockheed_Model_749A_Constellation_silhouette.jpg: on what basis is this believed to be CC-licensed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've added the alt tags. I suspect the CC licensing tag was a mistake on the part of the Wikipedia Commons uploader, because they originally uploaded the image with the CC tag, then amended the image a minute later with the PD tag. I don't do much editing on Commons, so I don't know if it's appropriate to just assume it was a mistake and remove the CC tag, leaving the PD tag or not, so I haven't done anything about it. The original uploader hasn't been active on commons since 2021. Looking for clarification about the source of the icing diagram; are you just looking for a source that would state that the leading edges of the wings have anti-icing systems on it, or are you looking for something specific to this image? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A source that could be used to confirm the accuracy of the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When looking up the reference, I actually came across a picture that better depicts what I was trying to show with the photo, so I replaced the photo altogether, and added the reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terminator 2: Judgment Day[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I told you... I'll be back"

Hoping this sequel is as successful as the film on which it is focused. This is Terminator 2, the 1991 action film that pits machine against machine to preserve the future of humanity.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • when he is a child -- Should this be in the past tense? Since he went back in time. (same with the plot section)
  • I would link principal photography for readers unfamiliar with the term
  • See also: List of Terminator characters -- should the linked title all be in italics?
  • that looked like an average human -- maybe an average-sized human since we are comparing to Arnold's larger frame
  • or came from advertisement backgrounds -- perhaps modelling backgrounds

Down to the end of Casting. More to follow. Hoping this FAC will gain traction from reviewers this time. With that said, might I interest you if you have spare time to review a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Three months of pre-production was truncated -- maybe shortened or something similar per WP:NOTSIMPLE
  • Over one week -- maybe for over a week
  • The production used many locations -- filmed in many locations
  • vivifying the T-1000 -- could use a much simpler term WP:NOTSIMPLE
  • A team of up to 35 -- perhaps clarify if these are 35 editors, graphic designers, etc?
  • oscillators and synthesizers -- could benefit wikilinking for context if available
  • at which the audience was -- during which the audience
  • and a new "Extended Cut", containing a further scene -- containing a scene
  • subsequent 2017 theatrical re-release of Terminator 2: Judgment Day in August 2017 -- remove first mention of 2017
  • Compared to the bleak, nihilistic theme of The Terminator, Terminator 2 -- maybe replace the The Terminator as the first film so it doesn't read or appear repetitive.
  • Terminator 2: Judgment Day has been referenced to in a variety of media -- has been referenced in a variety of media
  • Maybe merge the last para under cultural influence section since it is only 2 sentences.
  • and Empire readers ranked Terminator 2 17th on its 2017 "100 Greatest Movies" -- ranked the film to avoid repetition and since it's followed by a numeric

Those are my comments. I hope they are helpful. Another very well-written and elaborate film article. I adored this film as a kid (to this day). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for these comments Pseud, I just want to acknowledge I am aware of them and will tackle them tomorrow hopefully, had a lot going on the last few days! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Pseud 14, I've done most of these, I have had a look at the prose re: "when he is a child" and I've run it through a grammar checker and it does seem to be correct as is. I get where you're coming from with it but I do think it's right as is unless anyone else can comment on it?
Thanks for the clarification. I too was debating on it, that's why I brought it up. But if your grammar check says otherwise, then I am inclined to agree. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE: List of Terminator characters, I know it looks weird but that's how it's meant to be, I don't have the link to policy but it's something that was brought to my attention on a previous FAC, the italics are inversed for some reason.
Fair point. And seems to be very minor and nitpick-y on my part. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE: "or came from advertisement backgrounds", is modelling the same? I'm not clear on that. The specific reference is relating to kids who star in adverts specifically because they're taught to smile and laugh and be positive about the product. Do these count as models?
I believe any individual who appears in advertisements whether print or screen would be considered models. But I think the use of advert in this context is fine too. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE: "A team of up to 35", the source just says "experts" it doesn't specify their roles beyond them working for ILM.
Should be good then. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I've done the other ones so let me know your thoughts on the above responses. I will also aim to take a look at Angel Aquino in the next few days, I just need to catch up on some sleep! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for providing your responses. Changes all look good and rationales are satisfactory. Happy to support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angel Aquino[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having previously worked on Filipino BLPs, I've decided to start working on another Filipino actress. Angel Aquino began her career as a fashion model before she ventured into acting. Since then she has appeared in primarily independent films and primetime television series of varying genres. She is noted for her versatility and adaptability in portraying protagonists and villains, and has received praise and accolades for her work on screen. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems necessary to add a reference to the sentence that she has been mentioned in various media as the most beautiful face in the Philippine entertainment industry. Kloyan.L (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:LEADCITE states that citations are often omitted from the lead section as this information is repeated and sourced in the article prose. The same information is mentioned, repeated and sourced in the body. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media review—pass[edit]

That should complete media review.--NØ 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for doing the media review MaranoFan. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Aquino has three younger siblings. They were raised by their mother...." - this sounds like only the three younger siblings were raised by their mother
Revised for clarity
  • "the erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000), whose script" => "the erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000), the script of which" ("whose" should really only be used with people, not non-human things like a film)
  • "Aquino and Roño reunited in the action drama La Vida Rosa (2001), co-starring Rosanna Roces, Liza Lorena, and Jiro Manio. She played" => "Aquino and Roño reunited in the action drama La Vida Rosa (2001), co-starring Rosanna Roces, Liza Lorena, and Jiro Manio, in which she played" (join two short sentences together)
  • "critically acclaimed independent comedy-drama Crying Ladies, co-starring Sharon Cuneta and Hilda Koronel.[24][25] She played" => "critically acclaimed independent comedy-drama Crying Ladies, co-starring Sharon Cuneta and Hilda Koronel,[24][25] in which she played" (as above)
Revised as above
  • " a Martial law-era " - no need for capital M
  • "in Eddie Romero's final directorial effort, Faces of Love (2007).[55][56] The film premiered" => "in Eddie Romero's final directorial effort, Faces of Love (2007),[55][56] which premiered"
Thank you for taking up this review ChrisTheDude. Your comments have been actioned. Looking forward to the rest of your review. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More comments
  • "The year 2013 marked a high point in Aquino's career, as she became a performer nominated" - just "The year 2013 marked a high point in Aquino's career, as she was nominated" is sufficient
  • "as she did neither understand nor respect her character's actions" - I think "as she could neither understand nor respect her character's actions" would be better wording
Agree, revised.
  • "he had a guest role in an episode of the anthology series Maalaala Mo Kaya.[133] She was paired opposite Adrian Alandy" => "he had a guest role in an episode of the anthology series Maalaala Mo Kaya,[133] in which she was paired with Adrian Alandy" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks ChrisTheDude. Additional comments have been actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from NØ[edit]

  • "Among her notable performances include an assasin's wife" - Needs a grammar correction, try "Among her notable performances are an assasin's wife"
  • Not sure public figure needs a link.
  • "she and her siblings were from their father's second marriage, and were estranged from him" - "estranged from their father, she and her siblings were born from his second marriage" could be simpler
Revised as suggested
  • "She was featured in several television and print advertisements for products, including being the face of hair care brand Pantene" - "She was featured in several television and print advertisements for products, and became the face of hair care brand Pantene"
  • "critic Bayani San Diego Jr. of the Philippine Daily Inquirer noted how much Aquino's supporting part aided the narrative" - This should be conveyed as the critic's opinion as it seems subjective. So maybe "critic Bayani San Diego Jr. of the Philippine Daily Inquirer believed Aquino's supporting part really aided the narrative" or something along those lines.
Revised as suggested
  • "She has advocated for children's education and is actively involved with Juan Day, an initiative which raised money to help provide educational supplies to students in rural areas and from disadvantaged families" - If she is actively involved with them, the second part of this sentence probably shouldn't be in past tense.
  • "Aquino has voiced her approval for equal rights and opportunities in the LGBT community" - "for" the LGBT community?
  • I am a bit confused about the first paragraph of the Acting credits and awards section. Aren't all of these television projects mentioned in more detail in prior sections? Do any other acting bios include a whole paragraph dedicated to Rotten Tomatoes rankings? Apologies if this is common practice and I just didn't know, but it would seem this being trimmed to just "Awards" (the second paragraph) would suffice.
For "Acting credits and awards", I tailored this section to existing FAs of BLPs which seem to be consistent with providing a summary style mention of both Rotten Tomatoes and Box-office data for "acting" and a summary of "awards". This section is much shorter though, than what you would find in examples such as Kate Winslet, Jessica Chastain, Emma Stone, Amy Adams or Christian Bale, as I have only referenced available data.
Great work and kudos on 96.9% authorship on such an elaborate article. Can't wait to see what you'll work on next.--NØ 08:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comments and kind words. I appreciate you doing a prose review MaranoFan. I have actioned your comments above and provided an explanation regarding the last point. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction or if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frank McGee (ice hockey)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A second attempt here. The previous nomination was withdrawn to work on prose, and after work by the WP:GOCE, I hope it's good to go now. I'm going to ping both @ChrisTheDude and Gog the Mild: as they were good enough to go through the first nomination, and if they're willing I would appreciate a second look from them. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • What value is the health form image believed to provide? It's not particularly legible at this size
It confirms details relating to his enlistment, but based on your note about legibility and uncertainty to copyright status (from below) I've removed it.
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Silver7.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
1961, so I removed that tag
Since this is hosted on Commons, it does still need a tag for country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is fixed, but please let me know if I'm missing something. Image licensing tags always confuse me. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Frank_mcgee_enlistment.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uncertain, so based on this and above it's removed.
That should clear up all concerns here, thanks for reviewing everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "After his hockey career ended, McGee worked with the Department of Indian Affairs" - unless this is standard Canadian English, I would change it to "worked for" or "worked in", as current wording makes it sound like he didn't actually work for the dept but just collaborated with them
  • "McGee had a passion for sports; he participated in ice hockey, rugby football, lacrosse, and rowing.[8] McGee played" => "McGee had a passion for sports; he participated in ice hockey, rugby football, lacrosse, and rowing.[8] He played" (avoid starting two consecutive sentences with his name)
  • Link ice hockey on first use in body
  • "McGee's rise in the civil service was aided in part due to" => "McGee's rise in the civil service was aided in part by"
  • "However, he excelled on the ice" => "He excelled on the ice, however"
  • "for lead goalscorer for most during the challenge games" => "for lead goalscorer during the challenge games"
  • "McGee's brother Jim died in a horse-riding accident" - no need to relink Jim
  • Think that's it from me! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great thanks for taking a second look. Addressed everything up here, but if you see anything more just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)