Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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 Contents – This page:

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

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Holidays (Meghan Trainor song)

Nominator(s): NØ 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ho ho ho! And the "ho" is for "Holidays", of course. This is a Christmas song by Meghan Trainor. One of those unique Trainor songs not to receive negative reviews. The credit probably goes to featured artists Earth, Wind & Fire, though, considering critics could not stop comparing it to their other work. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here and Merry Christmas :) --NØ 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Media review

• the images are licensed appropriately. Suggest alt text to the image of the bow. The audio sample has an appropriate FUR and meets WP:SAMPLE. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "horn bleats in its production" - bleats links to sheep#vocalisations, where nothing about music is mentioned. Is this really an appropriate link?
• "most of the work for the album was done in "July and August"" - don't think it's really necessary to present the last three words as a quote, given that it's only three words
• "Ray Brown plays horns orchestration" - "horn orchestration" isn't an instrument, you can't play it. It means he arranged the horn parts played by Ross, Artope, etc
• "She wore a nitid bodysuit" - never seen the word "nitid" before, what does it mean?
• Note doesn't need a full stop
• That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Guallatiri

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in northern Chile, one of the more active volcanoes in this remote region. It is covered by a shrinking ice cap and it has conspicuous fumaroles that can be seen from around the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

HF

I intend to review this over the coming days; please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Monday. Hog Farm _Talk 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The summit may be either a lava dome or a pyroclastic cone," - the "the volcano" section doesn't make any indication that this Guallatiri could be a pyroclastic cone so far as I can tell and instead suggests it may be a volcanic plug

  I hate dealing with disagreeing sources. Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Guallatiri has been active in historical times with a number of eruptions, the latest in 1960" - the article also mentions a poorly documented eruption in 1987?

  Yes, but Global Volcanism Program does not accept it. I figure there is disagreement on whether it was an actual eruption or merely increased gas emissions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The term wallatiri means "abundance of the Andean goose" in Aymara[2] and refers to its frequent occurrence in the area" - this needs rephrased; as it stands the "its frequent occurrence" would grammatically be referring to the term wallatiri itself, not the geese

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since we are given conflicting height figures, how was 6,071 selected to be the one used for the lead and infobox?

  Because Echevarria is probably the best source for elevation data. I've removed the figure from the lead and infobox, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• If Echevarria 1963 and Echevarria 1999 are the same person, should the 6,087 figure that is currently source only to the 1963 source be ommitted as probably superceded if no other high-quality source for it can be found, since the author is now reporting a different figure for its height?

  Aye, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note C has topographic isolation as 29.1 kilometers, while the infobox has 25

  Was mended on Wikidata. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• The infobox lists the volcanic field as the Nevados de Quimsachata in a matter as if this is certain, but the lead and body both indicate there is some debate about this

  I just keep forgetting about the infobox, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "and displays levees, ogives, polygonal cracks and blocky surfaces" - a link or gloss of some form is needed for ogives; this is not a common term

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Should the redlink for pioneer vegetation point to pioneer species for now?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The older Humurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded,[11] Capurata is better preserved.[30] " - I'm not sure that this is really on-topic for this article; all three of the peaks are separate for Guallatiri and no direct connection between this information and Guallatiri is made

  I think it's valid contextual information since they are right next to each other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Tuffs and pyroclastic flow deposits occur both in the summit region and in radial valleys that emanate from Guallatiri,[34] although some of the valley deposits have been reinterpreted as being reworked sediments" - but then we have "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) distance from Guallatiri. Radiocarbon dating has yielded ages ranging between 6,255±41-140±30 years before present.[38] These flows are unrelated to the lava domes, which show no evidence of collapses that could have formed pyroclastic flows" later in the article; this seems to be at least a partial contradiction

  Not seeing it - some valley deposits are sediments, other are pyroclastic flows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The composition of volcanic rocks ranges from andesite to rhyolite;[1] with dacites being predominant." - it is unclear if this sentence refers to volcanic rocks in general or to those at Guallatiri specifically

  Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Something seems to have gone wrong with the title of Echevarria 1963

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Glaciología. "Glaciares del Volcán Guallatiri". Glaciología (in Spanish). Retrieved 2021-06-30." - this looks like the personal website of one Andres Rivera, what makes it high-quality RS

  It's this professor with a number of publications on Chilean glaciers and not just Chilean ones per his profile on the University of Chile website. One example from Wiley is this one. Google Scholar refers to his website and has some well-cited publications by him. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Jaksic et al is missing a publisher

  That had a few more issues, which I have now fixed. I kinda wonder if "Estudios Publicos" is a journal rather than a publisher, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that is it for the first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Quarter sovereign

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... the smallest coin in the sovereign range. It doesn't have as long a history as the others, but there's still something to be said about its history, both in the 19th century and more recently.Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Generalissima

Oh finally, another numismatics article! I'm happy I get to do a review for one of these. Good work so far on your coinage escapades on-wiki, I will do my best to look this over.

Images:

• File:Quarter_sovereign_designs.jpg isn't a very good quality image; BNJ scans are notoriously low-resolution, especially noticeable on an image such as this. I would instead suggest using Template:Mim and the photographs of the two patterns available at the American Numismatic Society's website (here and here). They're high resolution and explicitly public domain; the ANS' online collections are great for finding decent photographs of rare coinage.

Swapped. I hadn't realized that ANS had released its images. I also have access to Heritage Auctions as a special permission for me and one other editor, let me know if you ever need anything from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Fair use images of the modern Quarter Sovereign proof are good.

Prose:

• Lede:
  • I would suggest linking sovereign in the lede.

Done.

• • I would also suggest mentioning the coin is gold in the lede, since this would not be initially apparent to a reader unfamiliar with British coinage.

Done.

• • "In 1853, Royal Mint had produced two patterns for a quarter sovereign for circulation use, one denominated as five shillings, but these coins never went into production, in part due to concerns about their small size and the likely wear in circulation." This sentence has a number of problems.

Done.

• • • "In 1853, Royal Mint" - Missing "the" before Royal Mint here.
    • "quarter sovereign for circulation use" seems a bit clunky to me. I'd just say "for circulation", where it would presumably be used.
    • "quarter sovereign... one denominated as five shillings." So is it a quarter sovereign? British coinage is no stranger to different denominations with the same value, as another notable five-shilling coin would attest. The aforementioned ANA entry describes the latter as a five-shilling piece, not a quarter sovereign. (Hocking's royal mint catalogue does describe it as a quarter-sovereign pattern, however, so this might be a moot point.)

Since Dyer describes it both a quarter sovereign, I think we're safe here. And since the sovereign was supposed to be equal to the gold pound, with the shilling the silver subsidiary unit that had a limited legal tender, it seems more proper. I can think of several reasons for expressing it as five shillings, a) to "sell" it as a substitute for the silver coinage which was in short supply at the time, b) part of a trend for putting denominations on coins, with the florin only four years in the past, and c) maybe the inevitable quality control/wear issues would have resulted in it having a limited legal tender, and call for some disassociation with the other gold coinage, which had unlimited legal tender.

• • • "in part"? Looking at the Dyer source, I don't see any other arguments against the quarter sovereign beyond their size and lack of durability, thus requiring greater expense.

Deleted.

• • • Generally, a bit of a long and unwieldy sentence. I would just split it after "five shillings", and then throw out the "but".

Cut.

• • "In 2009, with gold no longer used in circulation," I feel this implies that the impetus for the quarter sovereign was gold coins no longer circulating by the late 2000s, as opposed to increased collector demand for bullion sets. I would clarify this.

I cut this and added a sentence about why these coins are being sold to begin with.

• • "The quarter sovereign has the same design as the larger coin, most often..." This one is a bit clunky. The first part of the sentence it implies it has one design, but the latter portion talks about how it is most often a specific design. Rephrasing as "shares the designs" might resolve this.

I've done that, but I find it hard to express a) the designs are uniform over the sovereign range at any given time, b) there are one-year designs and c) they always come back to Pistrucci's. Look it over and you may have some suggestion.

• Victorian pattern coin
  • Aforementioned problem of one of the patterns not being denominated as a quarter sovereign rears its head again here, but that is of course elaborated on above.
  • "...enquired in the Commons of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, James Wilson..." Is there a "Commons of the Financial Secretary", or is he enquiring in the House of Commons *to* the Financial Secretary?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• • Rest of this section is in decent shape. I would describe the pattern designs at some point, using W. J. Hocking, 1906 as a source.

I have that now.

• 21st century bullion and collector's coin
  • Just describing it as a bullion coin distinguishes it from the Victorian patterns. (And being bullion does not preclude it being a collectors' coin)

I've generalized it with "those wishing to hold gold coins"

• "In the first decade of the 21st century, the Royal Mint had been striking, for sale to collectors and those wishing to hold gold bullion, sovereigns, half sovereigns, double sovereigns, and five-pound pieces." I can tell what the sentence is trying to down, but it's awkwardly phrased. I think it would help to give quite a bit more background context; expand on when gold circulation ended, when Royal Mint bullion mintage began, and what the difference between the sovereign denominations vs other forms of gold bullion (the Britannia I'm assuming most commonly) is for the UK.

I've done that.

• "From 2009 to 2012 the sovereign, in addition to being issued as a proof coin, was sold as a bullion piece, with authorised mintages of between 50,000 and 250,000, though the actual numbers sold are unreported". The sovereign? Or the quarter sovereign? I'm assuming both, since they share designs, but you should clear this up.

The quarter sovereign. The actual mintages are not yet published and will possibly be in future editions of the catalogue.

• "In 2017, a version with the original, 1817 sovereign design was struck. This was for the 200th anniversary of the modern sovereign." Another awkward phrasing. Our readers don't need an additional sentence to figure out this was for the 200th anniversary! I'm sure you can work the adjective 'bicentennial' in so you don't need it. (Also, might be important to mention if this featured the 1817 monarch or the 2017 monarch!)

Rephrased.

General Thoughts: Were this a GAN, I'd approve it once the above changes were made. But FAC requires a comprehensive overview of the subject, and I struggle to interpret this as comprehensive coverage of the British bullion denomination. It doesn't clarify the different ways these are sold (in sets versus singles), it doesn't clarify the premiums that set it apart from other quarter ounce gold bullion. It is missing mention of the quarter sovereigns commissioned by the governments of some British subnational entities, most notably those of Gibraltar. The prose struggles with unnecessarily clunking phrasing; I would highly recommend looking over WP:REDEX and WP:POSA, as I have found them both tremendously helpful in improving that aspect of my prose. Oppose at the moment, but keep up the good work of numismatics editing! - Generalissima (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I'm always delighted to have a review from someone familiar with numismatics. I will work through your points. Regarding the Gibraltar quarter sovereign, this article is only on the British coin. None of the FAs about the sovereign coinage, sovereign (British coin), half sovereign, double sovereign or five pounds (gold coin), is intended to or does mention sovereigns from Gibraltar, Isle of Man, etc any more than the article on two pound coin mentions the Falkland Islands one. The British coin in each case is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, which would not foreclose an article on, let us say, quarter sovereign (Gibraltar coin).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Generalissima, I think I've addressed your issues or responded to them (see above). Could you take a second look at the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "In 1853, the Royal Mint had produced". Why "had"?
• Any chance of an explanation of what "bullion pieces" are?
• "Other reverse designs used included another". I think "included" should be 'include', but don't insist.
• Hocking (1906): no place of publication?

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've addressed those issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Education

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Education is a broad phenomenon that applies to all age groups and covers formal as well as non-formal and informal education. Thanks to the spread of public education in the last few centuries, formal education has become a major part of almost everyone's childhood experience. Education is one key factor both on a personal and societal level in the contemporary world. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments by Anarchyte

Lead

Very impressive. This review will just be on the prose itself, with little comment on its coverage. Might take a few days to finish.

Thanks for doing this review and for the detailed comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced that this current ordering of the lead is the best way to introduce the topic. I think starting the article with the explanation of lived education (i.e., formal, non-formal, etc — what we've all experienced) is stronger than immediately noting differences in perspective. That aspect can then be used to introduce the conceptual side of education, with respect to socialising, etc. I've drafted a mockup change here.

  That's an interesting idea. The original order is based on a logical exposition: it first describes the general concept, then how it can be subdivided into types, and then other considerations. I think both approaches work but you are probably right that putting the discussion of its types at beginning makes the article more digestable to the average reader so I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• With the discussion of discrimination, why isn't Discrimination in education linked?

  Done. That's the better link target. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries, public education became more important." — did it become more important or was it a societal shift in the perception of education's importance?

  Both but primarily the first. The public education we have today is historically speaking a rather recent phenomenon. For most of human history since the ancient period, a proper formal education was not available to the average people and was primarily accessible to elites. The history section has more on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitions

• "the bodily level" — unclear.

  In doing some research on this point, I discovered that these explanations are used inconsistently in the sources: According to Vico 1999, educere refers to the mind and educare refers to the body but according to the Century Dictionary, educere refers to the body and educare refers to the mind. This point is not essential so I removed the reference to body and mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "This problem can be avoided by offering less precise definitions based on family resemblance." — add "instead" before "based" or the sentence could be interpreted as "definitions based on family resemblance" being the thing lessened to avoid the problem.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "This means that all the forms of education are similar to each other. But they need not share a set of essential features that all of them have in common" — merge sentences.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "But they are criticized because there are counterexamples." — could be reworded. Perhaps: "Less common types of education occasionally fall outside these parameters, which leads to the criticism of such precise approaches".

  Done. I slightly reworded your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• What is a thick definition? It's linked but I think a brief explanation would be beneficial.

  I added an explanatory footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Also, to confirm, are said thick definitions affirming that there are disagreements or do they affirm one side of the evaluative debate?

  The second one. I reformulated the passage to avoid the ambiguity. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "They state that it is part of the nature of education that it is beneficial to the student or leads to some kind of improvement" — consider simplifying: "They state it is part of the nature of education to be beneficial to the student or lead to some kind of improvement".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "One reason for this view is that some forms of indoctrination may be necessary in the early stages of education while the child's mind is not yet sufficiently developed" — strong statement that might need an example or two.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Types

• The opening paragraph of this section is unclear. I understand it's supposed to lead into the subsections, but at the moment it's a few non-sequiturs.

  I tried to reformulate it to have a better text flow. In theory, this paragraph could be removed. Its main purpose is to provide a very concise overview to give the reader some orientation for the following subsections. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Formal, non-formal, and informal

• "extending all the way from primary school to university" — remove "all the way".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "carried out with a clear purpose in mind" — remove "in mind".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Informal education is present in many settings. It happens throughout one's life, mostly in a spontaneous way." — I understand what this is trying to say, but I don't think it's as clear as it could be.

  I reformulated it but I'm not sure it's better than before. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This is how children learn their mother tongue from their parents or how people learn to prepare a dish by cooking together." — consider something like "Examples include the parental teaching of one's first language and the collaborative preparation of food". Not convinced by my food-related rephrasing, so any improvements are welcome.

  I combined some of your suggestions with the original formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3 currently goes formal, informal, non-formal. The rest of this section goes formal, non-formal, informal.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization. But in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level" — change to "Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This usually meant that there is no distinction" — "was no distinction". Previous sentence is past-tense.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Primitive culture links to a book. Probably not the correct target?

  I removed the link. Urgesellschaft could be considered as an alternative link target. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "efficient enough to pass on large quantities" — change to "efficient enough to teach large quantities".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became more and more important" — if supported by sources, change to something like "This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became the most important type".

  I'm not sure that our source explicitly make this type of quantitative comparison. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "In this process, the experience of education became more abstract and removed from daily life." — surely it became less abstract, with schools and universities becoming defined locations of learning?

  I made a slight reformulation to emphasize that this is about the contents that are being learned. For example, a child learning to hunt first-hand by joining the other hunters in their tribe is more concrete than a child sitting in school and learning about the Pythagorean theorem.

• "grasping general patterns" — change to "grasping general concepts".

  I added "concepts" instead since it may not be only concepts that are learned. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Levels

I made a few changes myself. You can review them here.

• "usually starts at the age of five to seven" — change to "usually starts within the ages of five to seven".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• What is the difference between secondary and upper secondary? It currently notes secondary is from the ages of 12-18, but that doesn't leave any room for further high school education as it typically ends at the age of 18. Is upper secondary from the ages of 15-18, for instance (i.e., year 10-12, while secondary is yr 7-9)? Probably worth merging and explaining these differences in more depth.

  Yes, upper secondary education starts roughly at 15 though there are country-specific differences. I added this fact to the paragraph on upper secondary education. The previous paragraph gives a short explanation of the difference between lower and upper secondary education. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "in the form of a doctor's degree" — could link to Doctor of Philosophy. Likely worth to use the phrase "PhD" somewhere, as that is what people are familiar with.

  I added it as an example since there are other doctor degrees as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Others

• "with access to an appropriate education." — could this be "with access to an appropriate educational structure"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• In the paragraph that starts with "Forms of education can also be categorized by the subject and the medium used", it may be useful to note that some universities offer degrees or courses in an online format, and that this is not an example of open education.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Remove italics from "paid education".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education. It includes categories for institutions like family, school, civil society, state, and church" — shorten to "A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education, like family, school, civil society, state, and church".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

William Y. Slack

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A small-town lawyer from Chillicothe, Missouri, Slack served briefly in the Missouri House of Representatives and in the US Army in the Mexican War in the 1840s. With the outbreak of civil war in 1861, Slack sided with the pro-Confederate state militia and was appointed a general officer in the militia. He fought at Carthage in July 1861, took a bullet to the hip at Wilson's Creek in the next month, and transferred to formal Confederate service in the winter of 1861/1862. While leading a brigade at Pea Ridge in March 1862, he took another wound close to the site of the old Wilson's Creek one. This injury proved fatal and he died two weeks later. The Confederate government later promoted Slack to the rank of brigadier general in the Confederate service; they may not have known he was dead. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Pass (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Good stuff. I'll take a look at this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• just to improve the flow, I would go with "Mary J. Caldwell Slack.[1] In 1819,[2] the family moved to Columbia in the Missouri Territory to pursue agricultural opportunities there.[1]"
  • Done
• what rank was Sterling Price when he commanded the 2nd Missouri Mounted Volunteers in the M-A war?
  • Added
• "and they had two more children" he did, but did she already have kids? Otherwise drop the "more".
  • Dropped
• is there a see also target about Missouri in the ACW that could be put at the top of the ACW section?
  • Added
• suggest "which was commanded by Price, now a major general."
  • Done
• I think you need to add something about the divisions being divisions in name only, and probably rendering them in the first instance as "divisions".
  • I've added a bit on this.
• what rank was McCulloch
  • Added
• suggest "Slack's infantry was positioned in the middle of the Confederate line"
  • Done
• suggest The two forces combined in late July" to avoid repeating unite/united
  • Done
• so, McCulloch was in overall command once they combined?
  • Yes, although McCulloch and Price fought each other like cats and dogs
• suggest "On January 23, 1862,[29] after the Confederate Army of the West was formed, Slack was given command of the 2nd Missouri Brigade, a roughly 1,100-man organization that included both Confederate and MSG troops.[28]"
  • Done
• suggest "but the Federal commander was able to redeploy his forces to meet the attack"
  • Done

That's all I could spot. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• American Civil War is linked twice in the lead
• As is Confederate States
• As is Confederate Army
• "McCulloch's post-battle report praised Slack, although he suffered a bad hip wound while leading an assault" - who did? McCulloch or Slack?
• That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: - I have addressed these concerns. Thank you for your review! Hog Farm _Talk 03:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "After serving in the Missouri General Assembly from 1842 to 1843, he served as a captain". "serving ... served"
  • Rephrased
• "who had supported slavery before the war, supported the Confederate cause." "supported ... supported".
  • Rephrased
• "to oppose the Federals". Who or what are "the Federals"? (Sounds Mexican to me. Or is that "Pancho and Leftie"?)
• "a surprise Federal Army". Similarly. The army of the Federated States of America I assume.
• "his mother's name was Mary J. Caldwell Slack" → 'his mother was Mary J. Caldwell Slack'.
  • Done
• "to pursue agricultural opportunities there." Delete "there".
  • Done
• "Slack was voted captain of Company L." Might that read better as 'Slack was elected captain of Company L'?
  • Done
• "The MSG was composed of nine divisions based on regions of the state, with each division commanded by a brigadier general." Is it known what the complement of an MSG division was?
  • I've added some more information about this - these aren't divisions in the standard sense. Range in strength was from ~400 to over 2,000; certainly not a division as would traditionally be thought of.

I suspected as much, all the more reason to explain a little what they were. Which is now fine. Apart from "The Ninth Division was never truly formed". "truly"? Are we referring to some Platonic essence of a perfect division?

Is "never effectively formed" any better?

Works for me.

• "nine divisions based on regions of the state". Maybe 'nine divisions, each based on a region of the state'?
  • Done
• "Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and it included Chillicothe." I think you are confusing different things here. The division did not include Chillicothe. Maybe 'Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and its recruitment area included Chillicothe' or similar?
  • The new information I've added on this should make this make a bit more sense now. The divisions of the MSG were purely geographic, so it is accurate to say that the division contained Chillicothe

Nope. A division comprises men and equipment. So " Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and it included Chillicothe" doesn't work. Maybe 'Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and its recruitment area included Chillicothe'?

Done

• "who was now a major general." Link "major general"?
  • added link
• And "Colonel"?
  • Is linked earlier in the article now as a result of a query from PM
• "who died in the battle". Perhaps 'who died as a result of the battle'?
  • Done
• Does Bearss have a place of publication?
  • The bibliographic information the Bearss work provides in the copyright and title information is The Battle of Wilsons Creek by Edwin C. Bearss with battle maps by David Whitman published by George Washington Carver Birthplace District Association 1975 ARTCRAFT PRINTERS [logo identifying printer as a union shop] BOZEMAN, MONTANA. Bozeman is halfway across the country from the Carver Birthplace District of the Diamond, Missouri area so I suspect that is related to the printer's HQ, not the actual publisher's location

Bleh! Ok.

Just those quibbles. Good to see you back with another fine submission. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and Peacemaker67: - so we have two cans of worms here now. The first is that some digging in another source revealed a somewhat awkward discrepancy regarding a unit from the 5th Congressional District early in Slack's MSG career. I've thrown the RS I can find that speak on this into a footnote in the article for now. If this is problematic, I can try to get over to Missouri State University in Springfield or the Wilson's Creek library in Republic and access Sterling Price's Lieutenants from their special collections, which is primarily a list of names, appointments, and dates of rank, sometime although it might well be next week before I can get over there. {{pb]} As to the other - The use of "Union" has seen some controversy lately. Both "Union" and "Federal" see use in the academic literature. I went with "Federal" here as I figured it was probably somewhat safer to use but I'd be fine with using either term. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Federals: I wasn't aware that Wikipedia took any notice of controversies. Has the consensus of modern HQ scholarly opinion changed since your last FAC nom then? If so, you are going to need to introduce the term properly at first mention in both the lead and the article as it will be very confusing for non-aficionados. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - no, I haven't seen a strong move one way to the other. "Federal" and "Union" have both been used in HQ scholarly sources for decades, with a bit of a preponderance for Union - the terminology tends to be used interchangably. The preponderance is still towards Union from what I can tell, so I've switched back over to Union. Replies to the other two concerns involving the division terminology are above as well. Hog Farm _Talk 22:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong here, but doesn't using "Federal" and "Confederate" sort of equate the two, when the term "Union" stands for the faction that fought for American unity? It seems a bit weasely to me to use "Federal". Not sure if that is borne out in the literature or not, not being an ACW buff, but maybe something to consider. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - the idea is actually more that "Federal" approaches it as a rebellion against the central US government with the Federals upholding the power of the central US government, which I guess does have appeal to both sides. Both Federal and Union have seen traction in the sources since the war, even during contemporary 1860s reporting. Ed Bearss, who was a leading respectable scholar, used Federal pretty much exclusively, as have several others. Often both are used interchangably. Many sources primarily stick with Union as well. From what I've seen, the pro-Confederate and neo-Confederate sources tend to use terms like "Yankees" and such. Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Operation Unokat

Nominator(s): Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the 1961 UN peacekeeping offensive against forces of the seccionist State of Katanga during the Congo Crisis. The article is well written and structured, informative and I believe comes to a FA standard. Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swedish_troops_during_Operation_Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops clear building of Katangese resistance.jpg, File:Swedish roadblock in action during Operation Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops detain white Katangese sniper.jpg No evidence that these photographs were first published outside the US before 1989 as required by the posted license tag
• Other images OK (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Phoenician sanctuary of Kharayeb

Nominator(s): el.ziade (talkallam) 15:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about a Phoenician sanctuary in Southern Lebanon. The small sanctuary held a trove of artifacts that contributed to the understanding of rural Phoenician ritual practices. It dates back to the Iron Age II, and it underwent multiple phases of construction and use. The article details the archaeological findings, including the architecture, artifacts, and inscriptions discovered during excavations. The religious activities observed at the site include rituals related to healing, salvation, childbearing, and childhood. The influence of Hellenistic culture during a later phase of the sanctuary's history is also discussed. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Pass (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Airship

As always, these are recommendations, not demands. Feel free to refuse with adequate justification.

• Per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings." I think the location section could be merged with the following background section.
  • The town of Kharayeb might be helpful to put "modern" for the general reader.
  • at a short distance north of the Leontes River is the "at" necessary?
• I know the box titled "Relevant Ancient Near East periodization" is probably correct, but unless I've missed something it seems uncited.
• Link "Prehistoric"?
• when Phoenicia was under Persian Achaemenid rule, Phoenician economy flourished either add a "the" before "Phoenician economy", or replace "Phoenician" with "its"
• when the cults of deities of healing and salvation were emerging "the" is unnecessary imo.
• As the "Hellenistic period and decline" section is a single, if lengthy, paragraph, you could merge it with the previous heading under the title "Background and ancient history" or similar.
• I think you, like me, use too many commas. See sentence fragments such as there emerged in the heavily Hellenized coastal Phoenician cities, a surge or persistent adherence to their native language, and traditional religious practices. This may just be me over-correcting though.
• When did Chehab's excavation stop?
• The second paragraph of the "Description" section is a fairly chunky wall of text. Perhaps split it at "The temple exterior was..."?
• I'm mulling over whether the "Architecture" section needs any subsections.
• The adyton (most sacred space) might be useful to add a literal translation along with the explanation.
• One notable feature of these temples was the "bent-entry," where the main entrance was not centrally located The source seems to indicate that temple at Kharayeb was not of the "bent-entry" variety: "the ‘new’ temple plans that replaced the ‘bent-entry’ in Phoenicia were of well-known local designs, such as ... the ‘courtyard house’ [at] Kharayeb". It does go on, confusingly, to say that key characteristics including the "bent-entry" endured, so I may be misreading.
  • In any case, a layout diagram would be very helpful in the article, if possible.
• The surviving Hellenistic period temple's main chamber measure surely it should be "measures"?

More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I left out a few, particularly the pre-classical temple architecture part. I will try to make a plan to explain the points highlighted in this passage, particularly the location of the adyton to the west of the structure, the side entry to the adyton (which is not visible on the render from the outside). el.ziade (talkallam) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from UC

Driving by for now; will add more when I have the chance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Director of Lebanon's Antiquities: Is that the formal title (that is, is Lebanon's Antiquities the official name of the body, or is it something like e.g. the Lebanese Archaeological Service?

It's 'Directorate General of Antiquities'

Right, so something like "the Lebanese Director General of Antiquities", "the head of Lebanon's Directorate General of Antiquities", or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• It was surveyed during three archaeological missions: in archaeology, survey is used for study that stops short of excavation (usually, projects which aim to find sites rather

than to investigate them in detail): we shouldn't use that term when we mean to include excavations.

Thanks!

• Later, during the Hellenistic period: how much later was this?

Modified, thanks.

• This Hellenistic period temple: simply Hellenistic temple (c.f. modern temple, Roman temple or similar).

Done.

• from the Iron Age II and Persian period: needs to be periods for grammar, and so would suggest making the link only cover "Persian". When were these?

Done, thanks. There's an explanatory table for periods under the infobox.

• new molding techniques introduced Greek themes and deities like Aphrodite and Hermes. The religious practices observed at the sanctuary remained faithful to local Phoenician traditions: this seems like a contradiction; if the gods didn't stay the same, what did?

I can't begin to explain Phoenician-Hellenistic syncretism. But I will try to rephrase.el.ziade (talkallam) 14:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the sournces discuss the introduction of imags of deities. I must have dropped this in the lead. el.ziade (talkallam) 22:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

1983–84 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh blimey, not another Gillingham F.C. season article, I hear everyone cry. Well, what can I say, I enjoy working on them so chances are they will keep on a-comin' :-) This particular season included (I think - the memory is slightly hazy given the yawning time gap between then and now) the first Gillingham match my dad ever took me to. Sadly it also included one of the club's most famous missed opportunities to defeat a team from the top division of English football....... :-( Feedback on the article will as ever be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• and were near the foot of the league table - This may be MOS:IDIOM, perhaps simplify.
• The first league game of the season at Gillingham's ground, Priestfield Stadium, took place a week later against Hull City;[15] Ray Daniel, a teenaged midfielder signed on loan from Luton Town, made his debut.[18] Gillingham conceded a goal in the first half and, although Leslie equalised with his first goal for the club shortly after the interval, ultimately lost 2–1. -- I think this should be split into 2 sentences.
• Steve Bruce, a defender who was still only 22 years -- Either "still 22 years" or "only 22 years"
• Gillingham were 22nd out of 24 teams -- Gillingham ranked 22nd
  • "Ranked" is not used in that context in British English. The standard usage is just to say that team X "are/were Nth in the table", see eg the last sentence of this BBC Sport article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps it is worth linking equaliser
• promotion-chasing Wimbledon -- maybe this can we stated differently, like Wimbledon, who is up for promotion or a win away from promotion, something along those lines.
• That's all that I could find. Another fine and solid work on this series. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all addressed bar one as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Just some comma removal suggestions:
  • "It was the 52nd season in which Gillingham competed in the Football League, and the 34th since the club was voted back into the league in 1950."
  • "they played 15 games and only won three times, to fall out of contention for promotion to the Second Division."
  • "They lost in the first round of both the Football League Cup and the Associate Members' Cup, but reached the fourth round of the FA Cup"
• "four games more still to play than the teams above them" => "four more games to play than the teams above them"
• "The club had never reached the second level of English football in its history" - probably "its" could be removed without changing the meaning just to be more concise.
• "Bruce scored twice and Weatherly and Cochrane added a goal each as Gillingham took a 4–0 lead, but their team-mates John Sitton and Peter Shaw then both scored own goals" => "Bruce scored twice, and Weatherly and Cochrane added a goal each as Gillingham took a 4–0 lead, but their team-mates John Sitton and Peter Shaw then both scored their own goals"
• That's it!--NØ 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, all done apart from the last one. You don't say that a player scored "his" own goal, you just say that a player scored an own goal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 09:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

The sourcing follows a consistent format and the sources are reliable for the purposes they are used so this passes my source review.--NØ 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wish You Were Gay

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 07:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the word "gay" in the title of a song like this, you won't be to blame when you think of it as good ol' fashioned teenage gay angst. The best kind of angst of course. But nope, it's just about a girl who wishes the guy he likes is gay because she can't handle being rejected. Of course that spawned some controversy, and mainstream critics have been ... quite weird about it. You'd have to read about the article to find out more. I await the commentary with open arms. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 07:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• ""Wish You Were Gay" is the fourth single" - I think this should be ""Wish You Were Gay" was the fourth single"
• "would go to The Trevor Project," => "would go to the Trevor Project,"
• I'm not sure the rainbow flag image really adds anything to the article. If you really feel like it belongs, you need to expand the caption to explain how it's relevant (i.e. you are assuming that readers know what the rainbow flag is).
• ""Wish You Were Gay" closes with a round of applause from the crowd" - this implies that she recorded it in front of said crowd. I presume this isn't correct and the round of applause was just a sample.....?
• "Eilish cited how her female friend" - presumably she had more than one female friend so I suggest "Eilish cited how a female friend"
• ""Wish You Were Gay" reached its chart peak that day at number 31, placed at number 84 the previous tracking week." - this isn't a grammatically correct/complete sentence
• "the singles chart by the Australian Recording Industry Association" - feels like there's a word missing here (published?)
• "Eilish went on a concert show in London less than 24 hours after". "Went on" doesn't feel right here, and I also don't think you need both "concert" and "show". I suggest re-doing the whole sentence as "Less than 24 hours after the release of "Wish You Were Gay", Eilish performed it alongside songs mostly from her debut extended play titled Don't Smile at Me (2017) at a concert in London"
• "Throughout 2019, Eilish performed "Wish You Were Gay" at three music festivals" - not really "throughout" the year if she only did it three times. Suggest "During 2019"
• "She performed the song for an episode of BBC Radio 1" - BBC Radio 1 is a radio station, you can't have an episode of a radio station. It would be like saying "an episode of MTV". Suggest just saying "She performed the song for BBC Radio 1 at London's Maida Vale Studios."
• That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done, @ChrisTheDude! thanks for taking up fac reviews as always. apologies for the delays! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 05:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

George Griffith

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

George Griffith inhabits a fascinating position in the history of science fiction. He got a couple of years' head start on H. G. Wells, and was briefly the leading sci-fi author in Britain. Since then, however, he has descended into obscurity so completely that the article was nominated for deletion back in May. I spent some time tracking down sources in order to bring the article to WP:Good article status, which it reached in August. Since then, it has been at WP:Peer review for a few months. The peer review attracted less feedback than I had hoped, but I was at any rate encouraged to move on here to FAC. TompaDompa (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:George_Griffith.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • I suppose we'll have to ask Artem.G who uploaded the image. I'll note that the only credited illustrator at the source is Harold H. Piffard who died in 1939, and who is explicitly given as the illustrator of two illustrations inside the book (but not explicitly this one). TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • If we consider the author to be unknown, this is of course a case of {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it was published in the UK in 1901. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:Sir_Arthur_Pearson.jpg: as this is hosted on Commons, it needs a tag for status in country of origin. Ditto File:Southern_Africa_1890s_Political.jpg
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Per the UK tag on the latter, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
      • As the description says, the book in which it was published does not state the author of the map. One may suspect that it was James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce (1838–1922) who was the author of the book and wrote "I have to thank Sir Donald Currie and Messrs. A.S. and G.G. Brown for the permission kindly given me to use the maps in the excellent "Guide to South Africa" (published by the Castle Mail Packets Company) in the preparation of the three maps contained in this volume", but it is not clear whether he created the finished map(s) himself or had someone else do it for him. If you think that quote is sufficient evidence to conclude Bryce is the author of the map(s), we can replace the UK tag with Template:PD-old-100 (I think that would be the right one?). TompaDompa (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Unclear. The National Portrait Gallery, London only states that the photograph is from 1920 and that they purchased it in 1939. An educated guess would be "in the UK, no later than 1939". TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Any evidence it was published before the NPG acquisition? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Not that I have been able to find (not that it's particularly easy to find information about its publication history). One would of course expect a professional photographer like George Charles Beresford (1864–1938) to have published a portrait like this during his lifetime, but I haven't been able to track it down. TompaDompa (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, what do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

On File:George_Griffith.jpg, if we consider the author to be unknown, the tagging will need to be changed, and the proposed tag requires the addition of evidence to the description page. For File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg, if no publication can be demonstrated the tagging will also need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I changed the tagging and added evidence for File:George_Griffith.jpg. For File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg, I gather that the issue is whether it is in the public domain in the US (if I understand UK copyright law correctly, it's in the public domain there as more than 70 years have passed since the death of Beresford)? I'm not entirely sure quite how to resolve that, to be honest. It's also not crucial to have an image of Wells here, so I commented it out for now. It would of course be good to get this resolved as File:H.G. Wells by Beresford.jpg (from which this was cropped) is used rather heavily on various projects, but this is outside of my area of expertise. TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. I had my say at the peer review and have just read through and found nothing to add. You might consider adding a mention of Griffith to this, but that's not an issue for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I have done so. TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Jamie Kalven

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Jamie Kalven never intended to be known as a "guerrilla journalist" in Chicago. He was initially planning to become a foreign correspondent in Asia, but the sudden death of his father, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago, set him on a path towards writing about freedom of speech, public housing, and civil liberties issues. His reporting helped uncover police misconduct surrounding the murder of Laquan McDonald by an officer, and he founded a non-profit that has catalogued nearly 250,000 other allegations against police officers. One of his lawsuits, Kalven v. City of Chicago, became a landmark decision involving the public records statute in Illinois. Edge3 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

Reviewed this at GA after seeing it at DYK and was impressed by the quality! Happy to see it at FAC! Some comments:

• Something I notice is that many sentences begin with "He", in reference to Kalven. This repetitiveness reads oddly- perhaps reorder the sentence to put the pronoun later, or use other names, like "the young journalist"

  I tried fixing this with this edit, but please let me know if there are other revisions that you had in mind. Edge3 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• which led him to give up serious mountaineering - don't think serious is needed here

  Removed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• spent the following 14 years working on his father's manuscript, which was eventually completed and published in 1988 as A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America.[2][4] He had reviewed annotations - here, is "he" Jamie or his father? Both are mentioned in the previous sentence

  Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• described Jamie's work as "an extraordinary act of intellectual and filial devotion." - period outside quote mark, per WP:LQ

  Moved the period. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• In 1988, he was teaching - new para, use his name instead of a pronoun

  Fixed, and I used his first name instead of last name. It should be clear based on context which Kalven we're talking about, but given that Harry was mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I think it's good to be extra clear. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• a label that Kalven likes. - "concurs with" may be more formal than "likes"

  Changed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• the team grew into an association of collaborators working on race and poverty issues in Chicago, including civil rights attorneys and law students at the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, a legal clinic at the University of Chicago Law School - the last comma is confusing me, is mentioning the name of the clinic important? IMO it's fine to just say "including civil rights attorneys and law students at the University of Chicago Law School". If you do make this change, make sure to cut future mentions of the Clinic

  I'm reluctant to avoid mentioning the clinic because a legal clinic is a specific program at a law school that is less academic and more practical in nature. The phrase "civil rights attorneys and law students at the University of Chicago Law School" would imply that this was more of an academic, classroom-based exercise. In any case, the "civil rights attorneys" might not even be part of the academic faculty at the school. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough then MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• As part of discovery in Bond's case, Futterman requested - because this starts a new section, it's probably worth clarifying who Futterman is

  Clarified. Do you think I also need to clarify who Bond is? Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Bond is clearly defined in the previous paragraphs, while Futterman gets one sentence- I think this makes sense, but I don't believe Bond needs to be clarified. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• After the court decision, Invisible Institute - whether "Invisible Institute" is preceded by an article is consistent: the header uses an article, but some of the text doesn't

  Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• The data project houses complaints and allegations made against officers, the number of sustained complaints, and individual officer profiles that list officer salaries and discipline they received for use-of-force incidents. The data is from 1988 to 2018. - merge these two sentences, perhaps: "...and discipline they received for use-of-force incidents, ranging from 1988 to 2018."

  I deviated slightly from your recommendation to clarify that the "from 1988 to 2018" range applies to the data project as a whole, not just the use-of-force incident disciplinary reports. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• The official story initially suggested - who wrote the "official" story? The police department? The city govt?

  Mainly the police department. I've added that clarification. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I got nothing else- these are all minor concerns, as the bigger ones were addressed at the GAN. Excellent work- happy to see an important journalist make it to the mainpage someday! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, both on the GAN and also on this FAC! I've addressed most of your comments and hope to get to the remaining one shortly. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Support - not sure which remaining one you mean, everything I commented about has been fixed. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I replied over two separate edits. Thanks for your support, and your generous feedback as always! Edge3 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  I've added alt text. Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• There is sandwiching between images and the secondary infobox - why is that here? Suggest removal

  Where do you see sandwiching? Everything looks fine on my screen. Also, what are you suggesting be removed? Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• The second infobox - why is it there? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Kalven v. City of Chicago is a landmark court decision interpreting the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. The case has notability independent of Kalven as a person, but I'm just covering both topics in the same article for efficiency. Court cases typically get their own infoboxes in their respective articles, to cover key aspects of the decision such as the lower courts being appealed from, the judges sitting, and the authors of the appellate opinion(s).

  I'm happy to reconsider my position on this. Do you think certain information can be trimmed to make the infobox shorter? Or would you rather remove the infobox entirely? Edge3 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• If the case has notability independent of this subject, I'm of the opinion it should have an independent article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I did consider a separate article, but felt that there would be so much overlap with Kalven's biography that the writing would be duplicative. The genesis of the lawsuit was Kalven's reporting at Stateway. An article on the court decision would not be complete without a summary of his journalism. Similarly, the court decision led directly to the expansion of the Invisible Institute, so an article on the case would not be complete without covering the Institute's accomplishments.

  It seemed to me that Kalven, Kalven v. City of Chicago, and the Institute are three distinct topics that have independent notability, but are best addressed in one article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Since all topics can be adequately covered in Kalven's biography, I kept it as one article. Edge3 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• But while there is overlap, they are really different topics, and an article about the case could mention the other two without the same level of detail that would be appropriate for articles on them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I see your point, and I'm happy to consider splitting Kalven v. City of Chicago into a separate article. I'm going to ping @MyCatIsAChonk, who reviewed at GAN, and @Cielquiparle and @AirshipJungleman29, who reviewed at DYK, in case they have any thoughts. I'm probably too close to this article to make a sound decision, so I'd rather make sure there's agreement to create a separate article for the court case before I do anything. Edge3 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I believe it makes sense to have the court case part of this article, as it a) is an essential point in Kalven's career and b) entirely surrounds his efforts to get the police department's records. Kalven v. City of Chicago is not a very complex case, and splitting it would result in a rather short article. Even if it was split, much of the current prose under "Obtaining police misconduct records" would remain, as there's a lot of context needed to understand Kalven's involvement in this case. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• File:Laquan_McDonald_autopsy.jpg: why is this believed to be ineligible for copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I believe it is ineligible for copyright per Commons:Threshold of originality. Blank forms are not copyrightable under section 313.4(G) of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Additionally, the medical examiner's notations are merely representations of factual information under section 313.3(C) and do not rise above the level of de minimis authorship under section 313.4(B). Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Just wanted to see if you had thoughts on my responses above? Edge3 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Why are 5 citations required to support his approximate dob in the first line of the lead? Normally citations are avoided in the lead as the information should be contained in the body of the article. I suggest you begin the "Personal life and early career" with his birth. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I moved those citations to the personal life section. Edge3 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by TonyTheTiger

I have added a bunch of projects to the talk page. I see that you have not directly informed projects of this discussion. Although a lot of projects have automated processes, sometimes people are only following the project talk.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The term well-published is a vague term. Can you document notable media outlets that he has published through.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find any info on which media outlets he worked for in his mid-20s. I've removed the "well-published" term. Edge3 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Along the same lines, can you mention who published the book in 1988 since they are a major publisher.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources don't explicitly mention Harper & Row as the publisher of A Worthy Tradition, so I'm reluctant to include it in the prose of the article. The publisher is named in the "Works" section. Edge3 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you know the names of the student consultants. Have any of them become notable people worth mentioning?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe any of the students were explicitly mentioned as consultants who helped with the manuscript. Edge3 (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T4

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is about another of the dinky little steam torpedo boats that ended up with the Yugoslavs after seeing extensive service with the Austro-Hungarians in WWI. The Yugoslavs got eight of these, and so far five are featured, and I'm working on the other three. This one didn't make it to WWII, as she ran aground in 1932 and broke in half. The stern was towed to a major naval base 240 kms south, resulting in a standing joke among Yugoslav sailors that she was the "world's longest torpedo boat". This one passed Milhist ACR back in 2020, but has been substantially expanded in the last few months thanks to newly published sources. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this - please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Thursday. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a possible link for ventilation cowl? This isn't the most familiar term

No it isn't well known. I forgot to remove this, as I think it is detail that better belongs in the class article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Until October 1915, the boat was painted black, but from that point it was painted a light blue-grey." - do we know if this was for camoflague purposes?

Yes, they thought black was effective at night, but discovered it made the ships stand out more. I'll find a source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't find one specifically for Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats (my recollection that it also applied to destroyers). Pinging Parsecboy, might you have or know of a source for this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a look through what I have and couldn't find anything relevant - but I know Sturmvogel 66 has some other stuff on Austro-Hungarian destroyers and torpedo craft that I don't, so he might be able to help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Her captain realised the situation and instead he moored in the Castelnuovo anchorage and put his crew ashore" - is this an indication that he was doing this for fear that the mutiny would spread to his vessel, or that he did not want his ship to serve a function similar to those of the loyal ships from Bocche which later arrived?

The source isn't specific, but I imagine he thought that returning to the Bocche would just add fuel to the fire. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In May and June 1929, six of the eight 250t-class torpedo boats accompanied the light cruiser Dalmacija, the submarine tender Hvar and the submarines Hrabri and Nebojša, on a cruise to Malta" - do we know if this ship was one of them?

Well, we didn't, but I found the account of the cruise published by the Adriatic Guard (the Yugoslav naval association) and it says T3-T8. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think a brief gloss of the nature of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was is needed. My assumption is that this is some sort of short-lived rump state to the old empire, but this could perhaps be made clearer.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No major concerns here; excellent work as always. Hog Farm _Talk 03:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thomas de la More

Nominator(s): ——Serial 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, Arbcom elections are nearly upon us; I bet there's a few who wish they could simply tear up someone's winning ticket and replace it with that of their pals! But, unfortunately, it's not 1429, and we can't. If anyone can help improve this article, please walk right on in. Kettle's on.

Yes, I know the article is too short. Obvs. I must oppose promotion on the grounds of size ;) ——Serial 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Jens

I know little about the topic, but was able to broadly follow. My comments below:

• There seem to be a lot of typos still. I will list those I stepped over: in the area. and regularly acted; thef Nevilles; Earl of Salisbury''s; Delamore; for him.; the date given in 1501 document; even number disputed

Embartassing, but dealt with (except, I couldn't find Earl of Salisbury''s?)

First sentence in "Relations with the Earl of Salisbury". But from the wikitext, it seems you did it on purpose, but I can't see why. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Check. No idea where all that nowiki came from, but I think it's something to do with visual editor and possibly switching back to source editor; it's caught me a couple of times before.

• This, and his close connection to the Percy family's rivals, the Nevilles, eventually got involved – Can a circumstance get "involved"? Maybe write "Because of this, he got involved"?

Done.

• This resulted – Two subsequent sentences starting with "this" are not ideal.

Tweaked the second sentence, and added dates.

• link "Cumcatch" and "Stanford family"?

Unfortunately, no. I would have linked Cumcatch if it existed, and if it hadn't, I would written a stub. But it looks like it's literally just a farm! I hope it was bigger in his day  :)

• It is known that by 1429, he had sheltered one Robert Bell—a member of a local violent family—from the law – Is this the reason for the royal pardon?

No sources suggest it, and personally, I'd say that eight years was too long for the pardon to be needed (he would have been done long before that if anything had come of it). But I have added the result of the attack—an arbitration—which hopefully suggests that the events were unconnected?

• elected MP – what is MP, can you spell it out?

Good point.

• This put de la More in close contact with the earl, – What put him in close contact? I am not sure what this is referring to.

Clarified.

• was a retainer of the Earl of Northumberland, – "who was"? Or "who became"?

New source suggests from TC's marriage a few years earlier. Added, with ref.

• Among the dead were personal enemies of York and the Nevilles: the Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Northumberland respectively.[51] The king was returned to York's keeping,[52] and next month the duke held another parliament – What "Duke" is this talking about; the Duke of Somerset, the last Duke mentioned, is dead as stated in the text.

Clarified.

You now write "the he". I assume the "the" is too much, so that "he" refers to the king? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that! Removed 'duke' but forgot to remove 'he'...

• The History of Parliament's Simon Payling – What is this?

Linked to it, it's a government research thing.

• For laypeople like me, such history articles are often difficult to follow because of all the names one needs to keep track of. This article, however, seems to make it much more complicated than it actually is: The names "Percy", "Thomas", and "Lord Egremont" all seem to refer to the same person. It would me much easier to read if the article would stick to one name.

Okay. I'm afraid I can't really see this; as far as I can see, I only call him Thomas Percy twice, once in the lead and on his first mention. All other times, he is called Egremont. When Percy is mentioned, it's in the context of the family, the House of Percy, which is linked. (Also, on one occasion, I mention "the Percy brothers") Could you show me if I've missed any? I could easily have a bliond spot, especially with the main guy being Thomas too...

I see now, and "Percy" usually refers to the family. Maybe you could change "Thomas and Richard Percy" to "Thomas (Lord Egremont) and Richard Percy", as I think it would help the reader with following the text. But I can understand if you have reservations here, so see it as an optional point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being considerate; if you don't mind, I'll leave it for now, pending feedback? But I do get your point.

• political struggle for dominance in the west march between Percy and Neville – Which Neville is meant? If it is the Earl of Salisbury, than we should keep referring to him under that name.

As above, families of. Clarified.

• De la More "sent word of þe said manasse to þe Erle of Salesbury by his lettre and his seal to thentent þat his good lordshipp shuld shewe it to yowe and your counseill – Who is quoted here? Also, as a non-native speaker, I am unable to understand it.

Fair point. In fact, thinking about it, there are probably quite a few native speakers who wouldn't understand it! So I've transliterated it, and moved the original early mod. English to a footnote.

• if it came to him Henry's own chancellor rather than an ex-sheriff – "from" missing"?

Yep, thanks.

• Egremont was unable to challenge de la More claims. "De la More's" (with 's)?

Ditto!

• At the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses, he – "he" refers to "Lord Egremont", I assume?

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarified; not particularly repetitive I think.

---

Nice of you looking in today Jens Lallensack, it's appreciated. These are all excellent points. Thanks. Particularly for pointing out some rather silly typos! There are a couple of things I've queried above, but all of your suggestions are improvements, and I've happily gone along with them. Let me know what you think; thanks again! ——Serial 19:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear that my non-expert review was helpful. See two responses above, but I can support this nomination already. Nice work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jens Lallensack, I appreciate your review. You say a non-expert's one, but really, that's exactly what this kind of thing needs, isn't it, as you have shown. Little things that may seem obvious or I've just got used to, is doing the reader a disservice. Thanks for supporting this candidate. ——Serial 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Borsoka

• ..., although they are known to have settled in Cumberland during the reign of King Henry III 1. I understand that Thomas's father is unknown. Can we say that anything is "known" about the de la More family? 2. Introduce Cumberland as a county because in the following sentence it is mentioned as such. 3. Perhaps the years when Henry III ruled could be mentioned in the text.

1. Very little I'm afraid! I've added another possible piece of info though, re. 1280. 2.Linked. 3.Regal years added.

• ...the truce with Scotland ... A wikilink?

Not only no links to this particular truce, there was no link to Anglo-Scottish truces generally. So I had to write the thing myself—hence the delay to my responses here. Apologies.

• ....Thomas was "almost certainly related to John... To which of the two Johns previously mentioned?

Inserted "[the latter] John"

• De la More may have trained as a lawyer.... Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar or could it be explained?

Introduced Peter Booth, edited previous first entry.

• De la More may have trained as a lawyer, but in 1415, de la More was discovered leading secret raiding parties across the Scottish border... Why is the but? Perhaps a separate sentence?

Done. As you say, connection at all.

• I would move the first sentence from note 3 to the main text if it is verified by a reference to a scholarly works that specifically mentions Thomas.

Great idea, done.

• It is known .... Could you explain it? I assume documentary evidence exists.

See below

• ...a local violent family... What does a local violent family mean?

See below

• ...Bell's victim... Previously, he/she is not mentioned in the text. I think Bell's crime should very briefly be described.

All three above done! Tricky, because not everything is in the source, but I've expanded the details a bit.

• It was in county administration and royal service, however, that his career was to be based... Why "however"?

Fixed.

• ...it was around now that his full-time public career began. He was variously appointed or elected to many important regional positions. Do we know why he chose a public career? Why was he appointed to important positions?

  Well, he didn't so much choose it, so much as it was expected of him. I've expanded these lines to clarify, hopefully.

• These included royal escheator for 1431 to 1432 for both counties and Sheriff of Cumberland for 1443–1444, 1447–1448 and 1452–1453. The sentence is unclear for me. I guess a comma, or a conjunction is missing.

  Add comma.

• This was an important position, as elections could take place under pressure from both the Crown and local nobility. Did an elector resist royal or aristocratic pressure, or represent it? Was Thomas a representative of royal/aristocratic will, or rather an opponent?

  The gentry are generally considered to have been looking out for themselves, first and foremost, unless a local lord was so powerful he could pack his own electors in (as Salisbury seems to have done in 1455), and de la <ore was definitely Salisbury's man. It's a bit OR to say all that simply, though!

• ...his annual income was valued at £20 per annum... Delete per annum.

  Done.

• Introduce Booth and mention his full name. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Linked above, moved from here.

Hi Borsoka, and many thanks for the review. Just to let you know I've seen it, but you gave me an idea which I want to follow up tomorrow. Might take most of the day, but I should make a start on your suggestions come the evening, if that's OK. They look interesting by the way 👍 ——Serial 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, many thanks again for your suggestions. I especially like the ones that involve added context, that's really useful stuff. I think I've addressed everything you ask—perhaps you could have a look. Cheers, ——Serial 16:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• A wikilink to protector? Richard of York is not listed among the Lord Protectors in the relevant WP article.

He's second on the list ;) but the sourcing isn't up to much! Thanks, linked.

• Indeed. :)

• ...turned into armed struggle... I would name the Wars of the Roses.

Done.

• ...esq., alias gent., alias late of London Could you link or explain the abbreviations and the term "late"?

Have linked gent and added a footnote re. the latter.

• ...the North West England Is "the" necessary?

Well spotted!

• Thomas Percy is not introduced as Lord Egremont in the main text.

Ah, done.

• A link to "west march", "keeper of the truce", and "vault"?

Links to Scottish Marches, Conservator of the peace and vault added.

• He was never knighted. Some context or explanation? I may mention this fact before mentioning his death. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Very tricky this one, because I suppose I'm asserting a negative. But I've given various examples of what else he was formally called instead. The odd thing is that since he is called an armiger at one point, he is obvs considered able to afford the status, but why he never does, we don't know. Irritating, actually.

All your further points attended to, I think, Borsoka, if you're happy with them. Cheers! ——Serial 19:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete the reference to his birth date in the lead because it is verified in the main text. Why c.?

Ah, MOS:CIRCA says the template is preferred on first use.

• Sorry, I was unclear. The main text does not say that the year of birth is uncertain.

• Delete the references to his death dates in the lead because they are verified in the main text. Why not {{circa)} 1460 or {{circa)} 1460/1 June 1459?

I will go all out on an investigation.

• ...he was a loyal royal official... Loyal?

Removed.

• ...making him more influential than his income would suggest For me the reference to his income is not informative in context. Perhaps "his relatively low income/his relatively low annual income (reporedly £20)"?

Have a look now; I've added some more context—average incomes etc—and a footnote. Does this help?

• ...his men were beaten and threatened... According to the main text, de la More was also assaulted and he was threatened (not his men).

Adjusted the lead to tally.

• As a result, he could not collect money for the Treasury as a sheriff was instructed. I would merge this sentence into the previous one because this is also claimed by de la More.

I've tightened it, but not sure how to merge it exactly. What did you have in mind?

• The exact date of de la More's death is unknown, but it was sometime between 1459 and 1461. Is this necessary? The uncertainty is indicated in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

True; removed and the sentence has been tightened.

Thanks for these Borsoka, all helpful. Just that second point is going to be tricky, I think, but should solve itself one way or another. Many thanks! ——Serial 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think only the dates of his birth and death are still pending. Thank you for this excellent article. I always enjoy reading "micro-history", and the life of this guy may assist us to better understand real life in the Late Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to leave the death cites for the time being, as I think it probably qualifies as material likely to be challenged or questioned if I take them away. And surely a range such as 1395–1459–1461 is misleading; it would imply he took two years to die! (as well as looking a bit bizarre!).

FWIW, I was in agreement with what you say about the birth using {{circa}} (or not). But there is a problem there, too. The RS literally does both: the title (see in the bibliography, Rawcliffe|2019a) says he is "c. 1395", while her text says, "On his own testimony, Thomas was born in 1395". She's a historian and would (a bit like us!) prefer independent sources to his own word. There were, as today, sound reasons for lying about one's age in the Middle Ages; not to enable underage boozing, but to come into an inheritance early (see our article Proof of Age in medieval England). I might be able to add a line about "not recorded in any other source", but of course, that may not be true, and it must be extremely OR to try and read the mind of the source!

Thanks for your generous words. You've helped greatly improve the article, and as you suggest, "real life" and ordinary people are understudied things in this period. Here's to levelling down! ——Serial 17:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The year of birth in the lead is still problematic: that he was born around 1395 is not mentioned in the main text. I would also delete the citations from the first sentence of the lead for the years of birth and death. I would not add a range for his death date either but I would say c. 1460 (but this last suggestion is not crucial). Borsoka (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Snowy plover

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The snowy plover is one of the best studied shorebirds of the Americas, but also one of the rarest. I tried to include many interesting details while keeping everything as concise as possible. It is my first bird article, and I am looking forward to your comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Source formatting and quality review (no spotchecks)

• FN#2 Grinnell 1982 is available online here; the volume and issue# should be included, as well as the series (University of California Publications in Zoology)

added.

• FN#3, FN#23 be consistent with punctuation of author names (compare Russo, IRM v. Maher, K.H.)

Fixed this instance and some others.

• FN#4 and FN#8 No isbn?

Added.

• FN#4 and FN#8 it's interesting to use title case for chapter titles and sentence case for the title of the book (I would have thought doing the reverse was usual)

Puh, this is one of these conventions that I do not understand (having different rules for books and journals). I put the book titles in title case too, now, hope that works.

• FN#6 I think the page should be "e78068"

Fixed.

• FN#9 Don't need to include publishers for journals. The binomial in the article title should be italicized.

Ok, removed.

• FN#10 is available open access at doi:10.2307/4073508

Added.

• FN#11 not sure why the citation mentions "via Biodiversity Heritage Library", because it doesn't even link there. If a link is available to that page, that should be included.

I copied that citation from another FA. So I am not sure what that was doing. Removed.

The Helm Dictionary used to be available on BHL around I think a year ago, so the database attribution is probably from then. The BHL copy of the book was removed a couple months ago, but it is available on Archive.org if you want to add a link. AryKun (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• FN#12 two of the editors have authorlinks, which is fine, but inconsistent as there seem to be only three authorlinks throughout the citations

I added a few more, but these only make sense if the author has an article to start with, which is rarely the case.

• FN#11, 15 the ISBNs should be formatted consistently

Fixed.

• sometimes authors' first names are truncated to initials, even though full author names are available at the source page. This would be ok if it was consistent throughout, I guess (though I'm not sure why one would want to trim out that information), but it's not, as there are other citations that use full first names.

Personally, I would prefer to simply cite them as the names appear in the sources. However, here at FAC, people ask for consistency. It is often not possible to find the full names of all authors that are cited in the entire article. So I simply truncate them all, to meet the consistency requirement.

• the citation that's somewhat cryptically mentioned in the note is available for viewing here, with all bibliographic details needed to make it into a full citation

Wow, thanks for the hint! I was looking for it and couldn't find it. Two other sources seemed to indicate that they did not had access to the first description (as they did not cite the first description directly, but another paper that was citing the first description. This is why I decided to include that note.). Added now.

Other than these formatting nitpicks, the sources appear to be scholarly and appropriate for use as "high-quality reliable sources". I'll be back later with a full review. Esculenta (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Responses above, should all be addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891

• "which comprises 32 extant species and is therefore the most specious genus of the family" I'm not sure what context of its meaning you're using "specious" in here-- could you clarify (on the FAC)?

"Species-rich". Changed to the alternative form "speciose", which is hopefully less ambiguous.

• "The snowy plover, formerly Charadrius nivosus, is to be transferred into the genus Anarhynchus, as Anarhynchus nivosus, along with a number of other plover species." I'm (as a non-specialist reader) a bit confused by this. If they know that it should be transferred, why hasn't it been yet? Who does the transferring?

The major resources (Ebird, Birds of the World, Inaturalist, etc.) already made this step. But Wikipedia is following the IOC World Bird List, which apparently did not do this update yet. I expect that this will happen soon.

• " much debate revolved around the question whether the two represent a single or separate species" you don't really establish that any real debate occurred-- more that Oberholser said something, it was largely accepted for about 100 years

Very good point. There has been debate, but I thought it is not really worth mentioning here. But then, yeah, "much debate" is an overstatement. Removed.

• How do you decide whose work get's their name and who is just lumped into "a study in year"?

Usually, I give names either for works that have been seminal to the topic (usually old ones), or when I provide the opinion of one author that is either speculative or probably not shared by other ornithologists (to attribute the statement to that particular author).

• "and hints at the occurrence of these birds along rivers" Is this a common thing?

Charadrius has many species, and many of them are common along rivers. The snowy plover itself not so much, though.

• " In some cases, combatants pull on each others feathers, and may even pull out a flight feather. " What is the difference between a flight feather and a regular feather?

There are flight feathers (used for flight), and downy feathers (used for insulation), and display feathers (used for advertisement). I now specified "tail feather", and linked to flight feather.

• You link nest scrape in the caption but not ground scrape in the article, seems like would be worth a link in both places?

Linked now, and changed the text to "nest scrape", too.

• " The chicks are presocial" The linked article does not contain the term "presocial", but does have "precocial". Typo?

Oh yeah, thanks, fixed.

• "in the coastal areas of northern California, chicks less than 10 days old were brooded 58% of the time on average. " This is not clear to me-- 58% of their first ten days on average they are brooded? or 58% of them were still brooded after ten days? or something else

It means that, each day, the parents sit on them 58% of the time (i.e., 14 hours per day). I need to think about how to formulate this more clearly; if you have an idea, please let me know!

• " In western North America, chicks are attended for 29 to 47" what does attended mean in this context?

"attended" here means that the parents attend (take care of) the chicks. Should I replace with "are cared for"?

I think that sounds better

• " the New Carissa spill of 1999 that is known to have killed a minimum of 45 plovers" Could probably just say "that killed a minimum"

Hm. I wanted to emphasize the "known" here, because there were many more spills with probably much larger numbers, but nobody counted. This one is worth mentioning because we have some data at least.

Oh in that case, I think it's ok.

• "In the future, effects of climate change, such as droughts and habitat loss due to sea level rise, are likely to negatively affect this species" Implying that they don't already, which is probably innacurate?

Probably. Changed to are likely to become significant threats.

• "In Mexico, the species is listed as "threatened" since 2010" maybe "has been... since 2010"?

Yes, done.

• "but target numbers have not yet been reached" The target numbers are?

The source didn't specify, and I searched again and didn't find this information anywhere. I will keep looking.

Overall, a really interesting and well written article. A number of my points are probably my confusion and don't need edits to address them Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this helpful review! I responded to all, but for some I have questions; please let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

FM

• Will have a look soon. I think this has the overall best quality photos and image selection of any bird article I've seen at FAC, nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I am quite fortunate with this one, also regarding the amount of interesting research that I could add! And thanks for reviewing, I am looking forward to more comments!
• Point Reyes National Seashore is duplinked.
  • It is linked once in an image caption, and once in the text, that should be fine?

The highlight duplinks tools shows me it's linked in successive last two paragraphs under "Causes of decline". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I see. Fixed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• No cladogram?
  • As stated in the taxonomy section, the plovers are momentarily undergoing a major taxonomic revision, and the snowy plover is to be moved into another genus. There is an old cladogram from 2015, but it would show the old taxonomy (which the Wikipedia article is still following, though). And there is a newer one from 2021 that lists this species as "Ochthodromus nivosus", which seems to be outdated already. I didn't see any cladogram that has it under its new name. My secondary source (birds of the world), which was just updated this month, states that the snowy plover is most closely related to the Kentish, the white fronted, the Malaysian, and the chestnut-banded plover, and I included this information. However, no cladogram I saw matches this precisely. So I am not sure; should I include the old 2015 cladogram for now, or go without cladogram for the moment?
    • Actually I was wrong. The 2015 cladogram matches precisely the relationships stated by the 2023 secondary source. Added now, but without scientific names, since the genus name may change soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Could there be a caption for the map that explains the colours?
  • Why didn't I thought about that myself? Added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether nationality and occupation are listed for the people mentioned.
  • I removed them now to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Kentish plover is linked at second instead of first mention.
  • Fixed.

• "The genus Anarhynchus did previously contain" Seems a bit unnatural with the "did", perhaps "The genus Anarhynchus previously contained"?
  • Took your suggestion.

• Seems inconsistent when you give the scientific name of a species after first mention of the common name or not?
  • Simplified text so that I could remove the one mention of the scientific name. Scientific names add complexity and are not strictly pertinent, so I prefer to avoid them to maximize readability, and also to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Since the WP:Engvar most associated with this species is US English, shouldn't the article be written in that? I see both ise and ize endings.
  • I found one -ise ending which I fixed, hope I didn't overlooked something.

• "However, a 2013 genetic analysis found" Give author, as you do with another genetic study mentioned?
  • Removed that author name to be consistent. If I would give all author names for all statements, it would be too much (I mostly cite a single secondary source, but this source is just a summary of dozens of papers which I do not cite directly).

• "have recognized them as" Don't think "have" is needed here.
  • Fixed. Thank you, I am looking for more comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Now that you removed binomials elsewhere, how about: "Similar species within its range include the piping plover Charadrius melodus), the collared plover (Charadrius collaris), the semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), and Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia)."
  • Removed them here, too.

• I wonder if "demes" need explanation in parenthesis?
  • I originally did not because it is a bit words, but added now.

• While the article is image heavy, I wonder if this video[1] would be interesting under for example habitat? It shows something not really shown elsewhere currently in the article, a very large congregation of birds on a beach, and it is pretty interesting in showing then all moving in unison back and forth, seemingly in response to the waves?
  • Very difficult to see but I believe these are dunlins, not snowy plovers. At least some of them have black bellies and longer beaks, which can only be dunlin. Also, seeing snowy plovers feeding in such numbers would be highly unlikely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps enough to question their identity in the Commons file description so others don't add it in other language articles? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So I just edit the Commons file description, saying that these could be Dunlins? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if it can just be added to the current description. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The typical call is a sweet" Seems a bit subjective and ambiguous way of describing it? How does a reader know what "sweet" means?
  • That what the source says, and I don't know of a better way to describe it. Yet, "sweet" means different things to different people. I removed it.

You could maybe say "has been described as "sweet"" to show that it's a claim? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The "broken wing" image[2] could maybe benefit from a closer crop?
  • Done.

• "Brine fly larvae are often shaked before consumption" Shaken? I'm not actually sure, pinging Gog the Mild... FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Good spot. Yes, 'shaken'. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

OMG, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• "in flocks up to 6 km away" Give conversion?
  • Done.

• "and sizes between 0.1 and 1 ha have been reported" Likewise?
  • Done.

• "on the ground in footprints" What footprints? By humans?
  • They will choose any depression that is suitable. I added human footprints as example.

• "The polygamous mating system of the snowy plover is uncommon" Perhaps clarify "in other birds"?
  • Done

• "average at 31 mm in length, 23 mm in width, and 8.5 g in weight" Conversions?
  • Done

• "Under hot conditions greater 40°C" Conversion?
  • Done

• It feels a bit like the "Territoriality and roosting" section should come after the breeding section, since much of what is discussed seems to be related to events that happen after?
  • Hmm I need to think about it. The idea was to have a general section on social interactions first, and then the more specific brooding section. The territoriality section introduces the nest scrape behavior, which becomes important in the brooding section.

Ok, makes sense then, also per below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Either way, it seems repetitive that both the above mentioned sections state that they can roost in tracks, some way to consolidate this?
  • Only the first mention is about roosting. The second is about the nest (when the ground is to hard to excavate a nest, then they sometimes use footprints for their nests). These are two different things.

• "as if they would be broken" As if they are broken?
  • Done

• "were approached by less than 30 m" Convert?
  • Done

• "and a 30 m buffer zone" Not sure if conversions are needed if already given earlier...
  • Since we only link terms at first mention as well, it seems consequential not to provide the same conversion twice.

• Link communal roosting and bird call?
  • Done.

• "but had been classified as a subspecies of the Kentish plover in 1922"

But was classified? Sounds a bit odd now.

Changed.

• Nest scrapes and egg predators could be linked in the article body too.
  • Done.

• Link saline and alkaline?
  • Changed to salt lake and soda lake, which hopefully will be a bit more accessible, too.

• "Charadrius nivosus occidentalis" Abbreviate first two parts of the trinomial?
  • Done.

• Thank you again. All addressed to date. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Marker - will pop along soon. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Caitlin Clark

Nominator(s): Sportzeditz (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Caitlin Clark, the reigning national player of the year in women's college basketball, who led Iowa to its first national championship game last season while breaking several records. Hoping to bring a third college basketball bio to FA status after the promotion of Paige Bueckers and Angel Reese. This article is well-sourced and comprehensive, with high-quality images, and I have edited it for almost 2 years and expect to keep it updated. Sportzeditz (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikilink freshman, sophomore, junior, senior (in both lead and body), these are not terms used or understood outside the United States
• Wikilink sixth grade, I personally (as a non-American) have no idea what age group this relates to
• Wikilink Class 5A, no idea what this means
• "Clark named first-team Class 5A All-State" => "Clark was named first-team Class 5A All-State"
• "Iowa reached the Sweet 16" - what does this mean?

• The names for each round are explained in the tournament page linked earlier. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "field goals" - thought that was an American football thing?
• "Listed as day-to-day" - what does this mean?

• Removed this as unnecessary. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the ability to score in the paint" - what the heck does this mean?
• Under business interests, can you reword so we don't have two consecutive sentences starting "On October 10"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I have addressed all points or replied above. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No Easy Answers

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 04:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

These days, I'm usually not surprised by redlinks. There are plenty of content gaps you could drive a truck through, and plenty more redirects made with overly high expectations or questionable AfDs from 2007. No Easy Answers was a surprising redlink. The memoirs of Brooks Brown, a friend of the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, it's one of the earliest and best-known works on the shooting. No two analyses of Columbine quite agree; they vary on their proposed factors, their portrayals of the killers, the environment they believe they came up in. No Easy Answers is hard on the side of the bullying hypothesis, in a way that's a little less popular nowadays -- but then again, Brown was there.

This article was recently passed at GAN and has had the living daylights copyedited out of it by a high-viewed DYK. I've looked over it a few times, trying in particular to trim the synopsis as far as possible. I think it's okay now -- it's not too far off Dark Archives, length-wise, and the article itself is a couple hundred words longer. I don't think sitting on this one will get it any more ready at this point, so I'm willing to turn it over to FAC. Vaticidalprophet 04:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

• Putting down a marker. I have another review to do first, but I'll be back soon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

SN

Yeah, me too. Read it at the time and not since. This is hardcore. ——Serial 20:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Would readers outside of the US instinctively understand what age elementary school represents? Perhaps mention an age, or anything that indicates how long a period had passed.
• Bit nitpicky, but you've made no link between CHS and the JPSCD (save bees: lower bytes now!), so strictly it doesn't say that CHS itself had a good reputation. Know what I mean?
• What's Normandy Elementary School, a catchment school?
• "...in their first year of high school", same... esp. as your synopsis section repeats much of this material, different schools, etc, so dates/anchor points would be good.
• When was Brown born?
• "reportedly bottled up", reported by whom?
• "a strict hierarchy" sounds rather official. Perhaps sth like "a strict, if unofficial, hierarchy". Possibly add "among the students", unless it was encouraged by officialdom. Although that would then mean that "students" was repeated. This would mean changing the end of the next sentence, e.g. "towards those seen as unpopular or nonconformist."
• "He proffers... her arm". This longish sentence could be comfortably split at "Jewish student. Further, practice"
• "In 1998". You see, first date from before the shooting mentioned so far  :)
• "in senior year", seems to be crying out for a definitive article, perhaps that's an AltEng thing.
• ""responsible for creating..." Do you think the interpolations are necessary? I think that anyone who's got this far knows who is being referred to... unless the bracketed surnames are in the original? In which case, I'd suggest cutting the quote back to the three words.
• The sentence re., Scott needs attention; Brown's discussion of CHS's pro-christian environment is good, but the quote only makes sense we are told that she was an near-maniacal evangelical. And as it stands the only way the reader can find that out is by clicking away from your article. ("Sad!")
• Connected to the above, there's also possible confusion—possibly dichotomous, but not irresolvably so for certes—as to the connection between CHS (very Christian ethic), Brown (more Taoist than anything) and Scott (Christian to the extent of evangelism). How did Brown, who felt oppressed by the former, find such a good friend in the latter? Is that the basis of his quote ("defying expectations")?
• "nothing short of horrific", inline citation. Also, at the last of Todd's quotes. What a nice bloke.
• How did authorities participate in the bullying
• Mahler has not been a PhD candidate for some time, passing her viva in Dec 2020.
• "manage his anguish", inline cite.
• Is there a source for a Parade magazine-offshoot being "nationally popular", or is this a way of subliminally suggesting that a source with 'Teen' in the title can still be an RS  ;)

I hope some of this is useful! Great stuff! ——Serial 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Vat, just a nudge on this one (Did you forget to watchlist this page?!). Once you've dealt with SN's comments, I'll do mine. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted -- sorry that this has slipped down! I've edited a few of these, but have been insanely busy for a few days. I'll aim to get it all sorted tomorrow. Vaticidalprophet 11:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "The book recounts Brown's experiences growing up as close friends with Klebold ... No Easy Answers tells Brown's personal story of growing up with Klebold". The start of these two consecutive sentences is very repetitive.
• "Throughout the book, Brown portrays both himself and Klebold as the subjects of extreme bullying from other students, and this as a widespread phenomenon at Columbine ... No Easy Answers focuses on bullying as the proximate cause of Columbine ..." Again, although less obviously, but I think this needs tweaking to only stress the bullying once.
• "those who were non-athletic". Non-athletic in appearance, in mental outlook, in participation in athletics as opposed to other sports? Could this be clarified.
• "is a 2002 non-fiction book by Brooks Brown and Rob Merritt ... No Easy Answers was co-written by Brown and Rob Merritt".
• "the subject of much of its critical analysis". The critical analysis in the book, or the critical analysis of the book?
• "The Columbine shooting had significant effects on education, policy, copycat crime, and media and cultural portrayals of school violence. Columbine affected decision-making around school security, active shooter response protocols,[12] anti-bullying policy,] and religion in schools." Could it be specified whether this was just in the US or more generally.
• "The book begins with the basics of the shooting". "basics" seems a little unencyclopedic. Perhaps 'basic facts'?
• "which Brown posits". A postulate is "Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted" (Wiktionary). Perhaps 'which Brown argues'?
• "arguing that the former [media violence] represents an existing demand for such works rather than producing one". I don't understand what this is trying to say.
• "worshipped the athlete". I suspect that "athlete" is being used to mean something wider than "A participant in a group of sporting activities which includes track and field", eg the US usage. It would be helpful to non-US readers explain what is meant at first use.
• Link "freshmen". And "junior year" and "senior year".
• "Brown stopped driving Harris to school." Is it known why this happened?
• "the common focus on short-term warning signs." Who or what has this focus?
• "distinguishes Scott as "def[ying] every expectation [he] ever had of a Christian"." Does Brown mean this as praise or condemnation?

More to follow. (I am to the end of Synopsis.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Brown criticises frameworks where the attack was spurred by". This seems a little clumsy. Maybe 'Brown criticises frameworks which suggest [or "posit"] the attack was spurred by' or similar?
• "They presented this focus as". I assume that "this focus" refers to Stone's accusation? If so, it may be clearer to say so.
• "They presented this focus as an attempt by Brown to transfer his feelings about the shooting from Klebold to Stone." I am not at all sure what is being said here. Could it be unpacked a little?
• A general comment: "focus" is used 16 times. Perhaps some synonyms?
• "The version of Columbine High School depicted in No Easy Answers was described by two reviewers as "nothing short of horrific" ... Peterson and Hoover called the book's description of the school "nothing short of horrific" ".
• "Brown went on to work in the film and game industry as a visual effects artist." Is it known what he is currently doing?

That's it from me; a fine analysis. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Hernan (2020)

Nominator(s): JayTee⛈️ 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... Tropical Storm Hernan, a small and short-lived tropical cyclone that originally was not expected to have significant impacts on land. Yet, it defied forecasts and caused immense flooding and significant damage across much of southwestern Mexico in late August 2020 as it passed closely offshore. This storm is a textbook example of how small tropical cyclones can still pack a powerful punch. JayTee⛈️ 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricane Noah

Lead

• "40 miles per hour (65 km/h) simply make it 'low-end tropical storm' which conveys the same meaning without numbers.
• "achieved peak intensity" achieved 'its' peak intensity
• "6:00 UTC" 06:00
• Link to maximum sustained winds somewhere in the lead.
• "The low moved near the Baja California Peninsula" I don't like this wording... maybe 'the low neared the southern edge of...'?
• 11 inches (280 mm) - Abbreviate please
• "with accumulation peaking" - pluralize accumulation

Meteorological history

• "6:00 UTC" 06:00
• "340 miles (545 km)" Abbreviate
• "However, the United States" I would say United States-based
• Link wind shear in met
• Link Ocean gyre
• Link maximum sustained winds and atmospheric pressure in met
• Convection duplicate link

Preparations and impact

• Link tropical cyclone warnings and watches
• "MXN$594.045 million pesos (US$26.9 million)" Sigfigs should be the same here
• " including 115 minors" Why is this important?
• "13 feet (4.0 m)" abbreviate
• Link Parota
• "A young man" This is vague. Young is in the eye of the beholder.
• "Winds gusts" Wind singular
• Link sea turtle
• "Minor rainfall, gusty winds, and large waves spread across the coast of Baja California Sur even as Hernan weakened and dissipated just offshore." I dont think this detail is needed since that's normal and nothing resulted from it.
• Manzanillo duplicate link
• Tomatlán duplicate link
• Nayarit duplicate link
• It's also frowned upon to start sentences with numbers in numerical format so I would avoid doing so if possible.

Here are some comments to get you started. Noah, AA^Talk 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the above comments have been addressed. JayTee⛈️ 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• 45 miles per hour - please abbreviate here
• "1,674 homes and nine schools" Since there is a numerical form for homes, schools should also be in numerical.
• "At least 630 houses and nine schools" Ditto

That should be it.

Noah, AA^Talk 02:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. JayTee⛈️ 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support since my issues have been resolved. Noah, AA^Talk 01:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Source Review

Will be doing this later but for now note (which I discovered during the text review):

• Link to TCR is missing
• Check NOAA sources and please make sure your text isn't too close to the source.

Addressed. JayTee⛈️ 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• in the wake of Hurricane Genevieve - Could you reword this since it is similar to the TCR text?
• Discussion 1 link is messed up (appears to be NHC's fault). If you are sourcing discussion 1, change the link to discussion 2's link since they put the text for discussion 1 there.
• For NHC refs, either include middle initials for all (also II in the case of John Beven) or none
• FN7: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source? I couldn't find a staff page or editorial oversight.

Ended up removing as it didn't contribute to article much and was a stub of a source. JayTee⛈️ 23:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto FN31

I did some research and found out Lopez-Doriga was actually founded by a man of the same name and it appears to have a decent reputation in Mexico. Its founder is a respected TV show host that is disliked by the Mexican government for its criticism of it, but its in the cohorts of other respected news sources. JayTee⛈️ 23:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That only makes mention of Lopez-Doriga himself in passing and doesn't establish that the organization itself performs high-quality news reporting. Noah, AA^Talk 00:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I just don't necessarily think the source or its founder (in lieu of a mission statement) is unreliable or not of at least decent quality. And it adds valuable information to the Guerrero section. JayTee⛈️ 05:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that we have to establish reliability. We can't go on gut feeling. FAs have to be top-notch in everything which is why I was very stringent in going over the sources. Sometimes this would mean deleting information from an article because the source's reliability can't be accurately assessed. Noah, AA^Talk 14:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I really can't establish the reputability of this source so I will be removing. JayTee⛈️ 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• FN10: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?

I wouldn't call it high-quality, but it has good impact info and passes a quick ScamAdvisor check. JayTee⛈️ 23:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You have to be able to prove that it's reputable and high-quality. If you are certain it isn't high-quality than it probably should be removed. Noah, AA^Talk 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest I don't think it's a high-quality source. I'll remove it and see what information from it is already covered by other sources and can be salvaged. JayTee⛈️ 04:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Link El Universal (Mexico City)
• Link Uno TV
• El Universal is a newspaper, not a work
• Link to El Informador (México) on Spanish WP
• El Informador (México) is a newspaper, not a work
• Should be listed as El Informador instead of just Informador
• Link to Meganoticias on Spanish WP
• Link to Comisión Nacional del Agua on Spanish WP for Conagua
• Link to Proceso (revista) on Spanish WP
• Proceso is a newspaper
• Link Milenio
• Milenio is a newspaper
• El Sol de Acapulco is a newspaper
• FN34: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?

Now goes by La 1, an old and reliable Spanish TV channel, will be fixing and linking. JayTee⛈️ 23:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• FN35: Author name missing
• Be consistent in giving locations for news sources (either all or none)

Removed all since only a handful of sources provide them. JayTee⛈️ 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Please replace quotations within titles with 'words in quotations here'

Do you mean the quotations in the ref names (i.e. "HTCR") or the quotations in the actual titles of the articles (i.e. tormenta tropical "Hernán")? JayTee⛈️ 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The latter. Noah, AA^Talk 00:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. JayTee⛈️ 04:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Please add translated titles

1) How do I add them to the references? 2) Is there a certain website we can use to translate the titles? Google's translations are pretty subpar to say the least. JayTee⛈️ 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Use the parameter trans-title=. If I am being honest, unless you know someone who can help with translating, the best bet is to use a combination of Google translate and common sense. There’s probably someone who can help with translating somewhere, but I am not familiar. Noah, AA^Talk 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. JayTee⛈️ 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I found. Spot checks haven't yet been done. Noah, AA^Talk 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

What spot checks are referring too? JayTee⛈️ 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to check about five references to make sure what you said in the article is supported by the source. Noah, AA^Talk 00:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Taken care of all other comments thus far. JayTee⛈️ 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

There is an El Universal and a Milenio that are still listed as work. FN3's link is still broken as well. Discussion 1 is actually located at [3] Noah, AA^Talk 14:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed all. JayTee⛈️ 15:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks

• FN5: "The system was downgraded to a tropical depression at 12:00 UTC that day" This isn't supported by the discussion which is for 1500. Check others in the section to make sure it is supported by sourcing appropriately.
• FN12: Statement is supported
• FN20: "It was reported that at least 19,968 people were impacted and in need of support in the state following Hernan" This statement isn't supported
• FN25: Statement is supported
• FN31: Statement is supported

Let me know when you have fixed these. Noah, AA^Talk 14:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah All fixed. JayTee⛈️ 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Don't cite mid-sentence in the absence of a punctuation mark. You can have both citations at the end of a sentence. Otherwise, those are fixed. Since 2/5 revealed unsupported statements, I had to do a few more.
• FN1: (Third citation): "Despite these unfavorable conditions, cloud tops south and west of Hernan's center cooled to between −117 and −123 °F (−83 and −86 °C) as its convection increased, allowing the cyclone to strengthen slightly." and "Continuous wind shear caused Hernan to weaken shortly thereafter, restricting convection to the southern and western portions of the storm's circulation." are not supported within the TCR. I'd ask you again to take a close at the met and what each source specifically supports. I'm convinced this really is the trouble area at this point since I didn't find anything else in the four additional spot checks I did. I will go over the entire met tomorrow night with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it is handled. Other than that, the other SR issues are resolved.
• FN15 (Last citation): Statement supported
• FN28: Statement supported
• FN30: Statements supported; You do only need to cite at the end of the last sentence rather than citing it at the end of both consecutive sentences.
• FN33: Statement supported

I did five additional spot checks.Noah, AA^Talk 02:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah Taken care of all. I added discussions 5 and 6 from the NHC advisory archive on Hernan to the met history as they support the claims above. JayTee⛈️ 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Pass SR. Noah, AA^Talk 01:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! JayTee⛈️ 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I did a review of the article before FAC, and thought it was in pretty good shape. I'll leave the only comment I had from two years ago, which is the main reason I can't support at the time.

It could use a damage total, and clarification on the missing person. Having a news story about a missing person around the time of the storm doesn't mean the person actually died, or is still missing. That's the biggest thing missing IMO.

So I'm glad the article now has the damage total. But as for the missing person, it's like one last thread to the narrative that isn't complete. For what it's worth, the Spanish Wikipedia article for the 2020 PHS season doesn't list any deaths. Neither does the WMO report. So I'm not a fan of the current wording saying "though their whereabouts were never discovered." The current sourcing doesn't back that up, and I'd rather the wording be accurate than make assumptions. Further, I don't see where ref 19 cites the information described. It's pretty minor, but I'd rather you make sure you get the wording right rather than just removing it. Even if you change the wording to something like, "there were initial reports of a missing person," then it's still accurate, without having to speculate. This was my only qualm with the article, otherwise I stand by that the article is is in good shape. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink I think the death is well-sourced and seeing as it mentioned in the NHC's TCR on the storm I strongly feel it should be included. The Spanish WP is mostly a copy-paste of this article and may have missed the death. I can re-word the article to more accurately reflect FN19 and I agree that the statement "there were initial reports of a missing person" should be added as there were no further reports of this beyond that article. Seeing these issues addressed would you feel comfortable supporting the article? JayTee⛈️ 19:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The TCR death is in Jalisco, which I'm not talking, I'm referring to the missing person in Guerrero. My beef is the original research putting in "though their whereabouts were never discovered." Hence why I suggested the wording of "there were initial reports of a missing person", since that person could well have been accounted for. See any big natural disaster where the death toll can fluctuate, particularly with missing people. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I understand better now. I re-worded the OR sentence. I believe the FN19 issue is addressed as well as it supports the information in the sentences that precede it in the Jalisco and Guerrero subsections. JayTee⛈️ 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Dorothy L. Sayers

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Dorothy L Sayers was a fascinating person. Although she is best known nowadays as a crime novelist, she had several more strings to her bow – playwright, theological essayist, critic, and – most important to her – translator of Dante's The Divine Comedy. An excellent PR with much constructive input from Tim O'Doherty, Dudley Miles, UndercoverClassicist, Wehwalt and Serial Number 54129. Our grateful thanks to all of these. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tim O'D

Putting down a marker for now. Comments will address the article past Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924, as I'd already commented about the previous parts at PR. Ping me after a few days if I still haven't commented. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Tim, pinging as requested! - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, had actually forgotten about this (don't take that personally!):

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Cut to the core, etc...

• This one is in the first section but remains my only nitpick left from PR: I think (Nell) needs to be clarified. My point was I didn't really understand what it meant at first: nickname, middle name ... ? I think it is a nickname given that she's referred to as Nell later down: if so, I'd just go with "Nell".

  OK, looking at MOS:QUOTENAME, I think that's probably fair (although I think the brackets works better. Still, the MOS suggests this way, so...) - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• The series of Wimsey novels continued with Unnatural Death in 1927, and The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club in 1928 - is the comma needed?

  Blitzed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• moved from London to the small Essex town of Witham - first time Essex has been mentioned in the body, maybe add a hyperlink.

  OK - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• The scholar George Saintsbury wrote an introduction to the book - wrote an indroduction or the introduction? Not trying to be smart here, if there was genuinely more than one.

  I think either are fine, regardless of the number (and I say that as someone whose immediate reflex is to use the definite article!). By way of example, if you do a search for "with an introduction by", you'll see multiple reliable and grammatical impeccable sources using this form.

• 1930–1934 - any sort of description you can give this heading beyond the years? If it's too artificial and inorganic to invent one though, fully understand why you'd choose not.

  I think this may be forced. Her membership of The Detection Club and the introduction of Harriet Vane into her novels were the two main changes in those years, and it's an odd sort of pairing for a title - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. Happy with that.

• The Scotsman called it a book to keep the most jaded reviewer out of bed until the small hours - feels a bit quote-y; is it?
• The Liverpool Echo -> the Liverpool Echo

  Gone for consistency within the newspaper titles with a capitalised "The". - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why refer to Wimsey by his surname but to Vane by her forename?

  On this point I'm going to defer to Tim riley who wrote this part. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  It follows Sayers's practice. She occasionally gave him his full title – "Lord Peter Wimsey murmured: 'They all wrote down on their slates'", or half of it – "The Dowager Duchess made her way along the benches and squeezed in next to Lord Peter", but most of the time it's just his surname – "He fidgeted, and Wimsey frowned at him". Harriet is sometimes "Harriet Vane" in full, mostly just "Harriet" and never just Vane. Tim riley talk 09:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  The use in this way is also in line with MOS:FAMILYNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names", and I think "Wimsey" and "Harriet" are classed as the common names in her work. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dante and The Man Born to Be King, 1940s - no notes :-)
• The Daily Sketch -> the Daily Sketch

  As above. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• A 2021 study by Laura Mayall - who is she?

  Sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Christian writing - also found nothing to complain about here, but confirming I have read it.

Will tackle the rest shortly. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent stuff - many thanks. Just one point left for TR to answer. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Philip L. Scowcroft - might want to introduce him.
• "The second man ... seemed to wear the long-toed boots affected by Jew boys of the louder sort." - if this one could be put first while still making sense I'd go for that: we have Sayers being criticised for antisemitism in the first sentence, followed by two anti-black passages and then the antisemitic one last. Makes more sense, to me at least, to have the antisemetic one first as that's what's emphasised in the preceding sentence, followed by the anti-black ones (and, Christ Sayers! someone that religious should know better ... love thy neighbour etc).
• Link whodunit? (reading down I see you've done this in Legacy - do it at first use?)
• and, as at 2023, continues - WGHAT!! THIs ISN AN OUTRASGE!!1 (joke)

And that's me. Happy to support, even without waiting for comments to be resolved. In my eyes deserving of the gold star. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt

• Support per my detailed comments at peer review, as one very familiar with the Lord Peter Wimsey books.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment

At the end of the section headed "Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924" we learn that at the age of 31 Sayers had a son whom she arranged to be fostered. It strikes me as very weird that she did not wish to live with or look after her own child. This presumably throws some light on the character of this deeply religious woman. I'm surprised this isn't more prominent in the article. Do the sources give more background? - Aa77zz (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There is surprisingly little in most of the biographies about the matter. At least one biography omits any mention of the son except in a chronology ("1924: Gives birth to a son.") I think that as a single mother in the 1920s who had a child as a result of an affair with a married man, the scandal would have been deeply felt, particularly by her religious family. I don't think this was as uncommon as you may think for the time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

UC

Drive-by for now in place of a proper review, which may follow:

• When she was fifteen, her parents sent her to a boarding school ... Joining at the age of fifteen, rather than the normal eight, she was seen as an outsider by some of the other girls, and not all the staff approved of her independence of mind. Firstly, does anyone we know which school? Secondly, the ages confuse me a little: in most public/boarding schools, it's normal to join at thirteen from an outside prep school. An all-through school (I'm not sure how many of those there were in the 1900s) may do things differently, but I'd be surprised in the modern day to find a school where it was abnormal to join at that point. Is there any more digging to be done here? People's schools are generally the sort of thing that are a matter of record, if only because the schools themselves tend to remember and commemorate their famous alumni. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks UC. I've tweaked this a little. She was home educated until she was sent to Godolphin, so I've made sure that's clear now.
  In terms of the age of entry, I suppose it depends on the school, but I've tweaked it here to show it was Godolphin's normal age, rather than more generally. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, their article seems to support that (or at least that 8 was normal in the 18th century). I still suspect it was a little less normal than that, but if the source says it, I've only got OR to go on here. A small point: the Salisbury school simply calls itself "Godolphin School", not the Godolphin, unlike the more famous one in London. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Good spot - thank you! Now amended. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi UC, I couldn't crowbar in another edit just to put another edit summary, so I'll answer your question here. Godolphin nearly put her off religion altogether (and didn't want to be confirmed at the time). Her "principal reason for choosing Somerville College rather than Lady Margaret Hall was that Somerville was undenominational", according to Brabazon, and this is partly because of the school. (I think we cover this in the relevant bit, but please let me know if it needs beefing up or tweaking a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes -- to me, that seems like a significant enough influence to stick it in the infobox (not to mention that the school nearly killed her off!). However, flicking through FAs on female writers, it seems pretty unusual to have a school there (or indeed any education at all) -- granted, much of that is because not all of those writers had a school career that we can reconstruct -- so I'm very happy to leave this one to nominator's discretion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Strong_poison.JPG: source link is dead. Ditto File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg

• File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg: as this is on Commons, it needs a tag for country of origin

• File:Dante_Domenico_di_Michelino.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Nikkimaria; many thanks as always for looking over these.

File:Strong_poison.JPG and File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg: Links for both updated (I've archived them as well)

File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg and File:Dante_Domenico_di_Michelino.jpg both tagged (hopefully appropriately!)

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

Generally excellent, as I would expect given the collective level of experience that has already gone over this at peer review!

Some prose nitpicking:

• "From the mid‐1930s Sayers wrote plays, most were on religious themes": maybe "... mostly on religious themes" would read better
• "From the early 1940s her main preoccupation was translating the three books of Dante's Divine Comedy into colloquial English. She died unexpectedly at her home in Essex, aged 64, before completing the last of the three." I find "the last of the three" a little awkward; perhaps "... before completing the third book"?
• "and college chaplain of Christ Church, one of the colleges of the University of Oxford": is the first "college" necessary? I would simply say "and chaplain of Christ Church..."
• "an amount led Reynolds to describe him as 'far from wealthy'": I think you have a "that" missing here
• "Reynolds considers Sayers was well placed to deal with Dante's rhymed couplets": couplets?!

And one factual query/nitpick:

• "Her first novel Whose Body? was published in 1923. Between then and 1939 she wrote ten more, all of them detective stories, and all but one featuring the upper-class amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey." Is this right? I count eleven Wimsey novels, plus The Documents in the Case and the four Detection Club collaborative novels.

An initial readthrough didn't bring up any concerns about the sourcing, and the article certainly seems comprehensive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Cheers Caeciliusinhorto; all sorted in these edits, hopefully successfully! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • All those changes look good. Doing some spotchecking, no issues with text being supported. I think the first paragraph of §Oxford has some issues with close paraphrasing, though. Compare, for instance, "Somerville had a tradition of nurturing women to play leading roles in the arts and public life" with the source text "Somerville, with its tradition of nurturing strong women who go on to leadership roles in the public arena as well as the arts". Having checked some other text cited to the ONDB article, as well as some from Reynolds' biography, this appears to be an isolated case. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks Caeciliusinhorto. This one tweaked a little to retain the sense but move a little further away from the source. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Serial

Normally, I'd probably support immediately because "all my points were addressed at PR". But, think only 50% of them were  ;) ——Serial 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's because she didn't learn campanology: she read up on it, but still made a couple of errors in the description. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to cause trouble you understand, but if you'll allow me to be me for a minute or two  :) ...Well, I think she read up on it sufficiently to "master an esoteric, and, to her, uncongenial discipline", to the extent of being able to "write out on paper a complete touch of Grandsire Triples or Kent-Treble Bob Major from the course-ends and observation calls". Rev Venables introduces the reader (and Wimsey) to C. A. W. Troyte, and she learned from him. It's true that she made errors; she also criticised herself for scientific inaccuracy in the Docs in the Case, and it's well known that her choice of murder weapon in Unnatural Death is almost an impossibility. I think, in the way you touch on thebaxckground to Documents, you should do something similar here; if she just learned French, for example, then it would be completely unnoteworthy, but one of the most obscure practices this country has ever produced, interlinking music and mathematics? Worth a punt (on the Isis, presumably!).

By the way, while I'm here—and I don't want to tread on PMC's toes—but there's some curious cites (now), e,g. 183–186. Just OCLC numbers? ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit odd, but they're citing the catalogue entry rather than the books themselves. (Which makes sense as the books are fiction and it would feel weird to cite fiction). It's unorthodox, but I don't see any reason not to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Well, if you think something's odd, ask at WT:FAC, that'll get an answer. The source review is governed by the featured article criteria. In this situation, criterion 2C, which mandates "consistently formatted inline citations". In any case, no exceptions are made for fiction (and in the Sources/Books section, DLS's fiction is fully referenced anyway!). Also, they're not to fiction: Dorothy L. Sayers : a bio-bibliography, a thesis; Hitchman's Such a Strange Lady; Maker and Craftsmen: The Story of Dorothy L. Sayers; Dorothy L. Sayers: a literary biography. This last one, by the way, is most odd: It's Hone, Ralph E. (1979), which is already cited in full. Those are the first four; I'm not going to list the rest, but they're all biographical (and indeed at least one other—the Kenney source—is also already used as a source. AFAICT, there's nothing wrong with the reliability, but the consistency is, off-kilter, to say the least  :) Enjoy. ——Serial 00:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to come off as prickly, but I know what the FACR are and don't need them linked. I didn't ask because I wound up deciding that I did not see it as an issue. The distinction as I see it is that it's not the content of the books which is being cited, it's the OCLC catalogue for publication details being cited. The citations are consistent when they are being used for that purpose, and I think that satisfies the FACR. (I did misspeak when I said they were citations to fiction - I shouldn't reply when I've just woken up from a night shift and only barely remember what year it is). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Coords, I'm waiting for snail-mail source to arrive. FYI, not forgotten  :) ——Serial 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks SN -- btw it's {{@FAC}} if you want to ping the coords... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: But I didn't want to... or need to. This is a Riley-SchroCat production, pure Glimmer Twins, and I know that, where they go, @WP:FAC coordinators: ain't far behind  ;) ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I've added a line that she researched campanology.
  In terms of the OCLC links, these are, I believe, accepted practice and have been used in a few other FAs I know of. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review from PMC

Putting myself down here, give me a sharp prod if I don't come back within a week :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - here we go. No spot-check performed. This is on formatting and reliability.

• I notice that some sources have links in the citations, such as 125 to P.D. James and 151 to Contemporary Authors and Gale, but most others with viable links like Oxford Dictionary of National Biography are unlinked. Should be consistent.

  OK, unlinked them all - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 37: ""Special Literary Supplement", Truth, 24 October 1923, p. vi;" - there are several publications with the name Truth, it might be worth putting a location or linking the correct one

  I'll check with Tim on that one as he wrote that section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Might want to do the same for The Times and The Daily News, both of which can refer to multiple publications

  I've done the Daily News, but I'll leave The Times I think. They all refer to the best known of all the papers under that name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 89, 202, 203: BBC Genome is more properly called the BBC Genome Project

  I've swapped one of them for the Radio Times reference (which is better), but renamed the other two - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 213: Is Lesser Feasts and Fasts liturgically applicable to all American Episcopal Churches? If so, why is the St. Alban's one needed? That seems to a user-made post from one random church.
• There are quite a few older newspaper stories but they're generally used to cite their own opinion, so no concerns with reliability
• I've been told not to use state abbreviations like "Boston, MA" in refs. Apparently it should either just be Boston, or the state should be fully spelled out as Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Same for Kent, OH (especially since you have Kent, Ohio, right under it)
  • Ithaca, NY; Malden, MA;
• New York: Church Publishing, Inc. - should be New York City to avoid ambiguity. You have a bunch of these, I'll not highlight them all, ctrl+F "New York:" will pop them
• Worsley, Lucy (2014). A Very British Murder. London: BBC. - properly this is BBC Books
• It's really mostly nitpicks. I don't see any sources that need challenging. We have books from reputable publishers and peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Web sources are used sparingly and for basic facts.

That's everything I have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks PMC. All done bar the one about The Truth, which I'm looking into. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, Truth now linked! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder - I have a few questions and will try to finish review over next 24hrs. JennyOz (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I have already commented at PR, but will have another look through.
• It seems curious that the cause of death is not given. The New York Times at [4] says it was coronary thrombosis. Is this not correct?

  Added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• As a personal opinion, I think sources such as the ODNB article should be listed in the sources section for the benefit of people using it for further research.

  I've been mulling on this one, as there is some merit to it, but I think if we move that into the sources, it would be inconsistent with the other web sources, so we'd have to move everything out of the body and into the sources section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "because of its practice of cultivating its students take prominent roles in the arts and public life". "to take"?

  Yes - added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Kenney describes the book as "flawed but brilliant", and ranks it below the final three Wimsey novels—The Nine Tailors, Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon—in terms of its literary status in relation to more manifestly serious fiction of Sayers's day." This sentence seems too convoluted to be clear.

  Reorganised to get rid of the parenthetical clause: does this work any better? - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Pedantry point. It is not correct to say that a sub is required for access to the ODNB Sayers article. It is free access, which seems to be a new thing on ODNB for some articles.

  So it is - how pleasing! Subscription template now removed - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Another first rate article from SchroCat and Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Many thanks Dudley. All duly attended to, except where commented on above. Thanks also for your PR comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I cannot see any justification for treating web sources differently from other ones and would have a section for them in the sources, but that is for the nominators to decide. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations

Pierre Boulez

Nominator(s): Dmass (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Pierre Boulez was one of the most influential - and controversial - composers of the second half of the 20th century. He had a parallel career as a conductor, working with many of the great orchestras. The article has been through GA and PR, and I hope it might join the growing number of FAs on classical music. Comments on prose, content, balance, length and anything else will be welcomed. Dmass (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the article extensively at GAN, was among the reviewers at PR, and have long been urging Dmass to bring it to FAC. At GAN I was concerned about the length of the text, but since then it has been judiciously trimmed and now has a word count on a par with, e.g., the FA on Benjamin Britten, than whom Boulez lived nearly three decades longer. Rereading the article once again for FAC I find it comprehensive, well proportioned, balanced, widely sourced and cited, commendably well illustrated (which can't have been easy), and a pleasure to read. I like Dmass's use of footnotes rather than in-line parentheses for English translations of French titles: this makes for a smoother read while making translations readily accessible. My fellow peer reviewers were Cg2p0B0u8m and SchroCat, and a pillar of our classical music articles is Aza24, and I hope they may like to look in here. Meanwhile, I add that I think the article meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tim riley - and for your your invaluable suggestions at GAN and PR. Dmass (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

As the proud (or, occasionally, masochistic?) owner of several of the man's works and recordings, I hope to find the time to recuse and review this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to your comments (and discovering which of his works fall into the 'sadistic' category!). Dmass (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Well let's just say that if I ever tire of married life and want a quick divorce all I'd need do is play Abbado's 1988 Notations I-IV at anything approaching normal volume -- compared to that my wife finds The Rite of Spring almost tranquil... ;-)

Now to business... I've reviewed and copyedited the lead and the biography section and overall I think it reads very well, and appears comprehensive but not overly detailed. As an example I believe I had heard that some considered one of his state-supported projects (IRCAM I think) really delivered very little bang for its buck and you did seem to touch on this. Anyway I'll take a breather now and you can let me know if you want to discuss any of my tweaks/trims/links... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I'll work through them over the weekend. Dmass (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed work. I agree with most of your tweaks so far. There are a few I disagree with, though.

I think the line break in the header is better as it marks change of subject from conducting to institutional work.

As you wish, I won't sweat that one! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the 1925-1943 section, I'd like to keep 'in fact', the point being that Boulez described a sort of victory over his parents, but 'in fact' he remained quite dependent on his father for practical help (for a while at least).

Hmm, perhaps "In the event" or "As it happened"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've gone for 'in the event' which catches the sense fine. Dmass (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Will pick up later... Dmass (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

In the sentence about Leibowitz, I prefer the original, partly because 'he found' is used again later in the same paragraph.

Ah yes, I usually do check if I'm inserting a term that might be used nearby -- my apologies. I did think my tweak of the 12-tone technique part worked quite well, perhaps we can find (pun unintended) something else for Leibowitz's doctrinaire approach? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

s:I've tried your suggestion, but the pronouns get terribly tangled up, so I've come up with a half-way house for the first sentence which I hope is agreeable. Dmass (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've gone further than you and trimmed the sentence at the end of 1959-1971 more.

Even better, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Finally, I don't think it's accurate to say that PB was 'largely' responsible for the Philharmonie, but he pushed for it for a long time. I think 'in no small measure' is more accurate, if a bit pompous on my part. Anyone think of an alternative? Dmass (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think "in no small measure" is a bit peacockish, and although I'm not certainly claiming perfection in my comprehension the fact that I didn't interpret it correctly might say something, so be good to find some other expression. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've substituted 'in part' for 'largely'. Dmass (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Resuming with the compositions section, I found very little to copyedit but have some queries:

• "the present moment is all there is" -- Can we clarify who said this? I imagine Boulez himself but since the sentence starts with "According to the music critic Alex Ross" I think it's worth spelling out.
• but the project did not come to fruition. -- Can we source this, as we do the unrealised nature of other works?
• few believed such an ambitious undertaking could be realised so late in the day -- I assume "so late in the day" refers to Boulez's age at the time but I think we should just spell it out if so.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

Thanks so much for your time on this. I'll pick my way through your comments, although I may have some queries along the way, as this is not my strong suit... Dmass (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

Will do. Dmass (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Dmass (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Pierre_Boulez_(1968).jpg: the licensing provided doesn't match the source

Could you clarify what you mean by this? I note that this is a cropped version of an image which also appears here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Boulez_1968.jpg Dmass (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The image has a copyright tag indicating it is licensed as CC BY-SA. The source link provided indicates the license is CC0. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have amended the record so that they match. Dmass (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Andrée_Vaurabourg.jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

I don't think I can resolve those issues, so it looks like it will have to go. I'm thinking of replacing it with an image of Olivier Messiaen: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Messiaen_1937_4.jpg - would that one be acceptable? Dmass (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in: as the Bibliothèque nationale de France records the Andrée Vaurabourg image as "domaine public" can we not read across from French to American copyright law the 70-years-after-death rule? Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Tim riley talk 00:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the life+70 rule doesn't apply to the US for published works, so that image is also missing a US tag. For these and the other US status questions, I'd suggest referring to the Hirtle chart to determine appropriate tagging based on publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced the Vaurabourg photo with a photo (taken by me in 2022) of the building in the Marais district in Paris which Boulez lived between 1945 and 1958. The street (rue Beautrellis) was completed in 1836. Dmass (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As with the next one, this should include an explicit tag for the building. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Dmass (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Theatre_Marigny_-_Salle_Popesco.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this should include a tag for the building.

I'm puzzled by this: the link you've provided suggests that France does have limited freedom of panorama. The Théâtre Marigny was built in 1835, so presumably there's no issue with this. Could you advise what kind of tag I should include? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Because of the age of this building PD-France should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean no further action is needed on this one? Dmass (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you agree that PD-France applies, we can just add that tag and be done with this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Dmass (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto File:IRCAM_at_Beaubourg_2009.jpg, File:Paris-Philharmonie1.jpg

As for IRCAM this is obviously a modern building, but my reading of the guidance is that it is only ‘for-profit reproductions’ which amount to infringements, which this is not. Is that wrong? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

For our purposes yes - our non-free content policy defines any work that disallows commercial reuse as non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted this image as the problem seems insuperable. I've yet to find a candidate to replace it in this section, but I've found one for the previous section, which seems to balance nicely. Dmass (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Roger_Woodward_and_Pierre_Boulez_rehearsing_with_the_BBC_Symphony_Orchestra_Bartok's_first_Piano_Concerto_in_1972.jpg: what is "NLA Collection"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The papers of Roger Woodward in the National Library of Australia. Dmass (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Stephane_Mallarme.jpg: when and where was this first published?

The portrait by Nadar was published in 1900 according to the Bibliothèque nationale de France: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b531079562/f1.item. Dmass (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggest adding that to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Dmass (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto File:Paul_Klee,_1922,_Senecio,_oil_on_gauze,_40.3_×_37.4_cm,_Kunstmuseum_Basel.jpg

Klee died in 1940, more than 70 years ago, which I understand makes his works out of copyright in the USA. Could you advise which extra tag to add? Dmass (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It was published in 1924, according to the Kunstmuseum Basel, which owns it - http://sammlungonline.kunstmuseumbasel.ch/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.inline.list.t1.collection_list.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=13&sp=Sartist&sp=SfilterDefinition&sp=0&sp=3&sp=1&sp=SdetailView&sp=52&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=T&sp=0&sp=SdetailList&sp=0&sp=F&sp=Scollection&sp=l1207#litKlapptext - There doesn't seem to be anywhere to add that information to the image description, but the work is expressly categorised on the Basel website as being 'Bilddaten gemeinfrei - Kunstmuseum Basel' Dmass (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Schiele_-_Bildnis_des_Komponisten_Arnold_Schönberg._1917.jpg needs a US tag and more specific source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the source, the Mahler Foundation's website shows the date of the work (1917) and the dates of the artist (1890-1918): http://mahlerfoundation.org/mahler/contemporaries/arnold-schoenberg/. Should I just add that link to the file data under source? Also, could you advise which US tag to use? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is 1917 a creation or a publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

1917 was a creation date. I haven't been able to identify a publication date, so I have replaced the Schiele image with one which is approved for publication by the copyright holder. Dmass (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've also added three new images: of René Char, Bruno Maderna and Jean Genet. Would you mind taking a look at them? Thanks again.

File:Capitaine_Alexandre_1943.jpg needs a US tag

Done.

File:B_Maderna_1963.jpg has a dead source link and needs info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. Dmass (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

• Support. I was a reviewer at the PR and thought this an excellent article then. It's been tightened and strengthened since and meets, to my mind, the prose requirements of the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)|ref=none

  Many thanks SchroCat, much appreciated. Thanks for your help at the PR. Dmass (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  One late spot: in the "Middle-period works" section, the sentence "The works from this period are amongst his most frequently performed" is unsupported. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Quite right! It happens to be true, but of course that doesn’t help. I’ll have a think and delete if I can’t support it. Dmass (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I’ve cut it, there’s no single source to support it and it doesn’t add much. Dmass (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)