Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Late Registration[edit]

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Late Registration (2005), the second studio album by American rapper Kanye West. The album marked a distinctive change in style for West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have regularly edited it over the past few years. I recently held a FAC for the article that may have failed, but I took on the comments from it and a subsequent peer review for improvement to submit for FAC once more! K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jagger[edit]

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sir Michael Philip Jagger -- most commonly known by his stage name Mick Jagger. While studying to become an economist, he found success in a little known band he co-founded called the Rolling Stones in '62, which went on to be the most commercially successful band in history...with him at the helm. AllMusic and MSN have called him "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" and Billboard has called him "the rock and roll frontman". He is best known for being the trailblazing lead singer of the Rolling Stones and half of the Jagger–Richards songwriting team, one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in history. According to Steven Van Zandt, Jagger's acceptance on pop radio "was a turning point in rock & roll. He broke open the door for everyone else."

He received a knighthood in 2003, has been inducted into two music halls of fame (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and UK Music Hall of Fame), and even had a 19-million-year-old species of water nymph named after him. Jagger's style has been studied by academics and his vocal delivery and his sense of pitch and melody have baffled other singers. He has either directly or indirectly (through the Stones) served as inspiration for many artists, including Taylor Swift, Jack White, Steven Tyler, and Iggy Pop; in 2011, Maroon 5 released "Moves like Jagger", a song inspired by his unique dancing style. Despite all this (there is much more I didn't cover) and the immense success he has achieved in life, he didn't let the fame get to his head; the late Charlie Watts described him as "the least egotistical person" who would "do what's right for the band". I believe that this article is ready to be considered for featured article status and hope that you will support it along with me. Seeing as I am too late with this nomination for this year, I hope to have this on the main page to commemorate his 80th birthday in July 2023. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • File:Stones_ad_1965-2.jpg: contrary to the tag, there is a copyright notice in the source (page 4)
  • File:Mick-Jagger-1965b.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag, and per the Finnish tag needs info on first publication
  • File:Mick_Jagger_(1976).jpg: licensing doesn't match source
  • File:Rolling_Stones_04.jpg: given that the uploader has had many files deleted for copyright concerns, is there evidence to support that they are the copyright holder here? File:Rolling_Stones_26.jpg is the same uploader. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Now[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 album by Taylor Swift. It sold one million copies within one week—a record in the digital era. Because it was the first album Swift released after 2009's Kanyegate, Kanye was very much inspired by its success (among many others in later years) to claim that he made her famous. Stripped off all of this context, Speak Now is a decent album, though her vocals are a little nasally at points. The first FAC failed because it did not generate any interest, so I hope this second round would get more lucky. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Monza[edit]

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After over a decade of financial troubles, in 2018 Italian football club A.C. Monza was purchased by media tycoon (and generally controversial figure) Silvio Berlusconi. After a lot of passion (and money) injected into the club, Monza gained promotion to the Serie A (the Italian top division) for the first time this year. I thought it would be a good idea to nominate it for FA, given that it has just come back from a successful GA nomination. Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order to be freely licensed in both the US and Italy, the photographs must have been out of copyright in Italy on 1 January 1996. This means that photographs that cannot be dated to before 1976 should not be used (File:Monza lineup in 1975-76 (1).jpg). Other images look ok for licensing based on my non-expert understanding of Italian copyright law. (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Given that the picture was published in a 1976 book, it must have logically been taken the year prior. Also, line-up pictures of footballers are usually taken at the start of the season (so 1975 in this case). I have no concrete evidence to prove that the picture was taken before 1 January 1996, though.
  • Also, out of curiosity, is the cutoff of 1 January 1996 fixed, or will it become 1997 next year? Nehme1499 17:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The URAA date won't change and if the image is from 1976 it will go out of copyright most likely on 1 January 2072 (1976+95+1)—see the Hirtle chart. I don't think we can assume that an image published in a 1976 book must have been from the previous year, since news photography and some books are published in much shorter timeframes. (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: You're right, the image is actually most likely from 1976. I compared the players in the image with the players in Monza's roster throughout the 1975–76 season; a few players who left before 1976 are not in the picture. I'll try to replace it with another image. Nehme1499 17:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass Maybe I'm missing something but where does the source say that File:Feeding Kelenken.jpg is released under a CC license? Other image licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the upload by the original artist:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see now that it is higher resolution that the version on the external site so I'm willing to accept that it's by the artist. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: work should be italicized, and exact date and page should be included
  • FN6 should include book editors
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
  • FN11 is missing publisher
  • FN18 is missing ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Year's Model[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. Even better than his debut My Aim Is True, Model really shows the artist and band and their best in terms of songwriting and musicality. I've been rebuilding a few of Costello's albums from the ground up now and I believe this one is ready for the star. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver[edit]

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause[edit]

(1) Lead section. Use of the word 'viscious' seems a quote of Costello in his interview but you do not quote this word in quote marks. Suggest you quote it, or change it to 'cynical' or 'sarcastic' without quote marks.

(2) Side one section. It seems like a good idea to quote Elvis's opening words which kick off the song. Direct quote of the first 9-10 words before the band kicks in.

(3) Packaging and artwork section. Its obvious, but mention that he is photographed in his signature black frame glasses.

(4) Critical reception section. It says that it was album of the year 1978 here, but its not stated as such in the lead section. Album of the year for the Village Voice is worth putting in lead section.

(5) The phrase "ranked as one of Costello's best...", may look better as, "ranked as among Costello's best...".

(6) No Legacy section? No one has ever tried to copy one of his songs with any success?

That should serve as some start comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Cool, this is one of my all-time favourite albums and I always had it at the back of my mind I'd like to expand it someday, but it looks like you beat me to it. :-) (Ha, it looks like I made two edits to this in 2006 but haven't edited it since.) I will try to review this soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Elvis_Costello_Spanish_Model.jpg needs a more expansive FUR in order to justify having two non-free album covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banded broadbill[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another species of Southeast Asian broadbill. Pretty well-known, and rather well illustrated for an article on a species from this part of the world. AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I may do some light copy editing as I go. If I mess anything up, could you let me know here.

  • "Mainland Southeast Asia". Why the upper case M? Also in the main article.
    • No reason, just used it because it was in the main article.
Could we make them both lower case then.
  • "On Java, the broadbill might breed year-round." "might" doesn't seem helpful here. Do you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'has been observed to'?
    • Replaced "might" with "is thought to".
  • "are sister to the Grauer's broadbill". Why the definite article? Which is not used in the preceding sentence.
    • Removed definite article.
  • "has more metallic grey underparts and pinker throats and upperparts." Just checking: the underparts are both "more metallic grey" and "pinker"?
    • Second reference is to upperparts.
D'oh! Sorry.
  • "with an indistinct neckband, blacker foreheads, and pinker throats". Either all singular or all plural.
    • Changed all to singular.
  • "with pale dark streaks". I am unsure how something can be both pale and dark.
    • Dark compared to the background, but pale overall. For example, look at the photo of the West Javan juvenile. The streaks on the breast are rather pale overall, but dark compared to the yellowish background.
Hmm. Ok.
  • Perhaps link still-hunting to Hunting strategy#Still hunting?
    • Added link, but the hunting strategy article is about human hunters, so unsure how helpful it would be.
That's why I put "perhaps". Personally I think it's of some utility. But if you disagree, take it out.
  • "as well as catching prey in flight in more elegantly." Is there a word missing?
    • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the M/mainland issue, but no reason for that to stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all subspecies names and synonyms here, if they aren't already.
    • Done.
  • This individual[2] seems much lighter than the ones shown in the article. If it's a juvenile, perhaps clearer than the current juveniles shown in the article?
    • Definitely not a juvenile. I suspect that it's due to the lighting, since the background indicates the bird is captive. It might be an immature or perhaps a different subspecies, but I can't be sure since the photo doesn't provide any location info.



  • "The weight of adults of pallidus from the Malay Peninsula was ..." I suggest the present tense "is" – unless you specify a particular study.
    • Reworded.
  • "with a black band across the neck." and "a pure grey breast-band". This is confusing. Is this the same band? Does the male of the nominate subspecies have a band on the upper breast? Perhaps also mention the breastband/neckband when listing ssp in Taxonomy and systematics
    • The neck-band is black and across the neck; the breast-band is gray and lower down across the breast. This can be seen in the infobox image, where there is a black band across the neck and another grayish streak below the neck-band. The entire description para refers to the nominate ssp as mentioned at the beginning ("Adult males of the nominate subspecies"), while the neckband is mentioned in the ssp descriptions where it differs (eg in brookei - "with an indistinct neckband").
      • Thanks for clarifying this. Perhaps "and a pure grey breast-band." -> "and a pure grey breast-band beneath the black neckband." - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning the white spots visible on the underside of the retrices.
    • Already mentioned ("The tail..and has white spots on the underside").
  • The sentence beginning "It is among the widest-billed broadbills, ..." seems out of place. Consider moving the sentence to before "The irises are pale yellow...".
    • Done.


  • link Indochina
    • That redirects to Mainland Southeast Asia, which is linked earlier.
      • Yes, I noticed that, but it wasn't obvious to me that "Indochina" is a synonym for "Mainland Southeast Asia". - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Perhaps mention that both sexes collect nest material (Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 p. 16)
    • Added.


  • The references are cluttered with links from overzealous archiving. For many Wikipedia articles link rot is a serious problem, but fortunately this is not the case for most of the references in this article. There is no need to archive links to scans available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) or those from the Internet Archive (IA). (Note that the BHL and the archived copies are on the same IA web server.) I'm unable to display the archived copies of the BHL book scans.
    • Removed archive links to BHL content.
  • The archived copy for Kirwan et al 2021 (Cornell BOW) is useless – the article is behind a paywall so the archive contains no useful information.
    • Removed link.
  • Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 – the page numbers should be 8–27.
    • But 11–15 are the ones supporting cited info. The field pages in the ref template says "Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source".
      • For journal articles and edited book chapters I use page ranges such as: 8–27 [11–15] – but I admit that this not standard. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekker et 2000 Notes 3 – For journal articles it is usual to specify the page numbers of the article rather than the actual page. (as with your Notes 2 reference) The pages are 77-88.
    • See above

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still find the description of the neckband unsatisfactory. When describing the female you write: "although the neckband is faint or absent in males as well on Borneo and Java." Presumably the race on Java is E. j. javanicus, the nominate subspecies, which you've described earlier as "with a black band across the neck." Perhaps you should make it clear earlier that not all males of the nominate subspecies have a black band across the neck. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:EurylaimusJavanicusDist.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
  • File:Banded_Broadbill_-_Adult_feeding_juvenile.jpg is of rather poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Punic War[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants. All in fewer than 6,000 words. I took this to GA in 2020 and put it on the backburner while I concentrated on other matters. After a recent overhaul, especially of the sourcing - thanks Buidhe - I believe that it has a chance of meeting the FAC criteria. See what you think - as usual, all and any constructive comments welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Shall review and report back. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments, down to the end of the Italy section:

  • "a now-largely-lost manual" – I'm often unsure about hyphens, but I rather think we don't need them here, as the adverb in the middle does the necessary work. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
  • "personally interviewed participants" – can you interview people in any other way than personally?
  • "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – just checking: does this mean they were allowed to join up or were liable to be made to do so?
  • "The latter were usually Numidians" – pedantry alert: you can only have the latter of two. With any more it is "last"
  • "if it were to again confront Rome" – curiously convoluted construction: wouldn't "to confront Rome again" be more natural?
  • "but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – how do you besiege yourself? (From my press cuttings file: "Lampard twice had chances to double the lead, first dragging a left-foot shot wide then failing to find Rooney in the box when he should have shot himself".)
  • "nevertheless his is the best surviving source for this part of the war.[14][12][15]" – refs would be better in numerical order.
  • "A significant part of Hannibal's campaign – what did it signify? I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. Yes, I know we've argued about this before, but I continue to press the Fowler line that "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important".
  • "the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate" – unwanted definite article

More to come. Tim riley talk 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Only four more comments:

  • The caption in the Iberia 218–215 BC section could be made more concise by changing "The warrior" to "He".
  • The caption of the bust in the Iberia, 214–209 BC section is a bit ambiguous: "identified" as Scipio could mean anything from "generally thought to be" to "someone has speculated".
  • "they routed back through the Carthaginian ranks" – assuming this is "routed" to rhyme with "shouted" rather than with "suited" it is an intransitive construction unfamiliar to me. I'm guessing it means they routed the opposition, but I'm not sure.
  • "'Shock' troops are those trained and used to close rapidly with an opponent, with the intention of breaking them before, or immediately upon, contact". – I struggle with this. First, why "them" rather than "him" – non-gender-specific language is hardly required unless there were soldieresses in the ranks of the troops, and secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking"? Killing? Making him flee?

That's all from me. My comments are just on the prose. I have nothing to say about Livy -v- Polybius, raised below, or any other aspect of the content. – Tim riley talk 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by T8612[edit]

Hello Gog. Before reviewing the text body, I think a significant rewriting of the "Primary sources" section is needed. You put way too much emphasis on Polybius and discredit Livy in a way that is not justified for the 2PW.

  • Polybius The main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars etc. This is largely true for the 1PW and 3PW, but not the 2PW, because Polybius' text breaks off in 216 after the battle of Cannae. The main source for the war is Livy (discussed below). Polybius is nevertheless a very important source for the beginning of the war, but "fairly reliable" has to be toned down a bit for the 2PW. The most damning example is about Cannae, because one of the consuls (Aemilius Paullus) was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius put the blame of the defeat on the other consul, Gaius Terentius Varro. This is quite a big manipulation that ought to be noted. In general, Polybius is much less reliable when he deals with the family of Scipio, or his native Achaean League (he is therefore biased against the Aetolians also mentioned in the article).
I also think Diodorus and Cassius Dio should be moved just after Polybius, because they used him and most fragments of Polybius' lost books are found in their works. However, you can ditch Appian for the 2PW, as he is more useful for the 3PW.
  • Livy. The main source for the 2PW is thus Livy, whose books had been lost for the 1PW, but are still extent for the years from 218. Livy almost only used Polybius for the events of the Greek East, but for the Italian theatre he mixed him with the previous Roman historians, up to Fabius Pictor (also used by Polybius). Livy's book is much more pro-Roman than Polybius. He also dramatised battle descriptions in a way that is much less accurate than Polybius. Livy could also be biased: interestingly, he too put the blame on Varro for Cannae, but not for the same reason as Polybius; Livy describes Varro as a careless demagogue, while Paullus is a moderate (Livy often uses this opposition demagogue/conservative in his book, with disdain for the former).
Nevertheless, as he wrote annalistically, Livy is invaluable for his precise recordings of all the Roman magistrates, commanders, triumphs, etc. which gives us a very good chronology of the events, something we don't have for the other wars because Polybius was not that much interested in recording these.
  • You mention Plutarch, I think you should cite the relevant biographies of his Parallel Lives: Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus (and some parts of the lives of Cato the Elder and Titus Flamininus). For example: Living during the Empire, the Greek moralist Plutarch wrote valuable biographies of several Roman protagonists of the war in his famous Parallel Lives, especially Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus.
  • Two modern sources:
    • A. E. Astin wrote a very useful chapter on primary sources for the period in the 1st chapter (especially pp. 3-11) of the Cambridge Ancient History volume 8. Check also pp. 51-52 for Polybius' treatment of Cannae.
    • John Briscoe & Simon Hornblower, Livy: Ab urbe condita Book XXII (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 22), is a recent source (2020) and has a very good introduction on the whole war, and details the relationship between Polybius and Livy (there are also dicussions on Roman manpower or political factions in Rome). I can send you a pdf if you need it. T8612 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC." I might add a "which were" after the comma to settle any ambiguity as what "in the 3rd century BC is intended to refer to."
  • "defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success until moving into Italy;" I should say "before" rather than "until"
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps except Hannibal's allies, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • Background map is missing a legend
  • File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: the citation to the French code for the original work includes a non-commercial clause, which is non-free for the purposes of Commons
  • File:Second_Punic_war_(cropped).png: source links are dead
  • File:Archimedes_before_his_death_with_the_Roman_soldier,_Roman_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Relieve_de_Osuna_(M.A.N._Madrid)_03.jpg needs a tag for original work. Ditto File:Bust_of_Sulla_(loan_from_Ny_Carlsberg_Glyptotek)_-_Glyptothek_-_Munich_-_Germany_2017.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Baltic[edit]

Nominators: User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Hog Farm

A co-nom from me and Sturmvogel. An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Reviewing this version. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • How often do we describe the Federal government during the Civil War as the "Union" on the English Wikipedia, and in the modern historiography of the war?
    • From what I've seen probably over 70% of recent works still use "Union", although a lot of what I read is bio/campaign histories and I'd say it's probably the more social-history stuff that use "United States" or other terms (Ed Bearss used "Federals", which is probably the second most common thing I see). As of right now, I'd say that "Union" is still probably the primary usage form, although it's possible that's no longer the case in 5-10 years. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] the process of converting her into a military vessel began on December 22.[1] The process of converting her into an [...] Could use a switchup in the verbiage here.
    • I've rephrased the second instance. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You edited the lead...? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I get for staying up late. Should be rephrased in the correct spot now. Hog Farm Talk 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little treat of an article. Glad to see it at FAC now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • This seems to be missing any background or context. After the description the narrative starts "On May 12, 1862, Baltic was transferred by Alabama to the Confederate States Navy." How about a summary of what the ACW was, its broad outline to that date and something about the struggle for control of the navigable rivers and why this was important so we know what gave rise to the building of the Baltic. Something on what she was intended to do and how she compared with other riverine ships of the time would also be useful.
    • Given that this is a short article, I don't want to delve too much into backstory. I've added another sentence about the importance of controlling the coast, which should go with the mentions of Port Royal and Fts. Hatteras and Clark up in the construction section to make it clear why the ship was built (this one had little to do with the riverine warfare) I'm afraid that a comparison with other riverine ships of the time isn't really possible - there's just too little about her pre-Confederate career, and her CSA naval career can be summarized as "floating pile of trash". I have added the mention of Fort Sumter as the start of the war. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In passing: "the ship was too deteriorated for service, and was afterwards used to place naval mines". Is mine laying not "service"?
    • Clarified with "active service". For mine laying, it would presumably have just required that the ship floated and could move. Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that, but your average reader is likely to do a double take. Something like 'and so was relegated to mine laying duties ...' maybe? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went with the "relegated" phrasing Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've added a bit of background (first battle, more specific date of start of war, clarified importance of holding the coasts). I could add some more, but I'm not sure how much there's really space for since this is a shorter article than normal. Any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for casemate type?
  • Armament in infobox doesn't match text
  • Luraghi: what's the original that was translated? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Head coinage[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the last issue of coins of Queen Victoria, with the well-known portrait of her as an elderly woman. It received mixed to positive reviews at the time, which was an improvement from the previous Jubilee coinage anyway.Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from and what does it cover? Ditto File:The_Ashantee_Medal,_granted_by_the_Queen_for_the_Expedition_of_1873–74_MET_DP-180-162.jpg, File:Queen_Victoria's_Diamond_Jubilee,_1897_MET_DP-180-010.jpg
  • File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic12.JPG is missing a tag for the original work. Ditto File:British_threepence_1899.jpg, File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic19.JPG
  • File:1893_half_crown_obverse.jpeg: are the duplicate tags meant to cover the photo and the coin? If so, could that be clarified? If no, what's the status of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the 1893 half crowns, those things are done. It looks like OTRS messed things up and thought they were purely PD. I will resubmit them tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "was immediately gilded to make it appear to be the more valuable coin". By whom?
  • "attributes suggests that". ?
  • "the committee recommended that the double florin not be further struck". Is it known why?
  • "using a different portraits". Delete "a".
  • Link mantle.

These fiddling suggestions are all I have. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "coins struck dated between 1893 and 1901" - the two participles together read a bit oddly. Should it be "struck and dated"?
  • "The crown, or five-shilling piece, was struck for circulation for the first time since the 1840s." - source?
  • "The committee was chaired by the Liberal MP" - link Liberal?
  • "The government agreed (minting of the double florin had been suspended in August 1890)." - three words plus a parenthical aside reads oddly - any chance this sentence could be combined with another one?
No, but I've opened the parens.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The competition had a deadline of 31 October 1891, and on 27 November, the committee met at the Bank of England to consider them" - doesn't work grammatically, you need something earlier in the sentence to which "them" can then refer back
  • "The sculptors had been directed to include on their designs, Victoria's name and titles" - that comma should not be there
  • "Victoria had been lobbying since 1888 for her title as empress of India, granted by the Royal Titles Act 1876 to be" - you need a comma after 1876 to close off the subordinate clause
  • "The motto [...] were added" - motto is singular
  • "with the pattern continuing through 1900" - the article is presumably written in British English, and we don't say "through [date]" in the UK
  • "they would be restored in 1937" - source?
  • The last paragraphs of the circulation section are all extremely short - suggest combining some or even all of them
The thing is, they are each different in subject matter and hard to combine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for as noted, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Three comments, none of which affect my support, but which you may like to consider:

  • "a portrait of an aged Queen Victoria wearing a diadem partially hidden by a widow's veil, designed by Thomas Brock" – although few, if any, will mistake your meaning, it might still be as well to make it crystal clear that Brock designed the portrait and not just the veil. Shifting "designed by T B" up to follow "portrait" would do the job.
  • "the chancellor of the Exchequer, George Goschen" – I'm blest if I can see why this dignitary is deprived of his capital C when lesser mortals such as the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, the Chairman of the National Provincial Bank and the President of the Royal Academy get the full ulc treatment. (Looking at our article on the C of the E, it seems that the form is to capitalise "Chancellor of the Exchequer" but not "the chancellor".)
  • "Deputy Governor … deputy master" – further in-and-out running in capitalisation. I won't go on about "prime minister", "empress of India" or "Star of the Garter" or we'll end up sticking straws in our hair.

The article is clear, the prose is good, the illustrations are impressive and the sources, old and new, are many and varied. I'm happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 06:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Neale[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is another article in the Georgetown University presidents series and the last necessary to promote its topic from Good to Featured status, an uncommon event! This article is a GA and I believe it meets FA standards. Plus, the subject's brother, Francis Neale, is already a FA. Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leonard_Neale_portrait.jpg: is there a source indicating pre-1927 publication? The copyright info provided at the source is self-contradictory
  • File:Leonard_Neale.jpg includes an 1891 published source but also a claim of unpublished - these seem to contradict each other. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Van Buren[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Battle of St. Charles and Marmaduke-Walker duel, here is another Confederate failure in Arkansas. Of the three primary Southern figures at Van Buren, you have department commander Holmes who was kicked upstairs for incompetence elsewhere, army commander Hindman who has managed to completely alienate the state where he was once a popular politician, and outpost commander Crump who drew guard duty despite past poor performances in that area. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

As I supported this at ACR less than ten days ago I imagine that I will be doing the same here. But I will have another read through to see if I can find anything to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe "Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had forced Hindman to previously begin withdrawing" → 'Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had previously forced Hindman to begin withdrawing'?
    • Done
  • "the Union troops struck at an outlying Confederate cavalry unit". Consider deleting "at".
    • Done
  • "He was then replaced by Major General Theophilus Holmes". I'm not sure that "then" is necessary.
    • Done
  • "Hindman decided that it would be impractical to keep most of his force north of the Arkansas River in Van Buren given the condition of his army, and pulled most of his men south of the Arkansas to Fort Smith". "... most of his ... most of his ..."
    • Rephrased the first one
  • "had to travel through cold weather". Can one travel through weather?
    • Went with "during"; the other is a bit of a midwesternism (Missouri's half south and half midwest, so the English is a bit on the sketchy end)
  • Is there anything to link "commissary" to?
    • No great one unless it's well hidden. A specific military function in US armies at the time (the Confederates copied large swathes of the US Army structure)
  • "One of the Union mountain howitzers fired on the ferry at Van Buren, killing the horse powering it". The horse was on the ferry?

And that trivia is all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Abraham_Lincoln_-_a_history_(1914)_(14583544379)_(cropped).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
    • Yes, the book it's from was published before 1927, so I've added that tag
  • File:Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_(May_1861_–_July_1861).svg: why is the uploader believed to hold copyright to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what exactly to do with this - the design has been published since it was created in 1861 so it's clearly pre-1927 PD, and Confederate copyright would have expired in 1889 because there would have been no way to renew after 1865 for ... reasons. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a nitpick, but I wonder if it would look better if the James G. Blunt photo was right aligned, and the cannon photo left aligned? So that they would both turn towards the text instead of away from it?
  • No image for the infobox?

Toa Payoh MRT station[edit]

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Singapore's oldest MRT station, and this is my 5th FAC nomination. I hope for a successful review, and to have it passed and featured on 7 November. ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Licensing looks fine but source is needed in the image description of File:SGMRT-LRT (zoom) map.svg for the location of the transit lines. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • buidhe Updated image description taken from here.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's better but I don't think open street map contributors are a reliable source since it's an open source project just like WP. Is there an official map that could be cited instead for the line layout? (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buidhe Added OneMap as source ZKang123 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Great, pass ir. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "this station is integrated" - I would just say "the station is integrated". It's clear that in the article you are only going to be talking about this station.
  • It looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text in the first section but I guess there is nowhere else for them to go
    • Seems someone moved them around for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A plaque at this station" => "A plaque at the station"
  • "the contractor requested for an extension of eight months and additional claims" - I don't think this makes sense. What were the "additional claims"?
  • "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section will open on 7 November that year" => firstly, this should be "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section would open on 7 November that year". And secondly, in the previous sentence you said it was set to open in 1988. Do we have any info on why they were able to open it ahead of schedule?
    • Source states that the MRT construction had plenty of public support and MRTC ability to coordinate the MRT projects.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 44,000 people visited the station" - this is an extremely short sentence, I would combine it with the previous one
    • Added "During the preview," at start of sentence.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But many expressed excitement and curiosity" - can't start a sentence with "But". Just remove the word completely, it will still make sense
  • "with plenty others" => "with plenty of others"
  • "On the day itself, the emergency button was activated at this station" => "On the day itself, the emergency button was activated at Toa Payoh"
  • "On 8 January 2006, this station" => "On 8 January 2006, Toa Payoh"
  • "The station has two underground levels: The upper" - the second "the" does not start a new sentence so should not have a capital letter
  • That's what I got on a first pass! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text
I've attempted some layout tweaks, hopefully the new image placement is less awkward for the overall layout.
  • For History section, highlight the commemorative plaque by placing it at top of section. Float left.
  • Put photos of concourse and platform levels together in horizontal gallery at bottom of History section. Thumbnail heights matched, align centered
  • These could have been used to accompany the text description in the Station details section. But for layout reasons, putting here helps fills space (esp. on desktops with larger screens) before the {{clear}} needed ahead of Station details and {{Routemap}}.
HTH! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

  • "HDB (Housing and Development Board)" - Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
  • "Lorong 1 Toa Payoh, Lorong 2 Toa Payoh and Lorong 6 Toa Payoh" - Are these all street names?
    • Eh yes. (also lit means Toa Payoh Lane 1, 2, 6 etc)--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, what does Toa Payoh mean? You may want to expand the lead a bit with details such as the station design and etymology.
    • Actually in the GA reviewed version the etymology was there. Then I removed it at some point because some other GA stated that wasn't necessary. Might re-include.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be good if you did include a brief etymology here, given how you included such an etymology before. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The station was constructed as part of Phase I of the MRT system." - You may want to add details about when Phase I was proposed and when construction started, since you already have details about when construction was completed and when the station opened.
    • I already stated late when construction started. Oh nvm, thought you were talking about the body. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, these comments are solely about the lead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 November 1987, the station was one of the first MRT stations to open for revenue service." - I'd split this into two ideas, e.g. "The station opened on 7 November 1987 and was one of the first MRT stations to operate in revenue service."

I will leave more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
An unusual situation, because the building is properly named "HDB Hub", using the abbreviation rather than the full name of the government body that it houses(ha!). I will tweak the phrasing.
Are these all street names?
Yes. Tweaked wording before to "underneath the street intersection between..." to help make that more explicit. Those are the official street names used in English (originating from Malay), so replacing with a translation isn't appropriate. Would a wiktionary link help?
what does Toa Payoh mean?
It is a place name; the article for that has been linked, and does discuss its etymology. The station being named for the area it serves is unremarkable and I don't think it really merits further elaboration.
split this into two ideas
Agreed and done.
2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your second reply: yes, a Wiktionary link will be very helpful, as it's not a particularly common term in most of the English-speaking world. As for what Toa Payoh means, I would like to know the nominator's opinion on including etymology. While it may seem evident that the station is named after the planning area, other articles about MRT stations, such as Dhoby Ghaut, do explain the station's etymology in the article itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Toa Payoh station was included in the early plans of the MRT network in May 1982." - This should probably be "the early plans of the MRT network, published in May 1982".
  • "as part of the Phase I MRT segment" - Should this be "as part of the Phase I segment of the MRT"?
    • Hmm, as there's like '...of the a of the b', I find this alternative to be even weirder. Perhaps because of how repetitive it is?--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This segment was given priority as it passes through areas" - There is a tense mismatch; it should probably be "passed through areas".
  • "The line aimed to relieve the traffic congestion on the Thomson–Sembawang road corridor." - Relieving congestion specifically on that road, or on a general corridor?
  • "the Toa Payoh and Novena station" - The word "stations" should be plural.
  • "the Toa Payoh Central bus terminal was relocated to an adjacent site" - Was this because the bus station was right above the MRT station site?
  • "beginning of the MRT network construction" - I suggest "beginning of the construction of the MRT network".
    • Similarly, I feel '...of the a of the b', to be even weirder.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to various soil conditions, " - This was announced after the topping-out?
  • "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section would open earlier on 7 November" - First, I would delete "later". Second, instead of saying "the section would open earlier on 7 November", I would say "the section's opening date was rescheduled to 7 November" (the reader presumably already knows that 7 November is an earlier date than early 1988).
  • "the station was opened for a preview" - I'd say something like "the station hosted a preview"
  • "Many expressed excitement and curiosity, with plenty of others planning to take the MRT ride on the system's debut" - You may want to say which news source reported this. Otherwise it may be seen as a bit irrelevant
    • Well, I did a bit more elaboration to highlight the people's experiences of visiting the early stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was the most visited out of the opened stations" - This wording is a bit weird. I'd say "was the most visited station on the newly completed line" or something like that.
  • "backed and commissioned the planning" - I'd also rephrase "backed" as it's a bit vague. For example, if Cheong funded the project, say "funded". If he championed the construction of the MRT system, say something like "advocated for".
  • "inaugurated the start of MRT operations" - This phrasing is a bit redundant; one would not inaugurate the end of something. I'd say "inaugurated MRT operations" or, even better, "started MRT operations".
  • "On the day itself" - I'd also get rid of "itself" since the reflexive pronoun isn't used like that.
  • "flood prevention measures at this station, alongside 11 other MRT stations" - Do you know what types of measures? Also, I suggest "along with" rather than "alongside".
    • Added flood barriers as one of the prevention measures.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn da da da dun dun dun dun dun da dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

You should now hopefully have the song stuck in your head for a while. This article is about Back to the Future, possibly the greatest family film ever made about a kid going back in time and almost accidentally having sex with his mom. Pure family entertainment with an enduring legacy, it is now your turn to go feel the power of love and supply the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to elevate this article to FA status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Let me do an image review for this. Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. The poster, while non-free, is being used appropriately under fair use (illustrates the article). No other image copyright issues. Just a few ALT issues (see):

  • Missing alts for File:Michael J Fox 2020.jpg, File:Christopher Lloyd May 2015.jpg, File:Lea Thompson by Gregg Bond (2008) (cropped).jpg and File:Crispin Glover 2012 Shankbone.JPG

Other alts are pretty descriptive enough.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Doctor Emmett "Doc" Brown (Lloyd). " I might omit the "Doctor"
  • "Trapped in the past," I might change "Trapped" to "While". Marty may not yet know how he's going to return to 1985, but he's not trapped in the past.
  • "inadvertently prevents his future parents' meeting" I wish I could come up with a better way of expressing this. It probably isn't their first meeting. George certainly knows who Lorraine is, and when Marty is urging Lorraine to go out with George, she knows who he's talking about. Maybe "inadvertently prevents his future parents from falling in love"?
  • " Biff has been bullying him since high school" perhaps "Biff was bullying George even then"
  • "Lorraine was supposed to meet George instead of Marty after the car accident" perhaps "George was supposed to be hit by the car, and tended by Lorraine"
  • "Back to the Future features a 1985-era cast that includes" Maybe "Also featuring in the 1985 portion of the film" or similar. I similarly suggest changing the "1955-era". I might even mention Strickland last, after detailing the 1985 characters and the 1955 characters.
  • Some of the cast members, for example Tolkan, are double-linked.
  • "serves as the Twin Pines ranch where Marty lands in 1955 and Puente Hills Mall in Rowland Heights is the Twin Pines mall that replaces the ranch in 1985." Do you want to footnote that Marty's killing of a pine causes these names to change?
  • "and Griffith Park, where Marty begins his drive to the courthouse to return to 1985, crossing by a lamp post, situated outside of the Greek Theatre.[80]" What does "crossing by" mean here?
  • "The flying DeLorean used a combination of live-action footage" I might throw in an "in the final scene".
  • "Even so, Marty's future is enriched at the expense of others." Anyone else besides Biff?
  • "Where most people can only know their parents, Marty is given the opportunity to see his parents as his peers, when they were his age and shared the same ambitions and dreams as him." The first part of this sentence doesn't really say what you want it to. Really, this is saying the same thing as what Thompson says in the Legacy section about kids and dreams and it might be good simply to replace the above with what she said.
That's pretty much it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for taking the time to review this, these are the changes I've made, I think I've hit everything. Thank you again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

This is an amazingly comprehensive and well written article. I will do a close reading later, just one thing for now:

  • "Most reviewers agreed the film was almost the year's most entertaining, which offered a return to a focus on storytelling, despite Paul Attanasio considering some aspects to be "mechanically" designed to create the broadest audience appeal." This is a bit convoluted, and it seems to me that many reviewers actually did consider the film to be the year's most entertaining. Maslin in the NY Times writes "easily the most sustained and entertaining of this summer's adventure fables", for example. Can you re-word this?

More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that "almost" was meant to be "among", my bad, but I've copyedited it further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and post-production section: "more time in theaters" isn't accurate; what is meant is more times during the peak summer season.
  • Lead: I'd prefer "three Saturn awards" as "an Academy Award, Saturn Awards, and a Hugo Award" reads a bit odd.
  • Cast: Why no cite for Fox/Marty? (for completeness, as the others all have cites)
  • Comma before respectively? (Not sure)
  • Conception and writing: "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on 1985, making it more futuristic" I don't know who "it" is here: 1985 or the movie?
  • Some of the Casting section is actually about filming, but it seems to work OK.
  • Filming with Stoltz: " he and Zemeckis collaborated on Romancing the Stone" had collaborated?
  • Special effects: "Optical department" looks odd; optical department or Optical Department (as in the source)?
  • Delorean: "The time machine was conceived " consider adding originally for clarity?
  • Art direction and makeup: "Actual brand names, such as Texaco were" Curious whether this would work better with zero or with two commas? (Not a native speaker so ignore me if I am wrong)
  • Context "avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films" is that a thing?
  • Box office: "ahead of Independence Day holiday weekend" add the?
  • "the western Pale Rider" Western?
  • Cultural influences: "$78,500 was crowdfunded" when was that?
  • Sequel: do we know when they changed their mind about making a sequel? The current prose doesn't flow well from "sequel not originally planned" to "sequel written and split in two parts".

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The part about "Context 'avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films' is that a thing?", yes that's a thing. May/June/July are the big months, while successful films can be released outside these (in December for example) studios rarely released big films expected to do well later in the summer, because if it was meant to do well you'd want it in theaters during the busiest time of the year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point about "western" was that is often in capitals, but Pale Rider can't make up its mind about that either, so lowercase probably works too. Other changes are fine, especially the sequel story is much better now. Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kusma! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1989–90 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 14th nomination of a season in the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C. This was the club's first season for 15 years at the fourth level of English football, which is timely as they have just been relegated to the fourth tier once again - sad times....... As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Peter_Heritage.jpg: the description states this was previously published on the town website - is there evidence of permission for republication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - I hadn't noticed that one line on the Commons page. Switched for a different image to be on the safe side -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nikkimaria: - BTW, not that it really makes any difference, but for 100% clarity when it says the picture had been previously published on the Eastbourne Town website, it means the website of the football club Eastbourne Town, not that of the actual town of Eastbourne :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, doesn't matter Face-wink.svg New image is fine though. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "meaning that they started the new season with a number of teenagers in the team. Gillingham started the season in poor form". " ... started the new season ... started the season ..." A little repetitive. Any chance of a bit of variation.
  • "goalkeeper Jeremy Roberts played as a trialist in that game ... he never played a game for Gillingham". Er ...
  • "he played for the first time in the home game against Scunthorpe United". How can it be his first game if he had scored "7 goals in 13 games"?
  • "after three league games they were still yet to score a goal". Delete "still".
  • "Lovell scored the only goal in the last 10 minutes". This has another meaning than the one you intend and so could do with rephrasing.
  • Link semi-professional.
  • "Key". In those competitions where they don't apply, is it helpful to include "o.g." and "pen."?
  • "both made a total of 51 appearances". "both" → 'each'. Likewise in the lead.

That is all I have. Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - all addressed, let me know what you think now....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "but then slipped down the table after losing six consecutive games;" the slipping no doubt happened "as" or "whilst" losing, rather than "after".
  • "With injuries also ruling out Alan Walker, Tim O'Shea and Brian Clarke and further new signings not yet completed,[17] " should there be a comma after O'Shea? This seems to be your general practice.
  • "The draw, along with the results of the day's other games, left Gillingham nine points off the play-off places and therefore, with two games remaining and a maximum of six points available, unable to finish the season with any possibility of promotion." This seems a bit long-winded, especially the final clause. Cannot it be shortened?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review, see what you think of these changes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • I made small changes here where I eliminated a great number of white spaces. There are other instances as well. Check throughout. Support otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galeb-class minelayer[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This hardy class of mine warfare vessels were made by Imperial Germany in the last throes of and immediately after WWI. Disarmed, they were sold to the fledgling Yugoslav navy as "tugs", but were quickly re-armed and used initially as training ships and for "show the flag" cruises to introduce the populace to the new navy. They laid mines in the immediate lead-up to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, resulting an a couple of "own goals" with friendly merchant ships. Captured by the Italians, they were put into commission as submarine chasers, and escorted merchant ships supplying the forces in North Africa. Subjected to air and submarine attacks, the six had been whittled down to one by the end of the war. The survivor was used to help clear the thousands of mines that had been laid in Yugoslav waters during the war, and wasn't disposed of until 1962. Good to be back at FAC. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review licensing looks ok but the claim "virtually identical to the Galeb class" needs citation (t · c) buidhe 08:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tweaked the caption and added a cited sentence to the body to support the new caption wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The M 1 class comprised 137 ships built between 1914 and 1918". Should "1918" → '1919'?
Yep, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy) also acquired two M 1 class M1916 sub-class ships in 1921. These sister ships were M 120 and M 121" M 121 is shown in the list immediately after this as being the Yugoslav Kobac.
Doh, typo. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to drive two three-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines driving two propeller shafts". "... drive ... driving ...". Optional: "to drive" → 'to power'.
Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In RM service". In full at first mention.
Fixed, actually KM... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought it might be.
  • "In Yugoslav service" section: suggest moving the third sentence to the end of the paragraph, so all the information on armament is together. Optionally move the first sentence up to the information on design speed, so all of that is together.
It is intentionally in chronological order, so that the first para is "as they were initially set up" in 1921, the second reflects the armament changes in 1931, and the last reflects the post-war changes to the remaining ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a maximum range of 12,300 km (7,600 mi)". Extraordinary!!
LOL! Yep. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were renamed ... respectively." Why "respectively"?
Good point, a "pre-table" hangover. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! I think I've got them all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Indy beetle[edit]

Let me know when you're done with Gog's comments, then I'll review. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GTG, Indy beetle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Description and construction" part, it might be worth qualifying the first part with an "Original configuration" subheading. For the part of the "Service history" section where you delve into each ship, it might be worth to qualify this as "Italian service history", and the first half as "Yugoslav service history".
Good idea, have done some re-organising of the structure. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938–39 Jastreb was refitted for oil-firing only. I presume you mean oil-fired boilers? Would be good to specify.
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the two ships attempting to join the NDH Navy is not represented at Navy of the Independent State of Croatia. Not cirtical for this article, obviously, but I think should be mentioned there.
Sure, I have to go through all Yugo/NDH navy articles and add material from Freivogel. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was renamed Zelengora in 1955, and was finally disposed of in 1962. Is the nature of the disposal known, or was it simply struck from the register?
Checked and clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians withdrew from Benghazi on 18 November 1942, they scuttled her wreck in an attempt to block the entrance to the harbour. Was the wreck ever raised?
I can't find a reference to it, but it seems likely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Indy beetle. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good here. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Conway's is actually an anthology; if you page to the front of the book, you can see who wrote which chapter. And yes, there are thousands of these entries that we need to correct.
Can you throw me a bone here, Sturm? I only have scans of the Yugo chapter and they don't mention the author. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk! Done, but I'll let you change the cites in the article.
Thanks! Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Friedman and add the subtitle of the book
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Gröner. German Warships 1815–1945 is the title of the book, volume 2 has the title that you're listing first
I think I've fixed this. Perhaps there is a better way of doing this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed this one as well. Best thing to do is to put the volume subtitle in the volume field since the book is a two-volume set, not a series.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks not made given the nominators extensive history
  • All sources are known to me as highly reliable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done, just need a hand with one thing above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Pendright[edit]


  • The Galeb class were minelayers originally built as minesweepers for the Imperial German Navy between 1918 and 1919, and were also known as the Orao class.
and [they] were also known as the Orao class.
  • Re-armed with two Škoda 90 mm (3.5 in) guns and two anti-aircraft machine guns, they could [also] carry 24 or 30 naval mines.
Your call!
  • In the lead-up to the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia several ships of the class laid minefields off the Yugoslav coast, which probably resulted in the sinking of two Yugoslav merchant ships.
Add a comma between Yugoslavia & several
  • The remaining vessel escaped being captured by the Germans during the Italian surrender in September 1943, and was handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile at Malta in December.
and [it] was handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile...
  • This surviving ship was handed back to the Yugoslav Navy after the war and immediately employed to help clear the thousands of mines laid in Yugoslav waters during the war.
handed back -> returned
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description and construction:

  • The M 1 class comprised 137 ships built between 1914 and 1919, divided into three sub-classes, M1914, M1915 and M1916, each with progressive improvements.
each with progressive improvements-> such as?
  • These sister ships were [the] M 119 and M 120.[3]
AFAIK the convention is to drop the definite article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "the" above addition?
No, I would rather not. The approach I've used is very common in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship hulls were of transverse steel frame construction with a box keel.[5]
Do you mean the hulls of the ships?
  • With their minesweeping gear extended, they could maintain a maximum speed of 12.5–13 knots (23.2–24.1 km/h; 14.4–15.0 mph). They were equipped with two yawls as ship's boats.[8] They were armed with two 105 mm (4.1 in) SK L/45 naval guns[a], and carried 120 rounds for each gun. They could carry 30 naval mines.
In this series of sentences the pronoun "they" is used three times?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Yugoslav service:

  • In Royal Yugoslav Navy (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Kraljevska mornarica; Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Краљевска морнарица; КМ) service, the highest recorded speed of any of the ships was 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph).
In "the" Royal
I don't think so, AFAIK it should be either the way it is, or "In the service of the Royal Yugoslav Navy...", but I much prefer it this way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When [the ships] they were acquired by the KM as "tugs" in 1921, their original armament had been removed.[10][11]
Suggest the above?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In KM service , their official crew numbered 19, but as they were training ships , this was supplemented with instructors and students, and shortly before the Axis invasion in April 1941 the complement was increased to 40.[10]
Can you live with these Changes?
Much better, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were surplus Austro-Hungarian Navy guns, [and they were] intended for mounting on ships that were incomplete at the end of World War I.
  • They [The guns] had been sent to Pula and the Bay of Kotor as coastal artillery, and [they] were seized by the Serbian Army as the war ended, and thus avoided being acquired by the occupying French forces.[10
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These guns weighed 1,180 kg (2,600 lb) each, and together with the mount, [weighed] 3,910 kg (8,620 lb).
Suggest the above changes
Went for something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shells weighed 10.2 kg (22 lb), and [they] could be fired at a rate of between three and eleven per minute to [for] a maximum range of 12,300 m (40,400 ft).
Partially done. I think shells are fired "to" a maximum range, not "for" it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [the] Yugoslav Navy service following World War II, the engines of the surviving ship were rated at 1,600 indicated horsepower (1,200 kW) and her top speed remained 15 kn.
No, the definite article is not used in this situation AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her crew was increased to 68. Her [The ship's] armament was replaced by two Vickers QF 2-pounder naval guns, one twin German 20 mm (0.79 in) Flak 38 and two twin Browning 12.7 mm (0.50 in) machine guns.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service history: Yugoslav service:

  • The six minesweepers were bought by the government of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) on 20 July 1921, for 1,400,000 marks each.
Drop the comma after 1921.
  • They were used as training ships for the fledgling navy, and engaged in "show the flag" cruises along the Adriatic coast and islands, introducing the navy to the populace.
Who engaged?
Both addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1932, the British naval attaché reported that Yugoslav ships were engaging in little gunnery training, and few exercises or manoeuvres, due to reduced budgets.[17]
  • the British -> "a" British?
No, there was only one at any given time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • add "the crews of" between that & Yugoslav
  • Drop the comma after gunnery training
These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the weeks prior to the April 1941 German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, the ships of the class laid several protective minefields along the coast.
Which coast?
Adriatic (Yugoslavia only had one coast, but that is assumed knowledge), added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kobac's crew defected with their ship to the newly-created fascist puppet state [called or referred to as] the Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) at Šibenik on 10 April, but she was soon after seized by the Italian navy.
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crews of Galeb and Labud also sailed to Šibenik in an attempt to join the NDH navy, but [they] were intercepted and captured by the Italians on 17 and 21 April respectively.
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All six ships were re-commissioned as submarine chasers, and used as escorts on the supply routes between Italy and North Africa and along the North African coast.
and "they were" used
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • From 1 to 4 August, Selve, Eso, and the Rosolino Pilo-class torpedo boat Giuseppe Dezza escorted the steamer Istria from Tripoli to Benghazi, and on 7 and 8 August, Selve and her sister Oriole escorted the steamer Iseo from Benghazi to Tobruk – also in Italian Libya.
Why the conma after August?
Because it follows a dependent introductory phrase and it indicates a pause. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selve, along with the torpedo boat Sagittario, escorted the steamers Sibilla and Albachiara from Tobruk to Benghazi between 11 and 13 August.
Why the comma after Sagittario
there are commas both before and after the parenthetical element about Sagittario also being involved in the escort because the parenthetical element could be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, as the subject is Selve, not Sagittario. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 31 August and 1 September, Selve escorted the steamer Alato from Tobruk to Derna in Italian Libya, and [she] was quickly joined by two German submarine chasers escorting Olympos to the same port.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 14 to 20 September, Selve escorted the steamer Sportivo from Benghazi to Tripoli, and on the [her] return voyage between 29 September and 1 October escorted the steamers Amba Alagi and Anna Maria.[27]
See the above chaanges
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zuri then Oriole:

  • Brook was attacked and slightly damaged by Allied aircraft on 14 January, but [she] made it to Palermo under her own power.[29]
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After repairs following the collision with Eso, on 8 July[,] Oriole replaced the La Masa-class torpedo boat Enrico Cosenz, which, along with the Turbine-class destroyer Turbine was escorting the tanker Pici Fassio from Trapani to Tripoli.
See above changes
No, that would change the meaning of the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was scuttled by her crew on 10 July 1943 at Augusta, Sicily, in the face of advancing British troops,[16] following damage [she] sustained in an air attack south of Messina.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Zirona had a short career in Italian service, as she was damaged and beached near Benghazi on 24–25 November 1941 after a British air raid, and [she] was partially blown up by the Italians on 28 November.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians withdrew from Benghazi on 18 November 1942, they scuttled the wreck[age] in an attempt to block the entrance to the harbour.[27]
See above changes
The source refers to her as a wreck at that stage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Eso escorted the steamer Ascianghi from Benghazi to Tobruk between 15 and 19 September, and [she did it] between Tobruk and Tripoli [and again] between 27 September and 2 October.[27]
See the above chsnges
Did something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done, Pendright! Thanks for taking a look, see what you think of my responses. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - regards - Pendright (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: , this looks GTG. Could I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Ta, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hog Farm Talk 13:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Alliluyeva[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second wife of Joseph Stalin, Nadezhda Alliluyeva had a tragic life. Though quite a driven person in her own right, she was forced to temper her goals to appease Stalin, leading to an unhappy life. She died at an early age, and while she likely committed suicide there is some questions about that. Her death had a profound effect on Stalin, who once again lost a wife at a relatively young age. The article went through GA some time ago, and a peer review, and now I think it's ready for here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Stalin_in_exile_1915.jpg: the given tag relies on "known author" for Russian copyright and pre-1927 publication for US - is there evidence for either of those?
  • Is there no image of the subject available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the Stalin image, nothing I can reliably confirm at this time. And honestly with the lack of an image for the subject, I feel it may be better to not have one of him only (I feel it diminishes Alliluyeva's standing as an individual, rather than just being someone's wife). As for Alliluyeva herself, there was one image used previously but it's since been deleted on Commons as it's availability has not been confirmed (I've certainly tried). Kaiser matias (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an image. It is non-free, but it should satisfy all license requirements. MarcusTraianus (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This will need a more expansive FUR, and suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It is done.
The tag change is done - the FUR still needs work. And what was the decision around the Stalin image? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Resnik[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Judith Resnik, one of the original six American women astronauts who died in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it is a featured article, though I would prefer to split long paragraphs and merge one-sentence ones. All in all, the article is really good! Kudos to the nominator for this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Thanks. This is much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in military intelligence and aerial reconnaissance in the Pacific Theater and the Occupation of Japan." Possibly some commas, or a mild rephrasing, would avoid the reading that he worked in "aerial reconnaissance in ... the Occupation of Japan"?
    What's the problem? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands it reads that Resnik served in both military intelligence and aerial reconnaissance during the occupation of Japan. I am assuming, possibly incorrectly, that there was little call for aerial reconnaissance during the occupation of Japan.
    I am not assuming that. The source says: "He was stationed in New Guinea, and after the war, in Kyoto, Japan, doing both aero reconnaissance and prisoner interrogation." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and with whom she became quite close." Why the qualifying "quite"? It seems wishy washy and I can't find where this is in the source given.
    Just my way of talking. Deleted "quite". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of six women selected out of over 8,000 male and female applicants". Is it known how many men were selected?
    Twenty-nine. Added. There is a detailed breakdown in the NASA Astronaut Group 8 article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the second attempt the following day". 'The following day, during the second attempt' would avoid the possibility of a misreading.
    Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle Main Engines". Why the upper case M and E? I note that the source - NASA - uses lower case.
    Lower cased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovery landed back at Edwards Air Force Base on September 5, after a flight lasting 6 days and 56 minutes." This jars a little as a single sentence paragraph and I don't think it necessary.
    We need it because her time in space is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a trouble bolt on the Space Shuttle Challenger's door." What is "a trouble bolt"?
    Changed to "troublesome". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, was it a threaded bolt or part of door latching/locking mechanism?
  • "reminding the cockpit crew of a switch configuration change". What is "a switch configuration change"?
    Gee, I don't know that either. Looking it up on StackExchange:

    A primary flight instrument for the shuttle pilots was the Attitude Direction Indicator (ADI). In the STS-51L days this was a electromechanical instrument. Pre-launch, the ADI ATTITUDE switch is set to the REF position, although LVLH is the desired frame of reference for flying the Orbiter in "airplane mode". This means that shortly after liftoff, the switch must be moved to LVLH to set up the instrument for a possible ascent abort. Although it was desirable to avoid switch throws during ascent, the switch could not be pre-positioned to LVLH by the Astronaut Support Personnel (ASPs, or "Cape Crusaders") who set the cockpit switches, because there was a singularity in the calculations of LVLH attitude at pitch of 90 degrees (which the Orbiter was at on the pad). [3]

    Any chance of informing the readers of that? Either by adding a brief "translation" or by replacing the technical term with a more plain English version.
    Yes, I have done this. Added it in a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Resnik was reading from the launch checklist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three of the crew members' Personal Egress Air Packs were activated for pilot Michael J. Smith and two other crew members." You don't need "three of the crew members" and "pilot Michael J. Smith and two other crew members." (Suggest deleting the former.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Landmarks and buildings being named for her include". Why do you use the word "being"?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "verified by flight experience (include launch date)". I don't understand what is meant by the words in parentheses.
    It's part of the application form. Replaced with ellipsis Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The goal of the center is to increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics interest in children." This seems a little clumsy, even ungrammatical. Perhaps 'The goal of the center is to increase the interest of children in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics'?
    Reworded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher for Wayne?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition thought: "Occupation of Japan"; why the upper case O? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the Occupation query immediately above left, but that doesn't stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An artefact of the Wikipedia article name. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • I find the first sentence a bit unwieldy. Can we not cut it off after the disaster and put the other links somewhere else? This leads into my other comment re the lead, that the discussion of her NASA service should be expanded, after all, you use only two paragraphs for the lead. I note that the discussion of her time at NASA is the lead is small in proportion to that in the body of the article.
    Expanded intro. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His family had emigrated to Israel in the 1920s," It wasn't Israel yet. Perhaps "British mandatory Palestine" or some such?
    Well spotted. Changed asc suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worthy of note (or might not) that in 1962, it was quite unusual for girls to mark their Bat Mitzvah.
    Yes! This points to things to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I suppose it is unusual for the child to be initiator, it's not at all unusual for a court to place custody where a mature teenager prefers, since such a person is the 800-pound gorilla of custody law, that sleeps where they want to.(probably no action required).
    Good to hear; back then the interests of the child were not paramount in the US. I have seen this happen: a teenager decides that they would rather live with their father and just moves out. When the Child Support Agency finds out, they cut the mother's child support payments. But no court action is required. What I've noticed is that most astronauts have good relationships with both their parents, but tend to be closer to their fathers. The only exception I've come across so far has been Scott Carpenter, whose father was absent. But of six biographies of women astronauts, three had bad relationships with their mothers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In her second year she developed a passion for electrical engineering, discovering her interest in "practical aspects of science" after attending lectures with her boyfriend and future husband, Michael Oldak, who was on the engineering course.[1] " What do you mean by "who was on the engineering course"? Doesn't sound like AmEng to me. If he was taking the same class, that is already implied; if he was an engineering major, I would phrase it in terms of that.
    Yes. Sometimes you can see me thinking the sentence through. Deleted that phrase. Trying to get AmEng right is a big problem for me. The automated checkers do not pick up on such things. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Georgetown University law school," I would cap throughout, and possibly say and link "Georgetown University Law Center"
    I don't know why the call it that. I was afraid that readers would think it was a legal aid centre or some such. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jordan later regretted doing so." I might come out and say "After her death, Jordan regretted doing so"
    Just trying not to foreshadow. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was she recruited or did she apply? There apparently was a process, since she dated other candidates.
    Yes, there was an elaborate process, which I have written up at great length in NASA Astronaut Group 8. Changed to "selected". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovery landed back at Edwards Air Force Base on September 5, after a flight lasting 6 days and 56 minutes." Why "back"? It hadn't launched from there.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle Challenger's door." The door spoken of is perhaps one of the payload bay doors? Then shouldn't "door" be plural?
    No, it was the door. Changed to "hatch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning she's commemorated on the Space Mirror Memorial?
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

I reviewed the article for GA and am happy with its sourcing. I am also pleased to see that it has been further improved based on the comments above. I only have some small things:

  • "She piloted the Northrop T-38 Talon." a rather short sentence that perhaps could be clarified by saying that this was part of her astronaut training, not her civilian fun (which isn't obvious if you don't know what type of plane it is).
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In popular culture" section is a bit short. Is there a way to merge it into "Legacy"? (A well justified "no" would be fine).
    Merged with Legacy section. It was once larger. I had retained it to collect additions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear that your decision not to talk about Franz Strambach here (author of the most comprehensive Judith Resnik website) is deliberate. I think that arguments could be made in either direction.
    I'd never heard of it. It seems fairly trivial and incidental, but added a footnote about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had mentioned it while making conversation during the GA review. The footnote strikes the right balance for me (I find it borderline worthy of inclusion in a comprehensive treatment).

That's all from me. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy now, supporting. —Kusma (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Balon Greyjoy[edit]

Article looks in good shape! Some comments:

  • Not all of the photos have alt text.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bat Mitzvah was not common at this time." It's not clear how this fits into Resnik's story; was there resistance to her having a Bar Mitzvah?
    The majority of Orthodox and some Conservative Jews still reject the idea that a woman can publicly read from the Torah or lead prayer services. The more important point here that Wehwalt and I are emphasising is that Resnik grew up in an environment that was supportive of female equality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resnik was noticed for "intellectual brilliance" while still in kindergarten" I don't think "intellectual brilliance" needs to be directly quoted; it's not attributed to anyone and can be paraphrased without a loss of meaning.
    The idea was to avoid paraphrasing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would paraphrasing be avoided on a two word quote? It's not a profound/unique quote. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Playing classical piano with "more than technical mastery", she planned on becoming a professional concert pianist" It's not clear what it means to even be more advanced than technical mastery (which comes across like it is the highest level). Wouldn't it just be appropriate to say she was skilled in piano and planned to become a professional pianist?
    It makes it clear clear that this was a real prospect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When questioned about her intensity at the piano, she replied, "I never play anything softly"." I don't think this adds to any claims of her skills playing piano. Additionally, is this from an interview or just her commenting that she plays the piano loudly?
    She is talking metaphorically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the metaphor of her playing loudly doesn't translate to her being a skilled pianist. The reference makes no mention of the metaphor, and the sentence itself is pretty close to the reference sentence, albeit flipped around. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The college entry and major selection is confusing. It starts off by saying she became an electrical engineering student, then goes into her deciding to become an electrical engineering student. Maybe something like, "She began college as a math major, but after attending lectures with her boyfriend, discovered an interest in electrical engineering and switched her major".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oldak said, "She was a math whiz, but at some point math lost the numbers and she wanted something more tangible so she switched her collegiate major to electrical engineering"." I think this quote can be paraphrased and put into the previous sentence, as it's already been addressed that she liked math but wanted practical applications.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carnegie Mellon University (as it now was)" Maybe move the Carnegie Mellon name change earlier? It's not clear if the college changed its name by the time she graduated, or if the name changed sometime before present day.
    I think it is clear enough that the name changed while she was there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attention of NASA during this time" Anyone particular at NASA? Did someone reach out to ask her about her paper?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he wanted to start a family and she did not" I think this should be that he wanted to have children and she did not; they already had a family between the two of them.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her death, Jordan regretted doing so. "She was an amazing person... I pushed her to excel, and I live with that memory every day."" I don't think this needs to be included. It jumps ahead in the chronology of the article, and it just seems like understandable regret from someone who encouraged her to apply.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where she would jog along the beach to improve her stamina and reduce her weight" Is this significant? Was she out of shape/overweight? It seems like it's just someone routinely exercising.
    Resnik struggled with her weight. The reader can see this in the images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may just be desensitized to overweight people in America, but I don't think any of the pictures make it look like Resnik was overweight. It seems like pretty standard exercising, especially for someone trying to be an astronaut. I don't think it needs to be stated, let alone explained why someone would run for exercise. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is about her purpose: gaining astronaut selection. It wasn't common back then, especially for women, and demonstrates her determination to be selected. She is the only member her her class that I have examined so far who did this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This involved taking a pay cut, as her new salary was considerably less than what she was being paid at Xerox." Seeing as her pay isn't mentioned at all through the rest of the article, I'm not sure why this is mentioned. Did it factor into her decision to join NASA?
    Clearly not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is it being mentioned then? It seems like an out of place detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely because it tells the reader that Resnik was not doing it for the money. Military astronauts were still paid their usual salaries; some of the others, like Sally Ride, were paid more than they were getting before; but Resnik took a pay cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She dated some of her fellow astronaut candidates, who nicknamed her "JR"." This reads like it was a nickname only from the astronaut candidates she dated. Additionally, did she go by JR or did they sometime just call her by her initials?
    It's a military custom. Her fellow astronauts in Group 8 called her that all the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't categorize using initials to refer to someone as a military custom, unlike the use of a callsign. Also, I don't have my copy of Mullane's book with me (currently moving back to the US) but I don't recall him referring to her as JR. I would argue that initials are just as much of a standard nickname as an abbreviated/informal first name, and there's no explanation for why she was called "Judy" (nor should there be). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more of a callsign. I have re-worded to make it clear that it was used by all the astronauts in her class. I don't know of any other astronauts who were nicknamed with their initials. If you read Mullane's book, you will find constant references to it. (She called him "Tarzan".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did she seriously date her fellow astronaut candidates? Simply saying that she dated some of them without further details may have some negative connotations and somewhat implies promiscuity. I don't want to break WP:NPOV, but I also think it's important not to imply things that could be perceived negatively, especially when it is a relatively minor details. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sally Ride and Rhea Seddon also dated more than one other astronaut, and they eventually married one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it had some similarities to the Space Shuttle" I'm not sure about this. T-38s at NASA pre-date the Space Shuttle, and NASA used a modified Gulfstream to simulate flying the orbiter.
    Correct. "The flying is not an exact physical simulation; the astronauts use the Shuttle Training Aircraft, or STA, for that. But flying the approach in a T-38 shows them what a landing in the shuttle will look like, time and time again." Deleted phrase to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astronaut Jerome Apt described her as "an excellent pilot and a superb operator in space"" Since she an Apt weren't on the same missions, its not clear how his testimony fits in here. If he was the CapCom or backup crew, wouldn't this make more sense under the STS-41 section?
    We're talking about her pilot skills here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the Selection section leans heavily on the opinions of Rhea Seddon, but it's not clear why she's being quoted, as it's not like she was in the position to make astronaut assignments. Regardless, I don't think there needs to be a quote talking about how much fun she was at happy hour.
    It tells us about Resnik's personality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first Seddon quote doesn't mention Resnik's personality; it was just Seddon's opinion on who would be picked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During a visit to a contractor's factory, Resnik whispered to Mullane: "there are no maidens on this flight"." What does this mean? I thought it might be a Selleck quote but nothing popped up when I searched for it. Unless I'm missing an obvious reference, it doesn't belong in the article.
    Resnik asserts her equality with the male astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not clear from the quote; it just reads like it's an offhand comment made to Mullane. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She advocated the benefits of the solar array technology, particularly for future use in powering space stations" I'm assuming this occurred sometime after the mission? I'm assuming she did not begin advocating for a major tech change midway through a Space Shuttle mission.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "send civilians on the Space Shuttle" would "private citizens" be better than "civilians?" A common definition for civilian is someone not in the military, which Resnik falls under.
    Not what we mean. Changed to "non-astronauts". The sources consistently use "civilians". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the TV movie needs to be mentioned. There are already a lot of legacy/memorial things mentioned, and I don't think the role of a relatively unknown actress in a made-for-TV movie needs to be included, let alone in a standalone paragraph at the end of the section.
    I'm sure people will add more over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IEEE source makes no mention of Resnik.
    A 301. Repaired. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the articles are missing dates.
    Added some. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shannen Says[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about an American reality television series that documents the preparations for the wedding of actress Shannen Doherty and photographer Kurt Iswarienko. It aired for an eight-episode season on We TV from April 10 to May 13, 2012. Shannen Says had low viewership and ranked below most other programs when it premiered, despite its popularity among women between the ages of 25 and 54. Critics had mixed reviews for the series and Doherty's role on it. The show was released on the iTunes Store and Amazon Video.

I created this article in July 2016, and that year it received a GAN review from @Miyagawa:. In 2018, I opened a peer review for the article and I also participated in a FQSR workshop. In 2020, I initiated a FAC for this article, which I withdrew due to lack of actvity. Recently, I have opened a second peer review, in which I received very helpful feedback from @MaranoFan:, @FrB.TG:, @Pseud 14:, @SNUGGUMS:, and @ChrisTheDude:. As always, I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues and there are succint captions and alt texts.
  • Support for promotion on the strength of my comments at the peer review.--NØ 16:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the image review and support! Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support all my concerns were already addressed at the peer review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Source review—pass
  • I don't like the use of US Weekly but I see this was already addressed in the PR so no issues here.
  • It is a fair concern, but it is mostly used because the wedding was exclusively covered in the magazine. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes IrishCentral a high-quality reliable source?
  • I have removed this citation from the article as other better citations already cover this information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 35 redirects to the main website.
  • I have marked that both the Broadcasting & Cable citations are dead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miller approved the show's pitch because he believed Doherty would be an appealing candidate for reality television." The source says that Miller found the pitch portrayed Dohetry as "unfiltered, honest and vulnerable" and that "I would watch her go to a supermarket...She’s insanely compelling." It doesn't mention her being an appealing candidate for reality TV.
  • Good point. Apologies for that misinterpretation of the original source. I have used the quotations instead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked about five other sources. No issues with source-to-text integrity. FrB.TG (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for spot-checking. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article further. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Support on prose based on my comments addressed during the peer review. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as mentioned above, I PR'ed the article and don't really have anything further to add...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "It was Doherty's third wedding since her previous marriages to actor Ashley Hamilton and poker player Rick Salomon ended in 1994 and 2003, respectively." The use of "since" indicates that this is Doherty's fifth marriage. Is that correct?
  • This would be her third marriage (i.e. her third wedding). I have removed "since" and reworded that part with a semi-colon. Let me know if that is an improvement or not. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They purchased a RED camera to film the series since they wanted it to be ..." I think this needs an in line explanation as to how a RED camera would help achieve the desired effect.
  • That is a good question. Doherty did not really get into the specifics of this choice. From my impression of the interview with Doherty, she wanted to make sure the show looked as nice as possible from a visual/cinematography perspective by having what she viewed as better equipment. I tried to include the "you do want it to look spectacular" quote in the previous sentence to convey this sentiment, but I am more than open for ideas on how to better represent this information. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that "RED camera" would mean much to most readers. How about 'expensive new camera'? You could still link it to RED camera if you wished.
  • Revised with your suggestion. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wedding and divorce from". Perhaps 'wedding to and divorce from'?
  • Very good catch. The previous wording was not grammatically correct and the suggestion is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Promotional materials emphasized her conflict with Iswarienko." Is more detail known as to the nature of the conflict?
  • This sentence was pulled from the following quote from the source: "two busy career-focused individuals with strong and often conflicting viewpoints". When looking at it again, I do not my sentence in the article accurately represents the source as it does not explicitly say that the promotional material hyped this part. I was referring more to the personal conflicts between the two as they prepare for the wedding, but this part does not seem entirely useful so I removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the series premiere, the second episode aired on Tuesday night at 10 pm EST". The same Tuesday or the following?
  • Revised. It should be the following week. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a week-long gap, two episodes were aired every Sunday night". From Tuesday to Sunday isn't a week - it is either 5 or 12 days.
  • Fair point. The intention was more so to convey that the third episode did not air the immediate week after the second, but I agree that it is best to be more accurate. It would be 12 days at least according to Google. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shannen Says ended on May 12, 2012,[1] and a writer from The Futon Critic reported that it was cancelled after being "on hiatus for longer than 12 months – without any news about its future"." This puts two not very connected points in the same sentence. I first read this as meaning it was cancelled on May 12 after 12 months on hiatus. Perhaps move the cancellation point to a separate sentence at the end of the paragraph?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is understandable. I have moved the cancellation sentence to the end of the paragraph per your request. Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if either I missed anything or if there is anything else in the article that would benefit from further revision or work in general. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Only a come back re the camera from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

I've read it over and agree that it is written to the standard expected of featured articles and do not have any concerns. Well done, @Aoba47:! --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Shepseskaf last pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, who ruled Ancient Egypt for 4 to 8 years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC. Shepseskaf's relations to his predecessor and successor are uncertain and very few activities are known from his reign. Strikingly, he broke with the tradition of his forebears who had built the great pyramids of Giza, and chose instead to have a (relatively) small mastaba tomb built for himself in a remote corner of the Saqqara necropolis. The reasons for and significance of this decision continue to be debated in Egyptology.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Support by WereSpielChequers[edit]

Interesting topic, thanks for writing it. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them. "He reigned most probably four but possibly up to seven years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC." (my emphasis) Is a good sentence to have in the lede, but I'd expect a couple of sentences in the body of the text explaining that the chronology of early Egyptian history has not been precisely linked to our modern calendar. ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done WereSpielChequers Thank you for your comment, I agree with you so I have updated with the following (at the beginning of the "Reign" section):

In addition, all exact dates estimated for Shepseskaf's reign are detailed in the footnote [note 1], which is also available from the infobox. Also, did you know that in the infobox if you click on the [show] button next to "Royal Titulary", the full titles of Shepseskaf will appear in hieroglyphics with translation ? I ask this because often people don't notice this button. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that change. I hadn't noticed the show button but have now tried it and like what it does. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A causeway led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" Would it be more correct to say "A causeway is assumed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" or even "based on similar complexes, archaeologists expect that there would also have been a causeway leading to a valley temple. Neither the expected causeway or valley temple have yet been found, and it is unknown whether they were demolished and the stones reused, or they were not built in his short reign and not built by his successors".
Done WereSpielChequers so the causeway is there alright, at least its beginning is there as it is visible on archeological maps (e.g. in Lehner's book). I wrote "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" which is very close to what you proposed.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Family relations between the Pharoahs and queens of this era seem uncertain. We know that at a much later time the pharoahs were a very incestuos bunch, and a daughter could also be a grandaughter is there concensus among Egyptologists that this wasn't a feature of the fourth dynasty? ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was a feature of the 4th dynasty as well since e.g. at least one of Menkaure's wife was his sister. But I wrote "daughter and grandaughter" because that is exactly what the source says, I guess Kozloff wanted to say some close female descendant. I have not yet found a source discussing incestuous relationship in the 4th dynasty royal family in particular and in Shepseskaf's case we do not know for sure what relationships he had with his wives since we don't even know for sure who they were.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can't go beyond the sources. I have my suspicions that this may have lead to much more complex interrelationships than whether three Pharoahs were a father and his two sons or two brothers and a nephew, and we have plenty of historic examples of monarchs whose claim of descent from their predecessors was a tad sketchy, but the official line was that the current guy was the legit heir of their predecessors. But if the Eyptologists aren't saying that then we can't. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well some Egyptologists do say that perhaps Shepseskaf didn't have such a perfect claim to the throne: perhaps he took power only by marriage. There is, however, no trace of struggle at the time so he must have been relatively legitimate, at least enough to be accepted as a king but perhaps not enough to be given a pyramid as explained in the article. This is only one hypothesis among many though.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niches I understand, but magazines? Is this a meaning of magazine that is jargon within Egyptology? I'm pretty sure this era won't have had gunpowder. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers Yes this is Egyptologic jargon, it essentially means storeroom or storage-space. I have changed it so it is clearer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving my pedanticisms, happy to support this interesting and well written article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

I hope to have a thorough perusal and then look in with a full review over the weekend, but from a quick canter through just now I notice that the spelling is a mish-mash of English and American: favour, favourite, hypothesises and recognised but center (twice), honoring and unrivaled. Either the Queen's English or Amerenglish is fine, of course, but it should be all one or the other, I think. (And I think Shepseskaf has got himself misspelled Shespeskaf in the penultimate para of the lead, though I didn't dare change it.) More anon. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 21:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley So I chose to put everything into British English, I hope I did not miss anything now. And you are right there were two "Shespeskaf" misspelled in the article, thank your for spotting this! I am looking forward to your comments. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my suggestions for tweaking the prose. I have no comments on the actual content – which seems to me comprehensively authoritative, and hugely interesting – and I can only salute the author, with admiration and envy, for such mastery of a language not his/her own.

  • Lead
  • This is merely a suggestion, but as a layman I'd have found it helpful to have "mastaba" given a very brief gloss at first mention: " – a burial mound – " or whatever the correct description is. And failing that (or even as well as that) there should be a blue link to mastaba.
Done I have done both, now "mastaba" is wikilinked and I say immediately after "that is a flat-roofed rectangular structure,". I hope this clarifies the subject enough for the lead.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parents
  • "Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son based on a decree" – doesn't quite say what you want it to say. It was the hypothesis, not the parentage, that was based on a decree. You could smooth this over by rejigging on the lines of "hypothesised from a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son".
Done I wrote : "George Andrew Reisner who proposed that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son. Reisner based his hypothesis on a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple.".Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In stark contrast with these hypotheses" – I might lose the slightly editoral "stark".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queens and children
  • "Egyptologist Lana Troy" – a false title has crept in here, which we could do without.
Done I wrote "Lana Troy, an Egyptologist," let me know if this is suitable.
  • Reign
  • "Indeed, an absolute chronology" – this is the third "indeed" in successive sections. Admittedly there are only two more, later, but one does just begin to notice them, and I might lose this one: the prose works just as well without it.
Done thank you for your suggestion the prose feels lighter this way now.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relative chronology
  • "Archaeological evidences seem to indicate" – one can see why you go for a plural noun here, but I don't think it quite works in everyday English. I think "evidence seems" is probably safer.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three historical sources go directly or indirectly against this order of succession however" – I'm not a foaming-at-the-mouth opponent of "however", which has its place, but I don't think it adds anything here, and I'd delete it.
Done ! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, the five cartouches between those of Khafre and Userkaf are now illegible" – no doubt it is unfortunate, but that isn't for Wikipedia to say.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duration
  • "The duration of Shepseskaf's rule is uncertain but it is generally taken to have lasted likely four but perhaps up to seven years" – BrE has the peculiarity (among countless others) that "likely" in this construction isn't idiomatic, and "probably" is normal. (Quite why we prefer the woollier Latinism to the crisp Middle English word I have no idea, but there it is. Americans have more sense than we English do on this point.)
Done thank you I will try to keep this in mind. This is also somewhat closer to how we say this in French with "probablement" taken to mean that there is more chance for than against something.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"L'anglais, ce n'est jamais que du français mal prononcé" (Clemenceau). Tim riley talk 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two historical sources report Shepseskaf's reign duration" – "reign duration" sounds alien to a speaker of the Queen's English (to this one, at any rate). I think we'd normally say "the duration of Shepseskaf's reign.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although such a reign length" – I think this variant just about passes muster as idiomatic BrE, and I shan't quarrel if you want to leave it as is.
I changed it to "Although this figure is..." is this better ?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activities
  • "The Palermo stone reports that the year of his accession" – could do with "in" after "that".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally Shepseskaf likely decreed" – another case for "probably" instead of "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This material allows for rapid constructions" – "construction" singular, I suggest, here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of Dynasty
  • "they likely belonged to the same family" – as before for "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location
  • "This remains unverified as no palace of Old Kingdom king has been located" – would benefit from "an" or "any" before "Old", I think.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decision to build a mastaba
  • "Hassan has put forth the idea" – "forth" is rather an antique term and "forward" would perhaps look more natural.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if Shepseskaf really did intend for his tomb to be a mastaba" – we don't want the "for" here: "did intend his tomb" would be normal BrE.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture
  • "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" – comma splice. Replacing the comma with a semicolon will do the trick.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Kingdom
  • "The stele uncovered by Jéquier likely originated" – et encore
Indeed! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as pavement for the temple floor" – I think "as paving" (without the definite article) or else "as the pavement for the temple floor" would be usual.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deads of the surrounding necropolis" – again, I see why you have the plural, but I think a singular "the dead" is wanted here (twice).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few suggestions. I'll look in again shortly and – I confidently expect – add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley thank you for your comments, all addressed so far!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! That didn't take long. All my minor quibbles about the prose have been thoroughly dealt with, and I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced, admirably illustrated and a really good read. Meets all the FA criteria in my judgement, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page in due course. Tim riley talk 16:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Looking forward to it !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palermo stone and Dahshur are duplinked. You can highlight duplink with this script:[4]
Fixed thanks for the tip !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk), Wehwalt (talk), and Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the contemporary music group BTS from South Korea. It is a co-nomination with Wehwalt and a renewed FAC with updated text and sources. The previous successful GAN nomination was done as a co-nomination with Btspurplegalaxy who is also on the top 10 editor list for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose similar reasons as last time, I don't feel my concerns were fully addressed. The sourcing can still be improved with the books that are now minimally cited; journal articles I brought up were not included at all. Some of the citations now lack page numbers, eg. " John Lie, "BTS, the Highest Stage of K-pop". In Youna Kim, Ed. The Soft Power of the Korean Wave. "Chapter 7". Routledge Press. 2022." I don't know exactly how many pages there are in a chapter, but this is not ideal for verifiability. Another book is listed in bibliography and cited using sfn referencing, so I would cite all book sources the same way for consistency. The nominator is the author of 4.7% of the article, so concern about how he can guarantee the accuracy of the remaining 95% remains. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to say it was "an improvement" on your talk page here: [5]. Also, all three of the editors listed as nominators are listed by Wikitools on the top 10 list of editors for "authorship" out of over 1500 editors for the article: Wehwalt is #7, Ernest is #6, and Btspurple is #4. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page numbers in the Soft Power book have now been added, and I'll go through the refs and see what can be done. More learned sources have been added. Again, I'll do more on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources cited in the opposes in the two FACs are now included, as well as other scholarly sources. Much of the article is basically about facts, the group's activities in the years since its founding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe we have, I believe, addressed your concerns. A number of scholarly sources are now used, sfn has been adopted for the book and article sources where it was not present, and I'm assured by ErnestKrause that the sources (which were gone through when the article was pared down from the sprawling mess it was) do reflect the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've repeatedly been asked to change my oppose, but sourcing issues remain in the article such as citing self-published medium and forbes contributors. Some citations are broken with the message "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation". The question of how people who wrote a minority of the article have verified the sourcing and accuracy of the remaining 90 percent or so remains. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about authorship appears not to know about the long edit history of the BTS article. Previous editors from the last 10 years had bloated the article to over 400Kb in size. Those 'authors' of the article made a sprawling mess of the old version of the BTS article, and GAN was successfull only because the article went through an extensive bulking down process to get it through a successful GAN. You appear to keep wanting to give credit to the old previous editors who caused it to become bloated at over 400Kb in size last year which detracted from the article being able to get to GAN. The GAN succeeded due to bulking down the article and not super-adding text to a article that was already over 400Kb.
Your comment about Forbes must refer to the one citation to Forbes in the entire article to document the release of their song "Dynamite". That citation is written by a Forbes staff member which is acceptable to Wikipedia policy; only non-staff Forbes article are excluded by Wikipedia policy. If you see any SPS problems in the article, then state them by name since the article has had an extensive review of citations at its successfull GAN.
The Harv-cite error you mention appears only for the one book by Kim Young which was added by a previous editor, and which Wehwalt is in the process of converting to sfn; it is already in the sfn section of the Bibliography. The print-out of the article on my screen shows no other Harv-cite issues at this time. If you see any other Harv-cite issues, then you can them list them here, since none of them are coming up on my screen print-out at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were several sfn errors, but I've gone through everything now and they're fixed. As for the assurances of accuracy, there's ErnestKrause's assurances on this front and I think both ErnestKrause's comments just above and FrB.TG's just below respond to that. At this point, this seems to be an oppose where everything either has been addressed or (in the case of the concern about accuracy, there's nothing that can, or so far as I can tell, should, be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

The additions of academic sources have definitely improved the article. I partially disagree with the oppose above, i.e. with the part that the nominators not being major authors of the article could mean there are unsupported/misinterpreted claims there. Unless a spot-checker specifically identifies issues on this front, it's just an assumption that these exist. (Note I'm not saying that these don't exist, but only saying the possible issues would first need to be confirmed to warrant an oppose on that ground.) Some of my comments regarding sourcing can be found here on my talk page. My comments here will mostly focus on the prose and MoS issues.

  • "By 2017, BTS crossed into the global music market, leading the Korean Wave into the United States" - the Wikipedia article does not capitalize "wave" in Korean Wave.
Should be lower case and changed to lower case. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are the first Asian and non-English speaking act to be named the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry's (IFPI) Global Recording Artist of the Year (2020–2021), to chart on Billboard's Top Touring Artists of the 2010s (placing at number 45), and to headline and sell out Wembley Stadium and the Rose Bowl (Love Yourself World Tour in 2019)." Too many and's here.
Rewrite long sentence as two sentences. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bangtan Boys at the Incheon Music Center in September 2013 02.jpg appears in between two sections; either place it at the beginning of Name or Career section.
Mirror flip image with quote box in Career section. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This extended their name to mean "growing youth BTS who is going beyond the realities they are facing, and going forward."[10]" Per MOS:LQ, the full stop should be placed outside the quotation mark.
Correct period location. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS was originally supposed to be a hip hop group similar to YG Entertainment's 1TYM,[13] but soon after the group was created, Bang Si-hyuk decided to create an idol group similar to Seo Taiji and Boys, a group which was popular in the 90's." Usage of group four times in one sentence and I would change '90's to 1990s.
Divide long sentence into two sentences, and rewrite. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here was a musical act that wasn’t pulling any punches." Avoid using curly apostrophes (’) and use a straight (') one instead (per MOS:'). There are other ones throughout the article and you would need to go through them.
I just strained my eyes and I hope got them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their subsequent single, "We Are Bulletproof Pt. 2", failed to chart at all." Prose redundancy.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The release topped the Gaon Album Chart,[37] and it also appeared on Billboard's World Albums Chart for the first time, peaking at number three." Prose redundancy.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Skool Luv Affair's release" - the possessive ('s) should not be in italics.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 2014, BTS hosted a free concert in West Hollywood, their first show in the United States" - the article randomly switches between using United States and US. Stick to one.
Changed all to "US" for consistency throughout article. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 01:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band released their first Japanese studio album, Wake Up (2014), that December; the release" - release used in twice in close proximity.
Copy edit wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS wanted to express the beauty and anxiousness of youth and settled on the title" - whose title are we talking about here? Addendum: it's only clarified in the next sentence.
Rewrite first two sentence of that paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album's second single, "Dope (Korean: 쩔어; RR: Jjeoreo)," peaked at number three" - place the quotation sign before the comma.
moved to the proper place Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bangtan Boys at KCON France 2016.jpg and File:BTS win first Daesang (Grand Prize) at Melon Music Awards, 19 November 2016.jpg are placed too closely to each other in opposite directions, creating a WP:SANDWICH issue.
Pull KCon image up one paragraph to avoid image sandwich. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Spring Day" later won Best Song of the Year at the 2017 Melon Music Awards." It's obvious that one wins awards for their work later on so it's uneeded.
Drop extra word. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commercially, BTS continued to hit new career heights" - "hit new career heights" sounds too informal.
Expand their artistic successes, sounds more on point. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December, they also became the first K-pop group" - unnecessary use of "also".
Removed. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP needed in a lot of places e.g. "300 million" and "September 2017". Check thoroughly.

Down to the end of 2014–2017: Mainstream and international breakthrough. This should keep you busy for a while. I'll return with more comments later. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another dozen to two dozen nbsp additions to improve readability on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I've addressed a few of them and will return tomorrow to get more of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be up to date as to the above comments. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, do you have more? I'd like to be able to show some progress towards promotion to the coordinators.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. I’ve been sick the last two days so I got little done around here. I’ll definitely follow up in the next few days. FrB.TG (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K. Peake[edit]

Note: All "platinum", "gold, and "silver" adjectives in prose and narrative have been changed to lower case only throughtout the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think citations are needed for Columbia and Universal in the infobox when these labels are sourced in the body.
  • Same as above for Big Hit Entertainment in the lead, with this debut being directly mentioned in the body.
  • Where is the alternative universe storyline sourced in the body? Also, the "and" here should have a comma before it.
  • Where; I don't see the term used at all? --K. Peake 13:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I called it an alternate reality to avoid double use of universe.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body says they were the quickest act to achieve four number-ones since Justin Timberlake, not Michael Jackson.
Justin T. now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third paragraphs are quite large, especially the last one; I would suggest converting the lead into four paras.
Four paragraph lead section now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 32 millions figure is not directly mentioned in the body, even though it can be sourced.
Having sold million of albums...and growing sales. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not sourced the Top Touring Artists of the 2010s anywhere, also I don't think number 45 should be in brackets.
Trimming old accolades from 2010. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Next Generation Leaders" quote is not sourced.
Now sourced in Accolades and Awards section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most influential people in the world ranking is not sourced.
Now sourced in Accolades and Awards section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as Billboard Music Awards.
Stylized. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UNICEF partnership is not sourced.
It is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "BTS was formed in 2010".
  • "unlike Seo Taiji's music," → use "the group" instead because this is not his solo work.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure you do not use "the group" or "they" on too many consecutive occasions in this article.
I only saw one place where consecutive sentences begin with either and I changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mean starting a sentence, more so the mentions of the group directly after each other being monotonous. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the top five in South Korea on the Gaon Music Chart." → "the top five on the Gaon Music Chart in South Korea."
I rejigged it as "the top five on South Korea's Gaon Music Chart".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This record was released" → "The album was released" and a full-stop is needed for the previous sentence.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nightclub is not mentioned anywhere as being where the group had their first performance.
Not mentioned in a paragraph but there is a picture of the club with the caption "Exterior of the nightclub Troubadour (photo taken 2006) where BTS held their first concert in the US for free" Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last entry in their" → "The last entry in BTS'".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove commas before albums and tours in the body for instances like Dark & Wild and 2014 BTS Live Trilogy Episode II: The Red Bullet, as these are not needed.
Drop commas. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the release year of The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Part 1.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beautiful moment in life."" any of these quotes when it is not a full sentence should have the punctuation outside of speech marks per MOS:QUOTE.
Should be outside now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This third EP explored the" → "The EP explored the".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid too many consecutive uses of "the album" or any similar terms.
Trimmed this phrase when used in consecutive sentences. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The img of them performing in France does not have any relevancy to the article.
They're performers and it's the only image we have of them performing on stage in that era.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is passable, then. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eight of its tracks" → "and eight of the tracks".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma before "which combined the themes".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its lead single was" → "The lead single was".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aesthetics and lyricism and" → "aesthetics and lyricism, and".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as Billboard Music Awards on the img text too.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a remake of Seo Taiji's" → "a remake of his".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it has been a couple sentences or so since a year was mentioned, add what one the month was in and same if a new para.
Add/delete date comments seem to pull in different directions. See your note directly below this. I've done both, but if you see more needed then let me know. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This para is one where it is really unclear, starting to talk about July then September with no mention of a year for BTS. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to July 2017 for clarity. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release years of Wings and You Never Walk Alone should not be mentioned, as you have already done this.
This one and the last one seem to pull in different direction about add/delete dates for readability. I've done both and if there are still problems with this just list them here, and I'll look at them. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US television debut is not mentioned anywhere, although their American Music Awards appearance is.
It is mentioned in a image caption "BTS at the 45th American Music Awards shortly before making their debut performance on US television on November 19, 2017." So let me know if you still want it to be mentioned in the paragraph. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To call something their debut, you need an actual source stating this, --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten caption to say it is in America. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psy is the first," → "Psy was the first," with the wikilink.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attained Gold certification" → "attained gold certifications".
On the certifications, there is a discussion on article talk that certifications should be capitalized.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're now all lower cased per comment above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "achieved Platinum status" → "achieved platinum status".
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on December 6." → "on December 6, 2017."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done on RIAJ. For the caps, see previous comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released on April 4," → "released on April 4, 2018,".
Got it.
  • "It is the seventeenth" → "It is the 17th" per MOS:NUM.
Numbers expressible by one and two words can be expressed as words per MOS:NUMERAL.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certified Gold by the RIAA in November." → "certified gold by the RIAA in November 2018."
Done on the year, for the rest see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received Platinum certifications" → "received platinum certifications".
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though using a redirect is quite proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the UK and Australia[164][165] and the group's" → "the UK and Australia[164][165], and the group's".
Done with the comma before the cites.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debuted at number 8" → "debuted at number eight".
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Rose Bowl performance is sourced.
BTS were also the first Asian act to sell out the Rose Bowl. Now sourced in Impact section. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certified Double Platinum by Gaon," → "certified double platinum by Gaon," and specify what country.
All 'gold, platinum, silver' should now be done. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world million should not be capitalised
Since it's a certification, see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "later attained Silver certification in the UK," → "was later certified silver by the BPI in the UK,".
Done with slightly different phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the US[199]" missing a full-stop.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Billboard's Top Billboard 200 Artists–Duo/Group ranking," → "on Billboard's Top Billboard 200 Artists–Duo/Group ranking,".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add (IFPI) in brackets.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be certified Quadruple Million." → "be certified quadruple million."
Done by Ernest Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US Billboard 200 making" → "US Billboard 200, making".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • top-ten → top-10
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of their debut The concert" → "of their debut. The concert".
Done by Wehwalt Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chart becoming the fastest-selling single since Taylor Swift's" → "chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on US's overall radio chart." → "on the overall US radio chart."
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use Kyung Hyun Kim's full name after the first mention of him.
I thought it safer since other Kims authored others of the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could simply write Kyung Hyun if so? --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not sourced that "Butter" was performed at the AMAs.
Cite added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Instead of a source for the AMA performance Ernest, you added one for the 2022 Butter Grammy performance. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at number two and" → "at number two, and".
Added comma Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with "Dynamite" placing tenth." → "with "Dynamite" placing 10th."
See MOS:NUMBERAL, MOS:ORDINAL.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as 2022 Billboard Music Awards.
Italicized Billboard Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage of "the band" is not appropriate, as they are never once called this in the lead.
They are called a boy band in the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of 1.7 Billion dollars" → "of 1.7 billion dollars".
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the date of the Freddie Mercury tribute performance.
This looks like the Live Aid concert which is sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add the date of it per the source(s), then. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add date. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linking now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the years for their albums and songs that have previously been mentioned.
This has to do with the sentence about their use of music genres and I think it's useful to have the years in that sentence to allow the reader to trace this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but there should not be usage of brackets though. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, add the release year to any of the works that are new to the article at this point.
  • The Crystal S. Anderson quote should be written with noted and a comma before the quote if it is a full sentence; elsewise, move punctuation outside of the quote.
It's a full sentence. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [311][312][313][314][315] is too many sentences grouped together; move around to appropriate areas for avoiding this problem.
  • "from the very start"." → "from the very start."" per this being a full sentence.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove links on "No More Dream" and "N.O".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove link on "Dope".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after The Most Beautiful Moment in Life: Young Forever.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS' 2016 studio album Wings focused on" → "Wings focused on".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the release year of Be, also add a speech mark to end the quote.
I've closed the quote marks. But I think it's helpful to the reader to have years in the sections which are not chronological, not all readers will be expert on the timing of BTS's discography.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove links on "Am I Wrong" and "Forever Rain".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:32, 23 Juns 2022 (UTC)
  • "Journalist Jeff Benjamin praise" → "Journalist Jeff Benjamin praised".
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove link on Time.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 60s age demographic"." → "and 60s age demographic."" per this being a full sentence quoted.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as effectively as South Korean singer Psy did" → "as effectively as Psy did".
Done by Wehwalt Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove commas around the Bank of Korea.
Remove commas. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.
Add comma. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Youna Kim, Villabert and" → "Kim, Villabert, and" unless Youna is the surname, then write that here per it being the second mention.
Let it remain as it is. As Wehwalt previously mentioned there are others who share the surname. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to add the comma for the correct form of English. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the introduction to Moon Jae-in since you did this previously; refer to him as simply Moon on all times after the introduction.
Completed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
changed wikilink Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an expansion of" → "as well as an expansion of".
Done! Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove wikilink on COVID-19 pandemic.
Duplicate link removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 2018[375][376] and promoting" → "in 2018,[375][376] and promoting".
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Fila to itself.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize asBillboard Music Awards.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove capitalisation for million, platinum, gold, diamond and silver.
Ernest has done this. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space for members.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Wings be italicised in the tour title when it is not in the article?
Should be ready for source review when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I think we've gotten just about everything. Do you have a position on whether to support the article for promotion? And are you good on the source review? Many thanks for most thorough and searching reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still take issue with overusage of the group or similar terms, which I elaborated on above from my initial comment. Also, the img calling the concert their first still needs a citation to actually verify this, writing Kyung Hyun after the first mention would be most appropriate per previous and are you sure repeated release years should be in brackets again? Source review responses below. --K. Peake 06:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the image, I just removed the first all together, as I couldn't find any source to back up the claim. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 09:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source review

  • Shouldn't Universal Music Japan be cited as publisher instead?
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Behance.
 Done 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If possible, Naver should only be linked on the first instance.
Naver is virtually unmentioned in the article, though it appears in about 103 citaions. Each one of the cites links Naver following this Wikipedia convention for citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 is missing a publisher.
Publisher is listed in Korean on the last of the nine image pages on Amazon if someone can access the micro-font on the screen here [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure one is adding in some way or another then, as otherwise the citation is not filled in correctly. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaon Music Chart should be cited as publisher instead, also only wikilink it on the first instance.
Gaon is attributed to its webcite and as a 'work' in the citations throughout the article follwoing the Wikipedia convention for linking with each citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this stance on linking for citations, have you done this for all repeated works/publishers then? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Melon as publisher instead.
It is compiled from online data provided by web-based music providers such as Genie, Melon, FLO, Soribada, Naver VIBE, KakaoMusic and Bugs. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Mwave to Mnet (TV channel) solely on the first instance instead, also this should be always cited as publisher.
Done but I've piped on every instance per the explanations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Billboard on the first ref.
The Billboard links are to indivual pages mostly for their individual lists such as: Billboard Global 200 and US Billboard Hot 100, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Oricon on the first ref.
There are over 40 link to Oricon which are virtually all done for the individual citations following the Wikipedia policy for linking each individual citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always cite Yonhap News Agency as publisher and only link the first time.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them per other comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Fuse as publisher instead on both refs and pipe to Fuse (TV channel) on the first instance.
Done, though I have piped on both because of the convention for citations mentioned by Ernest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but good thing you change it to this rather than the incorrect magazine article. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there MOS:CAPS issues with ref 73, or is that just how Youth is stylized? Same with MAMA for ref 153 and Map of the Soul for refs 212 and 259?
Restylize fonts back to lower case. The 'Youth' upper case was actually stylized in the Korean title using only upper case English. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QWQ issues with refs 75 and 204.
Both QWQ fixed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite CNN as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Korea Herald should only be linked on the first occasion.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them per the above,--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Billboard Japan.
They're linked per above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to doing this, also cite it as work/website instead? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that and listed (and linked) Billboard as the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Official Charts Company as publisher instead and only wikilink on the first occasion.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CAPS issues with refs 133, 250 and 261.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Huffington Post to HuffPost on the first ref only.
This should be cited as work/website, also pipe to the Wiki I said rather than the current redirect. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 135 is missing a publisher and via.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TeenVogue → Teen Vogue with the link, only citing once and fix MOS:QWQ issues.
Done, usual caveat re linking them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Variety to Variety (magazine) on the first instance only, always citing as work/website/magazine.
Done, see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite MSN as publisher instead.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only wikilink USA Today on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above for Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Naver not cited as via on ref 151?
Cited it. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Grammy as publisher instead and fix MOS:CAPS issues with both refs.
The citation was correct, but what about the capitals issues? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 160 has MOS:QWQ issues and remove the link on Teen Vogue.
The link can be kept, but what about the quotation marks issue? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC citations should be publishers instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite British Phonographic Industry as publisher instead and only wikilink the first time.
Done, similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Korean Culture and Information Service as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite IFPI as publisher instead and only wikilink on the first occasion.
  • myx.abs-cbn.comABS-CBN with the wikilink and citing as publisher instead.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Rolling Stone on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Metacritic as publisher instead.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Vox on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Pitchfork.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Korea Economic Daily instead as it has an article. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite ARIA Charts as publisher instead.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add via Naver to any sources that are citing the website without you having added the parameter.
Did you catch this one? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link NME on the first ref only.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Music Business Worldwide as publisher instead and fix MOS:CAPS issues.
The caps issues still prevail and you need to wikilink this. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard magazineBillboard.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IndependentThe Independent.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Independent should only be linked on the first instance.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Los Angeles Times.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Bloomberg to Bloomberg News on ref 290 and cite as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dazed should only be linked on the first instance.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this, also cite as work/website instead. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't ref 307 be cited to lead to the bibliographical citation? Either way, link Triumph Books.
Totally missed this too. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entertainment Weekly should only be linked on the first instance.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why for this one only? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Time.
  • Cite as publisher instead and pipe to Audacy.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove All Things Considered from ref 341 and cite NPR as publisher instead with the link; the other citation should cite it as publisher with no link however.
Done with similar comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 18:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite The Korea Society as publisher instead.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite UPI as publisher instead.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Missed all of these. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Herald Corportation as publisher instead.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of ref 392 citations are not filled in properly.
 Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Recording Industry Association of Japan as publisher instead.
  • The Bibliography stuff is fine, but link any of the citations on first usage.
Part two[edit]
  • What makes these high-quality sources:
  • Star News
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 6:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • My Daily
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BNTNews
They seem to be defunct now, but by the description here, they probably qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 06:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OSEN
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KStyle
It is used as a reference in this high-quality reliable source and therefore I presume it is high-quality itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not sure about the formatting either)
It's reliable, and it's actually the website for Ilgan Sports which is mentioned below. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the formatting for this website, then. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Report
A scholarly source here has found it worth citing, so I'd say it's OK]].--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:23, 25 June 2022
  • News1 (this ref also has MOS:CAPS issues)
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten Asia
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sports Today
  • An examination of their website shows that they have an individual, Kim Han-kyung, who is listed as editor/publisher, and who is not the person responsible for writing the content. Accordingly, there seems to be editorial oversight and the professional appearance of that website supports that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Buidhe, could you set out your view of a high quality RS, since it is not defined at WP:WIAFA and some of the nominators are relatively new to the process?
    At a bare minimum to be RS you must be able to show that the source has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Just existing and calling oneself a news website is not enough to count as a RS; many such sources are rated non-reliable by the Wikipedia community. High quality means to me that the source has a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy rather than a marginal reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which would be a marginally reliable source. An example of a high-quality RS would be a peer-reviewed article published by researchers in their area of expertise. (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd concur with much of that. But even if we grant that the burden of showing "high quality" is on the nominators, it's answered for the ones that the Korean wiki project has found to be reliable, since they're probably in a better position to assess than we are. I'd go so far as to say that where there is such an assessment, the burden would be to show unreliability or bias. As a practical matter, these are the sort of things that can't be definitively settled (since finding sources saying a site has a strong reputation vs a bare reputation would be challenging even for the most common English-language sources), so we do the best we can with what information we can garner.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt's comment appears to be related to the standard approach taken by Wikipedia for reliable sources which is either to green light them as reliable, or to red light them as unreliable; there is a middle area also used by Wikipedia policy to identify 'use only with caution', or to make partial exclusions for some sources. For example, some magazines allow use only if editors are the authors, and to exclude contributors who are not editors at the magazine in question. The regular reading of 'high quality' seems to mean a confirmation that they are not red-flagged as to being unreliable sources by Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to "Sports Today", it is cited in several high-quality reliable sources listed here and therefore it is presumably high quality itself (the search is for the website's URL).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Daily (this needs to be stylized consistently for refs if kept and add the language parameter always too)
Also listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SEDaily
Cited in several high-quality references listed here and therefore presumably high quality reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NewsWorks
Up to date Korean website for current affairs and news events. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in this high-quality reliable source and I presume it the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arama! Japan
Website providing broad coverage of music and pop culture events in Japan. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why it's a high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, twice, in this high quality reliable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FirstPost
Breaking News from India. Firstpost is linked to its Wikipedia article which looks acceptable. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstpost is cited in a number of high-quality reliable sources as per this search here (disregard the first one) and therefore I presume that it is high quality reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elite Daily
Elite Daily is an American online news platform founded by David Arabov, Jonathon Francis, and Gerard Adams. The site describes its target audience as millennials. Seems fine according to the linked Wikipedia article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in a number of high quality reliable sources per this search here and therefore I presume it is the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stereogum
This is an award-winning blog, about which we have an article, Stereogum. Scott Lapatine's would seem to qualify as that of an established subject-matter expert, given the blog is 20 years old.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the vast majority of instances blog isn't a "high-quality reliable source" even if you could argue SPS. Since the band is made up of a few living people BLPSPS likely applies. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut that source and also removed the one style of music that seems exclusively sourced to that reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZE (this ref also has MOS:QWQ issues)
Cannot locate this in current version of article. Where is this quote-within-quote? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hwang, Hyo-jin (April 1, 2019). "BTS pledges to "tell the story of our generation with our lyrics""
Ref. 317 Btspurplegalaxy 🗩