Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2025

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 June 2025 [1].

Lovro Šitović

Nominator(s): Governor Sheng (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an 18th-century Croatian Franciscan friar and grammarian. Governor Sheng (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This would appear to be out of process as the same nominator currently has another WP:FAC open: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ivan Ančić/archive1. TompaDompa (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tompa. @Governor Sheng:, as per the WP:FAC instructions, you're only allowed to open one nomination at a time if you're the sole nominator on both. Closing this.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 29 June 2025 [2].

SS Cayuga

Nominator(s): Salty magnolia 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Cayuga. I brought the article to GA status in August 2021. Ever since then, it has been copy edited, and has undergone and a peer review. I have returned from the dead to finally complete the process always intended for this article. Salty magnolia 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Cayuga.jpg - how do we know it was never published? You have to be able to demonstrate some level of research to make the claim. If you are the individual who runs the site that hosts the photos, where did you get them?
File:Cayuga plans.jpg - when and where was this published?
File:Cayuga in service.jpg - image description should be updated to reflect the Marine Review citation as the source, since it gives us a pre-1930 publication
File:Joseph L. Hurd towed by Favorite.jpg - same issue as the first image
File:Protector with steel pontoons.jpg - as above
File:Protector at the Cayuga's wrecksite.jpg - same
- A significant issue with all of these images (save the one from Marine Review) is that, without proof of publication before 1930, there is a possibility that their copyright might have been extended until 2048. See here for further details
WP:ALTTEXT for images? Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a few of them since they didn't really add much.

As for those remaining, specifically the two of Cayuga on the ways and the blueprints (where I used the wrong licence), I have dug through the US copyright database (both pre and post 1978, and have found no trace of either the blueprints, or the photograph. I have also trawled through maritimehistoryofthereatlakes.ca where most publications relating to Great Lakes maritime history are archived, and similarly found no trace. The image seems to originate from the Richard J. Wright of the Bowling Green State University.

The site hosting those pictures is the Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library, while the collection of images is moderated by maritime historian C. Patrick Labadie. I have emailed him inquiring about the hypothetical publication history of the images, but have not received a reply yet.

Once my Newspapers account is authenticated again, I will look there as well. Salty magnolia 17:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: I have received a response from the library in Alpena. The special collections manager at the library also seems to be unaware of any publication of those two images.

I wasn't able to find a photo of Cayuga's construction with Newspapers either, but I did find this contemporaneous illustration of her underway, published shortly after she sank, if that proves useful. Salty magnolia 04:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from RoySmith

Curious that nobody else has reviewed this yet, but I like boats, so here I go...

Lead

My general impression is that it has some repetitive elements which should be eliminated. For example, you mention 1889 three times in the first three sentences. Couldn't you say something like "SS Cayuga was a steel-hulled American package freighter in service on the Great Lakes in the late 19th century. Built in 1889, she entered service the same year and sank just six year later after being involved in a collision". I would leave out the stuff about the Lehigh Valley Transit Company of Buffalo, New York, and her sister ship. That should certainly be included in the body, but doesn't seem so important as to need to be in the first paragraph of the lead.

Likewise, you mention "package freight" twice. Once you've told us that it was a package freighter, it's redundant to tell us that she was carrying package freight. And on that topic, package freighter links to Lake freighter whose first sentence tells us that's a bulk carrier, so not really a package freighter at all.

six tugboats managed to pull her free that same day, just say "six tugboats pulled her free ...". The "managed to" is editorializing.

Cayuga was involved in a collision with the package freighter Delaware ... The repetition will sound less awkward if you say "another package freighter, the Delaware".

On the morning of May 10, 1895, Cayuga while bound for Buffalo with a cargo of oats, flour and general merchandise I'm guessing while -> was?

A thick fog hung over Lake Michigan This is confusing; Buffalo is on Erie, not Michigan.

Joseph L. Hurd struck Cayuga on her starboard side, tearing a hole in her hull It seems odd that a wooden vessel could tear a hole in a steel hull. Obviously, it did, but this unexpected result deserves some explanation.

Most of this can all be dealt with by today.

History

I suppose all this stuff in the Background section about iron-hulled ships is interesting, but is it really germaine to this article? I want to know about the Cayuga, but I have to get through this entire long paragraph before she's even mentioned.
- Ugh. Now I understand why this paragraph seems out of place. It's because it is copied word-for-word into many of the ship articles you've worked on: SS Emperor, SS John Mitchell (1906), SS William C. Moreland, SS Sir William Siemens, SS Russia (1872), SS Choctaw. I don't know if there's any specific WP:FACR which forbids that, but it doesn't seem like a best practice.

The second of five identical sister ships isn't "identical" implied by "sister ship"? And even if it really only implies "mostly identical", is the distinction important here?

I would find some way to simplify all the stuff about her dimensions. Between all the "other sources", and the metric conversions, and the length between perpendiculars stuff, it's just a sea of confusion. How about "Cayuga was approximately 308 feet (xx meters) long, with a beam of approximately 41 feet (xx m) and approximately 23 feet (xx m) deep from (I'm guessing here) her keel to the shearline and a fully loaded draft of 16.5 feet (xx m)" You could then add a footnote which goes into all the details of the different sources.

The cylinders of the engine were 24 inches (61 cm), 38 inches (97 cm) and 61 inches (150 cm) in diameter and had a stroke of 42 inches (110 cm). I had to read this a few times to understand it. Also, the next sentence "Steam for the engine ..." just repeats what was said in this sentence. How about "The cylinders of her triple expansion engine were 24, 38, and 61 inches (61, 97, and 150 cm) respectively, with a uniform stroke of 42 inches (110 cm)". Steam was provided by ...

two 11.1 by 12 feet should be "foot". There's a parameter to the {{convert}} template that makes that happen; adjective=y, maybe?

top speed of about 14 miles per hour (12 kn). I'm curious why mph is the primary unit. I would think it would be kts. Or are Great Lake freighter speeds traditionally reports in mph?

She was propelled by a single, four-bladed, fixed-pitch propeller Another awkward repetition. How about "she was driven by a ... propeller"?

Throughout her career, Cayuga was involved in several accidents, I'd leave out the "throughout her career" part. When else would the accidents have happened?

The first serious incident occurred on April 9, 1890 You previously talked about accidents. In maritime parlance, "incident" and "accident" have specific distinct meanings[3] so make sure you use the right term.

She drifted onto a shoal, broke free ... broke free of what? Broke free of her tow? Or managed to get herself off the shoal?

Cayuga collided with the wooden package freighter Delaware off Cheboygan, Michigan.[8] And?? Don't leave us hanging. Was there any damage? Did they just swap paint and move on?

This takes me to the end of Service history. I'm going to pause here. I've already found a lot of problems and I'm only about half way through. To be honest, that doesn't bode well. I'll let you chew on what I've noted so far and perhaps I'll come back another day to look at the rest.

Regarding the paragraph in the background section, I believe it to be important. There have been multiple references to Cayuga's status as an earlier steel vessel. I can expand it a little with info about issues regarding brittle steel, which resulted in the adoption of an entirely new process.
I can definitely sort the issue with the dimensions. In subsequent articles, I have included alternate source results within notes.
Regarding the "sister ships" section, on the lakes, there have been multiple cases of ships being referred to as "near-sisters" (e.g. the Edward Y. Townsend and the Daniel J. Morrell).

I picked up again with Final voyage, but didn't get very far. Looking at On May 10, 1895, Cayuga, under the command of Captain George Graser, was bound for Buffalo with a cargo of 35,000 or 38,000 bushels of oats, flour and 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of general merchandise.[8][19][28][29] I don't understand why this has four citations. All of the essential facts are supported by the Buffalo Evening News, Friday, May 10, 1895 article, which is the first of the several newspaper clippings aggregated by the maritime History of the Great Lakes. So, I'd just cite that directly and drop all the rest. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to point out the discrepancies between the various sources as to the exact amount of cargo, since this doesn't really add anything to the readers's understanding of the ship or the collission. Maybe just hedge a bit with "a primary cargo of oats and flour, with some additional general merchandise"

General comments

You have many places where you support a single sentence with three, four, or even five citations at the end. While this style is allowed (see WP:CITEBUNDLE), I'm not a fan of it. It makes it very difficult to understand which source is supporting which claims. I encourage you to not use this style. I also suspect you are over-citing things. For example, you have Cayuga went down in 25 minutes.[19][32]. Surely it doesn't take two sources to support this one simple fact?

I'm a boat person, so I understand most of the technical terms you use, but the average reader might be lost with length between perpendiculars, beam, draft, triple expansion, fixed-pitch, gale, shoal, breeches buoy, rudder shoe, port, starboard, passing signals, dragging an anchor, scow, pontoon, list (as in "port list"). Many of these you link, but note that WP:TECHNICAL says Articles should be self-contained as much as possible, rather than relying on excessive links to explain unfamiliar concepts.

I'm sure I can sort the citation issue, although it has never caused any trouble before.
As for the technical aspect, I could sort that by including the actual definition in the text, or through a footnote supported by an outside source, if that is the standard practice of rectifying this.

Sourcing

(not a full source review, just some things that I noticed)

Two of the sources are database searches at the Alpena County library. These in turn are used for multiple citations (2020a is 8a – 8l, 2021b is 21a and 21b). I can't find any specific policy that speaks to this, but I don't think these count as WP:RS. As live database searches, there's no guarantee we'll get the same results at different times. And while they do include a list of sources, it's pretty vague, i.e. "Newspaper Clippings" or "Donald V. Baut", so there's no real traceability.
There's a bunch of citations to https://www.greatlakesvesselhistory.com/. As far as I can tell, this is somebody's personal wordpress blog. The author (Sterling Berry, now deceased) appears to have been a dedicated amateur/hobbyist historian of Great Lakes vessels, but this is a WP:SPS and it's not clear if Berry qualifies as an WP:EXPERT.
boatnerd.com is basically a hobbyist site.
straitspreserve.com describes itself as "an all-volunteer, non-profit 501(c)3-approved Michigan corporation" That doesn't prove they're not a WP:RS, but I don't see anything which makes me believe they have the kind of editorial oversight that we want to see in a source.
The citations to The Marine Record/Review are a bit of a mess. For example: The Marine Review (1895f). "The Marine Review (Cleveland, OH), 12 Sep 1895". Cleveland, Ohio: The Marine Review. Retrieved August 6, 2021 tells us three times that it was in The Marine Review and twice that it was published in Cleveland, Ohio (nit: don't abbreviate state names), but leaves out essential information like where to find the item on the page. If there's no useful heading, then at least use at= to describe where to find it ("note near the center of column two"). Also a bunch of the URLs error out with 500's.
I can't figure out where Amherstburg Echo (1895–1896). "Echo Soundings: Marine News of 1895–96". Amherstburg, Ontario: Marsh Collection Society. Retrieved August 6, 2021 is used.
Beaver Island History (2021). "Cayuga" (PDF). Beaver Island, Michigan: Beaver Island Historical Society looks like somebody's personal recollection of diving on the wreck. Not a WP:RS.

The second Alpena source can be dispensed with. I don't really remember why it was even included. The first was compiled by C. Patrick Labadie, a well-respected historian around the Lakes, who has been referenced by NOAA.
The Berry sources can be replaced by those from the BGSU, for identical results.
I suspect the Marine Record URLs might have expired, since the hosting site ran a major domain update a few years back. This article was written before I learned to use ref = CITEREF for sleeker results.

Maratime History of the Great Lakes is just reprinting and aggregating news reports. I would cite the originals directly, i.e. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-buffalo-news-cayuga-sunk/175108146/
In general, I'm sceptical of diving guides as WP:RS. Looking at Harrington 1998, they are clearly a secondary or tertiary source, yet give no indication of where they get their information from. It is published by "Maritime Press", which I can find very little information about. Bookscouter.com lists 12 books they've put out, 7 of which are by Harrington, so I'm guessing they're some sort of vanity press.

Notes

@RoySmith: I have addressed a few of your points. Salty 🇬🇧 16:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please ping me when you've worked through them all? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's another SS Cayuga (https://dc.library.northwestern.edu/items/0c54f6f0-9926-4395-9376-c5abc5fa2c3e) which is probably worth a hatnote.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to land on oppose. There's just too many problems here to be sorted out at FAC, and I'm still only half way through the article. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say this is worthy of a complete re-write? From your comments, I am getting the distinct impression these aren't an issue which can be ameliorated quickly.

Now you have mentioned the legion of issues with the references which didn't bother me before, I cannot unsee them. Salty 🇬🇧 20:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the basic story. There is a logical progression from the history of of Great Lakes freighters (even if I think you can trim down the amount of detail you devote to that), to the design of the ship, time in service, its demise, through the salvage attempts and leading up to the current state of the wreck. I would certainly keep that basic structure. The first thing listed under WP:FACR is "its prose is engaging" and I think you've got a pretty good leg up on that. I would start with cleaning up the references, if only because that's a bit of a mechanical process so it's easy to dive into. See where that leaves you. RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This has been open for almost four weeks now and has only had one review which revealed several concerns that are best addressed outside FAC. I'm archiving this, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2025 [4].

East Island (Hawaii)

Nominator(s): MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 23:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about East Island, a low-lying island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands that was largely destroyed by Hurricane Walaka in 2018 and has since partially reformed. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 23:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

I believe this has been addressed. Barnt Toust 19:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC) (just lending a helping hand)[reply]

File:Atoll_research_bulletin_(1971)_(20157463550).jpg: is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Jens

This is a great topic, and this is a solid GA, but it is not on FA level yet, unfortunately. There are many small things with consistency, linking, etc. For example, Hawaiian monk seals is not linked at first mention, and you provide the scientific name at second mention only. Context is missing (you should state who discovered the island group, and when and why it became part of the US). There seem to be some issues with structure and flow, too (for example, you say "and had begun to stabilize by 2023", but in the section where this information would be expected (Post-storm recovery), there is nothing on that). Finally, you do not always seem to accurately reflect the sources; for example you say "An estimated two monk seals remained on the island when the hurricane hit", but the source says "Only two minuscule slivers of East Island have resurfaced since the Category 5 storm struck the region". That's a big difference! The source describes the aftermath of the storm, not "when the hurricane hit", and there is no estimate involved at all; two have been observed.

But most importantly, the article seems to rely a lot on news articles while scholarly articles, which do exist, are mostly not incorporated. I had a quick look with Google Scholar, searching for "East Island, french frigate shoals", and I quickly found articles that contain a lot of highly relevant information that is not incorporated. The first article I looked at was this one [5] which has information such as average elevation above sea level, percentage of shrub coverage, and details on the bird colonies, including which birds bred there, and probably more. I think that, in order to bring this to FA, you would need to do much deeper literature research, and focus on scholarly articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I've fixed the example of the linking with the animals, and re-wrote the text a bit around the post-storm recovery (still probably not great enough tbf), I do agree that the scholarly work ought to be sorted through and incorporated in the article. As it stands, some good refideas should be made and taken advantage of. Concur with Jens. Barnt Toust 23:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallard here! I'm looking into scholarly articles now but can only find one on Google Scholar. I may just not be looking right but I'm incorperating what I can. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 02:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a rapid consensus seems to have formed that this article is not yet quite ready for FA. While it is normal to put the final polish on an article at FAC, there are too many deeper issues here for FAC to be an appropriate place to resolve them, so I am going to archive the nomination. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. The article would perhaps benefit from some or all of: a visit to GoCE, a visit to PR, the nominator having a go at reviewing 6 or 8 FACs, a mentor, working with the reviewers above to resolve the issues they have identified - f they are willing, they may not be. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 June 2025 [6].

Contingency Song

Nominator(s): Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Contingency Song" is a single from Jane Remover's second studio album, Census Designated. Released alongside a reissue of their debut studio album, Frailty (2021), and an announcement of their first merchandise capsule, the song's single version differs in production than its album version. In March, I created the article and upgraded it to GA. I later put it up for peer review with limited, yet substantial participation. I believe that, although the article is short, it covers its bases from all available information on the Internet, and has no information left behind. Thank you!

I would also love to give a big thank you to Medxvo for reviewing the article for GA and helping me out with copy editing. Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Averageuntitleduser

Signing on. Should be done today or tomorrow. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The two versions of the song differ in length and in the way in which they were produced." — perhaps just: "in length and production."
- Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead and body, "relationship" could be specified (e.g. romantic relationship, intimate relationship).
- The Fader states Jane repeats, dreading the world-eating collapse of a relationship before the track descends into pure staticky chaos. Pitchfork states As its gloomy climate grows in harshness, Jane shuts down over a destructive relationship. Both don't specify what type of relationship, so claiming that Remover is singing about a romantic/intimate on in the wiki article would be OR, right? Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Relationship" is commonly used in that sense, and considering the dramatic contexts in the sources, I think we are okay. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, added "romantic relationship" Locust member (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"while the mastering for the single and album version were handled by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively." — I think a rewrite without "handled" is more direct, e.g. "while the single and album version were mastered by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively". Change similarly in the body.
- Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A drum-less track" — suggest removing from the lead as too detailed.
- Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Over the course of the song, the instrumental grows in intensity until it conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence." — replace
- I'm going to need a little bit more guidance here; replace what exactly? Is the whole sentence poorly written? The sources that I am using for this claim (and the claim in the body) read: The pulverizing noise soon eclipses them, squealing and churning until a sense of resignation begins to close in. (Pitchfork) and Contingency Song” builds in beauty and intensity throughout most of its six and a half minutes without ever dropping a beat, then bottoms out into gorgeous near-silence again. (Stereogum). do you have a recommendation for what exactly could be changed with the sentence? not disagreeing but this is just the best I can currently come up with based on the sources. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops! I clearly hadn't finished this. It was a originally a nit-picky word choice comment. But I think it's negligible now, so no issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"alongside the release of" — I think this is used to avoid the semantics over whether Remover or the label released the songs, which secondary sources presumably don't always specify. But it felt a bit clunky both times:
- The first sentence could be rewritten as a list and Helfand's article could be sourced to add that the songs were released by DeadAir: "In June 2022, Jane Remover came out as a trans woman, announced their new stage name, and released the songs 'Royal Blue Walls' and 'Cage Girl' via DeadAir Records."
- At that point, I don't think active voice would be too confusing in the other sentence ("and released the single 'Lips'"). Passive voice could work too ("and the single 'Lips' was released").
  - Done both. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"merchandise capsule" — I hadn't heard this phrase before, and when Googling it within quotes, a tweet by DeadAir is one of the top results. Would "merchandise line" work?
- Done, "merchandise line" works! Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Office Magazine has the good detail that Remover placed the song last to represent dawn.
- Added, thanks for this! Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"until its noise conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence" — "until its noise... ends in near-silence" is a bit confusing.
- Same as the above one (where I listed both the Pitchfork and Stereogum sources) Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would just say: "until it conceals". The instrumental ending in silence reads smoother than noise ending in silence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Locust member (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BrooklynVegan listed the song as among their favourites of the week. Not much, but I think it could be added.
- Added. I saw this when editing the article but BrooklynVegan, at the time, was not listed at WP:A/S, so I was unsure it would have passed the "high quality" source inspection for FA. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"artistic reinvention and sound evolution" — naturally, what was the artistic reinvention? Could you elaborate in the article?
- Done, let me know if it looks good? Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's good. I think we could say even a bit more. I came up with: "artistic reinvention away from bitcrushed electronic music and toward a shoegaze sound with clean electric guitars." Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Locust member (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments about "Composition" and "Critical reception" are on the way. In the meantime, don't mind my pickiness. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the pickiness! I got most done, but need some clarification on a few. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a drum-less track" — I would say "It contains no drums". Also, it would be worth introducing/repeating here that this is in contrast to traditional rock and roll structures.
Sometimes in the "Critical reception" section, the article could integrate the quotes to better explain what the reviewers mean. This would also help remove some repetition with the "Composition" section.
- DeVille seems to think that the song builds up smoothly and without losing momentum. Something like that could replace his second quote.
- Harris's article isn't very opinionated, so I would weaken "lauded" to "complemented" or "enjoyed". In place of the quote, we could just say that he liked the song's progression.

Ok. I think that's all. Also, I recommend removing the graphics templates from this review page. That instruction is in the blurb at the top of WP:FAC, which is admittedly not the shortest. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Thank you for the review!! Locust member (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice changes. I did some crazy Google searching and looked in other databases but didn't find any more sources, so the article seems comprehensive. Support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wee image review - Pass

image: fair use license good; resolution fine, no caption needed, alt good. That isn't the album cover so what exactly is it? Draco phyllum, (1 PR) 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the single cover: Apple Music Locust member (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I can support for image(). Cheers, Draco phyllum, (1 PR) 21:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

The lead says that Remover mixed both versions, but I think the mixing for the single version isn't confirmed according to the prose
- Done
"was remastered for their second studio album" - "... for Remover's second studio album", as the preceding sentence doesn't mention the singer
- Done
"the single and album version" - "the single and album versions"? (in lead and prose)
- In the peer review, an editor said that "single version" is not correct; you can read that here. Would like to know your opinion on it though.
  - I personally think that "single version" is okay (see this review for example).
"they felt it was able to represent dawn" - I think it would be great if this could be expanded more based on Remover's comments in the source
- Done, I think
I suggest archiving refs 3, 7, 8, and 15
- Done

I think that's all :) My other comments were previously addressed during the GAN review. Medxvo (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the look!! Locust member (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to one point above, but I'm happy to support. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you and have changed it to what it was originally. Thank you!! Locust member (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

Seems like reliability, source formatting and some light spotchecks check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will be unable to do a full prose review for this article, but I still wanted to help with this FAC. My comments are below:

The infobox is a bit confusing. The lead makes it seem like this song was first released as a standalone single and later remastered for an album. However, the infobox combines this information together, so it makes this distinction unclear. I could see a reader looking at the infobox and thinking that the song was a single from the album. This is made more confusing as the single cover from the standalone release is used while the prose in the infobox says it is a single from Census Designated. I think that removing the album name from the infobox would help with this.
- The song was released as a single and then later was put on an album with differing production and a different master. So in a sense this is a single from the album but the single version differs from the album version. Single covers are still used when a song is taken from an album, but this case is confusing because, the song itself is from the album, but the standalone single is not. Do you still think "from the album Census Designated" should be removed? The song is still on the album.
  - I still think that it should be removed. It is not unusual for a standalone single to be later released on an album or even for it to be remastered or changed for a later album release. I am aware that single covers are used for singles from albums. There is not indication in the article that this song (either the original or the remastered version) was released as a single to promote this particular album. That would need to be clearly supported.
  - I do not think the case itself is confusing. A singer releases a song as a standalone single and then later includes a different form of it as an album track. Again, that happens. That does not automatically make it a single from the album. I think that the way that it is presented in the article is confusing. It is confusing when the infobox says that it is a single from Census Designated when there is nothing to support that in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would include a note on Remover's pronoun usage as it would be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with this article.
- Done.
Is there any further information on the song's personnel, like who mixed the single version? I am aware that this information is not always made available. I just wanted to ask to clarify this with you.
- There is not, what is included is all we know.
  - Thank you for the clarification. I have been in similar cases where this is all the information available, but I wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the way in which the genres are discussed in the lead and the article, (is a ballad in the shoegaze and drone genres), is awkwardly constructed. I would look at song FAs to see how they bring up a song's genre.
- The reason it is like that is to not lose any wikilinks. If we say " 'Contingency Song' is a shoegaze and drone ballad", we have to drop the link for "ballad" so sea of blue issues do not occur.
  - While I understand your concerns, I still think that the current wording is awkward, but that could just be me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the "Background and release" section repeats "released" for several sentences in a row. It is best to avoid this kind of repetition whenever possible as it makes the prose less engaging.
- Done.
The first sentence in the "Background and release" section seems rather random and disconnected from this song. Maybe revising it to say: (In 2022, Jane Remover came out as a trans woman, announced their new stage name, and released the songs "Royal Blue Walls", "Cage Girl", and "Contingency Song" through DeadAir Records. "Contingency Song" was made available on November 16, 2022, alongside the reissue of Remover's debut studio album, Frailty (2021) and an announcement of their first merchandise line.)
- I like that, done.
The lead says that the song was remastered for the album, but this is not explicitly said anywhere in the actual article.
- It does, but indirectly; I get your point. How do you recommend I change the lead?
  - I was more so recommending that you should explicitly say in the article itself that this song was remastered for the album. If there is not a clear source to support this, then it should be removed from the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the part about "Lips" single release as it does not seem relevant. Keep the focus on "Contingency Song".
- Done.
Is there any information on how production for the single and album versions differ?
- There is not, or else it would have already been included. The most we have from the sources is that it includes a "different version" or an "album version" of the single. I changed it from "differs in production" to just "is a different version" since that is just what the sources state.
I am confused by this part, (It departs from a traditional rock and roll song structure as it contains no drums). Why is rock and roll being brought up? Would listeners expect this song to have that kind of structure? Would people think that Remover would release a rock and roll song? It seems really random and abrupt. It is also repetitive, as this is repeated in the "Critical reception" section. I am also a bit confused by the mention in that section. Maybe it is because I have never heard of Remover before, but I feel like this quote, ("obliterates any premature allegations of pastiche" ), is missing context.
- The source states this: Of course, Jane’s singular vision obliterates any premature allegations of pastiche, breaking new ground on a path A.R. Kane and My Bloody Valentine began carving almost four decades ago. Those groups — and the vast majority of those that came after — still adhered at least loosely to the structures and strictures of rock ’n’ roll. But “Contingency Song” is its own animal: a drumless and at times demented dirge the reaches the end of any previously plotted map and nose dives into the great nothing.

I think they are saying that the song draws comparisons to A.R. Kane and MBV, but they still sounded like rock n roll artists. I just included this in the Critical reception section. Another editor suggested I included the "departs from the traditional rock and roll song structure" in both parts, but I removed it in Composition.

That makes sense. It has a clearer purpose in the "Critical reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for not being able to do a full review, but I still hope that these comments are helpful. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locust member are you working on the above? With the limited support this nomination has gotten it's liable to be archived presently unless significant progress towards a consensus emerges. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I'm sorry, I've had very very limited time to be on Wikipedia in the past ~3 weeks but yes I am working on these. Locust member (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and I have answered some critiques and commented on others. Locust member (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I have left my replies above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seven weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote building. Just the single general support and the latest reviewer - who has stated that they will not be able to carry out a full review - waited five days for their first tranche of comments to be addressed and it has been a further five days with their second tranche still unaddressed. Given the above I shall archive this nomination. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2025 [7].

Jayden Daniels

Nominator(s): ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American football player Jayden Daniels. He won the 2023 Heisman Trophy as the top college football player and was the 2024 NFL Rookie of the Year, with many citing his rookie year as the best in NFL history after setting various records and leading the Washington Commanders to their best season since 1991. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-2019 Sports Illustrated is questionable per WP:RSPSI and it's cited several times in the current version: 30, 58, 61, 107, 117, 122. SB Nation in #70 is also a questionable outlet (see community discussions 1, 2, 3) Is there any evidence proving that these specific authors are reliable? Left guide (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piping in, what makes sites like "Arizona Sports", "WDSU", or "thesundevils.com" (a primary source?) featured-quality RS? ~ HAL333 04:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sundevils.com is the website of the first university he attended and played for, so it's reliable in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner, but it wouldn't really count much towards WP:WEIGHT though. I'd be particularly cautious about awards and records only cited to these types of sources, since it comes off as potentially promotional. If independent sources haven't taken notice, I don't think they're appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia, let alone in an FA. Left guide (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other two appear to be local RS from the two areas he attended university, with arizonasports.com as the Arizona sports affiliate of Bonneville International, and WDSU as the New Orleans NBC affiliate. If he didn't attract much national coverage during his college years, it's not unreasonable to use local sources like that to flesh out that part of his biography, though WP:BESTSOURCES should be followed where possible. Left guide (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll replace the SI citations first then look to see if I can find better sources for the Arizona-era claims. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SI, SB Nation, and WBSU citations have been replaced. The Pac-12 Player of the Week primary sources are tougher to find replacements for, but I can dig deeper if this is considered an issue still. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

The awards and records section should be deleted, and all the relevant material be comprehensively merged into the article text. As an example, the fact that he won the Heisman and the College football player of the year are already mentioned in the article text. If the fact he won the Walter Camp Award, the Manning Award, etc aren't important/notable enough to be mentioned in the body of the article, than why are they notable enough for a standalone section? And if they are in the body of the article, why do they need to be duplicated (or in the case of infobox awards, mentioned a third time)? As an example, you could add a few sentences that says "Daniels set multiple rookie season records for a quarterback, including the most wins, most rushing yards in a season, highest completion percentage, and the most points per game. He was named the rookie of the week a record 11 times during the regular season. In the postseason, he also set rookie records for passing yards, touchdowns and rushing yards by a quarterback." In those three sentences, you pretty much cover 10 bullet points in an encyclopedia manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the bolding of his name and his mothers name in the Personal life section isn't supported by writing guidelines/policy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed boldface on parents' names. Left guide (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with removing the records section. People don't want to read through blocks of text to see what records he's had. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NOTSTATS is a key policy consideration here:

Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.

Left guide (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not statistics. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sections usually removed for athlete FAs? Magic Johnson has a similar section that apparently nobody has a problem with, including a dedicated list that follows much of the same format. I can convert them all to prose if needed, but most readers tend to skim articles and I did that to avoid cluttering up paragraphs with every record achieved or set (which is quite a bit). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Johnson was affirmed as FA in 2009, when community standards may have been lower/more lax. Also consider that all kinds of stuff may have crept into the article since then from crowd-sourced editors. If any comparison is to made, it should be based on the FA-approved version. If there's doubts about the quality of that article's current condition, consider improving it and/or nominating it for FA re-assessment separately. Left guide (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally think the section serves a purpose akin to statistic tables, I'll write them all in the article body later as it seems to be contentious. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section is now incorporated into prose, with some additional syntax changes to fit it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the embedded list of awards was fine, and meets MOS:EMBED:

Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content.

Leaving details of lesser awards to comprehensive lists make for better flowing text. Instead, the change leaves a monotonous laundry list of awards, when the previous text was more effective at conveying the key achievements:[8] One can argue that a few more awards besides the Heisman should be included in prose, but the conference and ESPY awards are minor for Daniels, but are notable enough, with their own links, for an embedded list. We do the same thing with stats tables, alleviating the need to rattle off the same basic stats for every season in prose. —Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major awards are already called out in the infobox. Might this be a case where MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS applies?

There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.

Left guide (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can co-exist. The infobox is meant to be a summary: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The body can have a comprehensive list. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another NFL bio, Dan Fouts, was promoted to FA in 2025, and its approved version had an embedded honors list —Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored the section as it existed upon promotion for Fouts. More of the major awards (Walter Camp, etc) were kept in prose, which seemed to be the largest issue with the original comment. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the examples given are for professional athletes who have played long, distinguished careers. Daniels has played one season, and his list of accomplishments is longer than Fouts. Most of his college accomplishments, especially school-specific records, aren't notable and are only present due to WP:RECENTISM. Another example, "Offensive Rookie of the Month (September 2024)" and "NFC Offensive Player of the Week (2024: Week 3)" are not even awards. I'd be fine with standard, notable recognitions, but recognition that requires something like four qualifiers (Conference, Off/Def, Year, Week) are not notable for a standalone list in an article and are clearly easier to just mention in the body of the text. "Daniels did XY&Z, earning Offensive Rookie of the Month for September". "Most touchdown passes in the fourth quarter or overtime in a rookie season: 12" is not a real record. Its a sports almanac type achievement. These things should be removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A simple, objective, and fair cutoff is to only include those that can be cited to independent secondary sources. As stated before, this also mitigates the promo concerns. Left guide (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of this is supported by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Brett Favre and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice (2nd nomination), where the strong consensus was that "lists of ancillary statistics, record, and awards" generally aren't notable for NFL players. We also need to consider lasting coverage, and whether discussion of some of these specialized recognitions are really going to be reported on in 10 years. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any issue with the current amount of achievements in prose, or is it simply the dedicated section that promotes adding the more minor ones? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The minor "achievements" imho are often easily added to the prose. As you said, maybe listing 7 straight awards isn't great, but weekly recognitions or school records could very easily be added to the prose. As you reduce this dedicated section down, then it becomes more apparent that it likely isn't warranted. Take a look at Brett Favre, as admittedly not amazing example. But one of the most accomplished QBs in NFL history, his achievements section has nothing about college, and most of it is actually been converted to prose. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, are you against such a section existing at all? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against a list-based section of achievements, especially for an NFL player who has only played one season. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not go to off-topic, but would converting the "Honors and awards" section on Farve's article to prose be an ideal solution? Having similar information scattered throughout the article (most readers skim) is my only gripe with omitting them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident93 I am not opposed to short lists of accomplishments. But note, Favre's list is all massively notable accomplishments, such as MVPs, All-Time Teams, Hall of Fames, etc. Favre's article is an absolute mess, so not saying its a good example. Just trying to show the dichotomy here of what is causing me consternation. An article I wrote, Jordan Love, I think is the example of what I am conveying. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfDs were for standalone lists, when smaller ones can instead be incorporated into bios as embedded lists. Yes, do leave out contrived "ESPN Stats" like "Highest passer rating with 4+ touchdown passes and 250+ passing yards by half-time of an NFL game". But college honors like SEC Offensive Player of the Year get mentioned months after the award is issued,[9][10] and mention seems WP:DUE. —Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, removing the sports almanac records, the school-specific records, etc makes the list really small, thus questioning whether it is warranted at this time. I will note that the consensus was that these types of lists, whether standalone or not, encourage additions of every random thing and make updating extremely difficult. would note that its unlikely weekly-recognitions are ever notable, long-term. Even monthly recognitions are questionable. That's why I say some of these should just be removed, some should be added to the prose, and then what is left, depending on size, could remain as a list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement that there should be selection criteria for which awards bear mentioning. I just think awards and accolades are often important enough to repeat in a separate section, like with actors, e.g. Vivien Leigh § Credits and accolades —Bagumba (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly all stats are contrived to some degree since they're all social constructs, and there's no objective black-and-white definition of what's a "record", let alone what's "significant". A team or league can go through a past game/season/career log and create any "record" they want to promote a player. That's why I'm a big advocate of only calling out those cited to independent secondary sources, because virtually any other cutoff is going to be arbitrary. As an example, a recent version included these "records" sourced only to the LSU website:

LSU career quarterback rushing yards: 2,019
LSU single-season total yards: 4,946 (2023)
LSU single-season quarterback rushing yards: 1,134 (2023)
LSU single-season quarterback rushing touchdowns: 11 (2022)

If nobody (in the world of reliable sources) outside of LSU cares about these, why should Wikipedia? Left guide (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd require that secondary sourcing exists (though in a basketball FAC many years ago, nobody else seemed to care that a bio was full of database stats trivia). —Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of records only cited to primary non-independent sources is often argued only on the basis of subjective importance and editors' personal feelings/opinions which is counter to WP:WEIGHT policy clause:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Left guide (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree completely that primary-sourced awards/honors/records implies they weren't noteworthy enough to warrant being mentioned by secondary sources. However, I still believe a dedicated section for the ones that remain serves a purpose per MOS:EMBED. Most readers skim articles and I don't see how it's any different than an infobox, unless the argument is the information then gets repeated thrice and that's too much. The sections exist in some other FAs, including at the time of promotion, so it seems more like personal style than a clear guideline/policy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This will hit the three-week mark tomorrow and doesn't have a single commentary or support for promotion. If there isn't significant progress over the next few days, I'm afraid this is at the risk of archival. FrB.TG (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a post on WT:NFL. I didn't prior because I wanted non-NFL editors to review the page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More than four weeks in and no supports. This has very much stalled, so I afraid that I will be archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

I am not an NFL editor but I do have a good bit of college football experience - comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"considered a dual-threat player for the position" → "considered a dual-threat player" since the link indicates that "dual-threat" applies to QBs only
"winning the 2023 Heisman Trophy" → present tense sounds odd to me here, I would recommend making this a new sentence starting "He won the..."
"The season also saw him" → this reads awkwardly to me - I would reword this last sentence (and perhaps give a touch more context as to why this is important)

Early life

"his freshman year" → recommend link to Freshman and removing link from later in this paragraph
"Daniels, initially needing a medical note to play due" → as above, present tense sounds odd to me here - recommend "Daniels initially needed ... to play since he was considered undersized ... " and then start the next sentence "He started on Cajon's ... and led them to ... " or something similar.
"his right throwing hand" → implies he had two throwing hands
"as a senior in 2018" → move to end of sentence
"He was named the men's recipient" → "He was the men's recipient" for brevity
"passed for a game-winning touchdown" → "threw the..."

College career

I think you can remove the link to "freshman" since it's already covered in "Early life"
"Daniels earned Pac-12 offensive player" → recommend specifying "Pac-12 Conference" on first mention
"81–yard" → I believe a hyphen is correct here, "81-yard"
I think there is too much detail in the caption in this section since all of it is given in the text anyway. I'd go with "Daniels (center, No. 5) playing for Arizona State against Oregon in 2019" or something like that
I don't think "ESPN" needs italics here
"and the team to an appearance" → I would go for "and led the team", I don't think it's too repetitive
"his mother Regina" → "Daniels' mother Regina" since Daniels is not mentioned in that sentence
Are there any 2022 regular-season details worth mentioning? The LSU section skips from "he won the starting job in camp" to "they played in the SEC championship"
"He returned for the 2023 Citrus Bowl" → would recommend piping the link to display only "Citrus Bowl" since "2023" will throw off non-CFB-oriented readers
"catching a touchdown pass thrown" → change to past tense
"and voted the team's most" → and was voted
"becoming the first player" → ditto with tense
"For the season, Daniels threw for 40 touchdowns and rushed for 10, led the NCAA with nearly 5,000 total yards, and set the FBS single-season passer rating record." → uncited
"the 2023 Heisman Trophy ~~award~~"

Professional career

"quarterbacks (QB) taken" → abbreviation seems very out of place here
remove link to "offseason" as it's already linked
"with his first win occurring" → "with" sounds odd to me here, ditto present tense issue
"Daniels finished the regular season setting Commanders" → present tense, perhaps "having set"?
"with five of them occurring in the final" → recommend semicolon and reword, rather than just "with... being..."
"with Daniels voted to the" → reword to avoid "with"
"with him garnering some votes for the" → recommend reword here too

Player profile

No notes.

Personal life

"and pursued a Master of Liberal Arts degree at LSU" → did he graduate from LSU?

That's all from me, most of my issues are with wording and quality of the writing. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All comments have been addressed, hopefully they suffice. I added his 2022 overtime run (and 2PC) to win against Alabama, but there could probably be more included without going too much detail if needed. And as far as I'm aware, he did not graduate from LSU (wasn't listed in any commencement booklet) and only has a degree from Arizona State. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be wise to include details on his college seasons since "comprehensiveness" is an FA criteria - skipping over noteworthy stuff that happened during his LSU seasons seems to fall short of this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could add something he did from pretty much any game, but at what point would prose become nothing more than career gamelogs? Having clear notability cutoff guidelines would help greatly here, such as having to score three touchdowns or gain 400 total yards. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't implement arbitrary cutoffs based on yards and touchdowns; that's not how Wikipedia is meant to operate. We should instead remain focused on the WP:WEIGHT of coverage in sources. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, but some player articles just feature game by game updates akin to WP:PROSELINE. Articles that are mainly about Daniels are easy to include, but what about ones where he passed for four touchdowns but was only mentioned once? I've always leaned towards excluding examples like that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: should all of his Player of the Week honors be added to prose? Not so much as to give weight to the award itself, but rather his performance for the games are clearly noteworthy in some way. I'll try to find independent coverage to avoid WP:PROMO if possible. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, primary sources are allowed for uncontroversial facts. This article doesn't violate any of the five points at WP:PROMO. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FAs are stricter on their inclusion, which is understandable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily true. The Fouts FA linked in this discussion has primary sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: Are you in agreement? It would be better to find secondary sources regarding his performances in those games that maybe don't necessarily state he won a POTW award. Basically what I'm asking is should that be specifically mentioned in prose for those cases, or is simply having a noteworthy game performance the important thing? This is where having a dedicated section for this sort of thing helps. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through

"team's coaches resigned or had been fired" → "resigned or were fired"
"He would lead the Tigers" → "He led the Tigers"
"behind Billy Cannon in 1959" → "after" makes much more sense to me here
"Additional honors won for the season include the" → "That season, he also won the" would be a much less wordy way to say the same thing
"end of a 46-yard rush in the first quarter" → "quarter" is linked here - this should be moved to its first mention in the college section
"he was later ruled out the rest of the game" → "ruled out for the rest of the game", I presume
"throwing a 52-yard" → switch present tense to past
"completion percentage (69%)" → completion percentage is given without the percent symbol in the college section but with the symbol here; doesn't matter which, but should be consistent (probably just add it in the college section since there are three instances in the pro section, all of which have the symbol present
"their first postseason win since 2005 in road victories" → win (singular) clashes with victories (plural)
"with him named the" → wording very awkward here. Recommend either a total rewrite or splitting the sentence right before this

Everything that caught my eye from my second read-through. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. I'll look to add to his 2022 section (the Ole Miss game is a good addition) if that's your remaining concern. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

@Gonzo fan2007, Left guide, HAL333, WikiOriginal-9, Bagumba, and PCN02WPS: Most major awards/achievements and missing noteworthy game performances (judged mostly by a player of the week award) are now included as prose, while previous claims cited by primary sources have either been replaced with secondary sourcing or removed if considered WP:PROMO if none could be found. The majority of comments and suggestions have been addressed, and I'd like to consolidate any remaining ones here as the above sections have gotten hard to navigate. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to have a "Pre-draft measurables" table, there needs to be some context around it. Again, take a look at Jordan Love and the possibility of just adding a section about the draft. Note, I am not convinced that the table is even needed, as the fact that his hands were almost 9.5 inches in span really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I would rather read a section about how scouts viewed him leading up to the draft, with commentary on how his measurables compared to other QBs (i.e. just knowing his height and weight doesn't mean much, but having commentary say that Daniels was small for a QB would be more helpful). The table by itself is just shortchanging the reader. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued against such a table existing myself, especially if a player was just measured and did not perform in any actual drills, but I felt as if it was the WP:SILENTCONSENSUS as drive-by editors continued to add it back and others didn't seem to back me up. How Daniels was viewed leading up to the draft is pretty much reflected in his playing profile in that section, but there could be some more added regarding his slender physique lending more than a few scouts/draft analysts to question if he could last in the NFL if that's what you mean. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 18 June 2025 [11].

Yoshi's New Island

Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's New Island is a 2014 platform game developed by Arzest and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS... Still.

Third time's the charm? After two previous nominations and a peer review in the middle, I firmly believe this article is finally ready for FA status. I've reached out to several editors involved in the second nomination to implement additional feedback beforehand, just to be safe. Of course, new editors and new feedback are always welcome and appreciated. Please note that no additional references have been added to the article since the most recent nomination, nor have any changes been made to existing references.

Courtesy pings to all editors who actively participated in the second nomination: @Thelifeofan413: @UpTheOctave!: @Vacant0: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Considering that issues that I've found in the previous FAC nomination and the feedback I've left on the article's talk page have been addressed, I'll support this hopefully final nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a source review in the coming days. @The Green Star Collector: I'd suggest asking fellow editors to review this nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I'll ping every other editor involved in the previous nominations one last time to see if there's anything I'm overlooking: @Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VentureBeat, Nintendo World Report, PC Magazine, Polgon, Joystiq, Shacknews, Eurogamer, Digital Trends, Kotaku, Siliconera, Nintendo Life, EGM, GameSpot, IGN, Famitsu, GamesRadar, The Observer, Edge, and Ars Technica are all high-quality reliable sources present across FAs.
TheGamer, however, is not a high-quality source and I recommend finding a replacement for it.
Why do you think Destructoid is high-quality in this case?
What is the reliability of inside-games.jp?

@Vacant0:

I'm seeing that News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable for TheGamer, with this particular article having been published in 2022 and updated in 2024. I've also found retrospective takes from Valnet's Screen Rant and Game Rant, though I can see that both publications fall into the same reliability category as TheGamer. I can remove the source if absolutely needed, though I haven't been able to locate a good replacement for it.
The author of the Destructoid review has been writing for the site since 2009 and was reviews director at the time of the review's publication. The other Destructoid source's author has written almost 1,500 articles for the site since 2015 as an editor-at-large.
The reliability of inside-games.jp is unclear.

(This is reiterating some of my responses to UpTheOctave!'s source review in the preceding nomination.) ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd then recommend removing TheGamer and inside-games.jp references from the article. I'll do a spotcheck by the end of the week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

Ref 1 done
Ref 3 done
Ref 8 done
Ref 9 done
Ref 10 mentions that you got 10 seconds to pick up Mario, I don't see a mention of 30 seconds (Ref 2 seems to mention this)
Ref 2 done
Ref 13 done
Ref 15 I don't see "For each flower collected in a level, one is added to the ring" being mentioned
Ref 16 done
Ref 17 done
Ref 15, 17 I don't see Super Yoshi being mentioned, though the rest is backed up by these sources
Ref 19 done
Ref 21 done
Ref 18 done

Development and release

Ref 27 done
Ref 13 done
Ref 31 done
Ref 26 done
Ref 29 done
Ref 32 done
Ref 33 done
Ref 35 done
Ref 42 done
Ref 44 done
Ref 2 done

Reception

Ref 45 done
Ref 47 done
Ref 5 done
Ref 2 done
Ref 50 done
Ref 17 done
Ref 49 done
Ref 30 done
Ref 51 done
Ref 54 done
Ref 46 done
Ref 53 done
Ref 30 done
Ref 54 done
Ref 2 done
Ref 17 done
Ref 1, 54 I don't see gyroscope being mentioned
Ref 18 done
Ref 51 done
Ref 55 done
Ref 58 done

Thank you for the source review, @Vacant0:

The Digital Trends ref does mention that stars can be "spent" to extend the amount of time you can be separated from Baby Mario (you can store up to 30), though I've swapped this out with ref 2 so it's less confusing.
I added a different Nintendo World Report ref for the flower ring info.
I added a booklet ref for the name of the Super Yoshi transformation.
I replaced "gyroscope controls" with "motion controls", since this is better reflected in refs 1 and 54.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's better. You should now remove TheGamer and inside-games.jp referecnes from the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My source review is done. Support on prose and sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I've forgot to mention that there should be consistency with the |publisher= parameter, some references use it, some don't (e.g. Ars Technica is owned by Conde Nast and it's not mentioned). You can also remove the parameter if you want. The style is also consistent, all references are written in sentence case. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the publisher from every citation. Going forward, I will omit this parameter for consistency. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

Regarding footnote Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island (Japanese: ヨッシー New アイランド, Hepburn: Yosshī Nyū Airando) - The "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" is confusing to me... they speak Japanese in Japan, not English. And when I run the first Japanese name thru Google Translate, it gives me the possessive: "Yoshi's New Island". Suggest either (a) drop the English name entirely from that footnote; or (b) provide a source that positively says that the Japanese name is _not_ possessive.

Mid-sentence citations: Yoshi's New Island is a platform game[1] with gameplay.... The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels,[1] for a total of 60 courses.... The superscript citations in middle of sentences is a bit ugly & intrusive. I don't think the WP MOS prohibits them, but - in my opinion - they interrupt the reading flow, and hence should not be used unless there is a compelling reason. I would expect them to be found only in the middle of sentences that are very contentious. Another: .... collected by jumping through a roulette ring,[3] which functions as the goal of most levels[13] and replaces the post-leve... Is there a strong reason you avoided putting those superscripts at the end of the sentences? Did some editor challenge those specific assertions that have the mid-sentence cites?

Cites in plot: . Moreover, it is revealed that "Mr. Pipe",[25] a moving Warp Pipe who supplied the ... I believe that WP generally discourages citations within a Plot section. Probably not a strong rule, but it is odd that the Plot section in this article is mostly free of cites, then - boom - there is one near the end.

As of when? The Lead says: The game has sold more than two million copies worldwide and... Statements like that alway make me suspicious ... when was that statement valid? See WP:As of. I see that the "Sales" section in the body correctly specifies an "as of" date.

That's all I have. Seems like a decent article. Noleander (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, @Noleander: I've done my part to address some of them:

My guess is that the "Known in Japan" part is just trying to find the closest Japanese → English translation. I've seen this in a few other articles, but I can remove it if needed.

If the source for this is giving the English phrase that Japanese speakers use (when they are required to identify the game in English) then the article should say exactly that; also: including the Japanese spelling of the game is making it hard for readers to understand that point. If that is the point. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and cut the "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" portion; the Japanese and Hepburn names will suffice. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try to include citations mid-sentence only if the information isn't supported by a citation at the end. I could try bundling them, though I find this makes it confusing which citation supports which piece of information and leads to clusters.

Mid-sentence cites are permitted in WP, so this is no reason to oppose FA. But it is a balancing act the editor must perform: balancing flow/readability vs citation clarity. Very few readers will scrutinize the cites, but all readers will read the sentence. When I do that balance, the conclusion is to favor readability. I don't understand what you mean by "I could try bundling them ..." ... the article already has many sentences that end with 2 or 3 superscripts, such as ... that the platforming was rarely difficult.[8][17][50] Can that approach be used to eliminate the mid-sentence superscripts? If you want to help the reader know which specific fact is supported by the source, you can put that in the citation. e.g. "Smith, 2015, "New game arrives" page 14. Game rating is 82.5 In this example, you add the specific fact (rating is 82.5) at the end of the citation. That would only be required in the handful of mid-sentence cites that you move to the end of the sentence, not all cites. Again, mid-sentence cites are no reason to Oppose for FA .... I'm merely suggesting how to improve reader's flow. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander: Apologies for my late response, but I was actually able to cut or bundle quite a few of these citations in the gameplay and development/release sections while ensuring every statement is still supported. If you wanted to take another look over, that would be much appreciated. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, Mr. Pipe's name is never actually mentioned anywhere in the game, so I would recommend including just this one reference in the plot section.
Specified the relevant year for the statement about the game selling two million copies.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Green Star Collector: Replied above, below specific topics. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Star Collector, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... some more comments added by Noleander 25 April 2025:

Terminology: The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels, for a total of 60 courses. I gather the terms "course" & "level" are synonyms? I believe "level" is more common, especially in US. Consider using "level" exclusively in the article, so as to minimize confusion to readers unfamiliar with gaming.

Trim unneeded words: Much like that of its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... Consider Like its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... or Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ...

No need to identify source in Lead: According to producer Takashi Tezuka, a sequel to Yoshi's Island was chosen.. When I see a source explicitly named like that ("According to producer Takashi") it draws my attention, and makes me think the fact is contentious, e.g. a controversial opinion. I'm not sure there is any need to name the source in the Lead, which is supposed to be a very high overview. Maybe omit source from Lead, and put into the body text?

Include job title: The game was first announced by Satoru Iwata ... consider naming that persons title e.g. "producer Satoru Iwata ..."

To use a source within an FA nominated article, it is generally required that the nominator read all the sources (at least, the parts of the sources relevant to the article). A few of the sources are in Japanese (14, 43, 47). Have you read those? If you cannot read Japanese, perhaps you can post a query at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles asking if it is okay to rely on the translated versions of those sources?

Categories: They are appropriate & alphabetized.

External links: "US official site" external link appears to have a dead URL: https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/yoshis-new-island-3ds/ That is not permitted by WP:ELDEAD. The archived version of the "US official site" is still of interest, but it would have to be in a footnote or someplace less conspicuous.

Ditto for this external link: https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/yoshis-new-island-3ds

Wording second to last ... consider next to last ... so fast readers don't read it as "second"

Image free-use: The article has only two images; both are copyright, and both have "fair use" justifications that seem satisfactory (but I am not a copyright expert)

Leaning 'Support'. @The Green Star Collector: after you've addressed/resolved the above items, notify me and I can make another pass. Note that some of the above are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander: Most of your recent suggestions should now be addressed. I feel sufficiently confident in my understanding of the Japanese articles, at least the parts that are relevant to this article. With regard to the dead external links, should the archived versions also be removed or simply relocated? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think those dead archive links are historically valuable. Just try keeping them in the article but hide them in a footnote. Maybe a footnote at the end of the some other external link. Noleander (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Noleander (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Image placement, ALT and rationales seem OK. I see spotchecking was done above. I'll disclaim that I am relying heavily on WP:VGRS for the sources now: Are Chris Carter and Andriessen, CJ from Destructoid and Klepek, Patrick from Giant Bomb reliable sources? Same for Slant Magazine. Siliconera apparently is only barely acceptable as a source, so probably unsuitable for FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The author of the Destructoid review was the site's reviews director at the time of publication, while the author of the other Destructoid article was an editor-at-large. Likewise, Klepek was a news editor for Giant Bomb, and his name even redirects to Wikipedia's article for the site. LeChevallier authored more than 200 articles for Slant Magazine between 2011 and 2015, though I can remove this source if absolutely necessary. I've also removed the Siliconera citations wherever possible, though we do still have to rely on a few for the name of the art director as well as some key sales info. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't mean to bother you, but are you satisfied with the above response, and is there anything else you wished to add? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's fine now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article needs a copy edit. Even in the lead, there are confusing elements, such as:
- "to safely transport the infant Mario across the island in a series of levels ~~while escorting him across the island~~ to his brother, Luigi." - you're already transporting Mario, why repeat it with the word 'escorting'
- "A sequel to Yoshi's Island was chosen rather than a follow-up to Yoshi's Story due..." - chosen by whom?
- "neutral opinions on its aesthetics and level design" - I assume you mean mixed opinions. Reviews would be boring if they just state everything is "OK".
  - hahnch e n 16:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahnchen: I've gone ahead and made some copy edits throughout the article. As for the suggestions for the lede:

Rephrased the objective of the game to safely transport the infant Mario to his brother Luigi by completing a series of levels across the island.
It's somewhat unclear who chose this. Producer Takahashi Tezuka stated that we thought it would be the perfect choice for a new Yoshi action game, though I'm unsure whether this refers to just him, a portion of the development team, the whole development team, etc.
I've changed "neutral" to "divided", as I would strongly prefer not to use the word "mixed" twice in one sentence.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Discussion has stalled with limited support to promote. Unless that changes in the next few days the nomination is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: @RoySmith: Don't mean to pester anyone, but it sounds like this is your last opportunity to throw in feedback, a support vote, an oppose vote, etc.

@Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: @RoySmith: Don't mean to pester anyone, but it sounds like this is your last opportunity to throw in feedback, a support vote, an oppose vote, etc. Repeating the ping - they don't work if you don't sign them. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I position my section? Above or below the Coord note - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am stacked at work and with other activities at the moment, so won't have the opportunity to comment on this nom. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was pinged because of my peer review? I did a quick scan and see that many of the issues I raised at PR have been addressed, but video games really aren't my thing, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of doing a full review. RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm swamped just now so unfortunately don't have time to contribute a review. Apologies! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't have time to give a new review, my support on referencing formatting and reliabilty still stands from last time. I agree with Vacant0 on all points, especially the removal of TheGamer sourcing. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cukie Gherkin

Will be contributing comments here soon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cukie Gherkin. Nudge! :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just waiting for Jenhawk to do a prose check, though it seems like she's finished, so I'll do my review tonight. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cukie Gherkin: Thank you for your feedback; I was able to implement all of it. As mentioned, I've also tried to implement some of Jenhawk's suggestions while preserving accuracy. (Players don't "choose" a Yoshi, for instance; the color of their character is based on a constant rotation.) Let me know if you have anything else. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Plot section suggestions have been implemented. Your reasoning for the removal of the sentence about Mr. Pipe seems reasonable. I still feel that "incorrectly believed to be their parents" is clearer wording, especially to readers who are unfamiliar about the process of storks delivering babies. Furthermore, "the wrong parents" might suggest that the couple are still parents, which I do not believe is the case. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: I was able to implement nearly all of your feedback for the development/release and reception sections. As for the 3D visuals, Culafi appears to be specifically referring to the background and enemy designs; his exact wording is that whoever designed the visuals knows how to make those 3DS textures sing. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing other comments as well as the changes made, I'm inclined to lend my support for this article becoming featured status. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

'Friendly' can be dropped, as the reader can infer the friendliness of the dinosaur based on them being the protagonist and protecting a baby. Could just as well say "controlling dinosaurs known as Yoshis".

Gameplay

Same beef re: 'friendly'
'Evil' can probably be dropped, as readers can intuit that Kamek is bad
I believe it may work better to explain what stars are following the 10—30 seconds sentence, as it more immediately explains why it works like this.

Plot

I believe that it should be mentioned that the Yoshis were responsible for helping Baby Mario reach the stork and Baby Luigi in the prior game. This both makes the connection of Yoshi in this story clearer and sets up mention of the reunion.
I have to agree that, while it's mildly clearer to say "to a couple in the Mushroom Kingdom incorrectly believed to be their parents," I don't know that it's really needed. I think that "to the wrong parents" gets across adequately that the stork's delivery was due to believing they were the parents.
"but they are ambushed by the evil wizard Kamek" Two points: I think it reads better as "is ambushed by", making it about the stork being ambushed rather than the stork and the babies, who are passive participants in this scene. Second point is that, like in the Gameplay section, there's no need to say evil, as anyone will agree that kidnapping babies is pretty classically evil!
I question if "Mr. Pipe" is worth mentioning. Mentioning him here implies that this is an important detail, but he's not mentioned in the plot section, nor is his gameplay function mentioned earlier.

Development and release

The second instance of "Nintendo announced" could be changed to "Nintendo revealed" to reduce repetition
Perhaps consider "published by Nintendo in 2014" and just say the month/date releases after? I.e., "Yoshi's New Island was published by Nintendo in 2014, and released in North America and Europe on March 14, in Australia the following day, and in Japan on July 24."

Reception

I would suggest picking only one of the NWR reviews or replace both with a different source to keep the reviews in the table down to 10.
"Additionally, Alex Culafi of Nintendo World Report and Kathryn Bailey of GamesRadar+ noted nostalgia in the game's sound effects and level design" Honestly, I feel like this may need some expanding upon; it sounds like they are feeling especially nostalgic, but in the article, Culafi states that t his nostalgia eventually wears off. I think Culafi's sentiments should be acknowledged. Especially with Edge's line, it almost implies that Culafi's comments don't go beyond simply acknowledging the nostalgia.
When it says "3D visuals," is this referring to 3D models or the 3DS' 3D gimmick?
"Critics were also divided on the game's level design" Placed after the graphics, this feels like it's implying that critics were divided on the look of the game, when they seemed to hold a consensus on the graphics being poor and are internally consistent on their opinions.
"Although Kyle Orland referred to the Eggdozer mechanic as a promising idea," Rephrase to say "Kyle Orland found the Eggdozer mechanic promising,"
Consider including that Yoshi's New Island is the lowest-ranked Yoshi's Island game on both lists.

Jenhawk777

Will be contributing a prose and copy edit review - soon. Please don't archive yet! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a few unexpected minutes right now! So, Yoshi's New Island is a platform game with gameplay similar to that of the other Yoshi's Island games, revolving around one of multiple friendly dinosaurs known as Yoshis needing to reach the goal at the end of each level while protecting an infant Mario from enemies like Shy Guys and other obstacles. Long and awkward. How about: "Yoshi's New Island is a platform game similar to its predecessors. Players choose a friendly dinosaur, known as a Yoshi, to protect infant Mario from enemies, overcome obstacles and reach each level's goal." Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the optional levels in each world is unlocked by obtaining every collectible and finishing with full health in each level of that world, while the other is unlocked after 30 medals are collected by jumping through a roulette ring,[3] which functions as the goal of most levels and replaces the post-level minigames from the previous Yoshi's Island installments. I got lost in the middle of this sentence... I am unfamiliar with this game and could not figure out what this is describing. Please clarify - with separate sentences. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other sections revolve around the use of a power-up known as the Yoshi Star, which briefly transforms Yoshi into Super Yoshi,[18] providing temporary invincibility and enabling Yoshi to travel at high speeds, as well as run up walls and across ceilings, for a short period of time.[16][19] That is a dangling sentence fragment at the end. How about a period after Super Yoshi [18]? Then perhaps use that fragment as the opening clause to the next sentence: "For a short period of time, Yoshi has invincibility, can travel at high speeds, and run up walls and across ceilings." Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have time for today, but I will be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do a prose review, so if you could let me know when yours is finished, I'd like to do that in addition to double checking various bits and bobs - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cukie Gherkin I got little cooperation, so I think I am done. Perhaps you will have better luck than I did. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I just went ahead and copy-edited, cutting it by about half. Check to be sure there are no factual errors please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll ping you. They have not done all I asked - so far. No one likes having their text cut; copy-editing is difficult to accept, but necessary. We'll see what they do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

The third entry in the Yoshi's Island series, Yoshi's New Island had its development outsourced to Arzest, with some members having previously been involved in the development of the original Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Island DS Copy edit this down to: "Yoshi's New Island was outsourced to Arzest." The rest is unnecessary. It's in the rest of the paragraph.

From Arzest, Masahide Kobayashi directed the game, founder Naoto Ohshima served as a producer,[27][29] Masamichi Harada served as art director,[13] and Masayoshi Ishi composed the game's soundtrack.[30] Nintendo producer Takashi Tezuka had previously directed both Super Mario World and the original Yoshi's Island. Copy-edit: "Masahide Kobayashi directed, founder Naoto Ohshima was producer, Masamichi Harada was art director, and Masayoshi Ishi composed the soundtrack."

During an interview with Nintendo Life, Tezuka stated that a Yoshi's Island sequel was chosen over a Yoshi's Story successor due to being simpler in both gameplay and construction, as well as the former's hand-drawn art style being better suited for the Nintendo 3DS. Copy-edit: "Tezuka stated in an interview that a sequel was chosen due to Yoshi Island's simplicity of gameplay, construction and art style."

The use of oil paintings, watercolors, and crayon drawings for the game's aesthetics helped its graphical style retain what Tezuka described as the "warm and friendly vibe" of the original Yoshi's Island, as well as the "handicraft feel" the series had become known for. Grammar: don't end a sentence with a preposition. Be careful of verb tense. It's correct to switch between the past tense for discussion of the people, then to present tense for what the game does since it is still doing it, but that requires careful attention. Copy edit: "Graphics include oil paintings, watercolors, and crayon drawings thereby retaining the the "handicraft feel" the series has become known for and its "warm and friendly vibe".

During an interview with Nintendo World Report, Tezuka stated that Yoshi's New Island was developed in tandem with Yoshi's Woolly World, despite the latter title being developed by Good-Feel, and both games shared some level design staff. use Wikipedia's voice Copy-edit: "Yoshi's New Island was developed alongside Yoshi's Woolly World, sharing some design staff, despite Woolly World being developed by Good-Feel."

According to Tezuka, the concept of throwing giant eggs originated from the development team being interested in "creating something big and impactful".[29] Moreover, in the Nintendo Life interview, Tezuka stated that the game's levels were made easier in comparison to those of its predecessor, though the collectibles would be difficult and time-consuming enough to provide "a nice challenge for more experienced players" Copy edit: "The desire to create something big produced giant egg throwing, while levels were made easier, and gathering collectibles provided "a nice challenge for more experienced players"."

Last paragraph's copy-edit:

"First announced in April 2013, the game's name, a trailer and a demo were revealed in June 2013, and its release date was announced in January 2014. In early March of that year, a special edition Yoshi-themed Nintendo 3DS XL system was announced, and in a March 9th promotion event, Benjamin Stockham (About a Boy), Garrett Clayton (Teen Beach Movie), and Bella Thorne (Shake It Up), posed with the special edition system, throwing balloons containing green paint at a large egg. Yoshi's New Island, by Nintendo, was released in North America and Europe on March 14, 2014, in Australia on March 15, and in Japan on July 24, 2014."

I understand that copy-editing cuts text, and that we are all invested in our text, so it's common to find it hard to swallow. Trust me. I have been where you are; learning to never use two words where one will do improves writing no matter how skilled or experienced you are. This is a good thing. Edit out all repetition, unnecessary detail, and descriptive adjectives whose purpose is providing "color". I will wait on your response to do more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jenhawk777: Thank you for all of your suggestions thus far. I appreciate your revisions to the plot section, though I've updated it to add missing details or revise statements that were misleading or did not reflect the formal tone of Wikipedia. (For instance, it wouldn't make sense to a casual reader that Yoshi and Baby Mario travel to Baby Bowser's castle if it's not established that Bowser is an antagonist, and failing to mention the adult Bowser "warping through space and time" could lead readers to incorrectly assume that they exist in the same timeline.) I've gone ahead and made copyedits to the development and release section, albeit while trying to preserve active voice, particularly whenever something is announced by Nintendo. I anticipate any further feedback you or Cukie Gherkin can provide. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require a formal tone just an encyclopedic one which is best communicated in a concise and clear manner. Most writers have a problem with concise. For example, taking place immediately after the original game is the definition of sequel, so it's redundant. This: incorrectly believed to be their parents uses 6 words to replace the word "wrong". Intro's like Upon realizing this are implied by events and are therefore unnecessary, as are details like mid-flight and by taking turns escorting him across the island. Anyone inspired to play will find out details for themselves. Only main points are needed in a summary. I looked over the rest. I was truly wanting to support this nomination, but as it stands, I can't. I am disappointed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concision is definitely one of the main pillars of Wikipedia writing, but I think you misunderstand the difference between "concision" and "terseness". You cannot explain in two sentences something which needs five. Concision trumps prolixity, but clarity trumps brevity. To illustrate, I don't think "taking place immediately after the original game" is entirely redundant. The word really being stressed there is immediately, meaning there is little or no time between the entries, whereas a sequel in general can take place at any time after the first entry. Also, the detail about the couple "incorrectly believed to be their parents" could not be replaced by "wrong." That is necessary (or at least non-trivial) information to convey—it is a plot point in the story that is explained at no other point in the plot summary. ~~Furthermore, ending with a preposition, a point you raised, is, in this case, not incorrect, as it is part of a quote.~~I got this wrong. That's my fault. I thought it was part of a quote, but you had just quoted the article. However, I should comment that your fix does not address the ending of the sentence with a preposition as it would in academic writing. Rather, it should be written as "for which it had become known", not "which it had become known for". Again, sorry for the mixup! Now, I know I am not the nominator, and I am not trying to coax you into supporting this nomination (because it is ultimately up to you and your own interpretation), but the grounds upon which you seem to have opposed are shaky, to say the least. Nub098765 (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nub098765 This writer is wordy. So are you. So am I. We all need good copy-editing by a disinterested party. Terse often works quite well.

You say - not that Wikipedia says - "clarity trumps brevity", and while that isn't actually part of the MOS, it seems fair as far as it goes. It doesn't go far. Wikipedia makes it clear that the best and clearest writing uses the fewest unnecessary words. That's why FAC criteria includes "... without going into unnecessary detail." Is there unnecessary detail in this article? I say yes.

Your examples to the contrary don't seem valid. The internet defines sequel as "something that takes place after (follows), or as a result of, an earlier event." What you want to include after saying it's a sequel is literally the definition of sequel - which is redundant, by definition, since redundant refers to unnecessary repetition. Its immediacy does not impact anything one way or the other. That phrase mainly provides emotional "color", which is almost always a sign of unnecessary verbiage. This is an encyclopedia, not an advert.

How is "incorrectly believed to be their parents" not the same as "wrong parents"? "Incorrect" is defined using the word "wrong". Yes, it is a plot point, and I did not suggest excluding it. I only suggested making it shorter.

If this is your version of coaxing, I wonder how you define opposition! But I have not opposed this nomination. I think it is not yet representative of Wikipedia's best, but I don't think it's far from it. I do think it's pretty easy to fix, but I haven't gotten cooperation, so I have not supported it. This is a FAC nomination. That means both clear AND concise. That seems like pretty solid ground to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from. We are all inherently wordy writers, and I'm not saying copyediting is a bad thing (hell, most of my work on this site has involved trimming down wordy articles). But the way you are going about this doesn't seem the best.

Clarity does trump brevity. We obviously shouldn't give weight to every small detail about a subject, but we need to present the information, above all else, clearly. We are here for the reader's entertainment and education, not so we can get an article under 1000 words. Wikipedia actually does say this; see WP:5C. The best and clearest writing does use the fewest unnecessary words. And this article might have many unnecessary words (I haven't checked). But "unnecessary" doesn't apply to words or clauses that add to the article one way or the other. If it adds something to the article, it cannot be redundant, but it might be WP:UNDUE.

Immediacy does actually change a lot. Usually, sequels take place months, years, or even decades after the original entry. I'm not disputing that sequel means what you say it means; I'm disputing the idea that it just provides "color" to the text. Could it be removed if it doesn't really change anything? Sure. But immediacy can implicate many things beyond adding color to the article. Also, "immediately" isn't even an emotional adverb.

I misread your intent, and that is my fault. I thought you were trying to remove the whole clause. However, I still think your revision is incorrect—the couple is not the "wrong" set of parents (an inherently ambiguous and unhelpful description), they are seen as their parents, but aren't. It's not that they're not their parents, it's that people think they're their parents.

As for your opposition, you're correct, you never actually opposed the nomination. I presumed your opposition from "I was truly wanting to support this nomination, but as it stands, I can't. I am disappointed", which, in my mind, meant you opposed (or were going to oppose) the nomination, but I realize now that this is unfounded. I apologize for that.

You have gotten cooperation, though. The Green Star Collector has shown a great appreciation for your revisions but states that you cut out necessary information. You can copyedit, but you can't remove information that actually contributes to the article. They were clear in their reasoning, so you can't expect them to implement your every word into the article.

Ultimately, I appreciate what you're doing. Really. I love to see copyeditors streamlining prose like I do. But, as I said, clarity always trumps brevity. Nub098765 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nub098765 They made one change. In my own FAC nominees, that has never once been seen as sufficient cooperation to gain support. Has it been for you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my comments on your comments, I feel like there's issues with some of the suggestions you've made resulting in the loss of key information or changes the meaning of what's being cited. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have never nominated an FAC, but I'd imagine yes, it would, if I give sufficient and substantial reasoning why I opted not to change the text in that way. Wikipedia is all about consensus—either the nominator can implement the changes without pushback (because they see nothing wrong with it and therefore have come to a consensus with the other person that it warrants inclusion in the article), or the nominator can give a reason why they won't do that. Those are both forms of coöperation. Nub098765 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An aside by Cukie Gherkin

I feel like I should weigh in as someone who's gonna be doing a prose review and as someone who has played the game. For simplicity, I'll discuss each proposed green change here:

Looks fine
Looks fine
Looks fine
I feel like, since it's only one member whose past involvement was discussed, it makes sense to mention the past involvement of other staff members. A possible change would be to change the sentence to read: "with some members having previously been involved in the development of the original Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Island DS, including producer Takashi Tezuka."
The typo fix is valid, but you've misunderstood what the sentence is saying and loses a crucial detail. In the current sentence, it's being said that they chose to make a new Yoshi's Island instead of Yoshi's Story. It also does not explain why the art style is better, just that it is, whereas the current sentence states that they chose it in part because of how the art style translates to a 3DS screen.
This one feels a bit odd, as it reads like the article is claiming this of the art style and not Tezuka.
Seems fine, although I would sooner see the shared level design staff mentioned still.
I feel that these changes make it read awkwardly; easier in comparison to what? Also, I do not think that impactful is implied by big, so losing impactful removes context.

Just my two cents. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go with what Cukie and Nub say. There appears to be agreement that being more concise is also communicating less information that seems important to them to include. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. My objections weren't supported by the other two editors, so I probably shouldn't oppose, but since I did think there were problems and they were not addressed, I can't in good conscience support it either. The best I can do is not say anything at this point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 June 2025 [12].

All I Want Is Everything (Victorious song)

Nominator(s): Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song released for the Nickelodeon show Victorious. The track features Victoria Justice on vocals and references Michael Jackson and Madonna in its lyrics. The song peaked at number two on the US Billboard Kid Digital Song Sales chart. Any feedback would be appreciated. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the prose needs more work. For an example see "Michael Corcoran contributed as a producer and was mastered by Brian Gardner." This implies Corcoran was mastered, whatever that means. Graham Beards (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid Graham is right: this needs more work.

"by the Victorious cast": I have no idea what Victorious is, so it needs to be introduced
"a one-hour Victorious special": I still have no idea what Victorious is…
"It was written by Toby Gad and Lindy Robbins": the last "it" referred to is the album

This is just the opening paragraph, so it doesn't bode well for the rest. I think this needs a lot more work before coming to FAC. Can I suggest you withdraw this and work on it a little more before returning? - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I agree with the above comments. I do not think that this article is ready for a FAC. Here are some additional comments to hopefully help improve the article further:

I'd recommend using the Locked Up! (Victorious episode) redirect rather than the more general List of Victorious episodes link. The redirect puts readers in the exact spot about this particular episode so it would be more helpful.
The producers should be named in the lead.
The phrase "officially released" is used both in the lead and the article. It is unnecessary to clarify that it was officially released as there is not indication that this song was unofficially released or leaked prior to this.
In the "Background and release" section, there should be a descriptor for Tori Vega, as readers may be unfamiliar with the character. It is the same way that Victorious needs a introduction in the lead. I would also recommend linking Tori Vega.
How does this song feature in the episode? The article provides a short summary of the episode, but does not mention how this song factors in.
Terms like mastering and mixing should be linked as some readers may be unfamiliar with this type of music jargon.
The following sentence does not accurately reflect the source: (Mike Hess for Celebuzz opined that the song has "hype and intrigue" for fans of the show.) The source says that there was "hype and intrigue" because of the music video's cliffhanger. The sentence in the article ties this "hype and intrigue" to the song itself, which is not true.
How are Cambio.com and Celebuzz high-quality sources that would be appropriate for a potential FA? Just to be clear, I am not saying that these sources are bad. I am just unfamiliar with them.

Unfortunately, I also oppose based on the prose. I would also recommend withdrawing this FAC, and I would suggest going through the peer review process and looking through the FAs on songs to get a better feel for the type of prose expected for this kind of article. Apologies for the oppose, and best of luck with the article moving forward. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- based on the above this appears under prepared for FAC so I'm going to archive it; Aoba has neatly summarised the next steps I'd be recommending. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 June 2025 [13].

Wonder Woman (2017 film)

Nominator(s): Lililolol (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a film adapting the story of a comic book character of the same name. The film is the fourth installment in the DC Extended Universe franchise and is considered one of the highest-grossing films of 2017.Lililolol (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose unfortunately. on a quick view i see a citation needed tag and some extremely long paragraphs. does the "Critical response" section need to be as long as it is? why are "Feminist critiques" and "Jewish Identity and Israel representation" so long? i also take note of sources such as Metro, Cinemablend.com, TheLocationGuide.com and several others of questionable reliability. "further reading" sections are generally discouraged; high-quality sources when possible should be used within the article, and i see four excellent scholarly refs that probably should be used within the article. 750 h+ 09:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by MSincccc As noted by 750 above, there’s a “citation needed” tag in the article. The Cast section could be trimmed further to avoid unnecessary detail. There’s also an instance of citation overkill (e.g. five sources for a single tracking figure). The Release section is overloaded with minor trivia. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can fix the problems! Lililolol (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I would appreciate an explanation of "overloaded with minor trivia" so I can remove it. Lililolol (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few instances of details which could be left out or trimmed:

Estimates for the number the film needed to surpass internationally in order to cover its production and promotional costs and break even ranged from $300 million[179] to $460 million.[180]
It was the biggest single-day gross for a woman-directed film, ahead of the $35.9 million opening Friday of Catherine Hardwicke's Twilight in 2008 and the biggest opening day for a woman-led comic book superhero film, ahead of Ghost in the Shell ($7 million).[186] This included $11 million it made from Thursday previews, also the best start for a film directed by a woman, surpassing Fifty Shades of Grey's $8.6 million which was directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson and the third-biggest of the year, behind Beauty and the Beast and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Of that, $1.5 million came from IMAX screenings.[187][188]
Earning a total of $103.3 million...surpassing Frozen (2013).[200][201][202]
The film opened in its last market, Japan, on August 25 and debuted to $3.4 million, helping the international gross cross the $400 million mark.[208] The biggest markets of Wonder Woman outside North America are China (US$90 million) followed by Brazil (US$34 million), UK (US$28 million), Australia ($23 million) and Mexico ($22 million).[209]

MSincccc (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest trimming the "Feminist critiques" and "Jewish Identity and Israel representation"? I think they are as trimmed as possible, but maybe you have other ideas? Lililolol (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the release; how are they a "minor trivia"? Lililolol (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm biased, but I think the article can easily pass FA with some feedback. This is my first FA nomination, is it like GA? The reviewer points out flaws, and the nominator fixes them, right? Lililolol (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for intruding on this conversation, but I just want to point out that the FAC process is different from a GAN. While a GAN is handled by a single reviewer, a FAC is reviewed by multiple editors until a consensus is reached. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the FAC standards are considerably higher than GAN. Based on the above I'm going to archive this so improvements can take place away from the pressure of the FAC process. I know this went through PR but there was little in the way of commentary; you could try that again, or you might even be better served by seeking a mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2025 [14].

Celestica (song)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Celestica" was the first Crystal Castles song to differ from their usual aggressive noisy sound. It is definitely one of the most, if not the most beautifully sounding track by the band, and also a fan favorite. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I do not have the time to do a full review. I have included some comments based on my read-through of the article below to hopefully help with this FAC:

Everyone in the “Personnel” section should also be represented in the prose. For instance, Nilesh Patel is only mentioned in that section, but not discussed in the prose.
- Done
Did the liner notes or any of the sources say where this song in particular was recorded, mixed, or mastered?
- Unfortunately not.
  - Understandable. Thank you for checking. I have run into situations where the liner notes only credit the songwriters and producers so I understand there are situations where further information is just not available. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also include in the prose that the digital single and EP included other songs, “Insectica”, “Seed”, and “Mother Knows Best”.
- Done
The infobox and the prose in the article say that Crystal Castles wrote the song, but the “Personnel” section only credits lyrics to Alice Glass. The infobox and the prose make it seem like Glass and Kath wrote the song together.
- Fixed
The lead should have a sentence on who wrote and produced the song. I would also include the record companies in the prose of the lead.
- Done
I would clarify when the BBC Radio 1 premiere happened as it is not immediately clear in the lead. Maybe something like the following: (Polydor Records released it as the album’s third song on April 16, 2010, a day after its premiere on BBC Radio 1). I only used Polydor here as the article says that is the record label that released the song as a single with the other labels releasing the other versions.
- Done
I think that it would be better to have the music video have its own sentence in the lead.
- Done
This part, Critics cited the song as a shift from Crystal Castles' usual sound, would benefit from further clarification. I would briefly clarify the duo’s “usual sound” as it is unclear in the current wording. The same goes for the audio caption.
- Done
While I understand what you mean by this part in the lead, presenting a pop sound and resembling shoegaze, I think that it could be worded better.
- Done
I would avoid passive tense as done in this part of the lead, It was considered one of the best songs of the year by NME, which could be reworded to something like the following, NME considered it one of the best songs of the year. Another instance of this is this part later in the article, and it was considered one of Crystal Castles' ten best songs until then by Beauchemin.
- Done
I would encourage you to be mindful of repetition and to avoid having the same word for two sentences in a row. I noticed this example is the following, (when compared to their other songs) and (Larry Fitzmaurice of Pitchfork compared it), which has “compared” used for two sentences in a row.
- Done
I would be consistent with how the possessive apostrophe is represented. In the lead, there is Crystal Castles', but in the article, there is Alice Glass's. Be consistent on whether s’ or s’s is used.
- Done
I am not sure what this part, interacting in London's Abney Park Cemetery, means. What is meant by “interacting”?
- Source says "scrapping about", and I wasn't sure how to make it more encyclopedic. I've edited it.
  - That is understandable. Thank you for the clarification. The revised wording should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the "Release and reception" section seems rather scattershot to me. I would refer to the following essay (WP:RECEPTION) to get ideas on how to better structure this paragraph.
- This is always a hard point for me, but I've tried my best.
  - To be fair, I think that a lot of editors struggle with this type of section. I know that I do. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The duo have performed this song live, as cited in this article, so that information should be included in the article. I would recommend looking for further sources about this.
- Done
Have you looked for any print publications about this song? I found the following sources on Newspapers.com: The Indepenent, The Bangor Daily News, and The Toronto Star. I would encourage you to look for further sources as I believe that are more even on just Newspapers.com to consider.
- I did look on archive.org. I went on the Wikipedia Library and didn't find Newspapers.com, though I now discovered that I just had to apply for it, so now I wait. Thank you for the sources though!
  - That is understandable. It honestly took me years to even be aware of the Wikipedia Library in the first place. I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have added some of those sources.
      - Thank you for the update and for taking the time to do this. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for not being able to do a full review, but I hope that this still helps. Best of luck with the FAC, and congrats on your recent FA promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you! I have added some sources. Skyshiftertalk 16:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

Hi! I've been browsing through the FACs intermittently for the past few weeks or so, and this one caught my eye. I love this song and figured it'd be a great way to get back into editing (or at least reviewing/helping out). Leaving a few thoughts below for now, but I'm aiming to leave a more thorough review by sometime tomorrow. Feel free to ping me if I haven't followed up by EOD. joeyquism (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: thank you! I have responded so far. Skyshiftertalk 16:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter: Sorry for the extremely delayed reply! I quite honestly did not find anything else in need of much revision; the article is in great shape as it stands right now. Unfortunate that the interview can't be sourced, but nevertheless I am glad to support here. :) joeyquism (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I'm not entirely sure about the current phrasing of "The song was written by members Ethan Kath and Alice Glass, with Kath producing it". The "it" feels a bit clunky to me, though that may just be my inner pedant talking again. Feel free to ignore, but perhaps something like "The song was written by Ethan Kath and Alice Glass, with production handled by Kath" might read a bit more smoothly?
- Done

Background

Would it be possible to briefly clarify what Celestica is in the sentence, "According to Kath, the track was inspired by a suicide at the Celestica factories in Canada…"? I think adding a short clause explaining the company's function could help provide useful context for readers. Also, I've been trying to track down the origin of this clip without much luck, which is a shame, as it would make for a compelling citation, especially if we could pinpoint the location of the factory and Celestica's role in the production process. If you happen to come across a source, that would be amazing, though of course no pressure if not.
- Added clarification. I didn't know of that interview, that's really interesting! Unfortunately, I do think that finding its origin would be difficult.

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support for promotion. If there isn't significant progress over the next few days, I'm afraid this is at the risk of archival. FrB.TG (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but while I realise this picked up a support six days ago, it seems to have stalled re progress towards a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive it. My boilerplate below on picking up reviewers may or may not be helpful for next time around. Bear in mind that the usual two-week hiatus will apply.

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

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2025 [15].

Ebezâde Abdullah Efendi Fountain

Nominator(s): Leo^talk 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I translated the article from trwiki, I think it meets the criteria. I'm waiting for your suggestions and comments. Leo^talk 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionel Cristiano: - Did you just translate the article, or have you checked the sources for accuracy, source-text integrity, and an absence of copyright violations? Hog Farm _Talk 03:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the article and checked it all. Leo^talk 05:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

All images need alt text.
All books should have ISBNs because some do already.
I think the PDF source should have page numbers.
The language the inscription is in should be added.
Hijri is overlinked.
In the notes it says, "The date (whatever year it is)", it should be "The year (whatever year it is)".
Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042 Done, but there is no definitive information about the ISBN numbers of the other books. Leo^talk 19:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leo, per the FAC instructions, could you avoid using graphics? They disproportionately overload the FAC bot, and can cause it to fall over. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I’m going to have to oppose, and I suggest you withdraw this to work on it a little more away from FAC.

The first sentence tells us three names (all of which include the word ‘fountain’) and then tells us that this is about a fountain
Who is Ebezâde Abdullah Efendi? A brief introduction would have stopped me clicking away to another page to find out
”Köstenceli al-Hajj Ismail Agha”: ditto
”It is located”: new paragraph needs to say what ‘it’ is (“The fountain is located”)
Are the bits underground intact or in pieces? This should probably be stated)
”still survive today”: not ‘today’. It should be ‘as at 2025’ or similar
Note B is unsupported, as is note E
İbrahim Hilmi Tanışık needs to be introduced
”abjad value” need an inline explanation
”Affan Egemen” needs an inline introduction

The text is also not the smoothest, but that’s more difficult to pin down to specific examples. I’m going to stop here, as there are too many issues in a relatively short space of time for FAC. These are examples only, and I’d rather not get stuck in a fix-loop that drags on: that’s a process that should be worked on away from FAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchroCat (talk • contribs)

Oppose - unfortunately I'd have to agree that the prose is not engaging at this time, and improvements are also needed in style - eg dimensions are missing conversions, links must be followed to understand prose, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm going to archive this and recommend that after improvements based on the above comments you try peer review and/or seeking a mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2025 [16].

Outram Park MRT station

Nominator(s): brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an MRT station on the Singapore MRT system that serves as a triple-line interchange of the East-West line, North East line and Thomson-East Coast lines. I should have addressed the issues in the first FA nom and did a PR to improve it further for the next FA nom. (i can say that this article has been changed for the better) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

I think there are too many images.
Online sources should be archived.
If passenger count is in the infobox it should be in the text.
"An array of faces depicted in the artwork." doesn't need a period.
The inflation/currency conversion estimate "(US$95 million in 2020)" needs a source.
Any information that could be added about the naming of the station?
Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042 some, if not most of the online sources are from NewspaperSG, which is an archive of newspaper sources in Singapore. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 15:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I was not aware of that, thanks for telling me. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem also i can’t find An array of faces depicted in the artwork. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 15:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an image alt text. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042 i should have addressed all the points already. i think the images should be fine and i can't find much info about station naming... so.,, brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 12:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arconning

Where are the sources for the translations of Outram into Tamil and Mandarin?
"In March 1996, Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan", "In March 1996, then-Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan"
"site of a prison complex", the prison complex could probably be named instead.
"10 metres away", conversion.
Wondering why the first mention of S. Iswaran is not wikilinked whilst the second mention is.
"Chinese opera and law or medicine", wikilink each.
Source 5: via... where?
- Here are my comments for now. Arconning (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should have addressed most of the points. not sure what it meant by law... could be law during colonial Singapore (which I couldn't find any articles). Also, via where in FN 5? brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh nvm i see it brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yup all of them should be done by now brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used for the Mandarin (should be used rather than Chinese) and Tamil translations of the station should be archived.

A lot of the online sources used that are not on NewspaperSG still require some archive links.

"In the near future, a new underpass was opened to allow commuters to cross Outram Road.", I'm not sure about this sentence, could you explain it a bit to me? Maybe it's on my part but would the "In the near future" be dated once this article turns older?

Arconning (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't say when, so i put it as in the near future brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should have dealt with the archives now yay =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008 Even if it's the near future, it's still grammatically incorrect and would be outdated in the near future as this is an encyclopedia. This could be worded as "As of [Month, YEAR], a new underpass is set to open to allow commuters to cross Outram Road." Arconning (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
changed. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning @Roysmith pinging =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will give my initial support. Arconning (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith pinging again brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 05:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what I'm being asked to do here. RoySmith (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

Just a nit from a problem I saw on a sister article at DYK: the lta.gov.sg website is one of those stupid designs which hides text under drop-down tabs. If you're citing something that's burried in one of those tabs, you can use the "at=" parameter to {{cite web}} to tell readers how to navigate to the right place.
- Added the parameter but not sure if it follows MoS.

And while I'm here, the pluralartmag.com citation has a bogus title ("Art in Transit | North East Line Tour | Art Outreach S'pore")
- Removed. =D

EG

It looks like this nom has stalled, and I don't want this to get archived, so I'll probably review this shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

k tysm brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, i've been busy all week. I'll look either tomorrow morning or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Para 1: "The station was included in the early plans of the MRT network in 1982; it was constructed as part of the Phase I MRT segment from Novena, and was completed in December 1987." - I would mention that it was only the EWL platforms that were opened at that date.

Done.

Also, there is no mention of when the NEL platforms opened, and the TEL platforms' opening date is in paragraph 2. I'd suggest putting the opening dates of all the different platforms in a single paragraph.

Added the NEL opening date (which was somehow missing in the article itself)

Para 2: "Before the line was planned to be extended to the World Trade Centre, the station was originally the terminus of the North East line." - I would mention that it was the southern or western terminus. The current phrasing makes it sound like the NEL has a single terminus.

Done.

Para 2: "which involved destroying existing platforms" - The body says that Shimizu-Dillingham-Koh Brothers Joint Venture had to "hack away the platforms to create openings in the [linkway] structure". This is not the same as destroying existing platforms; it's more like creating holes in existing platforms while leaving these platforms otherwise intact.

* Changed to partially destroying existing platforms while keeping them intact

Para 3: "Outram Park station contains three different artworks, Memories, Commuters and Mata-Mata." - "Different" isn't necessary here. Also, was this part of the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme?

* Done.

Construction and East–West line:

Para 1: "It was to be constructed as part of the Phase I MRT segment from Novena station, due to be completed by December 1987;" - The semicolon should be a period. Currently, the sentence is already pretty long, and the next part of the sentence already begins with a capital letter.
- Done.
Para 1: "it transits areas" - In this context, "transit" is usually used as a noun; "traverses" is more common as a verb.
- Done.
Para 2: "awarded to a Japanese joint venture Ohbayashi-Gumi/Okumura Corporation in November 1983" - If you use the indefinite article "a", you also need commas around the name of the actual joint venture, since this becomes a restrictive clause. I suggest either of the following:
- "awarded to Japanese joint venture Ohbayashi-Gumi/Okumura Corporation in November 1983"
  - Done.
- "awarded to a Japanese joint venture, Ohbayashi-Gumi/Okumura Corporation, in November 1983"
Para 2 is just a single sentence; I'd combine it with one of the other two paragraphs.
- Merged.
Para 3: "but were completed on 27 May 1985 instead." - Do we know why?
- Nope. The source provided doesn't provide any reason why.
Para 3: "The station was part of a line service that continuously ran from Yishun station in the north to Lakeside station in the west" - Instead of "line service", I'd suggest "route". One of the two words is redundant to the other, but "route" might clear up any ambiguity regarding lines or service.
- Done.

North East line:

Para 1: "Preliminary studies for the North East line (NEL) in 1986 included plans to terminate that line at Outram Park station rather than HarbourFront station" - Again, I'd clarify that this was the southern or western terminus.
- Changed to plans for Outram Park station being the southern terminus of the NEL
Para 1: "By 1995 the planned line had been extended to include an additional new stop" - The word "new" is unnecessary since the sentence implies that all of the NEL stations will be brand-new
- Done
Para 1: "In March 1996, then-Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan confirmed the station would interchange with the NEL" - There is a grammatical inconsistency here. The EWL would interchange (verb) with the NEL at this station, but the station would be an interchange (noun). The station itself does not interchange (verb) with a line.
- Changed to would serve the NEL as an interchange
Para 2: "The site of the NEL station was the site of Outram Prison" - You repeat "site" here. I would say "The NEL station was built on the site of Outram Prison".
- Done.
Para 3: "In order to link both the NEL and EWL stations" - "Both" is redundant here.
- Removed.
Para 3: Also, I'd link hoarding.
- Linked.
The article never actually mentions when the NEL station opened, despite it being in the infobox.
- Already addressed, see Lead.

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson–East Coast line:

Para 1: "On 29 August 2012, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced Outram Park station would interchange with the proposed Thomson line" - As mentioned above, stations act as interchanges (noun), where several lines interchange (verb) with each other. The word "interchanges", as a verb, is not applicable to stations; it's the lines which are doing the interchanging (verb).
- Changed to would be an interchange with the proposed Thomson line.
Para 1: "giving residents three years to vacate the premises to facilitate tunnelling works under the complex" - Actually, I would mention the tunneling works first (explaining the reason for the acquisition of the building). Then, I would mention that residents had 3 years to leave.
- Done.
Paras 2/3 - I would suggest rearranging this in chronological order; right now, it is very hard to follow these two paragraphs. Currently the narrative jumps from "the TEL is announced in August 2014" to "the TEL's planned opening was announced in March 2022" to "the TEL began construction in May 2014" to "a new underpass is scheduled to open in December 2022" to "the TEL's opening was announced in October 2022". In fact, you mention the opening date twice: in paragraph 2, when you mention that the line opened on 13 November 2022, and in paragraph 3, when it was announced that the station would open on that date (after you mentioned that it had already opened).
- Rearranged.
Para 2: "joining Marina Bay and Dhoby Ghaut stations" - I think you should reword this to explicitly say that these two are also triple-line interchanges.
- Reworded.
Para 3: "Construction was expected to start in the second quarter of 2014 with completion expected in 2021" - Was this delayed?
- Added another sentence taken from Orchard MRT station
Para 3: "As of December 2022, a new underpass is set to open to allow commuters to cross Outram Road." - Are there any updates on this? It's been at least two years.
- No updates.
Para 3: "it was announced the TEL platform would begin operations on 13 November that year" - Who made the announcement? Was it Iswaran?
- Should be the LTA according to FN 32, added.

Incidents:

This entire section seems like it may violate WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm not totally sure:
- For the first incident, it seems like the shooting (even if fatal) only disrupted a small part of the station for a few hours. Unless it had a significant long-term impact (e.g. a law was enacted, or it led to public outrage), I don't know if the shooting is noteworthy enough to be mentioned here.
- For the second incident, it might not be common in Singapore, but I know at least in NYC that inappropriate public urination happens all the time. Even if it is reported in the news, it's typically prosecuted as a misdemeanor (and thus falls under routine coverage).
  - Not really sure what to do with it, so I cross-referenced it to other MRT featured articles, and most of them either do not have them or they did but there was enough coverage. Removed.

Details:

Para 1: "second one being out-of-bounds" - I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that this level is outside fare control? Or is it not accessible to passengers?
- FN 24 says it is off-limits to the public. Changed to out-of-bounds to commuters
Para 1: "It is also connected to the EWL and TEL stations through two linkways" - Do these two linkways both lead to both stations, or is one of them connected to the EWL and the other to the TEL? Also, are the EWL and TEL directly connected to each other?
- The two linkways lead to both the EWL and TEL stations, which appear to be directly connected to each other. Further elaborated in article.
Actually, this article doesn't discuss the station design that much at all, as compared with other FAs like Dhoby Ghaut MRT station and Marina Bay MRT station.
- Wasn't able to find much sources.
Para 1: "Outram Park station is named 欧南园 in Chinese[44] and ஊட்ரம் பார்க் in Tamil.[45]" - Transliterations may be helpful here.

- Added transliterations

Para 2: "On the EWL, the station is located between Tanjong Pagar and Tiong Bahru stations" - What about the other lines?

More in a bit. Honestly, reading this article, the prose brings up a lot of unresolved questions; I'd look into other sources to see that you aren't missing anything significant. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Added,

Artworks

Para 1: "Three artwork are displayed at Outram Park station commissioned as part of the Art-in-Transit programme, a showcase of public artworks on the MRT network" - This should be "Three artworks".
- Added the s (lol i was blind /j)
Para 2: "Memories by Wang Lu Sheng, which uses bold colours inspired by the area's cultural heritage, especially Chinese culture." - This is a run-on sentence. I suggest "Memories by Wang Lu Sheng uses bold colours inspired by the area's cultural heritage, especially Chinese culture."
- Changed.
Para 3: "Teo also took the advice of architects and the project team. He initially was hesitant, but he valued their different perspectives and came to an understanding together, allowing the work to proceed." - I feel like this type of detail may be trivial, rather than being actually noteworthy. If you're working with a team, wouldn't you typically take advice, anyway?
- Removed.
Para 4: "Mata-Mata (stylised in lowercase)" - Why not just mata-mata?
~~There seems to be a lot less coverage of mata-mata than of the other two artworks.~~ This may not be immediately actionable per ZKang123's comment, so striking this. - EG

~~Unfortunately, reading through this article again I think I have to oppose this FAC.~~ This article is outright missing large amounts of details, such as information on the design, and there are inconsistencies in the amount of coverage given to specific details (e.g. next-station information is given only for one line). In addition, parts of the article such as the TEL section are hard to follow. While I'm willing to change my !vote if all the above issues can be changed in a reasonable time frame, these are things that should have been remedied before the FAC was initiated. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I forgot to mention that I recommend asking @ZKang123 for advice if you need it. He has done some outstanding work on MRT FAs, including the Dhoby Ghaut MRT station and Marina Bay MRT station FAs that I mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I actually did give my input in the peer review and already did my best to offer advice. To address some of the points above; unfortunately since the TEL is still relatively new, the TEL artwork doesnt have as much coverage. Ive tried to search around too, especially looking up the artist, but not as much. Also while theres a layout diagram available for Outram Park, its outdated especially with the new TEL station, and theres little information I can find about the new design layout. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification @ZKang123. Nonetheless, I do think the article might benefit from a little more detail about the pre-TEL layout, if that info is available. Epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for mata-mata, WP:CAPITALIZATION applies. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes sense. I thought it would have been easier to just write it out in all lowercase, but I forgot that the MOS recommended against it. Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

addressed all the points =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 05:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will strike my oppose for now (so a FAC coordinator doesn't archive this) and review this over the next few days. Thanks for your prompt attention to my feedback. I will note that the "Details" section is still a little short, even though you said you weren't able to find that many sources. @ZKang123: Do you know if any reliable non-layout sources exist for the pre-TEL design? Thanks in advance. Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded a bit more on the design though not much else I can find on the pre-TEL design.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: @Brachy0008: I just found another paper on the construction of two new TEL linkways (not the new EWL-NEL linkway). The original at ResearchGate.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I still believe the artwork section can still be expanded a bit more. There are a couple of articles on the artworks by Art Outreach (a government initiative, so the source is reliable) which describes each artwork a bit more.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008, this article is looking better now, but there may be more to say about the station design than "this station is a Civil Defence shelter" and "this station is accessible" (each of which takes up its own paragraph in Outram Park MRT station#Details). Gonna ping @ZKang123 for awareness as well; are you sure that there is nothing else to say about station design or artwork? These are my main concerns with the article right now, as most of my other concerns above have been addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was talking with another MRT editor off-wiki. They suggested that you email the LTA to see if they could provide information about these missing details. Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok! thanks! brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 14:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

update: i got back from LTA, not the response i wanted but they told me to get info from SMRT / SBS Transit brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, given Gog's and Kang's commentary below, would it be better to withdraw this and renominate at a later date, once the article has been cleaned up and more details have been found? Sorry to disappoint, but with key aspects of the topic missing, I personally don't think this article would be ready for FA status. Not to mention what Gog and TenthAvenueFreezeOut found after I went through the article - though while these could be fixed with a good copy edit, I'm more concerned about the coverage side of things. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Despite the best efforts of Epicgenius, this nomination has stalled. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TenthAvenueFreezeOut

Hi! I was very interested in this since I frequent this station a lot. I transfer between the EWL and NEL platforms very frequently. Seeing this station in FAC is quite surreal!

I have my comments listed below. I will be focusing on grammar, tone and sentence flow in my review. Aside from these comments, you still need to work on the formal and encyclopaedic tone of this article. The writing as a whole is not up to FA quality as of now — I should not expect to find this many basic writing errors at FAC. Therefore, I will need to oppose this (Sorry! I know it's not pleasant to hear). However, don’t be discouraged! I hope you will be able to promote this to FA eventually.

Lead

For “the East–West line platformers was constructed”: “platformers” -> “platforms” (spelling error)

Construction and East–West line sub-section

“The segment was given priority because it transverses areas” -> “The segment was given priority as it traverses areas” (spelling error)
For “The line was intended to relieve traffic congestion on the Thomson–Sembawang Road corridor”: “on the” -> “along the”
“Outram Primary School had to close down and merge with Zhangde Primary School” -> “Outram Primary School was closed and merged into Zhangde Primary School”
For “The tunnel from Outram Park to Tiong Bahru was expected to be completed in September 1984, but were completed on 27 May 1985 instead”: "but were completed on 27 May 1985 instead" -> "but was instead completed on 27 May 1985".
For “The MRT system was split into East West line running from Tanah Merah station to Lakeside, and the NSL running from Yishun station to Marina Bay”: “Tanah Merah station to Lakeside” -> “Tanah Merah to Lakeside stations”, and “Yishun station to Marina Bay” -> “Yishun to Marina Bay stations”

North East line sub-section

For “World Trade Centre MRT station (now called HarbourFront)”: “now called” -> “since renamed”
For “To facilitate the construction…” and “To handle the varying soil conditions…”: rephrase one of these two sentences, so that “To <verb> the” is not the beginning of two consecutive sentences.
For “The trial was done as Outram Park station serves a hospital”: “serves a hospital” -> “serves the nearby Singapore General Hospital”.
For “Outram Park station became a triple-line interchange, like Marina Bay and Dhoby Ghaut stations”: “like” -> “alongside”.

Services sub-section

“When it opened, it had the station code of W2[60] before being changed to the current alphanumeric style in August 2001 as a part of a system-wide campaign to cater to the expanding MRT System.” -> “When it opened, it had the station code of W2,(add a comma)[60] before being changed to the current alphanumeric style in August 2001,(add a comma) as a part of a system-wide campaign to cater to the expanding MRT system.”
For “On average, the station serves 29325 passengers every day”: “29235” -> “29,235”

TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

addressed all the points => brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Cite 56, Cheong 2012, doesn't point to any source.
- Removed.
"References": article titles can be in either title case or sentence case, regardless of how they appear in their original, but should all be consistently in one or the other. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Decided to go for sentence case, with a few exceptions, like Woodleigh MRT station (MRT will be in full-caps because it is an acronym, full names should be proper names). Also changed the stylisations of the MRT lines to follow ours. How does it look?
"Before the line was planned to be extended to the World Trade Centre, the station was originally the southern terminus of the North East line." Could this looked at? Eg, even after the extension was "planned", Outram Park was still the southern terminus. And it makes more sense to state the latter first, and then to mention the extension plans.
Changed to Outram Park station was planned to be the southern terminus of the North East line before it was extended to the World Trade Centre.
"Construction of the North East line station involved a significant traffic diversion at a nearby cross-junction of various roads, with construction taking place close to East–West line tunnels." 1. Can we avoid "construction" twice in one sentence? 2. Was the diverted traffic road or MRT traffic? 3. What is a cross-junction? 4. "a nearby cross-junction of various roads". Maybe 'a nearby road cross-junction'? 5. "with construction taking place close to East–West line tunnels." Construction of what?
- 1. Amended the second construction to building works 2. The article states major traffic diversion at the cross-junction of Eu Tong Sen Street, Outram Road, Cantonment Road and New Bridge Road in the body, so it is diverted traffic. 3. Changed to intersections 4. Amended. 5. Construction of the NEL-EWL linkway. Amended to clarify.
"partially destroying existing platforms while keeping them intact." Ah ...
- I tried. =>
"human engravings". 'engravings of humans', as opposed to engravings by humans?
- Amended
"a hand-drawn crowdsourced visual map". Should there be a comma in there?
- Added comma
There is a big, and horrible, sandwich between the first image and the infobox.
"MRT" in full at first mention in the main article please.
"it traverses areas with a higher demand for public transport". "higher" than what? Maybe just go with 'high'?
Cite 8 should be inside the closing parenthesis.
"but was instead completed on 27 May 1985." Is the reason for the delay known?
"but was instead completed on 27 May 1985. Train services commenced on 12 December 1987, when the line extension to the station was officially completed." What is the difference between "completed" and "officially completed"?
"The station was part of a route that continuously ran from". What does "continuously" add? Would it be a "route" if it were not continuous?
"Outram Park station began to serve the East–West line (EWL) with the operational split of the MRT system". I think we need something on the operational split. As it stands the last eight words will mean nothing to a reader. Coming back to this after noting a footnote. The "a" is near invisible^[a] and likely to be mistaken as a citation. I have tweaked - if you don't like it revert and flag it up for discussion here. It may be best to include that information in line rather than as a footnote.
"The MRT system was split into East West line running from Tanah Merah to Lakeside stations, and the NSL running from Yishun to Marina Bay stations." 1. Why is NSL abbreviated and East West line not? 2. Why is East West line linked and NSL not? 3. There should be a definite article before "East West line". 4. The whole MRT system was split into just those two lines?

Hmm. I have reviewed just the lead and the first two paragraphs of the main article and am picking up a lot of issues. I shall pause to give the nominator a chance to come back, but I am leaning oppose - a FAC nomination should not need this amount of work, and this has already seen a fair bit of improvement since nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes work, but I fear we are about to enter a WP:FIXLOOP. After a quick skim of just parts of the rest of the article ...

Caption: "TEL platforms". "platforms" or 'platform'?
This may seem a little nebulous, but the paragraph commencing "Sedimentary rocks were found" comes across as a set of not-very-connected factoids rather than "engaging prose".
"with dedicated routes that connect the station entrances to the platforms or between the lines." I understand "that connect the station entrances to the platforms", but what does "or between the lines" mean? What lines?

"old images of Singapore General Hospital and policemen". Does this mean images featuring both of these, or 'old images of Singapore General Hospital and of policemen'? And any policemen, or policemen in a particular place or area?
"During the making of this artwork, the public were encouraged to submit photos of that era, which are subsequently converted to drawings by the artist." "are" → 'were'.

... I am afraid that despite this clearly being a labour of love and a lot of work having gone into it this is not there in terms of prose. More work is needed on it than reasonably should be for a FAC nomination and so I am opposing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by ZKang123

Brachy, I really appreciate the effort you're putting into this article. But in my honest opinion, while it had improved a lot since its first nomination, I think at this stage it's still rather premature to put this at FAC. Epic has also expressed concerns with the lack of commentary on the station design and the TEL artwork, and I agree somewhat. I believe however that more information would be available once the TEL has been completed in a couple of years and there will be a new book published on the TEL construction, and another on the TEL artworks. In fact the DTL art book was just published but I haven't yet come around updating the various pages, because also I was rather too busy.

My advice, however, if there's consensus to archive this nomination, please do not be disheartened again. I understand also this is your first MRT article you've worked towards GA, but even my first GA (Canberra) has not been at FA yet, because also I felt that article is a bit too low key in scope. And North South MRT line would need more expansion, especially what I managed to uncover about the planning, but I'm now more focused on working on the individual stations.

My recommendation, nevertheless, is to work on another article that isn't as vast in scope as Outram Park. Like Farrer Park station; still plenty to talk about but not too complex to write about.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs)

thanks =D. i'll do the best i can for this article but ur right, i might have to focus on farrer park or boon keng (which by the way, was ngl an absolute nightmare to write but im almost done with making farrer park a GA). (i will be inactive from 11-20th bc hoilday) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 14:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as there's no evolving consensus towards promotion and nominator will be presently inactive.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 8 June 2025 [17].

Rico Krieger

Nominator(s): Johnson524 04:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Krieger is a German citizen who committed sabotage work inside Belarus for the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). Motivated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he would blow up a railway line before being captured, subsequently becoming the first foreign citizen to ever be sentenced to death in Belarus. In a case involving multiple heads of state, duress, and an international prisoner swap: Krieger was returned to Germany in exchange for the release of a Russian FSB officer and hitman, a trade which concluded just last year. The article, a GA for over a month, has to be one of the most interesting and in-depth I've ever written, and if promoted, will be only the eighth Belarusian article to achieve FA status. Any reviews are truly appreciated, have a blessed day. Johnson524 04:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Are there no images of the subject?

Don't use fixed px sizes

File:Asipovitšy_railway_station_1.jpg: what's the copyright status of the building? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've replaced the 'px' parameters with 'upright=1.1' and 'upright=0.7' parameters respectively. @Nikkimaria, do you know what to do about the multi-image template which requires 'px' parameters be used, or do these images have to be removed? Also, there are no free images of the subject, and when you ask what the copyright status of the building is, do you mean placing the template Commons:Template:PD-Belarus/en on the file page? Otherwise, it was released into into the creative commons by the original photographer. Thank you for the image review. Johnson524 05:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus does not have freedom of panorama, so we need to account for the copyright of not just the photographer but the building as well. As to the template, not sure, sorry. Maybe ask at VPT? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. In that case, the template I linked wouldn't work. I found something interesting though... according to COM:FOP Belarus, Freedom of Panorama was outlawed in 2011, but this photo was taken in 2009, pre-dating that law. Is that how that works? Can this image actually be used, or does the law retroactively apply? If it does retroactively apply, then there might be another way. The part of the law that affects this picture: "[images] can be visualized, broadcasted or cablecasted, and publicly transmitted in any other way if such works continuously remain at the place with free admission" but are "not be the main object of visualization" both apply here, I think. Wikipedia/Commons aren't going anywhere ('remain in place'), will always be free admissions, and the use of this image on the page as a support to the larger article Rico Krieger as opposed to being the main object of discussion in an article say about the railroad itself, could mean this is fair use. This could really be a stretch though, sounding better in my head than in actuality, but what do you think about both of these @Nikkimaria? Cheers! Johnson524 06:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is an exemption for non-commercial use - unfortunately for our purposes non-commercial is the same as non-free. As to the date, do you know what the law was before 2011? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Nikkimaria I don't even know where to begin to find this information. Better safe than sorry, removed image. Johnson524 04:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I'm not well-versed with copyright questions, can we make a screenshot of him from the government video broadcast on TV and uploaded on YouTube? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such a screenshot would have the same copyright as the video broadcast. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus-1, the state-run media which broadcast Krieger's duress confession, states at the bottom of their website that "For any use of materials, an active hyperlink to news.by is required". This is the only thing I can find on their whole website which talks even remotely about copyright/re-use, and since this is kinda sketchy and state-run media is not one of the things exempt form Belarusian copyright (COM:NOP Belarus), I'd err on the side of caution and say there's currently no fair use photos of him, unfortunately. Johnson524 04:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment. This is explained at its second mention. It should be at the first.
"Before his detainment, Krieger worked as a rescue medic for the German Red Cross". This is ambiguous as it could mean that he was working for the Red Cross when he entered Belarus. It needs clarification.
"as foreign volunteers for Ukraine had never been known to require the execution of such risky missions as an initiation to join". Presumably you mean "be required". The construction is clumsy.
The second paragraph of 'Biography' is confusing. It appears to be about the Belarussion version, but it is not clear whether it all is. "reportedly also had intentions to serve as a military doctor", "These intentions reportedly formed". These statements are vague. Reported by who? Presumably either by the Belarussians or by Krieger. It would be better to delete this paragraph (apart from the first few words) and explain what is certainly known, what is the Belarussian version and then criticisms of it.
You use "reportedly" seven times. This is vague and you should always say who reported.
"Krieger recounted this reconnaissance work for the SBU is true, even after returning from his later detainment." This is ungrammatical and vague.
"but notably no surveillance footage of Krieger actually placing the backpack on the tracks has been released." Why "notably".
This article is not up to FA standard as it is confusing. I think that you need to set out the Belarussian version in its own section. Krieger's version and the Ukrainean version, if there is one, should also be given separately, so that the reader can clearly see who is saying what. Is it known whether he was working for the SBU or for the Belarussians posing as the SBU? Why did he say he left the package on the railway track if he did not think it was a bomb? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, nothing has changed since Gog's note. I'm archiving this; the usual two-week hiatus before nominating another article will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 June 2025 [18].

Masters of Doom

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 01:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003, author David Kushner's book "Masters of Doom: How Two Guys Created an Empire and Transformed Pop Culture" would be published. Its about the history of id Software and its co-founders John Carmack and John Romero, from the early years, the development of 1993s landmark hit Doom (1993 video game), to the eventual firing of Romero and the rise and fall of his company Ion Storm. And since its publishing it was become one of the most well known books on video game history and has even been influential on the creation of Reddit and Oculus VR.

This is my first time nominating a book for Featured Article but I think it has what it takes to be considered one. GamerPro64 01:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bunch of uncited statements, MOS:SANDWICH issues, and the article feels short to me --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made articles shorter than this and they became Featured Articles. If you want to tell me what the uncited statements are this could make things easier to fix said issues. GamerPro64 01:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
. If you want to tell me what the uncited statements are this could make things easier to fix said issues: this is very much a nominator job, not one for a reviewer. The FA criteria are clear that every fact needs a citation no later than the end of the paragraph (and as I've noted below, that goes for the summary of the book itself). As a first pass, you need to go through and find any paragraphs that don't end with a little blue number, and then (the harder bit) read the text between each set of little blue numbers and make sure that it's all supported by the citation that follows it. The first bit is easy to verify; the second is harder, but will become apparent when someone comes through to do spotchecks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo Guerillero above, and note that MOS:PLOTSOURCE (which allows for the plot summaries of fictional books to be uncited, with the assumption that they are cited to the book itself) doesn't technically cover non-fiction books (though this may be a discussion worth starting). For a first nomination, a mentor and a peer review are, I would argue, indispensible, and I would advise withdrawing this for the moment, opening a peer review and approaching one of our many experienced pop-culture nominators as a mentor -- there is certainly a path to FA for this one, but I think it would be wise to take the first few steps before actually opening the nomination. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Does it not? All recent non-fiction book FAs I can see do this, off the top of my head for recent ones The Diamond Smugglers, Dark Archives. Unless we want to delist all non-fiction book FAs this is pretty clearly allowed, articles that do this constantly pass, and that it wouldn't be is absurd given the rationale from plotcite applies. This also includes Thrilling Cities, open for FAC now and garnering supports. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it should is an open question, and WP:IAR always applies, but as written, MOS:PLOTSOURCE is a subsection of MOS:FICTION, and so only strictly applies to works of fiction. In any case, it can't be applied to e.g. Although Kushner adopts a novel-like narrative, Masters of Doom is a work of video game journalism. ... Kushner was an early entrant into the field of video game journalism, and recycled some of his own original reporting in the book. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as needlessly pedantic... even if the overarching guideline is specifically about fiction, this is the only guidance we have for summaries of creative works in the MoS at all, and the rationale behind "summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with inline citations" applies to non-fiction works. I wouldn't call it an open question because that's how many recent FAs like this are written.

Yes, I declared my opposition on that and other grounds. I just thought your argument was absurd because there have been multiple articles (basically all) passed, including one at this very moment, from another nominator that did the same thing where no one mentions this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We've always done it like that before, whatever the MoS says" is an IAR argument -- which, again, is perfectly fine, but is not the same as saying "the MoS supports this". The textbook solution would be to use WP:PRIMARY and cite the book itself, with page numbers, in each paragraph -- not an FA, but see Classical Greek Tactics for what this looks like in practice. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My review of that nomination fairly clearly mentions this, PARAKANYAA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the unsourced statements mentioned above, there are quite a few short sections that could probably become sub-sections (ex. Lawsuit could probably be put into reception since it’s not too long). I think a copy edit and peer review would help this get to FA. Good luck! — Crystal Drawers (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The summary being cited to the book itself is fine (above comments are incorrect) but this doesn't feel FA-ready to me. There are other uncited statements and the referencing formatting is very inconsistent. + image issues. I would oppose on those grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I’m going to have to oppose, and I suggest you withdraw this to work on it a little more away from FAC.

The first sentence is a bit of a run-on, partly because the title of the book is so long, but it could be reworked.
”book detail's the company’s…”: having such an egregious grammatical error as a grocer’s apostrophe in the second sentence isn’t great
”and the dynamics between Carmack and Romero and” and…and…and
”and eventual collapse”: what does ‘eventual’ add to the party here?
- We’re only at the end of the first paragraph here
”a television movie”: ‘movie’ is a slang term and should be replaced by ‘film’, much like the target article
“Due to it being his first book,[2] he spent five years on research.[3]” Fails SYNTH. Yes it’s his first book and yes he spent five years on research, but there’s no connection between the two facts (so the “due to” is a big problem).
”interviewing them late into the night”: is there any information on how long the interviewing process took, as this reads they interviewed on one day. (It’s also a bit of a pointless detail to include)
’the "two Johns",’: no need for the quote here. Their surnames will suffice
The use of ‘However’ at the start of a sentence can be a valid grammatical construction, but only when used carefully. At least one of them in this section (and possibly both) are not that useful.
”Although Kushner adopts a novel-like narrative, Masters of Doom is a work of video game journalism.” This needs a citation, as it’s analysis, not content. In fact, it shouldn’t even be in this section but in the background.

I’m going to stop here, as there are too many issues in a relatively short space of time for FAC. These are examples only, and I’d rather not get stuck in a fix-loop that drags on: that’s a process that should be worked on away from FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well thats all I wanted to hear. All right @FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination. GamerPro64 21:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 June 2025 [19].

Spore drive

Nominator(s): -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the article Spore drive for featured status because it now meets all featured article criteria, with stable sourcing, well-organized structure, policy-compliant media use, and comprehensive coverage. The spore drive is a central fictional technology in Star Trek: Discovery, and the article treats it with the same rigor seen in featured articles on comparable franchise technologies.

The article addresses both in-universe mechanics—such as the drive's use of a mycelial network for instantaneous interstellar travel—and real-world development, including the contributions of Paul Stamets and Ralph McQuarrie’s unused visual concepts. It is grounded in reliable secondary sources across multiple domains:

Scientific analysis, e.g. Ethan Siegel (Forbes) and Steven Salzberg (Forbes)
Academic critique, e.g. Lisa Meinecke in Fighting for the Future: Essays on Star Trek: Discovery (Liverpool University Press) and Karen Pinkus in the Los Angeles Review of Books
Cultural/media commentary, e.g. The Companion, ScreenRant, Inverse

All claims are cited inline and supported by reliable, verifiable sources. The prose follows MOS:FICT, MOS:TV, and MOS:CITE standards, and has been copyedited for formal tone.

A single 21-second non-free video file is used in the "Design and production” section, with a complete fair-use rationale. The clip illustrates the spore jump sequence explicitly discussed in the article and is irreplaceable for demonstrating visual effects tied to the topic. It complies fully with WP:NFCC and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.

There are no unresolved disputes or edit wars. I welcome your review of Spore drive. Thanks! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe it's mandatory for an article to reach Good article status before nominating it for FAC, it's certainly a convention for good reason. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware, I had put it up for GA on 5/26, but it seemed like I'd taken it past that to meet the FA criteria (or I thought/hoped so from review...). Should I kill this and go back into the GAC queue until someone gets to it? I'm not sure. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of saving you some undue stress, I think so. You can wait for other editors to chime in (they might go into more detail than me) but a brief skim and a bit of experience at FAC tells me others will probably come along to oppose or recommend withdrawing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, ok. Did I miss something really flagrant? I thought I had hit every criteria for both GA and FA. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing this nomination to pursue Peer Review and Good Article assessment first. Sorry for the trouble. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to ping the @FAC coordinators: to inform them that the FAC nominator wishes to withdraw this as they had removed this FAC from the main FAC page and from the article's talk page. From my understanding (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), but you should let a FAC coordinator handle this process, especially since a reviewer has commented on this FAC. Apologies again for the intrusion. I just did not want this to get lost in the shuffle. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very Polite Person, as noted above, it is best to let the coordinators handle withdrawals - just post {{@FAC}} next to the withdrawal request and we will pick it up. The usual two-week pause before you can nominate any article at FAC will apply. Thanks Aoba. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! This was my first time. Please let me know what if anything I need to do to clean this up. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2025 [20].

Greatest Hits (Mariah Carey album)

Nominator(s): TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mariah Carey's second greatest hits album, released in 2001. Though it was far less commercially successful than her first greatest hits album, #1's (1998), it includes a much greater selection of Carey's previous work, comprising twenty-seven songs across her career from 1990 to 2000.

I will be as receptive to feedback as I can, so I appreciate it if you can take the time to read this article and leave feedback! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to attract any attention, never mind pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this has definitely stalled and so I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2025 [21].

Mercurial World

Nominator(s): CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut studio album by Magdalena Bay, a kind-of-indie pop duo from the US. It was almost entirely made by both members of the duo and received critical acclaim, appearing in several rankings (but not as much as their following album).

As my first nomination at FAC, I would appreciate any comments or interest in participating here, and I hope you have a good time reading the article. Thanks to everyone and also to Medxvo and OlifanofmrTennant for the comments in the Peer review. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Departure–

I'm going to be reviewing this over the coming days. I'm going to focus on prose primarily - I'll state I don't know much about this group or music bureaucracy in general beyond what I learned from my FA work but a featured-class article should be readable and (where applicable) interesting to a general audience. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background and development
Tenenbaum then joined Lewin's group,[1] the progressive rock band Tabula Rasa - this should be re-arranged. The citation breaks up the statement and makes it less readable - might I suggest some variant of Tenenbaum then joined Tabula Rasa, Lewin's progressive rock band, that was inspired by...[1] - move the citation to the end of the sentence. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tenenbaum and Lewin then reconnected with the goal of making pop music, - ambiguous. How and when did they reconnect? Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it was planned to be promoted by a series of concerts supporting the bands Kero Kero Bonito and Yumi Zouma, before they were cancelled due to the COVID-19 lockdowns. - Where I'm from, the COVID-19 lockdown had begun on March 13, so this should specify where the lockdowns affected - in fact, I can't find where the group was from outside of the lede, which seems important for an American music group. When was the tour cancelled specifically? If it was a named tour, include the name of the tour. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They recorded together in their home studio, which "immersed [them] in [their] creative, insular universe" and contributed to the album's "particular sense of madness in containment". Lewin was suspended from his job and had time "to just focus on music". There are a lot of quotes here in Wikivoice - can you add a literal interpretation of these? Are these quotes all from direct interviews, or secondary articles etc? Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They noticed that the songs were mainly about observing the passage of time and feeling overwhelmed by the universe. Who is "they"? If it's a self-description, treat it as a self-description instead of a "woah, we're so great" style of description in the prose. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview with Vulture's Justin Curto in 2021, Tenenbaum stated that it was a subconscious pattern. - "it"? Some elaboration here would be helpful - "their music contained subconscious patterns" or something. "Subconscious patterns" is also a bit of a weasely response on their end - if the interview contained any other more literal explanations then please add them. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CatchMe: It's been a week since you've opened this FA and you haven't responded here or edited the article at all in that time. If you address any of these issues, please ping me for fastest response. As of now I'm going to leave this as oppose on prose - at least until any of these issues are addressed. Departure– (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Thank you for your comments and my apologies for the delay. I've been too busy in my off-wiki life so I didn't have time to edit the article, but I hope this is not too late for you (and others) to still want to participate here. I believe your concerns so far have been addressed and I would be glad to continue improving this. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking another look at this either tonight or tomorrow and will reconsider - please ping me if you don't see a review within 24 hours of this comment being written. Departure– (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back now. Here's some more:

with influences of several genres including - change to "with influences from several genres, including" - I think it's a personal choice but the latter seems far more formal. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is also inspired by 1980s and 1990s pop music - if you don't have anything to say about their inspirations directly, they should be part of the list directly before this sentence Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Colar of AllMusic compared Tenenbaum's "baby-voice" to that of the singer Kate Bush. - who is Kate Bush? Elaborate in the prose for clarity in a vaccuum Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing for PopMatters, Rob Moura found similarities between the production of some tracks and Art Angels (2015) by Grimes, the bubblegum of Kero Kero Bonito, the strings and piano of Future Nostalgia (2020) by the singer Dua Lipa, and the works of the project M83 - what are these "similarities"? If Moura thought they just sounded similar, say "X compared Y to Z" (if they can be given that type of weight in the prose), and if it's anything else, tell us what. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The duo mentioned Fiona Apple as an influence for their songwriting, - again, clarify for context in a background - if it's a person, perhaps give their ethnicity or time they were active or genre. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
after Lewin grew up listening to her and Tenenbaum discovered her through him as a teenager - this is awkwardly phrased. Perhaps some variant of "which X was a long-time fan and who introduced Y to it as a teenager" for clarity Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the influences on the album - Don't start a sentence like this. Use "When discussing the influences" or some variant. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mercurial World opens with "The End", a PC Music song - PC Music is both uninterpretable in a vaccuum and links to a defunct record label, which raises more questions than it answers. Did this album have an old song from a dead label as its opening track? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in which Tenenbaum wonders if an end exists. - How so? The song's lyrical content, or as outside commentary? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and a 1970s-infused funk bassline. - "X-infused" seems like a word-to-watch as overly promotional - replace with "-style" or "-inspired", maybe? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and gaming samples over Tenenbaum's breathy vocals. - "gaming samples" should be replaced with "samples from video games" for clarity, as "gaming" is also a verb and has a whole lot of meanings beyond even those two. "Tenenbaum's breathy vocals" has "breathy" which strikes me as a primary WTW - replace with "vocals by Tenenbaum"? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following track, "Something for 2", is made by electronic beats. - Was it composed entirely of electronic beats? If not, this is incorrect. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CatchMe: I'm going to be honest, the amount of unclear statements I've found in just the next four paragraphs lead me to believe that the rest of the article isn't very close to FA quality as of now (based solely on these unclear statements and the amount of prose remaining). I do see this as a solveable issue but any individual statement that doesn't work in a vaccuum isn't going to fly for my reviewing purposes. Leaving this as an oppose for now - please ping me once you've addressed these, and if you do, please be sure to clarify everything else in the article so that it'll work on its own. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: I tried to adjust the article following your concerns and made some changes to the following pharagraphs. I disagree that the people mentioned should have their ethnicity, time, or genre. These are already linked to their WP articles and listed as "singer"/"singer-songwriter"/etc., and, in my opinion, if readers are more curious about those things, they would just click. See WP:OFFTOPIC. Let me know your opinion and other comments. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 06:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking another look at this within the next 24 hours. Again, please ping me if I don't. Departure– (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time for a third look.

In the latter, the duo deals with insecurities and curing anxiety with body movement. - To my knowledge, anxiety can't be "cured" - perhaps "remedy" is the appropriate term? Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A music video for the track "Dreamcatching" premiered on March 3, 2022; it was directed by Felix Green and was made with Generative Adversarial Network and VQGAN-CLIP technology, which creates images based on text and other pictures - with the rise of AI-generated content it'd be nice to plainly state that the video was AI-generated in layman's terms. Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weekly live streams on the service Twitch, - To my knowledge, Twitch is best described as a platform in this context. Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and an official website made by Tenenbaum with a Y2K aesthetic and GIFs. - "Official" is implied - perhaps describe it as a "promotional website"? GIFs in this context to my knowledge are animations and should be described as such - "animated GIFs" or some such. Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conceptual videos contain Windows 97 backgrounds. - Backgrounds designed for Windows 97 or backgrounds taken from Windows 97? Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the same day, a Danny L Harle remix of "Chaeri" was released. - Was the remix done by Harle and put on one of Harle's albums, or was this an official deal that directly relates to Mercurial World? Also, clarify that it was a single released from the deluxe edition, as that's what the paragraph focuses on. Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alongside a self-directed visual. - "Visual" can mean a lot of things, and the source says video in the title. Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at numbers 19, 20, and 49, respectively.[17][47][48] - I believe the sources should directly follow the numbering instead of being all at the end. Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all, this article is inching closer to FAC quality and is nearly there in my eyes. A fourth look is due after these objections are noted. @CatchMe: Your nomination is most likely to be archived, but I can offer a bit of advice; for better chances of a review, try to review other FAC nominations. FAC has a sort of informal QPQ system similar to DYK, and while it's not formal it can greatly improve your odds of getting a review on yours. During the two-week downtime, take some time to brush up the article's quality in about any way you possibly can. Just from a glance, I think this article could go for more illustration - i.e. images; if Mercurial World was inspired by something, an image would be relevant to include. In all, I think that, while unlikely to be promoted at this time given my objections and the time-out, with a bit of cleaning up, this would likely pass a second FAC. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help here, @Departure–! I greatly appreciate it. The result of this nomination is a bit disappointing, but your advices have been helpful and the archiving can be a lesson for me to prevent these errors from happening again in the future (I hope?). I'm new to the FAC process and I knew it wasn't going to be easy, but hope is the last thing to lose!! CatchMe (talk · contribs) 04:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

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

The first image has a valid non-free use rationale and uses a low-quality image below the suggested threshold of 0.1 megapixels. The second image is published as own work under CC BY-SA 4.0. The images are relevant, placed in appropriate locations, and have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! CatchMe (talk · contribs) 21:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2025 [22].

Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945

Nominator(s): The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a devastating tornado outbreak in Mississippi and Alabama, with the city and surrounding area of Montgomery, Alabama being the worst-hit area. This outbreak included what a meteorologist described as "perhaps the most officially observed [tornado] in history", as some of the first tornadic-atmospheric research data was collected during the event. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing with an eye to MOS issues and accessibility to non-specialist readers

The structure of the article is not ideal - there's really only one section, repetition of content within the table, plus a lot of whitespace

Citation formatting is very inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter first set of replies to Nikkimaria:

Peer review request went unanswered, and the article is largely unchanged in content or CE-wise since the last FAC, which had two prose supports. Could you explain what exactly is the MOS related issues you see, or at least give some additional details? I do not easily see any, given it passed a GAN and had two FAC supports previously.
Article is formatted the same as every other article on tornadoes/tornado outbreaks; the format established by WikiProject Weather. Lead, Meteorology synopsis (only really available 1950–present…i.e. not applicable for this article as no details seem to exist after an extensive search), confirmed tornado chart, and if necessary, breakout sections for individual tornadoes and/or additional non-tornadic aftermath. A few GA examples using this basic type of format/layout include 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak, 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado, with some older examples of GA articles including 1922 Austin twin tornadoes & 1904 Chappaqua tornado. If you notice, the older the tornado, the less information exists. Hence, why even articles like 1764 Woldegk tornado are GA status and have appeared on the main page twice before.
I also see no excessive whitespace? I see a small section near the confirmed tornado chart, which is standard for every tornado outbreak/tornado list article (see the whitespace from the chart on Tornadoes of 2024 or Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Confirmed tornadoes). If that is indeed the whitespace you are referring to, then there is no issue and any complaint would be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the standard format established a long time ago by WP:Weather. If that is not the whitespace being referenced, please mention where you are seeing it, as I do not see it on the 2022 vector version of Wikipedia.
Citation formatting was directly unchanged since the last FAC, which passed a complete reference/source/formatting verification check. Could you possibly provide what sources seem to be “very inconsistent” with each other?

I will await to hear back from you on the additional details/questions I had regarding you oppose Nikkimaria. I’ll be honest, I was a little shocked to see an oppose so quickly, given the article has had four human-based edits since the last FAC, which received 2 supports. Hopefully you can provide some more details on why you opposed it so quickly. Cheers and I appreciate the review! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the previous FAC also raised structural concerns? I can't speak to the wikiproject's standards, but this doesn't seem to be the most effective approach for this particular article.

Examples of MOS issues include unmarked postal abbreviations, repeated links, and missing alts. Examples of citation inconsistencies include whether newspapers are italicized, whether authors are listed last name or first name first, and whether ISSNs are included for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comment regarding the 2 supports I had made at the end of the last FAC? Speaking from experience with having had numerous FACs, the reviews must demonstrate that the article meets the criteria. The two supports are essentially drive by reviews which are much weaker than thorough reviews. I would need to do more research to see if there's more related to this out there but I do agree it seems a bit sparse. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw — Yep, FAC is useless for this article. Failed once with a 2-1 consensus (plus a neutral, non-voting review of refs) to promote, and 2nd round appears to say the 2 supports the last go around were more like false positives. Clearly won’t pass and now it appears the first FAC may have done more harm than good to the article, in terms of refs. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems improbable that this nomination is going to achieve a consensus to promote this time around, so I am going to archive it for improvements to be made off-FAC. If a mentor could be found that would help. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 June 2025 [23].

SoHo Weekly News

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an alternative weekly paper that existed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in New York. Offbeat and flakey but at the same time a serious force in NYC journalism with a major influence in the burgeoning punk rock scene. Ultimately a financial failure, SWN left a reputation and history far beyond what its circulation figures would suggest. I've been working on this on and off for seven years and finally found the energy for the final push to FAC standards. Enjoy. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass

"At the time, the paper was looking to expand." Which paper? It's not clear from the context. Gatoclass (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "SWN was looking to expand", but I see a similar comment could be made for other places in this paragraph where I'm comparing SWN to other papers. In all cases "the paper" is meant to be SWN, but let me know if this needs to be made more explicit elsewhere. RoySmith (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'He gave as an example "a two-part series for the 1973 holiday season, [in which] the Weekly News took readers on a tour of more than two dozen neighborhood shops."' Not sure what MOS has to say about formatting within quotes, but shouldn't "Weekly News" be italicized? Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad confused about the header "Follow-ons". Is this meant to indicate follow-on careers, or follow-on magazines? If the former, shouldn't the photographers also be included in that section? Also, shouldnt' "Performing Arts Journal" be italicized? Gatoclass (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The follow-ons section is things that happened to people after they left SWN. I see your point that some of it is about people and some of it is about the publications they founded, but I don't think the ambiguity is a problem. And you are correct that some of what's in Photography could logically be moved into Follow-ons, but there was enough material about the photographers that keeping them in one section seemed to give better overall balance. I did the italics. RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave

More to come:

which ~~at the time~~ was just starting
- Done
there have been arguments made that its coverage of local culture and business This reads as a bit cagey, can you attribute it better, for instance "some retrospectives have argued"
- Done
"was particularly strong, with the paper being particular well known" Use of particularly a bit repetitive, and conjoining using "with" could be improved by simply saying "and the paper was".
- Done
"Many of the staff went on to have illustrious careers" and "Many staff at the paper had storied careers after the paper shut down" feels repetitive, especially given they appear within three sentences of each other.
- Done
"ground-breaking" appears a bit peacocky, I think the general Wikipedia treatment of this language is "influential" or equivalent.
- Done
Bruce Weber got his start photographing male fashion models with a ground-breaking SWN photo story showing an underwear-clad male model in erotic poses. The temporality of this is a bit strange as every other item has been what people did after, and this is what Weber did during the newspaper's run.
- Hmmm. I see your point, but I need to think on this one a bit.
founded ~~in 1973~~
- Done

Michael Goldstein (1938–2018) MOS:BIRTHDATE advises "Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance." I believe it should be excluded unless his age at founding is explicitly described as significant.
- Done
"his last $800" ~~to fund operations~~
- Done

it grew to over 100 pages and competed with The Village Voice. In the lead you say "Positioned as a competitor to The Village Voice", I think these have different implications. In the former, it is marketing and may imply they didn't actually compete.
- OED says "esp. in commercial relations: To strive with others in the production and sale of commodities, or command of the market." I think both usages fit this definition.
  - Interesting. I read the article's text as saying they marketed themselves as competing but it was contested whether they were actually competing. So the article is making the distinction. If you disagree, no issue. - RIHG
Could you archive "Advertising: SoHo News Aiming at The Voice"? Same with ": Elinor Fuchs, a Leading Scholar of the American Stage, Is Dead at 91"
- Sadly, the answer appears to be "no". I just (re)-ran IABot and it failed to pick up either of those. I don't know why, or how to force it to do so.
  - I've added some manually, would you be able to add the other half? I noted below that some links are missing, such as author links and publishers which can be added at the same time. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 23:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now completed.
the earliest issues showed the address of Goldstein's apartment on nearby Broome Street on the masthead I'm a little unclear on how the sources given verify this
- Reworded
What do you believe makes ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com a HQRS?
- There's an image of the article being commented on right there.
  - Genuine question, would you consider a tweet posting a screencap of an old news story a HQRS? HQRS may be the wrong idea for what I'm asking: why is what is important to this blog important to us?
    - Maybe a better way to have cited this would have been citing the article directly and ENY as the content deliverer (i.e. via=) since I'm not actually using ENY for anything other than they have a copy of the article. In any case, this is not an important part of the article, so I've just removed that sentence.
The New York Times reported that SWN was the second largest English-language weekly in the city It reported that Goldstein said it was the second largest English-language weekly and that he said it sold at 400 newsstands.
- Reworded
Because this is contested within the piece and only attributed to Goldstein, it should be removed from the infobox if this is the only source (sorry if more information is further down)
- I assume you mean the "readership" entry? Removed.
"hire three more and double both circulation and advertising revenue by the end of the year" I don't think it's interesting that a newspaper says they would like to grow, and I think it can be trimmed to "was looking to expand".
- Done
"In a 2020 interview, Kim Hastreiter spoke with Paper magazine" This needs to note that Hastreiter was staff
- Done

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"which helped drive up rents" -> which Petrus argued helped...
- The sentence already starts with "Petrus also noted", so I think it's clear that everything which follows should be attributed to him.
  - The issue is the "noted", which implies it is a fact rather than opinion. MOS:SAID flags noted for this reason. - RIHG
    - After putting in some quality time with the OED, I don't see anything which supports MOS:SAIDs interpretation of the word "noted". But in any case, I've changed them to "said".
      - PS, you may be interested in WT:Manual of Style/Words to watch#MOS:SAID citation needed.
        Thanks - RIHG
Who is Jim Stratton? I don't really understand this bit, you can more clearly establish how he is responding to SWN rather than New York Magazine.
- Hmmm. I added that a while ago and don't have the source handy. I'll have to get it from the library and get back to you on this.
  - I've found it in The Wikipedia Library via Oxford Academic. It would be helped greatly by mentioning that when responding, he was writing for the SWN. I think the framing is SYNTH, in a straightforward sense (the article is not contrasting the stances so we shouldn't), and in a logical sense (these two stances aren't contradictory, you can believe lofts are good and beautiful and functional and still oppose these aspects being marketed due to undesirable effects). - RIHG
    - The source says Jim Stratton of the SoHo Weekly News and since I'm talking about SWN's Loft of the Week feature, I think it's reasonably clear that Stratton is the person writing that feature. But, I've made it "SWN writer Jim Stratton" to be more explicit. As for SYNTH, I'll just have to disagree with you. I think the source makes it abundantly clear that Stratton is disagreeing with NY Magazine.
      - Thanks for making it more explicit. Sorry I wasn't clear here: yes, the source makes it abundantly clear Stratton is disagreeing with NY Magzazine. The two stances I'm referring to are (1) the SWN writing "Living in a loft gives you a whole new dimension in space and space relationships to work with" etc and (2) Jim Stratton's position. - RIHG
        Meh. Both the Loft of the Week columnist and NY Magazine are saying, in essence, "SoHo gentrification has brought some really awesome high-end loft real estate onto the market and we think that's great". Stratton is saying "But that sucks because it's pricing artists out of the area". While the quote from Stratton was in direct response to NYM, it applied equally to LofW.
What is Artful Dodger? Was this simply a column within the newspaper? If so, maybe omit the name and give a better description of the column? (e.g. lifestyle)
- Clarified.

You can use Template:sndash for 1975 – 1982
- Done
"Richard Kostelanetz noted that..." this could be made more concise by reorganizing as Richard Kostelanetz contrasted... with"
- Reworded. I'm not sure there was a problem with the original wording, but we can try something different.
"Ronnie Cooke, Stephen Saban, Lesley Vinson, Megan Haungs". I don't think these names are worth mentioning in an article on SoHo weekly rather than Details. For one, I am not 100% convinced these are all intended to be understood as ex-staffers.
- I've found verification of staff status for at least some of those, working on the others, so I'll have to come back to this one later.
  - This may reflect different editor philosophies: even if they are all ex-staffers, I don't think the reader is served by a list of names like this. If it said "she organized a meeting of ex-staffers including Gerard Mclaughlin, Katina Daugherty, Alonso Moon and Staci Davenport" the reader would get the same impression as they do now. I'll leave it as a suggestion.
"off the ground" MOS:IDIOM
- Done
as a photojournalist producing should photojournalist be followed by a comma?
- Done
"Fashion photographer Bruce Weber's" given we have introduced Weber in full as photography staff in the previous paragraph, another full introduction seems unnecessary and clunky.
- Fixed.
"flagrantly erotic" Muschamp is describing this from the perspective of the masses, not his own.
- I think it's fine as is.
  - My concern is that flagrant has connotations of offense that Muschamp may not be trying to convey. Leave it to your judgement. - RIHG
    - It's a direct quote from Muschamp. I don't see how it could mean anything else. In any case, I'm not telling the reader what I think Muschamp meant, I'm just presenting the quote and they can form their own opinion.
The "legend" quote is quite confusing out of the context of the piece. "[now] legend" would render it more clearly I think, although still imperfectly.
- Clarified.

MOS:SAID for "noting", particularly around the idea that the photographs "legitimized the male form as a sexualized object for the mainstream". If that's true, they should get a stand-alone page!
- Done.
"background in the rock ′n’ roll world" this can be expressed in prose without needing quotes.
- Maybe. The non-standard usage of rock 'n' roll seems quote-worthy.

In a 2020 interview Kim Hastreiter spoke → "Kim Hastreiter later spoke"
- I don't get what "later" does here.
  - The important part is that it is a retrospective assessment, not that it was an interview that took place in 2020. Substituting excess detail for later is more focused. - RIHG
    - I disagree. "Later" could be anything from five minutes after the previously described events, to decades later. Providing the year gives the reader better context.
Having now read the sources for "the paper [is] particular well known for its early coverage of the punk rock band the Ramones." I believe it needs to be adjusted, I don't think any sources discuss what it the paper is known for today in this context and the relationship with the Ramones in particular is the focus of neither.
- Done
Now having read the sources for this section in general, it feels padded. The Talking Heads interview doesn't appear to be DUE, given it doesn't appear to have received any secondary coverage. I think it can be summarized in two sentences, the blockquote from the Video Lounge exhibit also just features a mention.
In 2023, The New York Times noted that SWN's greatest success was in the 1970s and its demise in 1982 gave the Eye an opportunity to '[peak] in influence". My opinion here is that this sentence should be split. The description of the peak should be put as context in the intro of #Decline and shutdown, and The Eye taking over some of the market position should be put at the end of the section, in the description of legacy.
The link to Joyce Kenney Interviews Illustrator Edward Gorey (1991) may fall under WP:COPYVIOEL. Are you able to demonstrate the uploader owns copyright for the work?
- Removed link
The article inconsistently uses two spaces after full stops and one.
- Per MOS:DOUBLESPACE this does not matter.
When you link books on the Internet Archive that are unavailable due to access restrictions, it would be ideal if you could add a link to the specific page, as it will generally show a preview. For instance, p=175 for Soho : the rise and fall of an artists' colony.
Check if you can add author links. For instance, I see Bonnie Marranca is unlinked.
- Done

I'm going to pause here. Right now I'm at an oppose. The impression I get while reading is that there wasn't much sourcing and that you've had to piece what you could together from primary sources; the incidents section seems particularly affected by this. I'm happy to assist at peer review if so desired. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the incidents section is the weakest part of the article. I've spent the last few days mulling over the best way to address that. Henry Benvenuti features prominently in much of the written history of SWN and no treatment of the paper would be complete without mentioning him. The other items, not so much. At this point, I suspect I'll end up working Benvenuti into the nariative elsewhere in the article and dropping the rest of the section, but I want to take some more time to figure out in my own mind how to best handle that. RoySmith (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, hopefully you can find some sourcing on how it impacted the magazine^{[citation needed]}, although it seems like your search has been extremely thorough. I'll note that the issue with tightening up goes beyond the section, for instance a 70ish word section of #Punk scene is sourced to a 80ish word section of Mallozzi. The Gendron quote features what I would consider a trivial mention (the paper was an early advocate of bands in the music scene at the CBGB club that later became well known, such as Television, the Ramones and Blondie [written in FAC prose rather than mine]), but it gets 100 words of context, including a cite to the Herman piece which doesn't mention the SWN. Just saying this so you don't fix #Incidents and then get blindsided that I think more action should be taken. I also wanted to apologize for making you feel taken to task for the "noted" comment, it wasn't my intention. What goes in wikivoice is something that I get preoccupied by and most of my FAC reviews have raised it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reworked that section to concentrate on Benvenuti and show how his actions were connected specifically to SWN. I'll look at the other issues, but not today. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General

Could the relevant language template be added to the article?
- Done

Lead

Could "New York City" be delinked as per MOS:OL?
- Done

Could it be clarified what "AMG" refers to in this context?
- I've just eliminated that use here

Startup and operation

The SoHo Weekly News was a →The SoHo Weekly News (SWN) was a
- Done
Same as point 1 under Lead.
- Done
"Artists's" → "Artists'" (standard American and British possessive form for a plural noun ending in s).
- Done

Editorial stance on gentrification

The article SoHo, Manhattan is linked twice in the same paragraph; it constitutes duplicate linking.
- Done.

MSincccc (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Staff

Kim Hastreiter succeeded Annie Flanders as fashion editor→Kim Hastreiter succeeded Flanders as fashion editor
- Done
Could the article fashion editor be linked here?
- Done
Can we use only surnames after the person has been mentioned in the article, where it is appropriate to do so (such as avoiding "Annie Flanders")?
- In general yes, but if you're aware of any specific places, please let me know.
Richard Kostelanetz contrasted the The Village Voice with SWN saying the former had been "founded ... by people residing within Greenwich Village, initially to provide them with cultural information about their community" and the later "by an outsider" and...
- It should be "latter" instead of "later" and the "the" before The Village Voice should be dropped.
- Done
SWN fashion director Paul Cavaco→ SWN's fashion director Paul Cavaco
- I suppose, but I think it's fine the way it is now. Looking around, people who work for the New York Times seem to refer to themselves as "a New York Times reporter" [24] [25] so I think the same construct would hold if we abbreviate the publication name.

MSincccc (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music and arts coverage

Could "downtown New York" be linked to the article Lower Manhattan?
- Done
In a 2020 interview, fashion editor Kim Hastreiter spoke about her experiences at SWN:→In a 2020 interview, Kim Hastreiter/Hastreiter spoke about her experiences at SWN:
- She has already been introduced in the article.
  - Rearranged to say "fashion editor" the first time she's mentioned.
but the venue was largely ignored byThe Village Voice and The New York Times There should be a space between "by" and "The Village Voice".
- Done

*[41]: time index 23:30 What does this suggest? MSincccc (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents

"the SNW office" → "the SWN office"
- Done

Typo—should be "SWN" for consistency.

a six year old boy → a six-year-old boy
- Done

Decline and shutdown

Later that month, SWN published Sontag's comments[54] (as also did The Nation) This sentence is missing a full stop and the "also" before "did" is redundant and should be dropped.
- Done.
In a 2020 interview, Kim Hastreiter described ANG → In a 2020 interview, Hastreiter described ANG
- The previous mention of Hastreiter is far enough away that I think using her full name here makes sense.

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

References: the titles of articles need to be consistently in either sentence or title case. (Eg cites 1 and 31.)
"and competed with The Village Voice." Could TVV be introduced? Whatever it is.
Could Richard Kostelanetz be introduced. And why is the source explained in line?
"Hank Weintraub, vice president of advertising agency DienerHauser-Greenthal". Maybe insert a definite or indefinite article, as appropriate?
"Hank Weintraub, vice president of advertising agency DienerHauser-Greenthal, stated ..." Is it known when he said this?
"In a 2020 interview, fashion editor Kim Hastreiter spoke". Is dropping definite articles permissible in USEng, even in formal writing?
Got to the end of "Editorial stance on gentrification" and am increasingly concerned about the amount of direct quotation. MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
"SWN writer Jim Stratton took a contrary stance." In what way is what follows contrary to what preceded this?

The prose is generally good, but having skimmed down I am going to pause here leaning oppose. There is far too much direct quotation. "Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text". Sorry Roy. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

Thank you Rollinginhisgrave and Gog the Mild for your reviews. I am sure you are correct that the style of this does not fit well with WP:FACR. I could keep changing it until it meets the requirements but fundamentally I write to make myself happy and I'm happy with the current style, so I'll just withdraw this, with no ill feeling to either of you. RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as requested. The usual two-week hiatus applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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