Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Comments from Noleander

• I did a peer review of this, so I'll continue here with a FAC review.

• Prose size: this is a Level 3 WP:Vital article with about 2 million page views per year. So exceeding the 9,000 word guideline from WP:SIZERULE by about 18% seems acceptable.

• Clairfy/wording:

For a nonspinning, uncharged black hole, the radius of the event horizon, or Schwarzschild radius, is proportional to the mass, M, through [formula omitted] where rs is the Schwarzschild radius and M☉ is the mass of the Sun.   For a black hole with nonzero spin or electric charge, the radius is smaller, until an extremal black hole could have an event horizon close to [formula omitted] half the radius of a nonspinning, uncharged black hole of the same mass.

These two sentences contain several important facts. The bold text should say For a black hole of the same mass with nonzero spin or electric charge, the radius is smaller. The current text puts the " black hole of the same mass" far away at the end of the 2nd sentence where most readers won't make the connection. Suggest make this 3 sentences by breaking the 2nd sentence into two; and adding words as shown in the blue text above.

• • I have reworded this per your suggestion. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Same green text as immediately above: "... until an extremal black hole could have an event horizon close to..." The word "until" reads awkwardly and will confuse some readers. I think it is trying to say "... in the limit where rotational speeds and charge are extremely large ... the radius approaches half the radius of a non-spinning uncharged black hole of the same mass." Or something like that.

• • I changed this to As a black hole's charge and spin approach the maximum allowed value, the radius of the event horizon nears [formula]. Does this sound better to you? Shocksingularity (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ref Check tool says that Book citations are not showing city/location consistently: "Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 23 without)". Probably easiest to remove the "location" field from the 3 book templates that have it.

• • I removed the location field. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• ... in progress ... Noleander (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I was watching the PR, so I'll jump in with both feet now.

TompaDompa

I meant to weigh in on the peer review, but never found the time. I'll try to do better here. At minimum, I should be able to find the time to take a look at the "In fiction" section (I am the main author of the black holes in fiction article). If I haven't got round to it in a week or two, please ping me. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure some of the FAQ hard core will object, but if we're going to do fiction, surely we need to mention the drink. RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

UC

You wait three hours for a species article at FAC, and then...

• I noticed this on the European rabbit article as well: the rather pretty {{Fossilrange}} template is absolutely useless when that range is less than about 20 million years – present. This one's not quite as bad, but it's very difficult to see the marker at all at standard screen size, and harder still to register that it is a marker (rather than, say, interpreting the chart to mean that the range goes from Precambrian to Neogene). I don't think that's necessarily this nominator's or this article's problem, but I think it's worth putting out.
  • In an interesting coincidence, there's actually a template in the works by User:Chaotic Enby to deal with this sort of problem, but I'm not sure it's ready yet to implement on FACs/FAs. But there's hope! SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    The template is coded already at {{Period fossil range}} – I was mostly waiting to see if the consensus favored its original version with the bars stacked on each other, or the sandboxed one with the zoom-in, before we could officially mark it as ready for mainspace. I was thinking whether we should make a "Neogene + Quaternary" bar or even a Cenozoic one, and this seems like a good case for it! We currently have these per period, but many recent taxa extend back to the late Neogene, given how short the Quaternary is compared to every other period. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    Ooh, that's good. Personally, I'm not sure a template needs positive consensus for use in mainspace -- WP:BEBOLD and all that. We might well seek consensus if we were going to replace existing templates en masse, and of course consensus may develop not to use a template in mainspace, but fundamentally adding one is no different in outcome to making an edit (albeit a very large, complicated and code-heavy one) in the page itself -- it's just that most of the changes are physically made on a different page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• the largest living macropredatory shark and fish: what does macropredatory mean? Even for a reader who can parse it as "big" and "eating living things", the meaning isn't obvious (I had to look it up), and even then it's not particularly clear why it's a useful distinction (what's the alternative? Are non-macropredatory animals generally bigger?) It might help to give this space to breathe: something like "it is the third largest living species of fish, and the largest to feed on live prey; the two larger are both filter-feeding sharks"? Might have to move this to somewhere else in the lead to do that.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• They are estimated to reach a length close to 6.1 m (20 ft): the last subject was "males": are we now talking about great whites in general?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I missed this, but as MPF says below, the metric figure should be rounded to 1 sf. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

They said 0. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

One significant figure: so the rounding to 6 we have now is correct. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• They are estimated to reach ... The shark has about 300 ... White sharks: can we pick a lane on singular/plural? Personally I'm not a huge fan of "the shark eats seals" -- it makes it sound like there's just the one of them -- but either's workable as long as it's consistent.

This is typical in books and articles on species. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• On which: is it worth sticking to "great white shark" versus "white sharks"? I know we've said in the first sentence that they're the same thing, but part of me wants to interpret "white sharks" as a category of which "great white shark" is a member. See in particular The great white shark has had a fearsome reputation among the public. It is featured in the 1974 novel Jaws and its 1975 film adaptation, both of which portray it as a ferocious man-eater. In reality, white sharks normally do not prey on humans

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Juvenile white sharks typically inhabit shallower water and cannot eat marine mammals until they reach around 3 m (9.8 ft).: the sharks or the mammals?

I think its obvious. Why would readers think the mammals?

It's grammatically rather than logically ambiguous (admittedly, it's not ridiculous that an animal would have a minimum prey size, but 3m seems rather big) -- more a matter of sub-optimal prose than likely confusion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Though an apex predator, the species is sometimes preyed on by orcas: doesn't an apex predator have no natural predators of its own? Or is it a bit more complicated than that?

The literature still considers it an apex predator. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I did some digging and found this article that explicitly discusses the phenomenon, calling them "coexisting apex predators" while also saying that orcas are the sharks' (only) natural predator. I think we're good here for the lead: I haven't seen how it's presented in the body yet. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• White shark aggregations have attracted tourists who may view them ... in shark cages.: it sounds here like we mean that the sharks are in cages.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• . As of 2025, it is estimated to have declined in numbers by 30–49% over the past 159 years: this is slightly odd phrasing. I would go for "it is estimated to have declined in numbers ... between 1866 and 2025".

Removed.

• Major threats have included bycatching by commercial fisheries: I think it's still bycatch when we mean the action/process rather than the fish. Googling "bycatching" gets a load of results using "bycatch" like that, and nothing for the term itself.

Changed

• protective drum-lines and gillnets along beaches: what's a drum-line and/or a gillnet?

Linked. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Several governments have enacted protections for the species, including bans on catching and killing.: suggest adding it, although I like the idea of a ban on sharks killing people.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

That's the lead: more to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Juvenile white sharks typically inhabit shallower water and cannot eat marine mammals until they reach around 3 m (9.8 ft): see above, but this seems to be another candidate for false precision rounding: if the source says 3m, round to 10ft. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I can see that others have got their (multiple rows of?) teeth into the body below, so I'll hold off to avoid duplication -- could you ping me with the comments from Femke and Noleander are addressed? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

MPF

• "The species is estimated to reach a length close to 6.1 m" — looks like spurious accuracy; change to 6 m, or if 6.1 m is an accurate measurement, remove 'estimated' and specify the source.

20 ft is the important measurement. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry Check MOS:METRIC. I'd suggest using {{convert|6|m|ft|0}} to avoid spurious accuracy. - MPF (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Though an apex predator, the species is sometimes preyed on by orcas" — Clearer wording "Though often considered an apex predator, the species is preyed on by orcas". This seems to happen regularly (see e.g. here), with GWS fleeing an area if Orca are present. That GWS are preyed on, however commonly or rarely, means they are not the apex predator in the ecosystem (the term "apex predator" is heavily over-used in popular writing for a wide range of predators that are not at the apex).

They are considered to be apex predators in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Check engvar compliance per the tag at the top of the page; I've already corrected multiple 'gray' and 'behavior', but I may well have missed some others. - MPF (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is US English. White sharks aren't found in UK waters. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry They do occur in UK waters, though only rarely; but more significantly, they are important in Australian and South African seas just as much or more than US waters, so MOS:TIES does not apply; therefore, MOS:RETAIN does apply. I just checked the history of the page (back to 2006), and it was using 'behaviour' spelling pretty consistently in the early days of the page. The engvar tag was added by @Mazewaxie in 2020 and reconfirmed in 2024; perhaps they can add their reasons for doing so - MPF (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

They are famously absent in UK waters, but I can accept Australian English. That's probably what it was made to be. Not Oxford English. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Alt text shouldn't replicate captions

• File:Great_white_shark_size_comparison.svg: what's the source of the data used for this comparison?

• File:The_American_Museum_journal_(c1900-(1918))_(17973126708).jpg: is a more specific tag available?

• File:Lamna_nasus.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Isurus_oxyrinchus.jpg

• File:Carcharodon_carcharias_skeleton.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death

• File:White_shark_Pacific.png: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• I did a Peer Review on this - I'll follow that up with some comments here in FAC.

• Images in the article are superlative.

• Images: Can an image be placed into the Conservation section? That section is a big wall of text with no pics. MOS:SECTIONLOC says that images are not required to relate to the section they are placed in: "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image too early, i.e., far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader. "

Couldn't find a suitable pic. File:Atlantic Shark Institute White Shark Capture.webp probably needs to be deleted as there is no evidence that it is free to use. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Needed word? "The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), also known as the white shark, white pointer, or simply great white..." is "great white" so different than "white shark" or "white pointer" to deserve a "simply"?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Unusual phrasing: "The white shark has had a fearsome reputation among the public..." Not sure exactly what that choice of words is trying to imply ... are those words suggesting that the shark no longer has a fearsome reputation? My gut feeling is that it is still feared thanks to Jaws & Shark Week. Can the word "had" be eliminated?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Word raises questions: "The white shark is the sole recognized extant species in the genus ...". The word "recognized" suggests that there is some controversy, as if some scientists have tried to add more species into the genus and were rebuffed. If that is not the case, consider removing the word. If it is the case, add some details about the dispute.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Only 1 of 7 books contains city of publication: Duffy, Clinton A. J.; Francis, Malcolm; Dunn, M. R.; Finucci, Brit; Ford, Richard; Hitchmough, Rod; Rolfe, Jeremy (2018). Conservation Status of New Zealand Chondrichthyans (Chimaeras, Sharks and Rays), 2016 (PDF). Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation. For uniformity, suggest removing the city so it uses same pattern as other books cited.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Alt text for wrong animal: "A world map shows killer whales are found throughout every ocean, except parts of the Arctic. They are also absent from the Black and Baltic seas."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Better word? "... being dwarfed only by the whale shark and basking shark...." Sounds a bit sensational and may have misleading connotations. I know those other two fish are a lot bigger, but consider a plainer wording. e.g. ... but it is smaller than both the whale shark and the basking shark

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Word needed? "The white shark is considered to be one of the largest living sharks and fish, ..." Is "considered to be" needed?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• No need for quote marks: ...and the species' genome shows "positive selection in key genes involved in the wound-healing process" ... Unless that author is saying something controversial, that fact should be stated in the encyclopedia's voice. You may need to change a few words or re-arrange to avoid overly-close paraphrasing.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Some cites have a very long list of authors e.g. Huveneers, C.; Apps, K.; Becerril-García, E. E.; Bruce, B.; Butcher, P. A.; Carlisle, A. B.; Chapple, T. K.; Christiansen, H. M.; Cliff, G.; Curtis, T. H.; Daly-Engel, T. S.; Dewar, H.; Dicken, M. L.; Domeier, M. L.; Duffy, C. A. J.; Ford, R.; Francis, M. P.; French, G. C. A.; Galván-Magaña, F.; García-Rodríguez, E.; Gennari, E.; Graham, B.; Hayden, B.; Hoyos-Padilla, E. M.; Hussey, N. E.; Jewell, O. J. D.; Jorgensen, S. J.; Kock, A. A.; Lowe, C. G.; Lyons, K.; Meyer, L.; Oelofse, G.; Oñate-González, E. C.; Oosthuizen, H.; O'Sullivan, J. B.; Ramm, K.; Skomal, G.; Sloan, S.; Smale, M. J.; Sosa-Nishizaki, O.; Sperone, E.; Tamburin, E.; Towner, A. V.; Wcisel, M. A.; Weng, K. C.; Werry, J. M.

• Listing all authors is not required in WP cites, and looks ugly, IMHO. Consider providing just one or two authors then have "et al" using this:

 | last1 = Huveneers
 | first1 = C.
 | display-authors=etal

That is adequate for this encyclopedia's needs.

I'm pretty sure we have to cite all of them. LittleJerry (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It's your choice ... doesn't impact FA approval or not. But using "et al" is common in WP citations, even in FA articles. Noleander (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It's common in the footnotes -- but it's usual and probably important to have the full citation somewhere on the page. This article uses only a single list of references, which makes that approach less practical: it would need to have a separate "works cited" or "bibliography". I don't think I've seen an FA which only lists sources as e.g. "Smith et al". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been looking for a WP guideline that covers this issue, but I cannot find one. I know that lots of FA articles use "et al" (even for sources cited only once). For example, the Sun article uses "et al" ten times. I've used "et al" a few times in my FA articles, because I'm too lazy to type all the names, and because I think a huge name list looks ugly. It seems like an encyclopedia should not have to follow the same citation rigor as an academic journal (where tenure requires getting named). That said, I'd have no problem complying with a WP guideline that told me that a full name list was required at least once. Noleander (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I suppose it becomes less of a drama the more bibliographic information is provided -- if you have e.g. date, journal, volume, pages and a link, there's no real obscurity and no real problem. If you leave off information that readers would need to track down the original source, that is a problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Caption accuracy White shark near two surfers off southern California That is one surfer and one one paddleboarder. Not sure how to re-word it. "Two humans"? "Two people"?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wording There is some fear that interactions with tourists could affect the sharks' behavior. Is "concern" a better word?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wording "...of anglers doing such activity and ..." Reads a bit awkwardly. Not sure how to improve it.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Quotes within quotes: "Not All Sharks Are "Swimming Noses": Variation in Olfactory Bulb Size in Cartilaginous Fishes". MOS says to use single quotes for a quote within a longer quote (and that overrides the fact that the source's own title had double quotes) ... so: "Not All Sharks Are 'Swimming Noses': Variation in Olfactory Bulb Size in Cartilaginous Fishes".

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Overall: compliance with MOS meets FA criteria (with a few exceptions noted above)

• Overall: prose quality meets FA criteria (with a few exceptions noted above). I'm sure other reviewers can spot some additional improvements.

• Breadth/depth: I am not a fish expert, so I cannot assess if all appropriate material is included. But from a lay persons viewpoint: the article answers all my questions.

• Cites/sources: Formatting and quality meet FA criteria.

• That is all I have for now. Leaning support. Notify me when the above have been considered, and I'll make a 2nd pass. Noleander (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Noleander, done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Second pass

• Wording The overwhelming majority of fossils as a result are teeth. A bit awkward. Consider As a result, the overwhelming majority of fossils are teeth.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Simplify Another white shark from South Africa was tracked and documented swimming to ... can "and documented" be removed?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wording ... and may dive to depths of up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft) but are typically closer to the surface. consider ... are typically found close to the surface but may dive to depths of up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Fact or not? White sharks are said to prefer prey with high fat content, ... Who says they prefer high fat food? Scientists? is that fact in dispute?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Verbose: ... to concede via the most tenacious splashing, which appears to be determined by a cumulative signal strength of vigor and strength The bolded text seems a bit clunky; and is perhaps unneeded?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Scare quotes: ... have implemented "shark control" programs (shark culling) to reduce... Consider ... have implemented shark culling programs to reduce...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify: A 2018 study of sharks off eastern Australia and New Zealand found that juveniles had a survival rate of over 70%, while adults survived at a rate of over 90%. I'm not sure what "survival rate" means here. Does the juvenile 70% mean that 70% of juveniles typically survive to adulthood? That makes sense. The 90% for adults is confusing: does it mean that 90% of adults survive until ... what? old age?

It doesn't say. It is probably old age. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• No need to say it came from a study: A 2024 metastudy concluded that white sharks ... I suppose 99% of the fact in the article come from a study. Unless there is some dispute about the fact, no reason to tell the reader that a metastudy was conducted. Consider moving "metastudy was conducted" into an efn footnote?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Precise or not? ...but can sprint close to 24.1 km/h ... the use of a decimal point: 24.1 vs 24 tells me the scientists measured pretty accurately, so the "close to" is confusing. Does the source support "sprint up to 24.1"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify Increased observation of young sharks... could be interpreted to mean "more scientists are watching". Consider Increased sightings of young sharks...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify: There is evidence that the species can change pigments, adding melanin to blotches of white. - Change over multiple generations? Or an individual can change over its lifetime? Within a single day?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Typo? ... Atlantic (which is known to deter white sharks)> and ...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Its long gill slits do not reach around the head. Is that common? unusual?

No idea. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify: According to shark expert J. E. Randall, the largest white shark reliably measured was a 5.94 m (19.5 ft) specimen reported from Ledge Point, Western Australia in 1987. While unconfirmed, Randall states that the species can likely grow larger than 6 m (20 ft) in length" Does "while unconfirmed" refer to the preceding "5.94 m" or the follwing "6 m"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• I see reviewer Femke below wrote: "... the article assumes too much background knowledge. This is a topic a lot of folks will find interesting, not only people with prior knowledge about biology ... [ping me] once you've ... ensure[d] the article meets WP:MTAU ...". As a non-fish person, maybe I can help resolve that (valid) concern by pointing out some parts of the article that may be too technical. List follows:

• Lead: consider pinnipeds -> seals

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Lead: consider ovoviviparity -> delete word & use it as a wikilink for the following "pups hatching from eggs .."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Lead: 4.6–4.9 m (15–16 ft) in length and weigh 1,000–1,900 kg (2,200–4,200 lb) while males average 3.4–4.0 m (11–13 ft) and weigh 680–1,000 kg (1,500–2,200 lb). - that is a whole lot of digits in the first paragraph (!) of the lead ... may be off-putting to lay readers. Consider deleting all of it from the lead. The killer whale FA article has no numbers in the lead.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Etymology: aquatilibus duo, cum eiconibus ad vivam ipsorum effigiem quoad ejus fieri potuit, ad amplissimum cardinalem Castilioneum - If the book were significant, it would have a WP article. Consider deleting this book title (or move it into an efn footnote).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Phylogeny: Body text is much nicer now than yesterday. Consider adding a sentnece or two at the end of the body text which defines "cladogram" and tells readers how the following two diagrams relate to the Taxonomy section body textz.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• And have a Wikilink to cladogram somewhere, e.g. in the clad. diagram titles?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Fossil: piscivorous - eliminate and make it a wikilink from the following "fish-eating"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Convert quote from source to encyclopedias voice (and plainer English): "became confused by Pleistocene climatic oscillations"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Convert quote from source to encyclopedias voice (and plainer English): "white shark mitogenomes are informative about the species’ deep history but are of very limited use for estimating recent connectivity"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Populations: A bit technical: This differed significantly from the study's mitochondrial DNA, which suggest older divergences and deep geographic structuring of haplotypes. The observed level of segregation far exceeded that predicted by forward-in-time simulations of sex-specific philopatry from the demographic model, indicating that neither philopatry nor genetic drift alone can explain the mito-nuclear discordance.[20] The autosomal divergences are assumed to have been caused by climate-driven oceanographic changes.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Populations: consider elasmobranchs -> sharks and rays

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Size: Consider caudal fin -> tail fin (and add wikilink)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Senses: nictitating membranes -> Consider adding parenthetical definition after this e.g.: (a transparent third eyelid)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Physiology: White sharks are somewhat warm-blooded, or more specifically regionally endothermic.[67] This allows them to be active and hunt in cool waters, and one study found that stomach temperatures ranged from 24.7–26.8 °C (76–80 °F) in waters 12.9–16.1 °C (55–61 °F).[68] Regional endothermy involves a complex blood vessel system known ... Thoughts: (1) First sentence: eliminate "specifically regionally endothermic" and replace with something like "use a system of blood vessels to warm-up portions of their body" (2) Move the bunch of numbers towards the end of the paragraph; (3) introduce and link "regionally endothermic" in 2nd or 3rd sentence.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Distribution ... will congregate in anticyclonic eddies ... Those two wikilinks are not too helpful. I presume this is what the source means: .. will congregate in the middle of high pressure zones ..., correct?

No idea. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Diet: mechanoreceptors - Either define in parenthesis after; or replace with plain English e.g. " a sensory receptor that responds to pressure"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Reproduction: claspers - Either define in parenthesis after; or replace with plain English

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Reproduction: lek mating - Either define in parenthesis after; or replace with plain English

I already describe it. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Mortality: ectoparasitic - Wikilink or define.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• That is all the improvements I can find. I think if you address some of the items above, that might resolve the "too technical" concerns, but - of course - I cannot speak for other reviewers. It is a great article!! I really enjoyed reading it, and I learned a lot. Notify me when you've considered the above, and I'll support the nomination. Noleander (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Supporting this nomination: the prose, MOS compliance, and cite/source formatting meet FA requirements. I have not done a source review or image review. The article is not overly technical, from my viewpoint as a lay person. This is a level 4 Vital article, with about 950,000 annual views. The article is interesting, aesthetically pleasing, and engaging. A great read! Noleander (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Femke

Not promosing a full review yet, but my initial comments:

• I would avoid mentioning the order in the lead: As a member of the order Lamniformes, it is closely related to the mako sharks, the porbeagle, and the salmon shark.. It's already in the infobox, and it's jargon that some people might not be familiar with. Simply say "It is closely related to"
• There's three measurements in the lead. I would leave out either the sex-based one or the extreme one. You can't avoid the conversion to US units in the article, but these conversions do make the article look untidy if there's too many numbers.
• Link temperate -> mild jargon
• De aquatilibus duo --> use the lang template so screen readers can pronounce correctly.
• The white shark is the sole recognized extant species in the genus Carcharodon -> what is extant. Are there unrecognized species? If not, omit recognized.
• The Phylogeny section is overly technical. I've reviwed enough animal articles to know about clades, but that remains jargon. Is there a plainenglish heading possible? What is topology, clocks, autosomal, snp? Are lamnids lamiformes?
• White sharks communicate with each other through a complex array of body language. --> with each other is unnecessary
• two–to–ten pups --> this should not have an n-dash. Easiest is to use spaces, but you can also do 2–10 pups.
• Explain chumming
• I don't understand what a recovery score is.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The first one is still open, and clade is not explained. The figure uses the term Lamniformes and the text Lamnidae. Are those the same?

The article defines the difference in the first paragraph of the section. LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Didnt look at the previous subsection, apologies. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• The text around recovery is still unclear. To me, the text says it's both in decline and recovering. Does this mean the overall numbers are going down but in 59% of its range there is a local recovery? Or does it refer to different time periods? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• A more recent 2024 clock using shifted the range between 57.2 and 31.8 mya --> rm using

Removed fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Pilocene -> Pliocene

Fixed.

• Define mya on first mention

Fixed.

• Sisten species?

Fixed.

• chronospecies?

Fixed.

• megalodon?

Fixed.

• Almost 60% of the white shark's genome consists of repeated sequences and is relatively stable --> Quite a long paragraph. Can it be cut in half?

Fixed.

• " became confused --> unnecessary space

Fixed.

• A 2024 study states that "white shark mitogenomes are informative about the species’ deep history but are of very limited use for estimating recent connectivity". This autosomal (non-sexual nuclear DNA) study concluded that white shark populations can be divided into three major clades, --> My guess was that autosomal meant mitochondrial DNA, but this text implies it's something different. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed.

• The white shark has a stocky, torpedo-shaped body with a short, cone-shaped snout; long gill slits that do not reach around the head; a large triangular first dorsal fin, which partly lines up with the pectoral fins, and tiny second dorsal fin; a caudal fin with similarly sized lobes and one keel; and a tiny anal fin. --> Give the reader a bit more breathing room here, by making it multilpe sentences. Something like "The white shark has a stocky, torpedo-shaped body with a short, cone-shaped snout. Its gill slits are long but do not extend around the head. The first dorsal fin is large and triangular, and sits roughly in line with the pectoral fins, while the second dorsal fin is much smaller. The tail fin has two lobes of similar size and a single keel, and the anal fin is tiny."

Fixed.

• Isn't countershading a type of camoeflage? Might be nice to highlight for those unfamiliar

I already defined it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You say what it is, but not what it's for. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• explain dermal dentrites. Ologies had the most amazing episode about teeth including these amazing dentrites . Definitely worth a listen, even if you might already be familiar with more of the science than I was

Fixed.

• Typically, one wants to avoid 'former' and 'latter' as it makes the reader jump back. You can say something like "Females are generally larger than males, averaging 4.6–4.9 m (15–16 ft) in length compared with 3.4–4.0 m (11–13 ft) for males, and weighing 1,000–1,900 kg (2,200–4,200 lb) versus 680–1,000 kg (1,500–2,200 lb)." That way you also put the two comparisons next to other, avoiding more jumping for readers. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed.

• About the two conflicting statements about longest shark: is the newer source superseding the older? If so, no need to mention the older one I wouldn't think. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Labelling the latter as the largest ever would be OR when there's no other reception. Randel's statement is historically important. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• White sharks display various surface behaviors, .. very long sentence. I'd say something like "White sharks also display several surface behaviours. These include poking their heads above the water, or spyhopping, to observe objects at the surface. Another behaviour, known as “repetitive aerial gaping”, occurs when a spyhopping shark repeatedly opens its mouth while floating belly-up, possibly as a sign of frustration after missing bait"

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Can we say seals instead of pinnipeds? I had no idea we were talking about seals there :). In the lead, each word should be understandable on sight (in the body ideally as well of course)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• The arrival of orcas in an area can cause white sharks to flee, as has been documented both off South Africa and California. A 2026 study off Neptune Islands concurred this, but found that orcas alone are unlikely to cause white sharks to leave an area long term --> I don't think 'concurred this' is correct English. We don't have to say this explicitly, a rewording as "However, a 2026 study at the Neptune Islands found that orcas alone are unlikely to drive them away permanently" makes this clear too.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• ectoparasite?

Linked. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

That's at the bottom of the explanation pyramid. Please explain.

Due. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• ampullae of Lorenzini --> relink upon second mention?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• At Neptune Islands, it was found that white sharks used more energy during encounters with cage divers. --> more energy compared to interactions with tourist? or are these the tourists?

They are the tourists. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Please clarify the text. Perhaps it's because cage diving is unexplained. I visually cage diving as having both the shark and the human in a cage in captivity. Given you've explained the sentence refers to humans, I now imagine a cage with a human in being lowered into the sea to look at sharks.. Probably also wrong, but it's a difficult step from the previous sentence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

No reader is going to think that the shark is in the cage with the diver. That's ridiculous. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

the beginning of the subsection literally states that tourists watch them from inside cages. It's explained enough. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hah, I should be more careful reviewing just before bed (must have glazed over the first paragraph, or it didn't click that these shark cages go underwater and the people inside 'dive'). I don't think the image of a shark cage in the article is clear without clicking on it. Perhaps the best way to explain is to simply replacing the fourth gallery image with the lead one in shark cage? That one shows the tourists diving, rather than just hovering on the surface. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• chumming is still unexplained.

I wrote "throwing of chum in the water". LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

That is a hint to explaining chumming, but I imagine most people would not know what chum is.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

They'll know when looking at the context and "chum" sounds like food. Chum is already linked in the above in the section. LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

To me, chum does not sound like food. This is not a case of me asking for an explanation because I believe others don't understand it. I did not understand the word before clicking on it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That was my first read through. Overall, the article assumes too much background knowledge. This is a topic a lot of folks will find interesting, not only people with prior knowledge about biology. Not ready to support yet, but feel free to ping me once you've done another pass-through to ensure the article meets WP:MTAU (not only my examples), and ideally once the review is a bit further along. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• In January 2023, the Mexican government banned white shark tourism at Guadalupe; due to reports --> semicolon does not seem correct there. What about "In January 2023, the Mexican government banned white shark tourism at Guadalupe. This followed reports of .." —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from AxonsArachnida

I want to know too much about great white sharks, so I'll have a look through this. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "between 60 and 43 million years agao (mya)"-> "Ago" is misspelled.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "A 2025 study affirmed the existence of these three clades, but found"-> I don't think the comma is necessary?

I'd need a second opinion. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• ")ne study found that stomach temperatures ranged from" -> "One".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• The author names in the synonym list could be linked.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Shark being baited in Guadalupe Island Biosphere Reserve, Mexico" image doesn't have alt text.

It does. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• The species/genus name in references 8, 62, 73, 81, 118, 138 aren't italicised.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "These names are thought to refer to its white underside, which is noticeable in dead sharks lying upside down" -> You could just say "These names refer to its white underside, which is noticeable in dead sharks lying upside down"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The white shark first unambiguously appears in the fossil record in the Pacific basin about 5 mya at the beginning of the Pliocene." I can't see where this is stated in either of your references.

Cite 21: "It gradually evolved from the non-serrated Carcharodon hastalis during the late Miocene, transitioning first into the finely serrated Carcharodon hubbelli approximately 8–7 Ma, then evolved into the coarsely serrated C. carcharias approximately 6–5 Ma" Thus the white shark was there by 5 mya. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Around 8 mya, a Pacific stock of C. hastalis evolved into C. hubbelli. This divergent lineage was characterized by a gradual development of serrations over the next few million years." I don't see where the reference says this. In the abstract it says "The recalibration of the absolute dates suggests that Carcharodon hubbelli sp. nov. is Late Miocene (6–8 Ma) in age". Unless I've missed something, you should include the full range.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Almost 60% of the white shark's relatively genome consists of repeated sequences. It has remained relatively stable in its evolution.". You could also mention the size of the genome here (4.63 Gbp).

Too techincal. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "A 2024 study using non-sexual nuclear DNA, concluded that" You don't need to put "non-sexual".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The datings by the 2024 study coincide with the Penultimate Glaciation" "Penultimate Glaciation" doesn't need to be capitalised.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "There is evidence that the species can change pigments like a chameleon, adding melanin to blotches of white" You should mention that this is on a time scale of months. I also wouldn't compare it to a chameleon.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Sizes of two white sharks sampled during a NOAA fisheries survey" You should link NOAA.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• You should link "John E. McCosker".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• J. E. Randall is John Ernest Randall (and you can link them too).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• This paper might be interesting to include: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2025.1520348/full

I'm hesitant same Frontiers is a dodgy journal publisher. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "This classification has the qualifiers "Data Poor" and "Threatened Overseas". It also has the qualifier of "Conservation Dependent".

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• The New Zealand Threat Classification System stuff is out of date. The most recent assessment is from 2024: https://nztcs.org.nz/assessments/181931

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• "A 2018 study of sharks off eastern Australia and New Zealand found that juveniles had a survival rate of over 70%, while adults survived at a rate of over 90%" I'm a bit unclear on this. Is this a 70/90% chance of surviving one year? 70/90% chance of surviving the duration of the study?

The study doesn't make it clear. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• It would be good to also talk about the copepod parasites since they seem to be common parasites of the shark. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213224425001257

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pat O'Keeffe.jpg: the Commons entry for this file is highly inadequate; public domain tags are added where the author and source should be, and the licensing section contradicts this by claiming the photo is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0; evidence needs to be provided the photo was indeed published prior to 1931 to ascertain its copyright status; furthermore the infobox needs a caption for the photo
• File:Match Pat O'Keefe - Allum, Wagram, 2-3-07 - btv1b53223005n.jpg: OK
• File:Signed picture of Pat O'Keeffe in Australia.png: file has incorrect licensing; should be c:Template:PD-Australia plus c:Template:PD-US-expired instead of CC BY-SA 4.0 (since its an autographed photo we can assume it had already been distributed to the general public beforehand)
• File:Georges Carpentier 1914.jpg: OK
• File:Pat O'Keeffe and Bombardier Wells boxing before King George V, Illustrated London News, 21 March 1914.png: licensing should be c:Template:PD-UK-unknown plus c:Template:PD-US-expired
• File:Lance Corporal Pat OKeefe (6282481011).jpg: attribution to the museum isn't necessary in the caption
• File:LCPL Pat O'Keeffe passing round fruit on a boat.png: public domain tags should not be in the author section; licensing section should be c:Template:PD-US-expired plus c:Template:PD-UK-unknown instead of CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Pat OKeeffe training cinema usherettes at Regal Cinema 1929.png: OK
  • Alt texts appear to be up to snuff. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Howardcorn33. Thanks for the review, il get on this when i get home from work later. Metalicat (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Howardcorn33, I believe I've addressed all the points raised.

For File:Pat O'Keeffe.jpg, I conducted an extensive search, but was unable to locate the photograph anywhere but BoxRec. I emailed the contributor that added it, but they have no recollection where they found it, so I have removed it and replaced it with the IWM training photograph. Please let me know if anything else needs attention. Metalicat (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Good to go on that front now. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have now found the fully correctly licensed infobox photo in wiki-commons. Turns out it's in French. I have now put this back as the infobox photo. Metalicat (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's acceptable. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Support from Femke

My pre-FAC comments all seem to be adressed. Really interesting article, well-written and written engagingly. A few additional comments:

• Territoriality and aggression play a large part in the development of young and adolescent rabbits and help ensure survival of the population -> not intuitive to me. I see how aggression can be a good strategy for individuals, but why is it good for the species?
  • After reading a few recent sources on this subject more in-depth I don't see much about the development of the young - I did add later on that those approaching sexual maturity are kicked out of the warren, and removed this sentence. -RR
• Greater maternal investment may result in higher birth weights for bucks. Investment in pet food companies? I assume it means eating more?
  • I can't find a way to make this make sense without it being an obvious statement ("when baby rabbits are fed more they grow up bigger?") so I have removed it for now.. -RR
• 4 more years - four more years
  • Done -RR
• given that the rabbit doesnt occur in the US, consider omitting us-specific unit conversions.
  • Why omit them? The rabbit is still known in the US in its domestic form, and non-US units are always placed first. -RR
    • Fair, takes makes total sense. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• It is unclear exactly what function a dewlap perform -> 2009 source. Still unclear?
  • The purpose is elucidated, though all sources I could find about them are probably describing domestic rabbits, not wild ones. Species accounts and current papers I have access to don't have too many mentions. I responded to MPF about this below. -RR
• Are there freely licensed recording of the sounds they make?
  • There is this audio file: https://openverse.org/audio/58028211-efc9-4629-8a2d-7ed8d48612d6?q=rabbit&p=22 I don't think it's too much better than the one currently in the infobox. -RR
    • Hah, I didn't even know the infobox could have that kind of info. The recording you found here is of higher quality, but has more background info. Might be nice for people equally blind as me? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Captive-bred European rabbits may be fed on fodder consisting of furze and acorns, which leads to considerable weight gain - a 1910 source? Is that still the diet?
  • Updated for 2024 - we don't need to use acorns anymore, now that all your nutrition comes in an alfalfa pellet. -RR
• Like other lagomorphs -> like other rabbits and pikas, or explain if you're reusing the term multiple times
  • Article no longer refers to lagomorphs in the body (only in the infobox) -RR
• Both foxes and badgers dig out kittens from shallow burrows, with the latter predators being too slow to catch adult rabbits -> avoid 'the latter' and be concrete to avoid making the reader skip back to the start of the sentence.
  • Reworded with semicolon, though I don't like this sentence very much -RR
• I don't understand what honest signalling means and how it helps them escape
  • I added an aside. -RR
• have faced subsequent downturns > subsequent is an unnecessary word
  • Removed
• Humans likely began hunting rabbits as a food source, but further research is needed to verify this. -> we are 3 decades later. Is this now researched? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • It looks like all the research came in the 2000s. I've added more info. -- Reconrabbit 18:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• See MOS:COLOUR

• File:Lepus_diazi_02_transparent.png: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Wild_animals_of_North_America,_intimate_studies_of_big_and_little_creatures_of_the_mammal_kingdom_(Page_511)_(Sylvilagus_palustris).jpg, File:Lepus_cuniculus_-_1700-1880_-_Print_-_Iconographia_Zoologica_-(white_background).jpg, File:Lepus_timidus_-_1700-1880_-_Print_-_Iconographia_Zoologica_-(white_background).jpg, File:O._c._cuniculus_skull_(dorsal).png, File:O._c._algirus_skull_(dorsal).png

• File:The_Rabbit_(1898)_'Maternal_instinct'.png: where was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the image issues, but what is referred to by MOS:COLOUR? Should the colours in range maps with legends be made to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Area maps? -- Reconrabbit 14:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The range maps should not rely solely on colour to convey meaning - they should be distinguishable either by shade, texture, or labelling. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I tried to use a different texture to indicate the native range on maps and changed legends accordingly, though there is no legtab template as on Commons so it is not perfect. -- Reconrabbit 16:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

UC

A first batch: more to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) or coney is a species of rabbit native to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal and Andorra) and southwestern France.: I think it's worth getting into the first sentence, or at very least the first paragraph, that European rabbits live in a much greater area than this -- perhaps something like "native to the Iberian Peninsula ... and subsequently introduced to much of northern Europe, southern Australia, and other regions worldwide"?
  • The parentheticals make the first sentence read as rather long as it is, so I separated this out to a second sentence (subsequently...) -RR
• It is the only domesticated species of rabbit, and all known breeds of rabbit are its descendants: we need of domestic rabbit or all known domestic breeds -- I appreciate it's repetitious, but the phrasing as written is open to misinterpretation: breed usually means "variety produced by humans via intentional breeding" but doesn't have to.
  • I did not know that. Added -RR
• Starting from the first century BCE, it has been introduced to at least 800 islands and every continent with the exception of Antarctica,: I can't see from the map or the text that we're counting North America here: most people would count that as a separate continent from South America.
  • Despite all my searching I could not find a map that showed all of the locations that the rabbit has been introduced to. I am working from what IUCN produced in 2008 - their later assessments don't even have range maps. The only North American location that I am certain the European rabbit has invaded, based on literature, is Washington State on the San Juan islands. (I have a friend in Boise, Idaho who can confirm a population of feral rabbits there, but so far I haven't seen anyone writing about it. This can happen anywhere there are breeders.) -RR
    • Works with me: those are mentioned in the text, so we're OK. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Rabett itself is derived from the Middle Dutch robbe: can we say what robbe actually means -- just "rabbit", or is it more encompassing?
  • Barrett-Hamilton et al., 1910 says "The source appears to be the Walloon form rabett, still in common use at Liege, from Middle Dutch robbe=a "rabet" with the suffix ett(Skeat)." This is in my opinion not very elucidating but I believe it just means "rabbit". -RR
• Rabbit is also pronounced as "rabbidge", "rabbert" (North Devon) and "rappit" (Cheshire and Lancashire).: this is cited to a 1910 source: I live in Manchester and grew up in the West Country, and have never heard any of these pronunciations! I think you need to say "as late as the early C20th" or similar.
  • Qualified with the age of the source, looking at modern dictionaries only one pronunciation is given (/ˈræbɪt/). -RR
• Ælian: always written as Aelian: it's not normally treated as a digraph like in Æthelred the Unready.
  • Fixed -RR
• Varo and Pliny: Varro. Can we introduce these people?
  • Introduced as "Roman scholars" -RR
    • An improvement; I might be tempted to give a date ("Romans" existed from c. 750 BCE to c. 1453, depending on how you count it). Roman etymology is pretty much 100% bunk, but I don't know if this is really the place to point that out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see a non-awkward way to do it because of the positioning of these figures ("the first-century BCE/BC and CE/AD scholars Varro and Pliny"?) -- Reconrabbit 18:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  "The Roman scholars Varro and Pliny, who wrote in the first centuries BC and AD respectively, [fancifully] connected it to cuneus"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ballester and Quinn 2002: source link is dead.
  • Fixed with an archive link -RR
• Ancient Greek: ὀρυκτός (oryktos, 'burrowing'): don't use the langx template for this, as it adds an unwanted colon: instead, do something like "the Ancient Greek word {{lang|grc|ὀρυκτός}}".
  • Done -RR
• has been hunted and raised as a food source since medieval times.: the Romans ate them too: see here and here. Our article on Cuniculture has quite a bit here, though the sources aren't great. It seems like rabbits may have been hunted since the Paleolithic: at any rate, we give the game away with Starting from the first century BCE, it has been introduced to at least 800 islands and every continent with the exception of Antarctica, -- people introduced them for 600 years or so before thinking to eat one?
  • My intention there was "raised as food since medieval times", not describing the time frame of hunting, but it's better worded now (since they were raised in the first century too).
• However, the species is listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature: the infobox says "Near Threatened", which is two steps above "Endangered".
  • Fixed this in the last section but forgot to do it at the top. -RR
• it has faced population declines in its native range: decline, I think.
  • Done -RR
• predators that rely intensely on the rabbit as food: just rely -- I don't think you can really "rely" on something if that reliance isn't a big deal.
  • Simplified -RR
• native names in English or Celtic,: Celtic isn't a language; it's a language family. Suggest "the pre-English Celtic languages of the British Isles" -- but then is this really relevant here, since what's important is the language we're writing in (English), not the geographical origin of that language?
  • Since Barrett-Hamilton et al., 1910 does not make the distinction until later (noting two post-Norman names for the rabbit in the Celtic languages Welsh and Irish), would it be appropriate to replace "Celtic" with "Welsh or Irish" in the first sentence? -RR
    • I think the second bit is the bigger problem: why does it matter that there's no native word in Welsh, versus (say) Polish? After all, the rabbit is no more native to Wales or Ireland than it is to Poland. Even then, the Celtic languages of the British Isles include, notably, Scottish Gaelic, Manx and Cornish. I assume the story is the same for them? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
      • Since the word that we're using throughout the article is the English "rabbit", I think I'll restrict the "native names" introduced to just English. I can add Spanish, French, and Portuguese names (liebre, ) if that makes sense for their "native range". -RR
• according to Swedish zoologist Wilhelm Lilljeborg, who created the genus in 1874: according to is odd phrasing here -- sounds like it's debateable, when he was the one who came up with the name, so really ought to know what he is talking about.
  • Removed as redundant -RR
• the European rabbit's closest relatives are the hispid hare (Caprolagus hispidus), the riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis), and the Amami rabbit (Pentalagus furnessi).: if I've understood the cladogram right, we're doing this in an odd order: Bunolagus is the closest relative, followed in order by Caprolagus and Pentalagus.
  • Corrected, with a citation from 2016 (though I could have just as easily used Pereira 2019 if it's preferred). -RR
• The range maps in the "subspecies" table miss out at least much of the respective ranges, as indicated by the text in the same cells. This doesn't seem ideal.
  • I don't see a good solution for this. The only alternative is to use world maps (as is done in the infobox) and doing that for O. c. algirus would not be particularly useful because of how small the islands of its non-native range are. -RR
    • I think I'd start from the position that any map is meant to help clarify and inform: if there isn't a map which does that (as opposed to misleading the audience), then having no map is preferable. There are a few options: use slightly larger-scale maps (perhaps with small territories, such as islands, circled for visibility); remove the maps altogether and use a bulleted list; or some hybrid approach that makes clearer that the map is only part of the range. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
      • Following further confusion about what is accepted as "endemic" or "introduced" parts of the range (these maps weren't adapted from IUCN) both maps are removed in favor of simple descriptions of location. -- Reconrabbit 19:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• what are likely Neanderthal burial sites: the title of this paper puts "burial" in scare quotes, which is a clue -- it's very controversial whether Neanderthals intentionally buried their dead, as opposed to Neanderthal corpses ending up in places (like hollows in caves) where they are likely to become buried by natural processes.
  • I wasn't aware of the controversy. I do not have access to the cited article for this fact, but it may not warrant inclusion since this is a single site and going in depth on Neanderthal funerals may be out of scope. -RR
    • If nothing else, if it's a single site, we can't use the plural sites. I haven't looked at the source itself but removing might be a good move, depending on how confident the "burial site" label actually is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• It was likely first brought to Britain by the Normans after the 1066 conquest of England, as no pre-Norman British allusions to the animal have been found.: this may not be true: at least one Roman rabbit has been found in England (see here and here as well. We might well be able to say that the Romans probably didn't bring many rabbits over, but that's not quite the same thing: there's also a debate here that needs some presentation. We also need to clarify that by allusions we mean literary/artistic mentions, rather than physical remains (of which some certainly exist).
  • Qualified (re-evaluated) in the text, please let me know what you think. I didn't find very much about the topic in literature through Springer or Sage. -RR
• connynge + erthe ('cony'+'earth'): space here or not? And doesn't coney have an E in it?
  • Barrett-Hamilton 1910 uses both spellings of cony, but prefers without an e; for consistency I changed all mentions to coney since it appears at the first sentence. -RR
• Originally assigned to the genus Lepus by Carl Linnaeus in 1758, the European rabbit was consigned to its own genus, Oryctolagus, in 1874 by Swedish zoologist Wilhelm Lilljeborg: Are we introducing people by nationality/profession or not? Linnaeus is famous in his field, but not that well known to non-specialist readers.
  • Showing my bias here. Introduced properly now. -RR
• on nuclear and mitochondrial gene analysis: suggest something like "analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA" to be clear that "nuclear analysis" isn't a thing -- it sounds like something very different to what we mean!
  • Flipped -- Reconrabbit 17:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's do a bit more:

• Subspecies other than O. c. algirus and O. c. cuniculus have been recommended for abandonment: what does this mean? It sounds like someone advocates leaving your pet bunny by the side of the motorway if it's from the wrong subspecies? Not sure I'm keen on the passive, either. Who recommends this?
• as they have very little evolutionary history: this can't be what you mean. All rabbits living at the same time have precisely as much evolutionary history as each other (more interesting things may have happened in one case than another, but that's different).
• The subspecies O. c. habetensis, conmay have been introduced: error for may?
• Who are/were the Phoenicians and when did they live?
  • For all of the above: I thought that Ferrand (2008) had more support for this theory on importation of rabbits to Africa, but I am not finding support for it anywhere else. There is one PhD thesis that he cites about it. His statement is hard to corroborate - I have read that the Phoenicians spread rats throughout the Mediterranean on their ships, but I am less certain that "rabbits may have been introduced in North Africa by Phoenicians at the time of the first historical contacts established by navigating the Mediterranean". No other source mentions such a distribution and some place the rabbit's distribution throughout the region much later (Campbell 2014 attributes this lack of records to a confusion between records referring to "hares" which were already widespread and "rabbits"). I did a rewrite of that section that makes fewer assumptions. "Evolutionary history" was intended as "evolutionary scenarios" as in it doesn't make sense for algirus and cuniculus to have this clearly traced pattern of genetic divergence in different regions and the rest of the widespread subspecies having no such diversity. -- Reconrabbit 19:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• There is no clear scenario for the divergent evolution of other subspecies besides O. c. algirus and O. c. cuniculus, evidenced by a lack of genetic diversity: I still don't understand this. Between them? Within each subspecies? Come to think of it, the first half is pretty unclear as well. Do we mean something like "it is considered unlikely that other subspecies besides ... have ever evolved, since... [some clearer explanation of how genetic diversity shows this]"?
• Genetic studies undertaken in 2008, however, indicated only two extant subspecies, O. c. cuniculus and O. c. algirus, native to the Iberian Peninsula and parts of northern Africa, where most of the European rabbit's evolutionary history is centred; as of 2022, only these two subspecies are recognized: it feels like the weighting is wrong here. We started with six subspecies presented in a nice authoritative list, and then we've gone back and said "actually, we lied -- only the first two of these are real". I think it would be clearer to start with the two, and then saying that biologists previously identified six, but now think that there's no way that extra subspecies evolved from the two (for the genetic-diversity reasons mentioned above), so have decided that the rabbits they previously called brachyotus, cnossius, and habetensis are really just cuniculus, and the ones they previously called huxleyi are the same as algirius.
• Do we need to do anything with the names kreyenbergi, vermicula and vernicularis here?
  • I'm working on a rewrite of the above 3 points in a sandbox - this whole paragraph needs to be redone. kreyenbergi has its deal spelled out here, and in 1912 vermicula and vernicularis were described as nomina nuda. This should probably be the case for algirus honestly given how sparse it is but we have to deal with what the texts say. -RR
• Introduced to the Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily.: this is a compound list thanks to the and after Madeira, so we need a semicolon for every comma after Canary Islands.
  • Done -RR
• The oldest known fossils of the currently living European rabbit species, Oryctolagus cuniculus, appeared in the Middle Pleistocene age in southern Spain: slight nit-pick: better to say that they date from then (we care about when the rabbit lived, not when the corpse became a fossil). Better nit-pick: can we put a date on the Middle Pleistocene?
  • I wrote it out later for some reason. 0.6 Mya. Redone. -RR
• I would spell out MYA on first use.
  • Done (with the Ma template also). -RR
• The first fossils assignable to the genus Oryctolagus appeared during the Miocene epoch: as above.
• Glacial activity would confine European rabbit populations to the Iberian Peninsula and southern France by the Early Holocene epoch: ditto. I think this needs a bit more explanation (e.g. that and when glaciers spread over most of what is now northern and central Europe).
  • I had trouble here... I was able to find information on widespread permafrost, but not what the specific glaciation event was. -RR
    • It's the Last Glacial Period: the existence of the glaciers whose retreat (the Holocene glacial retreat) started the Holocene. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Adult European rabbits measure on average 40 centimetres (16 inches) in length, and typically weigh 1.2–2.0 kilograms (2.6–4.4 pounds).: it's a bit odd that we've got a single length figure but a large range of weights -- do we have 40cm long rabbits weighing 1.2kg and weighing 2kg?
  • I updated that with 2016 numbers (in a 2026 work). Larger(?) ranges. -RR
• Size and weight vary according to food and habitat quality, with rabbits living on light soil with nothing but grass to feed on being noticeably smaller than specimens living on highly cultivated farmlands with plenty of roots and clover: more readable and flows better as Size and weight vary according to food and habitat quality. Rabbits living on light soil with nothing but grass to feed on are noticeably smaller than specimens living on highly cultivated farmlands with plenty of roots and clover.
  • I think I corrected this from another reviewer's comments as you were writing this! -RR
• One large specimen, caught in February 1890 in Lichfield: I would clarify that Lichfield is in England.
  • +England, -RR
• The skull of the European rabbit displays a significant facial tilt of roughly 45° forward relative to the base of the skull at rest, which supports their means: agreement is off here.
  • Changed to 'its' -RR
• their growth and use is correlated to that of the rest of the rabbit's body,: correlated with. The use of the rabbit's hind legs is correlated with the use of the rest of its body?
  • I couldn't find explanation on this in the original source or elsewhere, this is removed and the paragraph expanded with a different, more recent source. -RR
• The degree of territorial behaviour varies with habitat; for example, rabbits found in chalk grassland are more territorial than those found in regions with abundant shrubs: has anyone suggested why?
  • This altered behaviour isn't mentioned often and the cited source doesn't provide a reason why it happens - might be best to exclude this for now. -RR
• it typically only moves 25 m (82 ft): assuming the 25m is the original figure, I would round to 80: I don't think the source mean 25 as opposed to 24 or 26.
  • Rounded with sig figs. -RR
• Dominance hierarchies exist in parallel for both bucks and does: we haven't yet explained what these are: we previously said "males" and "females". I would be tempted to stick with that, but we should at least bracket on first mention.
  • I added clarifications at the start of the section ("males, referred to as bucks...") and also added etymology to the relevant section before (copied from Rabbit). -RR

Traumnovelle

• During the 1950s, the intentional introduction of a virus that causes myxomatosis provided some relief in Australia. I don't see why myxoma virus shouldn't be mentioned here.
• Myxomatosis can also infect pet rabbits (the same species) is it necessary to mention 'same species' as its mentioned further up that the domestic rabbit is the domesticated form of the European rabbit?
• strain of a second deadly rabbit virus, rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD)

RHD is a disease not a virus.

• cecotropes caecotropes in British English. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Addressed all of the above. Of course, still working on the comments from everyone else here. -- Reconrabbit 14:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• File:The Rabbit (1898) 'Maternal instinct'.png book was published in London but there is no UK tag for the copyright.
• File:Animal Parcours 08.jpg evidence the account has the rights from Parc'Ours to upload this image is required. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Lodge passed 72 years ago so PD-old-auto has been applied. The latter image was replaced with File:Rabbit - French Lop breed 2.jpg but I can find a better image if I keep looking. I was also considering File:Domestic mini lop rabbit.jpg -- Reconrabbit 21:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (3/7/26)

Lead

• You don't need to wikilink Spain, Portugal, or France.

Subspecies

• You don't need to wikilink Australia, New Zealand, Chile, or Africa.
• You don't need to wikilink Portugal or Spain.

Description

• "The skeleton and musculature of the European rabbit, like other leporids (rabbits and hares), are suited to survival..."

Reproduction and development

• Recommend de-wikilinking the seasons, as those are exceedingly common words.
• Are baby rabbits called "kits" or "kittens"?

Diet

• "...creating a gradient of low vegetation and nutritional content closer to the burrow (where grazing is most intense) to high vegetation and available nutrition further away (where the rabbit is more exposed to predators and uses more energy to escape)" --> Recommend removing the parentheses and offsetting those phrases with commas instead.
• "...for about 2 to 8 days"
• "Like other lagomorphs..." What are lagomorphs?

Diseases, parasites and immunity

• "...on the 11th or 12th day of infection"

Origins

• I'm not sure the "Southern" in "Southern France" needs to be capitalized.
• Photo caption: "Two rabbits on the steps of the Finnish National Opera in Helsinki"
  • Done all of the above -RR

Linguistic record

• "Hyraxes, like rabbits, are not rodents." --> This does not seem to be a relevant detail and could probably be deleted.
• De-wikilink Greece and Italy.
• "...because the species wasn't native to Greece and Italy (though it is present there nowadays)." --> Like above, recommend removing the parentheses and offsetting with a comma instead.

Domestication

• "The European rabbit has been refined into a wide variety of breeds[1] during and since the emergence of animal fancy in the 19th century." --> Citations should occur only after punctuation marks or at the end of sentences, so that first citation (currently source no. 97) should move to the end of the sentence.

As an introduced species

• "The first known mention of the rabbit as an invasive species (and possibly the first documented instance of an invasive species ever) was made in regard..." --> Recommend offsetting the phrase in parentheses with either commas or en-dashes.
• De-wikilink Australia and New Zealand, and Ireland.
• "...from the 11th through 13th centuries"
• Again, de-wikilink New Zealand.
• "Myxomatosis can also infect pet rabbits (the same species)." --> That last element is unnecessary.
• "RHD was also introduced—illegally—in New Zealand with less success due to improper timing." --> I would remove the dashes.
• Dewikilink Chile and Ukraine.
• "the early 20th century by Austrian nobleman Graf Malokhovsky," --> Recommend slightly rephrasing "the early 20th century by the Austrian nobleman, Graf Malokhovsky,"
• Dewikilink Switzerland.
• "...in 1894 or 1895"

User:Reconrabbit: Let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments! Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 ▪︎3 should be "...from the 11th to the 13th centuries" ("11th through 13th" is incomplete as it necessitates a later end time, except in American, which this page is not) - MPF (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it, "from the 11th–13th centuries" is perfectly OK as it is - MPF (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 I've looked at all of your comments and have made all of these changes. I would have liked to find a better solution to the mid-sentence footnote under Domestication as that source does not provide a timeline of the breeds' introduction, as does the reference that follows and was originally at the end of that sentence. -- Reconrabbit 14:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have the following up for Featured consideration if you have time and are so inclined: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Pair skating/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Slovenian Figure Skating Championships/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/French Figure Skating Championships/archive1. Thank you so much in advance! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

MPF

• A full check-through for engvar consistent with the tag at the top of the page is needed. I spotted, and corrected, a few engvar errors, but could easily have missed some.
• Images: Both the taxobox image, and the nominate subspecies in the subspecies section, show feral animals outside of the species' native range. These should be replaced with photos of native individuals if at all possible. - MPF (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to be difficult, but I don't think this is a major consideration. MOS:IMAGEREL tells us to pick the image that most looks like the thing we're describing; MOS:IMAGEQUALITY to Use the best quality images available. Yes, if there are images of equal quality of rabbits in their native range, we might think about swapping them, but switching for an image of lower quality for that reason would be a mistake. I note that the infobox image in particular is a particularly good one, aesthetically and as an illustration. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's reasonable to have an image representative of the nominate subspecies in its native range, which I added in the subspecies table. There are many available on iNaturalist. I agree that the infobox image should remain. -- Reconrabbit 16:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist @Reconrabbit thanks; but I'd disagree on the taxobox image, precisely because of the introductory sentence, "Due to their history of domestication, selective breeding, and introduction to non-native habitats, wild and domesticated European rabbits across the world can vary widely in size, shape, and colour" - a specimen from an introduced population is not fully representative of the species. It's like you wouldn't use a photo of a dog in the taxobox of wolf; even though it is the same species, it is not reliably representative of the natural wild form - MPF (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  The infobox photo can replace the current image that provides heading for the section "In Australia and New Zealand". What do you think of this image of (probably) O. c. cuniculus in northeastern Spain? https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/49453023 -- Reconrabbit 17:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Reconrabbit thanks! Yes, that's a good idea on using the current box photo for the Au & NZ section. That one at iNat is a nicely focussed pic, but it is very small; I'd think there might be better? I'll take a look myself later - MPF (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Some more options: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/235971415, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/279456872, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/271957949, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/94969762 (kinda grainy). -- Reconrabbit 18:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  First one is the best; 3rd is OK but not really taxobox standard; 2nd and 4th are both very grainy, barely even worth uploading at Commons - MPF (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• The Dewlaps section needs some clarification / expansion; personally, I've never seen dewlaps on a wild rabbit, but they are large and obvious on domesticated rabbits. Are they present, but small and inconspicuous, on wild rabbits, or actually absent? In many birds, secondary sex characteristics (like bill knobs) are either absent, or very small, in wild populations, but highly exaggerated in domesticated breeds (compare e.g. wild Swan Goose with the domesticated variant). I'm guessing the same might apply with rabbits, but don't know - MPF (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am finding trouble getting a hold of any literature that describes the dewlap in wild rabbits. Either it is not mentioned at all (species accounts by

  Schai-Braun & Hackländer 2016, Delibes-Mateos et al 2018, Delibes-Mateos et al 2023) or describe it as "large and pendulous, more prominent in the female" (veterinary manuals and accounts obviously describing domesticated breeds). -- Reconrabbit 14:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! I wonder if this whole Dewlaps subsection might be better moved to the Domestication section, then? - MPF (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know if it's really appropriate there. It is a component of their physiology. Maybe it could be moved entirely to domestic rabbit? -- Reconrabbit 20:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! That's probably a good idea at least until anyone can find some info on its absence / presence in wild populations - MPF (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• One more thing that's been niggling at me: under the Taxonomy section, we have "Populations considered native to North Africa, ..., were likely introduced by Phoenicians navigating the Mediterranean Sea; they are considered to be O. c. cuniculus ...., BUT the accepted southwestern Iberian subspecies is O. c. algirus Loche, 1858. If this isn't named after (and thus originally described from) Algeria, I'll be very surprised. If I'm right, we are either dealing with a widespread misapplication of Loche's name, or else the contention that North African rabbits are introduced from the nominate subspecies is wrong. It'll necessitate digging out Loche's protologue, which may not be easy to find. And even then, anything we say would strongly risk contravening WP:NOR . . . MPF (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ha! Yes, I'm right: Lapin d'Algérie Cuniculus algirus. Nothing to do with southwestern Iberia. Big can of worms to be opened! - MPF (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Frustratingly this article that discusses both subspecies tosses out "algirus is endemic to northern Africa" without explaining how that's possible. I could use this article along with the 2016 account to support a statement like "the endemic populations found in northern Morocco and Algeria pertain to algirus, while introduced populations in northern Africa previously considered as the subspecies O. c. habetensis are synonymous with cuniculus"? -- Reconrabbit 00:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  The original account of Cuniculus algirus to which Loche's authority is given is fairly unhelpful: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41949401#page/43/mode/1up. It at least establishes that the Iberian rabbit (then the Algerian rabbit) lived in Algeria and was discovered by Victor Loche if nothing else. Schai-Braun & Hackländer write in 2016 that O. c. algirus is restricted to SW Iberian Peninsula, N Morocco, and N Algeria. The discrepancy in the described distribution probably comes from Fontanesi, Utzeri and Ribani 2021, which doesn't include Africa at all when describing subspecies and their invasion out of Iberia. I have added to the subspecies table the locations where huxleyi is found too. Just have to reconcile the above paragraph since I have not found a work that describes how habetensis is part of cuniculus but algirus is allowed to stay (or when its common name changed). -- Reconrabbit 00:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Good sleuthing! I'm not even convinced that Loche's name is validly published; there's no diagnosis or description to support his new name. All there is, is a citation of Lereboullet in Gervais's Histoire naturelle des mammifères, and all that has (here) is Le Lapin de l'Algérie a été décrit par M. Lereboullet comme avant aussi des caractères particuliers. ("The Rabbit of Algeria which is described by Mr. Lereboullet also has some particular characters."). Hardly saying how it can be distinguished! I'd like to hope that Loche deposited a type specimen in a museum which has subsequently been DNA-tested and found to match SW Iberian samples, but I won't hold my breath! Unfortunately doing any real work on all this would be original research not suited to wikipedia . . . - MPF (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have made some changes based on UC's analysis. No comment on the subspecies name (besides that nearly everyone accepts it as "Iberian rabbit" now). -- Reconrabbit 19:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I emailed the author of a recent paper and actually heard back!!! They pointed me to this article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12549-024-00605-6 -- Reconrabbit 10:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Nevermind, the email I got back was AI-generated. They actually cited a completely different article that supports a conclusion I hoped was true but apparently the article does not exist. -- Reconrabbit 16:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Looks like an interesting article; comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• "wild and domesticated European rabbits across the world" → "wild and domesticated European rabbits worldwide"
  • A suggestion.
    • I changed it to "around the world" rather than "across", which I prefer here instead of "worldwide" -RR
• "every continent with the exception of Antarctica" → "every continent except Antarctica"

MSincccc (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Naming and etymology

• "old French" → "Old French"
• "celtiberian" → "Celtiberian"
  • I don't see this in lowercase anywhere -RR
• Connil comes from the
  • If you don't have any issues with a double space, it is fine. Else I just wanted to point out that there's a double space after "comes".
    • I don't mind fixing it -RR

Evolution

• The following cladogram encompassing the known genera of rabbits and hares is based on work done by Matthee and colleagues in 2004 and clarifications from Abrantes and colleagues in 2011
  • You could introduce "Mathee" and "Abrantes" on first mention.
    • I struggle to figure out how to do so... but tried rewording it anyway. -RR
• Iberian Peninsula could be linked on first mention in the body (rather than on the second mention).
• "Molecular studies confirm that the resemblance between the two is due to convergent evolution" → "Molecular studies confirm the resemblance is due to convergent evolution"
• all of which were characteristics not seen in hares
  • This portion could be rephrased/trimmed.
    • An attempt was made. -RR

Description

• Size and weight vary according to food and habitat quality, with rabbits living on light soil with nothing but grass to feed on being noticeably smaller than specimens living on highly cultivated farmlands with plenty of roots and clover.
  • This sentence could be trimmed.
    • Split off the first third. -RR

MSincccc (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Life history and behaviour

• "Nonverbal communication" → "Non-verbal communication"
  • Oxford spelling.
• "Male ranges tend to be larger than those held by females"

→ "Male ranges tend to be larger than those of females"

• • More idiomatic?
• "Female home ranges have been observed as larger than those of males" → "Female home ranges have been observed to be larger than those of males"

MSincccc (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Held by is less clear than "of" , changed that. Was unaware of the oxford spelling there. Corrected all of these per your recommendations -- Reconrabbit 14:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

As I reviewed this article for GA before, I believe the article is almost ready. However, I think you should supplement description for the sample, File:Suit and Tie.ogg; it just looks like one of the decorative elements for now, as it only explains the length of the sample. Also, I recognized that |alt= should be used in {{Listen}} either, so I advise you to insert "A 25-second sample of 'Suit & Tie'" into |alt= parameter. And this is same case with the video file in Music video section, which lacks both the description and alt.

Plus, "digital download" is not an overlink, so it should be linked in Release history section. I wonder why you changed your mind not to link them, but actually they're necessary as those terms are regarded important in this section. Rather, you'd better unlink wikilinks im Year-end charts, which are already linked in Weekly charts sub-section.

And add |url-access=subscription to the sources that require subscription, such as various Billboard charts in Year-end lists.

I'll be more busy soon as my vacation was already ended, so I just caught noticeable issues in this article. I believe others will do spotcheck someday. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: Done! RedShellMomentum 03:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Great work, now I support the article. I've seen your great contribution and interest in this article, good luck! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

SC

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to oppose this based on prose. Looking over the lead shows a number of problems that need working on. The following are just examples from a quick skim through, and fixing just these are not going to get the article over the line:

• "It was released": the last "it" referred to was the album
• "a "slow-drawl" comprising slowed-down synths and "slightly out of time" drum claps, similar to the chopped and screwed remixing style": this is almost incomprehensible as it stands
• 'Lyrically, it is an ode to the joys of "being handsome and well-dressed".': I originally wrote my notes as this being unencyclopaedically phrased, but then I see lower down that "ode to the joys" is supposed to be part of the quote. Why is it written in the Wiki voice here? Why isn't it part of the quote – and why isn't the person whose opinion this is mentioned inline? Why is this even a quote? A song's subject can just be written in plain text, without the unencyclopaedic phrasing.
• "Upon release" -> "Upon its release"
• "for representing R&B in a way many contemporary songs could not": I think you need to explain what this means
• "the UK and Canada, peaking at number three in both regions": both the UK and Canada are countries, not regions
• "As of 2018,": that was eight years ago

That's just the stuff in the lead that catches my eye on a quick runthrough, without looking too deeply, which isn't great. Dropping my eyes down to the Background section, seeing the out of context ' I'm the one that sits and is obsessive about...' quote is enough to push me to oppose, but the biggest issue is the Critical reception section which is boring to read, not for the subject matter, but the formatting, which comprises a series of sentences that run 'Joe Bloggs from Music Publication said "Blah blah..."' It leads to too many pointless quotes that can be rewritten in far better English than music journalists can manage. This whole section needs a lot more work to bring it up to spec.

Can I suggest you withdraw this and work on it offline a little – going through it again to try and polish the prose further. – SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Simplified model of perception and memory.svg: OK
• File:Generalization process using trees.svg: OK
• File:Metacognition2.svg: OK
• File:Artificial neural network colored.svg: OK
• File:Jean Piaget in Ann Arbor (cropped).png: OK (found a full scan of the same yearbook here and couldn't find a copyright notice)
• File:BonoboFishing04.jpeg: OK
• File:1206 FMRI.jpg: OK
• File:John Locke.jpg: OK
  • Overall the licenses and alt text are up to snuff. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hello Howardcorn33 and thanks for the image review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi MSincccc, it's nice that you found the time for another review! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  With a Maths examination in the week to come. MSincccc (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• Connectionism models the mind as a complex network of nodes where information flows as nodes communicate with each other.
  • You could rephrase this sentence to avoid repeating "nodes".

    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Definition

• You could link "sensory information" on first mention in the body.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• This information is then transformed as different ideas are linked, resulting in the storage of information as memories and beliefs are formed.
  • You could avoid repeating "information".

    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• cognition is not limited to humans and encompasses animal and artificial cognition
  • This one could be rephrased to avoid "cognition" in close proximity.

    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Types of cognitive processes

• This distinction rests on the idea that higher-order processes depend on basic processes and could not occur without them.
  • Feels a bit redundant with both "depend on" and "could not occur without".

    It seems that FA reviewers think alike . I fixed it already in response to UndercoverClassicist. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Data from these different modalities is integrated" → "Data from these different modalities are integrated"

  Changed. I think either one works in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• "a cognitive process that was initially controlled can become automatic, thereby freeing up cognitive resources for other tasks." → "a process that was initially controlled can become automatic, freeing up resources for other activities."

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Development

• Jean Piaget's theory divides
  • A surface reader might assume the theory to be linked to a general article on theory rather than a specific one.

    I moved the wikilink to Jean Piaget to a later mention so that the whole expression now links to Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• I will read through the Theories later, when I have the time.

MSincccc (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-human

• Another often-studied capacity is the power to form and remember a spatial map of the environment.
  • How about "ability" in place of "power"?

    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• expressed in the ability to understand a category and apply it to novel instances
  • Could this portion be rephrased?

    Reformulated. Have a look if the new version is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

In various fields

• You could link to Computational model and Mathematical model.

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The choice of method depends a lot on the studied cognitive process" → "The choice of method depends on the studied cognitive process"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Another method examines patients with brain damage. It seeks to understand the role of a brain area indirectly by studying how cognition changes if the area is impaired.
  • You could merge both sentences.

    Merged. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• How about spinning off "History" into a section of its own rather than a subsection?

MSincccc (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• The topic does not get that much attention in the sources so I thought it would be better to present it as a subsection. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Theories (Classical computationalism)

• "cognitions operate on strings to create new strings" → "cognitions operate on strings to create new ones"
  • Avoids repetition.
• "individual processes work similar to an electronic calculator" → "individual processes work similarly to an electronic calculator"
• "The intermediary level involves the decomposition of the process into" → "The intermediary level decomposes the process into individual steps"
• "mental states like beliefs and desires are realized through mentalese sentences" → "mental states like beliefs and desires are realized as mentalese sentences"
  • More idiomatic?

More to follow. MSincccc (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

UC

At first glance, looks like another well-presented and clearly explained Phlsph7 article on the basics of philosophy. I don't really feel qualified to comment on most of the content, so will focus on clarity and any grammatical/MoS mistakes I can spot.

Hi UndercoverClassicist, thanks for leaving your comfort zone to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• It's a bit unusual to start the first sentence with the subject in the plural -- I notice that Perception, Attention and Memory all avoid it. I must admit that I haven't really seen "Cognitions" in the wild before reading this article.
  • Sorry to interrupt, but I debated the point before eventually deciding against it, fearing it might feel stylistic or nitpicky. A basic Google search suggests: In most academic and general contexts, “cognition” is used as an uncountable noun. MSincccc (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

    I think either way works. I changed it to the singular. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• While research focuses primarily on the human mind, cognition is not limited to humans and encompasses animal and artificial forms -- are you happy that this squares with They are essential for understanding and interacting with the world by making individuals aware of their environment and helping them plan and execute appropriate responses? In particular, I'm not sure how far we've sketched what cognition looks like for an artificial form that doesn't really have an environment in the normal sense.

  You could say something similar about memory: it is essential for interacting with the world and computers also have it although most of them don't interact with the world in this sense. Regarding artificial intelligence that has an "environment", it's probably more instructive to think of robots with sensors that autonomously navigate their surroundings than of desktop computers. I agree that the term "artificial cognition" can feel unintuitive, but high-quality sources talk of it so we need to cover it in some form. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, no -- I agree that cognition is essential to navigate the world, and that enough of its users have to do that that it's useful to say that here. However, I think it would be useful to say what else cognition is good for -- put another way, why would an entity that does not meaningfully interact with the real world, like an LLM, need it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  This particular passage describes a key role of cognition but is not intended to provide comprehensive overview of all possible roles. I guess an entity fully cut off from the external world could still use cognition to regulate its own internal states. Something similar is explained later in regard to metacognition. However, this may be too specific to discuss here. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• cognōscere, meaning 'to learn, to investigate': I'd definitely throw in "understand" to that definition and probably remove "investigate". The usual sense is about getting to know/acquiring knowledge of something, or having knowledge of that thing/person. See Lewis and Short, the go-to Latin dictionary for Latinists.

  I adjusted the translation and added the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Through its past participle cognitus: I'd call this a perfect participle, since Latin doesn't have a unified past tense.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• This distinction rests on the idea that higher-order processes depend on basic processes and could not occur without them: seems like hendiadys: do we need both parts, or would anything be lost in "the idea that higher-order processes could not occur without basic processes"?

  Changed. It was intended as a crutch for understanding but it's not essential. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Visual perception—the detection and interpretation of light—is a primary source of knowledge about the external environment: back to my point about animals and AIs -- this is only true if you're a sighted human being; it's not true if you're a bat, for example, or an LLM.

  I added "for humans" at the end. The discussion of cognition in the reliable sources focuses overwhelmingly on the human perspective. We make the reader aware of this, so I think we are justified in proceding like they do rather than trying to present a species-neutral discussion throughout the whole article. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I might be tempted to go with "most humans": the point is well taken, but we should avoid saying anything that's actively false (even if we don't necessarily go into all the details and nuances). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• The ability to employ tools is an example of animal cognition, such as a bonobo fishing termites with a stick: fishing for or similar.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Relevant factors include the level and type of engagement with the content, like attention, emotion, mood, and the context in which the information is processed: I don't think the second half of this is grammatical. What is "like" modifying, for instance? We could do Relevant factors include the level and type of engagement with the content: for example, the emotional, mood [are those different?], attentional and other context in which...

  Reformulated. It was supposed to modify "level and type of engagement" but your version works as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• either by accessing factual information about the events or by reliving them: what do we mean by "reliving" here -- actually or mentally?

  I added "mentally". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• like the abilities to ride a bicycle and type on a keyboard: I'd use the singular ability here: you could add "bicycle, or to type..." if you want to be extra clear that you don't mean doing both simultaneously.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Semantic memory deals with general knowledge about facts and concepts: the linked article says that general knowledge excludes specialized learning that can only be obtained with extensive training and information confined to a single medium. Is this intended in your definition here? If not, I'd cut "general": you could always re-add "such as general knowledge about the world" to the end of the sentence if you really want the link.

  That probably depends the specific definitions of semantic memory and general knowledge. I followed your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural memory handles practical knowledge of how to do things. It encompasses learned skills that can be executed, like the ability to ride a bicycle or to type on a keyboard. // As a form of know-how, procedural memory is distinct from the capacity Why not start the paragraph at "Procedural memory handles..."? Even the bicycle example crosses the paragraph break.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• It happens either intentionally, such as through studying or practicing, or unintentionally as an unconscious side effect while of engaging in other tasks: ce as marked.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• You could link Socrates on first mention, and perhaps state that the "Socrates is mortal" argument is called a syllogism.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Non-deductive reasoning makes a conclusion rationally convincing but does not guarantee its truth: er... does it? I can do all sorts of reasoning that might not lead to a conclusion that is remotely convincing. Suggest "aims to"?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• like concluding that all ravens are black based on observations of numerous black ravens: as for Socrates, you might want to link "raven". I assume you're deliberately avoiding the famous example about swans?

  Added. The ravens example is also quite common. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Abductive reasoning, another type of non-deductive reasoning, seeks the best explanation of a phenomenon: our article says "simplest and most likely explanation", which is much less woolly than "best".

  The phrase "best explanation" is a standard definition in this context, so it may be preferable to keep it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• For ill-structured problems, by contrast, it is not possible to determine which exact steps are successful: will be successful? Once you've solved the problem, it's pretty easy to work out which steps were successful.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• To find solutions, creativity in the form of divergent thinking generates many possible approaches. Convergent thinking evaluates the different options and eliminates unfeasible ones: I think this would be clearer if you phrased the first sentence as an explanation of what "divergent thinking" is (the surface reading is "thinking differently to other people"), to set up the contrast with "convergent thinking".

  I reformulated the passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Common heuristics are to divide a problem into several simpler subproblems and to adapt strategies that were successful for similar problems encountered earlier: this could perhaps be slightly restructured to make it clearer that these are two different strategies.

  I split the sentence into two. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• determine the best alternative, it weighs the different options by assessing their advantages and disadvantages, for example, by considering their positive and negative consequences: dash after disadvantages. I think you could probably get away with a semicolon, but also suspect that some style guides would be upset by that. It definitely needs more than a comma.

  I went with the dash. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• the highest expected utility: the highest expected what?

  Reformulated as "benefit". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Natural concepts, by contrast, are based on resemblance but lack exact definitions or clear-cut boundaries, like the concept table.: Plato would be very upset with you here. On the other hand, he'd rather like your diagram of the trees.

  I'll mail him a perfect Form of an apology.

• A language, such as English, Spanish, and Japanese, is a structured communication system: or, I think. Is it worth including one that's not a spoken language, such as ASL?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• The Whorfian hypothesis and the thesis of linguistic relativity: are those two different things?

  That probably depends on whom you ask. According to Eysenck & Keane 2015 the Whorfian hypothesis says that "language determines (or at least influences) thinking" while linguistic relativity is about language-related differences in thought.

• that speakers of distinct languages think differently: that would be the really weak version of the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis -- since it allows for the causation to go the other way. You might want to tighten up with something like "that speakers of distinct languages think differently because language itself shapes thought patterns".

  That part is more about linguistic relativity. The first part of the sentence saying that "language shapes thought patterns" is about Whorf Hypothesis. There are weak and strong interpretation of the Whorf Hypothesis, so I tried to go with a vague formulation that could cover both. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Language acquisition happens naturally in childhood through exposure to a linguistic environment: suggest adding "early childhood" or similar -- it wouldn't happen the same way if the first exposure was (say) at the age of 12.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• At the fundamental level are basic sounds or sound units: a nitpick, but some languages do not have sounds.

  This discussion happens in the context of spoken language, from the previous sentence: It is a complex process since the system of spoken language.... Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• At the fundamental level are basic sounds or sound units. They do not have linguistic meaning themselves but are combined into words: some words consist of a single phoneme: a being the most obvious, or oh in some dialects. The French have plenty: et, au, haut... it's therefore not always necessary to combine phonemes. As we've said morpheme in the footnote, I'd say phoneme somehow here.

  I slightly qualified the expression and mentioned phonemes in the footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• based on a finite knowledge of a limited number of words and rules: can you have an infinite knowledge of a finite thing? I'd do based on knowledge of a finite number of words and rules.

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• The exact meaning of sentences usually depends also on the context in which they are used: I'm intrigued by the word usually here... what's the counterexample?

  The expression was supposed to avoid nitpicky probing by FA reviewers, but it seems that it failed its purpose. Depending on your interpretation, potential counterexamples could be mathematical formulas like "2 + 2 = 4" or general tautologies like "either it is raining or it is not raining". Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Fair point! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Although distinct languages can differ significantly in their general structure, there are some universal cognitive patterns that underlie all human languages.: commence the linguist bun-fighting! Do both sides of the language instinct–cultural tool debate agree here?

  If you interpret "cognitive patterns" broadly enough (e.g. regarding brain areas or neurochemical substances) then yes. There are also some more specific linguistic universals of natural languages, for example, that all quantifiers are conservative. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• For example, expectations cause longer processing times if a familiar word occurs in a context where the reader did not expect it.: reader seems oddly specific here. Is there a general word like "recipient" that covers hearing an utterance or seeing a sign?

  I changed it to audience. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• It starts with the formulation of a general idea one wants to express and a rough sentence pattern of how to communicate it. : this bit fascinated me. I'm taking it on faith: at first thought it seems remarkably confident about a process I thought was largely mysterious.

  If one looks at the process introspectively, I agree: it's not clear that this is what's happening. It's probably better to interpret this more abstractly: these are different and possibly unconscious cognitive steps and one can detect by looking at speech errors and other things whether one specific step failed. From Matlin 2013: Speech production requires a series of stages. During the first stage, we mentally plan the gist, or the overall meaning of the message we intend to generate ... During the second stage, we devise the general structure of the sentence ...

  I wonder if our phrasing makes this sound slightly more like a strict and exclusive sequence. I'd be inclined to be a bit more agnostic, as Matlin seems to be: something like "Before a statement can be precisely formulated, speakers construct a general idea of what they wish to express, and a rough sentence pattern of how to communicate it". I note the during in Matlin is quite different from what we have, which implies that these entirely constitute each step. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• the contrast between nouns and adjectives, : you can link like [[noun]]s to avoid a redirect.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Unconscious processes, such as low-level processes underlying face recognition and language processing: the low-level processes.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• operate automatically in the background without the individual's awareness: do we need "in the background"? It's a MOS:IDIOM, which isn't ideal, and seems to be the same thing as "automatically ... without the individual's awareness".

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

More to follow. As ever, I'm enjoying it greatly: I apologise for the nit-pickiness of many of these, but I hope they're to the good of the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yestsrday, all my comments...

I am very sorry, but I did not do a proper peer review, because I did not want to be negative. I just made a couple of simple comment. This is a really complicated subject and with a 1000 apologies I should say that this article is nowhere near FA class although a lot of work has gone into it. I am sorry, that is all I can say. No further comments. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Yesterday, I'm sorry to hear your vague opinion, but there is not much I can do without a "specific rationale that can be addressed". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams..., I'm very sorry as well, as this may sound rather blunt, and I hope this doesn't come across as sarcastic or ingenuine. However, you're (1) basically saying that this is "nowhere near FA class" without explaining why, and (2) in so doing, made several basic grammatical errors. I do not think this review is going to be helpful to the nominator. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Genius, first no need for you to be sorry. Blunt is my middle name and sarcasm is my profession, so we are in the same boat. I ONLY responded above because I was "thanked" for having done a peer review, which I had not done. If you know where my peer review is, please let me know, I would like to read it. Now, if I wanted to list all my concerns here, we would all have gray hair by the time I was half finished. The first article sentence flatly says that cognition is about knowledge. I wanted to scream. It has 3 sources but the article also talks about animals. Hello? What can I say... And the quicksand of consciousness is another issue. I will certainly not get involved in that discussion, andt I advise you not to. Twenty-five years ago David Chalmers was a bright, hopeful and energetic young man before he started walking down that path. He is still a bright fellow and knows more than then but it was obviously a hard journey. So do not go there. I will definitely say no more here. As for grammatical errors, no wway. Me make nevr no grammar or spel errors. Nevr. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Here? Wikipedia:Peer review/Cognition/archive1

Animals don't have cognition? -- Reconrabbit 19:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I really want to stop, and will after this. But if that is a peer review, then I am Archimedes. I only commented on the choice of image and the complexity of the subject. Animals do have cognition, whatever it may be, but knowledge is a different game. And not all that deals with knowledge involves cognition... Knowledge involves information which involves entropy in some approaches. If you have a definition for information, publish it and be famous. Anyway, may be you all should start by reading this which is not mentioned in the article. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Cognition is standardly characterized in terms of knowledge and information. Regarding personal opinions and fringe views, see WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Support from Femke

As always, exciting to delve into these broad topics. A tough topic to describe, but I'm impressed with how you manage to make it understandable and to the point.

Hi Femke, nice that you found the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Why is Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument listed in see also? Seems too niche for this article

  See below. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Similarly, cognitive holding seems undue, as Cognitive shuffle and cognitive liberty

  You are probably right that they are borderline cases. I removed them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Perception organizes sensory information, interpreting physical stimuli, such as light and sound, to construct a coherent experience of objects and events > Does 'organise sensory information' and 'interpreting physical stimuli' not express the same idea? Maybe that sentence can be slightly simplified.

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Metacognition involves knowledge about knowledge or mental processes that monitor and regulate other mental processes. -> I don't fully understand what this sentence means.

  I reformulated it and added a short example, but it's probably still challenging. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Cognitive processes do not always function as they should and can lead to inaccuracies, either because of natural errors associated with cognitive biases or as a result of pathological impairments from cognitive disorders. -> I would put in a comma after should, because I was initially parsing this with a comma after function which is a confusing read.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• For example, prosopagnosia is a perceptual disorder in which individuals lack the ability to recognize faces without impacting other visual abilities. --> I would add a comma after faces, as " without impacting other visual abilities." refers back to prosopagnosia. Or add 'without it affecting, or 'but without affecting. Not sure what the best wording was but it took me a couple rereads to understand. Or wording like "For example, prosopagnosia is a perceptual disorder in which individuals cannot recognize faces, even though their other visual abilities remain intact."

  I went with something similar to your reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Cognitive scientists typically rely on idealized models that consider the activation levels of and connections between nodes without modelling the neurophysiological mechanisms in the brain that underlie these operations. --> Quite a tough read. Is "Cognitive scientists often rely on idealized models that describe activation levels and connections between nodes rather than the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms in the brain." better?

  I split the sentence into two. Have a look if this is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Will pick up from development later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• The different forms of memory play a central role in learning, which involves the acquisition of novel information, skills, or habits, as well as changes to existing structures --> Not sure what 'changes to existing structures' means. Can it be omitted?

  The point is that learning is not only about acquiring new things but also about improving existing things. I reformulated that part, I hope it's clearer now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Cognitive development is most rapid during childhood. Some influences occur even before birth, due to factors like nutrition, maternal stress, and harmful substances like alcohol during pregnancy. --> these two sentences don't follow logically. The word 'even' sets up a contrast between the two sentences, but they talk about different things (speed of development vs impacts of cognition). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I rearranged the sentences to avoid the contrast and have a chronological order. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• I may be overly allergic to WP:REFERS to construction, but I'd start the animal cognition sentence something like this: Animal cognition encompasses the processes by which animals acquire, process, and use information to guide flexible, goal-directed behavior.

  I used something similar to your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• no hyphen for tool-use, right? It's not an compound adjective.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• These difficulties overlap with the problem of anthropocentrism or the tendency to see human cognition as exceptional and superior to that of other animals --> Not the most elegant to have difficulties and problem so close to each other. I still love a good m-dash, despite the curse of LLMs, and would reword the sentence like "These challenges relate closely to anthropocentrism—the tendency to regard human cognition as exceptional and superior to that of other animals." —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, that's a good use case for em dash. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Will continue from artificial later.
• phenomenal consciousness?

  The difference between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness is frequently discussed in the academic literature. You can thank Ned Block for that. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Education studies is the field of inquiry examining the nature, purposes, practices, and outcomes of education. > studies already implies 'field of inquiry'. I would simply say "Education studies examine .."

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• The way CBT is explained omits any mention of the behavioural element

  I added a short mention. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I meant in describing the therapy. The way it's explained here makes it seem like CBT is only cognitive therapy. For some forms of CBT (e.g. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia), the stronger part of the evidence is for the behavioural interventions, such as 'leave your bed when you can't fall asleep within 20 minutes', or start going to bed later to avoid lying awake. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I included modifications of maladaptive behavior in the last sentence on the therapy. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Should Eleanor Rosch be mentioned in the history section? Or Anne Treisman, given Donald Broadbent is mentioned?

  I guess we could mention them but I'm not sure that it's necessary. I looked up three overview source (Smith 2001, Solso & MacLin 2000, Thagard 2023): they don't mention them. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  With a recent source not including them, I'm happy. I'm always a bit hesitant to trust sources from ~2000, as they might not give due credit to female pioneers. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note two is not quite clear: What about something like "Tip-of-the-tongue states exemplify this distinction; the first stage of meaning identification succeeds, while the second stage of phonological retrieval fails". That gives space to explain phonological rtrieval. Or is there a plain Eglish way to say this? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I implemented a slight variation of your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

MCE89

Prose and writing are excellent, just a few suggestions from me:

• You could consider adding ILLs for Rizhilu [zh] and Yinxue wushu [zh]
• the rest, including a variety of poetry, geographical texts, and notes, were published by his lone disciple Pan Lei after his death — It might be worth mentioning here that (per the body) there were other works that were never published or were lost
• Although Gu's work was relevant throughout the Qing period... — I'm not quite sure what "relevant" is intended to mean here?
• Later, revolutionaries such as Liang Qichao emphasized his work — "Emphasised" feels a little vague, would something like "praised" be accurate?
• I'd probably add a comma after Resenting both modern scholarship and the imperial examination system..., but up to you
• he allegedly joined the Fushe, a literary and political revival movement — "Allegedly" feels like it implies that this is something potentially negative, is there a reason this is treated as an allegation?
• Gu's biological father, Gu Tongying died that year — Suggest adding a comma after Gu Tongying
• ...and began focus on private studies — Should be either "began focusing" or "began to focus"
• ...disputed the legitimacy of the Gu's adoption — I don't think "the" is needed here in front of "Gu's adoption"
• to protect China against the Manchu — "From" the Manchu feels a little more natural
• ...the landowner with whom Gu had a property dispute — Given that you haven't previously mentioned this dispute, I'd replace "the landowner" with "a landowner"
• ...a group of his friends and relative — Should relative here be plural?
• In the sentence beginning The American historian Willard J. Peterson... you use both the present tense "describes" and the past tense "noted" — suggest making the tense consistent
• His family landholdings in Kunshan likely was — Suggest changing to "His family's landholdings in Kunshan were likely..."
• He worked with the scholar Wang Hongzhuang (王宏撰) — This sentence seems to be unfinished?
• in the collect Tinglin yishu huiji — Should be "collection"?
• ...the removal or alteration of taboo characters — Probably a dumb question, but does "characters" here mean characters or characters?
• ...provide useful insight into the past; criticizing scholars... — I'd replace this semicolon with a full stop or conjunction, as it takes a while to get to the next main clause
• Suggest linking Han dynasty
• Li Guangdi described Gu as being seen to "unsociable and eccentric" — Suggest rephrasing, as "to" doesn't work gramatically
• Perhaps move the sentence about how Li Guangdi described him to earlier in the paragraph where you discuss Li's biography of him?
• The discussion of Gu Yanwu's political philosophy was largely dismissed — I'm not sure that "the discussion... was dismissed" is quite right. Would it be more accurate to say either that his philosophy was dismissed, or that the discussion was limited?

MCE89 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gu_yanwu.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

PD_China_1996 includes a US tag, no? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Thank you for the "Use American English" template, it helps. I have a busy week ahead, but here's my review:

Lead

• "19th century scholars" → "19th-century scholars"

Early life and education

• "Gu's father Gu Tongying was born in 1585." → "Gu's father, Gu Tongying, was born in 1585."

• Taking Gu Shaofei's advice, he began to focus less on the examinations, and began to focus on private studies.
  • You could avoid repeating "focus" in close proximity.

MSincccc (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Career

• Gu did not go, partially because he had not yet officially buried his mother, and partially because the servant described the prince as having difficulties establishing a firm control over the region.
  • You could avoid repeating "partially" and could split the sentence; I leave it to you.

• He worked with the scholar Wang Hongzhuang (王宏撰) Gu did not
  • A typo in this sentence – a missing full stop or conjunction; I leave it to you.

• Collected Posthumous Writings of Gu Tingli
  • I suppose it should be "Tinglin", or is "Tingli" an alternative name?

MSincccc (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Philosophy

• Writing that the junxian system itself had grown obsolete, Gu argued that a new system which combined elements of both systems, featuring both a strong central authority and local devolution of power.
  • I would suggest inserting a verb after "argued".

Bottom line

• Generalissima That's all from me. A few stylistic suggestions remain in my sandbox. Let me know if you need any further comments; otherwise, that should be all and it is a fine article indeed. I hope my suggestions have been useful.

MSincccc (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

ThO

As the GA promoter, I feel I should have a go at this. Saving a spot here, but ping me if I don't get to it in a few days. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

MCE89

Very interesting article! Just a few queries and suggestions from me:

• a controversy involving allegations of vote swapping and buying of votes of the French judge culminated in the judge's scores being discarded and Salé and Pelletier also being awarded gold medals, with Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze being allowed to keep theirs — I found this a little tricky to parse, you might want to consider splitting or rephrasing this sentence

• Rewritten. Let me know what you think.

• rendering a numerical, mathematical score — The two terms "numerical, mathematical" feel redundant (especially since the old scoring system was also a numerical score). Perhaps something like "a more mathematically calculated score" might work better here?

• Removed altogether.

• Is there anything that could be added on the background or qualification process for the event? Those sections seem to be present in your other articles about events at the Winter Olympics, whereas this one feels like it skips a bit of background by going straight to "In the pairs competition…"

• At this point, I wouldn't even know where to begin with that.

• I don't think you need to introduce the author and outlet both before and after the quote from Cole. I’d remove the attribution following the blockquote given that you already introduce the source before the quote
• MOS:BLOCKQUOTE suggests that there's no need for quotation marks surrounding a blockquote

• Done.

• Possibly just a matter of preference, but the "Controversy" section is a bit heavier on quotes than it needs to be in my view — I think summarising some of these may improve the readability

• I pruned some of the quotes down, but the ones I left are, IMO, important.

• ...but never complained about their results — Suggest changing to "… and said that they had never complained about their results" for flow
• Sikharulidze said in a telephone interview — I don't think it really matters for our purposes that it was a telephone interview

• Done.

• while also allowing Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze to keep theirs — Suggest changing this to "… but that Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze would be allowed to keep theirs" to match the syntax of the previous clause

• Slightly rewritten.

• Both pairs' point totals were discarded — Could the meaning/implications of this be briefly explained?

• It just means that the ISU/IOC didn't take the scores into account and just awarded two sets of gold medals. I removed the one sentence since it ultimately doesn't affect the narrative.

• The sequence of events regarding Tokhtakhounov feels a little out of order. You say that he was arrested on US charges, then that the Italian police wiretapped his phone, and then that they turned over the evidence to the FBI — I think this could be presented in a way that jumps around a little less

• I tried some shuffling, but ultimately feel that the bit about Tokhtakhounov needs to begin with On July 31, 2002, Italian authorities arrested Russian organized crime boss Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov on U.S. charges that he masterminded the scheme at the Olympics., because that's the first that the public heard about this aspect of the case. The rest of the information is background, so I made sure to rephrase it all in the past perfect for clarification.

• Is there anything that can be said based on the sources about why Tokhtakhounov was released from custody?

• It just says he fought extradition and was ultimately not charged with any crimes in Italy, so the Italian courts released him.

• There are a few places that use editing for MOS:SAID — e.g. you have "While the ISU claimed this secrecy freed judges from pressure from their federations, critics noted... ", where the ISU is "claiming" and critics are "noting"

• Slightly rephrased.

MCE89 (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@MCE89: I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if you have anything else, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! With regards to a background section, I'll leave it to other reviewers whether there's further information essential for comprehensiveness, but at a minimum I'd suggest adding just a sentence or so of context to the beginning of the "competition" section to cover the basic details (i.e. date, location, type of event). At the moment it feels like the body jumps right into the middle of the event without really setting the scene of what the article is actually about, which means it doesn't stand on its own independently of the lead. Otherwise the prose looks solid. MCE89 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion! Let me take another look. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@MCE89: I have added Background and Qualification sections. I'll be honest; I had thought it would have been way more difficult to find this information. I believe these are good improvements. Please take a look when you have a chance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Oh that looks much better! Just one small thing I noticed on another read through — it looks like the phrase Poland originally qualified two quota spots in the after the World Championships has gotten a bit muddled. Otherwise nothing else from me. MCE89 (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@MCE89: Fixed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Support. P.S. I have an open FAC that's in need of reviews if you're interested, but no worries at all if not! MCE89 (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

Just one item, regarding the article title. Per MOS:AT, "A title should be ... concise". This is very much not that. Why can't this be just Pair skating at the 2002 Olympics? RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Per the similar comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1, the WikiProject Olympics manual of style calls for this format. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

Here shall be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• File:Figure skating pictogram.svg - Public Domain.
• File:Belarus stamp no. 449 - 2002 Winter Olympics.jpg, source link needs to be updated as it is dead.

• Done.

• File:International Skating Union.svg - Public Domain, source link needs to be updated as it is dead.

• Done.

• All images are relevant to the article and have proper captioning
• Nearly all of the images use alt-text besides the stamp, needs to have one for accessibility towards users who use screen reader technology.

• Done.

• All of the images used in the article should not use a fixed px size, instead use the |upright= parameter.

• Done.

@Arconning: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns... Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• "who led the College of Architecture for two decades" → "who led the college/it for two decades"
• "Chicago landmark" → "Chicago Landmark"
• The basement consists of rooms arranged around a U-shaped corridor that links two stairways.
  • How about "linking two stairways"?
• You could link to Architecture school in the United States.

MSincccc (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments. I've done all of these; for the first one, I rephrased the sentence to reduce ambiguity, since both "it" and "the college" could introduce ambiguity if the rest of the sentence had been left unchanged. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Description

• You could link to structural engineer and to "facade" on first mention.

MSincccc (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Interior

• "giving the impression that the different parts of the room are blending into one another" → "giving the impression that the different parts of the room blend into one another"
• You could link to fireproofing.

MSincccc (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again MSincccc, I've done all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Reception and impact

• Conversely, one critic lambasted Crown Hall
  • How about "criticized" instead of "lambasted"?
• You could link to the Chicago Tribune and to Architecture criticism.
• You could link to Google, Google Doodle and "American architects" to List of American architects.

Bottom line

Epicgenius A great article, and I suppose another which joins your house of featured buildings. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc, thanks, I appreciate it. I've done all of the above, though for "critic lambasted", I changed it to "commentator criticized" to avoid repetition. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Olliefant

• Under "Description", link "Illinois"
• "these trees helped cool down the windows" should be help as first half doesn't indicate the trees are gone
  • I have reworded this to make it more clear.. I don't know when the trees were felled, but later on, it also says that the trees no longer exist. - EG
• Under "Architectural commentary", "Architectural Record" is linked twice
• Under "Architectural commentary", "[Life magazine]" -> "[Life] magazine" as "magazine" isn't part of the name
• Under "Architectural commentary", "[Time magazine]" -> "[Time] magazine" as "magazine" isn't part of the name
• Under "Awards and landmark designations", "National Register of Historic Places" is linked twice
• Link "photomontage"
• In the refs, "newspapers.com" should be capitalized

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 07:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Olliefant. I've addressed or responded to all of the above. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support Olliefant (she/her) 15:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Captions need editing for grammar

• File:27th_Vanier_Cup_Program.jpg has an incorrect FUR - it is not being used as "the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article", as claimed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Nikkimaria for taking the time out of your day for your feedback.

• Point #1: Okay, How does "Yellow bordered triangle with a white background and V-shaped logo with a football; square in front, Churchill Bowl and Atlantic Bowl; between the texts, XXVII (27)." sound?
• Point #2: What do you recommend for me to place as the caption Nikki? I placed "Logo of the 27th Vanier Cup."
• Point #3: It appears that the template I've placed, Infobox college football game, doesn't have that method, which should be included! I was wondering if i could discuss adding that part in the template?

Will post "Done" to each point once it has been addressed. TBJ (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That alt is fine for the lead image, but alts should be added to the other images also. For the caption, note that captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods - this applies to the other captions also. On point 3, so I understand, are you proposing moving the program into the infobox? I suppose you could do that, but you could also just change the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Point #1 &2: Applying your alt ideas, here are my proposal alt text for the rest of the images:

1. 1991 Vanier Cup logo.png: Yellow bordered triangle with a white background and V-shaped logo with a football; square in front, Churchill Bowl and Atlantic Bowl; between the texts, XXVII (27).
2. Toronto - ON - Rogers Centre (Nacht).jpg: A building with a large circular "dome" shaped roof at night lights up blue with text, "ROGERS CENTRE", imprinted.
3. 27th Vanier Cup Program.jpg: Vanier Cup XXVII football poster featuring Vanier players, cheerleaders, and CN Tower

Point #3: What is a "FUR" out of curiosity? I don't understand this potential abbreviation

@Nikkimaria TBJ (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:FUR - it's the fair-use rationale on the image description page that explains why a non-free image is needed and how it is being used. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the format just like how the File:2000 Sugar Bowl Logo.png summary was. I hope that was better @Nikkimaria!

In regards to above, what did you think of these alt text proposals for the images?

1. 1991 Vanier Cup logo.png: Yellow bordered triangle with a white background and V-shaped logo with a football; square in front, Churchill Bowl and Atlantic Bowl; between the texts, XXVII (27).
2. Toronto - ON - Rogers Centre (Nacht).jpg: A building with a large circular "dome" shaped roof at night lights up blue with text, "ROGERS CENTRE", imprinted.
3. 27th Vanier Cup Program.jpg: Vanier Cup XXVII football poster featuring Vanier players, cheerleaders, and Tall Building (Instead of CN Tower).

TBJ (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are fine for alt text. But for the FUR, you've changed the logo - that wasn't the one with the problem. It's 27th Vanier Cup Program.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you were referring to the description, which does make sense since it doesn't appear to have both teams on the programme. I have changed it to:

"Vanier Cup XXVII (27) football poster featuring players, cheerleaders, and a tall building."

Perhaps this can help? Also, in another thing, it seems like responses to change anything on that template (infobox college football game) will take a LONG time, so the spot of the programme magazine will be changed in the long run. TBJ (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's not something that is likely to happen in the course of this FAC, I would suggest going with the fair-use rationale change for the moment - it can always be changed back if the image's position changes in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Nikki! TBJ (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs to be addressed @Nikkimaria? TBJ (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

As above, I'd suggest changing the fair-use rationale for the program unless/until the position of the image changes. Also see the note above about WP:CAPFRAG. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I will do that on the weekends. I am celebrating my birthday with friends and family. TBJ (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

• "Division of Security Operations (DSO) agents Leon and Sherry investigates" — should be investigate

Done

• "When United Nations' Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance (BSAA) from the Wolf Hound Squad arrive" — should be arrives

Done

• "how they has been influenced" — should be they have

Done

• There are inconsistencies with tense in appearances section such as using past tense for "Leon would be dispatched" and "He would follow", while you have present tense throughout, which is correct for plots

Reworded

• "Grace decided to release "Elpis", which turns out to be a vaccine for bioweapon" — probably should be either the bioweapon or a bioweapon

Done

• "resulted to thousands of fans" should be "in" instead of "to"

Done

• "Leon was designed as an ikeoji figure; a cool/attractive older guy" — a colon or a dash would be better than a semicolon to introduce a definition

Done

• "According to Nakanashi" — should be Nakanishi

Done

• "Leon would run upon Grace" — maybe change to "runs into" or "encounters"

Done

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• I would suggest adding the relevant language template {{Use... English}} .

Done

Concept and design

• You could link "an American of Italian descent" to Italian Americans.

Done

• You could link to creative director at your discretion.

Done

• Noboru Sugimura, who was brought in to rewrite the story,
  • How about "Noboru Sugimura, who was hired to rewrite the story,"?

Done

• "matured guy" → "mature guy"
  • In the image alt text.

Done

Appearances

• "Division of Security Operations (DSO) agents Leon and Sherry investigates" → "Division of Security Operations (DSO) agents Leon and Sherry investigate"
  • Subject-verb agreement.

Done

• Grace decided to release "Elpis", which turns out to be a vaccine
  • The tense does not match. turns out is present tense but decided is in the past.

Replaced to "Decide"

• Leon returns in Resident Evil Requiem (2026), which is set in 2026.
  • Why mention "2026" twice?

hi. Because the game Requiem was released the same year where the plot takes place. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Critical reception

• You could link to Video game journalism.

Done

• "most-popular and most-iconic" → "most popular and most iconic"

Removed per below

• Also, do both words not convey the same meaning?

Seems so I removed "most popular"

• "most-likable" → "most likable"

Done

Bottom line

• That's all from me. Boneless Pizza! I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I already fixed your concerns. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have never played the video game, but the article's prose and its images look good. I've made a minor revision, which I hope you don't mind.

Hence, I will support the nomination. Good luck with it. MSincccc (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support from LastJabberwocky

To my eyes, prose is high-quality, concise, clear. Will check ref format, links, other boring stuff. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• refs 11, 39, 40 can have access dates

Done

• FA people sometimes require consistent letter case in ref titles (e.g. refs 26, 28)

Done

• Can we add ISBN to refs 89 and 90?

I decided to remove two Chinese sources about comics. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Knives Out Resident Evil Collaboration to Feature Leon S. Kennedy" ref has an author

Done

Hi LastJabberwocky! I already fixed your concern except the ISBN which is hard to find but I just decided to remove two Chinese sources after having thoughts about its reliability at the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't have further suggestions for ref format. I will do a spotcheck of 'concept and design' before supporting.

LastJabberwocky No worries and thank you! Done answering each of your concerns now =) 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• his American-italian heritage is verified by a reliable source but this source doesn't make a concrete conclusion and provides only one convincing argument by referencing Capcom Design Works. Should we cite it directly, find more quality sources or add a explanation note behind the 'american-italian' conclusion?

Changed to Capcom DESIGN Works.

• believing the existing character lacked depth and coherence. Sugimura said it in relation to the story in general not about Leon (according to ref 16)

Polygon supports IGN source that Sugimura was the one who rewrote the story when Resident Evil 1.5 and then characters lile Leon was included. IGN said "Leon was redesigned as a young rookie, but remained mostly unchanged."

• Leon's design in the remake of Resident Evil 4 (2023) was modified to emphasize his experience and ability, and to show he had changed between games. I verified that Leon became more experienced ("Leon is no longer the rookie cop of his previous game"), but couldn't find how it was reflected in the design

Rephrase and changed source

• the 34th ref (PC gamer) has a different title

Removed the source since it has no place at concept section

• The developers also aimed to expand Leon's characterization and relationship with the president's daughter Ashley Graham. Capcom released a promotional anime titled Resident Evil Masterpiece Theater, which depicts the story of this relationship. doesn't seem to be verified by inline refs

Rephrased

Supporting promotion based on my check of ref layout/ref format and 'concept and design' spotcheck. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

In the first FAC, I asked you about the long lists of games the character appeared in. vis-a-vis MOS:TIMELINE. You did not respond to my query then and the lists still exist in the current revision. Please address this. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith My apologies for that. Could you give me an example of article that has a simple list that you're referring or a table so I can address this type of concern for Other appearances section? Perhaps a table that can be seen at Shepherd's pie works? I will admit that I kinda hate this changes since this one will be different unlike other FA VG fictional character articles. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Aaliyah#Filmography RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza! what other FA VG fictional character articles were you looking at which were counter-examples? RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not going to change this to other list or table because this type of format is a standard in most articles. You can check several FA articles like for ex. Jill Valentine (it went to FAC multiple times), Ada Wong and other FAs. For me personally, changing it to table doesn't really help to understand it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Source review

• Doing the small source review but the only notable issue I find is that the infobox for some reason uses citations while everything is meant to be sourced in the body instead.
• Game appearances are well done since the nominator used third party sources rather than first party ones, making this article more accessible to nongamers.
• The sources use appear to be approved by the project's guidelines: Eurogamer, Kotaku, TheGamer, IGN, GamesRadar, TheGamer, Shacknews, Anime News Network, Deadline, Dengekionline, well trusted twitter account formated, famitsu, capcom, VG247, Polygon, GameRevolution, Platinum Games, Siliconera, The Mary Sue, PCGamer, 1UP.com, Automaton West, Nintendo World Report, Vice, Windows Central, GamingBolt, Bloody Disgusting, The Escapist, Bandai Card Games, Retrogamer, Nintendo Power,

The novelization is a first party source but it's common to that few aren't online.

• All sources are also archived and nearly every book from Bibliography can be accessed. I would easily pass the source review but I just want to hear why the infobox has those citaitons.

Hi. Per other FA articles, it would be better to cite so that other editor won't assumed that those are uncited. I appreciate the lists you made here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza!: Good work with the article but don't stress yourself if it fails. Reviews can be really hard.Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No hard feelings for that. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

After seeing a recent discussion regarding using the citations I'll give it pass. There are few nonaccessible sources but it's the best to have good faith. Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are accessible. I can send you an email for that if wanted but spotchecker who prefer to confuct spotcheck at the article will be also looking for it regardless. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

RandomEdits

Placeholder for review later today. As disclosure I'm quite familiar with Leon and the RE series so I'll try to keep that in mind when going through the prose, but it looks like you already have reviewers who are less familiar with him so hopefully that balances things out. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BP, a few quibbles and comments on my end but I think this is still progressing in the right direction. Overall it was an engaging read and was about the length I expected. My main concern as listed below, is that the page doesn't really cover Leon's personality much outside of calling him "cool". I'm mostly thinking of RE4, where his constant quips are a big part of his popularity.

Lede

This looks fine to me, no issues.

Concept and design

• Ada's and Leon's relationship is further explored in Resident Evil 4 (2005) and its minigame "Separate Ways". Writer Yasuhisa Kawamura refined the world through several iterations; Kawamura told Brenna Hillier of VG247: "Leon usually infiltrates Oswell E. Spencer's castle in search of the truth, while a young girl wakes up inside a laboratory deep within. With a Bio Organic Weapon (BOW) dog by their side, the two make their way up the castle." They initially thought it would be costly to develop and the many obstacles would be difficult to overcome. - While I'm following that this paragraph break is so you can focus on RE4, it took a few re-reads to work out what happened here because you start with Ada/Leon in the first sentence and then immediately pivot to RE4's world creation in the second. Is there anything more that can be said on Ada/Leon before you switch topics, or rewrite this to make clearer?

I decided to remove Ada and Leon relationship info since there is no more discussion about them.

• I would a different phrase than refined the world through several iterations and They initially thought it would be costly to develop and the many obstacles would be difficult to overcome as you are paraphrasing the original source.

Rephrased

• Your quote is off here. When visiting the source it for me read Leon infiltrates the castle of Oswell E Spencer seeking the truth, while inside a laboratory located deep within, a young girl wakes up. Accompanied by a BOW dog, the two start to make their way up the castle. Unfortunately, there were many obstacles that needed to be overcome and the cost of development was deemed too expensive. - It's also not a super exciting quote admittedly. You could arguably just remove it and say something like "in the original concept, Leon infiltrated the castle of the founder of Umbrella Corp, Oswell E Spencer, and discovered a girl in the castle's laboratory. Together with a BOW dog the trio would explore the castle together. However, this approach was deemed too costly and the approach was scrapped." It's your call, but if you want to go the quote approach it needs fixing

Reworded

• In the remake of Resident Evil 4 (2023), producer Yoshiaki Hirabayashi said they made adjustments that felt natural to players, with the horror parts of the original being retained and Leon's sarcastic charm is still remaining present. Hirabayashi also said they made careful to include situations in which Leon insults his enemies. Furthermore, the developers intended to demonstrate even more about the game's human relationships than the original and focused at the character interactions. "is still remaining" is the wrong tense. Also if I was coming in fresh to this page, I'd also interested to know why Hirabayshi was adamant Leon needed more insults in the remake - So far, your design section has focused on how Leon "looks" cool, but not really mentioned his goofy quips or the like that'd explain why the devs wanted to add more. In general I think more is needed here on design regarding his personality rather than just his "cool" physical design.

I can see sources like but not sure if they are helpful for dev section. so I added it 8nstead at reception.

• Any reason Leon wasn't in RE5?

He didn't appear in Re5

• What is Leon's "Chinese outfit"?

Unfortunately, the book was not specific

• in Resident Evil 6 (2012). Resident Evil 6's producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi liked Leon and decided to include him because "he is central to the story" Was anymore ever said by the devs on Leon's involvement in RE6 after the game's release? I must admit I don't remember him being particularly important to the plot comparing to someone like Ada, so the devs saying this is a surprise.

I think thats the only information we can find about him in re6 sadly

• ikeoji figure — a cool/attractive older guy While this is a quote used to explain the term, I would say it is fine to use your own words here since this reads quite informally, especially with no attribution. Something like "a stylish good-looking mature man" is my understanding of the term.

Reworded

Voice-over and live-action actors

• I don't feel currently this covers what I'd expect to see in a design section for a character. For example the first paragraph is just a long line of blue links for info that's succinctly grouped in the infobox. I'm sure you could combine this the section in "Other appearances" that discuss' Leon's films. If you want to keep this section, I'd hope to learn more about the actual design process for Leon in these media. e.g. Did the films deliberately change Leon's characters in any way? Did the directors find it a challenge to convert Leon's presence or video game origins to a different media?

This section is for voice actors only and unfortunately, reliable sources about this are lacking or there are very few of them only.

Appearances

• It'd be worth mentioning in the first paragraph that the remake of 2 differs in that Leon encounters Mr. X far earlier at the police station.

At re2 remake, there is only one Mr. X.

• You need to give half a sentence to what T-103 Tyrant is, since we can't guarantee a reader will click the wikilink. Something short like "encounters one of Umbrella Corp's most powerful bioweapons, T-103 Tyrant" is fine.

Added

• Likewise, a brief aside to what the G-virus actually is should be included.

Added

• , which is set in 2004 You can remove the "which is"

Removed

• which has taken control of villagers using parasites known as "Las Plagas". Nit-picky, but I'd change that to "the local village's citizens" to make it clearer that the cult is only operating in this one village (I don't think it got named...?) rather than having control of several.

I think "Villagers" would be fine since it has been suggested also by peeps at the article Ada Wong

• whom he had not seen since Raccoon City, change to whom he has not seen

Reworded

• (Full disclosure, I've skipped the Requiem paragraph as I'm hoping to play the game shortly :) )

Lol Gotta be honest, the plot for that game is Crazy.

Other appearances

• In a 2010 interview, the director Paul W. S. Anderson said if Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) succeeds, he would direct a fifth film and would like Leon to appear in it. I would be tempted to remove this line entirely, since the next sentence makes it very clear both that Afterlife did well enough for a fifth film and Leon is in it.

Removed

• I seem to recall Leon's portrayal was despised by fans and critics in his appearance in Retribution, worth including a reference to this somewhere? (https://me.ign.com/en/movies/60419/review/ign-me-reviews-resident-evil-retribution)

I don't believe it is worth it. That's me though

• He appears as a playable character in other games including Project X Zone 2 (2016), Dead by Daylight (2016), Teppen (2019), Puzzles & Survival (2023), and State of Survival (2023). Leon is an alternate skin for characters in other games, such as Rainbow Six Siege (2015), Knives Out (2017), Fortnite Battle Royale (2017), Monster Hunter: World (2018), PUBG Mobile (2018), Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (2019), and Dead Rising Deluxe Remaster (2024). Leon has a non-player character (NPC) cameo in Trick'N Snowboarder (1999), Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (2011), the Nintendo crossover video game Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (2018) as a Spirit power-up, Dying Light 2 (2022), and is referenced as a robot dressed as Leon in Astro Bot (2024). This is a rather long list for a "such as" group and is a big sea of blue currently. I think it'd be worth cutting this down to three examples of playable and non-playable each.

I think it would not read well if we cut after 3 examples. In fact, this was suggested at FA Jill Valentine, which it undergo multiple FACs. I'm copying the format at this article due to its FAC's history.

Critical reception

• The prose here is good, I don't really have any comments here except to note I'm glad you included a reference to gender roles here because Resident Evil games attracts a surprising amount of discussion on this. I do wonder if this is a little too glowing? I'm aware at the time of RE4's release, there was the feeling within a good subset of the fandom that the focus on Leon and his quippy approach to the game, rather than the grisly Chris, was a sign the series was going the wrong way, which then got magnified with RE5. However, I am admittedly not able to find any good sources on this that don't just lead to message boards, but was curious if you'd seen anything like that when researching? If there's genuinely nothing from a good source that's fine, but wanted to sanity-check you'd considered this.

I added two sources about its one famous line, and another dialogue. Sadly I cannot see any reliable source of it being described as a internet meme.

• Likewise, I was curious if you'd found anything that showed Japan's fans' thoughts on Leon - this section is currently very Western-centric, and I'd definitely be interested to know if there are any major differences or similarities between the two areas' critics and fans

I wish we can have that but we only see at reliable sources "Japanese Fans have praised this character" or "praised his reveal" but there is no commentary sadly among Japanese. Only western people are thirsty to leon so far I can see.

• And as always, have you considered the reception of Leon's non-game appearances or cameos in other series?

There is no good commentary tbh. Most of them are trivia

• Also an aside, I think it is fine in the context, but a reference to Guinness World Records may get challenged in a source check via WP:GWR!

I did not used Guinness as a source, its Game Informer. It should be fine already.

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember. Thanks for reviewing. I answered each of your questions. About quips, you can see my comment right at the question. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember pinging. Just in case if you missed this one. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed the response on this - I will go through your comments in full tomorrow : ) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @BP, it's looking good to me now. Just a few more things my end.

• However, this approach was deemed too costly and the approach was scrapped.[27] At first, they believed that developing it would be expensive and that overcoming the numerous challenges would be challenging.[27] You've repeated yourself here.
• Leon kept his "coolnes", Typo
• "Quippiness" was indeed as you guessed, all his lines like "where's everyone going, bingo?" (or my favourite, "No thanks, bro"). Good to see that's now in the reception.
• Bit of a shame there's nothing really on Japan's reaction to him, but ultimately the issue is there's genuinely nothing that can be sourced here rather than a failing on the article's part. I did a look myself today and couldn't find anything useful either.

So overall, happy to support if you tidy up that one bit above. Best of luck with your other reviewers. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't noticed this one. Many thanks for pointing this out! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Driveby comment from Crisco

I'm seeing errors on the nested references (example: Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSpencer2011.). Would it be possible to suppress reference generation for 12, 64, 65, and 84? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I think I already did. Let me if I missed something. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yep, looks good.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Responding to a request on my talk:

• Starting with the Resident Evil 2 (2019) remake, praise has also been afforded to Leon's characterization in modern Resident Evil games – is this phrasing not redundant? I don't see why we have to give two seperate temporal references.

Reworded

• creative director Hideki Kamiya preferred – SEAOFBLUE, suggest rephrasing to Although Hideki Kamiya, the game's creative director, preferred.

Reworded

• first prototype of Resident Evil 2 – was there another prototype? Otherwise this is superfluous.
  • (Non-nominator comment) Yes, there was another prototype. Resident Evil 1.5 was the original prototype, then it was scrapped and they started a new game entirely. That would have gone through prototyping and other normal development processes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• believing the existing character lacked depth and coherence – I originally read this as a modifier of the information about Leon. I wonder if it's worth phrasing it as as he believed the existing... to avoid any doubt here.

Reworded

• low‑polygon – could be linked to Low poly § In video games

Done

• Executive producer Jun Takeuchi suggested their kiss should occur earlier in the story to make Ada seem more manipulative of Leon. – we are told that their relationship is ambiguous, but I was a bit surprised to read this at the end of the paragraph without any explanation. Is there any broader reason given in the interview for why he suggested this?

Unfortunately, believe it or not, Re2 remake just made this without any reason.

• Writer Yasuhisa Kawamura refined the world through several iterations; Kawamura... – suggest using he in place of the second Kawamura to stop redundancy.

This has been reworded due to the reviewer above.

• They initially thought it would be costly to develop and the many obstacles would be difficult to overcome – suggest and that the

This has been reworded due to the reviewer above.

• The designer Masaki Yamanaka said the change was due to the experience he gained since Resident Evil 2 – suggest he had gained.

Reworded

• Leon kept his "coolness" but Yamanaka did not want him to be "too buffed out" – can this sentence be integrated more tightly into the previous lines?

Reworded

• with the horror parts of the original being retained and Leon's sarcastic charm is still remaining present – grammar needs fixing, as well as the redundancy. with the horror parts of the original and Leon's sarcastic charm being retained: two birds with one stone?

Reworded

• Furthermore – furthermore to what? This sounds like a topic or linking sentence rather than the end of a paragraph.

Removed

• Resident Evil 5's (2009) producer Takeuchi said due to the characters' popularity, fans of the series want a video game featuring both Leon and Chris as protagonists, further explaining that it would be "pretty dramatic" if Leon and Chris never met during the series; they meet in Resident Evil 6 (2012). – I don't understand this construction. If I'm reading it correctly and they met in Resident Evil 6, then it should be fans of the series wanted. Also, further explaining doesn't work here as there's no explanation given, just Takeuchi giving his opinion. The second sentence should thus be reformatted, maybe to something like He opined that it would be "pretty dramatic" if Leon and Chris never met during the series; however, they eventaully meet in Resident Evil 6 (2012).

Reworded

• central to the story – of what? The game, the series...?

Added

• cool/attractive – see MOS:/.

This has been reworded due to the reviewer above.

• His Chinese outfit is blue and is intended to look stylish and to contrast with Chris's military equipment. – avoid repeating and: try His blue, Chinese outfit is intended to look stylish and to contrast with Chris's military equipment.

Reworded

• In contrast to Grace, Leon is much more comfortable with fighting, and the inclusion of more gore in his chapters was done to help showcase that. – would this make more sense just after this allowed the developers to show the differences in experience between Leon and Grace?

Reworded

• a sample of the G-virus – what is the G-virus? Can we explain in-text?

Done

• Leon and Ada find an underground laboratory, where they meet the Umbrella scientist Annette Birkin – not convinced the comma is needed.

Removed

• encounters T-103 Tyrant and destroy T-103 Tyrant – unsure if this is a plural or not.

Reworded

• The game has four player characters – this is entirely redundant to the previous sentence.

Removed

• Before he can begin, the President is attacked by a bioweapon that turns him into a zombie, and Leon is forced to kill him. Leon is accused of orchestrating the attack and assassinating the President. Ada arrives to reveal the culprit is National Security Advisor Derek C. Simmons, who created the new C-virus. To clear his name, Leon teams up with the secret service agent Helena Harper, and they pursue Simmons to China. Ada, Helena, and Leon defeat Simmons. – this section slightly suffers from a "he did this, she did this..." form, which can become a bit plodding. Could this be more tightly integrated for flow?

Reworded

• Leon also appears with Claire in the Netflix series Resident Evil: Infinite Darkness (2021); Leon is ordered – suggest using pronoun in place of the second Leon.

Reworded

• He soon disappears and Barry Burton is sent to rescue Leon – to rescue him?

Reworded

• the academic Andrei Nae described Leon's persona as a hypermasculine and likened Leon to Ethan Thomas from Condemned: Criminal Origins – suggest using pronoun in place of the second Leon.

Reworded

• Nintendo has also acknowledged Leon when promoting Requiem on Nintendo Switch 2. – acknowledged how?

Any suggestion on how to reword this, or should I remove it? Nintendo posted a picture of leon as prmotion of the new game Requiem and stated "A strong sense of justice, ruggedly handsome, AND absolutely jacked".

Some comments on sourcing

• Hyphens should be normalised to dashes per MOS:CONFORM.

Should be done at titles and sourcing

• Ref 36 should be pp..

Done

• Use of publisher parameter for books should either be included or not.

All of them have publisher and it should be as is.

• What makes post-2025 Polygon a high-quality reliable source?

Polygon is still a regarded as a reliable source til now. There is no evidence or discussion yet that it will be treated as a low quality.

Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @UpTheOctave!. Thanks for reviewing. I answered each of your questions. But regarding to Nintendo, do you have suggesting for that? Nintendo posted a picture of leon as promotion of the new game Requiem and stated "A strong sense of justice, ruggedly handsome, AND absolutely jacked". Not sure if its okay to add or we will remove it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@BP: I think the reword you gave is fine for the Nintendo line. With regards to Polygon, we have several citations post-2025 when the relevant WP:RSP entry notes that the reliability and quality is uncertain after the Valnet purchase. I don't treat this to mean "still high-quality until otherwise proven", and neither does the entry, stating that "articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis until the status of editorial deterioration is confirmed". So, what makes these particular articles (refs 36, 37, 51, and 108) high-quality reliable sources? Also, Jennings (2018) and Nae (2021) are still missing publisher locations (sorry, I originally misspoke).

Give me a ping after these are done and I'll have another look through. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi [[UptheOctave!. I removed source 51 and 108. Leaving the ref 36 and 37 for development information because interviews are typically allowed even with non-RSes. But when it comes to locations at bibliography, I'm not really sure where to find it =(. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Fine with the Polygon sources now. You can find information on Jennings (2018) and Nae (2021) at Worldcat.org. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave! Should be there now. Many thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Last thing from another read through, we have a complete duplication of the phrase this allowed the developers to show the differences in experience between Leon and Grace. Can we drop one of them? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave! Oof I completely missed that! That should be done. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Should be happy to give a general support for this now, based on my review above. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Gommeh

I'm interested in doing this; please ping me if I haven't added any comments by Wednesday, March 11. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Should say I am unfamiliar with RE having never played any of the games in the series. Hopefully this should provide a clearer picture of how the article may look to an outsider.

ZooBlazer

KN2731

Hello! Will take a look at this soon (disclaimer: I don't play the game, though I know a good number of people who do). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 21:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Infobox & lead

• Any idea who the producer or project director is after 2020? Surely there is one as the game is still under active development?

  Sadly no. I was only able to find out that he was producer/director until 2020. I wasn't able to find anything concrete for who replaced him though. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Check hyphenation of "open world" when used as a compound modifier

  Hyphenated. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Nothing about skins (or other cosmetics) and their monetisation?

  Added, in the reception section though. It's a little UNDUE, I think, to put that in the gameplay section. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Elemental combat) "manipulating the game's elements" feels vague – is this related to enemies' type weaknesses, or exploiting combinations with the surrounding environment?

  Both. Not really sure how to handle that though, any suggestions would be appreciated. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, I think the vagueness here may be because "elements" here can have different meanings (one of which is simply elemental type). My attempt at rephrasing this: "Players can increase the party's combat capabilities by manipulating the Skills and Bursts of a given party's characters as well as the surroundings to target enemies' type weaknesses." ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• (Impact of regulations) Agree with User:TheBrickGraphic below that this probably shouldn't be under Gameplay

  Looks like someone else must have moved it back from where it was, fixed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Impact of regulations) "In 2021, the Chinese government [...] In September 2021, [...] In early 2022 [...]" writing here is choppy (see User:RoySmith/essays/Choppiness) and could do with some signposting or linkage for better flow; also the first instance of 2021 could use a month

  Addressed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Impact of regulations) "In response, some media outlets discussed whether this was an instance of content censorship" seems like a disproportionately small response to an incident that takes four full sentences to describe

  I wasn't able to find much more on the response to the incident, at least not from reliable sources. I did what I could to expand on what was said by the sources that were already cited. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Story

• (Plot) "Following his advice" – I read "his" as referring to Venti, but it seems reasonable that it could also refer to the purified dragon (defeated villain telling protagonist where to go next isn't uncommon)

  Clarified it was Venti. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Development

• "During the early stages of character design, the production team frequently exchanged ideas, while long periods of illustration and revision occurred once production began." This sounds like PR fluff – it doesn't explain anything beyond what a production team is generally expected to do

  Removed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Feel like "elements from real-world cultures" could be expounded upon – I understand each region has its own theme based off certain countries, for example? I saw "array of real-world cultures and mythologies" mentioned in the lead and was expecting more detail in the body

  Added to the end of that sentence "; for instance, Liyue is based on Ancient China, and Fontaine on Industrial Revolution-era Europe" with sources. Also briefly touched on the controversy regarding Sumeru and Natlan character skins, though I feel the details of those are better discussed in those locations' respective articles. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  That works well enough for me. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Any coverage of the voice acting at all?

  Added. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  I was thinking more along the lines of what languages the voice acting covered (and on that note what languages the game is available in) – but the addition to Reception was a nice touch. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• (Music) What are "ancient tonal melodies"?

  Removed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Music) If "Western romantic harmonies and orchestral arrangements" is referring to Romantic music, the R should be capitalised

  Done. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Music) What are "other composing techniques"?

  I'm thinking of changing the sentence to "The battle uses composing techniques like polyphony" instead. I haven't made the change yet though as I am on the fence about this. Let me know what you think. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think the issue is that polyphony is more of an attribute of the music itself than a method or style used to compose the music. Perhaps "The battle themes are polyphonic and are inspired by orchestration elements from composers such as Beethoven"? The "other techniques" probably doesn't need to be mentioned if Chen didn't elaborate on them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Were there any delays in development or release due to the COVID pandemic, given the game did release in 2020?

  I couldn't find any reliable sources that discussed that, however there were some delays regarding an IRL event in China in 2021 due to COVID restrictions there: Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  There are some mentions of the Lantern Rite event being delayed. This article is quite interesting. @Gommeh 11WB (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  There is also this. 11WB (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• It looks like most of this section is cited to primary sources (developer Q&As, official websites), and while I'm probably a bit lenient on those (the best source for what went on during development is surely the developers themselves), WP:PRIMARY does state "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]" and I note User:Boneless Pizza! below also has an issue with this

  I'll trim out some of the things I don't think are necessary. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Looks much better, nice work. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Release

• What platforms were the September 28, 2020 release on, and in what regions?

  I don't see any mention of what countries it was released in (presumably, this was global, but the source does not confirm this so I won't add it), but it does mention what platforms were released on that date so I have added them. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Second paragraph is choppy again and needs some variation in sentence structure (like in the first paragraph)

  Tried to fix it as best I could; let me know what you think. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• I was initially confused by there being two dates for the game being made available on PS5 and the PS5 version being released... perhaps changing the sentence to "A dedicated version for [the PS5] was released on April 28, 2021" which would also help with choppiness

  Done. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Reception

• (Commercial performance) "By October 2021, the mobile version of the game had grossed US$2 billion" and "Having grossed US$1.8 billion" in consecutive sentences sounds like a contradiction. Was the US$1.8 billion limited to 2021 only (and just the mobile versions)?

  I'm just going to get rid of the mention of 1.8 billion; it now reads "By the game's first anniversary, the mobile version of the game had grossed US$2 billion, a feat that Michael Baggs of the BBC called 'unheard of'."

• (Commercial performance) "The mobile version grossed a further US$567 million between January and March 2022" is out of place

  Moved up. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• There could perhaps be a subsection on cultural impact – there seems to be some scholarly literature on that (cultural portrayal, soft power dissemination and the like). If there's sources covering its influence on otaku subculture that may also be worth mentioning – anecdotally I feel it reached quite far outside its original target audience.

  Added a little bit about both. Let me know if you think I should add more. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Also, just as a curiosity – any chance that the COVID pandemic helped to boost initial player numbers by forcing people to stay at home (thereby giving people more opportunity to hop on games)?

  I can't find a source that backs that up, as much as I think that's probably true. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Collaborations

• "the game announced a renewed collaboration with Juneyao Airlines" implies that there was one before, but no details of that are given

  Removed "renewed". Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• HoYoFEST (also note stylisation) appears to be a yearly thing, not a one-off event?

  Official miHoYo social posts say this is how it is supposed to be capitalized. Also, changed the wording to reflect it is held every year, nice catch! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Could perhaps mention official Genshin booths at various conventions e.g. Anime Festival Asia and Brasil Game Show, as well as other overseas official events e.g. 2022 SEA Carnival, 2022 North America Tour – though I suppose these aren't actually "collaborations"

  GamesPress is a press release and we have enough primary sources as it is, so I won't add that. Agree that the SEA Carnival and North America Tour are not actually collaborations, so I won't mention those either. Taking all that into consideration, I don't know about adding just the one source from Yahoo News, as it might be giving that particular convention undue weight. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough – I think the line about overseas conventions works. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The article's in good shape, with just a few holes in coverage that I'm hoping aren't too difficult to fix. The prose isn't too far off, just being choppy in places, and the story section adheres well to MOS:PLOT and MOS:INUNIVERSE. Sourcing may be a bigger issue, but on that I'll defer to other reviewers who are more familiar with game-related articles. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Any idea who the producer or project director is after 2020? Surely there is one as the game is still under active development?

Some trivia: Currently there isn't one. Cai stepped down from the producer role after Sept 2020 which was Genshin's release date (also stated on his LinkedIn profile), and there just isn't anyone who has taken that "producer" title yet. If by "project director" you mean "who is in charge of Genshin," there have been a consistent number of public appearances that point to the Lead Designer (主策划) and Combat Designer (战斗策划) nicknamed Aquaria (鸡哥, Jige). He was first introduced in the first Developer Insight press release, has appeared in almost all of the dev livestreams, and has recently been the face of Genshin when accepting game awards (e.g. PlayStation Partner Awards 2024). You could reasonably say that he is the "de facto producer" of Genshin, though he just does not have the official "producer" title. SuperGrey (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting that there's no official centralised leadership at this stage. The IGN source (ref 1) seems to still be quoting Cai as producer in October 2020 though? But I guess they could have meant former producer, or just not realised he'd stepped down. Perhaps this situation could be explained in a note (if there are sources covering any of this). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not official, so I don't think I'll put Aquaria's name there. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like all the issues I've raised have been addressed, so that's a Support from me on prose and comprehensiveness. (One last minor nitpick: the lead and infobox use Windows, while §Release uses PC; this should be consistent.) Great work, and good luck with the future GT/FT! (P.S. if you have the time, I also have an open FAC taking reviews). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Prose comments from TheBrickGraphic

Hi! I've never played Genshin Impact but have seen sparse gameplay, so I might be able to offer comments on the prose's clarity for outsiders. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

11WB

I am going to focus on the sources only, as this is a GA, I trust all the writing and other content issues have been sorted already. 11WB (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• PlayStation.Blog: This is probably fine for GA, but I would think more reliable sources should be used in place of this now. This has been used 4 times by my count.
  • This is a primary source being used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY, still think I should get rid of it? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with @BP! that the article is quite heavily reliant on primary sources. A popular mainstream game like Genshin should have sufficient coverage where primary sources, especially those from blogs, are not necessary. 11WB (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Just counted to be sure of the number. Out of 201 total references, 31 of those are primary. That's about 15%. I would be satisfied with the PlayStation.Blog and YouTube sources being replaced by secondary sources, which would reduce the primary sources down by 9 in total. 11WB (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've either removed or replaced those sources (diff). Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This is much better! I've no further issues with the remaining primary sources. 11WB (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 30: Always cool to see Geek to Geek Media cited in an article. Unfortunately, as its editor board are mostly made up of bloggers and podcasters, I don't think it makes the cut for FA. This should be replaced.
  • Replaced. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  As the ref numbers have changed since being edited, it would be useful to specify which source you've used as its replacement. 11WB (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 181: Duolingo? This is an odd choice for a source. The webpage doesn't load anyway, so I can't verify anything here.
  • Swapped out the ref for one from Tech Radar. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Questionable Chinese sources: There are a few Chinese specific sources, such as one from Wanuxi that are of questionable reliability. These should be switched out if possible. Minor WP:V issue with ref 180 not giving the date range.

Further checks:

• WP:VALNET: @BP! makes a good point below. Valnet sources are generally of low quality. All Valnet sources, with the exception of TheGamer and Polygon (pre-May 2025), should be removed or changed for more reliable sources.

Excellent article regardless.

• Before I formally give my support, I am going to give the article a read from start to finish. I'm also unsure about GamingonPhone. It's currently listed as no consensus, and time is probably too short to start a full discussion over at VGRS. I think I'll courtesy ping @Zxcvbnm for a second opinion here. If all checks out, I'll be happy to give my support. This article is superb and credit should definitely be given for the amount of work that's been put into it! 11WB (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Having read the article through, I have some suggestions:

• The second, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the post-release subsection would benefit from WP:CRS.
  • The article was copyedited by an editor at WP:GOCE during peer review. The editor, Crestfalling, was very thorough in their review, so I don't think there would be much else that can be done. While I'm not Crestfalling, I'd like to think that if there had been any issues that needed copyediting in those paragraphs, they would have been pointed out and addressed then. That being said, if there's anything specific you think was missed that definitely needs to be adjusted, please let me know. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• The first line of the cultural impact section reads as a tad enthusiastic, specifically "has performed so well". I don't think this violates NPOV, but it could be neutralised a bit.
  • Reworded. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Having spoken to @PL on Discord, it is likely GamingonPhone is not the best source to use and should probably be replaced.
  • I've just removed it. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits to the article, feel free to revert them if they are deemed unnecessary. The article is written to an extremely high standard. Once these final suggestions are resolved, I will formally give my support. 11WB (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@11WB I've addressed everything as best as I could. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You've done outstanding work here, your contributions should definitely not go unnoticed. I give my support for this article becoming featured! If I see any suggestions by others than I am able to provide reliable sources for, I'll reply. For now, best of luck with the rest of the FAC! 11WB (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

BP!

• Please italicize game titles per MOS:TITLECAPS.
  • Tried to get them all, let me know if I missed any. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Game Rant is a low quality source.

  Removed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 00:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Sensor Tower is not a marked as a reliable source

  It has been used as a source by multiple sources listed as reliable under WP:RS/P and WP:VG/S, including but not limited to the BBC, Pocket Gamer and Variety. Should be fine. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 00:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• ref 143 is an odd source.
  • Can you clarify which source you're referring to? I'm afraid I've added and removed quite a few sources since you left your comment, and I want to be sure I'm addressing the right one before I do anything. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

    Should be fine already. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Link all website properly

  Did my best to do that, let me know if I missed any. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• There are other website that are written like "gamesradar" without consistency yet
• Is Clutchpoints a reliable source?

  Removed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about Yahoo News
  • Personally I'm fine with it, at least if it is written by Yan Ku. Happy to remove if needed though. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Drive by comment: Yahoo News should be fine for this article per WP:YAHOONEWS RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Just want to confirm. Are editors permitted to comment on other editors' feedback? It comes across as a tad discourteous. 11WB (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Pinging @Gog the Mild. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  If it did, no offense was meant - I'm interested in this FAC and I've recently had to determine Yahoo News' reliability for a different article, so I was aware there was a concrete answer (or as concrete as the Perennial sources page allows anyway) and thought I'd save others having to dig for it. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  No offence intended by the way! You're absolutely right that Yahoo News is reliable. It's why I didn't highlight it in my own feedback. Just wanted to ascertain whether we were allowed to respond to feedback left by other editors. There are some specific rules I have to remember to follow here, such as the prohibition of using formatted quotation, due to page lag. 11WB (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Editors are most welcome to comment on other reviewers comments. I certainly do. Obviously no one would ever dp so without scrupulous regard to AGF and Wiki-etiquette more generally. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if Guide source are okay at FAC
• Geek to Geek is not reliable

  Removed already, see above. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Questionable Chinese sources that you need to explain what makes them reliable

  A lot of these are deemed reliable on the Chinese Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, if there is no discussion on the reliability of a source on the English Wikipedia, but there is on another language Wikipedia, then the source inherits whatever level of reliability was decided on the other language Wikipedia. So, if a Chinese Wikipedia discussion finds a source reliable, so do we unless we have a separate discussion and decide otherwise. That's what I think happens, anyway. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Cite Unseen, credit to @SuperHamster and @SuperGrey, does a good job at tracking reliability consensus across all language Wikipedias. To use one example, Wanuxi shows up as marginal. That specific source also lacks the time range written in the article text itself. 11WB (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Removed Wanuxi. Now according to Cite Unseen, the only sources that are 'marginally reliable' are Destructoid, VICE, Kotaku (IMO reliable, won't remove that one), VGMO (for an interview), the Evening Standard, and Polygon (for an award it received). What should I do about those sources? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 00:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Destructoid and Vice are fine. Kotaku's reliability changes so often I just ignore it, as generally it has been okay (with the exception of the now hijacked Australian URL). VGMO is primary, so that's fine. Evening Standard, or rather the London Standard newspaper is a semi-tabloid, but respected newspaper in the UK. Polygon as I've mentioned is fine pre-Valnet. 11WB (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  You did forget to mention Mobile Games Insider, another marginal Chinese source. It looks social media-esque on mobile, with no apparent about us or editorial page. Probably better to be safe than sorry, and just switch it out for something else. 11WB (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Removed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 01:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Had a search and ended up finding the Xinmin source that was already cited anyway. This point is all good for me personally. Courtesy ping to @Boneless Pizza!. 11WB (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think this should be fine except the IGN Wiki (Ref 10) and GameSpace.com 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Removed GameSpace and swapped IGN Wiki for Siliconera. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 03:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  IGN Wiki lists it's main contributors. Very often, IGNs own team contribute to a given page. Those, I would say, are acceptable for use. 11WB (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  IGN Wiki is deemed unreliable despite its coming from IGN itself. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Too many primary sources being used at the article
  • Comment: How so? There certainly are many being used, but I wouldn't say it's "too many". Either way, a decent chunk of the direct game refs are confined to the plot section. Likewise, most of the dev sources are, appropriately, in the production sections.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps I was exagerrating with the wording, but yeah there are quite many of them being used. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  See above for an approximate figure. 11WB (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've gotten rid of a lot of the YouTube and Playstation.blog sources (diff). Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• What makes GameSpace.com reliable?
• I think the only problem with the sourcing are GamingonPhone, TapTap and Geek Culture.